Cyclists going through red lights. Localised colour blindness?

[Bargepole23 337]

Ahh, thank you WarPig. Its good to see the standard, good old, tired rubbish trotted out to muddy the waters and avoid the question as soon as anyone mentions insurance. Its also good to see the pedantry over wording as well

 

I dont suppose that you have anything NEW to contribute do you?

 

The argument about pedestrians having insurance is a valid one.

 

Presumably you are referring to the 'road tax' comment in your 'pedantry' comment? In which case, the mistake is yours.

 

Do you think access to services and infrastructure should be dependent on the levels of tax an individual pays? A simple yes or no will be enough.

[alchemist 35]

The argument about pedestrians having insurance is a valid one.

 

Presumably you are referring to the 'road tax' comment in your 'pedantry' comment? In which case, the mistake is yours.

 

Do you think access to services and infrastructure should be dependent on the levels of tax an individual pays? A simple yes or no will be enough.

 

Is the argument about pedestrians really a valid one, taking that argument all the way to its conclusion would seem to me to indicate that you are therefore arguing that car drivers should also not have insurance because the pedestrians dont have insurance!!!

 

In what way is the mistake mine? Someone uses the wrong term and even though it is known WHAT is meant the only argument that arises is that you have used the wrong words so NEHHH the argument is invalid. So pedantry, I assume that you are now going to defend that with more pedantry, if so, i dont actually care!!!

 

As for your tax comment, again, another pointless attempt to muddy the waters with an irrelevant question, so I choose not to answer, make of that what you will, and I assume that you will

[Cyclone 10]

This seems to be a never ending discussion. I'm sure there's half a dozen identical threads on here. Why can't everyone just agree that sometimes motorists, cyclists and pedestrians do things they shouldnt. People just need to look out for each other a bit more. I've been hit by a cyclist while I was stood on the pavement and had a few near misses with cars going through red lights on crossings. (I don't drive or cycle so have no bias towards either). It just seems pointless going over the same arguments over and over.

 

Absolutely true, there are people who don't follow the rules whilst using all forms of transport.

Today at Hillsborough tram gate I followed a van through the gate, and I was followed by a fully laden car transporter.

Neither of them appeared to be buses, taxis or cycles (either motor or bi)...

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2018 at 17:04 ----------

 

Is the argument about pedestrians really a valid one, taking that argument all the way to its conclusion would seem to me to indicate that you are therefore arguing that car drivers should also not have insurance because the pedestrians dont have insurance!!!

Well, that's reductio absurdum.

Obviously we don't think that. We think that motor vehicles should continue to have insurance and that none motor vehicles, ie bikes, pedestrians, skateboards, and so on, shouldn't.

It's your argument that is being shown to be absurd, not ours.

In what way is the mistake mine? Someone uses the wrong term and even though it is known WHAT is meant the only argument that arises is that you have used the wrong words so NEHHH the argument is invalid. So pedantry, I assume that you are now going to defend that with more pedantry, if so, i dont actually care!!!

It's not pedantry to point out that VED would be zero rated for cycles is it

 

As for your tax comment, again, another pointless attempt to muddy the waters with an irrelevant question, so I choose not to answer, make of that what you will, and I assume that you will

It's very convenient to declare all these awkward points to be just "muddying the waters", but also very transparent.

[leginemro 10]

its funny dont you think that 99% of cyclists must be colour blind because they all seem to not notice that traffic lights on red ,I am colour blind but I can tell the difference between red and green

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2018 at 20:56 ----------

 

still not to worry its not there fault , it never is

[Bargepole23 337]

its funny dont you think that 99% of cyclists must be colour blind because they all seem to not notice that traffic lights on red ,I am colour blind but I can tell the difference between red and green

 

---------- Post added 20-08-2018 at 20:56 ----------

 

still not to worry its not there fault , it never is

 

Great post, any point to it? Clearly, 99% of cyclists don't jump red lights.

 

You're right not to worry.

[Cyclone 10]

It's simply not true is it. I bet the people complaining run more lights than the average cyclist. It's annoying, but definitely not something to worry about.

[Vasquez Rich 10]

Whereas ALL drivers.. (and I am one).. stay within the speed limit, never run an amber or red light, never undertake on the motorway, never hog the middle lane, never tailgate another driver, and are always a pleasure to be amongst.

 

Oh and all have perfectly good cars, fully taxed, tested and insured.

[chakademus 10]

Don't mean to be argumentative but did someone just say pedestrians should have insurance!!???

Surely cyclists who think road laws don't apply to them (running red lights etc) should have a form of insurance / tax. A competency test??

[ads36 216]

did someone just say pedestrians should have insurance!!

 

pedestrian-insurance makes as much sense as cyclist-insurance.

 

pedestrians can and do cause damage to people and property by walking/running into them.

[spider1 11]

If cyclists dont need insurance or road tax i cant any reason they cant go through lights at

red . What are they going to be done for jay walking

[chakademus 10]

pedestrian-insurance makes as much sense as cyclist-insurance.

 

pedestrians can and do cause damage to people and property by walking/running into them.

 

What by walking along a path or across a road. You do realize the primary motive of pedestrian is not to fling oneself into oncoming traffic?

 

---------- Post added 21-08-2018 at 12:04 ----------

 

If cyclists dont need insurance or road tax i cant any reason they cant go through lights at

red . What are they going to be done for jay walking

 

Exactly. Zero responsibility. Gold star this man.

[Resident 1,185]

pedestrian-insurance makes as much sense as cyclist-insurance.

 

pedestrians can and do cause damage to people and property by walking/running into them.

 

Really?

 

The average person walks around 3mph, same average person will run between 7-10mph (average lowers over increasing distance due to fatigue)

 

The average person does not have a tubular steel frame attached to them, the average cyclist does and travels on average around 20mph (so double the pedestrian) and can be travelling upto 30mph.

 

A cyclist hitting a pedestrian at the average speed of 20mph is going to do MORE damage than a pedestrian travelling even at average running speed.

 

Don't agree? Well let's run an experiment. I'll need your participation.

 

My testing method will be as follows:

 

You will stand in front of me and I will swing my bare fist at your right chest area.

 

We'll have the damage assessed by a medical professional

 

Then I will swing a steel pole at your left chest area and again have the damage assessed.

 

My expected conclusion, based on REALITY and PHYSICS will be that the steel pole will come out on top of the damage stakes.

 

You in?