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



TimC said:
[snip]

I'll ride in such situations, but walking pace with one foot clipped
out.

--
TimC
"And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal

Heh heh, I'll keep my feet on the pedals of my fixie, thanks!

R
 
[snip]

SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?

Nothin'.

You're locked into the status quo.

[snip]

MH

The Devil's Advocate role is often unpopular, but even more unpopular is when an argument is ignored or ridiculed. You made an argument for running red lights based primarily on your ability to assess your own risks, as well as a kind of subversive idea where the running of red lights by cyclists could help bring down the capitalist/industrialist auto system. Other people responded by saying (inter alia) that your actions affect them, in that running reds gives cyclists a bad name and at least one shared an anecdote where he was abused by a motorist _directly_ because another cyclist ran a red.

The merits of trashing the car industry by running red lights on a bicycle could be argued (and promptly rejected). The fact is that running reds _does_ make life more difficult for other cyclists by increasing the level of contempt that car drivers have for us. That contempt feeds into less care and more dangerous behaviours. You should ponder on that, as well as assess the risks to yourself and the rest of it, when you come up to your next intersection.

R
 
Resound wrote:
> <[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.
> >

>
********.

<snip>

You won't think differently about traffic - how it's organised, who the
present organisation benefits, why cyclists are victimised, why we as
cyclists get a gravel and glass strewn half a metre all to ourselves
whilst trucks, cars and those incredibly annoying scooters can
imperiously put our lives at significantly more danger than theirs by
simply looking away for half a second.

SO take back the dead bits of the traffic cycle. Show EVERYONE how much
dead time and unweildiness there is in this regimentation for the
benefit of multinational companies who make big things that kill
people. I'm not talking about Kona or Shogun here. Or just submit to
all the little bits of non-cycling friendly traffic regulation that add
up, in their entirety, to unjust laws. The ones that stop people riding
bikes by making our *commonly owned* outdoors a safe place for cars
(made by *privately owned* Ford,GMH, etc., yes, incredibly
human-focused organisations) first, and people next, if at all. Are we
being screwed? Yes.

And keep self-righteously calling everyone who disagrees with you a
********.

<snip>


well, you did ask us to... just stating our own personal opinion.

i dont know about you, but you dont find me riding my bike on the dead bit of the road... its common sense to take up as much of the lane as you feel safe (and its also quite lawful to do so) which puts you out of the glass zone. we legally have the right to use the road on our bicycles, so we should legally stick to the reasoning that requires us to stop at red lights... after all, if a motorist was to flaunt the law and drive through red lights *****-nilly you would get rather shitty too.

your "bringing down the system" from the inside isnt working... no-one but you knows you are doing it and everyone else just thinks you are being an inconsiderate and very rude cyclist... and yes... you make the rest of us look bad, maybe you should think about that next time.

as for annoying scooters... im one of those annoying cyclists that uses up the lane she is entitled to, and one of those incredibly annoying scooterists, and cyclists who run red lights and flaunt the law still **** me.
 
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:25:34 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> persia Wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if peer pressure might work? This morning, watching the usual
>> drift through the red at Elgin St, I thought of using some sort of
>> sound, a honk of derision and disapproval, like a duck lure or
>> similar.
>> If everyone started doing it, the message might get across. Sort of
>> like Italians whistling at the Opera. Less confrontational than a
>> telling-off, but maybe more embarrassing and effective?
>>

>
> I like this tact. Pity a 'slow clap' (in full finger gloves) wouldn't
> quite work whilst perched at the lights. How about blowing the biggest,
> rudest, wettest sounding raspberry at the offender?


Carry a whistle? The more who do it, the more what it means gets
known.

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:25:34 +1000
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> persia Wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if peer pressure might work? This morning, watching the usual
>> drift through the red at Elgin St, I thought of using some sort of
>> sound, a honk of derision and disapproval, like a duck lure or
>> similar.
>> If everyone started doing it, the message might get across. Sort of
>> like Italians whistling at the Opera. Less confrontational than a
>> telling-off, but maybe more embarrassing and effective?
>>

>
> I like this tact. Pity a 'slow clap' (in full finger gloves) wouldn't
> quite work whilst perched at the lights. How about blowing the biggest,
> rudest, wettest sounding raspberry at the offender?


Carry a whistle? The more who do it, the more what it means gets
known.

