Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues

[yellowjack]

DoubleD said:

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

There that should clear it up for everyone.

Yes, but how do you know which is which? As far as I can see, for TBL the key issue is whether the illegal act is done by a cyclist or a motorist. I can't see how else it can be unsafe to go through a red traffic light with none else around, yet not unsafe to drive too quickly around a blind bend.

Its probably best to stick to the rules if someone isnt sure

Right then. So I think we're all agreed then. Excessive speed into a blind bend is ALWAYS potentially dangerous, because, y'know, "Blind Bend". It's kinda there in the title really.

And I think we can all agree that t'other evening I broke the law by being a "little bit naughty" in my car. You see, I ignored a red traffic light. But it's OK because it DEFINITELY WASN'T dangerous. It was a temporary light at a small set of roadworks, it was a straight road, with no side turns and no other road users visible in any direction, and I could clearly see the other end of the roadworks as it was about 80 metres away.

For clarity. Sometimes something that is technically illegal may not be dangerous. Sometimes something is potentially dangerous despite it being technically legal. IE: Just because you don't break the speed limit doing it, tearing around a roundabout with the tail hanging out at 60 mph is almost certainly going to result in being summonsed to answer dangerous driving charges if witnessed by a police officer.

There are some pretty bizarre attitudes to law breaking which seem to regard the actual offence, and it's impact on other users as largely irrelevant, more important being the different classes of road user involved...

[FiF]

yellowjack said:

Stickyfinger said:

Mave said:

Instead of responding with another question, why don't you just answer mine? Then we can talk about the difference between danger and legalities. So again, is it dangerous to go through a red light if it's clearly sighted for miles and there's no one else around?

No, as it opens up the regulations for "interpretation" and thus destroys it. There WILL be times when it is not safe hence the regulation is correct, it is there to protect others not just to regulate you.

What? Like, errrrrrm? Speed limits then?

That no matter how unobstructed the outer two lanes of the M3 smart motorway appear to be, the fact that the gantry sign says they are shut should mean that people stay out of them? Coming up to Jct 4a (northbound) last night, we'd already been advised that the motorway was closed from 4a to 3. And the overhead gantry signs showed two closed lanes. At first everyone stayed in lane one, expecting to have to come off at 4a (my destination anyway). But after a while some drivers get bored, and decide to blast past the rest of us at well above the speed limit.

Only this might have been one of those times when the regulation was right, because it's now a "smart" motorway and lane closures are introduced not only to manage traffic into a single lane early to get them off for a diversion, but to protect the occupants of vehicles stranded in live running lanes.

Just my opinion of course, but while drivers are happy to break speed limits and ignore lane closures, they should be more than happy to brew themselves a nice big mug of shut the fk up when it comes to moaning about the flaws of other far less dangerous road users.

Not sure what your point is and whether it's that valid. For sure ignoring speed limits and lane closure signs, especially lane closure signs is not acceptable, and that should be condemned and enforced. But unless have misunderstood the thrust of your point, those drivers are not representative of all drivers and it doesn't disqualify others from criticising the actions of other types of road users.

Just in the same way that there are utter numpties out there on cycles doesn't mean that other responsible cyclists have to brew themselves a nice big mug of STFU when it comes to moaning etc etc, as those numpties are not representative either and so on.

[DoubleD]

yellowjack said:

DoubleD said:

Mave said:

DoubleD said:

Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

There that should clear it up for everyone.

Yes, but how do you know which is which? As far as I can see, for TBL the key issue is whether the illegal act is done by a cyclist or a motorist. I can't see how else it can be unsafe to go through a red traffic light with none else around, yet not unsafe to drive too quickly around a blind bend.

Its probably best to stick to the rules if someone isnt sure

Right then. So I think we're all agreed then. Excessive speed into a blind bend is ALWAYS potentially dangerous, because, y'know, "Blind Bend". It's kinda there in the title really.

And I think we can all agree that t'other evening I broke the law by being a "little bit naughty" in my car. You see, I ignored a red traffic light. But it's OK because it DEFINITELY WASN'T dangerous. It was a temporary light at a small set of roadworks, it was a straight road, with no side turns and no other road users visible in any direction, and I could clearly see the other end of the roadworks as it was about 80 metres away.

For clarity. Sometimes something that is technically illegal may not be dangerous. Sometimes something is potentially dangerous despite it being technically legal. IE: Just because you don't break the speed limit doing it, tearing around a roundabout with the tail hanging out at 60 mph is almost certainly going to result in being summonsed to answer dangerous driving charges if witnessed by a police officer.

There are some pretty bizarre attitudes to law breaking which seem to regard the actual offence, and it's impact on other users as largely irrelevant, more important being the different classes of road user involved...

I couldnt be arsed to read what you wrote. But like I said earlier

Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

[yellowjack]

FiF said:

Not sure what your point is and whether it's that valid. For sure ignoring speed limits and lane closure signs, especially lane closure signs is not acceptable, and that should be condemned and enforced. But unless have misunderstood the thrust of your point, those drivers are not representative of all drivers and it doesn't disqualify others from criticising the actions of other types of road users.

Just in the same way that there are utter numpties out there on cycles doesn't mean that other responsible cyclists have to brew themselves a nice big mug of STFU when it comes to moaning etc etc, as those numpties are not representative either and so on.

Accepted. I'm rather on about those on the extremes of this sort of argument. The types who seem to thrive on hypocrisy. Those who stomp and spout bks about how dangerous it ALWAYS is for a cyclist to turn left against a red light, yet are happy themselves to cruise down closed motorway lanes at 90 mph. Because I feel strongly that there's a close correlation.

Same with absolute idiots in the bike lobby - wanting it to be OK for them to hop on and off footways to avoid having to slow down, yet wanting drivers hung drawn and quartered for close passes.

FWIW I'm on the receiving end of some terrible examples of driving both in my car and on my bike. But it worries me far less in my car because even a small bump can be fatal for a cyclist whereas in my car the same low speed impact might be an just an inconvenience.

We're (I'm?) getting away from the topic here, but examples...

1) I'm cycling along the A30 and arrive at a roundabout. I slow on approach and allow traffic on the roundabout to pass before entering it myself. At 14 mph I'm hit by the van entering from my left. A van which had stopped and appeared to be waiting. Sadly the driver was waiting to see which way the car behind me was going to turn, as "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". Result? me doing a 'superman' at 14 mph off the front of the van and the road being closed completely for 40 or more minutes while the air ambulance crew treated me face down on a roundabout. Followed by 5 months of hell dealing with lawyers and physiotherapists.

2) I'm driving along a long straight road about to pass a side turning on my left. Ahead, in the opposite lane, a van driver waiting to turn right into the side turn flashes his lights to let a 17 year old girl out to turn right ahead of him. She drives out without a glance in my direction, stuffing her Corsa into the passenger doors of my Mondeo, and damaging them, along with the 'B' pillar and the rear panel and bumper. Injuries? None. Lots of back-and-forth between my insurer and hers, some debate as to fault (until my photographs of the scene came to light), and a planned day out straight after the incident ruined.

Both incidents similar in so far as they involve a vehicle failing to give way as instructed by road signs and painted lines. completely different in their impact though. Three years later I still get pain in my shoulder from the bike collision. I can't even see the repair on my car. So you see why it's possible that I sound like I'm on the extreme side of the cycling group? It's because the same incident typically has a greater effect on a cyclist as the innocent 'victim' of a collision than it would have on a driver in the same situation.

[yellowjack]

DoubleD said:

I couldnt be arsed to read what you wrote. But like I said earlier

Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

Seriously? You actively click on, and submit opinion to a forum, but cannot "be arsed" to read the opinions of others?

That is one fked up place in which to find yourself. You sound like a bloody evangelical vegan, or one of those "safe space" left wing snowflake student types. "There are two kinds of opinion. My opinion, and invalid opinons".

[Stickyfinger]

yellowjack said:

stuff...lots:

You should have gone out tonight mate, it may of cheered you up....

[DoubleD]

yellowjack said:

DoubleD said:

I couldnt be arsed to read what you wrote. But like I said earlier

Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

Seriously? You actively click on, and submit opinion to a forum, but cannot "be arsed" to read the opinions of others?

That is one fked up place in which to find yourself. You sound like a bloody evangelical vegan, or one of those "safe space" left wing snowflake student types. "There are two kinds of opinion. My opinion, and invalid opinons".

I couldnt be arsed to read what you wrote. But like I said earlier

Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

[FiF]

yellowjack said:

FiF said:

Not sure what your point is and whether it's that valid. For sure ignoring speed limits and lane closure signs, especially lane closure signs is not acceptable, and that should be condemned and enforced. But unless have misunderstood the thrust of your point, those drivers are not representative of all drivers and it doesn't disqualify others from criticising the actions of other types of road users.

