I appreciate the effort at a reasoned debate here. My problem is with the bare assertion that the arguments put are all weak ones - OP, why is that so? In my view, and as explained, the factors below are all strong arguments. 1) it's the law Not too get too deep at this time on a Monday, but 'it's the law' is a strong argument. I understand that you disagree with this, as you cherry pick the laws that you feel worthy, but society can only begin to prosper in a cohesive manner if we all follow the law. We can disagree with the law, we can lobby through legitimate channels for its alteration, but as soon as we start to chose laws we follow and laws we don't we are rejecting chances for development and are progressing towards the definition of anarchy (naturally, that assumes that you feel social cohesion is a positive, and that may be an erroneous assumption of mine). H.L.A Hart has a brilliant thesis on jurisprudence, should you be interested, in which he also discusses red light jumping. If we accept the above, any amount of individual justification will not assist in jumping red lights - even if you are right that in some circumstances it can be safer. Offences such as speeding, jumping lights etc are strict liability - in other words, it doesn't matter why you broke the law, you have still committed an offence. All the individual justifications do not mitigate the fact that there was a law of the land that you broke and so you are choosing to contribute to the breakdown of society, not its upkeep. As to your aside regarding apartheid - yes, those laws were what I would call immoral. There are arguments to say that truly immoral laws are not laws at all, as society has not accepted them as such. However, this applicable to the extreme, and not therefore to those pesky red lights ..... 2) it brings forth the wrath of motorists upon cyclists On each ride, we will be confronted with some kind of vehicle. Some drivers will be patient, others will not. In the short term, your safety and the safety of the cyclist in front of you really depends on how you interact with that driver. When and where I ride is dictated mostly by where I think is safe, and I imagine that is true of many cyclists. We are so vulnerable, so creating a culture of safety and respect is no bad thing. BUT that involves every single cyclist riding by the rules of the road and being considerate. Each cyclist who doesn't is actively damaging that possibility. In the long term, fostering mutual respect can only be beneficial - having all vehicles on the road actively looking out for each other and giving way to the more vulnerable road user would be the end goal, but again that utopia can only be achieved if we take personal responsibility for its creation. 3) its a bad example for children who don't know how to cross a road This can only be not applicable, rather than a weak argument - i.e. no children could see you (from cars, taxis, bikes, the playground) or hear their parents moaning about that cyclist. Otherwise, this is surely one of the strongest arguments - lead by the example of showing that laws must be obeyed. The 'slippery slope' argument applies here, as does to point one - if children see from day one that laws must not be obeyed, where will it stop? As above, when they are educated in life or in school, have reasoned opinions (whatever they are!) they can lobby for the abolition of certain laws, but rather teach to follow as the general rule, not the exception. 4) it will upset someone if they happen to kill you. I can only see this as a weak argument if you are dismissing it as it 'won't happen to me' (or, 'I'll be dead so I don't care'). Honestly, hitting a cyclist is my worst nightmare as a driver. I drive early in the morning to gym when it is still dark, and there are so many cyclists with no lights, jumping lights etc, and it scares me witless. Dismissing the ruination of someone's life due to you jumping a red as a weak argument strikes me as somewhat callous; and so I would invite you to reconsider the weight you place on this factor. I note that you also ignore the trauma placed on the dying cyclist, their family, the paramedics. Whilst under different circumstances (truly, no cyclist fault here) my partner was knocked off his bike in the cradle last month by a truck. I was following 10cm behind him. Remarkably, all came out OK in the wash, but we haven't ridden since, and even driving is a stress. Even the most minor of incidents cause a ripple of stress and upset. And no, I didn't think it would happen to us either, nor somewhere so 'safe' as the cradle. We didn't even see it coming, as a cyclist may not at a red light. Your assertion that all of the above are weak arguments makes it seem to me that you are looking for one golden bullet to be shot rather than considering the myriad of micro factors all pointing to social responsibility that have been laid before you. What is necessary is an examination of principle as to the kind of contribution you want to make to society, and then viewing your stance on red lights as part of that rather than taking it in isolation.
