Red means stop, dickhead
cfsmtb
The subject of red-light running came up again during a lunch meeting
today. I know it's been discussed time and time again and we're all
bored shtless with the topic .. but after lunch, with this topic still
on my mind, I witnessed a cyclist almost get cleaned up.
Actually that's a poor choice of words, if he got whacked by the
vehicle barrelling through on the opposing amber light, instead of
merely having the living shit scared outta him (and nearby observers)
the ambos could of been scrapping/hosing him off the road/nearby
surfaces.
Now in Melbourne, and probably several other places around the nation,
amber unfortunately translates "accelerate like fk to warp drive and
miss the red". I think that behaviour is crap and the revelant road
authorities should pick up on that point in regards to drivers
education. But that's another story.
Back to bustin' reds. Consider this - if amber means **floor it** to a
driver - then WTF jump a red light?
cfs 'mildly shat off with gumby cyclists' mtb </end rant>
--
cfsmtb
ACP
Fantastic! I totally agree and will continue to catch up to dickhead red
light runners on my commute to give them a spray...
As I watch another cyclist run a red light (or scoot past a tram that
has stopped to offload/pick up passengers) I think.. 'Gee doesn't that
give car drivers a wonderful impresssion of us?"
For some reason it seems like the more irregular (irregular looking)
commuters just pedal on through...
Love that quote "Red means stop, dickhead!" Perfectly put.
--
ACP
hemyd
news:ACP.2...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.
Henry.
BrettS
So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
crossings then?
--
BrettS
Zebee Johnstone
hemyd <myd!!!h...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red light,
>>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.
I don't do that to improve impressions, I don't think someone who
thinks "cyclists break the law" will change their minds because of one
person. Stereotypes don't work like that.
I do it because it's the right thing to do, it's part of this social
contract thing.
not that I'm majorly consistent. I'll ride through ped lights for
example.
I stop at red lights because of expectations. The expectation of
someone at a green light or one about to turn green is that the bods
who have the red will stay put. I don't think it is sensible to ruin
that expectation.
When the coast seems clear I stay put anyway. That way I don't have
to think, or place a bet.
Zebee
Resound
"BrettS" <brett_...@NOVIAGRATHANKS.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:44d087bc$0$22364$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Personally, I don't ride on footpaths either.
cfsmtb
BrettS Wrote:
>
> So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
> crossings then?
>
Actually there's been chatter about that law (in Vic) to be changed.
Although, when crossing on a busy x-ing, ie: with lots of peds, it's
probably just as fast to dismount and walk across. Looks good for PR
too, and given the way some peds walk, it's probably safer!
--
cfsmtb
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> I stop at red lights because of expectations. The expectation of
> someone at a green light or one about to turn green is that the bods
> who have the red will stay put. I don't think it is sensible to ruin
> that expectation.
>
> When the coast seems clear I stay put anyway. That way I don't have
> to think, or place a bet.
>
> Zebee
I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
The problem is this. In line with all other things that seem to be
dangerous (read "able to be actioned and blamed upon someone in a court
of law") in the f&*ked up s$%tholes we call our outdoor living areas
(covered in bitumen and concrete and white lines for cars to drive
around, and a little bit of green if we're lucky), we are trying to
legislate, dilute and regulate all the danger away. Lights and signs
with (legalese) riders and disclaimers saying "Do this now, don't do
this now. You may get hurt. You have no common sense, therefore we have
to tell you this, which you will obey on pain of penalty points and
monetary exactions. You are unable, like an autistic child, to plan
your physical movements to avoid harm to yourself and others".
When a two ton chunk of metal is involved, no. We cannot. When it is us
and 15kg of bike, then, unless we are warping our way to the other side
of the galaxy, who we gonna hurt? A frail old lady? A baby in a pusher?
Us? Are we taking responsibility for our own actions?
Go to Hanoi and watch how the traffic behaves there. Many more people.
Many more journeys. Four wheels stop at the very small number of
waist-high traffic lights. Two wheels don't. Works almost perfectly.
So, traffic lights. Good to stop cars killing people. Flexible friends
for cyclists and peds. Although if the latest brainstorm by assorted
fascist pollies gets off the ground, it could become a crime to
'jaywalk', to use their coined Americanese, i.e. to impede the lawful
movement of automobiles wherever and whenever they want to go.
Traffic lights were invented to reduce car accident insurance claims in
the 1920s. As was the TAC. I don't think either would be needed in a
bike/foot/tram/train-only city. I hold them and their necessity in
almost contempt, and would start a campaign to disable large numbers of
them if they didn't perform the vital function of stopping cars hitting
people. (is that seditious? is ASIO watching?) Kev Carmody, famous
Aboriginal musician, once said he stands at ped crossings for 5 and 10
minutes at a time, pushing the button, messing with people's heads. I'm
doing the opposite. I'm ignoring something that doesn't have anything
to do with my safety, as I see it, after careful observation and
exposure to that particular traffic situation. Of course I don't ignore
3 lanes of oncoming traffic, but I won't be told I can't use a
perfectly good road to ride to where I'm going at bicycle speed, in a
bicycle manner, using road sense refined for riding a bicycle.
Is this long enough? Sometimes I'm just full of myself. :)
MH
Aeek
<sacre...@everyzig.bigpond.com> wrote:
>"BrettS" <brett_...@NOVIAGRATHANKS.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:44d087bc$0$22364$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> So I'm assuming that you get off and walk across at the pedestrian
>> crossings then?
>
>Personally, I don't ride on footpaths either.
That's how I avoid the question too.
In Canberra, I'd say 99.99% don't dismount. Most slow down.
The police don't care encouraging further disrespect for the law.
Andre
Bleve
mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> > I stop at red lights because of expectations. The expectation of
> > someone at a green light or one about to turn green is that the bods
> > who have the red will stay put. I don't think it is sensible to ruin
> > that expectation.
> >
> > When the coast seems clear I stay put anyway. That way I don't have
> > to think, or place a bet.
> >
> > Zebee
>
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
Dickhead.
dave
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 2 Aug 2006 20:25:01 +1000
> hemyd <myd!!!h...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>I agree. On my commute up and down St Kilda Road I stop at every red light,
>>>including red pedestrian lights, often when the peds have already crossed
>>>against their red some time before. It doesn't really delay me. I observe
>>>every law so as to improve drivers' impression of cyclists.
>
>
> I don't do that to improve impressions, I don't think someone who
> thinks "cyclists break the law" will change their minds because of one
> person. Stereotypes don't work like that.
Damm. Its why I stop. I,ll run a red light. But only if noone sees
me. If anyone can see me I don;t. I do it to stay alive (of course)
and for the instances where no danger exists I do it purely to give the
best possible impression of cyclists.
I suppose on the other hand the odd instance where I have dragged
someone out of the car thru the window merely cos they came within cm of
killing me rather negates that impression.. but overall I think I give
more positive vibes than negative. And now you tell me I am wrong?
Alas
Dave
blah
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
Dickhead.
dave
THe southbank 10 kph limit, its probably reasonable and the last time I
followed Kathy though there I was astonished that she was actually
faster than me, I would have thought my skills higher and my level of
caution too.. (not big noting myself, its just what I would have
thought) but I wasnt brave enough or didnt trust the peds enough to
even stay with her. But I do think that 15 kph would be better. It
turns out I jog between 12 and 14. Anyway thats my thought
Dave
Shane Stanley
"mf...@yahoo.co.uk" <mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience.
I call that a pathetic attempt at self-justification.
> Call me a dickhead.
Dickhead.
--
Shane Stanley
Zebee Johnstone
please remove my name from that next time....
Resound
"Aeek" <aeee...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:vg41d21lvh7ha7n64...@4ax.com...
Actually, I'd say that if the crossing joins two sections of a shared path
then riding across with due care is perfectly reasonable as it's then a
pedestrian AND bike crossing. This is however a logical interpretation, not
a legal one.
Oh, and yes I stop at red lights. Yes, all of them.
Resound
<mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154519776.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
>
Firstly, there are enough cyclists out there who clearly need traffic lights
to avoid being cleaned up that not running reds as a law should make sense
right there. The point of laws is that you don't ignore them based of your
personal evaluation of when it's reasonable to do so. If it was otherwise
then the people who most badly need those laws are the ones who'd never
observe them. I'm rather tempted to suggest that that's the case with
bicycles running red lights at the moment. The notion that it's your risk
and not anyone else's just doesn't wash. How about the person on another
bike or motorbike who goes down hitting or avoiding you? How about the
person who winds up injured and/or traumatised and/or well out of pocket
when you bounce off their front guard and into their wind screen? How about
the cost to the community in both dollars and physical resources with
regards to the emergency services who scrape you off the road and cart you
off to hospital? And finally, as has been mentioned in this group a huge
number of times, how about the dozen people who watch you blow through that
red light each time and mentally reinforce their pre-conceived notion that
cyclists are dangerous idiots. Don't even think about saying that they won't
apply it to all cyclists because not all cyclists are the same. When you're
not part of a minority, there's a tendency to treat that minority as a
homogenous group. Non-cyclists aren't interested in making the mental effort
to give us the benefit of the doubt, especially when being mentally lazy
lets them see another data point to reinforce their fondly held prejudices.
