Do you stop at lights? Are there exceptions

[jasonc]

When the lights don't change, the lights can be considered "malfunctioning" and the correct thing to do is to stop, then proceed when appropriate.

There is no such road rule.

I didn't say there was a road rule covering it, I'm just applying common sense. If you come up to a set of lights and the lights DON'T trigger, you could be sitting there, literally, for hours. It's just being sensible to run them.

The law is there to deal with MOST situations, it can't deal with all of them.

+1. I do the same at that set I "struggle" with

[human909]

What gave me the rages more than copping flak for someone else's drooling stupidity was the way the bike twit just broke the law with a complete sense of entitlement, like the laws of the road (and physics) don't apply to Serious Cyclists.

As a road bike rider and lycra wearer when I'm exercising, not commuting, I stop at red lights and go on green. The only exception being the pre dawn failure of the light to change for me in which case I'll proceed very cautiously but always stopping first.
Entitled cyclists frustrate me too I ride a "road" bike on the road so I obey the "road" rules.

I'm not sure what is worse self entitlement or the self-righteousness of the accusers.

The difference is that most people ignoring red lights are not doing so on any basis of entitlement. Many just recognise that no legitimate harm is done from rolling through an empty intersection.


(The truth is that the vast majority of the time I stop at red lights. In fact I could go on a ride with you guys and we could get along happily. But I certainly do choose to take the opposing view when people start getting self righteous.)

[Xplora]

You CANNOT rely on red lights to clear the intersection properly. I'd hope you all checked as you rolled through on a GREEN.

I will consider rolling through some, and I'll definitely consider going the pink lights (ambeeeeerrrr,red). I also spent a day on morphine in hospital after T-boning a BMW and being found at fault by the police. REALLY can't recommend running reds... like any issue you want to press, make sure you can defend yourself legally, make sure you can justify it to your spouse and your parents. We all do dumb things, but being forgiven for your mistakes is a big deal, and you might struggle to get that if you are intentionally going outside the law.

Most drivers would prefer an early red start if you're stopped at the front of the lights on a main road. If your actions create objectively more convenience, then you'll be applauded. I usually will go early at Cumberland Highway through Wentworthville heading east. You aren't helping the traffic by stopping them from getting through a busy intersection.

[gorilla monsoon]

Having read some of the replies to this thread I have decided that from here on in I will pass on double white lines while driving if there is no oncoming traffic visible, I'll drive or ride against the signs in one-way streets if there is no visible traffic flow and I'll shoplift the odd packet of Tic Tacs or bottle of watter in Coles or Woolies on grocery day because, hey, those big companies won't miss a product worth a dollar or two, will they?

[human909]

Having read some of the replies to this thread I have decided that from here on in I will pass on double white lines while driving if there is no oncoming traffic visible.

If you can do so safely and without affecting others (many times you cannot because visibility is too poor) then I see no problems.

I'll drive or ride against the signs in one-way streets if there is no visible traffic flow

Again if you can do so safely and without affecting others (many times you cannot because visibility is too poor) then I see no problems. I occasionally do this too on my bike but I'll damn well stop, pull over and give way to any traffic going the legal direction.

I also used to always do this in my car in a particular street just near my house. One time I got done by the cops. After breath testing me and listening to my very sensible reason they let me off. They didn't even tell me not to do it again! (I continued doing it while I remained living there.)

I'll shoplift the odd packet of Tic Tacs or bottle of watter in Coles or Woolies on grocery day because, hey, those big companies won't miss a product worth a dollar or two, will they?

Objective harm is done. I personally cannot condone stealing it is a fundamental breach of very basic societal rules.

[Mrfenejeans]

... I'll shoplift the odd packet of Tic Tacs or bottle of watter in Coles or Woolies on grocery day because, hey, those big companies won't miss a product worth a dollar or two, will they?

Nah, they add a percentage to all products sold to cover loses caused by shop lifting, so doesn't matter.

[boss]

I really like that saying "the right for me to swing my fist ends at your nose". If the actions of another are not impacting on you (or another), who cares!

[HelmutHerr]

What gave me the rages more than copping flak for someone else's drooling stupidity was the way the bike twit just broke the law with a complete sense of entitlement, like the laws of the road (and physics) don't apply to Serious Cyclists.

