Cyclists, new Highway Code rules

[doog442]

9 hours ago, Malc said:

yesterday out and about noticed the cyclists seemed to have an unusually sense of " fear " and ultra awareness down our country lanes in this part of Kent 

 

Fear of a lunatic in a 95 LS400 more likely  

[Phil xxkr]

On 2/7/2022 at 7:29 PM, doog442 said:

Fear of a lunatic in a 95 LS400 more likely  

Maybe this latest news has more effect ; "In recent days, police forces across England have posted on social media about stopping cyclists for not obeying the rules of the road. Greater Manchester Police said that in a 90-minute window, officers stopped 30 cyclists who had “ridden straight through red traffic lights”. Apparently cycling groups think it's unfair 🤔

[doog442]

8 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

Maybe this latest news has more effect ; "In recent days, police forces across England have posted on social media about stopping cyclists for not obeying the rules of the road. Greater Manchester Police said that in a 90-minute window, officers stopped 30 cyclists who had “ridden straight through red traffic lights”. Apparently cycling groups think it's unfair 🤔

Very naughty and yes I can see the obvious link between red light jumping in Manchester City centre and the rural lanes of Kent ....no, I really can.

Closer to home perhaps it was the news that 419 drivers were arrested in Kents recent road safety campaign - all drunk or drugged ? 

https://www.kent.police.uk/news/kent/latest/policing-news/more-than-400-arrests-during-december-road-safety-campaign/

As long as any operation is proportionate I've no issue with it, GMP are under special measures for failing to record 1 in 5 crimes and failing vulnerable victims so clearly they know their priorities. 

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, doog442 said:

Very naughty and yes I can see the obvious link between red light jumping in Manchester City centre and the rural lanes of Kent ....no, I really can.

Closer to home perhaps it was the news that 419 drivers were arrested in Kents recent road safety campaign - all drunk or drugged ? 

https://www.kent.police.uk/news/kent/latest/policing-news/more-than-400-arrests-during-december-road-safety-campaign/

As long as any operation is proportionate I've no issue with it, GMP are under special measures for failing to record 1 in 5 crimes and failing vulnerable victims so clearly they know their priorities. 

The GMP article was just a snapshot of what I suspect is happening in every town in the UK. And I can see no material equivalence between GMP efficacy and this article. Unless of course you are suggesting they ignore these offences because they aren't significant enough? For some proper context from a Gov. UK consultation paper:

There were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (where no other vehicle was involved) that resulted in a pedestrian casualty between 2011-2016, of which 20 were fatal and 546 resulted in serious injury.

1.7 We acknowledge that it is not possible to create total parity. We do not intend to introduce a testing, licensing or insurance regime for cyclists; the costs and complexity of introducing such a system would significantly outweigh the benefits. Nor do we propose to introduce penalty points for cyclists. A system of penalty points for cycling offences would require a record to be held or the creation of a new cycling licence regime. This could inadvertently discourage many people from taking up cycling, and unfairly burden the vast majority of law-abiding cyclists. However, this consultation considers whether any new cycling offences should carry minimum driving disqualification periods.

So from the last para we can deduce cyclists can sleep safely in their Lycra 😎

[Malc]

3 hours ago, doog442 said:

419 drivers were arrested in Kents recent road safety campaign - all drunk or drugged ? 

  I guess so ........  but of course the 838 cyclists had already wobbled and fallen off their bikes long before they moved even a wheels length forwards ........... 

Malc

[Malc]

55 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

However, this consultation considers whether any new cycling offences should carry minimum driving disqualification periods.

and I would hope Cycling Proficiency Exams too . but it won't matter, they won't be licenced anyway so zero effort to make them comply I'm sure

Malc

[doog442]

2 hours ago, Phil xxkr said:

There were 2,491 recorded collisions between cyclists and pedestrians (where no other vehicle was involved) that resulted in a pedestrian casualty between 2011-2016, of which 20 were fatal and 546 resulted in serious injury.

 

Were these due to cyclists going through red lights or the myriad of other reasons why a cyclist may come into contact with a pedestrian (lawfully or not)

Unless you can find more updated statistics than this?

From the same article as yours

Proportionally very few pedestrian casualties involve bicycles. From 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car. In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle—three of these deaths involved a bike, and 289 involved a car.

As I said its all about proportionality. 