Oh, and before I forget:
Dickhead.
blah
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
sorry...
sinus
And what do those idiots gain from running reds - probably spend a
little bit longer waiting at next major intersection or maybe get to
work a few minutes faster. Hardly a good enough return for the risk and
impact on others.
--
sinus
jur
mf...@yahoo.co.uk Wrote:
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
I sincerely hope you do NOT get cleaned up.
I sincerely hope you DO get caught and separated from your wallet.
--
jur
EuanB
Resound Wrote:
> And finally, as has been mentioned in this group a huge
> number of times, how about the dozen people who watch you blow through
> that
> red light each time and mentally reinforce their pre-conceived notion
> that
> cyclists are dangerous idiots. Don't even think about saying that they
> won't
> apply it to all cyclists because not all cyclists are the same. When
> you're
> not part of a minority, there's a tendency to treat that minority as a
> homogenous group. Non-cyclists aren't interested in making the mental
> effort
> to give us the benefit of the doubt, especially when being mentally
> lazy
> lets them see another data point to reinforce their fondly held
> prejudices.
the line at the red light. Another cyclist comes along and blows the
red quite blatently. Driver in car next to me winds down window and
hurls abuse at me.
``It might of escaped your attention mate, but I'm stoped wating for
the green same as you.'' Pfffft.
Anyway, 60 secons later I'm overtaking said cyclist.
``I just copped a bucket full of abuse back there because you ran a red
light. Thanks a lot mate.''
Stomp stomp on pedals and off to Goat :-)
--
EuanB
Marx SS
It used to be a " if a tree falls in the forest" thing for me, but
nowadays it looks like I would be keeping pretty daggy company if I
entertain running these things, so I'm as good boy now.
It's just that the new vouge thing with these red light runners is that
they're cutting way too fine in just about every case I've watched.
Maybe the thinking here is that: " If I pedal hard enough the oncoming
car will see how committed I am & brake/swerve to avoid me " . Sort of
doesn't make sence regardless how you would want to phrase it though.
I think it's important to now express your opinion to these riders when
the opportunity presents itself.
--
Marx SS
Duncan
mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
Dickhead.
What happens to the hapless person who runs you down 'cos you went
through a red? It's not something they're likely to forget.
And you seem to forget about the cars that see you and figure, "oh
well, no point me obeying the law when I see a cyclist."
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Some of us are safer on 2 wheels than two feet, particularly with
cleats on!
I'll ride in such situations, but walking pace with one foot clipped
out.
--
TimC
"And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal
Zebee Johnstone
TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Some of us are safer on 2 wheels than two feet, particularly with
> cleats on!
>
> I'll ride in such situations, but walking pace with one foot clipped
> out.
I tend to ride, but sometimes it's better to duckwalk the bent till I
can get back up to speed.
Trouble is that duckwalking's slower than normal walking!
Zebee
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> news:1154519776.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
>> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
>> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
>>
>
> Firstly, there are enough cyclists out there who clearly need traffic lights
> to avoid being cleaned up that not running reds as a law should make sense
> right there. The point of laws is that you don't ignore them based of your
> personal evaluation of when it's reasonable to do so. If it was otherwise
> then the people who most badly need those laws are the ones who'd never
> observe them. I'm rather tempted to suggest that that's the case with
> bicycles running red lights at the moment. The notion that it's your risk
> and not anyone else's just doesn't wash. How about the person on another
> bike or motorbike who goes down hitting or avoiding you?
Whilst I agree partially with mfhor ("in an ideal world, there
wouldn't be cars, and hence we wouldn't need traffic lights with
rediculously long cycles ala Camberwell Junction, High St Rd/Warrigal
Rd, etc), this one's a biggy.
Even if you know you are not placing someone else in risk, they don't
know that. Taking evasive action is a risky process. Forcing someone
to take evasive action, because they don't know you are going to stop
in time is stupid.
The other day, I damn well came close to headbutting the ground again.
New salmon koolstop pads, and a taxi driver who decided to do a U-turn
in front of me. OK, so they had seen me, and intended to stop in time
before completing the U-turn in front of me. I didn't know that, and
decided it would be wise to take evasive action -- jam on my brakes to
the point where I am used to them stopping me in time. Instead the
back wheel lifted up quite a distance. Even if they knew that they
weren't going to hit me, from my point of view, it wasn't even
apparent I had been seen, so the only thing I could do to gaurantee I
wasn't going to go headfirst into the side of a taxi, was to perform
an evasive maneuvour that almost became my downfall.
--
TimC
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.
cfsmtb
Resound Wrote:
> The notion that it's your risk
> and not anyone else's just doesn't wash. How about the person on
> another
> bike or motorbike who goes down hitting or avoiding you? How about the
> person who winds up injured and/or traumatised and/or well out of
> when you bounce off their front guard and into their wind screen? How
> about
> the cost to the community in both dollars and physical resources with
> regards to the emergency services who scrape you off the road and cart
> you
> off to hospital?
That's another damn fine rebuttal to that pile of self-moralising. Have
talk to anyone who works in emergency services. Going to extremes here,
but one thing you *never* want to see or experience, is maximum blunt
trauma to a human body. Can't walk it off, difficult to stitch back
together and truly awful to deal with even in a professional capacity.
Life is full of risk, but don't consciously make yourself a Darwin
Award nominee.
Dickhead.
--
cfsmtb
Tamyka Bell
Damn straight. Dickhead.
You might only be risking your own life, but if you end up in hospital,
our money is paying for your treatment! (Well, not mine, at the moment,
ahhh tax free reserve money...)
Tam
Tamyka Bell
When I see people doing that sh1t I think, "Unnecessary risks only make
up for a lack of fitness until you get cleaned up. Get fit you lazy
fscker, instead of running reds."
T
Tamyka Bell
<snip>
> The other day, I damn well came close to headbutting the ground again.
> New salmon koolstop pads, and a taxi driver who decided to do a U-turn
> in front of me. OK, so they had seen me, and intended to stop in time
> before completing the U-turn in front of me. I didn't know that, and
> decided it would be wise to take evasive action -- jam on my brakes to
> the point where I am used to them stopping me in time. Instead the
> back wheel lifted up quite a distance. Even if they knew that they
> weren't going to hit me, from my point of view, it wasn't even
> apparent I had been seen, so the only thing I could do to gaurantee I
> wasn't going to go headfirst into the side of a taxi, was to perform
> an evasive maneuvour that almost became my downfall.
I almost got nailed by that car trick today, fortunately the driver's
window was down and he heard me screaming at him as I braked.
T
Zebee Johnstone
Tamyka Bell <t.b...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> When I see people doing that sh1t I think, "Unnecessary risks only make
> up for a lack of fitness until you get cleaned up. Get fit you lazy
> fscker, instead of running reds."
I think people do it more for "I want to get where I'm going" than "I
will save time". Same mindset that makes car drivers tailgate, chop
lanes without indicating and so on. It's more about the immediate
than the long term, more about "I want to keep going" than "I want to
be there sooner".
When I've done it it has been because the road's clear. I try not to
do it because I don't think it is right to do so, but sometimes I've
thought "dammit, there's no real *reason* I'm sitting here". The road
is clear and I can see it is, or else the cars are jammed across the
intersection and no one's moving.
Of course there's no reason for anyone to treat a red light as more
than a give way sign, relying on their own judgement as to whether it
is safe to move. No reason except that lights are often placed at
intersections where such judgement has failed too often.
I wonder how manay cyclists who run lights complain about pedestrians
using their own judgement about when to cross and getting it wrong.
Zebee
dave
threat. Do that and you will save bruises on a pushy and your life on a
motorcycle
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?
Nothin'.
You're locked into the status quo.
You won't think differently about traffic - how it's organised, who the
present organisation benefits, why cyclists are victimised, why we as
cyclists get a gravel and glass strewn half a metre all to ourselves
whilst trucks, cars and those incredibly annoying scooters can
imperiously put our lives at significantly more danger than theirs by
simply looking away for half a second.
SO take back the dead bits of the traffic cycle. Show EVERYONE how much
dead time and unweildiness there is in this regimentation for the
benefit of multinational companies who make big things that kill
people. I'm not talking about Kona or Shogun here. Or just submit to
all the little bits of non-cycling friendly traffic regulation that add
up, in their entirety, to unjust laws. The ones that stop people riding
bikes by making our *commonly owned* outdoors a safe place for cars
(made by *privately owned* Ford,GMH, etc., yes, incredibly
human-focused organisations) first, and people next, if at all. Are we
being screwed? Yes.
