Linas.P

Waiting doesn't make a difference, the pattern is like: if ignition is in OFF position, then fires once if ignition in ACC or IG position then doesn't fire at all As well, when it is in OFF position and I try to start it, it fires once and then stalls, the car by default goes into IG position and therefore would not start. However, if I release brake, turn the car off and try it again from OFF, it would fire again every time. Note as well, that by manually squirting the fuel into cylinders engine actually runs. So the stall is most likely because fuel get's cut. But at the same time it doesn't mean no fuel get delivered at all, aster trying multiple times cylinders get wet and there is fuel smell from exhaust. It is definitely immobiliser telling ECU "kill the engine" for some reason. What that reason is - I can't figure out. What locksmith told me is that if key would be wrong it won't fire at all. And as for wrong fuel mixture - it should start, but would run rough... it could stall for sure, but not like that where it doesn't even start.

I would say - yes and no... same as diesel was both good and bad. Diesel is still most efficient and environmentally friendly fuel for long distance driving, as long as one maintain same speed, low and constant RPM diesel is great and it is less polluting than petrol. Where it went downstairs? In early 2000's pollution was all about CO2 - politicians misunderstood the benefits of diesel and made purely political move (not based on any science) to incentivise it across the board and thus being able to claim they reduced CO2 emissions. Then people started buying into diesel because of lower tax and higher claimed MPG and using it inappropriately for short drives in the city. Politicians did not care and car makers didn't want to do the right thing and educate consumers... decade later it was other groups which really made it public and only then politicians jumped onto bandwagon demonising the fuel despite it being basically their fault to promote and incentivise it incorrectly. Diesel is right fuel, just used for wrong purpose. It is exactly the same with BEVs just in reverse. BEVs are great when they are used strictly for short distance driving and come with tiny battery and 50 Miles range, so somebody living in the city and doing say 20 miles per day BEV is perfect solution. Where it goes down hill? That is long range driving where it not only sucks because of charging, but as well because such cars require large batteries which are insanely polluting even before car rolls over from factory lot. Yet as expected politicians blindly jumped onto band wagon promoting BEVs across the board and going as far as banning ICEVs without understanding anything about the impact. As before car makers are not interested educating customers and trying to profit whilst they can Imagine how much worse diesel gate would have been if politicians would have banned petrol in early 2000s to promote diesel, but that is what is happening with BEV - they taking extreme measures without understanding the consequences. Note as well - average BEVs claimed to have 30% lower emissions over lifetime compared to average ICEVs. This comes from European Environment Agency study is probably most comprehensive yet independent study to the day. The issue is that this statement both correct in isolation and highly misleading for general ignorant public. First of all, what general joe thinks is that BEV = 0 emissions, which obviously false, the step above that are the people who look at the study and say "aha it is 30% better even after all things being considered", sadly not true either... and all because of this "average" part. So what is the "average" they have used? They more or less checked the cars on sale and figured out what average pollution will be, for Europe the average ICEV is ~2L mid-size vehicle (in UK they used Mondeo 2.2 Ecoboost as example) and what exactly average BEV is? Here is an issue - study was published in 2018, completed in 2017 and they used data between 2002 and 2016. As you may guess average BEV for this period was not what is selling today, they mostly had short ranges and small batteries - Nissan Leaf would be representative of "average" title... so if they say that Nissan Leaf is 30% more economical than Mondeo 2.2 Ecoboost I have not issue with that.... but so is Golf 1.0 TSFI... What they certainly don't mean is that Tesla Model X is more environmentally friendly, because it isn't - it is actually horrible for the environment because of it's massive battery. Other thing to note - most of what we consider "gas guzzlers" in ICEV world don't much miles, people who drive a lot usually have fuel efficient cars. So this skews it even further - most miles are done in ICEVs who are more economical than "average". Now it is very clear where the issues is - because our brainless politicians promoting BEVs as a single solution, this means most people are buying into "long range" BEVs, which are bad for environment, same as driving diesel car in the city for short distance is bad. As well, they misunderstanding or deliberately ignoring the what study actually says and going with 30% reduction claim, despite something like Tesla Model X or Porsche Taycan Turbo S (most stupid name ever), or to be honest any BEV with large battery being actually worse for environment than "average" ICEV. I think at some point down the line we will have BEV bans on driving on motorway or long distance, similar as we have bans on diesels entering the city centres. In short - I don't know if BEVs going to be like diesel gate, but by all that is happening so far it seems they will take what is good solution (like diesel was) and implement it poorly, therefore not reducing pollution at all.