 

 

[Linas.P]

40 minutes ago, doog442 said:

Were these due to cyclists going through red lights or the myriad of other reasons why a cyclist may come into contact with a pedestrian (lawfully or not)

Unless you can find more updated statistics than this?

From the same article as yours

Proportionally very few pedestrian casualties involve bicycles. From 2012 to 2016, 2,120 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle in Britain—0.8% of these involved a bicycle, and 66% involved a car. In 2016, 448 pedestrians were killed by a vehicle—three of these deaths involved a bike, and 289 involved a car.

As I said its all about proportionality. 

 

 

So basically you are saying - it is ok for cyclists to ignore red signals, because they haven't killed anyone yet? IS that really your argument? 

How about that mutual respect for all road users, have you thought about psychological effects on drivers? Maybe drivers seeing how cyclists blatantly disregards rules, whilst themselves being stuck in traffic and then having to give extra wide berth for the same cyclist 200m or be stuck behind for miles (because cyclists now ride in the middle)... maybe drivers get infuriated and are more likely to drive more recklessly? Don't forget drivers are just human despite nanny-state wanting them to be babysitting robots, drivers do get tired, do get angry, do get irritated and so on. And you know what irritates people a lot? When they have to follow arbitrary rules, but others don't bother and nothing is done about it.

I do not deny that likelihood of being killed by red light jumping cyclist is very low, yet I as well observe that most city cyclists disregards traffic signals... so despite not being a risk for pedestrians, I do believe they negatively impact drivers, irritates them and then drivers make less rational decisions.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

  I guess so ........  but of course the 838 cyclists had already wobbled and fallen off their bikes long before they moved even a wheels length forwards ........... 

Malc

They were not even checked... because cyclist... "unlikely to kill" so could wobble around drunk and drugged without a problem

[doog442]

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

So basically you are saying - it is ok for cyclists to ignore red signals, because they haven't killed anyone yet? IS that really your argument? 

 

It's not an argument despite your desperation to get into one. I made a joke about Malc and I guess we thought the thread would die a death. Someone spots our little joke and escalates it into cyclists jumping red lights in a city centre 200 miles away and provide some scant evidence to prove their 'point'. 

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

maybe drivers get infuriated and are more likely to drive more recklessly?

I'm not sure that is ever a defence to dangerous / reckless driving. 

16 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And you know what irritates people a lot? When they have to follow arbitrary rules, but others don't bother and nothing is done about it.

GMP are doing something about it - you should be happy. 

[Malc]

53 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

how cyclists blatantly disregards rules, whilst themselves being stuck in traffic and then having to give extra wide berth for the same cyclist 200m or be stuck behind for miles (because cyclists now ride in the middle)... maybe drivers get infuriated

aha guys, there's a simple solution to all of this aggression with cars and cyclists .  buy a Tesla and allow full and unfettered auto driving ........  no manual driver input .....  wonder where that will get the car or if there's a built in " aggression " mode in the Tesla that will just get fed-up and run 'em all down and then of course ..  blame Tesla 

Malc

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, doog442 said:

I'm not sure that is ever a defence to dangerous / reckless driving. 

First of all it is not excuse, just merely stating the fact that drivers are not machines and somebody extremely blatantly disregarding rules (like majority of cyclists) do annoy and irritate the drivers making overall driving conditions more hostile for everyone. One cannot expect to blatantly break the laws in front of others and expect no reaction. Because it happens so often and because realistically drivers can't do anything about it (can't even report to police), the only possible reaction is anger. Strong emotions are known to affect driving ability and impact judgement - that is just how normal human works.

Saying that because cyclists had not killed anyone is poor excuse for them disregarding traffic lights as well. So my answer was at the same level as your statement.

 

[doog442]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

and somebody extremely blatantly disregarding rules (like majority of cyclists)

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest the majority of cyclists disregard the rules Linas, behave now.

53 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

do annoy and irritate the drivers making overall driving conditions more hostile for everyone.

You need to stop reading the Daily Mail. Look at the OP's petition to Parliament. The public are so enraged 112 people have signed it. 

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Saying that because cyclists had not killed anyone is poor excuse for them disregarding traffic lights as well.

Again you completely ignore the post I was responding to. The previous poster was using deaths as  justification for GMP's initiative yet I politely pointed out that there aren't any. We can all be very selective in what we post to back up a point but it would help if it was accurate or indeed valid.

