Caught speeding vs. Red means stop fitzroy boy

"DaveB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

These two threads have left me fairly amused (or is it bemused). On one there is a real hard core
holier than thou anyone who breaks the law is evil and gives all cyclists a bad name attitude. On
the other is the laws shmaws if it's fun and nobody is too likely to get hurt go for it. I had a
quick look through the posters on both threads and posters from one don't seem to appear on the
other. Are there two cliques here that are avoiding each other, or is speeding considered
acceptable and running stop signs not. Personally, I run the red lights (after checking for
traffic of course, I don't have a death wish), but don't speed. But the not speeding is to do with
a lack of speed in the legs, not any kind of a moral decision.

Well, I started the red light thread because I hate copping the flak from motorists after some
[censored] flys through the red light while two other riders are stopped waiting! If he rolled through a
back road intersection at 5am, I probably wouldn't mind so much, but peak hour, highway traffic
turning through the intersection and two riders already stopped - that's just bullsh*t. He had a
nice bike. It has brakes. He should use them. As for the other thread, I've been hosting an Adelaide
mate and haven't been online for a while :-) As far as the speeding goes - I think the limit might
be 60k so I probably am speeding in the Dandys.. but can anyone tell? Motorists are probably happier
for me to speed down a hill because they don't have to wait for me and don't have to make a risky
passing move. I could be accused of being a hypocrite regarding road laws, but I was complaining
about the red light running with motorist attitudes in mind, not legal consequences.

hippy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "DaveB" == DaveB <[email hidden]> writes:

DaveB> These two threads have left me fairly amused (or is it bemused). On one there is a real
DaveB> hard core holier than thou anyone who breaks the law is evil and gives all cyclists a bad
DaveB> name attitude. On the other is the laws shmaws if it's fun and nobody is too likely to
DaveB> get hurt go for it. I had a quick look through the posters on both threads and posters
DaveB> from one don't seem to appear on the other. Are there two cliques here that are avoiding
DaveB> each other, or is speeding considered acceptable and running stop signs not. Personally,
DaveB> I run the red lights (after checking for traffic of course, I don't have a death wish),
DaveB> but don't speed. But the not speeding is to do with a lack of speed in the legs, not any
DaveB> kind of a moral decision.

DaveB> Dave B.

I've been kind of bemused by it myself. For what it's worth here's my take on it.

I came back to cycling after a 12 year break. For that period my primary transport was the car. I
obey the rules, I don't speed and stop at traffic lights.

Cyclists are considered vehciles with the same rights and responsiblities as other road users. To me
that means obeying the rules, not speeding and stopping at traffic lights.

I was reading this today lesberries.co.ukheresy.htmlOpen ↗

"... it would be nice to seen an end to driver-hatred. Motorists in this country [UK] are
far politer to cyclists than they are to each other. That's not to say there is no
boorishness, it happens, but less often than when driving. If you feel you are taking a lot
of [censored], maybe it's because you're waiting for it. Try looking out for the good drivers. And
if you must jump red lights and ride unlit at night, don't whine if the police pull you up
for it - it serves you bloody well right. It hardly surprises me that cyclists are so widely
despised in this country[UK], when in their road behaviour they are so often contemptuous of
the law and yet so quick to wave two fingers at others."

Couldn't agree more. I've been commuting by bicycle for six months now and can count on one hand the
number of times a motorist has been discourteous to me. Quite the reverse in fact. I've found that
if I give clear signals of my intentions motorists are more than helpful in letting me get across
the lanes.

I cannot say the same about the same six months of weekend motoring. Hardly a journey goes by
without having someone tailgate me, cut in front of me or some other such lunacy.

If we expect to be treated as road users, we should obey the rules of the road. If you break the
rules of the road and get treated with contempt, well it's no more than you deserve.
--
Regards Euan

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Daveb
These two threads have left me fairly amused (or is it bemused). On one there is a real hard core
holier than thou anyone who breaks the law is evil and gives all cyclists a bad name attitude. On
the other is the laws shmaws if it's fun and nobody is too likely to get hurt go for it. I had a
quick look through the posters on both threads and posters from one don't seem to appear on the
other. Are there two cliques here that are avoiding each other, or is speeding considered acceptable
and running stop signs not. Personally, I run the red lights (after checking for traffic of course,
I don't have a death wish), but don't speed. But the not speeding is to do with a lack of speed in
the legs, not any kind of a moral decision.

