Hypocrisy and the Law

CycleOfViolence

What with all the talk of riders who RLJ and the pointless venom which is directed towards them (it won't change anything other than your blood pressure) I believe that that many could well be hypocritical when it comes to all matters lawful.

Despite what many may protests I suggest that almost everyone in the UK and so this forum, has broken one law or another, knowingly or unknowingly (the law rarely differentiates) and you may not have agreed with that law so didn't consider it a crime.

31mph in a 30 zone - lawbreaker
71mph on a motorway - lawbreaker
dropped some litter - lawbreaker
had a big smokey fire - probably a lawbreaker
been really really drunk and fallen over in the street - yep there's a cell for you
left the car running and popped into a shop - you may be a lawbreaker
smoked some weed - it's prison for you
shouted abuse and waved your fist at a motorist - you Breached the Peace or Sect 5'd
rode very very quickly - wanton and furious cycling - a room in the big house awaits
rode after a few beers - you know you've done wrong do not collect £200

The list is endless, I've failed on many points and I humbly suggest that if you don't then you're 6ft under, never leave the house or are a hypocrite.

Just don't get me started on the Town Police Clauses Act - you're all going down thanks to that one you filthy rug beaters.

Gussio

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

notsoblue

CycleOfViolence wrote:

What with all the talk of riders who RLJ and the pointless venom which is directed towards them (it won't change anything other than your blood pressure) I believe that that many could well be hypocritical when it comes to all matters lawful.

Totally, and perhaps it is to prevent this cognitive dissonance that they direct their ire at RLJs.

dhope

Sorry, we already had the RLJ thread this week, please come back next.

CycleOfViolence

Gussio wrote:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

The hypocrisy of religion wins hands down.

iPete

rode after a few beers - you know you've done wrong do not collect £200

Can we get clarification on this one please, Spen?

CycleOfViolence

iPete wrote:

rode after a few beers - you know you've done wrong do not collect £200

Can we get clarification on this one please, Spen?

The Police are considered experts on drunkenness by the Magistrates and the definition used is 'smelled strongly on intoxicants, eyes were glazed, unsteady on his feet, he was drunk.......your worships'.

So if you have a few beers then ride your bike and are unlucky enough to be stopped by a Copper with the requisite knowledge, the desire and the cause to make these assessments you may at worst be arrested (if the conditions fit) or reported for summons or told to get off and walk you idiot.

Pretty simple really.

W1

I'm not anti-RLJers because they break the law.

I'm anti-RLJers because they're ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons.

The Rookie

+1

clarkey cat

hey, some of my best friends are RLJers

SimonAH

Monkey see, Monkey do.

The issue is that most (commuting) cyclists do not talk to other cyclists - ergo they do not know that it is frowned upon until told. I believe that almost all of the bad behaviour that gets ranted about on these pages on an almost daily basis is lack of education rather than lack of urbanity.

....of course there will always be the exception to the rule. Some people are just tools, but I'm pretty sure that they are in a minority.

CycleOfViolence

W1 wrote:

I'm not anti-RLJers because they break the law.

I'm anti-RLJers because they're ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons.

That's the point, if you are a law abiding citizen then surely anyone who breaks a law should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons' or is it only the ones whose act has an impact on you ?

It's not about RLJ it's about the holier than thou position taken by many on here who in all likelyhood have broken another law which to someone else means they should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons'.

rolf_f

It isn't about the law - it is about the image they give of cyclists to other road users which then seems to give car drivers the excuse to, for example, cut us up; so no need to worry about hypocrisy!

Plus there is the slightly irritating fact that it really makes knack all time difference if you RLJ anyway so all the bad vibe is for nothing.

Greg T

CycleOfViolence wrote:

It's not about RLJ.

Oh

I do think it is.

jds_1981

reflectors on spds?

mybreakfastconsisted

You won't get a FPN for 31 in a 30 zone.

You won't get a FPN for 71 in a 70.

You won't go to prison for smoking weed.

Personally, if I jumped a red light and got a £60 fine I'd resolve not to be a silly boy and never do it again.

Balance a £60 fine against this sentence:

It’s emerged that a driver who collided with a cyclist on Earlham Road was found guilty of death by careless driving earlier this year.

76 year old John Rudledge died after being knocked off his bike near the junction with Alexandra Road last September.

The incident has caused local councillors to ask how speeding could be reduced along that stretch of road.

