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 exactly the same manner as the speeding driver, and using the same justification, "it probably wont be me".
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.
Your serious question for me highlights how broken the enforcement of road law is, and it is 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :-(
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 :-(
*that is meant as a description not a criticism
posts
