Educating fellow cyclists - what do you reckon?

[z0mb13e]

Maybe it's a London/country thing. Sometimes, it just seems silly to sit in the middle of nowhere waiting because a machine tells you to (in RSA they are called "robots", which I quite like).

Agreed it is stupid to sit at a red light in the middle of nowhere when you can clearly see the route ahead is clear. Glad you mentioned the threat of a hidden police car. It tempers behaviour for car drivers but seemingly not for cyclists. That said you simply never know what type of copper you might pass or what mood they might be in and where you would stand or if they would see things your way, after all the law doesn't always see eye to eye with common sense.

The one thing that always stuck with me regarding the police and their enforcement of law is that it is largely on a whim. Shortly after I passed my test I was reversing the car around a corner and I had taken my seat belt off as allowed for such a manoeuvre when a police car drove past, stopped and one copper leaned out the window and proceeded to have a go at me for driving without a seat belt and how dangerous it was... I was gob smacked and was shot down for trying to explain I was reversing with a patronising 'The shortest journeys are the most dangerous'. More recently I was sitting at traffic lights behind a police car, I could see a cyclist behind me approaching the red lights at a fair pace and as expected he shot past the police car and through the red lights. The driver of the police car waited for the lights to change and pulled the cyclist over. Knowing one of the police officers I was later told that he was fined (I don't know the specifics of the offence/fine)... another time and he may have been ignored or let off with a warning.

 

[flecc]

Individualists and small-statists might consider that any of these are less desirable than dealing with well-motivated criticism from an ordinary member of the public

No. .........

 

[halfer]

All roads should be constructed of memory foam and all vehicles should be carefully constructed from cardboard, so that if there is an accident there are no injuries. If this just saves one life it will be worth it !

I see your point, but councils are generally better informed than members of the public about accident statistics. The suggestion that "one life would be saved" is quite hard to prove statistically, but a significant change to accident rates (up or down) after a road configuration change (e.g. new lights) is hard to argue with.

Whilst I expressed scepticism about speed cameras before, I am mildly of the view that they can (and have) saved lives, despite hard campaigning in the other direction from the car lobby. I'm of the view that this opinion is compatible with the view that councils were (or still are) using them as cash generators. Did I used to speed in my car? Sometimes. Would I have minded getting a ticket? Definitely.

We're complicated, us humans, and yet sometimes it helps if we can agree to measures that curb our individualist excesses

 

[flecc]

Whilst I expressed scepticism about speed cameras before, I am mildly of the view that they can (and have) saved lives,

I fail to see how you can say that. During and immediately after the period of the largest expansion of speed camera installations, there was no reduction in road deaths. In fact there was a slight but not significant increase for a couple of years. The consensus opinion amongst many of the informed such as the police was that the cameras had merely moved the high speeds to different points, and by implication, possibly the deaths.

In the last couple of years there has been a substantial reduction in the employment of existing cameras, but annual road deaths have fallen below 3000 for the first time. Any rational view is that there is no correlation between speed camera usage and road deaths, given the contrary nature of the facts.
.

 

[Scottyf]

But they do generate revenue ;-)

No ones bothered about saftey unless it makes you a few quid

 

[steveindenmark]

I am quite surprised that people think it is ok to ride through a red light, even if it is "Carefully".

I can ride my Moto Guzzi through red lights carefully but I bet all hell would let loose if I got caught doing it.

If you cannot slow down on the approach to a red light and judge it for when it turns to green then get off the bike and walk it across the road.

Where anyone is going that is so urgent that they cannot wait for a light to change, alludes me.

Maybe there is a new road traffic law that I have not heard of which excludes cyclists.

I think if you have the courage to point out to someone what they are doing wrong then do it.

Steve

 

[halfer]

I fail to see how you can say that.

I should have known better than to open that particular can of worms, if only to avoid going seriously off-topic

But in answer to your question, I suspect it was this chap's fault and probably this article in particular. His point about either side of the debate putting forward a peer-reviewed analysis is spot on, in my view.

 

[halfer]

I am quite surprised that people think it is ok to ride through a red light, even if it is "Carefully".

I don't mean to offend anyone here when I say I'm surprised as well. On another thread, I think a majority of community members were opposed to people removing the speed limiters from their bikes, on the basis that a perceived lawlessness would damage the reputation of (electric bike) cyclists.

Which would sort of bring me back to my original point, if one assumes that jumping a red light would cause a car driver to think less of cyclists in general. Of course, that assumption may be in doubt here, though I think I would generally subscribe to it.

 

[flecc]

I am quite surprised that people think it is ok to ride through a red light, even if it is "Carefully".

