We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Bus, Taxi, Cyclist Drivers
Comments
-
Irrelevant, Its just as illegal for both, its just bikes get away with it more often due to lack of accountability (see: no registration plates)
In Glasgow its the same,
I see more bikes than cars do it (in my experience and i'm not talking about jumping a late amber/ very early red, but a blatant red jump.) not to mention the half pavement half road slalom that a lot of them do to try get around faster, with pedestrians jumping out of the way.
And again, whataboutery - I don't condone cyclists doing it, but a bike doing 15mph can stop in a couple of metres and as you say, pedestrians can get out of the way. A car will simply hit the pedestrians as it's much bigger and faster.
Go on youtube and look for dash cam clips, you will see hundreds of drivers doing it at crazy speeds, all with the potential to kill or maim, vs a cyclist plodding along. I suspect if you were more specific, a big chunk of your red light jumping "cyclists" are delivery riders for the likes of uber and Just Eat who don't obey any sorts of laws (no lights at night etc) and they are as despised by cyclists as much as anyone.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
And again, irrelevant. And you are condoning it, or at least saying its not as big a deal.And again, whataboutery - I don't condone cyclists doing it, but a bike doing 15mph can stop in a couple of metres and as you say, pedestrians can get out of the way. A car will simply hit the pedestrians as it's much bigger and faster.
Go on youtube and look for dash cam clips, you will see hundreds of drivers doing it at crazy speeds, all with the potential to kill or maim, vs a cyclist plodding along. I suspect if you were more specific, a big chunk of your red light jumping "cyclists" are delivery riders for the likes of uber and Just Eat who don't obey any sorts of laws (no lights at night etc) and they are as despised by cyclists as much as anyone.
What if a red light jumping cyclist causes a legitimately driving car to swerve and hit something else?
Also, pedestrians shouldn't have to 'get out the way' of the moron cyclists. Unless by extension, cyclists should 'get out of the way' of cars?0 -
Irrelevant, Its just as illegal for both, its just bikes get away with it more often due to lack of accountability (see: no registration plates)
.
I see you're a stickler for the law when cyclists break the law ( even though, as Nasqueron has provided, the evidence suggests the risk is very low)
Does this principled stance extend to cars exceeding the speed limit by 1-4 miles an hour as the excuse is usually that it represents only a small risk and so is tolerated?
And on the point of jumping red lights , I see far more cars do this than cyclists ; encroaching on the cycle boxes at junction with lights is " jumping a red light" ( I include link to "ask the police" site or read rule 178 of highway code)
This is not intended as 'whataboutery' but to highlight that many motorists apply different standards to transgressions by cyclists than to drivers even when the risks those transgression generate are tiny compared to a faster moving and 100x the weight car0 -
For me its the hypocrisy, cyclists, the ones you notice at least, e.g. the militant blowhards make the biggest fuss of anyone on the road. And my point is that they should be directing it towards their own kind as much as anyone else.I see you're a stickler for the law when cyclists break the law ( even though, as Nasqueron has provided, the evidence suggests the risk is very low)
Does this principled stance extend to cars exceeding the speed limit by 1-4 miles an hour as the excuse is usually that it represents only a small risk and so is tolerated?
And on the point of jumping red lights , I see far more cars do this than cyclists ; encroaching on the cycle boxes at junction with lights is " jumping a red light" ( I include link to "ask the police" site or read rule 178 of highway code)
This is not intended as 'whataboutery' but to highlight that many motorists apply different standards to transgressions by cyclists than to drivers even when the risks those transgression generate are tiny compared to a faster moving and 100x the weight car
And if you would notice, i refer to busting a red light as a 'blatant' one i.e. its been red for a while and you just sail through. not a technical, wheel over the line job, nor a 'just turned red'. yes they may be both illegal too, but they have a different level of threat. As i also said, a cyclist running a light could easily cause someone else to swerve and create carnage just as much as a car doing it.0 -
Irrelevant, Its just as illegal for both, its just bikes get away with it more often due to lack of accountability (see: no registration plates)
Dead people are irrelevant? What, exactly, are laws like "Don't drive through a red light" for if not to avoid people being killed?
They get away with it more because.... it's less serious. Because they're less likely to kill someone doing it.
They should direct "it" as much to their "own kind" who don't regularly mow down and kill people as they do at the people who *do* regularly mow down and kill people?And my point is that they should be directing it towards their own kind as much as anyone else.And if you would notice, i refer to busting a red light as a 'blatant' one i.e. its been red for a while and you just sail through. not a technical, wheel over the line job, nor a 'just turned red'. yes they may be both illegal too, but they have a different level of threat. As i also said, a cyclist running a light could easily cause someone else to swerve and create carnage just as much as a car doing it.
Kind of like the different level of threat between a car jumping a red light and a bicycle?0 -
Person you replied to:
"A car jumping a red light kills, a cyclist rarely, if ever, does."
