Spectator debate: Cyclists are a menace.
Comments
-
alfablue wrote:I understand Headhunter's ire at the inconsistency here - its simple, rules is rules, whether that be speed limits or RLJ'ing. And these rules are for everyone, people who think they know best (i.e. how to speed safely, how to RLJ safely) are not excused. Trouble is, bad drivers and bad cyclists are unaware that they are bad, so those that think they can break the rules safely may well be deluded.
I do believe speeding (especially in urban or residential areas) is worse than RLJ'ng - the speeder is playing fast and loose with life and limb of myself, pedestrians, other cyclists, children. The RLJ'er is probably endangering themselves more, however, I am fiercely against both practices - the latter because of the bad press it gives, and allows us all to be similarly tarred!
OK. That's fair enough. I just don't understand the whole "RLJ-ing is evil, may you burn in hell" vs the "car drivers may exercise caution when breaking the speed limit" argument. If anything someone driving a couple of tonnes or more of metal at 35-40mph in a 30 zone is waaaaay more likely to kill or seriously injure than a cyclist RLJ-ing, who is more likely to injure him or herself. So if anything, if anyone is allowed to use their judgement it shuold be the cyclist! Just as pedestrians use their own judgement when crossing against the red man at a crossing....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
No, you should all burn in hell for being naughty. 8)Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
I agree, but I wouldn't use one wron to justify another (albeit lesser) wrong.Headhuunter wrote:alfablue wrote:I understand Headhunter's ire at the inconsistency here - its simple, rules is rules, whether that be speed limits or RLJ'ing. And these rules are for everyone, people who think they know best (i.e. how to speed safely, how to RLJ safely) are not excused. Trouble is, bad drivers and bad cyclists are unaware that they are bad, so those that think they can break the rules safely may well be deluded.
I do believe speeding (especially in urban or residential areas) is worse than RLJ'ng - the speeder is playing fast and loose with life and limb of myself, pedestrians, other cyclists, children. The RLJ'er is probably endangering themselves more, however, I am fiercely against both practices - the latter because of the bad press it gives, and allows us all to be similarly tarred!
OK. That's fair enough. I just don't understand the whole "RLJ-ing is evil, may you burn in hell" vs the "car drivers may exercise caution when breaking the speed limit" argument. If anything someone driving a couple of tonnes or more of metal at 35-40mph in a 30 zone is waaaaay more likely to kill or seriously injure than a cyclist RLJ-ing, who is more likely to injure him or herself. So if anything, if anyone is allowed to use their judgement it shuold be the cyclist! Just as pedestrians use their own judgement when crossing against the red man at a crossing....0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Why?
I didn't say anything about their importance, I said they were different types of rules. One controls access to shared space (the junction), and having one side ignore that control (RLJ'ing) directly effects the other traffic (who can't now use the junction because some numpty cyclsits didn't see them, even though it's 1am and they have their lights on!)
while breaking the speed limit doesn't actually interupt any other traffic on the road, or cause any actual problem. (until you hit something cause you're going too fast* to stop in time)
See the difference?
If you can't see that, try this. They are diffrent laws. That some traffic ignores one does not permit other traffic to ignore other rules. If it's ok for a car to speed, it's ok for a cyclist to speed, if it's ok for a cyclist to RLJ, it's ok for a car to do it. There is no logical sense in saying that if it's ok for a car to speed it's therefore ok for a cyclists to RLJ. That's just basic logic. It's like saying it's ok for a car to drive on the wrong side of the road because cyclists don't get stopped for not having reflectors on their clippy pedals. It simply doesn't follow.
Amazingly, it's more acceptable to break rules that don't effect other people directly (like speeding or non-reflective clippy pedals) than it is to break rules that do (like what side of the road to use or stopping at traffic controls), yet at the end of the day, it's still wrong to break either.
