Do we challenge red light jumpers/green man means cyclist

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

hampstead_bandit wrote:

cyclists want to be treated fairly by other road users, but also want to choose when they obey the law, it does not work like that?

What?

Try the above sentence with "cyclists" replaced by "older people" or "pedestrians" or "white people" or "black people" or "men" or "women" and "road users" replaced with the appropriate wider group.

Are you seriously arguing that nobody can expect fair treatment in society till everyone else who has anything at all in common with them behaves totally perfectly at all times?

Where does this odd 'logic' come from? Its becuase people tend to think in this bigotted way that soceity is such a mess.

I've read and re-read this and have come to the conclusion that, actually, there are two arguments there:
In one, "cyclists", "women", "old people", whoever are quite within their rights to feel that they should be treated fairly by "road users", "society", "nursing home staff", etc.
In the other, people / cyclists / whomever cannot expect to be allowed to break the law without some sort of legal retribution.

I don't think it is bigotted, just two separate arguments.

Jimbonic wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But these sorts of things are not the special responsibility of any one group.

Except the police, maybe?

I grant you that one.

They seem to regard much of this low-level stuff as not worth their time, though.

Jimbonic wrote:

I've read and re-read this and have come to the conclusion that, actually, there are two arguments there:
In one, "cyclists", "women", "old people", whoever are quite within their rights to feel that they should be treated fairly by "road users", "society", "nursing home staff", etc.
In the other, people / cyclists / whomever cannot expect to be allowed to break the law without some sort of legal retribution.

I don't think it is bigotted, just two separate arguments.

Bigotted was too strong, I take that back. But _as worded_, the comment just seemed to display an attitude I don't agree with in general - that there is a 'collective' entity called 'cyclists' that has some sort of shared responsibility for every bad thing done by a cyclist.

It comes up with all sorts of groups, and I never agree with it. I don't think, for example, you can say that "Muslims" can't ask for respect or to not be discriminated against until there isn't a single Islamist terrorist anywhere in the world (and Muslims probably form a more coherent group than do 'people who use a bike'). Ditto black people as a group.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Jimbonic wrote:

I've read and re-read this and have come to the conclusion that, actually, there are two arguments there:
In one, "cyclists", "women", "old people", whoever are quite within their rights to feel that they should be treated fairly by "road users", "society", "nursing home staff", etc.
In the other, people / cyclists / whomever cannot expect to be allowed to break the law without some sort of legal retribution.

I don't think it is bigotted, just two separate arguments.

Bigotted was too strong, I take that back. But _as worded_, the comment just seemed to display an attitude I don't agree with in general - that there is a 'collective' entity called 'cyclists' that has some sort of shared responsibility for every bad thing done by a cyclist.

It comes up with all sorts of groups, and I never agree with it. I don't think, for example, you can say that "Muslims" can't ask for respect or to not be discriminated against until there isn't a single Islamist terrorist anywhere in the world (and Muslims probably form a more coherent group than do 'people who use a bike'). Ditto black people as a group.

Yes, I most definitely agree with you.

The original sentence was a bit ambiguous. But, I totally agree that cyclists as a collective (if, indeed, there is such a thing) should be persecuted because there are those that don't obey the law. That would be crazy!

Neil753 wrote:

It's not illegal to film people in a public place, so why not set up a website (or maybe a Youtube channel) where people can upload footage of RLJs, and then split the reward money (for a successful proscecution) between the person who posts the video and the person who identifies the miscreant. A fixed £90 fine could be split three ways (poster, spotter, admin).

The concept could obviously be applied to drivers too and, with money involved, could become very effective at reducing all manner of bad behaviour on the road. But a pilot scheme for red light jumpers is ideal, because of the objective nature of the offence.

I have often thought there should be something like this for illegal parking (an offense which is almost ubiquitous). RLJing would work also....but....

(a) would not drivers try to argue that they weren't driving the vehicle at the time ("it was stolen then mysteriously returned, guv, honest!").

(b) is it not possibly a worrying precedent, maybe a step too far towards a surveillence society? (not really sure about that one, especially as we are almost there already, but still...).

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

In answer to the OP, Yes we need to challange our own and others bad behaviour on the road. How that's done without being aggresive is another. I don't hide my displeasure at others.

