I run red robots.

[jcza]

[BarHugger]

Now this is really stupid.....

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mypFV_tQSrc

[BarHugger]

.....but then again follow the LAW....

 

[BarHugger]

Priceless.....this thread as a real life drama.......cup-o-tea someone?

 

Check out the "Bruce Lee" gesture at 25seconds.........

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83XKkVYZ-I

 

PS: They are not on 29'ers........

Edited March 17, 2014 by BarHugger

[flymango]

I'm a cyclist tax payer who joined this site with a confession to make. I run red robots don't pay personal income tax. Not just at night when the ruling party's in control, not just when I'm in a hurry the opposition party's in control, but as a matter of course. Today a friend cycling fellow citizen behind me commented at how upset a carful of people community leader got when I told him that the lack of municipal service delivery was due to limited government funds, crossed halfway across Buitengracht over a red (as if I was a pedestrian) and that I wasn't to blame because there was a left arrow government's main income sources were VAT and company tax, and therefore I was not crossing infringing on anyone's legitimate path claim to state funds. 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 tax avoidance schemes - I always ride single file pay VAT, with traffic not against capital gains tax, and I don't ride on pavements the fuel levy. But red light jumping by cyclists personal income tax 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 tax payers and law-abiding cyclists and tax dodgers, why they get so upset and the most common reply is along the lines of "it's the law", "cyclists tax dodgers must respect the rules if we tax payers are to respect them", "red light jumpers tax avoiders give cyclists tax payers a bad name" and "cyclists tax dodgers are arrogant and think they're above the law".

 

But strangely, people don't argue that what the red-light-jumper tax avoider is doing is dangerous illegal. The consensus seems to be that these cyclists tax dodgers are very careful to cross only when it's safe within their rights because of high levels of corruption in government. That would make sense as most cyclists of the taxpaying population are aware of their vulnerability and are conscious that a bump from cross-traffic at that intersection would probably be fatal believe their tax Rand doesn't match their election vote. But almost never could a cyclist tax dodger cause an accident that would hurt anyone other than him or herself government to fail on its election promises.

 

SNIP SNIP

 

Whilst I don't like paying personal income tax, I'd like to hear some irrational debate, or what everyone thinks about my attitude. For once I'd really like to hear people avoid suggesting running the offending cyclist tax dodger down, opening the car door as he passes denying him toll-free roads or slamming on brakes when he's behind you cheap and reliable electricity. If I have one take-home message: it's not an offence worth murdering someone over.

[(Deon)]

I'm inviting you to show me that I am in fact wrong. So far all I've heard against is

 

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.

 

Whoa! These are some pretty serious consequences.

 

Would you be willing to take responsibility for the kid who follows your guidelines but gets it wrong? I'd like to know how you start your first sentence to his parents justifying his wrong as right.

 

You don't see the implications of justifying running a red robot? Then you should speak to my friend who is still disabled 27 years later and maybe explain to him carefully what he did wrong because in your head, all the advice his parents gave him was worth nothing.

 

Or would you be willing to accept the feeling of guilt from the driver? This man spent weeks at the hospital waiting for the kid to come out of a coma, only to discover the severe level of brain trauma that will impair the sight of his remaining eye, hearing, balance, memory... This left the man feeling a little more than "upset", do you have children?

 

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.

 

The police report will always remind him that he ran a red light, was he wrong? Debatable.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Pain or shine

[G00SE]

I hope all you "law abiding citizens" pay your e-tolls on time, and don't let your young children sit closer than 12' to each other if they are wearing swimming costumes...

 

I think the OP has a very good argument and cant believe so many peoples only reaction is to attack her personally.

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 - you can cross - first taxi running a red light and... boom, no more kid, but hey, at least they were crossing at a green light.

Life is not black and white, so I don't see how following laws that are can work.

Its all about personal freedom - If what I do does not cause harm to anyone else, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to do it...

In life, its the people who say ****this, this system doesn't work for me that change the world for the better, not the ones who say "its the law, so you must obey"

[Capricorn]

why are analogies being drawn between pedestrians and cyclists? Cyclists are more road user than a pedestrian, unless there's no pavement.

 

As I see it, rules of the road serve to protect the majority of users. Accidents happen for numerous reasons, but the vast majority of them are caused by those who flaunt the rules to serve their own selfish purposes. It's not about the fact it's the law, its about the fact that following the rule is actually for the benefit of the majority. Rules are used to ensure conformity for the benefit of everyone. Dragging up silly examples like e-tolls and swimming costumes that are essentially completely out of context do nothing but muddy the waters with rubbish. zero value adding.

 

I fully agree with PoS, in that the OPs behaviour does have ramifications beyond his / her luck at not injuring him/herself. Or not yet.

