For freedom of choice and convenience. More cars on more roads being the only route to prosperity for Aberdeen
A blog about cars in Aberdeen.
This is a blog about cars in Aberdeen because most people aspire to the convenience of personal motor transport, pay dearly for the privilege, provide much employment, contribute greatly in taxes, and then people expect them to ‘leave the car at home’, while their money is spent creating cycle lanes and the like for freeloading cyclists.
WVM illegal and total idiot. Hope you reported him.Car driver could have stopped in time. Unfortunately, a lot of drivers don't seem to know how to treat the cycle safety reservoir.
It appears that motorists are showing cyclists how red-light jumping is done.
According to Direct Line - Red Alert: Motorists Drive Through 278 Red Traffic Lights a Minute. 22nd August 2011 ' 5.2 million drivers have passed through a red traffic signal in the last month Amber gamblers: Almost one in ten drivers doesn’t slow down for amber lights
New research from Direct Line car insurance reveals that motorists are driving through 12 million red lights each month on British roads – the equivalent of running 278 red lights every minute *.
Over 5.2 million (14 per cent) motorists admit that they drive through an average of two red traffic lights each month. Over 760,000 (two per cent) motorists habitually drive through red lights if they feel the road is clear and there is no traffic.
As a result of their reckless behaviour at red lights, drivers risk clocking up over 36 million penalty points (three for each offence) and fines from fixed penalty notices totalling £721** million every month.
A worryingly high number of motorists, dubbed ‘amber gamblers’, are putting their lives and other road-users at risk by failing to slow down for traffic lights about to turn red. Almost one in ten (nine per cent) motorists don't reduce their speed when approaching amber lights, with four per cent admitting to putting the accelerator to the floor to race through the lights.
Over 1.5 million (four per cent) motorists admit to getting ‘a thrill’ when driving through amber traffic lights that they know will have turned red before they have passed through the crossing or junction. Over 500,000 drivers risk being ‘rear ended’ as they stamp on their brakes as an automatic response whenever they see amber traffic lights.....'
Ah yes, let's muddy the waters and desperately try to obscure the fact of the matter. It's the only way that evasive, dishonest car-haters know.
The fact of the matter, as you know perfectly well, is that percentage-wise, cyclists jump red lights WAY more often than drivers. You know it, and I know it, so why evade it? Why do car-haters always do this thing of refusing to admit facts which are inconvenient to their "arguments" (and there are many, many such facts)?
When one sees any given driver come up to a red light, they almost always stop. It must be at least 90% of the time and probably a lot more (because as you know, there are lots of cars, much to your obvious anger, and yet most journeys I don't see any cars jumping red lights). Now, when one sees any given cyclist come up to a red light, I'd estimate that at least 50% of the time, they sail straight through. It may even be more than that. Also, when a driver does jump a red light, it's usually just after or just before the red light is on, whereas cyclists tend to just sail through at any time as if the light isn't there at all. You know these things perfectly well, so for once, please debate honestly, rather than trying to be all smart and clever and deliberately disregarding reality because you don't like it.
Instead of trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters, because the facts don't suit your "drivers are always wrong and cyclists are always right", child-like view of things, why not accept that a cyclist is much more likely to jump red lights, and make a nice, mature post about why that is the case? Clearly, many cyclists believe that red lights shouldn't apply to them. Hey, maybe they're right. Why not discuss whether they are? Isn't that much more constructive and helpful than pointlessly pretending that percentage-wise, cyclists don't jump red lights any more than motor vehicles? Who does that approach help, except other delusional car-haters who want to pretend along with you?
So, next time, instead of making silly jibes against drivers which you know full well don't tell the whole story, accept that there are particular laws that cyclists tend to break extremely often (mainly jumping red lights, going the wrong way down one-way streets, and cycling without lights), and make a positive, reasonable and constructive post about whether they are right to do those things, whether the law should be changed to allow it, what else can be done, etc. It really would be so much more helpful than being intellectually dishonest in the way that you clearly have been above. It doesn't help you in the long run to deliberately muddy the waters: anyone with any intelligence can see exactly what you're doing, and so it just gives further evidence that car-haters like you will obfuscate and evade like mad whenever presented with inconvenient truths.