I'm not sure what is worse self entitlement or the self-righteousness of the accusers.

The difference is that most people ignoring red lights are not doing so on any basis of entitlement. Many just recognise that no legitimate harm is done from rolling through an empty intersection.

That's why I made it clear that it was peak hour on a Tuesday at a busy intersection full of cars.

I'll mention the crowds of pedestrians, too, since this was outside a major hospital.

You bet I'm self-righteous about a fool tearing through red lights at full pelt under those circumstances!

[HelmutHerr]

I really like that saying "the right for me to swing my fist ends at your nose". If the actions of another are not impacting on you (or another), who cares!

That's a useful analogy in some cases, but there are more types of impact than car + cyclist, and any action which damages the perception of cyclists as legitimate road users increases the risk for all cyclists.

In short, I don't want a driver to disregard my safety because they saw you taking risks, and presumably vice versa.

In my opinion it's a personal decision, it doesn't affect anyone else

If only this was about opinions and not observable facts.

[Mod says: quote atribution fixed]

EDIT: thanks for the fix.

[humanbeing]

What gave me the rages more than copping flak for someone else's drooling stupidity was the way the bike twit just broke the law with a complete sense of entitlement, like the laws of the road (and physics) don't apply to Serious Cyclists.

As a road bike rider and lycra wearer when I'm exercising, not commuting, I stop at red lights and go on green. The only exception being the pre dawn failure of the light to change for me in which case I'll proceed very cautiously but always stopping first.
Entitled cyclists frustrate me too I ride a "road" bike on the road so I obey the "road" rules.

I'm not sure what is worse self entitlement or the self-righteousness of the accusers.

The difference is that most people ignoring red lights are not doing so on any basis of entitlement. Many just recognise that no legitimate harm is done from rolling through an empty intersection.


(The truth is that the vast majority of the time I stop at red lights. In fact I could go on a ride with you guys and we could get along happily. But I certainly do choose to take the opposing view when people start getting self righteous.)

Note to self - remember not to engage in these pointless discussions.
People will do what they want and act in the way they see fit.
Have a great ride

[HelmutHerr]

Note to self - remember not to engage in these pointless discussions.
People will do what they want and act in the way they see fit.
Have a great ride

Welcome to the internet.

[human909]

unlike the basic societal rules of being law abiding citizens. pot, meet kettle.

I would argue that red lights aren't a basic societal rule. Nor is complete law abiding. Our laws are so widespread and so complex that EVERYBODY is non law abiding. (My old example of 'taping' TV shows off the is now painfully out of date.) But that is my explanation.

As I have said I neither condone nor condemn the obeying red lights. I do take to charge who place blame on red light runners for all sorts of things that they are not responsible for.

In short, I don't want a driver to disregard my safety because they saw you taking risks, and presumably vice versa.

1. Ignoring a red light after checking for traffic is not 'taking a risk'
2. You cannot hold cyclists who ignore red lights responsible for drivers disregarding your safety!

[boss]

You cannot hold cyclists who ignore red lights responsible for drivers disregarding your safety!

Nail on the head type stuff right here.

[HelmutHerr]

1. Ignoring a red light after checking for traffic is not 'taking a risk'
2. You cannot hold cyclists who ignore red lights responsible for drivers disregarding your safety!

1. Dozens of people each year die on the roads while believing they're breaking the law without risk, but it's not black and white. Do you mean rolling through a suburban intersection in the middle of the night, or roaring through at peak hour like the guy I described (who must have super powers to be certain it was safe).

2. I think you're trying to say that I can't hold red light runners solely responsible for driver attitudes, and I don't.

People relate to individuals in relation to their perception as a group. Would you say that Muslim individuals today are treated just the same as they were before 9/11? Or that Muslims as a group are perceived as being associated with terrorism, which has occasionally led to individuals being treated poorly regardless of their personal actions?

It's exactly the same with public perception of cyclists. If I'm a non-offending individual in a group perceived as offenders, I'll sometimes be treated as an offender. That's not controversial or uncertain.

[human909]

1. Dozens of people each year die on the roads while believing they're breaking the law without risk, but it's not black and white. Do you mean rolling through a suburban intersection in the middle of the night, or roaring through at peak hour like the guy I described (who must have super powers to be certain it was safe).

