Page 2 of 3

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:32 pm
by human909
The 2nd Womble wrote:If its a law, for chemists sake just obey it.

That is an extremely poor argument. History and the present is fully of BAD laws. I doubt you obey every law applicable to cyclists. The bell is a typical one many cyclists break.

The 2nd Womble wrote:What harm is there is being the bigger man? Someone has to be, and yet half in here are waiting for the other guy to make the first move. It's puerile in the extreme.

Now you seem to be making this into a competition or a war. I'm not sure how stopping at an empty intersection makes you a bigger man. :? :?:

The 2nd Womble wrote:And yes, every day I drive AND ride I do my utmost to obey the road rules. Why? Because its one less Richardhead for everyone else to contend with. Shock horror if everyone did likewise we'd all be fine.

I'm sorry but this is simply false. Following road rules wont ensure the safety of cyclists!

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:06 pm
by g-boaf
jcjordan wrote:
il padrone wrote:
jcjordan wrote:The fact is every time a cyclists jumps a light it harms all of us.

It goes towards creating a sence of disregard towards all laws in the eyes of the majority. This then gives them the right (at least in their opinon) the right to treat us with less respect.


The fact is every time a motorist runs a light/speeds/fails to stop at stop sign it harms all of us motorists.

Why does this not work?

Rule-breaking cyclists harming me, a law-abiding cyclist is just a huge load of bollocks. You are only responsible for your own actions. If you get some flack from work colleagues or friends, deal with it. Don't feel responsible unless your actions are irresponsible.
.


It may not harm you in a physical since but it harms us as a group in terms of how we are perseved. You only need to see the comments made by so many. They all have a comment about how we are all law breakers because a minority break the law.

The reason that you doubt see it as much about motorists in general is that you don't normally generalise blame on a group in which you belong as this would lay blame on yourself. You can see something similar within subsets of the motorists community in how they see P platers and fancy cars


Bike riders will always be hated - regardless of how or what they do. Nothing will ever change that. You hold up traffic, or you overtake a car when they are stuck in traffic, point of anger for frustrated car driver. Never mind the truth of that or otherwise, think like an angry motorist.

Never mind that you didn't break a law, you are on a bike and in front of them GRRRR goes the steaming motorist. It will always be that way here. And they won't be happy until they've achieved the end goal of removing bike riders from the roads.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:17 pm
by The 2nd Womble
An intersection is never empty...

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:34 pm
by il padrone
human909 wrote:
The 2nd Womble wrote:If its a law, for chemists sake just obey it.

That is an extremely poor argument. History and the present is fully of BAD laws. I doubt you obey every law applicable to cyclists. The bell is a typical one many cyclists break.

Or stopping completely at every stop-sign (wheels stopped - foot on the ground, is what the pedantic policeman will be expecting).

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:18 pm
by Mulger bill
For those who missed it...
human909 wrote:Can we please stop this notion that if EVERY cyclist obeyed EVERY rule then suddenly everything will be rosy! How about simply holding everyone responsible for their own actions, and not holding people responsible for OTHER people's actions!

I don't dislike ALL bus drivers for the actions of the cowboys driving Skybus.
Taxis OTOH are an entirely different matter, 85% of them give the rest a bad name.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:23 pm
by Mulger bill
il padrone wrote:Or stopping completely at every stop-sign (wheels stopped - foot on the ground, is what the pedantic policeman will be expecting).

Is this a serious requirement? If so, I'm borked. I can trackstand all my bikes for the few seconds needed to determine if it's safe to proceed. If I have to wait it's easy to unclip and put a foot down then.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:26 pm
by il padrone
Amy Gillett have raised this issue on their Facepalm page and dicusssion has ensued along the lines of "these fools give us all a bad rep". It is really not a productive line to run with given their objectives.

:|

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:28 pm
by il padrone
Mulger bill wrote:
il padrone wrote:Or stopping completely at every stop-sign (wheels stopped - foot on the ground, is what the pedantic policeman will be expecting).

Is this a serious requirement? If so, I'm borked.

The nasty copper would do it. I'll bet they expect it for moto riders. A balancing cyclist would be regarded as a road user not in complete control at the stop.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:52 pm
by trailgumby
il padrone wrote:Amy Gillett have raised this issue on their Facepalm page and dicusssion has ensued along the lines of "these fools give us all a bad rep". It is really not a productive line to run with given their objectives.

:|

The majority of respondents on that thread seem to be giving AGF a well earned slap for failing to challenge the assumption that what one peron does should tar the whole group.

Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:08 pm
by warthog1
Got to admit I regularly ride through a red light on my daily commute. The bloody thing fails to register my carbon roadie. It will recognise my broken steelie, not the carbon. It is a new intersection with no visible induction loop.
I'm not sitting there until a car arrives, I ride through when its safe.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:48 pm
by Aushiker
Howzat wrote:
find_bruce wrote:The double standard is the expectation that cyclists are somehow different to other people & need to be perfect in order to be considered legitimate. There is no evidence that, as a group, cyclists are any better or worse at following the road rules than the rest of the population


It's not a double standard. It's a single standard. All road users are expecting to follow the rules - as the proliferation of red light and speed cameras catching drivers evidence.


+ 1

Andrew

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 3:27 pm
by Xplora
wilddemon wrote:^ yeah agree. I think the root of this arrogance is "I'm right and refuse to be convinced otherwise". This unwavering stance is typical of what a lot of drivers think cyclists assume.

Now to take some acid and wait for xplora :D

Image

I am fascinated that people think that they are unable to use a road and make good decisions without a sign, yet the presence of a sign completely changes that? Resting on the principle of negligence, you have certainly exercised your duty of care to your fellow citizens if you slow down long enough to check the area is safe to proceed into.

How many footpaths have static stop signs on them? Zero. Common sense dictates that you need to make up your own mind about proceeding on foot. I see value in different rules for faster vehicles, but only enough to ensure due care is taken... you aren't guaranteed to avoid an accident after stopping at a stop sign or a red light. End of the day, without witnesses and calibrated video evidence, you might still be hit by someone going through a red and have no recourse from the courts. Man and Policeman.... "but he ran the red"... "how can you prove it?"... "but he ran the red!"... "did you hear me?"

Darwin had a theory about people who are so inept that they cannot function in society safely. A signal is just that. It doesn't clear the intersection, people do. :idea:

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:30 pm
by find_bruce
Aushiker wrote:
Howzat wrote:
find_bruce wrote:The double standard is the expectation that cyclists are somehow different to other people & need to be perfect in order to be considered legitimate. There is no evidence that, as a group, cyclists are any better or worse at following the road rules than the rest of the population


It's not a double standard. It's a single standard. All road users are expecting to follow the rules - as the proliferation of red light and speed cameras catching drivers evidence.


+ 1

Andrew

I have no difficulty with people wanting cyclists obey the road rules - as you say no double standard there

The double standard is the idea that cyclists should not get safer infrastructure because some cyclists do not - the impossible standard of perfection is not applied to any other road user.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:01 pm
by Mulger bill
find_bruce wrote:I have no difficulty with people wanting cyclists obey the road rules - as you say no double standard there

The double standard is the idea that cyclists should not get safer infrastructure because some cyclists do not - the impossible standard of perfection is not applied to any other road user.

+Lots and thanks Bruce for saving me crafting a long winded discourse on the appalling dichotomy of attitudes. :)

Shaun

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:53 am
by zero
jcjordan wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:
human909 wrote: Riding through an red light empty intersection at 4am when the sensor isn't working while nobody is looking isn't arrogant.


IMO riding through an empty intersection because the sensor is not working is OK. However riding through an empty (or not empty) intersection where the sensor still works is Not Ok. These are two completely different things.

+1

The fact is every time a cyclists jumps a light it harms all of us.

It goes towards creating a sence of disregard towards all laws in the eyes of the majority. This then gives them the right (at least in their opinon) the right to treat us with less respect.


It doesn't harm all of us. The whole phenomenon of requiring traffic lights is something that is foist on cycling by motorists in the first place. As is the majority of the other 300+ road rules, and virtually all of the serious crime road laws. ie most of the rubbish I do every day whilst riding has nothing to do with riding a bicycle safely, it has everything to do with the unsafe transport conditions created by motoring, the pitiful state of state managed driver training, and the general community impression that driving is a right (when it is in fact a significant privilege).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIpXoUOz3ts

IMO the design of most traffic light systems in Australia appears deliberately intended to be harmful to the entire concept of non motor transport of any form, and as they stand, do not deserve a great deal of respect. The only way one can get them to offer similar wait times as afforded to motorists is to disobey them.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:15 am
by Xplora
^^^ Sums it up, zero. It is absolutely ridiculous for anyone to harp on about road rules and road conditions when the deck is stacked so heavily against someone who doesn't drive, and when the courts don't provide justice when a car user decides that they just can't be bothered respecting humanity. :idea:

The sad reality is that the light sequence in that video is such that an inexperienced rider would be taking their life in their hands by ignoring it... to make that safe according to most pedestrian friendly policies, you'd need another traffic island in the middle of (Pittwater Road?) to shorten the distance to make crossing on red a reasonable proposition.

