Caught speeding vs. Red means stop fitzroy boy

[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.

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

"... 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 ****, 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

 

[hippy]

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

 

[Tezza]

Daveb wrote:
> 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 th
benefits that society provides but think themselves too cool or smart t
put up with a minor inconvenience such as traffic lights. Your not to
smart to accept my taxes to pay for your brain surgery, orthopedics et
when things don't go your way though. Tezza :mad


-

 

[Hirshy]

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

 

[Peter Signorini]

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

 

[DRS]

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

[...]

> 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

 

[Jeff Westwood]

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

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Baka Dasai <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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...
>
> 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

 

[rickster]

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

 

[John L]

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

John L.

On 15 Feb 2004 13:21:06 GMT, Baka Dasai <[email protected]>
wrote:


>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.

 

[rickster]

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

> 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]

 

[Jorgen]

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

 

[John Doe]

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

 

[Jorgen]

"rickster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DaveB <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [snip]
>
[...]
> 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 ****** off 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 wankers.

j

 

[flyingdutch]

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

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

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

Always amuses me how a rider passing you and running the light
inevitably you reel in at the next set of lights "Gee, that bit o
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 a
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 star
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 idio
and funnily enough he's stuck at the Kingsway lights. Takes all my sel
control not to snot him but realise I have to keep my cool for messag
to get thru. "Do you mind not practicing your brand of stupidity i
front of the car driving monkeys, mate?!?!". They took it out on me. Wh
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. no
convenient ignorance..


-

 

[EoinC]

There are a few different things going on here:

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

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

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

Person A broke the law; Person B did not; Person C abuses person B fo
Person A having broken the law. Person B's initial problem is not wit
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


-

 

[cfsmtb]

byron27 wrote:
> 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?


Can of worms seen opening, gonna go away and think about that


-

 

[byron27]

Peter Signorini wrote:
> "Hirshy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:402f263c$0$15138-
> [email protected]:[email protected]
> net.com.au...
> > 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 i
a bike and a car is a car. With about 1100kg's difference why are the
considered the same


-

 

[rickster]

"Jorgen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "rickster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > DaveB <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > [snip]
> >
> [...]
> > 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 ****** off at the above, however I thought we
> discussed _empty_ ped crossings?

Red = Stop

Let me say that again

Red = Stop

What do you think the motorists as thinking as you go through ?
Another bloody cyclist. How can we expect motorists to, say for
example, keep out of the bike lane when we/you can't even stop at a
red light ?

Do I really need to explain this ?