To see less ads Register or Login ----- Daily Fantasy Sports games 18+

A circular argument about red lights

A forum for discussion on motoring topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Groomyd
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 32985
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Pie is great in moderation

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Groomyd »

X-Man wrote: Interestingly - whether knowingly or not - Groomy and Unc represent the two most commonly held views on the question of whether there is a duty to obey the law. This is different to sanctions for breach.
Indeed - i feel no duty whatsoever to obey the law

Does that mean i break the law frequently? Not at all

Why? because some very brave people before us have broekn the law in the name or morality, justice, ridiculoulsness or just nuances - and as a consequence we have the society we have today

Where the law now reflects most if not all of our attitudes to things

The law changes constantly and it often changes because people break it

User avatar
X-Man
Dumbledore
Posts: 7541
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by X-Man »

Vid wrote:Isn't it the same with all laws really?
But the focus on sanctions sort of misses the key point of the debate.

What happens when the State introduces laws that might be morally unacceptable to a few, some or the majority of the population. Do you still have the same obligation to obey the law then? Examples used to discuss the point often include Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa because they put the issues in stark relief.

But the same principles apply to mundane issues such as whether a cyclist stops at a red light when there is no other traffic around. Why _should_ they do so?

User avatar
X-Man
Dumbledore
Posts: 7541
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by X-Man »

Groomyd wrote: Indeed - i feel no duty whatsoever to obey the law
But you rely on the obligations imposed upon others? In other words the duty applies both ways and you can rely upon others complying with it to ensure your safety.

User avatar
Surprised
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 26528
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:32
Location: Home
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Surprised »

X-Man wrote:
Surprised wrote:Once again Groomy states a point of view that he doesn't hold in order to get a reaction.
Does anyone really think that anyone, even Groomy, can be so stupid as to genuinely hold views like that?
Interestingly - whether knowingly or not - Groomy and Unc represent the two most commonly held views on the question of whether there is a duty to obey the law. This is different to sanctions for breach. This debate is just a variation of one of the oldest interview questions in the book:

'You are driving on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere. You come to a set of traffic lights on red. There are no cars to be seen and there is no risk to you or any other road user. Do you stop at the lights?'

Groomy represents a view that denies an obligation to obey the law where it is morally acceptable to do so. Unc represents the more general view of 'fair play' and reciprocity.

It certainly isn't _that_ radical to say that cyclists should ignore red lights when circumstances permit - even though it is illegal.

But Groomy is mainly talking about an urban situation (unless he yet again moves goalposts and claims he was talking about a deserted road). Groomys view is not about denying an obligation to obey the law but about how he can ensure cyclists are never accepted on the roads as equal users. If all did as Groomy claims he does then motorcyclists would do and then car users and then lorries etc.

User avatar
Vid
Head Moderator
Posts: 21729
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33
FS Record: winning is a distant memory

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Vid »

X-Man wrote:
But the same principles apply to mundane issues such as whether a cyclist stops at a red light when there is no other traffic around. Why _should_ they do so?
Mundane? As has already been pointed out in the thread red lights are also there to permit pedestrians to cross roads safely.

So I refer to my previous post, if you wish to ignore a red light and nothing untoward happens then no harm no foul.

But if you ignore a red light and kizkiz or one of his colleagues is watching and nicks you then you knew what the law is.

If you ignore it and hit a pedestrian then hopefully kizkiz and his mates do their bit and also your mates make a nice few quid for themselves and the injured party.

And if you ignore it and didn't spot the vehicle coming from the right and it hits you or even worse swerves into someone else, then you deserve all the shit that comes with it.

User avatar
Groomyd
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 32985
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Pie is great in moderation

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Groomyd »

X-Man wrote: But you rely on the obligations imposed upon others? In other words the duty applies both ways and you can rely upon others complying with it to ensure your safety.
Yes - that is the counter argument - and at th erisk of meandering somewhat off topic .....

A lot of our heroes are heroes because they broke the law as they saw fit - Rosa Parks, William Webb Ellis, the Pankhursts ..........

A healthy society is one where we obey the law not because of it being the law but because we have a collective agreement of what "the right thing" is - and the role of society and power in that society should be to create laws which reflect that.

