Took a swing at an RLJ'er today

Headhuunter

SimonAH wrote:

It's not the law that's the problem, it's the perception of motorists.

The second I get out of my Golf and onto my bike I am immediately assumed to be a rules of the road scofflaw due to the highly visible antics of the minority. I don't like that guilt-by-association.

But why is that the fault of the victim? It's like saying that all girls in short skirts must be slags and deserved to be raped and that this should be taken into consideration by the police when investigating the crime...

diplomacy

Headhuunter wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It's not the law that's the problem, it's the perception of motorists.

The second I get out of my Golf and onto my bike I am immediately assumed to be a rules of the road scofflaw due to the highly visible antics of the minority. I don't like that guilt-by-association.

But why is that the fault of the victim? It's like saying that all girls in short skirts must be slags and deserved to be raped and that this should be taken into consideration by the police when investigating the crime...

it's twisting my melon a bit to think about this, but i think there is a small misunderstanding. in your scenario we (cyclists) are *all* girls in short skirts, and some of us are slags. SimonAH is saying that when he is wearing a short skirt he doesn't like being assumed to be a slag, but he still wears it.

i don't think anyone is saying that if a driver hits a cyclist he should be let off because 'cyclists always RLJ'. regardless of any law we want to avoid being hit by a driver because it hurts, and having drivers who respect cyclists as other road users would make it less likely to be hit than having drivers who are frustrated and angry at all cyclists.

ga02clr

I think it’s fair to say the guilty by association thing at the moment is while misguided is just a fact. It happens in many walks of life and is wrong but that’s what happens. Look at the statistics for stop and search…
My point is that it’s a sad case of peoples lack of morals. As an extreme example it’s like people who under normal circumstances were quite ‘normal’ suddenly looting shops during the riots. They did it as everyone else seemingly was and thought they could get away with it.
People know jumping lights is wrong but they do it as they think ‘everyone else does so why shouldn’t I’ and they will get away with it. If you saw someone robbing a granny or trying to steal a bike would you say something or just accept it. Or your mate in the pub has had quite a few but is about to drive home. What would you do? It’s an extreme example granted but it is a human moral issue that affects society.
Society works by having accepted social boundaries. Less people drink drive as its now not socially acceptable. If as cyclists we make red light jumping socially acceptable it will reduce its frequency. It will always happen as a minority will just break any rules.
I am not saying hit anyone that’s just stupid. But having a quite word as you go past them (they are always slow) and making a point of stopping yourself will slowly bring people round.

It has to become the social norm.

ga02clr

diplomacy wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It's not the law that's the problem, it's the perception of motorists.

The second I get out of my Golf and onto my bike I am immediately assumed to be a rules of the road scofflaw due to the highly visible antics of the minority. I don't like that guilt-by-association.

But why is that the fault of the victim? It's like saying that all girls in short skirts must be slags and deserved to be raped and that this should be taken into consideration by the police when investigating the crime...

it's twisting my melon a bit to think about this, but i think there is a small misunderstanding. in your scenario we (cyclists) are *all* girls in short skirts, and some of us are slags. SimonAH is saying that when he is wearing a short skirt he doesn't like being assumed to be a slag, but he still wears it.

i don't think anyone is saying that if a driver hits a cyclist he should be let off because 'cyclists always RLJ'. regardless of any law we want to avoid being hit by a driver because it hurts, and having drivers who respect cyclists as other road users would make it less likely to be hit than having drivers who are frustrated and angry at all cyclists.

+1
less frustrated drivers and members of the public = safer roads for all.

Jay dubbleU

I've never assumed Simon to be a slag. His dress choice is up to him

bigmat

If I can perpetrate a victimless crime without getting caught, why not?

MonkeyMonster

BigMat wrote:

If I can perpetrate a victimless crime without getting caught, why not?

no crime is ever victimless - otherwise it wouldn't actually be a crime surely?

SimonAH

Because it's not sodding victimless! It winds up motorists who then take it out on the rest of us Matt.

SimonAH

And I am a slut JW :-D A few glasses of wine and I'm anybody's.

