I have been seeing this more and more recently, especially since I started sharing videos from my cycling excursions. I like to think of myself as unbiased (I wish!) and happily share videos of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. If they do something dumb, I am happy to post it online. But what always amazes me is the angry responses you get. Regardless of which pocket of society is involved in the video, there are always VERY angry people ready to unleash on you.
Like I say, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am fine with that, after all this is mine I am writing right now, and I am sure to some it is also wrong already, but hey ho. The problem comes when people turn opinion into facts. Stating their opinion as if it is factually correct. In a recent blog entry I talked about a video of an incident between a van and a cyclist. From the off it was my belief the cyclist messed up, things I said in the video highlighted that, or so I thought, however some chose to interpret these words differently.
The interesting bit comes when you engage with these comments to try and understand why they think what they think. Sure it is hard to understand a situation from a short clip, get the wrong end of the stick etc. But surely when the person IN the video explains what was meant by it, you grab the right end of the stick, and it all makes a bit more sense... But no, this is not the case at all. In fact all it seems to do is enrage the complete stranger, and make them even more adamant that they are right. Relying on their biases, and using them against the facts.
Shouting angrily that as you are a cyclist you MUST be siding with "your mate", then when you explain this is not the case, you are back tracking and trying to make excuses. The irony of this is incredible. Someone's bias against cyclists is SO strong that they accuse the other person of acting in a biased manner, when in fact sad person is doing the complete opposite. Bias blindness is a real thing, and for some, it is genuinely crippling. Preventing them from being able to have an open and rational dialogue.
Another example of this came only last night. A very polite guy on X, discussing a video of cyclists jumping red lights, and opening with an old favourite of mine "but what harm did it do?". This is a very simple yet at the same time complex arguement, so lets take a look at my opinion on it.
Red light means stop.... If you are a road user and you come to a red light, STOP. Simple as that. Unless you are an emergency service vehicle who there is am exception for, to pass through at low speed with good observations, OR you are directed by a police officer.... RED MEANS STOP! Everyone! This applies to cyclists also if they are using the main carriageway.
Then we come to pedestrian crossings. There for the safe passage across a road. Red signal means do not cross. However this is guidance and not a legal obligation, and there is no current offence of crossing against a red signal. For my rides, when coming to a road junction controlled by traffic lights, if a red light shows, I stop. When I am on a cycle way and reach a crossing point for pedestrians and it is red, I stop. However when I reach a point where the cycleway crosses a road, and there is a cycle crossing point, if the road is clear, and I mean CLEAR, not a small gap in traffic, I will go, regardless of the colour of the cross signal. That's me. I don't expect others to do the same and would never encourage it, nor berate people for not doing it.
Going back to the video, all three clips with cyclists showed them going through a red traffic signal, some had had people crossing, others were clear. I want to say the majority of people are inclined to be against this sort of behaviour, with a small few wanting to argue "but it was clear", an then shout down the opposing arguement of "but it was red". Now I get it, stopping at red light after red light in town, sometimes for no one to cross at all, and there to be no traffic coming through the junction is frustrating, but sadly it is the law. Cyclists and pedestrians expect cars to stop at red lights regardless because "its the law", but then when the boot is on the other foot, the line becomes blurry.
I was told last night that because the crossing was empty, the cyclists had done nothing wrong. Also citing what was the worst that could happen being hit by a 15kg bike at 15mph. Well for starters, if I am on said bike it becomes 115kg, and the force of that at 15mph is quite damaging. "A soft human" was another phrase used. Well, humans aren't all soft, and even if they were, handlebars and cassettes to name a few bits of a bicycle are NOT soft, and can inflict horrible damage when striking someone. Then there is the risk of hitting a pedestrian and slamming them into the floor, as their head hits the floor, I am pretty sure injuries will occur. In fact lets look at the fact, with the two statements of a 15kg bike and a soft human equalling no harm, how have pedestrians been killed in collisions with cyclists?
Aaah now we get to it "yeah but cars....." The relentless follow up comment from the militant cyclists when presented with the fact that a small number of pedestrians have been killed in collisions with cyclists. "Yeah but cars kill X people a day on the roads"... So does that mean it's OK and acceptable for the occasional pedestrian to be killed by a cyclist? Because it is only a few here and there. I would love one of these people to speak to the families of someone killed by a cyclist and deliver their "yeah but cars" speech and expect to leave the room in one piece.
