Do we challenge red light jumpers/green man means cyclist

Hmm

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.

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.

sim1515 wrote:

The reason I’m a “conformist”.. …If all drivers started running reds… …a lot more accidents would result.

sim1515 wrote:

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

Faulty Lights

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.

‘There are many lights that
‘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.

daddyELVIS wrote:There are

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.

Above the law!

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. It seems that you’re doing what’s most convenient for you, not what’s safest, let’s just pick and choose the laws we follow eh?

It’s a hard line to draw, jumping red when no one’s around, when there are a few people around but no one crossing, when someone’s crossing but you’ll roll through slowly. The law is black and white, when the light is red you should stop, it’s not for you to choose what you deem as safe, that’s an issue we have with lots of motorists (speeding, overtaking closely, talking on their phones) thinking they know better.

And as I’ve said before, a lot of the negative points they have are baseless, but getting annoyed that people break the law is justified in my opinion, and the more people they see doing it, the more annoyed they’ll get.

No.
No. http://road.cc/content/news/102211-dundee-cyclist-assaulted-fellow-rider-he-asked-get-pavement-and-ride-road

daddyELVIS wrote:
You

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.

daddyELVIS wrote:
Anything

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.