Dreaded cyclists

DanRoM

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
8,102
Location
Ruhr Area, Germany
Car(s)
MX-5 ND, CBF1000 & two bikes
That's what you're not understanding. In a car, it is absolutely not fine to run a red light.
Wrong, it is - theoretically. Red lights, like all other regulations, are just part of the situation. Act accordingly to the situation. Laws are guidelines, they are not to be taken as absolutes - not ever. If no harm is done by breaking them, and there is no danger of being caught, laws can and should be ignored. If you can be absolutely sure that no harm will be done by running the red light, the it is fine to run it - if you can also be sure the cops won't catch you. Thing is, cyclists and pedestrians can be fairly sure of that, car and motorcycle drivers can not. Because of plates and because of their not-so-good view.
 

eizbaer

Forum Addict
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
5,620
Location
Aachen, Germany
Car(s)
Seat Leon
If you can be absolutely sure that no harm will be done by running the red light, the it is fine to run it
that's the problem, you can not ever be really sure that no harm will come of it... and thus you don't run red lights.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,973
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You want us to do that in a park where there is loads of family with kids riding at 10-20kph
Yes, I have to deal with slower cars when I drive (even on track) why should you not have to deal with slower cyclists?
go to a velodrome where its flat, always turn left and if you live in a province where there is only one velodrome and its 300km away from you.
Last time I got pulled over for speeding I told the cop I was practicing for a drag race and that the nearest race track was over an hour away in a different state, he didn't have any sympathy for me for some reason :shrug:

Additionally no one is telling you to BIKE the 300kms you can easily drive there....
when i am out on my bike on the road, i want to have fun and for that i try to go as fast as i safely can
I can safely go 90+ on many highways here at the right times, won't save my license none....
Wrong, it is - theoretically. Red lights, like all other regulations, are just part of the situation. Act accordingly to the situation. Laws are guidelines, they are not to be taken as absolutes - not ever. If no harm is done by breaking them, and there is no danger of being caught, laws can and should be ignored. If you can be absolutely sure that no harm will be done by running the red light, the it is fine to run it - if you can also be sure the cops won't catch you. Thing is, cyclists and pedestrians can be fairly sure of that, car and motorcycle drivers can not. Because of plates and because of their not-so-good view.
Problem, as eizbaer has already pointed out, is that you cannot be sure. There could be a car flying down the road at a 100+ and when you think its safe you will become a hood ornament. In fact it would be safer to run red lights in cars as it would offer SOME protection in the event of a collision.

Motorcycles are actually allowed to run red lights in some places where the lights are triggered by vehicle weight, because they are typically not heavy enough to trigger them. They are basically allowed to treat such lights as stop signs. I would have no problem with cyclists doing the same and only at those types of lights but they do it whenever they please.
 
Last edited:

katwalk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
10,304
Car(s)
2003 VW Beetle, 2017 Abarth Fiat 500c
that's the problem, you can not ever be really sure that no harm will come of it... and thus you don't run red lights.
Yes, my mother when she was younger found that out the hard way when she ran a stop sign at 3 AM and another car came up over the hill and she ended up wrapped around the tree. Fun fact, even if the other person is speeding because they are just as stupid as you, guess who gets the fault of you ran the light/sign? The problem with assuming it is safe is you are usually assuming the other people ARE following the traffic rules.

Ok fine i just won't ride anymore on the road since its seems like the road is only for cars and motorcycle.
If you think it is ok to run lights you probably shouldn't be driving either.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,973
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Ok fine i just won't ride anymore on the road since its seems like the road is only for cars and motorcycle.
Who said you are not allowed to ride on the road? No one in the thread said ANYTHING about you riding on the road you were berated for running reds....
 

equiraptor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2009
Messages
1,933
Location
Houston, Texas, USA
Car(s)
2006 Mazda MX-5, 2007 Suzuki SV650
Cause you think i ride in the middle of the road, riding the wrong way, not wearing a helmet, and swerving like a drunk man while flipping off all the cars that honk at me ?
Where did I say that? Point to it. Please.

Nah i ride with the flow of traffic on the shoulder while wearing my helmet and riding as straight as possible while knowing that i am the smallest and lightest object on the road so i can't dictacte my rule. Only stop free of incomming car that i jump them but not before i slowed down and made sure none were comming. That dosent mean i jump every single stop i encounter, about half of the stop i get to, i stop because its not safe.
My comment about the law was based on your statements like these. I'm not making anything up, thanks.

You know, when i am out on my bike on the road, i want to have fun
I do not commute on my car. I rarely run errands in my car. This means if I'm in my car, it's to have fun. Even so, I obey the laws of the road. I expect the same of bicycles (and do the same when I ride my bicycle - which I have used as a commute vehicle in the past).

does that mean because i am a cyclist i shouldnt be on the road ?
I never said "because you are a cyclist you shouldn't be on the road".