I am not sure petition going to solve it, but you have a point - why should we paying same for less product? If it is indeed "more environmentally friendly" then it should cost slightly less to incentivise using inferior product over more pollution one. That isn't actually correct, people just going to use fuel anyway, regardless of how it is taxed. However, assuming that E10 is more environmentally friendly it should have lower penalty for using it, thus incentivising people to use "greener" fuel, not more of it.

I made a point that to drive a car one has to pay a lot for the "privilege" and yet are harshly punished for simple mistakes - you countered that cyclists are tax payers two, which is just not comparable. Electric vehicles will soon pay just as much if not more, so indeed tax is irrelevant. I just don't understand the hate towards the drivers in this country and how people always want harsher measures, but then complains that if drivers stops driving we will have £35bn hole in the budget. Second point I guess it is difference of perspective or attention to detail, I do notice other motorists being retarded as well, not indicating, driving on flat tyres, blown lights etc. And may I just pay more attentions to other people doing wrong things or not following the rules. As for knowing when pedestrian will want to cross the road - I can't agree, most are not aware of their surroundings and don't know themselves what they will do next themselves. So driver has no way to know what will happen. I have already copied a video which I think summarises the issues quite well. Term "waiting to cross" is simply to abstract to be followed and I have issue with that. If "waiting to cross" would be defined properly and would follow same instructions as when crossing the zebra crossing (that is stop, look around, make sure car stops, then cross), then I would have no issue - I would look at pedestrian and if they stopped on the side of the road and looking around I would assume they are "waiting to cross", however if they walking towards the road stuck in their phone screen, then I won't bother. I would note that for safety of everyone drivers should be focused on what is happening on the road, not what pedestrians are doing around the road, with exception of pedestrians literally waiting to cross on the side of the road, where it is legal to cross. As well I have issue with wording in new guidance for cyclist and finally the introduction of "hierarchy", because as I said where is hierarchy especially based on flawed premise, then there could be no respect. All in all, most of my issue are nit-picking, ideological, logical etc. I think rules are alright overall, but not perfect, new wording changing the rules little but generally eroding good will and personal responsibility for all road users and replacing it with rights and hierarchy. Yes normally hierarchies are based on competence, most strategically minded soldier will be general, most experience managers will CEO, best doctor will manage the hospital... that is normal competency based hierarchy and one expects to be managed, told what to do by somebody who is more experience then they are. New road users hierarchy is some woke nonsense and would be equivalent to intern, making final decision in critical matters (in this case life and death), because they are more "vulnerable" than their more experienced colleagues. Motorists are indeed more competent on average, than cyclists and pedestrians, simply because they must have qualifications by law and other groups don't. Lorry drivers would be indeed even more competent, because they have extra training to get. Pedestrians are definitely least qualified and thus should follow the orders rather than making their own decisions. If anything new rules hurts pedestrians in my opinion - because now the cars will stop for them and will expect them to cross, putting pedestrians on pressure... definitely not something we needed. And those who never looked before crossing will continue not to look... so it won't help anyone really.

That is probably what is called debate/argument... Not really sure why you would expect that this forum should be dedicated only to positive experiences about Lexus and nothing else but that? Highway code change impacts us all, so not sure what is wrong debating it, regardless on which side of the fence you consider yourself to be. But I take your point - some people feel threatened by any intellectual debate or argument and it is not limited to this forum, I know people in real life who say basically - "look that is my opinion and I don't want to debate it and I don't care how wrong or right it is, or what you have to say about it". I think that is very dangerous thing to do, because that remove any possibility of ever thinking through your own opinions and thus simply being right where you are right, but wrong where you are wrong. As people can't know everything this inevitably means they will be either mostly indifferent or wrong, except of some domain where they have expertise and are right. I am on other hand always welcome debate or argument, even if my position is being challenged I rather get through that, be proven wrong and know I was wrong, than being ignorant about it. So just to be clear - argument/debate for me is purely intellectual exercise, I am not doing to offend anyone, nor to get any favours, this is not personal attack on anyone either... perhaps only challenge to ignorance if there is any.

