BBC: Cyclists flout law 'to stay safe'

cntl

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7478823.stm

always_tyred

Yes, I picked this up also on the radio.

Unusually, the CTC guy was given enough time to actually get beyond, "Some cyclists break the law, but...."

I thought it was a reasonable stab at opening the same sort of debate we have on here, relating to rlj-ing and cycling on the pavement. Particularly the latter, in the context of tacking cycling-unfriendly junctions.

There are the hard line "never, under any circumstances, unforgiveable, I f@art in yur general direction" people. And then there are the, "Well you shouldn't, but we all have occasionally and I understand it particularly if you aren't confident" people.

Seems that the CTC are the latter.

AndyManc

cntl wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7478823.stm

"Cyclists flout law 'to stay safe'"

Well, well, well ........ Theres a thing ... who would have thought it .

dazzawazza

Just a comment for the RLJ debate:

I see cyclists RLJing all the time; however I also see many cars / trucks / vans and even buses RLJing.
Of the RLJing cyclists only a percentage of these manoeuvres are actually dangerous to the cyclist or other road users. However almost every motor vehicle RLJ is an extremely dangerous manoeuvre that would almost certainly cause very serious injury or death if something went wrong.
So, even though there may be a more visual presence of RLJing cyclists, the problem exists for all forms of transport, and will remain until we see a significant increase in TRAFFIC police enforcing the law with serious fines and confiscations of licences and property if necessary.

For some reason the media insists on portraying cyclists as RLJing, pavement jumping maniacs that cause havic for the law abiding motorists and pedestrians. :shock:

mba007

"CTC says cyclists may flout some of the rules, such as turning left on a red light, as it helps them to stay safe."

Don't you just hate this type of reporting. This statement alone implies that the CTC condone this sort of behaviour. Watching the BBC News channel this morning the guy from the CTC categorically stated that they do not condone law-breaking. Bad reporting, and quotes from the AA saying that two tribes are at war are extremely unhelpful.

News reporting makes my blood boil!

AndyManc

mba007 wrote:

"CTC says cyclists may flout some of the rules, such as turning left on a red light, as it helps them to stay safe."

Don't you just hate this type of reporting. This statement alone implies that the CTC condone this sort of behaviour. Watching the BBC News channel this morning the guy from the CTC categorically stated that they do not condone law-breaking. Bad reporting, and quotes from the AA saying that two tribes are at war are extremely unhelpful.

News reporting makes my blood boil!

I don't hate this type of reporting at all, it's factual , it's correct and the problem needs addressing .

Our roads and laws are anti-cycling .... I'm not getting into this argument again I've just done 10 pages of it on another thread.

AndyManc

dazzawazza wrote:

, the problem exists for all forms of transport, and will remain until we see a significant increase in TRAFFIC police enforcing the law with serious fines and confiscations of licences and property if necessary.

For some reason the media insists on portraying cyclists as RLJing, pavement jumping maniacs that cause havic for the law abiding motorists and pedestrians. :shock:

100% CORRECT , except cyclists don't have a 1 ton to 60 ton vehicle, everyone is breaking the law on our roads .... most bikers do it for self preservation .... most motorists do it because they are brain dead w*******.

cntl

Not that I condone it, but: "cycling on the pavement" is a typically British obsession. I don't think any mainland European country makes such a big deal out of it.

EDIT: Me being from "mainland"

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

dazzawazza wrote:

, the problem exists for all forms of transport, and will remain until we see a significant increase in TRAFFIC police enforcing the law with serious fines and confiscations of licences and property if necessary.

For some reason the media insists on portraying cyclists as RLJing, pavement jumping maniacs that cause havic for the law abiding motorists and pedestrians. :shock:

100% CORRECT , except cyclists don't have a 1 ton to 60 ton vehicle, everyone is breaking the law on our roads .... most bikers do it for self preservation .... most motorists do it because they are brain dead w*******.

It's not 100% correct, he spelled "havoc" wrong.

prj45

I don't think people jump lights to be safe, I think they do it because they think it gets them there quicker.

As far as pavement riding goes, if you don't feel like being on the road at that time and you feel the pavement is a necessary option, F****K WALK IT YOU T**T!

Seriously, sometimes I think we cyclists deserve the irrational ire we get from non cyclists.

