Why its ok to break the highway code

Sewinman

I came across this blog via the Guardian. It is very silly but it made me laugh - so bad its good.

Best bit for me was: "Indeed if the cyclist has a blind spot and cycles straight into a pedestrian it is likely to be embarrassing but nothing worse. A sincere apology should make amends (I know I cycled at top speed into a child- she was fine)." :shock:

http://ecohustler.co.uk/2009/09/16/why- ... -the-road/

W1

Sewinman wrote:

I came across this blog via the Guardia. It is very silly but it made me laugh - so bad its good.

Best bit for me was: "Indeed if the cyclist has a blind spot and cycles straight into a pedestrian it is likely to be embarrassing but nothing worse. A sincere apology should make amends (I know I cycled at top speed into a child- she was fine)." :shock:

http://ecohustler.co.uk/2009/09/16/why- ... -the-road/

There's so much of that that I disagree with I don't even know where to start.

Still, great effort at enforcing the "them and us" mentality that's the real danger to cyclists...

rjsterry

Good grief. As you say W1, where to start? What a crock.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Good grief. As you say W1, where to start? What a crock.

You see? We do agree on some things!

SmellTheGlove

From Lucifer Box to Bletchley Park, there's a long and honourable tradition of code-breaking on these shores.

Just saying.

iPete

The guy associates with Critical Mass quite clearly, so I cant be bothered to read what is more than likely a complete load of bollocks.

W1

iPete wrote:

The guy associates with Critical Mass quite clearly, so I cant be bothered to read what is more than likely a complete load of bollocks.

Having read it, that's a good summary.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Good grief. As you say W1, where to start? What a crock.

You see? We do agree on some things!

I know, I'm getting worried :?

Alphabet

FFS. what a load of old toss. to sum up and remove the lies:

EcoHustler wrote:

I jump red lights because i don't want to have to wait and I don't think I'll get caught because I don't have a number plate. Further to that, I also cycle on the pavement because I'm a complete and utter tw@t

Plus, cars are evil. No exceptions.

gtvlusso

iPete wrote:

The guy associates with Critical Mass quite clearly, so I cant be bothered to read what is more than likely a complete load of bollocks.

+1

lost_in_thought

Come on now kids, I think it's so overblown it has to be a little tongue in cheek.

Headhuunter

"The cyclist is slowly pushed through the grill like scarlet mash potato; a nasty walk to work for the passers by"

Love this quote. So being squeezed through a grill like "scarlet mashed potato" inconveniences people walking to work, does it? Well as long as the mashed potato apologises all shuold be well...

notsoblue

Sewinman wrote:

I came across this blog via the Guardian. It is very silly but it made me laugh - so bad its good.

Best bit for me was: "Indeed if the cyclist has a blind spot and cycles straight into a pedestrian it is likely to be embarrassing but nothing worse. A sincere apology should make amends (I know I cycled at top speed into a child- she was fine)." :shock:

http://ecohustler.co.uk/2009/09/16/why- ... -the-road/

Thats an awful quote. Having cycled into an adult at top speed before, I can tell you that the effect is a little more than "embarrassing". I consider RLJ's to be little more than a nuisance, but I can't agree with anything this guy says.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Good grief. As you say W1, where to start? What a crock.

You see? We do agree on some things!

I know, I'm getting worried :?

Has W1 been dragging you along to the daily Two Minutes of Hate? Resist!

UndercoverElephant

I'm planning on changing dentists. My current dentist told my wife that she "had to dive out of the way of me" and I was travelling through Musselburgh "like a rocket". I feel some very expensive, painful and unnecessary dental procedures coming on...

Nb. I don't ride on pavements, nor do I jump red lights. Frankly, it sounds like she walked out into the road without looking. I didn't see her, if I had I would have got her. :twisted:

electric_blue

anyone who addresses a pedestrian who is complaining about a cyclist on the pavement as "Yo freakoid! " has to be a complete tw@t. If s/he tried it with me they'd get my boot up their @rse at the very least. Metaphorically speaking of course.

electric_blue

lost_in_thought wrote:

Come on now kids, I think it's so overblown it has to be a little tongue in cheek.

I don't think so - I've met a few idiots like this - probably very immature and very highly self regarding - seems to think s/he has all the answers and everyone else is an idiot.

nickthetrick

Weird, I tend to agree with everything he said, though maybe not the way he said it.

So what do people disgree with here?

I like 'Tanya''s response below the article. Sounds sensible to me.

asprilla

nickthetrick wrote:

Weird, I tend to agree with everything he said, though maybe not the way he said it.

So what do people disgree with here?

I like 'Tanya''s response below the article. Sounds sensible to me.

I tend to disagree with the bit about bikes being allowed to go through red lights, ride on the pavement and generally have drastically different rules to other road users.

deptfordmarmoset

nickthetrick wrote:

Weird, I tend to agree with everything he said, though maybe not the way he said it.

