http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Who is this guy :( en Thu, 21 May 2026 22:56:11 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86734 Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:35:27 +0000 Arellcat 86734@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As anyone who's been watching the recent series of Celebrity Masterchef, or in truth, any other show with incredibly long drawn out voting-off segments will realise, it's all in the editing. Host announces preamble, cut to no-hoper, cut to likely winner, cue voiceover shoutout, cut to host, cut to possible winner, cut to group shot, cut to host for announcement. Eight seconds cleverly padded into a whole minute.</p> <p>I was beginning to notice the number of people riding on the pavement, through lights, and so on, and then noticed how the taxi driver never seemed to stray into the ASL boxes. 'Hurrah for the taxi driver!' I thought, until the last bit with the ridiculous overtake on Princes St.</p> <p>Edit: just realised that I watched the vid with the sound turned off. I never knew there was ribald commentary! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86705 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:03:05 +0000 gembo 86705@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ crow river, I did not realise that I was describing theplotmof taxi driver but I was. tho this guy is day time filmed when waiting in rank, so indeed taxi driver lite.</p> <p>In both movie's when the taxi driver takes the law into his own hands I don't think the audience is supposed to agree with him?</p> <p>I am not condoning what he did. I am saying in his mind we gave him justification and I read an awful lot of this string as circumlocution. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86703 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 19:29:00 +0000 559 86703@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>On this I'am in the black and white camp as a society we cannot pick and choose which rules should apply as we lose any ability to criticise other road users without being open to very justified cries of hypocrisy.<br /> Is one of the reasons perhaps, that us cyclists feel the need to comment on other cyclists actions, is to fill the vacuum that is the lack of police action on cyclists activity. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86697 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:44:57 +0000 wee folding bike 86697@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Tammy,</p> <p>I would consider an incorrectly set up vehicle actuated light to be faulty and then keep to the code thusly:</p> <p>176<br /> You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. <strong>If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.</strong><br /> [Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 &amp; TSRGD regs 10 &amp; 36] </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86693 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:13:58 +0000 twinspark 86693@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Had words with somebody on a bike tonight at West Saville Terrace although it was a case of "join the queue" as 2 motorists were (rightly IMHO) having a go at them.</p> <p>The reason? The jumped the red lights at KB where they're doing the pavement work. I was waiting at the head of the queue when he ambled past me and carried on round the corner.</p> <p>Must say the cars going past me were exemplary when the lights turned green. I'm then pretty sure this character went though the next set of lights against the red.</p> <p>Anyway at West Saville Terrace I asked him what the RLJ'ing was about as it hadn't got him anywhere. "Oh you're having a go at me now" was their response. "Well yes because you're what's giving cyclists a bad name".</p> <p>Anyway I think the car drivers concerned got the gist that we're not all the same.</p> <p>Back OT I would be annoyed with these cyclists RLJ'ing whether I was on the bike, in the car, on a bus or on foot. I think if you watch the film a few times however you will see that the other drivers are not exemplary in their behaviour either, never mind the taxi driver. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86686 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:24:35 +0000 gkgk 86686@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I found the taxi driver's resigned tone quite heartening. He's trying to rant but the wind just isn't in his sails, I think. A few more people paddling around on bikes and he'll get past seeing them as them-n-us "cyclists". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86683 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 16:01:54 +0000 Dave 86683@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I walk across junctions all the time, even if they do turn green on a regular basis. To me it's a pointless distinction between walking across with or without a bike, whatever people who aren't so fortunate (i.e. can't carry their car about!) may think.</p> <p>In time the growing popularity of cycling should normalise a lot of this stuff. Telling cyclists to get their act together will seem as weird as it would now to tell motorists to stop each other speeding or using the phone.</p> <p>And yes, almost everyone breaks road laws all the time. As cyclists we should almost be glad that people are out there committing everyday infractions just like they do in their cars, because it's a sign that ordinary people are using bikes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86678 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:27:29 +0000 tammytroot 86678@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hands up anyone who knows of a set of traffic lights that does not detect the approach of cyclists?<br /> Now hands up anyone who does not dismount and push their bike accross the road.