# Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..



## Judderz (18 Aug 2011)

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/20...own-on-cyclists/comment-page-1/#comment-37007


----------



## Theseus (18 Aug 2011)

Good! Although I am not sure why they think the use of an ASL is breaking the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> Good! Although I am not sure why they think the use of an ASL is breaking the law.



I think that is bad writing. I hope that is bad writing!!!


----------



## Markymark (18 Aug 2011)

For the last few years in central London I've seen police cars pull over cyclists many times - not sure this is new? Unless those being pulled over were just being told off and not fined although it did look like details were usually being taken.

It's a good thing - as a cyclist and a driver, there are rules of the road that should be adheared to. Those that think the rules don't apply should either petition for them to change or accept the penalties.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (18 Aug 2011)

Oh great, so as if we aren't targetted enough already the police have more powers by which they can abuse us, I wonder how long it will be before I am stopped again because a police officer couldn't overtake me without resorting to speeding? Or how long it will be before I am stopped for filtering through traffic because an officer can't do it in his car?

All this will do is give every otehr road user a high horse to sit on as they rant and rave about all the bad things we do to hold them up.

Parliment and the media should be praising us, not harrassing us, we reduce polution and congestion, some of us do this all year round.


----------



## Markymark (18 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Oh great, so as if we aren't targetted enough already the police have more powers by which they can abuse us, I wonder how long it will be before I am stopped again because a police officer couldn't overtake me without resorting to speeding? Or how long it will be before I am stopped for filtering through traffic because an officer can't do it in his car?




Neither of those things listed is against the law, however other things that some cyclists do are.


----------



## benb (18 Aug 2011)

> In the past lorry and bus drivers have been blamed for many cycling accidents, but as the issue has received more exposure recently it has become accepted that cyclists need to share the responsibility on the roads



What the hell are they trying to imply here?
I do wish they'd put as much effort into fining motorists who routinely flout the law; using mobiles, jumping red lights, speeding. Almost always much more dangerous than the illegal things cyclists do (and I'm not condoning or excusing any of that).


----------



## Dragonwight (18 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Neither of those things listed is against the law, however other things that some cyclists do are.



Its just a pity alot of policeman dont know which ones are and arent or they choose to ignore it.


----------



## LosingFocus (18 Aug 2011)

Dragonwight said:


> Its just a pity alot of policeman dont know which ones are and arent or they choose to ignore it.



Want a brush to go with that sweeping statement?


----------



## Markymark (18 Aug 2011)

Dragonwight said:


> Its just a pity alot of policeman dont know which ones are and arent or they choose to ignore it.




Fairly easy to get out of a fine for something which isn't illegal.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

The majority of cyclists swan about on the pavement and down the local precinct with no realistation that there are any laws about cycling. me amongst them although now i do know otherwise and am prepared to accept that technically the law may apply to cyclists.
My own experience is that police apply common sense and do nothing to cyclists. I have rljed many times in front of police cars without a care in the world , not because im an anarchist but because i didnt realise there was anything wrong with it and ive never had a word said to me by police or motorist come to that. Indeed i dont think motorists care about cyclists, i certainly didnt when i drove.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and its all just nonsense dreamt up by some overpaid paperpusher with nothing better to do.


----------



## Melonfish (18 Aug 2011)

Does it actually state that cyclists have to stop at red lights? i mean you'd be a damned idiot to go through one but has the highway code been updated to include cyclists as a requirement to stop at red?


----------



## Theseus (18 Aug 2011)

Yes, Rule 69.


*69*
You *MUST* obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.


*[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]*


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

Melonfish said:


> Does it actually state that cyclists have to stop at red lights?


Yes


----------



## Dragonwight (18 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Fairly easy to get out of a fine for something which isn't illegal.



True but being stopped for doing things that arent illegal can get a bit tiresome after a while and does nothing to improve relations between cyclists and plod or safety.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Isnt there a distinction between the highway code which is like a guide book to recommended road practice and the rta which is the law and applies to "drivers".
I accept that apparently the law does apply to cyclists but tbh i dont really see how or why.


----------



## Theseus (18 Aug 2011)

1. The HC is a condensed summary of the law and advice.
2. Rule 69 is specifically for cyclists.
3. It says *MUST* and quotes the relevant legislation

It is, and always has been, the *law* that cyclists obey traffic lights.

The RTA's in various forms apply to *ALL* road users detailed in the legislation, this includes cars, lorries, bikes, horses, pedestrians, etc ...


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Aug 2011)

> > In the past lorry and bus drivers have been blamed for many cycling accidents, but as the issue has received more exposure recently it has become accepted that cyclists need to share the responsibility on the roads
> 
> 
> What the hell are they trying to imply here?



Just that there's more than a few cyclists who try slipping down the left hand side of a truck or bus at lights?


----------



## Melonfish (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Isnt there a distinction between the highway code which is like a guide book to recommended road practice and the rta which is the law and applies to "drivers".
> I accept that apparently the law does apply to cyclists but tbh i dont really see how or why.



ah, see this was my point, it specifically says drivers in bold everywhere, imo it needs updating to include cyclists.




> *69*
> You *MUST* obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
> 
> 
> *[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]*


this sites RTA 88 sect 36.
yet that clearly states:


> 36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs.



i've always found the highway code exceptionally vague when it comes to cyclists, hence why we have that ridiculous vid of the so called law student and the cop.
i take it as gospel tho due to it being under the section labelled "rules for cyclists" but its still bloody vague.



Touche said:


> 1. The HC is a condensed summary of the law and advice.
> 2. Rule 69 is specifically for cyclists.
> 3. It says *MUST* and quotes the relevant legislation
> 
> ...



Remember that bike means motorbike in the code, cycles need to be labelled as such or listed as carriages.


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> Good! Although I am not sure why they think the use of an ASL is breaking the law.






Angelfishsolo said:


> I think that is bad writing. I hope that is bad writing!!!



It's not poor writing but simply not put into context properly.
I spoke to Graham Horwood about this a few months ago. They are targeting *all road users* and this includes any road users that stop in the ASL when they shouldn't.


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> What the hell are they trying to imply here?
> I do wish they'd put as much effort into fining motorists who routinely flout the law; using mobiles, jumping red lights, speeding. Almost always much more dangerous than the illegal things cyclists do (and I'm not condoning or excusing any of that).



My Silly Cyclists probably has something to do with that. I know that Graham watches it and has used various clips to show bus and lorry drivers what some cyclists might do.


----------



## oldroadman (18 Aug 2011)

Some of the comments on this thread leave me amazed. The rules of the road are for everyone. Like stopping at reds. How daft do you have to be to think that it only applies to some users?
What's more, because cyclists are still (sadly) a minority group, it's lousy PR and offers a hundred excuses for other users - who are often just as bad - to point fingers. There's no point in going off about "terrible car/taxi/van/bus/truck drivers and mad motos", unless you are playing by the rules. Only, and only then, do you have the moral high ground. The red light jumpers have a better chance of being in the ground, six feet down.


----------



## Matthew_T (18 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> It's not poor writing but simply not put into context properly.
> I spoke to Graham Horwood about this a few months ago. They are targeting *all road users* and this includes any road users that stop in the ASL when they shouldn't.



Well I have certainly had a lot of people block the ASL when they could have clearly stopped


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1511730"]
Ignoring road craft for the sake of assumption, that people should look out for cyclists is one way trip to the morgue.
[/quote]





best post ever?


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Melonfish said:


> ah, see this was my point, it specifically says drivers in bold everywhere, imo it needs updating to include cyclists.


Dont you mean exclude.
Im happy to credit the police with the common sense to apply the law as it should be although i acknowledge there is always the danger that this policy has the potential to turn round and bite you in the backside because assuming certain cycling practices are technically illegal, were are constantly relying on police discretion in applying the law sensibly rather than strictly and this is ultimately uncertain.


----------



## Davidc (18 Aug 2011)

Melonfish said:


> Does it actually state that cyclists have to stop at red lights? i mean you'd be a damned idiot to go through one but has the highway code been updated to include cyclists as a requirement to stop at red?



No updating required.

Since 1868* when the first traffic signals were installed it has been a requirement for ALL VEHICLES to stop at them. Just looked at my 1961 HC (that I had for learning for the cycling proficiency test) and it has the must stop requirement in the cycling section.

Bicycles are vehicles under English, Scottish and international law (Vienna Convention on Road Traffic).

You have to stop even if you are pushing a hand cart, or going around in your horse drawn carriage! I'm not sure what a mounted horse rider's status is though.

*1927 for the first electric ones, but the legislation AFAIK was the same except that the lights replaced railway type semaphore style arms, and electric ones weren't manually operated. (That's according to a web site dedicated to the history of the motor car).


----------



## Bman (18 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Fairly easy to get out of a fine for something which isn't illegal.




Not if you accept a FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice). If you accept it, it is an admission of guilt.


----------



## Melonfish (18 Aug 2011)

Davidc said:


> No updating required.
> 
> Since 1868 when the first traffic lights were installed it has been a requirement for ALL VEHICLES to stop at them.
> 
> ...



actually the law states that cycles are "carriages" but yes you are right they need to stop too


----------



## Cubist (18 Aug 2011)

Bongman said:


> Not if you accept a FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice). If you accept it, it is an admission of guilt.



Wrong, sorry. Whether you get a ticket is down to the cop, not you. . You then have the option of electing a court appearance or paying the fine. Paying the fine is an admission of guilt.


----------



## Cubist (18 Aug 2011)

Dragonwight said:


> True but being stopped for doing things that arent illegal can get a bit tiresome after a while and does nothing to improve relations between cyclists and plod or safety.



No doubt you will have some real examples of this? Please share them. I am genuinely interested.


----------



## Melonfish (18 Aug 2011)

Cubist said:


> Wrong, sorry. Whether you get a ticket is down to the cop, not you. . You then have the option of electing a court appearance or paying the fine. Paying the fine is an admission of guilt.



as is accepting a caution.


----------



## Davidc (18 Aug 2011)

Melonfish said:


> actually the law states that cycles are "carriages" but yes you are right they need to stop too



Carriages are a class of vehicle, what that means is that all vehicle laws apply, plus the (few) that only apply to carriages. In fact the definition in the VCRT is the superior one, as the UK is a signatory and has to comply. When I looked at it a good few years back for an article there were no UK get outs either. Quite how the definitions work I don't know since their definition of a bicycle includes a bell !?!

What clearly doesn't apply is laws exclusively for motor vehicles, (or other specific classes other than cycles and pedal cycles)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> It's not poor writing but simply not put into context properly.
> I spoke to Graham Horwood about this a few months ago. They are targeting *all road users* and this includes any road users that stop in the ASL when they shouldn't.



Then it is poor writing as it implies that cyclists who stop at ASL will be targeted. Context is so very important in the written word.


----------



## Bman (18 Aug 2011)

Cubist said:


> Wrong, sorry. Whether you get a ticket is down to the cop, not you. . You then have the option of electing a court appearance or paying the fine. Paying the fine is an admission of guilt.




Good point. I wasnt clear enough. By "accepting" a FPN, I was implying that you pay the fine. If you dont accept it, you dispute it in court.

Thanks for clearing it up


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Im sorry but in the hierarchy of anti social behaviour i reckon rljing has to rank pretty low , that isnt to say it should be totally ignored but surely is a taskforce really necessary. Im sure that the police have got better things to do and going out on a limb i would suggest that most police would agree that their time could be better spent.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Im sorry but in the hierarchy of anti social behaviour i reckon rljing has to rank pretty low , that isnt to say it should be totally ignored but surely is a taskforce really necessary. Im sure that the police have got better things to do and going out on a limb i would suggest that most police would agree that their time could be better spent.


If cyclists want their complaints about drivers taken seriously then they need to accept responcibility for their own illegal actions. Simplez.


----------



## barongreenback (18 Aug 2011)

Definitely. Better to approach these things from the moral high ground.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If cyclists want their complaints about drivers taken seriously then they need to accept responcibility for their own illegal actions. Simplez.


Really each complaint should be taken on its own merits.
If the cyclists complaint about a driver is serious then it should be taken seriously. If it isnt then it shoudnt. And vice versa. I dont want the police out chasing rljing cyclists any more than i want them out chasing cars for going a few miles above the speed limit at 2am on an empty road.
Police resources are limited and surely we should direct this importance resource where it is most needed not after cyclists who infringe of the asl.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

barongreenback said:


> Definitely. Better to approach these things from the moral high ground.



If i sqint i can just see the moral high ground from down here in the real world.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Really each complaint should be taken on its own merits.
> If the cyclists complaint about a driver is serious then it should be taken seriously. If it isnt then it shoudnt. And vice versa. I dont want the police out chasing rljing cyclists any more than i want them out chasing cars for going a few miles above the speed limit at 2am on an empty road.
> Police resources are limited and surely we should direct this importance resource where it is most needed not after cyclists who infringe of the asl.


So lets have all police out solving murders and rapes. They are far more serious than most RTC's.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

When they announce a crackdown on rlj/pavement riding/asls/etc they _usually_ mean they are fining cyclists for RLJs and pavement riding, and giving _drivers_ a stern talking-to for ASL infringements. I've never heard of any cyclist getting pulled for ASL infringements, not least because the law on cyclists entering an ASL on red (you have to use the feeder lane) is quite incredibly stupid and practically nobody even knows it is a law anyway - at least, unless they've done a few RLJ threads on forums like this, where the topic tends to come up at some point.

You would think that for consistency they would give everyone a stern talking to or else give everyone a ticket, but the law on crossing ASLs stop lines in a car is £60 plus 3 points - i.e. the same penalty as you'd get for going straight through the junction - which a lot of coppers feel is excessive for a "victimless crime"


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So lets have all police out solving murders and rapes. They are far more serious than most RTC's.



Im not sure i would go that far but im glad your seeing things in a diferent perspective.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Im not sure i would go that far but im glad your seeing things in a diferent perspective.


No I am mocking your opinion.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> When they announce a crackdown on rlj/pavement riding/asls/etc they _usually_ mean they are fining cyclists for RLJs and pavement riding, and giving _drivers_ a stern talking-to for ASL infringements. I've never heard of any cyclist getting pulled for ASL infringements, not least because the law on cyclists entering an ASL on red (you have to use the feeder lane) is quite incredibly stupid and practically nobody even knows it is a law anyway - at least, unless they've done a few RLJ threads on forums like this, where the topic tends to come up at some point.
> 
> You would think that for consistency they would give everyone a stern talking to or else give everyone a ticket, but the law on crossing ASLs stop lines in a car is £60 plus 3 points - i.e. the same penalty as you'd get for going straight through the junction - which a lot of coppers feel is excessive for a "victimless crime"



Agreed . Most real world cyclists would be dumbfounded and looking around for jeremy beadle to pop out of the undergrowth if the police fined them for going through a red light.


----------



## martint235 (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> You would think that for consistency they would give everyone a stern talking to or else give everyone a ticket, but the law on crossing ASLs stop lines in a car is £60 plus 3 points - i.e. the same penalty as you'd get for going straight through the junction - which a lot of coppers feel is excessive for a "victimless crime"



The thing with the motorist in the ASL is, I won't say not clear cut, cos it is but put it this way: a motorist can't be done for being in the ASL at a red light. The copper would have to have seen him get there as IIRC there is something about it being ok to stop at the advance line if you couldn't stop at the first line.

Now if you have a policeman stood next to the traffic light at the time (or behind the car in a patrol car) they will have seen the whole episode and can act accordingly.

Right now that's out of the way, I can't believe we're having yet another discussion along the lines of "I'm a cyclist, so long as I don't hurt anyone I should be able to do what I like". £30 way too lenient, £200 and take their bike away if a cyclist runs a red and gets caught.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No I am mocking your opinion.



And are you comfortable , morally and psychologically , mocking me ?


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed . Most real world cyclists would be dumbfounded and looking around for jeremy beadle to pop out of the undergrowth if the police fined them for going through a red light.


I think you misunderstand me. Cycling through a red light is illegal and (in London) is policed, and it is certainly not unusual to get a fine for it. What I was referring to as stupid is the weird situation with ASLs that due to the drafting of the law that defines them, it is technically illegal to cross into the cycle reservoir across the first stop line - you have to use the cycle lane.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed . Most real world cyclists would be dumbfounded and looking around for jeremy beadle to pop out of the undergrowth if the police fined them for going through a red light.


What a load of bull. You are saying the >51% of cyclists in the UK think RLJ'ing is ok.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What a load of bull. You are saying the >51% of cyclists in the UK think RLJ'ing is ok.



I would say that more than 51% of cyclists dont even realise that there is legally anything wrong with rljing on a bike , let alone see anything wrong with it.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> The thing with the motorist in the ASL is, I won't say not clear cut, cos it is but put it this way: a motorist can't be done for being in the ASL at a red light. The copper would have to have seen him get there as IIRC there is something about it being ok to stop at the advance line if you couldn't stop at the first line.


This is correct. It's a bit like pavement parking: you can't do people for driving on the pavement if you only see them parked there, as their car might have been airlifted in or carried there by oompa-loompas


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> And are you comfortable , morally and psychologically , mocking me ?


Yes. If you appeared to be an idiot I wouldn't mock you but as you seem to be inteligent I can only assume you believe cyclists are above the law. For that I mock and also pity you.


----------



## 2Loose (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say that more than 51% of cyclists dont even realise that there is legally anything wrong with rljing on a bike , let alone see anything wrong with it.



I disagree with that figure, but either way they need to be re-educated, fined or whatever until they learn that picking and choosing which laws they obey is not only dangerous but antisocial.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say that more than 51% of cyclists dont even realise that there is legally anything wrong with rljing on a bike , let alone see anything wrong with it.


If that is true it is no excuse.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say that more than 51% of cyclists dont even realise that there is legally anything wrong with rljing on a bike , let alone see anything wrong with it.


I think you're funning with us, Mr (Ms?) Apollo.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

2Loose said:


> I disagree with that figure, but either way they need to be re-educated, fined or whatever until they learn that picking and choosing which laws they obey is not only dangerous but antisocial.


As do I and I agree witi you 100%


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes. If you appeared to be an idiot I wouldn't mock you but as you seem to be* intelligent* I can only assume you believe cyclists are above the law. For that I mock and also pity you.


FTFY


----------



## davefb (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I think you misunderstand me. Cycling through a red light is illegal and (in London) is policed, and it is certainly not unusual to get a fine for it. What I was referring to as stupid is the weird situation with ASLs that due to the drafting of the law that defines them, it is technically illegal to cross into the cycle reservoir across the first stop line - you have to use the cycle lane.



have you any info on that ? because i've just tried to google it and it doesnt mention anything in the hc site?

it just mentions motor vehicles must stop at the first line and 'sometimes' the asl's have feeder lanes, which since they're cycle lanes, cyclists can enter across solid lines, it's just (again)motor vehicles which cant?


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Then it is poor writing as it implies that cyclists who stop at ASL will be targeted. Context is so very important in the written word.



It doesn't directly imply that cyclists stopping in asl's will get a fine but it could be written better to imply that these are not all about cycling.


> The joint MetropolitanPolice Service and Transport for London Cycle Task Force is committed to tackling anti-social road use including jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement and advanced stop lines.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> It doesn't directly imply that cyclists stopping in asl's will get a fine but it could be written better to imply that these are not all about cycling.


Upon re-reading, yes you are right.


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Upon re-reading, yes you are right.



The main problem is the context of the article, which is all about cycling, apart from one bit. That is poor writing.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I think you're funning with us, Mr (Ms?) Apollo.


Mr (Ms?) Dan B. I think that some people on this forum lose sight of the fact that they represent a minority of cyclists.
The people on this forum are generally intelligent (2 ls), informed about cycling issues as well as other issues and socially responsible. The majority of cyclists out there do not belong to this forum and imho are not so well informed about cycling issues and display varying levels of intelligence and social responsibility.
I can honestly say that before i joined this forum i did not realise that it was illegal to cycle on the pavement or to cycle through a red light.


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> before i joined this forum i did not realise that it was illegal to cycle on the pavement or to cycle through a red light.



Just because you didn't, doesn't mean that every other cyclist out there that isn't a member of this forum (or any other cycling forum) does as well.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Mr (Ms?) Dan B. I think that some people on this forum lose sight of the fact that they represent a minority of cyclists.
> The people on this forum are generally intelligent (2 ls), informed about cycling issues as well as other issues and socially responsible. The majority of cyclists out there do not belong to this forum and imho are not so well informed about cycling issues and display varying levels of intelligence and social responsibility.
> I can honestly say that before i joined this forum i did not realise that it was illegal to cycle on the pavement or to cycle through a red light.


So I take it that you can not drive? Why would you or any other cyclist think road laws don't apply to them? I would more readily believe that many (not most) cyclists choose to ignore those laws.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Just because you didn't, doesn't mean that every other cyclist out there that isn't a member of this forum (or any other cycling forum) does as well.



Forum membership suggests a certain level of interest in a subject and an accompanying level of knowledge.
The majority of cyclists dont belong to cycling forums and dont have that level of cycling knowledge (or interest). 
The cycling boffins on this forum in numerical terms represent a small minority of the total number of cyclists in this country.
You cannot expect the same level of knowledge from the majority. I was using my own experience as an example not suggesting a universal rule.


----------



## Alun (18 Aug 2011)

davefb said:


> have you any info on that ? because i've just tried to google it and it doesnt mention anything in the hc site?
> 
> it just mentions motor vehicles must stop at the first line and 'sometimes' the asl's have feeder lanes, which since they're cycle lanes, cyclists can enter across solid lines, it's just (again)motor vehicles which cant?



