Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[platinumsage]

Nope, because I definitely know that I should never stop on a crossing of any kind, which has been a rule since I learnt to drive. Even if refusing to move onto a crossing when it's not clear on the other side means some car behind me starts hooting at me impatiently.

It's good that you think you know some rules I suppose, although I'm not sure what you would do if a pedestrian started crossing after you had entered the cycle section.

It seems to be a rule that many drivers (including professional ones) choose to forget on a daily basis.

They may choose to forget it, or maybe they just don't remember it as they aren't subjected to regular testing by the state.

 

[T & P]

A two second gap between cars crossing a junction in London is a few meters at most. In fact responsible drivers should be following the three second rule so a two second gap should be unusually close (it's not because most drivers can't drive but it should be).

Way to try to deflect attention from the undoubtedly irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the cyclist . Points awarded for effort.

 

[teuchter]

They may choose to forget it, or maybe they just don't remember it as they aren't subjected to regular testing by the state.

In fact I suspect it is a choice mainly determined by attitude to the priorities of road users, and thoughtfulness about the needs of others, because you don't need a rule to tell you that if you move into a pedestrian crossing without knowing you can clear it, you might end up blocking it.

This is pretty similar to things like pavement parking or blocking cycle paths.

They don't "forget" - they are just bad people.

 

[maomao]

Way to try to deflect attention from the undoubtedly irresponsible and reckless behaviour from the cyclist . Points awarded for effort.

What? By pointing out that you made it up? There was no reckless behaviour.

There are exceptions to the rule but most cyclists jump red lights safely when there's no traffic coming. Unlike drivers who accelerate into them and then pretend that they passed on amber.

 

[T & P]

What? By pointing out that you made it up? There was no reckless behaviour.

There are exceptions to the rule but most cyclists jump red lights safely when there's no traffic coming. Unlike drivers who accelerate into them and then pretend that they passed on amber.

I made nothing up. That you accuse people you don't know of lying if they report something that flies against your narrative is as fucking pathetic as is laughable.

 

[Spymaster]

What? By pointing out that you made it up? There was no reckless behaviour.

There are exceptions to the rule but most cyclists jump red lights safely when there's no traffic coming. Unlike drivers who accelerate into them and then pretend that they passed on amber.

This isn’t true

 

[maomao]

I made nothing up. That you accuse people you don't know of lying if they report something that flies against your narrative is as fucking pathetic as is laughable.

Cyclists do not go through two second gaps' in traffic. You don't know what a two second gap is. And when people make up numbers it's always 17. Look it up.

You saw multiple cyclists jump lights. That's fine. There was no cyclist who went through a two second jump. You did not count any cyclists. All the numbers and details are just made up nonsense. The only poster here who counts cyclists is Spymaster and that's only so he knows how many photos of cyclists' bottoms he has in his collection.

 

[Spymaster]

Cyclists do not go through two second gaps' in traffic. You don't know what a two second gap is. And when people make up numbers it's always 17. Look it up.

You saw multiple cyclists jump lights. That's fine. There was no cyclist who went through a two second jump. You did not count any cyclists. All the numbers and details are just made up nonsense. The only poster here who counts cyclists is Spymaster and that's only so he knows how many photos of cyclists' bottoms he has in his collection.

edcraw cpounts them too. That's how he gets to sleep.

 

[platinumsage]

In fact I suspect it is a choice mainly determined by attitude to the priorities of road users, and thoughtfulness about the needs of others, because you don't need a rule to tell you that if you move into a pedestrian crossing without knowing you can clear it, you might end up blocking it.

This is pretty similar to things like pavement parking or blocking cycle paths.

They don't "forget" - they are just bad people.

It's not always about that, as this cycle zebra crossing illustrates - you might have to move onto it without knowing you can clear it, especially if the pavements are quite busy with pedestrians or they are loitering near the crossing. You enter the cycle section and then a pedestrian starts crossing, do you stop and block the cycle part or perhaps sound the horn to encourage them to step back onto the pavement? Once you've crossed that initial give way line prior to the cycle section, pedestrians no longer have priority over you and the law only allows you to stop on the crossing to avoid injury or damage.

If it was a level crossing with no zebra, obviously you'd sound the horn at the errant pedestrian rather than risk stopping on the rail tracks, but since cyclists are unlikely to kill you along with scores of their passengers when hitting the side of you car, you have a bit more freedom here to break the law if you want, and obstruct cyclists to allow a pedestrian to cross.

 

[teuchter]

It's not always about that, as this cycle zebra crossing illustrates - you might have to move onto it without knowing you can clear it, especially if the pavements are quite busy with pedestrians or they are loitering near the crossing. You enter the cycle section and then a pedestrian starts crossing, do you stop and block the cycle part or perhaps sound the horn to encourage them to step back onto the pavement? Once you've crossed that initial give way line prior to the cycle section, pedestrians no longer have priority over you and the law only allows you to stop on the crossing to avoid injury or damage.

That's a very specific situation, at what is currently an uncommon type of crossing.

