RLJ - London commuters especially

dondare

Big Red S wrote:

In this thread, does 'RLJing' mean just the going-accross-junctions-on-a-red-light thing, or does include those of us who sit in front of the white line?

I stop at the stop line or behind it. I make sure that I am correctly positioned and not in any danger when the traffic starts moving. This is very basic stuff, and much safer than making up your own rules.

iainment

dondare wrote:

If you act like an outlaw then you'll be regarded as an outlaw and treated accordingly. And so will all cyclists, by association. The periodic attempts to get cycling more closely regulated are always backed up by the fact that many cyclists act illegally. The justification that motorists give for not giving cyclists enough room, for turning across them or passing unsafely is that cyclists ignore the Highway Code and therefore do not deserve to be treated with respect or consideration.
You cannot say that these are just excuses from people who'd hate us anyway when the criticisms are obviously true.

Outlaw? What does treated accordingly mean?

You are a pompous ass aren't you. Some people go through red lights safely, some don't and it's up to the police to sort it out but it's not a high priority to them even though the streets are thronged with outlaws flagrantly acting in an outlaw way.

I have been cycling for about 40 years or so, have always gone over a red if it is safe to do so and always given priority to pedestrians or other road users with the right of way. I have never been spoken to by the police about it even if they have been present and only received a handful of complaints from pedestrians or other road users.

It aint a big deal and you need to worry about something more important.

:twisted:

Big Red S

dondare wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

In this thread, does 'RLJing' mean just the going-accross-junctions-on-a-red-light thing, or does include those of us who sit in front of the white line?

I stop at the stop line or behind it. I make sure that I am correctly positioned and not in any danger when the traffic starts moving. This is very basic stuff, and much safer than making up your own rules.

The only way to do that, in my experience/opinion, is to join the back of the queue for the lighs when you come up to it, which negates most of tbe benefits of commuting by bike.
Yes, there are some lights for which it is entirely safe to start in line with the rest of the traffic, but for those where it isn't, in general, you're already in one of the more dangerous positions before you find out that it's the wrong place to be.

Eat My Dust

iainment wrote:

I have been cycling for about 40 years or so, have always gone over a red if it is safe to do so and always given priority to pedestrians or other road users with the right of way.

You sound like one of those old guys in pubs who think drinking and driving is OK because they've been doing it since they were young 'ins!!

iainment

Eat My Dust wrote:

iainment wrote:

I have been cycling for about 40 years or so, have always gone over a red if it is safe to do so and always given priority to pedestrians or other road users with the right of way.

You sound like one of those old guys in pubs who think drinking and driving is OK because they've been doing it since they were young 'ins!!

No that's wrong as judgement is impaired and you become a danger to others, any drinking before driving is completely out of order.

Considered RLJing is different, as I say I only go if it is safe and clear and always respect others right of way.

TheFoolio888

The problem is in nose to tail traffic is almost impossible to get in the primary position...well not unless you want to sit in traffic with all the tin can drivers. But that defeats the part of the point of having a bike.

To me, starting up when between the kerb and a car or between two lanes of traffic feels like one of the most dangerous thihngs about cycliing...which is why I like to be in front of them by going just past the white line.

BentMikey

TheFoolio888 wrote:

If we had any form of real cycle network in this country I wouldn't need to. I'm not advocating my actions...just explaining.

If we had any form of real cycle network in this country, it STILL WOULDN'T reduce our risk at junctions. In fact it would make the chances of a serious accident considerably higher.

There's also the point that cycling isn't dangerous. Your perception of danger is just that, a perception and not a reality.

BentMikey

Big Red S wrote:

The only way to do that, in my experience/opinion, is to join the back of the queue for the lighs when you come up to it, which negates most of tbe benefits of commuting by bike.
Yes, there are some lights for which it is entirely safe to start in line with the rest of the traffic, but for those where it isn't, in general, you're already in one of the more dangerous positions before you find out that it's the wrong place to be.

Not so, it's nearly always possible to filter up to the head of the queue, and then sit behind car 1 or 2. If you can't make it quite to primary position, it's easy to angle in slightly from the offside and take up an effective primary position. I don't always wait behind car 1 or 2 in the queue, it depends on how much of a queue there is on the other side of the lights.

As for the second bit, I don't think there are any lights where it's dangerous to be in primary position. It's nearly always safer to be there than in secondary. Own the lane across the junction, junctions are the places where most accidents happen and where you should take extra care.

dondare

Big Red S wrote:

dondare wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

In this thread, does 'RLJing' mean just the going-accross-junctions-on-a-red-light thing, or does include those of us who sit in front of the white line?