I think this explains it quite well considering it's on a par with the offside rule in football
http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/11/30/advanced-stop-zones/


----------



## Dragonwight (18 Aug 2011)

Cubist said:


> No doubt you will have some real examples of this? Please share them. I am genuinely interested.



Sorry about the late reply been working!!Ok from over 20 years cycling as an adult. Stopped for "furious" cycling ,Stopped for not wearing a helmet ( yes really!!), Hassled and shouted at for lighting up a 20mph speed sign, stopped for no reflectors in broad daylight.

These are the ones i can remember some ancient some recent.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

[quote name='apollo179' timestamp='1313696213' post='1804230 ]
I was using my own experience as an example not suggesting a universal rule.
[/quote]
So how does that tally with your belief that far more than 51% of cyclists are ignorant of traffic law?


----------



## John90 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So I take it that you can not drive? Why would you or any other cyclist think road laws don't apply to them? I would more readily believe that many (not most) cyclists choose to ignore those laws.



Because for a lot of misinformed people bikes occupy an ill-defined position somewhere between 'pedestrian' and 'road vehicle'. And indeed there is a case for saying they should, or rather they should have a more clearly defined set of rules all of their own. Those might include turning left at junctions on a red light for example.

I don't believe over 50% of people are unaware of the rules, but over 50% on my commute jump lights and a good proportion of those don't look to me like natural law-breakers so I suspect there is a high degree of ignorance and assumption.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why would you or any other cyclist think road laws don't apply to them?



By the same token. Why would you or any other cyclist think road laws do apply to them?
When does a cyclist get told that he cant cycle on the pavement , it is illegal to go through red lights. No-one ever told me. 
Now i know but not before.
Im not saying theres anything good about it - its just another persons reality.
My point it is that this is the reality of alot more people that you might think.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> Because for a lot of misinformed people bikes occupy an ill-defined position somewhere between 'pedestrian' and 'road vehicle'. And indeed there is a case for saying they should, or rather they should have a more clearly defined set of rules all of their own. Those might include turning left at junctions on a red light for example.
> 
> I don't believe over 50% of people are unaware of the rules, but over 50% on my commute jump lights and a good proportion of those don't look to me like natural law-breakers so I suspect there is a high degree of ignorance and assumption.


How is assumption and ignorance different to not knowing the law?


----------



## Davidc (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> *Forum membership suggests a certain level of interest in a subject and an accompanying level of knowledge.
> The majority of cyclists dont belong to cycling forums and dont have that level of cycling knowledge (or interest).
> The cycling boffins on this forum in numerical terms represent a small minority of the total number of cyclists in this country.
> You cannot expect the same level of knowledge from the majority.* I was using my own experience as an example not suggesting a universal rule.



Like it or not you are absolutely correct.

I would add that the majority of cyclists who are members of forums like to improve their knowledge. The majority of the rest of cyclists don't have any interest in knowledge of cycling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> By the same token. Why would you or any other cyclist think road laws do apply to them?
> When does a cyclist get told that he cant cycle on the pavement , it is illegal to go through red lights. No-one ever told me.
> Now i know but not before.
> Im not saying theres anything good about it - its just another persons reality.
> My point it is that this is the reality of alot more people that you might think.


Why? Well it has a lot to do witi the road signs and knowledge that Red means stop. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just spoiling for a fight.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Davidc said:


> Like it or not you are absolutely correct.
> 
> I would add that the majority of cyclists who are members of forums like to improve their knowledge. The majority of the rest of cyclists don't have any interest in knowledge of cycling.



Agreed.
I joined this forum to improve my knowledge and one of the first things i was surprised to learn was that it was illegal to ride on the pavement. Rljing came later.


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Why? Well it has a lot to do witi the road signs and knowledge that Red means stop. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just *spoiling for a fight*.



No ive seen your picture.
Seriously - my knowledge or interest in the highway code is below zero. Beleive me it is quite possible to maintain a high level of ignaorance regarding highway code , road laws etc.
For most people the only time they open a highway code is to pass their driving test.
That dosnt make them bad people btw.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I joined this forum to improve my knowledge and one of the first things i was surprised to learn was that *it was illegal to ride on the pavement*. Rljing came later.



It might be illegal, but by and large it is condoned by society and therefore the police. Personally I blame the ridiculous shared cycle paths for even further blurring what was always a grey area. It further reinforces the "fact" that cyclists shouldn't be on the roads.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> No ive seen your picture.
> Seriously - my knowledge or interest in the highway code is below zero. Beleive me it is quite possible to maintain a high level of ignaorance regarding highway code , road laws etc.
> For most people the only time they open a highway code is to pass their driving test.
> That dosnt make them bad people btw.


Then the fines will be a great incentive to read it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Then the fines will be a great incentive to read it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.



I'm not so sure Angelfish

The law has to make itself clear and umambiguous. See my post about pavement cycling. 

Every citizen shouldn't have to go out of their way to know the law inside out to get about their daily lives without hinderence from the state. On the other hand we all need to abide by the same rules.

There is a balance to be had, and I don't believe fines are the answer.


----------



## John90 (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> How is assumption and ignorance different to not knowing the law?



It isn't. It is different to knowing the law and choosing to flout it however (albeit ignorance is no defence in law).


----------



## the snail (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> There is a balance to be had, and I don't believe fines are the answer.



Offenders have the option of attending a training course or paying a fine, which seems fair enough to me.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> I'm not so sure Angelfish
> 
> The law has to make itself clear and umambiguous. See my post about pavement cycling.
> 
> ...


All citizens have a obligation to know the basic laws of the land. We expect drivers to be aware of cyclists rights under the law after all.
As for pavement cycling I see no ambiguity. If there are signs showing cycling is allowed then you may cycle if not you may not.


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

in my humble oppinion ANYONE taking up ANY new sport ,hobby,or activity. SHOULD make it their own bussiness to find out about ,learn about ,ANY rules or laws concerning it. IGNORANCE is no EXCUSE !!!!!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> in my humble oppinion ANYONE taking up ANY new sport ,hobby,or activity. SHOULD make it their own bussiness to find out about ,learn about ,ANY rules or laws concerning it. IGNORANCE is no EXCUSE !!!!!!!


Are you me?


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are you me?




or are you me ????


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> or are you me ????


I don't think so but then I have been wrong before.


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I don't think so but then I have been wrong before.




ah then you cant be me because according to my misses IM ALLWAYS WRONG


----------



## Buddfox (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> We expect drivers to be aware of cyclists rights under the law after all.



I would imagine that the same group of cyclists who don't know it's illegal to ride through a red light don't know (or care) whether drivers know their rights under the law (because they might not know as a cyclist that they have any).

Generally, I don't find it that contentious that many, or indeed the majority, of cyclists don't know the basic laws that apply to their getting around. As a pedestrian, it's never occurred to me to think what laws apply to me (are there any?). As a pedestrian I go where I choose. Is that against the law?

Why is it so surprising that people on bikes think the same? People could easily assume that the reason you do a driving test is because a car is a big metal object that travels at speed and needs some skill to use. So there is a test to protect you and others, and rules of the road to control you. None of the above need apply to bikes - and so many might assume that there are no rules that apply to bikes. They may see cyclists stopped at red lights and just think they're being cautious, for example.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> All citizens have a obligation to know the basic laws of the land. We expect drivers to be aware of cyclists rights under the law after all.
> As for pavement cycling I see no ambiguity. If there are signs showing cycling is allowed then you may cycle if not you may not.



Yes the basic laws that's true, but not every single law.

Pavement cycling has become more ambiguous over the last 30 years because once it was very clear, an adult was not allowed to cycle on the pavement (OK it was probably wheel size or something)

Now, sometimes you are, sometimes you're not, you have to give way, you don't have to give way. It's why I always cycle on the road, no need to keep checking signs. Have you seen some of the ridiculous cyclepaths where there are dismount signs at every driveway or junction? A sign doesn't always mean you have a legal obligation to follow it., but to disregard it is to lay yourself open to blame or prosecution.

Training course or fine? Erm, well how much do I earn and can I take the time off work and not lose pay? I think the training course is a lose lose situation, it costs money for the state and costs money for either the individual and/or the employer  

Of course YMMV


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

BUDDFOX YOU SAY THAT AS A PEDESTRIAN YOU GO WHERE YOU CHOOSE IS THAT WRONG well the short answer is YES IT IS have you not heard of the laws of tresspass i can only assume that you have and will readilly admitt that after brief thought , their are laws covering allmost every thing we do and if we want a decent society they must be adhered to ....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> I would imagine that the same group of cyclists who don't know it's illegal to ride through a red light don't know (or care) whether drivers know their rights under the law (because they might not know as a cyclist that they have any).
> 
> Generally, I don't find it that contentious that many, or indeed the majority, of cyclists don't know the basic laws that apply to their getting around. As a pedestrian, it's never occurred to me to think what laws apply to me (are there any?). As a pedestrian I go where I choose. Is that against the law?
> 
> Why is it so surprising that people on bikes think the same? People could easily assume that the reason you do a driving test is because a car is a big metal object that travels at speed and needs some skill to use. So there is a test to protect you and others, and rules of the road to control you. None of the above need apply to bikes - and so many might assume that there are no rules that apply to bikes. They may see cyclists stopped at red lights and just think they're being cautious, for example.


So no association would be made in the mind of a cyclist that Red means stop. I find it terrifying that people would take to the roads on any form of transport and not no the required laws.


----------



## Buddfox (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> BUDDFOX YOU SAY THAT AS A PEDESTRIAN YOU GO WHERE YOU CHOOSE IS THAT WRONG well the short answer is YES IT IS have you not heard of the laws of tresspass i can only assume that you have and will readilly admitt that after brief thought , their are laws covering allmost every thing we do and if we want a decent society they must be adhered to ....



Ha! I knew some idiot would write this - congratulations for making the most irrelevant argument in the history of the world.

I would argue if you want a decent society, laws must not always be adhered to. Otherwise we live in a police state!


----------



## Buddfox (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So no association would be made in the mind of a cyclist that Red means stop. I find it terrifying that people would take to the roads on any form of transport and not no the required laws.



Well as a pedestrian when I walk diagonally across a cross roads (something I do all the time in London) I don't think the red traffic lights mean I should stop (as a pedestrian). What I learn from that is that cars (probably) won't drive through that part of the road and I use it to inform which way I look. The red light is there to control the cars, not the pedestrians. Novice cyclists may easily think the same, no?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Ha! I knew some idiot would write this - congratulations for making the most irrelevant argument in the history of the world.
> 
> I would argue if you want a decent society, laws must not always be adhered to. Otherwise we live in a police state!


Er no a police state is one in which the police not a government are in charge. Always good to hear from the CC Anarchist Contingent.


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Ha! I knew some idiot would write this - congratulations for making the most irrelevant argument in the history of the world.
> 
> I would argue if you want a decent society, laws must not always be adhered to. Otherwise we live in a police state!




thank you for your congratulations . imagine a world without those laws , obeying the laws does not mean we live in a police state, now please go and read lord of the flies


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

I haven't paid them much attention recently, but don't the boxes with the buttons on pedestrian crossins contain instruction as to when to stop (red man) and when to go (green man)? It doesn't take a great deal of intellience to derive a more general "red means stop" principle, especially if you observe that traffic on the roads stops when there is a red light facing it just as you are instructed to when there is one facing you. 

(Yes, I know there's not actually a law requiring you to wait for the green man, but there is a general social expectation that you're proceeding at greater risk of being hit if you don't)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Well as a pedestrian when I walk diagonally across a cross roads (something I do all the time in London) I don't think the red traffic lights mean I should stop (as a pedestrian). What I learn from that is that cars (probably) won't drive through that part of the road and I use it to inform which way I look. The red light is there to control the cars, not the pedestrians. Novice cyclists may easily think the same, no?


Do you understand what the Red Man is for on crossings. If so then it is not a huge leap to associate red with stop.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> imagine a world without those laws


it's easy if you try
no hell below us, above us only sky


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

i think you will find that starts with IMAGINE THERES NO HEAVEN LOL !!!!!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> thank you for your congratulations . imagine a world without those laws , obeying the laws does not mean we live in a police state, now please go and read lord of the flies


I think the recent riots give an insight into what such a country might be like.


----------



## martint235 (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Now, sometimes you are, sometimes you're not, you have to give way, you don't have to give way. It's why I always cycle on the road, no need to keep checking signs. Have you seen some of the ridiculous cyclepaths where there are dismount signs at every driveway or junction? A sign doesn't always mean you have a legal obligation to follow it., but to disregard it is to lay yourself open to blame or prosecution.



So you don't check the signs to see which bits of the road you're not allowed to cycle on? It isn't just motorways, there's a section of the A13 that cyclists aren't allowed on despite it being an A road. 

Have you seen a "Cyclist Dismount" sign on a white background with a red ring round it? If you have, then you have a legal obligation to follow the instruction. Most of the ones I've seen are blue which iirc means they are advisory.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> So you don't check the signs to see which bits of the road you're not allowed to cycle on? It isn't just motorways, there's a section of the A13 that cyclists aren't allowed on despite it being an A road.
> 
> Have you seen a "Cyclist Dismount" sign on a white background with a red ring round it? If you have, then you have a legal obligation to follow the instruction. Most of the ones I've seen are blue which iirc means they are advisory.


----------



## Nordog (18 Aug 2011)

As an ex-lorry(Tri-axel artic types) and large coach driver. I as a cyclist who has cycled through London/Paris think all cyclist ho do rljumping are idiots and they only have them selves to blame if there injured or killed. 

It is very difficult to see all around you from the cab of a big lorry or coach, there is so much to look out for besides cyclist. We have to do our bit to help safety on our very busy roads.

And as for the idiots riding through shopping Arcades, they are just stupid & lazy. I had a nutter who rode a electic assisted bike no sound just barged pass me in a very narrow walk way if I had not shouted two woman would be still in Hospital.


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> Have you seen a "Cyclist Dismount" sign on a white background with a red ring round it?


No, and I'm very surprised to hear that you have. Where is it? I strongly suspect it has no meaning at all in law


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Nordog said:


> As an ex-lorry(Tri-axel artic types) and large coach driver. I as a cyclist who has cycled through London/Paris think all cyclist ho do rljumping are idiots and they only have them selves to blame if there injured or killed.
> 
> It is very difficult to see all around you from the cab of a big lorry or coach, there is so much to look out for besides cyclist. We have to do our bit to help safety on our very busy roads.
> 
> And as for the idiots riding through shopping Arcades, they are just stupid & lazy. I had a nutter who rode a electic assisted bike no sound just barged pass me in a very narrow walk way if I had not shouted two woman would be still in Hospital.


Well said.
The nutter on the electrical bike wasn't in Bristol per chance?


----------



## Dan B (18 Aug 2011)

Nordog said:


> And as for the idiots riding through shopping Arcades, they are just stupid & lazy.


Very probably, but it does not follow that they are breaking the law: the general law governing cycling on footways applies only to footways by the side of roads, and not to pavement in other places. That would require a byelaw or some kind of TRO


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> Have you seen a "Cyclist Dismount" sign on a white background with a red ring round it?


Yes they are on footpaths where it's illegal to cycle. As I don't cycle on footpaths I never see them when I'm on my bike. 


> If you have, then you have a legal obligation to follow the instruction.


As I'm not on my bike when I see them it doesn't apply to me


> Most of the ones I've seen are blue which iirc means they are advisory.


Yes they are the ones I was talking about, but lets just say you ignored them and were injured, what do you think the defendants insurers would suggest, negligence perhaps?


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

IF I WAS TO TAKE UP CLAY PIGEON SHOOTING AT A FARM 1 MILE AWAY AND ON SUNDAY MORNING PROCEDED DOWN THE STREET WITH A LOADED SHOTGUN UNDER MY ARM,AND UPON SEEING ME ,MR POLICEMAN THINKS WELL WELL THAT ISNT SUCH AGOOD IDEA,ONCE IVE EXPLAINED THAT I HAVN,T READ UP ON THE LAWS SHOULD HE THEN TAKE OFF THE CUFFS ,OPEN THE CAR DOOR AND BID ME GOOD DAY AS I CARRY ON MY JOURNEY 
NO THOUGHT NOT


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> IF I WAS TO TAKE UP CLAY PIGEON SHOOTING AT A FARM 1 MILE AWAY AND ON SUNDAY MORNING PROCEDED DOWN THE STREET WITH A LOADED SHOTGUN UNDER MY ARM,AND UPON SEEING ME ,MR POLICEMAN THINKS WELL WELL THAT ISNT SUCH AGOOD IDEA,ONCE IVE EXPLAINED THAT I HAVN,T READ UP ON THE LAWS SHOULD HE THEN TAKE OFF THE CUFFS ,OPEN THE CAR DOOR AND BID ME GOOD DAY AS I CARRY ON MY JOURNEY
> NO THOUGHT NOT



Don't shout my good man  

Ownership of a shotgun or firearm requires a licence,as does driving car. Knowledge of the laws regarding ownership and use is a conditon of that licence.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

You do not need a license to buy a sword but I can understand that it would be covered by the knife or offencive weapons laws.


----------



## roadrash (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Don't shout my good man
> 
> Ownership of a shotgun or firearm requires a licence,as does driving car. Knowledge of the laws regarding ownership and use is a conditon of that licence.




didnt realise caps lock was on lol but that may be a new can of worms ,and before everyone jumps on my back im speaking hyperthetically does anyone think there should be compulsary basic training before going on the road like the old c.p.t at school


----------



## fossyant (18 Aug 2011)

Erm, so who can summarise 8 pages ? - I've been out in Manchester for a few sherbets. 

PS I did educate a colleague. (I was a passenger - she kindly dropped me off on a bus route, just before it turned up (we passed it).

She's not very cyclist friendly. "Oh I do hate when they do that" - me "Oh what jumping the red light", her "no avoiding puddles". "Ah", I said "thats how I went crashing into the back of a taxi a couple of weeks ago (I don't hide my cycling accidents - my fault or otherwise), if you know the road it's usually OK to ride through them, but you can't see what's below them, that caused me to bounce into that taxi" - "Oh right, now I know why" 

PS also told her to turn her AC on if the car steams up when it's warm and wet people sit in the car. She didn't know it would de-humidify it very quickly ! It was hissing it down this evening !


----------



## apollo179 (18 Aug 2011)

fossyant said:


> Erm, so who can summarise 8 pages ? - I've been out in Manchester for a few sherbets.
> 
> PS I did educate a colleague. (I was a passenger - she kindly dropped me off on a bus route, just before it turned up (we passed it).
> 
> ...



No request or offers of coffee ?


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

roadrash said:


> does anyone think there should be compulsary basic training before going on the road like the old c.p.t at school



Actually as anti state intervention that I am, I think that is an area where it is worthwhile to educate childen to be safe, but I don't like the compulsory thing


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Actually as anti state intervention that I am, I think that is an area where it is worthwhile to educate childen to be safe, but I don't like the compulsory thing


I would love to see Bikeability Level 1 and 2 taught in schools. I do not however expect it to happen.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

True, the Safety Elf wouldn't like it, wot wiv all those helmets and stuff


----------



## davefb (18 Aug 2011)

Alun said:


> I think this explains it quite well considering it's on a par with the offside rule in football
> http://ukcyclerules....ced-stop-zones/



the law bit is bizarre..

and it does seem to contradict the HC explanation...

I wonder if its trying to say that , if you go down the cycle lane, then dont count the second line as the first one just because you've only actually gone past one ?


i assume this is the 'utterly confusing' bit 

"(2) Where the road marking shown in diagram 1001.2 has been placed in conjunction with light signals, “stop line” in relation to those light signals means—http://(a)​the first stop line, in the case of a vehicle (other than a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane) which has not proceeded beyond that line; or

http://(b)​the second stop line, in the case of a vehicle which has proceeded beyond the first stop line or of a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane."


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

Lost me too, I'll just stick to the roads, and keep out of the cycle paths


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Lost me too, I'll just stick to the roads, and keep out of the cycle paths


This is why I cycle in the same way as I drive. I queue in traffic, wait at lights, give way at junctions etc.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is why I cycle in the same way as I drive. I queue in traffic, wait at lights, give way at junctions etc.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


>


I find that more often than not this is respected by driver. There will always be knobs of course but then that is true for cyclists as well.


----------



## the snail (18 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Actually as anti state intervention that I am, I think that is an area where it is worthwhile to educate childen to be safe, but I don't like the compulsory thing



I don't see why it shouldn't be compulsory, lots of stuff is compulsory at school and most of it is pretty useless, and much less fun than riding a bike about for an hour or two


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

the snail said:


> I don't see why it shouldn't be compulsory, lots of stuff is compulsory at school and most of it is pretty useless, and much less fun than riding a bike about for an hour or two


The biggest problem I see is not every child has a bike. If the school has to supply bikes they are responcible for maintenance et al and I see many barriers to this.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

I wouldn't mind it being compulsory either, but on the other hand I don't want playing the nose flute to be compulsory so on balance I'd like to leave it up to the parents, not the state


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The biggest problem I see is not every child has a bike. If the school has to supply bikes they are responcible for maintenance et al and I see many barriers to this.



Ah, you see that pesky little Safety Elf gets everywhere, what did they do before he made himself known


----------



## gaz (18 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is why I cycle in the same way as I drive. I queue in traffic, wait at lights, give way at junctions etc.



