Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Apr 03, 2020 02:16

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:22 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Rhythm Thief wrote:
In Gear wrote:
They change eventually though..

For all you know a car could come hurtling through.

It's a bit like trying to dodge the railway crossing before the train comes :roll:


Well, not really, in that trains are often going over 100mph (not common for cars in Bilston) and once you're through one level crossing barrier your escape is cut off by the second one. Don't forget that you can hear and see much more on a bike too. At least two sets of lights on my way to work don't "change eventually" for cyclists, or indeed at all. At 3am there's precious little traffic around to change the lights for me; later in the day, it's different.


Ah - but isn't the 3 am and "empty road" the same argument about the speed cam enforcing a 30 mph on an urban dual.. :wink:

If on duty .. I think our lads/lasses would pull for both speeding, weavery driving and riding, and red light jumping for a quick word. For all we know - person may have had a drink at that time. We have to be sure. :wink:

Yes - I know we use ears more - but what if you are listenign to an i-pod on full blast? Nothing against i-pods but full volume does not help long term health of ear drums (I gather from Mad Doc that the little hairs inside the ear which process the sound waves to our brains start to deteriorate at age ten.. why teenagers appear to be deaf ... I suppose. :roll: (Each one of mine seems "choosily" hard of hearing at times once they reach age 13.. :roll: and why is there always a grunt if asked to do any household task? :roll: ))

But if in doubt - wheel it across and continually look for traffic per the Green Cross. I say that because insurance sharks would pick up on red light jump if a mishap were tooccur with you in the saddle. If you are wheeling it - then as a pedestrian - you are then in a slightly stronger situation since you cannot be accused of breaking a traffic rule - and you never know if someone is thinking as you are.. nothing on road -.. :roll: - safe.. :roll:

Ain't just the law you have to think about - but how insurance companies will deal - and each will be trying to reduce their costs as well.

Current Highway Code proposals are really no different that existing ones and these companies already argue the toss and negotiate deals between them - not always in the interests of those insured .. that;s the real world and not the world according to cloud cuckoo land., :wink:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:24 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
I cycle and drive – I’m certainly not anti motorist and, for what it’s worth, I despise cyclists that jump reds, have no lights at night, cycle on the pavement and have scant regard for the highway code etc – they give the rest of us cyclists who observe the law a bad name.

And, you’re right to complain about cyclist RLJ’s and say something should be done about them BUT, get it into proportion, PLEASE!

I cycled back from Kensington High Street yesterday pm – and on the stretch of road from The Royal Albert hall to Hammersmith (for those of you who don’t know it: busy London ‘A’ road, with around a dozen sets of lights over about 2 ½ to 3 miles) I was in a group of about 8 cyclists who were all stopping at reds.

I saw ONE ignorant cyclist who continued to jump the reds ahead of us.

I also saw:
on average, one or two motor vehicles that jumped the red lights at EACH set.
NO leading motor vehicle observe ANY advance stop line for cyclists
6 motor vehicles parked in bus stops
at least 5 motor vehicles parked up on red lines (in hours of operation)
The one stretch of MANDATORY cycle lane I could see was covered in cars
About 20 motor vehicles overtake/undertake lead vehicles that were slowing down on the run up to crossings for pedestrians
had 2 cars and a van seriously cut me up
had 1 4x4 overtake me and SIMULTANEOUSLY turn left
got told by one female Volvo driver that I “don’t pay any road tax and shouldn’t be on the f***ing road” because I held her up for about 5 seconds on a narrow stretch of road near Olympia.

Add to that the approximately 1 in 20 drivers at the wheel on their mobiles
And the fact that around 1 in 5 probably weren’t insured/driving vehicles without valid MOT’s

Some cyclist are ignorant and rude law breakers – but so are some motorists as well.
The amount of press/internet forum space given to cyclist RLJ’s is, in my opinion, severely disproportionate to that given to the, frankly, p*ss poor driving I experience every day by a lot of other road users.

There are lots of comments about how “they” (cyclists) get away with it – but how many motorists get away with breaking the law on numerous occasions every journey? Any attempt to prevent such drivers from breaking the law usually descends into a chorus of “leave us poor blighted motorists alone.”


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:31 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
nickcyclist wrote:
And the fact that around 1 in 5 probably weren’t insured/driving vehicles without valid MOT’s

Evidence?

nickcyclist wrote:
The amount of press/internet forum space given to cyclist RLJ’s is, in my opinion, severely disproportionate to that given to the, frankly, p*ss poor driving I experience every day by a lot of other road users.

Ah, "tu quoque", otherwise known as "the cylist's fallacy". The actions of motorists may indeed be reprehensible, but that makes no difference as to whether the actions of cyclists are reprehensible.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:31 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
jamie_duff wrote:
... and motorists dont put the foot down when it's busy/slippery/foggy etc...