Based on the two towns Antony mentioned. I can't say this is exactly the spot, but the road between the towns is of this particular design so it is kind of irrelevant. Please define "close pass", when it is the case of there being separate space to the side of the road demarcated by the line, or you suggesting lorry should have treated the cyclist still as full size car here and go fully to other side of the road endangering everyone there (even if just theoretically), or if there was no space to overtake like this then travel at extremely dangerous 10-20MPH on what is 60MPH road causing significant delays and risking multiple car pile-up? Where your entitlement for causing such delays for multiple motorists, just because of one cyclists comes from? Again Anthony said "brushed" so I assume some sort of contact, not just close pass and that indeed would be completely unacceptable, provided it wasn't the cyclist who suddenly turned toward the truck. I would mention again that there is an alternative, the path on the side is dual use so, it can always be used. And yes I know cyclists could still cycle on the road even when there are cycling path/lane on the side of it - but this comes down to personal responsibility and what is right to do for yourself. I value my life more than being right after being hit by the lorry, so I would not cycle there myself... even if I would be right and lorry driver would get a "visit". Again - this is weird entitlement - "I am right so I will put myself in danger", which is as well why I think wording in new rules is so dangerous. Besides I am not suggesting Anthony is being "entitle here", but you are...

Great work and thanks for pictures! One thing to note - you had some never to work with airbag without disconnecting the battery, I would certainly advise to disconnect it and wait at least 90s, before working on anything electrical... and even more - around the airbags.

Me saying that cyclist/pedestrians should be responsible for themselves and more careful does not excuse poor driving, and if that is true that lorry "brushed" you then I am not justifying it. That said A43 between the places you mentioned looks like this: I can't see how the lorry could have brushed you, considering there is extra space on the sides meaning it didn't even need to overtake you. That said the "sides" are not proper cycling lines and are very narrow, it is certainly poor design. On one hand it doesn't provide much space for cyclist, on other hand it kind of implies that cars don't need to give extra space because cyclists in almost separate lane, so it seems fine to continue in the lane which would be very close to cyclist. I honestly would put this on the road design here, more than on the lorry. And my honest opinion - I would rather be shot in the head than cycle on this suicide road. This would be one of the last places where I would ever want to cycle. If somehow by mistake I would end-up on this road and this would be my only way home, then I would definitely cycle on the pavement to the side... don't care that it is illegal, don't care if I get fine... I rather pay £40-80 than die on this road. This is based on all signs seems to be national limit, sometimes restricted to 50MPH... literally worst place to cycle ever. I would even say cycling should be prohibited on this road for safety reasons. Actually, upon further inspections signs allows the to cycle on pavement here (shared use), so that is definitely the only way I would ever cycle there. Although there is no reason why that road can't look like this: There is plenty of budget left from £37bn (£33bn of which never goes to the roads). But obviously in this case I would expect it to be mandatory to use the cycling lanes and for cyclist to be prohibited of using the road.

The locksmiths don't think so... although they haven't even bothered to come to check it out based on description of the issue, so there may still be a chance. As far as rodent getting through the wiring, I don't think so, certainly nothing visible and I have looked it over quite a bit when cleaning the grounding points. The insulation is quite crusty, but wires seems ok. Besides, don't forget that car was running fine for nearly two weeks... if it would have been rodents chewing through the harness, then I would expect Christmas tree and no start from the beginning... based on some receipts I found in the car it seems to have been running at least until late 21/10/2021 and I bought car on 27/11/2021, so it sat for no more than a month. Key from Lexus is £460 and that isn't in itself an issue as log as it fixes the issue, but there are no guarantees for that. The electrician, is now my next step, because as I said it goes back into removing dash, using oscilloscopes and way to complex diagnostics for me. Some of the locksmiths have recommended some electricians for me, so will be calling to discuss this issue tomorrow.