So what do people disgree with here?

I like 'Tanya''s response below the article. Sounds sensible to me.

I actually agree with a couple of his points, particularly the bits about who traffic laws are designed for. And perhaps, once all means of improving the cyclists' lot have been stalled, there might be a case for principled civil disobedience. But seeing the world as us versus them, excusing cyclists who hit pedestrians on the pavement and generally permitting yourself to break the law for your own convenience because you see yourself as green, does not count as principled civil disobedience for me. And he's not going to make friends on either side of the gutter he's riding in.

Jay dubbleU

If we are to be accepted as traffic - which I think is what most people on here want then we have to accept the rules which govern traffic.
RLJing is not safer, it antagonises motorists and endangers pedestrians.
Pavement riding ? Pavement riding is for those who are too chicken to ride on the road
As for the left turn argument for heavens sake people don't go left at the side of large vehicles - its common sense surely?
I don't know what her top speed is but if I rode into someone at my top speed there would be blood and snot all over the place

Mike Healey

Traffic laws are designed for motor vehicles? Evidence-based proof?
There is the major set of laws for all users, e.g. driving on the left, traffic lights, one way systems, no riding or driving on pavements
There are subsets which apply to some groups, e.g. contra-flow lanes for cyclists, speed limits for motor vehicles, banning of cyclists and other users (moped riders) from motorways
There is the odd subset which applies to a specific type of user, e.g. 56mph limit for HGVs
Then there are the road user guidelines in the Highway Code, designed to make everyone's behaviour consistent and therefore predictable. Which, in the vast (99%+) majority of road user interactions works, because we co-operate with each other. If we didn't, the entire system would, as it were, crash.
If this twerp has trouble with other road users, it's because he has decided to ride according to his barkingly deranged views and is therefore almost entirely unpredictable
Bike commuted from '82 to '05, obeyed the law (odd, v. short pavement section excepted) and could count truly dangerous moments on my fingers. Wonder why?

deptfordmarmoset

Mike Healey wrote:

Traffic laws are designed for motor vehicles? Evidence-based proof?
There is the major set of laws for all users, e.g. driving on the left, traffic lights, one way systems, no riding or driving on pavements
There are subsets which apply to some groups, e.g. contra-flow lanes for cyclists, speed limits for motor vehicles, banning of cyclists and other users (moped riders) from motorways
There is the odd subset which applies to a specific type of user, e.g. 56mph limit for HGVs
Then there are the road user guidelines in the Highway Code, designed to make everyone's behaviour consistent and therefore predictable. Which, in the vast (99%+) majority of road user interactions works, because we co-operate with each other. If we didn't, the entire system would, as it were, crash.
If this twerp has trouble with other road users, it's because he has decided to ride according to his barkingly deranged views and is therefore almost entirely unpredictable
Bike commuted from '82 to '05, obeyed the law (odd, v. short pavement section excepted) and could count truly dangerous moments on my fingers. Wonder why?

While I have no sympathy for the blogger's point of view, and try to cycle within all the laws (I'll admit to not always wanting to stop at a very ripe orange light on the rare occasions when I have a bit of momentum built up), I do still believe that, by and large, cyclists are caught up within a code of rules and laws that only exist because of the problems and dangers caused by motorised vehicles.

This won't count as evidence based proof, of course, but I have occasionally asked here if anybody can name one set of traffic lights in the UK that has been installed because of problems or dangers caused by cyclists. And I still haven't seen anyone name one.

When I cycle up through Greenwich Park, I approach it via Nevada Street but when I cycle back down I can't take Nevada Street even though it's on an established cycle route because it's now part of a one-way system. The reason it's a one-way system is because it's not wide enough to accommodate both parked vehicles and two-way motorised traffic. In effect, cyclists can't legally cycle down it because cars are too big to circulate as two-way traffic. Not because cyclists are too big to circulate as two-way traffic. The legal cycling option is to join a more dangerous and much busier 3 lane one-way section where much of the traffic is changing lanes. It's an example of cycling becoming less convenient and more dangerous because of motorised traffic. And while the situation generally has improved for cyclists - in many places there are now ''no entry'' signs marked ''except cyclists'' for example - this very local Nevada Street example is replicated thousands of times all over the country.

In fact I think I should add one-way systems to my general challenge. So can anybody name traffic lights that are there to manage dangers or problems caused by cyclists or can anybody name a one-way system that has been designed to solve a circulation problem caused by cyclists? They may exist but I can't think of one.

W1

I agree with the comments on that blog by Asprilla. spot on.

It's also nice to see the return of Porgy.....

EDIT - just read the authors comment too - clearly barking.

