Took a swing at an RLJ'er today

EKE_38BPM

mroli wrote:

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.

FTFY

Hoopdriver

mroli wrote:

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?

Wow. You sound like the kind of guy Victor Hugo had in mind when he created Inspector Javert.

Let's try a different scenario just for fun. Let's say you're living in Australia, like I do, or rather did, as I am an ex-pat now, but let's say you are there and are commuting through the streets of Sydney when you see a chap ride by without a helmet. Wearing a helmet is the law in Australia, the same way that stopping for a red light is the law, or murder or armed robbery, for that matter - they're all on the statute books. What do you do then? Do you hector him, badger him, ride along side him lecturing his on the law? Call the Australian equivalent of 999 to report a crime? Perhaps you'd rap him smartly over the noggin with your frame pump (after all, if he'd been wearing a helmet like he was supposed to, it wouldn't hurt him a bit). Would you see that as your civic duty? And no, don't say it's not the same. It is. We are talking about breaking the law. As a citizen you can't pick and choose the laws you like and the ones you don't - not according to you anyway. Nor by your own lights would this non-helmet-wearing be a victimless crime, because if said helmet-less chappie were to take a tumble and scramble his brains the State - through your taxes - would be up for big money for his care and upkeep. And are we not all the eyes and ears of the State?

Is it up to you, once more, to act?

If this sounds like you I sincerely hope you are not the floor manager of wherever it is you work, and that you are instead just the smug self-righteous git standing alone at the office Christmas party shunned by the colleagues you've shopped for stealing pencils and surfing Bike Radar during office hours.

mroli

@Hoopdriver - ta mate. I'm Inspector Javert - the "evil" protagonist of Les Miserables? Or I'm a smug self-righteous git? Nice keyboard warrioring. :roll:

I'm not advocating taking a swing at RLJers - as you will see from my previous post. What I am saying is that whilst I understand the frustrations of people who sit at red lights when there is nothing there - that is the Law (or the law) and the rules by which people use the roads. I chose to obey those laws AND I THINK OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD DO SO TOO.

If I was to rap a helmetless rider over the head with a frame pump, I'd a) have to buy a frame pump and b) be guilty of assault. However, if I was to say "mate - its the law to ride with a helmet" - would that be the incorrect thing to do? Maybe that person is an ex-pat and doesn't know this? What about a motorcyclist/scooter rider riding without a helmet? And the point about picking and choosing laws is a good one - who choses what laws people can chose to obey/disobey? You? What if your moral compass is different from mine (for example I wouldn't insult strangers on the internet)? In the recent riots in the UK - people were robbing stuff because everyone was at it, people knew it was wrong, but if people all did it, it was ok. I remember the New York "get tough" with crime under Guliani - there was some debate about it, but I think that it was generally accepted that zero tolerance reduced levels of crime (so addressing "minor" infractions stopped "major" ones).

The question is where do you draw the line and my point is (as quoted/fixed by EKE) "if EVERYONE obeyed the Highway Code, we'd be a lot safer".

It is an interesting point in relation to the scrambling brains thing though, obviously I would want my share of the tax take to go towards supporting someone that took a tumble and banged their helmetless head on a bike, in the same way that I'd want someone involved in a car crash at 40mph in a 30mph zone where they clip a kerb and roll their car to be supported - but if those people (ignoring the do helmets save lives question) had obeyed the laws and not participated in their "victimless" crimes, then that part of the tax take could go to other causes?

Anyway - look forward to your next post of abuse

Hoopdriver

I agree people should obey the law - but there are instances, too, where the law is an ass. We all know them

On the subject of red lights: I ride at 4:30am most mornings - a two-hour jaunt and come home at about 6:30am. By 6:30 I am most definitely obeying red lights. At 4:30am I do not. It would be absurd to stand there at a lonely intersection staring at the lights waiting for them to change - and arguably dangerous too, at least in the town where I live, especially on Saturday and Sunday mornings at that hour, given the number of rowdy drunks wandering about breaking things and looking for trouble. I keep going. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I do. But then that's my faulty moral compass for you.

I suppose if my moral compass was a little better I'd make profitable use of my time whilst standing idle at those lights and take advantage of the opportunity to point out to these hoodlums the various misdemeanours and felonies they are committing, as well as cataloguing their anti-social shortcomings - and maybe I would do that if I was all tooled up and reasonably assured of back-up, but then I guess I'd be a policeman and that would be my job...

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

The same reason you, me, and everyone else on here, calls up bad forum behaviour by posting something without immediately reporting it to the mods .

You even stick your nose into cake-stop stuff despite never posting there from time to time. I don't hold it against you, you had a good point, but we all do it - everywhere from time to time. Don't be so surprised .

t4tomo

CiB wrote:

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.

