Red Light Jumpers!

pudding head

Is this what they see?

Frank the tank

I abide by the rules of the road, but I must admit I will ride through a red IF it is obviously safe to do so (as in there are no other vehicles around).

SolerFan

seriously though... :shock: I ride w/ this guy who sees the world that way. He doesn't realize THIS is part of the reason we don't have bike lanes.

So is it wrong to want him to get hit? I mean just a little something to scare him - no hospital trip or nothing.

Oh, and the worst part of it is having to catch up to dude. I think half the reason he does it is to just get ahead of me. Maybe I should just bail on riding with dude

downfader

SolerFan wrote:

seriously though... :shock: I ride w/ this guy who sees the world that way. He doesn't realize THIS is part of the reason we don't have bike lanes.

So is it wrong to want him to get hit? I mean just a little something to scare him - no hospital trip or nothing.

Oh, and the worst part of it is having to catch up to dude. I think half the reason he does it is to just get ahead of me. Maybe I should just bail on riding with dude

Even a little knock may wreck him. So try to resist wishing

When I saw this thread I thought it was a new clothing line

pneumatic

downfader wrote:

When I saw this thread I thought it was a new clothing line

Or a brothel for kangaroos? :roll: :oops:

downfader

pneumatic wrote:

downfader wrote:

When I saw this thread I thought it was a new clothing line

Or a brothel for kangaroos? :roll: :oops:

ademort

Hi, i just wondered if any of these people who regularly jump a red light ever think of the consequences. This is what happened here, in a town called Kapelle, Netherlands on 4th December at a railway crossing.
The barriers at the railway crossing came down, there was also an audible ringing of a bell and red traffic lights. Thats 3 things to tell you that there is a train coming.As a queue of traffic built up they could see the train stopped at the station only 100 Metres away. The train normally stops for 1 to 2 Minutes, however on this occasion it was delayed by a passenger who was found to have no train ticket. The passenger was asked to leave the train but refused, saying he would be late for work. The conductors decided to call the police and have him removed. As a result of the delay, drivers started to cross the railway line, the barriers on both sides of the track only cover the side of the road that approaches the crossing, so it is possible to weave in and out of the barriers to get accross the railway line.
Several cars carried out this manoevre and still the train had not moved. A 32year old woman then tried to cross, unfortunately she did not see the intercity coming the other way, as a result she and her 4 year old son who was a passenger in the car were killed instantly.This woman only made an error of judgement, but it still cost her and her son there life. For all RLJers something to think about. Ademort

teagar

What's the gripe with RLJs? You're not the one jumping so what's the problem?

schlepcycling

teagar wrote:

What's the gripe with RLJs? You're not the one jumping so what's the problem?

I've so far resisted posting in any of the many RLJ threads but this sums up my attitude, if you're not RLJ'ing then why do you care if someone else does. I have the same attitude to people without lights or helmets or those who ride on the pavement none of those things apply to me, so I don't give a sh*t if someone else is doing it and if something happens to them as a result.......tough sh*t it was their choice.

I'm gonna get shouted at now I just know it.

pneumatic

the telling point about ademort's story is that, once one person decides they've had enough and moves off, others choose to follow. Problem is, the first one makes a judgement based on their perception of the risks, the followers will tend to think "if he can do it, so can I", without assessing the risks as carefully. (As an aside, it is pretty much the same pressure that has caused millions of people in this country to "choose" to get into debts they cannot repay!)

So one problem with RLJ's is the example they set and the basic social pressure / acceptability that builds up as a result.

the most effective road safety campaign I can remember was a series of short films of people being tailgated by frustrated van drivers, pressing them to speed, jump lights etc..Eventually, one of them runs over a child. The strapline, which I have always remembered was "Be your own man."

teagar

schlepcycling wrote:

teagar wrote:

What's the gripe with RLJs? You're not the one jumping so what's the problem?