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

Because it's not sodding victimless! It winds up motorists who then take it out on the rest of us Matt.

It annoys me that someone on the internet can have an opinion so wrong, and theres nothing I can do to change it.

:P

bails87

SimonAH wrote:

And I am a slut JW :-D A few glasses of wine and I'm anybody's.

A few more and he's everybody's

ga02clr

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Because it's not sodding victimless! It winds up motorists who then take it out on the rest of us Matt.

It annoys me that someone on the internet can have an opinion so wrong, and theres nothing I can do to change it.

:P

Are you insinuating that there is no victim to people running red lights riding through central London?

notsoblue

ga02clr wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Because it's not sodding victimless! It winds up motorists who then take it out on the rest of us Matt.

It annoys me that someone on the internet can have an opinion so wrong, and theres nothing I can do to change it.

:P

Are you insinuating that there is no victim to people running red lights riding through central London?

I'm insinuating that a motorist giving me a hard time while I'm on my bike, and that same motorist seeing someone earlier in the day that I've never met in my life running a red light while riding their bike are two utterly, utterly independent events as far as I'm concerned. The tw@t on a bike who jumped a red light is not responsible for the tw@t in a car's actions towards me.

bigmat

ga02clr wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Because it's not sodding victimless! It winds up motorists who then take it out on the rest of us Matt.

It annoys me that someone on the internet can have an opinion so wrong, and theres nothing I can do to change it.

:P

Are you insinuating that there is no victim to people running red lights riding through central London?

Its an abstract question - I'm genuinely pondering it. It can, I think, be applied to RLJ. RLJ, in my opinion, is on occasion a victimless crime. There are many situations where it has no direct impact on anybody else. If in addition there is no risk being caught, why not do it?

Is it simply because it might upset others - motorists - who then take it out on other cyclists? Shouldn't we be more concerned about them than the RLJ cyclists? I don't really buy the "if we stopped at red lights we wouldn't be criticised" argument anyway, the real issue I imagine is a combination of sneering contempt ("look at them in their silly lycra"), jealousy as we ride off into the sunset, general thicko intolerance of others and the aggression that driving in congested traffic breeds in the best of us. I would hazard a guess that if no cyclist ever jumped a red light again, that certain element of society would still hate cyclists.

Anyway, this is all to put my initial response to the OP's post into context - it really was quite annoying!

MonkeyMonster

notsoblue wrote:

ga02clr wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Because it's not sodding victimless! It winds up motorists who then take it out on the rest of us Matt.

It annoys me that someone on the internet can have an opinion so wrong, and theres nothing I can do to change it.

:P

Are you insinuating that there is no victim to people running red lights riding through central London?

I'm insinuating that a motorist giving me a hard time while I'm on my bike, and that same motorist seeing someone earlier in the day that I've never met in my life running a red light while riding their bike are two utterly, utterly independent events as far as I'm concerned. The tw@t on a bike who jumped a red light is not responsible for the tw@t in a car's actions towards me.

But you were on limb with that view last time it came up. We both agreed that it shouldn't be connected. The problem is some people DO connect the two whether you want or think they shouldn't or not. Just because you don't judge others by similar peoples behaviour does not mean others don't...

DonDaddyD

It's Tuesday 8.57pm, you are on route home by bicycle. It's cold, you're tired but in your minds eye you are a Tour Cyclist on that final stretch and on your way to overall GC. You approach a light, it's red, you've found the beloved spot in your gears where the amount of force used to push the pedal down is pushing the other pedal up so you're not really trying to purr along at the 20mph. You don't want to loose that moment.

The light is still red.

You look around, shoulder check, look up the road, right up the road to the next set of lights. You check the time 8.57pm. There is no one around. No one looks like they are going to cross. No one near the lights.

The light is still red.

You wrestle with you conciousness, "What if a ninja jumps out?" You think. "Well if a ninja has managed to hide himself near the lights on this well lit road they surely must have the skill to avoid the bike" You reply.

The light is still red.

