Educating fellow cyclists - what do you reckon?

[lemmy]

busy shopping street at 2 in the afternoon, and doing 30mph, is

I won't labour this because I made my point before. However, the point you are missing here is that firstly doing 85mph IS illegal, safe or not and no amount of self-justification or sophistry changes that.

Secondly, you seem to think that a 30mph speed limit means you have the right to drive at 30mph. It does not, it simply means that 30mph is the maximum you can drive at legally.

If 30mph is too fast under a given circumstance, the law expects you to drive at a safe speed for those circumstances. If you do not and cause an accident, the charge will be driving without due care or dangerous driving even if you were only doing 20mph.

It is difficult to frame a law that takes everyone's opinion, capability and machinery into account. Therefore we get one law for all.

 

[lectureral]

I won't labour this because I made my point before. However, the point you are missing here is that firstly doing 85mph IS illegal, safe or not and no amount of self-justification or sophistry changes that.

Secondly, you seem to think that a 30mph speed limit means you have the right to drive at 30mph. It does not, it simply means that 30mph is the maximum you can drive at legally.

If 30mph is too fast under a given circumstance, the law expects you to drive at a safe speed for those circumstances. If you do not and cause an accident, the charge will be driving without due care or dangerous driving even if you were only doing 20mph.

It is difficult to frame a law that takes everyone's opinion, capability and machinery into account. Therefore we get one law for all.

With respect, you seem to have read that differently to me lemmy - he said that driving at 85mph is illegal and did not say that he would be doing 30 in the 30 mph speed limit. I understood that he would be driving safely at a lower speed, as a responsible citizen.

I think the point he makes is a good one - good citizenry requires more than observance of the law - and I would argue that a good citizen may well break the law occasionally without losing that status.

 

[allen-uk]

With respect, you seem to have read that differently to me lemmy - he said that driving at 85mph is illegal and did not say that he would be doing 30 in the 30 mph speed limit. I understood that he would be driving safely at a lower speed, as a responsible citizen.

I think the point he makes is a good one - good citizenry requires more than observance of the law - and I would argue that a good citizen may well break the law occasionally without losing that status.

Alistair: I am most gratified that my carefully-chosen words occasionally get READ; often I am on the verge of giving up when yet another respondent just picks up enough to fuel their own fire.


A

 

[lectureral]

Glad to restore your faith a little, Allen. In my previous life as a lecturer I was often required to try to extract meaning from very strange combinations of words (not suggesting that applies to your writing at all).

 

[lemmy]

and I would argue that a good citizen may well break the law occasionally without losing that status.

And I would argue that one person's good citizen is another's bad citizen. One certainty that we have on our roads is that there is no consensus whatsoever.

One cyclist justifies his crossing a red light on safety grounds, another does not consider that justified on any grounds.

Has the one crossing lost his good citizen status? From the other cyclist's point of view, yes and from a car driver's, probably. From his, plainly not.

Isn't that why we have laws, essentially, to lay down a rule for all, so that we all know where we are? There are always people who feel laws do not apply to them unless they decide they should.

They are often the same people who object greatly when someone breaks a law which they have decided does apply to them.

When I knowingly break laws, I simply don't feel the need to disguise my actions as anything other than self-interest. Whether I remain a good citizen is then a matter of opinion and ultimately beside the point, surely?

 

[flecc]

It is difficult to frame a law that takes everyone's opinion, capability and machinery into account. Therefore we get one law for all.

So by definition we are justified in modifying that imperfect law according to our individual circumstances.
.

 

[lectureral]

And I would argue that one person's good citizen is another's bad citizen. One certainty that we have on our roads is that there is no consensus whatsoever.

I do take your point, lemmy, and I don't think we are so far apart. Sometimes, however, one can break a law without being a prat to anyone else. Sometimes one can stay within the law and be a real nuisance to one's fellow citzens. Many of those drivers who complain about the cyclist going through red will quite happily drive on a motorway at 85 mph or, perhaps, have a small amount of weed in their bedside drawer or fudge on their taxes.

When you look abroad, laws look less obviously 'right' sometimes. In the States a driver can turn right on a red light. 'Undertaking' on the motorway is normal. Just over the border from me, in Switzerland, it can be an offence for a man to urinate while standing up in his own flat after 10 p.m. None of that is really an excuse for breaking the law of the land - but it does put it into perspective a bit, I think.

 

[lemmy]

So by definition we are justified in modifying that imperfect law according to our individual circumstances.
.

Well that depends on whether the definer is a copper looking to top up his arrest quota or a normal individual going about his daily business

Seriously, I doubt that it would be possible to take to the road for 5 miles and not break some law along the way.

 

[indalo]

It seems to me there is a trace of a common thread running through many of the postings on this topic. That common thread involves a number of posters attempting to justify breaking the law deliberately for their own ends.

Without laws, we have anarchy. If forum members are unhappy with certain laws, there are ways to go about seeking change. We don't live under a dictatorship in the UK and we have the democratic right to lobby MPs, seek publicity through investigative journalists, attend local council meetings, even demonstrate on the streets to publicise our case. There are many other imaginative ways in which inappropriate or downright useless laws could be brought to the attention of lawmakers but I doubt very much if any of those defending some form of selective lawbreaking have ever considered any of those.

