This rule breaking is not a matter of whether I or anyone else believes the rules should be followed blindly (which I don't), it is about the rule breakers that excuse their actions when there are legal options available...
It is just that the legal options are seen as inconvenient.
and I must ask whether these rule breakers would feel safer if everyone decided the rules don't apply to them as well?
It does not surprise me to see that the Police may be instructed to stop turning a blind eye, even though when seen in a comic, it doesn't mean it will happen.
"And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals"
david143 wrote:Civilisation has nothing to do with breaking a single rule, but a traffic light junction would break down if everyone broke the same rule wouldn't it?...
I went to Cairo in the mid 90s and they'd recently installed traffic lights around the city but the locals just ignored them, and I really mean ignored them. They actually had to have Police on point duty at every major junction as well as the traffic lights. It was just incredible. Is that what we want here?
IMHO most RLJ cyclists do it not because it is safer for them but because they think that they'll be OK and they're impatient. Personally I fail to see any time in which you would be safer to run a red light than to wait. I can also think of many occasions when it wouldn't make your life more dangerous (e.g. left turn on a traffic light).
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
fatboy wrote:david143 wrote:Civilisation has nothing to do with breaking a single rule, but a traffic light junction would break down if everyone broke the same rule wouldn't it?...
I went to Cairo in the mid 90s and they'd recently installed traffic lights around the city but the locals just ignored them, and I really mean ignored them. They actually had to have Police on point duty at every major junction as well as the traffic lights. It was just incredible. Is that what we want here?
IMHO most RLJ cyclists do it not because it is safer for them but because they think that they'll be OK and they're impatient. Personally I fail to see any time in which you would be safer to run a red light than to wait. I can also think of many occasions when it wouldn't make your life more dangerous (e.g. left turn on a traffic light).
In this country there is the assumption that green means go (instead of proceed with caution), and the majority do just that. I can see a cyclist who decided to run a red light to turn left, with what appears good observation, then being hit by a car going through their green light.
I can not see any safety benefit in allowing this to happen, especially as many traffic light controlled junctions do have huge blind areas, and/or have traffic going through them far faster than a cyclist would be at given they really did give way. It just is not safe as a rule, and those that do it do so knowing better...and all for the sake of avoiding a few seconds to a minute wait.
Regardless of our views on breaking the law, the whole process is cyclic.
I (unlike David) don't believe that civilisation will collapse or that road use will descend into anarchy if a few rules are broken.
The main reason I believe this is because most people break rules most of the time either intentionally or not. Laws represent authority and people don't like being told what to do, hence they'll drive at 35 in a 30 etc.
At some point there's a crackdown, people fall back into line and push in another direction, before eventually creeping back. It's human nature.
This process won't go away, it'll continue like this forever, attempts to turn law enforcement into a police state where every minor transgression is recorded and acted upon just serves to alienate the general public - it is, after all one of the reasons speed camera's are so disliked, they don't apply discretion - they don't care if you're 5 mph over the limit in rush hour or at 3am, or if you've accelerated to safely overtake a slow moving vehicle.
Hence the reason the police are taught to use discretion. Yes the laws are black and white - that's necessary to ensure sucessful prosecutions, but the decision to prosecute isn't, hence the advice handed down to police as to when they should act and under what circumstances. More police means better policing.
This doesn't mean that zero tolerance shouldn't be applied in some cases, but the public aren't quite as stupid as they collectively appear to be sometimes and accept it (although this does sometimes require better education on the subject - mobile phones being an obvious one).
Laws exist only to provide the baseline for successful prosecutions. Ideally we only need one: "drive with due care and attention". Trouble is that without any quantifiers it's impossible to apply.
I (unlike David) don't believe that civilisation will collapse or that road use will descend into anarchy if a few rules are broken.
The main reason I believe this is because most people break rules most of the time either intentionally or not. Laws represent authority and people don't like being told what to do, hence they'll drive at 35 in a 30 etc.
At some point there's a crackdown, people fall back into line and push in another direction, before eventually creeping back. It's human nature.
This process won't go away, it'll continue like this forever, attempts to turn law enforcement into a police state where every minor transgression is recorded and acted upon just serves to alienate the general public - it is, after all one of the reasons speed camera's are so disliked, they don't apply discretion - they don't care if you're 5 mph over the limit in rush hour or at 3am, or if you've accelerated to safely overtake a slow moving vehicle.
