Red Light Jumping

[apollo179]

MrPaul - Im not sure in you are genuinely unable to see any opinion other than your own or if you are doing it deliberately just to be disruptive.
Anyways you are wrong - It was a reference to my post saying "at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting is going to be annoying and undermine respect towards traffic lights."
If i understand correctly Norm is saying ; When the roads were otherwise empty, he would consider slowing and stopping at a red to be unnecessary and wasteful. And as a further consideration fuel consumption drops as a result of stopping at lights. Unnecessary stopping at traffic lights has a negative and undesireable impact on fuel consumption.

 

[Norm]

[QUOTE 1526086"]
It was with reference to a specific commuting route, on a pedal cycle. The roads aren't otherwise empty during a peak time inner city commute. [/quote] Apollo's post said " but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting ". Unnecessary was specifically "when roads are otherwise empty" and (to twobiker as well) did not make any mention of cycling.

 

[twobiker]

Apollo's post said " but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting ". Unnecessary was specifically "when roads are otherwise empty" and (to twobiker as well) did not make any mention of cycling.

I am confused as to why it would be of any interest that your fuel consumption drops if you stop in your car, on a cycle forum, my fuel consumption drops at 70mph in my car, oh, thats not relevant either, unless you are expanding the thread to rljing in a car.

 

[Raa]

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.

Yeah its a nice word! Aside from its historical use, which you are clearly informed about, in modern use "fascist" is an epitaph, a synonym for authoritarian instincts, which is pretty much what we have here.

Rather than keep the highly effective selective enforcement of laws we enjoy in this country, some would seem to prefer a regression to zero tolerance enforcement for even minor offences.

Every day people choose which laws they will obey, its the daily reality and always has been, get over it.

Please at least try to understand that in this country laws are enforced as required.

So it is with RLJ'ing cyclists; if it was a huge social problem, as some seem to suggest it is, then we would be seeing a lot more enforcement. As things are, the authorities, quite rightly, are not wasting much time on it.

The few exceptions prove the rule: in places like London where cyclists ignoring pedestrian crossings has made things dangerous and stressful for pedestrians. This is clearly anti-social and so, quite rightly, there is quite a bit of enforcement.


Its exactly the same with: One way streets, cycling on pavements beside busy roads, pedal reflectors, fixies with no front brake, carrying passengers on racks etc, etc.

 

[Norm]

...unless you are expanding the thread to rljing in a car.

I think the references to red lights and their application to all vehicles has been fairly well addressed already in this thread. Stopping at a red is just as much of a pain and waste of energy on a bike (IMO) but I cannot quantify the energy required for a cyclist to stop and start as plainly as I can in the car.

 

[twobiker]

Yeah its a nice word! Aside from its historical use, which you are clearly informed about, in modern use "fascist" is an epitaph, a synonym for authoritarian instincts, which is pretty much what we have here.

Rather than keep the highly effective selective enforcement of laws we enjoy in this country, some would seem to prefer a regression to zero tolerance enforcement for even minor offences.

Every day people choose which laws they will obey, its the daily reality and always has been, get over it.

Please at least try to understand that in this country laws are enforced as required.

So it is with RLJ'ing cyclists; if it was a huge social problem, as some seem to suggest it is, then we would be seeing a lot more enforcement. As things are, the authorities, quite rightly, are not wasting much time on it.

The few exceptions prove the rule: in places like London where cyclists ignoring pedestrian crossings has made things dangerous and stressful for pedestrians. This is clearly anti-social and so, quite rightly, there is quite a bit of enforcement.


Its exactly the same with: One way streets, cycling on pavements beside busy roads, pedal reflectors, fixies with no front brake, carrying passengers on racks etc, etc.

So apart from London the authorities are not as "Fascist" as you would have us believe then, perhaps the London authorities are trying to protect the law abiding majority, for the London cops.

 

[Raa]

So apart from London the authorities are not as "Fascist" as you would have us believe then, perhaps the London authorities are trying to protect the law abiding majority, for the London cops.

Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.

 

[apollo179]

Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.