John Rudledge, a retired master craftsmen was involved in a collision with a Peugoet 306 on 27th September 2010. He’d pulled out of Alexandra Road onto Earlham Road on his bike, when he was knocked off. He died of his injuries 2 days later in the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

The driver of the car, Rebecca Ottoway, told the inquest: “Literally, in the blink of an eye, I saw someone cycling into my lane, straight into my way.” A police officer from the Serious Collision and Investigation team calculated that she would have had 4 or 5 seconds to react, and that her car would have been travelling at between 32-43 mph, in a 30 mph zone.

Rebecca Ottoway pleaded guilty to a charge of death by careless or inconsiderate driving and was sentenced at an earlier hearing to 12 months community service and was disqualified from driving for a year.

Andrew Boswell, a Green Party councillor for Nelson ward said after the inquest: “We need more speed enforcement and need to find more ways to encourage people not to speed up. I think a flashing light( indicating cars exceeding 30mph) at the end of West Parade would help.”

The coroner, William Armstrong, expressed “his deepest sympathy to Mrs Rudledge and her family.”

http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/news/ ... -concerns/

So a killer driver, driving at a lethal speed, snuffs a life out and will suffer a year's inconvenience and a fine less than the cost of an average bike.

CycleOfViolence

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

You won't get a FPN for 31 in a 30 zone.

You won't get a FPN for 71 in a 70.

You won't go to prison for smoking weed.

Personally, if I jumped a red light and got a £60 fine I'd resolve not to be a silly boy and never do it again.

Balance a £60 fine against this sentence:

It’s emerged that a driver who collided with a cyclist on Earlham Road was found guilty of death by careless driving earlier this year.

76 year old John Rudledge died after being knocked off his bike near the junction with Alexandra Road last September.

The incident has caused local councillors to ask how speeding could be reduced along that stretch of road.

John Rudledge, a retired master craftsmen was involved in a collision with a Peugoet 306 on 27th September 2010. He’d pulled out of Alexandra Road onto Earlham Road on his bike, when he was knocked off. He died of his injuries 2 days later in the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.

The driver of the car, Rebecca Ottoway, told the inquest: “Literally, in the blink of an eye, I saw someone cycling into my lane, straight into my way.” A police officer from the Serious Collision and Investigation team calculated that she would have had 4 or 5 seconds to react, and that her car would have been travelling at between 32-43 mph, in a 30 mph zone.

Rebecca Ottoway pleaded guilty to a charge of death by careless or inconsiderate driving and was sentenced at an earlier hearing to 12 months community service and was disqualified from driving for a year.

Andrew Boswell, a Green Party councillor for Nelson ward said after the inquest: “We need more speed enforcement and need to find more ways to encourage people not to speed up. I think a flashing light( indicating cars exceeding 30mph) at the end of West Parade would help.”

The coroner, William Armstrong, expressed “his deepest sympathy to Mrs Rudledge and her family.”

http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/news/ ... -concerns/

So a killer driver, driving at a lethal speed, snuffs a life out and will suffer a year's inconvenience and a fine less than the cost of an average bike.

I think you missed the point.

Greg T

CycleOfViolence wrote:

I think you missed the point.

You had a point?

W1

CycleOfViolence wrote:

W1 wrote:

I'm not anti-RLJers because they break the law.

I'm anti-RLJers because they're ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons.

That's the point, if you are a law abiding citizen then surely anyone who breaks a law should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons' or is it only the ones whose act has an impact on you ?

It's not about RLJ it's about the holier than thou position taken by many on here who in all likelyhood have broken another law which to someone else means they should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons'.

Er. no. The law is sometimes an ass. With some of them it's a matter of playing to the umpire, rather than to the rulebook.

There are plenty of "dubious" laws that can be broken without being moronic. Two consenting 15 andthreehundredandsixtyfourday year olds having sex with each other is against the law but isn't moronic.

And it appears that there is no way to criticise another's behaviour without being considered "holier than thou". So be it.

greg66_tri_v2.0

CycleOfViolence wrote:

What with all the talk of riders who RLJ and the pointless venom which is directed towards them (it won't change anything other than your blood pressure) I believe that that many could well be hypocritical when it comes to all matters lawful.

Despite what many may protests I suggest that almost everyone in the UK and so this forum, has broken one law or another, knowingly or unknowingly (the law rarely differentiates) and you may not have agreed with that law so didn't consider it a crime.

