Red Lights

[jimboalee]

Importantly, the ONLY reason why a butterfly in the Brazilian forest *could* cause a tornado in Dakota is that both places are connected into a single meterological system. This is complexity.

The reason it is safe for you to go across a red when there is no other traffic around is you are in that system alone. This is simiplicity.

Well spotted garrilla.

This was the 'outstandingly witty reply' Absinthe Minded was demanding.

 

[jimboalee]

Yes but he couldn't accuse you of breaking any laws, just bimbling a bit .

Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.

So if you agree that perception matters, and that the one or two minutes saved by running red lights isn't that important really (get up 1 or 2 minutes earlier) then I can't see any justification for running red lights.

I could post tomorrow saying I STOPPED at the red lamps.

The problem is...

There would be no witnesses to vouch for my statement.

 

[jimboalee]

One of the reasons I started posting here is it seems a friendly place where there can be some good banter.

But I'm going to get personal. You have quite clearly run out of anything sensible to say and are now showing yourself to be a babbling fool.

Up to now on this thread, I haven't seen any BAD banter.

BTW, the Forum is called 'CycleChat', not 'CycleInsult'.

I shall go against my doctrine now by saying "There are worse 'Babbling fools' on here than I".

 

[magnatom]

I could post tomorrow saying I STOPPED at the red lamps.

The problem is...

There would be no witnesses to vouch for my statement.

No witnesses from here, correct. However, we (mostly) are the converted...

 

[siadwell]

Which law is it that mandates looking and indicating before changing lanes? I've never seen it, and I do remember that my driving instructor always used to say that there is no need to indicate unless someone will benefit from seeing the signal

Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:

163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out

179

Well before you turn right you should

• use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
• give a right-turn signal

182

Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left.
​

Tell you what, rather than me tell you how to use the road, why don't you go here are read it for yourself: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm

If you can tear yourself away from sadonecrobestiality, that is.

 

[jimboalee]

Yes but he couldn't accuse you of breaking any laws, just bimbling a bit .

Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.

So if you agree that perception matters, and that the one or two minutes saved by running red lights isn't that important really (get up 1 or 2 minutes earlier) then I can't see any justification for running red lights.

Now I'm a Bimbling, babbling fool....

 

[magnatom]

Importantly, the ONLY reason why a butterfly in the Brazilian forest *could* cause a tornado in Dakota is that both places are connected into a single meterological system. This is complexity.

The reason it is safe for you to go across a red when there is no other traffic around is you are in that system alone. This is simiplicity.

In fact, when there is no other traffic around, from the point of view of perception, I think this is the most important time to stop at a red. Imagine someone looking out of their window or walking along the path seeing a cyclist stopping at a red light, when they have previously seen cyclists running it. This would be something that these people would stop and take note of...

Fred: you won't believe what I just saw!

Mrs Fred: What dear?

Fred: I saw a cyclist stop at a red light when they could have probably jumped it safely.

Mrs Fred: Hmmm. Maybe you've seen a cyclist who doesn't ever jump red lights....actually keeps within the law!

Fred: Well I never, you might be right! Maybe all cyclists aren't bankers after all....

A daft hypothesised story, but I bet conversations like this happen!

 

[magnatom]

Now I'm a Bimbling, babbling fool....

Ah but there was a smiley!

 

[jimboalee]

Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:

163

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should

• use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out

179

Well before you turn right you should

• use your mirrors to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
• give a right-turn signal

182

Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left.
​

Tell you what, rather than me tell you how to use the road, why don't you go here are read it for yourself: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm

If you can tear yourself away from sadonecrobestiality, that is.

These rule haven't got the RTA sections in squared brackets.

Rule 175 has.

The advantages of being a cyclist are many fold.

One advantage is that a cyclist can dismount and run with his bike across the road.
Motorists can't.

Faced with a red light, a cyclist can dismount and run with his bike across the ped crossing if there is no traffic approaching in the counter direction.
Motorists can't.

Running with a bicycle is not illegal, is it?
So if there's nowt other traffic, what earthy difference does it make?

 

[magnatom]

Running with a bicycle is not illegal, is it?
So if there's nowt other traffic, what earthy difference does it make?

Can I hazard a guess....perception?

 

[Dan B]

Serious hat back on, then:

Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.

I partly agree with it. The reason I don't actually think it matters much whether cyclists behave according to the letter of the law at all times is that the kind of motorist who really cares about finding fault in others will always manage to find perceived fault even if the cyclist is behaving impeccably, and there is no margin in trying to convert them until they're ready to be converted. If it's not RLJ it's road tax, if it's not road tax it's riding two abreast or using primary position, if it's not primary position it's locking bikes to railings, if it's not locking bikes to railings it's riding on the footway/pavement/pedestrianised area/shared use path and if it's none of those things then it's failure to use the cycle lane/wear a helmet/wear a hivis. Or perhaps they feel that my wearing lycra should be a crime even though it isn't. Or ... you get the idea.

Contrary to the impression I usually end up giving in these threads, I am a considerate, safe, and mostly legal cyclist (at least by London standards) and I hope that any reasonable road user who subscribes to the principle of "live and let live" would see that I am not taking risks or causing inconvenience to anyone as I bike around. But if they're the type who insist on pointing out the mote in my eye when the plank in theirs is still a menace to public safety every time they turn around, honest to god I couldn't care less what they think of me and all I really hope is that they're not controlling a tonne of metal when their spleen finally does explode.

Long story short: perception matters, but some people are going to take offence no matter what you do and it really isn't worth wasting the time on them.

 

[BentMikey]

Yeah, maybe, but you skater scum are always going through red lights. Yeah, that's you, Coruskate.

 

[Dan B]

Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:

I am well acquainted with said volume. Try this little snippet from the front of it

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

None of the bits you quoted said MUST or MUST NOT, so I ask again: which law requires a road user to look and signal before changing lane? Courtesy of the Hughes guide I have copies of most of the relevant traffic legislation, and would be happy to paste a couple of paras if you can quote the act's name and section numbers but are unable to track down the actual text (they're not all online, which is annoying).

 

[magnatom]

I know of quite a few people personally who I would say fall into the impressionable, i.e. if they saw more cyclists obeying the rules etc, they would form a different impression, so I think there are those who's attitudes could change.

Yes there are those that will hate us no matter what, but imagine if cyclists didn't red light jump, didn't pavement cycle etc... No fuel, no fire. Yes there would still be haters, but they would be more obviously, just haters. Without the crutch of red light jumping etc they would stand out as the idiots they are.

Cyclists obeying the laws isn't the whole answer, but it is IMO part of the answer. get our own house in order and morally we have a very strong case.

 

[Dan B]

Yeah, maybe, but you skater scum are always going through red lights. Yeah, that's you, Coruskate.

Yes, and what about all those pedestrians who don't wait for the green man. Utter scofflaws