Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Do we challenge red light jumpers/green man means cyclist

I was on my usual commute home and I tend to be the type to track stand at every light, when a guy bombs up the inside and away. I caught up with ease (he was older than me) and gently reminded him that green man is for pedestrians. I got an earful along the lines of "...you gonna tell every cyclist..." I got to the top of a hill and more lights, eh whiz zed past on the path to the lines of "...take you to the road,...back to the school run"

Am I stupid putting myself out there, am I alone in wanting to maintain that roadies/commuters obey road laws.

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

92 comments

Avatar
martib | 10 years ago
0 likes

 41 I think given the current climate that is not helped by the 'anti cycling' bias in the majority of the media, then a big fat YES!
I recently was out on a ride and stopped at a red light and a gentlemen dressed in lycra pops through the red light on the inside lane of me and then stops, I pointed out that not only where his actions illegal and a danger, but also that it is idiots like him who give cyclists a bad name. His excuse was he did not know which way he needed to go! As cyclists we should educate the bad apples amongst us, it is better coming from us than an irate car driver. That way we are seen by others to be trying to police ourselves but also the more we educate and hopefully change peoples habit's then the less ammunition the 'anti cycling' lobby has to use against us.
Personally I want to see every cyclist off paths and on roads, it gives cyclists a bigger presence on the roads and will hopefully make other road users more aware of cyclists, the way it used to be.

Avatar
LondonDynaslow | 10 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:

This won't change if there were suddenly no RLJers. It's a red herring. When cycling, it is best to do what is safest at the time, which is not necessarily following the law.

How is breaking the law by jumping a red light at 7.30am on a Sunday doing what's safest? This is the example you gave so I'm calling you on it.

There are other obvious examples - but since you called me on it - 7.30am on a Sunday morning, approach junction in right-hand lane to turn right (at a light-controlled T-Junction), check behind, no cars in sight, check either way, no cars, no pedestrians crossing or about to cross, proceed straight through - all fine. (BTW: this is a junction I know well and cycle regularly).

Now, if I'd have stopped and waited, in the meantime a car may have come up behind me also waiting to turn right. Lights turn green and I set off. Now I'm holding the car up, as I take the lane to discourage a dangerous over-take. Driver becomes impatient and goes for the over-take anyway, putting me in danger. BTW - this has happened at this very junction.

Avatar
Leviathan | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

There are other obvious examples - but since you called me on it - 7.30am on a Sunday morning, approach junction in right-hand lane to turn right (at a light-controlled T-Junction), check behind, no cars in sight, check either way, no cars, no pedestrians crossing or about to cross, proceed straight through - all fine. (BTW: this is a junction I know well and cycle regularly).

Now, if I'd have stopped and waited, in the meantime a car may have come up behind me also waiting to turn right. Lights turn green and I set off. Now I'm holding the car up, as I take the lane to discourage a dangerous over-take. Driver becomes impatient and goes for the over-take anyway, putting me in danger. BTW - this has happened at this very junction.

True, daddyE. There are many lights that function on induction loops that a cyclist cannot trigger late at night. If the priority is against you the choice is break the law or wait for a car to come along and trip the lights for you, however long that might take. Or maybe you think I should dismount and walk across the abandoned junction, Sim. The important point is you STOP and LOOK.

Avatar
harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes

None of this is important. We're moving towards headstart traffic lights for bikes and you'll no doubt have the good grace to thank all those convenience-and-safety-before-reputation RLJ cyclists for pushing that one through despite the scowls of moany conformists obsessed with selfish drivers' opinions.

Avatar
andyp | 10 years ago
0 likes

'There are many lights that function on induction loops that a cyclist cannot trigger late at night, unless they have thought it through and glued a small neodynium magnet to their BB shell or shoe sole. '

FTFY.

Avatar
drfabulous0 | 10 years ago
0 likes

If you run a red and there is nobody there to see it, does it matter? I'm not one for running red lights myself, except maybe the odd one in the wee hours of the morning when no-one is around, but it's just a bloody bike for God's sake, being safe and courteous is more important than obeying the letter of the law.

Avatar
Matt eaton | 10 years ago
0 likes

FWIW I'm pretty sure you can pass through on red it the lights are controlled by induction loop and don't pick you up.

I also think that there is little point discussing the merits or dismerits of passing through red lights when the roads are totally empty. If you want to do this go for it, nobody will even know about it unless you tell them and the same applies if you prefer to sit there and wait.

