Red Light Jumping

[Norm]

He said he was restricting his comments to bikes as this was a bike forum. I am simply reading between the lines.

You don't need to read between the lines if you read the lines themselves.

Yes - good points norm.
Where the no harm concept applies across the board to all traffic then there would be an arguement for the greater good being served by re-evaluating the lighting policy for all traffic.
I agree there is good reason that cyclists should not separate ourselves from traffic. I was not trying to do this i was just for simplicity restricting myself to discussing the cyclist situation.

If it is / became legal for any vehicle to go through a red traffic light where it is safe, then there is no problem with cars, trucks, buses and even cyclists to go through a red light, where it is safe.

He says that fairly explicitly, there is no need to dig for subtext just to be antagonistic.

 

[apollo179]

Nonsense, your OP was:

"Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "

That was not considering a change in the law it was seeking to justify cyclists breaking the law - you are now shifting you ground

You clearly fail to understand that the original question is just a stepping off point.
And that If the answer to the question is that there is no compelling arguement then that logically leads us to re-evaluate traffic control policy - traffic lights etc etc.

 

[User482]

[QUOTE 1525885"]
You're contradicting yourself. You say that all cyclists should stop at red, but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so.

What do you do?
[/quote]

Cycling on the footway is illegal. Home Office guidelines state that only pavement cyclists behaving irresponsibly should be punished.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525885"]
You're contradicting yourself. You say that all cyclists should stop at red, but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so.

What do you do?
[/quote]

Complete nonsense.
It is a commonsense gimme that all cyclists should stop at red lights.
Where do i say "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
You have failed to deliver your much promised reasons and have resorted to sheer lying.
You have no credibility left on this topic.

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

No takers? I'll get the first round in and throw-in some pork scratchings...

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525912"]
Your post at 0756 this morning said exactly that.

And you've had the reasons explained to you in simple terms over a fairly comprehensive thread. There's no need for me to repeat them for you to continue to ignore.
[/quote]

Completely untrue.
Please copy and paste where i said ;
"but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
You have given no reasons because you have no reasons .

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525913"]
That's the mechanics of authority, not an internet voice who has started with what would suit him without thinking about it much and then twizzled around to try to maintain his position when others have done the thinking for him.
[/quote]

You have tried to hijack this topic for your rlj hating agenda from the start.
Fortunately intelligent adult debate has prevailed.
As i have said before if you just want a topic to spout your anti rlj hatred then please start one and post it there.
This is not the place .

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525918"]
Read your own post and you'll see where you singled out some jumpers for punishment.

Read the rest of this thread and the previous one and you'll see the counter arguments. Ignoring them is your choice.
[/quote]
So you cannot copy and paste because i didnt say it.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525921"]
I can, but not on this phone. It's there in print though for all to see.
[/quote]
Good one.
It is not there in print for all to see because i didnt say it.
Completely untrue.
Please copy and paste at the earliest opportunity where i said ;
"but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
I await with interest.

 

[PK99]

Completely untrue.
Please copy and paste where i said ;
"but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
You have given no reasons because you have no reasons .

your post from 07:56

Intersting and reasonable opinions.
Surely cyclists who rlj unsafely should be punished.
Unnacceptable rljing should be discouraged and safe responsible cycling (aka rljing) be encouraged (legitimised) - changing the law or the lights etc etc.

i think " "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so." is a reasonable paraphrase

 

[apollo179]

your post from 07:56





i think " "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so." is a reasonable paraphrase

Im not going to argue this repeatedly so let User speak for himself and ill deal with it then at the appropriate time..
Thanks.

 

[PK99]

Im not going to argue this repeatedly so let User speak for himself and ill deal with it then at the appropriate time..
Thanks.

Which roughly translates as: that's a hook I can't wriggle off so i will pretend it's not there.

 

[User482]

[QUOTE 1525913"]
That's the mechanics of authority, not an internet voice who has started with what would suit him without thinking about it much and then twizzled around to try to maintain his position when others have done the thinking for him.
[/quote]
It's an example of a law that's only enforced when breaking it causes harm to other groups.

 

[Dan B]

It's an example of a law that's only enforced when breaking it causes harm to other groups.

Or at least, of a law that's supposed to be enforced only when breaking it causes harm to other groups.

 

[User482]

Or at least, of a law that's supposed to be enforced only when breaking it causes harm to other groups.

true! But I think the point stands...opposing an action solely because of its illegality isn't really tenable.