RALJ

Spikey_David · June 2007

Following on from yet another RLJ thread.

How many people jump RED + AMBER lights ? and how many stick by the letter of the law?

I know the highway code says "You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals" and "RED AND AMBER also means 'Stop'. Do not pass through or start until GREEN shows"

I often do, as I believe that if I'm at the front of a queue, its safer to get away quickly ahead of the traffic, thus avoiding some potential left hooks or being rear ended by drivers jumping the RED+AMBER.

PS. I don't RLJ.

Eat My Dust · June 2007

I do, every car I see also does it, and that includes the police.

SNAPS

Regulator · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Spikey_David

Following on from yet another RLJ thread.

How many people jump RED + AMBER lights ? and how many stick by the letter of the law?

I know the highway code says "You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals" and "RED AND AMBER also means 'Stop'. Do not pass through or start until GREEN shows"

I often do, as I believe that if I'm at the front of a queue, its safer to get away quickly ahead of the traffic, thus avoiding some potential left hooks or being rear ended by drivers jumping the RED+AMBER.

PS. I don't RLJ.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have to admit to RALJing for the same reasons as you Spikey - but again, like you, I don't RLJ.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

dondare · June 2007

if you go through too promptly, you're likely to be hit by a motorist going through just after it's turned red, which they don't think counts as RLJing.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Spikey_David · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

if you go through too promptly, you're likely to be hit by a motorist going through just after it's turned red, which they don't think counts as RLJing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Obviously I look first and proceed with caution, giving way to RLJs from other directions!

Small Fish · June 2007

Definitely when I can hear that there's a car up my backside because it's fair to assume they'll go through too and stopping puts you at risk of being rear-ended.

But I'm also weighing that up against whether I can clear the junction before the lights go green the other way.

Spikey_David · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Small Fish

Definitely when I can hear that there's a car up my backside because it's fair to assume they'll go through too and stopping puts you at risk of being rear-ended.

But I'm also weighing that up against whether I can clear the junction before the lights go green the other way.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I was refering to RED + AMBER which follows red and preceeds green.

I think you are getting confused with amber which follows green and preceeds red. "AMBER means 'Stop' at the stopline. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"

The Bosscp · June 2007

RA = G.

Small Fish · June 2007

Ah yes... and not only that but I even read dondares reply and thought HE was confused... (nb. not because I don't understand traffic lights!)

In that case forget my previous reply and what I generally do is get back on the pedals on red and amber then aim to move off (if safe) on the microsecond that the green one comes on.

FatBlokeFromFelixstowe · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Spikey_David

Following on from yet another RLJ thread.

How many people jump RED + AMBER lights ? and how many stick by the letter of the law?

I know the highway code says "You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals" and "RED AND AMBER also means 'Stop'. Do not pass through or start until GREEN shows"

I often do, as I believe that if I'm at the front of a queue, its safer to get away quickly ahead of the traffic, thus avoiding some potential left hooks or being rear ended by drivers jumping the RED+AMBER.

PS. I don't RLJ.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Given that green follows about 1 second later then my answer is yes, as long as it is safe to do so.

My e bay bargain œ 31.05
http://tinyurl.com/366awv

miffedcp · June 2007

i go through on RA if it is safe to do so

Cab · June 2007

I prepare to go on red-amber; on those lights I use frequently I can pretty much guarantee I'm only moving when the light changes to green.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

joebe · June 2007

I do and I've been pulled up twice for it (ok it was R on the verge of chenging to RA when I pushed off)

<hr noshade size="1">
<center>

pink is the new black

Doris hanging out by the river </center>

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Small Fish

Ah yes... and not only that but I even read dondares reply and thought HE was confused... (nb. not because I don't understand traffic lights!)

In that case forget my previous reply and what I generally do is get back on the pedals on red and amber then aim to move off (if safe) on the microsecond that the green one comes on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I am not confused...
Red means stop.
Amber means stop.
Green means go when it's safe to go.