Avatar
Leviathan | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:

Your first sentence did make me chuckle though as it reminded me of that old question, if a tree falls and there's no one to hear it...

Does it make a sound? Answer: Yes; the universe is observing it. It is easy to anthropomorphize the process but in reality humans don't observe an event, you passively receive the event by receiving particle of light or pressure waves. So whether it is a tree, bear, or a dead cat in a box you are not interacting with it. Meanwhile on a atomic level the event/object is being bombarded by particles, particularly light and heat from nearby sources (like the Sun) or air particles. It is these particles that 'observe' the event by effecting its quantum state. This is why Schrodinger's Cat is a though experiment only, in reality the universe has already observed the cat before you open the box which is why you intuitively know the cat can't be both alive and dead at the same time.

Avatar
Matt eaton | 10 years ago
0 likes

In other words, if I jump a red light on a deserted junction on a Sunday morning my wife will know that I either a. went though on red or b. waited for green by my arival back at home as she intuitivley knows that one of the lights must have been on when I passed through the junction.

I'm going to go and feed that cat........

Avatar
giff77 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Matt. You should know that the Mrs is all seeing and all knowing and nothing. Absolutely nothing gets past her radar. Even that bike you surreptitiously added to n+1. She knows. But let's you live in that sense of false security waiting to unleash the dreaded question of it's very existence.

Avatar
rojre | 10 years ago
0 likes

I used to get fired up with moral indignation when cyclists/bike riders went through red lights. Now I really don't care as I watch someone disappear into the distance as I wait for the lights to change, it don't affect me that they get to work three mins before me. What does affect me is, putting on a bit of speed to get through a set of green lights on a sharpish corner, with traffic waiting at a set of oncoming lights around the corner, only to be greeted by a cyclist, head on who has jumped a red light. I don't want to dissemble and untangle myself from him and his bike. The funny thing is these riders aint always kids by any means at all.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

There are other obvious examples - but since you called me on it - 7.30am on a Sunday morning, approach junction in right-hand lane to turn right (at a light-controlled T-Junction), check behind, no cars in sight, check either way, no cars, no pedestrians crossing or about to cross, proceed straight through - all fine. (BTW: this is a junction I know well and cycle regularly).

Now, if I'd have stopped and waited, in the meantime a car may have come up behind me also waiting to turn right. Lights turn green and I set off. Now I'm holding the car up, as I take the lane to discourage a dangerous over-take. Driver becomes impatient and goes for the over-take anyway, putting me in danger. BTW - this has happened at this very junction.

How is this different to any other light? Take away all of the specifics and you have that you stop at a light and when you pull away there may be a car behind you that may overtake you dangerously. Or are you saying that you don't stop at any lights as cars may be behind you if you do?

Taking the lane should discourage the dangerous overtake so it seems you were very unlucky to get someone overtaking you dangerously on a Sunday morning riding assertively, although one of the reasons to ride like that is in case of a close pass, you still have space on your left to move in to. Whilst very unlucky, I don't think it should turn you into a serial red light jumper, that car could have overtaken you at any point on your journey regardless of catching you up at traffic lights so instead of jumping red lights in a vain attempt to avoid all cars on the road, we should all accept we have to share it and try and encourage education for drivers in respect of overtaking vulnerable road users.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to Leviathan | 10 years ago
0 likes
bikeboy76 wrote:

True, daddyE. There are many lights that function on induction loops that a cyclist cannot trigger late at night. If the priority is against you the choice is break the law or wait for a car to come along and trip the lights for you, however long that might take. Or maybe you think I should dismount and walk across the abandoned junction, Sim. The important point is you STOP and LOOK.

While this is true, I'm not sure that it's a reason that daddyE jumps red lights. If a light won't change as it's designed is flawed due to the fact cyclists (with no magnets on their shoes) actually can't trigger a change, then I suppose it could be interpreted that you are not so much jumping a red but going through a defective light, just as I've done in my car when it's been clear that all of the lights on all sides were red for over 5 mins.

I guess the other option would be to dismount, and heaven forbid, walk with your bike, but as this scenario isn't the same as the one daddyE was describing (where the lights were working fine and would change if you wait), the appropriate action is different too.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes
vbvb wrote:

None of this is important. We're moving towards headstart traffic lights for bikes and you'll no doubt have the good grace to thank all those convenience-and-safety-before-reputation RLJ cyclists for pushing that one through despite the scowls of moany conformists obsessed with selfish drivers' opinions.