Of course within that there is the notion that anything i do impacts on others - hence the need for laws - but within that those laws need ot be constantly refined and examined

In this case i acknowledge the right of the pedestrian to cross safely and think about that in relation with my desire not to have to stop and continue my journey - i think we can do both safely hence my suggestions

Do we not rape, murder, assualt etc becasue its the law? Of course not - which is why legal punishments such as the death penalty have no impact on their occurance (?).
Last edited by Groomyd on 19 Nov 2013, 13:56, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Groomyd
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 32985
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Pie is great in moderation

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Groomyd »

Surprised wrote:If all did as Groomy claims he does then motorcyclists would do and then car users and then lorries etc.
Why? :?

That would depend entirely on the risk to pedestrians

User avatar
murf
FISO Viscount
Posts: 109450
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: here
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by murf »

Groomyd wrote:Murf - I dont really have a view on cars - of course they are considerably more dangerous than bikes and are likely to be travelling at 30mph minimum - they kill 1,750 people last year

You could make a case that - as with zebras - they should be able to go - personally i think that it may be too dangerous - but thats just my view.

I think a stronger case can be made for bikes
It may be a stronger case (I might agree to a small degree in scale only) but it remains the same case at heart. Your logic is massively flawed as cars approaching pedestrian crossings with red traffic lights on them would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. Cars approaching a red light at a crossroads where they want to turn left would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. I am talking about driving up to them slowly (as you would with a 'give way' or 'stop' sign at a T-junction then pulling off if, and only if, it is safe - EXACTLY the same as if you were on a bike. Where is the difference (once you have slowed down for the red light, whatever you are driving / riding, be it car, motorbike, HGV, horse, zebra or bike?)???

User avatar
Mystery
FISO Knight
Posts: 13816
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33
Location: Just about here
FS Record: 116th in TFF 05/06
Contact:

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Mystery »

unc.si. wrote:Just read that back. Obviously the dead don't often use pedestrian crossings very often, but they are of course very useful for the deaf.

could have just edited it, but quite like the idea of hordes of zombies crossing the road. Reminds me of driving past the Baseball Ground years ago when a match had just finished :lol:
Brilliant - eventually I justified the time spent reading this thread.

If you don't like what the law says write to your MP, or get into politics yourself and see how far your ideas get. Or one could just sit in front of one's keyboard pontificating. I hear some people consider that worthwhile.

User avatar
Surprised
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 26528
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:32
Location: Home
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Surprised »

Groomyd wrote:
Surprised wrote:If all did as Groomy claims he does then motorcyclists would do and then car users and then lorries etc.
Why? :?

That would depend entirely on the risk to pedestrians
You think if cyclists were allowed to turn left at a red light if they 'think" it is safe then a car driver wouldn't try it? You have never heard of car drivers breaking the law?

User avatar
Moist von Lipwig
FISO Knight
Posts: 18227
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 16:08
Location: The Eyrie
FS Record: FPL Spring 16 Winner 2010-11. Murfs F1 Predictions 2012 Winner. Pick Quick 2012-13 Winner. SP4s Predictions League A & Champions League

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Moist von Lipwig »

murf wrote:
Groomyd wrote:Murf - I dont really have a view on cars - of course they are considerably more dangerous than bikes and are likely to be travelling at 30mph minimum - they kill 1,750 people last year

You could make a case that - as with zebras - they should be able to go - personally i think that it may be too dangerous - but thats just my view.

I think a stronger case can be made for bikes
It may be a stronger case (I might agree to a small degree in scale only) but it remains the same case at heart. Your logic is massively flawed as cars approaching pedestrian crossings with red traffic lights on them would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. Cars approaching a red light at a crossroads where they want to turn left would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. I am talking about driving up to them slowly (as you would with a 'give way' or 'stop' sign at a T-junction then pulling off if, and only if, it is safe - EXACTLY the same as if you were on a bike. Where is the difference (once you have slowed down for the red light, whatever you are driving / riding, be it car, motorbike, HGV, horse, zebra or bike?)???

you can turn left on a red in australia too. I wasn't so keen on it though whilst turning left on a bike and a car doing the same decided to put me into the kerb (and some pedestrians waiting to cross) by not giving me enough room.

User avatar
X-Man
Dumbledore
Posts: 7541
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by X-Man »

Vid wrote:
X-Man wrote:
But the same principles apply to mundane issues such as whether a cyclist stops at a red light when there is no other traffic around. Why _should_ they do so?
Mundane? As has already been pointed out in the thread red lights are also there to permit pedestrians to cross roads safely.