A major problem is that some people of restricted outlooks only response to the issue of rljing is "its against the law therefore its wrong".
And on this basis call rljers a colourfull assortment of names.
With no consideration of the issue in a wider perspective.
Unfortunately for some on this forum the issue of rljing will always just be a stick to berate other cyclists with and not a motivation to improve road traffic control and benefit society.
Fundamentally i do not understamd this willingnness of some cyclists to judge, critiscise and condenm ( sometimes in quite hateful terms) other cyclists over the issue of rljing. I can think of issues that would propmt me to express opinions of extreme dissaproval and hatred but someone rljing isnt one of them. Why this proclivity in some ?.

 

[Raa]

A major problem is that some people of restricted outlooks only response to the issue of rljing is "its against the law therefore its wrong".
And on this basis call rljers a colourfull assortment of names.
With no consideration of the issue in a wider perspective.
Unfortunately for some on this forum the issue of rljing will always just be a stick to berate other cyclists with and not a motivation to improve road traffic control and benefit society.
Fundamentally i do not understamd this willingnness of some cyclists to judge, critiscise and condenm ( sometimes in quite hateful terms) other cyclists over the issue of rljing. I can think of issues that would propmt me to express opinions of extreme dissaproval and hatred but someone rljing isnt one of them. Why this proclivity in some ?.

Well I guess if you're sat behind the stop line in a cloud of diesel smoke and a group of riders ride straight on through, then its bound to piss you off! Doesn't really excuse the belligerent narrow mindedness though........

 

[apollo179]

Well a guess if you're sat behind the stop line in a cloud of diesel smoke and a group of riders ride straight on through, then its bound to piss you off! Doesn't really excuse the belligerent narrow mindedness though........

Maybe.
My default position is not judging , condemning and hating others.
I would only tend to do so if there was an acute reason to do so.
Thoughtless rljing - going through a light causing danger to pedestrians etc i would condemn.
But that behaviour is the exception. The majority of rljing is done safely and responsibly so my default position on rljing is not one of judging , condemning and hating.
The fact that the law is not enforced implies some acknowledgement that it is not the most important crime ever committed and unless there is some acute aggravating circumstance i would not think it warrants the judgmental , condemnatory and name calling that it ellicits from some on this forum.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Over trivial matters?

The conversation has bizarrely included murder, so I would hardly suggest that this thread (or aspects of the conversation) relates to only trivial matters anymore

Besides, what is trivial to one may not be trivial to another.

Bless those dear little women and their fanciful notions of suffrage, but they're not REALLY important....

 

[twobiker]

Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.

I am not misrepresenting you at all, on one page you are asking us to look at an item on "Wiki" which has no relevance to this country and calling it a Fascist regime, and then you say later, that some minor laws need enforcing more than others, it is you who is fascist, you wish to have the law changed to whatever you think is right, in the minority, luckily in a Democracy the majority make the law

 

[twobiker]

Maybe.
My default position is not judging , condemning and hating others.
I would only tend to do so if there was an acute reason to do so.
Thoughtless rljing - going through a light causing danger to pedestrians etc i would condemn.
But that behaviour is the exception. The majority of rljing is done safely and responsibly so my default position on rljing is not one of judging , condemning and hating.
The fact that the law is not enforced implies some acknowledgement that it is not the most important crime ever committed and unless there is some acute aggravating circumstance i would not think it warrants the judgmental , condemnatory and name calling that it ellicits from some on this forum.

Perhaps the reason that the law is not enforced is because the rljer has a checklist, 1,no traffic,2,no pedestrians, 3, no body who looks like he might get to angry, 4, no cops, ok, safe to go.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526101"]
A reasonable and serious question for you-

Your view is that the majority of rljing is done safely and responsibly, yet you also have the view that all cyclists should obey red lights.

What then is your view as to why cyclists shouldn't RLJ?
[/quote]

Your question may be genuine but given your past history of attacking me personally you will understand if i do not want to go down this road - with you at least.

My view point on "why cyclists shouldn't RLJ" has been pretty clearly expressed .

 

[twobiker]

Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.
Should it not be, "misrepresenting what I have written" , not "misrepresenting what I wrote", perhaps thats where the confusion arose?.