Nuxx:747f456d-ca46-4b69-9b8c-4e2a66575a20@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <747f456d-ca46-4b69-9b8c-4e2a66575a20@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cops stopping RLjers in London again. Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:34:36 -0700 (PDT) References: <1bd065t247v76f645n7umacop1ni0m7hqq@4ax.com>            <4ICam.90727$tU4.67047@newsfe19.ams2> <87ab2t3pkk.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net>  <87vdlg36wl.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net> <1OKam.52988$875.44066@newsfe20.ams2> Lines: 69 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.65 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248600876 18330 127.0.0.1 (26 Jul 2009 09:34:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:34:36 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.65; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4836 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:720354

On Jul 25, 10:28=A0pm, "David Lloyd"  wrote: > "Daniel Barlow"  wrote in message > > news:87vdlg36wl.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net... > > > > > "David Lloyd"  writes: > > >> "Daniel Barlow" <d...@lsip.telent.net> wrote in message > >>news:87ab2t3pkk.fsf@lsip.4a.telent.net... > >>> "David Lloyd" <dldl11...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes: > > >>>> How's about the fact that it increases the risk of you causing injur= y > >>>> to > >>>> someone else, whose right of way they would otherwise have reasonabl= y > >>>> expected to have been clear. > > >>> It's a good argument. =A0But so does filtering between traffic lanes, > >>> which as I'm sure you know must be conducted with more than usual car= e > >>> and observation to avoid collision pedestrians who choose that > >>> opportunity to cross the road. > > >>> -dan > > >> Two things to remember at this point: 1) pedestrians have default righ= t > >> of > >> way, 2) the requirement for a vehicle to be able to be stopped in the > >> distance the driver/rider can see to be clear applies here - if you ca= n't > >> see around obstructions, slow down and assume that there is a pedestri= an > >> about to emerge from that spot. > > > All very true (I'm not sure if point 1 has any legal basis, but the > > normal civil act should be to allow them right of way anyway) > > > So, given that both filtering and RLJ "increase the risk of causing > > injury to someone else, whose right of way they would otherwise have > > reasonably expected to have been clear", and that we acknowledge that > > filtering can be (though is not always) practiced in a fashion that > > mitigates the risk acceptably, why is it sufficient reason to > > disapprove of RLJ in *any* circumstance at all? > > What if you didn't notice a developing circumstance? Rules are there to > protect lives. > > Provisions are in place for RLJing when traffic lights have failed. Then, > road users have to make eye contact with each other and negotiate passage= . > That is the only circumstance I would countenance RLJing.

Yeah, that's right. If an emergency vehicle with blues and twos on is being blocked by someone waiting at a red light, then that person should *never* jump the light, no matter how obviously safe it is. Who cares if the ambulance/police car/fire engine needlessly gets there a few minutes late? It's hardly a matter of life and death.

(Of course, the arrogant serial killfiler above will remain ignorant of what I've said here, since he and his ilk have oh-so-egotistically decided that they have absolutely nothing to learn from countless people on this newsgroup who simply have the "wrong" opinions. And so they won't learn anything from them.  Their loss I suppose, and maybe just one reason why arrogant, self-righteous people also tend to be ignorant and thick.)