Should we be able to break road laws, or is this a bit irresponsible?

ClubSmed wrote:

“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi
Or as it is commonly misrepresented "be the change you want to see in the world"
I believe in this, so because I want to be respected on the road I give others respect. I want other road users to follow the rules, so I follow the rules.
If you are not part of the solution then you are probably part of the problem
I also think that as over 80% of cyclists are said to also be car drivers and it is not hard to believe that any breaking of highway laws on the bicycle are carried into the car by those same people.

I do appreciate your view on that regarding following the rules.

Personally, I'd be more than happy to see hoards of unruly cyclists travelling safely yet not always obeying the laws. I think the problem is that the traffic laws could do with some improvement - simple things like allowing bikes to go the opposite way up one-way streets  or turning left on red lights, but with the proviso of giving way to any other traffic. I'd also go for allowing unpowered cycles through red lights when safe to do so as that can alleviate traffic congestion and can be safer for the cyclists in some conditions.

The ultimate goal is to have as many people travelling swiftly and safely to where they want to go and I think that getting as many people onto bikes as possible is part of the solution. Remember, every idiot on a bike is an idiot not in a car.

hawkinspeter wrote:

The ultimate goal is to have as many people travelling swiftly and safely to where they want to go and I think that getting as many people onto bikes as possible is part of the solution. Remember, every idiot on a bike is an idiot not in a car.

More people on bikes is great goal to aim for. The thing that is stopping most from getting on a bike is concerns over safety. It is possible that people on bicycles not following the rules are a part of what is causing this sense of cycling not being safe.

It is possible that for every 1 non rule following cyclist out there, more are put off from picking up a bike for safety fears.

It is also possible that this is not the case, but I believe that belief that any cyclist on the road is heading in the right direction is not necessarily the right one.

If, however, you are suggesting that an idiot on a bike is preferable to that same idiot in a car so it is forgivable I would dissagree. If rule breaking on a bicycle is transfered to the car when that person changes mode of transport then the issue definately needs to be addressed whilst they are a cyclist and of little danger than when they are behind the wheel of a death machine.

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The ultimate goal is to have as many people travelling swiftly and safely to where they want to go and I think that getting as many people onto bikes as possible is part of the solution. Remember, every idiot on a bike is an idiot not in a car.

More people on bikes is great goal to aim for. The thing that is stopping most from getting on a bike is concerns over safety. It is possible that people on bicycles not following the rules are a part of what is causing this sense of cycling not being safe.

It is possible that for every 1 non rule following cyclist out there, more are put off from picking up a bike for safety fears.

It is also possible that this is not the case, but I believe that belief that any cyclist on the road is heading in the right direction is not necessarily the right one.

If, however, you are suggesting that an idiot on a bike is preferable to that same idiot in a car so it is forgivable I would dissagree. If rule breaking on a bicycle is transfered to the car when that person changes mode of transport then the issue definately needs to be addressed whilst they are a cyclist and of little danger than when they are behind the wheel of a death machine.

That seems a bit of a weak argument, though I do get what your trying to get across.

If people are copying me, then they won't be driving and even if they are driving, there's scant evidence to suggest that the same behaviour carries across from cycling to driving.

I think it's more likely that there's personality types that will break rules on a bike and maybe that same personality type will become dangerous if they drive. My main driving experience has been with versions of Gran Turismo and I have shocked myself with some of the maneouvres that I do (e.g. deliberately crashing into other cars to scrub speed off for the corners). However, in real life, I do try to be considerate of other traffic and I think that I have a very good level of awareness of traffic. (I did get surprised the other day to be overtaken at high speed by a couple on a tandem, but then they were very fast and very silent).

hawkinspeter wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The ultimate goal is to have as many people travelling swiftly and safely to where they want to go and I think that getting as many people onto bikes as possible is part of the solution. Remember, every idiot on a bike is an idiot not in a car.

More people on bikes is great goal to aim for. The thing that is stopping most from getting on a bike is concerns over safety. It is possible that people on bicycles not following the rules are a part of what is causing this sense of cycling not being safe.

It is possible that for every 1 non rule following cyclist out there, more are put off from picking up a bike for safety fears.

