I run red robots.

[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.

[(Deon)]

Please for the sake of the poor red robot, don't anyone reply to this thread further. It is clear from thios last post anicca was never looking for reason to motivate abiding by law set for safety.

 

Me in my car has deemed red robots unsafe but don't worry fellow cycists I'll be on the hooter all the way through - I never liked those things anyway.

 

Who does the traffic department think they are anyway, don't they know the rule does not apply to me?

[Tubehunter]

REPLY....

[(Deon)]

I shoulda known.. smartass!

[Corvus]

annica,

 

It seems perhaps you missed the thrust of my points because I was certainly not speaking of changing the law, but rather giving moral justification for abiding by laws in general, even the laws that do not seem to have a obvious intrinsic moral reference.

 

I also mentioned that the burden of proof isn't really on us to justify the law but on you to justify breaking it. It's way too easy to simply declare "I jump red lights because it's convenient to do and I feel safer doing so" and then challenge everybody to convince you otherwise, while you casually slap down anything offered, because it's "too weak".

 

Onto some of your slapdowns:

"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.

I find this line of reasoning to be impracticable. It's certainly fine ignoring the law and living by your own set of rules as long as everybody else doesn't have the same mind set.

This is similar to the problem with pacifism. It's fine being a pacifist as long as you're kept safe by people who are armed and ready to defend you.

 

Try riding your bike in Bangladesh or Mumbai where there's virtually no traffic law enforcement and everybody makes up their own rules. If you think stopping at a robot is unsafe and inconvenient, Mumbai will blow your mind.

 

If you can't behave without a law to tell you what to do, you're a pretty sorry person.

Nobody is claiming that they can't behave without a law or that law undermines or is opposed to morality. In fact law attempts to codify morality. We want laws and we want them enforced precisely because we want people to behave morally and to deter immoral behaviour. Laws in general are designed to protect those who do choose to live morally.

Setting a bad example. Parenting your children is not my responsibility.

This too is a mischaracterisation. Nobody is talking about parenting or requiring parenting from you. Rather, that you as an adult would act like any reasonable responsible adult. Your reasoning can be used by virtually anybody who commits a criminal act near children: "Don't like that I'm running a prostitution ring next to a nursery school? It's not my job to parent those children, and children are a lot smarter than you give them credit for"

 

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.

Assuming of course that your children acknowledge your authority as their teacher.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Corvus

[Blackbeard]

You sound a little shaken, or is that a little shaken you sound?

 

I am not calling you a liar. I am saying that despite the reasonable motivation from several people, you have selectively chosen the rationale that best suits your pov. Individual quotes in response are made in isolation of the broader picture.

 

When you are ready to see that the red robot has more than 1 side, and that your actions are a reflection on the community embroiled in a heated debate for acceptance, come back and let us know how you have matured. Keen to see a new perspective.

 

Cheers. Bye. See ya!

 

Hence my observation of emotional immaturity.

[Brogue]

:eek: :eek:

 

What beeg eyes you have Dips Added you on Strava bud.

[T-Bob]

I know I've come late to the party on this one and it might have already been covered in the nice lengthy fred but how is it perceived if when coming up the to the red robot you pop it onto the kerb across the blinking pedestrian crossing with on the adjacent road then back down the other side and on your merry way again?

 

[Slowbee]

posts deleted - and some may have been caught in the crosslines regarding quoting.

[(Deon)]

Hence my observation of emotional immaturity.

I was inspired by your few words.

[Shebeen]

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.

what is this golden bullet you speak of?

 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Golden%20Bullet

[Eldron]

Meh.

 

Me - I'm a rule/law bender but not a rule/law breaker.

 

Jumping a red light at 5am or in Nowherebetweenblikkiesfontein where there is no cross traffic is forgivable as there are no consequences.

 

Jumping a red light in full view of other road users just creates jealousy, anger, perceived narcissism and all the other reasons motorists want to hate us.

 

Giving them these reasons just provides a convenient excuse for the them/us divide to broaden.

 

The other point is - why not stop? It probably adds a couple of minutes total time to your ride and adds in a few baby sprint intervals. Win-win situation in my opinion.

[(Deon)]

 

Meh.

 

Me - I'm a rule/law bender but not a rule/law breaker.

 

Jumping a red light at 5am or in Nowherebetweenblikkiesfontein where there is no cross traffic is forgivable as there are no consequences.

 

Jumping a red light in full view of other road users just creates jealousy, anger, perceived narcissism and all the other reasons motorists want to hate us.

 

Giving them these reasons just provides a convenient excuse for the them/us divide to broaden.

 

The other point is - why not stop? It probably adds a couple of minutes total time to your ride and adds in a few baby sprint intervals. Win-win situation in my opinion.

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/164496258.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=B53F616F4B95E553B2624467CD1936BADED982EE73DB701700E1472A19BCF2AABCC685C059D63657

[Blackbeard]

Meh.

 

Me - I'm a rule/law bender but not a rule/law breaker.

 

Jumping a red light at 5am or in Nowherebetweenblikkiesfontein where there is no cross traffic is forgivable as there are no consequences.

 

Jumping a red light in full view of other road users just creates jealousy, anger, perceived narcissism and all the other reasons motorists want to hate us.

 

Giving them these reasons just provides a convenient excuse for the them/us divide to broaden.

 

The other point is - why not stop? It probably adds a couple of minutes total time to your ride and adds in a few baby sprint intervals. Win-win situation in my opinion.

 

"Eldron, the rule bender". No rule too rigid. Like it!

Edited March 18, 2014 by Blackbeard

[Eldron]

"Eldron, the rule bender". No rule too rigid. Like it!

 

I've said it often but common sense out does law making every time. The downside of course is that common sense isn't universal sense so most laws do make sense. Like driving on the left. Left isn't any better or worse than the right but everybody needs to drive on the same side to make traveling safer and more efficient.

 

The problem with my outlook is that common sense aint common as the cliche goes.

[vayamo]

How many readers of this thread have taken a new perspective on their actions out on the bike since participating here??

 

 

I have but will still cross on a red if I'm alone at the intersection. Otherwise...