Wow, so it's only red light jumpers to thank for pushing the headstart traffic lights? I would be guessing but I think there are more people involved than just them. So, in your eyes, if we just start breaking laws they'll change them for us? That seems a bit naive and very wishful. Plus, these are probably not going to find their way out of the cities and they won't be present at every set of lights so we're still going to have to deal with shared lights in some places.

The reason I'm a "conformist" is that I believe that if no one followed the law, the road would be mayhem and it would be a lot more dangerous for cyclists. If all drivers started running reds when they thought it was safe, I would think a lot more accidents would result.

The reason I'm "obsessed" with drivers' opinions on cyclists is that they drive a big box that can kill me on the same roads I cycle on and I'd rather they respected us and treated us as though we deserve to be on the road than them perceiving us to be a bunch of law breakers who do what we want and therefore don't deserve to be treated correctly.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to drfabulous0 | 10 years ago
0 likes
drfabulous0 wrote:

If you run a red and there is nobody there to see it, does it matter? I'm not one for running red lights myself, except maybe the odd one in the wee hours of the morning when no-one is around, but it's just a bloody bike for God's sake, being safe and courteous is more important than obeying the letter of the law.

A lot of non-cyclists see red light jumping as the opposite of safe and courteous (regardless of the reality) and if they happen to see it will get annoyed by it. I guess the grey area of no one being around/some people around but not looking/some people around but not affected/etc is taken out by not jumping lights full stop, and if a car was in the same situation, would you expect them to stop?

Your first sentence did make me chuckle though as it reminded me of that old question, if a tree falls and there's no one to hear it...

Avatar
sihall34 replied to Matt eaton | 10 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:

In other words, if I jump a red light on a deserted junction on a Sunday morning my wife will know that I either a. went though on red or b. waited for green by my arival back at home as she intuitivley knows that one of the lights must have been on when I passed through the junction.

I'm going to go and feed that cat........

I think it's more that if you ride through traffic lights when no one is around and you have your eyes closed, you may or may not have jumped a red light, but the universe knows which one, and so presumably does your wife as they tend to know everything else that's going on in the universe.

Avatar
harrybav replied to sihall34 | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:

I would be guessing but I think there are more people involved than just them. So, in your eyes, if we just start breaking laws they'll change them for us? That seems a bit naive and very wishful.

Ha, yes, maybe, lots of people involved. Civil disobedience works sometimes though. Poll tax, for example. I may be naive in this, I grant you, it's not impossible.

sim1515 wrote:

Plus, these are probably not going to find their way out of the cities and they won't be present at every set of lights so we're still going to have to deal with shared lights in some places.

This is true. I suppose they'd spread some way, like ASLs.

sim1515 wrote:

The reason I'm a "conformist".. ...If all drivers started running reds... ...a lot more accidents would result.

I agree. I am a complete conformist when driving. I stick religiously to the 20mph limit, unlike almost every other driver. We do differ on how we think this should influence our out-of-car choices, I see that. I think I can (logically) choose to behave differently on the bike as it does not project danger in the same way. I do see you take a different view.

sim1515 wrote:

I'd rather they respected us and treated us as though we deserve to be on the road

I do see your logic. But I think it is flawed. Drivers are not a particularly law-abiding group, upset at our lawbreaking. Stats show they kill many, many people, and are actually fairly blithe. They save their fury (if the media and apologists are to be believed) for cyclists, a group who coincidentally (!) happen to impinge on their road space and resources. I think my take on this lacks naivety.

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to sihall34 | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:

How is this different to any other light? Take away all of the specifics and you have that you stop at a light and when you pull away there may be a car behind you that may overtake you dangerously. Or are you saying that you don't stop at any lights as cars may be behind you if you do?

No, not saying that at all. This is the only set of lights I regularly jump (fully) as they tend to be on my Sunday morning route, and they tend to be completely clear - why would I wait, get cold, and then potentially set off again with a car behind me?

There is another set of lights that I regularly ride through, but not fully - just to get well ahead of the cars waiting behind, to give myself room to set off, clip-in and turn right as safe as possible. If anybody knows Bristol, it is the junction at the end of the suspension bridge road, opposite the Ashton Court entrance. You have to turn right into a pinch-point.