I stop at the stop line or behind it. I make sure that I am correctly positioned and not in any danger when the traffic starts moving. This is very basic stuff, and much safer than making up your own rules.

The only way to do that, in my experience/opinion, is to join the back of the queue for the lighs when you come up to it, which negates most of tbe benefits of commuting by bike.
Yes, there are some lights for which it is entirely safe to start in line with the rest of the traffic, but for those where it isn't, in general, you're already in one of the more dangerous positions before you find out that it's the wrong place to be.

I'll wait at the back when cars are made with exhaust pipes that point forward. I always filter to the front, and then wait in a position that is both safe and legal. If this sounds impossible to you, then perhaps you've not attempted it enough times.

dondare

BentMikey wrote:

TheFoolio888 wrote:

If we had any form of real cycle network in this country I wouldn't need to. I'm not advocating my actions...just explaining.

If we had any form of real cycle network in this country, it STILL WOULDN'T reduce our risk at junctions. In fact it would make the chances of a serious accident considerably higher.

There's also the point that cycling isn't dangerous. Your perception of danger is just that, a perception and not a reality.

This is so true, I could have written it.

dondare

iainment wrote:

dondare wrote:

If you act like an outlaw then you'll be regarded as an outlaw and treated accordingly. And so will all cyclists, by association. The periodic attempts to get cycling more closely regulated are always backed up by the fact that many cyclists act illegally. The justification that motorists give for not giving cyclists enough room, for turning across them or passing unsafely is that cyclists ignore the Highway Code and therefore do not deserve to be treated with respect or consideration.
You cannot say that these are just excuses from people who'd hate us anyway when the criticisms are obviously true.

Outlaw? What does treated accordingly mean?

You are a pompous ass aren't you. Some people go through red lights safely, some don't and it's up to the police to sort it out but it's not a high priority to them even though the streets are thronged with outlaws flagrantly acting in an outlaw way.

I have been cycling for about 40 years or so, have always gone over a red if it is safe to do so and always given priority to pedestrians or other road users with the right of way. I have never been spoken to by the police about it even if they have been present and only received a handful of complaints from pedestrians or other road users.

It aint a big deal and you need to worry about something more important.

:twisted:

You didn't actually read my post then.

jedster

Only decent argument for RLJing is "I prefer it and if I do it carefully then it doesn't do anyone any harm". It's not safer than good road-positioning as described by Mikey.

The problem with my argument above is that while prudent RLJing may not really "harm" anyone, it certainly does annoy plenty of people. "So what?", I hear the RLJers crying.

Well I've said this before on other threads but I think RLJing is just one of those minor antisocial behaviours that collectively make the world a less pleasant place. I'd put in the same class as not holding the door open for someone with their arms full, not saying thank you, not smiling, not acknowledging someone when they give way to you, etc. People who do these things habitually are @rseholes. We probably all do them occasionally but everytime you resist the temptation you are just saying no to Mr @rsehole - a GOOD THING

Cheers,

J

toontra

Where possible I get ahead of the first vehicle by a couple of yards (i.e. in the ASL box if it isn't full, or just ahead of the white line if there isn't an ASL or it's full of traffic). There is often a gap of a few yards between the white line and the pedestrian crossing at major junctions, and this is a good place to be.

This way I can get a head start of a few yards on motor vehicles, be out of everyone's way and generally take the primary position when the green comes.

If I can't get up the inside or outside to get into this position (e.g. someone is tight up against the kerb) then I get as far up as possible and position myself between vehicles in the primary position, and behave as any another vehicle (which of course I am) when the traffic moves off.

iainment

dondare wrote:

iainment wrote:

dondare wrote:

If you act like an outlaw then you'll be regarded as an outlaw and treated accordingly. And so will all cyclists, by association. The periodic attempts to get cycling more closely regulated are always backed up by the fact that many cyclists act illegally. The justification that motorists give for not giving cyclists enough room, for turning across them or passing unsafely is that cyclists ignore the Highway Code and therefore do not deserve to be treated with respect or consideration.
You cannot say that these are just excuses from people who'd hate us anyway when the criticisms are obviously true.

Outlaw? What does treated accordingly mean?

You are a pompous ass aren't you. Some people go through red lights safely, some don't and it's up to the police to sort it out but it's not a high priority to them even though the streets are thronged with outlaws flagrantly acting in an outlaw way. I've never been told by a car driver that they are squeezing me because of how cyclists conduct themselves.

I have been cycling for about 40 years or so, have always gone over a red if it is safe to do so and always given priority to pedestrians or other road users with the right of way. I have never been spoken to by the police about it even if they have been present and only received a handful of complaints from pedestrians or other road users.

It aint a big deal and you need to worry about something more important.

