"And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals"

[david143]

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.

When there is a legal option available, I see no reason to break the rules. If there is no legal option available...I am all ears as to how that can be (as a general rule, rather than by accident)?

In other words, I accept the breaking of a rule in the exception only, but we are not talking about the exception here. We are talking about a currently small minority (but growing) who believe they can ignore the rules because they can't be bothered to wait at a set of traffic lights.

Yes, there can be grounds for not making reasonable progress, but I can not see that ever coming about with a truthful explanation that it is safer for everyone at that speed where there are pedestrians and other vulnerable road users around.

Travel at 20mph while on a motorway and that is different. Travel below a minimum set limit as some roads have, and that is again different.

[david143]

.....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.

As a direct result of attacks made against me in the very recent past, the judgment laid down by you, and the fact that it was stated that no debate would be gone in to with me.....

I am not prepared to respond to your questioning.

Others may if they so choose, but asking a direct question about what I have written puts me in to the position of having to say no so that you do not have any further ammunition or reason.

All others, my apologies.

[workhard]

You want to stay away from that tea shop fella's

[petercook80]

Alleluia, something I said in the past did sink in. My previous stance is resumed. And as a point to others, as one of the board moderators pointed out to me, silence is often the best option.

[petercook80]

You want to stay away from that tea shop fella's

I know, too much sugar in the biscuits

[workhard]

So here is the deal, as a result of discussing this debate elsewhere, and in order to express support for, rather than undermine, the CTC's ongoing campaign to reduce urban speed limits, I have just agreed with certain members of my family/social circle to abide with the rules of the road and not to deliberately RLJ or advance past the stop line at lights for the remainder of 2008, excepting cases of danger of death.

In return they promise not break the law in their cars - fat chance average of three points each - on pain of a forfeit of £100 to be paid to a charity of my choice if any of them get so much as an on road parking ticket during the same period.

[david143]

So here is the deal, as a result of discussing this debate elsewhere, and in order to express support for, rather than undermine, the CTC's ongoing campaign to reduce urban speed limits, I have just agreed with certain members of my family/social circle to abide with the rules of the road and not to deliberately RLJ or advance past the stop line at lights for the remainder of 2008, excepting cases of danger of death.

In return they promise not break the law in their cars - fat chance average of three points each - on pain of a forfeit of £100 to be paid to a charity of my choice if any of them get so much as an on road parking ticket during the same period.

Love it

[kwackers]

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?

Struck at 30mph and driving at 30mph are not the same thing. It's a pretty rare occasion that car drivers have no chance to brake (unless they're not paying attention and that's a different problem).

However I agree with previous posts that the limit in built up areas should be a blanket 20mph.

I'd like to know whatever happened to the ban on bull bars and other front end 'modifications' - I could have sworn I heard once they were about to be banned...

And whilst talking safety, how about having a cycle 'stop' area each side of a pedestrian crossing - not only would it give us a chance to get ahead of traffic but it would encourage vehicles to stop further back from the crossing.

And how about traffic lights with built in speed detectors, if they spot someone speeding they simply change. (Might be subtle enough to change traffic light grand prix type behaviour...)

[workhard]

What speed you get struck at depends largely on what speed the vehicle was doing when you got on the drivers radar though...

Stopping distance at 20 mph = 40ft, at 30 mph = 75ft

I clock you 41 feet away while I'm doing 30 mph you, most likely, become a KSI statistic, whilst if I'm doing 20 mph I stop short, you glare at me, call me a few names and walk away unscathed.

When I did my motorcycle roadcraft training years back, led by Sussex Police Instructors, we marked all these distances out on a street - that 35 ft seemed like the longest 35ft in the world.

[kwackers]

What speed you get struck at depends largely on what speed the vehicle was doing when you got on the drivers radar though...

And the vehicle, some 4x4's have a stopping distance double that of a decent car. One reason I believe they've no place on the road (at least under the guise of a PLG vehicle).

[petercook80]

These stopping distances are good as a guide (also don’t know if they have been updated or still date to when Austin Allegros were on the road), but the attention of the driver is also important. 20mph, child steps out 40 ft away, driver finding a fag in the glove box, car hits child at 20mph.
20mph limit is good, but maybe we should clamp down more on driving attention, Maybe ban all mobile calls hands free or not?, smoking while driving? Give out more punishment for bad driving?
What do people think?

[kwackers]

These stopping distances are good as a guide (also don’t know if they have been updated or still date to when Austin Allegros were on the road), but the attention of the driver is also important. 20mph, child steps out 40 ft away, driver finding a fag in the glove box, car hits child at 20mph.
20mph limit is good, but maybe we should clamp down more on driving attention, Maybe ban all mobile calls hands free or not?, smoking while driving? Give out more punishment for bad driving?
What do people think?

