red lights

Simon Brooke said:

Better solution: stick your deck chair at a busy junction.
Count all the cyclists who stop at red lights. Count all
the cyclists who go through red lights.

It's not better because that would be researching something
different: the proportion of cyclists who stop at that
particular junction.

We want to know what proportion of cyclists break this
law at all (within a limited period/distance for
practical reasons).

Cyclists who stop at that place may go through some other
red lights so they can't count as "passes". Your percentage
would be wrong. Repeating the exercise at more places
wouldn't correct it. You have to follow individual cyclists.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Tony Raven said:

If people followed that approach we could do away with
all the traffic light controlled crossing and go back to
simple black and while stripes painted on the road.
However we went away from those for a reason

How many more collisions caused by *cyclists* on zebras
than traffic light controlled crossings?

Probably none given the way many cyclists treat red lights
on crossings these days.

Tony

Reply to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

People claim that pedestrians and other road users regard
it as unacceptable. I question the degree and sincerity of
this and the amount of harm the offence is actually does,
and what exactly should be done about it.

Not that difficult a claim to substantiate, considering the
number of times it's complained about by drivers and peds:
it seems to be one of the most common events cited as
support for the view of cyclists as lawbreakers, and to the
extent that some - many, I suppose - cyclists run red
lights, the uk.tosspotters are quite justified.

The amount of harm? It's easy to stereotype road users
according to the behaviour of an antisocial subset: not all
BMW drivers drive as if they've bought exclusive use of the
road, not all WVM behave as if being delayed for a few yards
will ruin their entire day, rather than the next few
seconds. But when drivers or pedestrians see a cyclist
running a red light, it adds another grain to the heap of
evidence that cyclists - it's hardly ever *some* cyclists,
unfortunately, it's usually just "cyclists" - are
irresponsible [censored]. That's not a view of cycling, or of
me, that I'm happy with; if you run red lights, you're
contributing to it. One such event, of course, will do only
an infinitesimal amount of damage; just as a single
cigarette will make an infinitesimal difference to your life
expectancy. We can't conclude from that that smoking doesn't
really cause any harm.

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying that nothing should be done just that "zero
tolerance" is unnecessary.

This sounds rather as if you see nothing wrong with breaking
the law, so long as some tolerance is extended to you. I can
see *practical* reasons for not devoting police resources to
catching irresponsible cyclists, but I can't see any
justification for breaking the law in the first place.

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Mark McN said:

Reply to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

People claim that pedestrians and other road users regard
it as unacceptable. I question the degree and sincerity
of this and the amount of harm the offence is actually
does, and what exactly should be done about it.

Not that difficult a claim to substantiate, considering
the number of times it's complained about by drivers and
peds: it seems to be one of the most common events cited
as support for the view of cyclists as lawbreakers, and to
the extent that some - many, I suppose - cyclists run red
lights, the uk.tosspotters are quite justified.

In central London, it's more than many: it's most. According
to my observations so far, *most*, when they have the
opportunity, jump at least one red light every 1.5 miles.
And the majority of all stop in front of the stop line
whenever they get the chance, and many break various other
rules as well.

Quoted message said:

The amount of harm? It's easy to stereotype road users
according to the behaviour of an antisocial subset: not
all BMW drivers drive as if they've bought exclusive use
of the road, not all WVM behave as if being delayed for a
few yards will ruin their entire day, rather than the next
few seconds. But when drivers or pedestrians see a cyclist
running a red light, it adds another grain to the heap of
evidence that cyclists - it's hardly ever *some* cyclists,
unfortunately, it's usually just "cyclists" - are
irresponsible [censored].

I don't accept that a grain gets added every single time a
motorist sees a cyclist cautiously go through a red light
causing no potential danger or inconvenience. It's so common
that the motorist has accepted that it's norm. Yes they know
the cyclist is breaking the law but drivers I know say
they're not bothered about this particular type of offender,
and I don't hear motorists yelling out to them on the
streets. Afterall, they know they break the law themselves
on every journey by speeding so they accept the bit of
"naughtiness" on both sides.