Worse however, is the luck he/she hasn't involved someone else in an accident. There is no law or rule for setting a good example. But there is such a thing as self restraint and intelligence to rein in our thoughts before they become short-sighted actions.

 

My 2c worth on the actual problem: being a red robot hero. I can't remember which country has this rule, but the rule is that should a cyclist be alone at a robot with no vehicles to actuate the robot timing system, the cyclist is to remain stationary for a period of 1 or 2 robots cycle, after which the cyclist is free to cross the intersection even if the robot is still red, provided it is safe to do so. That is reasonable and rational.

 

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 to jump the red is all about '#1'. What is a certainty however is a blatant disregard and subversion of rules, rules which attempt to provide responsible road usage for all.

Edited March 17, 2014 by Capricorn

[Paulst12]

Its the law... end of arguement... you CANNOT in any way justify breaking it... admitting to breaking the law safely goes against the rule of law and the morals of society... unfortunately in SA we are an unlawful society so we all break it on a daily basis and then justify it by claiming you were "being safe".... laws are set in place to prevent us from harming others, protection from being harmed, to prohibit self harm, to keep us morally upright as most are rooted in religion and to prevent unfair government advantage. Laws and rules not only define what is right and what is wrong but also protect and endorse the rights of individuals. So to conclude if you find it correct to take away the rights of others then i guess you can run robots and justify your actions (congratulations you are as bad as 99% of the taxi's in SA and look at the accidents they cause), however if you feel the laws apply to everyone, then applying these start one person at a time.

 

I find your answer that these are poor reasons not to jump robots a poor reflection of your understanding of the topic at hand.

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.

[flymango]

The OP reminds me of this 3 year old boy arguing with his mom. Knowing he is wrong but still trying to argue that what he did was right......

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seM2wby6QmQ

 

More intellect coming from that three year old's mouth than some of the arguments presented in this thread.

[Wyatt Earp]

Morning all.

Happy Monday.

[nonky]

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:

 

Cyclist in coma after ‘accident’

 

March 17 2014 at 08:52am

By Francesca Villette

Comment on this story

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/copy-of-ct-cyclist-1.1662176!/image/3167523022.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/3167523022.jpg

Independent Newspapers

Jevandre Pauls.

 

Cape Town -

An East London cyclist visiting Cape Town is in a medically induced coma in hospital after he and a fellow cyclist were knocked down by a car while training for the Western Province Track Championships.

Jevandre Pauls, 19 is in Netcare Kuils River Hospital after he and 23-year-old Craig Symons were knocked down in Polkadraai Road in Stellenbosch on Friday. They were training for the championship, which was held at the Bellville Velodrome at the weekend.

Pauls’s coach and manager, Barry Austin, who was asked to represent the family as they were too traumatised to speak, said Pauls had swelling of the brain and severe facial fractures.

Doctors would try to bring him out of his medically induced coma on Monday, after which they would be able to determine the full extent of his injuries, Austin said on Sunday.

“Jevandre is a junior cycling champion. We, Bonitas Pro Cycling, had sponsored him to take part in the Western Province Track Championships. We were confident he would qualify for the SA Track Championships in Durban next month,” said Austin.

He said Pauls had recovered from an accident at the Race for Victory in September, when he suffered facial and dental fractures after he fell off his bike.

 

That accident prevented him from representing South Africa at the World Road Race Championships in Italy in October, said Austin.

Symons, a member of Ride Life Giant cycling club, said he and Pauls were cycling single file in the yellow lane when they were struck from behind.

 

Pauls, who was cycling behind Symons, was first to get struck, Symons said.

“Everything happened in a matter of seconds. When I looked up to see what had happened, I saw blood everywhere,” said Symons.

He said he was flung off his bicycle and fractured his pelvis. He spent most of the weekend recovering in bed after he had been discharged from hospital after the accident, he said.

Symons said he was due to participate in the national team for the Mzansi Tour next month, but would now be off his bike for at least eight weeks. He would undergo a brain scan on Monday to check if he was fine.

He and Pauls were returning from training when the accident happened, Symons said.

He said the driver of the car did not offer to help them. Instead, another driver had stopped to assist. “She called the police and helped us off the road,” said Symons.

 

Kandice Buys, spokeswoman for Bonitas Pro Cycling, said the incident was being investigated by police.

francesca.villette@inl.co.za

Cape Times

[G00SE]

As I see it, rules of the road serve to protect the majority of users. Accidents happen for numerous reasons, but the vast majority of them are caused by those who flaunt the rules to serve their own selfish purposes. It's not about the fact it's the law, its about the fact following the rule is actually for the benefit of the majority. Rules are used to ensure conformity for the benefit of everyone. Dragging up silly examples like e-tolls and swimming costumes that are essentially completely out of context do nothing but muddy the waters with rubbish. zero value adding.