All of this happens in the gaps between seconds as you go through the red light. It was a clean infraction, no one was hurt and probably no one saw. If they did, should they really care?

The light is still red.

So tell me how is that not a victimless crime? How is it even a problem?

MonkeyMonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's Tuesday 8.57pm, you are on route home by bicycle. It's cold, you're tired but in your minds eye you are a Tour Cyclist on that final stretch and on your way to overall GC. You approach a light, it's red, you've found the beloved spot in your gears where the amount of force used to push the pedal down is pushing the other pedal up so you're not really trying to purr along at the 20mph. You don't want to loose that moment.

The light is still red.

You look around, shoulder check, look up the road, right up the road to the next set of lights. You check the time 8.57pm. There is no one around. No one looks like they are going to cross. No one near the lights.

The light is still red.

You wrestle with you conciousness, "What if a ninja jumps out?" You think. "Well if a ninja has managed to hide himself near the lights on this well lit road they surely must have the skill to avoid the bike" You reply.

The light is still red.

All of this happens in the gaps between seconds as you go through the red light. It was a clean infraction, no one was hurt and probably no one saw. If they did, should they really care?

The light is still red.

So tell me how is that not a victimless crime? How is it even a problem?

you are the victim having wasted seconds of thought on an issue that should always have been I will stop it is red.

Now I only answer in such a fashion because its you DDD but in essense I am still right.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's Tuesday 8.57pm, you are on route home by bicycle. It's cold, you're tired but in your minds eye you are a Tour Cyclist on that final stretch and on your way to overall GC. You approach a light, it's red, you've found the beloved spot in your gears where the amount of force used to push the pedal down is pushing the other pedal up so you're not really trying to purr along at the 20mph. You don't want to loose that moment.

The light is still red.

You look around, shoulder check, look up the road, right up the road to the next set of lights. You check the time 8.57pm. There is no one around. No one looks like they are going to cross. No one near the lights.

The light is still red.

You wrestle with you conciousness, "What if a ninja jumps out?" You think. "Well if a ninja has managed to hide himself near the lights on this well lit road they surely must have the skill to avoid the bike" You reply.

The light is still red.

All of this happens in the gaps between seconds as you go through the red light. It was a clean infraction, no one was hurt and probably no one saw. If they did, should they really care?

The light is still red.

So tell me how is that not a victimless crime? How is it even a problem?

Because the driver following you, who is dreaming that he is Lewis Hamilton, has to stop. He's so bitter and twisted as you go pedalling off into the distance that he vows to log onto the Daily Mail website when he gets home and post about road tax, compulsory helmet and hi viz wearing, should never ride two abreast, should ride at the side of the road or ideally on the pavement, lycra louts, biggest menace to society etc etc. He might even decide to take out the next cyclist he sees. And its all your fault - yours!

ga02clr

Your thoughts should have been arh red lights... interval sprint training. Very usefull for SCR next week.

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm insinuating that a motorist giving me a hard time while I'm on my bike, and that same motorist seeing someone earlier in the day that I've never met in my life running a red light while riding their bike are two utterly, utterly independent events as far as I'm concerned. The tw@t on a bike who jumped a red light is not responsible for the tw@t in a car's actions towards me.

But you were on limb with that view last time it came up. We both agreed that it shouldn't be connected. The problem is some people DO connect the two whether you want or think they shouldn't or not. Just because you don't judge others by similar peoples behaviour does not mean others don't...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? You clearly don't think the motorist is acting rationally in my example. You're also not making excuses for him. Do you really think that if at the Cyclist Annual General Meeting (my invite must have gotten lost in the post) all cyclists in Britain decided never to jump a red light again, that tw@t motorist would never cut up, beep their horn or shout at another cyclist? Help me out here, I don't understand.

I get what you're saying about prejudice. Prejudice is natural, we all have that. But its when someone acts on their prejudice to hurt or offend others then it becomes wrong, and their victims should not be blamed for it.

DonDaddyD

Another question should be why do some cyclist now think it is their duty to police the roads?

