Furious van driver blasts horn and rages at cyclist… for stopping at a red light; “You are f***ing it up for all of us”: Cyclist berates Just Stop Oil activists for “harming the green cause”; “Fantastic turnout for DriveLondon” + more on the live blog

wycombewheeler wrote:

so where there are multiple lanes, does a red on any of the lanes mean all lanes should stop?

You're kidding right? Yes of course it absolutely does!

Unless there are green filter arrows, a red light means stop for ALL lanes!

If you don't know that you have no business being on a bicycle, let alone a heavier vehicle like a car.

There is no defence of "but I went round the traffic light on the other side, therefore it didn't count".

There's a guy near me that hops off his bike and sprints alongside it before hopping back on at the other side of a junction to avoid 'jumping the light'. This seems less preferable than other cyclists who stop and defer to pedestrians and then cycle through at a crawl when the crossing is empty, though this would be illegal unlike the first option. I do hate seeing cyclists go through with speed which makes using the crossing intimidating / unpleasant for some pedestrians even if the cyclist never gets within 3m of a pedestrian. Though I believe this is the norm in some countries?

Rendel Harris wrote:

This is the only time I'll pass a red, I assume that passing it to the left of the light and never riding in the lane it's controlling I'm not actually jumping it, but I'd be interested to know the legality of that.

I'm also assuming, but my view is that if the lane is coned off and the lights are to the right it's no longer a lane and I shouldn't be riding in it. 

I'll happily go through (worker-less) coned-off zones to get to the front of a temporary traffic light queue (which don't seem all that temporary on the Walworth Road right now), but actually going through the lights seems at best unsporting. 

Brauchsel wrote:

I'll happily go through (worker-less) coned-off zones to get to the front of a temporary traffic light queue (which don't seem all that temporary on the Walworth Road right now), but actually going through the lights seems at best unsporting. 

Walworth Road seems to be a cunning plan on the part of Mr Khan to get everyone off public transport and onto their bikes, as I've given up taking buses down there!

It might at first glance appear "unsporting" but in fact it's to the motorists' advantage as they won't have to follow a cyclist through the contraflow so they will get through quicker.

I go on the cone side primarily not to hold up motor vehicles. Worst one was an uphill section where the timings did not allow a bike to get to the end of the roadworks! Fortunately, it was only there less than a day.

The problem is not how *we* see our reason for passing through the red; it's how the *other* road users see it.

And until people stop trying to justify illegal and often irresponsible riding, other highway users will be justified in their whataboutifery.

And I guess that's my invite to the next AGM blown, then ... 😆😆

This always comes up.  I think there is a dash of truth in here combined with a lot of "I know it when I see it" and "stands to reason".  I don't have better evidence than anyone else here but my theory is this.  Simply from the numbers of "offended" motorists it would seem that there must be far more, far worse cycling going on than I ever see.  That is possible.

My alternative explanation: there is already prejudice / dislike out there only indirectly linked to RLJ.  Well-known enough that "bad cyclist" is an widely enjoyed trope, kept going by the media and by people who rarely encounter cyclists and even less any wrong'uns.

There are certainly some problems.  Yes - cycling is by its nature less formal, more casual and doesn't require training.  There is little enforcement.  So we might not expect great standards compared with driving *.
Yes - in some places it seems that RLJing is very noticeable.
Yes - we should regulate the delivery businesses even when they have "contractors" rather than employees and they're on bicycles.
Yes - people just aren't used to cyclists and have little idea of cycling so when they "suddenly appear" or are "tearing along" it can be a shock.

However I think it's mostly our "out group" / "detecting cheaters" mechanisms which are getting triggered.  Those will continue to do so while people on bicycles are a minority and are not "us", or our friends and relations.  We are very sensitive to "others" who are playing but not by the same rules.  They're getting in our way, they're getting ahead, they're doing it for free (no road tax!) when we have to pay, they're doing it with insoucience!  We've been told they're low status (yoof, crims, people who can't afford cars) or otherwise objectionable (self-important middle-aged men) and yet they aren't giving us motorists the deference that it's simple common sense to expect.

