Why do some cyclists break the law? US academic surveys 18,000 people to find out

ianrobo wrote:

riding two a breast of course is recommended by the highway code. What is needed is driver education on what the highway code says it seems.

But drivers take a test about the Highway Code. They've BEEN educated. Maybe they need to be asked nicely again.... and again.....

darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

..because they're annoying twats.

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

Depends on the situation. Common sense applies.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

I know, it's almost like the 'law abiding' think that they're so much better that they can judge everyone.

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

Mmmm, not sure about that one. That wouldn't stop any funding or make things any harder to obtain.

..because they're annoying twats.

There it is, there's the reason. Not that you believe that you think yourself so much better than the RLJs...

darkwamp wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

Depends on the situation. Common sense applies.

Of course it does, hence the use of the word 'may' - it's already been discussed about sensible and even permitted crossing on red - but in general it's not a clever thing to do - unless you think differently in which case i'd be interested in your arguments.

darkwamp wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

I know, it's almost like the 'law abiding' think that they're so much better that they can judge everyone.

I'm not judging 'everyone', although you're right this is of course a gross over-generalisation. I do wonder however, what the line of reasoning is behind behaviour like this, e.g. queue jumping, in particular on motorway exits. If it's not in the belief that their 'need' in someway transcends the law, a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience then what is it ? Lack of empathy ? (often i'd expect) Some libertarian stance against an oppressive authority ? Bloodymindedness ?... actually in hindsight probably all of the above and, I still maintain, a belief - sub-conscious or otherwise - that they're somehow above legal and social expectations.. hence 'better'. Would you have a different word to use ?

darkwamp wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

Mmmm, not sure about that one. That wouldn't stop any funding or make things any harder to obtain.

What makes you sure of that ? As far as cyclists RLJing goes, it certainly makes interaction with other road users, and a depressing proportion of the general populous, more difficult. That relative judgement clearly isn't proportionate or even rational, but it prevalent. I think it would be naïve to assume that that sort of ingrained prejudice doesn't sometimes effect the decisions made by those that hold it.

darkwamp wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

..because they're annoying twats.

There it is, there's the reason. Not that you believe that you think yourself so much better than the RLJs...

No - it's a reason, and a personal one at that... and yes, I do consider myself better than the RLJs in that one respect in general - I consider myself better than drink-drivers as well, for example, what's wrong with that ? It's hardly hubris IMO. What's your take on all this then ? Where are you drawing the line ? You seem keen to excuse the behaviour but presumably not in all cases - so in the cases you find anti-social or dangerous, what is your opinion on the person involved or the effect of their actions on others ?

fukawitribe wrote:

darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

..because they're annoying twats.

Oh dear. The sad British disease of bitterness towards people "getting away with it". All rather petty.

And as for the whole group blaming argument, I presume you condemn people for wearing Lycra, having a helmet cam, flitering, riding in primary, going to cafes and riding two abreast; as those are all things that people vilify cyclists for, and which make things harder for all of us.

Bikebikebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

..because they're annoying twats.

Oh dear. The sad British disease of bitterness towards people "getting away with it". All rather petty.

I object to people breaking the law in a manner that puts other in danger or potential harm, i'd say that's far from petty. Please see my clarification on some points lower down or, better still, the post from hampstead_bandit a little above your commet, for reasons why it might be an issue.

Bikebikebike wrote:

And as for the whole group blaming argument,

I'm not - see the previous paragraph and my use of the phrase 'perceived group'.

Bikebikebike wrote:

I presume you condemn people for wearing Lycra, having a helmet cam, flitering, riding in primary, going to cafes and riding two abreast; as those are all things that people vilify cyclists for, and which make things harder for all of us.

What are you on about ? None of those involve breaking the law in a way that creates potential for incidents.

darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

In my case, because a friend once got hit by red light jumper while crossing a pedestrian crossing on green. My friend was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken foot and collarbone. The cyclist was unharmed and just rode off.

Do most RLJers do this? No, probably not, but there are plenty who ride recklessly through pedestrian crossings without regard to others (but will then stop and wait at busy junctions where they think they might be at risk themselves). And however isolated, they inform other road users' attitudes to everyone else perceived to be in the same group. E.g. the bus driver infringing an ASL who told me: "as soon as you lot start obeying the rules of the road, so will I".

quiff wrote:

And however isolated, they inform other road users' attitudes to everyone else perceived to be in the same group. E.g. the bus driver infringing an ASL who told me: "as soon as you lot start obeying the rules of the road, so will I".

