Cyclists in Oxford fined again for RLJing

Absinthe Minded

But that's not what this thread's about - otherwise it would be entitled "RLJ cyclists given more bad press than dangerous drivers", or similar.

How can we tell drivers to behave when we have this illegal element in our ranks?

Big Red S

Bing o wrote:

Red light jumping is dangerous end of.

No it isn't. According to the legal 'definition' of jumping a red light, it can be far safer to jump the light than wait behind the line.
If it's /always/ more dangerous to be in front of that white line, why the ASLs?

When I commute through London, where it is the safer option, i will jump red lights. I see this as no different to using a flashing light when they were illegal - I put my safety (and that of others) over and above my adherence to the law.

I honestly think that what should be grumbled/moaned/pledged/complained/preached about isn't red light jumping, but dangerous cycling in general, which can include RLJing, when it's the more dangerous option.

Absinthe Minded

Big Red, spot on - I have to agree with you there.
Stopping past the white line is fine by me. Hairing through a set of reds, dodging peds and cars is just not on, I don't care how many drivers misbehave.

Anonymous

All urban cyclists jump red lights.

Thank you.

Tourist Tony

George!
I've got the slippery stuff ready....

Cyclotron

I'm not surprised cyclists jump reds in Oxford.

Between Broad Street and the end of the Botley Road (a route I do pretty often) there are sixteen sets of lights in, I guess, three and a half miles or so. Some are Puffins where the lights stay red long after the pedestrian has crossed, others are 'standard' junction control lights.

Stopping at all of them (which I do, if they're red) means almost perpetually stopping and starting and losing any sense of momentum.

In my view, the reason people seem to be jumping reds is simply because there are so many of them and because Puffin lights seem to stay on way beyond the time they're needed. It doesn't excuse the fact that it's illegal, but it might explain it a little...

Fab Foodie

Absinthe Minded wrote:

Big Red, spot on - I have to agree with you there.
Stopping past the white line is fine by me. Hairing through a set of reds, dodging peds and cars is just not on, I don't care how many drivers misbehave.

I recall in a similar RLJ thread many moons ago, we defined this as "Red Line Creep-(ing)", i.e it's OK to go in front of the line to say take-up a primary position, show-off your track-standing prowess or gain a few yards to get clips sorted. I agree that that is very very different from blatantly going through reds and straight across the junction/crossing.

Fab Foodie

Cyclotron wrote:

I'm not surprised cyclists jump reds in Oxford.

Between Broad Street and the end of the Botley Road (a route I do pretty often) there are sixteen sets of lights in, I guess, three and a half miles or so.
Stopping at all of them (which I do, if they're red) means almost perpetually stopping and starting and losing any sense of momentum.

Yeah, but Cumnor Hill or Hurst-Hill Rise is far more sporting from a standing start...

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Fab Foodie wrote:

Absinthe Minded wrote:

Big Red, spot on - I have to agree with you there.
Stopping past the white line is fine by me. Hairing through a set of reds, dodging peds and cars is just not on, I don't care how many drivers misbehave.

I recall in a similar RLJ thread many moons ago, we defined this as "Red Line Creep-(ing)", i.e it's OK to go in front of the line to say take-up a primary position, show-off your track-standing prowess or gain a few yards to get clips sorted. I agree that that is very very different from blatantly going through reds and straight across the junction/crossing.

Not in the eyes of the law.
Honestly, I'm surprised the motorists aren't having a field day with this one.

gkerr4

how do you actually get "pulled over" by the rozzers on a bike anyway?

Surely you'd just leg it - I know I would, Especially If I'd just RLJ'd - out of the saddle, change of direction - leg it!

it's not like I have a number plate or anything - I'm amazed 80 people actually stopped.

The BIG GT

BigBren wrote:

I concur completely, but would add my new pet hate to that list - mobile phone users. I drive on the motorway virtually every day and see a preponderance of arrogant asshats chattering away on their mobile phones. Stuck on the M62 this morning, I was alongside a twunt in a chelsea tractor for a good 30-40 mins - never once took his phone away from his ear. Where are the rozzers when you need 'em? It would have made my day see him get nicked.

Bren

The thing that really gets my goat is that these are usually the people with £30K+ cars who couldn't be @rsed to spend £20 on a hands free Bluetooth earpiece but can afford the car, the petrol and a f***-off expensive moby! And then they start texting while driving, not just talking. TEXTING!!?? FFS!!

Ignorant, arrogant tw@ts!
.
.

bryanm

wideboydave wrote:

All urban cyclists jump red lights.

Thank you.

No they don't.

Tourist Tony

Pledge, gentlemen.

Subpontine fauna....

iainment

bryanm wrote:

wideboydave wrote:

All urban cyclists jump red lights.

Thank you.

No they don't.

Well they ought to.

8)

Simon L2

Bing o wrote:

I drive a Lotus, therefore I am...

dynohub

Big Red S wrote:

I put my safety (and that of others) over and above my adherence to the law.

Whilst I have some sympathy with your view, isn't this exactly the argument that some of the motoring fraternities use to justify their illegal actions?

Yorkshireman

dynohub wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

I put my safety (and that of others) over and above my adherence to the law.

Whilst I have some sympathy with your view, isn't this exactly the argument that some of the motoring fraternities use to justify their illegal actions?

Could you give some examples please Dynohub? I'm genuinely interested as I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there will be some.

dynohub

Yorkshireman wrote:

dynohub wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

I put my safety (and that of others) over and above my adherence to the law.

Whilst I have some sympathy with your view, isn't this exactly the argument that some of the motoring fraternities use to justify their illegal actions?

Could you give some examples please Dynohub? I'm genuinely interested as I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure there will be some.

I'm no expert on this, but ones I have seen on here/C+ included speeding to stay awake and the whole "safe speed for the conditions" stuff. (I'm sure there are others - undertaking for example?) NOTE - I'm not agreeing with such views here though.

Yorkshireman

Ah! Thanks Dynohub. Yes, I well remember those ... lots of selective quoting, twisting and turning, deliberately misunderstanding and just plain daft stuff (and a little fun was had by some ). I don't mind (quite enjoy in fact) a good and vigourous 'discussion', but some of that was simply piss taking (fun for a while but a tad boring when theres too much) :roll: - particularly when the opposition is poor .

dynohub

Cheers Yorkshireman.

Your question and my reply got me thinking further. Perhaps "undertaking" IS the motoring equivalent of cycling's RLJ - both are definitely illegal, both can be very dangerous, and both can be a safe response to the situation.

I know that I have, when driving, been confronted with a 70mph dual carriage which was empty - except for me and the person driving at 45mph in the outside lane. I can see why many would undertake (cautiously) under such circumstances - just as many cyclists will (cautiously) go through a red light under similarly "safe" conditions. Nevertheless both are "crimes" which anti car/bike people will seize upon (and police will prosecute for if minded to do so)

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

dynohub wrote:

Perhaps "undertaking" IS the motoring equivalent of cycling's RLJ - both are definitely illegal

Undertaking in itself is not actually illegal. It can, in conjunction with other evidence (and normally in the event of an accident) help to secure a conviction of driving without due care, but there is no specific offence.

Yorkshireman

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

dynohub wrote:

Perhaps "undertaking" IS the motoring equivalent of cycling's RLJ - both are definitely illegal

Undertaking in itself is not actually illegal. It can, in conjunction with other evidence (and normally in the event of an accident) help to secure a conviction of driving without due care, but there is no specific offence.

Shh! I think it's a secret.