(*) Too fast having nothng to o with the speed limit, of course. Too fast is too fast, regardless of what the speedomter says, and you should never drive too fast.0 -
alfablue wrote:
I agree, but I wouldn't use one wron to justify another (albeit lesser) wrong.Headhuunter wrote:alfablue wrote:I understand Headhunter's ire at the inconsistency here - its simple, rules is rules, whether that be speed limits or RLJ'ing. And these rules are for everyone, people who think they know best (i.e. how to speed safely, how to RLJ safely) are not excused. Trouble is, bad drivers and bad cyclists are unaware that they are bad, so those that think they can break the rules safely may well be deluded.
I do believe speeding (especially in urban or residential areas) is worse than RLJ'ng - the speeder is playing fast and loose with life and limb of myself, pedestrians, other cyclists, children. The RLJ'er is probably endangering themselves more, however, I am fiercely against both practices - the latter because of the bad press it gives, and allows us all to be similarly tarred!
OK. That's fair enough. I just don't understand the whole "RLJ-ing is evil, may you burn in hell" vs the "car drivers may exercise caution when breaking the speed limit" argument. If anything someone driving a couple of tonnes or more of metal at 35-40mph in a 30 zone is waaaaay more likely to kill or seriously injure than a cyclist RLJ-ing, who is more likely to injure him or herself. So if anything, if anyone is allowed to use their judgement it shuold be the cyclist! Just as pedestrians use their own judgement when crossing against the red man at a crossing....
No, nor would I. I agree with you. I RLJ largely because it's very often safer (IMO), although I do find it ironic that so much emphasis is put on the evils of RLJing yet as discussed on this forum prevously many people believe it's perfectly acceptable to cycle with headphones on, or apparently for motorists to speed...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:Headhuunter wrote:Why?
I didn't say anything about their importance, I said they were different types of rules. One controls access to shared space (the junction), and having one side ignore that control (RLJ'ing) directly effects the other traffic (who can't now use the junction because some numpty cyclsits didn't see them, even though it's 1am and they have their lights on!)
while breaking the speed limit doesn't actually interupt any other traffic on the road, or cause any actual problem. (until you hit something cause you're going too fast* to stop in time)
See the difference? .
Nope! I'm afraid rules is rules! If it's the law, it's the law, there's no such thing as one law being of lesser importance and therefore OK to disregard than another! You're arguing that somehow because in your view it is less likely that a car driver will cause problems for any other road user when speeding that it's OK for them to do so. However I think road traffic accident death and injury statistics prove otherwise. But if this is your view, then it's your view. My view could be that I think it's safer to RLJ because cyclists have a far better all round vision and are more easily able to judge what's going on around them before RLJ-ing. We'd both be wrong I'm afraid.Eau Rouge wrote:If you can't see that, try this. They are diffrent laws. That some traffic ignores one does not permit other traffic to ignore other rules. If it's ok for a car to speed, it's ok for a cyclist to speed, if it's ok for a cyclist to RLJ, it's ok for a car to do it. There is no logical sense in saying that if it's ok for a car to speed it's therefore ok for a cyclists to RLJ. That's just basic logic. It's like saying it's ok for a car to drive on the wrong side of the road because cyclists don't get stopped for not having reflectors on their clippy pedals. It simply doesn't follow.
Amazingly, it's more acceptable to break rules that don't effect other people directly (like speeding or non-reflective clippy pedals) than it is to break rules that do (like what side of the road to use or stopping at traffic controls), yet at the end of the day, it's still wrong to break either.
(*) Too fast having nothng to o with the speed limit, of course. Too fast is too fast, regardless of what the speedomter says, and you should never drive too fast.
As I pointed out above, the thousands of cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists that die annually in accidents, often caused by speeding motorists do not bear witness to your statement "it's more acceptable to break rules that don't effect other people directly (like speeding or non-reflective clippy pedals)". I'm afraid speeding kills. Kill your speed, not a child. etc etc.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
People talk as if laws are something given unto us from some great power - laws are just human-made rules backed up by the might of the state. We have the right to break bad laws, in fact we have a duty to break bad laws.
IMO most traffic laws in the UK are ill-thought out. Traffic laws imo need to be more localised driven by local issues, conditions and opinions...inappropriate speed is just a symptom of bad driving which should become socially unacceptable...we can write all the laws we like but nothing short of a police state is going to allow us to enforce them.