REALLY ???????????????????????
Please tell where these magical roads are!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
And the fact that around 1 in 5 probably weren’t insured/driving vehicles without valid MOT’s

Evidence?

Try : http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/ ... page_id=35

paragraph 4 refers to London

or

http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=217565

or

http://money.independent.co.uk/personal ... 182295.ece

or

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/speci ... _id=399131

or

http://test.nepsecure.co.uk/ADMIN/PropM ... toryid=622

(sorry – that’s not referring to 20% uninsured but 30% admitting to getting in a car driven by someone under the influence of drink or drugs)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
nickcyclist wrote:
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
And the fact that around 1 in 5 probably weren’t insured/driving vehicles without valid MOT’s

Evidence?

Try : http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/ ... page_id=35

paragraph 4 refers to London

or

http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=217565

or

http://money.independent.co.uk/personal ... 182295.ece

or

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/speci ... _id=399131

It would appear that these examples refer to 1 in 5 at some time as having driven without valid insurance.

That does not mean that at any given time 1 in 5 drivers are without valid insurance.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 01:59 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Ah London.. glad I no longer serve in the Met..

Tis another world compared to the rest of the UK ..

As for those using handys as Wildy :neko: here calls them.. up here - we do have words. We seem to reporting less.. but then we have more BiB out there than most .. as we have one van and one camera only :lol: :lol:

We keep being told to catch "criminals"... um ... you could say we do .. :lol: But where we may warn a driver over some as ect of their driving .. including speed . and preach C O A S T :wink:

. we always find use of the mobile unless the person can prove an emergency use - which ain't often :lol:

As for parking as described .. we are congested - we introduced a charge long before Ken .. but we seem to have won some battles over inconsiderate behaviour and we can only put that down to presence and being visible perhaps.

As for the rude Volvo driver.. oh dear ...

I seem to recall one of the Swiss - the one called Jessika based in Merseyside/Cheshire boundary - the teacher - being called a few rude names by somone in a 4x4 as she rode back to school in her lunch break. When she got to the school she saw the person emerge from the car.. the parent of a naughty child who had come to "sort out the head teacher over her child's detention." Jess is the headteacher of this Merseyside Comp and the incident made her more determined to keep the child for the school detention in which she gave a short talk on manners and then made the detained children write an essayon "courtesy" :lol: .

Pity she could not detain the mother.. :roll:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 02:07 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
PS nicky :welcome:

I agree we have a lot of unlicenced and uninsured .... unfortunately a disproportionate number of these appear to be foreign :roll:
or part of a 5% nationwide hard core of known criminals.

The average person .. 95% of us.. normal and legal (apart from those blippers :wink: )

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 02:09 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
And the fact that around 1 in 5 probably weren’t insured/driving vehicles without valid MOT’s

Evidence?

nickcyclist wrote:
The amount of press/internet forum space given to cyclist RLJ’s is, in my opinion, severely disproportionate to that given to the, frankly, p*ss poor driving I experience every day by a lot of other road users.

Ah, "tu quoque", otherwise known as "the cylist's fallacy". The actions of motorists may indeed be reprehensible, but that makes no difference as to whether the actions of cyclists are reprehensible.


Not really a “tu quoque” – your using that phrase inaccurately. I’m certainly not sticking up for illegal cyclists behavior by pointing out the illegal behavior of some motorists.

To put it another way I have not argued that “the actions of reprehensible motorists make no difference as to whether the actions of cyclists are reprehensible” – I think both are bad

what I am stating is that I feel that the amount of media coverage given to the illegal behavior of some cyclists is disproportionate to the coverage given to the illegal behavior of some motorists


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 02:14 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
And the fact that around 1 in 5 probably weren’t insured/driving vehicles without valid MOT’s

Evidence?

Try : http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/ ... page_id=35

paragraph 4 refers to London

or

http://www.whatcar.com/news-article.aspx?NA=217565

or

http://money.independent.co.uk/personal ... 182295.ece

or

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/speci ... _id=399131

It would appear that these examples refer to 1 in 5 at some time as having driven without valid insurance.

That does not mean that at any given time 1 in 5 drivers are without valid insurance.


I take back Everything I said then – it’s only “1 in 5 five at some time” that drive without insurance – that’s ok then – all car drivers are model citizens – I do apologise


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 02:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
nickcyclist wrote:
PeterE wrote:
It would appear that these examples refer to 1 in 5 at some time as having driven without valid insurance.

That does not mean that at any given time 1 in 5 drivers are without valid insurance.

I take back Everything I said then – it’s only “1 in 5 five at some time” that drive without insurance – that’s ok then – all car drivers are model citizens – I do apologise

So hopefully you won't post misleading rubbish in future...