It is also possible that this is not the case, but I believe that belief that any cyclist on the road is heading in the right direction is not necessarily the right one.

If, however, you are suggesting that an idiot on a bike is preferable to that same idiot in a car so it is forgivable I would dissagree. If rule breaking on a bicycle is transfered to the car when that person changes mode of transport then the issue definately needs to be addressed whilst they are a cyclist and of little danger than when they are behind the wheel of a death machine.

That seems a bit of a weak argument, though I do get what your trying to get across.

If people are copying me, then they won't be driving and even if they are driving, there's scant evidence to suggest that the same behaviour carries across from cycling to driving.

I think it's more likely that there's personality types that will break rules on a bike and maybe that same personality type will become dangerous if they drive. My main driving experience has been with versions of Gran Turismo and I have shocked myself with some of the maneouvres that I do (e.g. deliberately crashing into other cars to scrub speed off for the corners). However, in real life, I do try to be considerate of other traffic and I think that I have a very good level of awareness of traffic. (I did get surprised the other day to be overtaken at high speed by a couple on a tandem, but then they were very fast and very silent).

Exactly, but if " there's personality types that will break rules on a bike and maybe that same personality type will become dangerous if they drive" then if we ignore that behaviour because it's on a bicycle we are just allowing it to happen later (and with potentially more devastating ramifications) when the change mode of transport to a car.

To take a spiderman analogy, it's a bit like Peter Parker letting  a burglar get away and as a result his Uncle Ben ends up being killed by the same person.

I'd rather tackle the problem before it grows into the larger issue

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

The ultimate goal is to have as many people travelling swiftly and safely to where they want to go and I think that getting as many people onto bikes as possible is part of the solution. Remember, every idiot on a bike is an idiot not in a car.

More people on bikes is great goal to aim for. The thing that is stopping most from getting on a bike is concerns over safety. It is possible that people on bicycles not following the rules are a part of what is causing this sense of cycling not being safe.

It is possible that for every 1 non rule following cyclist out there, more are put off from picking up a bike for safety fears.

It is also possible that this is not the case, but I believe that belief that any cyclist on the road is heading in the right direction is not necessarily the right one.

If, however, you are suggesting that an idiot on a bike is preferable to that same idiot in a car so it is forgivable I would dissagree. If rule breaking on a bicycle is transfered to the car when that person changes mode of transport then the issue definately needs to be addressed whilst they are a cyclist and of little danger than when they are behind the wheel of a death machine.

That seems a bit of a weak argument, though I do get what your trying to get across.

If people are copying me, then they won't be driving and even if they are driving, there's scant evidence to suggest that the same behaviour carries across from cycling to driving.

I think it's more likely that there's personality types that will break rules on a bike and maybe that same personality type will become dangerous if they drive. My main driving experience has been with versions of Gran Turismo and I have shocked myself with some of the maneouvres that I do (e.g. deliberately crashing into other cars to scrub speed off for the corners). However, in real life, I do try to be considerate of other traffic and I think that I have a very good level of awareness of traffic. (I did get surprised the other day to be overtaken at high speed by a couple on a tandem, but then they were very fast and very silent).

Exactly, but if " there's personality types that will break rules on a bike and maybe that same personality type will become dangerous if they drive" then if we ignore that behaviour because it's on a bicycle we are just allowing it to happen later (and with potentially more devastating ramifications) when the change mode of transport to a car.

To take a spiderman analogy, it's a bit like Peter Parker letting  a burglar get away and as a result his Uncle Ben ends up being killed by the same person.

I'd rather tackle the problem before it grows into the larger issue

Again, this is a somewhat tenuous link with cycling being like a 'gateway drug' into becoming a dangerous driver. I just don't agree that people behave like that and virtually everone modifies their behaviour (sometimes better, sometimes worse) when driving compared to walking/cycling/surfing etc.

However, I am on the 'guilty' side of the fence, so we're unlikely to end up agreeing on this, but I hope to have given some insight into why some cyclists behave like they do.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Again, this is a somewhat tenuous link with cycling being like a 'gateway drug' into becoming a dangerous driver. I just don't agree that people behave like that and virtually everone modifies their behaviour (sometimes better, sometimes worse) when driving compared to walking/cycling/surfing etc.