And keep self-righteously calling everyone who disagrees with you a
dickhead. It just underlines the fact, in motorists eyes, that all
cyclists are stupid. Yes, I'll keep on running all the red lights that
I think are runnable, you feel free to arrest me (if you're entitled,
and can catch me), yell at me, call me a dickhead, laugh/mourn over my
mangled body/corpse, or whatever. I'm not stupid. I ride in traffic
every day, and have done for 20 years in Melbourne. I think I'm doing
all right (touch wood) having not been hospitalised yet. I've been
close-called and minorly injured by cars ostensibly obeying all the
written road rules many times. The medium is the message. Two tons of
metal with a captive occupant is built to not care, really, about
anything except a quicker way to get from here to there, and traffic
lights are just (grudgingly admitted as necessary) impediments,
homicidally flouted when possible, to most motorists, not the
touchstones to a gloriously safe future which some posters here seem to
think they are. I've never heard of a cyclist killing a motorist whilst
colliding at an intersection. I'll use all the skills I developed
growing up in the country, where there were about 2 traffic lights
within a 100 k radius, to assess the dangers of a road situation. You
continue thinking along the little tracks that Mr Toyota and Mr Ford
built, and are happy for you to think along.
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
cfsmtb wrote:
>
> That's another damn fine rebuttal to that pile of self-moralising. Have
> talk to anyone who works in emergency services. Going to extremes here,
> but one thing you *never* want to see or experience, is maximum blunt
> trauma to a human body. Can't walk it off, difficult to stitch back
> together and truly awful to deal with even in a professional capacity.
> Life is full of risk, but don't consciously make yourself a Darwin
> Award nominee.
>
> Dickhead.
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
And how do you you know I haven't? Hasn't happened to me, but I've seen
it happen to someone else right up close AND IT WAS IN A PERFECTLY
LEGAL TRAFFIC SITUATION, right up to the moment the car swerved right
to avoid another car. Badly injured cyclist resulted.
Ok, lets take another tack, to get away from the moralising, from one
camp or another.
What if *our* outdoors, you know, the one we pay taxes to enjoy, were
designed for the utility of human-powered transportation and enjoyment,
rather than as a conduit for motorised traffic?
Think bigger, peoples. Do you think bikes would have to stop at red
lights? Do you think peds would have to? Why do we have to now, apart
from being threatened with death by chunk of metal moving at 60 kph+?
Try another culture, another society. Get out of your Anglo mental
gridlock.
Holland
Denmark
East Asia
All either admit to the reality of a people-oriented transport system,
or actively design for it. It's only countries held hostage by big
(auto) business who try their hardest to put as many people as possible
in metal containers and make them behave. If the containers have
wheels, why then, it just adds to the illusion that they're going
somewhere important.
Yes, I've been known to attend Critical Mass too, and I've got a
CarBusters "One Less Car" sticker on my downtube. I also own a car,
mainly to get to bicycling venues avec bike. I never run reds in my
car, never. I hate driving in peak hour traffic, and am appalled at the
# of people who I see chatting on their mobiles whilst driving, despite
all available evidence that this kills people.
MH
persia
cfsmtb wrote:
> The subject of red-light running came up again during a lunch meeting
> today....
<snip>
Lotsa cycling folk get cranky with those who run reds, arguing that it
makes us look bad to car folk. The issue certainly gets raised often
enough by non-cyclists I know and even cycling supporters among them
really don't like it.
But how do we get the recalcitrants to change? I'm not keen to spoil my
pleasant morning commute by challenging folks and getting into
arguments.
I wonder if peer pressure might work? This morning, watching the usual
drift through the red at Elgin St, I thought of using some sort of
sound, a honk of derision and disapproval, like a duck lure or similar.
If everyone started doing it, the message might get across. Sort of
like Italians whistling at the Opera. Less confrontational than a
telling-off, but maybe more embarrassing and effective?
What do you think?
Persia
Humbug
<snip>
>
> But how do we get the recalcitrants to change?
Probably the same way we can get motorists to stop using bloody mobile
phones while they're driving. It doesn't matter what you do there'll
always be some idiots who seem to think that the road rules are only
loose guidelines at best and that they only apply to others anyway.
Hmmmmm that wasn't very helpfull was it, I must have had a bad day or
something....
<snip>
--
Humbug
Today is Setting Orange, the 69th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3172
cfsmtb
mf...@yahoo.co.uk Wrote:
> waffle snipped
You not helping one iota to this discussion MH, (and you *really*
should do something about that very unfortunate *grinning git* image of
you in a recent mag, it's a fkng pisser!)
Must make it out to a MazzaBUG outing one day to see if you're actually
that silly, or it's really all an act. Fascinating. :p
--
cfsmtb
cfsmtb
persia Wrote:
>
> I wonder if peer pressure might work? This morning, watching the usual
> drift through the red at Elgin St, I thought of using some sort of
> sound, a honk of derision and disapproval, like a duck lure or
> similar.
> If everyone started doing it, the message might get across. Sort of
> like Italians whistling at the Opera. Less confrontational than a
> telling-off, but maybe more embarrassing and effective?
>
I like this tact. Pity a 'slow clap' (in full finger gloves) wouldn't
quite work whilst perched at the lights. How about blowing the biggest,
rudest, wettest sounding raspberry at the offender?
--
cfsmtb
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Au contraire. I think I'm actually asking, maybe provoking, people just
to have a bit of a think about what the hell end of the stick bikes get
in traffic. People who preach about the inviolability of red lights, in
my limited exp, also are absolutely sure they're right about many
things, and get all uppity and insultative when someone disagrees with
them on those, like, fr'instance, the necessity of aparthied, or the
right of Western multinationals to pillage the developing world, etc.
Well, maybe not those.
Got any stupid photos of yourself we can all have a laugh at? Put them
out in the public domain, there's a good chapette, and we'll score you
out of 10 for ludicrousness. Fair?
Yes, you might see me run a red light or two if you do come along (but
it's all talk, I suspect, the coming along bit at least) and the
opinions of the contributors to the BUG are not necessarily those of
the BUG itself, I should make crystal clear. Nor of the mag, who pays
me a little bit in order to humiliate me with a substandard photo. My
editor likes it, and paid for it. What can one do? How DO you get paid
for an opinion, I hear you ask? Well, you have to be able to divine
your audience's deepest needs. All those little repressed desires that
they wish they could act upon, but don't know how. Then you have to
irritate them just enough to get them to at least countenance a
possible alternative to their current course of action. Then sit back
and watch what happens. Amusing, but also saddening, when the status
quo keeps on prevailing . . .
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Oh dear, the self-appointed guardians of cycling rectitude are starting
to rear their heads . . .
cfsmtb
Time to go bedi-byes young Mark. Sweet dreams!
--
cfsmtb
ritcho
TimC Wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I'll ride in such situations, but walking pace with one foot clipped
> out.
>
> --
> TimC
> "And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
> sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal
Heh heh, I'll keep my feet on the pedals of my fixie, thanks!
R
--
ritcho
ritcho
mf...@yahoo.co.uk Wrote:
> [snip]
>
> SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
> tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
> motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
> thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
> heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?
>
> Nothin'.
>
> You're locked into the status quo.
>
>
> MH
The Devil's Advocate role is often unpopular, but even more unpopular
is when an argument is ignored or ridiculed. You made an argument for
running red lights based primarily on your ability to assess your own
risks, as well as a kind of subversive idea where the running of red
lights by cyclists could help bring down the capitalist/industrialist
auto system. Other people responded by saying (inter alia) that your
actions affect them, in that running reds gives cyclists a bad name and
at least one shared an anecdote where he was abused by a motorist
_directly_ because another cyclist ran a red.
The merits of trashing the car industry by running red lights on a
bicycle could be argued (and promptly rejected). The fact is that
running reds _does_ make life more difficult for other cyclists by
increasing the level of contempt that car drivers have for us. That
contempt feeds into less care and more dangerous behaviours. You should
ponder on that, as well as assess the risks to yourself and the rest of
it, when you come up to your next intersection.
R
--
ritcho
Shane Stanley
"mf...@yahoo.co.uk" <mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I ride in traffic every day, and have done for 20 years in Melbourne.
> I think I'm doing all right
So bugger everyone else, eh? Your concept of thinking differently looks
remarkably familiar.
--
Shane Stanley
asterope
> > >
> > > I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a
> dickhead.
> > > If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want
> less
> > > risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
> > >
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> You won't think differently about traffic - how it's organised, who
> the
> present organisation benefits, why cyclists are victimised, why we as
> cyclists get a gravel and glass strewn half a metre all to ourselves
> whilst trucks, cars and those incredibly annoying scooters can
> imperiously put our lives at significantly more danger than theirs by
> simply looking away for half a second.
>
> SO take back the dead bits of the traffic cycle. Show EVERYONE how
> much
> dead time and unweildiness there is in this regimentation for the
> benefit of multinational companies who make big things that kill
> people. I'm not talking about Kona or Shogun here. Or just submit to
> all the little bits of non-cycling friendly traffic regulation that
> add
> up, in their entirety, to unjust laws. The ones that stop people
> riding
> bikes by making our *commonly owned* outdoors a safe place for cars
> (made by *privately owned* Ford,GMH, etc., yes, incredibly
> human-focused organisations) first, and people next, if at all. Are we
> being screwed? Yes.
>
> And keep self-righteously calling everyone who disagrees with you a
> dickhead.
