anicca

Brake! said "My problem is with the bare assertion that the arguments put are all weak ones - OP, why is that so?" Thank you for your reasoned response. I realise you're coming in quite late in the discussion and so you probably haven't read the whole thread, but these were not bare assertions. The list was a summary and I've gone into great depth as to why each of those points are, in my view, weak. But of course, strength is relative and subjective - in my opinion, the increased convenience and safety of the manouever justifies breaking the law. For your benefit I'll summarise as fast as possible: "It's the law" - I don't cherry pick laws to follow or break, I disregard the law completely. Fact is, by and large, you do too. Even experienced lawyers do not know the law of the land by heart - so I'd contend you don't even know most of the time whether you are acting legally. I live a moral and decent life, and laws are completely superfluous to my needs. If you can't behave without a law to tell you what to do, you're a pretty sorry person. This is why I couldn't care whether the law is changed, I simply don't recognise its authority over me. The argument and the comparisons to apartheid were merely to demonstrate that the law is not the be-all-and-end-all. 2) You refuted your own argument when you said "BUT that involves every single cyclist riding by the rules of the road and being considerate". That will NEVER happen. Motorists hate cyclists, and as I keep saying I think that is because they are not cars (less visible and slower moving) rather than because they break laws. Motorists will still hate me and potentially hurt me regardless of whether I jump the light, just they won't feel as vindicated in it. 3) Setting a bad example. Parenting your children is not my responsibility. Children are smarter than you give them credit for, and there are plenty of things in the big wide scary world that you're going to need to teach your children not to do. I would absolutely teach my children to do as I do, not as I say. I would teach them to think for themselves and do good things because they make you feel good rather than because some authority told them they must. 4) Upsetting someone who kills you. I dismissed this because it is applicable to ANY cyclist, including a law-abiding one. In fact, if you are killed when you are breaking the law at least they have that to console themselves. If, as I argue, you're safer when you abide by common sense rather than the letter of the law, then you are also less likely to be killed than a law-abiding person. As I stated in the OP I'm just looking for opinions, not a golden bullet. I am now on day 2 of following the rules, and I am seeking better justification than those points that I myself laid out: better justification, not a golden bullet. Better is relative. You're not adding anything new. Thanks Tubehunter, Catatonic_Joe, Stoffies1, amongst others, for "getting" where I was coming from. Thanks Corvus for your interesting post, I'm not going to reply - as I stated, I'm not interested in changing the law, I'm only interested in the motivation behind the action. I think I've got what I wanted out of this, so thanks everyone.