Are you suggesting the cyclists that don't cycle as they would drive don't queue, wait at lights or give way at junctions?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> We all know what this compulsory stuff does to children. I went to a church school, and it was compulsory to go to church every Thursday, never been since leaving (apart from formal events), we had to write and say prayers. (never prayed since).
> 
> Other things which were made compulsory, cooking at school, never cooked anything more than pasta since.
> 
> Making things compulsory makes children want to rebel. Simples.


So you have neves used maths or the written English language?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Are you suggesting the cyclists that don't cycle as they would drive don't queue, wait at lights or give way at junctions?


I am yes. Based upon what I have read here and seen on video clips and in the flesh.


----------



## Rapples (18 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Are you suggesting the cyclists that don't cycle as they would drive don't queue, wait at lights or give way at junctions?



I thought you lived in London


----------



## 400bhp (18 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> But you don't have any alternatives to not using them, I wish you good luck going out in the real world not using English, or maths.



Plenty of people can't read, write or do simple maths. The number of such people is growing, not diminishing. You don't have to look far for poor spelling/grammar on here.

There's a large proportion of stupid people - these will include those that don't understand that RLJ is illegal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> Plenty of people can't read, write or do simple maths. The number of such people is growing, not diminishing. You don't have to look far for poor spelling/grammar on here.
> 
> There's a large proportion of stupid people - these will include those that don't understand that RLJ is illegal.


Beat me to it


----------



## roadrunner20 (18 Aug 2011)

question, do you get fined for going through a red light that has been red for over 6 mins long???

I ask this as theres a red light near me in some industry estate which i believe the red lights are either broken or just very long due to on the late nights all the HGVs all come out so they try longer lights to stop mass traffic build ups....

sadly during the rest of the day ie 12 hours its deserted so these 6+min lights seems retarded waiting for considering its a wide open space.

essex road industry one....p.s i have seen a community support car go through it more than once


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> But you don't have any alternatives to not using them, I wish you good luck going out in the real world not using English, or maths.
> 
> Whereas cycling, people can choose to walk, get the bus or even car.


Your argument was against compulsory learning. These examples show the flaw in your argument


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 Aug 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> question, do you get fined for going through a red light that has been red for over 6 mins long???
> 
> I ask this as theres a red light near me in some industry estate which i believe the red lights are either broken or just very long due to on the late nights all the HGVs all come out so they try longer lights to stop mass traffic build ups....
> 
> ...


I would suggest that you talk to your LA. IIRC 15 mins is deemed as a broken light. Please check though as my brain is very foggy at the moment.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am yes. Based upon what I have read here and seen on video clips and in the flesh.


Based on what I experience on a day to day basis in London where i come across hundreds of cyclists. Most of them do not cycle as they would drive, and most of them don't queue (very little reason to do so in London), most of them wait at red lights and most of them give way when they should do. There is the odd Silly Cyclist 



Rapples said:


> I thought you lived in London


I do, and there are lots and lots of different types of cyclists, not everyone wants to be or can be a 'vehicular cyclist'




roadrunner20 said:


> question, do you get fined for going through a red light that has been red for over 6 mins long???
> 
> I ask this as theres a red light near me in some industry estate which i believe the red lights are either broken or just very long due to on the late nights all the HGVs all come out so they try longer lights to stop mass traffic build ups....
> 
> ...


I you go through it safely then that is fine. The lights appear to be broken and thus you treated them as such and move through them safely. There are no grounds to be fined or prosecuted for such an action. 6mins is an excessively length of time to wait for a traffic light to change.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> Plenty of people can't read, write or do simple maths. The number of such people is growing, not diminishing. You don't have to look far for poor spelling/grammar on here.
> 
> There's a large proportion of stupid people - these will include those that don't understand that RLJ is illegal.



+1
The cycling boffins on this forum are not representative of the majority of cyclists out there in the real world.


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> No, and I'm very surprised to hear that you have. Where is it? I strongly suspect it has no meaning at all in law



Dan, I haven't. I'm just making the point that unless it is then it will tend to be an advisory sign. All signs corresponding to "MUST" in the highway code have a red boundary.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> +1
> The cycling boffins on this forum are not representative of the majority of cyclists out there in the real world.




This is true! but you have to have 2 sides to any arguement (oops sorry debate)  

On the subject of pavement cycling Dyfed Powys have stated they will not prosecute any cyclist for riding on one where riding on the carriageway could be deemed dangerous  

A question to all the cycling safety Boffins. How many ride in clipless pedals without reflectors ?


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

Rapples said:


> Yes they are the ones I was talking about, but lets just say you ignored them and were injured, what do you think the defendants insurers would suggest, negligence perhaps?



Sorry I don't get your point. If I ignore advice and then get injured I wouldn't exactly be pressing my case. I'd be feeling a bit stupid for not following advice.


----------



## Dan B (19 Aug 2011)

davefb said:


> I wonder if its trying to say that , if you go down the cycle lane, then dont count the second line as the first one just because you've only actually gone past one ?




If the junction has been painted correctly (not always the case), the first white line stops short of the cycle lane so you are not actually crossing it.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (19 Aug 2011)

roadrunner20 said:


> question, do you get fined for going through a red light that has been red for over 6 mins long???
> 
> I ask this as theres a red light near me in some industry estate which i believe the red lights are either broken or just very long due to on the late nights all the HGVs all come out so they try longer lights to stop mass traffic build ups....
> 
> ...



Look at the road surface before the stop line, normally there's a few sensor lines you can cross to trigger the lights. I usually cross them at a slight angle as they often don't "see" bicycles that well.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> This is true! but you have to have 2 sides to any arguement (oops sorry debate)
> 
> On the subject of pavement cycling Dyfed Powys have stated they will not prosecute any cyclist for riding on one where riding on the carriageway could be deemed dangerous
> 
> A question to all the cycling safety Boffins. How many ride in clipless pedals without reflectors ?


Agreed there are 2 sides to an arguement .
And the prevailing arguement expressed on the forum is that of the cycling intelligensia not the average real world cyclist.
Sometimes it needs to be expressed that these opinions are extreme and are a minority viewpoint , because otherwise in this fish bowl of a forum some might actually start beleiving that they do represent the majority and are correct.


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed there are 2 sides to an arguement .
> And the prevailing arguement expressed on the forum is that of the cycling intelligensia not the average real world cyclist.
> Sometimes it needs to be expressed that these opinions are extreme and are a minority viewpoint , because otherwise in this fish bowl of a forum some might actually start beleiving that they do represent the majority and are correct.



Errm, just being in the majority doesn't actually make you correct. I think there are enough historical instances to prove that.

As to being a real world cyclist, I'm just coming up to 600 miles for the month, a mix of commuting into central London and various other rides out there in the real world.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed there are 2 sides to an arguement .
> And the prevailing arguement expressed on the forum is that of the cycling intelligensia not the average real world cyclist.
> Sometimes it needs to be expressed that these opinions are extreme and are a minority viewpoint , because otherwise in this fish bowl of a forum some might actually start beleiving that they do represent the majority and are correct.



At the risk of becoming a parrot, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The example of SPD's without reflectors given by Luksdad is a great one. Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used. It could well be that the Police do not prosecute for this as long as the bike is well lit (or they are ignorant of the law themselves).

This is however a little different to failing to stop at a red light. The fact that Red means stop (be it a man or a light) is instilled in children from a very young age and even absorbed knowledge gained from seeing the actions of traffic will give you a clue. Anyone who used the excuse "If didn't know I had to stop" would be laughed at in court.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> Errm, just being in the majority doesn't actually make you correct. I think there are enough historical instances to prove that.



If you look up you might just see the tailend of the point going over your head. 
I was not saying any viewpoint is by defauly correct. I was cautioning against taking a minority viewpoint as correct just because it is in the ascendancy on a forum.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you look up you might just see the tailend of the point going over your head.
> I was not saying any viewpoint is by defauly correct. I was cautioning against taking a minority viewpoint as correct just because it is in the ascendancy on a forum.



Please define correct.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> At the risk of becoming a parrot, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The example of SPD's without reflectors given by Luksdad is a great one. Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used. It could well be that the Police do not prosecute for this as long as the bike is well lit (or they are ignorant of the law themselves).
> 
> This is however a little different to failing to stop at a red light. The fact that Red means stop (be it a man or a light) is instilled in children from a very young age and even absorbed knowledge gained from seeing the actions of traffic will give you a clue. Anyone who used the excuse "If didn't know I had to stop" would be laughed at in court.



Agreed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
But as you point there are some areas of uncertainty where the lack of enforcement only serves to enforce the grey area. You could say that lack of enforcement in some way causes the grey area.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
> But as you point there are some areas of uncertainty where the lack of enforcement only serves to enforce the grey area. You could say that lack of enforcement in some way causes the grey area.



Indeed. Running a Red Light is not however a grey area.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please define correct.



Online dictionary says -
*1. * Free from error or fault; true or accurate.*2. * Conforming to standards; proper:


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> At the risk of becoming a parrot, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The example of SPD's without reflectors given by Luksdad is a great one. Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used. It could well be that the Police do not prosecute for this as long as the bike is well lit (or they are ignorant of the law themselves).


Hardly any clip in style pedals come with reflectors.

It would be very unlikely that a cyclist would get prosecuted for this, even if they didn't have lights. It's not in the publics intrest (money wise) to prosecute someone over that.


----------



## rich p (19 Aug 2011)

It's a red light area though.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Indeed. Running a Red Light is not however a grey area.


Assuming over 51% of cyclists dont even realise that rljing on a bike is wrong isnt it a grey area.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Hardly any clip in style pedals come with reflectors.
> 
> It would be very unlikely that a cyclist would get prosecuted for this, even if they didn't have lights. It's not in the publics intrest (money wise) to prosecute someone over that.



Oh Ok. It's just that the sets of M520's I have bought and those my friends have bought came with them. I agree about not being prosecuted over them. Night riding without lights or reflectors however is a different story especially if you are not a in well lit area.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Online dictionary says -
> *1. * Free from error or fault; true or accurate.*2. * Conforming to standards; proper:



Thus if the minority follow road law they are correct.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Thus if the minority follow road law they are correct.


Anyone who obeys the law is legally correct.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Anyone who obeys the law is legally correct.



Indeed but you attest that the majority do not.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Indeed but you attest that the majority do not.


I see what you are saying - if you always advocate doing what the law says then you are guaranteed to be allways correct from a legal standpoint.
I dont dispute that.
I was questioning assuming that the prevailing opinion on a forum is correct just because it is the prevailing opinion.
This is not allways the case. If you go on a fascist forum the fascist ideals expressed will be the prevailing opinions aired and accepted as correct but not in the wider outside real world.


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you look up you might just see the tailend of the point going over your head.
> I was not saying any viewpoint is by defauly correct. I was cautioning against taking a minority viewpoint as correct just because it is in the ascendancy on a forum.



I think we can safely say that going through a red light is illegal is not a minority viewpoint either in the forum or in the real world.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I see what you are saying - if you always advocate doing what the law says then you are guaranteed to be allways correct from a legal standpoint.
> I dont dispute that.
> I was questioning assuming that the prevailing opinion on a forum is correct just because it is the prevailing opinion.
> This is not allways the case. If you go on a fascist forum the fascist ideals expressed will be the prevailing opinions aired and accepted as correct but not in the wider outside real world.



So what is this prevailing opinion you talk about. I see many opinions expressed on many subjects?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> I think we can safely say that going through a red light is illegal is not a minority viewpoint either in the forum or in the real world.



Unless you belong to the group of cyclists who believe that laws do not apply to them!


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So what is this prevailing opinion you talk about. I see many opinions expressed on many subjects?


The prevailing opinion that im talking about is the one that everyone is knowledgeable about cycling , knowledgeable about the law and that everyone sticks ridgidly to the law.
This may be true of the members on this forum but not so true (to a variable degree) of other cyclists in the wider world.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The prevailing opinion that im talking about is the one that everyone is knowledgeable about cycling , knowledgeable about the law and that everyone sticks ridgidly to the law.
> This may be true of the members on this forum but not so true (to a variable degree) of other cyclists in the wider world.



This I believe is an assumption based on your personal experience alone. I would say it is more likely that those cyclists are aware of the basic road rules but choose to ignore them.


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The prevailing opinion that im talking about is the one that everyone is knowledgeable about cycling , knowledgeable about the law and that everyone sticks ridgidly to the law.
> This may be true of the members on this forum but not so true (to a variable degree) of other cyclists in the wider world.



I fully accept that there are people out there who are ignorant of the law either by accident or by choice, there are also a vast number of people who flout the law cos they can't be bothered/are too selfish to follow it. This has been done to death on these forums.

It does not mean that those people should not be punished for breaking the law just cos there are a lot of them. In fact if we can raise the fines for rljing and also raise the capture rate, it will benefit the Treasury no end.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> I fully accept that there are people out there who are ignorant of the law either by accident or by choice, there are also a vast number of people who flout the law cos they can't be bothered/are too selfish to follow it. This has been done to death on these forums.
> 
> It does not mean that those people should not be punished for breaking the law just cos there are a lot of them. In fact if we can raise the fines for rljing and also raise the capture rate, it will benefit the Treasury no end.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This I believe is an assumption based on your personal experience alone. I would say it is more likely that those cyclists are aware of the basic road rules but choose to ignore them.


You may be right to a degree. But , by a degree i will also be right.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> I fully accept that there are people out there who are ignorant of the law either by accident or by choice, there are also a vast number of people who flout the law cos they can't be bothered/are too selfish to follow it. This has been done to death on these forums.
> 
> It does not mean that those people should not be punished for breaking the law just cos there are a lot of them. In fact if we can raise the fines for rljing and also raise the capture rate, it will benefit the Treasury no end.


I agree - by ignorance , accident, selfishness or choice many flout the law.
We differ on how we react to this - you appear to take a hard line.
Personally i dont agree that rljing should be illegal for cyclists so obviously im not going to advocate a tough enforcement of that particular law.
For the time being we have a law that isnt enforced that is a detriment to the law in general.


----------



## Alien8 (19 Aug 2011)

Only skim-read through that lot but I think the problem is compounded by the proliferation of cyclist-specific road infrastructure (cycle lanes, ASLs, next-to-road-cycle paths etc). These actively encourage ignorance of the laws of the road by the unnecessary differentiation between cyclist and other road users. This is detrimental to all. Unfortunately many bodies, highway authorities, cycling organisations etc actively support and lobby for these features - now that is ignorance.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

I would do away with all cycling law and just give the police a "cycling without due care" law to enforce with discretion.
Thereby little 3 year old molly cyling on the pavement isnt breaking the law wheras norman nobrains weaving recklessly down the precinct in his hoodie is - if the police decide it is.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would do away with all cycling law and just give the police a "cycling without due care" law to enforce with discretion.
> Thereby little 3 year old molly cyling on the pavement isnt breaking the law wheras norman nobrains weaving recklessly down the precinct in his hoodie is - if the police decide it is.



I am so glad that you are not in a position to make policy. I fail to see why cyclists should be afforded special rights when on a road (above those we already have, no MOT, no license, no test).


----------



## 400bhp (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Personally i dont agree that rljing should be illegal for cyclists



Explain please.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> Explain please.



 Also why just cyclists? Why not include Motorbikes in this as well?


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am so glad that you are not in a position to make policy.


I would have thought a policy of leaving it to the police to do whatever they think best would be right up your street.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would have thought a policy of leaving it to the police to do whatever they think best would be right up your street.



Not at all. The Police enforce the Laws, they do not make them.


----------



## 2Loose (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would do away with all cycling law and just give the police a "cycling without due care" law to enforce with discretion.
> Thereby little 3 year old molly cyling on the pavement isnt breaking the law wheras norman nobrains weaving recklessly down the precinct in his hoodie is - if the police decide it is.



So if a PC has had a bad day or doesn't like the look of you, then he\she can trouble you in anyway they see fit? That is exactly we have laws, so that people (should) know where they stand.

So glad intelligent people get to make that choice. 

May I ask why you don't feel that the rules about traffic lights shouldn't apply? I am sure other road users who worry about trying to avoid the unpredictable rlj'er could offer a counter argument.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh Ok. It's just that the sets of M520's I have bought and those my friends have bought came with them. I agree about not being prosecuted over them. Night riding without lights or reflectors however is a different story especially if you are not a in well lit area.


My m520's didn't come with reflectors and neither have the 5 sets of spd sl pedals have. The only ones which do are the ones which are flats one side and clip in other.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> My m520's didn't come with reflectors and neither have the 5 sets of spd sl pedals have. The only ones which do are the ones which are flats one side and clip in other.



Interesting. It seems like it depends where the pedals were purchased. Mine were from CRC.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Interesting. It seems like it depends where the pedals were purchased. Mine were from CRC.


As where mine. The packaging won't be different for different shops.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> As where mine. The packaging won't be different for different shops.



Odd. I wonder why the ones me and my mates bought had them then? Anyway it is useful information. Thank you.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

2Loose said:


> So if a PC has had a bad day or doesn't like the look of you, then he\she can trouble you in anyway they see fit? That is exactly we have laws, so that people (should) know where they stand.
> 
> So glad intelligent people get to make that choice.
> 
> May I ask why you don't feel that the rules about traffic lights shouldn't apply? I am sure other road users who worry about trying to avoid the unpredictable rlj'er could offer a counter argument.



Thats largely how it is anyway.
A "cycling without due care" law would be better that a myriad of laws some enforced and some not that just serves to bring the law into disrepute.
And as is the case allready with any prosecution any unjust cases would (hopefully) get exposed in court.


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

I understand the law regarding pedals and reflectors. However out of curiosity, my cycling shoes have a reflective panel on the back of them. As they are attached to the pedal by clips, do they legally become part of the pedal?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> I understand the law regarding pedals and reflectors. However out of curiosity, my cycling shoes have a reflective panel on the back of them. As they are attached to the pedal by clips, do they legally become part of the pedal?



No.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not at all. The Police enforce the Laws, they do not make them.


You are right - i was basically suggesting where there is grey area it would be preferable to have a clearly discretionary law rather than the present unsatisfatory situation.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Odd. I wonder why the ones me and my mates bought had them then? Anyway it is useful information. Thank you.


How does your reflector attach?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thats largely how it is anyway.
> A "cycling without due care" law would be better that a myriad of laws some enforced and some not that just serves to bring the law into disrepute.
> And as is the case allready with any prosecution any unjust cases would (hopefully) get exposed in court.



Can you back up that statement please?


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Can you back up that statement please?


I presume you mean the "Thats largely how it is anyway." statement.
2Loose said "
So if a PC has had a bad day or doesn't like the look of you, then he\she can trouble you in anyway they see fit? "
Thats largely how it is anyway. Insofar as given the present law the police can choose to enforce or not enforce depending on if they are having a bad day. The same case would exist if you had a "cycling without due care" law. This would be the same whatever you did. You cant legislate for somebody having a bad day.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> How does your reflector attach?



See the attached photos


----------



## Wankelschrauben (19 Aug 2011)

I saw some utterly rubbish reflectors that bolt onto the bottom of some SPD SL's, utter waste of resources in my opinion.


----------



## 2Loose (19 Aug 2011)

I find the current system quite satisfactory, except for the lack of enforcement, thankyou.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I presume you mean the "Thats largely how it is anyway." statement.
> 2Loose said "
> So if a PC has had a bad day or doesn't like the look of you, then he\she can trouble you in anyway they see fit? "
> Thats largely how it is anyway. Insofar as given the present law the police can choose to enforce or not enforce depending on if they are having a bad day. The same case would exist if you had a "cycling without due care" law. This would be the same whatever you did. You cant legislate for somebody having a bad day.



I mean what evidence do you have to support your claim that on a bad day a Police Officer will be more likely to stop a cyclist for breaking the Law?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

2Loose said:


> I find the current system quite satisfactory, except for the lack of enforcement, thankyou.



Ditto.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I mean what evidence do you have to support your claim that on a bad day a Police Officer will be more likely to stop a cyclist for breaking the Law?


Thats not my claim.


----------



## Leaway2 (19 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Oh great, so as if we aren't targetted enough already the police have more powers by which they can abuse us, I wonder how long it will be before I am stopped again because a police officer couldn't overtake me without resorting to speeding? Or how long it will be before I am stopped for filtering through traffic because an officer can't do it in his car?
> 
> All this will do is give every otehr road user a high horse to sit on as they rant and rave about all the bad things we do to hold them up.
> 
> Parliment and the media should be praising us, not harrassing us, we reduce polution and congestion, some of us do this all year round.



Well said.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thats not my claim.



That is exactly what you are claiming.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That is exactly what you are claiming.



Can you back up that statement please?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Can you back up that statement please?





> So if a PC has had a bad day or doesn't like the look of you, then he\she can trouble you in anyway they see fit? That is exactly we have laws, so that people (should) know where they stand.


and you say



> Thats largely how it is anyway.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> See the attached photos


You've added a platform to the pedal to get the reflectors. That is not part of the standard pedal and is an extra. 
There is no way to mount a reflector officially to a m520 pedal without loosing a cleat holding mechanism.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> You've added a platform to the pedal to get the reflectors. That is not part of the standard pedal and is an extra.
> There is no way to mount a reflector officially to a m520 pedal without loosing a cleat holding mechanism.



This is why I described them thus


> Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used.


I did not say they mounted directly on to the pedal.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Thats how it is anyway - inso far as if a police officer is having a bad day they are as likely to trouble you wether the law is as present or if changed to a "cycling without due care".
The change in law would have no affect regarding 2Looses pc having a bad day scenario.
You cannot legislate for anyone having a bad day.
I answered this before.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Thats how it is anyway - inso far as if a police officer is having a bad day they are as likely to trouble you wether the law is as present or if changed to a "cycling without due care".
> The change in law would have no affect regarding 2Looses pc having a bad day scenario.
> You cannot legislate for anyone having a bad day.
> I answered this before.



