Oh FFS
Comments
-
Using logic in an illogical argument is illogical.
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Absolutely... And why should cyclists somehow have to prove themselves to other road users? You don't see hundreds of comments under Daily Mail articles on the net about, say, petrol prices increasing accusing motorists of "all" drink driving and "all" having no insurance (usually the comment centre around the "poor, victimised" motorist forced to stump up again)... Yet somehow accusatory comments accompany every article about cycling - cyclists are basically guilty until proven innocent. We have to prove our right to the road, which is ironic because cyclists were on the roads before motorists ever were....liz545 wrote:wandsworth wrote:It will stop when cyclists stop going through pedestrian crossings on red and getting all cyclists a bad name.
I find the concept of 'giving all cyclists a bad name' a confusing one. How can a law-abiding cyclist be responsible for the actions of a law-breaking one? Are drunk drivers giving all drivers a bad name? Surely the fact that many people still drive drunk, use their mobile phone when driving, and break speed limits demonstrates that some road users will continue to behave badly under any circumstances?
Some people are inconsiderate road users - that's not going to change. They're not going to stop hating us if 'we' all behave well, because we're individuals with individual, rather than collective, responsibility. I couldn't care less if some drivers continue to hate cyclists, as long as the roads are designed to make it harder for them to use their car as a weapon, and the police/courts enforce the law properly.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
daviesee wrote:Using logic in an illogical argument is illogical.0
-
The only thing which will reduce cyclist hate is more cyclists.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
It shouldn't, but it does give all cyclists a bad name. I've been cycling to work for roughly a year and as soon as I tell people I commute by bike, to a person they ask "are you one of those they jump the red lights" It annoys the hell out of me.
I think the ire of motorists is a lot to do with the British view on queue barging. It is so in built into our psyche that you might as well spit in someones face if you jump in front of them in a queue. I think this is the biggest issue. Motorists sat at lights see cyclists filtering to the front get annoyed and then get apoplectic if they jump the lights. There is no direct affect on the motorist, yet they get so angry.
I think it would be good to have a proper grown up debate about how to approach traffic lights for cyclists. Do you think the current system works? I'm not so sure, but then again can't really think of a better solution. I do think there should be more "intelligent" lights. The amount of time I'm sat at a red light and no vehicles or pedestrians are crossing.0 -
Red light jumpers may have been a minority over winter, but they're a majority now that the sun's out.
Nothing sticks in the mind like seeing people have to jump out of the way of a cyclist while they're walking across a crossing. You can say lots of bad things about car drivers, but you don't see them blatantly endangering people in the same way as some cyclists do.0 -
spatuluk wrote:You can say lots of bad things about car drivers, but you don't see them blatantly endangering people in the same way as some cyclists do.
You clearly don't cycle enough! Of course the majority of motorists are law abiding and fine but I've been put into very clearly dangerous situations, either through carelessness/lack of spatial awareness or open and blatant aggression, by motorists on a number of occasions. I have to say I would prefer to be subject to danger from a cyclist than from a motorist encased in 2 tonnes of metal and glass travelling at high speed....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
To my way of thinking, this is a very straightforward topic. If we want to be taken seriously on the roads and treated as equals, then we need to abide by the laws of the road. We have no basis for demanding anything of other road users when we pick and choose the bits of traffic law that we want to abide by. It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is to wait at a red light when nothing else is using the road - a red light means "Stop" - period. If I started running red lights at quiet junctions when I'm on my motorbike, everyone would be mortified and rightly demanding action. I'm sure plenty of RLJing cyclists would be passing my reg number on to the authorities and mouthing off at me as I weaved my way (slowly and carefully) through them and pedestrians. In my mind, I would be justifying what I was doing on exactly the same basis as RLJing cyclist justify their actions."The Flying Scot"
Commute - Boardman CXR 9.4 Di2
Sunday Best - Canyon Ultimate SLX Disc w/ DuraAce Di20 -
mpdouglas wrote:To my way of thinking, this is a very straightforward topic. If we want to be taken seriously on the roads and treated as equals, then we need to abide by the laws of the road. We have no basis for demanding anything of other road users when we pick and choose the bits of traffic law that we want to abide by. It doesn't matter how stupid you think it is to wait at a red light when nothing else is using the road - a red light means "Stop" - period. If I started running red lights at quiet junctions when I'm on my motorbike, everyone would be mortified and rightly demanding action. I'm sure plenty of RLJing cyclists would be passing my reg number on to the authorities and mouthing off at me as I weaved my way (slowly and carefully) through them and pedestrians. In my mind, I would be justifying what I was doing on exactly the same basis as RLJing cyclist justify their actions.