* In the UK I think we're maybe better than we might be due to the population who regularly cycle being somewhat at variance from the mainstream.  A selection pressure due to the road conditions - because motor vehicles!

I know this must be true. Mrs Mungecrundle drives through Cambridge about once a week. She's always seeing cyclists doing naughty things and holding up traffic. I drive with her as a passenger about once a month and on those occassions we do not encounter the hoards of naughty cyclists and as far as causing delays are concerned the cyclists are way down the list, somewhere south of delivery vans and drivers waiting to turn right. Indeed, in central Cambridge the cyclists are usually being held up by vehicle traffic.

It's a lazy trope based on a few misdeeds and needs to be confronted. Even if all people riding bicycles behaved like perfect angels there would still be hostility from some to their presence and another poorly evidenced excuse would be promulgated to have them soundly thrashed and sent home to think about what they have done.

I am aware that London driving is a different league and that there are specific issues with delivery agents (regardless of mode of transport). However, the actions of others are not my responsibility and should be no excuse to drive unsafely near me because you once heard about a deliveroo rider who rode across a red light and scared a Granny on a pavement.

Drivist whataboutery has nothing to do with our individual behaviour and everything to do work their cognitive dissonance and media portrayal of the cyclist boogeyman

I think this view is due to cycling being a minority thing in the UK. If it were more commonplace, there wouldn't be this view of seeing them as some kind of group.

The problem is that a fair number of motorists are so engrained in their habit of jumping lights. I could rattle of a whole swathe of junctions in Paisley where it really is endemic. I've found myself swerving to the left and bracing for an impact. Others are too narrow and I have no choice but jump because the bam behind is accelerating and too close. Actually had a McGill's driver fish tail and rag me for not running the light. He couldn't accept that he had more than enough time to stop. 

Being anti-car and anti-fossil fuel is not extremist. Thinking that the rightness of your cause (be it climate change, votes for women, trans rights, BLM, anti-vax, white supremacy or whatever) gives you the right to seriously impede other people who are not meaningfully responsible for whatever you're upset about, is at least on the extremist spectrum. 

I would gladly see the last car owner strangled with the fanbelt of the last internal combustion engine, and I have the right to campaign loudly and publicly in favour of that view. I don't think I have the right to get people on minimum wage into trouble with shitty employers by making them late for shifts though, as XR and JSO et al have certainly done by blocking roads being used by buses. 

brooksby wrote:

Does the antiJSO cyclist work for the Torygraph?  Is it a made-up story?

If not, I guess it just shows that "cyclists" are not one big homogenous group...

Did anyone get his name? We're going to have to expel him from our AGM if he's not going to toe the line.

I've mentioned it before, but the important point of protests is that someone feels strongly enough to do the protesting. Complaining that they're not protesting in what you think is the "proper" way is missing the point and is a common tactic to divide people. Presumably, that ex-cyclist (we're going to have to strip him of his title) believes that a protest has to be agreeable with everyone in order to be successful, but if that were possible, then protesting wouldn't be necessary.

You are allowed to protest and I agree with you but it is important that your protests aren't inconvenient to anyone, or visible to anyone, or make any sounds as otherwise they risk making people uncomfortable and might have an impact.

Have you tried clapping?

Patrick9-32 wrote:

Have you tried clapping?

Some people are extremely sensitive to loud noises.  And clapping probably means something very rude to some people, somewhere.  If you think it's acceptable to protest by clapping next to this busy gyratory / end of airport runway / rugby match you need to have a long hard look at yourself.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Some people are extremely sensitive to loud noises.  And clapping probably means something very rude to some people, somewhere.  If you think it's acceptable to protest by clapping next to this busy gyratory / end of airport runway / rugby match you need to have a long hard look at yourself.

Reminds me of this:

I think you're oversimplifying somewhat.

Not all protests are successful.

JSO are using forms of protest that are alienating huge numbers of people, without those people's support achieving net zero and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will become less likely.