Red/Amber (Why can't we just call it yellow, by the way?) means stay stopped, but if the motorist behind you starts moving this takes a bit of nerve. Indeed, it can be foolhardy; but it is very probable that traffic is still going through from the other direction, since most motorists will go through a light that has only just turned red. This is quite illegal, of course, and in terms of the numbers involved about twice as frequent as RLJing by cyclists, but for some reason it never gets mentioned.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

Regulator · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Small Fish

Ah yes... and not only that but I even read dondares reply and thought HE was confused... (nb. not because I don't understand traffic lights!)

In that case forget my previous reply and what I generally do is get back on the pedals on red and amber then aim to move off (if safe) on the microsecond that the green one comes on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I am not confused...
Red means stop.
Amber means stop.
Green means go when it's safe to go.

Red/Amber (Why can't we just call it yellow, by the way?) means stay stopped, but if the motorist behind you starts moving this takes a bit of nerve. Indeed, it can be foolhardy; but it is very probable that traffic is still going through from the other direction, since most motorists will go through a light that has only just turned red. This is quite illegal, of course, and in terms of the numbers involved about twice as frequent as RLJing by cyclists, but for some reason it never gets mentioned.

Baby elephants? Pah!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When the Evening Standard was in its 'cyclist-bashing' phase (before its volte-face to become the cyclists' friend) it regularly carried pieces about the "terrible RLJing menaces on the streets". It went as far as sending a reporter out with police who were part of an operation to clampdown on RLJing.

The Evening Standard had to, somewhat ashamedly, report that that the haul for police that day had been.... 3 cyclists and 149 motorists! Nearly 50 times as many motorists had RLJed as cyclists.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!

Small Fish · June 2007

I can't get anything right today... Dondare - I meant that I thought you read the original post wrong - when in fact it was me who got it the wrong way round - not that you were confused traffic lights!

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Regulator
When the Evening Standard was in its 'cyclist-bashing' phase (before its volte-face to become the cyclists' friend) it regularly carried pieces about the "terrible RLJing menaces on the streets". It went as far as sending a reporter out with police who were part of an operation to clampdown on RLJing.

The Evening Standard had to, somewhat ashamedly, report that that the haul for police that day had been.... 3 cyclists and 149 motorists! Nearly 50 times as many motorists had RLJed as cyclists.

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Since the Standard started their campaign I have written to them almost every day trying to put them right. They know nothing!! I had a real go at them for taking credit for the success of the CTC campaign to oppose the new HC and reporting the case with such a poor understanding of the issues that the general impression was "Cyclists refuse to obey Highway Code".
They must have got me down as a real Green Inker.

Baby elephants? Pah!!

rgisme · June 2007

I don't discriminate against lights of any persuasion or colour. I treat them just like any other stop or give way sign [}:)]

Unknown · June 2007

I go through on R&A at a particular large traffic island on my commute route. Everyone is very eager to get to work or get home and I've yet to see a single car NOT go through on the same combination as I do. There's no chance of traffic from the right, there's plenty of leeway on the lights and anyway, visibility is excellent.

Hmm?

Roastie · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rgisme

I don't discriminate against lights of any persuasion or colour. I treat them just like any other stop or give way sign [}:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you stop or pause at green lights too?

doyler78 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">When the Evening Standard was in its 'cyclist-bashing' phase (before its volte-face to become the cyclists' friend) it regularly carried pieces about the "terrible RLJing menaces on the streets". It went as far as sending a reporter out with police who were part of an operation to clampdown on RLJing.

The Evening Standard had to, somewhat ashamedly, report that that the haul for police that day had been.... 3 cyclists and 149 motorists! Nearly 50 times as many motorists had RLJed as cyclists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This has no meaning unless you are suggesting that there are as many cyclists as cars in the period smapled. If you are not then there is no context in which to make any judgement on them. What I can say is that any ratio of cycles to cars greater than 1:50 would mean that cyclists actually have a worse rljing record than cars during the sampled period.

As for the original question I too go on amber if I can see clearly that there is no traffic coming through late. If I can't see then I still go but move off a lot slower than I would have. I take the risk and have no one but myself to blame if I end up injured or worse still dead. I see the risk as low. Others will obviously take a different view.

RALJ

Comments

Categories