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

guinom8 wrote:

@hawkinspeter

I understand where you coming from, but I also understand that I will always be more vulnerable than a car.

If a lunatic decides to release his/her anger by pushing me off road and driving away, I will be the one to deal with the consequences of either get injured (if not get killed) or damage my bike. The driver can simply spin off and there I will be left on the ground. And everything will happen so fast that I won't even have a chance to memorise his/her car reg.

I ain't apologising to no one. I just came to realisation that anger doesn't solve the problem but make it worse. and I won't be giving any driver reason to go after me or scare me off.

You can disagree with some of my points or anything I say, I couldn't care less.

@tommyraleigh86 asked for peoples' opinions and I provided mine.

Fair enough. Like you say, these are just opinions  (like assholes - everyone's got one and they all stink).

Personally, I use a couple of Cycliq cameras so if I do get murdered by an irate driver, then at least there's a chance that he might get caught and banned for 6 months or similar.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't care about "respect" and I think that is a complete strawman argument as motorists don't "respect" other motorists

Nice collective generalisation there....

hawkinspeter wrote:

and yet they don't have the same frothing at the mouth reaction to motorists going through red lights.

You want to have a bet on that ?

hawkinspeter wrote:

To be honest, when reading your comment, it sounds like an apology to motorists.

Sounded like someone using the normal "they're not cyclists" excuse, often in conjunction with the "all motorists" generalisation from the first point...

There are all sorts of people, and they use all sorts of transport, and a number of them are twats - it's just that twats in larger, faster vehicles cause more damage, more easily, than the others.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Most pedestrians don't seem to give two hoots about any sort of crossing etiquette anyway looking at this. Nearly all those people wouldn't have done the same with a car approaching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllnlHvWT88

I personally like to cut a lot of slack for pedestrians crossing the road, but the one thing that does wind me up is pedestrians not looking before crossing. Usually shouting "Oi" at them gets a suitable reaction, but by then you've had to slow/change road position.

hawkinspeter wrote:

First point - cyclists don't form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour either.

Agreed you are not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour and vice-versa, altough other cyclists' behaviour or your behaviour may influence what other people think of cyclists in general and that can go back straight back to you, unfortunately.

The problem I find is: Drivers think cyclists have no right to be on the road, and cyclists think they have more right than drivers. None is willing to give, therefore they take more than they should.

"The rope will always break where the strands are thinnest" the cyclist in this case.

guinom8 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

First point - cyclists don't form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour either.

Agreed you are not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour and vice-versa, altough other cyclists' behaviour or your behaviour may influence what other people think of cyclists in general and that can go back straight back to you, unfortunately.

Imagine the next time a driver does something to you, when you're walking, say. Something like not stopping for you at a pelican crossing. Imagine you then blame all drivers and act a bit more belligerently towards them, and 'take revenge' on others in minor ways that you can.

Think of how stupid, petty and antisocial you'd have to be to do that. And that's what you're talking about - you're excusing, or suggesting accommodating, that level of stupidity and narrow-mindedness.

Bollocks to that - you change the scenario you describe by challenging that stupidity and bias, not by accepting it and taking on responsibility for other members of a group which doesn't exist.

davel wrote:

guinom8 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

First point - cyclists don't form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour either.

Agreed you are not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour and vice-versa, altough other cyclists' behaviour or your behaviour may influence what other people think of cyclists in general and that can go back straight back to you, unfortunately.

Imagine the next time a driver does something to you, when you're walking, say. Something like not stopping for you at a pelican crossing. Imagine you then blame all drivers and act a bit more belligerently towards them, and 'take revenge' on others in minor ways that you can. Think of how stupid, petty and antisocial you'd have to be to do that. And that's what you're talking about - you're excusing, or suggesting accommodating, that level of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Bollocks to that - you change the scenario you describe by challenging that stupidity and bias, not by accepting it and taking on responsibility for other members of a group which doesn't exist.

Collective responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility

which leads to Collective Punishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility

which is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

hawkinspeter wrote:

First point - cyclists don't form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour either.

Second point - my safety takes precedence over the law. Usually, when I'm choosing to go through a red light, it's so that I can cross a junction before the motorised vehicles can i.e. I cross as soon as I spot that the cross traffic has stopped.

Third point - cycling efficiently means keeping your momentum when feasible. This is another reason that I may choose to go through a red light. Usually this is only done when I have a clear view of the traffic (or lack of) and can see that it is safe to do so.

Fourth point - with the sheer number of traffic laws not being followed by 95% of motorised traffic (e.g. speed limits; not overtaking at pinch points; lack of indication; crossing double solid white lines etc), it just seems ridiculous to be waiting at an empty crossing on the very slim chance that there's a policeman anywhere at all.

