Jump the Junction

[Goffins]

I think you have to be at least 17 to drive a car

Mind you, maybe that's another law he picks and doesn't choose.

You do realise someone who looks "actually" mentally retarded should not be making personal attacks on someones age.

I really am arguing with the dregs of the forum today.

 

[Goffins]

Actually, if you learn to read properly, you'll see that I said "I'd love to see how you'd react" to getting creamed by a car running a red.... last time I checked that didn't mean I actually wanted you to get injured.... or maybe it's my puny brain, eh?

By all means resort to verbal abuse though, if it makes you feel any better about yourself.

So you'd "love to see how I react" but would not actually want me to get run over. You're actually mentally stunted, I cannot continue speaking with you.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

You do realise someone who looks "actually" mentally retarded should not be making personal attacks on someones age.

I really am arguing with the dregs of the forum today.

Didn't realise you were arguing. Just thought you were being a bit of a tw*t. My mistake. Carry on.

 

[Goffins]

so if I RLJ does that make me a free thinker?

"Free thinkers of the world unite
and lets jump reds at the lights"

That doesn't rhyme, at all.

Making a subtle change in the way you ride will not make you a free thinker but it will at least give you an expanded view on why this practice is so common.

The laws were written, legislated, modified to take vehicles driven by combustion engines into consideration, not for us and our leg powered bikes.

As such we are given tatty illogical cycle paths, pushed into the gutters by unknowing motorists, cut up, run over, abused and generally treated like second rate road users.

So I say fook them & fook you. I'll ride how I think I should ride, not how you or fat mp's in suits or white van men think I should ride.

And especially not how a bunch of whinging, out of touch cyclists/internet keyboard warriors think I should ride.

 

[Goffins]

No, you're not arguing. That would require you responding to some of the valid comments made to you.

What you're doing is just spouting abuse.

You're the only one who has made a valid point yet I've been unable to respond yet as I'm dealing with the swarm of vitriolic posts from everyone else.

None of the comments made by any of the other posters has been anything other than ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

 

[Dan B]

In fairness, I wasn't actually making any valid comments, mostly out of concern that it would somehow legitimise his adolescent wibble to treat it seriously.

Goffin, I'd like to recommend Albert Camus' L'Etranger to you. It will appeal to your sense of alienation (and may explain the lyrics in a certain Cure song, though I think they were before your time)

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

That doesn't rhyme, at all.

Making a subtle change in the way you ride will not make you a free thinker but it will at least give you an expanded view on why this practice is so common.

The laws were written, legislated, modified to take vehicles driven by combustion engines into consideration, not for us and our leg powered bikes.

As such we are given tatty illogical cycle paths, pushed into the gutters by unknowing motorists, cut up, run over, abused and generally treated like second rate road users.

So I say fook them & fook you. I'll ride how I think I should ride, not how you or fat mp's in suits or white van men think I should ride.

And especially not how a bunch of whinging, out of touch cyclists/internet keyboard warriors think I should ride.

Actually most of us use the roads, not the tatty paths to which you refer. Also many of us hold a better road position so as to not get pushed into the gutter.... but by all means, you jump the reds and try to imagine you are being a 'free thinker' rather than a 'bit of a tosser'.

 

[CotterPin]

Depends on what the law is really, I tend to pick and choose as I'm a free thinking individual and not a sheep, nor am I a condescending cyclist who thinks that all cars are evil.

You can throw as many laws as you want at people and see what sticks but in the end it's all about common sense, yeah most people stuggle living their lives without a pre-programmed set of paramaters but I do not.

I'm not a machine, I can think outside of the box that's what makes a human being unique, and obviously some are more unique than others.

What I really love about your shoot {for lack of a better word} arguments, where by you compare my cycling woes to that of an automobile driver using a telephone is that you believe that's a valid point to make.

Is there a tosser smilie?

I am not 100% certain why I am bothering to respond as I am afraid you don't come across as a person who has any time for anybody else's point of view unless it coincides with your own (is that what you mean by free thinking?).

I posted a modified version of your original comments to highlight the fact that we have heard the same excuses here and elsewhere for operators of other vehicles. They have something in common with how you have come across in this thread - that they are absolutely convinced of their abilities to operate their vehicle safely and therefore the rules don't apply to them.

 

[semislickstick]

Cars are just obstacles to me, as are junctions, lights, crossings.
I don't ignore their existance but I don't adhere to the highway code either and I never even have a close shave.

As long as you're intelligent and responsive enough to cope with a multitude of information at speed, there is no reason why you should ever be in danger when jumping a crossing, a red light or a queue of traffic.

You must know laws aren't brought in to stop you doing things to protect only you right?, it's to protect everyone using the road/crossings, if everyone was as 'free thinking' (though I think you might change that to 'selfish') as you the roads would be carnage.

Sorry to get personal, but you do come across as someone who doesn't even have enough face fuzz to have a 'close shave'?

 

[Arch]

So you'd "love to see how I react" but would not actually want me to get run over. You're actually mentally stunted, I cannot continue speaking with you.

Why don't you bog off then?

It's funny, the more someone declares themselves to be a 'free thinker', the more I reckon they are slaveishly following an example. Like those people in offices who say "I'm mad, I am!" and have gonk pens, and you know they are really the dullest, sanest people there....

 

[swee'pea99]

"I was up till midnight last night!"

Rick Mayall

 

[summerdays]

I believe the word you're after SD is assertive. Men in general are more assertive - something too much so that they're actually aggressive and/or arrogant.

From what I've read (and I'm not claiming to have access to all the fact/stats), I believe the majority of reported incidents are from cyclists being caught in the gutter by a large left-turning vehicle. It's the less confident, (more submissive?), cyclists that will squeeze down the left, sitting in the gutter and not taking the lane (or "forcing" their way into the main flow of traffic).

I've never seen the point of RLJing. OK, if a RLJer thinks its dangerous to sit at the front of a queue of traffic and they don't want that bus/lorry/car/etc directly behind them, then they should slot into the queue of traffic BEHIND it. That way they avoid any race-from-the-lights conflict and don't risk hitting crossing peds/bikes/traffic.

Thank you grhm - that's what I meant

Well today I stopped at the lights as they were amber (bit of a releif as it was near the top of a hill for a quick rest - actually took off a layer knowing how long the lights take), anyway the car behind went through accelerating, followed by the one after by this stage well and truely on red.

I presume that they felt they might be in danger from either the car behind them or me - or perhaps they are too important to stop and wait at a red. Lights would be safe if everyone didn't jump them. Plus presumably the traffic engineers wouldn't have to leave pauses in the signals that allow those ambler/early red cars through.

 

[Arch]

Thank you grhm - that's what I meant

Well today I stopped at the lights as they were amber (bit of a releif as it was near the top of a hill for a quick rest - actually took off a layer knowing how long the lights take), anyway the car behind went through accelerating, followed by the one after by this stage well and truely on red.

I presume that they felt they might be in danger from either the car behind them or me - or perhaps they are too important to stop and wait at a red. Lights would be safe if everyone didn't jump them. Plus presumably the traffic engineers wouldn't have to leave pauses in the signals that allow those ambler/early red cars through.

More examples of cars doing it here...

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=35967

I wonder how many people driving (and cycling) know the true meaning of amber*? Since so many don't seem to know the meaning even of red...


*which is: stop, unless to do so would cause you to brake so hard it would risk an accident. From what I've seen a lot seem to think amber means "hurry up and get through before it changes to red".

 

[hackbike 666]

I kept up with some young kid today (he must have been about 13 if that) from Walthamstow Central and felt quite smug ( because im not always that fast) but when he came up to the traffic lights on the junction at the Bakers Arms,but sadly he went straight through the red.So where did he learn this from? (I would never have done that when I first started cycling and nor do I do it now.

Also on my very early morning commutes it's getting more commonplace for cars to sail through red traffic lights.

I guess they must all be free thinkers who do not conform like sheep.