Traffic lights are designed for cars, lorries, buses etc...and not cyclists. They need a rethink - they needed a rethink 30 years ago..but we go on putting in infrastructre to try to control the increasingly lawless motorists...making it harder for the cyclist and the pedestrian.
I believe ignoring badly designed traffic lights is our right - if safe to do so. But at the same time this needs to be backed up with good reasons, and a campaign to bring about change. The LCC is in a perfect place to make demands for better road design in London and indeed does.
Motorists think they have the right to break speeding laws as they are arbitrary and they claim it is safe to go faster - but the perception amongst other road users is that more than 30, more than 20 in some cases, in an urban area is too fast. Motorists are going to have a hard time convincing anyone of this considering how many people get killed by cars and lorries every year and how desolate some of our streets already are with people too scared to cross the road in places.0 -
Going faster in London just means in my experience getting to the next traffic log jam sooner.
The distinctive van that passed me in Hersham this morning to get the back end of a queue of stationary traffic less than 50m ahead, that I immediately passed, that passed me a few hundred metres down the road, that I then passed in near stationary traffic a mile further on and which didn't pass me again as I raced around the traffic motorcycle style: how many times have we seen similar?
In a city environment speeding is pointless and just puts others at risk. Its that risk the assessment of which is skewed by the "only going 10mph over the limit" argument which takes the driver as its only standpoint, as Its not a risk the driver themselves necessarily face but one they are imposing on others, and why frankly why should they have the right to do so?
Where else in life is increasing the risk to life and limb to others seen as acceptable behaviour?'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
Its not so much the speeding that bothers me, but the incondiderate attitude. The "must pass bike att all costs" attitude and not giving enough room. Also the must get to speed limit, although it is not safe for the conditions or enviroment and traffic.
Yes, most, is not all car drivers break the limit from time to time, and a lot of cyclists do RLJ, it doesn't make it right, but I do not have too much of an issue when it is done safely. And yes, we can argue till the cows come home what is and what isn't safe. As long as I am given enough room, and consideration then that is what I want."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Headhuunter wrote:As I pointed out above, the thousands of cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists that die annually in accidents, often caused by speeding motorists do not bear witness to your statement "it's more acceptable to break rules that don't effect other people directly (like speeding or non-reflective clippy pedals)". I'm afraid speeding kills. Kill your speed, not a child. etc etc.
Simply not true. Driving too fast isn't actually the biggest cause of accidents in the UK, but I;ll grant you it's a factor in a fair percenatge. However, it has next to nothing to do with breaking a posted speed limit. I've already said "too fast" is too fast.
So drivers breaking the speed limit aren't a problem, it's drivers driving "too fast", which is often below the posted speed limit anyway.
Which is all still a side issue. Whether society minds that cars break the speed limit while not driving too fast or not is in no way a justification for jumping red lights. It never will be, it never can be. Jumping red lights is anti-social, rude, dangerous, selfish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law. Change the law to allow it tomorrow, and it would still be wrong to do it.
You wouldn't jump a light on a motorbike, are you seriously saying you wouldn't ever break the posted speed limit on one?0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:Headhuunter wrote:As I pointed out above, the thousands of cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists that die annually in accidents, often caused by speeding motorists do not bear witness to your statement "it's more acceptable to break rules that don't effect other people directly (like speeding or non-reflective clippy pedals)". I'm afraid speeding kills. Kill your speed, not a child. etc etc.
Simply not true. Driving too fast isn't actually the biggest cause of accidents in the UK, but I;ll grant you it's a factor in a fair percenatge. However, it has next to nothing to do with breaking a posted speed limit. I've already said "too fast" is too fast.
So drivers breaking the speed limit aren't a problem, it's drivers driving "too fast", which is often below the posted speed limit anyway.
Which is all still a side issue. Whether society minds that cars break the speed limit while not driving too fast or not is in no way a justification for jumping red lights. It never will be, it never can be. Jumping red lights is anti-social, rude, dangerous, selfish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law. Change the law to allow it tomorrow, and it would still be wrong to do it.
You wouldn't jump a light on a motorbike, are you seriously saying you wouldn't ever break the posted speed limit on one?
