With 2Tubs comment. Don't have this problem with drivers because I don't give them the opportunity. Therefore danger reduced/elimated. Stay within the law. Makes it that bit easier to take the moral high-ground with campaigning.
Simple really.
"And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals"
-
workhard
david143 wrote:Personally, I think anyone who decides the law does not or should not apply to them is wrong.... edit .... If on a bike and you are a person that persistently ignores the laws of the road, you are no cyclist. You are a POB. If in a car and you do similar, you are no driver, you are a person directing a weapon. I wouldn't want either as a friend.
I recognise it as wrong in the eyes of the law. I don't dispute that with anyone. It does not take my being caught for me to know I have transgressed the law - but must I always choose to do what others tell me is right? Impeccability is not a pre-qualification for road use.
I applied your friendship model rigidly I'd have very few friends. All the car driving and motorcycling people I know ignore, as a matter of routine and habit, some of the laws of the road most commonly adherence to speed limits. Most of them have or have had points on their licenses as proof, as does my wife. Grounds for divorce maybe; "M'lud she was doing 34 mph on a deserted road in a rural 30 mph limit when the camera clocked her. I begged her not to do but she wouldn't listen, please release me from this sham of a marriage"
As for "Sir, you are no gentleman...." Slap me round the face with your glove if you must. If my limited RLJ'ing as described elsewhere in this post means you don't regard me as a cyclist then I'll be in trouble should you ever become King of the Cyclists as clearly you won't let me in your gang. I'm not sure it's a gang I've ever wanted to join anyway but that is another story!
You are entirely entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine, however bizarre the other's may appear to each of us, such is the benefit of freedom of thought.
-
workhard
charlieandjody wrote:Lots of interesting points here, many I hadn't considered....etc., etc..
actually I've only argued it, I think, from a convenience point of view - though I did once get my bike destroyed whilst waiting at an advance stop line on in clapham by a t*** in a Mini Cooper who drove into me WHILST I WAS COMMANDING THE ROAD WAITING AT A RED LIGHT - but apart from that your comments are all spot on.
Wildduck, if I've made your job harder I take it on board and I apologise, that argument might just make me think three times about RLJ'ing.
-
workhard
Wildduck wrote:With 2Tubs comment. Don't have this problem with drivers because I don't give them the opportunity. Therefore danger reduced/elimated. Stay within the law. Makes it that bit easier to take the moral high-ground with campaigning.
Simple really.
How can you be sure you don't give them the opportunity - maybe they don't try very hard in your parts....
workhard wrote:david143 wrote:Personally, I think anyone who decides the law does not or should not apply to them is wrong.... edit .... If on a bike and you are a person that persistently ignores the laws of the road, you are no cyclist. You are a POB. If in a car and you do similar, you are no driver, you are a person directing a weapon. I wouldn't want either as a friend.
I recognise it as wrong in the eyes of the law. I don't dispute that with anyone. It does not take my being caught for me to know I have transgressed the law - but must I always choose to do what others tell me is right? Impeccability is not a pre-qualification for road use.
I applied your friendship model rigidly I'd have very few friends. All the car driving and motorcycling people I know ignore, as a matter of routine and habit, some of the laws of the road most commonly adherence to speed limits. Most of them have or have had points on their licenses as proof, as does my wife. Grounds for divorce maybe; "M'lud she was doing 34 mph on a deserted road in a rural 30 mph limit when the camera clocked her. I begged her not to do but she wouldn't listen, please release me from this sham of a marriage"
As for "Sir, you are no gentleman...." Slap me round the face with your glove if you must. If my limited RLJ'ing as described elsewhere in this post means you don't regard me as a cyclist then I'll be in trouble should you ever become King of the Cyclists as clearly you won't let me in your gang. I'm not sure it's a gang I've ever wanted to join anyway but that is another story!
You are entirely entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine, however bizarre the other's may appear to each of us, such is the benefit of freedom of thought.
I have no trouble with debating the law. I only have trouble with those who persist to breaking it.
Ride within the law and you are a cyclist. Drive within the law and you are a driver. Persistently breaking the law makes you just a person in charge of.