I've so far resisted posting in any of the many RLJ threads but this sums up my attitude, if you're not RLJ'ing then why do you care if someone else does. I have the same attitude to people without lights or helmets or those who ride on the pavement none of those things apply to me, so I don't give a sh*t if someone else is doing it and if something happens to them as a result.......tough sh*t it was their choice.

I'm gonna get shouted at now I just know it.

*Braces* 8)

Dog Breath

I think you should be shouted at for your totally selfish attitude, because it effects us all.

Everytime a motorist sees a cyclist RLJ-ing or cycling on pavements, they (wrongly) think all cyclists are same, and are more likely not to give us the respect and courtesy we need on the roads.

teagar

Dog Breath wrote:

I think you should be shouted at for your totally selfish attitude, because it effects us all.

Everytime a motorist sees a cyclist RLJ-ing or cycling on pavements, they (wrongly) think all cyclists are same, and are more likely not to give us the respect and courtesy we need on the roads.

Apart from every time they see you stopped at a set of lights? :roll:

teagar

teagar wrote:

Dog Breath wrote:

I think you should be shouted at for your totally selfish attitude, because it effects us all.

Everytime a motorist sees a cyclist RLJ-ing or cycling on pavements, they (wrongly) think all cyclists are same, and are more likely not to give us the respect and courtesy we need on the roads.

Apart from every time they see you stopped at a set of lights? :roll:

And who ever said I jumped lights? *looks around*

Can't say I did?

Nuggs

schlepcycling wrote:

teagar wrote:

What's the gripe with RLJs? You're not the one jumping so what's the problem?

I've so far resisted posting in any of the many RLJ threads but this sums up my attitude, if you're not RLJ'ing then why do you care if someone else does.

[Jeremy Kyle]Do you take that attitude with MURDER?[/JK]

bigmat

I think the difference is RLJ done in a sensible way is completely harmless to anyone, so why people get so indignant about it I don't know. If its a case of "he went through a red light when people were trying to cross" or "he went through a red light and nearly got hit by a car" then fine, its bad, but if its just the act itself that gets people hot under the collar even when there are no negative consequences, I just don't get it. On the other hand, when I get stuck next to a bus / lorry at a tight junction behind some self righteous t*t on a bike stopped at a red light when its 100% safe to go, that gets me mad.

Dog Breath

The laws of the road are not selective. They are there for a reason. No one should selfishly decide which laws they think apply to them and then ignore the rest.

In the same token, a car driver may think that it's OK for them to use the phone while driving. They may think it's OK, but the law and the general population think that it's not.

The same goes for RLJ-ing. It's not OK at any time.

Mike Healey

Replace RLJ with speeding and you might well consider starting a SafeRLJ website.

As for some "self-righteous tit (not sure, but the vowel seems to fit) "stopped at a red light," etc., when I do so, it's not in the spirit of self-righteousness, but simply because the light is at red and it's illegal to continue across the junction.

Your conceit that you can determine my motive or feelings, or those of someone else, would be utterly unjustified.

I don't know if you've ever been involved in campaigning, but I've lost count of the times meetings have been hi-jacked by people fulminating against RLJing and time has been wasted trying to deal with the subject, instead of matters which are of more importance to cyclists.

I've also had to deal with young riders I've been coaching, using the example of riders such as yourself, to argue for ignoring red lights. I've been on two wheels, pedal or motor-powered since the mid-fifties and I've never found my safety seriously threatened, nor been more than slightly inconvenienced by either red lights or other road users. Even the handful of occasions I've been left-hooked have never put my health or welfare at anything other than at the slightest of risks.

In short, the RLJ supporters' arguments have always seemed to me to be based on exactly the same selfishness that Safespeeders use about ignoring the speed limits.

chuckcork

Dog Breath wrote:

In the same token, a car driver may think that it's OK for them to use the phone while driving. They may think it's OK, but the law and the general population think that it's not.
.

