Re: Cyclist breaking laws

On Mar 23, 11:19 pm, "DavidR" <cured...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Have a think about it. Why are the dumbing down devices present on our
roads with laws formed around their use?

a) to control people using bicycles
b) to control people using motor vehicles

To control all road users. Its starting to sound like you shouldn't
be allowed anyplace near a road.

You're confusing the past and present. I asked "why were they put in". You
answered "their function is".

Are you trying to claim that there was no road sings at all before the
event of cars?
Can we clarify what you mean about dumbing down devices, are you just
talking about traffic lights?

Have you read the highway code?

If I have read it, which I have, and practice to the best of my ability I
see no reason why should I not argue about some of its provisions. Do you
blindly accept all that your lords and masters utter?

Provided you follow it thats fine. Some people on various groups have
been suggesting that its ok for a cyclist not to follow it, more
importantly the bits that are legal requirements.

Here's a couple of clues
You should keep them if you don't know about the above....

to help you:
a) Were town and city roads and the impediments in place before motor
vehicles came along? Absolutely not

And the death rate from traffic was nil? Erm not it wasn't...
It wasn't, that's true. But I don't see how putting that question answers my
question.

So we get cars, motorbikes and cycles ( which came into popular use at
much the same time as cars). Due to society developing we get new
rules for all of them so that all road users can go about their travel
safetly. We get more road signs added as the roads are being used in
a different way ( thats added to the existing signs). So roads used
to be dangerous and had "dumbing down" devices before cars came
along. With the advent of mass car and bike use we get more of them
and better road safety.

b) If there were no bicycle riders, would it be possible to take these
dumbing down devices away? Definitely not

You seem to be suggesting that if we had no bikes that none of the
current signs ( or dumbing down in your speak) would be redundant.
Thats obviously not true is it?

Suggest something.

Road signs are a good thing when used properly, people should always
use them properly. Is that a suggestion we can agree on? Perhaps all
we don't actually disagree. Most road signs are fine but you do get a
certain percentage of stupid ones.

I am suggesting that if we had no bicycle users then *not a single one* of
the current set of road signs (except for a few blue ones permitiing people
to ride bicycles on pavements) would be redundant. Not a single traffic
light would be made redundant.

Actually, by dumbing down devices, I really mean traffic lights. Their
ability in this is quite unmatched.

So traffic lights are dumbing down... Ok... What about road signs?

So, yes, motor vehicle driver behaviour has caused laws to be put in
place
that can be broken.
Thats true.

and causing harm to pedestrians

Some will claim that pedestrian KSI
Bikes causing harm to pedestrians might have a lesser chance of a kill
but the injuries are still something that should be avoided.
you must allow cyclists some slack
in keeping themselves from under the wheels of motor traffic.

Not at the expense of weaker road users. ONce again a cyclist shows
disregard for a pedestrian.

Why did you snip so much?

Because I don't see why we should limit it to KSI. Minor injuries are
more likely from a bike and shouldn't be ignored. Pedestrians are
much easier to harm and may not report minor injuries but that doesn't
mean that bikes should be causing them.

You seem to think that obedience to the law is the be all and end all.
No, I think its important. If a law is bad then campaign to get it
changed. But the laws on road usage are there for a reason. You
claim above you follow the highway code but you post as if you feel
its ok to jump red lights. I take it that you obey the red lights and
just campaign to get them removed?

have one group that achieves a particular kill and injury rate while
supposedly obedient, yet another group, of alleged law breakers, are unable
to do worse than achieve the same dodgy statistic.

Is your argument that as cyclists cause less KSI they should be
allowed to do what they like then?

I fail to see how a statistic generated by one group can be "acceptable"
when the same statistic produced by another causes so much wailing and
gnashing of teeth.

Any deaths on the road isn't acceptable. Hence why we have rules to
try and prevent them. One group flouting the rules, heck any group,
leading to more KSI or even minor injuries isn't a good thing.

Do cyclists ever take any responsibility?
For what?
Anything it would seem. Certainly not any of the law breaking they
do.
You do seem to lack an ability to be specific.

Do you know any cyclists that take responsibility for hurting
pedestrians? Several posters have been hurt when bikes jumped red
lights and I know several people who have had similar experiences.
While not are KSI accidents none of the cyclists took responsibility
for causing the accident and instead blamed the pedestrian for not
looking where they were going.

I've also know of cases where a cyclist damaged a car and pedaled away
without offering to pay for the damage they caused.

Car drivers are not a perfect bunch ( the points system is a flawed
way of getting rid of the worst of them)
Pedestrians are also a pretty imperfect bunch. But I've only ever
talked to a couple of cyclists on usenet who admit they do anything
wrong. I've read cyclists going to extreme lengths to defend cyclists
jumping red lights and hitting pedestrians ( though they were
probably trolls to be fair).


Fod

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Emmas driving
    ... Most cyclists know that the rules of the road apply ... Aye, well, apart from the law that says they have to display ... It pisses me off when I encounter cyclists on the road, ... pitch dark with no lights, ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: Cyclists to be above the law - official
    ... "Most cyclists obey the rules of the road, ... are there to be obeyed only by motorists. ... Of all road users (including pedestrians here) cyclists are by far the most ... They routinely just ignore traffic lights, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
    ... whereas cyclists ignore red lights completely. ... Red light jumping by cyclists is more reckless and dangerous than by car ... I've frequently seen cars just ignore ... (the pedestrians don't get one). ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: Road Traffic Act Offence
    ... Pedestrians have the ... (I think that's all true under English as well as Scots law. ... >> bicycle. ... >> *Though most cyclists appear to be unaware of this, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Death threats from motorists.
    ... along pavement, two wheels up, pedestrians have to jump back. ... you're turning 'driving through red lights' into ... I see plenty of cyclists riding through ...
    (uk.transport)