You have provided no evidence for your statement "Thats how it is anyway". Is it based on personal experience, hearsay, so statistical data?


----------



## ian turner (19 Aug 2011)

This is turning into a bikeradar scrap


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

ian turner said:


> This is turning into a bikeradar scrap



It seems like a straightforward discussion to me. In one camp we have a group saying "Good on the Police for getting tough on rouge cyclists" and in the other "Cyclists should be allowed to do what they want on the roads with no comeback"


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> This is why I described them thus
> I did not say they mounted directly on to the pedal.


So from your experience of one pedal model you state that most if not all come with a reflector. But that is not the case!!


----------



## barongreenback (19 Aug 2011)

Would be interested to see comparative stats on cyclist road fines/prosecutions vs powered vehicle fines/prosecutions. It does sound here like there's a lot of bitterness towards police enforcement of cycling transgressions but by the same token, cameras do a lot of work for the police against drivers e.g. speed cameras, red light cameras, bus lane cameras, yellow boxes etc. To catch cyclists police will need human intervention.


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> This is true! but you have to have 2 sides to any arguement (oops sorry debate)
> 
> On the subject of pavement cycling Dyfed Powys have stated they will not prosecute any cyclist for riding on one where riding on the carriageway could be deemed dangerous
> 
> *A question to all the cycling safety Boffins. How many ride in clipless pedals without reflectors* ?



that would depend on the date of manufacture of the bike. pre oct 85 ( I thinks0 and thje pedal reflectors are not a _legal requirement _. legality and stupidity are 2 different beasts though

decathlon stock the shimano clips that provide a reflector and a flat surface on one side. my btwin SPD pedals came with reflectors that clip in and still enable me to use either side of them


----------



## barongreenback (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> So from your experience of one pedal model you state that most if not all come with a reflector. But that is not the case!!



I have M-520s, A-520s and Speedplay Zeros that came in full retail packaging, none of which came with the pedal reflectors.

In fact, I'm just about to sell the A-520s if anyone wants them


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> that would depend on the date of manufacture of the bike. pre oct 85 ( I thinks0 and thje pedal reflectors are not a _legal requirement _. legality and stupidity are 2 different beasts though
> 
> decathlon stock the shimano clips that provide a reflector and a flat surface on one side. my btwin SPD pedals came with reflectors that clip in and still enable me to use either side of them


Why is it stupid to ride without pedal reflectors?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> So from your experience of one pedal model you state that most if not all come with a reflector. But that is not the case!!



I said it based on the fact that during a given period my mates who bought M520'sa and different SPD pedals all got the same platform.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have provided no evidence for your statement "Thats how it is anyway". Is it based on personal experience, hearsay, so statistical data?


Its based on common sense.
Changing the law from as it is to a "cycling without due care" law would have no significant affect regarding 2Looses pc having a bad day scenario.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Its based on common sense.
> Changing the law from as it is to a "cycling without due care" law would have no significant affect regarding 2Looses pc having a bad day scenario.



OK then. So glad that the law will not change.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OK then. So glad that the law will not change.



If you are satisfied with the mess of unenforced laws and grey areas that result then i pity you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you are satisfied with the mess of unenforced laws and grey areas that result then i pity you.



 I would like to see the existing laws more readily enforced. The move detailed in the OP is a great step forward. I await with interest to see how many people claim they did not know it was illegal to RLJ.


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you are satisfied with the mess of unenforced laws and grey areas that result then i pity you.




are all laws grey until cases are brought using the laws and the usage is defined ? not sure . we need a lawyer on the boarsd . and not one of them legal aid whiners


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> with no realistation that there are any laws about cycling. me amongst them although now i do know otherwise and am prepared to accept that technically the law may apply to cyclists.
> My own experience is that police apply common sense and do nothing to cyclists. I have rljed many times in front of police cars






apollo179 said:


> If you are satisfied with the mess of unenforced laws and grey areas that result then i pity you.



This appears to be one of those unknown unknown scenarios. If you weren't aware of any laws about cycling, there's probably a whole lot more of them you don't know about. It's going to become a great deal messier for you when you get round to learning the ones you need to know.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


>


When you reconcile yourself to make do with second best and stop striving for a better world then thats quite sad i feel.
Anyway i off out now so


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> He does have a valid point though.



I don't believe he does TBH.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> This appears to be one of those unknown unknown scenarios. If you weren't aware of any laws about cycling, there's probably a whole lot more of them you don't know about. It's going to become a great deal messier for you when you get round to learning the ones you need to know.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I said it based on the fact that during a given period my mates who bought M520'sa and different SPD pedals all got the same platform.


But you didn't state that. You just said most if not all spd pedals come with a reflector unit. Which isn't true.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

barongreenback said:


> I have M-520s, A-520s and Speedplay Zeros that came in full retail packaging, none of which came with the pedal reflectors.
> 
> In fact, I'm just about to sell the A-520s if anyone wants them



How much?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Aug 2011)

:sigh:

another childish discussion.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> But you diet state that. You just said must if not all spd pedals come with a reflector unit. Which isn't true.



Hands up that was an untrue statement based on an atypical data set.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> When you reconcile yourself to make do with second best and stop striving for a better world then thats quite sad i feel.
> Anyway i off out now so



If you have no charge that can be brought against a cyclist you still need to have laws to back up that charge. Either that or you give the police the power to decide the law. In that case many non helmet wearers will be getting charged. If you stand back and look at your proposition you will see it has a greater flaw that San Francisco.


----------



## davefb (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Why is it stupid to ride without pedal reflectors?



fwiw

i *have* had the experience of a cyclist with no lights appearing 'from nowhere', with the only clue being the pedals moving up and down..

what scar(r)ed me most as i was driving near my home in a 20mph zone,,, was that it wasnt the initial 'idea' of an adult on a bike about 50yrds away moving away from me..

no, it was a very young child coming straight towards me.... (shudder)


i guess if you have other lights/reflectives on, then pedal reflectors are superflouous/excessive , but they might be the only thing and they are obviously BIKE.. (got em on my 324's)


(and i think its the same family who's kid once hit the SIDE of my car as he came straight from a side street, i braked to avoid running his sister over and he hit my rear wheel.... gah!)


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Why is it stupid to ride without pedal reflectors?



hmm lets see. its another way of announcing your presence on the road. the reflectors "flash" as you turn the cranks so the driver behind in the distance doesn't think you are a streetlight

there are probably millions of other reasons. 

somebody on here posted that you need to make sure you use every means possible to make yourself visibleon a bike. ( not this thread)


----------



## summerdays (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would love to see Bikeability Level 1 and 2 taught in schools. I do not however expect it to happen.



I know that this comment was several pages ago but I'm just catching up  

All of my kids have done Level 1 and 2 in their primary school during school time, and I know of several children from that school that went on to do Level 3 at their secondary school - but it does seem to depend on which school you go onto.

Each time they came home with a booklet that contained some highway code information including basic signs.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

summerdays said:


> I know that this comment was several pages ago but I'm just catching up
> 
> All of my kids have done Level 1 and 2 in their primary school during school time, and I know of several children from that school that went on to do Level 3 at their secondary school - but it does seem to depend on which school you go onto.
> 
> Each time they came home with a booklet that contained some highway code information including basic signs.



It is a fantastic course but it's uptake is LA and school dependant at the moment. More importantly what did your children think of the course?


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

davefb said:


> i guess if you have other lights/reflectives on, then pedal reflectors are superflouous/excessive , but they might be the only thing and they are obviously BIKE.. (got em on my 324's)


Some of us don't want to appear as bikes.



subaqua said:


> hmm lets see. its another way of announcing your presence on the road. the reflectors "flash" as you turn the cranks so the driver behind in the distance doesn't think you are a streetlight
> 
> there are probably millions of other reasons.
> 
> somebody on here posted that you need to make sure you use every means possible to make yourself visibleon a bike. ( not this thread)


Street lights in your area are red?

It's a pretty weak reason why you would be stupid not to use them. If you said "you would be stupid not to have them if you didn't have suitable lights" then you might have a case. But if you have sutiable lights, reflectives on your shoes / overshoes then the gain you get from pedal reflectors is extreamly minimal.

Infact i don't have any reflectors on my bike or on my person (apart from my overshoes and shoes) as I don't see the need with the lighting set up that I have. That doesn't make me stupid.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say that more than 51% of cyclists dont even realise that there is legally anything wrong with rljing on a bike , let alone see anything wrong with it.


nonsense

the pedal reflector thing is a bit complicated. It's illegal to sell pedals without reflectors unless they are of a type designed for racing. You can, if you wish, take them off.

I have pedal reflectors on the Brompton and the hybrid, but not on the road bike - they don't fit SPD-SLs or SPD-Rs


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> nonsense


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

I occasionally go through a red on an empty crossing and occasionally ride slowly on the pavement if I get stopped I can't and wont bleat about it, it's a fair cop guvnor.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I occasionally go through a red on an empty crossing and occasionally ride slowly on the pavement _*if I get stopped I can't and wont bleat about it, it's a fair cop guvnor.*_



Fair enough.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> This appears to be one of those unknown unknown scenarios. If you weren't aware of any laws about cycling, there's probably a whole lot more of them you don't know about. It's going to become a great deal messier for you when you get round to learning the ones you need to know.



I agree - i am sure there are many aspects of the law that i am unfamiliar and as such i stand potentially to come a cropper.
However - i think we're all familiar with the main ones like - its wrong to kill someone. The laws in question (the unfamiliar ones) are likely to be the less important ones - like - its illegal to cycle on the pavement , so hopefully when my lack of legal knowledge does let me down it will only be because i transgressed some minor unknown (to me) law - like - its illegal to eat food as you go round tesco even though you pay for it or something equally obscure.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I agree - i am sure there are many aspects of the law that i am unfamiliar and as such i stand potentially to come a cropper.
> However - i think we're all familiar with the main ones like - its wrong to kill someone. The laws in question (the unfamiliar ones) are likely to be the less important ones - like - its illegal to cycle on the pavement , so hopefully when my lack of legal knowledge does let me down it will only be because i transgressed some minor unknown (to me) law - like - its illegal to eat food as you go round tesco even though you pay for it or something equally obscure.



I am pretty sure Martin was referring to cycling law.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am pretty sure Martin was referring to cycling law.


Well i am equally sure that there are plenty of cycling laws that i am unfamiliar.
I think ive just picked up another - something like its illegal to cycle without reflectors on your pedals.
Whats the punishment if you get caught ?


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Well i am equally sure that there are plenty of cycling laws that i am unfamiliar.
> I think ive just picked up another - something like its illegal to cycle without reflectors on your pedals.
> Whats the punishment if you get caught ?




I know you like to remain ignorant of the law, but your PC has access to any number of search engines that can set you on the path of enlightenment [1]

My link


[1] However it is spelt


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Some of us don't want to appear as bikes.
> 
> 
> Street lights in your area are red?
> ...




nope probably makes you illegal but hey ho . laws are for other people right ? 

and no lights along roads are amber or white or a light yellow dependent on SOX or HPMV or SON lamp heads fitted. if you read my post you will see i mention cranks turning indicating pedals turning and pedals generally , as a rule, have amber reflectors. 

jumping to conclusions isn't a good form of exercise.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> I know you like to remain ignorant of the law, but your PC has access to any number of search engines that can set you on the path of enlightenment [1]
> 
> My link
> 
> ...



Sorry but some of have better things to do than spend our time reading up about the law surrounding pedal reflectors.
Really !!
Get a life !!


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Sorry but some of have better things to do than spend our time reading up about the law surrounding pedal reflectors.
> Really !!
> Get a life !!




as a respionsible road user you should at least take a peek at the highway code. its mentioned in there.


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Sorry but some of have better things to do than spend our time reading up about the law surrounding pedal reflectors.
> Really !!
> Get a life !!




Yet you have the time to ask questions on a forum that you could quickly get the answers to with a bit of research on your own part.

Really !!!

GAL!!


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> as a respionsible road user you should at least take a peek at the highway code. its mentioned in there.



As a responsible road user i try and conduct myself with the greatest consideration to others at all times but when someone suggests that i should start doing research about pedal reflector law on the internet im sorry thats where i draw the line.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> as a respionsible road user you should at least take a peek at the highway code. its mentioned in there.


Now come on the poor chap doesn't have time to read that


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> As a responsible road user i try and conduct myself with the greatest consideration to others at all times but when someone suggests that i should start doing research about pedal reflector law on the internet im sorry thats where i draw the line.




You were the one asking about it. DUH!


----------



## subaqua (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> As a responsible road user i try and conduct myself with the greatest consideration to others at all times but when someone suggests that i should start doing research about pedal reflector law on the internet im sorry thats where i draw the line.




I didn't suggest you did. I learnt what the basics were from highway code and in some of my free time educated myself to some of the laws of the country i live in. 

things like checking the lights and indicators on my car before starting a journey. making sure lights etc are clean. 

knowing not to pass red lights as it breaks the law ( with the exception of broken traffic lights or traffic lights that can be assumed to be broken after a sensible time period)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> I didn't suggest you did. I learnt what the basics were from highway code and in some of my free time educated myself to some of the laws of the country i live in.
> 
> things like checking the lights and indicators on my car before starting a journey. making sure lights etc are clean.
> 
> knowing not to pass red lights as it breaks the law ( with the exception of broken traffic lights or traffic lights that can be assumed to be broken after a sensible time period)


Wow you must be so sad to do such things


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> nope probably makes you illegal but hey ho . laws are for other people right ?
> 
> and no lights along roads are amber or white or a light yellow dependent on SOX or HPMV or SON lamp heads fitted. if you read my post you will see i mention cranks turning indicating pedals turning and pedals generally , as a rule, have amber reflectors.
> 
> jumping to conclusions isn't a good form of exercise.


Pot calling the kettle black? You jumped to a few conclusions about my post.

I highlighted the point that you said cyclin without pedal reflectors is stupid but you have yet to back that statement up with why.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> You were the one asking about it. DUH!


Yes sorry i was. 
Were you seriously advising me to do research on the internet to find out the penalty for infringement of pedal reflector law.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Wow you must be so sad to do such things


Sounds like another clone of yourself.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> I didn't suggest you did. I learnt what the basics were from highway code and in some of my free time educated myself to some of the laws of the country i live in.
> 
> things like checking the lights and indicators on my car before starting a journey. making sure lights etc are clean.
> 
> knowing not to pass red lights as it breaks the law ( with the exception of broken traffic lights or traffic lights that can be assumed to be broken after a sensible time period)


Yes - one can never be to careful.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Sounds like another clone of yourself.


Way to go. Attack two people with a single post.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Way to go. Attack two people with a single post.


Im surprised you view it as that. I was thinking i was complimenting the both of you at the same time.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Im surprised you view it as that. I was thinking i was complimenting the both of you at the same time.


If only that were true.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If only that were true.



I come to praise caesar not to bury him.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (19 Aug 2011)

Apollo179 chillout my friend, you've just spat your dummy out of the pram.

Now it's better to just sit back, deny all knowledge of the subject and pretend it never happened.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Apollo179 chillout my friend, you've just spat your dummy out of the pram.
> 
> Now it's better to just sit back, deny all knowledge of the subject and pretend it never happened.



Yes that sounds like good advice.
Anyway ive got some important research to do on the internet.


----------



## martint235 (19 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Apollo179 chillout my friend, *you've just spat your dummy out of the pram*.
> 
> Now it's better to just sit back, deny all knowledge of the subject and pretend it never happened.



I think that happened about 18 pages ago!!!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> I think that happened about 18 pages ago!!!



Yep.


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes sorry i was.
> Were you seriously advising me to do research on the internet to find out the penalty for infringement of pedal reflector law.



If you really want to know about it that much, you would be better getting it from your own research than asking a bunch of strangers on a forum. So, yes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> If you really want to know about it that much, you would be better getting it from your own research than asking a bunch of strangers on a forum. So, yes.



 I am surprised that anyone would take part in an outdoor activity without knowing what was and wasn't legal whilst doing it.


----------



## subaqua (22 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Pot calling the kettle black? You jumped to a few conclusions about my post.
> 
> I highlighted the point that you said cyclin without pedal reflectors is stupid but you have yet to back that statement up with why.




I did make a statement as to why I think it is stupid. you dismissed it as weak. 

Imagine if you got knocked off a bike after dark, with lights on, lots of light for that matter and no reflectors, car driver at fault and it goes to court for damages or even a prosecution for driving without due care etc and some smart ass barrister claims contributory negligence on your part as you didn't comply with the laws. 

a stronger argument this time. or is it still weak according to the Gospel of Gaz


----------



## apollo179 (22 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> If you really want to know about it that much, you would be better getting it from your own research than asking a bunch of strangers on a forum. So, yes.



Hi Touche 
I had a little look and ive drawn a blank and cant discover what is the punishment for breaking the pedal reflector law.
Not sure what to do now or who else to ask. Mhhh


----------



## apollo179 (22 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am surprised that anyone would take part in an outdoor activity without knowing what was and wasn't legal whilst doing it.



Ahh so what is the punishment for breaking the pedal reflector law ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (22 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ahh so what is the punishment for breaking the pedal reflector law ?



A £30 (or £60) FPN.


----------



## subaqua (22 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ahh so what is the punishment for breaking the pedal reflector law ?




dell comes round puts a peg on your nose and forces you to guzzle prosecco


----------



## Norm (22 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> dell comes round puts a peg on your nose and forces you to guzzle prosecco


I'd rather pay the £30.


----------



## henshaw11 (22 Aug 2011)

<edit> - ah - where'd you find the £30/£60 thing ?

...second hit googling 'pedal reflector uk' comes up with:

http://www.ctc.org.u...aspx?tabid=4071 :

Abbreviated to RVLR: the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended in 1994, 1996, 2001, 2005, again in 2005 and 2009) require pedal cycles to have various lights and reflectors fitted, clean and working properly, when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise. Cyclists may also be required to light up in conditions of seriously reduced visibility during the day, but only if they have functional lights already fitted. Lights are not required when the cycle is stationary or being pushed along the roadside.

It has to be said that the fine details of RVLR are seldom enforced; and provided you show some kind of white light in front and red behind you are unlikely to be challenged. If you are involved in a night-time accident however, any slight illegality with respect to your lights or reflectors may be regarded as contributory negligence. The following items are the minimum required, on a bicycle or tricycle, in order to ride it legally at night:

<snippage>


*Pedal Reflectors*
Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.

<more snippage>

The Pedal Cycles (Safety) Regulations (PCSR) ensure that every new bicycle is sold with several extra reflectors, not required by RVLR, but (strangely) does nothing at all to facilitate the fitment of front and rear lamps. These additional reflectors are found on the sides of the wheels, clear white or coloured yellow, and there's also a "white" reflector on the front of the bike. You are at liberty to remove the front and side reflectors, but beware that there are some situations (albeit most unusual) where a front reflector might improve your safety, and be sure to fit the necessary front and rear lamps. <final snippage>

To put it another way, I don't think most people (Police included) give much of a toss about pedal reflectors in their own right - you might get a talking to for riding without *any* reflectors or lights, but I'd suspect that'd be more on grounds of general visibility rather than legality. It's only relatively recently that it's legal to use non-incandescent lights, yet cyclists were using LED lights for years before that without any Police attention..


----------



## Angelfishsolo (22 Aug 2011)

henshaw11 said:


> <edit> - ah - where'd you find the £30/£60 thing ?
> 
> ...second hit googling 'pedal reflector uk' comes up with:
> 
> ...


I didn't say it would be enforced. I got the info from a mate of a mate who is a cop.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (22 Aug 2011)

> *Pedal Reflectors*
> Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.



Just a thought

How does that affect recumbents where reflectors, if fitted, would surely be positioned more to the top and bottom of each pedal rather than front and rear?


----------



## henshaw11 (22 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I didn't say it would be enforced. I got the info from a mate of a mate who is a cop.



I realise that - which is what I was saying too - I just wondered where you found what the fine was.

>How does that affect recumbents where reflectors, if fitted, would surely be positioned more to the top and bottom of each pedal rather than front and rear?

Well...you get the same pedals as an upright (if fitted) - 'cept birds, upper floor dwellers, bugs and roadkill are the only things that get to see them !


----------



## Twigman (22 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I can honestly say that before i joined this forum i did not realise that it was illegal to cycle on the pavement or to cycle through a red light.



You are joking, right?
In a previous post you claimed that you used to drive. How can you not know the rules for cyclists if you have passed a driving test?
Did you not read the highway code before passing your test?


Are you as moronic IRL as you come across on here?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (22 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> You are joking, right?
> In a previous post you claimed that you used to drive. How can you not know the rules for cyclists if you have passed a driving test?
> Did you not read the highway code before passing your test?
> 
> ...


It does make one wonder.


----------



## Twigman (22 Aug 2011)

Does this forum ever argue about anything other than RLJing?

It is just so tedious.

People defending RLJing are as much a scourge ob society as those defending the actionms of the rioters from a couple of weeks ago. 
And there are way too many of them for my liking.


----------



## apollo179 (22 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> dell comes round puts a peg on your nose and forces you to guzzle prosecco


----------



## Twigman (22 Aug 2011)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837

Posted for apollo179 so that now he'll have no excuse for his ignorance


----------



## benb (22 Aug 2011)

So are all SPD and other clipless pedals illegal? If so, why are they allowed to be sold?