Neither I nor anybody else here has advocated riding through red lights when one cannot adequately and safely check for traffic.

2. I think you're trying to say that I can't hold red light runners solely responsible for driver attitudes, and I don't.

No, I am not saying that. Placing ANY blame or responsibility whatsoever on red light runners is unjust.

People relate to individuals in relation to their perception as a group.

Which is unjust. (I'm not going to address the specific example because I have been officially & unfairly reprimanded on this forum for such examples.) I might have been offended by numerous poor behaviour by Utes. In may be somewhat justified for me to be extra caution around such drivers. However using such offence as justification for endangering others is wrong.

[InTheWoods]

I don't ignore red lights, but I can also trigger all the ones on my ride. I see lots of cyclists run reds. Cars too, but as a proportion in my area cyclists seem worse. I saw a girl almost get hit the other day, she went through a red because she thought it was safe, and didn't see an oncoming ute, she ended up stranded in the middle of a busy intersection after the ute had to brake to miss her and then went around her. The next time the ute driver comes across a cyclist, if he is of a particular personality type, will have in the back of his mind that cyclists don't obey the rules and don't care about their safety so why should he.

I try to ride within the rules, and that also means some "harmless" rules, like not using left turn only lanes to overtake queued traffic and then going straight, like a particular intersection on my commute ... not because its dangerous but its both against the rules and will be seen negatively by other road users as pushing in (and they'll be overtaking me soon after anyway so why bother). On the other hand, I have 2 T-intersections with stop signs, and I don't often bring my bike to a complete stop because I can clearly see there's no traffic, and in general nobody cares if I do it because hardly any of the cars I see there stop either. So maybe I'm a hypocrite because I will break rules if its safe and the cars are doing it too I guess I'm trying not to be conspicuously worse than them...

[bychosis]

That's a useful analogy in some cases, but there are more types of impact than car + cyclist, and any action which damages the perception of cyclists as legitimate road users increases the risk for all cyclists.

In short, I don't want a driver to disregard my safety because they saw you taking risks, and presumably vice versa.

In my opinion it's a personal decision, it doesn't affect anyone else

If only this was about opinions and not observable facts.

Anti cyclist rants usually involve two aspects. "they all run red lights" and " they don't pay rego". One of those arguments can be taken away if we abide by the red lights.

[birdbrain]

vander wrote:
Only time I go through is at 5am when my bike doesnt trigger the change in lights. Otherwise as above I wouldnt do it in a car so I dont do it on my bike, I want cars to respect riders on the road and running reds is not the way to earn it.

Same here before sun up of course. I always check for traffic and because my bike is not tripping the lights I'm not going to sit there waiting for a car to come along. I've seen riders just go through red lights like they wer'nt there and they give us all a bad name. They deserve to get a ticket IMO.

[human909]

Anti cyclist rants usually involve two aspects. "they all run red lights" and " they don't pay rego". One of those arguments can be taken away if we abide by the red lights.

And if cyclists didn't run red lights and they paid rego do you really think riding on the road would be improved?

You know what, personally I'm not a fan of lycra. Many anti cyclist rants involve reference to lycra. I think all cyclist should stop wearing lycra that way we could remove one of the arguments.

[anonymous_]

I obey sensible laws and lights.

I don't get of my bike at on the bay run near the rowing club (stupid rule)

I go through red lights when there are no cars and the lights do not trigger (stupid engineering)

I ride through red lights on cycleways when the pedestrian light with me changes green but mine remains on red (deliberate hatred of cyclists by who ever is now the RTA)

Just because it is the law doesn't make it right.

[Mrfenejeans]

You know what, personally I'm not a fan of lycra. Many anti cyclist rants involve reference to lycra. I think all cyclist should stop wearing lycra that way we could remove one of the arguments.

[gorilla monsoon]

Just because it is the law doesn't make it right.

I have a very strong feeling that statement will not work as a legal defence.

[human909]

I have a very strong feeling that statement will not work as a legal defence.

Another strawman. Nobody has claimed it would.

[bigfriendlyvegan]

Just because it is the law doesn't make it right.

I have a very strong feeling that statement will not work as a legal defence.

Homosexuality
Segregation
Inter-racial marriage
Aboriginal citizenship
Gay marriage...soon

[human909]

Bare headed cyclists? (We can only hope)