AndyManc

Remember those car drivers in disguise ..... well.

I didn't realise there were so many retards in the cycling community , far too many bus fumes to the already limited grey matter.

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

Remember those car drivers in disguise ..... well.

I didn't realise there were so many retards in the cycling community , far too many bus fumes to the already limited grey matter.

Most adult cyclists do drive as well, and are probably better drivers for it.

I don't see anyone here who could be a non-cycling troll masquerading as a cyclist, except perhaps yourself.

AndyManc

dondare wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Remember those car drivers in disguise ..... well.

I didn't realise there were so many retards in the cycling community , far too many bus fumes to the already limited grey matter.

Most adult cyclists do drive as well, and are probably better drivers for it.

I don't see anyone here who could be a non-cycling troll masquerading as a cyclist, except perhaps yourself.

You're the most likely candidate .... btw .. are you stalking me :shock:

dondare

prj45 wrote:

I don't think people jump lights to be safe, I think they do it because they think it gets them there quicker.

As far as pavement riding goes, if you don't feel like being on the road at that time and you feel the pavement is a necessary option, F****K WALK IT YOU T**T!

Seriously, sometimes I think we cyclists deserve the irrational ire we get from non cyclists.

Excuse me for being a sanctimonious prig, but that language is not only unnecessary, it devalues your argument.

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

dondare wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Remember those car drivers in disguise ..... well.

I didn't realise there were so many retards in the cycling community , far too many bus fumes to the already limited grey matter.

Most adult cyclists do drive as well, and are probably better drivers for it.

I don't see anyone here who could be a non-cycling troll masquerading as a cyclist, except perhaps yourself.

You're the most likely candidate .... btw .. are you stalking me :shock:

No, I'm posting in the same threads, at the moment, because the same points are being raised in each. I have a long history of arguing on cycle forums against illegal activity by cyclists.

FransJacques

What does RLJ mean? Can someone define in English instead of cool-speak?

always_tyred

Red light jumping/jumper

Its a TLA that is about as cool as "DVD" or "mph" and now you know it you can be cool too.

meanwhile

dondare wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Remember those car drivers in disguise ..... well.

I didn't realise there were so many retards in the cycling community , far too many bus fumes to the already limited grey matter.

Most adult cyclists do drive as well, and are probably better drivers for it.

I don't drive. I can, but haven't in at least 10 years.

dazzawazza

dondare wrote:

It's not 100% correct, he spelled "havoc" wrong.

That's strange, I usually paste my posts into Word and do a spell check to avoid this sort of thing? I must have forgotten. :shock:
My grammar and spelling have become very lazy due to extensive use of email, texting, word processing and Internet. I need to read more novels instead of feeding my cycling addiction on this forum.

meanwhile

dazzawazza wrote:

dondare wrote:

It's not 100% correct, he spelled "havoc" wrong.

That's strange, I usually paste my posts into Word and do a spell check to avoid this sort of thing? I must have forgotten. :shock:
:

Use Firefox: it has a spellcheck. Albeit for US English.

Spinner28

I see myself as a very experienced cyclist & I just can't understand the argument that RLJ'ing is done because stopping compromises rider safety?!!! If you can get yourself to the front of the traffic, position yourself so that you can be seen clearly, this may mean crossing the line if there is no ASL. In most cases you'll still be tucked in from the junction. Depending on the situation you may need to position yourself in primary position.

I've been sworn at by cyclists after my stopping at red lights has imepeded them if they were behind me. After screaming a mouthfull of insults they then precede to wobble precariously across, in many cases, busy junctions dodging in & out of the traffic to an army of blaring horns. If that fails, they hop up the pavement, annoy some peds, use the ped crossing, then take to the road again the other side of the junction? By the time they've negotiated this assault course, my lights have changed & I've blasted past them!!

The only thing they've succeeded in is annoying people. So next time I'm in non-cycling company someone always says "I hate you cyclists, you're a law amongst yourselves, you all jump red lights!!"

AndyManc

Spinner28 wrote:

So next time I'm in non-cycling company someone always says "I hate you cyclists, you're a law amongst yourselves, you all jump red lights!!"

So you reply .... all car drivers exceed the speed limit ... and speed kills.

There , that’s not too difficult is it ?

