A circular argument about red lights

[Surprised]

But you are comparing the race struggle and cycling as that is the core of your argument. That breaking the law is the ONLY way to change it.
The vast majority of laws do not get changed because people break them.
If you want to bring about huge social change to alter immoral and unjust laws then it is different but not to change minor things.

You think if lots of people drive drunk then that would become legal?

[Moist von Lipwig]

uh, oh - reason...

But you are comparing the race struggle and cycling as that is the core of your argument. That breaking the law is the ONLY way to change it.
The vast majority of laws do not get changed because people break them.
If you want to bring about huge social change to alter immoral and unjust laws then it is different but not to change minor things.

You think if lots of people drive drunk then that would become legal?

I was going to ask how many times you'd speed through an unjustified speed camera in order to get it removed...

[Groomyd]

MVP and Surprised

I've enjoyed the debate with X-Man and Unc which has, unusually for fiso these days seen a good debate with participants listening to each other and debating the issue rather than making it personal

So comments like " uh, oh - reason..." are not helpful are they?

My views are not radical and fit into a great deal of thinking about freedom, the role of government and the rights of an individual vs the rights of the state and of majorities and minorities - the stuff of all political philosophy

I am not saying that all law has to be changed by breaking it - but i am suggesting that playing the game may not also be the right path as you seem to be suggesting.

I found this quote from William Godwin who you may or not be familar with :

All control of man by man was more or less intolerable, and the day would come when each man, doing what seems right in his own eyes, would also be doing what is in fact best for the community, because all will be guided by principles of pure reason.

I guess at heart this may make me an anarchist

[blahblah]

Or a fledgling member of UKIP, with its idea of unbanning smoking in pubs.

[Groomyd]

All control of man by man was more or less intolerable, and the day would come when each man, doing what seems right in his own eyes, would also be doing what is in fact best for the community, because all will be guided by principles of pure reason.

Godwin would disagree - his view of society was that all of societies evil was down to its structures and divisions and that in his eyes - usuing your smoking example - people wouldn't smoke in pubs because the would be doing "what is in fact best for the community"

[unc.si.]

What will drive change is getting an issue onto the public and social agenda. The Kinder mass trespass got access rights onto the public agenda. Race riots got civil rights onto the public agenda, the Suffragettes got women's rights onto the public agenda.

Once high up on the public / social agenda, issues can shift towards what's morally right rather than the status quo.

If rioting / lawbreaking is what is needed to get something on the public agenda then fine. If the lawbreakers are morally right, then you hope that they can change things for the better (although IMO it does need to be a mass protest rather than just individual actions to be effective).

Cycling safety is already on the public agenda though. It's being debated. Changes are being proposed and implemented. You don't need mass lawbreaking as the catalyst to get debate and action, not at the moment anyway (sadly it's the death of cyclists that has been the current catalyst to debate).

IMO the basic right that cyclists want is to be able to cycle safely, and the biggest part of that is other road users attitude towards cyclists. Debates about segregated bike lanes in big cities, special 'cyclist go' green lights, whether bikes should be allowed to go through traffic lights etc etc are all just sub-set's of the key debate about how to create a safe cycling environment.

I think it's been accepted that something needs to change, and IMO what Groomy is talking about is one of the 'How's', ie challenging the status quo on red lights. I don't believe that this in itself will make things any better, and the key issue for me is attitude. We've been over this before and me and Groomy both agree that we have different perspectives and motivations. It's Groomy's main gripe about cycling, but for me it's only a small part of a bigger issue. It might be a part of the solution, but it will never be the whole solution. If only it were that easy.

I'm not convinced that relaxing red light rules will make things any safer on the roads. There are situations where it might be safer. If there's a truck at the front of the queue then it would probably be safer to go through the red light than have to wait in a truck's blind spot. However, what would be even safer would be to wait a couple of vehicles back and avoid the whole scrum of vehicles setting off from the junction when lights go green. That however doesn't achieve Groomy's (and probably other 'dense urban' cyclists) objective of getting to work as efficiently as possible. It's a valid debate, but only a small part of the overall debate.

Ultimately though, my biggest concern is that there's too much attention placed on 'superhighways', relaxing red light rules, redesigning junctions, ie changing 'things', rather than attitudes. To think that the problem can be solved by redesigning roads and changing a few rules is IMO ignoring the real problem.

Changing 'things' might help in specific circumstances, but ultimately I think that the only change that will make cycling safer overall is a shift in attitude.

The saddest thing of all is that people might be put off cycling. More cyclists = less cars, better public health, less pollution and actually, most studies that I've seen conclude that the more cyclists on the road, the more it's seen as normal.

Mind you, as Groomy said a page or so back, the roads here are so adversarial (between all road users) that a cultural change is a huge task.

