Red Lights

mybreakfastconsisted

I read it. It resonates. When my commute was down City Road a cyclist with a helmet on OVER her head scarf jumped every red all the way to London Bridge. She also had a red target on her back and I overtook her every single frigging time. On the last overtake I couldn't help myself:

"It's really dangerous the way you keep jumping reds!" I said.

"I know!"

she replied

"Once a car nearly hit me!"

NB For the thickos, this isn't justifying anything, it's explaining you can't get much through to RLJers or petrolheads who think every cyclist RLjs. HTH.

SimonAH

What??? He says that (essentially) that on hearing opinions from respectable cyclists he will no longer RLJ and you blunder blindly forward with your shouty agenda.

I give in and will never again bother

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

your shouty agenda.

I like that.

I hereby rechristen him as "mybreakfastconsistedofabowlofmyshoutyagenda"

mybreakfastconsisted

SimonAH wrote:

What??? He says that (essentially) that on hearing opinions from respectable cyclists he will no longer RLJ and you blunder blindly forward with your shouty agenda.

Look at the bit where he says you can't change others, only yourself. The bit I just agreed with and gave an example. You can't change the mind of someone who thinks all cyclists RLJ any more than you'll change the mind of someone who thinks asylum seekers get free swans. If every cyclist obeyed every signal from now on do you think antipathy would disappear?

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

.......Read my posts, RLJing is stupid and makes it harder and more unpleasant for other cyclists , like me, who don;t RLj. Pointing out that buses are worse offenders than cyclists isn't justifying anything, it's stating a fact.

A fact clearly not born out by your posting

mybreakfastconsisted
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 499



Posted 14 Jul 2011 13:49
....mybreakfastconsisted wrote:
....


Transport Research Laboratory study in 2007 showed that buses are more likely to jump red lights than cyclists. After cyclists came black cab drivers.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... brigade.do

"At Piccadilly Circus 101 road users jumped red lights in three hours, including 43 cyclists, 27 car drivers, eight motorcyclists, one lorry driver and 22 vans. A similar pattern emerged at the junction of Kensington High Street and Kensington Church Street."

so please explain if 43/101 red light jumpers were cyclists , 0 were bus drivers, how on your figures this claim by you can possibly be a fact?

Hmmm


We are all still waiting

bails87

spen666 wrote:

We are all still waiting

Where is your evidence to back that up?

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

We are all still waiting

F*cking hell Spen, way to fill up a thread with boring dross.

The Rookie

Spen seems to assume that 2 junctions accurately represent all the thousands acrioss London - the data won't even be statistically relevant......

Simon

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

We are all still waiting

F*cking hell Spen, way to fill up a thread with boring dross.

All i'm asking for is an explanation of why MBC is repeatedly peddling the statement that bus drivers are the most common red light jumpers yet the data he produces to back up this assertion proves its cyclists who are nearlty as bad as every other form of road user put together. it also shows that 0% of the RLJers were buses

king_jeffers

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

asylum seekers get free swans?

WTF!? Since when?

Where is my fecking swan! Those bastardos! :evil:

Drysuitdiver

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I read it. It resonates. When my commute was down City Road a cyclist with a helmet on OVER her head scarf jumped every red all the way to London Bridge. She also had a red target on her back and I overtook her every single frigging time. On the last overtake I couldn't help myself:

"It's really dangerous the way you keep jumping reds!" I said.

"I know!"

she replied

"Once a car nearly hit me!"

NB For the thickos, this isn't justifying anything, it's explaining you can't get much through to RLJers or petrolheads who think every cyclist RLjs. HTH.

don't call me thicko, ya sweaty lump

joelsim

Bus drivers aren't going anywhere, just driving in a big circle all day until clocking off time.

Cyclists who RLJ are idiots though.

mybreakfastconsisted

@ drysuitdiver:

You know The Golden Orient, under the railway bridge? You know the nail bar next door? Brothel:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... thels.html

(The subject IS red lights!)

bails87

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

@ drysuitdiver:

You know The Golden Orient, under the railway bridge? You know the nail bar next door? Brothel:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... thels.html

(The subject IS red lights!)

Why don't I learn, never, ever go 'below the line' into the Daily Mail comments section.....

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

We are all still waiting

F*cking hell Spen, way to fill up a thread with boring dross.

All i'm asking for is an explanation of why MBC is repeatedly peddling the statement that bus drivers are the most common red light jumpers yet the data he produces to back up this assertion proves its cyclists who are nearlty as bad as every other form of road user put together. it also shows that 0% of the RLJers were buses

He's already backpedalled on it. He was fast and loose with his choice of statistics, and they were wrong in one particular aspect. Though they still roughly backed up what he was saying. Will you keep making posts about how unsatisfied you are until he carries out seppuku? Will I keep making posts about how you keep going on about being unsatisfied until he carries out seppuku? Who knows...

Bassjunkieuk

bails87 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

@ drysuitdiver:

You know The Golden Orient, under the railway bridge? You know the nail bar next door? Brothel:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... thels.html

(The subject IS red lights!)

Why don't I learn, never, ever go 'below the line' into the Daily Mail comments section.....

2 warning bits here:
1. It's in the Daily Wail
2. It's about non-British people

As such the comments are bound to be a pile of sh!te......

However this is a better article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... ikini.html

:-D

mybreakfastconsisted

I haven't backtracked at all.

The RAC say 1 in 5 buses RLJ. That's 20%.

TFL, not known for being tremendous supporters of cyclists , reckon 16% of cyclists RLJ.

20% is greater than 16%. More buses RLJ than cyclists.

I thought The Mail comments were sensible, what harm were they doing, the girls weren't trafficked. The war against working girls makes as much sense as the war on drugs, both unwinnable.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I haven't backtracked at all.