So I refer to my previous post, if you wish to ignore a red light and nothing untoward happens then no harm no foul.

But if you ignore a red light and kizkiz or one of his colleagues is watching and nicks you then you knew what the law is.

If you ignore it and hit a pedestrian then hopefully kizkiz and his mates do their bit and also your mates make a nice few quid for themselves and the injured party.

And if you ignore it and didn't spot the vehicle coming from the right and it hits you or even worse swerves into someone else, then you deserve all the shit that comes with it.
Sorry, I meant 'mundane' in a comparative or relative sense - ie as compared to the moral absolutes of Nazi Germany and South Africa.

Having read your response, you do take a very different approach to Groomy as yours is consequentalist rather than duty based. Having said that you both seem to agree that you don't have a _duty_ to obey the law - your 'no harm no foul' principle seems to confirm that.

User avatar
Surprised
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 26528
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:32
Location: Home
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Surprised »

Why should individuals decide whether or not specific laws apply to them or not?
If roads are quiet then surely driving a car drunk should be allowed if applying this logic?

User avatar
X-Man
Dumbledore
Posts: 7541
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by X-Man »

Surprised wrote:
But Groomy is mainly talking about an urban situation (unless he yet again moves goalposts and claims he was talking about a deserted road). Groomys view is not about denying an obligation to obey the law but about how he can ensure cyclists are never accepted on the roads as equal users. If all did as Groomy claims he does then motorcyclists would do and then car users and then lorries etc.
I must confess to not having read the full thread in detail but from my brief glance at the posts, I thought he was suggesting that cyclists could and should ignore red lights in the same way that pedestrians do when crossing the road at a crossing. Kizkiz referred to one of the differences in the two examples as being one was illegal and the other not illegal (although there are many countries where it is). That's why it raises the interesting question of the nature of the obligation that law imposes.

Thus if you turned the question from a deserted road to the City of London at 3am would it make a difference? The question is trying to identify the response to 'law as law' as opposed to 'law reflecting morals'. The question strips away all 'surface' issues and purposes such as risk and safety and asks basic questions about why we obey the law.

User avatar
X-Man
Dumbledore
Posts: 7541
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by X-Man »

Surprised wrote:Why should individuals decide whether or not specific laws apply to them or not?
If roads are quiet then surely driving a car drunk should be allowed if applying this logic?
I'm not saying that there should be individual discretion. I'm simply asking whether there are other things other than fear of sanction which make us comply with the law. I suppose the same thing could be said about driving over the limit if you knew you weren't going to get caught and no-one else would come to harm. Would it be OK? And if not, why not?

User avatar
murf
FISO Viscount
Posts: 109450
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: here
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by murf »

Surprised wrote:Why should individuals decide whether or not specific laws apply to them or not?
If roads are quiet then surely driving a car drunk should be allowed if applying this logic?
There is a long way from driving at 71mph on a deserted motorway (or jumping a red light on your bike) to routinely murdering bad people (Dexter style) or planting bombs to kill people of a different religion/tribe. Pretty much everyone takes one or two steps down that road but how far and which steps are generally only decided by an individual's conscience. The law is there to tell us what to do but we all* break it and justify it to ourselves - we then disagree with others breaking laws we wouldn't.

I just wish everyone had as good a moral compass as me :wink:




* ok, nearly all

User avatar
Surprised
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 26528
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:32
Location: Home
FS Record: TFFOSM MotW in 2008 and MotM in 2003. 78th overall in TFFO for 2002/3 and 2003/4

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Surprised »

X-Man wrote:
Surprised wrote:Why should individuals decide whether or not specific laws apply to them or not?
If roads are quiet then surely driving a car drunk should be allowed if applying this logic?
I'm not saying that there should be individual discretion. I'm simply asking whether there are other things other than fear of sanction which make us comply with the law. I suppose the same thing could be said about driving over the limit if you knew you weren't going to get caught and no-one else would come to harm. Would it be OK? And if not, why not?

Laws are there to benefit society and to allow society to exist as coherent group. People need to be part of a group and all groups have rules. Breaking these rules runs the risk of being ostracised and this keeps people in order. If I drive over the limit and no one is hurt that is only something I would know after the event. It is like saying it is OK to steal if you are not caught.