There are those, as the OP demonstrated, who take it upon themselves to complain and shout at people for every little traffic infringement they witness. Is it really necessary? What good are you really achieving? It's those actions that I believe annoys other road users more than anything, it comes across as sanctimonious and bullish.

And finally how can you enjoy riding your bike that way if every time you see a 'crime'/road rules infringement you go off on one and have to have a go at the person? Surely it just leaves you miserable...

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I'm insinuating that a motorist giving me a hard time while I'm on my bike, and that same motorist seeing someone earlier in the day that I've never met in my life running a red light while riding their bike are two utterly, utterly independent events as far as I'm concerned. The tw@t on a bike who jumped a red light is not responsible for the tw@t in a car's actions towards me.

But you were on limb with that view last time it came up. We both agreed that it shouldn't be connected. The problem is some people DO connect the two whether you want or think they shouldn't or not. Just because you don't judge others by similar peoples behaviour does not mean others don't...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? You clearly don't think the motorist is acting rationally in my example. You're also not making excuses for him. Do you really think that if at the Cyclist Annual General Meeting (my invite must have gotten lost in the post) all cyclists in Britain decided never to jump a red light again, that tw@t motorist would never cut up, beep their horn or shout at another cyclist? Help me out here, I don't understand.

I get what you're saying about prejudice. Prejudice is natural, we all have that. But its when someone acts on their prejudice to hurt or offend others then it becomes wrong, and their victims should not be blamed for it.

It's not blaming the victim, it's suggesting that other people should not do something that might contribute, however unjustifiably, to the victim being a victim in the first place. Just to pick up on the short skirt argument earlier, the big difference is that wearing a short skirt is perfectly legal. RLJing is not.

Hoopdriver

DonDaddyD wrote:

Another question should be why do some cyclist now think it is their duty to police the roads?

There are those, as the OP demonstrated, who take it upon themselves to complain and shout at people for every little traffic infringement they witness. Is it really necessary? What good are you really achieving? It's those actions that I believe annoys other road users more than anything, it comes across as sanctimonious and bullish.

And finally how can you enjoy riding your bike that way if every time you see a 'crime'/road rules infringement you go off on one and have to have a go at the person? Surely it just leaves you miserable...

+1

That's just being another jerk. There are more than enough of those on the streets already.

PBo

iPete wrote:

Cycled into today with a VERY angry cyclist in a Barnsley club cycle kit. He was swearing at everything that came close, a car indicated to turn left, it didn't turn but he was effing at the driver. He nearly got himself in trouble a few times being an impatient rude fool.

Nearly told him to calm the f**k down.

apart from the barnsley kit, sounds just like "Daryl" from the "motherf***ing Bike" video.

Sharing my aggression is what I do
Every day I'm riding the 'Tour de Fuck You'
Banging on hoods and kicking in fenders
a right-of-way-aholic on a permanent bender
Running red lights at the fat intersection
Cutout seat protects my erection
You like the bird, in my hand?
Take two from a motherfucking track stand on my bike
I'm on a motherfucking bike
I'm on a motherfucking bike

CiB

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's Tuesday 8.57pm, you are on route home by bicycle. It's cold, you're tired but in your minds eye you are a Tour Cyclist on that final stretch and on your way to overall GC. You approach a light, it's red, you've found the beloved spot in your gears where the amount of force used to push the pedal down is pushing the other pedal up so you're not really trying to purr along at the 20mph. You don't want to loose that moment.

The light is still red.

You look around, shoulder check, look up the road, right up the road to the next set of lights. You check the time 8.57pm. There is no one around. No one looks like they are going to cross. No one near the lights.

The light is still red.

You wrestle with you conciousness, "What if a ninja jumps out?" You think. "Well if a ninja has managed to hide himself near the lights on this well lit road they surely must have the skill to avoid the bike" You reply.

The light is still red.

All of this happens in the gaps between seconds as you go through the red light. It was a clean infraction, no one was hurt and probably no one saw. If they did, should they really care?

The light is still red.

So tell me how is that not a victimless crime? How is it even a problem?

