I run red robots.

[anicca]

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?

[Wyatt Earp]

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?

 

 

I read "Thanks" saw the length of the post and lost interest after that.

[Blackbeard]

 

 

I read "Thanks" saw the length of the post and lost interest after that.

 

I skim read it - you did not miss much.

[dre]

Thanks for all the responses, I'm not going to be able to reply to you all but I appreciate the effort.

 

 

Off-topic, but you can use the "reply" or "multiquote" options so that you do not have to copy and paste every time you want to quote what someone posted in order to organize your replies. Makes posting easier for you if you get to know how to use this function, and makes life easier for us slightly slow people with burnedt out brains by midday on a Monday, when we can read the quoted parts in blue quote brackets.

 

Apologies for the off-topicness of my reply. But thought I'd help you get to know TheHubSa's smart functions as you are fairly new. Welcome.

 

*spelling

Edited March 17, 2014 by dre

[Brake!]

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.

[Capricorn]

with reference to that excellent post by brake! /thread

Edited March 17, 2014 by Capricorn

[(Deon)]

Let's approach this differently for a minute.

 

You have a kid and he/she is learning to ride. The school is a ten minute trip from home and you live in a reasonably quiet suburb. The trip to school makes use of mainly backroads but crosses two traffic light intersections. The goal is for the child to eventually ride to school unattended..

 

How does she treat the lights at the intersections? What does one teach in preparation for the day he/she rides unattended?

[nonky]

Let's approach this differently for a minute.

 

You have a kid and he/she is learning to ride. The school is a ten minute trip from home and you live in a reasonably quiet suburb. The trip to school makes use of mainly backroads but crosses two traffic light intersections. The goal is for the child to eventually ride to school unattended..

 

How does she treat the lights at the intersections? What does one teach in preparation for the day he/she rides unattended?

 

Teach them to find a big peloton of serious roadies going in their direction and then to go hell for leather through anything resembling an intersection and b@gger the consequences?

[(Deon)]

Teach them to find a big peloton of serious roadies going in their direction and then to go hell for leather through anything resembling an intersection and b@gger the consequences?

Ha ha! I'll need to reserve some of the training time for hand gestures & foul language..

[Tubehunter]

Well done annica. Not only have you managed to arrive at this here thehub as a complete noobie, but you posted a highly controversial viewpoint and despite numerous efforts at descending into a name calling tirade by a few of the responders I think you have handled getting your opinion across superbly. I do not share your opinion on all the viewpoints you have raised, but would nonetheless like to say GOOD JOB in how you have handled yourself. Hope to see your input in some other threads too! Welcome!

[Catatonic_Joe]

I agree with Tubehunter above and I agreed with a lot of what Annica had to say. It was actually quite sad to see how the Hubbers with +1,000 posts had to attack you personally to try and get their points across. If this was a race/competition, you WON!

 

As a regular commuter I also turn left at red or go through red when I feel it's safe to do so. I must say that majority of the time I only stop at red just so I do not tarnish peoples perception of cyclists even more. So if there's one car at a red robot, I'll stop, If there's no cars and It's safe to go, I'll go.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Catatonic_Joe

['Dale]

This thread must be stopped by a red light.

 

 

[Slowbee]

I agree with Tubehunter above and I agreed with a lot of what Annica had to say. It was actually quite sad to see how the Hubbers with +1,000 posts had to attack you personally to try and get their points across. If this was a race/competition, you WON!

 

As a regular commuter I also turn left at red or go through red when I feel it's safe to do so. I must say that majority of the time I only stop at red just so I do not tarnish peoples perception of cyclists even more. So if there's one car at a red robot, I'll stop, If there's no cars and It's safe to go, I'll go.

CJ, no attack on you.

 

But rather trying to understand this type of thinking.

 

Do you also do this when you are on a motorbike ? Or in a car? Why only do it when no one is around? I mean if there is one car, and it is in the same lane and direction as you, then going through the red robot, is also safe, but someone is watching.

 

The other way is also the same, and this is where I am finding my self at odds with my otherself. Walking across the street when the robot is red. But it is safe (in my opinion). Walking between cars at robots cause it is to far to walk between the white lines. At what point does the grey line become white and black (all puns intended, especially white paint on black tar)? When is it the law and when not? Should an accident occur, the law says what it does, and not always common sense.

 

So back to the question - why does a bicycle (or actually walking on foot) entitle one to flaut the law? Is it common sense, is it priveledge? A sense of entitlement? Oh, and loads of people in motorised devices flaut the law to.

[DJR]

This thread must be stopped by a red light.

 

Ha ha, I think it's been a flashing red (4 way stop) right from the start! Quite amazing that a real pile-up hasn't occurred this far. Perhaps everyone slowed down just enough to look and make sure it was safe before they posted?

Edited March 17, 2014 by DJR

[BogusOne]

This thread must be stopped by a red light.

 

YES PLEASE

[RocknRolla]

Well to answer what Slowbee asked:

 

For me, personally I have decided to obey all the traffic rules to the T.

 

I came to this conclusion that if I wanted to see a change, I have to be part of the change, and not wait for every-one else to change first because then we would regress, specifically on the roads.

 

When I am a pedestrian, I cross at an intersection if it is within 50m of where I want to cross. I only cross said intersection if there is a green signal (where a traffic light) and only when safe to do so. At a stopstreet, only when safe to do so.

 

When I am on my bicycle on the road, I stop at the traffic lights, use hand signals etc...

 

and in my car, I dont drive in the yellow line, obey the speed limit (even late at night or early in the morning)

Stop when the light turns amber, wait to pass cyclists safely. Give pedestrians right of way.

Keep left and pass right. etc etc ad nauseum.

 

It take s a lot of restraint and concentration, but it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. I also hope it sets some kind of example for other users to follow.

 

when something does go wrong, at least i know i have made every effort to minimise the risk to myself, my family and other road users as mutch as possible.

 

Please excuse me, I have to go hug a tree now.....