A while ago me and a friend did some experiments (on Burtonwood airfield - before anyone comments...)

These were motorcycles rather than cars but using the formulas police use to calculate speed by the length of a skid mark (hence braking distance NOT including thinking distance) my Kawasaki ZX12 could stop in the 60mph braking distance from around 105mph.

Braking distance can be affected by so many things, weather, tyres - a good tyre can reduce distance by around 30% over a cheap one. Energy efficient tyres increase braking distance...

[kwackers]

When there is a legal option available, I see no reason to break the rules. If there is no legal option available...I am all ears as to how that can be (as a general rule, rather than by accident)?

My final take on this.

Many years ago I was cycling through London when I saw a guy with a flashing rear light. I was amazed by how much more visible it made him and proceeded to track one down and replace my naff light with it.
It was highly illegal, the arguments at the time were that motorist might mistake it for a turn signal.
Very quickly as more and more people saw these lights so their popularity grew. The police (I believe) were told quietly to ignore the offenders.
Had there been forums at the time I'm sure there would have been much heated debate as to their use.

I'm convinced over the years these lights have saved many lives, they've passed peer reviewed examinations that show conclusively they're visible at much greater distances and are harder to ignore.

However if as an alternative, cyclists had stuck to the letter of the law then most would be unaware of flashing lights, there'd be no desire to own them and the few people who were aware of them and tried to get the law changed by campaigning would almost certainly be blown out of the water.
"Flashing red lights! Ridiculous, even if as you say they're 'more' visible, car drivers will think you're turning!"

In short, they'd never happen.

This story isn't intended to justify rule breaking of any sort, it's just an example of how sometimes it works.

[Gisen]

David, I was not saying that you jump red lights, I was saying that there are laws which you break- which everyone breaks - knowingly or not.

Little wobble when checking your chain? Driving without due care and attention. Etc.

This slippery slope argument cuts very little ice. You're saying "if people break the law by treating red lights as a give way, whats to stop them breaking the law by going on a murderous rampage and eating babies!?!?"
Well, quite a lot, actually.
Everyone else in this thread has given you examples of what they do and do not consider "ethical" when cycling, most of them admitting to breaking the law. But none of us actually run right through junctions as you keep claiming is the next step, leading to the downfall of civilisation.

This is because we are obeying the rationale behind the law, which I would argue is far safer than just obeying the law blindly.
Drivers/ cyclists should not proceed, even if it is their right of way, if the road is blocked. Also, even if there isn't hatching on a junction, they should try not to block the junction.

Hold on here, I did ask for examples of where they believed it was safer to RLJ and I got nothing, at least nothing where there isn't a legal alternative....

...Which is nothing to do with it, as has been pointed out to you on many occasions. Please try to read more carefully.
There is no need to wait at a pedestrian light with no pedestrians anywhere near it. The light is simply not functioning correctly and it should be treated as a Give Way.

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 don't believe that in all your "years of motoring" that you've never seen a junction that doesn't have traffic lights. You're being ridiculous.

so when some cyclists choose to take a red as meaning give way, and think it then ok to turn left against the lights, it isn't far to more doing the same, and then what is going to happen at those junctions?

And yet you keep going with this destroyed slippery slope argument. Why? It's utterly discredited.
We, the people who sometimes break stupid rules, do not eat babies, and will not suddenly decide to just because we break stupid rules.

BTW - A wobble is not against the law, but driving without due care and attention is. Personally, I stop to check my chain unless it is a case of it has just popped off, in which case within a few seconds I will be stopping as safely as is possible so I can fix it.

Sure david, you're perfect and never ever ever glance down at your bike, never turn to see what a sudden noise was, never do anything wrong ever.

so please tell me, which rules of the road am I breaking each time I ride my bike, current rules in the Highway code please????

You obviously seen me riding, so should know

You're obviously stuck to creating strawmen because you cannot answer the real questions.

there are laws which you break- which everyone breaks - knowingly or not.

I don't know or care exactly which laws you break or have broken, but there is no way that you have never accidentally broken the law. It simply is not possible, and if you're trying to say otherwise then you're a liar.

[workhard]

And the vehicle, some 4x4's have a stopping distance double that of a decent car. One reason I believe they've no place on the road (at least under the guise of a PLG vehicle).

Is that actually true these days? My local 4x4 nut job brother-in-law (Stands and says "Hello everyone, my name is workhard and I'm a recovering petrolhead") swears that with his anti-lock and EBD EBA and other TLA's the makers of his pantechnicon say it stops within +10% of a saloon, all else being equal - bigger brakes, bigger tyres, bigger computer to stop it all I guess.