I don't actually believe that justification for RLJ-ing is that car drivers break speed limits, I RLJ because I often find it safer to get ahead of build ups of traffic at lights. It means you don't get left hooked or caught up in the melee of motorists who simply must get past cyclists whatever the cost, but anyway....
What I find bizarre is that you are willing to say to 1 set of road users (motorists) that they can break speed limits as these limits are, in your words, "arbitrary", yet you say that another set of road users (cyclists) MUST stop at ALL red lights at ALL times.
You say that "Jumping red lights is anti-social, rude, dangerous, selfish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law", well as far as I am concerned SPEEDING is anti social rude, dangerous, selfuish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law.
The law is the law. Why should motorists who kill many, many cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists be allowed to interpret the law as they see fit whereas other road users (cyclists) must at all times stick to the law. There is no reason that motorists, driving a large chunk of metal weighing a couple of tonnes, should have better judgement with regard to breaking the law.
Your view is that too fast is not necessarily 35 in a 30 zone, my view is that red lights and much of the road structure is designed for the motorist and that red lights do not apply to cyclists at all times. If the law if open to interpretation as it seems to be in your view, then why should it only be open to interpretation for 1 set of road users (motorists). Either the law is the law and it's set in stone for all, or it isn't.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Porgy wrote:People talk as if laws are something given unto us from some great power - laws are just human-made rules backed up by the might of the state. We have the right to break bad laws, in fact we have a duty to break bad laws.
IMO most traffic laws in the UK are ill-thought out. Traffic laws imo need to be more localised driven by local issues, conditions and opinions...inappropriate speed is just a symptom of bad driving which should become socially unacceptable...we can write all the laws we like but nothing short of a police state is going to allow us to enforce them.
Traffic lights are designed for cars, lorries, buses etc...and not cyclists. They need a rethink - they needed a rethink 30 years ago..but we go on putting in infrastructre to try to control the increasingly lawless motorists...making it harder for the cyclist and the pedestrian.
I believe ignoring badly designed traffic lights is our right - if safe to do so. But at the same time this needs to be backed up with good reasons, and a campaign to bring about change. The LCC is in a perfect place to make demands for better road design in London and indeed does.
Motorists think they have the right to break speeding laws as they are arbitrary and they claim it is safe to go faster - but the perception amongst other road users is that more than 30, more than 20 in some cases, in an urban area is too fast. Motorists are going to have a hard time convincing anyone of this considering how many people get killed by cars and lorries every year and how desolate some of our streets already are with people too scared to cross the road in places.
I agree with a lot of what you have said. As you say, the entire road system and indeed entire towns and cities are designed around motor traffic. Designed for large cumbersome modes of transport capable at travelling at high speed. Therefore we have speed limits, road humps, traffic lights, roundabouts, motorways, dual carriageways etc etc many of which are completely pointless to the cyclist.
We are beginning to see a change in attitudes by law makers. Boris Johnson in London for all his faults has made suggestions that cyclists should be allowed to turn left on red lights, also there are rumblings that a law is about to be passed giving cyclists the right to ignore 1 way systems and then we have the law that countries such as the Netherlands brought in many decades ago making motorists to blame in every accident with cyclists.
In this country it is acceptable for pedestrians to cross wherever they wish and if at a pedestrian crossing, whether or not the green man is showing. The green light for pedestrians is simply advisory. However in other countries it is not. I lived in Japan for several years and over there (and in the US I think), pedestrians crossing in red is frowned upon almost to the same degree as RLJ-ing is in this country and the Police can stop you for the crime of jaywalking. Additionally, as has been pointed out before, in cities like Antwerp it is perfectly acceptable for cyclists to cross a junction on red. However here, RLJ-ing is seen as the devil's own crime yet some people here believe that speeding motorists are fine to do so! It's simply a question of perception that needs challenging in this country as far as I'm concerned.
