Nuxx:71bb1ef7-4352-4984-881b-5a8bff3b5a3d@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <71bb1ef7-4352-4984-881b-5a8bff3b5a3d@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Traffic Light Detectors Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:36:03 -0800 (PST) References:  <1jler9vlqlfnt$.lp8yasphafk0$.dlg@40tude.net>    Lines: 29 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.151.152.80 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1233444963 15782 127.0.0.1 (31 Jan 2009 23:36:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.151.152.80; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2721 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684487

On Jan 31, 9:33=A0pm, francis  wrote: > On Jan 31, 8:59=A0pm, Tom Crispin > > > >  wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar > > >  wrote: > > >The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic- > > >actuated lights anyway. =A0They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of > > >them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's > > >coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that > > >motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti- > > >motorist wanker Livingstone liked to do). =A0As far as the trolls are > > >concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just > > >treat them as "give way" lines. > > > Completely wrong. > > > What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps > > for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from > > going anywhere with any meaningful speed. > > But of course the average cyclist would not be able to go through the > gap & would have to cycle on the pavement so he could feel safe.

Unless the pavement was in fact a cycle lane, in which case the average cyclist would avoid it like the plague.