Just remember people, most intersections don't have lights. People are expected to survive the road without a green or red signal... and cars don't hurt less when traffic is light or heavy.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:24 am
by biker jk
RMS = Reliably Motorists' Sychophant

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:28 pm
by wellington_street
I was riding down William Street this morning, claiming the lane as it's a 40km/h speed zone with a heap of bluge and squeeze points (mainly empty parking bays at 7am). There were two other cyclists in my vicinity - one guy who obeyed the road rules but liked to hang in the gutter, and teh other was a lady on a road bike who seemed rather confused between red and green. I wonder what the driver behind me thought of everything? Wonder if he was wishing I wasn't a law abiding cyclist who rides like a car and stops for red lights etc, or whether he was just think "get out of my way"? At least if he had half a brain it would demonstrate that you cannot tar all cyclists with the same brush, as there was a clear demonstration of 3 behaviours.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:40 pm
by queequeg
well, as is typical on my early morning commute, a motorist went right through a red light while I had the green bike lantern to cross the road. They were doing 60km/h and had ample time to stop, but chose to accelerate through.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:35 am
by polishbiker
Had a discussion with a friend yesterday, think a while ago someone from a local paper in Sydney or something mounted a camera on her helmet to see how drivers and cyclists behave on the road and thether they obey the traffic signs.

Apparently out of 100 cyclsits only 2 stopped at the red light, when she asked some of them as to why they dont stop they said its so they dont need to unclip their shoes etc. How stupid i thought.

Why do cyclists think they dont need to obey the lights is...silly people in my books.

Today i was at the lights (red) and some other cyclists slowly cycled past me so i shouted to him "its red mate", he turned around and hopefully acknowledged.

Maybe majority of cyclists are simply colour blind...

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:43 pm
by Xplora
polishbiker, have a read of some of the comments... it's crucial you remember that lights are there to stop CARS from colliding with each other at busy intersections. They don't install lights to regulate pedestrians and cyclists. Car drivers are incapable of negotiating an intersection safely and reliably without being forced to consider stopping. Stopping at reds is typically good practice because you can't rely on car drivers to do what they are supposed to do - green means proceed with caution... brakes fail, people don't see the lights occasionally etc

Once you take an objective look at the rules, and a subjective approach to the tyranny of the car, you appreciate the irrelevence of worrying about cyclist behaviour at lights. :idea:

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:09 pm
by il padrone
Xplora wrote:polishbiker, have a read of some of the comments... it's crucial you remember that lights are there to stop CARS from colliding with each other at busy intersections. They don't install lights to regulate pedestrians and cyclists. Car drivers are incapable of negotiating an intersection safely and reliably without being forced to consider stopping. Stopping at reds is typically good practice because you can't rely on car drivers to do what they are supposed to do - green means proceed with caution... brakes fail, people don't see the lights occasionally etc

Once you take an objective look at the rules, and a subjective approach to the tyranny of the car, you appreciate the irrelevence of worrying about cyclist behaviour at lights. :idea:

It seems that drivers ARE capable of negotiating intersections without traffic lights - it just requires a change of rule emphasis and some reverse engineering.





Time to end the tyranny of the traffic light I think.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:15 pm
by Xplora
I'm in favour of efficiency - once the car is the same speed as a bike I don't see the sense in them (heavy, dangerous, isolating, fattening) so I am not anti light. It IS hard when the city is so big you won't see people in your community regularly. Anonymity is a powerful poison.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:55 pm
by human909
polishbiker wrote:Had a discussion with a friend yesterday, think a while ago someone from a local paper in Sydney or something mounted a camera on her helmet to see how drivers and cyclists behave on the road and thether they obey the traffic signs.

Apparently out of 100 cyclsits only 2 stopped at the red light, when she asked some of them as to why they dont stop they said its so they dont need to unclip their shoes etc. How stupid i thought.

Why do cyclists think they dont need to obey the lights is...silly people in my books.

Today i was at the lights (red) and some other cyclists slowly cycled past me so i shouted to him "its red mate", he turned around and hopefully acknowledged.

Maybe majority of cyclists are simply colour blind...


That is a long way from my observations in Melbourne. I would say that 95% (19 in 20) stop at red traffic lights despite the otherwise temptation to proceed. On more silly traffic signals I would say it might be closer to 9 in 10. Either way compliance is a strong majority though with a persistent non compliance group.

This is my observation. I'm traffic light agnostic. I really don't see a moral problem with non adherence, though most of the time I'm happy enough being patient. Incidently I AM colour blind. But that has nothing to do with me occasionally choosing to ignore a red signal.

Re: Advocacy article: "We need to follow the rules of the ro

Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:23 am
by wellington_street
Anecdotally, I observe around 50% compliance on average on my commute - speaking for road cyclists only. This will vary depending on location and movement though. For example, at Wellington/Milligan, compliance for cyclists heading north up Milligan is close to 100%, whereas red light compliance for cyclists turning right from Wellington St into Perth Arena to get onto the PSP is closer to 0% (it's a stupid red arrow with no opposing traffic for most of the phase).