I still fail to see any link between cyclists jumping red lights in Manchester city centre and some folk cycling around the country lanes of Kent other than the usual cyclist bashing exercise. Its like me making an analogy of drivers committing red light offences in Manchester and rural drivers in Kent doing nothing but driving from A to B. The latter has absolutely nothing to do with the former. 

 

[Linas.P]

20 minutes ago, doog442 said:

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest the majority of cyclists disregard the rules Linas, behave now.

You need to stop reading the Daily Mail. Look at the OP's petition to Parliament. The public are so enraged 112 people have signed it. 

Again you completely ignore the post I was responding to. The previous poster was using deaths as  justification for GMP's initiative yet I politely pointed out that there aren't any. We can all be very selective in what we post to back up a point but it would help if it was accurate or indeed valid.

I still fail to see any link between cyclists jumping red lights in Manchester city centre and some folk cycling around the country lanes of Kent other than the usual cyclist bashing exercise. Its like me making an analogy of drivers committing red light offences in Manchester and rural drivers in Kent doing nothing but driving from A to B. The latter has absolutely nothing to do with the former. 

I don't need to provide any evidence - I have experienced it myself and any honest person would agree that they see cyclists jumping red lights at very single junction. This is not some sort of isolated event. If you stand with camera at literally any junction with cyclists traffic you are guaranteed to see this. In comparison I rarely see drivers driving through red light (because there are consequences). Not saying it doesn't happen, but that is maybe 1 time per month, compared to 20 times per day.

The article Philip provided highlights exactly that - somebody monitored the junction in Manchester and documented that cyclist disregard the rules there, would they have monitored any other junction anywhere else in UK, they would have witnessed exactly the same thing as Philip said. It is not like cyclist disregard the lights only on that single particular junction in Manchester, but don't do it anywhere else. The only reason why this is not more widely reported is because this is such a commonplace event that it is simply not sensational enough to report. Don't forget that newspapers are looking for sensational stories to sell or get clicks and when people read cyclist blatantly disregard traffic lights and rules... that just doesn't surprise anyone - "yeah... I am seeing that every day - not newsworthy".

Other thing to note - the way drivers drive through the red most of the times is fundamentally different. Drivers most of the time approach the junction at green or amber, misjudge how long it is going to last (which is easy, because some amber lights are 5s, some are 1s) and when red light turns on they are just meters from lights, when stopping is already too late and thus they continue trough. I am not justifying it - it is still offence and they probably should have judged situation better as started slowing down as soon as amber light-up. But situation where driver see red and chooses to drive through it is extremely rare, I have never seen that happening except of videos from police where they pursuing stolen car or some criminal... and they disregard the lights. But comparing normal drivers with fleeing criminals is pointless and in normal driving this almost never happens.

Cyclist on other hand are different and that is very important - they clearly see red light, they stop by it and then they  consciously decide they can ignore it and just leisurely pedal through. This is what I consider blatant disregard and literally insulting for all the drivers witnessing it... no surprise this leaves all the drivers behind the lights fuming. It isn't rare where drivers waiting behind the lights beep and are as well shown a middle finger. When I drive in London I literally see this happening dozen time every single day. And if you say drivers should not be beeping - I disagree, horn is meant to be as a warning for potentially dangerous situation and somebody crossing through the red is exactly the kind of dangerous situation.

[Bluemarlin]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Cyclist on other hand are different and that is very important - they clearly see red light, they stop by it and then they  consciously decide they can ignore it and just leisurely pedal through. This is what I consider blatant disregard and literally insulting for all the drivers witnessing it... no surprise this leaves all the drivers behind the lights fuming. It isn't rare where drivers waiting behind the lights beep and are as well shown a middle finger. When I drive in London I literally see this happening dozen time every single day. And if you say drivers should not be beeping - I disagree, horn is meant to be as a warning for potentially dangerous situation and somebody crossing through the red is exactly the kind of dangerous situation.

As a cyclist I tend not to jump red lights.  However, as a motorist, I prefer that cyclists do. I much prefer it when cyclists clear the lights (if safe to do so), rather than have to wait for them to wobble their way to stability before I can proceed.

I cannot understand why that would annoy you Linas, especially in central London, as it makes things much quicker and easier for motorists waiting at the lights. Nor is it dangerous, as long as the cyclist checks it's clear. In fact it's no more dangerous than a "give way" sign.