The more blatant and dangerous instances, yes, that worsens
their impression of cyclists. They then broaden this out to
moaning about all cyclists because groups like to moan about
another group that they think has some advantage. They
exaggerate their complaints for their own entertainment and
to impress their peers, just as cyclists do of motorists, as
we often see in this newsgroup.

What motorists get most [censored] with, by far, is cyclists
holding them up by riding in front of them. I wonder how
many of the ultra-traffic-light-observers pull over and let
cars pass (when it's safe) instead of selfishly hogging the
lane the whole time?

Quoted message said:

That's not a view of cycling, or of me, that I'm happy
with; if you run red lights, you're contributing to it.

Personally, I go out of my way to set a good example on
plenty of occasions on each ride, in various ways. In fact I
stop at some traffic lights that most other cyclists in my
city wouldn't dream of bothering with. I've spent a chunk of
my life for you waiting at these bloody places like a lemon.
And I also often go out of my way to give way to pedestrians
and drivers, with a big margin, even when I'm not obliged to
and they were inconveniencing me anyway.

So I think I've done my bit in making it extremely obvious
to pedestrians and all the other motorists around me that
some cyclists are "responsible". On the times I stand out
like a sore thumb, the driver/ped will notice and take a
grain of "evidence" /off/ the heap. Now I don't mean that
buys me a credit to commit an offence, just that I strongly
object to being told by cyclists that I must be perfect ALL
THE TIME, for /their/ sake! How selfish of /them/! How
artificial! How sad. How unnecessary. We're not that much of
an endangered species that we have to be some perfect bunch
of sheep. And the idea that you can't criticise one
behaviour by others because you're not perfect yourself is
ludicrous. I'm going to carry on and do the *natural* thing
and go through the odd red light (when safe and convenient
for everyone) when I do get fed up with my progress being
broken up and delayed by so many damn signals that were
primarily designed to control streams of motor traffic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying that nothing should be done just that
"zero tolerance" is unnecessary.

This sounds rather as if you see nothing wrong with
breaking the law, so long as some tolerance is
extended to you.

That's from your imagination and not what I said.

I mean there's no need to enforce the law on every occasion
when the manoeuvre performed is actually utterly harmless,
without even any potential harm done. The impression given
to other road users isn't a justification to enforce a law.
That's not what the law is for. That's purely a matter for
the individual's judgement.

Quoted message said:

I can see *practical* reasons for not devoting police
resources to catching irresponsible cyclists, but I
can't see any justification for breaking the law in the
first place.

I refer you to my previous answers on that.

~PB

Daniel Barlow said:

It seems to me that you've advanced the usual argument
that pissing off motorists by acting illegally is a bad
idea, therefore we shouldn't do it. (This is as distinct
from pissing off motorists by doing things which are legal
and otherwise sensible, like taking the lane, which is OK)

Its much simpler than that for me. If you want to be
considered a vehicle with equal rights on the road, stick by
the rules of the road. If you want to be considered
alongside pedestrians who should stay off the road except
for crossing and who can ignore the rules of the road then
don't bother. I for one believe strongly we are cyclists
with equal *rights and responsibilities* on the road. The
fact that some motorists abuse those rules does not exempt
us in the same way that the fact that some shoplift does not
make it acceptable to steal.

Tony

Gawnsoft said:

Quoted message said:

(If you're really getting near misses within 500 yards
most trips then you either live in an extraordinary place
or you are doing something wrong. I get few near misses
altogether!).

Well, tell me what I was doing wrong in the example
cited below.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are car drivers who attempt to over take me when my
front wheel has already arrived at a pinch point just a)
"an imaginary problem I like to moan about"? or b) a
demonstration that the roads /actually/ expose you to
dangerously bad car drivers?

I don't believe you have a near miss every time you go
through the pinch point. The term "near miss" implies there
was a very high chance of being hit on the occasion. You
would be dead by now if that was happening on most trips. It
is an exaggeration to use that term when you mean a car
overtakes you with less clearance than you would like. To
prevent that, by the way, ride further out into the lane to
prevent being overtaken altogether. That's what you're doing
"wrong" in terms of protecting yourself.

