Why its ok to break the highway code

soundninjauk

W1 wrote:

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.

Exactly. It's because of riders like you that we end up with police crackdowns on cycling in places like the City due to 'taxpayer request'.

electric_blue

I hate the smug assumption by the blogger that s/he was somehow akin to the Lord God Almighty himself. Never mind the poor pedestrian who's space is being taken by the pavement using, RLJing cyclist - the poor pedestrian dupes are all just sheep, buying plastic crap, and driving cars according to this tw@t. And s/he thinks that the pedestrian should not be complaining to the cyclist who is taking their space but to the motorist. All the time this little superhero on a bike fails to realise that it is him/her who should be taking on the motorist to make more space for the cyclist not kicking the sh.it downhill onto the next more vulnerable road user!!

In any kind of heirarchy of moral high-ground on the roads pedestrians are at the top - and at best cyclists are second. Walking is the greenest, healthiest and most sustainable form of transport. This tw@t seems to think the s/he is above all that nonsense.

electric_blue

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

notsoblue

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Mmmm, semantics.

electric_blue

notsoblue wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Mmmm, semantics.

I've noticed a lot of cyclists seem to think pedestrians have no right to be on the road. It's a seriously bad assumption, and makes us as bad as the average motorist imo.

asprilla

electric_blue wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Mmmm, semantics.

I've noticed a lot of cyclists seem to think pedestrians have no right to be on the road. It's a seriously bad assumption, and makes us as bad as the average motorist imo.

The only time / location I think they have no right to be on the road is at a ped crossing when the red man is showing. Unfortunately they disagree, hence my two offs in London.

W1

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Come on, stop being ridiculous Porgy. It is clear that there is a distinct difference between a ped using the road, and a cyclist using the road. In that context a cyclist is far more akin to a car than a pedestrian in terms of route, speed, movement, flow etc etc. That's why considering peds and cyclists as the same just because they are "road users" is patendtly absurd.

Clever Pun

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

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.

there are two sets of cycle specific traffic lights on the CS3 one at the junction of Cable and Dock Street and one at the junction of Cable and Cannon St road

do they count?

Clicky

flicksta

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?

You count on the fingers of one finger how many times you know you've endagered a pedestrian.

ooermissus

W1 wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Come on, stop being ridiculous Porgy. It is clear that there is a distinct difference between a ped using the road, and a cyclist using the road. In that context a cyclist is far more akin to a car than a pedestrian in terms of route, speed, movement, flow etc etc. That's why considering peds and cyclists as the same just because they are "road users" is patendtly absurd.

Not what he said:

electric_blue wrote:

In any kind of heirarchy of moral high-ground on the roads pedestrians are at the top - and at best cyclists are second.

I expect peds to have the fewest rules and HGVs to have the most - and it therefore seems completely reasonable to me for cyclists to have fewer and/or different rules to motorists.

And I certainly don't ascribe to your view that the police need to take a much more aggressive approach to cyclists, to stop car drivers finding us annoying.

W1

ooermissus wrote:

And I certainly don't ascribe to your view that the police need to take a much more aggressive approach to cyclists, to stop car drivers finding us annoying.

Two large leaps there.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Come on, stop being ridiculous Porgy. It is clear that there is a distinct difference between a ped using the road, and a cyclist using the road. In that context a cyclist is far more akin to a car than a pedestrian in terms of route, speed, movement, flow etc etc. That's why considering peds and cyclists as the same just because they are "road users" is patendtly absurd.

That's not what he was saying. (I think) he was just pointing out that pedestrians aren't banned from walking in the road/legally obliged to walk on the pavement, and only permitted to step on to the tarmac at crossings when the appropriate signal is showing. A number of cyclists seem to think that they have an automatic right of way over any pedestrian not on the pavement, and accordingly ride in a fairly obnoxious way.

flicksta

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Come on, stop being ridiculous Porgy. It is clear that there is a distinct difference between a ped using the road, and a cyclist using the road. In that context a cyclist is far more akin to a car than a pedestrian in terms of route, speed, movement, flow etc etc. That's why considering peds and cyclists as the same just because they are "road users" is patendtly absurd.

That's not what he was saying. (I think) he was just pointing out that pedestrians aren't banned from walking in the road/legally obliged to walk on the pavement, and only permitted to step on to the tarmac at crossings when the appropriate signal is showing. A number of cyclists seem to think that they have an automatic right of way over any pedestrian not on the pavement, and accordingly ride in a fairly obnoxious way.