Zebee
I like the title of the thread. Just shout it.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
> > persia Wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if peer pressure might work? This morning, watching the usual
> > > drift through the red at Elgin St, I thought of using some sort of
> > > sound, a honk of derision and disapproval, like a duck lure or
> > > similar.
> > > If everyone started doing it, the message might get across. Sort of
> > > like Italians whistling at the Opera. Less confrontational than a
> > > telling-off, but maybe more embarrassing and effective?
> > >

> >
> > I like this tact. Pity a 'slow clap' (in full finger gloves) wouldn't
> > quite work whilst perched at the lights. How about blowing the biggest,
> > rudest, wettest sounding raspberry at the offender?
> >
> >
> > --
> > cfsmtb

>
> Oh dear, the self-appointed guardians of cycling rectitude are starting
> to rear their heads . . .


As much as cfs and I disagree on many things, here, I have to side with
her. You're exhibiting the hallmarks of a prize ********. Your
comments re couriers being scum (I know some couriers and managers of
courier companies, you have no idea about what you're talking, they
work long, hard hours, it's a very stressful, but moderatly well paying
job), your "I'm so much better than everyone, I don't need to play by
the rules on the road, I'm having my own personal revolution" ****.

I'm glad you ride a bike, at least on it your claimed refusal to play
by rules that try to help make our roads safer doesn't put anyone who
is trying to do the right thing in any major danger. Just as well you
don't drive a landbarge I guess.

If you're trolling, consider this a bite.
 
In aus.bicycle on 3 Aug 2006 17:57:02 -0700
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm glad you ride a bike, at least on it your claimed refusal to play
> by rules that try to help make our roads safer doesn't put anyone who
> is trying to do the right thing in any major danger. Just as well you
> don't drive a landbarge I guess.


Well, not in any major danger providing there is perfect judgement.

Imperfect judgement can cause say a car to swerve and hit an innocent
party, or something solid and the driver can be hurt.

Imperfect judgement *by itself* is mostly not dangerous which is why
people using phones while driving aren't splatting themselves over the
landscape every single time they do it.

Imperfect judgement combined with someone else's, or an unusual
circumstance is what causes most crashes. Certain road rules are
designed to minimise the chance of that by substituting rules for
judgement.

I have no doubt that red light runners in cars as well as on bicycles
don't crash everytime they do it, and quite possibly not ever for a
particular person. Because they've been lucky, their judgement has
proven up to it.

Not everyone's is, and not everyone can guarantee theirs is perfect
every time.

Not if they admit to being human of course. Most people who are sure
rules don't apply to them are infallible, they'll tell you so.

I think there certainly can be more effort put in to looking at
different rules for different kinds of traffic. There are some now,
but there could be more. But any such change has to work in with the
reality which is that there are a lot of large heavy items doing 60kmh+
with minimally trained and experienced pilots. Asking them to cope with
someone else's imperfect judgement at widely spaced random times without
warning they may have to is impractical.

Red lights instead of give way signs are there for many reasons, I
haven't yet seen a good argument why any cyclist no matter their age
or vision impairment or speed or level of skill should be considered
to have the required judgement just because of their form of
transport.

Zebee
 
[email protected] wrote:

> SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
> tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
> motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
> thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
> heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?


Ahh! The "I was only playing devil's advocate" gambit. :)

Theo
 
persia wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
>> The subject of red-light running came up again during a lunch meeting
>> today....


> But how do we get the recalcitrants to change? I'm not keen to spoil
> my pleasant morning commute by challenging folks and getting into
> arguments.


Replace Red Light cameras with mini-gatling guns?

Theo
 
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:53:52 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
>> tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
>> motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
>> thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
>> heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?

>
> Ahh! The "I was only playing devil's advocate" gambit. :)


Second only to the "I was only joking" one in the "****, better
pretend I wasn't being a ********".

That one doesn't work either.

Zebee
- wondering idly if dickheads on cycles need to wear chamois padded
knicks under their helmets.
 
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:57:56 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> persia wrote:
>> cfsmtb wrote:
>>> The subject of red-light running came up again during a lunch meeting
>>> today....

>
>> But how do we get the recalcitrants to change? I'm not keen to spoil
>> my pleasant morning commute by challenging folks and getting into
>> arguments.

>
> Replace Red Light cameras with mini-gatling guns?


I'm rather in favour of page 2 of the daily paper being reserved for
publishing names and addresses under headings of offence. Plus a tally
of offences for each person. So everyone can see who is a problem on
the road. Plus, of course, legislation ensuring traffic offences are
a legitimate reason for the sack.