Mostly inappropriate comparisons and conflating unrelated issues. I drivers does not need to care what cyclists thinks, overtaking the slow moving cyclist is default option, unless for some reason it is unsafe to do so. It is on the driver to decide when it is safe, all the rest of the rules being applicable - ultimately driver bares responsibility for overtaking cyclists safely and thus the driver devices when it is safe to do so and when it is not. No it is you saying that 17 years old neighbour isn't as safe and that is not valid comparison. To begin with she is safer than 17 years old neighbour who cycles and doesn't have license... that would be more valid way of comparing. The cyclists who drive are drivers as far as comparison is concerned. To simplify - people who have driving licences vs. people who don't - yes sure there is overlap between drivers and cyclists, but at least in theory 100% of drivers must have driving license... and in theory again 0% of cyclists must have it... how many of them actually do have it? who knows maybe 50%, there was highly questionable claim of 81% (coming from none other but Boris Johnson), but without any evidence to back it-up. Point is - cyclist don't need license, driver must have it, so there is a difference. Even more so applicable for pedestrians. Same goes for your next point - somebody who got license and have no further qualifications for decades is better judging situation than somebody who never had one. On average drivers are better qualified that cyclists and pedestrians, it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I am sure there are expectational cyclists, who are as well drivers and who are experts when it comes to rules an best practices, but your statement almost implies all the cyclists are like that, but all the drivers are just lazy and never learns anything past the driving test when they are 17... Yes cars have capacity to kill the people, questions is how much of that is fault of the driver and how much it is fault of those killed. I know it is not politically correct to blame the "victims", but likewise we don't blame the pavement when somebody hits it head first after jumping from 15th floor. So I think it is fair to ask the question - who was at fault, was it driver or was it pedestrian who stepped in front of the car? Perhaps it was pedestrian who by being reckless died from his own poor judgement, or maybe it was cyclist who was undertaking truck which was indicating to turn left? I am not saying it is always the case, but at the same time attributing all deaths to drivers is false as well. At very least what we should not be doing - is asking those so called "vulnerable" to put themselves into more harms way and teaching them their "right", that time would be better spent teaching them the risks... but you see that is not "popular" nowadays, because why take responsibility for your own safety when other can be responsible?

That is fundamentally flawed argument... yes some drivers are cyclists too and all of us are tax payers - all of us! Yet only the taxpayers who as well drive have to pay a lot more, only drivers pays a lot more... £37 billions more! So don't conflate generally paying taxes and paying additional road tax as all the same. Secondly, jumping red light not to "get out of the way for drivers", but simply because they could not be bothered to follow the rules. If they indeed do it genuinely not to block the way for the drivers, then I doubt anyone would have an issue with that, importantly they don't even need to jump the lights to give a way. I always give a way for drivers as soon as possible and that usually is matter of seconds. One does not need to cycle for miles before there is gap on the side of the road to stop and give a way. If you ever stuck behind the cyclist for more than a minute, this is not because there was no space to let you pass, but because cyclist don't want you passing, or could not care to be inconvenienced (which in theory should be good practice) to let you pass. I have never seen the road where it would be genuinely impossible to let the driver pass for miles... and if there is then I would likely try to avoid cycling on such road at all costs. Indeed "hierarchy" attempts to level out the risk... and how it does it? By making pedestrians/cyclist more important, giving them more rights and putting more responsibilities on drivers. I understand what they are trying to do, I just don't agree with the methods and I don't agree with hierarchy based on vulnerability, because such hierarchy is fundamentally flawed. Hierarchies must be made on the basis competence, because such hierarchies are the only ones that could be beneficial i.e. making people who are most able/qualified to make decisions most important. And indeed the whole point may be to reduce the injuries, but because they are trying to achieve it in fundamentally flawed way and putting responsibility on somebody who inherently poorly placed to be responsible for others who are not qualified to be responsible even for themselves I don't think it will succeed. There are basically only two possible outcomes - either drivers will have to drive at walking pace, stop before junction in advance just in case and drive behind cyclists for miles - or, it will actually result in more injuries and deaths because people who are not qualified to make decision are now encouraged to walk into the road and marshal the traffic behind them by cycling in the middle. I don't know what "genius" though of this idea - let's encourage vulnerable to take more risk to make themselves more visible, because that "is going to reduce deaths and injuries"!

