Red Light Jumping

[Norm]

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

I read that as a suggestion that the things should be changed to allow crossing red lights to be legal under certain circumstances - he specifically says "changing the law or the lights".

In other words, it wasn't saying that the unsafe ones should be punished but that the law should differentiate between responsible riding (turning left on red, for instance) and unacceptable riding.

I realise, though, that other interpretations are possible.

 

[the snail]

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

It's a perfectly tenable position, just because the law isn't perfectly consistent doesn't invalidate that argument. You could argue that the law regarding footpath riding should be rigidly enforced. Personally I don't ride on the pavement, but I can see there are situations where a safety case can be made for doing so, like for young children, or dangerous roads. I don't see any safety case for rlj-ing, just impatient riders.

 

[Norm]

[QUOTE 1525935"] That's an interpretation. And if correct, then the issue warrants objective discussion. Which means considering all of the issues, not repeatedly claiming that no-one has given any argument against rljing apart from the legal one when this claim is irrevocably untrue. [/quote] Indeed, my interpretation was based on my first reading, not the subsequent direction of the thread.

[QUOTE 1525936"] And such a law could never exist in this country, not with the present attitude of drivers. [/quote] I think it would be difficult but I don't think that I would say it "could never exist". Changing the lights in the way I suggested (way) above could be possible without a change in the law. Intelligent lights or the increased use of "peak period" signals would also be easy to implement and would remove a lot of the frustration that all users have with waiting on a red when there isn't another vehicle around.

Changing the law to allow turning left on red would require something bigger but, given some of the huge changes which have been implemented, I wouldn't say never.

 

[User482]

It's a perfectly tenable position, just because the law isn't perfectly consistent doesn't invalidate that argument. You could argue that the law regarding footpath riding should be rigidly enforced. Personally I don't ride on the pavement, but I can see there are situations where a safety case can be made for doing so, like for young children, or dangerous roads. I don't see any safety case for rlj-ing, just impatient riders.

No. Oppose something because it is wrong, not because of its legal status.

Actually, I don't buy the argument that rlj ing is safer, but am prepared to accept that there are circumstances in which it can be done without harm.

 

[apollo179]

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

Incorrect its the proper thing to do.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525930"]
That's the one. Saves me quoting it.

I'm just trying to understand your position. You seem to be saying that no cyclists should jump red lights, but that only a selected group should be punished for it. And I don't see that that makes sense.
[/quote]

Firstly nowhere do i say "only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
Your claim that i said this is irresponsible and factually incorrect.
It may just be irresponsible use of language but nevertheless it is irresponsible and factually incorrect.

 

[apollo179]

I read that as a suggestion that the things should be changed to allow crossing red lights to be legal under certain circumstances - he specifically says "changing the law or the lights".

In other words, it wasn't saying that the unsafe ones should be punished but that the law should differentiate between responsible riding (turning left on red, for instance) and unacceptable riding.

I realise, though, that other interpretations are possible.

Correct Norm.
I was saying where appropriate crossing red lights (at present illegal) should be legitimised / made legal.
You have expressed it better than me.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525935"]
That's an interpretation. And if correct, then the issue warrants objective discussion. Which means considering all of the issues, not repeatedly claiming that no-one has given any argument against rljing apart from the legal one when this claim is irrevocably untrue.

As always with these discussions it's essential to go further than what's being said and consider the motivation behind the view. In this case such consideration is being deliberately avoided.


[/quote]

You have in this topic given no arguements.
You have just brought your warped agenda over from an old post and seem intent on rehashing a completely differnt question and disrupting the majority who would like to discuss this issue in an adult and intelligent way.
If you want to "go further than what's being said and consider the motivation behind the view" then why dont you start a topic specifically to air your anti rljer bile.

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 1525944"]
Hmm, And I do recall you labelling me an ''aggressive hater.''
[/quote]

Do you really hate aggressives or just mildly dislike them?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

You started this whole thread because you were dissatisfied with the previous one being closed and you didn't wish to stop pursuing your agenda. If at the start you had made it clear that only people who agree with you are allowed to contribute it would have made things much easier all round.

 

[twobiker]

The Police could Just take the bike and crush it if you get caught rlj, ..........oh yeah thats what could happen if you rlj, only by some Artic instead, if rljers are so worried about losing time why don't they just jump off and run across the road . maybe there fitness levels would'nt take the strain.

 

[apollo179]

You started this whole thread because you were dissatisfied with the previous one being closed and you didn't wish to stop pursuing your agenda. If at the start you had made it clear that only people who agree with you are allowed to contribute it would have made things much easier all round.

First bit has an element of truth .
Second bit i disagree with.
I welcome other people with other opinions.
However Mr Pauls only arguement seems to be based on attacking me personally.
Mr Paul has posted in this topic about me to date thus :
"I said that I didn't believe your claim that you only rlj at completely deserted junctions. Because that's not true."
"Please justify your daytime rljing. And that is, you running red lights whenever you think you'll get away without being hit or pulled up by the police. "
"So you admit that your behaviour is indefensible? "
"You don't rlj at 2am. You rlj whenever you think you can get away with it."
"What do you do? "
Make any arguements you want but please do not personalise it to me - that is where the last thread ran aground.
I would love to hear Mr Pauls arguement so long as it isnt based on attacking me personally.
If you want a Topic specifically for the purpose of attacking me then please create a new topic.
Thanks.

 

[gaz]

If you don't like the way he is 'picking' at your posts. Then block him.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Setting legality aside, there is a huge problem with allowing bikes to RLJ; namely the ignorance of drivers. Drivers already get upset when we hold primary or even secondary. They do not understand that this is legal. Some truly believe bikes should not be allowed on the roads. Add into this mix something that has the potential to be dangerous and expect a backlash from drivers.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If you don't like the way he is 'picking' at your posts. Then block him.

Or MTFU