User avatar
tedbull
Dumbledore
Posts: 8085
Joined: 16 Jan 2006, 01:55
FS Record: FPL 82nd 08/09

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by tedbull »

Moist von Lipwig wrote:
murf wrote:
Groomyd wrote:Murf - I dont really have a view on cars - of course they are considerably more dangerous than bikes and are likely to be travelling at 30mph minimum - they kill 1,750 people last year

You could make a case that - as with zebras - they should be able to go - personally i think that it may be too dangerous - but thats just my view.

I think a stronger case can be made for bikes
It may be a stronger case (I might agree to a small degree in scale only) but it remains the same case at heart. Your logic is massively flawed as cars approaching pedestrian crossings with red traffic lights on them would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. Cars approaching a red light at a crossroads where they want to turn left would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. I am talking about driving up to them slowly (as you would with a 'give way' or 'stop' sign at a T-junction then pulling off if, and only if, it is safe - EXACTLY the same as if you were on a bike. Where is the difference (once you have slowed down for the red light, whatever you are driving / riding, be it car, motorbike, HGV, horse, zebra or bike?)???

you can turn left on a red in australia too. I wasn't so keen on it though whilst turning left on a bike and a car doing the same decided to put me into the kerb (and some pedestrians waiting to cross) by not giving me enough room.
Are you sure?

You can turn left on a green, while at the same time pedestrians have the green man and right of way.

User avatar
Moist von Lipwig
FISO Knight
Posts: 18227
Joined: 08 Jun 2011, 16:08
Location: The Eyrie
FS Record: FPL Spring 16 Winner 2010-11. Murfs F1 Predictions 2012 Winner. Pick Quick 2012-13 Winner. SP4s Predictions League A & Champions League

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Moist von Lipwig »

tedbull wrote:
Moist von Lipwig wrote:
murf wrote:
Groomyd wrote:Murf - I dont really have a view on cars - of course they are considerably more dangerous than bikes and are likely to be travelling at 30mph minimum - they kill 1,750 people last year

You could make a case that - as with zebras - they should be able to go - personally i think that it may be too dangerous - but thats just my view.

I think a stronger case can be made for bikes
It may be a stronger case (I might agree to a small degree in scale only) but it remains the same case at heart. Your logic is massively flawed as cars approaching pedestrian crossings with red traffic lights on them would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. Cars approaching a red light at a crossroads where they want to turn left would NOT be doing '30mph minimum'. I am talking about driving up to them slowly (as you would with a 'give way' or 'stop' sign at a T-junction then pulling off if, and only if, it is safe - EXACTLY the same as if you were on a bike. Where is the difference (once you have slowed down for the red light, whatever you are driving / riding, be it car, motorbike, HGV, horse, zebra or bike?)???

you can turn left on a red in australia too. I wasn't so keen on it though whilst turning left on a bike and a car doing the same decided to put me into the kerb (and some pedestrians waiting to cross) by not giving me enough room.
Are you sure?

You can turn left on a green, while at the same time pedestrians have the green man and right of way.

I stand corrected, time has obviously addled my memory.

User avatar
unc.si.
FISO Knight
Posts: 11778
Joined: 11 Oct 2010, 14:08
Location: Off to buy Loctite
FS Record: 'Loser' by Beck

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by unc.si. »

X-Man wrote:
Surprised wrote:Once again Groomy states a point of view that he doesn't hold in order to get a reaction.
Does anyone really think that anyone, even Groomy, can be so stupid as to genuinely hold views like that?
Interestingly - whether knowingly or not - Groomy and Unc represent the two most commonly held views on the question of whether there is a duty to obey the law. This is different to sanctions for breach. This debate is just a variation of one of the oldest interview questions in the book:

'You are driving on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere. You come to a set of traffic lights on red. There are no cars to be seen and there is no risk to you or any other road user. Do you stop at the lights?'

Groomy represents a view that denies an obligation to obey the law where it is morally acceptable to do so. Unc represents the more general view of 'fair play' and reciprocity.