I see what you mean and yes, the law is the law, what I and others are asking is, why are cyclists victimised and looked down upon for RLJing etc by a minority yet other road users like car drivers break the law easily as frequently by speeding etc? Yet this is somehow speeding is regarded as "one of those things" and completely harmless....
It would be great if absolutely everyone obeyed the laws of the land but personally, if it came down to choice, I would prefer to see a hundred RLJing cyclists than a hundred speeding motorists on the road yet from all the hype you'd guess there was more danger from cyclists...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I think they have such strong opinions on it because it's so blatant and antagonistic - the car driver gets stopped repeatedly at every set of lights and watch packs of (largely below average - no pace, wobbling everywhere, pulling out without shoulder checks etc etc) cyclists ride through every set.
The worrying thing is that even if they changed the rules and, say, introduced a special cyclist only green light to give everyone a 20 sec advantage 1) I think other road users would still sit and fume. and 2) the RLJers would still roll through on Red.
My earlier point is that all the while large numbers of cyclists do this, we're in no position to ask for such changes to the rules because they know we will only apply them selectively."The Flying Scot"
Commute - Boardman CXR 9.4 Di2
Sunday Best - Canyon Ultimate SLX Disc w/ DuraAce Di20 -
I stop at every single red light and wait for it to turn amber before starting, no matter whether there is anyone around, cars, peds or whatever.
On my daily commute I reckon only about 1/3 of cyclists stop at a red light. It's disgusting, it gives us a bad name, it's selfish and thoughtless.
To be honest I'm all for bikes having a small number plate at the back as it pisses me off, I bet loads of accidents are caused by it, car drivers get pissed off which in turn provokes the relationship with every cyclist, which in turn IMHO causes more accidents and danger.
It's pathetic.0 -
I'll give you two basic theories HH.
1. Herd mentality: On the road, generally, the number of motor-vehicles far outweighs the number of bicycles. The average individual will tend to fit in with the majority - "if everyone's doing it, why shouldn't I?" Or, "I would be causing more danger/annoyance by going against the grain". So, if most vehicles are travelling at 35 in a 30 zone, then no-one is going to bat an eyelid. However, all (approximately) vehicles stop for red lights so when one steps out of line and fails to stop, the transgression is obvious and the herd is agitated. I have no idea of the actual data, but I think it's fair to say that most transgressors of this sort are by cyclists.
2. Obviousness of the transgression: Compare and contrast, from the perspective of an onlooker: (a) A queue of traffic is stationary at a red light and a cyclist comes along and sails past everyone and continues straight through and (b) a motorist passes a cyclist a little too closely and at speed, causing the cyclist to flinch, but not knocking them off or causing any damage. One is an obvious and blatant transgression, the other will most probably go entirely unnoticed.0 -
Ultimately until the authorites take some responsibility and actually enforce the traffic rules which are hard to detect with cameras (driving whilst using mobile phones or whilst smoking/eating/combing hair/ applying make-up , tailgating, overtaking on the left etc. etc. and cycling on urban pavements, RLJing etc. etc.), nothing will change. The police will have to get off their backsides, out of their cars (parked-up in a quiet spot for a quiet life) and actually stand on the streets (even if this means that the public will actually SEE them for a change) and on-the-spot-fine transgressors. It won't take long for the message to get about that you can't flout the rules without running a risk of being caught.
I'll go and calm down again now.0
