Red Light Jumping

[apollo179]

Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.

I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.

 

[PK99]

I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.

As befroe: all of that applies equally well to motorists

I think - rljing motorists will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
Irresponsible unsafe driving is deplorable in any circumstances.
Driving safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.

 

[twobiker]

I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.

If any cyclist is so unaware of the Traffic Laws that they do not understand a Red light means stop then they should sign up for some safety lessons pronto. trying to change a persons mind when they have convinced themselves that what they are doing is harmless because for some reason they are able to make descisions which overule the laws to which mere mortals are bound is similar to telling a child not to put their hand in a fire, You know it will end in tears, but until they do it and get burnt they won't believe you.

 

[Raa]

Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.

Well if thats what you truly believe; that its really such a dangerous thing to do, then you are certainly doing the right thing by always stopping. Good for you!

 

[Raa]

As befroe: all of that applies equally well to motorists

As before, it doesn't apply that well to motorists at all. Due, of course, to the vast difference in kinetic energy and thus third party risk (between motor vehicles and bicycles)....

 

[PK99]

As before, it doesn't apply that well to motorists at all. Due, of course, to the vast difference in kinetic energy and thus third party risk (between motor vehicles and bicycles)....

If a driver stops at a red light, sees no one coming and eases through at walking pace, the kinetic energy argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter b*ll*ks.

A driver doing that is no different from a cyclist rljing

If it's ok for a cyclist, is it ok for a car driver?

 

[twobiker]

Well if thats what you truly believe; that its really such a dangerous thing to do, then you are certainly doing the right thing by always stopping. Good for you!

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,or was until you posted.

 

[twobiker]

As before, it doesn't apply that well to motorists at all. Due, of course, to the vast difference in kinetic energy and thus third party risk (between motor vehicles and bicycles)....

if Rljers are so confident that it is ok to do it if they deem it safe, why do they refrain from it if there is a Police presence ?.

 

[david k]

As befroe: all of that applies equally well to motorists

I agree, i think the only difference is motorists generally travel faster and can make up the time lost at lights easier than a cyclist, no justification for doing it but the real reason imho

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526288"]
See? You think that cyclists should stop at red, yet you don't.

And you wonder why people are confused by you.
[/quote]

Where have i said that i dont stop at red lights.
As usual you are being irresponsible and making groundless allegations.

 

[Dan B]

If a driver stops at a red light, sees no one coming and eases through at walking pace, the kinetic energy argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter b*ll*ks.

A driver doing that is no different from a cyclist rljing

If it's ok for a cyclist, is it ok for a car driver?

No different from a cyclist rljing except that their vehicle still takes up much more space on the road, so cannot avail themselves of any opportunities to filter into a gap without disrupting other traffic that a cyclist could. But at 3am when the road is deserted? Yes, legality aside, what actually is wrong with a car driver RLJing in that circumstance? It's no different than if a pedestrian were to cross the road with the red light against him

 

[david k]

Where have i said that i dont stop at red lights.
As usual you are being irresponsible and making groundless allegations.

forgive me ive just joined the thread, do you think cyclists should or should not have to stop at red lights?

 

[Jezston]

Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.

A bit like the douche featured at 1:49 and 2:55 in this clip:
http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=5986557

Story - guy is killed during an alleytwat after being hit by a car when he jumped a red light light into a busy intersection. Guy they interviewed's response is "cars are bad".

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526292"]
Again, irrelevant if there's no risk.
[/quote]

How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ?
Why do you interpret 2 people holding a diferent view from you as they must be the same person?
Is this just indicative of someone so narrow minded that the only explanation that they can conceive of their being 2 people with differnt view from them is that those 2 people must in fact be the same person.
Please answer.

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 1526302"]
Pedestrians are not legally bound by red lights.
[/quote]

That's why I said "legality aside". What is the actual difference between a pedestrian walking across the road against the lights and a car driving across the road at walking pace, against the lights, save that in this place and at this time one is legal and the other not? Perhaps consideration of this scenario will shed some light on whether the same laws should apply to both modes of transport or whether they should be treated differently