 

i agree, unfortunately bringing up silly examples is necessary in order to highlight the absurdity of posts like this:

 

Its the law... end of arguement... you CANNOT in any way justify breaking it... admitting to breaking the law safely goes against the rule of law and the morals of society...

 

And please don't get me wrong, I am in agreement with a lot of the laws in place in our country, but these are the ones I would follow regardless of whether or not they were laws, because they make sense.

 

Simple example: If I am driving in a school zone, or any residential area for that matter I wil stick to, and usually drive slower than the speed limit. But at 01h00 on a wednesday morning on the N1, when there are hardly any cars on the road, I wouldn't feel bad if a cruised along at +- 150km/h

 

Edit: 150, not 15km/h

Edited March 17, 2014 by goose1111

[madbradd]

Paulst12, you are quite adamant that you must obey the law because "laws are set in place to prevent us from harming others, protection from being harmed, to prohibit self harm"

 

In South Africa vehicles stopped at red lights are at risk of hijack and smash and grabs. The longer you are there, the greater your risk. Therefore, in the light of self preservation I do not wait at red lights longer than I need to, and when safe am more than happy to drive through a red light (read slow down to a crawl if not stop at the light, assess the situation, proceed to pull off and drive through red light if safe to do so).

 

On more than one occasion I have felt threatened whilst at a red light in my car, with someone walking directly toward my vehicle. It has been safe to go, so I did and the "pedestrian" immediately returned to the sidewalk.

 

Your argument "the law is there to protect, therefore stop at red lights" does not address a situation like this.

 

As the OP stated, the argument is not about running the red at 40kmph yelling STRAVAAAA! But is about assessing a situation when at a red light and proceeding when it is safe to do so (which may be when the light turns green, or may only be after several other vehicles have jumped the yellow and red on the other traffic light phase)

[Thor Buttox]

I have popped in and out of this site for a good few years now, and I have never seen a thread like this. I will try to be relentlessly logical so I don't resort to melodrama and histrionics.

 

The are two types of citizens:

a) law-abiding

b) law-breaking (it doesn't matter which law, let's assume red light jumping for the sake of argument)

 

The purpose of the law to is protect the rights of the abiders from the actions of the breakers. As an example, the red robot is not there to protect the red light jumper from the consequences of jumping the light, but to protect the innocent pedestrian from the actions of the law-breaker, or, god forbid, a culpable homicide charge as the innocent person proceeds through the green light over the delinquent cyclist's head.

 

Unless the law-breakers decision to break the law is as the result of imminent harm, their actions and decisions are irrational at best. Justification of an irrational action that impinges on the rights of others is irrelevant - it has no meaning, and no value.

 

I concede there are laws that make no sense. I would love to see a law that allows a left turn on red light, when it is clear (as they have a right turn in the States). I would love to see the rights of the road users, specifically cyclists, be as entrenched as they are in Europe. But we don't live in that kind of Utopia, and even then you would be hammered if you tried your jumping the lights over there, so it really isn't the kind of Utopia the OP desires anyway.

 

The long and short of this thread is that there is clearly no empathy with the rights of the other road users, and more importantly, an assumption that they are infallible to error, somehow immune to running a light and not seeing an oncoming vehicle on all occasions. (How many times have you been riding or driving along and not realised how far you have gone without realising you have missed a good few km's?)

 

Perhaps you do think you are immune? I don't know. But if you do, you are delusional. But a continued lack of empathy towards the rights and safety of others doesn't lead to the safe environment for all road users. Adding risk to an already risky situation is irresponsible at best, and downright stupid at worst.

 

The response to this might be that I am on a moral high horse, or that "Don't you ever do anything wrong?", etc, etc. The answer is no, I am not perfect, I have jumped red lights, too. But I was wrong.

[MockTurtle]

Laws and rules not only define what is right and what is wrong but also protect and endorse the rights of individuals.

 

I find this point of view extremely myopic. I guess this sort of thinking (or lack thereof) is the reason why stupid laws like apartheid were tolerated for such a long time. If legislated law is what defines your moral compass, then friend, you have bigger issues. You're probably the sort of person who would turn Anne Frank in to the Nazis. But hey that was the law, so its all legit.

 

Laws are implemented, changed and revoked all the time. ie. the rule Capricorn mentioned above sounds a good idea... so how do we get the law amended to be more inclusive of cyclists? Jumping red lights willy-nilly is just plain stupid and dangerous, and stopping at every light regardless in my view would be a final supplication and admission that a motorist's time is more important than mine...

 

In my view by simply a friendly wave, being visible, being courteous and being considerate goes way better than token obedience to road laws that are clearly designed for motor cars. Wishful thinking perhaps but just maybe then motorists will start to recognise cyclists as human beings and not just mobile road blocks.

Edited March 17, 2014 by MockTurtle