----------



## Twigman (22 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So are all SPD and other clipless pedals illegal? If so, why are they allowed to be sold?


As I posted in the reflector thread
You can get a reflector kit for Shimano clipless pedals
Shimano SM-PD58
It fits PD-7810/PD-7800/PD-7750/PD-6700/PD-6620/PD-6610/ PD-5700/PD-5610/PD-5600/PD-R670/PD-R600/PD-R540

http://techdocs.shim...69830706616.pdf


----------



## Angelfishsolo (22 Aug 2011)

My understanding is that they are "illegal" to use at night without clipins. They can be sold as they are not of themselves illegal.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Aug 2011)

there's no requirement for racing bikes. And the horrible looking reflector kit is no good for 7900s and no earthly use for 7700s, or , for that matter, XTs. And when it comes to Crank Brothers or Speedplays.......


----------



## girovago (22 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So are all SPD and other clipless pedals illegal?




No.




> If so, why are they allowed to be sold?



It's possible to buy all manner of vehicle accessories or equipment which, if used on a road, would infringe the law. It's up to you, as the rider/driver, to ensure that you comply with the legislation relative to your vehicle. 

Secondly, not all pedals sold will be used where reflectors are required.

And it's unlikely in the extreme that anyone will ever be prosecuted for this (or ever has been) so I'm not worried that none of my bikes has pedal reflectors. Just the other day I was in my local bike shop when a cop was in having a puncture repaired on his police issue Trek, and guess what? .. his pedals had no reflectors on them. Next time I see one I'll take a photo and post it here.


----------



## rowan 46 (22 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> Does this forum ever argue about anything other than RLJing?
> 
> It is just so tedious.
> 
> ...



wow good rant


----------



## twobiker (22 Aug 2011)

If anybody wants to jump a red light,let them get on with it,but can I have your bike if you get squished


----------



## rowan 46 (22 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> If anybody wants to jump a red light,let them get on with it,but can I have your bike if you get squished



are you sure you want it


----------



## 2Loose (22 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> So are all SPD and other clipless pedals illegal? If so, why are they allowed to be sold?



If you don't use them at night, then no law broken.


----------



## gaz (22 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> I did make a statement as to why I think it is stupid. you dismissed it as weak.
> 
> Imagine if you got knocked off a bike after dark, with lights on, lots of light for that matter and no reflectors, car driver at fault and it goes to court for damages or even a prosecution for driving without due care etc and some smart ass barrister claims contributory negligence on your part as you didn't comply with the laws.
> 
> a stronger argument this time. or is it still weak according to the Gospel of Gaz



Much better




But my better paid barrister/solicitor could easily counter argue that point


----------



## Unclejohnsson (22 Aug 2011)

.. Contributory negligence, originally a maritime principle, is designed to reduce damages by a degree relative to the claimants contribution to the accident. You may still win if you suffer brain damage following being knocked off by a car but damages are reduced because you weren't wearing a BS helmet. 

UJ 
LL.B.


----------



## subaqua (23 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Much better
> 
> 
> 
> ...




depends if its a civil case and he has a top notch barrister too. to me the risk doesn't outweigh any benefits ( are there any benefits of no reflectors) so they stay on the bikes. regardless of them being a legal requirement. 

whats the old advert strap line " be safee be SEEN" anything thats going to help that one is goodthing.


----------



## gaz (23 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> depends if its a civil case and he has a top notch barrister too. to me the risk doesn't outweigh any benefits ( are there any benefits of no reflectors) *so they stay on the bikes*. regardless of them being a legal requirement.
> 
> whats the old advert strap line " be safee be SEEN" anything thats going to help that one is goodthing.



And this is the problem. around 80% of clip in pedals don't come with pedal reflectors and it's hard to get hold of some which don't affect how the pedal works. We aren't removing them, we just don't have them.


----------



## benb (23 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> And this is the problem. around 80% of clip in pedals don't come with pedal reflectors and it's hard to get hold of some which don't affect how the pedal works. We aren't removing them, we just don't have them.



Quite. I don't think I would bother removing reflectors from pedals, but I'm also not going to spend a lot of effort trying to retro-fit them, when I'm lit up like a christmas tree, and have plenty of reflective elements on anyway.

I would be amazed if anyone who was otherwise well lit, had ever been nicked for this offence.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Quite. I don't think I would bother removing reflectors from pedals, but I'm also not going to spend a lot of effort trying to retro-fit them, when I'm lit up like a christmas tree, and have plenty of reflective elements on anyway.
> 
> I would be amazed if anyone who was otherwise well lit, had ever been nicked for this offence.



Quite.

Though I would be amazed if anyone had ever been nicked for this offence.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Given the choice of either a 30 pounds fine or the option of attending a cycling education event i think i would choose the cycling education event.
In fact i wish they would introduce this kind of approach to other crimes.


----------



## Unclejohnsson (23 Aug 2011)

1512001 said:


> The insurance companies have a track record for backing down on the court steps.



Don't we all!


----------



## subaqua (23 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> And this is the problem. around 80% of clip in pedals don't come with pedal reflectors and it's hard to get hold of some which don't affect how the pedal works. We aren't removing them, we just don't have them.




its not just about the pedals though , some nobbers don't have any reflectors. thats just suicide.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> You are joking, *right*?
> In a previous post you claimed that you used to drive. How can you not know the rules for cyclists if you have passed a driving test?
> Did you not read the highway code before passing your test?
> 
> ...



Wrong.
So does ignorance of the law by definition make you a moron ?
When you go abroad on holiday and are justifiably unfamiliar with the law do you become a moron ?


----------



## Twigman (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Wrong.
> So does ignorance of the law by definition make you a moron ?
> When you go abroad on holiday and are justifiably unfamiliar with the law do you become a moron ?





Ignorance of the law doesn't make you a moron per se...but if you have passed a driving test and claim to have no clue as to the contents of the highway code, you are demonstarting a particularly below average IQ - possibly that of a moron.

HTH


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Wrong.
> So does ignorance of the law by definition make you a moron ?
> When you go abroad on holiday and are justifiably unfamiliar with the law do you become a moron ?


Apollo if I were traveling to another country I would ensure I understood any differences between the law as it is here and their. However the question was asked about the law in (one is given to believe) your native country. You drove and yet still thought bikes could run red lights. That is most disturbing indeed.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> Ignorance of the law doesn't make you a moron per se...but if you have passed a driving test and claim to have no clue as to the contents of the highway code, you are demonstarting a particularly below average IQ - possibly that of a moron.
> 
> HTH



Looked at it to pass my driving test and thats it. Stop at a stop sign etc Stop at a red light. etc etc
I didnt realise that all that stuff all applies to bikes as well - maybe that does make me a bit of a moron.
I dont know.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apollo if I were traveling to another country I would ensure I understood any differences between the law as it is here and their. However the question was asked about the law in (one is given to believe) your native country. You drove and yet still thought bikes could run red lights. That is most disturbing indeed.


Here we double back on the 51% ignorance point that if you realised just how common that ignorance is amongst real world cyclists then you really would have cause to be disturbed.
You going away anywhere nice this year sir ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Here we double back on the 51% ignorance point that if you realised just how common that ignorance is amongst real world cyclists then you really would have cause to be disturbed.
> You going away anywhere nice this year sir ?


So you glanced at the HC to pass your test and have not looked at it since. You think that this is ok as you believe the majority of people are like you. I am glad you have relearned some road traffic basics here.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So you glanced at the HC to pass your test and have not looked at it since. You think that this is ok as you believe the majority of people are like you. I am glad you have relearned some road traffic basics here.



Think what is ok ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Think what is ok ?


Ignorance.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ignorance.


I have said that i suspect this ignorance is more widespread that you maybe imagine.
Not that it is ok.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I have said that i suspect this ignorance is more widespread that you maybe imagine.
> Not that it is ok.


By omission of action you are OKing ignorance IMO.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> By omission of action you are OKing ignorance IMO.



Omission of what action ?
Dyu mean :
Learning up on the law of cycling before going out on the road on a bike ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Omission of what action ?
> Dyu mean :
> Learning up on the law of cycling before going out on the road on a bike ?


That is exactly what I mean.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> That is exactly what I mean.


Is there a legal requirement to do so ?


----------



## Alun (23 Aug 2011)

Have I missed something? Who said 51% of cyclists don't realise that they should stop at a red light?
Is it just a made up figure?
As in 83% of statistics are made up on the spot


----------



## Dan B (23 Aug 2011)

There is by definition a legal requirement to obey the law. So, to the extent that you need to know it in order to obey it, then yes.


----------



## Dan B (23 Aug 2011)

Alun said:


> Have I missed something? Who said 51% of cyclists don't realise that they should stop at a red light?
> Is it just a made up figure?


No; apollo179; yes


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Is there a legal requirement to do so ?


You are required to obay the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Thus not knowing the law may result in prosecution. Therefore in a sense yes there is a legal requirement to know the law.
Put another way there is no legal requirement to know the law as long as you don't break it.


----------



## sunnyjim (23 Aug 2011)

Unclejohnsson said:


> .. Contributory negligence, originally a maritime principle, is designed to reduce damages by a degree relative to the claimants contribution to the accident. You may still win if you suffer brain damage following being knocked off by a car but *damages are reduced because you weren't wearing a BS helmet.
> 
> *UJ
> LL.B.





Can you cite a reference for the reduced damages bit? If courts have actually done this it's a bit worrying.


----------



## Unclejohnsson (23 Aug 2011)

sunnyjim said:


> Can you cite a reference for the reduced damages bit? If courts have actually done this it's a bit worrying.




Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 

Section 1 of the Act provides that where a person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of another person, the damages recoverable by him shall be reduced as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.

So damages awarded to a passenger in a car who is injured by the driver’s negligence will be reduced if he fails to wear a seat belt and this contributes to his injury; Denning LJ in _Froom v Butcher_ [1976].


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Aug 2011)

Unclejohnsson said:


> .. Contributory negligence, originally a maritime principle, is designed to reduce damages by a degree relative to the claimants contribution to the accident. You may still win if you suffer brain damage following being knocked off by a car but damages are reduced because you weren't wearing a BS helmet.
> 
> UJ
> LL.B.


have you got case law for that? I recall that the motivation behind the CTC's successful lobby to have mandatory helmet use removed from the draft Highway Code was the avoidance of contributory negligence claims

Here's the CDF take on it
http://www.cyclistsd...helmets-and-law 

Reported cases dealing with cycle helmets are few and far between. _Drinkall v Woodhall_[2003] EWCA Civ 1547 while dealing with procedure, arose from an issue of whether 20% or higher was an appropriate reduction for contributory negligence against a then 14 year old girl injured while cycling and not wearing a cycle helmet. It should, however, be noted that the Judgment only refers to an 80:20 liability split and the Defendant’s wish to argue for a higher degree of contributory negligence because the claimant had not been wearing a helmet (paragraph 3). It is not clear if the 20% reduction originally agreed was on the basis of the failure to wear a helmet or for other reasons. No further facts of the accident are given. One should therefore be wary of drawing any conclusions on likely awards of contributory negligence from this case.

So, should you or shouldn’t you? Wearing a cycle helmet must remain a matter of personal choice. As a litigator, however, you should not assume that failure to wear a helmet will carry with it a finding of contributory negligence.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Aug 2011)

Going back to 1999 - http://www.exchangec...linghelmets.htm 

suggest that contributory negligence counterclaims would be rejected

although an obiter dicta remark in a later case is worrying, there's no established precedent on helmets as far as I can see

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5180


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You are required to obay the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. Thus not knowing the law may result in prosecution. Therefore in a sense yes there is a legal requirement to know the law.
> Put another way there is no legal requirement to know the law as long as you don't break it.



Right - im not going to bother picking that mess to pieces.
I will just say that if society has such a problem with this ignorance.
(And at presence there is no legal requirement for a cyclist to do anything before he goes out on his bike.)
Then there should be some legal requirement to ensure that cyclists are knowledgeable to the required degree before they do go out on the road.
Like a highway code test. Like there is for cars.
Until this happens and you just depend on individuals to study the law or not study the law on an arbitary individual basis then dont grumble to me about cyclists being ignorant of the law. It is a straightforward product of the present system , or lack of adequate system.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Right - im not going to bother picking that mess to pieces.
> I will just say that if society has such a problem with this ignorance.
> (And at presence there is no legal requirement for a cyclist to do anything before he goes out on his bike.)
> Then there should be some legal requirement to ensure that cyclists are knowledgeable to the required degree before they do go out on the road.
> ...


Or to put it another way you make a choice to be informed or remain ignorant. I know what a person with a modicum of sense would do.


----------



## martint235 (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Right - im not going to bother picking that mess to pieces.
> I will just say that if society has such a problem with this ignorance.
> (And at presence there is no legal requirement for a cyclist to do anything before he goes out on his bike.)
> Then there should be some legal requirement to ensure that cyclists are knowledgeable to the required degree before they do go out on the road.
> ...



There's no legal requirement for a pedestrian to do anything before they go out but I don't think "But I didn't know it was illegal to break into parked cars because I fancied a new phone" will wash with a court.

You don't need to study the law to know that a red light means stop. If you then want to be certain about whether or not it applies to cyclists you could look it up. By not bothering to check and then going through a red light, you are breaking the law without any defense at all.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Or to put it another way you make a choice to be informed or remain ignorant. I know what a person with a modicum of sense would do.



And there we have the current situation . Many people like you will choose to be informed about the law before going out on the road and study the law before hand.
Many will be like me and not do so.
If you have a problem with the current situation why dont you start an epetition to introduce a compulsory highway code test for cyclists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> And there we have the current situation . Many people like you will choose to be informed about the law before going out on the road and study the law before hand.
> Many will be like me and not do so.
> If you have a problem with the current situation why dont you start an epetition to introduce a compulsory highway code test for cyclists.


The current situation in your eyes. I would say far more people choose to ignore the law than are ignorant of it.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The current situation in your eyes. I would say far more people choose to ignore the law than are ignorant of it.



We were discussing the ignorance aspect.
If you have a problem with the ignorance aspect do something constructive like an epetition or lobbying parliament.

Cyclists that choose to ignore the law is another issue.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (23 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> We were discussing the ignorance aspect.
> If you have a problem with the ignorance aspect do something constructive like an epetition or lobbying parliament.
> 
> Cyclists that choose to ignore the law is another issue.


I am trying to point out to you that you may well be in the minority when it comes to ignorance.
The only cyclists I have met who are genuinly ignorant of basic road law have had some form of learning difficulty.


----------



## apollo179 (23 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am trying to point out to you that you may well be in the minority when it comes to ignorance.
> The only cyclists I have met who are genuinly ignorant of basic road law have had some form of learning difficulty.



ROFL


----------



## gaz (23 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> its not just about the pedals though , some nobbers don't have any reflectors. thats just suicide.


How is using 0 reflectors suicide? My bike lights are on par if not brighter than a mopeds lights.
Do other vehicle reflectors do anything when their lights are on?


----------



## Unclejohnsson (23 Aug 2011)

Firstly its a European standard for helmet design/manufacture; EN 1078. The claimant routinely offers a discount of 20% following Froom but as you will know Whitwood wanted that increased. I do know the CTC got 15% thrown out in the case of Millet. 

Is there an assumption that helmets should be worn? In 1999 the TDF pelaton rode bareheaded, but to see a rider descending without a helmet during this years' tour would be unthinkable. Although I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, a judge in a contemporary case will provide the last word on whether damages should be reduced or not. I suspect that as time goes by, and it becomes less accepted to ride without a lid, the defence of contributory negligence will become the norm (where the lack of helmet is proved to have increased injury).


----------



## Tinuts (23 Aug 2011)

Judderz said:


> http://www.eastlondo.../#comment-37007


Just had to post on this. Time they got their priorities right!


----------



## Alun (23 Aug 2011)

Unclejohnsson said:


> In 1999 the TDF pelaton rode bareheaded, but to see a rider descending without a helmet during this years' tour would be unthinkable.



The peloton actually rode" bareheaded" from 1903 until 2005, when it became compulsory to wear a helmet. It would be similarly unthinkable to see motor racing without drivers wearing helmets.


----------



## Unclejohnsson (23 Aug 2011)

Alun said:


> The peloton actually rode" bareheaded" from 1903 until 2005, when it became compulsory to wear a helmet. It would be similarly unthinkable to see motor racing without drivers wearing helmets.




A surprisingly rich vein of quality TV last Sunday night had the BBC screening a documentary on the subject of motor racing safty. Along with the dolphins and Mallory; tv gold.


----------



## subaqua (24 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> How is using 0 reflectors suicide? My bike lights are on par if not brighter than a mopeds lights.
> *Do other vehicle reflectors do anything when their lights are on?
> *




yes, by definition they reflect the light back at the source of that light  they are not just good in the dark they work well in poor visibility and can help you see a vehicle in which the numpty driver hasn't bothered to put any lights on to make them stand out from the mist drizzle etc. grey BT vans were an awful colour for merging into mist . silver cars are as bad. 

have you never had a lamp fail or a set of batteries fail ? I have once and it wasn't fun. was more annoyed that the back up light had had the batteries removed by some tw@ in work "for a laugh"


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2011)

Unclejohnsson said:


> Firstly its a European standard for helmet design/manufacture; EN 1078. The claimant routinely offers a discount of 20% following Froom but as you will know Whitwood wanted that increased. I do know the CTC got 15% thrown out in the case of Millet.
> 
> Is there an assumption that helmets should be worn? In 1999 the TDF pelaton rode bareheaded, but to see a rider descending without a helmet during this years' tour would be unthinkable. Although I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, a judge in a contemporary case will provide the last word on whether damages should be reduced or not. I suspect that as time goes by, and it becomes less accepted to ride without a lid, the defence of contributory negligence will become the norm (where the lack of helmet is proved to have increased injury).


as Adrian says - it will be hard to prove, but, if proof were not required, it would still be hard to set a precedent based on best evidence. Especially now that the BMA has done a 180 on helmets.

And what I think yoiu're saying is that there is no caselaw


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Aug 2011)

Alun said:


> The peloton actually rode" bareheaded" from 1903 until 2005, when it became compulsory to wear a helmet. It would be similarly unthinkable to see motor racing without drivers wearing helmets.


it would be unthinkable because sporting bodies make the rules. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that the TdF has become safer because of helmet use. Now, each and every one of us can have a view about the efficacy of helmets, but there's no prospect of helmets becoming compulsory in this country.


----------



## gaz (24 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> have you never had a lamp fail or a set of batteries fail ? I have once and it wasn't fun. was more annoyed that the back up light had had the batteries removed by some tw@ in work "for a laugh"



I have 4 lights on the rear and 3 on the front. I think i'm pretty well covered


----------



## Cubist (24 Aug 2011)

Tinuts said:


> Just had to post on this. Time they got their priorities right!



Apollo, perhaps you should take a ride into East London. You won't need to do any research, and your blissful ignorance of basic law and responsibilities will be spelled out to you. If you choose the "education" option, you could do us all a favour and stop posting bollocks!



"In an operation launched in Hackney last weekend, cyclists were stopped for ignoring road laws and to be given advice on riding safely. The cyclists who had broken the rules were either given a 30 pounds fine or the option of attending a cycling education event.

Cycle Task Force Inspector Graham Horwood said: “The joint MetropolitanPolice Service and Transport for London Cycle Task Force is committed to tackling anti-social road use including jumping red lights, cycling on the pavement and advanced stop lines.”

Metropolitan Police and Transport for London have created a team that is dedicated especially to promote cycling safety and educate road users. The campaign includes an ‘Exchanging Places’ event, which gives drivers the opportunity to swap places so they can gain an understanding of what being in the traffic is like for someone riding a bike.




Inspector Horwood said: “The Cycle Task Force will continue to organize targeted operations to encourage considerate, safe and lawful behavior from all road users."


----------



## subaqua (24 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I have 4 lights on the rear and 3 on the front. I think i'm pretty well covered




that takes redundancy to levels even I can't beat .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Aug 2011)

Cubist said:


> Apollo, perhaps you should take a ride into East London. You won't need to do any research, and your blissful ignorance of basic law and responsibilities will be spelled out to you. If you choose the "education" option, you could do us all a favour and stop posting bollocks!


----------



## Twigman (24 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> And there we have the current situation . Many people like you will choose to be informed about the law before going out on the road and study the law before hand.
> Many will be like me and not do so.
> If you have a problem with the current situation why dont you start an epetition to introduce a compulsory highway code test for cyclists.


But you have studied the law beforehand - you are a driver and must have passed a test on the highway code.
So you are not ignorant, merely choosing to ignore the law.


----------



## twobiker (24 Aug 2011)

Unless you repeated every accident twice using the same person,object etc you cannot possibly say whether or not a helmet would save them,and even I won't crash twice,not even for science,everyone is different, big,small,thin,thick,quick reactions,dumb as a box of rocks, Helmets will only become compulsory when the gov can fine you and raise money off it.


----------



## gaz (24 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> that takes redundancy to levels even I can't beat .



I don't have reflectors, so i need to be prepared


----------



## apollo179 (24 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> But you have studied the law beforehand - you are a driver and must have passed a test on the highway code.
> So you are not ignorant, merely choosing to ignore the law.



Before i joined this forum i was ignorant of the fact that it is illegal for a cyclist to rlj.
Now i am not ignorant as you say - merely choosing to break the law.
Do you never break the law twigman ? If so fair enough you have the moral authority to critiscise and i will listen provided you communicate in a way beffiting someone of high morality.
One last thing - Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" that seems to get churned out with zombie like repetition i have not so far heard one compelling arguement against rljing where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.


