RLJer gets nicked

always_tyred

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Its to essentially argue that if everyone did it, it woun't be safe any more. I think the point of the anecdote is that two people independently safely run red lights, but if they simultaneously do it, there's a collision. I'm assuming that this was a "just gone red" RLJ by one party and a "going to turn green sometime soon" RLJ by the other party.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Its to essentially argue that if everyone did it, it woun't be safe any more. I think the point of the anecdote is that two people independently safely run red lights, but if they simultaneously do it, there's a collision. I'm assuming that this was a "just gone red" RLJ by one party and a "going to turn green sometime soon" RLJ by the other party.

Although as we've discussed before, trials have been done to remove traffic lights from junctions, forcing everyone to actually use their eyes and brains before crossing junctions. Look at what happens when traffic lights are out of action, everyone slows down and crawls carefully through the junction, giving way to others when necessary. No one blasts through reds at high speeds because everyone knows that they can't rely on there not being someone coming the other way.

Rich158

Headhuunter wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Its to essentially argue that if everyone did it, it woun't be safe any more. I think the point of the anecdote is that two people independently safely run red lights, but if they simultaneously do it, there's a collision. I'm assuming that this was a "just gone red" RLJ by one party and a "going to turn green sometime soon" RLJ by the other party.

Although as we've discussed before, trials have been done to remove traffic lights from junctions, forcing everyone to actually use their eyes and brains before crossing junctions. Look at what happens when traffic lights are out of action, everyone slows down and crawls carefully through the junction, giving way to others when necessary. No one blasts through reds at high speeds because everyone knows that they can't rely on there not being someone coming the other way.

In which case why were there traffic police directing traffic at a junction where the lights had gone awol on my way home last night. This isn't an isolated case either, it's increasingly common for the police to direct traffic at junctions when the lights are down. If your assertion were correct HH then they wouldn't need to attend. Unfortunately in such cases most people won't give way and common sense goes out of the window, especially when you put people behind the wheel of a car. Thus traffic builds up, tempers fray and then it only takes one person to do something stupid for all hell to break loose. I commuted into Croydon every day by car for nearly 10 years and saw this phenomenon on an almost weekly if not daily basis.

_Brun_

Traffic lights were out at the junction of Kentish Town Rd and Hawley Rd/Camden St on more than one occasion few months back. No police directing traffic, and it didn't seem any worse than usual. I was pretty nervous being on a bike, but people were surprisingly courteous.

I'm not making this up.

always_tyred

Headhuunter wrote:

Although as we've discussed before, trials have been done to remove traffic lights from junctions, forcing everyone to actually use their eyes and brains before crossing junctions. Look at what happens when traffic lights are out of action, everyone slows down and crawls carefully through the junction, giving way to others when necessary. No one blasts through reds at high speeds because everyone knows that they can't rely on there not being someone coming the other way.

I dispair.
A set of road rules, and associated behaviour where there are no lights is entirely different from the scenario where they are present but ignored to an unpredicable extent.

It was also a limited trial in a country other than the UK. I don't know what road culture there is like in general, but judging from the way that cyclists are regarded there, it may very well be more responsible and less agressive in general to begin with. I fear that if you tried it here, chavs and white van men would be constantly getting out to inspect dented wings and to have a fight.

I'm also only aware of the effect on total accident rates during the trial. I wonder how cyclists got on, or how they'd get on here.

Headhuunter

Rich158 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Its to essentially argue that if everyone did it, it woun't be safe any more. I think the point of the anecdote is that two people independently safely run red lights, but if they simultaneously do it, there's a collision. I'm assuming that this was a "just gone red" RLJ by one party and a "going to turn green sometime soon" RLJ by the other party.

Although as we've discussed before, trials have been done to remove traffic lights from junctions, forcing everyone to actually use their eyes and brains before crossing junctions. Look at what happens when traffic lights are out of action, everyone slows down and crawls carefully through the junction, giving way to others when necessary. No one blasts through reds at high speeds because everyone knows that they can't rely on there not being someone coming the other way.