Indeed. A number of cyclists treat pedestrians in the road in the same way that a number of car drivers treat cyclists.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Come on, stop being ridiculous Porgy. It is clear that there is a distinct difference between a ped using the road, and a cyclist using the road. In that context a cyclist is far more akin to a car than a pedestrian in terms of route, speed, movement, flow etc etc. That's why considering peds and cyclists as the same just because they are "road users" is patendtly absurd.

That's not what he was saying. (I think) he was just pointing out that pedestrians aren't banned from walking in the road/legally obliged to walk on the pavement, and only permitted to step on to the tarmac at crossings when the appropriate signal is showing. A number of cyclists seem to think that they have an automatic right of way over any pedestrian not on the pavement, and accordingly ride in a fairly obnoxious way.

Well we can let Porgy clarify what he was saying.....

ooermissus

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

And I certainly don't ascribe to your view that the police need to take a much more aggressive approach to cyclists, to stop car drivers finding us annoying.

Two large leaps there.

Really?

W1 wrote:

I think cycling is grossly underpoliced, which generates an assumption that cyclists are above the law - which in turn pisses everyone off (myself, as a cyclist, driver and pedestrian, included).

W1

ooermissus wrote:

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

And I certainly don't ascribe to your view that the police need to take a much more aggressive approach to cyclists, to stop car drivers finding us annoying.

Two large leaps there.

Really?

W1 wrote:

I think cycling is grossly underpoliced, which generates an assumption that cyclists are above the law - which in turn pisses everyone off (myself, as a cyclist, driver and pedestrian, included).

Yes, really.

"much more aggressive" - exaggerates what I said. I think the police often ignore bad and dangerous cycling.

"car drivers finding us annoying" - diminishes it. It's much more than annoying car drivers (hence whhy I included the phrase "cyclist, driver and pedestrian".

rhext

Well, I have a great deal of sympathy for the basic premise: that our road system and traffic laws are predominantly focussed on the 'needs' of motor vehicles. I can't quote study evidence on that, so I'll merely observe that I can't imagine a situation where predominantly human or animal powered transport would have led us to develop things like zebra crossings, roundabouts, traffic lights, or speed limits.

But the current laws have been developed to a certain extent to support co-existance between all road users. And given that both laws and code have been developed to cover all road users, then to me it seems obvious that all road users should do their best to abide by them. Even if for no other reason than the fact that if you don't, then you are behaving in a way which other users will not expect. And if they're not expecting you to behave that way, then you're putting either yourself or them in more danger.

So if jumping red lights or cycling on the pavement are perfectly safe and sensible things for cyclists to do then instead of ignoring the law, we should present the facts and campaign to change the law.

nickthetrick

So I think that pretty much everyone who replied to my post in an objectionable way pointed out that by breaking the 'rules of the road' I was doing something that could be dangerous simply because it would be unexpected to the majority of road users...

And no one really could come up with any significant contribution to suggest that what i do in my anti-law abiding nature is actually dangerous to anyone, including myself (after all I'm alive - only been hit once on a bike and that was at a roundabout when i was on it and someone drove into me).

So isn't there some basis to change the law (i wouldn't cite my own circumstances in isolation for this if i were really putting it somewhere that mattered) and remove the final doing-something-unexpected objection.

nickthetrick

Another relevant point:

If there is no adequate pavement then a pedestrian will use the road legitimately to travel from A to B.

Likewise if there's no adequate cycle path a cyclist will use a road legitimately to travel from A to B.

So is there any difference between pedestrians and cyclists except a) cyclists have a bike b) pedestrians have a lot more pavements at their disposal?

I think pedestrians and cyclists are a lot closer than cyclists and cars (and the people in cars)

rhext

There probably is some basis to change the law. All I'm saying is that until it's changed we probably ought to stick to it on principle.

And in practice, it's clear to me that there are some changes being made within the existing law to remove some of the more obvious problems..... Eg

Is it a sensible law that cyclists shouldn't be allowed to ride on pavements?

When you cycle along a main road linking two towns, with cars shooting past you at 60 MPH, looking longingly at the deserted pavement next to you, you answer 'no'. If you contemplate cycling along Oxford street at mid-day on the last Saturday before Christmas you probably have to answer 'yes'. But if your local council paints a white 'bicycle' symbol on the deserted pavement, problem solved. Plus any pedestrians who do happen to use it know to expect the odd bike.