It certainly isn't _that_ radical to say that cyclists should ignore red lights when circumstances permit - even though it is illegal.
X man. You've probably not read all of my earlier posts and not quite picked up the reasons why I don't cycle through red lights (specifically in respect of your example I would if there was clearly no risk and no one around. I do do this sometimes, although it doesn't really arise very often. I also cycled the wrong way up a dual carriageway for about 100m one day last week - no cars and a view of about 1/2 a mile ahead so rode up the road instead of the bike path/pavement to get to the turn I was heading for. Not legal but no harm to anyone. I definitely would ride straight through the hypothetical red light in the middle of nowhere, although interestingly I'm not 100% sure I would if I were in a car, or at least not without stopping first).

It's a more subtle reason along the lines of not reinforcing negative connections between cyclists and breaking the rules of the road. I don't stop at lights because the law says so (although in itself that's not a bad reason given that it isn't really denying me any basic rights), but it's because I want cyclists to be seen as normal road users, who deserve to use the roads and who have a right to be there. It's about acceptance as a group. I believe that without acceptance then we don't have a voice. If drivers don't see us as valid road users then deep down they won't accept concessions to bikes and probably more importantly won't give bikes respect on the road. I feel that we stand a better chance of real change if we are seen as a group with a right to use the road. Every time a driver sees a cyclist run a red light or go the wrong way up a 1 way street then subliminally it's reinforcing the idea that cyclists are bad road users. It's a bit of an esoteric argument I admit, but I do genuinely believe it. I'm generally against segregation of cycle lanes except as very dangerous junctions (Westway, Bow, E&C). Cyclists should be part of the traffic. The only rule I would really want to see changed is to allow bikes to turn left on red lights (same for cars to be honest).

User avatar
Groomyd
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 32985
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Pie is great in moderation

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Groomyd »

I believe that without acceptance then we don't have a voice.

Where as i am more in the show people its fine and the law will follow camp

My view is that Unc's approach has an implicit acknowledgement that cyclists are second class citizens to the mighty car

My view might be different ifi lived outside of London - but the whole central London dynamic is one of battle and competition between all users and they all push the boundarys to the limit every day - pedestrians, drivers and cycists - so my views need to be seen in that context i guess

I reiterate that on my bike i slow down, look around and only go if there are no pedestrians - just as we all do at a zebra crossing

I am not condoning flying through at over 20 mph and get the eff out of my way

User avatar
X-Man
Dumbledore
Posts: 7541
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by X-Man »

unc.si. wrote:
X man. You've probably not read all of my earlier posts and not quite picked up the reasons why I don't cycle through red lights (specifically in respect of your example I would if there was clearly no risk and no one around. I do do this sometimes, although it doesn't really arise very often. I also cycled the wrong way up a dual carriageway for about 100m one day last week - no cars and a view of about 1/2 a mile ahead so rode up the road instead of the bike path/pavement to get to the turn I was heading for. Not legal but no harm to anyone. I definitely would ride straight through the hypothetical red light in the middle of nowhere, although interestingly I'm not 100% sure I would if I were in a car, or at least not without stopping first).

It's a more subtle reason along the lines of not reinforcing negative connections between cyclists and breaking the rules of the road. I don't stop at lights because the law says so (although in itself that's not a bad reason given that it isn't really denying me any basic rights), but it's because I want cyclists to be seen as normal road users, who deserve to use the roads and who have a right to be there. It's about acceptance as a group. I believe that without acceptance then we don't have a voice. If drivers don't see us as valid road users then deep down they won't accept concessions to bikes and probably more importantly won't give bikes respect on the road. I feel that we stand a better chance of real change if we are seen as a group with a right to use the road. Every time a driver sees a cyclist run a red light or go the wrong way up a 1 way street then subliminally it's reinforcing the idea that cyclists are bad road users. It's a bit of an esoteric argument I admit, but I do genuinely believe it. I'm generally against segregation of cycle lanes except as very dangerous junctions (Westway, Bow, E&C). Cyclists should be part of the traffic. The only rule I would really want to see changed is to allow bikes to turn left on red lights (same for cars to be honest).
But isn't your approach just a limited version of Groomy's then? I stop at traffic lights in my car when there is no-one around. If I see a bike riding through that red light, is that any different (other than in degree)? Doesn't any situation where a bike does something different to a car (all other things being equal) just beg the question as to whether they should be seen as 'normal road users'?

BTW I should add that I fully understand that the basis of your argument (reciprocity) is sound and I also understand the pragmatic approach - I think I would do the same myself if I were a cyclist. It's just that it doesn't seem particularly principled. Both you and Groomy seem to rely on individual approaches to risk and safety - just that you're at a different end of a spectrum from him.