Let's not try to hide the true meaning of what they wanted to implement. They literally wanted to implement "hierarchy" and that is what they did. I have issue with idea of hierarchy, but I don't have the issue with the word itself - I think it accurately describes the intention. It would not make it better if they would have chosen some other word, which would be more politically correct. What these new rules does - they exactly put more importance and gives more rights for users higher up the hierarchy. So it is not wrong choice of wording, this is literally why it is controversial... it does indeed shift the balance to give more rights to some users and give more responsibilities for others. The reason you have not seen that is because it previously wasn't the general guidance, but now it is, so you will see increasingly more of that. I haven't see it either, but now I have seen several reports of cyclists abusing new rules and deliberately using new guidance to annoy drivers. Sure enough - they are exceptions, but it just shows the issue with the rules, it leaves it to cyclist discretion and assumes their will use this discretion in good will, without realising that there might be some small minority which won't use it with good intentions.

I think it would be hard to argue the link between jumping red lights and other crimes, however there is link between petty crimes and serious crimes i.e. most serious criminals start somewhere, shoplifting, burglaries, robberies and then all out murder. If the person is topped early on for shop lifting and punished fairly, then it will discourage not only that person to commit further crimes, but others as well. However, there is proven link between unpunished crimes and promotion of further and more serious crimes. Perhaps red light jumping does not lead into burglary, but I would argue it promotes disregard for rules braking at very least on the road. That is how human psychology works... it seems. Again - I want to point out how differently we treat cyclist and drivers when it comes to rules - drivers despite paying a lot of money for "privilege" to drive are as well punished harshly for smallest mistakes with zero tolerance, whereas cyclist pays nothing, are required to know nothing and are not punished for any, even deliberate, rule braking. I think there is one point where I can agree - it is important not only what laws are broken, but who is breaking them. Because cyclists are generally nuisance on the roads, then potentially motorists looks at any mistakes they make much more seriously - "not only they taking a ***** for 5 miles not moving to let traffic pass them, but they as well cycle through the red as if it doesn't apply to them"... So potentially drivers are more upset seeing them get away with this, then it would be justified just purely on risk/safety/practicality perspective.

Just to catch-up with them 200m later driving in the middle of the lane and not moving to the side? Or you secretly advocating against "road hierarchy"?

There used to be "green arrow" signs in eastern Europe as well, basically one would be able to turn right at the red light, but that was specific rule and there was a special sign - it was not based on user discretion like here. I do agree as well that not all rules make sense and that when they are broken sometimes they may not harm anyone. However you making assumption that cyclist driving through the red "does not hurt anyone", which I don't think is objective at all. Going back to my point - even if they don't kill people literally, then at very lest they annoy drivers around them by blatantly disregarding the rules and getting away with it. As Philip mentioned - sometimes "zero tolerance" or as MET calls it "total policing" is not about how small or big crime is, it is about general "rule of law", if some groups, people can get away with some crimes, then it overall encourages everyone to offend and be dismissive of the rules. In this case it is very clear that cyclists can get away with a lot, but yet they expect same respect and be treated as equal road users. You just can't have it both - either you follow all the rules, or you don't, but then you are not as respected as other users who do follow them.

I have checked some of the tests, however I am not sure all active tests are even available on my Techstream or maybe I don't know how to get to them. Either way - the ones I was able to do all checks out fine. Contacted locksmiths and basically they don't even want to come after I explain the issue, probably for a better because it would likely be waste of their time an my time. What they said basically is that it isn't key/immobiliser issue, according to 3 different locksmiths (which probably can't be coincidence) if there would be key/immobiliser issue, then the car would not even attempt to start, won't even allow to turn on ignition. So they reckon it is electrical fault, something along the lines of damaged ECUs, fuses or wiring. Now I am sure fuses are good, I have tired different ECU... so what is left to check is wiring... and that is where I was stuck at the beginning of this thread... diagnosing electrical issue in such complex car like IS250 is nightmare! I need to have dash out, pull wire harnesses out and then it requires specialised testing equipment and skill set.. oscilloscopes and all sorts of fancy stuff.

Not sure how defending law breaking is "logical/practical" view and saying that people are angered by witnessing blatant disregard for rules is "snowflakery" and "feeling over the facts"?! In such case we should as well disregard all the rules and laws, which don't allow for most efficient "practical" use i.e. cars mounting kerb to make left turn, speeding, driving on bus lanes "because they empty" and basically anything that would allow the drivers to be at their destination quicker. And I do understand that there is no logic behind some of the rules, like the ones which were just introduced... sadly they are what they are. If we argue that they need to be changed, then I agree, but if argument is that "let's just ignore them", then I don't think this is workable/agreeable proposition.