Dave B.

Yeah I'm pretty bemused too - by the selfish idiots who want the benefits that society provides but think themselves too cool or smart to put up with a minor inconvenience such as traffic lights. Your not too smart to accept my taxes to pay for your brain surgery, orthopedics etc when things don't go your way though.
Tezza
😠

I stop at traffic lights but not at empty pedstrian crossings when controlled by lights. Bet there
are many like me ! Hershy

"Hirshy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stop at traffic lights but not at empty pedstrian crossings when controlled by lights. Bet there
are many like me !

And you're happy about all the car drivers doing the same?

Sure seems like some pretty good double standards going on here.

Cheers Peter

DaveB <[email hidden]> wrote in message [email hidden]

[...]

Quoted message said:

posters from one don't seem to appear on the other. Are there two cliques here that are avoiding
each other, or is speeding considered acceptable and running stop signs not. Personally, I run the
red lights (after checking for traffic of course, I don't have a death wish), but don't speed. But
the not speeding is to do with a lack of speed in the legs, not any kind of a moral decision.

My "speeding" was not on a public road.

--

"The central problem with the concept of the 'Axis of Evil' is that it involves an assumption that
the US is the 'fulcrum of virtue'." Bob Hawke, former Prime Minister of Australia

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:04:32 +1100, Peter Signorini said (and I quote):

Quoted message said:

"Hirshy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stop at traffic lights but not at empty pedstrian crossings when controlled by lights. Bet
there are many like me !

And you're happy about all the car drivers doing the same?

Sure seems like some pretty good double standards going on here.

It would be a double standard if cars were the same as bikes. Sure, according to the law they are,
but in practice, bikes afford far greater visibility and maneuverability, and take up far less room
than cars, thus making some of the laws that assume vehicles to be cars to be not a very good fit if
the vehicle happens to be a bike.

For example, a red light on a quiet road. A cyclist can come to a rolling stop, and quickly see that
there is no cross-traffic and that there is plenty of time to get across the intersection before any
cross-traffic materialises. A driver in a car is quite unable to do this, due to a lack of
visibility. The same law applies to both cyclist and driver, but I can see why cyclists often break
such laws.

The other issue is that even if cyclists take excessive risks, they present far less danger to other
road users due to the fact that they aren't piloting a a couple of tons of steel around with them.

Having said that, I obey virtually all road rules when I'm on my bike. It's easier than making the
mental effort to determine whether bending the rule in a particular case is justifiable.

--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

My post in the "Caught Speeding" thread suggested I was speeding, however, there was no posted speed
limits and as far as I know there are no speed limits on bike paths. I assume the radar trap was
there to remind cyclists that pedestrians also use this path and to be minful of them. I always stop
at traffic lights and stop signs and get pretty steamed when I see other riders cruise through
intersections while I am waiting at a red light.

Jeff Westwood

DaveB <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>... [snip]

Quoted message said:

Personally, I run the red lights (after checking for traffic of course, I don't have a death
wish), but don't speed.

I'd love to see this license you have that allows you not to obey road rules. I'd really like one.
I'm sick of stopping at red lights like a sap.

Like the guy this morning on the green Raceline about 8:15 am on St Kilda Road, with the orange
safety vest and nerdy 80's stack hat, it was OK to ride passed the two stopped cyclists, through the
pedestrian crossing with the school kids on it and the lolly pop lady, 'cos he must have the same
license as you.

Sure like to get me one.

[snip]

"Hirshy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I stop at traffic lights but not at empty pedstrian crossings when controlled by lights. Bet there
are many like me ! Hershy

Squirt, please tell me where I can apply for the form that give exemption to obeying road rules.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Baka Dasai said:

For example, a red light on a quiet road. A cyclist can come to a rolling stop, and quickly see
that there is no cross-traffic and that there is plenty of time to get across the intersection
before any cross-traffic materialises. A driver in a car is quite unable to do this, due to a lack
of visibility.

That's just self-justifying nonsense. If you're saying that a clear view justifies running a red
light, it's got to be OK for cars with a clear view too. Then someone misjudges an aproaching
vehicle's speed, or doesn't see them...

Quoted message said:

The other issue is that even if cyclists take excessive risks, they present far less danger to
other road users due to the fact that they aren't piloting a a couple of tons of steel around
with them.

