Red Light Jumping

[twobiker]

I suggest you go to the link and read the article to which the comment refered. Thankfully we don't have those laws here but if we did it would definitly be fascist and any disobedience would be highly commendable.

So far the daily reality of bicyclists ignoring red lights has been compared to: murder, assault and battery, and shoplifting. Can people please get real!!!

The link you keep bleating on about clearly states that no countries have these laws, so why don't you keep it real, and also it is only in your opinion that such a law would be fascist, the whole thing is farcical not fascist.

 

[Raa]

Well some US states do have the laws......but anyway it was only an example.

Are you honestly suggesting that a law prohibiting 2 wheelers moving faster than the speed of gridlocked traffic would be anything other than fascist???

That's about as reasonable as comparing RLJ'ing to murder!!

If you cannot see a problem with systems of traffic law and road infrastructure which are designed primarily for the convenience of motorists then you are very blinkered indeed.

 

[twobiker]

Well some US states do have the laws......but anyway it was only an example.

Are you honestly suggesting that a law prohibiting 2 wheelers moving faster than the speed of gridlocked traffic would be anything other than fascist???

That's about as reasonable as comparing RLJ'ing to murder!!

If you cannot see a problem with systems of traffic law and road infrastructure which are designed primarily for the convenience of motorists then you are very blinkered indeed.
You are the one who is blinkered ,you have launched an attack upon complete strangers with your obsessive preoccupation with a law that does not exist in this country which does not make any sense,and your continuous reference to "fascism" is just tiresome drivel, perhaps it would be better as you feel so persecuted as a cyclist if you got rid of your bike and walked.

 

[Raa]

Well I think I referred to it 3 or 4 times as a useful example of a regressive law.

If that's what passes for "obsessive preoccupation" i'd better get myself off to the shrink first thing....thanks for the diagnosis

 

[apollo179]

Mad@urage - reason 1.
"Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.
RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.
rljers annoy others (including it is apparent their fellow cyclists) and if rljing were made legalfor cyclists only it would still cause this annoyance."


Although im not totally feeling this reason myself i can appreciate that it is valid inso far as offence would be caused to some number of people.
Technically i am not sure where the "causing offence to others" idea stacks up in directing legislation but am not going to argue the point as it is redundant because
i am persuaded ny Norms opinion that it is a bad idea to separate cyclists from other traffic and introduce measures just for cycling.
This reason is negated by making any revisions to traffic management apply to all traffic.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Mad@urage - reason 1.
"Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.
RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.
rljers annoy others (including it is apparent their fellow cyclists) and if rljing were made legalfor cyclists only it would still cause this annoyance."


Although im not totally feeling this reason myself i can appreciate that it is valid inso far as offence would be caused to some number of people.
Technically i am not sure where the "causing offence to others" idea stacks up in directing legislation but am not going to argue the point as it is redundant because
i am persuaded ny Norms opinion that it is a bad idea to separate cyclists from other traffic and introduce measures just for cycling.
This reason is negated by making any revisions to traffic management apply to all traffic.

If you seek to change the law for all traffic at given times then that makes far more sense than changing for just one mode of transport.

 

[apollo179]

Mad@urage - reasons 2
No one should break the law just because it is an inconvenience,

I agree that it is imperative that the integrity of the "stop at red light" concept is upheld.
The red light is the cornerstone of our traffic control strategy and should be in no way comprimised.
To introduce exceptions would be corrosive and a bad idea.
I agree legal rljing should not be considered. (the law should not be changed to allow rljing in any circumstances.)

 

[apollo179]

Im not going to respond to all of mad@rages reasons as some i can see and some i cant.
I do see the fundamental requirement to maintain the integrity of the red light.
I am disappointed that some people has misinterpreted my intentions on this post .
I am disappoined that Mr Paul has been determined to insult me personally from the get go and still appears only to be on this topic to insult me personally.
Mr Paul your Jedwood commect was childish and pathetic. I will not stoop to your depths as it is readily apparent the kind of person you are.

 

[martint235]

Well some US states do have the laws......but anyway it was only an example.

Are you honestly suggesting that a law prohibiting 2 wheelers moving faster than the speed of gridlocked traffic would be anything other than fascist???

That's about as reasonable as comparing RLJ'ing to murder!!

If you cannot see a problem with systems of traffic law and road infrastructure which are designed primarily for the convenience of motorists then you are very blinkered indeed.

You really do like throwing the word "fascist" around a lot don't you? Do you actually understand the meaning both literal and historical? On a literal basis it does not necessarily have to be bad. Definitions are very wide but it can boil down to suppressing the rights of the individual in favour of the nation as a whole.

On a historical basis, well I'll let you read up on what fascism achieved around the world (I wouldn't suggest you limit yourself to European history, there's been other stuff done in the name of fascism).

Then let's see if being asked to stop at a red light is really a fascist measure.

 

[apollo179]

If you seek to change the law for all traffic at given times then that makes far more sense than changing for just one mode of transport.

Agreed.
Im not sure the law does need changing.
More like traffic control strategy for all traffic should be reviewed and ammended as deemed appropriate.
It seems to me that the current situation is that traffic control measures are insiduously multiplying , therby making unnecessary waiting more of an acute problem which is in turn undermining the integrity of the "stop at red" ideal.

 

[apollo179]

As Dan B highlighted. Something like 30 to 40 lights in a 3.5 miles.
On busy roads where the lights serve a purpose then thats great but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting is going to be annoying and undermine respect towards traffic lights.

 

[twobiker]

Well I think I referred to it 3 or 4 times as a useful example of a regressive law.

If that's what passes for "obsessive preoccupation" i'd better get myself off to the shrink first thing....thanks for the diagnosis

Your welcome.

 

[twobiker]

As Dan B highlighted. Something like 30 to 40 lights in a 3.5 miles.
On busy roads where the lights serve a purpose then thats great but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting is going to be annoying and undermine respect towards traffic lights.

I always respect red lights , I respect them so much if I could get their phone number I would ring them the next day, and if they brought in the system where the lights on some junctions were put on Orange overnight that would be good ,but, until they do then I will not break the law nor start a campaign of civil disobedience against any other law, "I know you did not say that bit".

 

[Norm]

[QUOTE 1526083"]
It's not unnecessary waiting.
[/quote]Is an alternative opinion.

When the roads were otherwise empty, I'd consider slowing and stopping at a red to be unnecessary and wasteful. The overall fuel consumption on my 27 mile commute drops by 5% if the traffic lights are red on one specific junction.

 

[twobiker]

Is an alternative opinion.

When the roads were otherwise empty, I'd consider slowing and stopping at a red to be unnecessary and wasteful. The overall fuel consumption on my 27 mile commute drops by 5% if the traffic lights are red on one specific junction.

How do you measure the fuel consumption on a bike ?