In which case why were there traffic police directing traffic at a junction where the lights had gone awol on my way home last night. This isn't an isolated case either, it's increasingly common for the police to direct traffic at junctions when the lights are down. If your assertion were correct HH then they wouldn't need to attend. Unfortunately in such cases most people won't give way and common sense goes out of the window, especially when you put people behind the wheel of a car. Thus traffic builds up, tempers fray and then it only takes one person to do something stupid for all hell to break loose. I commuted into Croydon every day by car for nearly 10 years and saw this phenomenon on an almost weekly if not daily basis.

I have to say, the last few times I've come across out of order traffic lights, I've never seen the police anywhere. I think the last time was at the north end of London Bridge a couple of months back and that's a pretty complex junction.

I'm not saying that all traffic lights should be done away with, I'm sure you're right that all hell would break loose, however I don't think believe that RLJ-ing necessarily relies on every other road user obeying the law. I RLJ and I've seen motorists RLJ coming the other way and I'm still alive.

weadmire

Excuse me I have been preoccupied. Going back a few pages.

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out. We have "tyred" the advisor who has little or no experience, we have various "get a lifer's" who would not recognise a life if it knocked them off their plastic compact, we have wannabe bragging scalpers calling themselves prince, we have cod intellectuals, we have someone who thinks he understands The Force but has trouble understanding himself.

All of you seem to think there is blood in the water and - I was going to say like sharks, but more accurately it's more like perch that have been on some sort of stimulant.- should realise the blood they think is in the water is theirs, not mine.

Be patient chaps, go and play with yourselves for a while, I will get you your reports and stats. You might like to think about what you are going to say in the face of the evidence. This sort of "what if" thinking will help you to behave better now, sort of limit the hostages to fortune you are leaving around the place.

Rich158

Removing road signals seems to work where the traffic is heaviest, and consequently moving slowly. iirc there was a scheme put forward to remove all traffic signals for an area somewhere in Knightsbridge. This was based upon the research done in mainland Europe which has been previously alluded to on this thread. I think the basic premise for this to work in an urban situation also relies upon pedestrians, cyclists etc having equal use of all road space. The absence of crossings, signals, some road markings etc made everyone more careful with a resulting reduction in accidents and injuries, as everyone was forced to act in a more responsible manner and be accountable for their own actions. However it should be noted that this only works for densly populated urban situations in city centres where traffic speeds are very low, and there are a high proportion of pedestrians and cyclists. It would not work on major roads where traffic speeds are correspondigly higher.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Excuse me I have been preoccupied. Going back a few pages.

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out. We have "tyred" the advisor who has little or no experience, we have various "get a lifer's" who would not recognise a life if it knocked them off their plastic compact, we have wannabe bragging scalpers calling themselves prince, we have cod intellectuals, we have someone who thinks he understands The Force but has trouble understanding himself.

All of you seem to think there is blood in the water and - I was going to say like sharks, but more accurately it's more like perch that have been on some sort of stimulant.- should realise the blood they think is in the water is theirs, not mine.

Be patient chaps, go and play with yourselves for a while, I will get you your reports and stats. You might like to think about what you are going to say in the face of the evidence. This sort of "what if" thinking will help you to behave better now, sort of limit the hostages to fortune you are leaving around the place.

Its back.
Haven't you said all of this stuff before?
The thing about Google is that the more you post, the more likely it is that people looking you up will stumble across Bike Radar. We can only hope.
Anyway, back to mental pigmy wrestling......

Rich158

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3359881.ece

Interesting article on the subject of removing traffic signals. It does however rely upon the roads becoming a shared space, with ALL road user acting in a correspondingly more responsible manner.

always_tyred

Rich158 wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3359881.ece

Interesting article on the subject of removing traffic signals. It does however rely upon the roads becoming a shared space, with ALL road user acting in a correspondingly more responsible manner.

It was all going so well until I read the bit about hydrogen being the fuel of the future.......
(initiates rant about fuel cells, the problems of using vast quantities of electricity for the electrolysis of water to produce vast quantities of hydrogen to convert back to electicity, self-ignitiion, the hindenberg and tailgating.....)