However, I am on the 'guilty' side of the fence, so we're unlikely to end up agreeing on this, but I hope to have given some insight into why some cyclists behave like they do.

I am not suggesting that cycling is a gateway drug into becoming a dangerous driver.

I am just considering that over 80% of cyclists are also drivers and that it's not hard to imagine that a disregard for road rules stays with the individual regardless of mode of transport they employ.

There was a post by someone on here not so long ago that said they it took them a while after commuting by car over winter to adjust the mindset back to cycling mentality in the spring.

ClubSmed wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Again, this is a somewhat tenuous link with cycling being like a 'gateway drug' into becoming a dangerous driver. I just don't agree that people behave like that and virtually everone modifies their behaviour (sometimes better, sometimes worse) when driving compared to walking/cycling/surfing etc.

However, I am on the 'guilty' side of the fence, so we're unlikely to end up agreeing on this, but I hope to have given some insight into why some cyclists behave like they do.

I am not suggesting that cycling is a gateway drug into becoming a dangerous driver.

I am just considering that over 80% of cyclists are also drivers and that it's not hard to imagine that a disregard for road rules stays with the individual regardless of mode of transport they employ.

There was a post by someone on here not so long ago that said they it took them a while after commuting by car over winter to adjust the mindset back to cycling mentality in the spring.

But you are assuming this disregard for road rules is done without consideration.

The reality is that it rarely is. People don't always ride through pedestrian crossings because they once rode through a pedestrian crossing. People speeding in 30mph zones, don't tend to drive at 100mph in those 30mph zones. 

The rule breaking tends to be measured and generally considered. 

yes there are exceptions, but generally speaking, most people think about what they are doing and do it having weighed the risks. 

So I appreciate your point, but I don't think someone will necessarily copy behaviours between vehicles. 

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

Highway Code should be followed to protect you and other road users including pedestrians.

Idiots giving the rest of us a bad name.

Did you not read any of the above? This idea of collective responsibility, of "giving the rest of us a bad name" needs to be countered every time. What someone else does on a bike is not my fault, my responsibility or my problem. When another driver breaks a law, that does not reflect on me as a driver. When a customer steals something from a shop, that does not reflect on me as a customer.

So please, if you're thinking that "gives others a bad name" argument, go away and revise your arguments because you're wrong.

crazy-legs wrote:

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

Highway Code should be followed to protect you and other road users including pedestrians.

Idiots giving the rest of us a bad name.

Did you not read any of the above? This idea of collective responsibility, of "giving the rest of us a bad name" needs to be countered every time. What someone else does on a bike is not my fault, my responsibility or my problem. When another driver breaks a law, that does not reflect on me as a driver. When a customer steals something from a shop, that does not reflect on me as a customer.

So please, if you're thinking that "gives others a bad name" argument, go away and revise your arguments because you're wrong.

... In your opinion!

Htc wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

Highway Code should be followed to protect you and other road users including pedestrians.

Idiots giving the rest of us a bad name.

So please, if you're thinking that "gives others a bad name" argument, go away and revise your arguments because you're wrong.

... In your opinion!

... Unless you're a moron!

crazy-legs wrote:

This idea of collective responsibility, of "giving the rest of us a bad name" needs to be countered every time. What someone else does on a bike is not my fault, my responsibility or my problem. When another driver breaks a law, that does not reflect on me as a driver. When a customer steals something from a shop, that does not reflect on me as a customer.

Having worked for a bank during the banking crisis I have experienced the wrath of people who do believe in collective responsibility. The actions of a few banks/bankers during that time being left unchecked definately gave the rest of them a bad name.

ClubSmed wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

This idea of collective responsibility, of "giving the rest of us a bad name" needs to be countered every time. What someone else does on a bike is not my fault, my responsibility or my problem. When another driver breaks a law, that does not reflect on me as a driver. When a customer steals something from a shop, that does not reflect on me as a customer.

Having worked for a bank during the banking crisis I have experienced the wrath of people who do believe in collective responsibility. The actions of a few banks/bankers during that time being left unchecked definately gave the rest of them a bad name.

