Do we challenge red light jumpers/green man means cyclist

I shouted at a RLJ the other
I shouted at a RLJ the other day and she turned round and blew me a kiss. Nice retort and my cheeks matched the colour of the ASL.

I can’t be bothered to say
I can’t be bothered to say anything. Mind you I do have an annoying bus/taxi gate system to get through, which takes ages if you wait for the lights. In the mornings, when it’s quiet, I trundle slowly down the pavement and either wait or walk through later when they’re more pedestrians around. So I’m not a ‘saint’ but think completely ignoring red lights just winds up the motorists.

TomvanHalen wrote:Crosshouses

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.

FluffyKittenofTindalos

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!

If a cyclist does something
If a cyclist does something that endangers me while riding then I will certainly have a go at them – hopefully in a calm rational way. I have been tempted to use my long-neglected ‘hooking’ skills on a few daft pricks, but that would be the red mist talking. If they are just being stupid then I might shake my head sadly, just to let the traffic know that I know that they are stupid. Like anyone is watching (|: If it was a kid or obvious newbie I would certainly feel compelled to give them some advice though.

Too many people on/in all
Too many people on/in all forms of vehicles/mobility see the highway code as guidelines that they once read many moons ago. They rely on their experience in bending the guidelines even further to justifiy another tweak to be quicker/save a few second here and there. Until it all goes wrong and then they often blame common sense. It was a clear road/ junction. It was safer to…. The cyclist swerve unexpectedly and the classic SMDSY.

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.

Neil753 wrote:
It’s not

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…).

Jimbonic wrote:
I’ve read and

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.