Trials have been done in some cities that show it can be safer to allow cyclists to proceed at a red light,  once ensuring it's safe to do so, and in Paris I believe it's now allowed.

Drivers sounding their horn at this aren't doing so to alert anyone to danger, they're doing it because they get wound up and have anger issues. They should just chill out and worry about their own behaviour instead of that of others. If they calmed down long enough to apply any logic and commom sense, they'd realise they were better off with the cyclists getting out of the way before the lights changed.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

As a cyclist I tend not to jump red lights.  However, as a motorist, I prefer that cyclists do. I much prefer it when cyclists clear the lights (if safe to do so), rather than have to wait for them to wobble their way to stability before I can proceed.

I cannot understand why that would annoy you Linas, especially in central London, as it makes things much quicker and easier for motorists waiting at the lights. Nor is it dangerous, as long as the cyclist checks it's clear. In fact it's no more dangerous than a "give way" sign.

Trials have been done in some cities that show it can be safer to allow cyclists to proceed at a red light,  once ensuring it's safe to do so, and in Paris I believe it's now allowed.

Drivers sounding their horn at this aren't doing so to alert anyone to danger, they're doing it because they get wound up and have anger issues. They should just chill out and worry about their own behaviour instead of that of others.

I have different view - rules are rules, doesn't matter if I like them or not, they are still rules. I am not saying that ack of cyclist ignoring the red light is dangerous in itself, however it shows cyclist attitude to the rules. As you said - you won't cycle through the red and I won't cycle through the red, so for some reason we choose to follow the rules, meaning they are not irrelevant, but many cyclist just feels like their are above the law.

The argument you are making is slippery slope - so if cyclists can look around and cross if they feel it is safe (not sure what entitles them to make such decision), then drivers can do it as well. I have certainly been in situation where I am stopped at the lights in the middle on nowhere in the middle of the night and it would be safe for me to ignore the lights and just drive through, but I didn't because those are the rules.

Now if the rules would change, perhaps removing advanced stop line and instead allowing cyclists to cycle through the red in certain junctions (in some T-Junctions I feel it would be fine), then I would support that and I would not mind it, however that is not the case - it is rather that cyclists feel entitled to take such decisions upon themselves. And we going back to the same argument - it angers, demotivates, infuriates and insults rules abiding drivers. It is not the question why they get annoyed - it is simply the fact that they do. And annoyed drivers = worse drivers = the act of breaking the law in front of other promotes bad behaviour and mistrusts and disrespect between these two groups of road users. It is issue of principle. 

As well it is ridiculous to suggest that cyclists cycling through the red doesn't warrant the beep - perhaps it is pedestrian crossing the road in the other side of junction, or driver turning right who will pay more attention to the place where horn is coming from and will realise it is cyclist coming towards them. And again just from my personal experience - I have seen dozen times when cyclist dangerously move between cars in junction and nearly get knocked over going through the red, or causes dangerous situation where cars have to brake in order to avoid hitting them, this is again commonplace occurrence. So again it is ridiculous to suggest this is "anger issue" - yes drivers are angry, because they suppose to be, because somebody blatantly disregards the rules.

And how this all relates to this topic... well - directly! The new HC rules encourages cyclists to behave in certain way on assumption that cyclists generally are law abiding and won't misuse them (because way of misusing the rules are endless here)... whereas in practice cyclists are the group who rarely follow the rules, so giving them this further discretion is really bad idea.

Imagine following situation - cyclist dangerously driver through the red and driver beeps partially to went (justified) anger, partially to warn other about this dangerous rule breakers, the cyclist is typical lycra nut, shows the middle finger to everyone watching and cycles through - 15 second later light turns green and cars inevitable catches-up with cyclists. Now because this nutcase cyclist want's to "return the favour", he cycles in the middle of the lane deliberately preventing driver to overtake to show who is the "boss here". And there is nothing you can do about it - new rules literally suggests and leaves it to cyclist discretion to do it! So this giving of extra power to people who are basically unaccountable for their actions is asking for trouble!

[Bluemarlin]

Yes Linas, rules are rules but,  as the saying goes, "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" 😀

All road users do dangerous things, and some cyclists can be positively suicidal, but that doesn't detract from the fact that cylists jumping red lights can be safer, and quicker for motorists, as long as it's done with due care and attention.