Hence the reason the police are taught to use discretion. Yes the laws are black and white - that's necessary to ensure sucessful prosecutions, but the decision to prosecute isn't, hence the advice handed down to police as to when they should act and under what circumstances. More police means better policing.
This doesn't mean that zero tolerance shouldn't be applied in some cases, but the public aren't quite as stupid as they collectively appear to be sometimes and accept it (although this does sometimes require better education on the subject - mobile phones being an obvious one).
Laws exist only to provide the baseline for successful prosecutions. Ideally we only need one: "drive with due care and attention". Trouble is that without any quantifiers it's impossible to apply.
kwackers,
by that I read that as you can get away with doing it it is OK, which if everyone did similar we would have anarchy on the roads.
To excuse such acts of only a few so it doesn't matter is hardly the point. It used to be only a few used to speed, but not any more. It used to be just the odd cyclist that ran lights, but for how long will it be just a few....
When there is a legitimate reason for breaking the rules, fine, but we are talking about a breaking rules just for the sake of it as there are legal options, as previously indicated.
I don't make any claim to one rule bring down society, but the fact that rules are held in such low regard does show that society cares very little about the continuous decline in road user standards.....
Not that long ago, it would of been unheard of that a Police officer would have points on their licence, but not any more (from what another poster has said). They care little, they are told not to care, and as fools we all let it slide...
Now tell me where this is going? Definitely NOT towards safer roads for all, but Definitely a less hospitable place for cyclists to be.
by that I read that as you can get away with doing it it is OK, which if everyone did similar we would have anarchy on the roads.
To excuse such acts of only a few so it doesn't matter is hardly the point. It used to be only a few used to speed, but not any more. It used to be just the odd cyclist that ran lights, but for how long will it be just a few....
When there is a legitimate reason for breaking the rules, fine, but we are talking about a breaking rules just for the sake of it as there are legal options, as previously indicated.
I don't make any claim to one rule bring down society, but the fact that rules are held in such low regard does show that society cares very little about the continuous decline in road user standards.....
Not that long ago, it would of been unheard of that a Police officer would have points on their licence, but not any more (from what another poster has said). They care little, they are told not to care, and as fools we all let it slide...
Now tell me where this is going? Definitely NOT towards safer roads for all, but Definitely a less hospitable place for cyclists to be.
david143 wrote:
In this country there is the assumption that green means go (instead of proceed with caution), and the majority do just that. I can see a cyclist who decided to run a red light to turn left, with what appears good observation, then being hit by a car going through their green light.
I can not see any safety benefit in allowing this to happen, especially as many traffic light controlled junctions do have huge blind areas, and/or have traffic going through them far faster than a cyclist would be at given they really did give way. It just is not safe as a rule, and those that do it do so knowing better...and all for the sake of avoiding a few seconds to a minute wait.
I agree. I don't jump lights because it doesn't make any real difference to how long it takes to get anywhere and I prefer to get there in one piece.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
-
workhard
Many cycle couriers and others in London would profoundly disagree with you over its potential impact on journey times. My own experiencing of RLJ'ing in London (clearly I was a bad, bad, boy back then) on my Brixton to Clapham Junction commute also confirmed that it was a significant time saver - at a price of higher risk for sure, but then I was actively managing my and others risks, just like I do when not RLJ'ing; RLJ'ers don't generally run lights whilst wearing a blindfold.fatboy wrote:I agree. I don't jump lights because it doesn't make any real difference to how long it takes to get anywhere and I prefer to get there in one piece.
Surely all RLJ'ers, just like you, want to get to their destination in one piece? There are far more reliable ways to kill or maim oneself after all
david143 wrote:kwackers,
by that I read that as you can get away with doing it it is OK, which if everyone did similar we would have anarchy on the roads.
To excuse such acts of only a few so it doesn't matter is hardly the point. It used to be only a few used to speed, but not any more. It used to be just the odd cyclist that ran lights, but for how long will it be just a few....
When there is a legitimate reason for breaking the rules, fine, but we are talking about a breaking rules just for the sake of it as there are legal options, as previously indicated.