>
>
well, you did ask us to... just stating our own personal opinion.
i dont know about you, but you dont find me riding my bike on the dead
bit of the road... its common sense to take up as much of the lane as
you feel safe (and its also quite lawful to do so) which puts you out
of the glass zone. we legally have the right to use the road on our
bicycles, so we should legally stick to the reasoning that requires us
to stop at red lights... after all, if a motorist was to flaunt the law
and drive through red lights willy-nilly you would get rather shitty
too.
your "bringing down the system" from the inside isnt working... no-one
but you knows you are doing it and everyone else just thinks you are
being an inconsiderate and very rude cyclist... and yes... you make the
rest of us look bad, maybe you should think about that next time.
as for annoying scooters... im one of those annoying cyclists that uses
up the lane she is entitled to, and one of those incredibly annoying
scooterists, and cyclists who run red lights and flaunt the law still
shit me.
--
asterope
Zebee Johnstone
Carry a whistle? The more who do it, the more what it means gets
known.
Zebee
jur
--
jur
Bleve
As much as cfs and I disagree on many things, here, I have to side with
her. You're exhibiting the hallmarks of a prize dickhead. Your
comments re couriers being scum (I know some couriers and managers of
courier companies, you have no idea about what you're talking, they
work long, hard hours, it's a very stressful, but moderatly well paying
job), your "I'm so much better than everyone, I don't need to play by
the rules on the road, I'm having my own personal revolution" crap.
I'm glad you ride a bike, at least on it your claimed refusal to play
by rules that try to help make our roads safer doesn't put anyone who
is trying to do the right thing in any major danger. Just as well you
don't drive a landbarge I guess.
If you're trolling, consider this a bite.
Zebee Johnstone
Bleve <carl.I...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm glad you ride a bike, at least on it your claimed refusal to play
> by rules that try to help make our roads safer doesn't put anyone who
> is trying to do the right thing in any major danger. Just as well you
> don't drive a landbarge I guess.
Well, not in any major danger providing there is perfect judgement.
Imperfect judgement can cause say a car to swerve and hit an innocent
party, or something solid and the driver can be hurt.
Imperfect judgement *by itself* is mostly not dangerous which is why
people using phones while driving aren't splatting themselves over the
landscape every single time they do it.
Imperfect judgement combined with someone else's, or an unusual
circumstance is what causes most crashes. Certain road rules are
designed to minimise the chance of that by substituting rules for
judgement.
I have no doubt that red light runners in cars as well as on bicycles
don't crash everytime they do it, and quite possibly not ever for a
particular person. Because they've been lucky, their judgement has
proven up to it.
Not everyone's is, and not everyone can guarantee theirs is perfect
every time.
Not if they admit to being human of course. Most people who are sure
rules don't apply to them are infallible, they'll tell you so.
I think there certainly can be more effort put in to looking at
different rules for different kinds of traffic. There are some now,
but there could be more. But any such change has to work in with the
reality which is that there are a lot of large heavy items doing 60kmh+
with minimally trained and experienced pilots. Asking them to cope with
someone else's imperfect judgement at widely spaced random times without
warning they may have to is impractical.
Red lights instead of give way signs are there for many reasons, I
haven't yet seen a good argument why any cyclist no matter their age
or vision impairment or speed or level of skill should be considered
to have the required judgement just because of their form of
transport.
Zebee
Theo Bekkers
> SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
> tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
> motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
> thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
> heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?
Ahh! The "I was only playing devil's advocate" gambit. :-)
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> cfsmtb wrote:
>> The subject of red-light running came up again during a lunch meeting
>> today....
> But how do we get the recalcitrants to change? I'm not keen to spoil
> my pleasant morning commute by challenging folks and getting into
> arguments.
Replace Red Light cameras with mini-gatling guns?
Theo
Zebee Johnstone
Second only to the "I was only joking" one in the "shit, better
pretend I wasn't being a dickhead".
That one doesn't work either.
Zebee
- wondering idly if dickheads on cycles need to wear chamois padded
knicks under their helmets.
Zebee Johnstone
I'm rather in favour of page 2 of the daily paper being reserved for
publishing names and addresses under headings of offence. Plus a tally
of offences for each person. So everyone can see who is a problem on
the road. Plus, of course, legislation ensuring traffic offences are
a legitimate reason for the sack.
Would have to be pictures for cyclists I guess,maybe a website with some
sort of dobber award for matching names with pics. A random selection
make it to page 2 for the whole world to look at.
Then hire someone to caption the photos with nice sarcastic captions to
further embarass the rider.
Some riders would see it as a goal to get their pic there, but not many.
And I bet those who boast about it wouldn't be willing to wear a jersey
with their own name and their employer's name and phone number in
the pic....
Zebee
Theo Bekkers
> Red lights instead of give way signs are there for many reasons,
You need a pretty solid reason to put a set in at $100K+ as against a STOP
sign for a few hundred.
Theo
Tamyka Bell
Right, but why are you in such a fscking hurry that you need to run a
red light anyway? Ooooh, inflated self importance.
Tam
blah
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> - wondering idly if dickheads on cycles need to wear chamois padded
> knicks under their helmets.
lol!
Tamyka Bell
How did I miss that first time around? QOTD!
Tam
Resound
<mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154609704.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ok, as soon as there's no motorised transport on the roads, I'll concede
that really there's no good reason to stop at traffic signals or even to
have the things. There is the question of exactly how we'll transport bulk
goods, move heavy loads over reasonable distances ourselves or get around at
all if we're injured or otherwise incapacitated if we don't have motorised
transport. That's an issue which I rather suspect means that we're not going
to see the complete phasing out of said motorised transport. Go ahead and
bleat about peak oil all you like, this is important enough to more or less
everyone that a solution *will* be found even if it involves seriously
radical measures to generate power and run everything on electricity and/or
fuel cells. In the meantime we *do* have plenty of motorised transport
around, and on road practice should reflect that rather than some parallel
universe where that's not the case. Either way, the notion that any form of
transport that's used for transporting people isn't people oriented clearly
hasn't thought things through particularly clearly. I assume that trams,
busses and trains, all of which require some form of dedicated
infrastructure and all of which are motorised are also not "people oriented"
and are therefore a Bad ThingT.
It's interesting that you talk about the "outdoors" being paid for by "our"
taxes. I certainly pay taxes for essentially all aspects of "indoors" but I
don't seem to recall being charged in any way for simply being outside a
building. The roads are certainly paid for by taxes, is that what you meant?
Or perhaps you meant that we shouldn't actually have roads as they're only
for nasty motorised traffic (and I'm sure the Romans felt exactly the same
way). Or maybe that was just an ill thought out sentence that was really
trying to convey that "we" pay taxes and clearly by extension "they" don't.
Whoever "they" are. Still the argument that $resource should be the preserve
of "tax payers" is a time honoured one. I still want to find out how I get a
complete tax refund by being a cyclist.
In Holland and Denmark cyclists are legally subject to traffic control
measures. They observe them as well; you just get a lot more cyclists
waiting at the lights at each intersection than you do here. In a lot of
east Asia I get the impression that pretty much nobody pays much attention
to traffic signals. I'd be interested to see what their death and injury per
distance travelled rates are like.
The us versus them tribalist bullshit that suggests that cyclists or
motorists (conjugated as "bikes" or "cars" if we're talking about
"them"...it wouldn't do to suggest that they're actual people, after all.
Dysphemisms like "chunk of metal" work even better.) are either inherently
good/bad and/or more/less entitled to $resource &etc. is the mindset that
causes most if not all major brawls between groups of pretty much any sort.
It seems that a great many people actually need a bogey man of some sort, a
collective entity which they can hold up to ridicule and scorn so as to be
able to say "I'm better." or "I'm more worthy." It's not helpful, nor is it
clever. In this particular instance the groups aren't even mutually
exclusive, nor does the presence of one group significantly impede the other
group's use of the same resource. Would acknowledging that we're actually
all overlapping subsets of a group called "road users" be such a stretch? Or
would that deprive you of an excuse to suggest that you shouldn't be subject
to the same obligations as everyone else?
SteveA
designed to attract the heaping of invective and the flinging of
unpleasant squishy things.
Steve("If I represent a group of satanists in court, does that make me
the devil's advocate?")A
--
SteveA
Zebee Johnstone
Exactly.
How many red light runners treat red lights as stop signs anyway? As
in come to a stop?
Zebee
- who has been practicing the feet up stop on the motorcycle and
still hasn't worked out why it's dead easy sometimes and other
times impossible at the same sign....
Zebee Johnstone
Resound <sacre...@everyzig.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> In Holland and Denmark cyclists are legally subject to traffic control
> measures. They observe them as well; you just get a lot more cyclists
> waiting at the lights at each intersection than you do here. In a lot of
> east Asia I get the impression that pretty much nobody pays much attention
> to traffic signals. I'd be interested to see what their death and injury per
> distance travelled rates are like.
Don't have to hand, but I seem to recall that the death and injury
rates in Asia for powered and unpowered two wheelers are quite high,
much more so than in Holland. How much of that is skewed by lack of
protective gear isn't clear and I haven't see a crash rate stat.
Watching videos of the traffic in dense Asian cities it is a bit like
Italy - it's not that they crash, it's that they don't crash more often!
Darwin in action I suspect, if your judgement is poor then you don't
make it past the first week.
