Are rules always Black and White? Is RLJing always wrong?

the_hundredth_idiot

jashburnham wrote:

Brilliant. Sorry, but that is brilliant. Serves them right for having those stupid bikes. It's the same in London, dirty great MTB's. What is the point? They're never going to catch anyone on those things and London isn't exactly mountainous - whoever procured them must have been a genius :roll:

Don't the Italian polizzi (yeah, the Italian language really is a strength of min :oops: ) have a few Lamborghinis for motorway patrol? Perhaps the Brizzle police should have a few really fit coppers on Storck bikes to chase down reprobates like gtvlusso? Nicked and scalped at the same time!

Dropzone-dog__

Sadly, unless you are using blues & twos on your bike & it is safe for you to proceed against traffic signals then no. Unless of course you are directed by a uniformed constable
or traffic warden. The only other legal defence would be that of Necessity.

So unless you have a HGV or other vehicle with failed brakes/ somebody taking potshots at you with a shotgun or some other life threating situation behind you then ,you can not really complain if you do get pulled up for merely jumping the light in order to quicken your journey to work.

Correct positioning on the road together with good eye contact & well signalled intentions goes a long way in the rules of the road.

Act like a victim by kerb hugging or feeling you need to go beyond an ASL & you will be treated like one.

chuckcork

Headhuunter wrote:

As a cyclist I consider myself a pedestrian with wheels rather than a car without a motor.

I think this approach is the cause of most of the opprobrium that gets directed at cyclists. We are legally considered to be part of traffic and must comply with the highway code, whether we like it or not.

In many respects pedestrians can ignore the HC with no penalty, the same does not apply to cyclists, so pretending therefore that you are a "pedestrian" with wheels is bollocks unless you're on roller skates.

That enough drivers also ignore the highway code is also no excuse, two wrongs don't make a right.

AndyManc

chuckcork wrote:

I think this approach is the cause of most of the opprobrium .

op⋅pro⋅bri⋅um
   /əˈproʊbriəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-proh-bree-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the disgrace or the reproach incurred by conduct considered outrageously shameful; infamy.
2. a cause or object of such disgrace or reproach.




I of course knew what it meant :roll: , I just posted for the benefit of everyone else :P




.

tailwindhome

Any chance of this thread and the most recent 'helmet' thread being made sticky

Its only the same posts again and again anyway

DonDaddyD

jashburnham wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Thats quite funny - I outran 2 bicycle rozza's last month.....They turned onto the A38 in Brizzle as I was passing (at speed down the outside of the traffic) - summit must have pee'd them off as they gave chase and were shouting for me to stop "you with the camo bag!"....could see them pedalling like crazy behind me in the rear screens of the cars I passed.....Fully laden mountain bike Vs lightweight roadie......I just did little MTFU and dissapeared, did not see them again.....Wonder if they wanted me for some other infringelment....I don't know all the rules, so I don't know. Quite proud of myself at the time though.

That's great that you can out run a copper on an mtb :roll: Why didn't you stop, surely it's quite a serious offence not to stop for a copper, even when you're on a bike???

If they wanted me for something serious, radio waves travel faster than bikes and they could have called for a car or assistance.....Actually, I can imagine they would not want to call for assistance as it would undermine them being on bikes!! Losing a cyclist as a cyclist would not really justify the budget allocated for them....

You are talking to a man who was deported and banned from France (for sleeping on the streets aged 16), so, 2 mtb coppers in Brizzle is childs play.....I am not proud, but it is very funny and one of those stories that will be told on my death bed.

And ultimately, I did not hear them over the noise of the traffic.......;-)

Live a little!

Brilliant. Sorry, but that is brilliant. Serves them right for having those stupid bikes. It's the same in London, dirty great MTB's. What is the point? They're never going to catch anyone on those things and London isn't exactly mountainous - whoever procured them must have been a genius :roll:

+1 to this entire section.

I don't see the point of cop bikes unless they are heavily skilled at mounting the curb and chasing people down stair cases, through fields and such. :roll: Honestly community support officers have more of an impact than police on bikes.

I've never seen one of those bikes chase down anything. They were just put into action as an attempt to make the police look modern and cool whilst doing something proactive. :roll:

Something proactive would be to hire more police officers to actually walk the 'beat' around inner cities and reclaim the streets.

always_tyred

From what I've seen, I wonder if the idea of cop-bikes is to help them lose weight?

For starters there's nothing to rest the box of donuts on.

OldSkoolKona

On the subject of RLJing, I'm going to use the words of Jash from a previous thread, as I couldn't put it any better than him:

jashburnham wrote:

Lets not get into an RLJ debate.

