RLJ, why do I bother...

[Cab]

As i said earlier,most of the scenarios will not change anything ,by voicing an opinion,or quoting rules and regs,except getting yourself into possibly more trouble,when you neednt.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I see the tiny, tiny risk in such a situation as worthwhile because sometimes you do have a positive impact through such action. I've done it, and seen it.

 

[magnatom]

I have to say I am 100% with you on this one cab. It always seems to be someone else's problem. Of course there never tends be someone else to deal with it.

Like Cab I make comments and suggestions to people, some get pee'd off about it, fair enough. I have also had others situations where I have pointed out what (I thought!) they were doing wrong and they have thanked me for the advice. I have also received advice before and although I didn't always agree with it I didn't find the need to blow up in their face and have sometimes heeded their advice.

Generally we are all risk adverse which is a good thing, but as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk. We see murders etc on the TV and we think that goes on everywhere and that the risks are very high. In fact the risks are never as high as we perceive.

I will continue to point out infractions where I think I see them (cycling related or not). I feel that is far better than standing back and waiting for the nonexistent someone else to sort it out.

 

[Eat MY Dust]

I will continue to point out infractions where I think I see them (cycling related or not). I feel that is far better than standing back and waiting for the nonexistent someone else to sort it out.

David Cameron would be proud of you!

 

[bonj2]

I have to say I am 100% with you on this one cab. It always seems to be someone else's problem. Of course there never tends be someone else to deal with it.

I'm afraid I agree with col. It does always seem to be someone else's problem - becuase it is someone else's problem - i.e. the person doing the RLJing. NOT yours.
I don't disagree with the fact that the people who've taken your advice have been educated to a better standard than they would otherwise have been, I just disagree with the assumption that it's your job to do it.
It's the police's job to do it. It may be a strongly held opinion that the police are under-resourced, but again - you're basically playing judge jury and executioner all in one in taking that opinion forward into action, which even if it may seem overwhelmingly like the right thing to do at the time - it isn't, for that reason, imho.

By the 'live and let live' approach, surely helping people who RLJ is the evolutionary equivalent of 'backing the underdog' - i.e. it's like, well - Darwinism should have wiped him out, but thanks to you he'll live to reproduce and will give birth to offspring who will then have a higher than average chance of RLJing - and thus you are sending the human race backwards.
If on the other hand you let other people's tendencies influence their actions and their outcome, then the sensible people will become more prevalent in the genetic make up of the human race. Oh, and by telling off RLJers you're not doing the population problem any favours.

 

[magnatom]

David Cameron would be proud of you!

Ah but I would never hug a hoodie! (unless my wife ever decided to don a hooded top of course)

 

[Cab]

I'm afraid I agree with col. It does always seem to be someone else's problem - becuase it is someone else's problem - i.e. the person doing the RLJing. NOT yours.

As has been said here previously, it IS our problem. Its our problem because the more RLJ'ing, pavement riding and generally bad riding there is on our roads the more we get bad treatment from motorists. It IS our problem because claims that cyclists should be restricted from the main lane and kept in cycle lanes become more and more credible the more cyclists act like berks. It IS our problem because the more cyclists do dangerous things, the more there will be pressure on law makers to force us off road.

It ISN'T someone elses problem; as a responsible cyclist, a red light jumper is YOUR problem.

I don't disagree with the fact that the people who've taken your advice have been educated to a better standard than they would otherwise have been, I just disagree with the assumption that it's your job to do it.
It's the police's job to do it.

No, it isn't. If you report this kind of thing to the police they'll try very hard to dissuade you from making your report; they'll try to dodge giving you an incident number and they'll certainly not take action on it. They're obliged to record crime, they're not obliged to take action every time someone infringes on the law.

It may be a strongly held opinion that the police are under-resourced, but again - you're basically playing judge jury and executioner all in one in taking that opinion forward into action, which even if it may seem overwhelmingly like the right thing to do at the time - it isn't, for that reason, imho.

So you shouldn't take action when someone is breaking the law and causing a problm, you should just leave it to someone else, even though that someone else demonstrably doesn't have to do anything about it. The word 'anarchy' springs to mind

By the 'live and let live' approach, surely helping people who RLJ is the evolutionary equivalent of 'backing the underdog' - i.e. it's like, well - Darwinism should have wiped him out, but thanks to you he'll live to reproduce and will give birth to offspring who will then have a higher than average chance of RLJing - and thus you are sending the human race backwards.
If on the other hand you let other people's tendencies influence their actions and their outcome, then the sensible people will become more prevalent in the genetic make up of the human race. Oh, and by telling off RLJers you're not doing the population problem any favours.

Darwinism isn't a moral imperative. Why would you argue that it should be?

 

[bonj2]

As has been said here previously, it IS our problem. Its our problem because the more RLJ'ing, pavement riding and generally bad riding there is on our roads the more we get bad treatment from motorists. It IS our problem because claims that cyclists should be restricted from the main lane and kept in cycle lanes become more and more credible the more cyclists act like berks. It IS our problem because the more cyclists do dangerous things, the more there will be pressure on law makers to force us off road.