Again slippery slope argument: "some drivers jumping red light in some instances could be safer and quicker for everyone", ridiculous suggestion - both for drivers and for cyclists, if we leave it for users discretion then we may as well switch to "indian style" traffic where anyone can do anything they like. Red light is not guidance - it is literally a law, so it is not up for interpretation (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.36 - Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions and Directions 2002 regulations 10 and 36(1), road users must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red."). As well, it is kind of funny (sad) how people feel strongly about punishing drivers, but very lenient on cyclists... If driver does it - criminal! if cyclist does it - "ohhh whatever didn't hurt anybody"! Again - if we want mutual respect and care, we can't treat these groups so differently. Finally, I understand this is deliberate - the longer we spend bickering who is right, the less time we have to make the government accountable to deliver what is needed for everyone. For example if we would have fully separated and mandated cycling lanes everywhere, then we wouldn't even have this discussion - cyclist would have their infrastructure and their rules and drivers will have theirs, and there would be no conflict of interest or getting in each other way.

I have different view - rules are rules, doesn't matter if I like them or not, they are still rules. I am not saying that ack of cyclist ignoring the red light is dangerous in itself, however it shows cyclist attitude to the rules. As you said - you won't cycle through the red and I won't cycle through the red, so for some reason we choose to follow the rules, meaning they are not irrelevant, but many cyclist just feels like their are above the law. The argument you are making is slippery slope - so if cyclists can look around and cross if they feel it is safe (not sure what entitles them to make such decision), then drivers can do it as well. I have certainly been in situation where I am stopped at the lights in the middle on nowhere in the middle of the night and it would be safe for me to ignore the lights and just drive through, but I didn't because those are the rules. Now if the rules would change, perhaps removing advanced stop line and instead allowing cyclists to cycle through the red in certain junctions (in some T-Junctions I feel it would be fine), then I would support that and I would not mind it, however that is not the case - it is rather that cyclists feel entitled to take such decisions upon themselves. And we going back to the same argument - it angers, demotivates, infuriates and insults rules abiding drivers. It is not the question why they get annoyed - it is simply the fact that they do. And annoyed drivers = worse drivers = the act of breaking the law in front of other promotes bad behaviour and mistrusts and disrespect between these two groups of road users. It is issue of principle. As well it is ridiculous to suggest that cyclists cycling through the red doesn't warrant the beep - perhaps it is pedestrian crossing the road in the other side of junction, or driver turning right who will pay more attention to the place where horn is coming from and will realise it is cyclist coming towards them. And again just from my personal experience - I have seen dozen times when cyclist dangerously move between cars in junction and nearly get knocked over going through the red, or causes dangerous situation where cars have to brake in order to avoid hitting them, this is again commonplace occurrence. So again it is ridiculous to suggest this is "anger issue" - yes drivers are angry, because they suppose to be, because somebody blatantly disregards the rules. And how this all relates to this topic... well - directly! The new HC rules encourages cyclists to behave in certain way on assumption that cyclists generally are law abiding and won't misuse them (because way of misusing the rules are endless here)... whereas in practice cyclists are the group who rarely follow the rules, so giving them this further discretion is really bad idea. Imagine following situation - cyclist dangerously driver through the red and driver beeps partially to went (justified) anger, partially to warn other about this dangerous rule breakers, the cyclist is typical lycra nut, shows the middle finger to everyone watching and cycles through - 15 second later light turns green and cars inevitable catches-up with cyclists. Now because this nutcase cyclist want's to "return the favour", he cycles in the middle of the lane deliberately preventing driver to overtake to show who is the "boss here". And there is nothing you can do about it - new rules literally suggests and leaves it to cyclist discretion to do it! So this giving of extra power to people who are basically unaccountable for their actions is asking for trouble!