31mph in a 30 zone - lawbreaker
71mph on a motorway - lawbreaker
dropped some litter - lawbreaker
had a big smokey fire - probably a lawbreaker
been really really drunk and fallen over in the street - yep there's a cell for you
left the car running and popped into a shop - you may be a lawbreaker
smoked some weed - it's prison for you
shouted abuse and waved your fist at a motorist - you Breached the Peace or Sect 5'd
rode very very quickly - wanton and furious cycling - a room in the big house awaits
rode after a few beers - you know you've done wrong do not collect £200

The list is endless, I've failed on many points and I humbly suggest that if you don't then you're 6ft under, never leave the house or are a hypocrite.

Just don't get me started on the Town Police Clauses Act - you're all going down thanks to that one you filthy rug beaters.

#

It would follow from this thesis, would it not, that Joe Public, the recidivist law-breaker by reason of breaking the speed limit and/or breaching the peace, is a hypocrite when he directs his venom towards murderers, muggers, burglars, rapists and so on?

Yes. I see.

Off you go.

CycleOfViolence

W1 wrote:

CycleOfViolence wrote:

W1 wrote:

I'm not anti-RLJers because they break the law.

I'm anti-RLJers because they're ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons.

That's the point, if you are a law abiding citizen then surely anyone who breaks a law should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons' or is it only the ones whose act has an impact on you ?

It's not about RLJ it's about the holier than thou position taken by many on here who in all likelyhood have broken another law which to someone else means they should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons'.

Er. no. The law is sometimes an ass. With some of them it's a matter of playing to the umpire, rather than to the rulebook.

There are plenty of "dubious" laws that can be broken without being moronic. Two consenting 15 andthreehundredandsixtyfourday year olds having sex with each other is against the law but isn't moronic.

And it appears that there is no way to criticise another's behaviour without being considered "holier than thou". So be it.

Calling the law and ass is pretty pointless without case law to clarify which is the offending buttock and without that case law most are pretty clear. Getting caught is the problem for most but I recognise your stance, are you in the greenhouse when it's stone throwing time ?

iPete

Wooosh.

This isn't about the law, this is about perception, responsibility an risk. Anyway, second RLJ thread in two days and for that reason, I'm out.

Greg T

CycleOfViolence wrote:

Calling the law and ass is pretty pointless without case law to clarify blah blah , are you in the greenhouse when it's stone throwing time ?

Are you throwing your crap at the visitors when it's feeding time?

I think you may be getting your paralegal arse handed to you in the near future with your coherent and learned grasping at case law and precedent . . . . You may have picked on just the wrong person to get all "legal" on . . .

Don't get me wrong . . . .

Other Greg is a left handed dabbler in other men's sherbet - he is to be mostly distrusted - in case anyone thinks this is the start of a bro-mance

Confusedboy

31mph in a 30 limit-we've all done it-is not breaking the law, which gives you a margin for error of 10%, so you are not breaking the law at 33. The point is a good one though; my priciple objection to RLJers is that they are breaking the law, although I am by no means blind to the image they generate of cyclists in general, and this goes for pavement riders and ninjas as well.

The thing here is that CofV's endless list of minor transgressions makes well enough the point that there is a lot of holier thant thou hypocracy here, but misses the point that someone doing 31mph in a 30 zone has allowed their speed to creep up unoticed and has not deliberately decided that the law does not apply to him. People who RLJ, ride on pavements, ride without lights at night, &c, know fully well that they are breaking the law, do it anyway, and (and this is the thing that annoys everyone else) don't give a flying f*ck; and these are the majority of cyclists*. They may well be arrogant, selfish, morons, but do not give them the dignity or excuse of ignorance-I refuse to believe that any adult cyclist actually thinks that these actions are anything but illegal.

The law is not something imposed on you by a load of upper-class killjoys, it is the glue that holds society together and the formalisation in writing of society's collective will. If you wilfully break it, even if you consider the offence to be a minor one (and, let's be honest, RLJ, pavement riders, and night ninjas are not drug barons or murderers), do not expect society to condone your action; it shouldn't and won't.

*oh yes they are. Just stand on the corner any busy urban junction, especially after dark, and do your own straw poll.

Gussio

Confusedboy wrote:

Just stand on the corner any busy urban junction, especially after dark

As I understand it, soliciting is also against the law....