I have ridden through others, but not many, and I can't even remember the last set I rode through except the 2 regulars. So I wouldn't say I'm a serial offender with no respect for a red light. I would say I ride with my own safety in mind, and I put that above any law.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes
vbvb wrote:
sim1515 wrote:

I would be guessing but I think there are more people involved than just them. So, in your eyes, if we just start breaking laws they'll change them for us? That seems a bit naive and very wishful.

Ha, yes, maybe, lots of people involved. Civil disobedience works sometimes though. Poll tax, for example. I may be naive in this, I grant you, it's not impossible.

I don't think that's relevant to this situation (red light jumping), but it is a perfectly valid point in general - the poll tax failed because so many people refused to pay it and because that refusal caused huge problems.

In some cases mass law-breaking works and the law gets changed, but in others it doesn't, it depends on the specific situation, you can't make a blanket statement about it.

But I don't think it will work for red lights becuase cyclists are too small a group and also their defying that law doesn't actually cause huge problems for society. Society will either tolerate it or randomly fine people doing it.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

No, not saying that at all. This is the only set of lights I regularly jump (fully) as they tend to be on my Sunday morning route, and they tend to be completely clear - why would I wait, get cold, and then potentially set off again with a car behind me?

There is another set of lights that I regularly ride through, but not fully - just to get well ahead of the cars waiting behind, to give myself room to set off, clip-in and turn right as safe as possible. If anybody knows Bristol, it is the junction at the end of the suspension bridge road, opposite the Ashton Court entrance. You have to turn right into a pinch-point.

I have ridden through others, but not many, and I can't even remember the last set I rode through except the 2 regulars. So I wouldn't say I'm a serial offender with no respect for a red light. I would say I ride with my own safety in mind, and I put that above any law.

I'm still not sure how your first set of lights is different from any other set of lights apart from the fact you pass them on a Sunday morning so will get cold waiting for the lights to change. "Why would I wait" - because the light is red, simple. It shouldn't matter if you'll get cold, or if there are no people around, or if you could potentially have a car behind you, as I mentioned, having a car behind you isn't inherently dangerous and is a possibility on any road whether you've stopped at lights or not, you waiting at those lights doesn't seem any different to you waiting at any other set of lights, you may try and justify it all you like but you haven't mentioned anything compelling to make waiting at those lights more dangerous then other lights you don't jump.

I don't know Bristol so can't judge the second set you mention with a pinch point from actually riding it but a quick streetview shows there is an ASL there with a cycle lane leading up to it so you should be in front of the traffic there anyway, and if you take the lane you should be arriving at the pinch point ahead of them. I admit though you may get the odd driver trying to overtake in that central section before the island, it doesn't seem that well thought out for cyclists wanting to turn right. As I've never ridden it, it's hard to know exactly what goes on but it does seem like a prime candidate for the separate cyclist headstart lights as they would ensure you get past the pinch point ahead of the cars. The only other thing I'd point out is that if you feel that strongly about your life being in danger that you're willing to break the law due to that junction, you could take the road on the right before the junction (Church St), turn left at the T junction and pop out a bit further down thus avoiding the area altogether, I miss known blackspots in London out as I'd rather change my route than put myself in that kind of situation if possible.

In my opinion, breaking the law regularly still makes you a serial offender, and you use the words "regularly" and "regulars". If you don't jump other red lights, it shows you do have some respect for red lights, but it seems just not for the two you mention, one for no given reason and one due to the pinch point.

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to sihall34 | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:

you do have some respect for red lights, but it seems just not for the two you mention, one for no given reason and one due to the pinch point.

Not for no reason - it is due to the time and day - 7.30am on a Sunday morning, the junction tends to be deserted, and if that is the case when I am there, surely it is statistically safer to cycle across a junction with 100% certainty there are no other vehicles on the junction, than it is to stop and wait. At other times and days that I've cycled that junction, there is usually traffic on the roads and of course I've stopped.

As for the other junction, the ASL doesn't push you far enough infront of the waiting traffic given that you are starting off and proceeding to turn right on a deceptive gradient, making impatient drivers behind even more impatient which can lead to a dangerous attempt to overtake as you're about to enter the pinch-point. Thanks for your alternative route, but turning right onto the main road where your cut-through leads out can be quite difficult too. I admit there is also a pedestrian / cycle crossing over to Ashton Court, which leads onto a cycle path which then runs alongside the main road, but it's not a great path and I'd rather use the road.