Of course if there was some investment in filter lights at major junctions allowing cyclists to move off before motor traffic, the whole problem would be solved. I think that at major junctions there should be a phase when ALL motor traffic is held at red whilst pedestrians and cyclists are allowed to cross/turn etc ahead of motor traffic continuing its journey. That would remove much chance of potential collisions between motorists and pedestrians/cyclists as they would already have moved through the junction.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Spiny_Norman wrote:
Stephen Pound is a rent-a-quote backbench Labour MP who loves the sound of his own voice, and manages to be vociferously wrong on just about everything. There are too many David Thomases to be able to say which one it might be.Porgy wrote:Who the hell are Stephen Pound & David Thomas? :?:
This particular David Thomas is a Daily Mail hack and mediocre thriller writer (aka Tom Cain), whose literary masterpieces include The Accident Man, a convoluted, contrived, far-fetched "thriller" based on the premise that Princess of Wales was assassinated (really).
"I can't remember the last book I read when the characters were so stick-like and cartoonish and the dialogue so unrealistic " is one review on Amazon. "The dialogue is unmemorable enough to make you wish that at least one of the protagonists was self-aware, articulate, and/or witty " is another. Naturally, its a best seller.
Quite a formidable anti-bike line up they've got then... :roll:Bike1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3258551288/
Bike 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N ... otostream/
New Bike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3479300346/0 -
Would you still do this if you rode a motorbike?Headhuunter wrote:I don't actually believe that justification for RLJ-ing is that car drivers break speed limits, I RLJ because I often find it safer to get ahead of build ups of traffic at lights. It means you don't get left hooked or caught up in the melee of motorists who simply must get past cyclists whatever the cost, but anyway....
Not quite, I make a distinction in the rules themselves, not about who should obey them to the letter or not. ALL drivers, be they in cars or bicycles or artics, shouldn't get too worked up about posted speed limits (but should never drive/ride too fast) and likewise, ALL drivers, be they in cars or bicycles or artics should obey red lights. I don't prejudice it by the type of vehicle, because when I cycle (and when I drive) I see all road users as equal.Headhuunter wrote:What I find bizarre is that you are willing to say to 1 set of road users (motorists) that they can break speed limits as these limits are, in your words, "arbitrary", yet you say that another set of road users (cyclists) MUST stop at ALL red lights at ALL times.
We actually almost agree. Driving too fast is all those things, we just disagree about what driving too fast means. I don't see any connection between it and a posted speed limit that is, by it's "one value in tens of units" approach, arbitary. Speed limits are not some carefully studied indication of how safe you can drive down a section of road, They just aren't. 60mph is not safe on a single track lane, yet it's the limit on almost all of them. it they were we'd have new signs every 100 meters, and the limits for cars would be different than those for artics on the same road. Even then it would still have to be arbitary, as it takes no account of the drivers state of mind at the time. Driving too fast is always driving too fast though, even when you're 'only' doing 20mph in a 40mph zone but it's raining so hard you can barely see whats in front of you.Headhuunter wrote:You say that "Jumping red lights is anti-social, rude, dangerous, selfish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law", well as far as I am concerned SPEEDING is anti social rude, dangerous, selfuish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law.
It's a subtle difference, think about it for a while.
You're right, and the answer is they can't. You get prosecuted for breaking speed limits, not for driving too fast. But again you mention motorists. I have broken the speed limit on the bicycle when given a steep enough hill. There is no difference between a car driver and a cyclsist, they are both traffic.Headhuunter wrote:The law is the law. Why should motorists who kill many, many cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists be allowed to interpret the law as they see fit whereas other road users (cyclists) must at all times stick to the law. There is no reason that motorists, driving a large chunk of metal weighing a couple of tonnes, should have better judgement with regard to breaking the law.
(Technically, the speed limit laws only apply to motorised traffic, but the principle is the same)
Again, I don't limit it to "one set of road users", I treat ALL road users the same. I ignore speed limits in preference for not driving too fast on the bicycle, I expect artic drivers to do less than 30mph on residential streets for exactly the same reason. I expect car drivers to obey traffic control lights, so I obey them on the bicycle too.Headhuunter wrote:Your view is that too fast is not necessarily 35 in a 30 zone, my view is that red lights and much of the road structure is designed for the motorist and that red lights do not apply to cyclists at all times. If the law if open to interpretation as it seems to be in your view, then why should it only be open to interpretation for 1 set of road users (motorists). Either the law is the law and it's set in stone for all, or it isn't.