W1

CycleOfViolence wrote:

W1 wrote:

CycleOfViolence wrote:

W1 wrote:

I'm not anti-RLJers because they break the law.

I'm anti-RLJers because they're ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons.

That's the point, if you are a law abiding citizen then surely anyone who breaks a law should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons' or is it only the ones whose act has an impact on you ?

It's not about RLJ it's about the holier than thou position taken by many on here who in all likelyhood have broken another law which to someone else means they should be considered 'ignorant, arrogant, selfish morons'.

Er. no. The law is sometimes an ass. With some of them it's a matter of playing to the umpire, rather than to the rulebook.

There are plenty of "dubious" laws that can be broken without being moronic. Two consenting 15 andthreehundredandsixtyfourday year olds having sex with each other is against the law but isn't moronic.

And it appears that there is no way to criticise another's behaviour without being considered "holier than thou". So be it.

Calling the law and ass is pretty pointless without case law to clarify which is the offending buttock and without that case law most are pretty clear. Getting caught is the problem for most but I recognise your stance, are you in the greenhouse when it's stone throwing time ?

I've given you a good example which you've stepped over. Care to try again?

It's not always getting caught - it's often about enforcement. If the umpire turns a blind eye it says something about the rule in the first place.

And, to be clear, as most people are "guilty" of one or more transgressions which you mention, they aren't able to criticise any other law-breaker? Is that what you're suggesting?

dhope

Confusedboy wrote:

31mph in a 30 limit s not breaking the law, which gives you a margin for error of 10%, so you are not breaking the law at 33

31 in a 30 is breaking the law but I believe that a speedo was generally only accurate to 10% 'back in the day', hence cameras and police giving a little grace so as to avoid the "but my car told me I was doing 30" argument.

nation

I'm in the "it's not that it's against the law, it's that (the vast majority of the time) the people doing it are being twats" corner.

Although having said that I don't think it would be the worst idea if cyclists were permitted to treat red lights as "give way".

Can somebody help me with the opener for this cylindrical metal container of worms...

W1

Confusedboy wrote:

They may well be arrogant, selfish, morons, but do not give them the dignity or excuse of ignorance-I refuse to believe that any adult cyclist actually thinks that these actions are anything but illegal..

Don't agree with the "majority" point, but it's a significant minority at least.

The ignorance is not of the law itself, it's of the impact that the breach has on others. Such as the presumption that all cyclists run red lights = people crashing into the back of cyclists who stop. People who RLJ either don't want to, or can't, consider the real consequences of their actions. That's the ignorance.

EKE_38BPM

dhope wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

31mph in a 30 limit s not breaking the law, which gives you a margin for error of 10%, so you are not breaking the law at 33

31 in a 30 is breaking the law but I believe that a speedo was generally only accurate to 10% 'back in the day', hence cameras and police giving a little grace so as to avoid the "but my car told me I was doing 30" argument.

I've been told that its 10% +2mph. So:
20 = 24
30 = 35
40 = 46
50 = 57
60 = 68
70 = 79

But driving at the speeds I've listed would mean that your speedo would have to be 100% accurate for you to be able to lie confidently to the coppers about breaking the speed limit.

And just to stoke the fires of RLJing, I only jump red lights when my Airzound is wearing a hi-viz jacket and a helmet with two £9 MD80 clones mounted on it.

W1

EKE_38BPM wrote:

dhope wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

31mph in a 30 limit s not breaking the law, which gives you a margin for error of 10%, so you are not breaking the law at 33

31 in a 30 is breaking the law but I believe that a speedo was generally only accurate to 10% 'back in the day', hence cameras and police giving a little grace so as to avoid the "but my car told me I was doing 30" argument.

I've been told that its 10% +2mph. So:
20 = 24
30 = 35
40 = 46
50 = 57
60 = 68
70 = 79

But driving at the speeds I've listed would mean that your speedo would have to be 100% accurate for you to be able to lie confidently to the coppers about breaking the speed limit.

And just to stoke the fires of RLJing, I only jump red lights when my Airzound is wearing a hi-viz jacket and a helmet with two £9 MD80 clones mounted on it.

That's only about discretionary enforcement though - the police can legitimately prosecute you for 1mph over the limit, just to do so would be absurd as it's only an arbitrary number on a stick which reflects the lowest common denominator's driving skill.