OldSkoolKona

The thread reminded me of this one:

An article from Hugo Rifkind in the Time today entitled "I'm angry - and I've waited 6 months to say this - Don't get me started on drivers and pedestrians..."
http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... =12612138&

Still waiting on Hugo to come down to the Morpeth - does this count as the only time a Commuting Thread made it into the press (other than of course the mighty SCR :-))

soundninjauk

That guy is a moron. Jumping red lights to save the planet? WTF?

flicksta

notsoblue wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I came across this blog via the Guardian. It is very silly but it made me laugh - so bad its good.

Best bit for me was: "Indeed if the cyclist has a blind spot and cycles straight into a pedestrian it is likely to be embarrassing but nothing worse. A sincere apology should make amends (I know I cycled at top speed into a child- she was fine)." :shock:

http://ecohustler.co.uk/2009/09/16/why- ... -the-road/

Thats an awful quote. Having cycled into an adult at top speed before, I can tell you that the effect is a little more than "embarrassing". I consider RLJ's to be little more than a nuisance, but I can't agree with anything this guy says.

It's disgraceful. Years ago I was riding through Hackney where two parents were walking their approx 2 year old across a ped Xing. I decided if I sped up I could make it over the crossing before they did, only I did not anticipate the kiddie breaking free and running over the crossing to the other side. I rode into him not at top speed, but braking from 25mph. They weren't really hurt, but what right did I have to decide that? It was only luck that meant the poor kid wasn't hurt. My worst act on a bike and I will never do it again.

nickthetrick

If I cycle I'm drastically different from the majority of road users (motorised vehicles) so why shouldn't I be entitled to a drastically different set of rules to abide by?

Other road users, pedestrians I'll call them, have different usage rules from motorised vehicles.

And they break the ones they don't like to preserve their life better and also to get from A to B faster.

I think all those anti the article are stuck in your ways. To be sure riding on the pavement and hurtling through red lights (is this what RLJing actually means, I thought it mean coming up to a light slow and deciding its a waste of time to wait since I wouldn't be interferring with any lanes of motorised vehicles if i did my left turn) with abandon is not the way forward. But neither is adhering to outdated and biased views and laws of road usage.

I've RLJed for the past 20 years and I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times I've endangered a pedestrian, and that wasn't when I RLJed. Does anecdote count as evidence?

soundninjauk

nickthetrick wrote:

If I cycle I'm drastically different from the majority of road users (motorised vehicles) so why shouldn't I be entitled to a drastically different set of rules to abide by?

Well for one thing, the rest of the traffic doesn't know what rules you're playing by. So you become an unpredictable hazard.

nickthetrick wrote:

Other road users, pedestrians I'll call them, have different usage rules from motorised vehicles.

You mean... pavement users? While they do on occasion cross the road, I think it's a bit of a push to call them 'road users'.

nickthetrick wrote:

I've RLJed for the past 20 years and I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times I've endangered a pedestrian, and that wasn't when I RLJed. Does anecdote count as evidence?

Generally not, no. Please don't hit me when I'm going through my green light.

W1

nickthetrick wrote:

If I cycle I'm drastically different from the majority of road users (motorised vehicles) so why shouldn't I be entitled to a drastically different set of rules to abide by?

Other road users, pedestrians I'll call them, have different usage rules from motorised vehicles.

And they break the ones they don't like to preserve their life better and also to get from A to B faster.

I think all those anti the article are stuck in your ways. To be sure riding on the pavement and hurtling through red lights (is this what RLJing actually means, I thought it mean coming up to a light slow and deciding its a waste of time to wait since I wouldn't be interferring with any lanes of motorised vehicles if i did my left turn) with abandon is not the way forward. But neither is adhering to outdated and biased views and laws of road usage.

I've RLJed for the past 20 years and I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times I've endangered a pedestrian, and that wasn't when I RLJed. Does anecdote count as evidence?

Peds are not road users. Cyclists are. All road users are (and should be) bound by the same rules to try to limit unpredictable and therefore dangerous behaviour. If you don't like the rules you are welcome not to use the road. But if you do choose to use the road you should accept the responsibility that comes with that.

RLJing is less about endangering pedestrians and more about enforcing the negative stereotype of cyclists. Therefore whilst you say you've not endagered any peds, the actual negative consequences of your selfish actions may be more far-reaching (and dangerous) that you have considered. We've had hunreds of RLJing debates - perhaps breathe life into the corpse of one of thos if you want to justify riding like a tw@.

SimonAH

nickthetrick wrote:

I've RLJed for the past 20 years and I can count on the fingers of one finger how many times I've endangered a pedestrian, and that wasn't when I RLJed. Does anecdote count as evidence?

It has very little to do with endangering pedestrians (although I have seen some complete idiots shoot through as peds cross) IT'S ABOUT BEHAVING IN A CIVILISED MANNER AND DOING AS THE OTHER ROAD USERS EXPECT YOU TO THEREBY MINIMISING THE RISK THAT THEY WILL BLOODY WELL KILL YOU.

that is all.