Not all red lights are equal Steve.

What many cyclists are doing is crossing when the pedestrian phase is in favour of their direction, i.e. no motor traffic is crossing in either direction.

That actually makes some sense, since cyclists and pedestrians have much more in common in terms of vulnerability and speed then either do with cars.

The failing is that of parliament. Having made provision in traffic lights for pedestrians by adding phases to suit, they have failed to make provision for the equally vulnerable cyclists. Many cyclists are merely trying to make up for that failing by sharing the pedestrian facility. As long as they do it sensibly I see no problem, and I'd like to see parliament make this facility a feature of law with lights phasing to suit.
.

 

[lectureral]

Maybe there is a new road traffic law that I have not heard of which excludes cyclists.

I think if you have the courage to point out to someone what they are doing wrong then do it.

Steve

No, there has been no suggestion that going through a red light on a bike is not against traffic law. I think I would draw a distinction between "doing wrong" in a moral sense and a legal sense. There are many things which I might consider morally wrong which are not illegal (e.g. adultery) - equally there are unlawful activities which I do not consider morally wrong. Going safely and courteously through a red light seems to me to fall into the latter category. There are so many laws now that observance of all is near impossible - making the adage "Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the strict observance of fools" more and more relevant. It would be interesting to know what the average number of laws each person breaks per day - I am betting it would be greater than 1.

 

[halfer]

@lectureral - I agree entirely about the division of morality and legality. I'm not in favour of adherence to the law from an authoritarian perspective - I'm solidly anti-authoritarian, in fact. But I am worried about a perception of lawlessness around cycling - whether it is justified or not - that might be exacerbated by cyclists breaking the law.

 

[flecc]

But in answer to your question, I suspect it was this chap's fault and probably this article in particular. His point about either side of the debate putting forward a peer-reviewed analysis is spot on, in my view.

Point taken, but I take no notice of pundits in general. I prefer to deal in non-human facts like those I mentioned. Of course I could have mounted a cogent argument that those facts demonstrated that speed cameras caused deaths.

Obviously the case for their being no correlation is a more sensible conclusion.
.

 

[halfer]

There are probably some pundits that are best ignored, but I find Monbiot's pieces to be thoroughly researched and considered - even if I don't like the conclusion. One might be able to mount a cogent argument about the dangers of speed cameras, but has such a claim been rigorously reviewed?

Back on topic - anyone want to own up to generally stopping on red*? It's early days yet, the poll could go the other way!

* excluding at 2am when there are no cars around for ten square miles.

 

[Caph]

I always stop on red. I'm just not in that much of a rush. Plus it gives me a chance to merge in to the centre of the lane and claim my space ready for the off.

I've given up on trying to change attitudes of other drivers. For all the perceived good of making a stand, one day it could kill you. Save you stand for more important matters.

 

[allen-uk]

Back on topic - anyone want to own up to generally stopping on red*? It's early days yet, the poll could go the other way!

* excluding at 2am when there are no cars around for ten square miles.

Yes, but I'm old and staid.

There is one place round here where lights control one-way traffic across a narrow bridge and you can see 500 yards up the road opposite, and if it's clear for that distance I will 'jump' the red light.

And I sometimes, although rarely, cross a particular pedestrian-controlled crossing on red, when I can see there are no pedestrians within 20+ yards of the crossing.

I suppose my criteria are (a) not to endanger others, (b) not to endanger myself, and possibly (c) mostly to set a good example.


A.

 

[halfer]

I've given up on trying to change attitudes of other drivers.

How about changing the attitudes of other cyclists, as per the original post?

 

[flecc]

Back on topic - anyone want to own up to generally stopping on red*? It's early days yet, the poll could go the other way!

You'll be surprised to know, I do! The single exception is the one I mentioned above, but that's only a two second anticipation of the change to green after the pedestrians have been stopped crossing and when all directions are red to everyone.

I always stop on red at all traffic lights, and remain stationary until the change on all but that one set where a special danger exists for cyclists.

This doesn't stop me seeing the argument for a different view though.
.

 

[halfer]

You'll be surprised to know, I do! The single exception is the one I mentioned above, but that's only a two second anticipation of the change to green after the pedestrians have been stopped crossing and when all directions are red to everyone.

Heh - after all that! And I thought I was a troublemaker

 

[flecc]

Heh - after all that! And I thought I was a troublemaker

There's room for more than one devil's advocate!

Better than a dead or half-asleep forum.
.

 

[indalo]

Good point flecc!.......in much the same way as it's fair to ask, "Why is there only one monopolies commission?"

Regards,
Indalo

ps hope you're healing well and getting some exercise, albeit of the peripatetic variety.