I worked for a bank then and I still do (a different one). I had zero responsibility for what some (a lot, as it turned out) bad apples did in the same industry, or, in some cases, the same (very large) bank. That morons tar us all with the same brush doesn't validate the morons' opinion.

And that's exactly how feeble that argument is: posters here are saying we need to do something because some morons are judgemental bellends. Behave how you want: unless you can give them brain transplants or put them through some serious education they will still be judgemental bellends. And definitely don't use it as an excuse to preach or judge others who disagree with the collective responsibility shite.

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

This idea of collective responsibility, of "giving the rest of us a bad name" needs to be countered every time. What someone else does on a bike is not my fault, my responsibility or my problem. When another driver breaks a law, that does not reflect on me as a driver. When a customer steals something from a shop, that does not reflect on me as a customer.

Having worked for a bank during the banking crisis I have experienced the wrath of people who do believe in collective responsibility. The actions of a few banks/bankers during that time being left unchecked definately gave the rest of them a bad name.

I worked for a bank then and I still do (a different one). I had zero responsibility for what some (a lot, as it turned out) bad apples did in the same industry, or, in some cases, the same (very large) bank. That morons tar us all with the same brush doesn't validate the morons' opinion. And that's exactly how feeble that argument is: posters here are saying we need to do something because some morons are judgemental bellends. Behave how you want: unless you can give them brain transplants or put them through some serious education they will still be judgemental bellends. And definitely don't use it as an excuse to preach or judge others who disagree with the collective responsibility shite.

I agree with you that we have no control over what others do, only what we do ourselves. This may or may not influence others, but we have no control over this.

I also agree that there is no collective responsibility for cyclists, though there should be a collective responsibility as humans to try and be better and more considerate to other people.

I was just trying to point out that tarring with the same brush does happen and I believe that it is naive to think otherwise. The banking crisis is a perfect example of this, so when others say that actions of the few can't/don't effect the mass perception of the whole of the group I believe they need to think again.

Htc wrote:

crazy-legs wrote:

Fish_n_Chips wrote:

Highway Code should be followed to protect you and other road users including pedestrians.

Idiots giving the rest of us a bad name.

Did you not read any of the above? This idea of collective responsibility, of "giving the rest of us a bad name" needs to be countered every time. What someone else does on a bike is not my fault, my responsibility or my problem. When another driver breaks a law, that does not reflect on me as a driver. When a customer steals something from a shop, that does not reflect on me as a customer.

So please, if you're thinking that "gives others a bad name" argument, go away and revise your arguments because you're wrong.

... In your opinion!

It's not an opinion... its out and out wrong. Its only the context that muddies the water in this example. Because we are enthusiasts we feel a sense of shared interest, a bond as such... therefore we maybe do feel some collective harmony / responsibility. 

But, and its a big but, its as relevant as race, sexual preference / orientation, religious beliefs. Women will always have a natural affinity with other women, but I am sure no woman wants and would accept being judged on another woman's conduct. 

And, do you know what, there is plenty of legilstation out there to ensure that society does not do this. Just like there is legislation to stop up prejudicing against race, religion etc. 

Yes, it absolutely still happens, but no, it is absolutely not acceptable, and should absolutely be challenged whenever it does happen. 

Do not dough your caps to the media (who are only interested in selling advertising to get rich), and do not give in to the mindset of the ignorant plebs. 

Collective responsibility is a concept that needs to be challenged each and every time it raises its dirty little head. 

fukawitribe wrote:

This is all getting jolly sensible and grown-up now - huzzah - so can we also then stop the "motorists do X", "motons hate Y" stuff as well ?

With you on the 'drivers/motorists' generalisations.

I thought moton was already shorthand for a lazy/shit/distracted flavour of driver, though - sort of auto/moton (I know it's not just shorthand for automaton, but sort of a play on that, and motor)?  At least that's what I mean when I use it...

davel wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

This is all getting jolly sensible and grown-up now - huzzah - so can we also then stop the "motorists do X", "motons hate Y" stuff as well ?

With you on the 'drivers/motorists' generalisations.

