I run red robots.

[RocknRolla]

 

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 will for the final time try and explain.

 

The law is there not only to test one's ability to decide if you are a "free thinker" or a sheep.

It is there primarily to protect the citizens of the country.

If you disobey the law of stopping at a red traffic light, you are endangering yourself as well as other road users.

Pedestrians have right of way, only when the little green man on the light is flickering, or at a stopstreet and a zebra crossing. When the little red man flashes, you better hurry up as the light for the cars waiting is going to change. And when the little red man appears, you are not allowed to cross the road.

 

There is also a reason why the little green and red men, are not positioned on bicycles. Because those signals are meant for pedestrians. By all means, disembark your bicycle and walk it over the intersection when the little green man is showing.

 

On a cycle path, like those found in cape town, you are welcome to cross the intersection when the little green bicycle light is on. Otherwise. Stop.

 

Your link of research posted is not relevant to this argument, as this is south africa, where the government canoot even help themselves from breaking the law, let alone enforce the most simplest ones.

 

I was not wishing death of grevous bodily harm to you, merely stating what will happen if you keep doing what you are doing.

 

Like I said, elke ou is die argitek van sy eie ***.

 

I hope you get good marks for your little social assignment you did here.

Edited March 16, 2014 by RocknRolla

[DJR]

Is the merry-go-round debate on again?

Eish!

 

It's like Groundhog Day! You just have to hang around long enough and it comes around again. It's better than going shopping with the wife or helping the kids with homework .

[BarHugger]

 

 

It's like Groundhog Day! You just have to hang around long enough and it comes around again. It's better than going shopping with the wife or helping the kids with homework .

 

......paralysis by analysis.......especially with a myopic magnifying glass.

 

(....and who of us switch off our cellphones or don't use it when we enter the forecourt of a fuel station.....although there is a sign that clearly states it......otherwise we go KABOOOM!)

Edited March 16, 2014 by BarHugger

[gummibear]

I would argue, in fact, that red light jumping by cyclists promotes both safety AND the convenience of other road users.

 

 

 

There is already so much conflict between cyclists and motorists and now you want to condone breaking the law.

Edited March 16, 2014 by gummibear

[anicca]

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.

[Pappa Bear]

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.

 

One day you will proof to everybody that you WERE DEAD right......

Edited March 16, 2014 by Pappa Bear

[Sarnicoview]

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/...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.

I have 2 boys, 13 and 14, who ride to school. I HAVE to stop at robots. My husband, daughter and I all ride Road and MTB, and would dearly love to cross those roads against the robot. But the example for my hearty boys is a NO GO.

[Butterbean]

Let's replace the words "jumping the lights" with "committing murder".

 

What happens?

 

Anicca, stop stirring. Have you ever reread your posts? You sound like a child arguing with a parent as to why your bedtime shouldn't apply to you.

 

The law is the law. You should not decide when it's applicable and when it's not, because that is not how road laws work.

 

You out other cyclists lives in danger when you break the law, as it does infuriate motorists and certainly paints us with a terrible brush.

 

Anyway, I suppose anything anyone says won't change your mind, because clearly you haven't grasped the concept of being a decent human being. Why is the world so effed up at the moment? BECAUSE NO ONE GIVES A **** BOUT ANYONE ELSE!

 

If you skip a red and I see it happen, I will call you on it. And I don't care about the zap sign pulled and the F word used, as long as I can go home knowing I didn't remain silent when you broke the law.

 

Happy Riding. And good luck with the rule bending. I'm sure anyone who breaks the law and affects you will have done the same thing.

[Shebeen]

I liked the bit where annica said driving a car was unethical.

 

Up there with comparing red lights with apartheid. Amandla!

[avatar]

Why stop at stupid red traffic lights? Road rules are mere guidelines for motorists...

[gongmech]

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/...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.

 

Having said that, would you agree that it's ok for taxis to stop where they want even on red lines or on corners? If you think about it, they're merely being polite by not making people walk a few metres to an area wide enough to stop.

 

Motorists should be more considerate of pedestrians and allow this and just wait behind them dont you think??

 

Popcorn anyone??

[andydude]

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'.

[Guest Latent Blue]

Can't find the double face palm emoticon!!! Admin please help!

you will need a lot more facepalms for this idiotic thread!

[goya-goya]

I reckon the idiot should continue riding through red robots... And hey... Why stop there if he's a real man he should ride without a helmet too! Come to think of it he should ride with smooth tyres... And wearing dark clothes at night...

 

GO LANCE GO!!! <with Clappy hands >

 

[Harryn]

I reckon the idiot should continue riding through red robots... And hey... Why stop there if he's a real man he should ride without a helmet too! Come to think of it he should ride with smooth tyres... And wearing dark clothes at night...

 

GO LANCE GO!!! <with Clappy hands >

 

Why the need to get personal? Deal with and argue the merits of the subject matter of a post as vociferously as you wish. But play the ball, not the man or woman. I find the more emotive a poster gets, the less value his contribution adds to the topic. Your effort here is a classic case of an intellectually deficient, piss poor attempt at taking a side swipe at the person of the OP, instead of engaging the content of her posts, which is what she has invited you to do.

['Dale]