It's exactly the kind of exaggeration I was referring to. Of
course cycling exposes you to dangerously bad drivers, it's
just that cyclists exaggerate about the numbers of them,
just like motorists and pedestrians exaggerate about the
trouble cyclists cause jumping red lights.

~PB

Gawnsoft said:

Quoted message said:

The word "lout" becomes meaningless if everyone is
a lout.

Hardly. If most cyclists are seen to be louts, all that
happens is we /all/ get labelled as louts.

Nobody in their right mind believes that label because they
know it doesn't make sense. They don't need to go by the
Daily Mail's label. They see the cyclists for themselves out
in the real world. They see them break the law but they see
that most of these law-breakers are perfectly respectable-
looking men and women causing no harm.

~PB

Reply to Daniel Barlow

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that you've advanced the usual argument
that pissing off motorists by acting illegally is a bad
idea, therefore we shouldn't do it. (This is as distinct
from pissing off motorists by doing things which are legal
and otherwise sensible, like taking the lane, which is OK)

Absolutely - and I make no claims for originality ;-)
Wouldn't you agree that pissing motorists off
unnecessarily, just for the sake of your own convenience,
is a bad idea? I'll happily [censored] the driver behind me
if my safety depends to a degree on doing so; but pissing
them off by breaking the law, solely in order to save a few
seconds at each junction, seems to me a bad thing. Do you
disagree? - or do you think it really doesn't matter? Or do
you think that motorists really never care about cyclists
breaking the law?

Quoted message said:

What you haven't done is given any credible evidence that
it is the actual act of _running a red light_ that
annoys/startles/scares them - as opposed to, for example,
cycling into them, or at high speed through bunches of
them causing them to have to leap for cover, or whatever
other inconsiderate behaviour the law also protects
against.

What Gawnsoft said. (And I'm not sure here if you're
including running red lights in the list of inconsiderate
behaviour ;-)) In addition, if we discount the
uk.tosspot/Daily Mail approach to Lycra Louts, we're left
with individual drivers and the dangers of anecdotal
evidence. Certainly there are *much* worse things a
cyclist could do than going through a red light; but that
isn't to say that running red lights isn't annoying to the
drivers and peds who see them. I'm inclined to say in any
case that the burden of proof should be on the cyclist who
runs red lights to demonstrate that no annoyance is ever
caused by doing so.

Quoted message said:

As for drivers, well, they can get annoyed by cyclists
simply because the cyclist exists, and matters of legality
(shorn of the safety and courtesy concerns that cause the
laws to be enacted) really aren't the sticking point -
except perhaps on Usenet.

To be sure, there are all sorts of factors which help us
form a view of the various types of road user out there,
both positive and negative. I think that breaking the law is
one of the negative ones.

Quoted message said:

Sometimes there _is_ nothing wrong with breaking the law:
witness the whole "bale of hay in the back of a taxi"
thing <URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/524998.stm>

Ta for the link (though I'd say that some of the allegedly
foolish laws seem perfectly sensible to me - I don't think
I'd care for my neighbours stretching washing across the
street, or keeping a pig in front of their house :-)). ISTM,
though, that traffic lights are in a different category.

Quoted message said:

The law is a manmade construct intended to promote the
behaviours that society wishes to encourage, and it can be
(and has been) changed or ignored when it is found not to
work. Perhaps this is one of those times.

Absolutely. I've thought in the past that allowing left
turns on red would be a good idea in many circumstances. But
even allowing for the fact that cyclists and other minority
traffic are already treated differently from motorists in
certain circumstances, I'd be wary of increasing the
differences between cyclists and the rest of the traffic at
road junctions, attractive though the idea is.

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Reply to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

In central London, it's more than many: it's most.
According to my observations so far, *most*, when they
have the opportunity, jump at least one red light every
1.5 miles. And the majority of all stop in front of the
stop line whenever they get the chance, and many break
various other rules as well.

I can well believe it: I haven't been to London for a couple
of years, and I very rarely go to any big city, where I'd
guess running lights is most common. I'm going to London in
a few weeks, as it happens, and I'll keep an eye out; in
more than one sense ;-)

Quoted message said:

I don't accept that a grain gets added every single time a
motorist sees a cyclist cautiously go through a red light
causing no potential danger or inconvenience. It's so
common that the motorist has accepted that it's norm.