User avatar
unc.si.
FISO Knight
Posts: 11778
Joined: 11 Oct 2010, 14:08
Location: Off to buy Loctite
FS Record: 'Loser' by Beck

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by unc.si. »

Groomyd wrote:Unc - thanks for your response - coherent and clear and i see where you're coming from - we wont agree on the bikes are different to cars issue or the how to get things done issue ........ but that goes outside of the topic

However i'm not sure you'd share the same view if you cycled in London - the roads there are really no place for cyclists and the only way to cycle safe is to cycle like a car - out in the traffic and visible. Unlike outside of London you wont slow down traffic for any more than 30 seconds as that is how long it will take to get to the next zebra, lights, tail back or junction and yo will get form A-B in a fraction of the time it takes a car - an hour in a car translates into 20 mins for a bike most of the time - which is why so many do jump lights and so on - take away that and you have a slow mode of transport - not that i'm justifying the nutters.

Speed of journey is one of the key attractions to cycling and constatntly having to stop and start with the cars is a big disincentive.

I still cant see how all of your concerns are not covered by a zebra crossing :?

Interesting you share the idea that cyclists should be able to get through a red light and turn left

What do the "its the law - we must not question the law" automatons think about that? :?
re London, that's not dissimilar to any city. It's certainly a lot faster to cycle across Nottingham in Rush Hour than to drive. The big difference is the length of the rush hour and the sheer number of junctions and crossings in London and the fact that in Nottingham its much easier to find quieter non-arterial routes. Don't think there's any such thing as a quiet route in London. The point about taking the lane and cycling as if you're a car applies anywhere. Even on country lanes where if there's no room to overtake you take the lane (but out of courtesy wave cars past when appropriate).

The main problem with cycling in cities is that (some) cars don't like you being there. I've been shouted at too many times by drivers telling me to get on the pavement, get off the road or get in the bike lane to think that I'm seen as an equal rights road user. That's what I want to achieve, and I believe that part of it is sticking to the rules of the road. I find it difficult to justify on the one hand wanting to be a valid road user and on the other hand not wanting to obey the rules of the road. The red light thing isn't really the crux, but I believe that running them undermines my desire to be seen as part of the traffic.

It is quite good fun setting off the '30' flashing signs though, safely of course :lol:

I suppose if I was mainly a commuter, my priority would probably be speed of journey, ease and safety. My main priority is enjoying cycling. I don't mind starting and stopping (OK within reason and I accept that I may have a different view if I lived in London. Not everyone cycles in London though. Other towns, villages and cities are available) and I don't mind doing extra miles to have a more enjoyable ride. I live about 4 miles from the office. My usual commute is 11 miles, the short one is 8 miles and the long one about 40 miles. My regular commute might take 40 minutes if I get unlucky at every junction, or 38 minutes if I sail through. It's not a big deal.

Zebra crossings IMO are different. They're in low(er) traffic areas and users know that they have to watch for traffic. Maybe users of pedestrian lights do have a right to expect a worry free passage. tbh it's not something I've given a lot of thought to though, but in general I think it does my 'cause' more good to stop at all lights (where there's anyone around). In short, I believe that I gain more by stopping than by jumping the lights, or conversely I have more to lose by jumping a light in terms of loss of 'road status' than I have to lose by stopping in terms of time taken to get where I'm going.

User avatar
murf
FISO Viscount
Posts: 109450
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:28
Location: here
FS Record: Once led TFF. Very briefly.
Contact:

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by murf »

Groomyd wrote: the whole central London dynamic is one of battle and competition between all users and they all push the boundarys to the limit every day
You know how to make us provincial types feel smug :wink: :lol:

The TV programme is called 'Escape To The Country' for a reason.

User avatar
unc.si.
FISO Knight
Posts: 11778
Joined: 11 Oct 2010, 14:08
Location: Off to buy Loctite
FS Record: 'Loser' by Beck

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by unc.si. »

X-Man wrote:
But isn't your approach just a limited version of Groomy's then? I stop at traffic lights in my car when there is no-one around. If I see a bike riding through that red light, is that any different (other than in degree)? Doesn't any situation where a bike does something different to a car (all other things being equal) just beg the question as to whether they should be seen as 'normal road users'?

