Front door cam captures moment driver rear-ended cyclist; Which makes more sense? City cyclists stream past SUV; King G; Celebrity Cycling Champion Chart; Fixie feline; Bike tattoos; 'Allez Opi-Omi' debate; BikeisBest ad; New kit + more on the live blog

I suppose with 6 posts you haven't read very much on here then.
Even the mod John Stevenson is happy to ignore red lights for road and rail.

hirsute wrote:

I suppose with 6 posts you haven't read very much on here then. Even the mod John Stevenson is happy to ignore red lights for road and rail.

Risking prolonging an unprofitable argument since there are some topics that some people just wanna vent (or provoke) on. However typically motorists and cyclists jump red lights in different ways and for different reasons which means different "risk" profiles. There's also a handy "road offence equivalent converter" (US version) for cars and bikes.

Different argument though. The premise was ". I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights."
Which is not true.
Let's be consistent even if it is uncomfortable sometimes.

hirsute wrote:

Different argument though. The premise was ". I have not seen a single post on this site condoning cyclists jumping red lights."
Which is not true.
Let's be consistent even if it is uncomfortable sometimes.

Which part of my statement was not true? I even asked for examples because clearly I haven't been here long enough to see those views.

I already gave the example of John Stevenson.
There is no search facility of much use and you can't view people's posts as in other forums so I can't give you chapter and verse.
The gist of it was it is ok to ignore red lights at level crossings if it only takes 3 seconds to get across by bike.

To be fair, even if we could find all the examples, I think it would still only amount to a few commenters, and not the 'plenty of people' that Nigel claimed. So he's still wrongerer than GrandTourer.

I have no idea what Nigel writes so I am only responding to the claim of 'not a single...'.

Exactly the point I was going to make. It's a classic msm distraction technique. Drivers need to take more responsibility for both Road Safety and Climate Change.

IanMK wrote:

Exactly the point I was going to make. It's a classic msm distraction technique. Drivers need to take more responsibility for both Road Safety and Climate Change.

Climate change? Are you one of those middle class Marxists I've heard so much about?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

That's the point - everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The worry is that the police are turning a blind eye to this red light jumping and normalising this behaviour, rather like their inaction against the middle class Marxists of Insulate Britain... and when law and order fails, vigilantism prevails.

7/10. Lose points for passive voice (try using "I saw 16 cyclists in a row jump a red light - and one nearly killed me"). Good use of tabloid "everyone knows..." and high moral tone and bonus points for the red scare.

I'll just leave this couple (rules, responsibility) here again. I'm only replying because I don't want all those other commentators on forums giving me a bad name. As an individualist I'll do that for myself thankyou.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

That's the point - everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The worry is that the police are turning a blind eye to this red light jumping and normalising this behaviour, rather like their inaction against the middle class Marxists of Insulate Britain... and when law and order fails, vigilantism prevails.

If you think it's only a minority of drivers that break the rules, think again. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit, yet over half of drivers do in pretty much all situations (and as many as 89% do in 20mph areas). https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/speeds-statistics

I think that's a far better case of illegal and dangerous behaviour being normalised by society. 

According to this article, over 2.6 million drivers had points on their licence in 2019 https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-6809881/Find-drivers-po... - that's about one in twenty licence holders (and there are plenty of licence holders who rarely or never drive). And that's just the number of drivers who have been caught and prosecuted for bad driving, within the past few years. Given how unlikely you are to get caught, let alone actually prosecuted rather than given a warning or awareness course, it's a huge underestimate of how prevalent bad driving is. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Did you get close passed by 16 cars in a row like the 16 cyclists in a row that jumped the red light?

Relatively common in my experience. Maybe only one or two among them would be close enough to warrant a NMoTD or submitting footage to the police, but even the average driver tends to pass closer than necessary or advisable. If anything, it's the driver who gives sufficient room that is the exception.

Stop hiding behing mummy's skirts like that Nigel, if you read the Daily Mail at least own up to it.

The behaviour in that video is extremely poor and not something I would do myself, ever, However, I don't see any cyclist there putting anyone in danger, unlike the 50% of motorists who ignore 30mph limits and the  82% who ignore 20mph limits. I presume you will be running a parallel campaign to call out other drivers "who flout traffic laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds" and are responsible for the vast majority of fatalities and serious injuries on the road, even if they are driving "humanity's greatest invention."

"Again reiterating" is a tautology, by the way.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

 

So this condemnation isn't limited to cyclists,

I am not responsible for what other cyclists do ... there is no collective responsibility here. 

Quote:

We aren't persecuted any more than others in society.

Even allowing for that statement to be 100% correct, which I am not convinced of, cyclists are objectively less protected by the law, and those who enforce it, than drivers. 

I consider the four drivers who changed lane to go past me (I was in my car) ans proceed through a red light this very morning to be considerably more of a threat to other road users than cyclist doing the same thing ... whether 1, 6 or 16 of them. 

Priorities. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So this condemnation isn't limited to cyclists, but this is a cycling website so I'm hardly going to start discussing bugbears about driving... and I must say there is a real victim mentality that permeates this comments section. We aren't persecuted any more than others in society.

You are lying and weaselling. You absoutely cannot be seriously claiming that the reason you are not complaining about drivers is simply because this is a cycling website when you JUST SAID that the vast majority of cyclists are bad cyclists and the vast majority of drivers are good drivers.

"That's the point - everyone knows there are bad drivers, but they are the exception rather than the rule."

