Red lights, white lines, black tar rivers

[j4]

"I try not to go through red lights but I'm not the Pope," says one of the ninety-three cyclists caught jumping red lights in three hours in central Oxford.

I've often seen cars and buses creeping slowly through a red light, as if they were cyclists who couldn't take their feet off the pedals, but I've cynically assumed that they were just intent on being a yard or two further ahead of the car behind them when the lights change (or that they didn't know how to brake). Perhaps I misjudged them: perhaps they're actually grappling with their conscience.

I wonder if the cars I photograph parking on double yellow lines and in cycle lanes are also trying really hard not to park illegally. I'm trying really hard not to photograph them, but they just keep slipping into the viewfinder. Imagine how hard it would be to avoid it if I had a camera strapped to my head.

Comments

[j4.livejournal.com]

the author explicitly encouraged people to break the Highway Code, by saying if they only had one set of lights, to have them on flashing

Personally, both as a regular cyclist and as an occasional car-driver, I've found flashing bike-lights distracting and impossible to judge distance from; but they're still better than nothing, and I wouldn't want to argue with the expert advice of the broadsheets.

However, I think there's a big difference between using a different type of light (after all, any light on the road, flashing or otherwise, is likely to be an obstacle/hazard) and behaving in a way that other road users can't be expected to predict. Or do you think that all London drivers/cyclists expect everybody to ignore red lights? In other words, is every London junction effectively a no-right-of-way crossroads, where everybody advances cautiously whether the lights are on red or green? I can't say I've ever noticed this effect when driving in London (it must have been very obvious that I was only a visitor to the city, as I stopped at red lights as if I'd been out here in the sticks!) but I've only done that a handful of times.

There are junctions in London where the motor traffic routinely reacts to a red light by speeding up to get through it

Big deal: this happens everywhere (in Oxford, the buses are particularly frequent offenders). I don't see why it should mean that you have to go through red lights.

(Also, I did not, and do not, advocate anyone going along the pavements.)

What, even if the alternative is being on the road with all the dangerous car-drivers? Dude, don't be a martyr!

That'll be never then, in London.

I thought you said that the justification for your illegal and irresponsible behaviour was that it made you feel safer ... and yet you still "never" feel safe when cycling? That's very sad. Perhaps you should try walking, or taking public transport. (Please stay away from driving, though.)

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

I don't think there was any call for that kind of response. Perhaps I should have made clearer that when I say I go through red lights, I always stop and give way first, and mostly (though not always) going through red lights for me means proceeding when the lights for the other direction are changing, so I can get clear of the junction ahead of the motor traffic. At any rate, I resent being lumped together with the sort of cyclist who, frex, plough straight through red lights without stopping to check it was safe for all concerned; and I resent being addressed with a level of sarcasm bordering on insult. If you can't hold an argument civilly, I'd rather you didn't say anything at all.

[addedentry.livejournal.com]

Your original comment ("screw stopping at red lights ... *quack*wit drivers") didn't portray you as a civil road user: nor does going through red lights.

You may resent being lumped together with irresponsible cyclists: then don't break the Highway Code.

You may fear motorists not seeing you as they turn left: then drop back. Other people's bad driving gives you *no extra rights whatsoever*.

[j4.livejournal.com]

If you can't hold an argument civilly, I'd rather you didn't say anything at all.

Beautiful! The classic last resort of someone who starts an uncivil argument and then doesn't know how to back down.

I sincerely hope that you get caught and fined for going through red lights, not least because I'll be very interested to see whether "but I break the law so carefully!" convinces the police to make a special exception for you on account of your elite cycling skills, or whether "oh but I just don't feel safe otherwise!" makes them feel so sorry for you that they waive the fine.

If you don't want to be lumped together with idiots, don't behave like an idiot; if you can't cope with sarcasm or rudeness, don't make halfwitted blustering comments on strangers' livejournals; and if you can't cope with road traffic, get off the fucking road.

[lethargic-man.livejournal.com]

Look, I didn't mean to be uncivil, and I didn't mean to be blustering (and I didn't regard you as a complete stranger, and didn't mean to troll). I explained in my initial post why I was putting it the way I did; and maybe I shouldn't have posted when I was so narked. If the way I posted got your hackles up, I apologise for it.

And I never claimed to have elite cycling skills. The only reason I act the way I do is because in 4000 miles of cycling in Edinburgh and 2000 in Newcastle (not counting when I was little), I never got knocked off my bike once; whereas in 7000 in London I've got knocked off twice, and just recently came within a squeak of it a third time. I'd love to live in a world where I could keep to the Highway Code in London as fully as I did in Edinburgh and not feel I was putting my life on the line. But until the standard of driving here improves, I'm putting number one first; because I'm not prepared to pay the penalty of hopitalisation or death for keeping to the strict letter of the law.