To some extent it is swings and roundabouts. If the traffic is chaos
then you have to learn to cope with chaos, and that includes car drivers.
They are expecting two wheelers to do stupid things, there are enough
that they know to look for it. Doesn't stop them hitting them though.
The key to having your movements predicted is to be predictable. In Italy
I'm told that there are rules, just not the ones we are used to and so
as long as people stick to those their actions are predictable and it's
relatively safe. If you don't know those rules the place is
terrifying.
I have wondered that if all traffic was doing no more than 20kmh,
including bicycles, that you'd not need much in the way of rules.
Until I read more about mid 19thC London traffic which was utterly
chaotic and quite dangerous. As it was peds and horse drawn on
cobblestones none of it was doing more than 20kmh, but the lack of
rules and the high volume meant gridlock and serious problems.
I think a single cyclist or a couple can run reds OK, ride on
footpaths OK. But 100 is a different ballgame. How much of the
"freedom" that seems to be a good idea to enshrine in legislation
is because of low volume?
Zebee
Resound
"Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrned5bcf...@gmail.com...
Nah just the chamois, not the knicks. They'd need Assos for long ride
though.
DaveB
>
> Zebee
> - who has been practicing the feet up stop on the motorcycle and
> still hasn't worked out why it's dead easy sometimes and other
> times impossible at the same sign....
>
Hmmm, I often wonder why I appear to be better at track standing the
FJ1200 than my MTB or road bike. Not that I can last more than a couple
of seconds on any of them.
daveB
ritcho
SteveA Wrote:
> One aspect of playing devil's advocate is that by its very nature it is
> designed to attract the heaping of invective and the flinging of
> unpleasant squishy things.
>
> Steve("If I represent a group of satanists in court, does that make me
> the devil's advocate?")A
Perhaps a devils' advocate instead? :)
R
--
ritcho
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Bleve wrote:
> As much as cfs and I disagree on many things, here, I have to side with
> her. You're exhibiting the hallmarks of a prize dickhead. Your
> comments re couriers being scum (I know some couriers and managers of
> courier companies, you have no idea about what you're talking, they
> work long, hard hours, it's a very stressful, but moderatly well paying
> job), your "I'm so much better than everyone, I don't need to play by
> the rules on the road, I'm having my own personal revolution" crap.
>
> I'm glad you ride a bike, at least on it your claimed refusal to play
> by rules that try to help make our roads safer doesn't put anyone who
> is trying to do the right thing in any major danger. Just as well you
> don't drive a landbarge I guess.
>
> If you're trolling, consider this a bite.
Did I say couriers were scum? No, I think you just did. You
(semi-consciously?) selectively read both my posts and jumped to the
conclusions your prejudices said you should jump to.
You exhibit "all the hallmarks" (what a cliched way to put someone
down) of a bigot by so doing.
Furthermore, you can't discern the difference between a troll and
someone trying to irritate the complacent,
thunk-it-once-don't-need-to-thunk-it-again cohort into justifying their
positions beyond a "It's whut yer ment ter do" level. You've never
ridden with me, you don't know how I ride or how I conduct myself away
from this rather artificial little scenario of "look at me being an
irreproachable member of the cycling community" lawn order (as Alan
Watts used to say) upholder gabfest.
BTW, I DO drive a, what did you call it?, landbarge. I've driven race
support for road races, so know how to drive round cyclists. I don't
drive dangerously, as I see it, I don't like getting fines, or putting
people in danger. But I DO object, and this has been my point all along
if only you'd see it, to using blanket road rules to apply to cyclists
AS THOUGH they were motorists. And yes, I do selectively run red lights
on my bike.
Got it? Through calling people dickheads just coz they asked you to?
Get you some rhetoric lessons, man.
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
jur wrote:
> I like the title of the thread. Just shout it.
>
>
> --
> jur
Where do you get off calling people dickheads? Done anything at all you
might consider someone else would call you a dickhead for doing lately?
Using offensive language in public, perhaps (itself subject to legal
sanction)? I think anger is just repressed and projected fear. Calling
someone what you are afraid of being yourself.
Shall I just assume the ensuing apoplectic outburst from an emotionally
overinvested exponent of an irrefutable worldview? Or should I just go
say hi to the folks on the CarBusters discussion forum? Hmm . . .
Rhetorically yours,
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Replace Red Light cameras with mini-gatling guns?
>
> Theo
Are you some kind of totalitarian fascist person? Ooops, I almost said
Nazi.
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> I'm rather in favour of page 2 of the daily paper being reserved for
> publishing names and addresses under headings of offence. Plus a tally
> of offences for each person. So everyone can see who is a problem on
> the road. Plus, of course, legislation ensuring traffic offences are
> a legitimate reason for the sack.
>
> Would have to be pictures for cyclists I guess,maybe a website with some
> sort of dobber award for matching names with pics. A random selection
> make it to page 2 for the whole world to look at.
>
> Then hire someone to caption the photos with nice sarcastic captions to
> further embarass the rider.
>
> Some riders would see it as a goal to get their pic there, but not many.
> And I bet those who boast about it wouldn't be willing to wear a jersey
> with their own name and their employer's name and phone number in
> the pic....
>
> Zebee
And we wade deeper on our knee-jerk reactionary journey into the
fascist mire . . . oops, I almost said Nazi again . . . all this
knee-jerking seems to be splattering mire on ourselves, doesn't it,
folks?
Donga
ACP wrote:
> As I watch another cyclist run a red light (or scoot past a tram that
> has stopped to offload/pick up passengers) I think.. 'Gee doesn't that
> give car drivers a wonderful impresssion of us?"
I find myself using the word "wanker", not "dickhead", for cyclists who
run red lights. I mean, why can't they wait a little bit? Wankers. I
can't explain my preference - neither word is well-defined! But I won't
argue with "dickhead".
However, I reject the argument that these wankers are responsible for
the impressions some motorists form of cyclists from watching
red-light-runners, and any behaviour stemming from their impression.
The person responsible for the impression is the bigot who forms it. Am
I, when I drive, responsible for all the fuckwits running red lights in
cars? No. For the fuckwits speeding and switching lanes? No. Don't
legitimise the bigot's argument - point out its fallacy. The wanker
running the red light is risking his own life. The driver who drives
carelessly, using as an excuse that some cyclists disregard the road
rules, risks other people's lives and is a weak bastard who would find
any weak excuse.
Donga
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Glad you spotted it. Well done, Mr. Gatling Gun.
To answer in an omnibus, to several "you don't know shit" type replies:
How many red lights do you think I run a day? How many pile ups have I
caused by my supposedly 'reckless and irresponsible' actions? More than
you? Fewer than you? Don't know?
Has the expression of whatever argument I have formulated (HOWEVER much
I truly believe, am truthful about, really follow in my everyday life)
dented your ability to ride your bikes safely wherever you choose to
ride them, in whatever manner you deem fit?
Has it ever occured to any of you that I perhaps am not the Earth
First!, smash capitalism, la lucha continua sort of person that you
took me to be? No, I think conclusions were jumped to once prejudices
got dented, fairly rapidly, I would say.
I think the cause of cyclists safety on roads is lessened by people who
don't listen when the blinkers are torn off in a discussion like this.
I've not heard a single justification as to why red lights are
appropriate traffic signals for cyclists that I can hang my hat on,
yet. Are there any?
persia
>>[reams of adolescent sh*t]
You're clearly a self-righteous troll.
What I was getting at with the duck lure approach to tools like this
was to try to come up with an approach that could indicate the
non-confrontational disapproval of serious / pro / respectable cyclists
to amateur wanker gumby cyclists like this guy.
Obviously this guy's head is inserted so far up that nothing could
embarrass him: hopefully he gets repeatedly fined until he has to sell
his bike to pay the fines and gets out of our hair.
Other red-light runners, however, might be intelligent enough to be
embarrassed and cut the cr*p.
Donga, I hear what you're saying about car drivers not being able to
use this as an excuse. Nonetheless, it does weaken our legitimacy with
non-cyclists. I reckon we are aiming to make cycling "normal" and
unremarkable. Selfish turkeys like this guy are fighting for the other
side.
Persia
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
ritcho wrote:
> mf...@yahoo.co.uk Wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > SO now I've got all the prejudiced, insurance-premium-up-stumping ,
> > tax-paying, cringers in the corner of the transport system that the
> > motoring lobby allows us out in the open, what have you gained by
> > thinking differently for the microsecond you allowed yourselves before
> > heaping invective on the devil's advocate I was playing?
> >
> >
> > You're locked into the status quo.
> >
> >
> > MH
>
> The Devil's Advocate role is often unpopular, but even more unpopular
> is when an argument is ignored or ridiculed. You made an argument for
> running red lights based primarily on your ability to assess your own
> risks, as well as a kind of subversive idea where the running of red
> lights by cyclists could help bring down the capitalist/industrialist
> auto system. Other people responded by saying (inter alia) that your
> actions affect them, in that running reds gives cyclists a bad name and
> at least one shared an anecdote where he was abused by a motorist
> _directly_ because another cyclist ran a red.