Thanks for all the responses, I'm not going to be able to reply to you all but I appreciate the effort. Today was day #1 of following the rules... I did go over a red at a pedestrian crossing (with no pedestrians) but otherwise I was good. There was one moment I almost regretted my decision when I took off from behind the line between two taxis. My chain got briefly stuck and I had a bit of a wobble, but thankfully the one to my left turned and I was able to make it to my spot in the left lane before the car behind caught up. It was a bit stressful but I should imagine I'll get used to it. AfdElite said "clearly you haven't grasped the concept of being a decent human being. " The passion, the passion! Doesn't it just amaze you? If I jump a red robot, I'm Satan, end of discussion. andydude said "Although I don't agree with every point annica is making, his debate and arguments are by far superior to most of you. Most of you keep hammering on that it's against the law, but you conveniently ignore all the other cycling laws you are breaking. That's called being hypocritical. At least he's being honest and backing it up with good points. And most of you conveniently miss understand 'jumping a robot'." Thanks, andydude, I appreciate your effort in appealing to common sense here. I do believe that the cyclists here know I'm referring to those instances where, if I jumped off my bicycle and walked it across the pedestrian crossing, I would be safe and legal, but are being disingenuous in equating it with kamikaze red-light-jumping. Dragu said "report me to admin for my 'personal attack' if you feel so strongly about it!", Dragu I don't feel strongly about it, I'm not offended I'm just pointing out that you didn't challenge my point, you stated (and now stated again) that it had been challenged and called me names. Very little I can say in response except call you names back, and I have no interest in that. "Having said that, would you agree that it's ok for taxis to stop where they want even on red lines or on corners?" Not as such, but I don't agree with the general vehemence against taxi drivers by soccer moms in SUVs and trust fund kids in land rovers. You're cramming 16 road users into that space, so think about how much more inconvenient it would be for you if there were 16 private cars for each taxi. In the interests of efficiency I believe motorists should be compelled to let taxis and buses in. This is partly why driving private cars is unethical, by the way - if all motorists took public transport where you could, we'd be on our way to having a magnificent transport system devoid of taxis, open roads with minimal smog to clog cyclists lungs, and plenty of space for everyone to get to where they need to go safely. MockTurtle said "So yeah bicycles skipping lights - when it is safe to do so - I really don't consider as an act of civil disobedience as much as it is common sense. Stopping at a red is really smart. But stopping at one when I'm in the cycle lane at 6am and there is no car for miles is also kinda stupid." Exactly, especially when your bicycle lacks the quantity of ferrous metal required to trigger the sensor. Someone suggested we wait for the equivalent of 2 robot cycles before proceeding with caution against the red. How nice to have that kind of time! "This is from my POV as a commuter/mtb rider. Roadies riding in bunches and kamikazeing through red lights in traffic still horriffies and amazes me." - This is my POV as well. I've said it so many times now. I'm NOT talking about kamikazeing through red robots. I'm talking about slowing or stopping then crossing intersections on red when it is safe - much the same as a pedestrian crosses a road when there are no cars. Going through red lights in traffic is suicidal - THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. "The OP stated in her opening post that henceforth she intends to stop at red robots, thereby evincing a clear intention on her part to abide by the very law which she questions. Is she not entitled to question or debate a law with which she disagrees? " Thanks, it seems you were the only one that noticed that in my OP despite my reiteration of it: in future I intend on stopping at red lights, and my best justification for it is to do my bit to calm the rage against cyclists. I really believe it is pointless, though, because it's not actually the law-breaking that offends motorists, but the fact that we slow them down on the road. The law-breaking just serves as a vindication of their anger, because the actual act of running the robot probably improves safety and convenience on the road, as the study I linked to stated. Falco said "If your interpretation of the stop at red lights law is "stupid", then I say please carry on jumping lights." I don't think I said it was stupid, all I'm saying is it is not in the best interests of safety and convenience on the road, for all road users. Wow flymango, that was an awful lot of effort to put into something so lame and irrelevant. Papa Bear had a go at revising my OP too, a ittle more apt but not much. Thanks for the repost though, maybe it will get read a little more carefully on the second and third times around. Pain or shine said "You being the voice of running red robots should be prepared to accept some responsibility when people are maimed and killed following your advice, but you don't." - I don't think I pitched this as advice, but if that's how it came across, my advice is to cross the road when it is safe to do so. If people follow that advice, they won't be maimed or killed any more often than pedestrians crossing roads, and it will be because of their misjudgement rather than the transgression itself. goose1111 said "I for one would rather teach my child how to cross the street safely, regardless of traffic lights etc. than give them the impression that as long as the light is green" That would be most sensible. If you don't look and make sure the side-street cars are stopping before blindly trusting that green robot, you're behaving in a more reckless way than I am when I jump the red. Capricorn said "In the OP's case, there are vehicles around. The risk of being hit is just that, a probability, an uncertainty, and in the OP's context the motivation is all about '#1'. What is a certainty however is a blatant disregard and subversion of rules attempting to provide responsible road usage for all. " Yes the motivation is about #1, when I'm on my bike my safety is my priority, certainly above keeping motorists calm. My crossing the road at a red is primarily dangerous because the motorists waiting at the line are going to be angry when they eventually catch and pass me (not likely in Main Road traffic, heh) and this is so far my only half-decent justification for my new decision to follow the rules. And yes I stated from the very beginning that I blatantly disregard the rules. This isn't new information. nonky said "Here's a reason to not run red lights from iol this am - simply, because the risk are high enough already without voluntarily placing yourself and others in harm's way:" and then proceeded to give an account of how cyclists obeying the law ended up hurt - completely irrelevant - if anything it goes to show that the law doesn't protect us. And the posts on lane-splitting? Uh-oh, I'm definitely a culprit there. I'll even weave in and out of the waiting cars when they haven't left me enough space down the left by the gutter. I'll be honest, I thought that was legal. Do I have to re-evaluate that behaviour too?

