Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Tilt

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

I dont see what a toll road motorway which doesn't allow bicycles has to do with threats to cyclists safety.

No? Allow me to remind you of a very recent case of a cyclist who obviously didn't know.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cyclist-pictured-riding-down-m1-2369567
Best bit that yet again, no action was taken by the police. Obviously they didn't consider his actions were a "threat to his safety".

Now if it had been a motorist driving along the hard shoulder with no lights on.... well you can guess what action the police would of taken!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Johno100

WiggyDiggyPoo wrote: »

I dont see what a toll road motorway which doesn't allow bicycles has to do with threats to cyclists safety.

Tolling of existing roads could well lead to a displacement of traffic, particularly HGV's, from motorways to local roads and into conflict with cyclists.

Avoriaz

Johno100 wrote: »

And you have never been in a queue of slow moving traffic, edging forward, when the lights change just as you have passed the stop line? You can't reverse because someone is behind you, you can't continue forward as you can't clear the junction, so what do you do, that's right stop. But of course to the rabid cyclist filtering to the front of the queue you have deliberately put yourself in the ASZ

A sensible driver would anticipate the lights changing and not proceed beyond the first stop line unless there was a reasonable chance that he could get across the junction.

In circumstances such as you describe, even if that driver cleared the ASZ, he would probably end up blocking the junction for traffic crossing his path.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Because according to AndyBSG the officer did not see the offence committed, namely the crossing of the first stop line while the light was on red.

Ah. so it's OK to lie on appeal to avoid punishment for an offence you have committed?

Johno100

Avoriaz wrote: »

A sensible driver would anticipate the lights changing and not proceed beyond the first stop line unless there was a reasonable chance that he could get across the junction.

In circumstances such as you describe, even if that driver cleared the ASZ, he would probably end up blocking the junction for traffic crossing his path.

Yes Mr/Mrs. Perfect

Johno100

brat wrote: »

Ah. so it's OK to lie on appeal to avoid punishment for an offence you have committed?

Lying? Where has that come from? Or are you from the guilty until proven innocent school of justice.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Lying? Where has that come from? Or are you from the guilty until proven innocent school of justice.

And you're clearly of the school that you only commit an offence if it can be proved.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

And you're clearly of the school that you only commit an offence if it can be proved.

Yes, and never admit to anything.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes, and never admit to anything.

Drivers admit to all sorts when asked, often because they don't know what the officer already knows. That's probably why the ASZ 'offender' got his ticket.

But your answer indicates you're clearly struggling to recognise the difference in the concepts of 'committing' an offence and 'proving' an offence.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

And you have never been in a queue of slow moving traffic, edging forward, when the lights change just as you have passed the stop line? You can't reverse because someone is behind you, you can't continue forward as you can't clear the junction, so what do you do, that's right stop. But of course to the rabid cyclist filtering to the front of the queue you have deliberately put yourself in the ASZ

Do as I do
treat them as box junctions.

Same as the drivers who queue through pedestrian crossings
then seem surprised to see pedestrians forced to walk around their car