WeadMire, would you be able to comment on fuel cell technology for me? I could do with a laugh.

biondino

I've seen plenty of unintentional traffic-light-free "trials" and my god, it's chaos! Dangerous, unpredictable, a volley of shouting and horns, cars placing themselves where *no-one* can move, and progress no quicker than a snail's pace when it's moving at all.

I'm pretty far from convinced, to be honest.

Greg T

weadmire wrote:

Excuse me I have been preoccupied.
.

Were you on the phone to your fake father - knighted for his services to A and E departments the length of the country -Sir Crashalot or playing with your non existent pig tails?

What are you pretending to be today then?

These pesky societal norms are such a pain aren't they?

Stuey01

Traffic lights out at Waterloo all week. Absolute chaos and traffic backed up way more than usual.
At least I could slice through it on my bike

onebravemonkey

mmm, stats!

Kieran_Burns

My old driving instructor told me when the traffic lights aren't working that you were to treat the junction as if it was a roundabout. As in: give way to vehicles from the right.

Whenever I've been at a set of lights which are out of order this is what I've done and it's generally been fine.

st199ml

Always Tyred wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Its to essentially argue that if everyone did it, it woun't be safe any more. I think the point of the anecdote is that two people independently safely run red lights, but if they simultaneously do it, there's a collision. I'm assuming that this was a "just gone red" RLJ by one party and a "going to turn green sometime soon" RLJ by the other party.

Thanks for picking your way through my lack of clarity. As is obvious I don't post often (and I berated myself for posting in this thread as soon as I'd done it) so sorry for ambiguity.

Yes, I am concerned that RLJ requires that everyone but the RLJer is entirely predictable. Which they aren't. If the lights at a cross-junction have a neutral phase for pedestrians to cross, all the lights are red. If one guy RLJs fine. If two or more do, potential problems. How can one legislate for that? Good observation would solve the problem. But how many people do you see on the roads who clearly aren't paying attention, regardless of their mode of transport?

My point is not about right or wrong. If you think its OK, you'll do it. I won't change your mind. But the problem is in someone trying to assert that everyone should be doing it because its safer.

Jimfrandisco

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out

oh the delicious irony of it all....talk about Pot vs Kettle...

tailwindhome

Il Principe wrote:

This thread deserves to get repeated on Dave.

Compliment or insult?

Rockbuddy

Jimfrandisco wrote:

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out

oh the delicious irony of it all....talk about Pot vs Kettle...

+1 Weadmire sounds like s(he) thinks s(he)'s our teacher and is telling us children to behalve while they're away or something. Now children stop being so silly...

AND what's with the phrase "showing out" WTF, does anyone else use that phrase or is another hand-me-down from daddy???

always_tyred

I think WeadMire is actually Spen666, and he's running rings around us.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Excuse me I have been preoccupied. Going back a few pages.

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out. We have "tyred" the advisor who has little or no experience, we have various "get a lifer's" who would not recognise a life if it knocked them off their plastic compact, we have wannabe bragging scalpers calling themselves prince, we have cod intellectuals, we have someone who thinks he understands The Force but has trouble understanding himself.

All of you seem to think there is blood in the water and - I was going to say like sharks, but more accurately it's more like perch that have been on some sort of stimulant.- should realise the blood they think is in the water is theirs, not mine.

Be patient chaps, go and play with yourselves for a while, I will get you your reports and stats. You might like to think about what you are going to say in the face of the evidence. This sort of "what if" thinking will help you to behave better now, sort of limit the hostages to fortune you are leaving around the place.

If you were harping on about this in 2007 as you clearly were prior to the whole identity change how come you still dont have access to this "data"?? Is it held in a secret vault in M15 or (more likely) are you planning on ripping it out of your a*se.

Kieran_Burns

Actually - if you go back to that thread you'll find there's a guy on there who was offering to send it to anyone who wanted it.

It did however show that your conclusions were about as accurate as the BBC Weather forecasting, and the film Braveheart was to actual history.

always_tyred

Aguila wrote:

still dont have access to this "data"??

which is the plural of "datum".