But if they do something stupid, and someone encased in said couple of tons of steel hits someone
else trying to avoid them?

--

Shane Stanley

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:42:42 GMT, Shane Stanley said (and I quote):

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Baka Dasai

Quoted message said:

For example, a red light on a quiet road. A cyclist can come to a rolling stop, and quickly see
that there is no cross-traffic and that there is plenty of time to get across the intersection
before any cross-traffic materialises. A driver in a car is quite unable to do this, due to a
lack of visibility.

That's just self-justifying nonsense. If you're saying that a clear view justifies running a red
light, it's got to be OK for cars with a clear view too.

I think it's much much rarer that a car gets such a clear view. And even if they do, a car is slower
to accelerate over the distance of an intersection, and so actually requires a considerably greater
amount of "clearness".

But yes, in those very rare instances where a car is in such a situation, then I don't mind if they
bend the law.

Quoted message said:

Then someone misjudges an aproaching vehicle's speed, or doesn't see them...

Then they didn't really have such a clear view then, did they? But it's not as though people are
unable to make such judgments without the aid of a traffic light. Most intersections don't have
traffic lights.
--
A: Top-posters.
B: What's the most annoying thing on usenet?

"DaveB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

These two threads have left me fairly amused (or is it bemused). On one there is a real hard core
holier than thou anyone who breaks the law is evil and gives all cyclists a bad name attitude. On
the other is the laws shmaws if it's fun and nobody is too likely to get hurt go for it. I had a
quick look through the posters on both threads and posters from one don't seem to appear on the
other. Are there two cliques here that are avoiding each other, or is speeding considered
acceptable and running stop signs not. Personally, I run the red lights (after checking for
traffic of course, I don't have a death wish), but don't speed. But the not speeding is to do with
a lack of speed in the legs, not any kind of a moral decision.

Dave B.

I suspect its the same with motorists. You wont find too many motorists consistantly running red
lights. Yet you do the exact speed limit in a car and watch how many people pass. Some laws are
considered more dangerous than others (rightly or wrongly - a different argument all together).
Doing 70 in a 60 zone in a vehicle would not really be considered out of the ordinary but most
motorists would jack up if you just kept driving through red traffic lights. Its all about
perceptions. I think you have got it right. I think that speeding IS considered acceptable motorists
so that when a bicycle is seen speeding well hey "as long as they are not holding me up". Red lights
infuriate drivers mostly (I suspect) from the fact that they are stuck behind them. Whether this is
right or wrong it still makes them hate cyclists. (BTW Motorists hate Motor Cyclists as well for
moving through a traffic jam).

Cyclists have an unfair perception placed against them that if they are seen breaking the law then
they are evil and not just them but all cyclists. Same with the perception about scout masters,
catholic priests, police and particular cultures... dont trust any of them based on the actions of a
few. The perception maybe unfair but thems the breaks. We all put up with the fury of motorists for
law breakers on Bicycles. We just have to finally understand that the world is not fairy land as we
thought when we were children. People will infuriate others no matter what. Whether it be hosing
down your footpath to running read lights on a bike.

There would not be all that many cyclists that could break the speed limit on a push bike unless
they are riding down the odd mine shaft shaped hill. Or are extremely fit sprinting through a
school zone etc.

Personally I have been driving for 20 years and have not had one infringement against me. Not even
parking. This is probably because I hate wasting money rather than not wanting to speed at times.
Cant say I ever had the urge to run a red bike or car.

So obviously following your reasoning, you wouldn't complain if a motorcyclist broke the same law &
cleaned you up?

John L.

Baka Dasai said:

It would be a double standard if cars were the same as bikes. Sure, according to the law they are,
but in practice, bikes afford far greater visibility and maneuverability, and take up far less room
than cars, thus making some of the laws that assume vehicles to be cars to be not a very good fit
if the vehicle happens to be a bike.

For example, a red light on a quiet road. A cyclist can come to a rolling stop, and quickly see
that there is no cross-traffic and that there is plenty of time to get across the intersection
before any cross-traffic materialises. A driver in a car is quite unable to do this, due to a lack
of visibility. The same law applies to both cyclist and driver, but I can see why cyclists often
break such laws.

The other issue is that even if cyclists take excessive risks, they present far less danger to
other road users due to the fact that they aren't piloting a a couple of tons of steel around
with them.

Having said that, I obey virtually all road rules when I'm on my bike. It's easier than making the
mental effort to determine whether bending the rule in a particular case is justifiable.

