Don't get me wrong I am truely envious of your facilities - we have even been shown that youtube footage before on the pedelecs site.

Red lights mean stop, eBikes are assist limited by law. I understand why people break these laws but to somehow claim that it is justified or different for ME is a little immature.

 

If you are going to do it, do it, but in the unlikely case that you are caught, it would be wise not to put the ME argument to the court. It doesn't apply to ME strikes me as a very poor defence

 

I use red lights to suit myself in London but I also recognise that I am breaking the law in doing so. And if I were to soup up(!) my Kalkhoff, I would accept that I was avoiding road tax, insurance and the helmet laws in doing so and in neither case feel my rights were being compromised or any sense of unfairness if I were caught.

 

I'm no better (or I hope worse) than anyone else but I don't think contempt for the law is very attractive and we shouldn't encourage it - though given the complete lack of enforcement, I accept my thinking is probably very outmoded.

 

Riders without lights at night, zooming up the pavement etc are commonplace in my part of London. It annoys me but if Mr Lemmy jumping lights is OK, for example, I suppose that is too. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

 

Or maybe we need a cycling ombudsman to adjudicate on the laws which are too silly for us cyclists to obey

Good points well made Lemmy!

 

Regards,

Indalo

I understand why people break these laws but to somehow claim that it is justified or different for ME is a little immature.

 

I don't think many on this forum would disagree with the sentiment, Lemmy, but it's not quite as simplistic as you describe.

 

Driving a car along a deserted motorway at 2 in the morning, and doing 85mph is 'breaking the law'. Level of endangerment to others? About zero.

 

Driving a car through a busy shopping street at 2 in the afternoon, and doing 30mph, is not breaking the law. Level of potential endangerment to others? Possibly 7 out of 10, depending on the skill and experience of the driver.

 

It would be easy to cite similar examples for cyclists.

 

Being a responsible citizen is not just a question of keeping to society's rules.

 

 

A

Yeah stick it to the system ;-)

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.

.

 

I think that you have voiced exactly what I was going to say. cyclist have much more in common with pedestrians than they do with cars or motorcycles and yet have to conform to the laws of the latter.

....and Richard's Bicycle Book was making this point in the 70's but some things never change.

Hi all

 

Let me preface this by saying I've been happily doing 20-30 miles/week on my Juicy Sport for seven months, and been car-free for five. I'm a road user, not an off-roader, and I try to improve my cycling regularly, so as to reflect positively on the cycling community if possible. Though, like most cyclists, I get things wrong occasionally!

 

This morning, whilst cycling on a busy Birmingham B-road, I noticed a male cyclist in his fifties cycle through a red light and cross over the green-lighted carriageway, where no cars were waiting. To be fair, he was careful whilst crossing, but I can't imagine it being acceptable for a car to run a red light just because there is no traffic coming the other way! He saved himself five seconds by not waiting for the lights to change.

 

I've seen a few cyclists do this, and I think it can incrementally damage the fragile reputation of cyclists, who tend to get the pointy end of the Clarkson-type stick at every opportunity in mainstream media. So, this time I decided I'd tell the cyclist off - and it went badly. I think I might have made my criticisms more gently - my initial criticism was a drive-by complaint, but I cycled back to him, since he started raging instantly. Nevertheless, I wasn't abusive at any stage, and yet I was met with rudeness and vehement anger. He started foaming a bit - so I road off to more shouting. Thankfully I could double his speed

 

I'd be interested in the input of the community here. If you see poor cycling, do you tackle it? I didn't put myself in any danger - and that is of course a primary consideration. What is the best way to make reasonable criticism that stands a good chance of being heeded? Are people these days - in the UK or elsewhere - resistant even to the most diplomatic of rebukes? Can bad cycling behaviour be modified, or can you not teach an old dog new tricks?

 

I think you were fairly brave to tackle the man.

 

I do at times cross a junction on red. & a lot of the time I find this to be the safest time to go carefully.

 

I think that as cyclists we suffer sufficient heckling and rage from drivers without the need to be on the receiving end from fellow cyclists.

 

I too live in Birmingham. & 2 weeks ago I was out cycling in my local park, I decided not to wear my helmet

The park is divided by the Pershore Road South. I dismounted my bike & pressed the pedestrian lights to cross to the other side of the park. The motorists happily stopped to allow me to cross then up road 'Lycra Man' on his razer blade on wheels, who decided to stop & give me a dressing down for not wearing a helmet. He held up the traffic for a good 15 seconds or more by doing this. I was totally lost for words & motorists were well annoyed.

 

Educate via other means & not face to face on the road side

who decided to stop & give me a dressing down for not wearing a helmet.

 

That is outrageous and a bit bizarre. I never wear a helmet. If someone (other than my wife) were to take me to task for it I would be cross. I'd also point out that there is research which suggests that traffic gives an unhelmeted bicyclist more room and so an argument can be made that you are less likely to get hit if you do not wear a helmet. Not that I want to start the great debate here again.

At the risk of sounding sanctimonious, I believe that all cyclists should adhere to the law regardless. It would be in all our interests if cyclists were seen as, and known to be, knights of the road.

 

Unfortunately, cyclists are not exactly a fraternal bunch; indeed, they are a somewhat fractious tribe in many ways just as bad as motorists.

 

We can't pick and choose which laws we wish to observe, (in law) so there's no good people explaining in this forum how it may be reasonable to do this or that because of....whatever.

 

When regulations with regard to fishing tackle, baits, hooks, lead shot, etc were introduced, there weren't enough wardens to enforce the new rules. The interesting feature to emerge from the legislation was that the real hobby fishermen as well as the sporting and competition guys all supported the new situation and those who ignored the rules were duly ostracised, reported and in some cases, subjected to physical violence.

 

Those who fish our inland waterways are, perhaps curiously, conservationists and many give of their own time to clear and maintain some of our lakes, rivers and canals. Some have lost their lives in freezing waters after capsizing their craft while clearing weed during winter. Most probably, some forum members will be coarse fishermen as well as cyclists.

 

I don't see any exact parallel between the fishing legislation and the RTA as applied to cyclists but I do believe we, as cyclists and forum members, ought to have a consensual view which has to be that we support the laws to which we are currently subject. It follows therefore that we should challenge the illegal riding habits of those who flagrantly break the law as their deeds give us all a bad name. Moreover, we really ought to condemn those forum members who loudly praise and glorify their super-fast and overtly illegal electric bikes. If they really need to go so fast, then they can buy properly legal mopeds, scooters or motorcycles with all that goes with faster two-wheeled machinery.

 

Clearly there is a place and a need for ebikes as we understand them but to boast that "bike X", one's latest toy, can do 35MPH on the flat without pedalling is just plain stupid. CBT, helmet, tax, insurance, etc is where that person needs to be....not on an ebike!

 

It's pretty simple really; if you're happy to be restricted to 15mph, an ebike will suit. If you want to go faster; either pedal harder or do the CBT, etc.

 

I think that's enough sanctimonionium....approximately!...for this evening.

 

Indalo

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.

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.

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

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).

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?

 

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.

.

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.

Edited April 28, 201114 yr by lectureral

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.

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

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?

 

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

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.

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

Edited April 28, 201114 yr by 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

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