This whole RLJ thing

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">dondare

Posted -

It can't just be waiting correctly at traffic lights that makes people cross with you, it must be some other quality that you have.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

perhaps the same fundamentalism for the law in the face of good judgement that you seem to have when confronted by little red & green lights.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">funkyrayman

81 Posts
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 10:26:48

If it's 'ok' for me to RLJ on my bicycle, is it then ok for me to on my motorbike?

If I had a small 125cc bike it wouldn't be much bigger than a bicycle.

Can you explain to me why it would be dangerous for me to go through a red light on a small motorbike but SAFER for me to go through them when on my bicycle? 
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

if you can't answer this for yourself, then you're an idiot and should refrain from going anywhere near the road, certainly not on a motorised vehicle.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">All of the arguments for RLJing would also apply to mopeds, so if it's not OK for them to do it, it's not OK for bikes.
Anyone who justifies RLJing should refrain from using the road.

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">dondare

Posted -

It can't just be waiting correctly at traffic lights that makes people cross with you, it must be some other quality that you have.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

perhaps the same fundamentalism for the law in the face of good judgement that you seem to have when confronted by little red & green lights.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
If people showed good judgement we wouldn't need laws. We have laws because people who think that they know better are usually wrong and are consequently a right pain in the arse.

You're not the boss of me.

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">dondare Posted - 09/06/2007 : 10:14:11

If people showed good judgement we wouldn't need laws. We have laws because people who think that they know better are usually wrong and are consequently a right pain in the arse.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

pompous tosspots like yourself are a pain in the arse, if you don't want to rlj, then don't. don't preach to me. i cross the road on foot at red lights using my own good judgement, i can do this on a bike too if it's safe.
anything with a motor is more likely to kill you, that's why it's not ok to do it on a moped or any other motorised vehicle.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

funkyrayman · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">funkyrayman

81 Posts
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 10:26:48

If it's 'ok' for me to RLJ on my bicycle, is it then ok for me to on my motorbike?

If I had a small 125cc bike it wouldn't be much bigger than a bicycle.

Can you explain to me why it would be dangerous for me to go through a red light on a small motorbike but SAFER for me to go through them when on my bicycle? 
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

if you can't answer this for yourself, then you're an idiot and should refrain from going anywhere near the road, certainly not on a motorised vehicle.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're calling ME an idiot? ha ha, you can't even understand the comparison that I made and instead of accepting that perhaps you never will (oh it's complex) you decide to insult me.

Just to clarify in case it was confusing for you (it probably was), I was asking for someone who thinks passing through a red light is safer than waiting to explain why their safety policy isn't applicable to small motorbikes which have similar dimensions to a bicycle (and similar speed/acceleration characteristics).

Actually if it's so stupid can you tell me what makes one so different to the other?

(Edited to make the font size larger...)

funkyrayman · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">dondare Posted - 09/06/2007 : 10:14:11

If people showed good judgement we wouldn't need laws. We have laws because people who think that they know better are usually wrong and are consequently a right pain in the arse.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

pompous tosspots like yourself are a pain in the arse, if you don't want to rlj, then don't. don't preach to me. i cross the road on foot at red lights using my own good judgement, i can do this on a bike too if it's safe.
anything with a motor is more likely to kill you, that's why it's not ok to do it on a moped or any other motorised vehicle.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So what you're saying is any risk you put on anyone when RLJing is acceptable but anything slightly more is unacceptable. Good point. Well done.

(Edited to make larger...)

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">funkyrayman Posted -
So what you're saying is any risk you put on anyone when RLJing is acceptable but anything slightly more is unacceptable. Good point. Well done. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

no.
i'll try to put it simply for you.
my safety is paramount to me.
it is possible to pass thru a red light on a bicycle, safely. injuries to other people, would just as likely to cause injury to me. see above sentence.

are we keeping up yet?

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

domtyler · June 2007

"Can you explain to me why it would be dangerous for me to go through a red light on a small motorbike but SAFER for me to go through them when on my bicycle?"