Is it a sensible law that cyclists shouldn't be allowed to jump red lights?

I could pick equally extreme examples to show yes/no.... but instead I'll comment on more work by the local council. I see some instances where they've marked cycle lanes which effectively allow you to skip the lights, and others where they've installed combined pedestrian/cycle crossing lights which do the same thing.

So we don't even need to lobby for a change in the law...just for local councils to work within the existing framework to make things easier and safer for us!

I suppose in practice everyone actually picks the laws they're prepared to abide by, whatever they say to the contrary. But to my mind, lobbying for changes is better than incitement to mass disobedience.

W1

nickthetrick wrote:

So I think that pretty much everyone who replied to my post in an objectionable way pointed out that by breaking the 'rules of the road' I was doing something that could be dangerous simply because it would be unexpected to the majority of road users...

And no one really could come up with any significant contribution to suggest that what i do in my anti-law abiding nature is actually dangerous to anyone, including myself (after all I'm alive - only been hit once on a bike and that was at a roundabout when i was on it and someone drove into me).

So isn't there some basis to change the law (i wouldn't cite my own circumstances in isolation for this if i were really putting it somewhere that mattered) and remove the final doing-something-unexpected objection.

You've just contradicted yourself - the fact that what you do is not expected is by it's very nature more dangerous than doing what you are supposed (and are oblited) to do.

What you appear to be suggesting is that cyclist should be allowed to do absolutely anything they want, so that nothing they can do is "unexpected" - which is barking.

asprilla

W1 wrote:

nickthetrick wrote:

So I think that pretty much everyone who replied to my post in an objectionable way pointed out that by breaking the 'rules of the road' I was doing something that could be dangerous simply because it would be unexpected to the majority of road users...

And no one really could come up with any significant contribution to suggest that what i do in my anti-law abiding nature is actually dangerous to anyone, including myself (after all I'm alive - only been hit once on a bike and that was at a roundabout when i was on it and someone drove into me).

So isn't there some basis to change the law (i wouldn't cite my own circumstances in isolation for this if i were really putting it somewhere that mattered) and remove the final doing-something-unexpected objection.

You've just contradicted yourself - the fact that what you do is not expected is by it's very nature more dangerous than doing what you are supposed (and are oblited) to do.

What you appear to be suggesting is that cyclist should be allowed to do absolutely anything they want, so that nothing they can do is "unexpected" - which is barking.

I can cite my experiance which is my wife, whilst I was in the passenger seat, driving a Volvo at 40mph into a cyclist who had jumped a red light. He's still alive too, but that's not really the point, is it?

Kieran_Burns

If there is no adequate pavement then a pedestrian will use the road legitimately to travel from A to B.

and the correct method is to face the oncoming traffic - different to Road users

Likewise if there's no adequate cycle path a cyclist will use a road legitimately to travel from A to B.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. I will use the road by preference in all cases. Cycle paths are an extra option available to me when there is no road to use

So is there any difference between pedestrians and cyclists except a) cyclists have a bike b) pedestrians have a lot more pavements at their disposal?

Given that pedestrians are not road users and cyclists are, I would say that there is a great deal of difference

I think pedestrians and cyclists are a lot closer than cyclists and cars (and the people in cars)

Again wrong. You seem to be of the school of thought that cyclists do not actually belong on the road and should be treated as pedestrians / should be kept separate from 'legitimate' road users.
In which case I can only see your posts in terms of a troll.

secretsam

Alphabet wrote:

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.

+1

What a tw@t the writer must be
Pavements should only be ridden on by kids under 7
As for red lights, come the revolution, anyone jumping one on a bike does so on the understanding that if they get creamed by a lorry/bus/car/steamroller/cyclist coming the other way, no ambulance or other state assistance will be forthcoming, because although they are required to attend by law, hey, the law doesn't apply to RLJers, does it? W*nkers, the lot of them.

I feel SO much better now!

Moomin23

This morning a woman thought it fit to roll down her window and shout at me because I pulled up her alongside her in ASL, looked at the massive picture of a bike and shook my head.

I was then treated to a loud explanation of how it was okay to do that and priorities etc, which only left me to apologise, I had been misled by the MASSIVE PICTURE OF A BICYCLE in the road.

soundninjauk

nickthetrick wrote:

So I think that pretty much everyone who replied to my post in an objectionable way pointed out that by breaking the 'rules of the road' I was doing something that could be dangerous simply because it would be unexpected to the majority of road users...