----------



## gaz (24 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Before i joined this forum i was ignorant of the fact that it is illegal for a cyclist to rlj.
> Now i am not ignorant as you say - merely choosing to break the law.
> Do you never break the law twigman ? If so fair enough you have the moral authority to critiscise and i will listen provided you communicate in a way beffiting someone of high morality.
> One last thing - Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" that seems to get churned out with zombie like repetition i have not so far heard one compelling arguement against rljing where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.



Out of interest, why do you think it's OK to not stop at red lights?


----------



## apollo179 (24 Aug 2011)

Where i have ascertained to my own satisfaction that is is safe (to me and everyone else) i think its ok because i can see no harm , i would not do it where i thought it was going to do any harm.
Presumably you see no harm in yourself breaking the pedal reflector law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Where i have ascertained to my own satisfaction that is is safe (to me and everyone else) i think its ok because i can see no harm , i would not do it where i thought it was going to do any harm.
> Presumably you see no harm in yourself breaking the pedal reflector law.


So you have moved from a position of self proclaimed ignorance to willfull disobediance. I notice the police are not stopping cyclists for not having pedal reflectors but are for RLJing. That must tell you something?


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2011)

Wow 24 pages summary

Most on here choose which laws they care to break.

Gaz rides around lit up like a christmas tree.

Reflectors are there as a back up for light failure.

and maybe 51 % of cyclists RLJ or maybe not


----------



## Angelfishsolo (24 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Wow 24 pages summary
> 
> Most on here choose which laws they care to break.
> 
> ...


Yet no reports of anyone being fined yet.


----------



## gaz (24 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Wow 24 pages summary
> 
> Most on here choose which laws they care to break.
> 
> ...



I sense a hint of jealousy


----------



## Dave W (24 Aug 2011)

I suspect that the police don't really care about having no reflectors but red light jumping can put you and others in danger so perhaps deserves a more robust response.

To an extent we all tend to choose the laws we obey dependant on whether we agree with them or not. Just don't be surprised when coppers choose to do the same with enforcement.


----------



## subaqua (25 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I sense a hint of jealousy




Envy would be a better description


----------



## lukesdad (25 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I sense a hint of jealousy


----------



## NotFabian (25 Aug 2011)

Anyone here know who Bigmouth is?


No?

Ok thanks anyway.


----------



## twobiker (25 Aug 2011)

Bigmouth is like Bigfoot, I want to believe but........


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Wow 24 pages summary
> 
> Most on here choose which laws they care to break.
> 
> ...



Nice post. 
Makes a pleasant change from the normal closed minds unwilling to tolerate any opinion other than there own.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Where i have ascertained to my own satisfaction that is is safe (to me and everyone else) i think its ok because i can see no harm , i would not do it where i thought it was going to do any harm.
> Presumably you see no harm in yourself breaking the pedal reflector law.



So why not motorbikes, why not cars?


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So you have moved from a position of self proclaimed ignorance to willfull disobediance. I notice the police are not stopping cyclists for not having pedal reflectors but are for RLJing. That must tell you something?


Yes.
I notice that apart from this task force initiative the police do not stop cyclists for rlj.
That must tell you something?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes.
> I notice that apart from this task force initiative the police do not stop cyclists for rlj.
> That must tell you something?



It does. That the police are woefully understaffed. Shame on you for taking advantage of the fact.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It does. That the police are woefully understaffed. Shame on you for taking advantage of the fact.



And what does it tell you that the police are not stopping cyclists for pedal reflectors ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> And what does it tell you that the police are not stopping cyclists for pedal reflectors ?



It is becoming (if not has already become an arcane law). As long as a bike it suitably lit I doubt very much that a case would ever reach court. 

Now why do you think RLJing is OK for cyclists but nor for motorbikes or cars?


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It is becoming (if not has already become an arcane law). As long as a bike it suitably lit I doubt very much that a case would ever reach court.
> 
> Now why do you think RLJing is OK for cyclists but nor for motorbikes or cars?



What happened to ""its against the law therefore its wrong".
So is it ok to break this pedal reflector law ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> What happened to ""its against the law therefore its wrong".
> So is it ok to break this pedal reflector law ?



Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I did not. Now please answer the question put to you.


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I did not. Now please answer the question put to you.


You said :
"Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong. "
I am considering my reply to your motorcycle inquiry - be assured that i will reply in due course..


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You said :
> "Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong. "
> I am considering my reply to your motorcycle inquiry - be assured that i will reply in due course..



Yes and have I ever changed that position?


----------



## apollo179 (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes and have I ever changed that position?



Well your previous reply (the arcane law one) did seem rather equivocal.
That aside - is it ok to break the pedal reflector law ?


----------



## Mad at urage (25 Aug 2011)

I used to get stopped for having a flashing rear light (back when they were not legal) . Conversations such as :

PO: "That flashing light is illegal you know" 
Me: "Yes officer, but it got me noticed didn't it?" 
PO: "You should have a constant light, that light is illegal"
Me: "I have a British Standard constant light, it is not as noticable as the flashing light though"
PO: "Where?"
Me: "There, on the rack. You didn't notice that though, but you did notice the flashing light"
PO: "...."
Me: "I'll be on my way then, right?"

Were fairly common. Then they changed the arcane law.


----------



## twobiker (25 Aug 2011)

If I rode in Cuban heels you would not see my reflectors, if I had any that is, so therefore you would have to make certain kinds of footwear illeal on a bike as well, can of worms.....


----------



## MissTillyFlop (25 Aug 2011)

I have genuinely tried to but pedal reflectors for my spd pedals, but shops tell me it's a pointless waste of time.

If it's a legal requirement, they should be easier to get hold of.

Just phoned cyclesurgery and they told me it wasn't a legal requirement - so shops selling bikes don't even know the law.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Aug 2011)

As I've said elsewhere.....

If plod stop me for not having pedal reflectors on the two of the fleet that don't currently have them, almost certainly never going to happen where I live, I won't plead ignorance. I won't try a smart arsed argument to show the law is an ass. I won't yeah but no but yeah but.... I'll take what is coming to me. After I've pointed at the multiple rear lights that I have fitted and lit up day and night on my bikes.

Not having pedal (or rear) reflectors is illegal. So is RLJ'ing. So is speeding. My two pet bugbears. Not having reflectors is a technical offence and one which does not put others at risk if, in other respects, your bike and bike riding is legal.

RLJ'ing is unexpected. Unexpected behaviour in a shared road space is inconsiderate, selfish, uncivilised and anti-social. All of which adds up to a big heap of stupid. So there you have it...

...RLJ'ing is stupid. Speeding is stupid. Both are stupid in a way, in a way far, far beyond, that stupid which having no pedal reflectors can ever be. Hence few rational folk give a monkey's about pedal reflectors.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Well your previous reply (the arcane law one) did seem rather equivocal.
> That aside - is it ok to break the pedal reflector law ?



Please answer the question you were asked Apollo.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> As I've said elsewhere.....
> 
> If plod stop me for not having pedal reflectors on the two of the fleet that don't currently have them, almost certainly never going to happen where I live, I won't plead ignorance. I won't try a smart arsed argument to show the law is an ass. I won't yeah but no but yeah but.... I'll take what is coming to me. After I've pointed at the multiple rear lights that I have fitted and lit up day and night on my bikes.
> 
> ...


----------



## girovago (25 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Looked at it to pass my driving test and thats it. Stop at a stop sign etc Stop at a red light. etc etc...



That bit's in a section headed 'General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders'. First sentence under that heading reads, "This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders."



> I didnt realise that all that stuff all applies to bikes as well ...



I don't believe you.


----------



## Vikeonabike (25 Aug 2011)

You can tell I was on holiday when this thread started! 25 Pages in and I haven't said anything yet. So let's start by bottoming out a few things. Firstly "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong", Well yes and know, fortunately Police officers aren ow being encouraged to use, discretion and common sense when it comes to dealing with offences. So yes riding with out pedal reflectors is against the law, however if the rest of your bike is lit up like a christmas tree, you've got ferlective panels on your shoes/tights/ trouser clips etc. Lets use a bit of common sense and ignore it and get on with something more important. However Mr RLJ, in rush hour comes flying through the lights he gets caught, he gets a ticket. Now at 3am on a deserted road when it's quite clear to all and sundry that there is nothing coming and the rider has done everything possible to make sure he is safe, I think a ticket may be a bit much. It's this common sense thing again! Secondly Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 deal specifically with Dangerous Cycling Offences and Cycling without due care and attention. Both are summons offences. Both could cover such offences as texting whilst cycling, ninja cycling, riding no handed on pavements. Pulling Wheelies on the road / in shopping centres etc. Most minor offences are not absolute and the officer dealing can and will use his/her discretion where appropriate. Please be aware that these offences are liable to use a final test to enable them to decide on a course of action. This test is called *"The Attitude Test".* To explain this, you have been stopped for an offence that is ticketable or summonable. Whether you get the ticket/summons may be down to your attitude towards said officer! <BR><BR>Thirdly. Ignorance is not an excuse!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Aug 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> You can tell I was on holiday when this thread started! 25 Pages in and I haven't said anything yet. So let's start by bottoming out a few things. Firstly "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong", Well yes and know, fortunately Police officers aren ow being encouraged to use, discretion and common sense when it comes to dealing with offences. So yes riding with out pedal reflectors is against the law, however if the rest of your bike is lit up like a christmas tree, you've got ferlective panels on your shoes/tights/ trouser clips etc. Lets use a bit of common sense and ignore it and get on with something more important. However Mr RLJ, in rush hour comes flying through the lights he gets caught, he gets a ticket. Now at 3am on a deserted road when it's quite clear to all and sundry that there is nothing coming and the rider has done everything possible to make sure he is safe, I think a ticket may be a bit much. It's this common sense thing again! Secondly Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 deal specifically with Dangerous Cycling Offences and Cycling without due care and attention. Both are summons offences. Both could cover such offences as texting whilst cycling, ninja cycling, riding no handed on pavements. Pulling Wheelies on the road / in shopping centres etc. Most minor offences are not absolute and the officer dealing can and will use his/her discretion where appropriate. Please be aware that these offences are liable to use a final test to enable them to decide on a course of action. This test is called *"The Attitude Test".* To explain this, you have been stopped for an offence that is ticketable or summonable. Whether you get the ticket/summons may be down to your attitude towards said officer! <BR><BR>Thirdly. Ignorance is not an excuse!



I have seen this test on several fly on the wall Police shows. It makes a lot of sense.


----------



## subaqua (25 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have seen this test on several fly on the wall Police shows. It makes a lot of sense.




damn right it does !


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> You can tell I was on holiday when this thread started! 25 Pages in and I haven't said anything yet. So let's start by bottoming out a few things. Firstly "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong", Well yes and know, fortunately Police officers aren ow being encouraged to use, discretion and common sense when it comes to dealing with offences. So yes riding with out pedal reflectors is against the law, however if the rest of your bike is lit up like a christmas tree, you've got ferlective panels on your shoes/tights/ trouser clips etc. Lets use a bit of common sense and ignore it and get on with something more important. However Mr RLJ, in rush hour comes flying through the lights he gets caught, he gets a ticket. Now at 3am on a deserted road when it's quite clear to all and sundry that there is nothing coming and the rider has done everything possible to make sure he is safe, I think a ticket may be a bit much. It's this common sense thing again! Secondly Section 28 and 29 of the RTA 1988 deal specifically with Dangerous Cycling Offences and Cycling without due care and attention. Both are summons offences. Both could cover such offences as texting whilst cycling, ninja cycling, riding no handed on pavements. Pulling Wheelies on the road / in shopping centres etc. Most minor offences are not absolute and the officer dealing can and will use his/her discretion where appropriate. Please be aware that these offences are liable to use a final test to enable them to decide on a course of action. This test is called *"The Attitude Test".* To explain this, you have been stopped for an offence that is ticketable or summonable. Whether you get the ticket/summons may be down to your attitude towards said officer! <BR><BR>Thirdly. Ignorance is not an excuse!


Yes i agree wholeheartedly.
Discretionary enforcement based on common sense is the right approach.
Not the "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong" approach.
Well said.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please answer the question you were asked Apollo.


The question being.
Why should it be ok for bicycles to rlj and not motorcycles ?
If you stick ridgidly to the idea that laws apply equally to all traffic then there can be no differentiation between the 2.
If you acknowledge that bicycles and motorcycles are inherantly different animals then you open the door for the possibility of differentiating between them re the law.
Simplistically you could argue motorcycles are big heavy and dangerous while bikes are small light and less dangerous.
The only valid point beyond your "It's against the law and therefore it's wrong" arguement that i can see for rljing being wrong is that it brings the law into disrepute and it publicly is seen to bring the law into disrepute.
It being against the law also gives ammunition to drivers predisposed to hate cyclists.
Make it a discretionary common sense "cycling without due care" type offence and you do away with the disrepute caused to the law and you disarm those inclined to hate cyclists.
If a cyclist cycles anti socially i would be the first to say punish him but rigid laws sometimes are not 100%.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The question being.
> Why should it be ok for bicycles to rlj and not motorcycles ?
> If you stick ridgidly to the idea that laws apply equally to all traffic then there can be no differentiation between the 2.
> If you acknowledge that bicycles and motorcycles are inherantly different animals then you open the door for the possibility of differentiating between them re the law.
> ...


You have totaly avoided the question. If a bicycle can run a red light "when safe to do so" then why not other road users?


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (26 Aug 2011)

Phew! All these acronyms are confusing...


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have totaly avoided the question. If a bicycle can run a red light "when safe to do so" then why not other road users?


I do see your point but it boils down to what i said above that it depends if you are willing to accept (re - traffic) that bicycles are a different kettle of fish from other traffic.
If you do accept that bicycles are different from other traffic then that allows for the possibility of having laws specific for them.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> Phew! All these acronyms are confusing...



Agreed JTW


----------



## gaz (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I do see your point but it boils down to what i said above that it depends if you are willing to accept (re - traffic) that bicycles are a different kettle of fish from other traffic.
> If you do accept that bicycles are different from other traffic then that allows for the possibility of having laws specific for them.



In what way do you think they are different? And in what way do those differences make you believe that bicycles should follow different road rules to everyone else?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I do see your point but it boils down to what i said above that it depends if you are willing to accept (re - traffic) that bicycles are a different kettle of fish from other traffic.
> If you do accept that bicycles are different from other traffic then that allows for the possibility of having laws specific for them.


So you are of the belief that bicycles are a special case I take it. Can you explain why?


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> In what way do you think they are different? And in what way do those differences make you believe that bicycles should follow different road rules to everyone else?



Reply to qaz and afs - i will have a think about it and get back to you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Reply to qaz and afs - i will have a think about it and get back to you.


Will await with interest.


----------



## Dan B (26 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have totaly avoided the question. If a bicycle can run a red light "when safe to do so" then why not other road users?


Good question. I would say that in an ideal world cyclists should be able to run red lights provided they do so safely, courteously, while giving way to other road users, and without putting anyone in fear of danger (i.e. no weaving through pedestrians) and I would further say that the same _should_ apply to other road users. The difference is, of course, that any vehicle bigger than a bike has fewer opportunities to jump lights safely (because it is larger it must take the lane instead of merging into the traffic flow it joins) and any vehicle faster/heavier than a bicycle is viewed as intrinsically more dangerous so has fewer opportunities to jump lights without putting the wind up someone. So, on balance, if the law were changed along these lines for all road users it probably wouldn't still make much difference to anyone driving something bigger/uglier than a bike - and it'd not be very practical to enforce because it would require subjective judgement of every potential infringement.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Good question. I would say that in an ideal world cyclists should be able to run red lights provided they do so safely, courteously, while giving way to other road users, and without putting anyone in fear of danger (i.e. no weaving through pedestrians) and I would further say that the same _should_ apply to other road users. The difference is, of course, that any vehicle bigger than a bike has fewer opportunities to jump lights safely (because it is larger it must take the lane instead of merging into the traffic flow it joins) and any vehicle faster/heavier than a bicycle is viewed as intrinsically more dangerous so has fewer opportunities to jump lights without putting the wind up someone. So, on balance, if the law were changed along these lines for all road users it probably wouldn't still make much difference to anyone driving something bigger/uglier than a bike - and it'd not be very practical to enforce because it would require subjective judgement of every potential infringement.


Thats a very well reasoned opinion Dan.
Its the difficulty of enforcing that swings the tide in favour of absolute , clear cut laws.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Good question. I would say that in an ideal world cyclists should be able to run red lights provided they do so safely, courteously, while giving way to other road users, and without putting anyone in fear of danger (i.e. no weaving through pedestrians) and I would further say that the same _should_ apply to other road users. The difference is, of course, that any vehicle bigger than a bike has fewer opportunities to jump lights safely (because it is larger it must take the lane instead of merging into the traffic flow it joins) and any vehicle faster/heavier than a bicycle is viewed as intrinsically more dangerous so has fewer opportunities to jump lights without putting the wind up someone. So, on balance, if the law were changed along these lines for all road users it probably wouldn't still make much difference to anyone driving something bigger/uglier than a bike - and it'd not be very practical to enforce because it would require subjective judgement of every potential infringement.


So lets take the example of 3am given by Vikeonabike. Empty roads et al. Why not let everyone RLJ?


----------



## Dan B (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> In what way do you think they are different?


The key difference is that when you're on a bike you can get off and push, and at that point the law and the social norms treat you as a pedestrian. This is rarely seen on a motorbike and (Mr Bean aside) never seen in anything bigger.


Now I can't see a difference in risk between pushing your bike across a red light at 3mph and riding your bike at the same speed (unless you're going to fall off it, but let's assume you're reasonably competent). So the only reason for allowing the former and not the latter is predictability -it's very unlikely that you will break into a run and ram your bike into a pedestrian while wheeling it: it's perhaps more likely that you would accelerate without warning when riding it, and this is perhaps why people feel threatened by RLJ. I don't have a good answer that's better than the current situation, to be honest.


----------



## Dan B (26 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So lets take the example of 3am given by Vikeonabike. Empty roads et al. Why not let everyone RLJ?



Why not indeed? For that matter, why not set the lights onto flashing amber in all directions and let them work it out for themselves? Traffic lights are added to junctions to manage traffic flow and give everyone a fair chance at having their "turn" eventually - if they're not doing that you may as well turn them off.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> The key difference is that when you're on a bike you can get off and push, and at that point the law and the social norms treat you as a pedestrian. This is rarely seen on a motorbike and (Mr Bean aside) never seen in anything bigger.
> 
> 
> Now I can't see a difference in risk between pushing your bike across a red light at 3mph and riding your bike at the same speed (unless you're going to fall off it, but let's assume you're reasonably competent). So the only reason for allowing the former and not the latter is predictability -it's very unlikely that you will break into a run and ram your bike into a pedestrian while wheeling it: it's perhaps more likely that you would accelerate without warning when riding it, and this is perhaps why people feel threatened by RLJ. I don't have a good answer that's better than the current situation, to be honest.


Sorry but when did pushing enter the eqn? How many times have you seen a person intend on rlj'ing get off and push?


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (26 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Why not indeed? For that matter, why not set the lights onto flashing amber in all directions and let them work it out for themselves? Traffic lights are added to junctions to manage traffic flow and give everyone a fair chance at having their "turn" eventually - if they're not doing that you may as well turn them off.



+1

"The Law" is necessarily "black & white" if it is to be enforceable.

To introduce subjective judgements into its application would render it useless.

In whose opinion would it be "safe" to breach certain regulations? One man's "reasonable" is another's "foolhardy".

As one of the more vulnerable roadusers, I err on the side of caution.

I may (or may not) be a sensible, calculating, considerate rider but that will be no consolation to the mourners at my funeral: "Sorry mate, I didn't see you."


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> +1
> 
> "The Law" is necessarily "black & white" if it is to be enforceable.
> 
> ...


Great post.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> +1
> 
> "The Law" is necessarily "black & white" if it is to be enforceable.
> 
> ...



Also a well argued opinion.
I would say that there are subjective laws like "driving without due care" so subjective laws are not totally out of the question.
But black and white is easier to implement if not entirely satisfactory.


----------



## Norm (26 Aug 2011)

Many lights in Germany switch to flashing amber at night, which I think is a good thing. 

And an equivalent question from a US colleague was "Why can't you turn left on a red?"


----------



## Dan B (26 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Sorry but when did pushing enter the eqn? How many times have you seen a person intend on rlj'ing get off and push?


Someone "intent" on RLJing is going to RLJ, but an ordinary cyclist with the options of waiting, jumping the lights, or walking across the junction might well choose to dismount - and in doing so would be perfectly legal. I've done it myself, though usually only near the end of a journey where I probably wouldn't remount. Clipless pedals make it less convenient, otherwise


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Someone "intent" on RLJing is going to RLJ, but an ordinary cyclist with the options of waiting, jumping the lights, or walking across the junction might well choose to dismount - and in doing so would be perfectly legal. I've done it myself, though usually only near the end of a journey where I probably wouldn't remount. Clipless pedals make it less convenient, otherwise


Nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

TBH, I have never seen what the issue that people have with waiting at a red light.

You are on a road, you should follow the rules of the road. It might cost you 30 seconds, big frigging deal.

To me this is like saying shoplifting is okay under certain circumstances. It's not. 
It's not a safety issue, it's about showing respect and responsibility to society and I do get annoyed at other cyclists who jump the lights as I immediately assume they are either an arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal person.