You could also remind them that 1 in 50 cars/drivers are on the road illegally, no license , no insurance , that number doesn't include all the drunk/drugged individuals and those thousands that put others at risk by continuing to use their mobile phones and fail to give enough room to bikers when they overtake.

You could also remind them they are destroying the environment and putting the national health service under so much pressure that soon they wont be able to cope.

Perhaps you would like to start practice saying it from tomorrow .

Big Red S

prj45 wrote:

I don't think people jump lights to be safe, I think they do it because they think it gets them there quicker.

The fact you do this in the face of many of the people who do jump lights telling you otherwise suggests that the above might be misuse of the word 'think'.

dondare

When you see them doing it, you can see why they're doing it. It's not because stopping and waiting is dangerous, it's because stopping and waiting is just too much of a nuisance for them. I stop and wait and I'm safe, so how can the impatient, ignorant, arrogant POB who pushes past me and weaves through the traffic crossing the junction be any safer, or honestly say that he believes that he is?

Big Red S

Ah, sorry, I'd made the stupid mistake of presuming that there were different ways of jumping red lights than haring across a major junction with six lanes of cars crossing.

djkmtb

meanwhile wrote:

dazzawazza wrote:

dondare wrote:

It's not 100% correct, he spelled "havoc" wrong.

That's strange, I usually paste my posts into Word and do a spell check to avoid this sort of thing? I must have forgotten. :shock:
:

Use Firefox: it has a spellcheck. Albeit for US English.

So does Safari for IBM and Mac.

prj45

Big Red S wrote:

Ah, sorry, I'd made the stupid mistake of presuming that there were different ways of jumping red lights than haring across a major junction with six lanes of cars crossing.

Well, obviously there are, but frankly, even if they do it slowly it's because they want to expediate their journey and can't be bothered to wait; nothing to do with safety.

I can't believe people actually think it's safer anyway, those that do are bluddy idiots, one observation failure and you're paté.

dirk_van_gently

I thought the CTC guy (BBC TV Sat morning) did a really good job under very biased reporting conditions.
The AA spokesman was just a C0CK!
All thgough the interview Charlie whathisface was doing his damnest to get some sort of irrational response from the CTC rep, who repeatedly refused to rise to the bait, so much so that he resorted to asking sensible questions. The RAC rep may as well not have turned up.

dondare

Big Red S wrote:

Ah, sorry, I'd made the stupid mistake of presuming that there were different ways of jumping red lights than haring across a major junction with six lanes of cars crossing.

But you also know that the safety excuse is a load of twaddle; how often is waiting at a light going to be dangerous, really? If you find yourself in the blind spot of a left-turning artic then moving ahead of it might be the best option, and staying put will get you killed but of all the many thousands of RLJers I've seen none did it for that reason. They simply couldn't be bothered to wait.

dondare

AndyManc wrote:

Spinner28 wrote:

So next time I'm in non-cycling company someone always says "I hate you cyclists, you're a law amongst yourselves, you all jump red lights!!"

So you reply .... all car drivers exceed the speed limit ... and speed kills.

There , that’s not too difficult is it ?

You could also remind them that 1 in 50 cars/drivers are on the road illegally, no license , no insurance , that number doesn't include all the drunk/drugged individuals and those thousands that put others at risk by continuing to use their mobile phones and fail to give enough room to bikers when they overtake.

You could also remind them they are destroying the environment and putting the national health service under so much pressure that soon they wont be able to cope.

Perhaps you would like to start practice saying it from tomorrow .

When I'm arguing with non-cyclists I do point out all these things but I don't use them to justify or excuse illegal or anti-social behaviour from cyclists. How do they? Why should a motorist on the 'phone mean that you can run a red or ride on the pavement?

dirk_van_gently

"Why is it wrong to ride on the pavement, but parking a car on the pavement is perfectly alright?"

This is my usual response to the I hate cyclist, they ride on the pavement BS. However like Dondare says justifying one illegal action by citing another illegal action really isn't any argument at all.

Truth is no one is "pure as driven snow", the roads need to be used responsibly by everyone, and that seems to be where the problems start. Bad cyclists are seen as representative of cyclists in general, bad Motorcyclists are seen as representative of Motorcyclists in general, bad lorry drivers are seen as representative of lorry drivers in general, bad motorists are seen as representative of motorists in general, and so on.