Would have to be pictures for cyclists I guess,maybe a website with some
sort of dobber award for matching names with pics. A random selection
make it to page 2 for the whole world to look at.

Then hire someone to caption the photos with nice sarcastic captions to
further embarass the rider.

Some riders would see it as a goal to get their pic there, but not many.
And I bet those who boast about it wouldn't be willing to wear a jersey
with their own name and their employer's name and phone number in
the pic....

Zebee
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> Red lights instead of give way signs are there for many reasons,


You need a pretty solid reason to put a set in at $100K+ as against a STOP
sign for a few hundred.

Theo
 
"[email protected]" wrote:
>
> Resound wrote:
> > <[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:
> >
> > ********.

>
> SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
> tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
> motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
> thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
> heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?
>
> Nothin'.
>
> You're locked into the status quo.
>
> You won't think differently about traffic - how it's organised, who the
> present organisation benefits, why cyclists are victimised, why we as
> cyclists get a gravel and glass strewn half a metre all to ourselves
> whilst trucks, cars and those incredibly annoying scooters can
> imperiously put our lives at significantly more danger than theirs by
> simply looking away for half a second.
>
> SO take back the dead bits of the traffic cycle. Show EVERYONE how much
> dead time and unweildiness there is in this regimentation for the
> benefit of multinational companies who make big things that kill
> people. I'm not talking about Kona or Shogun here. Or just submit to
> all the little bits of non-cycling friendly traffic regulation that add
> up, in their entirety, to unjust laws. The ones that stop people riding
> bikes by making our *commonly owned* outdoors a safe place for cars
> (made by *privately owned* Ford,GMH, etc., yes, incredibly
> human-focused organisations) first, and people next, if at all. Are we
> being screwed? Yes.
>
> And keep self-righteously calling everyone who disagrees with you a
> ********. It just underlines the fact, in motorists eyes, that all
> cyclists are stupid. Yes, I'll keep on running all the red lights that
> I think are runnable, you feel free to arrest me (if you're entitled,
> and can catch me), yell at me, call me a ********, laugh/mourn over my
> mangled body/corpse, or whatever. I'm not stupid. I ride in traffic
> every day, and have done for 20 years in Melbourne. I think I'm doing
> all right (touch wood) having not been hospitalised yet. I've been
> close-called and minorly injured by cars ostensibly obeying all the
> written road rules many times. The medium is the message. Two tons of
> metal with a captive occupant is built to not care, really, about
> anything except a quicker way to get from here to there, and traffic
> lights are just (grudgingly admitted as necessary) impediments,
> homicidally flouted when possible, to most motorists, not the
> touchstones to a gloriously safe future which some posters here seem to
> think they are. I've never heard of a cyclist killing a motorist whilst
> colliding at an intersection. I'll use all the skills I developed
> growing up in the country, where there were about 2 traffic lights
> within a 100 k radius, to assess the dangers of a road situation. You
> continue thinking along the little tracks that Mr Toyota and Mr Ford
> built, and are happy for you to think along.
>
> MH


Right, but why are you in such a fscking hurry that you need to run a
red light anyway? Ooooh, inflated self importance.

Tam
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> - wondering idly if dickheads on cycles need to wear chamois padded
> knicks under their helmets.


lol!
 
blah wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> > - wondering idly if dickheads on cycles need to wear chamois padded
> > knicks under their helmets.

>
> lol!


How did I miss that first time around? QOTD!

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

> And how do you you know I haven't? Hasn't happened to me, but I've seen
> it happen to someone else right up close AND IT WAS IN A PERFECTLY
> LEGAL TRAFFIC SITUATION, right up to the moment the car swerved right
> to avoid another car. Badly injured cyclist resulted.
>
> Ok, lets take another tack, to get away from the moralising, from one
> camp or another.
>
> What if *our* outdoors, you know, the one we pay taxes to enjoy, were
> designed for the utility of human-powered transportation and enjoyment,
> rather than as a conduit for motorised traffic?
>
> Think bigger, peoples. Do you think bikes would have to stop at red
> lights? Do you think peds would have to? Why do we have to now, apart
> from being threatened with death by chunk of metal moving at 60 kph+?
>
> Try another culture, another society. Get out of your Anglo mental
> gridlock.
>
> Holland
>
> Denmark
>
> East Asia
>
> All either admit to the reality of a people-oriented transport system,
> or actively design for it. It's only countries held hostage by big
> (auto) business who try their hardest to put as many people as possible
> in metal containers and make them behave. If the containers have
> wheels, why then, it just adds to the illusion that they're going
> somewhere important.
>
> Yes, I've been known to attend Critical Mass too, and I've got a
> CarBusters "One Less Car" sticker on my downtube. I also own a car,
> mainly to get to bicycling venues avec bike. I never run reds in my
> car, never. I hate driving in peak hour traffic, and am appalled at the
> # of people who I see chatting on their mobiles whilst driving, despite
> all available evidence that this kills people.
>
> MH
>