And no one really could come up with any significant contribution to suggest that what i do in my anti-law abiding nature is actually dangerous to anyone, including myself (after all I'm alive - only been hit once on a bike and that was at a roundabout when i was on it and someone drove into me).

So isn't there some basis to change the law (i wouldn't cite my own circumstances in isolation for this if i were really putting it somewhere that mattered) and remove the final doing-something-unexpected objection.

So, this very morning in fact, because of actions like yours, one of our forum members was nearly hit by a van. The van was not expecting the bike to stop at a red light. Good work.

http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12741161

UpTheWall

Moomin23 wrote:

This morning a woman thought it fit to roll down her window and shout at me because I pulled up her alongside her in ASL, looked at the massive picture of a bike and shook my head.

I was then treated to a loud explanation of how it was okay to do that and priorities etc, which only left me to apologise, I had been misled by the MASSIVE PICTURE OF A BICYCLE in the road.

I understand that you can get a £60 fine and 6 points on your license for stopping in the green advance section. (With some caveat about if you have to stop suddenly due to lights changing or summink.)

It's not 100% illegal to ride on a pavement - the home office advice gave the exception that you can do it out of fear of the traffic - it's down to the officer's discretion.

That said, I think the officer's discretion would be ageist and sexist - i.e. me a 30-something bloke would be done, whereas a kid, a woman with a kid, a gran zig zagging about would be let off.

UpTheWall

electric_blue wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

electric_blue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Peds are not road users..

I defy you to walk across London without using the road.

Mmmm, semantics.

I've noticed a lot of cyclists seem to think pedestrians have no right to be on the road. It's a seriously bad assumption, and makes us as bad as the average motorist imo.

Yer what?

I repeatedly have peds walking out in front of me when I'm hurtling along a road. A *road* mind you. Peds dont' have a right to walk out in front of moving traffic, whether a car or a cyclist...

snailracer

Kieran_Burns wrote:

If there is no adequate pavement then a pedestrian will use the road legitimately to travel from A to B.

and the correct method is to face the oncoming traffic - different to Road users

Likewise if there's no adequate cycle path a cyclist will use a road legitimately to travel from A to B.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. I will use the road by preference in all cases. Cycle paths are an extra option available to me when there is no road to use

So is there any difference between pedestrians and cyclists except a) cyclists have a bike b) pedestrians have a lot more pavements at their disposal?

Given that pedestrians are not road users and cyclists are, I would say that there is a great deal of difference

I think pedestrians and cyclists are a lot closer than cyclists and cars (and the people in cars)

Again wrong. You seem to be of the school of thought that cyclists do not actually belong on the road and should be treated as pedestrians / should be kept separate from 'legitimate' road users.
In which case I can only see your posts in terms of a troll.

How is this a troll?

Facing the traffic whilst walking on the road is only a recommendation, it is not mandated. Just like the HC recommends wearing a helmet whilst cycling. The HC does not treat bicycles exactly like cars e.g. filtering - cars are not allowed to do it, so by your reasoning bicycles are not road users??

Using a road in preference to a bike path is your preference - someone else's preference to use the bike path is just as valid as yours, not "utterly wrong".

Any comparison of speed, weight, manoevrability, visibility, injury in accidents, etc. would classify cyclists closer to pedestrians, than with cars. Have you not noticed the proliferation of shared-use paths, which are simply pavements where cycling is permitted? This blurring of whether bicycles belong on the road or pavement, or both, is going on whether you like it or not.

wgwarburton

UpTheWall wrote:

.... Peds dont' have a right to walk out in front of moving traffic, whether a car or a cyclist...

Are you sure about that?

The highway code (yes, I know it's not the law) doesn't say you MUST NOT step out. It strongly advises against doing so (duh?) and says you MUST NOT walk onto railway crossings against a red light, MUST NOT be on motorways and MUST NOT hold onto moving vehicles.. Also that you MUST NOT loiter on a crossing... I don't see anything about MUST NOT cross in front of traffic...

A driver (or cyclist) won't be considered liable for gross stupidity, recklessness etc on the part of a pedestrian, but pedestrians ARE allowed on roads... and as a cyclist you should know that and make allowances for it!!

Cheers,
W.