If you blithely disregard traffic laws that don't suit you personally, how can you possibly criticise car drivers for doing exactly the same thing?

No man is an island and behaviour like yours does other cyclists no favours however much you think it's not your problem.

Yrcm wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

First point - cyclists don't form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour either.

Second point - my safety takes precedence over the law. Usually, when I'm choosing to go through a red light, it's so that I can cross a junction before the motorised vehicles can i.e. I cross as soon as I spot that the cross traffic has stopped.

Third point - cycling efficiently means keeping your momentum when feasible. This is another reason that I may choose to go through a red light. Usually this is only done when I have a clear view of the traffic (or lack of) and can see that it is safe to do so.

Fourth point - with the sheer number of traffic laws not being followed by 95% of motorised traffic (e.g. speed limits; not overtaking at pinch points; lack of indication; crossing double solid white lines etc), it just seems ridiculous to be waiting at an empty crossing on the very slim chance that there's a policeman anywhere at all.

If you blithely disregard traffic laws that don't suit you personally, how can you possibly criticise car drivers for doing exactly the same thing?

No man is an island and behaviour like yours does other cyclists no favours however much you think it's not your problem.

The whole point of following traffic laws is to enhance road safety. The figures would suggest that cyclists are not a major cause of road incidents and loss of life, whereas motorists are.

I criticise the car drivers who are dangerous and I would similarly criticise myself if I were putting other people's lives in danger.

Yrcm wrote:

If you blithely disregard traffic laws that don't suit you personally, how can you possibly criticise car drivers for doing exactly the same thing?

oooh, goodie, false equivalence time!

Is the answer... because they're nothing like each other in terms of power, weight, risk, danger, damage, death and shoe size?

Or... is it ... what age did you have your first drink, and did everyone else around you become underage alcoholics?

Or... is it... ask the rod up your arse whether it knows how to  digest an article and then use 'blithely' in the correct context, because you sure as shit don't?

davel wrote:

oooh, goodie, false equivalence time!

Is the answer... because they're nothing like each other in terms of power, weight, risk, danger, damage, death and shoe size?

No it's because anyone who thinks it's OK to go through a red light is a twat, whoever they are.

Yrcm wrote:

davel wrote:

oooh, goodie, false equivalence time!

Is the answer... because they're nothing like each other in terms of power, weight, risk, danger, damage, death and shoe size?

No it's because anyone who thinks it's OK to go through a red light is a twat, whoever they are.

How about ambulances? I'd prefer them to go and help someone than be waiting at a red light.

Drivers from the U.S. are a large group who thing that it's OK to go through a red light when turning right and the coast is clear.

(For the record, I will also go through a red light when turning left and it is safe to do so. Maybe one day that will become allowable in the UK).

Yrcm wrote:

davel wrote:

oooh, goodie, false equivalence time!

Is the answer... because they're nothing like each other in terms of power, weight, risk, danger, damage, death and shoe size?

No it's because anyone who thinks it's OK to go through a red light is a twat, whoever they are.

Do you really think it's that black and white?

There are no shades of grey regarding individual behaviour?

What about the godawful political choices resulting in spectacularly shit urban 'design', whereby the most dangerous vehicles have priority and the more sensible, safe and responsible modes of moving around a city have been made correspondingly difficult?

hawkinspeter wrote:

First point - cyclists don't form a cohesive group, so other cyclists are not responsible for my behaviour and I am not responsible for other cyclists' behaviour either.

Second point - my safety takes precedence over the law. Usually, when I'm choosing to go through a red light, it's so that I can cross a junction before the motorised vehicles can i.e. I cross as soon as I spot that the cross traffic has stopped.

Third point - cycling efficiently means keeping your momentum when feasible. This is another reason that I may choose to go through a red light. Usually this is only done when I have a clear view of the traffic (or lack of) and can see that it is safe to do so.

Fourth point - with the sheer number of traffic laws not being followed by 95% of motorised traffic (e.g. speed limits; not overtaking at pinch points; lack of indication; crossing double solid white lines etc), it just seems ridiculous to be waiting at an empty crossing on the very slim chance that there's a policeman anywhere at all.

I assume (well, I hope) that my sarcasm detector is faulty again...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Usually, when I'm choosing to go through a red light, it's

.. because you're a hypocritical twat. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Usually, when I'm choosing to go through a red light, it's

.. because you're a hypocritical twat. 

Depends on how you frame it.

In terms of following law, then yes, absolutely.

In terms of safety and consideration of other people, then the question becomes a bit more murky.