Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues

[Stickyfinger]

pedantic cyclist loop argument........but that is typical for type

[deltashad]

If its ok for one person to break the rules when they see fit, then this will encourage others to follow. Unfortunately not everyone has the same level of road skills or intelligence which can ultimately end up with someone needing scraped off the road.

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

pedantic cyclist loop argument........but that is typical for type

What are you on about? I can't see the danger in going through a red light if you can clearly see a mile down the road. What's pedantic about that?

[Mave]

deltashad said:

If its ok for one person to break the rules when they see fit, then this will encourage others to follow. Unfortunately not everyone has the same level of road skills or intelligence which can ultimately end up with someone needing scraped off the road.

I agree.

[DoubleD]

Mave said:

What are you on about? I can't see the danger in going through a red light if you can clearly see a mile down the road. What's pedantic about that?

If you can see a mile down a very quiet road then surely there is no need for traffic lights in the first place?

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

If you can see a mile down a very quiet road then surely there is no need for traffic lights in the first place?

Indeed. I'm sure we've all seen traffic lights used to manage traffic over quiet. narrow stretches, where it would be more appropriate to allow road users to manage it for themselves.

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

Indeed. I'm sure we've all seen traffic lights used to manage traffic over quiet. narrow stretches, where it would be more appropriate to allow road users to manage it for themselves.

So now YOU are deciding when the law applies to both you and choosing when/where traffic lights are applicable ?.......terrific

[FiF]

Mave said:

deltashad said:

If its ok for one person to break the rules when they see fit, then this will encourage others to follow. Unfortunately not everyone has the same level of road skills or intelligence which can ultimately end up with someone needing scraped off the road.

I agree.

Further to this point, seeing as we're talking about ignoring red lights and exceeding a speed limit, let's not forget that there is a subset of drivers, drivers note, very highly trained drivers just to Labour the point, who have legal exemptions, when absolutely necessary for the purpose of their journey, to exceed the speed limits and treat red traffic lights as a give way, namely fully trained and approved drivers of certain emergency vehicles. If these drivers, specifically trained to make a judgement whether it's safe to rely on these exemptions are found to have done so when it isn't safe, then the full force of the law is brought to bear. Furthermore if they rely on these exemptions when it wasn't necessary considering the purpose of the journey, regardless of whether the action was safe, they will be disciplined and prosecuted.

Again just to labour the point, these are drivers highly trained including these specific issues. The attempt to make a point over an edge case where there are some lights in the middle of nowhere with extreme distances of visibility, and imply that justifies the same decision process, on behalf of people who have possibly had no training whatsoever at any point in their life, is frankly pathetic, and is just the prime example of those protagonists reverting to type.

I could make the same argument over people arguing in a similar vein regarding 140 on a clear day on a quiet motorway, but it would simply be the same points, albeit aimed at alternative targets.

[Randy Winkman]

Sorry if I'm missing the point by joining in late .......... but as a generally law abiding cyclist there is one circumstance where I will sometimes go against a red light. That's at some temporary traffic lights where it is safe for me to go through without any danger or risk of inconveniencing anyone else simply because I take up much less space than a car. So if I see someone coming the other way I just move to the side in plenty of time to let them through unimpeded. The point there is that the lights simply haven't been set up because of cyclists; they've been set up because there's not room for 2 cars to pass. Just an example of where one rule for one and another rule for another is sensible. I'm sure there are equivalent situations at some permanent traffic lights.

[saaby93]

Randy Winkman said:

Sorry if I'm missing the point by joining in late .......... but as a generally law abiding cyclist there is one circumstance where I will sometimes go against a red light. That's at some temporary traffic lights where it is safe for me to go through without any danger or risk of inconveniencing anyone else simply because I take up much less space than a car. .

Why not wait?

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

Mave said:

Indeed. I'm sure we've all seen traffic lights used to manage traffic over quiet. narrow stretches, where it would be more appropriate to allow road users to manage it for themselves.

So now YOU are deciding when the law applies to both you

NO. Learn to read!
Did you bother reading the bit where I said I don't condone cyclists infringing regulations?
Did you bother reading the bit where I agreed about applying the regulations for the safety of other road users?

Stickyfinger said:

and choosing when/where traffic lights are applicable ?.......terrific

Yes, I'm expressing an opinion on whether traffic lights are the best way to manage a situation. Just like I, or many other posters, may express other opinions on road markings, speed limits, roundabout layouts etc. What's wrong with that?

[Stickyfinger]

Mave said:

Yes, I'm expressing an opinion on whether traffic lights are the best way to manage a situation. Just like I, or many other posters, may express other opinions on road markings, speed limits, roundabout layouts etc. What's wrong with that?

Loop loop loop..........I'm out

[Mave]

Stickyfinger said:

Loop loop loop..........I'm out

Bye!

[Randy Winkman]

saaby93 said:

Randy Winkman said:

Sorry if I'm missing the point by joining in late .......... but as a generally law abiding cyclist there is one circumstance where I will sometimes go against a red light. That's at some temporary traffic lights where it is safe for me to go through without any danger or risk of inconveniencing anyone else simply because I take up much less space than a car. .

Why not wait?

Because in the cases I'm describing, it achieves precisely nothing.

Edited to add that in many cases, waiting just means you then get in the way of the cars when they want to get past the roadworks.

Edited by Randy Winkman on Sunday 20th August 16:11

[twoblacklines]

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 snowflake, I answered WinstonWolf's question, which was clearly understood by him as he quoted me.


You didn't ask a question, you made a statement, hence your exclamation mark.

Again...

[twoblacklines]

Mave said:

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.

So you see a large amount of danger in a car travelling in the middle of a 3 lane motorway at 3am with no one else on the road, but you don't see danger in cyclists skipping red lights.

In other words "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?"



This is getting very repetitive isn't it?

[Mave]

twoblacklines said:

Mave said:

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.

So you see a large amount of danger in a car travelling in the middle of a 3 lane motorway at 3am with no one else on the road, but you don't see danger in cyclists skipping red lights.

In other words "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?"

This is getting very repetitive isn't it?

It's getting very repetitive because you keep making things up about what people have said, and ignoring the details of what they have said.

[DoubleD]

I know i keep repeating this, but........Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

[Mave]

twoblacklines 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 snowflake, I answered WinstonWolf's question, which was clearly understood by him as he quoted me.


You didn't ask a question, you made a statement, hence your exclamation mark.

On Wednesday, I responded to your post with the question "do you really think that's dangerous?" it included a question mark. Go back and check. You might even spot that the post had never been edited.


Yesterday, I responded to another of your posts with the same question, again with a question mark.

Today, I've responded to another of your posts with the same question, again with s question mark.

I can't actually find an occasion when I didn't use question marks but nevertheless it was a question back then, it's a question now, why don't you just answer it? Oh, and FWIW you didn't actually answer Winston wolf's question which was exactly the same as my question!

Edited by Mave on Monday 21st August 11:30

[Mave]

DoubleD said:

I know i keep repeating this, but........Sometimes doing something illegal is safe and sometimes its not.

Had anyone disagreed with you?