I run red robots.

[BarHugger]

It is wrong because the light is RED.......just as wrong as cycling with sleeveless shirts....its against regulations. But then again, we must all adhere to the letter of the law.......and register for eToll....

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

 

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.

 

Erm, no. Incorrect. You ARE allowed to cycle in the yellow lane. The law makes allowance for it under the right of slower road users to move into the yellow lane in order to let faster vehicles (this classification as a vehicle is the important one) pass when it is safe to do so.

 

It does come with a few provisos though. It must be a single lane (single or dual direction) road and you must have proper visibility and it must be safe to do so.

 

Point is that as a cyclist, yiu are permitted to use the yellow lane on order to let faster vehicles pass.

 

As the driver of a vehicle, you are obliged to follow the law of the road as it applies to you.

 

Stopping at red lights and stop streets is neither stupid or dangerous. Skipping them, regardless of the speed at which you do it, is.

 

It's actually quite simple, really. 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. As a human being, you have logical thought patterns and powers of deduction, along with the ability to make a choice. You are choosing to put not only yourself, but ME, as a fellow road user and cyclist, in danger, from your arrogant and selfish actions.

 

The sad thing is that if you are knocked over as a result of jumping a light, regardless of who was at fault, there will be someone else loving with the consequences of killing someone. And the fact that you continue to attempt your justification of this act infers that you are in fact okay with that.

[Winstonian1984]

 

It's actually quite simple, really. 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. As a human being, you have logical thought patterns and powers of deduction, along with the ability to make a choice. You are choosing to put not only yourself, but ME, as a fellow road user and cyclist, in danger, from your arrogant and selfish actions.

 

 

Truth is as we all have the ability to think logically, the problem is as stated "selfish arrogant actions".

 

Consider the next person. People are usually quick throw out the "karma" line or "the wheel turns", but so few want to be the first to consider the next person.

[Harryn]

Annica, I think you your arguments are valid and well reasoned. When cycling in Joburg (especially alone) its dangerous and stupid to wait around interminably for a light to turn green - one is at greatly increased risk of hijack when stationary.

 

I follow the following protocol. Stop at the robot. Carefully check for oncoming traffic, as you would do at a stop street. When safe proceed.

[DJR]

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

 

Personally, that is too slippery a slope for me, I'd rather stay on firmer ground. If I start to disobey every law that is "a bit silly", I'll be on an ice rink with banana peels strapped to the soles of my already snotty road shoes before I know it.

[milky4130]

I initially didn't want to comment cause I never thought this thread would reach 3pages & honestly I thought you were trolling but just want to say "rational debate" on TheHub are you kidding me? Good luck.

Btw this is like preaching to the choir, I think this topic would be better off in a motorist forum i.e. Non cycling motorist so their perceptions & views can be changed.

[FCH]

Drove on R44 today to work, at the Annandale traffic light, no less than 7 guys came past- cruising over the red light. Ironically enough in spitting distance from where two of our own were hit by a car this week (not a traffic light incident I gather)

Reading through those comments everybody flew into this driver's recklessness and how little motorist feel for cycles. (Although none of these commentators actually witnessed what happened)

 

My point is simple, not everyone will or need to agree with rules; but certain rules are there not to just protect you, but protect others as well. As stated by another; if your disregard (it is nothing other than disregard, whichever way you want to spin it) means you end up as a hood- ornament to a law abiding motorist hitting you; then your rebelion have fundamentally changed another persons life for good. The unfortuante part of your argument is it has to go both ways.... So a motorist standing at a red light can also "use his own judgement when its safe to go" hope its no one you know ending up in front of that car.

Unjust laws is something we have all seen first hand, but this is not a nanny state law we are discussing here; red light turn right (it has a name) is not remotely the same thing as crossing over lanes, as for the UK study, how may male vs female cyclist are actually on the roads- statistics can be spun into any outcome you want it to be.

 

Sorry mate, if I see you cruising over red lights i will give you a earfull, as i dont want to be the cyclist getting clipped by a motorist getting fed up with cyclest "our merde doesnt stink " attitude at traffic lights.

 

[anicca]

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?

[porqui]

WOW!!

 

Flamebaited by a first time poster

 

Hook line and sinker

 

(1st time poster - 10 to 1 female and 100% not of voting age) Respect!!

 

And just like that 4 pages - damn!

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

And there we go. The ultimate admission. You're a law disdaining citizen and nothing anyone can say shall change your point of view, regardless of whether what you're doing is legal, logical or responsible (clue here: it's none of the above in this case) as you continue to justify your own actions through platitudes and arrogance.

 

Good day. May you one day realise that you are in fact wrong, and not hurt anyone else in the process.

[Witkop]

http://winningateverything.com/files/2011/04/civildisobedience.jpg

[Guest]

What we should do is go over the pavement to the other side of the crossing where the robot is green, then we can go. It sucks though if you just get there and it then turns red, you will then have to go back over the pavement to where you came from which is now green and you can go. It will require a few bunny hopping skills to get onto the pavement but I'm sure after a few falls one should get the hang of it. (search other threads for bunny hopping skills if needed)

[DJR]

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

FCH, you said ................ "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?

 

Just one personal little question Anicca:

 

If a fellow cyclist shout at you for jumping a red light, what do you do?

 

a Carry on as if nothing happened?

b Say sorry and carry on?

c Tell him to go ****himself with a middle finger?

 

Now, this is not directed at you personally, but unfortunately c is most often the reaction, and THAT to me says that those people know that what they are doing is WRONG, hence the strong reaction.

 

(Btw I gave up shouting long ago because of the severe verbal abuse. I teach my children what is right and I ride with people that respect others and my way of riding.)

[FCH]

Using your logic, please explain how a car crossing a red robot is any different to you doing it on a bicycle.

 

 

You state- you will only cross or ignore a red light when it is safe and not pose any risk to you or others.... Yet you state "cycling through red robots is simply not the same as running them in cars" . Well well if it is so safe and risk free for you, why would it not be for a motorist who can cross a intersection way faster than you, as it is 100% safe for you (in your opinion)

 

Could it be that if / when they get it wrong, the result will be more dramatic than if you got it wrong? (Dont say yes, as it will mean you know it can go wrong, and admitting to putting others at risk through your disregard) oops

Or as a lifetime cyclist commuter you are a better judge when it is safe or not? (Dont say yes, as 7 accidents is definitely more than most motors will have in a lifetime) oops

Either way you are both breaking a law meant to minimize accidents but you want laws to differ as it suites your taste? very progressive of you.... I recall that being the gist of the "unjust laws" you refer to.

 

Good luck arguing yourself out of your own logic or explaining how you causing a accident is more acceptable than a motorist.

 

Ciao

[Cassie]

Welcome to the HubSA!

 

JA, GREAT first post - especially after midnight....drink much? have no buddies to irritate?

[Witkop]

http://winningateverything.com/files/2011/06/upholdingthelaw.jpg