So the norm in the eyes of drivers is that cyclists will
break the law? I can't see that as a good thing for cycling.
If so many cyclists do it, then you're right, and the
marginal effect of one extra incident is very small; but are
you saying that cyclists jumping red lights is so common
that nobody thinks any worse of the cyclist for doing so?

Just as a matter of interest, let's turn it round. Suppose
cyclists *did*, as a matter of course, stop at red lights.
Would you then run red lights if it was convenient to you?

Quoted message said:

The more blatant and dangerous instances, yes, that
worsens their impression of cyclists. They then broaden
this out to moaning about all cyclists because groups like
to moan about another group that they think has some
advantage. They exaggerate their complaints for their own
entertainment and to impress their peers, just as cyclists
do of motorists, as we often see in this newsgroup.

Absolutely; but why should the exaggeration start only at
the blatant examples? If a cyclist runs a red perfectly
safely, the motorists behind very likely won't judge the
situation in the same way: before you know it, the cyclist
will have been wilfully Putting Lives At Risk. If you don't
care for other people moaning about irresponsible cyclists,
best not to give them ammunition.

Quoted message said:

I wonder how many of the ultra-traffic-light-observers
pull over and let cars pass (when it's safe) instead of
selfishly hogging the lane the whole time?

Is there any justification in wondering that? If there's any
correlation at all, it might as easily be the other way; but
I just don't know.

Quoted message said:

I strongly object to being told by cyclists that I must be
perfect ALL THE TIME, for /their/ sake! How selfish of
/them/! How artificial! How sad. How unnecessary.

I'm sorry you object, but nobody's telling you to be
perfect - I'm not even telling you not to break the law,
that's your responsibility. Cycling is a minority activity
which impacts - generally, in motorists' perceptions,
negatively - on other people. Like it or not, people judge
cyclists and cycling, to whatever small degree, by the way
*you* behave. Nobody's ever going to be perfect, and even
if you were, nobody'd ever tell you :-) That's no reason
not to keep it in mind.

Quoted message said:

And the idea that you can't criticise one behaviour by
others because you're not perfect yourself is ludicrous.

That certainly is ludicrous; otherwise nobody could
ever criticise anybody else at all, and where would
Usenet be then? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This sounds rather as if you see nothing wrong with
breaking the law, so long as some tolerance is extended
to you.

That's from your imagination and not what I said.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough: what I meant was
that it sounds to me rather as if you see nothing wrong
with breaking *this* law, so long as some tolerance is
extended to you.

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:27:14 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I don't believe you have a near miss every time you go
through the pinch point.

Never claimed I have had.

Quoted message said:

The term "near miss" implies there was a very high chance
of being hit on the occasion. You would be dead by now if
that was happening on most trips. It is an exaggeration to
use that term when you mean a car overtakes you with less
clearance than you would like.

What I /did/ claim is that recently, a car attempted to
overtake me once my front wheel was about a yard from the
pinch point.

This is not 'less clearance than I would like'. This is a
position from which it is impossible for the driver to
safely carry out an overtaking manoeuvre, no matter /where/
I was positioned. (which was, in any event, primary riding
position, as per Cyclecraft)

Quoted message said:

To prevent that, by the way, ride further out into the lane
to prevent being overtaken altogether. That's what you're
doing "wrong" in terms of protecting yourself.

In this occassion, the driver ended up braked to a complete
halt in the middle of the road, nose pointed at the pinch
point, about one or two yards from it.

This (as I pointed out in /this/ thread/) is an event I have
already posted about, in detail.

Quoted message said:

It's exactly the kind of exaggeration I was referring to.

No, it was not.

Neither were the other incidents I have posted about
recently in other threads, which I referred to here without
repeating the full details. Feel free to Google for them.

Quoted message said:

Of course cycling exposes you to dangerously bad drivers,
it's just that cyclists exaggerate about the numbers of
them, just like motorists and pedestrians exaggerate about
the trouble cyclists cause jumping red lights.

Some 'cyclists exaggerate', therefore my comments
cannot be true?