I think we'll agree to disagree, although I will consider my choices the next time I'm at either of these junctions in light of what you said about drivers' perceptions.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

I think we'll agree to disagree, although I will consider my choices the next time I'm at either of these junctions in light of what you said about drivers' perceptions.

I guess that's fair enough, probably the best I hope for when I try and talk to cyclists face to face, which is why I do it (bringing it back round to the OP).

Avatar
sihall34 replied to harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes
vbvb wrote:
sim1515 wrote:

I would be guessing but I think there are more people involved than just them. So, in your eyes, if we just start breaking laws they'll change them for us? That seems a bit naive and very wishful.

Ha, yes, maybe, lots of people involved. Civil disobedience works sometimes though. Poll tax, for example. I may be naive in this, I grant you, it's not impossible.

True, although I poll tax was a lot about political will, protesting, and rioting, not just the vast numbers of people not paying it but they probably did play their part.

vbvb wrote:
sim1515 wrote:

The reason I'm a "conformist".. ...If all drivers started running reds... ...a lot more accidents would result.

I agree. I am a complete conformist when driving. I stick religiously to the 20mph limit, unlike almost every other driver. We do differ on how we think this should influence our out-of-car choices, I see that. I think I can (logically) choose to behave differently on the bike as it does not project danger in the same way. I do see you take a different view.

sim1515 wrote:

I'd rather they respected us and treated us as though we deserve to be on the road

I do see your logic. But I think it is flawed. Drivers are not a particularly law-abiding group, upset at our lawbreaking. Stats show they kill many, many people, and are actually fairly blithe. They save their fury (if the media and apologists are to be believed) for cyclists, a group who coincidentally (!) happen to impinge on their road space and resources. I think my take on this lacks naivety.

I think these are linked in a way, first let me say that my view is the same as yours, cyclists breaking the law pose much less threat than motorists breaking the laws, obviously backed up by the stats. I also agree with you that I think drivers are not a particularly law-abiding group.

Where I think we disagree is that I do think they are upset at our lawbreaking even though a lot of them do it themselves. It's their perception and their actions which result from it which are the problem, not the actual red light jumpers per se. If drivers continue to see lawbreaking cyclists (no matter how hypocritical) and get angry at them, and me because I'm on a bike too, I'll continue to politely ask other cyclists to wait the extra 30 secs.

Avatar
NIrish replied to harrybav | 10 years ago
0 likes

I had forgotten about this discussion as I posted it some time ago.

In response to your statement, and in a tone which is level headed. Conformity has come from obedience to the highway code. As much as I can say we have had great campaigning for advanced lights for cyclists we cannot justify RLJ as the champion for this cause. Advanced signals are not selfish where as RLJ is.

Happy Christmas everyone....

Avatar
sihall34 | 10 years ago
0 likes

In the same manner that thumping happens, some motorists tar all cyclists with the same brush. I don't agree with it, in fact it's ridiculous that people presume that because we happen to be on a bike that we're all cut from the same cloth but it happens, it's a fact.

Given that fact, if you choose to accept it as one, if you flout the law and jump a red light, you do so knowing that if one of those simple minded people sees you, it could mean verbal abuse, punishment passes or worse for innocent cyclists who don't jump red lights.

I guess in my opinion the idea of policing 'our own' isn't so much down to trying to keep our house in order just the same as motorists rarely tell others off for speeding as it should make no real difference to me if someone does or doesn't, but more about trying to minimise the bad impression of cyclists that ignorant people get so I don't receive the backlash.

The real problem is obviously with the people that judge random people for doing something as inane as riding a bike, and because they have something against cyclists they put lives at risk. This should obviously be addressed too although people have been trying to stop prejudice since time began so I wouldn't presume to know where to begin, even legislation hasn't stopped sexism or racism yet so until someone finds a solution to this, idiots will still use what others do on a bike as a negative against me when I'm on a bike so if I can try and minimise it by asking someone to obey the law, I think that's justified.

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to sihall34 | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:

The real problem is obviously with the people that judge random people for doing something as inane as riding a bike, and because they have something against cyclists they put lives at risk. This should obviously be addressed too although people have been trying to stop prejudice since time began so I wouldn't presume to know where to begin, even legislation hasn't stopped sexism or racism yet so until someone finds a solution to this, idiots will still use what others do on a bike as a negative against me when I'm on a bike so if I can try and minimise it by asking someone to obey the law, I think that's justified.