:twisted:

You didn't actually read my post then.

I did actually, I just don't share your perception of what is going on.

TheFoolio888

BentMikey wrote:

TheFoolio888 wrote:

If we had any form of real cycle network in this country I wouldn't need to. I'm not advocating my actions...just explaining.

If we had any form of real cycle network in this country, it STILL WOULDN'T reduce our risk at junctions. In fact it would make the chances of a serious accident considerably higher.

There's also the point that cycling isn't dangerous. Your perception of danger is just that, a perception and not a reality.

Personally I would be more than happy sticking to a proper, seperate, cycle lane, stopping at junctions and generally enjoying my commute. Rather then getting squeezed in the gutter as I can't do 30mph, or having to sneak between stationary queues of traffic hoping that I get somewhere "safe" before the lights change to green.

What I don't enjoy (which a lot seemingly do...you perhaps?) is the challenge of getting to work in one piece and fighting for my right to be on the road.

To be fair getting clipped by wing mirrors and nearly going under the wheels of an 18 wheeler who was trying to overtake me does nothing to reduce my "perception" of danger.

dondare

iainment wrote:

I did actually, I just don't share your perception of what is going on.

So you don't agree that the way a person or group of people behave has any bearing on the way that they are perceived and how they are treated.

Oddballcp

dondare wrote:

If you act like an outlaw then you'll be regarded as an outlaw and treated accordingly. And so will all cyclists, by association. The periodic attempts to get cycling more closely regulated are always backed up by the fact that many cyclists act illegally. The justification that motorists give for not giving cyclists enough room, for turning across them or passing unsafely is that cyclists ignore the Highway Code and therefore do not deserve to be treated with respect or consideration.
You cannot say that these are just excuses from people who'd hate us anyway when the criticisms are obviously true.

Cyclists who live in the forest shooting the Sheriffs men with arrows spoil things for the rest of us.

iainment

dondare wrote:

iainment wrote:

I did actually, I just don't share your perception of what is going on.

So you don't agree that the way a person or group of people behave has any bearing on the way that they are perceived and how they are treated.

I don't share your perception is all, and to be frank it amuses me to think that you get so annoyed by what I do. So of course I accept that people are effected by others actions, that their opinions are effected and that their behaviour is also effected.

Having said all that if the way is clear and it is safe to do so I will RLJ.

:twisted:

Eat My Dust

I saw a guy earlier in a BMW going round a roundabout the wrong way as he couldn't be bothered to wait behind a few cars that were in front of him, there was nothing coming the other way, so it was "safe" to do so. Is this kind of behaviour acceptable? I don't think it is, and in my eys there's no difference between this kind a fanny driving and RLJing.

Gussio

This morning, in two separate instances, I waved across oncoming traffic that was looking to turn infront of me. In both cases I was greeted with a friendly wave and a smile. I also stopped at every red light and zebra crossing being used. I got the impression that vehicles behind responded well to this sort of behaviour and gave me a bit more leeway and didn't try to muscle past. It isn't always like that, but there is an element of "do to others as you would have done to yourself".

I don't rush in the mornings - what is the hurry to get to work?

iainment

Eat My Dust wrote:

I saw a guy earlier in a BMW going round a roundabout the wrong way as he couldn't be bothered to wait behind a few cars that were in front of him, there was nothing coming the other way, so it was "safe" to do so. Is this kind of behaviour acceptable? I don't think it is, and in my eys there's no difference between this kind a fanny driving and RLJing.

It's a funny old world aint it though. You think that and I don't agree that they are comparable acts.

:twisted:

TheFoolio888

iainment wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I saw a guy earlier in a BMW going round a roundabout the wrong way as he couldn't be bothered to wait behind a few cars that were in front of him, there was nothing coming the other way, so it was "safe" to do so. Is this kind of behaviour acceptable? I don't think it is, and in my eys there's no difference between this kind a fanny driving and RLJing.

It's a funny old world aint it though. You think that and I don't agree that they are comparable acts.

:twisted:

I'd have to agree...doing that in a car is far more dangerous than the majority of RLJs.

Still don't agree with RLJing though :P

cupofteacp

dondare wrote:

cupofteacp wrote:

dondare do you remember the rlj thread with theo?

Even tho theo was wrong saying cycling through lights was safe, he was correct in saying that sitting at lights is dangerous.

The problem comes trying to "balance" the two sets of risk. In figures Theo used only 2 people we're killed RLJing out of 120 over 5 years in London, against 10 turning left, 1 being hit from behind, and others, adding up to a total of over 21 deaths within area of a Traffic light junction.

Would RLJing have saved these people? I really don't know, but I feel that it would have.