It's only our problem in the sense that the fact that 'the world isn't perfect' is our problem.

No, it isn't. If you report this kind of thing to the police they'll try very hard to dissuade you from making your report; they'll try to dodge giving you an incident number and they'll certainly not take action on it. They're obliged to record crime, they're not obliged to take action every time someone infringes on the law.

In the ideal world which you seem fairly hopeful of moving towards, you would have enough policeman about so that if someone RLJed, a police officer (or camera linked to one) would see it and they would be stopped within seconds and given an on-the-spot fine.

Darwinism isn't a moral imperative. Why would you argue that it should be?

Being atheistic towards Darwinism would equate to telling off RLJers so they are reformed. But being Darwinist wouldn't involve NOT telling them off, it would involve shooting them on the spot. Being agnostic would be just doing nothing. So if it isn't a moral imperative, then you should be agnostic towards it, unless you think the reverse of it is a moral imperative? Which would make you pretty weird.

 

[BentMikey]

Cab, please could stop troll-wrestling with bonj?

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I have to say I am 100% with you on this one cab. It always seems to be someone else's problem. Of course there never tends be someone else to deal with it.

Like Cab I make comments and suggestions to people, some get pee'd off about it, fair enough. I have also had others situations where I have pointed out what (I thought!) they were doing wrong and they have thanked me for the advice. I have also received advice before and although I didn't always agree with it I didn't find the need to blow up in their face and have sometimes heeded their advice.

Generally we are all risk adverse which is a good thing, but as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk. We see murders etc on the TV and we think that goes on everywhere and that the risks are very high. In fact the risks are never as high as we perceive.

I will continue to point out infractions where I think I see them (cycling related or not). I feel that is far better than standing back and waiting for the nonexistent someone else to sort it out.

I suggest that you mean risk-averse

as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk.

I don't agree with this at all. If we were very poor at assessing risk, there would be much much more accidents and incidents.

 

[Cab]

It's only our problem in the sense that the fact that 'the world isn't perfect' is our problem.

No, its a problem in the fact that what they do influcences how we're treated. Its our problem.

In the ideal world which you seem fairly hopeful of moving towards, you would have enough policeman about so that if someone RLJed, a police officer (or camera linked to one) would see it and they would be stopped within seconds and given an on-the-spot fine.

Gosh, what a frightening idealised world view that is! Whether thats something to aspire to or not, we haven't got that. And we're not getting that. So opening your gob and telling people they're in the wrong remains the only real way on a regular basis that we can affect change in this area.

Being atheistic towards Darwinism would equate to telling off RLJers so they are reformed. But being Darwinist wouldn't involve NOT telling them off, it would involve shooting them on the spot. Being agnostic would be just doing nothing. So if it isn't a moral imperative, then you should be agnostic towards it, unless you think the reverse of it is a moral imperative? Which would make you pretty weird.

Darwinism isn't a religious belief structure, its a model for how species differentiate through the process of evolution by natural selection. It isn't about morality, its a description of what is. It isn't something from which morality can rationally be derived; I find your statement most peculiar.

 

[BentMikey]

Did someone just delete my post asking Cab to stop troll wrestling?

And I can't add him to my ignore list either. Arrrrgghh!!!!

 

[BentMikey]

Oops, sorry!!! Blonde moment I guess.

 

[domtyler]

It isn't something from which morality can rationally be derived; I find your statement most peculiar.

Given that it was posted by bonj how can you possibly find it peculiar?

 

[bonj2]

No, its a problem in the fact that what they do influcences how we're treated. Its our problem.

"We" being cyclists as a whole, as opposed to "we" as in me and you specifically. Who says it's your place to decide how to act for all cyclists?
There's plenty of objecting arguments - you may not consider them right, but for instance, people could view cyclists as nosey buggers always sticking their nose into other people's business and telling other people how to behave. What gives you the right to encourage other road users to tar me with that brush?
In other words, since there could be disadvantages to what you're doing, even if they don't outweight the advantages, then it isn't your place to do it.
It isn't your place to decide on my behalf, and on the behalf of all other cyclists, that I want to suffer the consequences of those disadvantages.

Whether thats something to aspire to or not, we haven't got that. And we're not getting that. So opening your gob and telling people they're in the wrong remains the only real way on a regular basis that we can affect change in this area.

But you're not going to affect change. More people who will RLJ are bieng born every day. And you're encouraging that. You only do it to feel important.

Darwinism isn't a religious belief structure, its a model for how species differentiate through the process of evolution by natural selection. It isn't about morality, its a description of what is. It isn't something from which morality can rationally be derived; I find your statement most peculiar.

Yes but whether it's a belief "structure" or not, my belief that evolution is a good thing, and that you shouldn't deliberately try to hamper its progress.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk.

I don't agree with this at all. If we were very poor at assessing risk, there would be much much more accidents and incidents.

Not true!! It is because humans are very poor at assessing risk that we have the number that we do. Humans routinely overestimate risk.