Red means stop, ********

[cfsmtb]

The subject of red-light running came up again during a lunch meeting today. I know it's been discussed time and time again and we're all bored shtless with the topic .. but after lunch, with this topic still on my mind, I witnessed a cyclist almost get cleaned up.

Actually that's a poor choice of words, if he got whacked by the vehicle barrelling through on the opposing amber light, instead of merely having the living **** scared outta him (and nearby observers) the ambos could of been scrapping/hosing him off the road/nearby surfaces.

Now in Melbourne, and probably several other places around the nation, amber unfortunately translates "accelerate like fk to warp drive and miss the red". I think that behaviour is **** and the revelant road authorities should pick up on that point in regards to drivers education. But that's another story.

Back to bustin' reds. Consider this - if amber means **floor it** to a driver - then WTF jump a red light?

cfs 'mildly shat off with gumby cyclists' mtb </end rant>

 

[ACP]

Fantastic! I totally agree and will continue to catch up to ******** red light runners on my commute to give them a spray...

As I watch another cyclist run a red light (or scoot past a tram that has stopped to offload/pick up passengers) I think.. 'Gee doesn't that give car drivers a wonderful impresssion of us?"

For some reason it seems like the more irregular (irregular looking) commuters just pedal on through...

Love that quote "Red means stop, ********!" Perfectly put.

 

[hemyd]

"ACP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Fantastic! I totally agree and will continue to catch up to ******** red
> light runners on my commute to give them a spray...
>
> As I watch another cyclist run a red light (or scoot past a tram that
> has stopped to offload/pick up passengers) I think.. 'Gee doesn't that
> give car drivers a wonderful impresssion of us?"
>
> For some reason it seems like the more irregular (irregular looking)
> commuters just pedal on through...
>
> Love that quote "Red means stop, ********!" Perfectly put.
>
>
> --
> ACP
>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red light,
>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.

Henry.

 

[BrettS]

hemyd wrote:

> "ACP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Fantastic! I totally agree and will continue to catch up to ******** red
>>light runners on my commute to give them a spray...
>>
>>As I watch another cyclist run a red light (or scoot past a tram that
>>has stopped to offload/pick up passengers) I think.. 'Gee doesn't that
>>give car drivers a wonderful impresssion of us?"
>>
>>For some reason it seems like the more irregular (irregular looking)
>>commuters just pedal on through...
>>
>>Love that quote "Red means stop, ********!" Perfectly put.
>>
>>
>>--
>>ACP
>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red light,
>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.
>

So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
crossings then?

--
BrettS

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:25:01 +1000
hemyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red light,
>>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.

I don't do that to improve impressions, I don't think someone who
thinks "cyclists break the law" will change their minds because of one
person. Stereotypes don't work like that.

I do it because it's the right thing to do, it's part of this social
contract thing.

not that I'm majorly consistent. I'll ride through ped lights for
example.

I stop at red lights because of expectations. The expectation of
someone at a green light or one about to turn green is that the bods
who have the red will stay put. I don't think it is sensible to ruin
that expectation.

When the coast seems clear I stay put anyway. That way I don't have
to think, or place a bet.

Zebee

 

[Resound]

"BrettS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hemyd wrote:
>
>> "ACP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Fantastic! I totally agree and will continue to catch up to ******** red
>>>light runners on my commute to give them a spray...
>>>
>>>As I watch another cyclist run a red light (or scoot past a tram that
>>>has stopped to offload/pick up passengers) I think.. 'Gee doesn't that
>>>give car drivers a wonderful impresssion of us?"
>>>
>>>For some reason it seems like the more irregular (irregular looking)
>>>commuters just pedal on through...
>>>
>>>Love that quote "Red means stop, ********!" Perfectly put.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>ACP
>>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red
>>light, including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already
>>crossed against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I
>>observe every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.
>>
>
> So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
> crossings then?
>
> --
> BrettS
>
>

Personally, I don't ride on footpaths either.

 

[cfsmtb]

So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
crossings then?

Actually there's been chatter about that law (in Vic) to be changed. Although, when crossing on a busy x-ing, ie: with lots of peds, it's probably just as fast to dismount and walk across. Looks good for PR too, and given the way some peds walk, it's probably safer!

 

[[email protected]]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I stop at red lights because of expectations. The expectation of
> someone at a green light or one about to turn green is that the bods
> who have the red will stay put. I don't think it is sensible to ruin
> that expectation.
>
> When the coast seems clear I stay put anyway. That way I don't have
> to think, or place a bet.
>
> Zebee

I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.
If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.