Buy cycle craft, read it, ride primary and don't ride like a d1ck.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/

Roastie

MatHammond wrote:

I still think that RLJ can be OK - its often the common sense approach, however I've seen some appalling examples the last couple of days (numpties weaving at speed through pedestrian crossings / contra flows of traffic). I'm also tempted to renounce it myself, but for every example of bad RLJ, you get a pedestrian crossing at red with no peds in sight, or a red light with a left turn where you can safely proceed without doing anyone any harm at all. I think it is ultimately common sense, but if in any doubt, don't. And in front of the police? That's a bit cheeky isn't it - I'm glad they are taking a strict line (at least on the face of it - they don't appear to have actually done anything!)

From the motorists point of view:
- Common sense says that bicycles are slow, will inevitably hold me up so I'll push past it at every opportunity.
- Common sense also says that if a cyclist is willing to push through narrow gaps, he/she won't mind being passed real close, he/she knows the risks anyways.
- Common sense says that bicycles don't belong on the roads, despite what the law may say. Those rules are just antiquated relics from a time when cars needed flag men. Common sense says that it really is about time the highway code was changed.

Common sense is a dangerous thing, because it goes both ways.

Red means stop and it isn't negotiable or open to interpretation.

Roastie

Reading the thread it seems that a substantial portion of the excuses for RLJ'ing is because road design/facilities don't take into account the needs of cyclists. The problem is that as long as the majority of cyclists (or what is perceived as the majority) flout the rules and ignore those facilities which are useful (the number of times I've been stopped in an empty ASL only to have a bunch of cyclists either RLJ or stop WAY ahead of the ASL ...), the easier it will be for councils and the anti-bike brigade to insist that these facilities are a waste of money. RLJing also erodes all the work that cycling organisations to improve the situation for cycling.

As long as us cyclists "behave like pedestrians" (that is a classic quote, sadly for all the wrong reasons) and ignore the rules, it will be easy to dismiss us (and our needs and vulnerabilities) as road users.

While I agree there is nothing worse than a reformed rake, as an ex-serial RLJer, I have found that I generally feel much safer as a law abiding cyclist than I did trying to beat danger by making up my own rules. With good practice (positioning, observation, communication, etc.) you are far better off, and annoy far fewer people, than making up your own rules.

I've found that obeying the rules and riding "properly" attracts vastly less vitriol from motorists.

timestar

RLJ'ing is really a bit like the helmet wearing debate or even drink drivers [no doubt I will get slaughtered now for comparing RLJ to drink-driving], .i.e. those that currently do it will continue to do so and nothing said here or anywhere else is likely to change their behaviour. They will put forward any kind of "logic" to explain away their actions and justify why in some situations it is totally okay to do it. At which point I must declare my own bias as someone who doesn't RLJ but was taken out crossing a junction with the green light by another cyclist who was jumping a red light.

bigmat

Roastiecp wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I still think that RLJ can be OK - its often the common sense approach, however I've seen some appalling examples the last couple of days (numpties weaving at speed through pedestrian crossings / contra flows of traffic). I'm also tempted to renounce it myself, but for every example of bad RLJ, you get a pedestrian crossing at red with no peds in sight, or a red light with a left turn where you can safely proceed without doing anyone any harm at all. I think it is ultimately common sense, but if in any doubt, don't. And in front of the police? That's a bit cheeky isn't it - I'm glad they are taking a strict line (at least on the face of it - they don't appear to have actually done anything!)

From the motorists point of view:
- Common sense says that bicycles are slow, will inevitably hold me up so I'll push past it at every opportunity.
- Common sense also says that if a cyclist is willing to push through narrow gaps, he/she won't mind being passed real close, he/she knows the risks anyways.
- Common sense says that bicycles don't belong on the roads, despite what the law may say. Those rules are just antiquated relics from a time when cars needed flag men. Common sense says that it really is about time the highway code was changed.

Common sense is a dangerous thing, because it goes both ways.

Yes, these are all prevalent attitudes that don't look like changing in a hurry, so why focus on the one aspect that is actually in the cyclist's favour? We can, by and large, proceed through red lights without fear of sanction. Where it is safe to do so (and there are numerous occasions) then I will do so. If it is not safe, or if it will interfere with any other user of the road, I will not. Why don't people pay more attention to the bad habits of motor vehicles / pedestrians, or at the very least seek to differentiate between people recklessly jumping red lights and those doing so in a safe and considered manner?

peachos

this thread to me seems utterly pointless. there will always be cyclists willing to run the reds and until you make everyone take a road test before they are allowed to purchase a bike it will always be an issue. and that's not likely to happen now is it!?

the morality of not jumping reds argument is weak as even though people on here might understand the impact this may have on the work done by cycling orgs/image of cyclists by motorists, the average folk on their £80 tesco special who aren't really cyclists dont really care about these issues and they will still be banded with the rest of you. and they are probably a higher proportion of the overall cycling population. I'm not saying they're all poor road users but they hardly conform to the 'rules' spoken of (wearing helmets, appropriate signalling, RLJing).

personally i run RL's daily. i cross a couple of big junctions on my way in and when the green man is on for peds to cross and there's maybe one or two of them in the road it much safer for me to be in the middle of the junction. i also turn left through RL's. i take all my actions in my own hands and am not one for pointlessly putting my life & limbs at risk, thus only doing such manouvres when safe to do so. i feel quite competent on the road, i signal well and place myself in appropriate positions, especially try not to get myself hemmed into the 'cycle lane'. does RLJing make be a bad cyclist? i think not.