Isn't there likely to be an inbuilt-bias involved in this though?
How do you challenge a motorist who can't hear you and is roaring off at 40mph?
In practice cyclists are a lot more challenge able than motorists, so you are likely to end up doing this in a one-sided manner.

I have the same dilemma about many such issues - I'm aware myself that its a lot easier to object to, say, an obvious fare-doger jumping (or ducking under) a barrier, if they are a woman or a weedy-looking speccy guy than if they are a hard-looking skinhead. I've often noticed that with respect to TfL staff themselves, in fact. They'll take a stronger line with someone who doesn't look dangerous and look the other way with anyone scary-looking.

So when I think about challenging someone my next thought is often unease that there's something discriminatory about my doing so.

(Of course, if you yourself are a hard-man, this may be less of a problem! But it still applies with respect to motorists vs cyclists - motorists are kind of untouchable, isolated in their metal box)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

hampstead_bandit wrote:

cyclists want to be treated fairly by other road users, but also want to choose when they obey the law, it does not work like that?

What?

Try the above sentence with "cyclists" replaced by "older people" or "pedestrians" or "white people" or "black people" or "men" or "women" and "road users" replaced with the appropriate wider group.

Are you seriously arguing that nobody can expect fair treatment in society till everyone else who has anything at all in common with them behaves totally perfectly at all times?

Where does this odd 'logic' come from? Its becuase people tend to think in this bigotted way that soceity is such a mess.

Just absolutely spot on!

Crosshouses wrote:

'Momentum' is an interesting word, it's the one HGV drivers use to justify tailgating.

That's like saying "love" is an interesting word because I could use it either as justification for buying my girlfriend flowers or for killing her in a fit of jealousy. My momentum as a cyclist isn't going to kill an innocent road user.

TomvanHalen wrote:

Crosshouses wrote:

'Momentum' is an interesting word, it's the one HGV drivers use to justify tailgating.

That's like saying "love" is an interesting word because I could use it either as justification for buying my girlfriend flowers or for killing her in a fit of jealousy. My momentum as a cyclist isn't going to kill an innocent road user.

The problem is that there are rules, and if we expect people to abide by them and yet we don't then what point is there in having the rules at all....some people choose to mean that we should be 'lawless' because they don't like every single one of them. But you can't expect the law to then help you out when other road users don't abide by them. Not every road user breaks the rules, not every one follows them, but the more you encourage it the better we all are.

Fluffykitten makes some good responses about the ability to connect with cyclists over car drivers, which perhaps leads to a bias. But equally doesn't want us all labelled cyclists because it generalises to give a bad perception of all cyclists. Perhaps we should just talk about 'road users' who break the rules then. I find that road users generally appreciate other road users who also follow the rules because they do work, but there is a frustration where road users flout them because it is usually selfish and dangerous.

e.g. My gf was driving down the road the other day and a car pulled across her from a road on the left. He had no right of way and given that the roads were not so busy it was purely selfish behaviour to avoid waiting for a proper break in the traffic.

The issue as I see it is that if we do not stand up for the rules then we see road use standards drop (something like the carnage that you see in India). But if we believe and understand the tenants of road traffic then they should be safe for everyone. These things do have knock on effects as they become a 'culture'. Part of me feels that the rise in immigrant populations in London (from cultures where it is more normal to pull across on-coming traffic for example) is having an effect on the way people use the roads in the capital at least. But it is difficult to tell if the pressure on infrastructure to cope with our high density population is not also, in part to blame.

It is:
http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/12/cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law-...

NIrish wrote:

I think you do bring a relevant point about foreign cultures being brought into our road system without being checked or corrected. Before the Racism/Zenophobia flag gets waved we are all mature here. It is a contributing factor that can be seen clearly in some parts not exclusively LDN.

Go look at some of the behaviour on Manor House high St. in North London if you want evidence to support that argument.

DrJDog wrote:

Yesterday morning, when I turned right off a very busy road just after the green man had finished, I got a sarky handclap off a girl on a bike stopped at the lights coming the other way. No way I'm hanging around in the middle of a pretty busy and fast junction when I can safely pootle through on red. I've done that before and it did nothing for my state of mind.

Well done to the girl on the bike!