You seem to be confused. No-one, as far as I'm aware is saying that it would not be safer too for the moped. However, the fact that motorized vehicles don't tend to go early for fear of being flashed is precisely what makes it safer for the cyclist. As complexity of the situation increases, so does risk of collision. This is why vulnerable road users, such as those on bicycles, are best off being as far away as possible from motor vehicles during those periods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Porridge not Petrol
________
Chevrolet corvette c6.r

Guy Young · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Domtyler:

This is why vulnerable road users, such as those on bicycles, are best off being as far away as possible from motor vehicles during those periods.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So would support the segregation of bicycles from motor vehicles? That surprises me.

funkyrayman · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domtyler

"Can you explain to me why it would be dangerous for me to go through a red light on a small motorbike but SAFER for me to go through them when on my bicycle?"

You seem to be confused. No-one, as far as I'm aware is saying that it would not be safer too for the moped. However, the fact that motorized vehicles don't tend to go early for fear of being flashed is precisely what makes it safer for the cyclist. As complexity of the situation increases, so does risk of collision. This is why vulnerable road users, such as those on bicycles, are best off being as far away as possible from motor vehicles during those periods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Porridge not Petrol
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why can't anyone else use good roadcraft skills and significantly reduce the chance of collision at a junction by using positioning. The answer is you can. I don't understand why you feel that you are in danger waiting at an RTS. Junctions, red lights can all be tackled safety by implementing good judgement and observational skills. There is no need to pass through a red light in order to maintain this safety.

No-one has confirmed that they think it would be safer for a moped to pass through a red light except you. So you feel that is would be safer for a moped rider to pass through red lights!?

funkyrayman · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">funkyrayman Posted -
So what you're saying is any risk you put on anyone when RLJing is acceptable but anything slightly more is unacceptable. Good point. Well done. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

no.
i'll try to put it simply for you.
my safety is paramount to me.
it is possible to pass thru a red light on a bicycle, safely. injuries to other people, would just as likely to cause injury to me. see above sentence.

are we keeping up yet?

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You think it is possible to pass through a red light safely is different to it is possible to pass through a red light safely. You see how they are different?

Ratio of injuries has absolutely nothing to do with it, you can pass a red light because if you hit a ped they will receive similar injuries to yourself? That is absolutely incorrect. It is likely in my experience that their injuries will be significantly more severe. Also there is always the chance that you are lucky and escape with cuts and bruises and they are more seriously injured.

A pedestrian, when there is a green man, has every right to cross that road without being put at ANY risk from cyclists crossing through it.

Also you forgot to inform me as to the reason why it is different for a moped (even though in your opinion it was a stupid question...).

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A pedestrian, when there is a green man, has every right to cross that road without being put at ANY risk from cyclists crossing through it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i agree, i give way to peds, this isn't incompatible with rlj-ing.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also you forgot to inform me as to the reason why it is different for a moped (even though in your opinion it was a stupid question...).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mopeds have engines, they are significantly heavier and can can travel significantly faster from a standing start, i did mention motorised transport. if this isn;t blindingly obvious, then i stand by my original assessment.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

rgisme · June 2007

I think there are three ways in which many/most cycle users will be exposed to slightly more risk while waiting at lights than moped users would be: Firstly, note that although a moped is small vehicle, it is a slightly bigger vehicle than a bicycle, with an engine that makes a noise and a rider, due to heavier, protective clothing including a large helmet, that is likely to look 'bigger' than most cyclists - overall they will be more noticeable to other motor vehicle users who are likely also to accord them more respect - not because they stop at lights or pay road tax - but simply for the fact that they are motor vehicles capable, for the most part, of keeping pace with motor traffic both in speed and acceleration, around town anyway. They are more likely to be considered 'peers' in the mindsets of motorised road users. Accordingly, they are more likely to be seen and are probably at less risk of being rear-ended - admittedly a rare form of accident for cyclists but it happens - while stopped at lights. On moving away from lights they will probably be able to get away faster from a standing start than the cars etc, and be less at risk in the melee that happens as queuing motor traffic (often in two lanes before the lights) sorts out its position in the lanes (often reduced to one because of parked cars on the other side) with respect to other cars etc moving away from the lights. Finally, due to the possession of an engine and the confidence that comes from that, they are more likely to position themselves in a way that avoids risk from left hooks.