RocknRolla, I understand what you're saying, which can be said in three and a half words: It's the law. I will for the final time say why it's not a satisfactory explanation. I know that it is illegal. However, being amongst cars when the light goes green is an unsafe place to be as a cyclist and an inconvenient place for motorists to have you. I believe that to suggest otherwise is spiteful if you're a motorist and disingenuous if you're a cyclist. "Jumping the red" in the way I mean it is simply as dangerous as crossing a road, and I think you all know this. Even if you firmly believe we should stop at robots. And even if you believe we should stop at robots, I'm certain you don't relish the experience of taking off with the traffic at a green light - why? Because it is not a very safe place to be. By the bye, as a car owner, you're probably less aware that the way you described pedestrian signals is not how they (all) work in South Africa. Pedestrian lights usually go green for crossings parallel to the road with the green robot - that is, as a pedestrian, you still need to watch for turning cars even when your light is green. A small minority do actually give time to cross, but most work the same as they do in countries where the law requires turning motorists to yield to pedestrians, except without that law in place. And with motorists that consider themselves to always have right of way, even at zebra crossings which no sane South African pedestrian would rely on (these are supposed to always mean pedestrian right of way, but sometimes are accompanied by pedestrian-robots). If pedestrians followed the letter of the law, half would starve to death waiting indefinitely on street corners while the other half would be squished into the tarmac under the tyres of turning cars.

"This will be my final post on this matter, as it is clear that the OP is not willing to accept any counter argument or take cognisance of her / his effect on the safety of fellow road users, and the negative light that her / his actions on the road further cast on us as cyclists." I have insisted that I will accept a valid counter argument. So make it already. I am concerned enough about road safety to break laws that don't promote it. And I am concerned enough about the negative light in which cyclists are bathed to have taken the time to have this discussion, as well as stating from the beginning that I intend to obey red lights in future. So if that baseless personal attack was the last post you make on the matter the discussion will miss nothing. "Laws are usually there for very good reasons" But not always - as it would seem in this case. "No weaker than your arguments" That it is both safer and more convenient for everyone? As Harryn and others said, I'm one jumper of very many. I'd guess half of cyclists jump robots as routinely as I do, and if any one of you can say honestly you never do it - you always come to a complete stop behind the line at every red robot and stop street, regardless of the time of day, dodginess of the area, heaviness of traffic, lack of witnesses, range of visibility or type of vehicle you're driving, then please cast those stones. Can we not even admit as a community that it is something many people see as acceptable? Can we as cyclists resist the urge to blind road rage towards another cyclist who is behaving in a safe albeit illegal way and not bay for blood when we see it? If we don't analyse why, and figure out what to do about it, then how are we to ever progress beyond giving each other the finger as one cyclist jumps while the other one waits?

porqui et al, please grow up. I'm really not trolling or flamebaiting or otherwise internet-meme-ing, this is a genuine and most pressing concern in the cycling community and motorist-cyclist relations, and I'm attempting to stimulate some opinions and honest debate. Why does it matter that I'm female or that I'm young? FCH said "please explain how a car crossing a red robot is any different to you doing it on a bicycle. I have already but let me spell it out. 1) you occupy much less road real-estate. 2) you can if necessary take refuge in pedestrian crossings, traffic islands, etc. 3) you have ~5% of the mass of a car and none of the top speed, so you simply cannot do the damage of a car even if you tried. 4) your initial acceleration is usually better than that of a car. Even when waiting for a green I'm usually through an intersection before the cars. 5) other countries around the world have noted the difference and have passed laws to this effect. 6) you can dismount at any point and become a pedestrian who is now merely crossing a road. Of course it can go wrong. Cycling is inherently dangerous. I'm guessing that doesn't stop you from getting on your bike, though. Oops. I don't say I'm the best judge of when it's safe to cross a road, but I'm as good as the next pedestrian. Oops. And I never said anything about changing the law. Like I said, this isn't about the law. What the law states doesn't factor much into how I choose to live my life. Latent Blue said "We dont want to go through "RIP fellow cyclist" threads for nothing. " I just find it shocking that people can insinuate that I deserve to die for jumping a robot, while I bet all of you have received warning from a friend about a roadblock or speed trap. Surely the incredible passion that this topic riles up is of enough interest for scholarly debate?? "If a fellow cyclist shout at you for jumping a red light, what do you do?" - so far that hasn't happened, but if it did, you're right in saying I'd probably shout back, because there isn't time to have a debate as you're skipping red lights. I know it's wrong, legally speaking, but I also believe it's right, practically speaking. "And there we go. The ultimate admission. You're a law disdaining citizen" What are you talking about? I have said that I disdain the law from the very first post. Why are you acting as though this is new information? "nothing anyone can say shall change your point of view, regardless of whether what you're doing is legal, logical or responsible" But THIS is just not true. I know it's not legal, but I have already explained why I believe it is logical and responsible. If you can explain why jumping the robot is illogical or irresponsible I will change my point of view. Why would I come on here and ask for opinions and in the same breath also state that I intend in future to not jump robots? I'm inviting you to show me that I am in fact wrong. So far all I've heard against is 1) it's the law 2) it brings forth the wrath of motorists upon cyclists 3) its a bad example for children who don't know how to cross a road 4) it will upset someone if they happen to kill you. These are four weak arguments.

