Increased Police Vigilance

[Eater Sundae]

And why is that? Why do some of you car drivers find it so annoying that a cyclist goes through a red sometimes?

 

Can you actually come up with the reasons why? I'm genuinely interested in knowing why you people find it so annoying, I'm interested in knowing if you know why you find it annoying.

 

And I mean the real reasons, not the usual rubbish along the lines of 'if they can do it why can't I...' (rubbish because, of course, you can do what they do i.e. get on a bike (along with all the negatvies it entails, such as being at risk of being mown down by that small percentage of motorists who are a real danger to cyclist on the road) and, on encountering a red, decide to go through it.

 

So, what's the rasoning being your annoyance?

 

I'm annoyed because it gives ALL cyclists a bad name and gives another stick for cycle haters to beat ALL cyclists with.

[onewheeldave]

Well, let's start with "It's against the law and the highway code." I'd be as annoyed with a car driver doing it.

 

Well, we know it's against the law- no-one's disputing that. Is that really the reason why it's annoying. (note that many people routinely break laws they personally feel are not good laws, eg, anyone who smokes the odd bit of cannabis).

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

I'm annoyed because it gives ALL cyclists a bad name and gives another stick for cycle haters to beat ALL cyclists with.

Bit of a strawman there, as I asked for the reason why it's annoying.

 

Your statement above is circular as it's basically saying 'it's annoying cos people find it annoying, and, those annoyed people then go on to be hostile to all cyclists.

 

Incidently, to conclude anything about all cyclists from the actions of some (a minority , in this case), is really bad logic, and, the source of any negative consequences arising is clearly a consequence of that bad reasoning.

[Gideon]

Well, we know it's against the law- no-one's disputing that. Is that really the reason why it's annoying. (note that many people routinely break laws they personally feel are not good laws, eg, anyone who smokes the odd bit of cannabis)

 

It's the reason I find it annoying, or at least the hypocrisy associated with it (the difference between the odd smoke example and this is you don't have the smokers thinking it's ok that they smoke, but not okay for anyone else to, whereas you can bet that car drivers going through red lights would be frowned upon regardless.) Your Mileage May Vary, as it were.

[onewheeldave]

It's the reason I find it annoying, or at least the hypocrisy associated with it (the difference between the odd smoke example and this is you don't have the smokers thinking it's ok that they smoke, but not okay for anyone else to, whereas you can bet that car drivers going through red lights would be frowned upon regardless.) Your Mileage May Vary, as it were.

 

Like I pointed out above, there is no hypocrisy or inequality- you or anyone else can get on a bike, go through a red, and be reasonably sure of not getting in trouble.

 

Conversely, any cyclist can go out in a car, run reds, and reasonably expect the law to get heavily involved (due to the fact that it's much, much more likely to lead to innocent deaths than a cyclist going through a red).

[Gideon]

Like I pointed out above, there is no hypocrisy or inequality- you or anyone else can get on a bike, go through a red, and be reasonably sure of not getting in trouble.

 

The point is, you SHOULD be getting in trouble for that. It's not rocket science, is it?

[onewheeldave]

The point is, you SHOULD be getting in trouble for that. It's not rocket science, is it?

 

Should you?

 

It's against the law for sure- no ones saying otherwise.

 

But illegal acts are not equal- there's a scale of consequences, and there's a scale of enforcement reaction when those laws are broken.

 

Thus, being caught smoking a joint, is generally seen as, and treated as, fairly trivial, Dropping a TV from height into a crowd of people is seen as, and treated as, very, very serious.

 

(Indeed, it is fairly likely that some of those on threads like this, ranting that cyclists shouldn't go through reds on the grounds of safety, purely because 'it's illegal and that's the end of it...' themselves routinely break the law themselves, by, for example, their cannabis usage. If so, they should re-assess their 'argument').

 

Similarly, a cycle going through a red, is seen as, and treated as, trivial in comparison to going through in a large metal four wheeled box, as the consequences of the former, both hypothetically and in terms of actual statistics, are considerably less likely to result in severe injury/death.

 

You may note that that isn't rocket science either.

[biotechpete]

Should you?

 

It's against the law for sure- no ones saying otherwise.

 

But illegal acts are not equal- there's a scale of consequences, and there's a scale of enforcement reaction when those laws are broken.

 

Thus, being caught smoking a joint, is generally seen as, and treated as, fairly trivial, Dropping a TV from height into a crowd of people is seen as, and treated as, very, very serious.

 

(Indeed, it is fairly likely that some of those on threads like this, ranting that cyclists shouldn't go through reds on the grounds of safety, purely because 'it's illegal and that's the end of it...' themselves routinely break the law themselves, by, for example, their cannabis usage. If so, they should re-assess their 'argument').

 

Similarly, a cycle going through a red, is seen as, and treated as, trivial in comparison to going through in a large metal four wheeled box, as the consequences of the former, both hypothetically and in terms of actual statistics, are considerably less likely to result in severe injury/death.

 

You may note that that isn't rocket science either.

 

Respectfully, I entirely disagree. Were I to hit a car travelling at under 30mph through a junction, it would be very unlikely to end in a serious injury or death. However, the cyclists (or indeed pedestrians) who pop out in front of me while jumping red lights, when I proceed on green, make me angry because they put themselves at such a great risk of injury or death!

 

The worst bit is that many of them have the cheek to hurl abuse at you when you beep your horn at them whilst having to slam on your breaks.

 

The second reason it annoys me, when I drive my car (as opposed to getting on my bike which I used to do regularly) which I suspect is the real reason it annoys most car drivers, is that by jumping red lights they put themselves back in front of me. This is irksome to me because I take care to only overtake cyclists by leaving plenty of room. By jumping the red light they often unnecessarily impede my progress for a long time afterwards.

