Nuxx:B18e5fc3-d93e-46e0-a1ed-f59f8cc0f9d8@p23g2000vbl.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!p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Something the Spiteful Car-Haters will Like Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 12:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 60 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.193.13 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1249845036 17915 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2009 19:10:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:10:36 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.193.13; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.13) Gecko/2009073022 Firefox/3.0.13 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3768 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:723682

This is a good example of an incident which very effectively exposes the car-haters for what they really are (as well as being typical of the mean-spiritedness and over-keenness to prosecute motorists demonstrated by the "casualty reduction partnerships"). If you think it's right that someone should be fined in a situation like the below, you hate motorists, and are prepared for safety to be compromised in order to make things more unpleasant for drivers. It's as simple as that.

So, do you think it's a good thing that Mr Lilley was fined (or, alternatively, "Are you a nasty, spiteful car-hater who doesn't really care about road safety?") Are any of the usual "I don't hate motorists, honest" suspects going to have the guts to answer? Spindrift? Chapman? Mileburner?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/07/nine-nine-fine-115875-21578086/

As the police van's blue lights flashed and its siren blared, driver Phillip Lilley had two options.

He could either remain stationary at the red traffic lights, block the emergency vehicle and put lives at risk.

Or he could edge just a yard past the junction and allow officers to rush to a 999 scene.

With just a moment to decide, Mr Lilley made way for the police. But he ended up with a fine and three penalty points for jumping the lights.

After viewing photographic evidence, he said: "The guy in front of me pulled through the junction so I followed him. What am I supposed to do, just stay there and not move?

"I crossed the line 33 seconds after the lights turned to red, I was doing 12 miles per hour and my brake lights were on.

"The police van is clearly in view but I spoke to the Central Ticket Office and they said I shouldn't have moved.

"If this is standard practice then the next time I'm sitting at the lights and an emergency vehicle comes, I'm not moving."

Mechanic Mr Lilley, 36, of Manchester, is also concerned that if other drivers don't make way for emergency vehicles, lives could be put at risk.

He said: "People can't afford to have points on their licence. If cars do not move because they don't want to be fined, it could cause a delay. That could mean the emergency services turn up too late."

Despite his shock, the dadof-five has accepted his fine after the Droylsden incident.

Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership said: "If the lights are red you are putting yourself in danger if you go through them."

The Driving Standards Agency said Rule 219 of the Highway Code says motorists should consider oncoming emergency vehicles but comply with traffic signs.