Paulie W

As usual the proponents of RLJing fail miserably to make their case. In this thread we've been told they RLJ because:

(a) they get to their destination quicker - in my experience, most RLJers would get there quicker if they cycled a bit faster, bought themselves a decent bike, got a bit fitter, etc.

(b) it's safer - there's has been maybe one reasonable example in this thread of how RLJing made the rider safer and the same could have been achieved by getting off the bike and walking over the ped crossing

(c) drivers make you do it - I have never had a car or lorry force me over a red light; I'm very sorry if you have but it's hardly a common occurrence

(d) it improves traffic flow - in the same way that removing all bikes from the road would improve traffic flow then I guess you're right

Christophe3967

peachos wrote:

does RLJing make be a bad cyclist? i think not.

And does it help perpetrate the perception by other road users that cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road? I think it might.

Rockbuddy

MatHammond wrote:

We can, by and large, proceed through red lights without fear of sanction. Where it is safe to do so (and there are numerous occasions) then I will do so. If it is not safe, or if it will interfere with any other user of the road, I will not. Why don't people pay more attention to the bad habits of motor vehicles / pedestrians, or at the very least seek to differentiate between people recklessly jumping red lights and those doing so in a safe and considered manner?

You can't always see what is coming no matter how considered you are in your manner, it brings to mind the SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) excuse given by so many drivers. I don't see very much difference between reckless and considered RLJing you are still a potential danger to yourself and more importantly others on the road.

MrChuck

lost_in_thought wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

The issue with RLJing under any circumstances, apart from it being against the law, is that it enforces the belief held by many drivers that all cyclists are arrogant renegades who believe themselves to be above the law.

Sitting in a car at a red light whilst a cyclist goes sailing on through is very frustrating for the driver, even though it does not directly affect them in any way.

This only serves to increase resentment and agression toward cyclists from other road users.

+1

+1 again.

peachos

Christophe3967 wrote:

peachos wrote:

does RLJing make be a bad cyclist? i think not.

And does it help perpetrate the perception by other road users that cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road? I think it might.

you miss the point that it doesnt matter what the lycra-clad 'true' cyclist does - they are far outnumbered by those who dont give a second thought to the rules.

MrChuck

Roastiecp wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I still think that RLJ can be OK - its often the common sense approach, however I've seen some appalling examples the last couple of days (numpties weaving at speed through pedestrian crossings / contra flows of traffic). I'm also tempted to renounce it myself, but for every example of bad RLJ, you get a pedestrian crossing at red with no peds in sight, or a red light with a left turn where you can safely proceed without doing anyone any harm at all. I think it is ultimately common sense, but if in any doubt, don't. And in front of the police? That's a bit cheeky isn't it - I'm glad they are taking a strict line (at least on the face of it - they don't appear to have actually done anything!)

From the motorists point of view:
- Common sense says that bicycles are slow, will inevitably hold me up so I'll push past it at every opportunity.
- Common sense also says that if a cyclist is willing to push through narrow gaps, he/she won't mind being passed real close, he/she knows the risks anyways.
- Common sense says that bicycles don't belong on the roads, despite what the law may say. Those rules are just antiquated relics from a time when cars needed flag men. Common sense says that it really is about time the highway code was changed.

Common sense is a dangerous thing, because it goes both ways.

Red means stop and it isn't negotiable or open to interpretation.

+1 to this. I'd add that the common sense that says bikes should be able to turn left through reds, nip through and across junctions when there's nothing coming or nothing's moving, etc. could mostly apply equally well to cars and I don't think many people on here would be in favour of that.

Christophe3967

peachos wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

peachos wrote:

does RLJing make be a bad cyclist? i think not.

And does it help perpetrate the perception by other road users that cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road? I think it might.

you miss the point that it doesnt matter what the lycra-clad 'true' cyclist does - they are far outnumbered by those who dont give a second thought to the rules.

No, that's not missing the point, its a disagreement. I think that it actually does matter.

DonDaddyD

Question

It's 11pm or later (small hours in the morning). Absolutely nothing on the road or pavement save one pedestrian who has pressed the lights but manage to cross anyway becuase of the lack of traffic.

