Red Light Jumping

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526145"]
It's not a response to your opinion, but your behaviour.


[/quote]


The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person.
Please explain how this is a response to my behaviour and how it is an appropriate and responsible thing to suggest with no justification.

 

[dellzeqq]

The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person.
Please explain how this is a response to my behaviour and how it is an appropriate and responsible thing to suggest with no justification.

why are you pursuing this? It's a genuine question. What satisfaction can it give you?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I don't always stop at red lights.

There's a pedestrian crossing on a straight stretch of road with no other junctions near it and I can see the approach to both sides very, very clearly.

Today a cyclist pressed to cross, waited for the green man, then crossed and was at the other side as I got near the crossing.
I'm watching this as I'm approaching on the main road, nobody else is anywhere near the crossing. It's pissing down.

I don't see what purpose stopping there would serve. In a car, I would wait though, as I'd be dry.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526151"]
Why are you asking me? You said it, on this thread, and you know that. I've just checked back, and it's still there.

You said it in the context of whether cyclists should jump reds or not.

Let's not start this denial game again because that's the Jedward behaviour.





[/quote]

You have a history of posting innacurate and irresponsible statements.

Please substantiate your claim and point out where i have said "all cyclists would stop at red lights."
Without context it is meaningless.
Please cut and paste where i have said this.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526158"]
You didn't say "all cyclists would stop at red lights." You said they should. You know you did.


[/quote]

Ok so before you said
"For example, you have said that you think all cyclists would stop at red lights."
Dismissing my denials with the stringent protestations of its truth and jedwood behaviour you now admit i didnt say it .
Ok.
Now you are saying that i said they should stop at red lights.
Sounds reasonable.
Anyway - brief time out as ive got to go out.

Laterz..

 

[Angelfishsolo]

"who bothered to vote"

yes but we can only go on the information we have.
About 30% on this forum.
When you consider that this forums members are (imho) probably above normal in terms of intelligence , social responsibility and law abidingness then in the wider cycling world the % will be much higher.
Anyway thats kinda beside the point that i was trying to make which was that for User to suggest that just because there are 2 members who hold different opinions from him on an issue is grounds for saying they are the same person is the most puerile of comment and reflects an unhealthy lack of willingness to consider other opinions.

Nope 30% of the people who responded is NOT 30& of the forum.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

and now....The Interlude.


[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q55uzETntkw[/media]

 

[Raa]

Wow nice to see so many bikes; no helmets, no lycra, no respect for the lights; must be the Netherlands........

 

[apollo179]

Nope 30% of the people who responded is NOT 30& of the forum.

Yes - i repeated my mistake.
About 30% of forum members who bothered to vote rlj according to a recent poll.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526160"]
Oops. A typo which makes no difference to the situation.


[/quote]

That attitude is consistent with your history of irresponsible use of language.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526160"]

So, you said that cyclists should stop at red lights.

You refuse to answer when asked whether you do. Answering the question would put you in an awkward situation, so you continue to refuse to answer.

The question remains......
[/quote]

I fail to see how my personal behaviour has any to a relevance to the discussion of the designated topic.
Please explain.
You say previously " You've got a view on RLJing. You're withholding some information, which shows that you're not being open and that you have an agenda which you're reluctant to share. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of this view of yours. It's not an attack on you, but a drilling into your opinion. Exposure of all information would show a different picture to that which you're trying to paint."
Why are you so obseessed with my view and my agenda ?
I started this topic to discuss the issue of rljing not my own personal habits.
Im not painting any kind of picture.
Your drilling is inappropriate - please understand.
My views are pretty well aired - im generally not one to hide my views but in the present arena it is not appropriate.
The Moderator specifically told us "Debate the issue, but don't make it personal."
+
You have already stated on this topic ; "I said that I didn't believe your claim that you only rlj at completely deserted junctions. Because that's not true. "
So its apparent that you have already asked your own question , answered it for yourself and made your mind up.
Your mind seems to have been made up before you asked the question.
So really when your mindset is clearly so narrow and so inflexible - whatever answer i give you will clearly beleive what you want to anyway.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526160"]
Oops. A typo which makes no difference to the situation.
So, you said that cyclists should stop at red lights.

You refuse to answer when asked whether you do. Answering the question would put you in an awkward situation, so you continue to refuse to answer.

The question remains......
[/quote]

The Moderator said

"This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal." Think of this as like a red light to all your personal stuff.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526170"]
You misunderstand. Asking you about your behaviour is not 'making it personal'. If I were to call you a fat short-arse on the other hand, that would be making it personal and worthy of reporting.

All you're doing is trying to use something else to enable you to avoid answering a very relevant question. Which still stands. Did you stop jumping red lights once you discovered that it was illegal? And, what are the benefits to jumping lights as you see it?
[/quote]

No. You misunderstand.
Personal - definition ; "Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else."
I am not avoiding , i am proceeding in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the moderator.
You are not so much exhibiting jedwood behaviour as dedwood behaviour.
Are you being deliberately unintelligent ?

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526168"]
...and you can't build any assumption onto that because it's not representative.
[/quote]

Speaks he of the narrow mind.
Its a poll.
Its an indicator.
Are you just going to argue everything.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526172"]
You're trying to find a legitimate excuse for not answering the question, and this isn't it.

Continue to avoid it as you like. The question remains, and your continued wriggling is more revealing than you'd like it to be...
[/quote]

On the contrary - i suggest that any right thinking person would clearly see that i am following the moderators rules in a responsible manner whereas you are blatantly disobeying the rules in a wholey irresponsible way.
This in turn says alot about you , your credibility and the credibility of your arguments when you accuse others of "deciding to ignore the law when he sees fit."
Dont the rules apply to you Mr Paul ?