The RAC say 1 in 5 buses RLJ. That's 20%.

TFL, not known for being tremendous supporters of cyclists , reckon 16% of cyclists RLJ.

20% is greater than 16%. More buses RLJ than cyclists.

I thought The Mail comments were sensible, what harm were they doing, the girls weren't trafficked. The war against working girls makes as much sense as the war on drugs, both unwinnable.

But that data you quoted in the post making that allegation showed 43% of RLJs were by cyclists and 23 % by car drivers and 0 by bus drivers


The one inescapable fact is the figures are completely contradictory and as such casnnot be relied on to support anything

To quote data from 2 different sources an try to make an argument out of it is complete bull. Why not quote the figures from one source? Unless the figures are compiled in thesame way, they are not comparable.

Once again you post a load of bull and expect people to swallow it.

You cannot compare these figures from different sources

The fact you say you are nt back tracking and are trying to justify the nonsensical figures makes you look a bigger fool than normal

spen666

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

spen666 wrote:

We are all still waiting

F*cking hell Spen, way to fill up a thread with boring dross.

All i'm asking for is an explanation of why MBC is repeatedly peddling the statement that bus drivers are the most common red light jumpers yet the data he produces to back up this assertion proves its cyclists who are nearlty as bad as every other form of road user put together. it also shows that 0% of the RLJers were buses

He's already backpedalled on it. He was fast and loose with his choice of statistics, and they were wrong in one particular aspect. Though they still roughly backed up what he was saying. Will you keep making posts about how unsatisfied you are until he carries out seppuku? Will I keep making posts about how you keep going on about being unsatisfied until he carries out seppuku? Who knows...

Think you need to check your facts before appointing yourself as the village idiot's spokesman.

He is contradicting you and making you look nearly as stupid as him

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I haven't backtracked at all.

The RAC say 1 in 5 buses RLJ. That's 20%.

TFL, not known for being tremendous supporters of cyclists , reckon 16% of cyclists RLJ.

20% is greater than 16%. More buses RLJ than cyclists.

I thought The Mail comments were sensible, what harm were they doing, the girls weren't trafficked. The war against working girls makes as much sense as the war on drugs, both unwinnable.

But that data you quoted in the post making that allegation showed 43% of RLJs were by cyclists and 23 % by car drivers and 0 by bus drivers


The one inescapable fact is the figures are completely contradictory and as such casnnot be relied on to support anything

To quote data from 2 different sources an try to make an argument out of it is complete bull. Why not quote the figures from one source? Unless the figures are compiled in thesame way, they are not comparable.

Once again you post a load of bull and expect people to swallow it.

You cannot compare these figures from different sources

The fact you say you are nt back tracking and are trying to justify the nonsensical figures makes you look a bigger fool than normal

mybreakfastconsisted

I have an opinion I can back up with evidence. You have an opinion you cannot back up, so rely on insults. The strange thing is, in person you are a meek and mild person who wouldn't say boo to a goose. On the internet you turn into a twat, that's why you're banned from YACF.

RLJing rates are around 16% for cyclists, 10% for cars, 20% for buses.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bl ... e_pavement

A survey by the RAC found that, yes, a lot of cyclists run red lights.

It also found that one in ten drivers in Manchester and London crossed traffic lights more than three seconds after the lights turned red, and one in five bus drivers ran red lights. There are ten thousand traffic light camera prosecutions annually in London alone, a small part of the 1.5 million prosecutions annually

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... lights.pdf



A total of 7502 cyclists were surveyed across all of the
sites. Of these, an average of 16% violated red lights, whilst the remaining 84%
obeyed the traffic signals.

Therefore it can be concluded that the majority of
cyclists do not ride through red lights.

However, the 16% that do must be
discouraged from ignoring traffic signals.


Pwned.

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

Think you need to check your facts before appointing yourself as the village idiot's spokesman.

He is contradicting you and making you look nearly as stupid as him

I give up, you're both as bad as each other. It doesn't make for an interesting read.

Pufftmw

@ London Bridge this morning & the usual bunch went through the lights, so I turned to the next guy coming & asked if he was going to jump them too & he was so embarrassed, he stopped!

SimonAH

Pufftmw wrote:

@ London Bridge this morning & the usual bunch went through the lights, so I turned to the next guy coming & asked if he was going to jump them too & he was so embarrassed, he stopped!

Now THAT'S the way to do it Puff old bean.

Fairly pointless arguing over who jumps. Much more constructive to discuss how to educate cyclists on how not to do it.

In a nice way.

I stand by my spawn, tadpole, frog and prince analogy.

New thread starting now....

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I have an opinion I can back up with evidence. You have an opinion you cannot back up, so rely on insults. The strange thing is, in person you are a meek and mild person who wouldn't say boo to a goose. On the internet you turn into a fool, that's why you're banned from YACF.
....

Oh he irony of it

You looking in the mirror?

notsoblue

spen666 wrote:

Strange that for someone who claims it is a boring read that you keep reading the thread and responding to posts, thus perpetuating the thread that you complain is boring

Absolutely, it is strange. I mean, I feel deep shame as I type this reply. You seem to be enjoying it though? You get a thrill from the chase. You've caught someone out on some minor point and you'll be damned if you'll let them get away with it. Because in the end, all that really matters about online debates is that you get to point out how other people are wrong. Even if it means the threads you take part in just degenerate into...well...this. What I find most egregious about this is that in this particular thread there were at least two very positive and well thought out posts that have been buried under a mountain of sh1t. Anyone coming to this thread will skim through most of it, and miss all the good stuff only to find some tedious balls about stats and a load of name calling. Well done.

My complicity is shameful

nicklouse

done.