Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Therein lies the problem.
Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..
- Thread starter Judderz
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Therein lies the problem.
apollo179
Well-Known Member
[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.
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
Well-Known Member
[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. "
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
Well-Known Member
[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.
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.
[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)
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
[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 .
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
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
I fail to see how anyone can responsibly run a red light.
apollo179
Well-Known Member
Hi - welcome back. Are we still speaking to each other ?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
I am discussing the responsibility of riding a bicycle. You can not responsibly run a red light full stop.
weak, specious, self-serving. Don't ever try to register for one of my rides
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
apollo179
Well-Known Member
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
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
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
Well-Known Member
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.
- Status