If you would like to discuss with me, please stick to what I actually say, instead of creating your own hyperbole in your head. Or, if you'd prefer, I could interpret your post as "no motorized vehicles should be allowed on any roads ever." That's as reasonable as the words you've unfairly put in my mouth.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,892
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Or if the cyclist runs a light in front of a car and they swerve to avoid them, hits a tree, hits someone else, flips etc. People could easily die that way.
True, but I won't wreck my car to avoid hitting some moron on a bike who ran the stop. If my choice on my motorcycle is between wrecking myself or wrecking myself and the cyclist, I will take the cyclist with me. I already crashed one car avoiding a douche-bag in a Porsche but since there was no contact between vehicles the insurance was very hesitant to pay out, even when I had a description of the car.

No, if I'm going down, I'm taking you with me just to prove that it wasn't a single-vehicle crash.

Wrong, it is - theoretically. Red lights, like all other regulations, are just part of the situation. Act accordingly to the situation. Laws are guidelines, they are not to be taken as absolutes - not ever. If no harm is done by breaking them, and there is no danger of being caught, laws can and should be ignored. If you can be absolutely sure that no harm will be done by running the red light, the it is fine to run it - if you can also be sure the cops won't catch you. Thing is, cyclists and pedestrians can be fairly sure of that, car and motorcycle drivers can not. Because of plates and because of their not-so-good view.
First of all, your attitude is exactly that of a particular notorious driver known as DIVINEZ, who got internet fame by nearly killing a motorcyclist in the Bay Area. Google him, see what comes up. It was only because the rider was very skilled, and very experienced that he survived a near head-on collision with a speeding douchebag who thought he knew better than the law saying not to pass on that corner.
Yes, I'm comparing you to that type of behavior because your attitude is identical.

Laws are not guidelines. Laws are laws; there is a reason we have two different words to define these different concepts.

You cannot guarantee that no harm will come from ignoring the traffic laws. As I've said in this thread and others many times, I have had too many close calls and one very serious crash that has left me with a permanent impairment because people treated laws as if they were only suggestions. You are confusing "no harm" with "not being ticketed."

Cyclists and pedestrians cannot be relatively sure of anything. Don't believe me? Go look up how many vehicles strike jaywalking pedestrians. I believe a mother was recently sentenced to jail for jaywalking with her child when they were both struck by an SUV and the child was killed. I think she was found guilty of manslaughter, field of vision had nothing to do with it.

Motorcyclists have just as much field of view as cyclists, are you saying that vehicles that have good outward visibility are exempt from traffic laws?


Ok fine i just won't ride anymore on the road since its seems like the road is only for cars and motorcycle responsible road-users who obey traffic laws.
FTFY
 
Last edited:

snoro

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
398
Location
Qu?bec,Qu?bec,Canada
Car(s)
1995 850 turbo wagon with a schtick
If you think it is ok to run lights you probably shouldn't be driving either.
I never said i run red lights when i am driving for a simple reason: because i don't

Who said you are not allowed to ride on the road?
some people like Cowboy think that because we don't have a license plate and insurrance, we shouldn't be on the road because we don't pay for it.

Where did I say that? Point to it. Please.
old habits from french: by saying the laws i see that as all the laws like if i was breaking them all. That's why i said that

Yes i understand that i shouldnt be running stop and from what i can remember i never ran a red light because it was never safe when i was on a bike
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,856
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Yes i understand that i shouldnt be running stop and from what i can remember i never ran a red light because it was never safe when i was on a bike
It is never safe to run a red light. Bike, car, motorcycle, or whatever.
 

skidd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
1,356
Location
San Francisco
If the light turns red, but there's no one to see it, is it really red? Or do you determine it's outcome by measuring it?
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,856
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
If the light turns red, but there's no one to see it, is it really red? Or do you determine it's outcome by measuring it?
Do you really want to get into quantuum physics and the damned cat paradox here? :p
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,175
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
If the light turns red, but there's no one to see it, is it really red? Or do you determine it's outcome by measuring it?
This may sound unscientific, but the color of a traffic light is irrelevant when nobody is around to observe it.