Nor is it riduculous to suggest it's an anger issue, as you sound pretty angry about it 😉

[Linas.P]

43 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Yes Linas, rules are rules but,  as the saying goes, "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" 😀

All road users do dangerous things, and some cyclists can be positively suicidal, but that doesn't detract from the fact that cylists jumping red lights can be safer, and quicker for motorists, as long as it's done with due care and attention.

Nor is it riduculous to suggest it's an anger issue, as you sound pretty angry about it 😉

Again slippery slope argument: "some drivers jumping red light in some instances could be safer and quicker for everyone", ridiculous suggestion - both for drivers and for cyclists, if we leave it for users discretion then we may as well switch to "indian style" traffic where anyone can do anything they like.

Red light is not guidance - it is literally a law, so it is not up for interpretation (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.36 - Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions and Directions 2002 regulations 10 and 36(1), road users must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.").

As well, it is kind of funny (sad) how people feel strongly about punishing drivers, but very lenient on cyclists... If driver does it - criminal! if cyclist does it - "ohhh whatever didn't hurt anybody"! Again - if we want mutual respect and care, we can't treat these groups so differently. 

Finally, I understand this is deliberate - the longer we spend bickering who is right, the less time we have to make the government accountable to deliver what is needed for everyone. For example if we would have fully separated and mandated cycling lanes everywhere, then we wouldn't even have this discussion - cyclist would have their infrastructure and their rules and drivers will have theirs, and there would be no conflict of interest or getting in each other way. 

[Phil xxkr]

3 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I don't need to provide any evidence - I have experienced it myself and any honest person would agree that they see cyclists jumping red lights at very single junction. This is not some sort of isolated event. If you stand with camera at literally any junction with cyclists traffic you are guaranteed to see this. In comparison I rarely see drivers driving through red light (because there are consequences). Not saying it doesn't happen, but that is maybe 1 time per month, compared to 20 times per day.

The article Philip provided highlights exactly that - somebody monitored the junction in Manchester and documented that cyclist disregard the rules there, would they have monitored any other junction anywhere else in UK, they would have witnessed exactly the same thing as Philip said. It is not like cyclist disregard the lights only on that single particular junction in Manchester, but don't do it anywhere else. The only reason why this is not more widely reported is because this is such a commonplace event that it is simply not sensational enough to report. Don't forget that newspapers are looking for sensational stories to sell or get clicks and when people read cyclist blatantly disregard traffic lights and rules... that just doesn't surprise anyone - "yeah... I am seeing that every day - not newsworthy".

Other thing to note - the way drivers drive through the red most of the times is fundamentally different. Drivers most of the time approach the junction at green or amber, misjudge how long it is going to last (which is easy, because some amber lights are 5s, some are 1s) and when red light turns on they are just meters from lights, when stopping is already too late and thus they continue trough. I am not justifying it - it is still offence and they probably should have judged situation better as started slowing down as soon as amber light-up. But situation where driver see red and chooses to drive through it is extremely rare, I have never seen that happening except of videos from police where they pursuing stolen car or some criminal... and they disregard the lights. But comparing normal drivers with fleeing criminals is pointless and in normal driving this almost never happens.

Cyclist on other hand are different and that is very important - they clearly see red light, they stop by it and then they  consciously decide they can ignore it and just leisurely pedal through. This is what I consider blatant disregard and literally insulting for all the drivers witnessing it... no surprise this leaves all the drivers behind the lights fuming. It isn't rare where drivers waiting behind the lights beep and are as well shown a middle finger. When I drive in London I literally see this happening dozen time every single day. And if you say drivers should not be beeping - I disagree, horn is meant to be as a warning for potentially dangerous situation and somebody crossing through the red is exactly the kind of dangerous situation.

I can always rely on you Linas to present a cogent case, I deferred to contribute in this instance as I need to wash my hair 😎

[doog442]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

the cyclist is typical lycra nut, shows the middle finger to everyone watching and cycles through

Just popped back to see how the thread was going ..no change.

[Bluemarlin]

40 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Again slippery slope argument: "some drivers jumping red light in some instances could be safer and quicker for everyone", ridiculous suggestion - both for drivers and for cyclists, if we leave it for users discretion then we may as well switch to "indian style" traffic where anyone can do anything they like.

Red light is not guidance - it is literally a law, so it is not up for interpretation (Road Traffic Act 1988 s.36 - Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions and Directions 2002 regulations 10 and 36(1), road users must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red.").