Road safety is far too important a subject to tell silly lies about. Please concentrate on improving cyclist safety rather than persecuting and having a go at drivers. Thanks in advance.
@Real World Inhabitant, It's a shame, it really is. We had hoped that our pellucidity would make it impossible, but you have misunderstood the purpose of this blog. This blog is for praising the drivers of Aberdeen Cars, obviously.
As the epitome of the driver of an Aberdeen Car your rectitude deserves praise because you make your points forcefully and most impressively exhibiting some of the best rhetorical devices. We are impressed that you are also quite restrained, only sometimes resorting to personal abuse. So impressed are we that we may, in fact, use some of your points and the way you express them verbatim in some of our future posts (we now own copyright on the text you have submitted, thanks for that). So please keep contributing! You are a prime exemplar of the drivers of Aberdeen Cars and a splendid human being who cares about old ladies and everything. Well done.
We couldn't make stuff like yours up, even if we tried! And now we don't have to!
"It appears that motorists are showing cyclists how red-light jumping is done." More to the point motorist redlighting has become a problem since cyclist redlighting became commonplace. Monkey see.... Monkey do.
"As a result of their reckless behaviour at red lights, drivers risk clocking up over 36 million penalty points.." Yeah. The car redlighters seem to have overlooked a key difference: Cycles don't have numberplates, nor do the riders have licenses to lose. They have both.
Take a look at this which I posted on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VmiXzvdMCQ
Thanks for that, "Anonymous". We've used the video on a new post, which we think you'll like. Thanks also for showing us an amazing way to blame motorist RLJ's on cyclists. Now that's Kung Fu! We'll use that, yes we will.
We have but one criticism of your comment - when you come to suggest that pedal-cycles should have numberplates and their riders should have licences - we don't think you go far enough. We also think that they should have engines (preferably petrol engines, so as to contribute to the economy of Aberdeen "City and Shire"). Moreover, they should have more wheels (four, preferably), a sort-of fairing to protect them from the elements and they should have more comfortable seats (with seat-belts, of course). Then they'll have to pay Road Tax, won't they. And then we wont be scared of them any more, because they'll be the same as everyone else.
WVM illegal and total idiot. Hope you reported him.Car driver could have stopped in time. Unfortunately, a lot of drivers don't seem to know how to treat the cycle safety reservoir.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that motorists are showing cyclists how red-light jumping is done.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Direct Line - Red Alert: Motorists Drive Through 278 Red Traffic Lights a Minute.
22nd August 2011
' 5.2 million drivers have passed through a red traffic signal in the last month
Amber gamblers: Almost one in ten drivers doesn’t slow down for amber lights
New research from Direct Line car insurance reveals that motorists are driving through 12 million red lights each month on British roads – the equivalent of running 278 red lights every minute *.
Over 5.2 million (14 per cent) motorists admit that they drive through an average of two red traffic lights each month. Over 760,000 (two per cent) motorists habitually drive through red lights if they feel the road is clear and there is no traffic.
As a result of their reckless behaviour at red lights, drivers risk clocking up over 36 million penalty points (three for each offence) and fines from fixed penalty notices totalling £721** million every month.
A worryingly high number of motorists, dubbed ‘amber gamblers’, are putting their lives and other road-users at risk by failing to slow down for traffic lights about to turn red. Almost one in ten (nine per cent) motorists don't reduce their speed when approaching amber lights, with four per cent admitting to putting the accelerator to the floor to race through the lights.
Over 1.5 million (four per cent) motorists admit to getting ‘a thrill’ when driving through amber traffic lights that they know will have turned red before they have passed through the crossing or junction. Over 500,000 drivers risk being ‘rear ended’ as they stamp on their brakes as an automatic response whenever they see amber traffic lights.....'
http://is.gd/CYZv5U
backupurl.com/8d8k3b
yeah, but i don't like cyclists so there.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, let's muddy the waters and desperately try to obscure the fact of the matter. It's the only way that evasive, dishonest car-haters know.
