In article <slrng72cqr.fo4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
spamspam@spam.eggs (Ben C) wrote:

> On 2008-07-06, Terry  wrote:
> > In article , 
> > junk@ardo-howe.co.uk
> > (Brian G) wrote:
> >
> >> Ben C wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > Everyone launching forwards at a green light is one of the most
> >> > dangerous places to be. Think of the first corner carnage of a 
> >> > grand prix.
> >> > 
> >> > In particular cyclists who don't filter to the front and get out >
>> > of the way can easily be hit by HGVs and things clipping the kerb
> >> > a bit as they turn left. That's a very nasty accident to have.
> >> > 
> >> > The best thing to do is to filter right to the front, get well 
> >> > clear of the cars so they can all see you, and get off in good
> >> > time ahead of them so you aren't caught up in the charge.
> >> > 
> >> I can only assume this is a major city thing, or a south Britain 
> >> thing.   
> >
> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a 
> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
> 
> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the 
> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
> obviously, as I said)?
> 
> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who 
> loses?

Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
as reckless lawless irritants. 

I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
central London. I also stop at red lights, as required by law. 

After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?

Terry wrote:
> In article <slrng72cqr.fo4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> spamspam@spam.eggs (Ben C) wrote:

>> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the 
>> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
>> obviously, as I said)?
>>
>> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who 
>> loses?
> 
> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
> as reckless lawless irritants. 
> 
> I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
> central London. I also stop at red lights, as required by law. 

me to </aol>

I hate it when I stop at a red light, and someone passes me and jumps 
the red light, be that a cyclist or motorist.

Also jumping red lights often puts pedestrians crossing the road at risk.

On 2008-07-06, Terry  wrote:
> In article <slrng72cqr.fo4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> spamspam@spam.eggs (Ben C) wrote:
>
>> On 2008-07-06, Terry  wrote:
[...]
>> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
>> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a 
>> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
>> 
>> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the 
>> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
>> obviously, as I said)?
>> 
>> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who 
>> loses?
>
> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
> as reckless lawless irritants. 

Only by idiots.

> I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
> central London. 

Filtering is a lot safer, and as far as I know not illegal. RLJing is
safer in some circumstances.

> I also stop at red lights, as required by law. 

Fair enough, I can respect that viewpoint.

> After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
> doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk? 

In principle yes, and although I am in favour of the rule of law and all
that there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to traffic.

After all everyone speeds.

"Ben C"  wrote in message 
news:slrng72ha9.ghr.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> On 2008-07-06, Terry  wrote:
>> In article <slrng72cqr.fo4.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
>> spamspam@spam.eggs (Ben C) wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-07-06, Terry  wrote:
> [...]
>>> > It's just an excuse contrived by people who lack patience and
>>> > consideration for others, much like drivers who squeeze past a
>>> > cyclist in order to get to a red light first.
>>>
>>> But how exactly does it hurt anyone to filter up through the
>>> traffic on a bike and nip through the lights (only when safe,
>>> obviously, as I said)?
>>>
>>> You're getting out of the cars' way and getting home quicker. Who
>>> loses?
>>
>> Law abiding cyclists lose, because we all get tarred with the same brush
>> as reckless lawless irritants.
>
> Only by idiots.

The intelligence level of those who think that is irrelevant. Why reinforce 
the stereotype?

>
>> I have no problem with filtering. I do it on every journey through
>> central London.
>
> Filtering is a lot safer, and as far as I know not illegal. RLJing is
> safer in some circumstances.
>
>> I also stop at red lights, as required by law.
>
> Fair enough, I can respect that viewpoint.
>
>> After all, if I start making up my own rules, what's to stop anyone else
>> doing the same, in ways that may put me at greater risk?
>
> In principle yes, and although I am in favour of the rule of law and all
> that there's a bit of wiggle room when it comes to traffic.
>
> After all everyone speeds.

The Tu Quoque fallacy rears it's ugly head again.