Anything that threatens the status quo is targeted, and attitudes against a minority are driven by the mainstream media, usually by poking fun with the aim to trivialize a group, or even portray a group as fringe lunatics. Cycling has been subject to this treatment over the last few years, and less occurrences of RLJing will not change this. If anything, I see a bigger threat to our safety on the roads is the politicization of cycling - as our voice grows we start to become a more real threat - the morons won't stand for that. If I raise the subject of cycling in our office of mainly middle-aged women, some of their comments are a rehash of a typical MoS article. Judging by how they know exactly what is going on in every soap opera and reality TV show on the Tele, they can't get out of their houses enough to cross paths with enough cyclists to witness everything they claim to have seen. And guess what, if I ever argue 'our' case, the fall-back line is always, "and they don't even pay road tax!".

Avatar
sihall34 replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

Anything that threatens the status quo is targeted, and attitudes against a minority are driven by the mainstream media, usually by poking fun with the aim to trivialize a group, or even portray a group as fringe lunatics. Cycling has been subject to this treatment over the last few years, and less occurrences of RLJing will not change this. If anything, I see a bigger threat to our safety on the roads is the politicization of cycling - as our voice grows we start to become a more real threat - the morons won't stand for that. If I raise the subject of cycling in our office of mainly middle-aged women, some of their comments are a rehash of a typical MoS article. Judging by how they know exactly what is going on in every soap opera and reality TV show on the Tele, they can't get out of their houses enough to cross paths with enough cyclists to witness everything they claim to have seen. And guess what, if I ever argue 'our' case, the fall-back line is always, "and they don't even pay road tax!".

I'm not arguing that cycling has been the subject of marginalisation by the media, it seems that they have a divisive agenda either for political means or just simply for sensationalising the "war" to sell their stories and you may well be right that it's a bigger threat. I'm also not arguing that there are many other things that are more of a threat to cyclists, I personally think driver education is the biggest issue, that some drivers without meaning to will endanger cyclists lives as they just don't know any better.

What I am saying is (bringing it back to the OP) that there are some stupid people out there who will use arguments like all cyclists jump red lights and they don't pay road tax against all cyclists. The latter can be address by informing them that no one does etc. The former however is simply their perception that all cyclists break the laws of the road because they see a few cyclists jumping red lights. Some of those people will use this as a reason not to treat any cyclist as an equal on the road so in simple terms, because some people on bikes jump red lights, some motorists will put my life at risk and treat me as if I don't deserve to be on the road, which is a real threat to my safety.

This is one reason why I would say something to a red light jumper, even if it's just to let them know this fact so if they do jump another red light, they do so in the knowledge that their actions may (inadvertently) have a negative impact on another cyclist who does not deserve it.

Other reasons to challenge could be that one day I may be the pedestrian nearly knocked over by a red light jumper, or it could be my wife pushing my baby etc.

Avatar
daddyELVIS replied to sihall34 | 10 years ago
0 likes
sim1515 wrote:
daddyELVIS wrote:

Anything that threatens the status quo is targeted, and attitudes against a minority are driven by the mainstream media, usually by poking fun with the aim to trivialize a group, or even portray a group as fringe lunatics. Cycling has been subject to this treatment over the last few years, and less occurrences of RLJing will not change this. If anything, I see a bigger threat to our safety on the roads is the politicization of cycling - as our voice grows we start to become a more real threat - the morons won't stand for that. If I raise the subject of cycling in our office of mainly middle-aged women, some of their comments are a rehash of a typical MoS article. Judging by how they know exactly what is going on in every soap opera and reality TV show on the Tele, they can't get out of their houses enough to cross paths with enough cyclists to witness everything they claim to have seen. And guess what, if I ever argue 'our' case, the fall-back line is always, "and they don't even pay road tax!".

What I am saying is (bringing it back to the OP) that there are some stupid people out there who will use arguments like all cyclists jump red lights and they don't pay road tax against all cyclists. The latter can be address by informing them that no one does etc. The former however is simply their perception that all cyclists break the laws of the road because they see a few cyclists jumping red lights. Some of those people will use this as a reason not to treat any cyclist as an equal on the road so in simple terms, because some people on bikes jump red lights, some motorists will put my life at risk and treat me as if I don't deserve to be on the road, which is a real threat to my safety.