I would be tempted to ignore it if there are no pedestrians in sight. The problem is the people who jump the red lights when there ARE pedestrians trying to cross at the 'green person'. My son was sent bowling into the gutter by one when he was on his way home from school. The cyclist didn't go over to help him, or ask if he was OK. He just stood over him and yelled abuse. I have several times nearly been hit by cyclists jumping red lights when the pedestrian light is green.

daddyELVIS wrote:

Red Light Jumping is not a big issue in the grand scheme of rule-breaking. I stop at most lights, and jump the odd one or two. I don't see forums harping on about drivers breaking speed limits!!

Or their appalling and illegal parking habits!

God, the ridiculous places they decide to deposit their cars! Road markings and basic safety sense mean nothing to them when set against their desperate need to avoid using their legs for more than a couple of yards at the end of their journey.

Putting aside the little problem of neither group being a centrally controlled entity, I'd be fine with doing a deal - no cyclists jump reds in return for no speeding or illegal parking by motorists. Otherwise they can STFU.

SForeman wrote:

The problem is the people who jump the red lights when there ARE pedestrians trying to cross at the 'green person'. My son was sent bowling into the gutter by one when he was on his way home from school. The cyclist didn't go over to help him, or ask if he was OK. He just stood over him and yelled abuse. I have several times nearly been hit by cyclists jumping red lights when the pedestrian light is green.

True, though I've only ever seen this happen once, myself. And there is always the option for quick-witted pedestrians of thumping the offending cyclist as he whizzes through a crossing!

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

SForeman wrote:

The problem is the people who jump the red lights when there ARE pedestrians trying to cross at the 'green person'. My son was sent bowling into the gutter by one when he was on his way home from school. The cyclist didn't go over to help him, or ask if he was OK. He just stood over him and yelled abuse. I have several times nearly been hit by cyclists jumping red lights when the pedestrian light is green.

True, though I've only ever seen this happen once, myself. And there is always the option for quick-witted pedestrians of thumping the offending cyclist as he whizzes through a crossing!

So you are essentially condoning assault for which you will be arrested guaranteed, i guess you don't value your freedom much.

*Waits for climb down*

Tinman wrote:

Is that hypocrisy I can smell?

So we don't want to be known as a collective and we can't be held responsible for the action of other cyclists but then constantly refer to motorists, HGV drivers, pedestrians, taring everyone with the same brush.

Equally we expect other road users to obey the rules of the road, but feel we can pick and choose when we obey them ourselves.

I thoroughly agree road users should use common sense, the problem is a lot of people (cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians) don't have any, hence why we have to have rules.

Nope, you can presumably just smell your own difficulty with thinking things through.

Who is this "we" who "constantly tar everyone with the same brush"?
You are assuming in your point the very existence of the 'collective' that is being denied! How can you start off an argument by assuming your conclusion?

I don't expect motorists or pedestrians to police each other - I haven't seen anyone here demand that, so you are mistaken.

Policing is the job of the police, and the only sense in which motorists have collective responsibility is at a political level, given that they are a powerful political lobby (in a way that cyclists certainly aren't) - but not every individual driver is responsibile for how that lobby operates either.

northstar wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

SForeman wrote:

The problem is the people who jump the red lights when there ARE pedestrians trying to cross at the 'green person'. My son was sent bowling into the gutter by one when he was on his way home from school. The cyclist didn't go over to help him, or ask if he was OK. He just stood over him and yelled abuse. I have several times nearly been hit by cyclists jumping red lights when the pedestrian light is green.

True, though I've only ever seen this happen once, myself. And there is always the option for quick-witted pedestrians of thumping the offending cyclist as he whizzes through a crossing!

So you are essentially condoning assault for which you will be arrested guaranteed, i guess you don't value your freedom much.

*Waits for climb down*

Oh don't be ridiculous. How about reading what people actually write in future before responding? Please show me where this 'condoning' occurs, if you can (you can't because there isn't any).

The option exists, in a way that it doesn't when the offender is in a car. That's a simple fact. It has happened, I know of several cases where it has (a couple reported by the thumper on web sites*, in once case I knew the thumped). So how can you deny it can happen? (Also if you think people are 'guaranteed' to be arrested if they assault someone you live in a different country to me).

Its another reason for people NOT to race across crossings when pedestrians are crossing, and the point is its one reason why cyclists are less of a threat than motorists - who tend to be immune from the risk of such direct retaliation.

*actually it might have been a third-party witness who mentioned it, can't remember.