I've identified another (weak) argument here: If you are hurt or killed as a result of jumping the light, someone else has to live with it. Thing is, this applies to cycling in general, because you can be run down when obeying the law (and in my opinion, are more likely to be) and the person who does it in this case can't even console themselves by saying they were in the right. So if you subscribe to this argument you should really refrain from using the roads with any vehicle. cpt armpies mayhem said "Either use the road as a logical, law abiding citizen (and that means following the laws themselves) or don't use the road at all." - but I'm the living embodiment of a third option, use the road as a logical, law-disdaining citizen. In two decades of cycling this way the only consequences I've seen are angering motorists. I've had several accidents but never in that hyper-cautious mode I am in when crossing an intersection on red. Fact is, cycling through red robots is simply not the same as running them in cars. With the small size and acceleration of a bicycle it's far more comparable to jaywalking, just faster and safer. Harryn, thanks for pointing out the dangers of bike-jacking too. The fact that you are at great risk of being mugged when waiting for that robot would definitely be another factor to tip the safety scales in favour of jumping the light. Cyclists are vulnerable to baddies as well as to cars. FCH, you said "The unfortuante part of your argument is it has to go both ways" - why does it go both ways, when the risk and consequences of a cyclist jumping the robot is drastically smaller than that of the car? We have different rules for different vehicles. "if I see you cruising over red lights i will give you a earfull". I'm telling you now that I cruise over red lights consistently, and I am asking specifically for that earful. Do you have anything to add other than it pisses spiteful motorists off?

RocknRolla said "Annica, I like how you just discount counter arguments because they do not suit the point you are trying to make." - where have I done this? What argument did I discount without providing a counter-argument? A cyclist crossing the road at a red is in exactly the same position as a pedestrian crossing the road at a red, which happens all the time without pissing anyone off. Yes, occasionally the pedestrian makes an error in judgement and gets hit by that car "speeding through the green light", and sure enough that might well happen with cyclists too. But it isn't as dangerous as you make out. I linked to a study that suggested jumping red lights is in fact safer than waiting. This isn't discounting your argument, RocknRolla, this is providing evidence against it. Yes, I do think myself superior to the law. I think that all people who are guided by a moral code rather than doing what they are told are superior to the law. Or do you only not kill people because it is illegal? DJR pointed out that the "law stating that we should stop for a red traffic signal is not an unjust law, nor is it unethical." My point is just that the law is not the word of God to be followed blindly. Of course you're right, the law against jumping red robots is neither unjust nor unethical, but it is a bit silly - I don't believe it promotes safety or convenience on the road, and therefore it's not a law I recognise. Dragu said "All i can say is WOW annica, welcome to the Hubsa my dear or is that boy? Nothing personal but your OP and followup is extremely weak and your attitude reveals utter immaturity and ignorance even for things outside of cycling. Then again some people just live for them selfs and will never get the point." If it is nothing personal, Dragu, then how about you restrain yourself from the personal attacks and tell me why my attitude is ignorant? This is a fine example of how irate people get about this, without actually giving any argument for why it is wrong.

Thanks for all your thoughts guys. There seems to be a conception that I'm talking about jumping red robots at speed or without looking, which obviously I am not. Cyclists stupid enough to jump robots without looking don't exist, or at least they won't for very long. I'm talking about safely crossing a road when the light is red. I'm talking about times when, if you dismounted and pushed, you would both legally and safely cross the intersection as a pedestrian. I slow down to the speed required to make a judgement (which depending on visibility might be fairly fast) and then get through the intersection as fast as possible. I've done it my whole life and I'm yet to be in an accident as a result. There is only one new reason that you've added to my list: kids might see you and not know better that you're being incredibly careful when crossing at the red. They could then jump a robot themselves when it's not safe. This is possible. Look how people smoking (a perfectly legal activity) gives kids the impression that is OK. I find it a weak reason because it's not my responsibility to parent your kids, but it's at least a logical reason. Slowashell said "It is against the law. Period. Do you drive the same way when in your car? If not, why not? " No I don't, because I don't own a car, because I think that driving a car is a dangerous, unnecessary and unethical activity. Sorry to get all philosophical on you, but I am amazed that South Africans have such short memories that they can't remember the unjust laws we had to follow a mere two decades ago. I'm an ethical person, but laws do not always follow ethics (or even common sense). So to reiterate, "it's the law" does not wash with me. I continually break laws that are stupid or unethical. Slippery slope arguments do not apply, I behave in an ethical way regardless of whether or not it is legal. I'm no more likely to rob a bank because I jumped a red. Comments like "Laws are laws.. If you break one then you have no right to complain about anyone else breaking a law.. No matter how big or small" are completely ridiculous - how does my jumping a red light justify someone murdering me? DJR said "A cyclist that jumps the red and get past me on a day I'm driving the Landy, will hold me up while I wait patiently to pass him safely." - That's a fair point I suppose, but it assumes that you can get past him when you're straight out of the gates, which is not likely as cyclists generally have a higher initial acceleration and start from in front. I also commute along main road southern suburbs, and in most cases I'm faster than cars. If I stopped at every red, it's quite likely I would equally get in everyone's way. Still, I see how that would incense drivers, who I maintain, are not offended by the law-breaking but by the fact they are held up by slower-moving cyclists.