Just ignore. There is no value in engaging other than to the poster himself. Look at it this way: he's not going to convince anyone on here of his ridiculous arguments. He may do so on other forums but here people understand that he's a serial offender in talking nonsense. You won't get him to admit he's wrong and he will shift goalposts to suit himself. Leave him to it and move on.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

So this condemnation isn't limited to cyclists, but this is a cycling website so I'm hardly going to start discussing bugbears about driving... and I must say there is a real victim mentality that permeates this comments section. We aren't persecuted any more than others in society.

Context Nigel.

From my perspective as a 'lyrca clad lout', 'bradley wiggins wannabe' who 'treats  his local roads as I'm cycling in the tour de france' I would say I'm quite villified. It's anecdotal of course, but I've been knocked off my bike twice, get shouted at by drivers reguarly and hardly a ride goes by where I don't get close passed. Stasticially of course there is that little matter of the 16,000 cycling casualties in the UK per year, but.. meh. I guess I should be thankful we're not the Peoples Front of Judea, no one likes those splitters.. or Nazis, people hate Nazis although to be fair neither of them seem to get as much press recently as cyclsits do.

So do you reckon his mum sent him this because he has been claiming he is being bullied and she is trying to help him out? Or because she hates all cyclists and was using it to smear her son with the same brush? Seems a weird link to send to her son otherwise. 

Shame no one could find that link for when the 10 or so cars all lemming though the red lights on the Regents Park loop. I did some quick searches and couldn't find it either. I suppose I could have shown my video from the other day where a Mercedes driver came from behind the van that was stopping for the red. The car sailed down the left turn only lane, weaved back in front of the van, around me who was turning right, in front of the car behind me who was also turning right and carried on straight just beating the cars who were now on green. Just because it was a mercedes doesn't mean I think....ah, I think my argument falls down there.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Sir,

I listened with interest to your podcast yesterday, especially that on the subject of cyclists jumping red lights. I was pleased to hear the Road.cc experts agree that (outlier events excepted) it is wrong and gives cyclists collectively a bad name when others engage in this behaviour.

I was therefore shocked and saddened when my mother shared this Daily Mail article on London cyclists doing just that - mindlessly jumping red lights in the dozens with no thought for other road users. Not only is the behaviour dangerous  in itself, it gives every single cyclist a bad name when the apparent vast majority cannot obey simple traffic laws. It also led to Manchester-based expert traffic lawyer Nick Freeman again reiterating his demands for a registration scheme for cyclists - and to be honest it's difficult to argue against his logic when confronted with the astonishing scenes of lawlessness in Tower Hamlets.

It's imperative that we call out other cyclists who flout traffic laws by publicly denouncing their antisocial and reckless deeds. As I don't see this kind of behaviour around the area I live, I call on any London based cyclist reading this message to join me in this campaign.

Kind regards, Nigel.

Bingo,

Collective responsibility for cyclists

Nick Freeman promoted again.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Bingo,

Collective responsibility for cyclists

Nick Freeman promoted again.

Not quite - it's inexplicably missing any mention of being polite and courteous.

But Nigel got the response he wanted. Best ignored.

I am tired of the made up stories. Nice slant on the traditional..... ‘I have friend who’ by pretending his Mother was involved.

Sniffer wrote:

But Nigel got the response he wanted. Best ignored.

You're right, of course.  Apologies.

No need to apologise. There is always a temptation to point out the gaping holes in his argument.

Sniffer wrote:

No need to apologise. There is always a temptation to point out the gaping holes in his argument.

But pointless as he is only putting them up to get a response, which is why I don't respond; if only everyone did the same.

I see way more pedestrians cross against the lights than bikes (I'm in Australia). I think the angst against bikes comes from that must get in front mentality that so many car drivers have against all other road users and it just grinds them so bad that another vehicle is getting an advantage over them

Nigel,

We can all agree that failing to comply with traffic signals that have had to be implemented to control motor vehicles is both illegal and allows others to draw false stereotypes of a particular user group as a whole.

Whether it is additionally dangerous depends on the circumstances. We do know that it is not representative of cycling as a whole, and that rule-breaking is repeatedly demonstrated to be equivalent or greater in motor vehicle user groups.

As far as Mancunian ticket chasers are concerned, the best thing is to avoid referring to their antics, which are invariably targeted at raising their profile to an elite that wants to avoid prosecution for... dangerous, illegal behaviour in 2-tonne motor vehicles.  It is not hard to argue with his logic, because it is based on an  illogical or fabricated nexus, including premises that these behaviours are representative, primary contributors to risks on the road, and that their solutions are in any way effective or reasonable.

You may wish to call out, in the moment, individual actions by errant cyclists, just as you might call out the actions of errant motorists - always noting that it is usually better to avoid confrontation.  However, to mount a campaign would distract from the real dangers of errant motorists (whose general failure to drive considerately has led to the traffic signals in the first place).

All in all, the best campaign you could mount is to stop reading - and encourage others to stop reading - the "news"paper whose article you linked. It is a hateful rag with a long history of delight in coalescing its readership around itself by othering identifiable minority groups.  The article in question is held up as an implicitly representative example of law-breaking.  It isn't.

Kind regards, Sir.

Somehow, a 'like' just seems thoroughly inadequate.

Fundamental Attribution Error.

There's a good general hit list of error which disposes of most of the forum chat. Doesn't seem to have anything about squirrels though?

chrisonatrike wrote:

There's a good general hit list of error which disposes of most of the forum chat. Doesn't seem to have anything about squirrels though?

Appeal to nature?