>
> The merits of trashing the car industry by running red lights on a
> bicycle could be argued (and promptly rejected). The fact is that
> running reds _does_ make life more difficult for other cyclists by
> increasing the level of contempt that car drivers have for us. That
> contempt feeds into less care and more dangerous behaviours. You should
> ponder on that, as well as assess the risks to yourself and the rest of
> it, when you come up to your next intersection.
>
> R
>
>
> --
> ritcho
Perhaps you should consider that riding a bike is enough for many car
drivers to have contempt for us. I think the behaviour of this stupid
minority is all of a piece, and I've been abused and threatened
physically (and even assaulted about half a dozen times) for simply
taking up road space, whilst riding safely and sedately, and this was
back in my law-abiding days . . .
I don't profess to even have the remotest gnat's wing against a
buffalo's chance of affecting the motor industry, by whatever way I
ride. I just acknowledge that it designed the road system that we are
grudgingly let use (under constant threat of death or dismemberment)
AND THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE THIS WAY, if anyone saw or cared about the
sick product that is our physical environment being almost irreparably
leeched away by the stupid and excessive demands of the *privately
owned* motor industry. I don't have any benefit from it, don't own any
shares in it, but it tells the government, my government (supposedly)
what and where to build - roads, car parks, tunnels, 40% of Melbourne's
surface area, 40%, how far houses are apart, how our towns and suburbs
are designed, how we live our lives, the quality of the air we breathe,
tells the people how to think (cars are sexy, cool, fun, chic, can't be
without one, how far can I live from work, shops, friends), and when I
choose to travel how I think I should, tells me that my mode of travel
has to conform to a system not designed for it, is hostile to it, is
dangerous to it, and that's the way it's got to be. Well, stuff it.
I'll try to get away with any resultant behaviour I think is justified,
if I can. I don't want to die, or hurt others. But I'm f&%ked if I'll
sit through meaningless traffic cycles that a little grey box blindly
tells me are necessary, that I can see, for 100m each way, are
pointless. If you want to unquestioningly conform to each and every
detail of a system designed to regulate dangerous machines (and there's
more and more of it), then welcome to law'n order, neo-con style. Like
it? There's more where that came from . . .
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
persia wrote:
> >>mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>[reams of adolescent sh*t]
>
> You're clearly a self-righteous troll.
Do you think so? When you start using argument instead of cheap
invective, then you'll be worth exchanging opinions with. Oh well, what
the heck . .
>
> What I was getting at with the duck lure approach to tools like this
> was to try to come up with an approach that could indicate the
> non-confrontational disapproval of serious / pro / respectable cyclists
> to amateur wanker gumby cyclists like this guy.
Hmm, sounds like a bit of a "jump into the puddle before you know how
deep it is" trick to me. We're all amateur (Stuey? Robbie? Cadel?). I
love cycling. Have done for yonks, even when I was racing. I detest
prejudice. I don't needlessly confront people who have a considered and
disinterestedly held opinion. I tend to respect it. I don't ask you to
run red lights, do I? I ask you to consider why I do so on my bike
sometimes.
>
> Obviously this guy's head is inserted so far up that nothing could
> embarrass him: hopefully he gets repeatedly fined until he has to sell
> his bike to pay the fines and gets out of our hair.
>
> Other red-light runners, however, might be intelligent enough to be
> embarrassed and cut the cr*p.
Pot of self-righteousness calling kettle, come in kettle . . .
>
> Donga, I hear what you're saying about car drivers not being able to
> use this as an excuse. Nonetheless, it does weaken our legitimacy with
> non-cyclists. I reckon we are aiming to make cycling "normal" and
> unremarkable. Selfish turkeys like this guy are fighting for the other
> side.
>
> Persia
>
I like to be normal. I'd like it to be normal that we can just ride our
bikes wherever we want to go, in an unbroken and unhindered stream, not
worrying about whether cars ran us down. I'm going to pretend that this
happens, and do so, if I'm not hurting anyone. I'm not going to conform
to the little tracks that motorist propaganda has built in your brain,
that traffic engineers have the right to dictate your free movement on
a highway when it isn't anything to do with your own, or your impact on
another's good.
BTW, stop swearing. I don't think it embellishes your argumentative
style. Are you from the Tigris or Euphrates delta? Do you get to ride
bikes there much?
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
SteveA wrote:
> One aspect of playing devil's advocate is that by its very nature it is
> designed to attract the heaping of invective and the flinging of
> unpleasant squishy things.
>
> Steve("If I represent a group of satanists in court, does that make me
> the devil's advocate?")A
>
S#%t shield up and locked, rhetorical
defence-of-unpopular-or-apparently-untenable-opinion cannon primed and
loaded . . .
"C'mon, you call that a reasoned opinion? Haha!!!, I've heard better in
primary school playgrounds . . ."
:)
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Tamyka Bell wrote:
>
> Right, but why are you in such a fscking hurry that you need to run a
> red light anyway? Ooooh, inflated self importance.
>
> Tam
Often I'm not. I do it because I can, when I do. I was also the bad
courier ( a fair while ago, when they were just being introduced) who
obscured his number on his bag when being even badder. I'm probably one
of the causes of giving us/them a bad name. But I enjoy the perverted
kudos.
MH
mf...@yahoo.co.uk
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> I think a single cyclist or a couple can run reds OK, ride on
> footpaths OK. But 100 is a different ballgame. How much of the
> "freedom" that seems to be a good idea to enshrine in legislation
> is because of low volume?
>
> Zebee
Ever been to a Critical Mass?
The dominant paradigm gets subverted for a few travelling minutes every
fourth Friday, and people like Neil Mitchell get all uppity and vent
horribly and poison people's minds in ways only skilled demagogues can.
If If people like him're your enemy, are you doing anything wrong?
MH
persia
How does this adolescent tripe square with your Gear Guru gig in
Bicycle Victoria's Ride On magazine, Mark Horner? Don't think they are
exactly advocates of red light running. Pressure of being a
conservative writer for them getting too much, so you feel a need to
take on a.b. single-handedly to blow off steam?
Persia - victim of "motorist propaganda" [unbelievable: I thought even
the Chinese had given up that sort of rhetoric by now]
dave
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 4 Aug 2006 13:03:37 +1000
> Resound <sacre...@everyzig.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> In Holland and Denmark cyclists are legally subject to traffic control
>>measures. They observe them as well; you just get a lot more cyclists
>>waiting at the lights at each intersection than you do here. In a lot of
>>east Asia I get the impression that pretty much nobody pays much attention
>>to traffic signals. I'd be interested to see what their death and injury per
>>distance travelled rates are like.
>
>
> Don't have to hand, but I seem to recall that the death and injury
> rates in Asia for powered and unpowered two wheelers are quite high,
> much more so than in Holland. How much of that is skewed by lack of
> protective gear isn't clear and I haven't see a crash rate stat.
>
> Watching videos of the traffic in dense Asian cities it is a bit like
> Italy - it's not that they crash, it's that they don't crash more often!
>
> Darwin in action I suspect, if your judgement is poor then you don't
> make it past the first week.
Its the skills thing. If you HAVE to be skilled most people manage. If
you make it easy again most people will just be good enough to manage.
TO eventually they do the lippy and eat and talk on the phone in
traffic.. cos its so safe and boring. Try that in bankok.
I understand that most of the motorcycle accidents in Bali are visiting
australians.
Having said that.. stuffing up in such an enviroment even once is not
likely to be just a near miss.
Dave
dave
I was pondering the ease of doing 30 second track stands on the Kat only
today :)
Its a mystery
Dave
cfsmtb
persia Wrote:
> See, you are just a troll.
>
> How does this adolescent tripe square with your Gear Guru gig in
> Bicycle Victoria's Ride On magazine, Mark Horner? Don't think they are
> exactly advocates of red light running. Pressure of being a
> conservative writer for them getting too much, so you feel a need to
> take on a.b. single-handedly to blow off steam?
>
> Persia - victim of "motorist propaganda" [unbelievable: I thought even
> the Chinese had given up that sort of rhetoric by now]
>
>
Yeah, give him a friendly tap on the shoulder when next visiting the
office, reckon he'd crap himself! Seriously this twept has got no idea
or social knowledge of who's involved with what in this town. :D
--
cfsmtb
cfsmtb
Yeah, attended about 70+ rides in Melboring since '97. Been a tad slack
of late.
But I do recall a conversation post-CM 10th birthday ride (Nov '05)
about the concept of a mass that didn't cork intersections (ie: block
intersections to let the entire ride through), and wait for it, stopped
at red lights. Shock! Horror! PR frenzy! Actually this idea came from a
longtime masser who's been going since '95. Maybe if you rejoined the
CM-Melb list you could browbeat, opps, meant to type *discuss* it with
the seditious hippy basket weavers?
--
cfsmtb
bru...@eudoramail.com
mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Are you some kind of totalitarian fascist person? Ooops, I almost said
> Nazi.
If you are trying to kill the thread, that won't do it. You actually
have to
say the word.
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
<mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154693153.3...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
SNIP BLEVE'S BIT...
> Did I say couriers were scum? No, I think you just did. You
> (semi-consciously?) selectively read both my posts and jumped to the
> conclusions your prejudices said you should jump to.