Sorry, got a bit angry there but it makes me angry.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Aug 2011)

Arrogant pr*ck or mentally subnormal I ll have to give that one some thought


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

Sorry, didn't mean to get so..er..well you know.

I'm just a bit old fashioned when it comes to this particular issue.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> TBH, I have never seen what the issue that people have with waiting at a red light.
> 
> You are on a road, you should follow the rules of the road. It might cost you 30 seconds, big frigging deal.
> 
> ...


----------



## lukesdad (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Sorry, didn't mean to get so..er..well you know.
> 
> I'm just a bit old fashioned when it comes to this particular issue.




Ah no worries been called both in my time, by the same person  . Oops better go here she comes now with a cuppa........


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> TBH, I have never seen what the issue that people have with waiting at a red light.
> 
> You are on a road, you should follow the rules of the road. It might cost you 30 seconds, big frigging deal.
> 
> ...


Ouch.
Difficult choice - arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal person.
But that is half the problem with the rlj that it turns a large number of otherwise law abiding and socially responsible people into arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal persons - which i regards as the unfortunate outcome of an imperfect approach to policing cyclists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ouch.
> Difficult choice - arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal person.
> But that is half the problem with the rlj that it turns a large number of otherwise law abiding and socially responsible people into arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal persons - which i regards as the unfortunate outcome of an imperfect approach to policing cyclists.


You could of course choose to stop at the lights.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

Well, I think that you should have to register to ride a bike on the road and the bike should have some sort of chip in it which will register that you have gone through a red light and you will get a £60 fine like everyone else who does it.

It sounds like some crazy scheme, but with things like assisted driving round the corner, and current insurance companies using pay how you drive tracking systems to judge the risk of a driver, I don't think it's that far fetched.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would say that more than 51% of cyclists dont even realise that there is legally anything wrong with rljing on a bike , let alone see anything wrong with it.



Ignorance is no defence.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You could of course choose to stop at the lights.



I do most of the time.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512120"]
Fortunately there's no chance of this happening, for many reasons. Including-

-Bikes aren't solely road vehicles 
-It's financially and logistically impossible. We can't even get it right with cars
-Cycle use would halve overnight, and the government don't want that
[/quote]

In London, at least, there are CCTV cameras at most traffic lights, so if do you do jump it, then it's a TS10 for you and I think that there should be some scheme for identifying cyclists so they can be penalised for breaking the rules and so that previous misdemeanours can be taken into account when deciding the penalty.

I have been fined for stopping in a hatched area on my bike. I did it, I got the fine, I was wrong, I paid up and learned my lesson. I didn't know you couldn't stop in a hatched area, but I should have found out before I got on my bike. I also had to attend a cycling course.

A five year old knows that red means stop. If you don't you shouldn't be allowed out, never mind on a bicycle.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Ignorance is no defence.



Hi Tilly flop.
this has been responded to and discussed at length over the preceeding pages so please forgive me if i cba to go through it all again but if you have an original point i would be most willing to reply.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> In London, at least, there are CCTV cameras at most traffic lights, so if do you do jump it, then it's a TS10 for you and I think that there should be some scheme for identifying cyclists so they can be penalised for breaking the rules and so that previous misdemeanours can be taken into account when deciding the penalty.
> 
> I have been fined for stopping in a hatched area on my bike. I did it, I got the fine, I was wrong, I paid up and learned my lesson. I didn't know you couldn't stop in a hatched area, but I should have found out before I got on my bike. I also had to attend a cycling course.
> 
> A five year old knows that red means stop. If you don't you shouldn't be allowed out, never mind on a bicycle.


Amen to that


----------



## Banjo (26 Aug 2011)

In some USA cities right turning cyclists (equivalent to left turners in uk) are allowed to go through red lights provided no peds crossing. 

This is done in the interest of safety so they arent turning with impatient drivers trying to pass on the turn.

It does make my blood boil to see cyclists weaving through peds on a crossing or pavement though.

Sorry if this has allready been covered, its a long thread now.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Hi Tilly flop.
> this has been responded to and discussed at length over the preceeding pages so please forgive me if i cba to go through it all again but if you have an original point i would be most willing to reply.



Hahaha - yup found it now in the eleventy-seven page thread. Yup you're right it's most definitely been covered...


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Hahaha - yup found it now in the eleventy-seven page thread. Yup you're right it's most definitely been covered...



Amen to that


----------



## gaz (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> In London, at least, there are CCTV cameras at most traffic lights, so if do you do jump it, then it's a TS10 for you and I think that there should be some scheme for identifying cyclists so they can be penalised for breaking the rules and so that previous misdemeanours can be taken into account when deciding the penalty.
> 
> I have been fined for stopping in a hatched area on my bike. I did it, I got the fine, I was wrong, I paid up and learned my lesson. I didn't know you couldn't stop in a hatched area, but I should have found out before I got on my bike. I also had to attend a cycling course.
> 
> A five year old knows that red means stop. If you don't you shouldn't be allowed out, never mind on a bicycle.


You didn't know you coulnt stop in a hatched area? What did you think it meant? Did you not read the highway code before you took to the road?


----------



## wiggydiggy (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> You didn't know you coulnt stop in a hatched area? What did you think it meant? Did you not read the highway code before you took to the road?



*Devils Advocate*

No because it wasnt a legal requirement for a cyclist to do so 

*Walks off whistling*

PS I used to like reading it when I was little on long car journeys


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> You didn't know you coulnt stop in a hatched area? What did you think it meant? Did you not read the highway code before you took to the road?


Given that tillyflop has displayed a certain tendancy towards a hardline attitude to rljers i can see that qazs point is entirely appropriate but in a wider context i cant see why some people on this forum sole objective seems to be to critiscise and put other cyclists in the wrong. Whatever hgappened to cyclist solidarity and the ideal of a global sisterhood (brotherhood) of cyclists. Cant we just get on. I am prepared to make the first gesture and forgive all those pedal reflector infringing rotters.


----------



## wiggydiggy (26 Aug 2011)

I have to admit I've mellowed my view on RLJ since I last chatted about it on here and it has changed from 'Yarrgghhh your going to die!' to 'Lets just concentrate on my cycling'

I still dont agree with it, but I'm not going to shout and scream at people that do


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> You didn't know you coulnt stop in a hatched area? What did you think it meant? Did you not read the highway code before you took to the road?



No, I didn't and I should have. That's the point I was making - I deserved the fine. I was young and too much of a smart arse to bother reading the rules.


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> I have to admit I've mellowed my view on RLJ since I last chatted about it on here and it has changed from 'Yarrgghhh your going to die!' to 'Lets just concentrate on my cycling'
> 
> I still dont agree with it, but I'm not going to shout and scream at people that do



Let me welcome you across from the darkside.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Given that tillyflop has displayed a certain tendancy towards a hardline attitude to rljers i can see that qazs point is entirely appropriate but in a wider context i cant see why some people on this forum sole objective seems to be to critiscise and put other cyclists in the wrong.



Ha ha. I would never in real life shout at another cyclist. They are old enough to make a decision whether I agree with it or not. I'm pretty much a mouse in real life.

Just letting off steam for all those times I have almost been mowed down on a pelican/zebra crossing or nearly knocked off my bike whilst I'm waiting because that dude over there is obviously in labour and needs to get to A&E pronto!

Yeah, by all means take risks if you want, but I think if you then are penalised for it, you should take it on the chin and save the whinging for when the policeman is actually being a bastard to you for no reason.



apollo179 said:


> Whatever hgappened to cyclist solidarity and the ideal of a global sisterhood (brotherhood) of cyclists. Cant we just get on. I am prepared to make the first gesture and forgive all those pedal reflector infringing rotters.



Yeah, I think you're right. Let's all have some tea and Victoria Sponge


----------



## gaz (26 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Given that tillyflop has displayed a certain tendancy towards a hardline attitude to rljers i can see that qazs point is entirely appropriate but in a wider context i cant see why some people on this forum sole objective seems to be to critiscise and put other cyclists in the wrong. Whatever hgappened to cyclist solidarity and the ideal of a global sisterhood (brotherhood) of cyclists. Cant we just get on. I am prepared to make the first gesture and forgive all those pedal reflector infringing rotters.


Some people just want to be the better person by being 'right'. As for the brotherhood, if you put me in danger due to the way you flout the rules of the road because they are inconvient for you, then you ride into the sunset all on your ownsome.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Some people just want to be the better person by being 'right'. As for the brotherhood, if you put me in danger due to the way you flout the rules of the road because they are inconvient for you, then you ride into the sunset all on your ownsome.


----------



## wiggydiggy (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Some people just want to be the better person by being 'right'. As for the brotherhood, if you put me in danger due to the way you flout the rules of the road because they are inconvient for you, then you ride into the sunset all on your ownsome.



I'm never right, just some people are more wrong than me


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> I'm never right, just some people are more wrong than me




That's a +1!


----------



## Mad at urage (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> In London, at least, there are CCTV cameras at most traffic lights, so if do you do jump it, then it's a TS10 for you and I think that there should be some scheme for identifying cyclists so they can be penalised for breaking the rules and so that previous misdemeanours can be taken into account when deciding the penalty.
> 
> I have been fined for stopping in a hatched area on my bike. I did it, I got the fine, I was wrong, I paid up and learned my lesson. I didn't know you couldn't stop in a hatched area, but I should have found out before I got on my bike. I also had to attend a cycling course.
> 
> A five year old knows that red means stop. If you don't you shouldn't be allowed out, never mind on a bicycle.


I hope the arrogant pr*ck/mentally subnormal person driving the volvo who RLJ'd to overtake me in N London last Sunday got a TS10 through the post then (I think he objected to my driving at the speed limit, rather than above it).


wiggydiggy said:


> *Devils Advocate*
> 
> No because it wasnt a legal requirement for a cyclist to do so
> 
> ...


TFTD on R4 this morning was about how university learning should be about enthusiasm "Not like reading the HC" 



wiggydiggy said:


> I have to admit I've mellowed my view on RLJ since I last chatted about it on here and it has changed from 'Yarrgghhh your going to die!' to 'Lets just concentrate on my cycling'
> 
> I still dont agree with it, but I'm not going to shout and scream at people that do


Opposite for me! I told someone off for it this morning (but then he did make the oncoming car brake and swerve to avoid him)  .


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> I hope the arrogant pr*ck/mentally subnormal person driving the volvo who RLJ'd to overtake me in N London last Sunday got a TS10 through the post then (I think he objected to my driving at the speed limit, rather than above it).



Me too - No bloody need! 

I would introduce tazering for naughty drivers who deliberately upset/shock/scar/hurt cyclists if I could!


----------



## apollo179 (26 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Some people just want to be the better person by being 'right'. As for the brotherhood, if you put me in danger due to the way you flout the rules of the road because they are inconvient for you, then you ride into the sunset all on your ownsome.



So - so long as i dont endanger anyone (as i have repeatedly stressed that i am at pains not to) we are aok on the global brotherhood thing yes ?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (26 Aug 2011)

I'd take it as a yes.

I think we should have a thread where we just type rude words - no reasons why we feel cross, just get it all out there without any mudslinging.

or one where we just type naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghghghghghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Vikeonabike (26 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Why not indeed? For that matter, why not set the lights onto flashing amber in all directions and let them work it out for themselves? Traffic lights are added to junctions to manage traffic flow and give everyone a fair chance at having their "turn" eventually - if they're not doing that you may as well turn them off.




This is a good point...rather than turn off the lights, set them to flashing amber as suggested. Normal rules of the road then apply! Treat as a roundabout and give way to the right. Makes a great deal of sense really.


----------



## Vikeonabike (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I'd take it as a yes.
> 
> I think we should have a thread where we just type rude words - no reasons why we feel cross, just get it all out there without any mudslinging.
> 
> or one where we just type naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghghghghghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!




What we need is a swear filter...this changes certain words to something entirely different...everyone would know what was said but noboddy would be offended... done rather sucesfully on another unrelated forum I uses!


For example B'stard becomes Buxton the Blue Cat

See you next Tuesday is Spindle Whorl


Surely we could suggest cycling related words to replace swear words...


----------



## Cubist (26 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I'd take it as a yes.
> 
> I think we should have a thread where we just type rude words - no reasons why we feel cross, just get it all out there without any mudslinging.
> 
> or one where we just type naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghghghghghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!



Bit of recreational swearing? Yep, it's very therapeutic:
https://www.cyclechat.net/


----------



## Norm (26 Aug 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> This is a good point...rather than turn off the lights, set them to flashing amber as suggested. Normal rules of the road then apply! Treat as a roundabout and give way to the right. Makes a great deal of sense really.


It was even easier than that, in Munich at least. 

During the night, they turned off the lights on the "main" route completely and only had the flashing lights from the side roads. This means that anyone on the main route didn't have to even slow down across the junctions and anyone on the side roads would know, from the flashing ambers, that they'd have to give way. It also had the benefit of not having peeps burning fuel on a red light when there was no-one to wait for.The only downside, IMO, was that the lights would click as well, which was a pain if there was a set within 100m from your bedroom window. 

In Sweden, they had lights which were 4-way red, and a car approaching from any direction would change them to green for a few seconds.

Having experienced both of those smart (IMO) solutions in the mid-90s, it's frustrating as heck that we are still in a backwater in this country. We shouldn't even need to be discussing the rights and wrongs of an RLJ at 3am, we should be asking why the freaking lights are still burning electricity and wasting petrol at that time.


----------



## lukesdad (26 Aug 2011)

Head on nail that last post Norm.


----------



## Norm (26 Aug 2011)

If you want to have the helmet discussion, Adrian, (especially if you are having it with yourself  ) can you keep it to the appropriate forum. Thanks.


----------



## Bicycle (27 Aug 2011)

subaqua said:


> its not just about the pedals though , some nobbers don't have any reflectors. thats just suicide.




Oops!

I have no reflectors on any of my bicycles. 

1. Where do I register as a suicidal nobber?

2. What is a nobber?

3. Many of the bicycles I see in my rural county and in London have no reflectors.


----------



## gaz (27 Aug 2011)

Bicycle said:


> 3. Many of the bicycles I see in my rural county and in London have no reflectors.



That makes the lot of us suicidal


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Fao qaz + afs
Re - Bicycles are different / special case.
Bicycles are different from other road traffic in their being more aware of their surroundings , they are not detached in a metal box with any associated sense of false security.
In the same way that jaywalking is not illegal in UK because common sense dictates that anyone who jaywalks will only do so when its safe the same logic applys to cycles at red lights : a cyclist will only rlj when it is safe because otherwise he/she will be dead. 
Bicycles already are a special case :
The government has a policy to promote cycling.
Cycles are allowed to use bus lanes , cars are not.
C2work scheme.
Boris bikes and cycle lanes all over the country.
As part of a coordinated strategy to promote cycling as a prefered mode of transport more special provisions should be made to encourage cycling in the 21st century. 
The governments proactive policy of promoting cycling combined with the differences inherent in cycles makes it wholly credible to advocate a less rigid approach to rlj which would create a welcome positivity around cycling that would hopefully make up some of the ground we have lost comparitively with our earopean neighbours regarding cycling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Fao qaz + afs
> Re - Bicycles are different / special case.
> Bicycles are different from other road traffic in their being more aware of their surroundings , they are not detached in a metal box with any associated sense of false security.
> In the same way that jaywalking is not illegal in UK because common sense dictates that anyone who jaywalks will only do so when its safe the same logic applys to cycles at red lights : a cyclist will only rlj when it is safe because otherwise he/she will be dead.
> ...



None of that gives any credence to the argument that bicycles should be allowed to jump red lights.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512157"]
That's not why jaywalking isn't illegal.
[/quote]

Why isnt jay walking illegal ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Why isnt jay walking illegal ?



Try this link


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> None of that gives any credence to the argument that bicycles should be allowed to jump red lights.



Wrong.
You seem unwilling to consider any ideas other than your own blinkered ones.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Wrong.
> You seem unwilling to consider any ideas other than your own blinkered ones.



Give me a good reason why the slowest form of road user should be able to run a red light and I will listen. You have not given a single good reason as to why this should be so.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512161"]
That's a bit backwards isn't it? Laws are generally made in response to or anticipation of a problem. 
Why isn't eating grass illegal? It's not because it was decided that it shouldn't be by the council that sit all day thinking up laws for all possible events. 

As to the rest of the post, there's nothing there to justify making RLJing legal for cyclist. There's no need to *imho*.
[/quote]
FTFY
Presumably jaywalking was made illegal in the usa as a response to a perceived problem.
The benefit of reviewing the rlj law for cyclists has been made - if you dont agree thats fine. Thats your opinion.


----------



## Theseus (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> FTFY
> Presumably jaywalking was made illegal in the usa as a response to a perceived problem.
> The benefit of reviewing the rlj law for cyclists has been made - if you dont agree thats fine. Thats your opinion.



In the USA the car is king and all else must bow to the mighty motor. Thankfully this is not the case here.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512166"]
That sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. 

The US is very different to over here, and we've got by far the better deal for pedestrians and cyclists. 

If you'd just care to apply a bit of unbiased logic you'll see it clearly. Why allow rljing? Because it might up the average speed of some cyclists. Why not? Many reasons.
[/quote]


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Give me a good reason why the slowest form of road user should be able to run a red light and I will listen. You have not given a single good reason as to why this should be so.



I have.
If you are unwilling to consider any ideas other than your own then what is the basis for discussion or the point in giving other ideas.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I have.
> If you are unwilling to consider any ideas other than your own then what is the basis for discussion or the point in giving other ideas.



No you have given a list of special privileges bikes already have and governmental pushing of bikes as the way forward. You also _*suggest*_ that cyclists are more aware of their surroundings than anyone else on the road. I am sure many will be insulted by that. None of this however is justification for affording bikes any more privileged than they already have.


----------



## twobiker (27 Aug 2011)

You cannot think for other people, Rlj assumes that because you think it is clear to go then the poor git coming through on a green light that you have'nt seen will be expecting a cyclist to appear in front of him,he will not, if he/she injures or kills you then they will have to live with that forever, for the sake of saving a couple of minutes you will have sentenced an innocent person to a life of misery. Perhaps taking the bike and crushing it if you cause an accident might make people think twice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> You cannot think for other people, Rlj assumes that because you think it is clear to go then the poor git coming through on a green light that you have'nt seen will be expecting a cyclist to appear in front of him,he will not, if he/she injures or kills you then they will have to live with that forever, for the sake of saving a couple of minutes you will have sentenced an innocent person to a life of misery. Perhaps taking the bike and crushing it if you cause an accident might make people think twice.



Amen to that.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512166"]
*That sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. 
*
The US is very different to over here, and we've got by far the better deal for pedestrians and cyclists. 

If you'd just care to apply a bit of unbiased logic you'll see it clearly. Why allow rljing? Because it might up the average speed of some cyclists. Why not? Many reasons.
[/quote]
Brilliant come back.


----------



## Dan B (27 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> You cannot think for other people, Rlj assumes that because you think it is clear to go then the poor git coming through on a green light that you have'nt seen will be expecting a cyclist to appear in front of him,he will not, if he/she injures or kills you then they will have to live with that forever, for the sake of saving a couple of minutes you will have sentenced an innocent person to a life of misery. Perhaps taking the bike and crushing it if you cause an accident might make people think twice.



How on earth do you cope at "give way" junctions without traffic lights to do your thinking for you?


----------



## twobiker (27 Aug 2011)

Quite easy to cope at roundabouts ,because all the people are expecting a bike/car etc to pull out whereas at traffic lights people expect the red light to mean something


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> You cannot think for other people, Rlj assumes that because you think it is clear to go then the poor git coming through on a green light that you have'nt seen will be expecting a cyclist to appear in front of him,he will not, if he/she injures or kills you then they will have to live with that forever, for the sake of saving a couple of minutes you will have sentenced an innocent person to a life of misery. Perhaps taking the bike and crushing it if you cause an accident might make people think twice.



I dont think for other people - i check that it is safe for me and others in all circumstances ; traffic lights , t junctions, roundabouts , crossroads. I check it is safe to proceed before i go regardless of right of way because i am vulnerable .
Im on abike.
Cars do not have the same level of insecurity.
Its a difference between cars and bikes.
Hopefully my errors in grammer will not totally negate my point.


----------



## twobiker (27 Aug 2011)

If a cyclist insists on going regardless of right of way it is no wonder they feel vulnerable, try obeying the traffic light and find it is not such a scary world out there.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> If a cyclist insists on going regardless of right of way it is no wonder they feel vulnerable, try obeying the traffic light and find it is not such a scary world out there.



If a cyclist insists on regardless of right of way in any circumstances then they are very foolish.
I advise that in all circumstances you check it is safe to go before proceeding for your own safety .


----------



## twobiker (27 Aug 2011)

The roads are dangerous enough as it is without some Donkey jumping red lights, if RLJers want excitement why not play Russian Roulette


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> The roads are dangerous enough as it is without some Donkey jumping red lights, if RLJers want excitement why not play Russian Roulette



Whos saying anyone wants excitement ? 
Just ride safely in all circumstances.


----------



## gaz (27 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Whos saying anyone wants excitement ?
> Just ride safely in all circumstances and stop at red



FTFY


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Whos saying anyone wants excitement ?
> Just ride safely in all circumstances and stop at red and have pedal reflectors on your bike!


FTFY


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512183"]
Coping at a give way junction is easy. Coping at a traffic lit junction is easy. Coping at a junction that is give way to some and traffic lit to others is entirely different.
[/quote]


----------



## Angelfishsolo (27 Aug 2011)

The other problem I see with allowing cyclists to jump red lights is getting the message across to drivers. Most have no idea who a cyclists is allowed to behave as it is and so adding something else into the mix would be highly dangerous.


