Most prolific red light jumpers ..

Forums › Off topic › Most prolific red light jumpers ..

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#966846 14-Jan-2014 14:42

KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

I agree with a lot of this, in the US you can turn left on a Red.

You will get a big fine in the US for doing that.

It maybe right turn or left it confuses me a simple Kiwi but there is a law where you can turn against a red in some circumstances, they showed it on Top Gear as well, they reckon it was the US only contribution to civilisation :P

Yes its the right turn because they drive on the right :-))))

You should go to South Africa. You dont stop at the traffic lights at night. Instead when you see a red light you slow down and approach it slowly until its green. If you get to the intersection and it has still not changed, you look left/right, put your foot down, and you go through.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#966847 14-Jan-2014 14:44

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:
Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ:

I agree with a lot of this, in the US you can turn left on a Red.

You will get a big fine in the US for doing that.

It maybe right turn or left it confuses me a simple Kiwi but there is a law where you can turn against a red in some circumstances, they showed it on Top Gear as well, they reckon it was the US only contribution to civilisation :P

Yes its the right turn because they drive on the right :-))))

You should go to South Africa. You dont stop at the traffic lights at night. Instead when you see a red light you slow down and approach it slowly until its green. If you get to the intersection and it has still not changed, you look left/right and you go through.

We have some friends from SA, they couldn't believe it when they got here and we stopped at lights with our car doors unlocked and windows opened, and let our kids walk or cycle to school.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#966848 14-Jan-2014 14:47

KiwiNZ:

We have some friends from SA, they couldn't believe it when they got here and we stopped at lights with our car doors unlocked and windows opened, and let our kids walk or cycle to school.

Unbelievable hey! We live in great country.

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#966937 14-Jan-2014 16:08

What I would like to see:

1) More cycle lanes, and where possible make these on the inside of parked cars. That requires a lot of space, but is the best solution where the space is available.
2) Ensure that the cycle lanes are kept free from obstructions. A heavy penalty for parking or otherwise obstructing a cycle lane.
3) Single file only riding in a cycle lane. We don't drive cars two-abreast in a single lane, and I can't see any real need for two-abreast cycling.
4) Heavy fines for vehicles other than cycles driving in the cycle lane, and a fine for riding outside of the cycle land on a bike if there is no reason to do so.
5) More fines for dangerous behavior - either towards cyclists or by them. I regularly see some terrible stuff by cyclists including talking on mobile phones while cycling, pulling out into traffic from a cycle lane without warning or indication, or riding in the middle of the lane at well below the speed limit and not allowing cars to pass. The law says cycles need to keep as left as possible.

While I would like to see some kind of identifier on cycles, I am not sure how practical it is.

Cyclists will argue that most of them own cars too, and already 'pay for the roads' - which is somewhat fair, but I think the ACC component of vehicle registrations are more of the issue. Motorcycle owners (even ones who might only ride their bike a few times a month) pay a higher registration fee because statistically they are more likely to be injured. Cyclists are too, and therefore should also have to pay towards that risk. It's difficult in that someone who owns many vehicles (but can only drive/ride one at a time) essentially over-contributes their fair share, but moving the risk component outside of registration creates it's own complexities and issues.

Twitter: ajobbins

GregV

928 posts

Ultimate Geek

#966949 14-Jan-2014 16:32

ajobbins: What I would like to see:
3) Single file only riding in a cycle lane. We don't drive cars two-abreast in a single lane, and I can't see any real need for two-abreast cycling.

Agree with your other points, but disagree with this one. I biked home with a workmate two-abreast one day last week. Fortunately the roads were very quiet, and we managed to go a couple of k's side-by-side on the road, as there were no vehicles at all to avoid. It was great, being able to have a conversation while we were cycling along.
Imagine if your car trips had to be taken with your wife/partner/other sitting in the back seat behind you, rather than the passenger seat beside you. Kinda hard to hold a conversation like this.
This is the most frustrating part of the big cycle-ways that have been put in at great expense around the country. They are too narrow to ride side-by-side with someone, forcing you to play follow-the-leader. It kills the social aspect of cycling.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#966955 14-Jan-2014 16:49

GregV:
ajobbins: What I would like to see:
3) Single file only riding in a cycle lane. We don't drive cars two-abreast in a single lane, and I can't see any real need for two-abreast cycling.

Agree with your other points, but disagree with this one. I biked home with a workmate two-abreast one day last week. Fortunately the roads were very quiet, and we managed to go a couple of k's side-by-side on the road, as there were no vehicles at all to avoid. It was great, being able to have a conversation while we were cycling along.
Imagine if your car trips had to be taken with your wife/partner/other sitting in the back seat behind you, rather than the passenger seat beside you. Kinda hard to hold a conversation like this.
This is the most frustrating part of the big cycle-ways that have been put in at great expense around the country. They are too narrow to ride side-by-side with someone, forcing you to play follow-the-leader. It kills the social aspect of cycling.

I agree when there is no vehicles it is OK to ride two abreast.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#966957 14-Jan-2014 16:52

must say there are a lot that seem to have a lot to say (myself included) but don't have any facts to back up some of their statement.

Mark your research was well done but as has been stated how much of that money spent was on off road cycles including events, mountain biking, kids off road etc etc. The amount caused by collisions with cars is minimal considering the amount to the end of june 2012 for vehicle related injuries totaling 457 million of which only 68% was funded by registration etc I may be wrong here but the extra funding comes from employers levy and general taxation meaning just about everyone makes that up including those that ride a bicycle or walk.

However those of you that keep pushing this point, people riding bicycles don't directly get levied like motorists but do pay at some stage regardless whether they own vehicles or not.