Ok, as soon as there's no motorised transport on the roads, I'll concede
that really there's no good reason to stop at traffic signals or even to
have the things. There is the question of exactly how we'll transport bulk
goods, move heavy loads over reasonable distances ourselves or get around at
all if we're injured or otherwise incapacitated if we don't have motorised
transport. That's an issue which I rather suspect means that we're not going
to see the complete phasing out of said motorised transport. Go ahead and
bleat about peak oil all you like, this is important enough to more or less
everyone that a solution *will* be found even if it involves seriously
radical measures to generate power and run everything on electricity and/or
fuel cells. In the meantime we *do* have plenty of motorised transport
around, and on road practice should reflect that rather than some parallel
universe where that's not the case. Either way, the notion that any form of
transport that's used for transporting people isn't people oriented clearly
hasn't thought things through particularly clearly. I assume that trams,
busses and trains, all of which require some form of dedicated
infrastructure and all of which are motorised are also not "people oriented"
and are therefore a Bad ThingT.

It's interesting that you talk about the "outdoors" being paid for by "our"
taxes. I certainly pay taxes for essentially all aspects of "indoors" but I
don't seem to recall being charged in any way for simply being outside a
building. The roads are certainly paid for by taxes, is that what you meant?
Or perhaps you meant that we shouldn't actually have roads as they're only
for nasty motorised traffic (and I'm sure the Romans felt exactly the same
way). Or maybe that was just an ill thought out sentence that was really
trying to convey that "we" pay taxes and clearly by extension "they" don't.
Whoever "they" are. Still the argument that $resource should be the preserve
of "tax payers" is a time honoured one. I still want to find out how I get a
complete tax refund by being a cyclist.

In Holland and Denmark cyclists are legally subject to traffic control
measures. They observe them as well; you just get a lot more cyclists
waiting at the lights at each intersection than you do here. In a lot of
east Asia I get the impression that pretty much nobody pays much attention
to traffic signals. I'd be interested to see what their death and injury per
distance travelled rates are like.

The us versus them tribalist ******** that suggests that cyclists or
motorists (conjugated as "bikes" or "cars" if we're talking about
"them"...it wouldn't do to suggest that they're actual people, after all.
Dysphemisms like "chunk of metal" work even better.) are either inherently
good/bad and/or more/less entitled to $resource &etc. is the mindset that
causes most if not all major brawls between groups of pretty much any sort.
It seems that a great many people actually need a bogey man of some sort, a
collective entity which they can hold up to ridicule and scorn so as to be
able to say "I'm better." or "I'm more worthy." It's not helpful, nor is it
clever. In this particular instance the groups aren't even mutually
exclusive, nor does the presence of one group significantly impede the other
group's use of the same resource. Would acknowledging that we're actually
all overlapping subsets of a group called "road users" be such a stretch? Or
would that deprive you of an excuse to suggest that you shouldn't be subject
to the same obligations as everyone else?
 
Theo Bekkers said:
[email protected] wrote:

> SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
> tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
> motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
> thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
> heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?


Ahh! The "I was only playing devil's advocate" gambit. :)

Theo
One aspect of playing devil's advocate is that by its very nature it is designed to attract the heaping of invective and the flinging of unpleasant squishy things.

Steve("If I represent a group of satanists in court, does that make me the devil's advocate?")A
 
In aus.bicycle on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:25:28 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Red lights instead of give way signs are there for many reasons,

>
> You need a pretty solid reason to put a set in at $100K+ as against a STOP
> sign for a few hundred.


Exactly.

How many red light runners treat red lights as stop signs anyway? As
in come to a stop?

Zebee
- who has been practicing the feet up stop on the motorcycle and
still hasn't worked out why it's dead easy sometimes and other
times impossible at the same sign....