And not many people know that.

always_tyred

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Actually - if you go back to that thread you'll find there's a guy on there who was offering to send it to anyone who wanted it.

It did however show that your conclusions were about as accurate as the BBC Weather forecasting, and the film Braveheart was to actual history.

Stirling DOES have a bridge, though.

Rockbuddy

Always Tyred wrote:

Aguila wrote:

still dont have access to this "data"??

which is the plural of "datum".

And not many people know that.

Does datum refer to one data point or one data set?

Just wondered as I have never used the word, seems a bit pointless if it's just one data point (unless you are proving a point about lack of data ).

the_hundredth_idiot

Rockbuddy wrote:

Jimfrandisco wrote:

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out

oh the delicious irony of it all....talk about Pot vs Kettle...

+1 Weadmire sounds like s(he) thinks s(he)'s our teacher and is telling us children to behalve while they're away or something. Now children stop being so silly...

AND what's with the phrase "showing out" WTF, does anyone else use that phrase or is another hand-me-down from daddy???

While I appreciate I'm not adding much to the main thrust of this thread, I think weadmire might be showing his/her age.

"Showing Out (Get Fresh at the Weekend)" - Mel & Kim c. 1987*. I always took it as meaning putting yourself on show at the weekend. Saying, hey, look at me. Look at my swanky new clothes and how good I am on the dancefloor. Not that it was a phrase in common use in the run down Northern industrial town in which I grew up.

Mel & Kim - mmmmm - always used to have a "soft" spot for them, even if their music was pop pap.

* NB YouTube blocked at work so this link is copied from google - I'm assuming it's the right thing - sorry if not.

Jay dubbleU

weadmire wrote:

Excuse me I have been preoccupied. Going back a few pages.

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out. We have "tyred" the advisor who has little or no experience, we have various "get a lifer's" who would not recognise a life if it knocked them off their plastic compact, we have wannabe bragging scalpers calling themselves prince, we have cod intellectuals, we have someone who thinks he understands The Force but has trouble understanding himself.

All of you seem to think there is blood in the water and - I was going to say like sharks, but more accurately it's more like perch that have been on some sort of stimulant.- should realise the blood they think is in the water is theirs, not mine.

Be patient chaps, go and play with yourselves for a while, I will get you your reports and stats. You might like to think about what you are going to say in the face of the evidence. This sort of "what if" thinking will help you to behave better now, sort of limit the hostages to fortune you are leaving around the place.

Man - you are an angry little person aren't you - strangely enough we actually respect each others opinions on this site even if we disagree - we don't usually stoop to personal insults - its called being a troll

Rockbuddy

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

Jimfrandisco wrote:

So many posts, so much over confidence, so much condescension, so much advice, so much hypocrisy, so much showing out

oh the delicious irony of it all....talk about Pot vs Kettle...

+1 Weadmire sounds like s(he) thinks s(he)'s our teacher and is telling us children to behalve while they're away or something. Now children stop being so silly...

AND what's with the phrase "showing out" WTF, does anyone else use that phrase or is another hand-me-down from daddy???

While I appreciate I'm not adding much to the main thrust of this thread, I think weadmire might be showing his/her age.

"Showing Out (Get Fresh at the Weekend)" - Mel & Kim c. 1987*. I always took it as meaning putting yourself on show at the weekend. Saying, hey, look at me. Look at my swanky new clothes and how good I am on the dancefloor. Not that it was a phrase in common use in the run down Northern industrial town in which I grew up.

Mel & Kim - mmmmm - always used to have a "soft" spot for them, even if their music was pop pap.

* NB YouTube blocked at work so this link is copied from google - I'm assuming it's the right thing - sorry if not.

Mmm, I was barely 10 then...ah well mystery solved

cee

Rockbuddy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Aguila wrote:

still dont have access to this "data"??

which is the plural of "datum".

And not many people know that.

Does datum refer to one data point or one data set?

Just wondered as I have never used the word, seems a bit pointless if it's just one data point (unless you are proving a point about lack of data ).

one item...a dataset is a set (as in Set Theory) containing many datum

and aguila...being a pedantic, technically it would be these data, not this