Nuxx:OIp4l.19384$9U2.6466@newsfe17.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe17.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Troll Drawings Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:13:51 +0000 References:  <42vuk45t29pbe7lkific984gvt3fn65ogp@4ax.com> <9t0vk4hpkfgp2cpibfrgq27md8bhk1jq80@4ax.com>  <20081223085451.591c5c91@bluemoon>  <20081223102347.607191bc@bluemoon>  <20081224032542.0de07cdc@bluemoon> <3p34l4dcf4r8gjs4avsrbn70lddj0ck1hd@4ax.com>   Lines: 38 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe17.ams2 1230120852 82.21.204.127 (Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:14:12 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:14:12 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 3357 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681869

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:44:07 +0000, JNugent >  said in > : > >> "Emanate in"? >> Eyecatching, almost Joycean usage... > > Is this a grammar flame I see before me, its handle toward my hand? > >>> I have become a lot less dogmatic about this one since I started >>> riding regularly in London, because the specifics in central London >>> at least are very different from anywhere else I've ever ridden. > >> So is it OK if a car-driver or lorry-driver does it (as presumably, exactly >> the same traffic dynamics and moral issues arise)? > > No, the same issues do not arise with motor traffic. Motor traffic > is massively more dangerous to pedestrians, and the whole point of > pedestrian lights is that without them the pedestrians can't cross > the stream of motor traffic. I've never seen anywhere, even in the > low countries, where it was necessary to control cycle traffic flow > in order to allow pedestrians to cross. > > This is what I mean by traffic lights existing to solve a problem of > which cyclists are not a part. Same applies to roundabouts, which > are actually rather dangerous for cyclists. Traffic-light > controlled junctions introduce problems for cyclists which are not > really experienced by motor drivers (who do not have to worry so > much about not being seen by drivers concentrating on turning, and > whose personal energy expenditure in accelerating from a standing > start is close to zero), and do so in order to fix a problem to > which the cyclists' contribution is close to zero (congestion at > junctions). > Snip more Crapman waffle attempting to justify breaking the law himself while still demanding that everyone else obeys it. Oh, nothing left...