No doubt two of these risks can be mitigated by cyclists' careful and conscious use of road positioning, although the risk of being rear-ended, however slight, can never be mitigated so long as you are on the road. But in no case can you ever be safer than not being there waiting at all, assuming that if you have crossed on red you have correctly observed what other traffic (if any) is present and doing before proceeding. If you are away from the lights and down the road before the other traffic moves off you are entirely out of any of the dangers associated with waiting, which however much you wish to try and deny it, do exist.

That said, I don't mind admitting that when I pass a red light I don't do it for safety reasons. Being on the road involves risk, there is nothing you can do that is 'absolutely' safe, so it is all about acceptable levels of risk. If I thought I could get about faster by waiting than by proceeding I would do it, even though I don't consider it 'safer'. I would also hope that when I do so, I do not do it in a manner that endangers or inconveniences anyone, and I as said in another topic, it is a very long time since I had any vitriol from any motorist about anything I had done or just being on the road, while in contrast even a WVM thanked me yesterday for letting him through, improbable though it may seem. Generally, personally I would say I am courteous road user who gives priority to those who have it and sometimes to those who don't, who merely follows a purposive interpretation of lights rather than a strict letter of the law one. Their purpose is not to hold anyone up for no reason at all, but to give everyone a fair chance to use a particular junction or bit of road space to make progress. Unfortunately they generally try to do this by timed sequences without regard to whether there is anyone there to take advantage of the opportunity offered or not, and if noone is there they are wasting my time. They can waste yours too if you like, but, if nothing is coming, I'm going.

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

Fairy Nuff.

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A pedestrian, when there is a green man, has every right to cross that road without being put at ANY risk from cyclists crossing through it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

i agree, i give way to peds, this isn't incompatible with rlj-ing.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also you forgot to inform me as to the reason why it is different for a moped (even though in your opinion it was a stupid question...).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mopeds have engines, they are significantly heavier and can can travel significantly faster from a standing start, i did mention motorised transport. if this isn;t blindingly obvious, then i stand by my original assessment.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Are you now claiming that you care about anyone but yourself? If you're saying that it's fine to RLJ on a bicycle but not a moped, all this indicates is that you have a bike and don't have a moped.
I wouldn't care what you did if the result was that people saw you and said "There goes that idiot Maybrick" but they don't, they say "There goes that idiot cyclist".

You're not the boss of me.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">funkyrayman Posted -
So what you're saying is any risk you put on anyone when RLJing is acceptable but anything slightly more is unacceptable. Good point. Well done. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

no.
i'll try to put it simply for you.
my safety is paramount to me.
it is possible to pass thru a red light on a bicycle, safely. injuries to other people, would just as likely to cause injury to me. see above sentence.

are we keeping up yet?

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That isn't simple; it's illiterate.

Anyway, if the junction is clear, why should driving through it be dangerous? And if it isn't, how can cycling through it be safe?

You're not the boss of me.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by funkyrayman

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domtyler

"Can you explain to me why it would be dangerous for me to go through a red light on a small motorbike but SAFER for me to go through them when on my bicycle?"

You seem to be confused. No-one, as far as I'm aware is saying that it would not be safer too for the moped. However, the fact that motorized vehicles don't tend to go early for fear of being flashed is precisely what makes it safer for the cyclist. As complexity of the situation increases, so does risk of collision. This is why vulnerable road users, such as those on bicycles, are best off being as far away as possible from motor vehicles during those periods.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Porridge not Petrol
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why can't anyone else use good roadcraft skills and significantly reduce the chance of collision at a junction by using positioning. The answer is you can. I don't understand why you feel that you are in danger waiting at an RTS. Junctions, red lights can all be tackled safety by implementing good judgement and observational skills. There is no need to pass through a red light in order to maintain this safety.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<sigh> They can. And they should. It's safer. Even though People like Theo pretend that it isn't. Fortunately they're in the minority, and the less confident cyclists aren't stupid enough to follow the advice.

And it's nice, I note, that Theo has to continue the same arguments with everyone else for a change. Previously he's tried to single me out as the idiot. Now it appears that the majority of the forum are idiots.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

I love it when a plan comes together.