F. Off.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Mark McN said:

I can well believe it: I haven't been to London for a
couple of years, and I very rarely go to any big city,
where I'd guess running lights is most common. I'm going
to London in a few weeks, as it happens, and I'll keep an
eye out; in more than one sense ;-)

I would like to emphasise that the majority of cyclists stop
at /some/ red lights, maybe even most lights... well, for
some of the time they're on red anyway (I mean they often go
well before they turn green). But follow some random
cyclists for a while to get the real picture. They don't try
and deliberately jump lights for fun by rushing up to them!
...just are prepared to go through some, sometimes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't accept that a grain gets added every single time
a motorist sees a cyclist cautiously go through a red
light causing no potential danger or inconvenience. It's
so common that the motorist has accepted that it's norm.

So the norm in the eyes of drivers is that cyclists will
break the law? I can't see that as a good thing for
cycling.

It's hardly ideal. It's not a good thing to have laws that
don't work.

Quoted message said:

If so many cyclists do it, then you're right, and the
marginal effect of one extra incident is very small; but
are you saying that cyclists jumping red lights is so
common that nobody thinks any worse of the cyclist for
doing so?

I think it's got to the point where that is the case for the
lesser offenders. Unfortunately there also is a minority of
complete lunatics dodging cars as they go straight on
through crossroads, etc. Of course that's bad for cycling.
But I don't know how you are going to get through to those
people without really spoiling cycling for the rest of us: I
don't want licensing for instance (we'd have less truly
loutish behaviour if people thought they could loose their
licence, etc).

Quoted message said:

Just as a matter of interest, let's turn it round. Suppose
cyclists *did*, as a matter of course, stop at red lights.
Would you then run red lights if it was convenient to you?

I might stop a bit more often, but how would you get more
cyclists to stop in the first place? They don't seem to join
me when I'm stopped!

Back to the first way round: I don't think peer pressure
works then so strongly, and people have more real reasons
for running lights than simply doing it just because
everyone else does. So many, many stops is poor for cycling
for physical as well as physiological and time-wasting
reasons, so cyclists naturally feel a strong urge to keep
going. Muscles, endorphins and all that. Maybe not an excuse
in your opinion, but that's part of the explanation,
seriously. Just asking cyclists to ignore that is not going
to work. You've either got to force them or provide
alternatives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The more blatant and dangerous instances, yes, that
worsens their impression of cyclists. They then broaden
this out to moaning about all cyclists because groups
like to moan about another group that they think has some
advantage. They exaggerate their complaints for their own
entertainment and to impress their peers, just as
cyclists do of motorists, as we often see in this
newsgroup.

Absolutely; but why should the exaggeration start only at
the blatant examples? If a cyclist runs a red perfectly
safely, the motorists behind very likely won't judge the
situation in the same way: before you know it, the cyclist
will have been wilfully Putting Lives At Risk. If you
don't care for other people moaning about irresponsible
cyclists, best not to give them ammunition.

That will happen on some occasions, the grey areas, and I
agree. I'm not *happy* about breaking the law. I would
rather the system be improved instead (see my ideas posted
previously). But I don't accept this is the perception every
time. Very often, all the people that can see the cyclist,
clearly see that he/she has not caused any harm or
inconvenience at all. However, okay yes, some might indeed
still add half a "grain" just because they feel envious or
because they just hate law breaking full stop. Again I'm not
happy if that happens, but I don't think it's anything like
as problematic as is being claimed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I strongly object to being told by cyclists that I must
be perfect ALL THE TIME, for /their/ sake!

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry you object, but nobody's telling you to be
perfect

It sure seems like that on this group, and the most of the
views expressed seem over-simplistic extremism to me. The
cyclists here certainly seem extremely different to the ones
I see and meet out on the streets.

Quoted message said:

- I'm not even telling you not to break the law, that's
your responsibility. Cycling is a minority activity which
impacts - generally, in motorists' perceptions,
negatively - on other people. Like it or not, people
judge cyclists and cycling, to whatever small degree, by
the way *you* behave. Nobody's ever going to be perfect,
and even if you were, nobody'd ever tell you :-) That's
no reason not to keep it in mind.