<br /> See, you lot all jump red lights :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86675 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:19:38 +0000 stiltskin 86675@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The problem is that the perception of cyclists has very little to do with their on road behaviour. It wouldn't matter if even a tiny proportion jumped red. It is how this is perceived by motorists.<br /> Anecdote time. In a car with my wife at the Craigleith junction. Cyclist ambles through a red. Wife comments negatively on the cyclists behaviour. "it's why cyclists have a bad reputation." At that point I could see three other bikes stopped at the lights while every single ASL had a car in it. So 75% compliance by bikes 0% by car &amp; what was noticed? I have no idea whether cyclists as a whole are more or less law abiding than drivers. What I do know is that the reputation we have is due to our 'out group status and is not a direct reflection on relative standards of behaviour.</p> <p>This vid is confirmation bias in action. Loads of shots of people committing illegal acts which by &amp; large are not dangerous which ends up with an ending of the cabbie driving in a dangerous fashion. The reason this video does nothing for me is that if I were to post a vid I would put something which is genuinely dangerous: that might include someone riding at speed through a crowd of peds for example. But the behaviour he shows can be seen every minute of everyday by all sorts of different road users. Ideally nobody would ever break the law, but since they do, let's concentrate our ire on the stuff that actually kills people. Once we've fixed that we can move onto building a perfect society.<br /> As most people have said here. I don't condone RLJ etc. it irritates the hell out of me. However in the grand scheme of things the main problem is that it gives motorists the opportunity to whinge ,but you know what.... They'd whinge anyway. They see what they want to see. They choose to ignore bahviour which kills 2000 people a year and concentrate on that which results in few injuries. Where is the logic in that? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86661 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:50:22 +0000 crowriver 86661@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good grief.</p> <p>Posting that vid on here is pretty much trolling and flamebaiting.</p> <p>Consider what would the reaction be if a video of taxis running red/amber lights, doing illegal U-eys, cutting other road users up dangerously, and so on, was made by a cyclist and then posted to a taxi driver forum?</p> <p>Personally, I'm not going to bother arguing the toss over this one. It's just as bad as the h****t debate. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86656 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:30:14 +0000 Its_Me_Knees 86656@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Ooooh - pet hate time. Not taxi drivers, or car/lorry/bus drivers, or indeed cyclists, but anyone with the screaming arrogance to think that the law doesn't / shouldn't apply to them. It's a nasty, self-serving mind set that seems to grow daily in our society as we are taught to suppress ideas built around the common good in favour of some half-cocked notion about the Freedom of the Individual (God Bless America, Jeremy Clarkson and the Tory Party, etc...). </p> <p>The police and ambulance crews know the deal: unlike the rest of us, they see the consequences of this arrogance every week - just because I've never seen an RLJ-ing cyclist hit a pedestrian, or seen a cyclist hit by an amber-gambling taxi, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.</p> <p>I'm with Kirst: the cyclists and the taxi driver in the video are fuds. Whether or not there is equality of enforcement of laws for cyclists and taxi drivers (or other road users) is a moot point, but it doesn't mean that any RTA violations are justified.</p> <p>Tin hat on... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86652 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 13:01:29 +0000 Smudge 86652@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I hear what you're saying Dave, but suppose running red lights caused one avoidable death? Is that an acceptable margin? Or two, or ten if numbers increased enough? My point is that it is in the same category as speeding purely because it is breaking clear road laws for a minimal gain to the perpetrator (measurable in seconds) which carries a potential risk of collision, exactly the same as speeding. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of drivers will break the speed limit today, a few hundred cyclists will probably jump red lights, now they (cyclists)might have to be unlucky to get hit or cause someone else to get hit, they'd have to be *very* unlucky to hit and injure/kill someone, purely by numbers participating there will be more people hurt/affected by speeders, but it's a totally avoidable extra risk. By using the bike in an illegal manner they are creating risk and breaking safety rules in <em>exactly</em> the same manner as the speeding driver, and using the same justification, "it <em>probably</em> wont be me".<br /> I cannot see any justification for RLJ'ing sorry, to me it's a black and white obey the rules or don't, and as soon as we start picking and choosing which rules should apply we lose any ability to criticise other road users without being open to very justified cries of hypocrisy.</p> <p>Your serious question for me highlights how broken the enforcement of road law is, and it <em>is</em> concerning. That it is so poor that people being frightened daily as they go about their business is somehow acceptable, I find it completely obscene that we are prepared to accept many deaths on the road every day in the pursuit of speed and convenience.</p> <p>My belief is that teaching people to obey the rules and use primary / secondary sensibly, and to be assertive on the road, works. Both for powered and unpowered two wheelers. Along with a progressive move from the quietest roads up to the busier ones of course.