Absolutely agree. Most traffice lights are there to manage traffic flow through the junction, not for safety. year ago we managed without traffic lights and gave way at crossroads.

If I approach a cross roads on my bike and I'm turning left, I slow down and if there is nothing approaching from the right I turn left - because its safe to do so. (such lights should have left filter but most don't).

In the car if I'm out very early on a sunday morning or similar there are a couple of local lights where visibility is excellent but sometimes you get stopped by the lights when its clear, In that case I check carefully and go through.

I'll also so if on the bike I'm doing a left turn and a pedestrian is looking to cross, I'll slow up and say after you, becasue its their priority.

However I do not scream across busy intersections without looking causing pedestrians to run for cover, because thats unsafe and downright rude.

Whats my point? - you can't just call it all RLJing and say its the same.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

The same reason you, me, and everyone else on here, calls up bad forum behaviour by posting something without immediately reporting it to the mods .

You even stick your nose into cake-stop stuff despite never posting there from time to time. I don't hold it against you, you had a good point, but we all do it - everywhere from time to time. Don't be so surprised .

You're just being a tool (I was going to write prick but figured you would just edit that) trying to stir up trouble. It's not the same thing.

If I report something I do it because it is likely to be personally offensive. When I made that thread about the pedants I did so about a growing culture on the website to those who can affect change. This is entirely different to chasing someone along the street to have a go at them for taking an action that affected no one but was in breach of the highway code. And seriously lets get some fucking perspective here, banter on a forum - face2face barney with someone in the real World.

Furthermore, seeing as you insist on bringing up this example (again) I want you to understand and get it factually correct from now on. In my original post I asked why are we allowed to post pictures of women who are nearly naked or in questionable circumstances but not allowed to swear. I do not believe that is me interfereing with the Cake Stop it is asking a general question that involves an activity that can happen anywhere around the Forum.

Honestly given the weeks of drama that caused and you're attempting to dig it back up to flame me? You are the worst moderator/admin I have ever experienced.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

The same reason you, me, and everyone else on here, calls up bad forum behaviour by posting something without immediately reporting it to the mods .

You even stick your nose into cake-stop stuff despite never posting there from time to time. I don't hold it against you, you had a good point, but we all do it - everywhere from time to time. Don't be so surprised .

You're just being a tool (I was going to write prick but figured you would just edit that) trying to stir up trouble. It's not the same thing.

If I report something I do it because it is likely to be personally offensive. When I made that thread about the pedants I did so about a growing culture on the website to those who can affect change. This is entirely different to chasing someone along the street to have a go at them for taking an action that affected no one but was in breach of the highway code. And seriously lets get some ******* perspective here, banter on a forum - face2face barney with someone in the real World.

Furthermore, seeing as you insist on bringing up this example I want you to understand and get this correct from now on. In my original post I asked why are we allowed to post pictures of women who are nearly naked or in questionable circumstances but not allowed to swear. I do not believe that is me interfereing with the Cake Stop it is asking a general question that involves an activity that can happen anywhere around the Forum.

Honestly given the weeks of drama that caused and you're attempting to dig it back up and flame me? You are the worst moderator/admin I have ever experienced.

We all occasionally think we know best and tell people! It's what people do. We all do it. Don't be so surprised.

For sure, taking a swing at someone's a little extreme, but you must know why people do it. I seriously doubt anyone here hasn't had the urge to, and I bet most have given into the urge a few times.

It's not flaming, just a little perspective .

DonDaddyD

The question is where do you draw the line and my point is (as quoted/fixed by EKE) "if EVERYONE obeyed the Highway Code, we'd be a lot safer".

There are and will be occassions when not observing the Highway Code may increase your safety.

If passing through the crossing and waiting at the other side appears safer than waiting beside a vehicle I will do it.

Furthermore no one is truly disputing your quote, I just don't agree with lecturing people should they personally choose not to observe a law but in doing so have bought no danger or inconveinence to others. No harm/No foul.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

We all occasionally think we know best and tell people! It's what people do. We all do it. Don't be so surprised.

Oh here we go... Rick is incapable of admitting or accepting that he might be wrong.

Where in my post did I indicate surprise? Where did I say that I was surprised that people may take the action of telling people what is best? What I did do is say that in the context of the scenario being discussed I felt it was somewhat wrong. What I may have indicated is that I feel some cyclists who chase down to lecture other cyclists are blowing the infraction out of proportion.

For sure, taking a swing at someone's a little extreme, but you must know why people do it. I seriously doubt anyone here hasn't had the urge to, and I bet most have given into the urge a few times.