What I'm talking about is what happens all the time at regular pedestrian crossings, which is that a car moves onto and sits on the crossing whilst the pedestrian light is red. Then the traffic in front of them doesn't move, the pedestrian signal turns green, and everyone has to edge round their car. In some cases with a larger vehicle, it blocks the pedestrians' view of the green man altogether. Bus drivers do it.

It's very simple in that scenario - you don't move onto the crossing until there's space on the other side of it for you to move into.

People who can't be bothered to do that are bad people who deserve to get their paintwork accidentally scratched when I have to edge around the front or back of their car and accidentally bang it with my bags or keys or bits of sandpaper or cheese-grater or other things I commonly carry around town.

Same when they decide to stop within the cyclist advance box too of course.

 

[platinumsage]

Same when they decide to stop within the cyclist advance box too of course.

Obviously not, because while there’s a requirement in law not to stop on a pedestrian crossing, there’s no such requirement not to stop in an advanced cycle box.

 

[T & P]

Cyclists do not go through two second gaps' in traffic. You don't know what a two second gap is. And when people make up numbers it's always 17. Look it up.

You saw multiple cyclists jump lights. That's fine. There was no cyclist who went through a two second jump. You did not count any cyclists. All the numbers and details are just made up nonsense. The only poster here who counts cyclists is Spymaster and that's only so he knows how many photos of cyclists' bottoms he has in his collection.

You're talking utter, fucking desperate bollocks, and everyone can see it from what it is. And you must be extraordinarily lacking in imagination, let alone situational awareness or driving/ cycling skills, if you think a cyclist taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic is not viable in a city with multitude of differently sized streets and junctions, not to mention multiple possible speeds, and the quantity of the cars travelling at the time. The three of which combining to make an almost limitness number of scenarios, a great many of which more than facilitating cyclists taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic to go across a junction having jumped a red light.

I remind you that at no point you asked which junction it was, how heavy the traffic was, and how fast it was moving. But no, you know for a fact what I told couldn't have happened. For cunting fuck's sake...

You really should stop digging now mate. And all this embarrassing shit because you can't stand the very suggestion that some cyclists behave utterly recklessly. Jesus fucking wept...

 

[platinumsage]

That's a very specific situation, at what is currently an uncommon type of crossing.

My point here is that’s it’s exactly the type of situation where your abundance of caution approach to make up for not knowing the rules might end up causing more problems than it solves.

And these specific crossings are only going to get more common.

 

[teuchter]

Obviously not, because while there’s a requirement in law not to stop on a pedestrian crossing, there’s no such requirement not to stop in an advanced cycle box.

I don't care about the technicalities of the law. The box is there for a reason and me and my cheesegrater or angle grinder are going to accidentally defend it if we want.

 

[teuchter]

My point here is that’s it’s exactly the type of situation where your abundance of caution approach to make up for not knowing the rules might end up causing more problems than it solves.

And these specific crossings are only going to get more common.

To be prepared to stop for unexpected emergences onto the road is not an "abundance of caution" approach, it's simply what anyone learning to drive is taught.

 

[teuchter]

It's certainly quite disturbing to think that someone like me who drives for about five minutes per year is obviously a better and safer driver than platinumsage who presumably spends the best part of most days driving a car around with either radio 2 or classic FM on the whole time.

 

[Saul Goodman]

A two second gap between cars crossing a junction in London is a few meters at most. In fact responsible drivers should be following the three second rule so a two second gap should be unusually close (it's not because most drivers can't drive but it should be).

First we have teuchter, who doesn't know how to use a zebra crossing, either as a pedestrian, cyclist or grown-up. Then we have maomao, who seems to have scrapped the two second rule and replaced it with a new and improved three second rule. And these two are putting themselves forward as the voice of cyclists

It demonstrates that we have an inadequate system in this country for ensuring that drivers keep up to date with changes. Drivers should be made to take and pass a test at appropriate intervals throughout their driving career.

What this clearly demonstrates is that teuchter and maomao shouldn't be allowed on the road whilst in charge of anything more dangerous than a sponge .

 

[maomao]

You're talking utter, fucking desperate bollocks, and everyone can see it from what it is. And you must be extraordinarily lacking in imagination, let alone situational awareness or driving/ cycling skills, if you think a cyclist taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic is not viable in a city with multitude of differently sized streets and junctions, not to mention multiple possible speeds, and the quantity of the cars travelling at the time. The three of which combining to make an almost limitness number of scenarios, a great many of which more than facilitating cyclists taking advantage of a two-second gap in traffic to go across a junction having jumped a red light.

I remind you that at no point you asked which junction it was, how heavy the traffic was, and how fast it was moving. But no, you know for a fact what I told couldn't have happened. For cunting fuck's sake...

You really should stop digging now mate. And all this embarrassing shit because you can't stand the very suggestion that some cyclists behave utterly recklessly. Jesus fucking wept...

I saw 42 drivers on the way home and 37 of them were masturbating while driving. One of them was doing 38mph on a 30mph road. Now I hope you're not going to devalue this important debate by accusing me of lying.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I saw 42 drivers on the way home and 37 of them were masturbating while driving.