I don't make any claim to one rule bring down society, but the fact that rules are held in such low regard does show that society cares very little about the continuous decline in road user standards.....
Not that long ago, it would of been unheard of that a Police officer would have points on their licence, but not any more (from what another poster has said). They care little, they are told not to care, and as fools we all let it slide...
Now tell me where this is going? Definitely NOT towards safer roads for all, but Definitely a less hospitable place for cyclists to be.
If you read it as saying "do what you can get away with" then you read it wrong. My point is people technically break the law, now, before and always. They always will. That's why we have police to enforce it. However human nature being what it is there's some sense in 'allowing' a little give and take. Do you believe a 30mph limit is set because it would be dangerous to go over 30mph? Not at all, it's set at 30 because it would be dangerous to exceed 40 - compensation for human nature is built in (I'll add here that this isn't true for ALL roads, but generally that's part of the process of speed limit setting along with risk assessment).
I don't think we have the same recollection of years ago... You say hardly anyone sped! That's not even remotely true, I'd say that more people sped when I first started driving ('77) than at any time since, it's just there were fewer vehicles around. People have sped ever since the guy with the red flag was given a lift "caus there's no one around".
You say the roads are getting worse, that they're decending into anarchy and with that comes danger. Yet this years figures for road traffic fatalities are the best for over 70 years... Does this not prove you are wrong?
Cause and effect are complex and have bizarre and unexpected twists, you've simply decided to take a simplistic view of things and I haven't.
kwackers wrote:
Do you believe a 30mph limit is set because it would be dangerous to go over 30mph? Not at all, it's set at 30 because it would be dangerous to exceed 40 - compensation for human nature is built in (I'll add here that this isn't true for ALL roads, but generally that's part of the process of speed limit setting along with risk assessment).
I think they're set at 30 for historical, not risk reasons. Nearly 50% of pedestrians struck at 30 mph will be killed. The idea that that is the standard accepted ('target') speed in urban and residential areas seems rather unwise to me if this is based on risk. Does that seem an acceptable risk ratio to others?
kwackers wrote:If you read it as saying "do what you can get away with" then you read it wrong. My point is people technically break the law, now, before and always. They always will. That's why we have police to enforce it. However human nature being what it is there's some sense in 'allowing' a little give and take. Do you believe a 30mph limit is set because it would be dangerous to go over 30mph? Not at all, it's set at 30 because it would be dangerous to exceed 40 - compensation for human nature is built in (I'll add here that this isn't true for ALL roads, but generally that's part of the process of speed limit setting along with risk assessment).
I don't think we have the same recollection of years ago... You say hardly anyone sped! That's not even remotely true, I'd say that more people sped when I first started driving ('77) than at any time since, it's just there were fewer vehicles around. People have sped ever since the guy with the red flag was given a lift "caus there's no one around".
You say the roads are getting worse, that they're decending into anarchy and with that comes danger. Yet this years figures for road traffic fatalities are the best for over 70 years... Does this not prove you are wrong?
Cause and effect are complex and have bizarre and unexpected twists, you've simply decided to take a simplistic view of things and I haven't.
Speed is set at 30mph because it is not safe for others that they go faster and 30mph is generally accepted known limit where pedestrians have a chance of surviving if hit at that speed.
20mph would be a more appropriate speed limit where there are more than just motor vehicles around.
You started on the road well after I did.
There is no give and take in people choosing to break rules where they are inconvenient, there is just take.
there are fewer deaths on the roads perhaps, but that does not mean the roads are safer, just less likely to die... more as a result of car crumple zones being better at protecting people than ever used to.
I do not see a picture of people playing nicely with each other on the roads, but that is not to say some don't. There would not be the growing issue of road rage if things were improving. It only takes a minority to spoil it for everyone else, and it is the minority that are willing to place their own desires before the safety of others or themselves, in some cases.
To make silly statements about my stance is not helpful though, ie. it is hardly a simplistic view I have, but it is one that ensures I will abide by the rules wherever possible to do so, and it does mean I think those who feel they can choose to break rules for what is basically the hell of it are just being selfish.
-
workhard
Sares wrote: I think they're set at 30 for historical, not risk reasons. Nearly 50% of pedestrians struck at 30 mph will be killed. The idea that that is the standard accepted ('target') speed in urban and residential areas seems rather unwise to me if this is based on risk. Does that seem an acceptable risk ratio to others?
