|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 21/09/2020 17:40, colwyn wrote:
On 21/09/2020 15:20, JNugent wrote: On 20/09/2020 20:23, colwyn wrote: On 19/09/2020 14:35, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote: On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote: https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/ COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected bike lanes. Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’ decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous? While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety. Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales. It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to themselves or others. Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving. The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context, norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in bicycling behaviours. The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as scofflaws.” They note that the word originated in 1924 with a newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break social norms.” They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them.” One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken. Who would have thought it? Laws *need* to be broken? Says who (apart from criminals)? Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others ! I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge. The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws need to be broken. It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed. Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality. Democracy ? Yeah, I've heard about it, especially the silent one! Child labour, Housing, Climate, Health, Human rights etc........................ All of those things were brought to their current state before I was born. Only you are old enough to remember child labour (unless you mean newspaper rounds). and you are ****ed off, because you have seen a person on a bike using the footway? Everyone should be. It is a clear deliberate and selfish breach of a law designed to keep pedestrians safe. In fact, the law keeping pedestrians safe on footways and in other pedestrian-only areas is directly comparable to the law banning child labour, as well as other public health and safety matters. As with TMS320, it isn't up to you (or anyone like you) to decide that it's alright to break that law. That's not your decision. Just to pick you up on Child Labour, it is not about you getting the Daily Gossip. Whatever that means, eh? Next time you go into department store and look at the label showing the country of origin, you may remind yourself, that the textile and agricultural industries in some countries only exists, because of your support for child labour. I am principally concerned with compliance with the law of this country. Other countries may, or may not, be able to afford the relative luxury of First World attitudes and approaches. That's their choice, not mine and *certainly* not yours. Just as scandalous is the reliance on unpaid "carer children" looking after siblings or parents in our society today. Whatever that means, eh? You clearly think it somehow justifies bowling along a footway on a bike. Why don't you find something productive to do, instead of carping and sniping in literally every posting you make. Finally, I have never advocated a violation of any law, so I resent your inference that I do. If you don't condone illegal activity, you are free to say so (but as far as I can see, have not done so). You might even support those who condemn it. Such choices, in general, say a lot about one. "Ye shall know them by their fruits". |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 21/09/2020 15:16, JNugent wrote:
On 20/09/2020 20:55, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/2020 14:36, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2020 11:52, TMS320 wrote: On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote: On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote: https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/ Laws *need* to be broken? Says who (apart from criminals)? Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others ! I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge. Remember B&Q? Perhaps Nugent was one of the many thousands of accessories. TMS320 excels himself in the production of gibberish. * He's getting better at it all the time. Then you did go shopping before the law was changed but don't want to admit it. That's not an improvement on the previous attempt at gibberish. You ned to try harder. It looks as though your last sentence hasn't been translated from Scouse. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 21/09/2020 15:20, JNugent wrote:
On 20/09/2020 20:23, colwyn wrote: On 19/09/2020 14:35, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote: On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote: https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/ COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected bike lanes. Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’ decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous? While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety. Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales. It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to themselves or others. Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving. The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context, norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in bicycling behaviours. The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as scofflaws.” They note that the word originated in 1924 with a newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break social norms.” They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them.” One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken. Who would have thought it? Laws *need* to be broken? Says who (apart from criminals)? Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others ! I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge. The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws need to be broken. It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed. Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality. Democracy ? Yeah, I've heard about it, especially the silent one! Child labour, Housing, Climate, Health, Human rights etc........................ All of those things were brought to their current state before I was born. Only you are old enough to remember child labour (unless you mean newspaper rounds). and you are ****ed off, because you have seen a person on a bike using the footway? Everyone should be. It is a clear deliberate and selfish breach of a law designed to keep pedestrians safe. You say that it's no up to cyclists to assume the purpose of the rules but that is what you keep doing. Please provide the statistics to support your theory. As with TMS320, it isn't up to you (or anyone like you) to decide that it's alright to break that law. That's not your decision. You also say that only a court can decide if a law is broken. Please tell us how many cyclists break the law. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On Monday, September 21, 2020 at 7:58:31 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