No, I must not know why people do it. No one should swing for anyone where there isn't a highly charged emotional reason to do so. Witnessing someone RLJ is not a emotional highly charged scenario like seeing some actually get knocked over. And even then in those situation losing you temper and physically lashing out helps no one.

It's not flaming, just a little perspective .

No it was a bullshit dig and if you had any decency or testicular fortitude, if you felt like you didn't have something to prove or lose you'd simply apologise.

Paul E

Ohh here we go again, some people really need to get off the high horse they always ride into discussions on and also take the chip off their shoulder (or both).

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's not flaming, just a little perspective .

No it was a bullshit dig and if you had any decency or testicular fortitude, if you felt like you didn't have something to prove or lose you'd simply apologise.

OK DDD, I apologise.

EKE_38BPM

Why don't you two (Rick Chasey and DDD) just get a room, a few cans of GT85 and wrestle it out.
In private.

Where no one else has to be bothered by it.

DDD is obviously wound up by Rick Chasey but seems to relish in getting wound up him.

veronese68

So how many RLJ's are done because it's after some thought it was decided to be the safer option compared to the number that just plough on through as they can't be arsed to stop?
I don't really care, it's just a really weak argument.

DonDaddyD

It annoys me that my post was deleted and this (below) wasn't. Again a stellar example of unbiased moderation. Especially given that after six pages this person chooses to post this, which is inflamatory, having added nothing else (let alone constructive) to the overall discussion.

Bravo team. Bravo.

Paul E wrote:

Ohh here we go again, some people really need to get off the high horse they always ride into discussions on and also take the chip off their shoulder (or both).

DonDaddyD

Veronese68 wrote:

So how many RLJ's are done because it's after some thought it was decided to be the safer option compared to the number that just plough on through as they can't be arsed to stop?
I don't really care, it's just a really weak argument.

If I RLJ it's often for two reasons.

1. It's safer.
2. I can't be bothered to stop and a assessment of the lights indicates that there is minimum risk.

What I don't expect is to be lectured for my decision. I certainly wouldn't expect/accept someone trying to take a swing at me - that just seems ridiculous.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

It annoys me that my post was deleted and this (below) wasn't. Again a stellar example of unbiased moderation. Especially given that after six pages this person chooses to post this, which is inflamatory, having added nothing else (let alone constructive) to the overall discussion.

Bravo team. Bravo.

Paul E wrote:

Ohh here we go again, some people really need to get off the high horse they always ride into discussions on and also take the chip off their shoulder (or both).

When things get reported, by whoever, there is more inclination to take action.

In fairness, both posts involved were deleted.

Has this thread gone far enough? Tempted to lock it.

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It annoys me that my post was deleted and this (below) wasn't. Again a stellar example of unbiased moderation. Especially given that after six pages this person chooses to post this, which is inflamatory, having added nothing else (let alone constructive) to the overall discussion.

Bravo team. Bravo.

Paul E wrote:

Ohh here we go again, some people really need to get off the high horse they always ride into discussions on and also take the chip off their shoulder (or both).

When things get reported, by whoever, there is more inclination to take action.

In fairness, both posts involved were deleted.

Has this thread gone far enough? Tempted to lock it.

So if both posts have been deleted why is his still on the page?

Yes lock it.

No reason to assess your own actions that contributed to its downfall. :roll:

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So how many RLJ's are done because it's after some thought it was decided to be the safer option compared to the number that just plough on through as they can't be arsed to stop?
I don't really care, it's just a really weak argument.

If I RLJ it's often for two reasons.

1. It's safer.
2. I can't be bothered to stop and a assessment of the lights indicates that there is minimum risk.

What I don't expect is to be lectured for my decision. I certainly wouldn't expect/accept someone trying to take a swing at me - that just seems ridiculous.

If both of these conditions are adhered to there shouldn't be anyone within reach to swing at you. If you are passing close enough for someone to hit yo it may not have been all that safe.

Ginjafro

YAWN! Is it time to go home yet? :roll:

DonDaddyD

Veronese68 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

So how many RLJ's are done because it's after some thought it was decided to be the safer option compared to the number that just plough on through as they can't be arsed to stop?
I don't really care, it's just a really weak argument.

If I RLJ it's often for two reasons.

1. It's safer.
2. I can't be bothered to stop and a assessment of the lights indicates that there is minimum risk.

What I don't expect is to be lectured for my decision. I certainly wouldn't expect/accept someone trying to take a swing at me - that just seems ridiculous.

If both of these conditions are adhered to there shouldn't be anyone within reach to swing at you. If you are passing close enough for someone to hit yo it may not have been all that safe.