I agree with this. Sometimes our actions have zero effect on others so it doesn't matter. I used to treat all red lights as Give Ways until I learnt (on here) about how motorists detest us for it so I now always stop at lights, and enjoy the moment of being the cyclist who stops at red lights. There's one set on my commute though where lights control a narrow bridge over a railway branch line. Often there's zero traffic, line of sights are good, there are no houses overlooking and my bike does't trigger the lights so if there's no-one around I'll give it the GW treatment and proceed. I can't imagine a more Victimless Crime.

mroli

BigMat wrote:

Because the driver following you, who is dreaming that he is Lewis Hamilton, has to stop.

Or he doesn't stop, because you haven't. And he wipes out the ninja pedestrian crossing the road. Or you don't stop and you do. Or you go through and the other cyclist in your slipstream (that you are unaware of because you have headphones on :twisted:)

I dunno DDD - you said "why do you feel as though you should police the roads" - well, would you stop someone from mugging someone in the street? I would. Would you say something if you saw someone nicking something from M&S - I think I would too. Would you say something if someone goes through a red and nearly runs over some schoolkids? So where do you draw the line on saying something? Everyone choses to draw the line where they will...

Hoopdriver

Okay, but assault?

DonDaddyD

mroli wrote:

I dunno DDD - you said "why do you feel as though you should police the roads" - well, would you stop someone from mugging someone in the street? I would. Would you say something if you saw someone nicking something from M&S - I think I would too. Would you say something if someone goes through a red and nearly runs over some schoolkids? So where do you draw the line on saying something? Everyone choses to draw the line where they will...

Lets keep perspective here. There is a HUGE difference to mugging and theft and actually wiping out school children compared to riding through a red light when there is no one on or near the crossing. Attempts to draw a comparison beyond the fact that they are all crimes is really silly and, IMO, moots the point due to trying to sensationlise what can be a very low risk crime (it's the same reason I dislike these camera crusaders complaining about every road infraction they see).

Now look, in London I choose not to RLJ. When I see it with wanton abandon, people standing at the crossing, in rush hour and/or across junctions I do shake my head. But if they actually haven't hurt someone, if they haven't come close to doing so then I don't feel it necessary to take it upon myself to intrude their space and lecture them.

If when driving I see a car go through a red light, chase amber, turn without signalling I don't take it upon myself to take a swing at them.

mroli

Yeah - but I'm not talking about taking a swing, I'm talking about saying "you should stop at reds mate".

And I don't think that these comparisons are silly - jumping reds is potentially life threatening (to the jumpee and other road users). Just because that person has used their judgement to say it is ok - does that make it ok? People justify nicking stuff from large shops because it is victimless - these shops factor losses into their prices. Same with fraudulent insurance claims. If I smoke weed, take coke - is that victimless? What about someone who doesn't scoop after their dog?

Someone jumping a red is more likely to jump a red and put someone in danger. Shaking your head is doing nothing imho. It is anti-social behaviour at best and in an environment where we are all having to live with people, we should play by the rules. The only difference between wiping out school kids on a crossing and not doing so when you jump a light is timing. And stupidity of course...

I bet if you are in the car and see someone doing something stupid you toot the horn? If you're sticking to the speed limit and someone drives right up behind you - I bet it hacks you off - but that's victimless too right?

I dunno - I understand your point and the stupidity/futility of stopping at a red light when there is nothing there, but if everyone obeyed the highway code, we'd all be a lot safer?

DonDaddyD

Yes, yes yes.

We agree crimes are bad. They are not OK. Your examples are not necessarily victimless. Jumping a red light when there is no one affected is different - and listing other unrelated examples doesn't suddenly elevate its risk potential. :roll:

Lastly, why should I feel compelled to take action, why should I feel a need to do anything? That's the issue here, sanctimonious cyclists crusader/vigilante types taking it upon themselves to police others and report every single infraction they see. We all accept that RLJ is evil - I would argue sometimes necessary where circumstantial safety demands - but honestly it is not our place to lecture every incident we see. If you want to do that be a police officer and officially and legally enforce the law.