ReplyDeleteThe fact of the matter, as you know perfectly well, is that percentage-wise, cyclists jump red lights WAY more often than drivers. You know it, and I know it, so why evade it? Why do car-haters always do this thing of refusing to admit facts which are inconvenient to their "arguments" (and there are many, many such facts)?
When one sees any given driver come up to a red light, they almost always stop. It must be at least 90% of the time and probably a lot more (because as you know, there are lots of cars, much to your obvious anger, and yet most journeys I don't see any cars jumping red lights). Now, when one sees any given cyclist come up to a red light, I'd estimate that at least 50% of the time, they sail straight through. It may even be more than that. Also, when a driver does jump a red light, it's usually just after or just before the red light is on, whereas cyclists tend to just sail through at any time as if the light isn't there at all. You know these things perfectly well, so for once, please debate honestly, rather than trying to be all smart and clever and deliberately disregarding reality because you don't like it.
Instead of trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters, because the facts don't suit your "drivers are always wrong and cyclists are always right", child-like view of things, why not accept that a cyclist is much more likely to jump red lights, and make a nice, mature post about why that is the case? Clearly, many cyclists believe that red lights shouldn't apply to them. Hey, maybe they're right. Why not discuss whether they are? Isn't that much more constructive and helpful than pointlessly pretending that percentage-wise, cyclists don't jump red lights any more than motor vehicles? Who does that approach help, except other delusional car-haters who want to pretend along with you?
So, next time, instead of making silly jibes against drivers which you know full well don't tell the whole story, accept that there are particular laws that cyclists tend to break extremely often (mainly jumping red lights, going the wrong way down one-way streets, and cycling without lights), and make a positive, reasonable and constructive post about whether they are right to do those things, whether the law should be changed to allow it, what else can be done, etc. It really would be so much more helpful than being intellectually dishonest in the way that you clearly have been above. It doesn't help you in the long run to deliberately muddy the waters: anyone with any intelligence can see exactly what you're doing, and so it just gives further evidence that car-haters like you will obfuscate and evade like mad whenever presented with inconvenient truths.
Road safety is far too important a subject to tell silly lies about. Please concentrate on improving cyclist safety rather than persecuting and having a go at drivers. Thanks in advance.
(Let's see if this post is approved....)
@Real World Inhabitant,
DeleteIt's a shame, it really is. We had hoped that our pellucidity would make it impossible, but you have misunderstood the purpose of this blog. This blog is for praising the drivers of Aberdeen Cars, obviously.
As the epitome of the driver of an Aberdeen Car your rectitude deserves praise because you make your points forcefully and most impressively exhibiting some of the best rhetorical devices. We are impressed that you are also quite restrained, only sometimes resorting to personal abuse. So impressed are we that we may, in fact, use some of your points and the way you express them verbatim in some of our future posts (we now own copyright on the text you have submitted, thanks for that). So please keep contributing! You are a prime exemplar of the drivers of Aberdeen Cars and a splendid human being who cares about old ladies and everything. Well done.
We couldn't make stuff like yours up, even if we tried! And now we don't have to!
"It appears that motorists are showing cyclists how red-light jumping is done." More to the point motorist redlighting has become a problem since cyclist redlighting became commonplace. Monkey see.... Monkey do.
ReplyDelete"As a result of their reckless behaviour at red lights, drivers risk clocking up over 36 million penalty points.." Yeah. The car redlighters seem to have overlooked a key difference: Cycles don't have numberplates, nor do the riders have licenses to lose. They have both.
Take a look at this which I posted on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VmiXzvdMCQ
Thanks for that, "Anonymous". We've used the video on a new post, which we think you'll like. Thanks also for showing us an amazing way to blame motorist RLJ's on cyclists. Now that's Kung Fu! We'll use that, yes we will.
DeleteWe have but one criticism of your comment - when you come to suggest that pedal-cycles should have numberplates and their riders should have licences - we don't think you go far enough. We also think that they should have engines (preferably petrol engines, so as to contribute to the economy of Aberdeen "City and Shire"). Moreover, they should have more wheels (four, preferably), a sort-of fairing to protect them from the elements and they should have more comfortable seats (with seat-belts, of course). Then they'll have to pay Road Tax, won't they. And then we wont be scared of them any more, because they'll be the same as everyone else.