Friday, August 25, 2006
Stop At Red - Misguided Idiots
I want to have a quick few words about this bunch of eejits
What do they think they can achieve? So people who stop at red lights are pledging to continue to stop at red lights. And people who don;t will continue to be RLJs (red light jumpers).
I treat some red lights as advisory when I cycle. the ones where not stopping has a nil effect on other road users, and nil risk for me. Others, there's a risk of hitting peds, and if peds are about, I stop and stay stopped until its safe to move on. And on major junctions where I have to cross the flow of traffic to get to the exit I need, then I definitely take no chances.
There's a real argument here that traffic lights are designed for the needs of motor vehicles and/or the need to protect pedestrians from motor vehicles. So why do traffic lights apply in exactly the same way to cyclists as they do to cars, lorries, motorbikes and buses?
In many cases the law could say cyclists proceed through red light if safe to do so. Recklessly racing through a crowd of pedestrians, or against traffic crossing the junction can remain just as illegal as it is now.
That's why Stop At Red are so wrong. Instead of wringing our hands and looking concerned about the criticisms we receive from other road users - and lets face it, these complaints are nearly always red-herring arguments which indicate a deep prejudice undeneath - we should be declaring the need to change the law to one more appropriate for cyclists.
Are Stop At Red going to campaign for lawful motoring. Probably not. So who is. Motorists? Well, that's clearly not happening. So why should we be the only suckers working within an unworkable set of laws?