<br /> There will sadly always be a group of people who feel the risks outweigh the advantages, I have known several people who will not drive a car, although qualified, as the behaviour of other road users scares them so much, and given the accident rates it is a justified fear. I believe that harsh enforcement of the existing rules could help, and a change from the current presumption of a "right" to hold a licence to it being a privilege would go further, however that change must encompass all road users.</p> <p>As has been extensively discussed, the cyclist, to us gently rolling round a corner on the pavement can appear a scary speeding thug to some young. elderly or infirm pedestrians, even if there is little or no risk of physical injury, their fright still counts. We must consider the impact of our actions on others as well as others impact upon us.</p> <p>So, reluctantly, if your protege cannot learn and be taught the confidence to use the "frightening"* roads around them, then I fear I would have to say they must restrict themselves to segregated cycle-routes and quieter roads and campaign to everyone they can think of for an improvement in the safety in their area.<br /> It shouldn't be this way, it IS wrong, and maybe it means one less cyclist, but that is the way I see their option just now :-(<br /> I think whatever our differences of opinion, we are both agreed that it is a very, very sad situation we find ourselves in now though :-(</p> <p>*that is meant as a description not a criticism </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86651 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:54:20 +0000 Baldcyclist 86651@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'd also add that the absolutist position is, in effect, telling those people to get on the road or stay off their bike. There's no cycling for them."</p> <p>Hmm, never realised staying within the law meant you couldn't cycle at all?</p> <p>If you refer to that group as those that may not be comfortable cycling on the road, and feel they have to cycle on pavements because there is no infrastructure that they can use and feel safe on, then yes, THERE'S NO CYCLING FOR THEM, absolutely. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86649 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:48:32 +0000 Kirst 86649@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The cyclists are fuds and the taxi driver is a fud. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86648 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:29:17 +0000 Instography 86648@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Picking up on Dave's last paragraph, I'd also add that the absolutist position is, in effect, telling those people to get on the road or stay off their bike. There's no cycling for them. That group, however small or vast, is condemned to wait for the infrastructure that the straw man of the law-breaking cyclist is being used to prevent. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584&page=2#post-86647 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:25:52 +0000 Instography 86647@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I can buy into the absolutist position that everyone should obey all of the prevailing laws and if there's any you don't like, you should campaign through the appropriate channels. Fine. </p> <p>That only moves me to the politics of the law-breaking cyclist. Why is the emphasis on the law-breaking cyclist and not the law-breaking driver? Why is there an expectation that cyclists should (and do) police themselves but drivers need not? What is the role of the law-breaking cyclist in debates about transport investment and the allocation of road space. I think the law-breaking cyclist is a straw man and the absolutist, in arguing that position, helps hold it up. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86646 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:15:59 +0000 Dave 86646@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Nah sorry, I'm not buying chunks of that, claiming that "drifting through red lights" (to save what, ten seconds?) is acceptable is putting yourself in the same category as drivers who speed all the time because "it's not really dangerous". It sounds too much like the justifications I've seen from the speeders on the EEN boards.</em></p> <p>Suppose running red lights or cycling on the pavements caused, roughly, zero deaths or serious injuries per annum while misbehaviour in cars is associated with 30,000 or so. </p> <p>Are they really, truly in the "same category"? If you ask me it's a sign of how broken we are that it's even possible to argue about.</p> <p>It's interesting for me because of my current role as unlikely cycling mentor. I genuinely don't think he will ride solo without using the pavement so, as I'm in the position to choose between "pavement cyclist" and "non cyclist" on wider society's behalf, what should I go for?</p> <p>It's a serious question. Hitherto I've assumed that basically anyone can just ride on the roads as it's only a question of having the balls to get in the way and ignore people shouting, beeping and/or cutting you up (as we see on the 'dodgy driving' topic) but I now see that actually, there are a lot of people, perhaps a vast majority, who are either not going to cycle or do it on their own terms, whatever the fine points of the law. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86644 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:56:12 +0000 Smudge 86644@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nah sorry, I'm not buying chunks of that, claiming that "drifting through red lights" (to save what, ten seconds?) is acceptable is putting yourself in the same category as drivers who speed all the time because "it's not really dangerous". It sounds too much like the justifications I've seen from the speeders on the EEN boards.