thelawnet wrote:2Tubs wrote:Just saying, that if we take the position where we chose which laws to abide, we have lost any moral postition to ask motorists to abide by the laws that they might break (the ones which change the internal colour of our cycling shorts)
Hardly.
Again, just because I don't, for instance, get upset at someone downloading movies off the internet, doesn't mean I'm not entitled to get angry at mass-murder and rape.
No I get it. It's a good point and agreed.
But we're talking on a personal level. On a personal level some motorists think it's fine to use mobiles, drive above the speed limit, run red lights, even have a beer before getting in their cars. After all, they've done it before and it doesn't hurt anybody. Speed limits are seen by a sizeable number of motorists as a restriction on their freedom.
The minute I tell someone who is on their mobile that if they were concentrating on their driving they probably wouldn't have forced me off the road, I'm told that cyclists ride on the pavement and run red lights.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a motorist and motorcyclist as well as a cyclist and come the revolution and I take my rightful place as president of a United Republic of Great Britain the first act I would make is that road traffic laws would not apply to cyclists and pedestrians (on the road).
Motorists would have to expect cycles to be running red lights, cutting up their insides/outsides and everywhere. Motorists would have to expect cyclists to be kamakazee in their manner of riding and consider the sole objective of cyclists is to throw themselves under the wheels of cars.
Any motorist caught out by one of these "nutters" would get an automatic life sentence in a prison that pumps Spice Girls, Abba and Westlife through speakers 24 hours a day. Yes, a living hell.
Until then, cyclists running red lights etc is unlikey to foster the co-operation we would like from our motorist friends.
Gazza