You also say that only a court can decide if a law is broken. Please tell us how many cyclists break the law. QUOTE: Just one cyclist was fined for riding on the pavement in the West Midlands last year. Shocking figures, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, show police have virtually stopped handing out fixed penalties for the offence over the last decade. ENDS Bigger problem than drunken and speeding drivers? https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/new...umber-15815580 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 21/09/2020 19:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2020 15:20, JNugent wrote: On 20/09/2020 20:23, colwyn wrote: On 19/09/2020 14:35, JNugent wrote: On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote: On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote: On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote: https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/ COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected bike lanes. Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’ decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous? While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety. Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales. It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to themselves or others. Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving. The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context, norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in bicycling behaviours. The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as scofflaws.” They note that the word originated in 1924 with a newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break social norms.” They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them.” One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken. Who would have thought it? Laws *need* to be broken? Says who (apart from criminals)? Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others ! I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge. The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws need to be broken. It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed. Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality. Democracy ? Yeah, I've heard about it, especially the silent one! Child labour, Housing, Climate, Health, Human rights etc........................ All of those things were brought to their current state before I was born. Only you are old enough to remember child labour (unless you mean newspaper rounds). and you are ****ed off, because you have seen a person on a bike using the footway? Everyone should be. It is a clear deliberate and selfish breach of a law designed to keep pedestrians safe. You say that it's no up to cyclists to assume the purpose of the rules but that is what you keep doing. Please provide the statistics to support your theory. I say it is up to no cyclists to assume the rationale for the *law* (not just "the rules") for the purpose of trying to justify breaking it. There's a huge difference, as normal people readily appreciate. As with TMS320, it isn't up to you (or anyone like you) to decide that it's alright to break that law. That's not your decision. You also say that only a court can decide if a law is broken. Only a court can decide *whether* [some semi-literate people use the word "if" there, even though it has a different meaning] a law is broken in a *specific* case brought before them. Ask the police how it works. They know. Please tell us how many cyclists break the law. That would be an estimate and could in any event only be given in percantage terms. But taking all the usual breaches into account (failing to comply with traffic lights, abuse of one-way systems, cycling along footways and in other pedestrian-only areas), a fair estimate would certainly be more than 50%. In London, the proportion is higher than that by quite a margin. You know that. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 20:12:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2020 19:58, TMS320 wrote: Please tell us how many cyclists break the law. That would be an estimate So no evidence as usual. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 21/09/2020 20:40, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 20:12:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 21/09/2020 19:58, TMS320 wrote: Please tell us how many cyclists break the law. That would be an estimate So no evidence as usual. Well, of course, relative to the annual mileage driven, hardly any drivers of motor vehicles ever break the speed limit. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 21/09/2020 20:14, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2020 19:58, TMS320 wrote: On 21/09/2020 15:20, JNugent wrote: On 20/09/2020 20:23, colwyn wrote: and you are ****ed off, because you have seen a person on a bike using the footway? Everyone should be. It is a clear deliberate and selfish breach of a law designed to keep pedestrians safe. You say that it's no up to cyclists to assume the purpose of the rules but that is what you keep doing. Please provide the statistics to support your theory. I say it is up to no cyclists to assume the rationale for the *law* (not just "the rules") for the purpose of trying to justify breaking it. There's a huge difference, as normal people readily appreciate. You said the rules are about safety. You are less qualified than a cyclist making an on the spot decision. As with TMS320, it isn't up to you (or anyone like you) to decide that it's alright to break that law. That's not your decision. You also say that only a court can decide if a law is broken. Only a court can decide whether a law is broken in a *specific* case brought before them. Wriggle wriggle. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On 22/09/2020 08:26, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/09/2020 20:14, JNugent wrote: On 21/09/2020 19:58, TMS320 wrote: On 21/09/2020 15:20, JNugent wrote: On 20/09/2020 20:23, colwyn wrote: and you are ****ed off, because you have seen a person on a bike using the footway? Everyone should be. It is a clear deliberate and selfish breach of a law designed to keep pedestrians safe. You say that it's no up to cyclists to assume the purpose of the rules but that is what you keep doing. Please provide the statistics to support your theory. I say it is up to no cyclists to assume the rationale for the *law* (not just "the rules") for the purpose of trying to justify breaking it. There's a huge difference, as normal people readily appreciate. You said the rules are about safety. You are less qualified than a cyclist making an on the spot decision. I am equally as qualified as a cyclist - that is, neither of us are at all qualified to authorise ourselves to break the law (I am well aware that you are of the opinion that you are entitled to waive the effects of any law which prevents you from doing as you like). See whether you can work out why that is (I suspect that you either cannot or will not admit that you can). As with TMS320, it isn't up to you (or anyone like you) to decide that it's alright to break that law. That's not your decision. You also say that only a court can decide if a law is broken. Only a court can decide whether a law is broken in a *specific* case brought before them. Wriggle wriggle. Even a FPN is not "proof" that an offence has been committed. Only a court can properly decide the matter to the effect that a disputed "offence" has been committed. That is the situation in a democratic state with a regard for human rights, subject to the concept of the absolute offence, where mere observation and testimony is all that is needed. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?
On Tuesday, 22 September 2020 at 01:05:35 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 21/09/2020 20:40, Mike Collins wrote: On Monday, 21 September 2020 at 20:12:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 21/09/2020 19:58, TMS320 wrote: Please tell us how many cyclists break the law. That would be an estimate So no evidence as usual. Well, of course, relative to the annual mileage driven, hardly any drivers of motor vehicles ever break the speed limit. I think you need to sort out which Nugents is replying to a given post because that makes no sense. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It beggars belief just how stupid and reckless cyclists are | MrCheerful | UK | 8 | January 4th 19 08:58 PM |
Footway lawbreakers punished | [email protected] | UK | 1 | June 21st 18 12:02 PM |
Law must change to tackle reckless cyclists, says widower of KimBriggs killed in crash with illegal bike | Bod[_5_] | UK | 27 | August 27th 17 10:20 AM |
Laura Trott - reckless cyclists give us all a bad name | Mentalguy2k8[_2_] | UK | 16 | October 25th 13 11:30 PM |
Reckless cyclists causing trouble in Catford | Mr Benn[_5_] | UK | 6 | March 10th 12 04:41 AM |