who are pavements for?

[Angelfishsolo]

I might give burglary a go, if we can get enough people to do it then its going to be legal sooner or later......who's with me?

But seriously. There are plenty of routes available to question laws. Is just ignoring laws the right way to go? I bet if RLJs were accountable for thier actions then it wouldn't happen. So to me that says 'as long as I don't get caught then I will do what I want to'. Same with speeding, the roads are essentially unpoliced so some people speed.

A voice of sanity. Some people on this forum seem to think that cyclists should be above and beyond the law. I appreciate we have freedom of the highway but we are still obliged to conform to the law.

 

[Dan B]

By your reasoning we should encourage all road users to run red lights. In fact do away with them all and have give way junctions instead.

Last time I counted them, my route to work had on average one light-controlled junction every 120 metres. I would positively welcome doing away with about 80% of them and having give way junctions instead, but in the meantime I'm not going to get on anyone's case for treating them as "give way" signs unofficially. Why would I? If you're giving way, by definition you're not getting in anyone else's way

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Last time I counted them, my route to work had on average one light-controlled junction every 120 metres. I would positively welcome doing away with about 80% of them and having give way junctions instead, but in the meantime I'm not going to get on anyone's case for treating them as "give way" signs unofficially. Why would I? If you're giving way, by definition you're not getting in anyone else's way

I'm not hurting anyone if I speed either until some kid runs out in front of me and I can't stop. Have you ever been hit by a RLJr. I have and it is not a pleasant experience to say the least. Anyone who breaks a law just because is it advantageous to them to do so is advocating a lawless society as most people will have at least one law they fell is stupid and thus OK to break.

 

[Red Light]

I would say at over half of cyclist ignore lights so thats over half of the cycling population criminalised = law in disrepute.

TfL studies for London show its about 16% - about the same as for cars and buses.

 

[Red Light]

I am not wilding exaggerating the dangers of cycling. I am highlighing the dangers of running a red-light. Would you tell you children that it's statistically safe to do so (whilst not condoning it)?

You are wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling. The only reason you don't think you are is you don't have a clue about the objective dangers of RLJing and are wildly overestimating them.

A TfL review concluded that cyclists were at a lower risk RLJing than waiting at the lights.

About 16% of cyclists on average RLJ in London. Less than 2% of cyclist deaths in London are attributed to RLJing. 3% are attributed to other vehicles RLJing while the cyclist was crossing on green.

The reality is, while it may be illegal and it may be annoying, its certainly not dangerous and doing so is not a death wish. In fact based on the TfL report it could be said to be a life wish.

 

[Dan B]

Have you ever been hit by a RLJr

I have never been hit by someone treating a red light as a give way sign, because that would be logically impossible: if he had given way to me, he would not have hit me

If you want to argue that head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything RLJ is bad, nobody sane will disagree. But (1) outside of specific situations like time trials on closed roads, head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything riding is still bad even when there are no traffic lights involved; (2) many or most people who break the law at traffic lights don't do it kamikaze-style. This has been pointed out to you by several people now and yet you still persist in pretending that RLJ automatically implies a complete disregard for other road users. Why?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You are wildly exaggerating the dangers of cycling. The only reason you don't think you are is you don't have a clue about the objective dangers of RLJing and are wildly overestimating them.

A TfL review concluded that cyclists were at a lower risk RLJing than waiting at the lights.

About 16% of cyclists on average RLJ in London. Less than 2% of cyclist deaths in London are attributed to RLJing. 3% are attributed to other vehicles RLJing while the cyclist was crossing on green.

*The reality is, while it may be illegal and it may be annoying, its certainly not dangerous and doing so is not a death wish. In fact based on the TfL report it could be said to be a life wish.

I think you live in a world were is an act is beneficial to a cyclist then it is OK. I live in a world were I obey laws. As for stats 0.01% of men involved in Fatal RTC were not wearing underpants. Thus stay safe on the road an go commando.

*If that is the case why is it not legal

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I have never been hit by someone treating a red light as a give way sign, because that would be logically impossible: if he had given way to me, he would not have hit me

If you want to argue that head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything RLJ is bad, nobody sane will disagree. But (1) outside of specific situations like time trials on closed roads, head-down fast unswerving don't-stop-for-anything riding is still bad even when there are no traffic lights involved; (2) many or most people who break the law at traffic lights don't do it kamikaze-style. This has been pointed out to you by several people now and yet you still persist in pretending that RLJ automatically implies a complete disregard for other road users. Why?

Cyclists like you who feel disregard for the law because it is OK because you feel safe give cyclist a bad name. If treating Red Lights as give way signs is OK then why not say cars should do so as well? I have respect for the law, you seem to have a "can't give a toss if I'm on my bike" attitude.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

TfL studies for London show its about 16% - about the same as for cars and buses.

