Nuxx:Dq9xl.197562$OT2.120176@newsfe29.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.kpn.net!pfeed08.wxs.nl!ramfeed-2.ams.xsnews.nl!feed.xsnews.nl!border-4.ams.xsnews.nl!69.16.177.242.MISMATCH!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe29.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cyclists going through red traffic lights Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:25:21 +0000 References: <72h0pkFpshmdU1@mid.individual.net>    <72jrorFqjg4dU3@mid.individual.net>   <3rl9s4l44mjjghr4i43tqdplou0cebibef@4ax.com>  <4k4as4tikjmfrp2p6lj4pesu49b8fvujn7@4ax.com> Lines: 84 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4k4as4tikjmfrp2p6lj4pesu49b8fvujn7@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.12.82.202 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe29.ams2 1237656355 86.12.82.202 (Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:25:55 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:25:55 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 5820 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:690515

Peter Grange wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:23:32 +0000, _  wrote: > >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:14:03 +0000, _  wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>> On 21 Mar 2009 09:53:31 GMT, "Alex"  wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> At 17:42:05 on 20/03/2009, Peter Grange delighted uk.legal by >>>>>> announcing: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:25:44 +0000, Judith Smith >>>>>>>  wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:28:53 GMT, "Mrcheerful"  >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Iain wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I have just walked back from the shops. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I was going, I came to the traffic lights just by Willesden bus >>>>>>>>>> garage. Two sets were red. From each of these sets, a cyclist >>>>>>> went >>> straight through them. >>>>>>>>>> As I was returning, past the same set of lights, I saw I cyclist >>>>>>>>>> waiting for the lights to turn green. I felt like giving him one >>>>>>> of >>> my oranges! >>>>>>>>>> Can the cycling community not do something to dissuade these >>>>>>> people >>> from jumping the lights? It certainly causes frustration >>>>>>> from >>> drivers who have to so frequently watch this deliberate >>>>>>> flaunting of >>> the law, and continues to give cyclists such a poor >>>>>>> name - certainly >>> within London. >>>>>>>>>> Iain >>>>>>>>> the only thing that might dissuade cyclists from jumping lights >>>>>>>>> is if their cycles were likely to be confiscated if they get >>>>>>>>> caught doing it. it would only need a few examples well >>>>>>>>> publicised to encourage the rest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ride on pavement - or run a red light - cycle confiscated - >>>>>>>> excellent. >>>>>>> drive car on pavement, >>>>>> Except for driving a few feet *onto* a pavement when parking, I don't >>>>>> think I've ever seen a car being driven on a pavement. >>>>> And is that, or is it not, driving on a pavement? >>>>> (often just to illegally park there) >>>> Why do you unfailingly criticise car drivers transgressions while >>>> regularly condoning similar offences by cyclists? Is it because you're >>>> blind to it, or are you content being a hypocritical turd? >>> Please point out where I regularly condone illegal acts by cyclists. I >>> have posted here that I do not condone crossing red lights and I do >>> not condone riding or driving on the pavements. >>> >> The 'you' should be inferred in a wider sense to include the whole of >> URC, rather than individually *you*. I'm sure you dont need examples of >> it now I've clarified it, but you only need ask if you do. >> >>> What I will respond to is childish posts by people claiming to be from >>> the motoring community (and I speak as a motorist and a cyclist, I've >>> said that before too) suggesting such things as a cyclist crossing a >>> red light should be run over and possibly killed, or should have their >>> cycle confiscated. >>> >> I dont remember anyone suggesting they should be *killed*, more that if >> they *are* killed following an RLJ then they dont really have a leg to >> stand on. > > "Fair game" and "the satisfying squishy sound as they go under" sound > a lot more positive than trying and failing to avoid someone. > URC posters 'bait' 'cagers'. 'Cagers' rise to bait and point out with some degree of truth the vulnerability of one group versus another. URC posters cry foul. If I wasn't concerned it would start another bloody argument, I'd offer the Gaza conflict as a parallel. Just like that debate, this one seems to 'polarise' its protagonists.

>> Metaphorically speaking... If you climb over the safety >> railing on the Humber bridge and then trip over a carelessly abandoned >> paintbrush before plummeting to your doom, who do you think is 'at >> fault' for the incident? If you think there is a percentage, tell us >> which numbers work for you. Not got the bridge authority 100% to blame? >> Good. Now explain why its somehow different for a cyclist being struck >> by a motorist proceeding on a green light? >> I think my newsreaders broken - I cant see an answer here :)