[stuboy]

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus, she was representing a feeling that a majority of black people felt at the time. Going through a red light as a cyclist in London doesn't seem to represent the feeling of a majority of cyclists. (if reading these pages are anything to go by).

The big difference in the NL, especially Amsterdam, isn't purely about road users respecting cyclists - it's that cyclists respect other road users, even other cyclists. Most cyclists in NL have been cycling on the roads since they were 3-4 yr old, so fully understand the dangers (usually from experience) of respecting road uses and pedestrians, that I'm not sure the casual cyclist in London does. In addition, Dutch bikes are usually older than most of your grandparents so you're never likely to get to a speed that could endanger other road users, should you decide to disobey the rules.

[unc.si.]

I found this quote from William Godwin who you may or not be familar with :

All control of man by man was more or less intolerable, and the day would come when each man, doing what seems right in his own eyes, would also be doing what is in fact best for the community, because all will be guided by principles of pure reason.

I guess at heart this may make me an anarchist

Can't remember who said it, but there's another famous quote along the lines of ' a reasonable man changes himself to fit his surroundings, an unreasonable man changes his surroundings to fit himself. Change cannot happen without the unreasonable man'

Change can only happen because some people think differently.

Doesn't really help this issue though. You're trying to change rules to fit yourself, I'm trying to change attitudes to fit myself. As we've said before, just different focusses (foci?).

[X-Man]

Can't remember who said it, but there's another famous quote along the lines of ' a reasonable man changes himself to fit his surroundings, an unreasonable man changes his surroundings to fit himself. Change cannot happen without the unreasonable man'

Change can only happen because some people think differently.

Doesn't really help this issue though. You're trying to change rules to fit yourself, I'm trying to change attitudes to fit myself. As we've said before, just different focusses (foci?).

George Bernard Shaw - 'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.'

The problem lies in the cultural shift referred to above. A lot of Game Theorists have tried to demonstrate the futility of competitive behaviour and the importance of co-operation in everything from Nuclear Arms to who dries the dishes and presumably who has right of way). The problem is that as resources (such as road space and travel time) become scarcer, the risks and rewards of competitive behaviour grow.

[Groomyd]

Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.'

Progress is all down to the mods?

[Mystery]

Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.'

Progress is all down to the mods?

[murf]

Was in Cambridge today. Cyclists everywhere and all car users are used to them and work around them. Not the war like you see in London but then again also not the respect you see in France (proper cyclists in the country that is. I don't know enough to comment about Paris etc).

[Zimmerman]

Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.'

Progress is all down to the mods?

the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself


Dont you want a change in the law to suit you/your brethren, who all want to get to B quicker?

[fancy dan]

Was in Cambridge today. Cyclists everywhere and all car users are used to them and work around them. Not the war like you see in London but then again also not the respect you see in France (proper cyclists in the country that is. I don't know enough to comment about Paris etc).

You wouldn't think so if you read the Cambridge Evening News letters page, but in general I do think cars and bikes rub along together pretty well for the most part. Note that it's quite rare for a cyclist to stop at a red pedestrian light if there's no-one crossing, it's pretty much the norm to go through.

I'd like to say I do so because I'm trying to bring the system down from the inside, or I stop because I want cyclists to be considered equal road users, but the truth is that I go through because I'm usually cold/wet/in a hurry/all of the above and can't be arsed to sit around when it's patently obvious that no-one is going to cross. Whereas when I'm in a car, I'm warm, sitting in a comfy chair and probably have some nice music on. I also feel more 'connected' to the rest of the world on a bike, so I feel I can make that decision totally securely, whereas in a car, your view can be obstructed, you may not be able to hear everything, and the consequences could be so much worse. The other point is that it's actually better for bikes to get away before cars at a junction, hence the current call for green lights for bikes before cars.

[Groomyd]

Dont you want a change in the law to suit you/your brethren, who all want to get to B quicker?

No

Its not about self interest - its about doing what is in fact best for the community about reason - its about considering all parties

If it were bad for "pedestrians" or "drivers" i'd not be proposing it

[Surprised]

Dont you want a change in the law to suit you/your brethren, who all want to get to B quicker?

No

Its not about self interest - its about doing what is in fact best for the community about reason - its about considering all parties

If it were bad for "pedestrians" or "drivers" i'd not be proposing it

And your evidence that this will benefit all parties in the UK?

Note that evidence is not the same as your opinion

[blahblah]

I think it would be carnage, mainly as Brits\Londoners are too selfish and thick to understand what to do....

[Bunners]

I think it would be carnage, mainly as Brits\Londoners are too selfish and thick to understand what to do....

personally I agree with this

[murf]

I think it would be carnage, mainly as Brits\Londoners are too selfish and thick to understand what to do....