The problem is this. In line with all other things that seem to be
dangerous (read "able to be actioned and blamed upon someone in a court
of law") in the f&*ked up s$%tholes we call our outdoor living areas
(covered in bitumen and concrete and white lines for cars to drive
around, and a little bit of green if we're lucky), we are trying to
legislate, dilute and regulate all the danger away. Lights and signs
with (legalese) riders and disclaimers saying "Do this now, don't do
this now. You may get hurt. You have no common sense, therefore we have
to tell you this, which you will obey on pain of penalty points and
monetary exactions. You are unable, like an autistic child, to plan
your physical movements to avoid harm to yourself and others".

When a two ton chunk of metal is involved, no. We cannot. When it is us
and 15kg of bike, then, unless we are warping our way to the other side
of the galaxy, who we gonna hurt? A frail old lady? A baby in a pusher?
Us? Are we taking responsibility for our own actions?

Go to Hanoi and watch how the traffic behaves there. Many more people.
Many more journeys. Four wheels stop at the very small number of
waist-high traffic lights. Two wheels don't. Works almost perfectly.

So, traffic lights. Good to stop cars killing people. Flexible friends
for cyclists and peds. Although if the latest brainstorm by assorted
fascist pollies gets off the ground, it could become a crime to
'jaywalk', to use their coined Americanese, i.e. to impede the lawful
movement of automobiles wherever and whenever they want to go.

Traffic lights were invented to reduce car accident insurance claims in
the 1920s. As was the TAC. I don't think either would be needed in a
bike/foot/tram/train-only city. I hold them and their necessity in
almost contempt, and would start a campaign to disable large numbers of
them if they didn't perform the vital function of stopping cars hitting
people. (is that seditious? is ASIO watching?) Kev Carmody, famous
Aboriginal musician, once said he stands at ped crossings for 5 and 10
minutes at a time, pushing the button, messing with people's heads. I'm
doing the opposite. I'm ignoring something that doesn't have anything
to do with my safety, as I see it, after careful observation and
exposure to that particular traffic situation. Of course I don't ignore
3 lanes of oncoming traffic, but I won't be told I can't use a
perfectly good road to ride to where I'm going at bicycle speed, in a
bicycle manner, using road sense refined for riding a bicycle.

Is this long enough? Sometimes I'm just full of myself.

MH

 

[Aeek]

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:23:13 +1000, "Resound"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"BrettS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
>> crossings then?

>
>Personally, I don't ride on footpaths either.

That's how I avoid the question too.
In Canberra, I'd say 99.99% don't dismount. Most slow down.
The police don't care encouraging further disrespect for the law.

Andre

 

[Bleve]

[email protected] wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> > I stop at red lights because of expectations. The expectation of
> > someone at a green light or one about to turn green is that the bods
> > who have the red will stay put. I don't think it is sensible to ruin
> > that expectation.
> >
> > When the coast seems clear I stay put anyway. That way I don't have
> > to think, or place a bet.
> >
> > Zebee
>
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.

********.

 

[dave]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:25:01 +1000
> hemyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red light,
>>>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>>>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>>>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.
>
>
> I don't do that to improve impressions, I don't think someone who
> thinks "cyclists break the law" will change their minds because of one
> person. Stereotypes don't work like that.

Damm. Its why I stop. I,ll run a red light. But only if noone sees
me. If anyone can see me I don;t. I do it to stay alive (of course)
and for the instances where no danger exists I do it purely to give the
best possible impression of cyclists.

I suppose on the other hand the odd instance where I have dragged
someone out of the car thru the window merely cos they came within cm of
killing me rather negates that impression.. but overall I think I give
more positive vibes than negative. And now you tell me I am wrong?

Alas

Dave

 

[blah]

[email protected] wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.

********.

 

[dave]

cfsmtb wrote:
> BrettS Wrote:
>
>>So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
>>crossings then?
>>
>
>
> Actually there's been chatter about that law (in Vic) to be changed.
> Although, when crossing on a busy x-ing, ie: with lots of peds, it's
> probably just as fast to dismount and walk across. Looks good for PR
> too, and given the way some peds walk, it's probably safer!
>
>
Sort of thing I would only do at walking pace anyway.
THe southbank 10 kph limit, its probably reasonable and the last time I
followed Kathy though there I was astonished that she was actually
faster than me, I would have thought my skills higher and my level of
caution too.. (not big noting myself, its just what I would have
thought) but I wasnt brave enough or didnt trust the peds enough to
even stay with her. But I do think that 15 kph would be better. It
turns out I jog between 12 and 14. Anyway thats my thought

Dave

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience.