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 03:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
:welcome:

nickcyclist wrote:
And, you’re right to complain about cyclist RLJ’s and say something should be done about them BUT, get it into proportion, PLEASE!


Did you see the website that inspired this thread? (1st post)

I think it's spot on... The voice of reasonable cyclists, working as a positive influence.

There are 'bad' road users in all groups in roughly similar proportions. It's up to good road users in all groups to try to put forward positive influences. One important message is that there's no 'them and us' - cyclists, pedestrians, motorists, bikers and truckers are all in it together.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 03:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
PeterE wrote:
It would appear that these examples refer to 1 in 5 at some time as having driven without valid insurance.

That does not mean that at any given time 1 in 5 drivers are without valid insurance.


Latest DfT estimate is 2 million uninsured drivers out of 34 million or about 6%. However uninsured drivers are known to do lower than average mileages, so the composition in the traffic of uninsured drivers is less. On the other hand uninsured driving is apparently more prevalent in large metropolitan areas.

Probably 1 in 20 is still about right as an urban estimate. Less on motorways and out of town.

It's a serious problem - and way out of reach of present official plans to tackle it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:59 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
SafeSpeed wrote:
:welcome:

nickcyclist wrote:
And, you’re right to complain about cyclist RLJ’s and say something should be done about them BUT, get it into proportion, PLEASE!


Did you see the website that inspired this thread? (1st post)

I think it's spot on... The voice of reasonable cyclists, working as a positive influence.

There are 'bad' road users in all groups in roughly similar proportions. It's up to good road users in all groups to try to put forward positive influences. One important message is that there's no 'them and us' - cyclists, pedestrians, motorists, bikers and truckers are all in it together.


Hi - I did look at the site and I wouldn’t disagree with a word of it.
As for “them and us”, as I said, I ride, drive, walk etc. and don’t see things like that and I think that’s the right attitude to have, we are all road users together.
I suppose the only “them and us” attitude I do have is “them” being people who use the roads badly/dangerously and have no respect for each other and “us” being those that are safer/observant and respectful of others.
As I said – I’m not anti motorist, but I dislike having my life put at risk when I’m on the road and I think I’m acutely more aware of my venerability when I’m cycling.

In pretty much every incident I’ve ever been involved in on my bike, the motorist, who has just done something wrong, invariable justifies their actions by claiming that it doesn't matter because I’m a cyclist – and all of them break the law etc

For example, I cycled through Twickenham last Friday. There is a junction outside the station. The light was red, I stopped in the ASL (sharing it with black cab!). The light changed to green, I set off, a car sped up and jumped the red to my left, and would have taken me out if I hadn’t taken avoiding action. As the driver entered into the bus lane outside the station, he leaned out of his window, made a rude gesture with his hand and said words to the effect that it made a difference he’d jumped a red because it was normally cyclists that did that. He drove off laughing.

I know that no one here would in any way support the actions of that idiot, BUT, on the two occasions where I told people what had happened (in the pub that evening and at work on Monday) their immediate action was to say that the driver did have a point and then went on to slag off cyclists in general. No one referred to his actions as being wrong.

My point is that most of us will see examples of poor to criminal behaviour on the road on most days – especially here in London. And I’m talking here about ALL road users. BUT my point is that when you look on the internet, read local and national papers, listen to radio phone-ins, watch local and national news, listen to everyone from MP’s to colleagues at work and friends down the pub etc, there is a disproportionate amount of anger and annoyance and time directed towards the behaviour of irresponsible cyclists.

There is, if you like, an attitude in society that cyclists are the biggest danger on the road, the cause of most accidents and that none of them have any respect for the rules etc. This attitude is used by SOME motorists to have a sort of carte blanche attitude toward me on my bike. That’s why I would like to redress the balance of opinion.

So, at the risk of sounding anti-motorist (which I’m not) I fully accept that some cyclists jump red’s and that they shouldn’t etc BUT that this debate should be balanced and that the actions of a few stupid cyclists shouldn’t be blown out of all proportion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 12:06 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 00:25
Posts: 7
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
PeterE wrote:
It would appear that these examples refer to 1 in 5 at some time as having driven without valid insurance.

That does not mean that at any given time 1 in 5 drivers are without valid insurance.

I take back Everything I said then – it’s only “1 in 5 five at some time” that drive without insurance – that’s ok then – all car drivers are model citizens – I do apologise

So hopefully you won't post misleading rubbish in future...


Peter, any number of uninsured drivers and cars without MOT’s is concerning. The proportion of such people/vehicles in London is higher than the national average and growing at double the national rate. I would think that a significant number of vehicles on the road in London are uninsured / don’t have valid MOT’s. That’s not misleading or rubbish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 14:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
PeterE wrote:
So hopefully you won't post misleading rubbish in future...


