Originally Posted by
cyccommute
First, you didn't understand what I was posting and, second, you don't know me very well. I absolutely am not a proponent of the "you don't need to follow the laws" crowd. If you read even a little that I post on following traffic laws, you'll find that I am hyper-vigilant about following them. I stop at stop signs and lights, I signal turns, I don't filter at lights and I (usually) can't violate speed laws. Further, and more importantly, I understand why the laws are the way that they are and how violating them gums up the works. I stop at signs and lights because not only is it the law but it is the way to be a predictable road user.
But, in reality, what I said is absolutely true. Bicycles are small potatoes when it comes to law enforcement. Blowing a stop light might get a cop's attention. Making a u-turn in the middle of the street wouldn't even register.
This is an internet forum; I don't need to know you, nor do I want to. I understand what was said insofar as you stating that pragmatically the laws which a cyclist is required to follow are less important relative to the laws that are given a higher degree of attention by traffic cops. You could have meant anything, but that is what I read, and presumably what others might read. There is no reason to perpetuatute the cycling subculture which promotes things like running red lights - in fact us law abiders should make an effort to combat this. I'm happy for you that you understand the laws and claim to follow them; good for you. Keep it up there bud.
However, you still have that qualifier tagged on the end there effectively negating part of the value in your action. It's like saying "yeah I follow laws, but it doesn't matter because they're superfluous to a certain degree." You may disagree with this - in fact I know you will because you don't take criticism very well on these boards (who does?) - but again, that is what I read into it, and presumably others could/will also. Surely you see the logic there.