As is obvious from the current situation

[Finsimbo]

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus, she was representing a feeling that a majority of black people felt at the time. Going through a red light as a cyclist in London doesn't seem to represent the feeling of a majority of cyclists. (if reading these pages are anything to go by).

The big difference in the NL, especially Amsterdam, isn't purely about road users respecting cyclists - it's that cyclists respect other road users, even other cyclists. Most cyclists in NL have been cycling on the roads since they were 3-4 yr old, so fully understand the dangers (usually from experience) of respecting road uses and pedestrians, that I'm not sure the casual cyclist in London does. In addition, Dutch bikes are usually older than most of your grandparents so you're never likely to get to a speed that could endanger other road users, should you decide to disobey the rules.

Agree with this same here. Biking is a common for general transport and the roads are designed to accommodate bicycles. Not uncommon to see a 60+ male/female on their bikes.

Most annoying are the kids on scooters jumping from road to path and now these stupid little moped cars that go 40kph and kids from the age of about 15, no license can drive on the roads, that includes mways

Used to travel 15k to work and on the road for 1km, and this was into the city, the rest on paths. Must admit it was boring not having to compete with buses, cars and other road users that I did in London.
Would carry on now but the old Cannondale is on its last legs

[Groomyd]

Note that evidence is not the same as your opinion

Oh the irony!

Says the man who claims I started this thread just to "get a reaction"


Of course there are plenty of examples of cyclists being allowed to go through reds if you take the time and effort to read about it

Zebra crossings work well - it's not "carnage" - all I'm suggesting is that we treat pedestrian crossings as zebras

[Surprised]

Note that evidence is not the same as your opinion

Oh the irony!

Says the man who claims I started this thread just to "get a reaction"


Of course there are plenty of examples of cyclists being allowed to go through reds if you take the time and effort to read about it

Zebra crossings work well - it's not "carnage" - all I'm suggesting is that we treat pedestrian crossings as zebras

So you have no evidence.
Thankyou for clearing that up

[Groomyd]

Surprised - the evidence is quoted above where a number of cities allow cyclists to go through red lights!

Now you may wish to discuss the particular circumstances of when and where that might be appropriate here - or outline why our roads may be different for some reason - but to claim there is no evidence is clearly untrue

[Surprised]

Surprised - the evidence is quoted above where a number of cities allow cyclists to go through red lights!

Now you may wish to discuss the particular circumstances of when and where that might be appropriate here - or outline why our roads may be different for some reason - but to claim there is no evidence is clearly untrue

Evidence for why it will work in the UK. It is totally pointless using cities in this thread as examples as the whole cycling set up is different.

[Groomyd]

I think it's obvious that the concepts are the same - I'm sure wherever it's been implemented there would have been some who thought it wouldn't work

Of course it's not "pointless" to give examples of other European cities

And of course we have the example of zebra crossings in the UK where we all look around us and stop or go depending on the pedestrian

Which is all that in essence is being suggested here

[blahblah]

And evolved at a time when there were less cars, vans and artics on the road.

Not to mention more cyclists than we have here, and that we are considered pests by most drivers.....

[Tricky Tree]

Would you be suggesting all pedestrian red light crossings become zebra crossings? I can't go for that as many are ther because they are safer than a zebra crossing.

I see left turns being a goer, cars also?

Straight over a red because you feel you can..no

[Surprised]

I think it's obvious that the concepts are the same - I'm sure wherever it's been implemented there would have been some who thought it wouldn't work

Of course it's not "pointless" to give examples of other European cities

You don't really have a clue do you? How can you compare what works in bike friendly cities like Berlin, Amsterdam and Copenhagen to London?
The attitude of motorists to cyclists and vice versa is totally different. Most want cyclists to become accepted but you don't

[Groomyd]

You don't really have a clue do you?

Surprised - you entered this thread by accusing me of only starting it to "get a reaction"

You were taken to task on this by Pouzar but you used your mod powers to delete what he said

Zim, a fellow mod, called you a "tit"

The thread now has become a good one which has seen some toughtful contributions from several posters

So now you're back to call me "clueless" in a final attempt to take the thread into your trollery

And yet incredibly you make calls on others behaviour as a mod

Tricky - I'm suggesting that bikes could go through pedestrian crossings IF it was safe to go - just as cars and bikes do now at zebra crossings - an example of how, in the uk, we are all able to make judgements to cross roads and keep traffic flowing without the need for traffic lights

Despite surprised attempts to derail the thread by calling me clueless etc there is a lot to be learned from the concepts used in other European countries by allowing bikes to go through red lights in a number of circumstances

[blahblah]

What about the left turns at red lights?

Crossings are only red for 9 secs ish, which is hardly worth going through anyway - surely.