You:
"Irrelevant, Its just as illegal for both"
How can that be interpreted any way other than you trying to claim that the fact that cars jumping red lights are *many* times more likely to kill someone is irrelevant.
Actually yeah, exactly like that.no, nothing like that. but thanks for playing0 -
No, both have the element of wilfully endangering others. Yes its less likely that a cyclist will cause a serious incident, but not to the same degree as a car being in the cycle stop area.Person you replied to:
"A car jumping a red light kills, a cyclist rarely, if ever, does."
You:
"Irrelevant, Its just as illegal for both"
How can that be interpreted any way other than you trying to claim that the fact that cars jumping red lights are *many* times more likely to kill someone is irrelevant.
So it, in the context of the discussion, means that it is irrelevant, a cyclist busting a red is just as irresponsible as a car doing it. but at almost every set of lights in Glasgow, there's a cyclist doing just that.
no accountability, no oversight. And then you get the Lycra warriors with their go pros and plastic policeman badges.
Anyway, don't want to upset the two wheeled commandos anymore, so you just carry on doing what you do:money:0 -
No, both have the element of wilfully endangering others. Yes its less likely that a cyclist will cause a serious incident, but not to the same degree as a car being in the cycle stop area.
So it, in the context of the discussion, means that it is irrelevant, a cyclist busting a red is just as irresponsible as a car doing it. but at almost every set of lights in Glasgow, there's a cyclist doing just that.
Person A carries out action B which has chance C of killing someone.
Person D carries out action E which has chance 0.05*C of killing someone.
Person D is not "just as irresponsible" as person A. Especially as the person most likely to be hurt by Person D's actions is Person D.
I work in Glasgow. I see cyclists jumping red lights, but also cars and buses. The crossings of Argyle St and Union/Jamaica St and the junction at Trongate/Stockwell St/Glassford St seem to be particular favourates of the "!!!! it it's only just changed" brigade.0 -
And again, irrelevant. And you are condoning it, or at least saying its not as big a deal.
What if a red light jumping cyclist causes a legitimately driving car to swerve and hit something else?
Also, pedestrians shouldn't have to 'get out the way' of the moron cyclists. Unless by extension, cyclists should 'get out of the way' of cars?
I'm not condoning it, I'm simply pointing out that you're making a big deal of a very minor issue (cyclists who generally just risk their own lives by jumping a red light and rarely kill - the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists averages at about 1 per year, with cars it's 1.5 per day) and ignoring the more serious issue of cars doing it - hence whataboutery.
Cyclists who jump red lights should be stopped and fined (you could easily setup police stops at problem junctions and simply grab everyone who does it, stick them a £50 fine and then send them on their way) but focusing on cyclists who rarely kill or injure people at the expense of focusing on cars which regularly kill and injure people is clearly bonkersFor me its the hypocrisy, cyclists, the ones you notice at least, e.g. the militant blowhards make the biggest fuss of anyone on the road. And my point is that they should be directing it towards their own kind as much as anyone else.
And if you would notice, i refer to busting a red light as a 'blatant' one i.e. its been red for a while and you just sail through. not a technical, wheel over the line job, nor a 'just turned red'. yes they may be both illegal too, but they have a different level of threat. As i also said, a cyclist running a light could easily cause someone else to swerve and create carnage just as much as a car doing it.
And again, cyclists are vulnerable road users - if someone jumps a red light and hits me when I'm driving I have a seatbelt, airbags and a large metal cage that will protect me to a degree, if I'm on my bike, all the force goes into me, I can suffer head injuries even with the helmet on - same principle with pedestrians and cars - THAT is why people are making a big fuss, because they want to get home alive to their loves ones!
I see cars speed up on amber (just as much an offence) and even 2+ seconds after a red light, a car doing that, particularly with lights where one goes amber the second the other goes red, has the potential to hit and kill, a cyclist doing it, again, they shouldn't, is likely to only risk their own life or has to brake / swerve around people, a car with momentum will just plough into them.
No-one but you is comparing a cyclist jumping a red light to cars stopping in the cyclists area, that's a classic strawman. We're comparing cyclists going through red lights and cars going through red lights and which one is the more serious issue. Moreover, cyclist stop areas are designed so bikes can get a head start over the cars behind to build up a bit of speed, logically a car being in there means the cyclist doesn't have that head start so could well result in a serious issue.No, both have the element of wilfully endangering others. Yes its less likely that a cyclist will cause a serious incident, but not to the same degree as a car being in the cycle stop area.
So it, in the context of the discussion, means that it is irrelevant, a cyclist busting a red is just as irresponsible as a car doing it. but at almost every set of lights in Glasgow, there's a cyclist doing just that.
no accountability, no oversight. And then you get the Lycra warriors with their go pros and plastic policeman badges.
Anyway, don't want to upset the two wheeled commandos anymore, so you just carry on doing what you do:money:
Thousands of cars have dashcams and upload the footage, does that make them four wheeled lard buckets with plastic policeman badges?Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards