Just been to London...

[thomas]

I don't see how this is the same as thinking you can drive fast.

Bollo is talking sense. A lot of people think they are good drivers (heck, I think I'm a better driver than some friends and family members - I may well be, but then I might just have an over inflated opinion of my driving). I'll admit, when I drive I don't stick to the speed limit exactly, because in some situation I believe it is safe to go a little faster (not excessive). Yet, some people may believe that can drive fast safely...when they can't (I've got a friend who ended up in a ditch because he thought he knew best about not having any grip on his tyres - he learnt the hard way).

What Bollo is saying, though many people may be able to safely red light jump, there are many people who believe they can do it safley and can't...or people who just don't know how to do it safely, but do it anyway (sort of brain dead woombles).

 

[Bollo]

I don't see how this is the same as thinking you can drive fast.

The consequences may not be as serious as excessive speed but the thinking that leads to that behaviour is similar. Its the same attitude that some drivers have to mobile phone use, usually based on an inflated opinion of their own abilities and a belief that the 'big one' is never going to happen to them.

 

[tdr1nka]

The consequences may not be as serious as excessive speed but the thinking that leads to that behaviour is similar. Its the same attitude that some drivers have to mobile phone use, usually based on an inflated opinion of their own abilities and a belief that the 'big one' is never going to happen to them.

+1

It is the danger of developing the mindset of one rule for me, one rule for everyone else.

Cyclists & Motorists are both guilty of this.

 

[Dan B]

Likewise many people apparently believe they can filter safely and yet do all kinds of silly things like going up the inside of HGVs. Should we make that illegal too?

 

[tdr1nka]

Likewise many people apparently believe they can filter safely and yet do all kinds of silly things like going up the inside of HGVs. Should we make that illegal too?

There is a huge difference between making things illegal and doing things that already are illegal.

These things are at least common sense, to most.

You are at liberty to put yourself at risk by filtering badly or undertaking HGV's the point being the likely hood you'll not hurt anyone but yourself.

I had a cyclist almost pile into the back of me for stopping at a red light a few days ago and he tried to blame me! He could only counter my argument by asking why I didn't wear a helmet. Tw*t.

Funny 'cos if he'd seen a car do the same to me he'd probably have been on my side, but no, just a tiresome jackass cyclist who believes he has priority.
I repeat, Tw*t.

 

[Bollo]

Likewise many people apparently believe they can filter safely and yet do all kinds of silly things like going up the inside of HGVs. Should we make that illegal too?

I'm guessing you're leading up to some nanny-state style argument.

OK, my main concern in the RLJing debate is the safety of other vulnerable road users. RLJing can put yourself in danger, but that's your choice. Same with filtering up the inside of HGVs. The difference with RLJing is that you can also put other vulnerable road users - cyclists and pedestrians, at risk.

If the old front-bottom that hit me this weekend had hit my daughter instead, she would have ended up in hospital. Last year I managed the rare distinction of having a post edited for language by the mods after my sister in law and her newborn were nearly taken out by an RLJer.

Sure, motorists amber gamble or jump, but that's no reason to make it right or justifiable for cyclists. We should have more empathy than that.

 

[Dan B]

I'm guessing you're leading up to some nanny-state style argument.

I'm leading up to an argument that says that because some practice (in this case RLJ) requires a certain level of skill, that does not necessarily mean we should shun it as a society just because not everyone who might attempt it has that level of skill.

One of the recurring figures in English law is the concept of what a "reasonable person" or a "person of reasonable skill" would do. It's my contention that a person of reasonable skill (after some training, perhaps) is entirely capable of deciding whether he can safely cross a road junction without endangering or inconveniencing anyone else, without reference to traffic signals to tell him what to do. It happens all the time at "give way" and "stop" signs.

OK, my main concern in the RLJing debate is the safety of other vulnerable road users.

And as I hope I've made clear above, I am in complete agreement with you on that one. Indeed, if your sister in law and her newborn had been nearly taken out by a cyclist who'd failed to give way when there were no traffic lights I would still consider him just as much of a [pre-emptively edited] and just as comprehensively in the wrong.

 

[tdr1nka]

I'm leading up to an argument that says that because some practice (in this case RLJ) requires a certain level of skill, that does not necessarily mean we should shun it as a society just because not everyone who might attempt it has that level of skill.

But that again is the individual deciding what is safe and again choosing which law applies to them personally rather than going with the general consensus.

 

[zimzum42]

In my book the anti-RLJ crew use the same arguments as those who support the idea that all drugs including weed are intrinsically evil and all users are addicts/junkies

It's not black and white, and I tend to stop listening to those who claim it is, as I do with those who seem to think that having the odd spliff is some kind of serious issue.

 

[tdr1nka]

In my book the anti-RLJ crew use the same arguments as those who support the idea that all drugs including weed are intrinsically evil and all users are addicts/junkies

It's not black and white, and I tend to stop listening to those who claim it is, as I do with those who seem to think that having the odd spliff is some kind of serious issue.

That sure as hell ain't me.

 

[tdr1nka]

I'd be more inclined to listen to the arguments for RLJ-ing if these cyclists actually made some attempt to stick to the rules while petitioning government for a change in the law.

Your average moton will not see or understand why you choose to jump lights, no matter how safe or skilled you might be and this in turn adds to the overall feelings against cyclists.

 

[Bollo]

One of the recurring figures in English law is the concept of what a "reasonable person" or a "person of reasonable skill" would do. It's my contention that a person of reasonable skill (after some training, perhaps) is entirely capable of deciding whether he can safely cross a road junction without endangering or inconveniencing anyone else, without reference to traffic signals to tell him what to do. It happens all the time at "give way" and "stop" signs.

It may be your contention, but are you being reasonable? Your argument has to apply to motorists as well though - there are plenty of reasonable, skilled motorists. So following that logic, why have traffic lights? I'm cool with that - its back to the shared streets argument.

The 'reasonable person' argument is a Macguffin though. Behaviour is unlikely to be deemed reasonable in law if the person knowingly commits a criminal act - and even kids know what a red light is.

 

[PBancroft]

It may be your contention, but are you being reasonable? Your argument has to apply to motorists as well though - there are plenty of reasonable, skilled motorists. So following that logic, why have traffic lights? I'm cool with that - its back to the shared streets argument.

Not pointing this towards Bollo, but is it reasonable to stop for someone waiting to cross the road? Because there are zebra crossings which people don't stop for, pedestrian crossings which people don't stop for... both of which I would consider reasonable for people to stop for, yet the don't.

Why would it be better without lights?

 

[Dan B]

It may be your contention, but are you being reasonable? Your argument has to apply to motorists as well though - there are plenty of reasonable, skilled motorists. So following that logic, why have traffic lights? I'm cool with that - its back to the shared streets argument.

Well, certainly. But, cars being wider, so there are probably fewer opportunities for a car driver to safely and considerately cross a junction when the lights are against him anyway. Motorcyclists more likely, perhaps. But at 3am when the road is deserted, though, sure, why not?

The 'reasonable person' argument is a Macguffin though. Behaviour is unlikely to be deemed reasonable in law if the person knowingly commits a criminal act - and even kids know what a red light is.

Agreed, I certainly wouldn't expect that argument to get anyone off in court as the law stands.

But for the purpose of deciding whether an act should be illegal, that leads us into a circular argument where it's deemed to be unreasonable purely by virtue of the fact that it already is illegal. Which gets us nowhere, really.

 

[Bollo]

Not pointing this towards Bollo, but is it reasonable to stop for someone waiting to cross the road? Because there are zebra crossings which people don't stop for, pedestrian crossings which people don't stop for... both of which I would consider reasonable for people to stop for, yet the don't.

Why would it be better without lights?

I'm referring specifically to the shared space argument here. I'm not a raving evangelist for it but its an interesting idea. There's mention in the 'criticisms' section about Dutch cyclists feeling bullied, although if they want to know what bullying is, they should try cycling in the UK!