They're stuck at 30 because the road lobby and the crazy nimby's go loopy whenever someone suggests local, or national, 20mph limits and as every MP knows those car drivers votes count whereas the kids who get KSI'd don't have the vote.
As I car driver I'd be happy for enforced* blanket 20 mph limits to be introduced in all residential streets which are currently 30's, as a cyclist and pedestrian I'd be even happier.
*by radar gunned community officers or digital speed camera if necessary, on every lampost if need be, if that is what it takes to get people to comply and thus reduce the number of KSI on our roads. Draconian - for sure. A tax on people's freedom of choice? Why not? Is there another way?
workhard wrote:
As I car driver I'd be happy for enforced* blanket 20 mph limits to be introduced in all residential streets which are currently 30's, as a cyclist and pedestrian I'd be even happier.
I'd go further and make the 20mph be on any road in a city/town/village that has pedestrians using it at all. When people talk of 20 on residential streets they always imply that A roads would still be 30. Why? People still need to cross them, walk along them etc and I think that people living in a town are more important than people driving through it.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
They could also introduce as standard, the use of black boxes linked with CCTV in each vehicle, so any accident and driving patterns are fully recorded.
Also reduce motor vehicle BHP down to what is required for our roads, rather than BHP that enables 2 or 3 times the maximum speed limit....
so you get to the point where people start to see the car only as a form of transport, and not an extension of their manhood or anything else....
but if I think any of that would happen, I would have to believe I was living on cloud cuckoo
Also reduce motor vehicle BHP down to what is required for our roads, rather than BHP that enables 2 or 3 times the maximum speed limit....
so you get to the point where people start to see the car only as a form of transport, and not an extension of their manhood or anything else....
but if I think any of that would happen, I would have to believe I was living on cloud cuckoo
david143 wrote:To make silly statements about my stance is not helpful though, ie. it is hardly a simplistic view I have, but it is one that ensures I will abide by the rules wherever possible to do so, and it does mean I think those who feel they can choose to break rules for what is basically the hell of it are just being selfish.
I'm not trying to make silly statements, your view does seem simplistic and none realistic to me.
If I summerise it as:-
'Everyone should obey the law to the letter, there is no need to ever break it. If we all do this then the world will be a better place'.
Am I wrong? If so I apologise, since its basically what I'm trying to discuss.
Logically there is nothing wrong with what you say. But what I'm trying to say is that it's a idealistic viewpoint, people DO break the law, ALL the time, and that's why the police are given discretionary powers. People don't like to do what they're told and because of this the best laws allow a little room for manouver.
If you think that means I'm giving myself carte blanche to ignore the rules then you'd be wrong, my only argument (from a personal viewpoint) is to reserve the right to ignore them if I consider my safety to be in doubt (a point at which you agreed, with the proviso that it should be difficult to get into that position in the first place).
I'm a thinking, intelligent person and understand the idea behind the laws. I frequently travel under speed limits (seeing them as a legal max rather than a recommended), I believe I'm courteous and considerate to other road users. Am I perfect? Not at all, I'm not about to claim I've never broken a traffic law, just that I make an effort to see how what I do affects the people around me, and if you believe that having more people like me on the road would make them more dangerous then I hope you don't get the roads you deserve.
As for 'breaking laws is basically selfish'. There's no question that's wrong, if a law is unjust or you want to protest sometimes it's the only way. Disobedience historically has been shown more likely to get results than having a quiet word with your local counciller. Go slow protests are breaking the law, even driving at 20mph in a 30 because you believe the limit is too high is on dodgy territory. If the law was changed to say cyclists must drive only on cycle paths, presumably you'd simply put grin and bear it, write a polite letter to The Guardian, or a quiet chat during a local councillers surgery? I wouldn't, I'd be on the road.
-
petercook80
- Posts: 190
- Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 3:38pm
david143 wrote: .....but it is one that ensures I will abide by the rules wherever possible to do so, .....
Just as a fair question, your stance on road law (which I do agree with) would indicate that this should perhaps read.
'.....but it is one that ensures I will abide by the rules all of the time, .....' as I find that its always possible to abide by the rules, the only exception being self preservation or protection of others, which might of course be what you meant. Just wanted to be clear.