Let's assume it is not really red. Well woopdeedoo, nobody around to run that not-really-red light, no harm done.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,973
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Cyclists and pedestrians cannot be relatively sure of anything. Don't believe me? Go look up how many vehicles strike jaywalking pedestrians. I believe a mother was recently sentenced to jail for jaywalking with her child when they were both struck by an SUV and the child was killed. I think she was found guilty of manslaughter, field of vision had nothing to do with it.
It was two kids IIRC and the driver was drunk but she was found guilty of a bunch of things, like child endangerment and negligence and some other shit.
some people like Cowboy think that because we don't have a license plate and insurrance, we shouldn't be on the road because we don't pay for it.
You are confusing two different things. I agree with Cowboy that cyclists should have plates and insurance if they want to participate in the rest of traffic.
This may sound unscientific, but the color of a traffic light is irrelevant when nobody is around to observe it.
That would be more along the lines of unphilosophical :p
 

katwalk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
10,304
Car(s)
2003 VW Beetle, 2017 Abarth Fiat 500c
It was two kids IIRC and the driver was drunk but she was found guilty of a bunch of things, like child endangerment and negligence and some other shit.
There are too many of these cases apparently. There was recently one that had a video showing a month PUSHING her child into the road into moving traffic where he kid got run over. I do believe that kid lived because the suv that hit them had high enough ground clearance to simply drive over the kid after knocking them down.
 

LP

Your Brown Banana for Scale
DONOR
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
7,953
Location
East-Timor, USA
Car(s)
206 HP N/A washing machine
Cause you think i ride in the middle of the road, riding the wrong way, not wearing a helmet, and swerving like a drunk man while flipping off all the cars that honk at me ?

Nah i ride with the flow of traffic on the shoulder while wearing my helmet and riding as straight as possible while knowing that i am the smallest and lightest object on the road so i can't dictacte my rule. Only stop free of incomming car that i jump them but not before i slowed down and made sure none were comming. That dosent mean i jump every single stop i encounter, about half of the stop i get to, i stop because its not safe. You know, when i am out on my bike on the road, i want to have fun and for that i try to go as fast as i safely can like most here do with their does that mean because i am a cyclist i shouldnt be on the road ? But in a car i would totally be fine ?
I found this image on reddit, and was reminded of this topic.

I definitely think its approp.

 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,810
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Wrong, it is - theoretically. Red lights, like all other regulations, are just part of the situation. Act accordingly to the situation. Laws are guidelines, they are not to be taken as absolutes - not ever. If no harm is done by breaking them, and there is no danger of being caught, laws can and should be ignored. If you can be absolutely sure that no harm will be done by running the red light, the it is fine to run it - if you can also be sure the cops won't catch you. Thing is, cyclists and pedestrians can be fairly sure of that, car and motorcycle drivers can not. Because of plates and because of their not-so-good view.
Simple answer. Laws are laws and should be always respected.

Complex answer. Yes, laws depends on the contest, they are there for a reason, to regulate something, and it is not right to treat them as sacred oaths you need to respect even when out of context. You could avoid acting according to law if your action wouldn't break the spirit of said law. --BUT-- how can you determine whether a law can go unfollowed without breaking its main intent? In a utopistic world, you would be imbued with the perfect knowledge of the situation and a flawless ability to judge the world right. unfortunately, in the real world you are surrounded by utter idiots, and you can look around for factual data to support that. So, the idea that you can determine when a law can be broken or not is a fallacy, because most of the people won't be able to do that.

As a support for that, I live in Italy, when most of the people think they can break the rules most of the time, particularly in certain situations, like bicycling. You have no idea how many people I saw seriously risking their lives forgoing entire stacks of rules in spectacular and often bizarre combos. The only reason they are still alive is because other people literally "expect the unexpected".

The truth is: factual evidence disproves the idea that people (thereby "you", to refer to everyone who will read) can judge by themselves what is dangerous and what is not, therefore being able to determine whether a law can be disattended without breaking its spirit and creating danger or damage to others.

---

Simple answer=complex answer
 

katwalk

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
10,304
Car(s)
2003 VW Beetle, 2017 Abarth Fiat 500c
As a support for that, I live in Italy, when most of the people think they can break the rules most of the time, particularly in certain situations, like bicycling. You have no idea how many people I saw seriously risking their lives forgoing entire stacks of rules in spectacular and often bizarre combos. The only reason they are still alive is because other people literally "expect the unexpected".
Most useful lesson for driving here as well, assume everyone else will break all the traffic rules.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,810
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
Most useful lesson for driving here as well, assume everyone else will break all the traffic rules.
Your stories from deep MA always make me curious. Is it really so bad? I figure it as a good place to be. Speaking of road and traffic, better than here. Or are these just effects of my inconditionate and irrational love for things abroad?
 

WillDAQ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
2,725
Location
Ukania
Most useful lesson for driving here as well, assume everyone else will break all the traffic rules.
Having had a car driving directly towards me on my side of the road the other day, this is good advice.

I'd be amazed if the old lady could see the steering wheel past her cataracts...
 
Top