I'm a cyclist who joined this site with a confession to make. I run red robots. Not just at night, not just when I'm in a hurry, but as a matter of course. Today a friend cycling behind me commented at how upset a carful of people got when I crossed halfway across Buitengracht over a red (as if I was a pedestrian) because there was a left arrow and therefore I was not crossing anyone's legitimate path. This gave me some food for thought, so I've decided to consciously re-evaluate my attitude and spent a couple of hours on the net. Mostly I'm not a culprit of the other cycling bugbears - I always ride single file, with traffic not against, and I don't ride on pavements. But red light jumping by cyclists is a topic that evokes extremely passionate feelings in people, even here in this country where babies are raped regularly. Why is this? I've asked a lot of people, both motorists and law-abiding cyclists, why they get so upset and the most common reply is along the lines of "it's the law", "cyclists must respect the rules if we are to respect them", "red light jumpers give cyclists a bad name" and "cyclists are arrogant and think they're above the law". But strangely, people don't argue that what the red-light-jumper is doing is dangerous. The consensus seems to be that these cyclists are very careful to cross only when it's safe. That would make sense as most cyclists are aware of their vulnerability and are conscious that a bump from cross-traffic at that intersection would probably be fatal. But almost never could a cyclist cause an accident that would hurt anyone other than him or herself. Strangely also, people don't argue that what the cyclist is doing is inconveniencing anyone. When the cyclist jumps the robot, no one has to wait for them or move out of their way. So why does everyone care so deeply about this issue? My guess is that drivers get annoyed at having to share the road with slower-moving vehicles and point fingers at the law-breaking to justify their indignation. But daily I see drivers on their cellphones, cutting people off, drunk driving, speeding, joking about unpaid fines and even warning others about speed traps and roadblocks on Facebook as if speeding and drunken driving, which kills thousands, is a completely legitimate behaviour. Cyclists are almost incapable of speeding or killing anyone other than themselves. They are doing their bit to reduce congestion and pollution. What reason do drivers have to hate them other than their own impatience and self-righteousness? I would argue, in fact, that red light jumping by cyclists promotes both safety AND the convenience of other road users. France has recently passed a law that allows cyclists to turn right on red (the equivalent of turning left in South Africa). A study done in London showed that female cyclists are more likely to be killed than male cyclists, and states that this may be because they are also more likely to obey red lights, and then collide with vehicles pulling away from the lights: http://www.rudi.net/node/16395 It's rather obvious when you think about it - a stable, moving cyclist behaving in a predictable way in front of you is safer than a cyclist taking off in their wobbly way, amongst three or four lanes of cars doing the same thing. Besides, what driver really wants to share that "go" moment at the robots with cyclists? Do they not realise that having the queue by the robot free from cyclists can only make it more convenient for them? I would really like someone to give me a sensible reason for stopping at the red light. I'm not one who follows the law blindly. If a law is stupid I relish in breaking it. So simply saying that it is against the law is not enough to persuade me to do something. However I'm well aware of the passionate hatred towards cyclists because of this - as irresponsible, unreasonable, misplaced, exaggerated, and downright spiteful as it may be. I still intend to turn left on red. I still intend to go straight at a red with a side street to the right. But as a result of my mini-research mission, I've decided to show some willing and start to stop at red lights whenever my path crosses a lane of traffic that has a green. I'd like to hear some rational debate, or what everyone thinks about my attitude. For once I'd really like to hear people avoid suggesting running the offending cyclist down, opening the car door as he passes or slamming on brakes when he's behind you. If I have one take-home message: it's not an offence worth murdering someone over.