"John L" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So obviously following your reasoning, you wouldn't complain if a motorcyclist broke the same law
& cleaned you up?

I do the empty red light ped crossings myself without blinking an eyelid on my pushie, but I never
ever do red lights on my motorbike or in the cage.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the power required to get moving again; unless you're
fit as a Schumacker, it's much more pleasant to keep pedaling than to stop and get started again.
Plus with a low average speed (say 25-30 kphs in my MTB case) you sort of rely on keeping it up to
get anywhere anytime fast.

On pushbike: I stop & wait at all busy intersections, however I don't care too much about the empty
ones -- of course after thoroughly checking for traffic. Plus I always signal my intentions about
where I'm headed. I don't think I'm likely to give other cyclists too much of a bad name with my
attitude, expect maybe the overly zealous ones.

Cheers, Jørgen

"rickster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DaveB <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[snip]

[...]

Quoted message said:

Like the guy this morning on the green Raceline about 8:15 am on St Kilda Road, with the orange
safety vest and nerdy 80's stack hat, it was OK to ride passed the two stopped cyclists, through
the pedestrian crossing with the school kids on it and the lolly pop lady, 'cos he must have the
same license as you.

I have no problems with being [censored] at the above, however I thought we discussed _empty_ ped
crossings?

Pet pieve: People dashing across the road, giving the stop button a push for "good measure" but
intention to wait for the lights anyway. Bloody [censored].

j

Convenient ignorance IS a wonderful thing, isnt it chaps/chappettes!!!

You travel on the road (or bikepath/footpath,singletrack, whatever), you follow the appropriate rules. very simple.

It makes you predicatable to others. others can then avoid you because they can clearly anticipate your actions PRIOR to you doing them. The laws arent there to slow you down. They are there to get you from A to B in one piece.

Always amuses me how a rider passing you and running the lights inevitably you reel in at the next set of lights
"Gee, that bit of stupidity got you a long way, didnt it?"
- never had a reply to that one as you pull up next to them...

Last Sunday coming back from Frankston thru Albert Park was waiting at the Canterbury Rd lights. Rider who had also run the Beach Rd lights, sails straight thru these lights as well.
2 guys in car to my left start hurling abuse at him, and then spot me and start hurling abuse at me. Luckily light turn green.
By this stage Im ropeable. Sprint after idiot and funnily enough he's stuck at the Kingsway lights. Takes all my self control not to snot him but realise I have to keep my cool for message to get thru. "Do you mind not practicing your brand of stupidity in front of the car driving monkeys, mate?!?!". They took it out on me. Why shouldnt i take it out on you???"
He looked very sheepish. "Sorry Mate".
"its only gotta go wrong once for you never to see your family again, you know. And its got you nowhere anyway"

very simple. not holier than thou. just some plain ol' common sense. not convenient ignorance...

There are a few different things going on here:

One is the breaking of a law, regardless of what that law is, puts you out on your own against the "official" community, and, possibly the "unofficial" community. The distinction I place here is that, for example, the "official" community as represented by the law views doing 82kmh in an 80kmh zone as being wrong, the mass of vehicles passing by at that speed together take a softer view. Regardless of this distinction, if you break the law (regardless of how inappropriate that law may be), you place yourself out on your own. If the law is inappropriate, follow the path to get it amended. Otherwise, accept the consequences.

Another is the transfer of the wrath of some motorists from the perpetrating cyclist to a generalisation that all cyclists are guilty by association. This fallacial reasoning (arguing from the lesser to the greater) is one of the poorer of the human traits (eg graffitti is done by young people therefore all young people are graffitti artists).

It is important to distinguish between the two. If someone abuses you for someone else running a red light, they are themselves committing an error (and possibly breaking a law) :

Person A broke the law; Person B did not; Person C abuses person B for Person A having broken the law. Person B's initial problem is not with Person A (this is what the Authorities are for), but with Person C. Recognise it for what it is.

Life is fun, isn't it?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Peter Signorini
"Hirshy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I stop at traffic lights but not at empty pedstrian crossings when controlled by lights. Bet there
are many like me !

And you're happy about all the car drivers doing the same?

Sure seems like some pretty good double standards going on here.

Cheers Peter

i think thats the point, there should be two standards,because a bike is a bike and a car is a car. With about 1100kg's difference why are they considered the same?