The figures can be gathered from here , relevant to my post are pages pages 67 and 75, There may well be other info but its a big read and I only browsed it.

ok onto funding from roads, local roads are mostly funded by rates which we all pay for either directly or by rent so although people riding bikes on road don't directly get levied they are paying. This is without looking at what most of the money is currently spent on which is repairs and maintenance, now it is reasonably obvious to most that bicycles do little to no damage but I'm happy to be proven wrong on this as well. I posted a link to what the roading in Auckland looks like a couple of pages back.

The problem with trolling threads like this is we label people and then stereotype them and post ill informed comments designed to get people on side and ridicule others that don't agree but that is forums I guess and Geekzone is generally well behaved but little is achieved. If you read the posts there are generally those that have a perception cyclists are wrong and won't change and then those they try and give some balance to the topic but ignored, mostly, but I, as stated , am happy to admit to being wrong if any of these claims have some links to facts otherwise I'll keep thinking as I do know.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#966959 14-Jan-2014 16:56

GregV:
... I biked home with a workmate two-abreast one day last week ... It was great, being able to have a conversation while we were cycling along.

You can get a radio communication set, like motorcyclists and professional cyclists (communicating with a trainer) use ... better yet, just buy a car, not only is "conversation" easier, but you also get a comfortable seat, a radio, a heater / air-conditioning, (usually) proper storage / luggage space, weather protection, don't need to take a shower and change clothes at your destination, ... ;-)

Imagine if your car trips had to be taken with your wife/partner/other sitting in the back seat behind you, rather than the passenger seat beside you. Kinda hard to hold a conversation like this.

It's not hard at all and it should be no different to them sitting in the front seat (unless you drive a bus and they are sitting in the back seat) since you're supposed to be looking at the road anyway, not the passenger. Even if it was hard, for some people it would be a blessing, especially if there is a closeable, sound-proof petition betwen the front and back seats as well. ;-)

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#966961 14-Jan-2014 16:57

KiwiNZ:
GregV:
ajobbins: What I would like to see:
3) Single file only riding in a cycle lane. We don't drive cars two-abreast in a single lane, and I can't see any real need for two-abreast cycling.

Agree with your other points, but disagree with this one. I biked home with a workmate two-abreast one day last week. Fortunately the roads were very quiet, and we managed to go a couple of k's side-by-side on the road, as there were no vehicles at all to avoid. It was great, being able to have a conversation while we were cycling along.
Imagine if your car trips had to be taken with your wife/partner/other sitting in the back seat behind you, rather than the passenger seat beside you. Kinda hard to hold a conversation like this.
This is the most frustrating part of the big cycle-ways that have been put in at great expense around the country. They are too narrow to ride side-by-side with someone, forcing you to play follow-the-leader. It kills the social aspect of cycling.

I agree when there is no vehicles it is OK to ride two abreast.

A point on riding two a breast as its another one people throw around. Where there are two lanes organised cyclists will (sometimes) "take the lane"making motorists aware of them and stopping them trying to squeeze past.

If you look at a lane or a road have a think about how wide it is, how wide the vehicle is and how wide a cyclist is and how much room is left to pass. i would suggest very little meaning you have to cross the centre line or into the other lane, if there are vehicles coming then it isn't safe to pass period. Most people get annoyed that cyclists hold them up but mostly we are talking seconds not minutes. When we talk about riding single file most people will say they can squeeze past but in reality it isn't safe to do so.

Having said that some cyclists and groups aren't interested in others but certainly cyclists aren't alone in this.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

dafman

3927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#966965 14-Jan-2014 16:59

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/VIDEO-Cyclists-near-misses-on-Auckland-commute/tabid/673/articleID/39954/Default.aspx

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#966969 14-Jan-2014 17:03

dafman: http://www.radiolive.co.nz/VIDEO-Cyclists-near-misses-on-Auckland-commute/tabid/673/articleID/39954/Default.aspx

yes its scary stuff but there are any number of video's on youtube showing stupid cycling so hopefully we don't end up with a tit for tat video show :)

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#966970 14-Jan-2014 17:04

GregV: Agree with your other points, but disagree with this one. I biked home with a workmate two-abreast one day last week. Fortunately the roads were very quiet, and we managed to go a couple of k's side-by-side on the road, as there were no vehicles at all to avoid. It was great, being able to have a conversation while we were cycling along.
Imagine if your car trips had to be taken with your wife/partner/other sitting in the back seat behind you, rather than the passenger seat beside you. Kinda hard to hold a conversation like this.
This is the most frustrating part of the big cycle-ways that have been put in at great expense around the country. They are too narrow to ride side-by-side with someone, forcing you to play follow-the-leader. It kills the social aspect of cycling.

I know what you're saying, but comparing to a conversation with someone in the seat next to you in a car isn't really the same thing. Each cyclist is in control of their own vehicle, and by nature of being more vulnerable should probably be concentrating a bit more. Perhaps a rule that could be applies to inner city streets or places deemed more risky.

Twitter: ajobbins

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#966977 14-Jan-2014 17:11

Buzz Bumble:
KiwiNZ:
... as you cannot levy a tax against a child that does not earn.

They already do ... it's called a "Student Loan". ;-)

Cobblers! Student loans are a highly subsidised concessional loan scheme, which actually costs the Government (=taxpayers) hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Plus, when you do have to pay it back, what you pay is directly related to paying off the balance of the highly subsidised loan. It isn't remotely a tax.

Buzz Bumble

332 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#967049 14-Jan-2014 19:16

JimmyH:
Buzz Bumble:
KiwiNZ:
... as you cannot levy a tax against a child that does not earn.

They already do ... it's called a "Student Loan". ;-)

Cobblers! Student loans ... It isn't remotely a tax.

Ummm ... winking smiley = joking.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8