If someone is willing to persistently break basic laws of the road, I have to think that they must hold other laws in the same regard, so can not be trusted.
If a law is wrong then campaign to have it changed, or request that the Police charge you so you can test the law in court. Anything else is just breaking the law.
2Tubs wrote:Doesn't happen to me. I hold an assertive position on the road and vehicles (or rather the drivers) get the message. And if they don't, my position is such that htey couldn't get around me without crossing lanes.
Sadly in this case I had stuck to the meagre 18 inches of cycle lane that the council had kindly provided for my safety. I don't do that anymore (and that's something I KNOW annoys car drivers).
-
workhard
david143 wrote:I have no trouble with debating the law etc ...
What is the nature of the trouble I cause and in what quantity do my actions cause it? Are you a magistrate perchance?
By your definitions yes - but who made you King of the World to decide such things? Where are your definitions of driver and cyclist defined according to Law and in what statute.....?Ride within the law etc,.
Surely "Own a bike and ride it and you are a cyclist", "Own a car, pass a test, get a license, and you are a driver" are just as workable. You may be a bad cyclist or a bad driver but you are still one or other.
30+ years on a full license for cars and bikes and its always been clear, etc., etc., Evidence suggests your argument does not hold water. But you are free to beleive what you want to beleive. After all I don't trust ANY other road users.If someone is willing to persistently break basic laws of the road, etc..
I've tried, in various contexts down the years, to get the police to charge me without success to make a point or two; strangely the police have better things to do than allow single issue nutjobs from entering test cases but when I was young I didn't realise that. Maybe they don't see the harm in my sort of RLJ'ing or regard it as such a minor offence as not to be worth their time. Of course our local MTB mounted community support officers - who incidentally seem to get that job by virtue of being obese and unfit - frequently ride on the pavements in direct contravention of the Law but they never seem to arrest themselves!If a law is wrong then campaign to have it changed, or request that the Police charge you so you can test the law in court. Anything else is just breaking the law.
-
workhard
2Tubs wrote:With you on this bit.... edit.... I don't think anyone has the right to moan about that one Gazza
ROTFLOL
How on earth do you get there fella's? The stop line is part of the law, crossing it is a criminal offence, somebody spent at least 5 seconds figuring out where to paint it so how very dare you?
It's a technicality? purr-leazzze! you ought to be strung up.
Society decides the rules by having an elected Government that passes law that is there for all to abide by.
When individuals then decide which they will follow, or when, the whole system falls down. It has to be done right, and there is no movement in law for individual laws, only individual prosecution and hearing.
When individuals then decide which they will follow, or when, the whole system falls down. It has to be done right, and there is no movement in law for individual laws, only individual prosecution and hearing.
david143 wrote:Society decides the rules by having an elected Government that passes law that is there for all to abide by.
When individuals then decide which they will follow, or when, the whole system falls down. It has to be done right, and there is no movement in law for individual laws, only individual prosecution and hearing.
It's an interesting theory, but historically many laws have been changed because individuals didn't obey them. Sometimes the best answer is simply to decriminalise behaviour...
Plus if no cyclists RLJ'd then there wouldn't be a discussion about the pro's and con's, no discussion means no possibility for change.
I maintain that 'giving way at lights' is the safest way to cross (by definition: "giving way" means there is no competing traffic). If the law were changed tomorrow to allow cyclists to treat traffic lights as give way systems I'd embrace it wholeheartedly.
-
workhard
"It", whatever it is, ought to be done right accordingly to law perhaps but we aren't automatons nor do we live, thank God, in a police state where we are compelled through force of arms to comply. If you are proposing a "thin end of the wedge" argument where today workhard runs a red light on an empty pedestrian crossing so tomorrow the collapse of civilization as we know it will take place I can't buy that.david143 wrote:Society...edit ...only individual prosecution and hearing.
The elected government on the Westminster model is certainly one way of doing it and the way in which our nation state tries to get by. I don't want to open this up into a debate on the flaws in our model of democratic representation but most people would say the flaws are glaring and there are many of them but turkeys don't vote for Christmas so the politicians aren't likely to change the system. For my part I think our system is increasingly outmoded and unrepresentative but it is without a doubt the best of the available alternatives.