>
> You exhibit "all the hallmarks" (what a cliched way to put someone
> down) of a bigot by so doing.
>
> Furthermore, you can't discern the difference between a troll and
> someone trying to irritate the complacent,
> thunk-it-once-don't-need-to-thunk-it-again cohort into justifying their
> positions beyond a "It's whut yer ment ter do" level. You've never
> ridden with me, you don't know how I ride or how I conduct myself away
> from this rather artificial little scenario of "look at me being an
> irreproachable member of the cycling community" lawn order (as Alan
> Watts used to say) upholder gabfest.
>
> BTW, I DO drive a, what did you call it?, landbarge. I've driven race
> support for road races, so know how to drive round cyclists. I don't
> drive dangerously, as I see it, I don't like getting fines, or putting
> people in danger. But I DO object, and this has been my point all along
> if only you'd see it, to using blanket road rules to apply to cyclists
> AS THOUGH they were motorists. And yes, I do selectively run red lights
> on my bike.
>
> Got it? Through calling people dickheads just coz they asked you to?
>
> Get you some rhetoric lessons, man.
>
> MH
Ah - we're getting some clarity now. " And yes, I do selectively run red
lights on my bike." "Selectively" - MH, what are your judgement criteria?
In truth I doubt that many of us could claim never to run red lights (note:
"many"; clearly not "all"). For example, there's a crossroad on my regular
ride home that crosses a major highway. Controlled by lights. Waiting at the
minor road the lights cycle through filter arrows for the minor road to turn
right on to the highway then green back to the Hwy, then red for straight on
the highway and green filter arrows to turn right on to the minor road
before finally giving green to go straight across the highway. That's on the
road. The cycle path lights wait two full road light cycles before turning
green. Visibility is at least 500m in all four directions. I often ride home
latish at night. No other traffic within coo-ee. No, I don't wait for the
light cycle. I'll just ride across.
Similarly in town - at night time in Perth one is dodging tumbleweeds. It's
not exactly jumping. Often there is no other traffic visible. The lights
have simply defaulted to enable the odd vehicle to keep going along the more
major road. Nope, I don't wait. Other situations are similar - no other
traffic - off I go. I always STOP to check first though. ANY other traffic
visible and I stay put.
The difference is, I think, I don't dress my actions up in some justifying
nonsense about civil disobedience. My actions are simply personal
convenience. Maybe wrong, definitely illegal, but safe and honest.
My main objection to the argument MH puts forward is that his actions are
motivated by some higher purpose. What rot. Civil disobedience is a social
movement tactic - not at all useful or justifiable on a one-off personal
level. Civil disobedience is a movement with a clear objective - to get a
bad law changed. Personal, single demonstrations without anyone knowing why
you're taking the actions you do are just self-indulgent nonsense by a rebel
without a clue. making a point of it outside your supposed target audience
(motorists, oil companies, car companies, etc) simply smacks of
self-aggrandisement.
If you're going to break road rules, fine. But take personal responsibility.
"Sorry, yeronner, my social conscience made me do it" doesn't cut it. As a
citizen you have the right to use various techniques to get bad laws
changed. That right is balanced by a responsibility to abide by the current
laws until they are changed. Don't like it? Tough. You don't have to like
it, you do have to do it. That's what your citizenship means. If you don't
agree with the terms of your citizenship, give it up and go somewhere where
the laws match your personal views.
Nuff...
me
BrettS
> Resound wrote:
>
>><mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1154519776.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
>>>If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
>>>risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
>>>
>><snip reasoned argument>
>>
>>Oh, and before I forget:
>>
>>Dickhead.
>
> <snip>
> And keep self-righteously calling everyone who disagrees with you a
> dickhead...
>
Hey, take a look, you did tell them to...
--
BrettS
DaveB
I did see a bit of a track stand competition between two couriers in the
CBD one day. One bicycle courier and one motorcycle courier on a dirt
bike. They both managed the trackstand for the cycle of lights and rode
off. Very impressive of the motorcycle courier.
DaveB
Bleve
mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > As much as cfs and I disagree on many things, here, I have to side with
> > her. You're exhibiting the hallmarks of a prize dickhead. Your
> > comments re couriers being scum (I know some couriers and managers of
> > courier companies, you have no idea about what you're talking, they
> > work long, hard hours, it's a very stressful, but moderatly well paying
> > job), your "I'm so much better than everyone, I don't need to play by
> > the rules on the road, I'm having my own personal revolution" crap.
> >
> > I'm glad you ride a bike, at least on it your claimed refusal to play
> > by rules that try to help make our roads safer doesn't put anyone who
> > is trying to do the right thing in any major danger. Just as well you
> > don't drive a landbarge I guess.
> >
> > If you're trolling, consider this a bite.
>
> Did I say couriers were scum? No, I think you just did. You
> (semi-consciously?) selectively read both my posts and jumped to the
> conclusions your prejudices said you should jump to.
This is what you wrote :
Courier companies are utilising all the otherwise unemployable of our
society, the long-haired, smelly, unwashed, undermotivated, mentally
under-resourced worker drones that our reflexively consumptive society
deems that it needs to engage to satisfy our increasingly rapacious
product-oriented whims.
What's that mean, exactly?
>
> You exhibit "all the hallmarks" (what a cliched way to put someone
> down) of a bigot by so doing.
>
> Furthermore, you can't discern the difference between a troll and
> someone trying to irritate the complacent,
> thunk-it-once-don't-need-to-thunk-it-again cohort into justifying their
> positions beyond a "It's whut yer ment ter do" level. You've never
> ridden with me, you don't know how I ride or how I conduct myself away
> from this rather artificial little scenario of "look at me being an
> irreproachable member of the cycling community" lawn order (as Alan
> Watts used to say) upholder gabfest.
>
> BTW, I DO drive a, what did you call it?, landbarge. I've driven race
> support for road races, so know how to drive round cyclists. I don't
> drive dangerously, as I see it, I don't like getting fines, or putting
> people in danger. But I DO object, and this has been my point all along
> if only you'd see it, to using blanket road rules to apply to cyclists
> AS THOUGH they were motorists. And yes, I do selectively run red lights
> on my bike.
>
> Got it? Through calling people dickheads just coz they asked you to?
If you don't like the rules, campaign to have them changed. Not liking
rules does not give you the right to break them. Doing so is what
makes you a dickhead. You'd know from racing, that some racing rules
are dumb, some doping rules are dumb, and some traffic rules are dumb,
but the way to change them is *not* to break them because they don't
suit you at the time, and use some feeble "the rules are dumb"
justification for same, to suit your convenience. That's the same crap
that car drivers use to justify doing 80 in 40 zones.
Still, you'll do what you want to do, and the rest of us, who *do*
choose to play by the rules (and to try and change the rules by legit
methods, that we as a society have settled on as the least worst
political system) will continue to call you a dickhead, for as long as
you keep doing it.
Enjoy wearing the hat, it seems to suit you.
Donga
mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
I hope your risk assessment is up to the mark, mate. The other day I
pulled up at a red light and a cager behind me turned left, swooped
across the intersecting road and turned left again, thus avoiding the
red light and getting a minute or two ahead of me. In the process, they
broke several laws and risked the lives of anyone else who may have
been using the intersection. This person must have thought to
themselves, "I know better, so I'll go around. Stuff the law, it's for
the idiots back there at the red light". This is you, mfhor. You know
better. You think the roads and laws are designed just for cars and
therefore shouldn't apply to you. What's the message? The law is made
so that people use the roads within the limits of their design, and so
users know what to expect from other users. This includes peds and
cyclists. There's a class of people who know better, variously known on
this list as dickheads, wankers, fuckwits and bogans. Sometimes they
get caught. Sometimes they hurt other people. I'm glad you are just on
a bike and I hope, if you drive a car, you recognise the purpose of the
law and think about the risk you pose to others. As for me, I'll stop
at the light, just in case my judgement is off some day.
Donga
Zebee Johnstone
Donga <idomybestw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> mf...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> I run reds regularly. I call it civil disobedience. Call me a dickhead.
>> If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
>> risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
> a bike and I hope, if you drive a car, you recognise the purpose of the
> law and think about the risk you pose to others. As for me, I'll stop
> at the light, just in case my judgement is off some day.
See it's not even just the one who gets hit who pays a price.
The poor bastard who is doing the right thing and injures someone else
who breaks rules cos they are above such things is hurt too.
Normal human beings don't want to hurt others. They don't want to see
someone lying bleeding and crying on the road and think "I did that".
Next time they see a bike they'll be stressed. THey'll be hurting.
And they are completely innocent.
What if a driver obeying the law sees the bike disobeying and tries to
evade? They lose control of the car, or they hit someone who was also
obeying the rules but was not expecting the car to suddenly change
direction. The dickhead cyclist survives, the pedestrian dies.
So tell me mfhor, that happens. Someone is dead. What should you be
charged with, and would you plead guilty? What should the sentence
be?
All actions have consequences. Thinking only of the ones to you is
the definition of selfish.
Thinking that because a bike is relatively small that it can't do
damage (and therefore doesn't have to obey rules) is not only selfish
it is poor logic and sloppy thinking.