So by apollos argument it is a law that should be obeyed. BTW there is more of the UK than London.

 

[rowan 46]

I don't think anybody is arguing or disagreeing that these things are illegal. I think the argument is more to do with the practicality of some laws. When it comes to cycling some are not reasonable RLJ is a good example. I have on several occasions been stuck at empty junctions at night waiting for the lights to recognise I am there. A car comes along and the lights change thus ensuring that from a standing start I have a car almost up to speed right up my bottom it feels dangerous and probably is. The problem is that traffic law has been written and rewritten for the automobile. We didn't have traffic lights on the roads until the the car came. My point is that traffic law is mostly built around what is good for the car sometimes it's not the best thing for cyclists. I will continue to do things which are illegal if they keep me safe as I cannot rely on the law to protect me. However this does not mean I will endanger others. Riding on a pavement doesn't endanger anybody if there's no one on it or If you are riding carefully looking for hazards. RLJ is not dangerous of itself but can be if its not done correctly. I don't deny they are illegal.
I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that laws are for our benefit, they are not. They are for the benefit of whichever group has the most political clout. At the moment it is the automobile that benefits from traffic law and some of those laws are not in the best interest of cycle safety. I can almost hear you say change the law then, but that's bull the government will never change the law until we start dropping in our thousands they have other things to do with their time. The chances of a private members bill making it through are almost nil for the same reason. So I will continue cycling carefully on pavements if need be occasional rlj and the police will continue to turn a blind eye as they know a careful cyclist isn't a problem. I may one day be stopped by an officious officer but that's my risk. I understand it will be no defence in court but I do not think that a cyclist riding carefully on the pavement is the same as a driver driving dangerously. Not all laws are equal so to say the law is the law is not a great defence.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I don't think anybody is arguing or disagreeing that these things are illegal. I think the argument is more to do with the practicality of some laws. When it comes to cycling some are not reasonable RLJ is a good example. I have on several occasions been stuck at empty junctions at night waiting for the lights to recognise I am there. A car comes along and the lights change thus ensuring that from a standing start I have a car almost up to speed right up my bottom it feels dangerous and probably is. The problem is that traffic law has been written and rewritten for the automobile. We didn't have traffic lights on the roads until the the car came. My point is that traffic law is mostly built around what is good for the car sometimes it's not the best thing for cyclists. I will continue to do things which are illegal if they keep me safe as I cannot rely on the law to protect me. However this does not mean I will endanger others. Riding on a pavement doesn't endanger anybody if there's no one on it or If you are riding carefully looking for hazards. RLJ is not dangerous of itself but can be if its not done correctly. I don't deny they are illegal.
I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that laws are for our benefit, they are not. They are for the benefit of whichever group has the most political clout. At the moment it is the automobile that benefits from traffic law and some of those laws are not in the best interest of cycle safety. I can almost hear you say change the law then, but that's bull the government will never change the law until we start dropping in our thousands they have other things to do with their time. The chances of a private members bill making it through are almost nil for the same reason. So I will continue cycling carefully on pavements if need be occasional rlj and the police will continue to turn a blind eye as they know a careful cyclist isn't a problem. I may one day be stopped by an officious officer but that's my risk. I understand it will be no defence in court but I do not think that a cyclist riding carefully on the pavement is the same as a driver driving dangerously. Not all laws are equal so to say the law is the law is not a great defence.

As I have said before - LIttle wonder so many car drivers hate cyclists.

 

[rowan 46]

As I have said before - LIttle wonder so many car drivers hate cyclists.

Selfish inconsiderate drivers hate cyclists, not drivers. And the reason they hate is because they are selfish and inconsiderate they don't require any reason just an excuse and If you are suggesting that we as a society have to cater to these peoples whims you really are talking arse gravy. I harm no one I have cycled for over 40 years without ever hitting another person The fact is if all drivers were as considerate as me there would be no need for me to get on pavements occasionally. By the way I have never been insulted, spat at or tailgated by a driver when on a pavement only when on the road.

 

[Midnight]

Pavements for Peds - Roads for Riding

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Pavements for Peds - Roads for Riding

Not according to many on here. Pavements are for cyclists if it benefits them.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Selfish inconsiderate drivers hate cyclists, not drivers. And the reason they hate is because they are selfish and inconsiderate they don't require any reason just an excuse and If you are suggesting that we as a society have to cater to these peoples whims you really are talking arse gravy. I harm no one I have cycled for over 40 years without ever hitting another person The fact is if all drivers were as considerate as me there would be no need for me to get on pavements occasionally. By the way I have never been insulted, spat at or tailgated by a driver when on a pavement only when on the road.

I am not suggesting you cater to such people. I am suggesting you show respect to the law of the land.