They'd probably just run over cyclists and were having a celebratory wank. The other 5 needed to brush up on their driving skills.

 

[weltweit]

I just popped in to see if I should poke teuchter a bit for amusement, but you lot are doing a fine job

 

[T & P]

I saw 42 drivers on the way home and 37 of them were masturbating while driving. One of them was doing 38mph on a 30mph road. Now I hope you're not going to devalue this important debate by accusing me of lying.

Not sure about the wanking, but a lot of those were probably speeding, yes. I wouldn’t contest anyone making such claims because they’re not just possible but probable. And much less so accuse others of lying about reported individual instances of misbehaviour from a group of road users, because sure as fuck every single type have plenty of irresponsible arseholes among them. I never contested that.

Even if I had got my two-second gap calculation wrong (which I didn’t- single lane street junction and perpendicular traffic in one direction only at the time, so two seconds to cross were more than achievable even if still idiotic), it seems to me a very weird thing to latch on, as if visual accounts of reckless road behaviour must be wrong or fabricated if someone doesn’t state the sequence of events to the exact second.

Ultimately it is irrelevant if someone on the internet accuses someone else of lying about a perfectly plausible and commonplace occurrence based on insignificant pedantry. But perhaps I should just abandon reporting any real accounts of individual bad road behaviour in the future, and just claim I regularly see cyclists kidnapping small kids and punching old ladies in the face as they ride past, as at least I would get likes instead of accusations of being a liar. Anyway, far more words devoted to this than it merited.

 

[platinumsage]

To be prepared to stop for unexpected emergences onto the road is not an "abundance of caution" approach, it's simply what anyone learning to drive is taught.

You said this principle would be sufficient for you to deal cycle zebra, despite not having bothered to learn the relevant rules. But of course it isn't, as I've explained - what would you do if a pedestrian started crossing after you've entered the cycle section - accidentally your angle grinder around while blasting out Radio 6?

 

[maomao]

Obviously not, because while there’s a requirement in law not to stop on a pedestrian crossing, there’s no such requirement not to stop in an advanced cycle box.

This is just ridiculous fotlerism. The fact that the law recognises a possible reason for being stopped in an advanced cycle box, and that wankers will use it to argue their way out of a fine, is not the same as there being no requirement in law to avoid stopping in one.

 

[platinumsage]

This is just ridiculous fotlerism. The fact that the law recognises a possible reason for being stopped in an advanced cycle box, and that wankers will use it to argue their way out of a fine, is not the same as there being no requirement in law to avoid stopping in one.

This couldn't be more wrong. It's pretty hopeless of you to compare the actual law with freedom of the land nonsense. If the lawmakers had wanted an advance cycle box to be treated like a box junction or pedestrian crossing, they would have written the law in a similar way. But they didn't - the law actually requires drivers to stop in an advance stop box when the lights change if they have entered it for any reason.

Here is the requirement not to stop on a pedestrian crossing:

"The driver of a vehicle shall not cause the vehicle or any part of it to stop within the limits of a crossing unless he is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid injury or damage to persons or property. "

Here is the requirement to stop in an advanced cycle box:

"... the “stop line” in relation to those light signals means - (a)the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or (b)the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane."

If you want the law changed perhaps you should write to your MP, but you'll probably just carry on getting enraged any time you see a driver obeying the law in reaction cycle boxes, because that's more satisfying for you.

 

[SpookyFrank]

For any reason. A reason like the light cycle missed out yellow for some reason, or the driver is a cunt. Because those are the only two reasons a driver would be 'forced' to stop in the advanced stop box.

 

[maomao]

the law actually requires drivers to stop in an advance stop box when the lights change if they have entered it for any reason.

So it 'requires' you to stop when the lights change but according to you it doesn't require you to stop if they don't? You can barely talk English and would be an embarassment to real Fotlers.

 

[Athos]

Whereas you can't enter a crossing until you can see that you can clear it, you can enter an advance stop box if the light is green, even if the traffic is very slow moving/stopped such that you can't clear it. If the lights then change, you're required to stop in the box. All you can't do is go past the first line if the lights are red when you arrive at it.

 

[maomao]

Whereas you can't enter a crossing until you can see that you can clear it, you can enter an advance stop box if the light is green, even if the traffic is very slow moving/stopped such that you can't clear it. If the lights then change, you're required to stop in the box. All you can't do is go past the first line if the lights are red when you arrive at it.

Yes, everyone understands that bit of the rule Lionel. What Bi0boy is claiming is that there is no legal requirement to stop at the first line when there clearly is if the light is already red on approach.

 

[Athos]

Yes, everyone understands that bit of the rule Lionel. What Bi0boy is claiming is that there is no legal requirement to stop at the first line when there clearly is if the light is already red on approach.

He's clearly wrong about that.

 

[platinumsage]

What I said it perfectly correct and clear, and it's sad to see maomao attempting to deliberately misinterpret it in a desperate attempt to "win" some sort of argument.