In the original post. The cyclist RLJ'd and the OP walked 50meters up the road and then took a swipe at him with a rolled up newspaper. I see this attitude more and more where some cyclists feel they need to regulate the actions of other cyclists (and motorists). The parrallel is that in cars people don't react in the same way, you don't chase after a car when in your car because he RLJ'd or didn't signal or some such. You certainly don't take a swing a the driver if you do catch up with them. It does happen but when it does I often think "nutter".

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

In the original post. The cyclist RLJ'd and the OP walked 50meters up the road and then took a swipe at him with a rolled up newspaper. I see this attitude more and more where some cyclists feel they need to regulate the actions of other cyclists (and motorists). The parrallel is that in cars people don't react in the same way, you don't chase after a car when in your car because he RLJ'd or didn't signal or some such. You certainly don't take a swing a the driver if you do catch up with them. It does happen but when it does I often think "nutter".

I 'm pretty sure I said earlier that I don't agree with taking a swing at someone, but if I had to dive out of the way of someone they'd feel my dissatisfaction.
I have seen people in cars give chase for minor infractions. Unfortunately there are nutters in all walks of life. Walks, cycles and drives of life actually.

DonDaddyD

Fair enough.

mroli

Hoopdriver wrote:

It would be absurd to stand there at a lonely intersection staring at the lights waiting for them to change - and arguably dangerous too, at least in the town where I live, especially on Saturday and Sunday mornings at that hour, given the number of rowdy drunks wandering about breaking things and looking for trouble. I keep going. Perhaps I shouldn't, but I do. But then that's my faulty moral compass for you.

Really - at 4.30 in the morning in Sussex - there are hordes of people on the street smashing stuff up?! Perhaps a bit of zero tolerance would sort that out (maybe they would use a defence that they are allowed to smash stuff up because you are jumping through red lights )

I dunno - there ain't no agreement on this - and I am writing on the basis of what I see every day in London which is people waiting patiently for lights, only for some muppet to sail through without any appreciation of their safety, the safety of anyone crossing the road, anyone else following the lights properly and people waiting for the lights. I've been hit twice just waiting for lights by someone trying to get through gaps, which is once more than I've been hit by a car. Maybe I should just move to the countryside...

I like your blog by the way. Very nice.

FoldingJoe

gtvlusso wrote:

Was it a rolled up paper?

A Milwall brick?!?

Hoopdriver

I agree with you on the jackasses that sail through red lights - entirely. THey give everyone a bad name. I'd like them not to do it - but I don't feel like playing vigilante either. If one of them knocked me over, or I saw them do it to somebody else, that might be another thing; I'd probably give chase, but as I recall the OP just swung on somebody on principle and fifty yards after the fact. That's just too curmudgeonly.

True, you wouldn't think there would be so many hoons around in leafy Sussex at 4:30am, but I live near Hastings and when I swing through there on my daily loops I've seen some really unpleasant stuff especially along the seafront and in the Old Town on weekend mornings: had rocks and beer cans hurled at me, loads of menacing verbal abuse that sounded like it could get much worse very quickly, and have actually been chased a couple of times by gangs of drunken yobs who wanted my bike.

Stopping for red lights doesn't seem like a really good idea in those circumstances - although you may be right about zero tolerance and my own bad example. Perhaps if I stopped and shone by example that might be a salutary thing, but I don't want to try it and find out it isn't.

THanks for the kind words about my blog - a good lesson to me for dissing a reader! :-)

scattered pedals

This morning got narrowly cut up by some fakenger twunt on Brixton rd - i had stopped at the lights for a fair while when he flew by me with only a couple of inches to spare. waited for green, chased him down & gave him the same but on the move. Fair enough i reckon. Somtimes i sling copper coins at cars that don't stop on zebras - once got cut up by a bike on one & before i realised what i was doing flicked a 1p from my thumb up into his forehead as he nearly took off my toes - smack - don't think he liked it!

walkingbootweather

scattered pedals wrote:

flicked a 1p from my thumb up into his forehead as he nearly took off my toes - smack - don't think he liked it!

Did he call you (inaccurately) a T0sser?

DonDaddyD

scattered pedals wrote:

This morning got narrowly cut up by some fakenger twunt on Brixton rd - i had stopped at the lights for a fair while when he flew by me with only a couple of inches to spare. waited for green, chased him down & gave him the same but on the move. Fair enough i reckon. Somtimes i sling copper coins at cars that don't stop on zebras - once got cut up by a bike on one & before i realised what i was doing flicked a 1p from my thumb up into his forehead as he nearly took off my toes - smack - don't think he liked it!

Do you readily leave the house armed with pennies?

notsoblue

walkingbootweather wrote:

scattered pedals wrote:

flicked a 1p from my thumb up into his forehead as he nearly took off my toes - smack - don't think he liked it!

Did he call you (inaccurately) a T0sser?

If he was dutch he might have (accurately) called him a flicker.