Well that works both ways, doesn't it - e.g. "As soon as drivers start obeying the rules of the road, so will I." It's a ridiculous point that has no bearing on actual behaviour. How long must "we" behave until the professionally trained, licenced individual starts to drive legally, for instance?

quiff wrote:

In my case, because a friend once got hit by red light jumper while crossing a pedestrian crossing on green. My friend was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken foot and collarbone. The cyclist was unharmed and just rode off.

On Wednesday I observed a cyclist arrive at a junction just after the light had gone red. No cycle-specific infra here and a busy one. He was going straight on and a pedestrian crossing to his left was green for peds, so all the motor traffic was on red. He went through the light and rode parallel to the pedestrians, clearing the junction safely and with no delay to his journey. I can't see anything wrong with what he did, though it was against the law. He even avoided holding up motor traffic, which he might have if he had waited for green.
But if he had been turning left, he would have come into conflict with the pedestrians, which I would condemn for the reason given by quiff.
So why isn't his manoeuvre allowed? I guess a green 'cyclists only go straight on' light would complicate things rather, so we get inflexible rules for people to get hot under the collar about. Of course, in Holland there would be a separate cycle path with its own lights or an all-green phase for cycles at this location...

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Does someone really have to spend thousands on a survey? I can answer that question.

1. Too impatiant.
2. Incompetent to either operate or maintain a vehicle in a safe way.
3. Don't think the law applies to them.
4. Works on the principle it's upto everyone else to avoid them regardless.
5. Total and utter lack of respect for others occupying the same space as them.

So, you're describing ALL road user groups then?

Of course, pedestrians & cyclists don't kill 3,500 people a year.

and that in Paris cyclists are allowed to ride through a red light after stopping, and in Idaho they can ride through stop signs after slowing to check (the Idaho Stop).

pakennedy wrote:

On Sunday I was furious with a lemming in lycra who I overtook coming out of Winchester (love doing that on a hybrid). Arrived at a red light at a crossroads and a car behind me had overtaken him too. He passed the car and me and shot through the lights like they weren't there. I'd quite happily have knocked him off myself for giving us a bad name. I looked back at the car driver, held up my hands and shook my head to indicate "What can you do?"

I had something similar on Saturday, coming off Dunstable downs I was passed (previous hills had done me) by a 50'something on a nice Trek road bike. We approached a red light with people crossing; probably only doing about 10mph as we'd just come off a roundabout and he went straight through it. Absolutely no excuse, I called him a prick but he didn't respond...

pakennedy wrote:

Cars tend to jump them on "a little bit red" (mostly); I got stopped and fined for doing that myself once; but the *noticed* bikes do it mid-phase.

There's no such thing as a 'little bit red'. The lights turn amber to give you plenty of warning that they are about to go red and you should be prepared to stop. If you go through a red it means you haven't prepared to stop and may have, as many drivers do, sped up to 'beat the red'.

Beatnik69 wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'little bit red'. The lights turn amber to give you plenty of warning that they are about to go red and you should be prepared to stop. If you go through a red it means you haven't prepared to stop and may have, as many drivers do, sped up to 'beat the red'.

Yep. That's why I got 3 points and a £60 fine. I wasn't thinking, just driving like everyone else. They all do it (well, almost all). *They* aren't breaking the law.

Beatnik69 wrote:

The lights turn amber to give you plenty of warning that they are about to go red and you should be prepared to stop.

Actually, Amber = Stop unless too close, i.e. unsafe.

DAG on a bike wrote:

The traffic lights I get frustrated by (but still don't ride through) are those where the induction loop (?) doesn't detect that I exist, and only changes when a car etc. arrives behind me.

That is a clear failure of the infrastructure that doesn't recognise the needs of the cyclist.

The highway code says that if the lights aren't working - which they aren't if they won't change in a reasonable length of time - then you are to treat it as an umarked junction. Obviously if it's a busy junction you're going to need to exercise caution.

I do it all the time because a lot of my rides take me through a crossroads where I'm joining from a very quiet road with long stretches of time with no cars.