As well, it is kind of funny (sad) how people feel strongly about punishing drivers, but very lenient on cyclists... If driver does it - criminal! if cyclist does it - "ohhh whatever didn't hurt anybody"! Again - if we want mutual respect and care, we can't treat these groups so differently. 

Finally, I understand this is deliberate - the longer we spend bickering who is right, the less time we have to make the government accountable to deliver what is needed for everyone. For example if we would have fully separated and mandated cycling lanes everywhere, then we wouldn't even have this discussion - cyclist would have their infrastructure and their rules and drivers will have theirs, and there would be no conflict of interest or getting in each other way. 

I'm not saying it isn't the law, nor am I saying that a cyclist shouldn't be punished for running a red light if caught. I'm simply saying that for the most part it helps the flow of traffic, by getting cyclists out of the way of motorists when lights change.

I get what you're saying about how it might anger some motorists, but I'm talking from a logical/practical point of view, and not some snowflakey, feelings over facts perspective.

[Linas.P]

Just now, Bluemarlin said:

logical/practical point of view, and not some snowflakey, feelings over facts perspective.

Not sure how defending law breaking is "logical/practical" view and saying that people are angered by witnessing blatant disregard for rules is "snowflakery" and "feeling over the facts"?!

In such case we should as well disregard all the rules and laws, which don't allow for most efficient "practical" use i.e. cars mounting kerb to make left turn, speeding, driving on bus lanes "because they empty" and basically anything that would allow the drivers to be at their destination quicker.

And I do understand that there is no logic behind some of the rules, like the ones which were just introduced... sadly they are what they are. If we argue that they need to be changed, then I agree, but if argument is that "let's just ignore them", then I don't think this is workable/agreeable proposition.  

[Phil xxkr]

48 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Yes Linas, rules are rules but,  as the saying goes, "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" 😀

All road users do dangerous things, and some cyclists can be positively suicidal, but that doesn't detract from the fact that cylists jumping red lights can be safer, and quicker for motorists, as long as it's done with due care and attention.

Nor is it riduculous to suggest it's an anger issue, as you sound pretty angry about it 😉

Bill, I always eagerly await your posts 🥳 but in this instance it seems you are away with the "woke" faeries 😎. In addition to an illogical syllogism you append an ad hominem 😱. 

I read today in the USA the government is making "safe smoking kits" available for drug users on the tax payers dollar. In other words let's forgo existing criminal law. Now let's guess where this will lead? When Bill Bratton and Rudy Guliana drove down criminal activity in NYC it was predicated on zero tolerance. The smallest graffiti, shoplifting a broken window wasn't seen to be acceptable, jumping red lights? 

[Phil xxkr]

26 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I'm not saying it isn't the law, nor am I saying that a cyclist shouldn't be punished for running a red light if caught. I'm simply saying that for the most part it helps the flow of traffic, by getting cyclists out of the way of motorists when lights change.

I get what you're saying about how it might anger some motorists, but I'm talking from a logical/practical point of view, and not some snowflakey, feelings over facts perspective.

"getting cyclists out of the way of motorists when lights change." Crikey Bill, have you read the latest hierarchy of Road users? 😱

[Bluemarlin]

24 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure how defending law breaking is "logical/practical" view and saying that people are angered by witnessing blatant disregard for rules is "snowflakery" and "feeling over the facts"?!

In such case we should as well disregard all the rules and laws, which don't allow for most efficient "practical" use i.e. cars mounting kerb to make left turn, speeding, driving on bus lanes "because they empty" and basically anything that would allow the drivers to be at their destination quicker.

And I do understand that there is no logic behind some of the rules, like the ones which were just introduced... sadly they are what they are. If we argue that they need to be changed, then I agree, but if argument is that "let's just ignore them", then I don't think this is workable/agreeable proposition.  

I think you're getting a little carried away here and so are missing my point. I'm not defending law breaking, and am merely pointing out that this particular law isn't necessarily practical. So much so that some cities allow cyclists to run red lights, in the way that cars can on right turns in the US.

I also think that cars should be allowed to use empty bus lanes, as that is more efficient too. There should be cameras instead, that only penalise a driver if he obstructs a bus.

So no, I'm not saying just ignore them, and was just surprised at such an outcry over something that largely does more good than harm.