You are approaching the lights and they are about to turn red. Its cold, you are tired, its late. Do you RLJ or wait at the lights?

peachos

Christophe3967 wrote:

peachos wrote:

Christophe3967 wrote:

peachos wrote:

does RLJing make be a bad cyclist? i think not.

And does it help perpetrate the perception by other road users that cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road? I think it might.

you miss the point that it doesnt matter what the lycra-clad 'true' cyclist does - they are far outnumbered by those who dont give a second thought to the rules.

No, that's not missing the point, its a disagreement. I think that it actually does matter.

personally i think being a good overall cyclist and jumping through reds (when i will cause no harm or interference with another road user) has less of a negative impact compared to somone else who is riding without helmet, taking chances across junctions without signalling etc.

i just cant see any substance in the argument that RLJing is the main reason that motorists think 'cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road'. it's probably more due to the fact they're cooped up in their cars and have to sit in traffic for 95% of their journey.

peachos

DonDaddyD wrote:

Question

It's 11pm or later (small hours in the morning). Absolutely nothing on the road or pavement save one pedestrian who has pressed the lights but manage to cross anyway becuase of the lack of traffic.

You are approaching the lights and they are about to turn red. Its cold, you are tired, its late. Do you RLJ or wait at the lights?

always through the red if it's safe to do so!

Rockbuddy

DonDaddyD wrote:

Question

It's 11pm or later (small hours in the morning). Absolutely nothing on the road or pavement save one pedestrian who has pressed the lights but manage to cross anyway becuase of the lack of traffic.

You are approaching the lights and they are about to turn red. Its cold, you are tired, its late. Do you RLJ or wait at the lights?

If they are about to turn red are they on amber??? In that case I would probably not stop and take my chance. Having said that it's 11pm I'm tired and maybe not concentrating as well as I could be...maybe haven't seen the ninja ped running to cross on the green man and I don't have time to stop... Basically it's up to you do the right thing or don't, you have to live with the consequences. I remember vividly a ped shouting after me last November as I sped past them at a zebra crossing. It was dark I was lit up and he was a ninja, I honestly didn't see him but luckly I missed hitting him.

Roastie

DonDaddyD wrote:

QuestionYou are approaching the lights and they are about to turn red. Its cold, you are tired, its late. Do you RLJ or wait at the lights?

I'm walking home late at night wearing dark coloured clothes. I'm tired and it is cold. I get to the ped crossing and fortunately someone has just got to it moments before so I can just scoot through. I hear nothing behind me so I step right onto the crossing without first looking for traffic (the ped light is green, after all). The light is about to change, so quicken my step to hurry across. Next thing I'm on the deck hit by some twit on a bike who jumped the red.

I really don't care that he was tired, and consequently not quite as observant as he should have been, or that I had stepped out of the shadows into his path - the light was b1oody well red and he should have stopped! B1oody cyclists.

Stuey01

peachos wrote:

i just cant see any substance in the argument that RLJing is the main reason that motorists think 'cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road'.

It's almost always the first one they reel off when attempting to explain their ire.

It is my humble opinion that the more considerate law abiding cyclists a driver witnesses the more likely they are to adjust to the opinion that cyclists are a rightful road user.

Why be a part of the problem?

Rockbuddy

Roastiecp wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

QuestionYou are approaching the lights and they are about to turn red. Its cold, you are tired, its late. Do you RLJ or wait at the lights?

I'm walking home late at night wearing dark coloured clothes. I'm tired and it is cold. I get to the ped crossing and fortunately someone has just got to it moments before so I can just scoot through. I hear nothing behind me so I step right onto the crossing without first looking for traffic (the ped light is green, after all). The light is about to change, so quicken my step to hurry across. Next thing I'm on the deck hit by some twit on a bike who jumped the red.

I really don't care that he was tired, and consequently not quite as observant as he should have been, or that I had stepped out of the shadows into his path - the light was b1oody well red and he should have stopped! B1oody cyclists.

+1 as it's pretty much what I just wrote, in not such a diplomatic way

ellieb

i just cant see any substance in the argument that RLJing is the main reason that motorists think 'cyclists are a bunch of lycra louts with no regard for the rules of the road'.

Er.. What sort of evidence would you be likely to accept that this is what most car drivers think of cyclists.

Internet posts?
Letters to the paper?
Opinons vouced on phone ins?
Results of opinion polls?
Conversations with people?

You name it: The evidence is there. Tell me what more you would need?

MrChuck

peachos wrote:

personally i think being a good overall cyclist and jumping through reds (when i will cause no harm or interference with another road user) .

Change 'cyclist' for 'driver' and is this still OK with you? If not, why not?

peachos

maybe it's just me then eh?

but i still dont see myself as being a problem on the roads. as far as i'm concerned i am a courteous user who under certain circumstances prefer to use my own judgement rather than that of a road system that was not designed for my method of transport.