RobinXe wrote:
Actually he said it in response to your attempt to put words in my mouth (again), seems pretty clear.
I'm not sure what antecedents the pronouns there refer to (i.e.
who said
what in response to
whose attempt ...), but it probably doesn't matter.
RobinXe wrote:
I wonder if there's any chance of getting this thread back on track, for people to stop trying to pick quarrels and to objectively explore what coupd be done to solve the problem. It might also be nice if certain posters tried to adjust their attitude away from "them and us", with a victim complex thrown in,
The thing is that the whole premise of this topic contains an implicit "us and them" attitude, based, as I already said, on the 'belief that there is a single homogeneous group of people whom you call "cyclists", who ... need to be "dealt with" as a group'. This is intended as a meaningful contribution to the debate because it points out that there is an underlying problem with the very question that is being posed: "how can we hold cyclists accountable for all the infractions that they perpetrate".
In fact, the problem is not about cyclists, it is about anti-social behaviour. The group that is of concern is the group: "people who commit acts displaying anti-social behaviour". It happens that some of those people are on bicycles, just as some of them are on foot, some of them are on motorcycles and some of them are in cars.
RobinXe wrote:
and realise that we are all road users, and that the goal is for us all to play nicely, to complete our journeys as safely and expediently as possible!
I agree absolutely with this and, as I have said before in a different topic, I do find that negotiation, assisted by the guidance contained in the highway code, works most of the time. It is just when people refuse to be part of this mutually respectful society that it goes wrong, which is why we (i.e. all "good" road users) should be concerning ourselves with how we might deal with "bad" road users.
There seem to me to be several kinds of failure to participate in this road sharing.
1. There are the people who just are not aware of the highway code, either because they haven't read it, or because it is so long since they read it that they've forgotten it (or it has changed anyway). The problem with this is that the parties to the negotiation are starting from different assumptions, so they will get into conflict. This is where education is needed.
2. There are people who just lack the basic skills to manage and control their particular mode of transport, or to maintain the situational awareness that is required for them to participate in negotiation and avoid conflict. This is where practical training is needed. It is also important for all road users to recognize that this group of people exists, and to take that into account when making decisions; taking more care than would otherwise be needed.
3. There are the people who very well know the "rules" (as set out in the HC) but feel that, in a particular circumstance, the relevant rule need not be applied. Examples of this include speeding "when there is no danger" and going through red lights "when there is nobody coming along the other road". The problem here is that these people who think they know better might actually be wrong, which is why I don't condone any road vehicles going through red lights, even when it appears to be safe. This is where, again, some education is required, possibly by showing examples of where other people have got it wrong in their arrogance.
4. There are the people who know the rules, are perfectly competent in the control of their vehicles and are well-aware of what is going on around them, but have a very selfish attitude and are not prepared to "share" in a civilised manner, resulting in unresolved conflict and unpredictable actions. These are the ones that are very difficult to deal with; they are "anti-social" individuals because they are not prepared to act as part of a civilised society.
I realize these are idealizations and there will be permutations of them, but I think it is still useful to think in these terms.
I really don't know how we can address group 4 by any means that is better than what we have now, apart from spending money on more police perhaps. The problem is that, whatever systematic measures you put in place will not significantly affect them because they tend to operate outside the system.