I would reply that society generally don't give a damn about people using mobiles while driving. Ever seen a heated argument between motorists regarding mobile phone use? If it was considered to be that antisocial, then there would be pressure not to use them. But given the number of people I see driving around with a phone pressed to their ears, there is no such pressure, laws against mobile phone use have failed, and there is little realistc chance of prosecution for doing so.

Maybe that should be the counter-argument though for cyclists running red lights? That doing so is only about as dangerous, say, as the legions of drivers who talk on their mobiles while in traffic?

Personally having come damned close to been taken out by drivers who were fixated on their calls enough to completely ignore my presence, I'd say by comparison cycling through red lights (given few would be stupid enough to ignore the other traffic) is safer behaviour.

At least doing so you are in control, whereas the mobile phone users are out of control, they just don't know it.

airborne_warrior

A red light doesn't mean it is dangerous to go. It just means it's not your turn to go. If it's clear then why wait?

Dog Breath

So, do you think that it's OK for all road users to ignore red light even if they think it is safe ? If so, the end result would be anarchy.

I just do not understand the reasoning for ignoring red lights. If it's red you wait until it's turned green - simple as. Is the 30 seconds time on your journey so important.

Mike Healey

Airborne Warrior wrote:

A red light doesn't mean it is dangerous to go. It just means it's not your turn to go. If it's clear then why wait?

A speed limit sign doesn't mean that it's dangerous to exceed it. It just means that it could be under certain circumstances. If those circumstances do not exist, then what's wrong with doing 40 in a 30 zone? As long as there aren't any pedestrians around and you're a good enough driver to be able to judge whether or not there are potential dangers, what's wrong with doing 40 under those conditions?

Dog Breath

Well Mike, if you have been teaching the Bradford Kids Saturday Bike Club since 1998, I would not like to think what version of the Highway Code you have been teaching them. The official one or one of your own in which you can disregard any rule of the road if you happen to think it's OK.

DB

spen666

Mike Healey wrote:

Airborne Warrior wrote:

A red light doesn't mean it is dangerous to go. It just means it's not your turn to go. If it's clear then why wait?

A speed limit sign doesn't mean that it's dangerous to exceed it. It just means that it could be under certain circumstances. If those circumstances do not exist, then what's wrong with doing 40 in a 30 zone? As long as there aren't any pedestrians around and you're a good enough driver to be able to judge whether or not there are potential dangers, what's wrong with doing 40 under those conditions?

Its illegal that is a start of what is wrong

Mithras

teagar wrote:

What's the gripe with RLJs? You're not the one jumping so what's the problem?

You are a TROLL and I claim my £5

Mithras

Ok,
Hypothetically speaking lets drop the legal/illeagle argument and go for the "if It is safe to do so" argument. This argument makes the presumption that everyone has the ability to compute levels of risk, hazard awareness and has the same level of common sense.

REALITY CHECK : THEY DON'T

Now unless you are a complete numpty you will know that not everyone on this planet is quite as responsible as you are....and generally tend to be driving vehicles and are completly cycle unaware! Not all but a large enough group of the population to make leaving things to a persons personal discretion is not the best option. This goes for speed as well. Breaking the limit in an urban environment is just asking for the death of a small child! Not because of your risk assesment but becuase they have no ability to risk assess!

Dog Breath

Just like a certain Portuguese lorry driver thought it was OK to use his laptop while driving up the M6.....

teagar

Mithras wrote:

teagar wrote:

What's the gripe with RLJs? You're not the one jumping so what's the problem?

You are a TROLL and I claim my £5

Not quite sure what being a TROLL means? Enlighten me.

schlepcycling

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

teagar

Oh, fair enough. I thought it was a valid question.

robmanic1

Anyone know where I can get a photo of princess Di choking a fox whilst riding a bike through a red light no-handed simultaneously using a mobile phone and smoking with no helmet on shouting "I love Lance" at the top of her voice?