I call that a pathetic attempt at self-justification.

> Call me a ********.

********.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Resound]

"Aeek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:23:13 +1000, "Resound"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"BrettS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
>>> crossings then?
>
>>
>>Personally, I don't ride on footpaths either.
>
> That's how I avoid the question too.
> In Canberra, I'd say 99.99% don't dismount. Most slow down.
> The police don't care encouraging further disrespect for the law.
>
> Andre

Actually, I'd say that if the crossing joins two sections of a shared path
then riding across with due care is perfectly reasonable as it's then a
pedestrian AND bike crossing. This is however a logical interpretation, not
a legal one.

Oh, and yes I stop at red lights. Yes, all of them.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 2 Aug 2006 15:03:37 -0700
blah <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.
>
> ********.

please remove my name from that next time....

 

[Resound]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.
> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
>

Firstly, there are enough cyclists out there who clearly need traffic lights
to avoid being cleaned up that not running reds as a law should make sense
right there. The point of laws is that you don't ignore them based of your
personal evaluation of when it's reasonable to do so. If it was otherwise
then the people who most badly need those laws are the ones who'd never
observe them. I'm rather tempted to suggest that that's the case with
bicycles running red lights at the moment. The notion that it's your risk
and not anyone else's just doesn't wash. How about the person on another
bike or motorbike who goes down hitting or avoiding you? How about the
person who winds up injured and/or traumatised and/or well out of pocket
when you bounce off their front guard and into their wind screen? How about
the cost to the community in both dollars and physical resources with
regards to the emergency services who scrape you off the road and cart you
off to hospital? And finally, as has been mentioned in this group a huge
number of times, how about the dozen people who watch you blow through that
red light each time and mentally reinforce their pre-conceived notion that
cyclists are dangerous idiots. Don't even think about saying that they won't
apply it to all cyclists because not all cyclists are the same. When you're
not part of a minority, there's a tendency to treat that minority as a
homogenous group. Non-cyclists aren't interested in making the mental effort
to give us the benefit of the doubt, especially when being mentally lazy
lets them see another data point to reinforce their fondly held prejudices.

Oh, and before I forget:

********.

 

[blah]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on 2 Aug 2006 15:03:37 -0700
> blah <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >
> >> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.
> >
> > ********.
>
> please remove my name from that next time....

sorry...

 

[jur]

I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.
If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.

Red means stop, ********! Yes, I'm talking to YOU!

I sincerely hope you do NOT get cleaned up.

I sincerely hope you DO get caught and separated from your wallet.

 

[sinus]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a ********.
> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
>

Firstly, there are enough cyclists out there who clearly need traffic lights
to avoid being cleaned up that not running reds as a law should make sense
right there. The point of laws is that you don't ignore them based of your
personal evaluation of when it's reasonable to do so. If it was otherwise
then the people who most badly need those laws are the ones who'd never
observe them. I'm rather tempted to suggest that that's the case with
bicycles running red lights at the moment. The notion that it's your risk
and not anyone else's just doesn't wash. How about the person on another
bike or motorbike who goes down hitting or avoiding you? How about the
person who winds up injured and/or traumatised and/or well out of pocket
when you bounce off their front guard and into their wind screen? How about
the cost to the community in both dollars and physical resources with
regards to the emergency services who scrape you off the road and cart you
off to hospital? And finally, as has been mentioned in this group a huge
number of times, how about the dozen people who watch you blow through that
red light each time and mentally reinforce their pre-conceived notion that
cyclists are dangerous idiots. Don't even think about saying that they won't
apply it to all cyclists because not all cyclists are the same. When you're
not part of a minority, there's a tendency to treat that minority as a
homogenous group. Non-cyclists aren't interested in making the mental effort
to give us the benefit of the doubt, especially when being mentally lazy
lets them see another data point to reinforce their fondly held prejudices.

Oh, and before I forget:

********.

well said.

And what do those idiots gain from running reds - probably spend a little bit longer waiting at next major intersection or maybe get to work a few minutes faster. Hardly a good enough return for the risk and impact on others.