You highlight my point exactly by saying that the road tax argument can be handled by informing them of the reality - it can't. The media is a powerful 'weapon', used to subtly brainwash the people into mainstream thinking, and I'm afraid that more and more people form their reality from the bullsh#t they are fed in the media rather than forming their own conclusions from what they see with their own eyes. Whenever I've argued the case against the road tax argument, most people refuse to accept it, simply because it is not a reality they are prepared to accept since it goes against their programing. The same is true of cyclist behaviour - less RLJing will not change the fact that a large number of road-users hate cyclists, because they have been programmed to hate cyclists. I don't know how you change that, but when I'm next at a red light at 7.30 am on a Sunday, with a clear junction in all directions, and not a single pedestrian in sight, I won't be hanging about getting cold waiting for green.

Avatar
sihall34 replied to daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes
daddyELVIS wrote:

You highlight my point exactly by saying that the road tax argument can be handled by informing them of the reality - it can't. The media is a powerful 'weapon', used to subtly brainwash the people into mainstream thinking, and I'm afraid that more and more people form their reality from the bullsh#t they are fed in the media rather than forming their own conclusions from what they see with their own eyes. Whenever I've argued the case against the road tax argument, most people refuse to accept it, simply because it is not a reality they are prepared to accept since it goes against their programing. The same is true of cyclist behaviour - less RLJing will not change the fact that a large number of road-users hate cyclists, because they have been programmed to hate cyclists. I don't know how you change that, but when I'm next at a red light at 7.30 am on a Sunday, with a clear junction in all directions, and not a single pedestrian in sight, I won't be hanging about getting cold waiting for green.

I'm glad I could highlight your point although I'm not too sure what it is. I think it seems to be that road tax is causing such ill feeling towards cyclists that red light jumpers don't affect it, or less red light jumpers won't help as they think we all do it so why not just jump red lights if there's nothing around, forgive me if I've misunderstood though.

I'm not too sure how you have "argued the case" to those using the road tax line but I've found that it is pretty simple to argue as it's very evidence based. Perhaps my one line that I inform them no one does was slightly understating it but if they're on the internet I usually send them to the ipayroadtax website, they usually do their own digging and realise I'm right.

If it's face to face I try to inform them that all the "road tax" goes into the same pot as all of the income tax etc and that it then gets spread out to everything, not specifically road maintenance, and that road maintenance usually comes from council tax.

If they still think cyclists should pay I normally go down the logic route of trying to reason with them that VED is based on emissions and that bikes actually don't emit anything so would be exempt even if they were to be included, just like hybrids, electric cars and the bluemotion VWs etc.

If they've annoyed me though, I try to mess with their mind and say that I have a car at home which is fully paid up so surely I'm allowed to leave it there and take my bike for the day, they usually agree as they think I've paid the "road tax" anyway. I then tell them that it's a company car so I don't actually pay anything and ask if I'm still allowed, they usually agree as at least my company has paid. I then tell them that my company car is a hybrid so is exempt from VED, this confuses them as no one has paid the road tax yet I'm still allowed to drive my car and ride my bike in their eyes as I have an exempt car. All of that is true by the way but if anyone feels the need they can use it as an example.

I find these lines of argument work quite well, your posts seem to have an air of damn the man, rage against the machine, global conspiracy about them, which is all well and good but if your using that to try and argue with Joe Public, it probably won't get you very far even if you are right. I hope this explanation has helped soften thehighlight your point about informing people of the reality as I've found that the above works so hopefully you will too in the future.

As for you point linking it with red light jumping, I actually think that their perception of red light jumping is more of an issue. I wrote a small cycle blog post about cycling two abreast, overtaking cyclists and attitudes of drivers and cyclists towards each other and the anti-cycling comments posted on that were much more geared towards red light jumpers than road tax. There were even some posts about red light jumpers explaining that not all cyclists do it but the ones that do stick in your mind as they're a lot more visible and memorable.

I really do think that motorists get angry with red light jumpers and some take it out on all cyclists as they cannot distinguish between them, there seems to be a fixation on them (and pavement riders) and to be fair, it's breaking the law so their annoyance is justified (towards the RLJers) although their actions are not. So, if I see another cyclists jumping a light, I'll try and inform them that their actions could have consequences for other cyclists so at least they do so with it on their conscience, as now do you at 7:30 on Sunday mornings, I hope it's worth the 30 seconds you'll save.

Pages

Latest Comments