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.0 -
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.
Did you really think about this before you said it? The law is different for different types of road user. Perhaps pedestrians should walk down the centre of the road and stop at traffic lights, too?0 -
Did you really think about this before you said it? Are pedestrians traffic?snailracer wrote:
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.
Did you really think about this before you said it? The law is different for different types of road user. Perhaps pedestrians should walk down the centre of the road and stop at traffic lights, too?
0 -
alfablue wrote:
Did you really think about this before you said it? Are pedestrians traffic?snailracer wrote:
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.
Did you really think about this before you said it? The law is different for different types of road user. Perhaps pedestrians should walk down the centre of the road and stop at traffic lights, too?
On roads with no pavement, commonly found in the country, they obviously are. Also, the Highway Code has a detailed section for peds, as well as for wheelchairs, scooters, horses - even cars.0 -
I'd point out that on a technical basis, speed limits may SEEM arbitrary, but are not neccesarily so.
Consider junction design. Car comes up to a T-Junction to turn right, has to be able to see a certain distance to see if its safe to turn out. If the design speed limit is at a certain level and its assumed the traffic will be moving at a certain speed, if the driver pulls out, an oncoming car will have a certain distance to see the vehicle ahead (and now assume the car stalls) and stop before hitting it.
Now have the car moving along the road "safely" (in the drivers opinion) at 10-20mph above the design speed limit for the road. At what point further back is it necessary for the sight lines to be available to see the car coming out? Could well be a lot more than is actually available on a curving road, or one where the road goes over a crest.
Factor in roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and every other type of road activity requiring a driver to potentially stop and excess speed starts to become a real problem.
To quote Mr Scott "you can't change the law of physics", and a vehicle will require a certain time to stop, time which equals distance travelled. Prentend all you want that speeding is safe, but thats only until you need to emergency stop and then speed is a real problem.'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
Stating that all traffic is equal is just about as absurd as the contention that all laws are equal. When I'm sat in prison with a life sentence for the lack of a bell on my bicycle, sharing a cell with a serial killer, I'll look back and smile at the world according to Bikeradar.snailracer wrote:alfablue wrote:
Did you really think about this before you said it? Are pedestrians traffic?snailracer wrote:
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.
Did you really think about this before you said it? The law is different for different types of road user. Perhaps pedestrians should walk down the centre of the road and stop at traffic lights, too?
On roads with no pavement, commonly found in the country, they obviously are. Also, the Highway Code has a detailed section for peds, as well as for wheelchairs, scooters, horses - even cars.0 -
stopping distances are a guessitmate at best... they vary wildly between individual vehicles depending on the state of repair0
-
Always Tyred wrote:
Stating that all traffic is equal is just about as absurd as the contention that all laws are equal. When I'm sat in prison with a life sentence for the lack of a bell on my bicycle, sharing a cell with a serial killer, I'll look back and smile at the world according to Bikeradar.snailracer wrote:alfablue wrote:
Did you really think about this before you said it? Are pedestrians traffic?snailracer wrote:
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.
Did you really think about this before you said it? The law is different for different types of road user. Perhaps pedestrians should walk down the centre of the road and stop at traffic lights, too?
On roads with no pavement, commonly found in the country, they obviously are. Also, the Highway Code has a detailed section for peds, as well as for wheelchairs, scooters, horses - even cars.
Not having a bell on your bike is not against the law, so you would have a decent case for false imprisonment. However by that time, Slugger, the serial killer will have an unhealthy interest in your padded lycra shorts....."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
If you see a pound coin in the shower, don't pick it up....0
-
chuckcork wrote:I'd point out that on a technical basis, speed limits may SEEM arbitrary, but are not neccesarily so.
I am aware of councils putting speed limits near dangerous junctions, but this is hardly the case for most speed limits. I know of many speed limits that define a perfectly acceptable pace for the roads they are on. I know of many that are far too fast, and not just single-track country lanes, and many than are far too low for the roads they are on. It all comes across as arbitary, especially when limits are changed for no decernable reason other than local pressure. I've not been able to find any evidence that shows that, beyond a few exceptions, they are set from a careful study of how fast is safe on a particular road.
