I run red robots.

[anicca]

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.

Edited March 16, 2014 by anicca

[vayamo]

The potential consequences of jumping a red light in a car and on a bicycle are very different. Both are breaking the law but in the one case you are a potential killer, in the other you could be flattened. How many people come to a full stop at a stop street? If not, you are breaking the law. As a pedestrian, do you wait for the little green man before crossing the road? If not you are jaywalking, a crime. If there are no vehicles with right of way, I cross over a red intersection slowly - as in freewheel and standing - almost in pedestrian mode.

[javadude]

Very valid point.....but I have seen (actually seen it) kids taken out (both pedestrian and cyclist) obeying the rules of the road at an intersection. Taxi came out of nowhere, in the yellow lines.......! Ask any HUBBER that is familiar with the Hans Strijdom & Boeing intersection (opposite Waterkloof High School) in Pretoria......it is a potential carnage hot spot of note. Another thing also......people's attitude kill people.

 

Look, cycling on the road is really dangerous. Even here in Sydney, where people are generally very law abiding living in such a nanny state, today six cyclists were taken out by a car, thankfully no one killed:

 

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/cyclists-injured-in-vehicular-accident-in-mascot-sydney/story-fnj3rq0y-1226856064106

[vayamo]

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.

Your name is quite appropriate for one that jumps red lights. (agree with what you're saying btw)

[DJR]

.....................

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?

...............................

 

I have to disagree on this point:

 

The law stating that we should stop for a red traffic signal is not an unjust law, nor is it unethical. Under apartheid some people were allowed to enter the post office by the front door, others had to use the back entrance, based on the colour of their skins, that was both unethical and unjust. Now some would like to be allowed to jump the red robot because they are riding bicycles and others must stop because they are riding motorbikes, cars or trucks. It seems to me that that would be unjust, if not necessarily unethical. It is our right and our duty to resist unjust unethical laws, but I don't see this as one of those.

 

One fair law of the road should apply to us all in something as universal as a red or green traffic signal.

 

(Too philosophical, I know.)

[RocknRolla]

Annica, I like how you just discount counter arguments because they do not suit the point you are trying to make.

 

I have come to the realisation, that with people like you, who seem to think themsleves superior to the law, need to decide what they want to do and live with the consequence, in your case, when you experience an error in judgement, and you do not see that speeding car going through the green light, while you are crossing the intersection over the red light, and you end up dead or mamed.

 

Unfortunately when you make that error and the person crossing the green is not breaking the law in any way, and happens to be involved in an accident with you, you are changing their lives with your selfish actions.

 

Like the motorcycle helmet law in the states. "let those who ride decide"

To me, a person partaking in a potentially fatal act, with a blatant disregard for safety measures deserves whatever they get when the poo hiteth the fan.

 

Enjoy your red-light jumping cycling, we will probably read about you on witter or the papers soon...

Edited March 16, 2014 by RocknRolla

[Dragu]

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.

[jcza]

Death by dangerous driving has been normalised but dangerous cycling continues to cause annoyance.

[DJR]

....................

Unfortunately when you make that error and the person crossing the green is not breaking the law in any way, and happens to be involved in an accident with you, you are changing their lives with your selfish actions.

.......................

 

Very sadly, I witnessed an accident exactly like this in Sun Valley (Noordhoek / Kommetjie / Fish Hoek intersection) where a cyclist went over the red light only to be taken out by a taxi who did absolutely nothing wrong, he just could not stop or take evasive action in time. The driver stopped and tried to assist, but other cyclists on the scene shouted and screamed at him in such a way that he had to keep his distance. All they saw was a rider knocked off his bike and immediately they convicted the taxi driver, who was totally in the right. The only good thing about this incident was that the rider was not injured seriously.

[andydude]

It is against the law. Period.

 

Do you drive the same way when in your car? If not, why not?

 

Not just to you, but to everyone throwing the law argument.

 

The law is simply not relevant for cycling.

 

Do you ride in the yellow lane? Oops, and I quote you, "It is against the law. Period." What now?

 

According to the law we should ride in the middle of the left lane. Both hands on the bars at all times. No standing. Let's see how far you get before a car runs you over.

 

Use your common sense. We are extremely condiderate in trying to stay out of the cars' way. Hugging the pavement on the left.

 

Yes, sometimes I go over a red robot. But nobody seems to understand what it means. It's NOT crossing while other cars are crossing. Only when it's safe. And yes, it can be done.

 

Like I said, stop throwing the law, because then everyone is breaking it. Use your intuition. My primary concern is my safety and secondly I think how can I be as little trouble to other road users. I haven't heard about any cyclists hurting a car driver (except maybe that van!) while every day we hear about cyclists in hospital or being hurt.

[RocknRolla]

According to the law we should ride in the middle of the left lane. Both hands on the bars at all times. No standing. Let's see how far you get before a car runs you over.

 

 

 

Keep as far left as possible, that is the law.

If you decide to not ride in the yellow lane, you should keep as far left as possible, seeing that you are moving slower than the other veihicles on the road, so as to not obstruct the freeflow of traffic.

 

own your lane at your own peril

 

sorry for the hijack

Edited March 16, 2014 by RocknRolla

[Pieterg]

Stop stop and stop

[andydude]

 

Keep as far left as possible, that is the law.

If you decide to not ride in the yellow lane, you should keep as far left as possible, seeing that you are moving slower than the other veihicles on the road, so as to not obstruct the freeflow of traffic.

 

own your lane at your own peril

 

sorry for the hijack

 

No, left lane. They are referring to lanes when they say left. Not left itself. Makes no sebs for a vehicle to ride in the left of the lane. In the middle.

 

Cyclists have full right to ride in the middle of a lane. It's the law.

[MaXiMuM]

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.

 

Actually very well put...

[anicca]

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.

[Winstonian1984]

We all have somewhere to go when on the roads, so lets just consider that accidents happen very quickly and let the cause not be jumping a red robot for example, just because we dont want to de-cleat or it was safe to go etc.

 

I found that it the early hours are when some of the worst drivers are on the roads, especially on weekends where people are coming home from clubs or been drinking(I remember reading about the thread about the Nitida Wine farm accident) some who also tend to take unnecessary risk as the roads are quiet. Even greater case to stop at Red robots.

 

We can only take responsibility for our own actions, so make your own space safe and we can only hope it affects the next road user and makes the roads safe for all road users.