BTW I should add that I fully understand that the basis of your argument (reciprocity) is sound and I also understand the pragmatic approach - I think I would do the same myself if I were a cyclist. It's just that it doesn't seem particularly principled. Both you and Groomy seem to rely on individual approaches to risk and safety - just that you're at a different end of a spectrum from him.
It's not a million miles different to Groomy's tbh.

The bolded bit is exactly my argument, with the only caveat (which is really the bit that you see as a bit unprincipled, and to be fair you'd be right) is that if no-one sees it then I'm not actually demonstrating to anyone that I should be different. The exceptions are pretty rare though. The example that I used earlier is a real set of lights near my house where they won't actually turn green for right turners so in the evening I could be stuck there for half an hour if I waited for green)

I do definitely take an individual approach to safety when on the bike. If I do find myself in a dangerous situation and my best option involves breaking the law then I'd break the law (eg if I found myself stopped to the left of a truck at a junction next to some railings, I'd go through the red light or at least cross the stop line. My main priority is not to get into those situations though, so it's never actually happened).

User avatar
unc.si.
FISO Knight
Posts: 11778
Joined: 11 Oct 2010, 14:08
Location: Off to buy Loctite
FS Record: 'Loser' by Beck

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by unc.si. »

Groomyd wrote:I believe that without acceptance then we don't have a voice.

Where as i am more in the show people its fine and the law will follow camp

My view is that Unc's approach has an implicit acknowledgement that cyclists are second class citizens to the mighty car

I would disgree with that assessment. How can acting the same as others be an acknowledgement that you're different from them?

My direct experience is that cyclists are viewed as second class citizens on the road by drivers because they act differently and I would seek to change that view. If you want to effect change, you need to understand why drivers think the way they do and aim to find ways to make them feel better about cyclists. If you don't acknowledge that drivers hold that view then you can't change that view. It's not acknowledging that cyclists are second class, just that some people view them as such

By cycling through a red light and not crashing you're not showing drivers that its fine to do it, you're just showing them that you don't follow the rules of the road and reinforcing the message that you don't belong on the roads.

I have to do some work now :lol:

stuboy
Dumbledore
Posts: 5457
Joined: 01 Sep 2010, 12:25
Location: Amsterdam

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by stuboy »

Groomyd wrote:I believe that without acceptance then we don't have a voice.
Who is the "we"? You don't even cycle anymore - you admitted this over 4 years ago, so not sure you're a fair representative of the cycling community.

war-on-the-roads-t66765.html?hilit=Cycling

However I find this interesting in what you said earlier
Groomyd wrote: However i'm not sure you'd share the same view if you cycled in London - the roads there are really no place for cyclists and the only way to cycle safe is to cycle like a car
To cycle like a car would mean stopping at red lights and I agree that is the safest way for motorised vehicles, pedestrians and other cyclists.

User avatar
Groomyd
FISO Jedi Knight
Posts: 32985
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:27
Location: Pie is great in moderation

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Groomyd »

Ok Unc we'll have to disagree on the last point

But I'm not alone in my version of promoting liberty and challenging the demonic state!

And as a freedom fighter I get to work more quickly :wink:

(Stu I cycle from Wimbledon to Victoria - when I say cycle like a car I mean cycling out from the curb - it is those who hug the curb who are most at danger - especially to lorries turning left across them and dragging them under the wheels)

User avatar
foxinthebox2001
Dumbledore
Posts: 7334
Joined: 19 Aug 2009, 13:02
Location: The corridor of uncertainty
FS Record: Fiso Cricket - The Limited Overs Game winner 2014

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by foxinthebox2001 »

Groomyd wrote: But I'm not alone in my version of promoting liberty and challenging the demonic state!

And as a freedom fighter I get to work more quickly :wink:
Reminds me of an early John Lydon lyric.
Anarchy for the U.K. it's coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line.

User avatar
Tricky Tree
FISO Knight
Posts: 15657
Joined: 13 Oct 2005, 18:33
Contact:

Re: A circular argument about red lights

Post by Tricky Tree »

Groomyd wrote:
Pedestrians don't wait for the green man to cross - they weigh up the risk and cross she it's safe

A good cyclist will do the same at a red light

Are you talking about turning left at red or ignoring the red if you deem safe and going left, right or straight ahead....if you feel safe?

View Latest: 1 Day View Your posts
Post Reply

Return to “Motoring Forum”