</p> <p>There are two seperate arguments going on here, one, that breaking the law on a bicycle is ok because the people doing it believe it is safe, based on their experience that they've not had an accident so far, (just like the majority of speeding drivers), and two, that this behaviour prevents improvements to cycle provision.</p> <p>I'm afraid I've got to say that in my opinion both are spurious. Breaking the laws on foot, on a bicycle or motorcycle or in a car is not just illegal it's selfish, just because "I haven't had/caused a crash", proves nothing.<br /> I don't care if 999 people do it and nothing happens, the thousandth one who causes another avoidable collision is the problem. There are many, many traffic laws which I could flout and it's highly likely nothing would happen, but the laws have to be written for the lowest common standard of road user and unfortunately there are a lot of users who shouldn't (imho) be alone in charge of a sharp stick let alone a wheeled vehicle (imho). To protect them, and us, we (should) obey a standard code of rules. So I avoid speeding, I obey traffic signals and try to ride safely. I'm not Mr Perfect (and never will be) but I do try at least not to knowingly break the law, and I'm certainly not going to condone anyone else who does it.</p> <p>However that has stuff all to do with media who trade in stereotypes. They always will and a lot of people will swallow the bile, just look at the circulation figures for the Sun, Mail etc etc. Nothing we do will change that.<br /> These people will harp on about the Aunt Sally you correctly identify, but really it makes little difference (imo) to the provision (or not) of cycle infrastructure, and any councilor or politician who uses the argument to justify inaction should be easily shot down.<br /> RLJ'ers and pavement cyclists are NOT "causing the anger and the killing", they are merely another irresponsible road user making the experience less safe for everyone else.<br /> The rules aren't there "to benefit cars", they're there in years of vain attempts to stop people hurting and killing each other with horses, carriages, cars, bikes, bicycles etc etc. If we wish to retain our default "right" to use the carriageways which others are licensed to share with us then we need to accept the personal responsibility to ride within the legal constraints.</p> <p>Condoning/justifying illegal manouevres however just makes us look hypocritical to any non cycle users who read/hear that sort of thing. After all, I'd call for a clampdown on drivers who speed in town or who make "punishment passes", so why would I condone other "low level" vehicle infractions. These are not subjective offences, they are black and white. Red or Amber means stop, green means go, it doesn't get much simpler and if waiting 30 sec for the green light is going to make someone late then they need to leave earlier, same as the impatient clown in the speeding car. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86630 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:39:23 +0000 Instography 86630@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Now that we've had the twitter update :-/</p> <p>For the people opposed to cycling (never mind provision for cyclists) the issue of the law-breaking cyclist is a bogeyman, an Aunt Sally, a straw man, a rhetorical device brought up to distract attention from the more important question of what should change on the road to stop drivers killing cyclists. I think it's no accident that in the aftermath of the positive olympic related attention there's been a rash of formulaic articles in the press about the law-breaking cyclist. Normal service must be restored lest things get out of hand and road space gets reallocated.</p> <p>And cyclists fall for it every time, allowing themselves to become embroiled in discussion of the relative rights and wrongs of drifting through red lights or cutting off lights by going round pavements. Because that's what these people are doing. They're not hammering across busy junctions causing drivers to swerve out of control into crowds of pedestrians at lights. </p> <p>We're spending time in forceful condemnation of behaviour that is, in safety terms, completely irrelevant and sometimes literally chasing "offenders" to berate them and make sure they understand the damage they're doing. They're causing the anger and the killing. They're stopping things getting better by not obeying rules. The thinking seems to be that until we're all being properly compliant and obeying a set of rules designed to benefit cars, <strong>they</strong> won't improve things.</p> <p>It's a bullying and infantilising tactic - the kind of thing teachers say to unruly pupils, that they'll all suffer if one steps out of line in the hope that the class will police itself. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86629 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:38:58 +0000 recombodna 86629@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The crazy thing is that a 2 second internet search has revealed to me This taxi Drivers Name D.O.B and home address!!!!</p> <p>So he's not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to protecting his online identity..... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86623 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:13:43 +0000 chdot 86623@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> John Lauder (@John_Lauder)<br /> 05/10/2012 10:11<br /> 1/2 We deliver over 70 community links a year in partnership with LA's who match fund our grant from @transscotland #sustrans</p> <p>John Lauder (@John_Lauder)<br /> 05/10/2012 10:12<br /> 2/2 Today we're agreeing funding for projects in Edinburgh (8) Perth &amp; Kinross (6) East Lothian (1) &amp; A'dnshire (4). #sustrans</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86622 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:11:02 +0000 chdot 86622@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)<br /> 05/10/2012 10:06<br /> @CyclingEdin @F1les #lawsforall 83% of #motorists admit #speeding, 43% in 30mph zones ... @RAC_Breakdown 2012 report <a href="http://www.rac.co.uk/advice/reports-on-motoring/rac-report-on-motoring-2012/content-chapters/5-0-safety-and-security" rel="nofollow">http://www.rac.co.uk/advice/reports-on-motoring/rac-report-on-motoring-2012/content-chapters/5-0-safety-and-security</a></p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86620 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:07:49 +0000 chdot 86620@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)<br /> 05/10/2012 09:54<br /> @allpartycycling Forthcoming #Edinburgh report: #bicycle trips quadrupled with crash numbers static, but motorist at fault in 75% of crashes</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86619 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:52:15 +0000 chdot 86619@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> Les Denholm (@F1les)<br /> 05/10/2012 09:40<br /> @CyclingEdin I am 5 mobile phone users so far</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86614 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:43:30 +0000 chdot 86614@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> London mayor's claim that two-thirds of bad cycling accidents were due to cyclist law-breaking is proved to be utterly false. Where's the apology?</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrong" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/oct/04/boris-johnson-cycling-accident-statistics-wrong</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86612 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:37:49 +0000 Roibeard 86612@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Smudge - <em>They represent a concious decision to disobey clearly understood laws.</em></p> <p>I'd have thought so once too, however I've realised that UK law isn't universal in this regard.</p> <p>Some countries teach cyclists to travel against the traffic "salmon", just as we teach pedestrians to walk on the right on the carriageway if there's no footway.</p> <p>Some Americans may expect it's OK to turn left or continue straight where there isn't a road on the left, through a red light, if they treat it as a Give Way.</p> <p>Glasgow has cycle contraflows on one way streets (or cycle permeability on no through roads) that appear to be very subtly marked (based on my Edinburgh experience). I only noticed when I spotted the cycle cut through, and have no idea what would alert motorists to the potential presence of cyclists approaching the "wrong" way.</p> <p>We also have shared facilities that are very sparcely marked - is the core path through St Andrews Square, still marked with NCN signs, shared? How often is the question asked "is this still shared?". Or conversely - who has cycled under the gaze of the no cycling signs on Portobello Prom? [I have, led by a council officer!]</p> <p>So, whilst ignorance is no excuse, I'm no longer so confident that folk know the law and are deliberately ignoring it. Some may incorrectly think it's permissible where it isn't (or isn't in the particular case they're testing).</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86606 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:26:25 +0000 chdot 86606@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> Les Denholm (@F1les)<br /> 05/10/2012 09:14<br /> @CyclingEdin counting cyclists going through red lights today 3 so far</p> <p>"</p> <p>"<br /> Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)<br /> 05/10/2012 09:24<br /> @F1les hope you're counting drivers too, and ones on mobiles and those who stop in ASLs, and speed (esp in #20splenty) #lawsforall</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86604 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:11:50 +0000 Dave 86604@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Also, on a more general point, do we not accept that different behaviour on the road is better or worse to different degrees? I'm more concerned about someone driving drunk than I am by someone driving on the phone, but I'd rather someone speeding-not-on-the-phone to someone driving under the limit while using their phone. </p> <p>I'd rather any variety of cycling misbehaviour on an 8kg bike than any on an 1800kg motor.</p> <p>So at the end of the day, I find it hard to get upset by pavement cycling at all. It's sort of like ripping CDs, it's illegal and can't be condoned but doesn't actually do any real harm (except expose prejudice in others that would be there anyway).</p> <p>IMO, of course. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86603 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:09:11 +0000 Smudge 86603@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Edit, ahh, just seen your amendment! Too slow typing on a phone!!</p> <p>Top quality film though ;-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8584#post-86602 Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:08:09 +0000 Dave 86602@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>As ever, we should apply the race or religion filter to see whether what is being suggested holds up to the light of day. </p> <p>I actually do have a Firefox plugin which changes all varieties of 'cyclist' to the appropriate variety of 'black person' (ahem) and 'driver' to 'honest white men' for any scotsman.com -related domain. It's sometimes pretty startling.</p> <p>So, we're asked to understand and sympathise with dangerous or abusive driving because, really, honest white men are so provoked by the misdemeanours of some "coloured folk" that it's inevitable they will take it out on the next one they meet? And that it's the "coloured folk"'s own responsibility to worry about this?</p> <p>Considering that most of what annoys drivers isn't illegal cycling at all, that's a hard pill to swallow. </p>