I was accused of finger wagging at cyclists jumping red lights, but again the irony of having a finger wagged in my face saying "yeah but cyclists" and stating the law relating to red lights and cyclists was a bad one. OK by that logic, if I think a law is a bad one, I can ignore it? So if at 2am while driving I reach a red light, I can check if the junction is clear and then just drive through it? That will be a valid and legal arguement if I get flashed by a camera. No?
Of course I can't, and the militants will jump on this straight away with the "2 ton metal box" argument, there is a big difference they say. But is there?
Ignore vehicles for a moment.... Sitting at a red light at an "unoccupied junction" is frustrating, and for some there should be allowances made to be able to proceed if safe to do so. If there are no humans, and no traffic present, why should ANYONE wait at the red light? Well, for starters, it's the law! But some argue the law is a bad one, and if a cyclist comes to a red light, and it is deemed safe to proceed (at this point I am completely unclear on who determines it is safe) then the cyclist should be allowed to proceed with caution. OK, I am kinda on board with that, but as I have said, as soon as you add grey to a black and white scenario we then fall into the what shade of grey are you spiral. Red means stop, green means go (if safe to do so)... Easy right!
But now lets say red means stop, unless it is safe to proceed, but only for bikes, not motor vehicles. Right, so all bikes can go through red lights if it is safe? Single person bikes, tandems, e-bikes, cargo bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-cargo bikes with trailers, 4 wheeled cargo bike vans. Some of the latter are weighing in excess of 250kg, that is more than most motorbikes... So by logic of proceeding safely, then mopeds and motorcycles should also be allowed to go through a red light of safe to do so. The Citroen Ami weighs about 450kg, so if you get one of the bigger cargo bikes, with trailer, we are in the same ball park, so can the Citroen go through the red light too?
Do you see where I am going with this? Saying the law is a bad one, and needs changing is fine, but with it comes complications. What speed can they pass through the crossing or junction at? should they come to a complete stop before proceeding? Should there be a weight limit to those allowed through? Should that include the weight of the rider and cargo? This is just skimming the surface of the complexities of a change in the rules. And all this confusion and grey just for a few entitled souls who don't feel the rules are right, therefore don't apply to them.
Add to it the fact that as you approach the light you have no idea of all the variables that apply. Sure you cant see anyone on the crossing from 50ft away, but someone has just seen their bus on the others side of the road, a green signal to cross and bolts out of the shops and legs it for the bus. You didn't see that coming, and I am 99.9% sure the cyclist in this case, on striking them would exclaim "they just came out of nowhere!". Yes, but the light was green for them, and if you had only stopped at the red light.
I know a lot of this is whataboutery, what if this happened. Liklihood low, possibility present, end of, stop at the red light.
The nonsense of entitlement is getting stupid now. Sure if you feel something is wrong, campaign to have rules changed, it's your democratic right to do so. But in the same breath, until the rule is changed, abide by the current one. Is that too much to ask? Apparently for some it is.
When you have this discussion, or at least begin to, it is generally not long before the names start flying, your IQ is called into question, and the whole discussion falls apart. It is not about engagement for some, more enragement! Throwing their opinions around like they are facts, berating those who do not share their ideals, and always making sure they get the final word on the matter.
The other thing that really annoys me, going back to my viral video, is had the cyclist sustained an injury due to his poor decision making, regardless of if the van driver were blamed for it, the statistics would reflect an additional person on the KSI. The Killed or Seriously Injured statistics. The statistics that so many "campaigners" love to turn to when saying cars should be banned from the roads. Yet fault doesn't register. Now I am not saying if the person makes a silly decision thet are not worthy of being recognised, of course they are. But given how many incidents are on the list, it would be better to have a breakdown of what happened. I am not going to say "who was to blame" as the National Society of Calling Out Victim Blamers will come down on me like a ton of bricks. I am simply saying that when these statistics are released, they should be transparent into the nature of the incident. Did any party ignore a traffic signal, road sign etc.
Anyway, I have gone on long enough about this, and am sure that most who hold the views they do will not want to engage on the matter, after all it is all to civilised eh. But I have got it out of my system, so that's good.
For now I will continue to be (to quote some of the names and titles I have recently been given) a fat, old, bald, gay, lycra fairy, do gooder, law abiding, lying bullshiter of a cyclist. Stopping at red lights junctions and crossings, and calling out ANY bad cycling, riding, walking, or driving I see on my way.
What a beautiful world we live in, where freedom of speech gives everyone the opportunity to be a better person, however some fail miserably. Stay safe out there however you travel, and remember, not everyone has the same views as you, so green signal doesn't make it safe to cross, and a green light does't mean someone won't shoot out of a junction. The rules are SO stupid! 😂