By your analysis the whole system of traffic law must be well on the way to complete break down especially in our cities and towns as many (most) road users there are routinely ignoring many of the laws without fear of prosection. So why are there not more prosecutions for RLJ'ing et al as clearly the law(s) are not enforced to your or my satisfaction?
The nobility of your argument really does resonate with me but my lived experience currently compels me to behave otherwise.
workhard wrote:"It", whatever it is, ought to be done right accordingly to law perhaps but we aren't automatons nor do we live, thank God, in a police state where we are compelled through force of arms to comply. If you are proposing a "thin end of the wedge" argument where today workhard runs a red light on an empty pedestrian crossing so tomorrow the collapse of civilization as we know it will take place I can't buy that.david143 wrote:Society...edit ...only individual prosecution and hearing.
The elected government on the Westminster model is certainly one way of doing it and the way in which our nation state tries to get by. I don't want to open this up into a debate on the flaws in our model of democratic representation but most people would say the flaws are glaring and there are many of them but turkeys don't vote for Christmas so the politicians aren't likely to change the system. For my part I think our system is increasingly outmoded and unrepresentative but it is without a doubt the best of the available alternatives.
By your analysis the whole system of traffic law must be well on the way to complete break down especially in our cities and towns as many (most) road users there are routinely ignoring many of the laws without fear of prosection. So why are there not more prosecutions for RLJ'ing et al as clearly the law(s) are not enforced to your or my satisfaction?
The nobility of your argument really does resonate with me but my lived experience currently compels me to behave otherwise.
When many individuals don't abide by the law of the roads, then yes, it must break down the whole system.......
and yes, I believe this is one of the reasons why the roads are so bad socially.
If you have traffic lights that can be ignored by some but not others, what do you think is going to happen? Answer = everyone will start ignoring the lights and so goes the whole point of having lights in the first place.
There may be nothing competing with your path to prevent RLJ'ing, but if everyone did the same, I bet there would be accidents as a result.
-
charlieandjody
david143 wrote:If you have traffic lights that can be ignored by some but not others, what do you think is going to happen? Answer = everyone will start ignoring the lights and so goes the whole point of having lights in the first place.
I think thats taking it to an extreme that is quite unlikely. Drivers don't feel like they can jump the lights and escape unpunished in the way cyclists do so they will continue to obey the rules and become frustrated with cyclists.
On a lighter note. Is my frustration with RLJers based around being English? Go with me on this one for a second. Some chap - I think it was George Ikes - said that "even when alone, an Englishman forms an orderly queue of one". Is all this RLJing annoying me becuase its breaking queuing ettiquete
Dean wrote:I'm not a Bristolian, but I'm genuinely surprised that the Evening Post have published (even in web form) such a bilious, ill-directed rant.
I'm only relieved that the correspondent didn't sign off with a call for the return of public hangings and floggings
The first comment is hilarious, though
I have emailed the editor of the Evening Post with a complaint that they published such a bigoted letter, and pointed out that if the word 'cyclist' was replaced with the word 'asian', 'gay' or 'woman' they would not have published the rant for fear of prosecution. I will let you know if I get a response explaining their reasoning behind publishing this on their website.
workhard wrote:2Tubs wrote:With you on this bit.... edit.... I don't think anyone has the right to moan about that one Gazza
ROTFLOL
How on earth do you get there fella's? The stop line is part of the law, crossing it is a criminal offence, somebody spent at least 5 seconds figuring out where to paint it so how very dare you?
It's a technicality? purr-leazzze! you ought to be strung up.
Obviously didn’t think that one through.
I forgot we live in the land of the motoring pedant (at least when the law is being applied to cyclists).
I shall offer myself to the front wheels of the nearest BMW on my cycle home >;o)
Gazza
Why not Look at Sheila's Wheelers E2E Journal
Or My Personal Site
Or My Tweets
Whatever you do, buy fair trade.
And smile.
Or My Personal Site
Or My Tweets
Whatever you do, buy fair trade.
And smile.