[Eater Sundae]

Well, we know it's against the law- no-one's disputing that. Is that really the reason why it's annoying. (note that many people routinely break laws they personally feel are not good laws, eg, anyone who smokes the odd bit of cannabis).

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 12:50 ----------

 

Bit of a strawman there, as I asked for the reason why it's annoying.

 

Your statement above is circular as it's basically saying 'it's annoying cos people find it annoying, and, those annoyed people then go on to be hostile to all cyclists.

 

Incidently, to conclude anything about all cyclists from the actions of some (a minority , in this case), is really bad logic, and, the source of any negative consequences arising is clearly a consequence of that bad reasoning.

 

I agree it is bad reasoning, but some non-cyclists think this way, and see all cyclists as being bad. They pick on anything they can to vilify all cyclists because of something that they can specifically identify as being illegal. It gives them some moral high ground from which to attack all cyclists. It might not be justified, but while ever somec yclists ignore red lights it is not going to go away.

[RonJeremy]

The way you described coming around blind corners... And the expectation that you CAN overtake a single cycle where you couldn't overtake 2 abreast... That just tells us that you are overtaking the cyclists unsafely.

 

The former comment - what were my words which gave you the impression I can't negotiate a blind corner?

 

I've explained the overtaking - simple maths. You need more room to overtake a wider object than a narrow object. To say or claim otherwise is just plain stupid. I mean properly properly stupid and unintelligent. Do I need to draw a picture for the imbeciles?

[Squiggs]

Bit of a strawman there, as I asked for the reason why it's annoying.

 

Your statement above is circular as it's basically saying 'it's annoying cos people find it annoying, and, those annoyed people then go on to be hostile to all cyclists.

 

But that is EXACTLY what does happen, and it is counter-productive to cycling, and encouraging cycling and provisions for cyclists

 

Let's take the rare case cited by the OP; I experienced a fault with the lights where London Road crosses Queens Road and Wolesley Road

 

After waiting 3 sets of light changes and being ignored, I already had a pattern of the lights, who went in which turn. I paid extra attention to the 4th and, as a gap presented itself, I made my way safely across the junction against the light, with no hazard to anyone

 

 

• Firstly: This was only because the lights were not working correctly
  
• Secondly: The only way I could do this safely was by waiting, longer than the change of lights SHOULD have been
  

 

Regardless of the fact that I had cleared the junction safely, without conflicting with or impeding any other road user, as the lights from Queens Road changed, the car at the front of the queue accelerated to catch me up and proceeded to try to pass without room and to try to force me into the kerb edge; behaviour like this I find is associated with a vigilante mentality, a "punishment" for a perceived wrongdoing.

 

Had I caused the hazard? No, not at all, neither was I holding him up as accelerating at a normal pace and holding back through the Broadfield Road junction for a couple of seconds would have allowed ample, safe passing opportunity immediately afterwards, so I conclude that this driver was going out of his way and driving dangerously in order to "make a point"

 

I'd rather not have that all the time, regardless of whether he was in the wrong to drive in such a manner.

 

 

 

But why else is red light jumping annoying?

 

You may be getting it wrong:

As mentioned above, to cross the faulty light safely meant stopping and observing the light phases for longer than stopping at a fully working light would have taken.

 

Crossing the cycle-crossing on Ecclesall Road heading to Summerfield Street from Broomhall, on a green light, the cyclist in front of me was nearly taken out by a cyclist heading along Ecclesall Road away from town, who saw all the regular lights were at red, so proceeded to "safely jump the lights to get away from traffic blah blah"

 

In doing so he failed to notice the cycle light crossing his path was on green, as you can only see that from the opposite side of Ecclesall Road.

 

He nearly caused a collision.

 

 

It makes traffic unpredictable

 

Not every junction has a light for pedestrians to cross. In fact, many very busy junctions have no pedestrian crossings. Whilst pedestrians should take care whilst crossing, they are not required to indicate etc, you may not know where a pedestrian intends to go

 

When approaching a junction like this, as a pedestrian, one uses the traffic light phase as one factor in evaluating when to cross. A cyclist ignoring this is an added unpredictability and hazard. You might not be aware that the pedestrian wanted to cross the road when it SHOULD have been safe

 

Now, IF allowing cyclists to turn left on red, as in many US states (right on red) was introduced, this would become commonplace and thus remove unpredictability, but as it stands, a pedestrian should be able to assume that traffic, however powered and however few wheels, is not going to proceed on red.

 

 

Not everyone does it "safely"

 

Arguments presented include being careful whilst doing so. Even if you are able to do it safely (for you and everyone else) - and as mentioned above, I dispute that - the nature of the red light jumping attracts the more cavalier cyclists.

 

Whilst I would argue that the majority of cyclists are not habitual red light jumpers, I would suggest that out of the red light jumping cyclists, the extra-careful are in the minority to the foolhardy, reckless and just plain stupid. These are people who tend to follow a flock, so seeing other cyclists jumping red lights, no matter how carefully, reinforces in them that this is an accepted norm.

 

Which then leads to the vicious cycle of people with a vendetta against cyclists, who even take to twitter to boast about hitting cyclists

 

So thanks for encouraging people like that. It's much appreciated when they take out their aggression which you add to, upon me. Cheers!

 

---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 18:49 ----------

 

The former comment - what were my words which gave you the impression I can't negotiate a blind corner?

 

I've explained the overtaking - simple maths. You need more room to overtake a wider object than a narrow object. To say or claim otherwise is just plain stupid. I mean properly properly stupid and unintelligent. Do I need to draw a picture for the imbeciles?

 

I explained earlier how this "simple" maths is oversimplifying the matter. Quite clearly. But it seems that imbeciles can't read...