Cyclist Jumping Red Lights...

[malumbu]

I've lost the plot on this.

From my narrow take, in sweeping generalisations, the typical cyclist is probably a nicer person than the typical driver in terms of the things that concern me. It's no doubt a class and education thing. Hence when people post about cyclists jumping red lights I see this as a Daily Mail narrow point of view. And no doubt most cyclists voted to stay in the EU.

Surely if I use the word 'chuffin' it is pretty obvious that I am being light hearted.

But of interest when I have got into work and moaned about cyclists a person I work with says collateral damage is worth taking to get more people on their bikes.

[uncleglen]

Some people would love to cycle but can't due to disability.

Don't forget construction pollution http://www.sustainablebuild.co.uk/pollutionfromconstruction.html

And as for flying.....

[Blah Blah]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > All I have pointed to is that people exaggerate

> > when they feel disproportionately outraged.

>

>

> You think he "exaggerated" when he said he saw

> somebody encouraging two children to ride through

> a red light?

>

> And you think his outrage at that was

> "disproportionate"?

>

> ETA: What would your response have been if one or

> both of the children had been hit by a car?

See, you are making the same mistake as everyone else of actually believing at face value that anyones life was in danger. This is not about what ifs. The OP does not say at any point that anyone was nearly hit by a car or that a car was forced to emergency stop. The whole account is outrage at someone jumping a red light and having their children do it too. This is further shown by his admission of trying to pull up another cyclist for doing the same thing. So this to me is an obsession with reprimanding cyclists who go through red lights irregardless of whether there is any danger in doing so. Does the OP reprimand drivers on their phones? Or pedestrians that cross anywhere but at designated crossings (because that surely is wreckless too)? And I still maintain that no five year old is capable of speed, wreckless or otherwise.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But I have never actually said that I "believe

> that more people using bikes instead of cars won't

> reduce the number of car journeys". No one has

> ever said that. And we know that I never said it

> because if I had, you would have directly quoted

> me.

"cyclists do little for the environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few car journeys will have been saved, so where exactly have do your figures have to do with any lowering of pollution levels? How many vehicle journeys have actually been saved? Just because there are more cyclists, it does not actually follow that there is a commensurate drop in vehicle journeys."

It seems you've realised your original assertion is somewhat idiotic, so now you try to deny making it.

[rendelharris]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz's point (I think) is that there is no direct

> correlation that one extra cyclist means one less

> car journey. I doubt there will be stats to back

> that up, but from personal experience, when I

> first started cycling in London I stopped using

> the Tube. I didn't own a car then and still

> don't...

Of course; as I stated above, only one third (roughly) of the people I know who cycle commute have switched from commuting by car, the others have either always cycled or have switched from public transport. But Loz is trying to say "most" cyclists will not be car drivers, "so few car journeys will have been saved" and therefore cycling "does little for the environment," which is palpable nonsense.

[JoeLeg]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> The whole account is outrage at

> someone jumping a red light and having their

> children do it too.

It is incredibly stupid and irresponsible to jump a red light, and you seem to be making light of it.

This is further shown by his

> admission of trying to pull up another cyclist for

> doing the same thing. So this to me is an

> obsession with reprimanding cyclists who go

> through red lights irregardless of whether there

> is any danger in doing so.

Irregardless of danger in doing so? Red lights are not a matter for subjective interpretations under any circumstance, and it is foolhardy in the extreme to suggest that ANY user of the road might ever have grounds to do so.

Does the OP reprimand

> drivers on their phones? Or pedestrians that cross

> anywhere but at designated crossings (because that

> surely is wreckless too)?

Drivers who use their phones while driving are also guilty of stupidity and recklessness.

I do not believe there are any grounds for ever running a ref light. You are of course free to disagree.

[red devil]

Emergency services and situations the obvious exception, otherwise what joe said...

[Nigello]

Any dangerous behaviour by a cyclist, driver, pedestrian, motorbike rider or passenger ought to be criticised so as to bring about a general improvement. Walking and texting can be criticised without making the criticiser "anti pedestrian".

[walkman85]

Blah Blah Wrote:

> See, you are making the same mistake as everyone

> else of actually believing at face value that

> anyones life was in danger. This is not about what

> ifs. The OP does not say at any point that anyone

> was nearly hit by a car or that a car was forced

> to emergency stop. The whole account is outrage at

> someone jumping a red light and having their

> children do it too. This is further shown by his

> admission of trying to pull up another cyclist for

> doing the same thing.

It really is hard to understand why you object so much to someone reporting a parent for putting their child's lives at unnecessary risk. If anything the OP is at least useful for raising awareness to bad parents that their potentially dangerous actions actions are being observed by others.

So this to me is an

> obsession with reprimanding cyclists who go

> through red lights irregardless of whether there

> is any danger in doing so. Does the OP reprimand

> drivers on their phones? Or pedestrians that cross

> anywhere but at designated crossings (because that

> surely is wreckless too)? And I still maintain

> that no five year old is capable of speed,

> wreckless or otherwise.

The OP was about a specific incident and not a general post on poor / selfish road users.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've lost the plot on this.

>

> From my narrow take, in sweeping generalisations,

> the typical cyclist is probably a nicer person

> than the typical driver in terms of the things

> that concern me. It's no doubt a class and

> education thing. Hence when people post about

> cyclists jumping red lights I see this as a

> Daily Mail narrow point of view. And no doubt

> most cyclists voted to stay in the EU.