Hi Nick, not everyone on here is as rude as this!

:welcome:

Good to see another cyclist here! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 20:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
nickcyclist wrote:
PeterE wrote:
nickcyclist wrote:
PeterE wrote:
It would appear that these examples refer to 1 in 5 at some time as having driven without valid insurance.

That does not mean that at any given time 1 in 5 drivers are without valid insurance.

I take back Everything I said then – it’s only “1 in 5 five at some time” that drive without insurance – that’s ok then – all car drivers are model citizens – I do apologise

So hopefully you won't post misleading rubbish in future...


Peter, any number of uninsured drivers and cars without MOT’s is concerning. The proportion of such people/vehicles in London is higher than the national average and growing at double the national rate. I would think that a significant number of vehicles on the road in London are uninsured / don’t have valid MOT’s. That’s not misleading or rubbish.



More people live in this area so I suspect the national figures are condensed into these urban areas. As far as I know from our internal stats - London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Nottingham top the tables on uninsured and defective cars on the roads. Not surprising given the urban sprawls and other criminal activities.


Unfortunately, the tabloids are not overly stirring things as far as DVLA record keeping is concerned ... there are flaws and it's damned frustrating. :furious:

Of course - bureaucracy and an over reliance on gadgets do not help matters :roll:

I fully support "stopatred" - I think I speak for all Police Forces on this too.. Sound safety site.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 20:30 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Trouble is nick - very possible to ride safely and without problem and we can all enhance skills by seeking out a CTC course to boost knowledge.

But as Peyote said - lot of good and bad cyclists out there - just as there are good and bad drivers. Jumping a red light for whatever pereceived reason or logic does not help - and I think we tend to remember awful cyclists just as we remember awful drivers.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 01:46 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Nickcyclist rightly wrote:
My point is that most of us will see examples of poor to criminal behaviour on the road on most days – especially here in London. And I’m talking here about ALL road users. BUT my point is that when you look on the internet, read local and national papers, listen to radio phone-ins, watch local and national news, listen to everyone from MP’s to colleagues at work and friends down the pub etc, there is a disproportionate amount of anger and annoyance and time directed towards the behaviour of irresponsible cyclists.

It's usually the case that a small minority of ANY group of unsociable people attract a disproportionate amount of criticism much of which lands on the rest.

The media is a business first and foremost, and every stabbing, mugging, RLJ and speeding motorist is just grist to the mill for them.
The public at large view what they see in the media and lap it up, then spew it back out in the pub!

The camera partnerships play on this, and with their phoney surveys manage to show that the majority of the public are in favour of their activities.
We all need reminding that our experiences are different depending on where we are in the country.
Unlicensed locals are unusual in my neck of the woods - but when I was at college in Blackpool, it was almost the norm, with so many drivers who just drove around without any form of paperwork!
I was more than a little annoyed to be stopped three times in one night, because I was out at 3.00 am on my motorbike.

I am sure that in some areas, Nick's figures are correct!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 09:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 01:59
Posts: 137
Location: Wolverhamptom (exiled Yorkshireman)
In Gear wrote:
Ah - but isn't the 3 am and "empty road" the same argument about the speed cam enforcing a 30 mph on an urban dual.. :wink:


Well, yes. That's my point. If you're against the arbitrary enforcement of limits when it's safe to exceed them, then surely you can say the same for (some) traffic lights. I wonder how long car drivers would sit waiting at lights that didn't change before driving through a red? :wink:

In Gear wrote:
Yes - I know we use ears more - but what if you are listenign to an i-pod on full blast? Nothing against i-pods but full volume does not help long term health of ear drums (I gather from Mad Doc that the little hairs inside the ear which process the sound waves to our brains start to deteriorate at age ten.. why teenagers appear to be deaf ... I suppose. :roll: (Each one of mine seems "choosily" hard of hearing at times once they reach age 13.. :roll: and why is there always a grunt if asked to do any household task? :roll: ))


Can't help you with the teenager problem I'm afraid, but I can tell you I'd never ride with anything stuck in my ears. Even the ear warmer band I use under my helmet in winter is a bit much! Better than having cold ears though.

In Gear wrote:
But if in doubt - wheel it across and continually look for traffic per the Green Cross. I say that because insurance sharks would pick up on red light jump if a mishap were tooccur with you in the saddle. If you are wheeling it - then as a pedestrian - you are then in a slightly stronger situation since you cannot be accused of breaking a traffic rule - and you never know if someone is thinking as you are.. nothing on road -.. :roll: - safe.. :roll:


Fair point. I don't just rely on assuming nothing will be there just because it's early in the morning though - I do look and listen first. I never jump lights if there does happen to be a car coming from behind to change the lights either.

_________________
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the kerb.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.702s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]