After that you describe why driving too fast, regardless of what the speed limit might be, is a bad thing, something nobody disagrees with.0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:chuckcork wrote:I'd point out that on a technical basis, speed limits may SEEM arbitrary, but are not neccesarily so.
I am aware of councils putting speed limits near dangerous junctions, but this is hardly the case for most speed limits. I know of many speed limits that define a perfectly acceptable pace for the roads they are on. I know of many that are far too fast, and not just single-track country lanes, and many than are far too low for the roads they are on. It all comes across as arbitary, especially when limits are changed for no decernable reason other than local pressure. I've not been able to find any evidence that shows that, beyond a few exceptions, they are set from a careful study of how fast is safe on a particular road.
After that you describe why driving too fast, regardless of what the speed limit might be, is a bad thing, something nobody disagrees with.
Driving on the left - entirely arbitrary
However, still better than a free-for-all.0 -
snailracer wrote:Eau Rouge wrote:chuckcork wrote:I'd point out that on a technical basis, speed limits may SEEM arbitrary, but are not neccesarily so.
I am aware of councils putting speed limits near dangerous junctions, but this is hardly the case for most speed limits. I know of many speed limits that define a perfectly acceptable pace for the roads they are on. I know of many that are far too fast, and not just single-track country lanes, and many than are far too low for the roads they are on. It all comes across as arbitary, especially when limits are changed for no decernable reason other than local pressure. I've not been able to find any evidence that shows that, beyond a few exceptions, they are set from a careful study of how fast is safe on a particular road.
After that you describe why driving too fast, regardless of what the speed limit might be, is a bad thing, something nobody disagrees with.
Driving on the left - entirely arbitrary
However, still better than a free-for-all.
I refer you to my earlier posts about rules that directly effect other road users (lights at junctions, driving on the left) and those that don't (how fast you drive, what shoes you wear doing it, reflectors on your pedals)0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:
Would you still do this if you rode a motorbike?Headhuunter wrote:I don't actually believe that justification for RLJ-ing is that car drivers break speed limits, I RLJ because I often find it safer to get ahead of build ups of traffic at lights. It means you don't get left hooked or caught up in the melee of motorists who simply must get past cyclists whatever the cost, but anyway....
No but I consider motorbikes to be motor traffic whereas cyclists are more akin to pedestrians with wheels. Motorbikes are still capable of enormous speed and acceleration and very able to put a large dent in any pedestrian or cyclist for that matter
Not quite, I make a distinction in the rules themselves, not about who should obey them to the letter or not. ALL drivers, be they in cars or bicycles or artics, shouldn't get too worked up about posted speed limits (but should never drive/ride too fast) and likewise, ALL drivers, be they in cars or bicycles or artics should obey red lights. I don't prejudice it by the type of vehicle, because when I cycle (and when I drive) I see all road users as equal.Headhuunter wrote:What I find bizarre is that you are willing to say to 1 set of road users (motorists) that they can break speed limits as these limits are, in your words, "arbitrary", yet you say that another set of road users (cyclists) MUST stop at ALL red lights at ALL times.
Well I don't agree. I don't really believe that motorists speeding is justification for me to RLJ however in the absence of a proper cycling network in our major cities, in the absence of filter lights allowing cyclists to pull away before cars and in teh absence of enforcement of ASLs and cycle lanes, I do feel justified as I often find it safer. I don't jump every red light I see and I definitely don't whizz through without checking nothing is coming first. The irony I find with regard to motorists speeding is that motorists themselves, pedestrians and it appears cyclists are willing to condemn cyclists for any transgression of the law, yet the same people are willing to overlook speeding as harmless. What about driving whilst using a mobile? Should motorists be allowed to use their discretion on this law too? And it's not as if motorists don't jump reds! I see it e-v-e-r-y day. As I said, this is not justification, I just don't think motorists or anyone for that matter should be jumping up on their high horses about RLJ-ing, which is one, tiny and relatively harmless misdemeanor when carried out by cyclists. We need to get some perspective.