This comment got me scratching my head a bit! I didn't realise there was a class / education divide between car users and cyclists. What about those that do both? If I have a PhD should I ditch my car?

[red devil]

walkman85 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This comment got me scratching my head a bit!

Welcome to the world of malumbu!...:)

[Blah Blah]

walkman, why do I feel I am being drawn into sink hole. No-one's life was at risk if there was no oncoming traffic. This is no different than crossing the road at a non designated crossing point, or crossing a pelican crossing when the man is red with no traffic coming. My original point was that an adult can not 'shoot' anywhere when followed by two five year olds. It is that which I am questioning - the need for embellishment, to make the cyclists sound more wreckless than they probably were. Ergo a disproportionate reaction to a cyclist going through a red light.

[JoeLeg]

So it's ok for a motorist to decide for themselves if they should ignore a red light?

[Blah Blah]

Some of them do. Have seen it plenty of times, including by buses.

[JoeLeg]

I wasn't asking if they do, I was asking if you think it's ok for them to do so?

[rendelharris]

Sorry BB, but crossing on a pelican when the light's red, or at a non-designated crossing, isn't against the law - running a red on a bike is. Sometimes it's not dangerous, often it is, but it's always against the law. If there's one thing I wish London cyclists would stop doing it's this, it just gives the haters a stick with which to beat us.

[Champ]

I think its the reactive comments laced with suspicion of the actual events that are most surprising to me. Maybe its another case of it being a topic discussed in a forum rather than spoken in person that generates this type of response, as I'm sure if the observation was mentioned in a normal conversation the replies wouldn't be along the lines of "I don't believe you because 5 year olds cant go fast on a bike" or "why did you only mention seeing that? What about all the drivers using their phones?". Forums can be strange places filled with all sorts!

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think that people who cycle are understandably touchy to criticism. There are a hugely disproportionate number of threads and newspaper and radio 'opinion pieces' criticising cyclists. No one really believes that it's OK to jump red lights, yet a lot of people do it, in cars and bikes and as pedestrians, running across on a red. All are at fault, but I find those doing it in cars much more of a worry personally.

[jimlad48]

In this case, the reason I posted was because I was genuinely appalled at the behaviour and practises I witnessed.

It was a busy junction, controlled by red lights in a location where two roads join an extremely busy main road and all the junctions are signal controlled. Traffic moves quickly, unpredictably and vision is poor - it is hard to see what all the different parts are doing at different times.

To knowingly go through a red light, crossing a very busy main road without full visibility of what is going on, without wearing appropriate protective gear, lights or reflective clothing and then to encourage your two small children to do the same thing is not sensible. It is not safe, it could easily see a child injured or killed.

I don't own a bike or a car. When I had a car I went out of my way to look out for cyclists to be certain that we could both use the road safely together. I am happy to call out bad behaviour by road users regardless of if they are car, bike or on foot. My own personal experience is that cyclists are by a significant margin the worst offenders, but I also accept different people have different views.

Sadly some people seem determined to turn this into something its not - I personally saw some appallingly dangerous road use that put two small childrens lives at risk. Its as simple as that.

[JoeLeg]

I agree entirely Rah, cars are demonstrably more dangerous when mishandled and cyclists come in for far too much negative press.

However, Rendell hits the nail on the head when he points out that jumping reds on a bike hands a propaganda victory to ignorant motorists who see them as a nuisance.

[Champ]

Yes cars are indeed more dangerous than cycles, thanks for stating the obvious. That's all the more reason why the parents irresponsibility in the above is such a problem.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Champ - I get why you found this particular event worrying. I'm just pointing out why there is an understandable sensitivity to criticism on the part of cyclists.

[JoeLeg]

Champ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes cars are indeed more dangerous than cycles,

> thanks for stating the obvious. That's all the

> more reason why the parents irresponsibility in

> the above is such a problem.

Yes, but it is worth pointing out what seems like the obvious, because as Rah mentions cyclists are on the receiving end of what sometimes feels like cmcerted lobbying, which is wrong.

But a dangerous small minority go too far the other way, believing that being cyclists they are somehow able to be more aware, perhaps, of their surroundings, maybe they think they're more responsive, or perhaps they just know that without a licence plate they can speed away from mishaps, I don't know. But they make it very hard for the law abiding responsible majority, and though it shouldn't be like this, cyclists still have to be overly careful that they obey the rules of the road.

The dodgy ones, like the example given by the OP, go a long way toward damaging the cause of cycling in general.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > But I have never actually said that I "believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't

> > reduce the number of car journeys". No one has ever said that. And we know that I never said it

> > because if I had, you would have directly quoted me.

>

> "cyclists do little for the environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few car journeys will have

> been saved, so where exactly have do your figures have to do with any lowering of pollution levels?

> How many vehicle journeys have actually been saved? Just because there are more cyclists, it

> does not actually follow that there is a commensurate drop in vehicle journeys."

>

> It seems you've realised your original assertion is somewhat idiotic, so now you try to deny making

> it.

The quote above is (surprisingly for you) correct and I do not in any way deny making it, but that still doesn't match up to the fake 'quote' you made up that I apparently said I "believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't reduce the number of car journeys".

But, I see that from other posts you have made, with the help of others like red devil you are finally starting to comprehend the argument. Hooray! Even if you do need more help on understanding the words 'commensurate' and 'most'...

[rendelharris]

Changed my mind about responding - too bored with Loz and his tone of assumed superiority now. What you've written sums up both your argument and your attitude, I'll leave others to judge both.