I thought moton was already shorthand for a lazy/shit/distracted flavour of driver, though - sort of auto/moton? At least that's what I mean when I use it...

Yep, you're right - I intended it to mean "don't use that word as a generalisation" as well, as some on here do, but it didn't come across. 

davel wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

This is all getting jolly sensible and grown-up now - huzzah - so can we also then stop the "motorists do X", "motons hate Y" stuff as well ?

With you on the 'drivers/motorists' generalisations.

I thought moton was already shorthand for a lazy/shit/distracted flavour of driver, though - sort of auto/moton (I know it's not just shorthand for automaton, but sort of a play on that, and motor)?  At least that's what I mean when I use it...

I thought it was a play on "motor" and "moron".

But what I really want to know is - how can we be lovers if we can't be friends?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It doesn't bloody matter how we're 'not responsible' for what others do, because people are as thick as shit.   People will judge you based on what you do as a group.  So get the fuck over it and stop whining that your behaviour doesn't influence what people think of all cyclists, because it bloody well does.   
 

Of course it does, and... of course it does.

You're right that people judge cyclists as a group.

You're also right that some cyclists ride like twats. Nobody here is advocating riding like a twat (shit, I'm not even advocating running red lights). But you're really simplistically conflating more than one issue into that one, and confusing discussion about other topics with 'stop defending cyclists being twats'. Nobody is. Deep breath.

And you're wrong to suggest that the way to change that judgement of cyclists is just accept that mindset happens and to focus your preaching on the other cyclists.

Reason? 'We' are not judged solely because we go through red lights, or because someone's Auntie Hilda was nearly knocked over when she came out of the shop by a yoof in a hoodie pulling a wheelie.

We're judged because of basic bias, prejudice, we're weird, we wear lycra, we shave our legs, we're in their way and slow them down, ie. we're not the same as them, pure and simple. That mindset will only gradually change when enough of the population at large cycle regularly so 'we' are no longer an outgroup, or enough noise is made about it not really being cool to clip cyclists because you just don't get them.

Think of any outgroup - any group of people lumped together through arbitrary external criteria, who've been given a bit of a kicking by others in more 'mainstream' society. Now think of the rationale that says 'maybe we wouldn't get such a hard time for being xyz if there weren't other people who are xyz doing bad stuff'. It is insane. Obama was a shit president, coz... bloods and crips. What sort of redneck thinks like that? And what sort of Uncle Tom thinks bloods and crips should stop being bloods and crips because rednecks use it as a stick to beat Obama with it...

You get a fret on about other cyclists' behaviour: go for the extra stress, whatever floats your boat.

Meanwhile, I'll judge other cyclists, and accept the collective responsibility, exactly as much as whenever I see someone on foot doing something antisocial or illegal, when I'm walking, and think 'tsk, they're giving all us peds a bad name'.

davel wrote:

Meanwhile, I'll judge other cyclists, and accept the collective responsibility, exactly as much as whenever I see someone on foot doing something antisocial or illegal, when I'm walking, and think 'tsk, they're giving all us peds a bad name'.

Well said.

You should not be accepting this collective responsibility, you should be challenging it every time the same tired old cliches get dragged out.

If you tried it with "all black people" or "all gay people" or "all Jewish people" you'd very quickly find yourslf the wrong side of a discrimination claim so every time you hear "all cyclists" it needs to be challenged.

SOME cyclists are idiots in the same way that SOME people from every single walk of life and background are idiots. That does not translate to accepting responsibility for other's actions. You wouldn't walk into a supermarket, buy your shopping and then apologise because some customers shoplift. So don't apologise to a motorist because they once saw a cyclist ride on the pavement.

hawkinspeter wrote:

@fukawitribe - my generalisations were in response to guinom8's generalisations about 'respect' that I don't think are true. I certainly don't believe that all motorists have respect for any particular group as, like you say, they are artificial groupings that don't have a singular mindset.

Fair enough - I think - but sounded like you believed it to me, hence the reply.

hawkinspeter wrote:

And yes, I will take you up on that bet about motorists frothing at the mouth. 50p too rich for you?

Go on then, you only live once - i'll DM you my PayPal details...