We actually almost agree. Driving too fast is all those things, we just disagree about what driving too fast means. I don't see any connection between it and a posted speed limit that is, by it's "one value in tens of units" approach, arbitary. Speed limits are not some carefully studied indication of how safe you can drive down a section of road, They just aren't. 60mph is not safe on a single track lane, yet it's the limit on almost all of them. it they were we'd have new signs every 100 meters, and the limits for cars would be different than those for artics on the same road. Even then it would still have to be arbitary, as it takes no account of the drivers state of mind at the time. Driving too fast is always driving too fast though, even when you're 'only' doing 20mph in a 40mph zone but it's raining so hard you can barely see whats in front of you.Headhuunter wrote:You say that "Jumping red lights is anti-social, rude, dangerous, selfish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law", well as far as I am concerned SPEEDING is anti social rude, dangerous, selfuish and stupid, it just happens to also be against the law.
It's a subtle difference, think about it for a while.
I understand your point, but as far as I'm concerned, you're still arguing that motorists (as motorists are most likely to be able to break speed limits, although you state you have broken the speed limit on your bike, I'm sure it doesn't happen regularly) be alllowed to use their discretion when it comes to the rules of the road. I simply do not agree.
You're right, and the answer is they can't. You get prosecuted for breaking speed limits, not for driving too fast. But again you mention motorists. I have broken the speed limit on the bicycle when given a steep enough hill. There is no difference between a car driver and a cyclsist, they are both traffic.Headhuunter wrote:The law is the law. Why should motorists who kill many, many cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists be allowed to interpret the law as they see fit whereas other road users (cyclists) must at all times stick to the law. There is no reason that motorists, driving a large chunk of metal weighing a couple of tonnes, should have better judgement with regard to breaking the law.
(Technically, the speed limit laws only apply to motorised traffic, but the principle is the same)
As mentioned above, you may have broken the speed limit on your bike. I have too. But I very much doubt yuo do it for a sustained period or that it happens frequently enough to make a difference to anyone.
Again, I don't limit it to "one set of road users", I treat ALL road users the same. I ignore speed limits in preference for not driving too fast on the bicycle, I expect artic drivers to do less than 30mph on residential streets for exactly the same reason. I expect car drivers to obey traffic control lights, so I obey them on the bicycle too.Headhuunter wrote:Your view is that too fast is not necessarily 35 in a 30 zone, my view is that red lights and much of the road structure is designed for the motorist and that red lights do not apply to cyclists at all times. If the law if open to interpretation as it seems to be in your view, then why should it only be open to interpretation for 1 set of road users (motorists). Either the law is the law and it's set in stone for all, or it isn't.
All traffic is equal and should use the roads in the same way.
As above. Either the law is the law, or it isn't. Simple as that AFAIC.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I would like to point out that safety is not the only consideration for setting a speed limit - nuisance noise is also a consideration on some roads.0
-
snailracer wrote:I would like to point out that safety is not the only consideration for setting a speed limit - nuisance noise is also a consideration on some roads.
Until everyone has electric cars like the one James Martin tested....."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:snailracer wrote:I would like to point out that safety is not the only consideration for setting a speed limit - nuisance noise is also a consideration on some roads.
Until everyone has electric cars like the one James Martin tested.....
Cars at speed generate lots of wind and tyre noise, too, fortunately. Plus, road racers aren't typically paying much attention to cars, they're too busy concentrating on the other racers.0 -
snailracer wrote:Wallace1492 wrote:snailracer wrote:I would like to point out that safety is not the only consideration for setting a speed limit - nuisance noise is also a consideration on some roads.
Until everyone has electric cars like the one James Martin tested.....
Cars at speed generate lots of wind and tyre noise, too, fortunately. Plus, road racers aren't typically paying much attention to cars, they're too busy concentrating on the other racers.
I've noticed on some roads it's the tyre noise that isd the most noticeable - something i remember New Labour promising to tackle as part of their transport strategy - there is such as low noise road surfaces - always goes in at planning stage to shut the locals up - then they go ahead and build it with the cheap stuff that generates noise. :roll:0
