Re: John Redwood. Could there be a grain of truth?

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 10:47:24 +0000, rail <Rail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

But the temptation is there. And there is no practical need to do so, other
than you can't be bothered to get off the machine and walk a few yards.

But there is no practical need to do that, merely a legal one that
wouldn't be an issue if the lights concerned worked correctly.

I should note that, that I can recall, that set of lights are the only
ones I have ever deliberately passed on a red while riding a bicycle.

There was a blind bend, which is why the lights were there.

OK, depends on the circumstances. I might have been tempted to sound
my horn several times then proceed at walking pace, but I can think of
one location (the narrow bridge under the WCML just outside the centre
of Bletchley, for those who know it) where I certainly would not, and
would do round, as it is such a dangerous location if the lights are
not working.

[snip railway story that has nothing to do with cyclists]

But had to do with a similar situation in whether to break the law for
convenience where a situation not catered for by the law took place.

Sorry but it is more dangerous and illegal and there is no practical need,
other than laziness, to do so.

There is no practical need, other than legalistic pickiness, to
dismount (and carry my bicycle, as I recall is also necessary to
comply with the letter of the law).

The lights in question haven't failed as
there is a legal way of passing them with the vehicle in question.

I would be very interested if that was the view of the local Council.
I would suspect ***-up over conspiracy, as the Council are locally
known for designing dangerous and stupid junctions, but not really for
anti-cyclist bias.

Rather more than one experience.

Maybe so, but do not tar all cyclists with one brush.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
.