----------



## apollo179 (27 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512185"]
I assume then that you stop whenever you see a pedestrian waiting to cross the road. If not, you're not fit to jump red lights.
[/quote]
Can you explain your assumption about "stopping whenever you see a pedestrian waiting to cross the road."


----------



## 400bhp (27 Aug 2011)

Who thinks cars whould be able to go through lights on red?


----------



## dnrc (28 Aug 2011)

32 pages and the only conclusions we can draw are:

1. it's illegal (and normally stupid) to jump red lights

2. apollo179 is a d1ck


----------



## twobiker (28 Aug 2011)

The only way to sort out this kind of subject is to debate it,and freedom of speech/type is a wonderful tool for debate,everyones view is valid and valued.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> The only way to sort out this kind of subject is to debate it,and freedom of speech/type is a wonderful tool for debate,everyones view is valid and valued.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512188"]
It means when you see a pedestrian at the side of the road waiting to cross then you stop and let them cross in front of you.
[/quote]

Re - pedestrians waiting to cross the road. If they are waiting then it is safe to proceed. You might slow down if you had reason to anticipate a problem but as far as safety is concerned so long as they are waiting then its safe to continue.
I check for safety before i go through a green light. 
I check for safety before i proceed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

dnrc said:


> 32 pages and the only conclusions we can draw are:
> 
> 1. it's illegal (and normally stupid) to jump red lights
> 
> 2. apollo179 is a d1ck


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Re - pedestrians waiting to cross the road. If they are waiting then it is safe to proceed. You might slow down if you had reason to anticipate a problem but as far as safety is concerned so long as they are waiting then its safe to continue.
> I check for safety before i go through a green light.
> I check for safety before i proceed.



If they are waiting and you run the red light you have committed an offence you Muppet.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If they are waiting and you run the red light you have committed an offence you Muppet.



We are talking about pedestrians waiting at the side of the road not at lights you muppet.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> We are talking about pedestrians waiting at the side of the road not at lights you muppet.



Oh I see. That makes perfect sense in a thread about breaking that law. Another one on the ignore list I feel.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh I see. That makes perfect sense in a thread about breaking that law. Another one on the ignore list I feel.



I would recommend familiarising yourself with the debate before you post in future and definately before you start name calling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would recommend familiarising yourself with the debate before you post in future and definately before you start name calling.



I have read the debate in it's entirety and it looks as though you interpreted Users' comment in one way and me another. Apollo to be fair you are ready starting to come across as a bit of :troll:


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512201"]
In the interests of fairness I will say that I was referring to peds waiting to cross anywhere. My post above this one explains why.
[/quote]

Valid point. and a great argument. In my defence I did say I read your post one way and Apollo another.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512200"]
Thanks. That's exactly what I meant when I said you're not qualified to rlj even if it were legal. 

Traffic lights are there for a reason - to share passage through a junction. Your view is that if another road user is waiting for a gap then you're ok to just go on through. Your attitude stops the fair flow and gives you priority. That's selfish and wrong. See my sig line.
[/quote]

That dosnt make sense.
If pedestrians are waiting at the roadside - i cycling down the road have right of way and i am ok to just go on through.
In this situation i do have priority but nevertheless i would only proceed if safe.
Im not quite getting your point tbh.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (28 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> That dosnt make sense.
> If pedestrians are waiting at the roadside - i cycling down the road have right of way and i am ok to just go on through.
> In this situation i do have priority but nevertheless i would only proceed if safe.
> Im not quite getting your point tbh.



Therein lies the problem.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512205"]
Translate that attitude to a lit crossing where you're not going to obey signals....
[/quote]

OK i will try.
At lights if there are pedestrians waiting or cars i will not rlj because it is not safe.
At lights where there are not pedestrians or cars and i reckon its safe beyond a reasonable doubt i conceivably will rlj.
Im still not getting your pedestrian point.
I would like understand it.


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512207"]
So the only junctions you rlj at are completely empty of pedestrians and other vehicles?

By the way, I suggest you'll benefit from reading the Highway Code, in particular the bits about pedestrians on the road and about right of way.
[/quote]

Yes.
Paul - im saying (ignoring the legality) that rlj is ok where it is safe to everyone. 
A cyclist who rljs knocking pedestrians out of his / her way and causing cars to skid to avoid him is obviously 100% wrong.
I have said this from the first page of this thread. 
If you are arguing that it is wrong for cyclists to rlj unsafely then i agree with you 100%.
If you are arguing that is always wrong for cyclists to rlj then - although legaly you are correct - i would differ from you at least in counseling some leniency towards those of us who do rlj responsibly and safely.
This is where this thread goes into a loop back to page 23 where i asked :
"Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" that seems to get churned out with zombie like repetition i have not so far heard one compelling arguement against rljing where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "


----------



## apollo179 (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512209"]
It's not just about safety. It's not just about what's your right of way. Amongst all the other issues are social expectation. 

Pedestrians should be able to cross anywhere. They can't because drivers and cyclists think they own the road and have right of way, despite neither being the case. 

Pedestrians should be able to expect to be able to cross at least at locations where measures are intentionally put in place to force traffic to do what it should be doing anyway. Giving permission to cyclists to circumvent this control, surely for their own minimal gain, doesn't work if the cyclist displays the wrong attitude to road sharing. As you have on this thread.
[/quote]

How have i showed the wrong attitude to road sharing ?
Is this the rigid - if you break the rules you are wrong attitude.


----------



## Dan B (28 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512209"]
It's not just about safety. It's not just about what's your right of way. Amongst all the other issues are social expectation. 

Pedestrians should be able to cross anywhere. They can't because drivers and cyclists think they own the road and have right of way, despite neither being the case. 

Pedestrians should be able to expect to be able to cross at least at locations where measures are intentionally put in place to force traffic to do what it should be doing anyway. Giving permission to cyclists to circumvent this control, surely for their own minimal gain, doesn't work if the cyclist displays the wrong attitude to road sharing. As you have on this thread.
[/quote]
I agree with all the above, except possibly for the last sentence: I think the hypotheticals and scenarios described are now sufficiently ramified that I have not the foggiest whether the act you are accusing apollo179 of is the one which he thinks he's agreeing he would commit.

But to drag it away from the personal for a moment: what's interesting (and admirable) in this post is that you start by saying "it's about social expectation" and then go on to raise the bar for how we should behave _beyond_ what pedestrians expect of us, raising the bar to what they _should_ be able to expect. When I give way to pedestrians crossing or to pedestrians who look like they're waiting to cross, they are quite often obviously surprised that I didn't just plough through and ignore them (and this is irrespective of whether the lights gave me priority or not)


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I agree with all the above, except possibly for the last sentence: I think the hypotheticals and scenarios described are now sufficiently ramified that *I have not the foggiest whether the act you are accusing apollo179 of is the one which he thinks he's agreeing he would commit.
> *



We may not allways agree dan but you do post sense.
I dont have the foggiest about what User is accusing me of either tbh.
I can understand Users accusation of "wrong attitude" if wrong attitude equates simply to a willingness to break the rules - full stop - regardless of any other circumstances.
But this negates the whole basis for debate.
The question was ; 
"Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" that seems to get churned out with zombie like repetition i have not so far heard one compelling arguement against rljing where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "
A final resorting back to the "its against the law therefore its wrong" opinion would suggest that there is no compelling arguement.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512213"]
You'll notice that I've not mentioned the law. It's you who is obsessed with it. 

If your claim that you only ever rlj at deserted lights is true then I can understand your confusion. That fact though is that this is the porkie that many rljers tell. And the fact that they tell it shows that they understand completely -they're distancing themselves from what they know are qualified problems with rljing.
[/quote]

So you have no arguement against safe responsible rljing .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So you have no arguement against safe responsible rljing .



I fail to see how anyone can responsibly run a red light.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I fail to see how anyone can responsibly run a red light.



Hi - welcome back. Are we still speaking to each other ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Hi - welcome back. Are we still speaking to each other ?



I am discussing the responsibility of riding a bicycle. You can not responsibly run a red light full stop.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ouch.
> Difficult choice - arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal person.
> But that is half the problem with the rlj that it turns a large number of otherwise law abiding and socially responsible people into arrogant prick or a mentally subnormal persons - which i regards as the unfortunate outcome of an imperfect approach to policing cyclists.


weak, specious, self-serving. Don't ever try to register for one of my rides


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> weak, specious, self-serving. Don't ever try to register for one of my rides


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am discussing the responsibility of riding a bicycle. You can not responsibly run a red light full stop.


Ok let me put it another way.
After your offensive name calling on the pedal reflector topic that caused the moderator to intervene are you willing to discuss without offensive name calling.
if you intend to resort to offensive name calling then to be clear i would rather not discuss with you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Ok let me put it another way.
> After your offensive name calling on the pedal reflector topic that caused the moderator to intervene are you willing to discuss without offensive name calling.
> if you intend to resort to offensive name calling then to be clear i would rather not discuss with you.



You have clearly led a sheltered life. I am so very sorry if being described as a Jim Henson character offended you but sometimes your constant pushing get my (and possibly others) back(s) up.

That said why are you so upset that the "_*Police are fining people for breaking the law?*_"


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have clearly led a sheltered life. I am so very sorry if being described as a Jim Henson character offended you but sometimes your constant pushing get my (and possibly others) back(s) up.
> 
> That said why are you so upset that the "_*Police are fining people for breaking the law?*_"



It was not being called a muppet that i am refering to it was the offensive name calling on the pedal reflector thread that caused the moderator to intervene.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> It was not being called a muppet that i am refering to it was the offensive name calling on the pedal reflector thread that caused the moderator to intervene.



I used nothing stronger that Muppet.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I used nothing stronger that Muppet.



Not true

*Riding without pedal reflectors. OK or not?*
Page 15
Your post yesterday 10-12-04

"You know as well as I you are not "bouncing ideas of me" but rather trying to find a chink in my armour. 
This post has been edited by *Moderators*: Yesterday, 10:48:47 - "


Edited by moderators to remove offensive name calling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Not true
> 
> *Riding without pedal reflectors. OK or not?*
> Page 15
> ...



Oh yes I also called you a shortened version of Richard. I stand by that comment based upon you posting to date.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1512226"]
And with that you have proved my theory. Thank you.
[/quote]
How ?


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh yes I also called you a shortened version of Richard. I stand by that comment based upon you posting to date.


You are an offensive name caller.
That is not discussing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You are an offensive name caller.
> That is not discussing.




You have asked a question, you have been given answers. It seems in the main they were not the answers you wanted to read and so you keep chipping away hoping that somehow you will get people to change their minds. This is most agitating. You clearly have a POV so why not just go with that? Do you want some kind of justification/absolution for you actions?


Oh and once again why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_"


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have asked a question, you have been given answers. It seems in the main they were not the answers you wanted to read and so you keep chipping away hoping that somehow you will get people to change their minds. This is most agitating. You clearly have a POV so why not just go with that? Do you want some kind of justification/absolution for you actions?
> 
> 
> Oh and once again why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_"


I have a pov.
Yours is different.
Discussion is fine but offensive name calling is unnacceptable.
You seem to think offensive name calling is ok.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I have a pov.
> Yours is different.
> Discussion is fine but offensive name calling is unnacceptable.
> You seem to think offensive name calling is ok.



Please accept my most sincere apologies if I offended you. Now will you please answer the question "why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_""


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please accept my most sincere apologies if I offended you. Now will you please answer the question "why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_""



I dont.
Where have i said that i do ?
And please do try and refrain from offensive name calling in future.
We all like robust discussion but insults are how pub bullies behave and should be avoided.
I have largely been on the back foot in our discussions but i have not resorted to mindless insults.
The one time i quizz you you dont like it and start the name calling.
Anyway hopefully you see the error of your ways.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

1512233 said:


> Offensive name calling versus "responsible RLJing" versus failing to deploy pedal reflectors. Which is the more heinous crime?


Offensive name calling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I dont.
> Where have i said that i do ?
> And please do try and refrain from offensive name calling in future.
> We all like robust discussion but insults are how pub bullies behave and should be avoided.
> ...



Where have you said that???? You are questioning if it is OK to jump red lights and then the legality of pedal reflectors. The two police officers that have responded have given you great answers but still you push on. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that yo have a problem with the actions of these police officers. Cyclist are people after all.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

1512237 said:


> Our values differ here.



Ditto.

Completely off topic but I am reminded of a chap I worked with who thought that ditto meant "I love you" (It was after the film Ghost was released!)


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

1512237 said:


> Our values differ here.


Be a boring world if we were all the same.
Differnt is great
Tolerance is essential.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Be a boring world if we were all the same.
> Differnt is great
> Tolerance is essential.



So do you tolerate drunk drivers? Do you tolerate shoplifters? Do you tolerate anger born from frustration?


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Where have you said that???? You are questioning if it is OK to jump red lights and then the legality of pedal reflectors. The two police officers that have responded have given you great answers but still you push on. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that yo have a problem with the actions of these police officers. Cyclist are people after all.



You asked ""why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_""

I dont.
If anyone gets caught for whatever - hands up - fine them.
You seem to be for your own reasons determined to back me into a corner.
Please feel free to continue as you have been doing from the day i joined this forum.
But please no more offensive name calling.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So do you tolerate drunk drivers? Do you tolerate shoplifters? Do you tolerate anger born from frustration?



You seem to be for your own reasons determined to put me in the wrong and back me into a corner.
Please feel free to continue as you have been doing unsucessfully from the day i joined this forum.
But please no more offensive name calling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You seem to be for your own reasons determined to put me in the wrong and back me into a corner.
> Please feel free to continue as you have been doing unsucessfully from the day i joined this forum.
> But please no more offensive name calling.



No offensive name calling. Asking for answers to questions.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You asked ""why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_""
> 
> I dont.
> If anyone gets caught for whatever - hands up - fine them.
> ...



You have painted yourself into a corner and can not fight your way out.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You have painted yourself into a corner and can not fight your way out.



Please substantiate this ridiculous claim.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No offensive name calling. Asking for answers to questions.


Like i was asking for answers that resulted in your offensive name calling on the pedal reflector topic (page 15) that caused the moderator to intervene ?
You are happy to dish it out but you cant take it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Please substantiate this ridiculous claim.



You argue for cyclists being able to RLJ. When asked about your road awareness you show near complete ignorance. You keep on arguing for it without providing any valid information to support your argument. You then change your stance to only at night and if it is safe (but can not define safety) and still exhibit no concept of hazard perception. I could go on but I have some paint to watch dry.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Like i was asking for answers that resulted in your offensive name calling on the pedal reflector topic (page 15) that caused the moderator to intervene ?
> You are happy to dish it out but you cant take it.



I have apologised if I caused you offence.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You argue for cyclists being able to RLJ. When asked about your road awareness you show near complete ignorance. You keep on arguing for it without providing any valid information to support your argument. You then change your stance to only at night and if it is safe (but can not define safety) and still exhibit no concept of hazard perception. I could go on but I have some paint to watch dry.


If you had asked "
""do you have a problem with the rlj law""
I would reply yes.
But you asked :
You asked ""why do you have a problem with "_*Police fining people for breaking the law?*_""
I dont .
I have no problem with the fining aspect at all.


----------



## Norm (29 Aug 2011)

I really shouldn't read any thread with more than 5 replies before I have my coffee, I get all hormonal. 


Angelfishsolo said:


> I fail to see how anyone can responsibly run a red light.


 (This applies to many others) 

If you fail to see it, what do you think you can take from any discussion? Seeing the other person's perspective, however, objectionable you find it, will make it easier to understand and explain the differences. Otherwise you are reduced to nit-picking irrelevant points and misrepresenting the underlying message.

Failing to see it usually means that you don't want to see it and any discussion (as seen from almost any thread which runs to more than a couple of pages) just becomes posting the same stuff in an endless loop.

**wanders off to get coffee**


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I have apologised if I caused you offence.



Aside from if it offended me dont you feel like you let yourself down at all.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you had asked "
> ""do you have a problem with the rlj law""
> I would reply yes.
> But you asked :
> ...



Have you seen the title of this thread? Currently RLJ is illegal. Cyclist are people. Cyclists are fined for jumping red lights. Thus people are fined for breaking that law.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> I really shouldn't read any thread with more than 5 replies before I have my coffee, I get all hormonal.  (This applies to many others)
> 
> If you fail to see it, what do you think you can take from any discussion? Seeing the other person's perspective, however, objectionable you find it, will make it easier to understand and explain the differences. Otherwise you are reduced to nit-picking irrelevant points and misrepresenting the underlying message.
> 
> ...



Great insight as usual from Norm - even this early in the morning.(11am ?)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Aside from if it offended me don't you feel like you let yourself down at all?



Not at all.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> I really shouldn't read any thread with more than 5 replies before I have my coffee, I get all hormonal.  (This applies to many others)
> 
> If you fail to see it, what do you think you can take from any discussion? Seeing the other person's perspective, however, objectionable you find it, will make it easier to understand and explain the differences. Otherwise you are reduced to nit-picking irrelevant points and misrepresenting the underlying message.
> 
> ...



Failing to see does not equate to an unwillingness to see. It simply means that I can not understand how it can be so. Before I got seriously into cycling I failed to see why anyone would spend £nk on a bike. Now I do.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not at all.



So you think offensive name calling is ok ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So you think offensive name calling is ok ?



I think that when people are wound up enough one might tell another what they think off them.


----------



## twobiker (29 Aug 2011)

Selective Law Breaking or SLB to save wearing out my one finger typing style [already patented so keep your mitts off] is, when it comes to Rlj very difficult to enforce, you have to add into the equation that a person would not Rlj even if the junction was clear if there was a policeman in view, this smacks of underhand double standards. If enough Rljers get injured or killed or cause the death of an innocent through their actions then enforcement would be mandatory. the old chestnut " BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS CLEAR " your honour is poor defence against a death or injury. ps, feel free to call me names if you wish, its just water of a ducks back.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

1512260 said:


> The man has apologised to you. There does come a point beyond which it becomes counter-productive to push the issue. You are now beyond that point.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think that when people are wound up enough one might tell another what they think off them.


So would you think that the core problem is allowing yourself to get wound up ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So would you think that the core problem is allowing yourself to get wound up ?


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2011)

1512260 said:


> There does come a point beyond which it becomes counter-productive to push the issue.



Not to mention boring...


----------



## Norm (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Failing to see does not equate to an unwillingness to see. It simply means that I can not understand how it can be so. Before I got seriously into cycling I failed to see why anyone would spend £nk on a bike. Now I do.


 (again, this applies to many others) 

Maybe push the keyboard away and settle yourself down with a coffee (other warm beverages are available) to have a little ponder on that. Certainly if you are getting "wound up" by people's blatherings on the internerd.

Rather than blanket-bombing responses without consideration, think about why you don't understand the other person's viewpoint and what you contribute to any discussion when you are unable (or, as I still suspect, unwilling) to understand the other person's viewpoint. 

Also, why would you think anybody should take time to consider your viewpoint when you don't offer their viewpoint that same level of respect?

**wanders off to get a refill... does anyone else want one whilst I'm there?  **


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

1512260 said:


> The man has apologised to you. There does come a point beyond which it becomes counter-productive to push the issue. You are now beyond that point.


You will forgive me for being slightly apprehensive.
but when you are playing slappy hands (analogy) nicely with someone and then they without warning punch you in the face you want to assertain that they are not going to punch you in the face again before starting playing with them again.
Its a trust issue.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


>



Now if i was you i would bombastically demand an answer but i am not you and i am going to let you off the hook and not demand an answer.


----------



## theclaud (29 Aug 2011)

1512265 said:


> I thought we were not to mention it.



Oh yes. Bugger.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> (again, this applies to many others)
> 
> 
> Rather than blanket-bombing responses without consideration, think about why you don't understand the other person's viewpoint and what you contribute to any discussion when you are unable (*or, as I still suspect, unwilling) to understand the other person's viewpoint.
> *



Clearly everything is open to interpretation. BTW it is not possible to understand every POV.

Norm do you understand the POV of a KKK member for example?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Now if i was you i would bombastically demand an answer but i am not you and i am going to let you off the hook and not demand an answer.



OMG I am soooooooooooooooooooo grateful.


----------



## apollo179 (29 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> (again, this applies to many others)
> 
> Maybe push the keyboard away and settle yourself down with a coffee (other warm beverages are available) to have a little ponder on that. Certainly if you are getting "wound up" by people's blatherings on the internerd.
> 
> ...



Fair comments and put over in a nice freindly way.


----------



## Norm (29 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Clearly everything is open to interpretation. BTW it is not possible to understand every POV.
> Norm do you understand the POV of a KKK member for example?


 Hmm... rlj to KKK is not an obvious leap.  

You have shown, perfectly, that you have read and responded without any consideration for what was actually written.

Had the discussion been about KKK and had I been posting in that discussion, then your question would have relevance. As it is, you have been, if I may quote myself... 



Norm said:


> ...reduced to nit-picking irrelevant points and misrepresenting the underlying message.


 As it happens, yes, I would hope to understand the viewpoints of the KKK, just as I would Al Qeada, animal liberationists, eco warriors, Critical Mass, even the Ramblers Association (although that does often need a second cup of coffee). I don't agree with most of their viewpoints, I don't agree with most of their actions, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand them.

I feel that, without understanding the other person's viewpoint, I would be too blinkered to offer my own.


----------