Most of the lawbreaking seems to boil down to selfishness, greed or some kind of mis-placed perceived advantage.

I really don't think any responsible cyclist ought to advocate breaking laws for any reason and to read in an open cycling forum that some members believe it can be justified is totally irresponsible.

Indalo

 

[Scottyf]

Was there not a petition a while back to change the law to let cyclists on red lights to turn left only - so long as its safe obviously?

 

[allen-uk]

Without laws, we have anarchy.

Yes, but with SLAVISH adherence to the very letter of each law, we really are on the road to 1984, and fascism.

A

 

[lectureral]

Yes, but with SLAVISH adherence to the very letter of each law, we really are on the road to 1984, and fascism.

A

Agreed, and if it wasn't for Godwin's law one could refer to pre-1945 Germany.

 

[indalo]

Can I take it then allen-uk that you wish to be seen as an apologist for those who choose to break the laws of the country....or perhaps you are one of those who choose to ignore the law?

I see no value in your comment whatsoever. The law is the law is the law so let's have no shilly-shallying about it. Where would you draw the line then?

This is a publicly viewable forum and in this place we have members who openly boast about the abilities of their patently illegal bikes. We also have members who advocate running red lights and ignoring the laws of the land, choosing, it seems, to make up their own laws as they see fit.

At the same time, we read scores of postings on how to fix a camera to one's person in order to gain evidence of the misbehaviour of other road users, all in the one forum! That stinks of hypocrisy.

If it is acceptable to break some laws, can you publish a complete list of those so that I can determine which ones I might want to break? For me, this forum needs to adopt a position based on sensible consensus which illustrates that cyclists, particularly the electrically-assisted ones are a responsible body and not a collection of anarchic hooligans on two wheels.

Regards,
Indalo

 

[indalo]

Agreed, and if it wasn't for Godwin's law one could refer to pre-1945 Germany.

I'd say it's a perfect example lectureral.

Regards,
Indalo

 

[allen-uk]

Can I take it then allen-uk that wish to be seen as an apologist for those who choose to break the laws of the country....or perhaps you are one of those who choose to ignore the law?

I see no value in your comment whatsoever. The law is the law is the law so let's have no shilly-shallying about it. Where would you draw the line then?

Do you REALLY need reminding of all the 'law-breakers' down the centuries who laid down their liberty and even lives so that we can now enjoy our 'freedom'? (And of course I'm not comparing chartists with burks jumping red lights, but you appear to want a fight rather than a sensible discussion).

And no, I have never broken Godwin's law, although I'm sometimes tempted.


A

 

[flecc]

Do you REALLY need reminding of all the 'law-breakers' down the centuries who laid down their liberty and even lives so that we can now enjoy our 'freedom'? (And of course I'm not comparing chartists with burks jumping red lights, but you appear to want a fight rather than a sensible discussion).

Indeed, it's long been accepted in criminological circles that criminals perform a valuable service for the community. Laws, like all of mankind's endeavours, are less than perfect so need testing to expose their flaws.

This service is provided by criminals at considerable risk to themselves.

Although comparing cyclists with chartists may not be appropriate, the offending cyclists are potentially laying down their lives.
.

 

[lectureral]

For me, this forum needs to adopt a position based on sensible consensus which illustrates that cyclists, particularly the electrically-assisted ones are a responsible body and not a collection of anarchic hooligans on two wheels.

Regards,
Indalo

To be fair, indalo, I think a broad reading of this forum would illustrate exactly that. I don't think we should be so concerned of our reputation, though, that we avoid a mildly grown-up conversation about our attitude to red lights

 

[Scottyf]

Off the soap box!

 

[flecc]

Off the soap box!

Never got on it. I'm just heckling.
.

 

[indalo]

To be fair, indalo, I think a broad reading of this forum would illustrate exactly that. I don't think we should be so concerned of our reputation, though, that we avoid a mildly grown-up conversation about our attitude to red lights

This is dragging on a bit now but we're not having a "mildly grown-up" discussion at all. There are contributors who believe they can break some laws which most of us have to obey and that is wrong.

Important laws have been introduced or modified in recent years because large swathes of the population have supported newspaper campaigns and have eventually got the ear of politicians. I cite "Sarah's Law" as one example and the CRB check improvement as another.

My point is that laws can be changed through the democratic process IF THERE IS WIDESPREAD PUBLIC SUPPORT! I'm not sure there would be much support for the contention that cyclists should be allowed to cycle through red lights at their discretion. Allen-uk presumably, by his demeanour, supports the flagrant breaking of laws he doesn't agree with.

People taking the law into their own hands are dangerous and those cyclists who consciously choose to ride illegal bikes or run red lights should be roundly condemned by all right-minded people. If those who flout the RTA and Highway Code regulations believe they have justification, they could chat with the people at the News Of The World to see if they can launch a campaign. I shan't hold my breath waiting for that to happen though!

Must dash; I have a flight to Copenhagen I'd like to catch.

Regards,
Indalo