Just in the same way that there are utter numpties out there on cycles doesn't mean that other responsible cyclists have to brew themselves a nice big mug of STFU when it comes to moaning etc etc, as those numpties are not representative either and so on.

Accepted. I'm rather on about those on the extremes of this sort of argument. The types who seem to thrive on hypocrisy. Those who stomp and spout bks about how dangerous it ALWAYS is for a cyclist to turn left against a red light, yet are happy themselves to cruise down closed motorway lanes at 90 mph. Because I feel strongly that there's a close correlation.

Same with absolute idiots in the bike lobby - wanting it to be OK for them to hop on and off footways to avoid having to slow down, yet wanting drivers hung drawn and quartered for close passes.

FWIW I'm on the receiving end of some terrible examples of driving both in my car and on my bike. But it worries me far less in my car because even a small bump can be fatal for a cyclist whereas in my car the same low speed impact might be an just an inconvenience.

We're (I'm?) getting away from the topic here, but examples...

1) I'm cycling along the A30 and arrive at a roundabout. I slow on approach and allow traffic on the roundabout to pass before entering it myself. At 14 mph I'm hit by the van entering from my left. A van which had stopped and appeared to be waiting. Sadly the driver was waiting to see which way the car behind me was going to turn, as "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". Result? me doing a 'superman' at 14 mph off the front of the van and the road being closed completely for 40 or more minutes while the air ambulance crew treated me face down on a roundabout. Followed by 5 months of hell dealing with lawyers and physiotherapists.

2) I'm driving along a long straight road about to pass a side turning on my left. Ahead, in the opposite lane, a van driver waiting to turn right into the side turn flashes his lights to let a 17 year old girl out to turn right ahead of him. She drives out without a glance in my direction, stuffing her Corsa into the passenger doors of my Mondeo, and damaging them, along with the 'B' pillar and the rear panel and bumper. Injuries? None. Lots of back-and-forth between my insurer and hers, some debate as to fault (until my photographs of the scene came to light), and a planned day out straight after the incident ruined.

Both incidents similar in so far as they involve a vehicle failing to give way as instructed by road signs and painted lines. completely different in their impact though. Three years later I still get pain in my shoulder from the bike collision. I can't even see the repair on my car. So you see why it's possible that I sound like I'm on the extreme side of the cycling group? It's because the same incident typically has a greater effect on a cyclist as the innocent 'victim' of a collision than it would have on a driver in the same situation.

Fair enough but one final thing that yanks my chain on threads like this is not just those on the extremes of the discussion, but those who profess the line that there are idiots on both sides of problem, with the implication that they are completely objective, but when getting down to nitty gritty you can see them 99+% of the time come down on one side only which includes some really ridiculous points to support their favoured side together with a fair bit of ignoring the failings of some, wind in a dose of "but what about-isms" and It's no wonder it goes on for heated page after heated page.

[yellowjack]

Stickyfinger said:

yellowjack said:

stuff...lots:

You should have gone out tonight mate, it may of cheered you up....

May HAVE??? cheered me up? (...you, too, vill go on ze list )

I got a text from a friend today just as I was finishing lunch. She's practicing for a 12-hour race on a local MTBing area near me. I was out with her for over 4 hours, helping her to get over some of her nemeses. We got some progress made, with her tackling some small and medium size gully drops, and she climbed a couple of loosely surfaced hills she'd not completed before. Oh, and her husband is giving me an old set of wheels so that I can get my winter road bike back into service again. The icing on the cake? The race organisers have been out already, cutting vegetation and generally grooming the trails with leaf blowers etc. And the cherry on the top? The trails are running as sweetly as I've seen them in a long time,so I picked up a Strava (virtual) trophy. Which, as absolutely everyone knows, is absolutely vital to the enjoyment of any bike ride, ever...



...I am currently what might be described as "massively cheerful", despite the best efforts of some within this thread to alter that. I fully intend to remain that way by going for a road bike ride tomorrow around the beautiful Hants/Berks/Surrey countryside.

[Stickyfinger]

yellowjack said:

more stuff

[twoblacklines]

Mave said:

Instead of responding with another question, why don't you just answer mine? Then we can talk about the difference between danger and legalities. So again, is it dangerous to go through a red light if it's clearly sighted for miles and there's no one else around?

You didn't post a question at the time of my post. Last time I checked a question ends with....a question mark not an exclamation mark...?

[twoblacklines]

heebeegeetee said:

The notion of cyclists being able to pass red lights is already debated and allowed in some circumstances https://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enGB69...