I'm not advocating RLJing, I'm just saying junctions are dangerous and I wish the government would get over RLJing and look at how juntions work and make them safer for everyone.

Waiting at lights is not unsafe if you position yourself correctly. It is if you tuck yourself inside a left-turning lorry, but that's not about the lights.
Being in the wrong place can get you killed regardless of the lights, correct positioning will keep you safe regardless of the lights.

I'm afraid waiting at lights is dangerous it appears from the figures that more people were killed. People drove into them, no turning, just drove into them.
Ok I was'nt at each set of lights and can't comment on whether they were in the correct position. Wearing the correct cloths, had lights and all the reflectors fitted

Eat My Dust

iainment wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I saw a guy earlier in a BMW going round a roundabout the wrong way as he couldn't be bothered to wait behind a few cars that were in front of him, there was nothing coming the other way, so it was "safe" to do so. Is this kind of behaviour acceptable? I don't think it is, and in my eys there's no difference between this kind a fanny driving and RLJing.

It's a funny old world aint it though. You think that and I don't agree that they are comparable acts.

:twisted:

Well the driver obviously thought it was safe to break the law, he wasn't putting himself or anybody else in any danger. I looked at him and thought "what a d_ck" as I do with RLJers, what's the difference?

cupofteacp

I suppose the difference is that your unlikly to die cyclist hits you, as apposed to being driven over by a car.

Is shop lifting a chocolate bar from the corner shop, the same as armed robbery?

Eat My Dust

cupofteacp wrote:

I suppose the difference is that your unlikly to die cyclist hits you, as apposed to being driven over by a car.

Is shop lifting a chocolate bar from the corner shop, the same as armed robbery?

Is being hit by a car and breaking your leg worse than being hit by a cyclist and breaking your leg?

Shoplifting and armed robbery are 2 different things, as one involves violence or intent of violence, so it has a "real" victims.

dondare

cupofteacp wrote:

I suppose the difference is that your unlikly to die cyclist hits you, as apposed to being driven over by a car.

Is shop lifting a chocolate bar from the corner shop, the same as armed robbery?

They are both wrong, illegal and antisocial. Shoplifting is not in the same league as armed robbery, but shoplifting is not acceptable nonetheless.

dondare

iainment wrote:

dondare wrote:

iainment wrote:

I did actually, I just don't share your perception of what is going on.

So you don't agree that the way a person or group of people behave has any bearing on the way that they are perceived and how they are treated.

I don't share your perception is all, and to be frank it amuses me to think that you get so annoyed by what I do. So of course I accept that people are effected by others actions, that their opinions are effected and that their behaviour is also effected.

Having said all that if the way is clear and it is safe to do so I will RLJ.

:twisted:

It isn't just me you annoy, surely you realize that.
If you accept that your behaviour affects the opinions and actions of others, but it amuses you that you annoy them and you don't care that not only yourself but other cyclists as well might be affected as a result, then you're wasting your time debating the issue. You might as well simply say "F*ck everyone who isn't me."

Mikey Mouse

WyS wrote:

and tbh these coppers should be catching bike thieves. it is ridiculous at the moment and would do far more good than £30 fines for people trying to get home.

For the nutters that have no regard for others fair enough.. but come on. do something useful.

Yeah it would be nice if you had regards for others instead of being so selfish.

BentMikey

TheFoolio888 wrote:

Personally I would be more than happy sticking to a proper, seperate, cycle lane, stopping at junctions and generally enjoying my commute. Rather then getting squeezed in the gutter as I can't do 30mph, or having to sneak between stationary queues of traffic hoping that I get somewhere "safe" before the lights change to green.

What I don't enjoy (which a lot seemingly do...you perhaps?) is the challenge of getting to work in one piece and fighting for my right to be on the road.

To be fair getting clipped by wing mirrors and nearly going under the wheels of an 18 wheeler who was trying to overtake me does nothing to reduce my "perception" of danger.

That does sound to me like you would gain a lot from reading Cyclecraft by John Franklin. The problem seems to be your road position, though I've no idea really, I'm only guessing from what you wrote above. I think better positioning and more assertive riding will make a huge difference to your riding enjoyment, and will allow you to herd the cars nicely. I'd like to ask you to look at this video, and comment on how my road positioning compares with where you would ride in the same situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw234ZDcsmw

Regarding being hit from behind, it's one of the least common types of accidents, so whilst cycle lanes remove the fear of close overtakes they do little for safety. One of the most common places to have an "accident" is at a junction. That's why cycle lanes/paths are so bad, because they increase junction complexity and increase the risk of you having a serious accident there with a motor vehicle. You can't have completely seperate cycle lanes, because the road network is so extensive there will always be junctions.