Better fit that chamois to the helmet mfhor.
Zebee
Resound
<mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154699985.6...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Uh huh. And are you seriously suggesting that there's no real difference
between "a few travelling minutes every fourth Friday" in a very restricted
location and all the time, everywhere? Or would that be an inconvenient
point that wouldn't support your argument?
Resound
<mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1154695258....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> I think the cause of cyclists safety on roads is lessened by people who
> don't listen when the blinkers are torn off in a discussion like this.
> I've not heard a single justification as to why red lights are
> appropriate traffic signals for cyclists that I can hang my hat on,
> yet. Are there any?
>
I've offered several, but you didn't respond. Didn't I offer a flimsy enough
strawman for you to demolish? I'll cut and paste for you so you don't have
to exert yourself too much.
Firstly, there are enough cyclists out there who clearly need traffic lights
to avoid being cleaned up that not running reds as a law should make sense
right there. The point of laws is that you don't ignore them based of your
personal evaluation of when it's reasonable to do so. If it was otherwise
then the people who most badly need those laws are the ones who'd never
observe them. I'm rather tempted to suggest that that's the case with
bicycles running red lights at the moment. The notion that it's your risk
and not anyone else's just doesn't wash. How about the person on another
bike or motorbike who goes down hitting or avoiding you? How about the
person who winds up injured and/or traumatised and/or well out of pocket
when you bounce off their front guard and into their wind screen? How about
the cost to the community in both dollars and physical resources with
regards to the emergency services who scrape you off the road and cart you
off to hospital? And finally, as has been mentioned in this group a huge
number of times, how about the dozen people who watch you blow through that
red light each time and mentally reinforce their pre-conceived notion that
cyclists are dangerous idiots. Don't even think about saying that they won't
apply it to all cyclists because not all cyclists are the same. When you're
not part of a minority, there's a tendency to treat that minority as a
homogenous group. Non-cyclists aren't interested in making the mental effort
to give us the benefit of the doubt, especially when being mentally lazy
lets them see another data point to reinforce their fondly held prejudices.
BrettS
> On 2006-08-02, mf...@yahoo.co.uk <mf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If I get cleaned up, it's my fault, pure and simple. If I want less
>>risk, I'll be more cautious, and only run a few simple ones.
>
> But what about the poor driver who hits you, through no fault of their
> own? I used to work with a lady who had once hit and killed a
> pedestrian. The victim had wandered out of the mental hospital in
> Gladesville and walked straight out into Victoria Road. Not his fault -
> he wasn't in possession of his faculties, and it wasn't the driver's
> fault either - she had no way of avoiding the situation. But it was
> still a terrible memory for her, twenty years after the accident.
This is not really a valid response to the argument. Mark is talking
about making a civilly disobedient decision based upon a reasoned
assessment of his physical situation, not randomly riding across the
road with his eyes closed.
This'll make me popular. In *principle* I agree with mfhor in that more
and more we are being restricted from making decisions for ourselves.
Pedestrian crossings are one of my biggest annoyances. By pedestrian
crossings, I'm talking about traffic light controlled intersections
where the Shared Path crosses the road. What do I do? Do I walk
across? Are you crazy? I'm more likely to slip and hurt myself walking
across on cleats than riding, so I choose to break that particular law.
Do I wait for the green man? If there's no cars coming, usually not.
Why? Because I can think for myself! And maybe it's because I live
in WA, where it is entirely possible for the green man not to be lit up
during a part of the light cycle where it would have been *if only
someone pushed the button*!
To my mind, pedestrian crossing lights should only be used *if you need
to* because you are young and cannot assess risk, walk slowly because of
age or infirmity, cannot judge speeds and distances well due to poor
eyesight or if the traffic density means you cannot get across the road
safely without intervention.
Riding (and driving) on the road *is a different issue*. I too sit at
traffic lights and think "I could just go, there's nothing coming." Why
don't I? Because I expect other people to follow the rules too.
What do I do? If I'm riding my bike on the road, I act like a car and
follow the rules, including stopping at red lights, because I expect
cars to do likewise. And because the people who want or need to use the
pedestrian crossings expect you to as well.
*flamesuit on*
--
BrettS
Zebee Johnstone
BrettS <brett_...@NOVIAGRATHANKS.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> This is not really a valid response to the argument. Mark is talking
> about making a civilly disobedient decision based upon a reasoned
> assessment of his physical situation, not randomly riding across the
> road with his eyes closed.
But it means that he has to have perfect judgement.
If people could be relied upon to have perfect judgement then there'd
be no need for traffic lights at all.
Is it that cyclists are guaranteed to have perfect judgement and no
other road users are?
All cyclists of all ages and experience levels and physical ability?
Zebee
beerwolf
snipped
> To my mind, pedestrian crossing lights should only be used *if you need
> to* because you are young and cannot assess risk, walk slowly because of
> age or infirmity, cannot judge speeds and distances well due to poor
> eyesight or if the traffic density means you cannot get across the road
> safely without intervention.
I agree with that. Walking or riding, I will only press the button if
the traffic is so heavy that I can't reasonably wait for a break. I don't
think it's fair for a ped or cyclist to create a red light just for
themselves
in light traffic. I guess that makes me a jaywalker.
For me, the same principle applies if I'm cycling on a minor road
and come to a red light. If there are other vehicles stopped, I'll
stop too. If not, I don't really want to hold up a bunch of cars
just for me. If the cross traffic is light enough, and I'm not going
make anyone stop or touch their brakes, I'll go.
Can I borrow your flame suit?
--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)
cfsmtb
persia Wrote:
>
> How does this adolescent tripe square with your Gear Guru gig in
> Bicycle Victoria's Ride On magazine, Mark Horner? Don't think they are
> exactly advocates of red light running. Pressure of being a
> conservative writer for them getting too much, so you feel a need to
> take on a.b. single-handedly to blow off steam?
>
Sauron shall be most displeased ..
--
cfsmtb
dave
Easier on the motocycle but :)
Zebee Johnstone
beerwolf <beerw...@fastmail.com.au> wrote:
> I agree with that. Walking or riding, I will only press the button if
> the traffic is so heavy that I can't reasonably wait for a break. I don't
> think it's fair for a ped or cyclist to create a red light just for
> themselves
> in light traffic. I guess that makes me a jaywalker.
>
Why doesn't this apply to cars?
If everyone had to push a button, would it be OK for car drivers to
"just nick across" if they thought it was safe?
Zebee
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 05 Aug 2006 12:33:46 +0800
> BrettS <brett_...@NOVIAGRATHANKS.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> This is not really a valid response to the argument. Mark is talking
>> about making a civilly disobedient decision based upon a reasoned
>> assessment of his physical situation, not randomly riding across the
>> road with his eyes closed.
>
> But it means that he has to have perfect judgement.
>
> If people could be relied upon to have perfect judgement then there'd
> be no need for traffic lights at all.
Well that, and traffic throughput issues. Much more efficient to send
a batch of cars through one way, a batch of cars through the other
way, than to cycle a few at a time whenever they see fit to go
through.
Also, it'd be a bitch to rock up to the non-lights simultaneously with
someone else on the other side, and neither of you can go because
you've deadlocked "you go, no you go, no you go!".
Just take the fork, you stupid dining philosopher!
> Is it that cyclists are guaranteed to have perfect judgement and no
> other road users are?
We seem to have a much more vested interest in having our crumple
zones unencroached.
--
TimC
If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have
given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst
BrettS
> Well that, and traffic throughput issues. Much more efficient to send
> a batch of cars through one way, a batch of cars through the other
> way, than to cycle a few at a time whenever they see fit to go
> through.
I don't know what the traffic light scenario is on the eastern seaboard,
but here in The West, green lights only turn red as you approach them,
so if you are waiting at a red, you almost need a car coming from the
cross direction to trigger the switch from green... (I'm not kidding...)
> Also, it'd be a bitch to rock up to the non-lights simultaneously with
> someone else on the other side, and neither of you can go because
> you've deadlocked "you go, no you go, no you go!".
It's called Give-way-to-the-right and it's worked at stop signs and
uncontrolled intersections for years.
(OMG! I just realised that I had to be aware of uncontrolled
intersections when I did my driving test. Now I doubt that such beasts
are still in the wild anymore. Am I really that old?)
>>Is it that cyclists are guaranteed to have perfect judgement and no
>>other road users are?
>
>
> We seem to have a much more vested interest in having our crumple
> zones unencroached.
Very true
--
BrettS
BrettS
Hey, making everyone push a button would be a great idea! Of course
it'll never happen, so the question loses it's relevance.
--
BrettS
beerwolf
Do you mean if car drivers had to push a button? They do, sort of.
It's called a traffic sensor. And looking out from inside a car, your
field of view is somewhat restricted to the sides, so your chances
of goofing up are that much more than on foot, or push/motor bike.
So no.
If I'm walking, and traffic density allows, I'll usually prefer to avoid
the issue altogether by crossing where there's no lights or zebra.
Or by timing my approach to a zebra by speeding up or slowing
down so any cars in sight are either gone or too far away to need
to react much. If the traffic is heavy I'll use any lights, or assertively
claim the zebra.