If the fossil fuel industry wanted to destroy support for net zero then funding JSO-esque activists would be a pretty good tactic.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think you're oversimplifying somewhat. Not all protests are successful. JSO are using forms of protest that are alienating huge numbers of people, without those people's support achieving net zero and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will become less likely. If the fossil fuel industry wanted to destroy support for net zero then funding JSO-esque activists would be a pretty good tactic.

Obviously, there's different problems and circumstances facing different protests and that's going to have a big effect on how successful they are. JSO are facing a very well-funded motor/oil industry and the MSM is well on board with either not reporting at all or demonising them. Personally, I think the nature of the protest is secondary to the influence that vested interests have to keep us using oil for as long as possible.

I don't know how you'd go about arranging a protest to maximise the support of disinterested parties and yet also create enough of a stir to get people's attention. As far as JSO goes, we've had decades of attempts to inform the public about the existential dangers of using oil and continuing to pollute, so I'd suggest that anything that isn't hugely confrontational is going to fail like all the other attempts.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad that the oil industry spent decades adding lead to petrol and massively affecting the intelligence of the public (also increasing criminal tendencies) and yet JSO delay a few buses and people lose their minds.

Can you think of a successful strategy for JSO to use that would get a thumbs up from people like yourself?

The crucial point is that previous forms of protest haven't failed.

Weaning a country off fossil fuels takes multiple decades. We started down the path many years ago and we've made good progress.

If JSO genuinely want us to stop using fossil fuels sooner that currently planned they need to put forward feasible alternative plans and educate the public about them.

Handing out leaflets, knocking on doors etc. Boring but effective. That's what the green movement has largely done over the last few decades and it has reaped rewards.

JSO risk undoing all that work.

Rich_cb wrote:

The crucial point is that previous forms of protest haven't failed. Weaning a country off fossil fuels takes multiple decades. We started down the path many years ago and we've made good progress. If JSO genuinely want us to stop using fossil fuels sooner that currently planned they need to put forward feasible alternative plans and educate the public about them. Handing out leaflets, knocking on doors etc. Boring but effective. That's what the green movement has largely done over the last few decades and it has reaped rewards. JSO risk undoing all that work.

I'd argue that it's not nearly effective enough as governments keep kicking the can down the road and missing targets. There's also the various shenanigans around shifting CO2 production to elsewhere in the world and claiming it as a local success (which I suppose it is) and then pointing the finger elsewhere. Also there's widespread fraud around carbon offsets: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

It's not been perfect but despite that we have genuinely made meaningful progress and so have many other countries.

Our emissions have plummeted even when you consider off shoring of manufacturing.

Even China, often much maligned on climate issues, is likely to hit peak CO2 emissions in the next few years.

Slow, steady activism and political consensus building have got us to a point where net zero is actually possible in a reasonable time frame.

JSO are putting all that at risk.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's not been perfect but despite that we have genuinely made meaningful progress and so have many other countries. Our emissions have plummeted even when you consider off shoring of manufacturing. Even China, often much maligned on climate issues, is likely to hit peak CO2 emissions in the next few years. Slow, steady activism and political consensus building have got us to a point where net zero is actually possible in a reasonable time frame. JSO are putting all that at risk.

I am not sure they're convincing the public / politicians at large any more than the suffragettes.  Who incidentally fitted the definition of terrorists far better!  I'm not sure I can say they were ultimately unimportant in the whole process though.

I suspect the only way we can hit net zero "in a reasonable time" is by playing with the definition of "reasonable time" (e.g. it doesn't seem it will mean "without serious consequences" any more).  Or moving the goalposts of what "net zero" is.  Fortunately we have lost no time in doing the latter e.g. at the micro-scale "zero emissions" for "we put the emissions elsewhere and we're not looking"!  We have had a warm up (no pun intended) in diminishing some of the impact of the motor vehicle as "externalities"...

I'm probably just old enough that I won't get to see whatever happens.  Although it's possible that we're already in interesting times.  If not I hope it will be as more bullish folks like BikesnobNYC suggest and whatever changes occur people* will adapt.  As we have throughout millenia of changes in climate, society, technology etc.