Believe me, I've had it in mind for all the years I've been
cycling and have it at the front of my mind every single
time I've ever go through a red light. I try to keep a
balance. I'm afraid my brain is too analogue to have "all or
nothing" behaviour.

What I object to is lack of understanding and to the notion
that the traffic signalling systems we have now (in London)
are well-compatible with cycling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This sounds rather as if you see nothing wrong with
breaking the law, so long as some tolerance is extended
to you.

That's from your imagination and not what I said.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear enough: what I meant was
that it sounds to me rather as if you see nothing wrong
with breaking *this* law, so long as some tolerance is
extended to you.

I know what you meant and I was referring to the particular
law in question. The traffic control systems we have now in
London are so inappropriate for cycling that I think *some*
tolerance should be extended to everyone. Less tolerance
would be needed if the system was improved.

This might be my last reply on the group for a while as I
need to take a break.

cheers ~PB

Pete Biggs said:

What methods have you used to observe them? I think a
good one would be to pick random individual cyclists and
follow them.

Methodolgy is very poor, because you'll have a sample base
of /a/ cyclist per follow. Much better to find some
fantastically busy lights and observe from a distance (so
you don't affect the behaviour) and count a goodly sample
base going through over varied times of day. The definition
of a "goodly sample base" is left as an exercise for the
researcher...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Reply to Pete Biggs

Quoted message said:

I don't think peer pressure works then so strongly, and
people have more real reasons for running lights than
simply doing it just because everyone else does. So many,
many stops is poor for cycling for physical as well as
physiological and time-wasting reasons, so cyclists
naturally feel a strong urge to keep going. Muscles,
endorphins and all that. Maybe not an excuse in your
opinion, but that's part of the explanation, seriously.
Just asking cyclists to ignore that is not going to work.
You've either got to force them or provide alternatives.

I understand all this, and I haven't got anything to
suggest, I'm afraid - a case could maybe be made for
allowing non-motor traffic to proceed With Caution where the
road is clear, at some red lights (perhaps where indicated
by a sign), though it would undoubtedly be abused by e.g.
the Courier Yoof contingent. I'm also uncomfortably aware
that all this is easy for *me* to say; my Disgracefully
Short Commute includes a grand total of two Pelican
crossings, both at convenient places; and that the easiest
climb that *any* cyclist can manage is the one to the Moral
High Ground ;-)

Quoted message said:

Again I'm not happy if that happens, but I don't think
it's anything like as problematic as is being claimed.

I really don't know: we cycle in very different
cultures, after all. (And that's all I have to say -
it's too nice outside!)

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Mark McN said:

Absolutely - and I make no claims for originality ;-)
Wouldn't you agree that pissing motorists off
unnecessarily, just for the sake of your own convenience,
is a bad idea? I'll happily [censored] the driver

No, in short. I wouldn't. I /cycle/ for my own convenience,
as an alternative to taking the tube or the bus to work. As
a cyclist I can [censored] motorists simply by existing, and
while I wouldn't exactly claim to be happy about it, I think
this is something the motorists are going to have to work
through with their friends/psychiatrists/ confessors/pets,
because I'm not going to stop cycling simply because my
bicycle doesn't have some of the disadvantages of a car.

So, what's "necessary"?

Quoted message said:

behind me if my safety depends to a degree on doing so;
but pissing them off by breaking the law, solely in order
to save a few seconds at each junction, seems to me a bad
thing. Do you disagree? - or do you think it really
doesn't matter? Or do you think that motorists really
never care about cyclists breaking the law?

Outside of the black and white world that is Usenet, I think
that motorists are more often annoyed by other road users
doing things they can't do or that they perceive to slow
them down or make them have to take avoiding action,
irrespective of whether those things are legal. They may
attempt to justify their annoyance on the grounds of
legality, or they may instead resort to hoary old saws like
"you don't pay road tax" to make themselves feel better; I
don't think it really matters much what their
rationalisations are.

And anyway, it's hardly a "few seconds at each junction";
it's 5-10 minutes added to a 25 minute commute (which
already includes slowing-down and speeding-up time; if I
sailed blithely through every red light I'm sure I could
easily get that down to under 20 minutes).

