U
User482
Guest
marinyork said:
True, but it's much harder to argue with these people when they can always point to the number of cyclists RLJing.
Pavement cycling/RLJ
- Thread starter classic33
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
True, but it's much harder to argue with these people when they can always point to the number of cyclists RLJing.
Funtboy
Well-Known Member
- Location
- London via Jarrow
User482 said:
It's never safe to speed in a car because you cannot ever predict who or what will jump out at you. It cannot be compared. I would be very interested to find out how many fatal accidents have been caused by RLJ.
Funtboy
Well-Known Member
- Location
- London via Jarrow
I don't see any point with even having this discussion with motorists. They generally have a sterotypical attitude towards cyclists and, in my experience, trying to convert a creationist would be easier.User482 said:
I used to have this 'urban warrior' attitude and would try to set an example: stop at all red lights, get off and push on pavements regardless of whether there was a need and generally argue the toss with car drivers. I've long since realised that it's fruitless and I now regard all other road users as 'hostile' and cycle appropriately.
If I cycle within all of the rules of the road, I get abused and treated as target practice by motorists anyway. If I act like a nutter, they seem to keep their distance. I try to find a suitable compromise
U
User482
Guest
Funtboy said:
Your first sentence demonstrates exactly why you shouldn't RLJ. There are very few situations in which you can be absolutely certain that someone else won't do something suddenly.
As for your last sentence, I hope you're not suggesting that we should only
measure the consequences of RLJ in terms of fatalities?
U
User482
Guest
nickb said:I don't see any point with even having this discussion with motorists. They generally have a sterotypical attitude towards cyclists and, in my experience, trying to convert a creationist would be easier.
I used to have this 'urban warrior' attitude and would try to set an example: stop at all red lights, get off and push on pavements regardless of whether there was a need and generally argue the toss with car drivers. I've long since realised that it's fruitless and I now regard all other road users as 'hostile' and cycle appropriately.
If I cycle within all of the rules of the road, I get abused and treated as target practice by motorists anyway. If I act like a nutter, they seem to keep their distance. I try to find a suitable compromise
Curious. I do cycle within the rules and only rarely come into conflict with motorists. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that breaking the rules increases safety for cyclists.
U
User482
Guest
User3143 said:Yep, I think in 13 years of cycling I must have RLJ at least 1000 times easy, never caused a crash or accident. So chill out and stop with the hating just because some cyclists choose to bend the rules.
I've never caused a crash = it must be safe. Is that the best you can do?
It's not a case of hating cyclists who bend the rules, it's a case of hating the image of cycling being tarnished unnecessarily by those who think that they are too important to comply with perfectly reasonable traffic laws.
U
User482
Guest
User3143 said:
Only in response to your selfishness.
Funtboy
Well-Known Member
- Location
- London via Jarrow
User482 said:
How do we measure the consequences?
U
User482
Guest
Funtboy said:
Injuries, for a start. Then there are perception surveys.
The perception one is difficult. What I really meant about frighten is there are those that get frightened by idiots but there are also those that just have some antiquarian view that these "mechanically propelled" vehicles are dangerous even on the roads and obeying all the rules, so much so I can imagine them getting on very well in victorian times or perhaps objecting to trains because their passengers brains' would be turned to mush.
Ultimately it's we're an outgroup so there are idiots out there that just regard their activities as normal and are bitterly intolerant of anything else.
Ultimately it's we're an outgroup so there are idiots out there that just regard their activities as normal and are bitterly intolerant of anything else.
U
User482
Guest
User3143 said:
Your last post says everything about the strength of your argument.
U
User482
Guest
marinyork said:
Yes, exactly, which is why acting in a way that makes us stand out isn't going to help change this perception.
Funtboy
Well-Known Member
- Location
- London via Jarrow
User482 said:
Okay, sorry to re-post but...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
What have you got for me?
U
User482
Guest
Funtboy said:
Sorry, I asked for evidence that not RLJing increases risk to the cyclist. There is nothing in that article to say that it does. What it does do, is make the fairly obvious point that waiting in a lorry driver's blind spot is dangerous. You can avoid doing so either by RLJing, or by waiting further back (which is what I do).
Correlation does not equal causation.