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">dondare

Posted -

That isn't simple; it's illiterate.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

hmmm...really? how so?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anyway, if the junction is clear, why should driving through it be dangerous?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

and if a junction is clear, and therefore, by your conjecture, not dangerous, then why should i not proceed thru it regardless of what colour the light is?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And if it isn't, how can cycling through it be safe?[/<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

sometimes it's not, then i don't proceed, see previous statement about my safety.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

Sometimes you may make a mistake and go through when it isn't safe for you?

Sod the rest.

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv 

My Bike http://i14.tinypic.com/52355zr.jpg

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hackbike 6 Posted - 09/06/2007 : 21:48:08

Sometimes you may make a mistake and go through when it isn't safe for you?

Sod the rest. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

we all make mistakes, but i feel you're reaching with this example.
i'm responsible for my own fate.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

That's one reason why I don't RLJ.

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv 

How not to lock a bike. http://i14.tinypic.com/52355zr.jpg

dondare · June 2007

Maybrick, your posts and your sig both say the same thing.
"No rules, no laws, no protocols, no conventions; I'll do just what I want."
That isn't society; that's anarchy; and you only think it can work because you're still a child. If there was real anarchy, and people like me started making the rules, flakey kids like you would be the first casualties.
When you're grown up you'll know what I mean.

You're not the boss of me.

il_principe · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by maybrick

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hackbike 6 Posted - 09/06/2007 : 21:48:08

Sometimes you may make a mistake and go through when it isn't safe for you?

Sod the rest. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

we all make mistakes, but i feel you're reaching with this example.
i'm responsible for my own fate.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">



And for the fate of the car/cyclist/ped you hit one day? I've had several near misses with RLJing idiots in the past, just because a junction looks clear doesn't mean it is, you aint infallible.



My Best Bike

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

Got to agree I haven't seen too many "perfect" RLJers.

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv 

How not to lock a bike. http://i14.tinypic.com/52355zr.jpg

maybrick · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">dondare

London
United Kingdom
931 Posts
Posted - 09/06/2007 : 23:12:10

Maybrick, your posts and your sig both say the same thing.
"No rules, no laws, no protocols, no conventions; I'll do just what I want."
That isn't society; that's anarchy; and you only think it can work because you're still a child. If there was real anarchy, and people like me started making the rules, flakey kids like you would be the first casualties.
When you're grown up you'll know what I mean.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you presumtious tosspot, if you made the rules i wouldn't obey them because they would reflect your ridiculous prejudice.
i take responsibilty for myself, and would never make the assumption that i could tell anyone how to ride a bike,(or extrapolate what kind of person they might be based on a couple of forum posts.in your case, however, tosspot seems too mild an observation.)
perhaps jumping the odd red light makes me an "anarchist", if that puts me a long way from you then i'm delighted.
to assume that you've "got it", and your subjective opinion is somehow "right" or even a majority view actually illustrates that it is you who is intellectually immature and at odds with the world you inhabit.
and your angry, petulant sig. has the flavour of the bullied child who later attempts to become the bully, make the rules and throw a tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.

_______________

i'm not bound by your earthling rules.

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

Why do people jump red lights now when this didn't happen before?...Well at least not for the first twenty years of my cycling career.

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv 

How not to lock a bike. http://i14.tinypic.com/52355zr.jpg

tstegers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Maybrick, your posts and your sig both say the same thing.
... and people like me started making the rules, flakey kids like you would be the first casualties.
When you're grown up you'll know what I mean.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dondare
Is there any evidence in your career to date that anyone has trusted you to make significant decisions and rules? If they have what would you say is the best rule/piece of policy you have come up with?

I am guessing that you do not have a job with any real authority, something has always held you back. Like Harold Pinter's caretaker you could have "ruled the world but the paperwork was in Sidcup." Ridicule me, prove me wrong.

Among many other things in earlier posts you claim slack hacks were responsible for the notion that women were massively over represented in fatal accidents at traffic light controlled junctions in London because they were more law abiding and less likely to jump lights. They weren't, according to TfL, via Jenny Jone's office, the speculation came from the Road Transport Laboratory.