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

Daniel Barlow said:

No, in short. I wouldn't. I /cycle/ for my own
convenience, as an alternative to taking the tube or the
bus to work. As a cyclist I can [censored] motorists simply
by existing, and while I wouldn't exactly claim to be
happy about it, I think this is something the motorists
are going to have to work through with their
friends/psychiatrists/ confessors/pets, because I'm not
going to stop cycling simply because my bicycle doesn't
have some of the disadvantages of a car.

So is it equally acceptable for any motorist to do things
for their convenience like driving too close, pulling over
to block your way, overtaking and turning immediately left,
parking in cycle lanes etc. Are they not equally justified
in saying that its your problem to work through with your
friends/psychiatrists/cyling safety adviser?

Tony

On Sun, 30 May 2004 18:27:31 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

Quoted message said:

The word "lout" becomes meaningless if everyone is
a lout.

Hardly. If most cyclists are seen to be louts, all that
happens is we /all/ get labelled as louts.

Nobody in their right mind believes that label because they
know it doesn't make sense. They don't need to go by the
Daily Mail's label. They see the cyclists for themselves
out in the real world. They see them break the law but they
see that most of these law-breakers are perfectly respectable-
looking men and women causing no harm.

So you can testify to the inner thoughts of strangers can
you? Including the ones who end up writing in to the papers,
or who write newspaper coumns, about 'louts'?

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Tony Raven said:

Daniel Barlow said:

No, in short. I wouldn't. I /cycle/ for my own
convenience, as an alternative to taking the tube or the
bus to work. As a cyclist I can [censored] motorists simply
by existing, and while I wouldn't exactly claim to be
happy about it, I think this is something the motorists
are going to have to work through with their
friends/psychiatrists/ confessors/pets, because I'm not
going to stop cycling simply because my bicycle doesn't
have some of the disadvantages of a car.

So is it equally acceptable for any motorist to do things
for their convenience like driving too close, pulling over
to block your way, overtaking and turning immediately
left, parking in cycle lanes etc. Are they not equally
justified in saying that its your problem to work through
with your friends/psychiatrists/cyling safety adviser?

That's not a very good analogy because all of the
behaviours you describe are (at best) inconsiderate of
other road users, and I've already said that I disagree
with inconsiderate behaviour on the roads. So, no, not
equally acceptable. If you'd asked instead whether it was
OK for any motorist to go faster than a bicycle, or to
arrive at their destination without having been rained on,
or to carry passengers or large loads without having to
exert additional physical effort, then yes, fine. If I
experience jealousy or get [censored] by such episodes,
that would indeed be my own problem.

IANAL, but I understand that in law there's a concept of
what the "reasonable man" would do. I'm perfectly happy to
accommodate the reasonable man, or indeed the reasonable
motorist, but I don't see that I should limit my cycling to
avoid enraging the hypothetical psychopath as well.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"

Daniel Barlow said:

And anyway, it's hardly a "few seconds at each junction";
it's 5-10 minutes added to a 25 minute commute (which
already includes slowing-down and speeding-up time; if I
sailed blithely through every red light I'm sure I could
easily get that down to under 20 minutes).

So it's several /whole minutes/ a day. Gosh. How can people
possibly cope with these enormous strains on their lives?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Daniel Barlow said:

And anyway, it's hardly a "few seconds at each
junction"; it's 5-10 minutes added to a 25 minute
commute (which already includes slowing-down and speeding-
up time; if I sailed blithely through every red light
I'm sure I could easily get that down to under 20
minutes).

So it's several /whole minutes/ a day. Gosh. How can
people possibly cope with these enormous strains on
their lives?

That's easy... they jump red lights! ;-)

Jon

Gawnsoft said:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:27:14 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I don't believe you have a near miss every time you go
through the pinch point.

Never claimed I have had.

Sorry for the exaggeration! See, we all do it :-)

Seriously, I apologise for misinterpreting what you said to
use it for my generalisation. I honestly thought you were
claiming to have very frequent near misses. The fact remains
that people do often exaggerate when moaning about people
from a different "group".

~PB