I don't need to provide any evidence - I have experienced it myself and any honest person would agree that they see cyclists jumping red lights at very single junction. This is not some sort of isolated event. If you stand with camera at literally any junction with cyclists traffic you are guaranteed to see this. In comparison I rarely see drivers driving through red light (because there are consequences). Not saying it doesn't happen, but that is maybe 1 time per month, compared to 20 times per day. The article Philip provided highlights exactly that - somebody monitored the junction in Manchester and documented that cyclist disregard the rules there, would they have monitored any other junction anywhere else in UK, they would have witnessed exactly the same thing as Philip said. It is not like cyclist disregard the lights only on that single particular junction in Manchester, but don't do it anywhere else. The only reason why this is not more widely reported is because this is such a commonplace event that it is simply not sensational enough to report. Don't forget that newspapers are looking for sensational stories to sell or get clicks and when people read cyclist blatantly disregard traffic lights and rules... that just doesn't surprise anyone - "yeah... I am seeing that every day - not newsworthy". Other thing to note - the way drivers drive through the red most of the times is fundamentally different. Drivers most of the time approach the junction at green or amber, misjudge how long it is going to last (which is easy, because some amber lights are 5s, some are 1s) and when red light turns on they are just meters from lights, when stopping is already too late and thus they continue trough. I am not justifying it - it is still offence and they probably should have judged situation better as started slowing down as soon as amber light-up. But situation where driver see red and chooses to drive through it is extremely rare, I have never seen that happening except of videos from police where they pursuing stolen car or some criminal... and they disregard the lights. But comparing normal drivers with fleeing criminals is pointless and in normal driving this almost never happens. Cyclist on other hand are different and that is very important - they clearly see red light, they stop by it and then they consciously decide they can ignore it and just leisurely pedal through. This is what I consider blatant disregard and literally insulting for all the drivers witnessing it... no surprise this leaves all the drivers behind the lights fuming. It isn't rare where drivers waiting behind the lights beep and are as well shown a middle finger. When I drive in London I literally see this happening dozen time every single day. And if you say drivers should not be beeping - I disagree, horn is meant to be as a warning for potentially dangerous situation and somebody crossing through the red is exactly the kind of dangerous situation.

First of all it is not excuse, just merely stating the fact that drivers are not machines and somebody extremely blatantly disregarding rules (like majority of cyclists) do annoy and irritate the drivers making overall driving conditions more hostile for everyone. One cannot expect to blatantly break the laws in front of others and expect no reaction. Because it happens so often and because realistically drivers can't do anything about it (can't even report to police), the only possible reaction is anger. Strong emotions are known to affect driving ability and impact judgement - that is just how normal human works. Saying that because cyclists had not killed anyone is poor excuse for them disregarding traffic lights as well. So my answer was at the same level as your statement.

They were not even checked... because cyclist... "unlikely to kill" so could wobble around drunk and drugged without a problem

So basically you are saying - it is ok for cyclists to ignore red signals, because they haven't killed anyone yet? IS that really your argument? How about that mutual respect for all road users, have you thought about psychological effects on drivers? Maybe drivers seeing how cyclists blatantly disregards rules, whilst themselves being stuck in traffic and then having to give extra wide berth for the same cyclist 200m or be stuck behind for miles (because cyclists now ride in the middle)... maybe drivers get infuriated and are more likely to drive more recklessly? Don't forget drivers are just human despite nanny-state wanting them to be babysitting robots, drivers do get tired, do get angry, do get irritated and so on. And you know what irritates people a lot? When they have to follow arbitrary rules, but others don't bother and nothing is done about it. I do not deny that likelihood of being killed by red light jumping cyclist is very low, yet I as well observe that most city cyclists disregards traffic signals... so despite not being a risk for pedestrians, I do believe they negatively impact drivers, irritates them and then drivers make less rational decisions.

is it now ? with double the price? 😄 I mean I whish I could have LFA, but with that price tag I just don't think it would be best $700k ever spent or even $400k ever spent. Putting that in perspective - one can get much newer similar mileage LC500, yes not V10, yes not as rare... but as a car to live with it probably is just as exciting (or 90% as exciting) and much more comparable and convenient and costs 10% of the price. I know the price is no longer the point with LFA and that is kind of sad - it became collector piece, where money exchanges hands for sake of it and actual ownership experience is no longer corelated with the price.

I think the questions was more along the lines "is this as a car worth as much money", that it will increase in value as an investment, I don't think that is surprises.