I wonder how often the notion of doing '200 mph on the M53' has entered these debates?

Where is it allowed in the UK? The first article you just linked me to states

thegaurdian said:

Last month, Johnson explained that the idea of allowing cyclists to run red lights had been considered but “it was recognised that there are many legal and practical barriers, as well as justifiable concerns about the impact on road safety for all users. While TfL and the Department for Transport have not ruled out testing this concept in the future,they currently remain committed to the proven concept of using appropriate traffic signals to control the movement of different road users.”

[twoblacklines]

Mave said:

Yes, but how do you know which is which? As far as I can see, for TBL the key issue is whether the illegal act is done by a cyclist or a motorist. I can't see how else it can be unsafe to go through a red traffic light with none else around, yet not unsafe to drive too quickly around a blind bend.

So the key issue for you is...it's safe for a cyclist to break the law but it is not safe for a motorist to break the law?

I notice you changed my motorist example from driving in the middle of an empty motorway to driving too quickly around blind bends. Does this mean I can change the cyclist example to cycling on pedestrian only pavements? It is only fair right?



Thanks for proving your lack of logic twice.

[Mave]

twoblacklines said:

Mave said:

Instead of responding with another question, why don't you just answer mine? Then we can talk about the difference between danger and legalities. So again, is it dangerous to go through a red light if it's clearly sighted for miles and there's no one else around?

You didn't post a question at the time of my post. Last time I checked a question ends with....a question mark not an exclamation mark...?

You obviously knew it was a question because in your response you said "in answer to your question"!

So you knew it was a question then, you know it's a question now, please can you answer it. Is it dangerous to go through a red light if it's clearly sighted for miles and there's no-one around?

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

You obviously knew it was a question because in your response you said "in answer to your question"!

So you knew it was a question then, you know it's a question now, please can you answer it. Is it dangerous to go through a red light if it's clearly sighted for miles and there's no-one around?

No it is not....because I do not trust you to make that choice for me.

[Mave]

twoblacklines said:

Mave said:

Yes, but how do you know which is which? As far as I can see, for TBL the key issue is whether the illegal act is done by a cyclist or a motorist. I can't see how else it can be unsafe to go through a red traffic light with none else around, yet not unsafe to drive too quickly around a blind bend.

So the key issue for you is...it's safe for a cyclist to break the law but it is not safe for a motorist to break the law?

How do you come to that conclusion from what I wrote?

I don't see any danger in anyone going through a red light if there's no-one around, irrespective of mode of transport (except trains).

I see a large amount of danger in travelling at a speed where your visibility is less than your braking distance, irrespective of mode of transport (except trains)


No, the key issue for me is it's safe for a road user to break the law if it's safe, and it's unsafe for them to break the law if it's unsafe.

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

Mave said:

You obviously knew it was a question because in your response you said "in answer to your question"!

So you knew it was a question then, you know it's a question now, please can you answer it. Is it dangerous to go through a red light if it's clearly sighted for miles and there's no-one around?

No it is not....because I do not trust you to make that choice for me.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Are you saying it's not dangerous but it shouldn't be done anyway; or are you saying it is dangerous?

[Mave]

twoblacklines said:

So the key issue for you is...it's safe for a cyclist to break the law but it is not safe for a motorist to break the law?

I notice you changed my motorist example from driving in the middle of an empty motorway to driving too quickly around blind bends. Does this mean I can change the cyclist example to cycling on pedestrian only pavements? It is only fair right?



Thanks for proving your lack of logic twice.

I didn't "change" your example, because I wasn't responding directly to your question.
The reason I chose the example of driving too quickly round bends is because
1) it's a scenario that I think most people would agree is unsafe, and
2) it's a scenario you've expressed an opinion on. I didn't think it appropriate to imply an opinion on driving at 200mph that you haven't expressed.

If you want to ask my opinion about cyclists using pedestrian only pavements then go ahead.

Edited by Mave on Sunday 20th August 08:50

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Are you saying it's not dangerous but it shouldn't be done anyway; or are you saying it is dangerous?

It may or may not be "dangerous", I do not trust YOU to make that choice as that can effect me and my safety as a car driver or a pedestrian. Apply the regulations to yourself for others.

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

It may or may not be "dangerous", I do not trust YOU to make that choice as that can effect me and my safety as a car driver or a pedestrian. Apply the regulations to yourself for others.

Fair enough. I agree with the latter part (apply the regulations), but on the info given I disagree that it may be dangerous.