That doesn't make sense. Jimmy Hill/itchy chin is a playground saying suggesting someone is making something up, whereas I'm pretty sure you're just too thick to understand what I've said.
There'd be no point. Drivers don't actually object to the safety aspect of cyclists jumping red lights, they object to the emasculation they experience every time a cyclist violates one of their red-bulbed road phalluses.Is this where I point out that even traffic police say they don’t really care about cyclists jumping red lights in most circumstances as they’d rather concentrate on cars doing so, due to the massively increased consequences?
No? Never mind then.
You're just making a fool of yourself now. It's a bit pathetic really.
There'd be no point. Drivers don't actually object to the safety aspect of cyclists jumping red lights, they object to the emasculation they experience every time a cyclist violates one of their red-bulbed road phalluses.
That’s irrelevant to the claim that the great majority of London cyclists don’t jump at least some red lights on a regular basis though, which is what maomao was stating.Is this where I point out that even traffic police say they don’t really care about cyclists jumping red lights in most circumstances as they’d rather concentrate on cars doing so, due to the massively increased consequences?
No? Never mind then.
Luckily no-one said anything of the sort; it was a transparently loaded but mathematically true statement designed to trap thickos and it got three of them.That’s irrelevant to the claim that the great majority of London cyclists don’t jump at least some red lights on a regular basis though, which is what maomao was stating.
I have myself said plenty of times I don’t mind at all cyclists jumping some red lights in certain circumstances. It can be done safely, just as some other infractions committed by drivers can be executed just as safely in the right circumstances. But as far as the actual issue of whether the majority of cyclists in London jump red lights routinely, it is blatantly absurd to claim they don’t. To state otherwise is bordering on Trumpian delusion territory, frankly.
But that's still not quite true, a significant minority jump a lot and the average human has been so conditioned to both acceptance of motor vehicle primacy and hatred towards cyclists that they willingly ignore motorists transgressions and amplify those of cyclists. And with you it's so you can get away with claiming that speeding isn't a problem when it clearly is and kills and injures far more.
I've seen someone killed by a black cab driver sticking his foot down the second the light turned orange while people were still crossing. Didn't hit her very hard but her head hit the ground.it's rare I see one jump ahead of the light turning green
Yep - so many accelerate through on red.I've seen someone killed by a black cab driver sticking his foot down the second the light turned orange while people were still crossing. Didn't hit her very hard but her head hit the ground.
But yes, most car drivers who jump red lights do it in the first couple of seconds of red (and usually accelerating) which is far more dangerous but less blatant than a cyclist crossing during a quiet part of the red phase.
Speaking of majorities, some actual stats on lawbreaking rather than what some bloke, like, reckons.
View attachment 327599View attachment 327600
To be honest, whatever it is measuring, I am not happy at all that, in particular, professional drivers of massive HGVs are not obeying speed limits, and particularly 20mph speed limits. And the number obeying 20mph wherever that is measured is pretty much zero.Didn't we discuss this quite a few pages back and decide that they didn't use a random sample of road locations, but rather particular places that were problematic, so the graphs don't represent what they claim to represent.
To be honest, whatever it is measuring, I am not happy at all that, in particular, professional drivers of massive HGVs are not obeying speed limits, and particularly 20mph speed limits. And the number obeying 20mph wherever that is measured is pretty much zero.
"Free flowing", ie places where speeding hasn't been designed out. So it's telling us that drivers only break the law where it's possible to break the law.particular places that were problematic
Is a problematic place somewhere where speedometers don't work or something? Sounds like a motorists' version of blaming NATO for Putin's invasion to me.Didn't we discuss this quite a few pages back and decide that they didn't use a random sample of road locations, but rather particular places that were problematic, so the graphs don't represent what they claim to represent.
"Free flowing", ie places where speeding hasn't been designed out. So it's telling us that drivers only break the law where it's possible to break the law.
Ah, well spotted.The 20mph marker is in the wrong place on the Rigid Heavy Goods Vehicles graph, so it's a bit more than near-zero.
I think the regular word is "people".hazards