I don't recall having your rationale for the 130 killed complying vs the zero or two killed jumping. (Jan 1999 to May 2004) Clearly these numbers suggest it is safer to jump lights. Somewhere between infinity and sixty five times safer based on the numbers. Here's your chance to impress everyone and detail why, everything else being equal, so many more people are killed complying with lights than otherwise? Please don't bang on about primary position and training. These things might clearly help cyclists to avoid being killed and maimed but they clearly did not in all the recorded cases to date. Any speculation about training and how lights are safely and legally negotiated is less valid - there being little evidence this is so, at least five of the six or so killed this year have been declared to be experienced and safety conscious cyclists - than the observation that not waiting and jumping them is a safer way to negotiate them.

Theo Stegers

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Maybrick, your posts and your sig both say the same thing.
"No rules, no laws, no protocols, no conventions; I'll do just what I want."
That isn't society; that's anarchy; and you only think it can work because you're still a child. If there was real anarchy, and people like me started making the rules, flakey kids like you would be the first casualties.
When you're grown up you'll know what I mean.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This, of course, is not correct: anarchy is not when people like me make the laws (which you might be guessing is the case anyway) but when there effectively are no laws at all. There are countries where the laws governing behaviour on the road are neither observed or enforced and the death rate is very high indeed. You say that you take responsibility for yourself but the reality is that the it's the laws that protect you, and other people's observance of those laws that keeps you alive. You can ride fearlessly on the roads in Britain not because of your own judgement, bravery and skill but because nearly everyone else is a whole lot more responsible in their attitudes and behaviour than you are.
What places you beneath contempt is the way that you excuse your own antisocial ignorance of the law but flare up at the suggestion (the point of which you misunderstood entirely) that other people might also ignore the laws and exercise their own judgement at red lights. If you're not prepared to obey the law yourself, what ever gives you the right to say that someone riding a moped has to obey it?
As for my sig, I'm not going to bother explaining it but your analysis is wrong.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Maybrick, your posts and your sig both say the same thing.
... and people like me started making the rules, flakey kids like you would be the first casualties.
When you're grown up you'll know what I mean.

You're not the boss of me.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dondare
Is there any evidence in your career to date that anyone has trusted you to make significant decisions and rules? If they have what would you say is the best rule/piece of policy you have come up with?

I am guessing that you do not have a job with any real authority, something has always held you back. Like Harold Pinter's caretaker you could have "ruled the world but the paperwork was in Sidcup." Ridicule me, prove me wrong.

Among many other things in earlier posts you claim slack hacks were responsible for the notion that women were massively over represented in fatal accidents at traffic light controlled junctions in London because they were more law abiding and less likely to jump lights. They weren't, according to TfL, via Jenny Jone's office, the speculation came from the Road Transport Laboratory.

I don't recall having your rationale for the 130 killed complying vs the zero or two killed jumping. (Jan 1999 to May 2004) Clearly these numbers suggest it is safer to jump lights. Somewhere between infinity and sixty five times safer based on the numbers. Here's your chance to impress everyone and detail why, everything else being equal, so many more people are killed complying with lights than otherwise? Please don't bang on about primary position and training. These things might clearly help cyclists to avoid being killed and maimed but they clearly did not in all the recorded cases to date. Any speculation about training and how lights are safely and legally negotiated is less valid - there being little evidence this is so, at least five of the six or so killed this year have been declared to be experienced and safety conscious cyclists - than the observation that not waiting and jumping them is a safer way to negotiate them.

Theo Stegers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not going to discuss my work with you but your guess is wrong.

You haven't read my earlier posts well enough; I didn't say that hacks were responsible for the "women die because they don't jump the lights" theory, I said that hacks had picked up on that. I also said that to my knowledge there was no evidence that women are less likely to jump the lights and no further research to test the theory.

I never talk about "primary position" or even training, I'd use the terms "correct positioning" (which might be primary or not depending on circumstances) and "experience". If someone gets crushed by a lorry at a junction then they were not in the correct position and it's something that tends to happen to inexperienced cyclists. The same goes for cyclists who get doored; a very common cause of serious injury.

This whole RLJ thing

Comments

Categories