So much safer for cyclists to be allowed to go through red!

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

Glad you agree that there are to many anti-social colour blind cyclists.

Now, how do you suggest that these menaces are taken off the road.

As you appear to be a well experienced pedestrian perhaps you could tell us other road users how to deal with the anti social / blind pedestrians that walk onto the road when it isn't clear to do so?

Or the anti social motorists that break the speed limit? It's strange you always post your negative views about cyclists here and how they're a menace but i don't see any threads or posts from you on the motoring forum about all those speeding motorists that floor it through amber / red lights

Altarf wrote: »

You are correct.
I have never seen a motorist sail through a red light after it has been red for a minute or two.

You mentioned this before, then ignored my question because it put you on the spot about it so i'll ask again.

What relevance or difference does it make how long the light was red for?


I see plenty of anti-social colour blind cyclists do it every day.

Altarf wrote: »

Don't you, or do you have a vision problem as well?

You seem to have a few problems yourself. Mainly bigotry and wilful ignorance.

esuhl

Altarf wrote: »

I have never seen a motorist sail through a red light after it has been red for a minute or two.

Of course not -- I've never seen a motor vehicle with sails either. Although when I was stopped at a red light a week or so ago, the motorist behind me decided to wheel-spin up the road, swerving from side-to-side as he tried to maintain traction, in order to jump a red light after his patience was exhausted after mere minutes of waiting. Lucky for him, he didn't hit anything.

It's just typical of the small-minded motorist who gets a sexual thrill out of driving recklessly and making themselves the focus of attention. Unfortunately, they mistake the look of shock for a bizarre sense of deep-seated respect. While everyone is looking on thinking, "What a reckless, fool! I hope he crashes his car and never drives again.", they imagine instead that everyone thinks, "Wow. What an impressive show of skill. I wish I was brave enough to wheelspin up the High Street, jump red lights and send old grannies hobble-running to safety. He must be really good at sex." You've obviously been taken-in by the same kind of delusional thinking.

But, if you think about it honestly, you can't pretending that you haven't seen any anti-social, colour-blind, innumerate motorists driving through red traffic lights!

I suppose you've never seen a driver crash through their own recklessness, either? Or witnessed the majority of vehicles breaking the speed limit because drivers are innumerate. The problem with delusions is that you often won't see what's right in front you. You can't remove the blinkers that distort and conceal the truth from you. If you can't recognise numbers, read signposts, or avoid delusional thinking, then you're not fit to drive a motor vehicle.

Altarf

What is so funny about cyclists, is that even if they are not anti-social colour blind cyclists themselves, that they have a burning desire to defend those cyclists who are anti-social colour blind idiots.

If you wander over to the motoring board, bad driving is roundly condemned by other motorists.

However if bad cycling is mentioned here, then the cyclist union stands shoulder to shoulder, good and bad cyclists together, bleating out their standard defence of "we are not as bad as other road users".

Marco_Panettone

This thread was not about "bad cycling", it started off about safety. You then brought current legality into it (which hasn't been questioned).


Nobody has said that riding (or driving) through red lights is legal, or should be encouraged all the time everywhere under all circumstances. However, in some places it would be perfectly safe to do so and in many other countries it is also perfectly legal.


Is it the fact that it is currently illegal that annoys you? If there was a change in law to differentiate between red lights for motor vehicles and separate lights for cycles (eg motor vehicles are held at a pedestrian crossing, cycles get an amber 'give way to pedestrians', or at a crossroads where motor traffic is held on red but cycles get a green) would your position change?

brat

Altarf wrote: »

What is so funny about cyclists, is that even if they are not anti-social colour blind cyclists themselves, that they have a burning desire to defend those cyclists who are anti-social colour blind idiots.

If you wander over to the motoring board, bad driving is roundly condemned by other motorists.

However if bad cycling is mentioned here, then the cyclist union stands shoulder to shoulder, good and bad cyclists together, bleating out their standard defence of "we are not as bad as other road users".

One of the problems with you being so mired in prejudice is that you cannot read and accept what other people are saying, especially when they don't say what you want.

A five minute look through previous threads shows that cyclists here do condemn other cyclists behaviours if they deserve condemnation.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5247124
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5247124
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5247124
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5247124
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5278843
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4824325

I don't know of any cyclist here who doesn't condemn anti social cycling, and most of them have repeatedly said that at some time or another.

Your posts are so full of hatred towards cyclists, so generalised in their accusations, that cyclists will spend much of their post content correcting the accusatory nonsense you post rather than the actions of the cyclists. On other occasions in previous threads, and often earlier in the same thread, they will already have declared their condemnation of the actions of anti-social cyclists.

Altarf wrote:

If you wander over to the motoring board, bad driving is roundly condemned by other motorists.

Motorists are hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to kill and injure pedestrians than cyclists. Can you provide links to the threads or posts you've made which condemn the behaviour of motorists towards pedestrians?

mr_fishbulb

Altarf wrote: »

What is so funny about cyclists, is that even if they are not anti-social colour blind cyclists themselves, that they have a burning desire to defend those cyclists who are anti-social colour blind idiots.

If you wander over to the motoring board, bad driving is roundly condemned by other motorists.

However if bad cycling is mentioned here, then the cyclist union stands shoulder to shoulder, good and bad cyclists together, bleating out their standard defence of "we are not as bad as other road users".

I cycled into work this morning. On my 10 mile trip I called 3 people a !!!! (not loud enough for anyone to hear, but still).

2 of them were cyclists (one red light jumper, and one zipping out onto a roundabout when they didn't have the right of way, causing a truck on the roundabout to have to brake).

The other was a pedestrian who blindly wandered out into the road when the cars were stopped in a jam, but cyclists and motorbikers were still filtering through traffic.

All the car drivers were fine. No problems there. But sometimes they are !!!!s too.

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

What is so funny about cyclists, is that even if they are not anti-social colour blind cyclists themselves, that they have a burning desire to defend those cyclists who are anti-social colour blind idiots.

If you wander over to the motoring board, bad driving is roundly condemned by other motorists.

However if bad cycling is mentioned here, then the cyclist union stands shoulder to shoulder, good and bad cyclists together, bleating out their standard defence of "we are not as bad as other road users".

Oh look you've dodged my questions yet again and went on another mindless bigoted rant. :T

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

You mentioned this before, then ignored my question because it put you on the spot about it so i'll ask again.

What relevance or difference does it make how long the light was red for?

Since you are apparently so dim, I will spell it out in terms that even a cyclist can understand.

The traffic planners know that all road users may not stop immediately the lights change to red, so allow a small amount of time before the green man shows.

So even if you get someone going through just after the lights have changed, whether they be a car, bus, or even a cyclist (and often it is the cyclist not wanting to waste the momentum they have built up), the pedestrian is safe, as they have not been given the indication to cross.

However when you get a moron cyclist who ploughs on through a red light after it has been red for some time, then the green man will be showing, and the pedestrian will not be expecting to get flattened by them.

Do you now understand, or do I need to simplify it to words of one syllable for you?

custardy

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2015/08/28/video-this-road-rage-row-ended-with-a-bang/

Brakelights are red too.............

Strider590

custardy wrote: »

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2015/08/28/video-this-road-rage-row-ended-with-a-bang/

Brakelights are red too.............

I laughed when I watched this the other day