Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Question for Cyclists | |
Posted by: | David Thorpe | |
Date/Time: | 18/09/14 15:48:00 |
Jonathan, As I've said in one of my other posts I am an occasional cyclist and I do dismount, but to be fair I never cycle at times when it's deserted. I can see the argument under those conditions (although it is still analogous to the "120MPH but nobody's around so it's okay" motorist which I'm not sure I agree with). I started the thread having been hit twice by cyclists in the middle of morning rush hour when it was absolutely swarming with people. And these were not casual cyclists, but rather those in all the lycra and other associated gear. Most of the cyclists had dismounted and were pushing, but not all. And that's what made me think, "when they see the signs what's so different in their heads to that of the other people here who are pushing their bikes and not hitting pedestrians?". I didn't intend to start what is clearly a battle of almost biblical proportion. Maybe I'm different. I'm by no means a saint but if I were driving and saw a sign, "Slow, caution, children" I would slow down even if there wasn't a child in sight. You actually said it yourself, "a person riding a bicycle will look at the sign and decide for themselves if there really is a problem". How can that be the right thing to do? Do I get to decide if nicking something from a shop will really be a problem based on my own views of what is or isn't right/wrong? I know that's a tangential analogy but it seems more common with cycling than most other things ("I'll decide if it's safe to run a red light", "I'll decide if it's okay to go wrong way down a one-way", "I'll decide if it's okay to ride on the pavement" etc. I rode everywhere as a kid and teenager and the norm then was to obey the road signs. I wondered when and why that all changed? |