* Of course it could be our AI brainchildren according to the folks who are making this happen.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I am not sure they're convincing the public / politicians at large any more than the suffragettes.  Who incidentally fitted the definition of terrorists far better!  I'm not sure I can say they were ultimately unimportant in the whole process though.

I suspect the only way we can hit net zero "in a reasonable time" is by playing with the definition of "reasonable time" (e.g. it doesn't seem it will mean "without serious consequences" any more).  Or moving the goalposts of what "net zero" is.  Fortunately we have lost no time in doing the latter e.g. at the micro-scale "zero emissions" for "we put the emissions elsewhere and we're not looking"!  We have had a warm up (no pun intended) in diminishing some of the impact of the motor vehicle as "externalities"...

I'm probably just old enough that I won't get to see whatever happens.  Although it's possible that we're already in interesting times.  If not I hope it will be as more bullish folks like BikesnobNYC suggest and whatever changes occur people* will adapt.  As we have throughout millenia of changes in climate, society, technology etc.

* Of course it could be our AI brainchildren according to the folks who are making this happen.

If only we'd been warned about global warming earlier...

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2023/scientists-warned-climate-change-1965-podcast

(There's a short transcript that's worth reading to get a bit of history with global warming and U.S. politics)

Rich_cb wrote:

feasible alternative plan

Feasible is a key word. Not just technologically, or even financially feasible but also politically. As Jean-Claude Juncker said about this, 'We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it.'

I agree JSO's approach is probably counter-productive.

Rich_cb wrote:

...If the fossil fuel industry wanted to destroy support for net zero then funding JSO-esque activists would be a pretty good tactic.

Isn't there plenty of evidence of them trying to slow the rate of changes down already?

TBH I think much of the fossil fuel / motor industry stands to win either way.  All the talk from e.g. government is that we'll still be heavily into fossil fuels for decades.  Meanwhile they certainly seem to be looking ahead to take advantage of an environment where other fuels become more important.  They'll certainly be all over reserves, rates of new finds, trends which affect prices and demand etc! 

Besides - they're better resourced than many governments and probably "too big to fail".

Organisations can always become focussed on the short-term - because humans.  Ones that have been around for decades tend to have good mechanisms for long-term continuity.  There are examples of companies moving with substantial technology changes (e.g. IBM).

chrisonatrike wrote:

Isn't there plenty of evidence of them trying to slow the rate of changes down already?

TBH I think much of the fossil fuel / motor industry stands to win either way.  All the talk from e.g. government is that we'll still be heavily into fossil fuels for decades.  Meanwhile they certainly seem to be looking ahead to take advantage of an environment where other fuels become more important.  They'll certainly be all over reserves, rates of new finds, trends which affect prices and demand etc! 

Besides - they're better resourced than many governments and probably "too big to fail".

Organisations can always become focussed on the short-term - because humans.  Ones that have been around for decades tend to have good mechanisms for long-term continuity.  There are examples of companies moving with substantial technology changes (e.g. IBM).

https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/hundreds-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flooding-cop26-climate-talks/

Quote:

The analysis finds:

• If the fossil fuel lobby were a country delegation at COP it would be the largest with 503 delegates – two dozen more than the largest country delegation.
• Over 100 fossil fuel companies are represented at COP with 30 trade associations and membership organisations also present
• Fossil fuel lobbyists dwarf the UNFCCC’s official indigenous constituency by around two to one.
• The fossil fuel lobby at COP is larger than the combined total of the eight delegations from the countries worst affected by climate change in the last two decades - Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, Philippines, Mozambique, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Pakistan.
• 27 official country delegations registered fossil fuel lobbyists, including Canada, Russia and Brazil

This news comes as groups around the world, many from countries that bear the brunt of climate impacts, have criticised unequal access to COP26, citing barriers to participation, amidst vaccine apartheid, costly travel restrictions and a lack of safeguarding guarantees.

You know anyone who is flying less because of the impending disaster of global heating?

Or indeed anyone flying more to give JSO the bird?

High fuel prices will drive efficiency (fuel duty escalator anyone?), And using less carbon sources from iffy regimes will encourage renewable generation.

Offsetting is nonsense.