As a motorists my view on RLJing

DonDaddyD

I drove to work today, will be driving tomorrow as well.

It was while stopped at the lights at a particularly busy and narrow crossing that I came to a revelation:

As a motorist I don't mind cyclists RLJing at (a clear) crossings. RLJing at junctions remains suicide but at crossings it felt like the safer option.

On a clear crossing the cyclist can RLJ, get on with it and they are out of my way so I can happily accelerate not having to move off with cyclists and thus worrying about their slow speed wobble, knocking or bumping into them.

Because they are further along the road I have more time and a better view of the situation ahead (now that traffic is moving) to prepare to drive around the cyclist. This I feel is an easier scenario to navigate than moving off from the lights with a cyclist directly left of me or in my blind spot and squashed between my car and the curb and having another lane of traffic or oncoming traffic to my right.

It feels like less pressure on me as a motorist.

It is in someways how I feel as a cyclist.

whyamihere

The only place I ever jump a light is at a crossing. It's on a fairly steep (small chainring and standing up grinding) climb, and in SPD-SLs it's nigh on impossible to get started again without being taken out by the impatient people behind me. As it's generally old codgers moving slowly across the road, if there's enough space, I'll sprint through. My definition of enough space is that I won't be within 1.5-2m of them at any time during the manoeuvre, just in case they get a sudden burst of granny speed.

Headhuunter

That's exactly my view DDD. To me it feels far safer to get away from red lights than to wait at them. As long as you carefully cross on red, without mowing down crossing peds, or colliding with anything comuing the other way, getting yourself out of the way of cars as they accelerate and jostle for position away from green lights is definitely preferable and I always do it, when possible/safe.

What we really need is proper enforcement of ASLs to allow cyclists to wait ahead of the traffic or even better, a separate green light for cyclists letting them get a march on motor traffic from the lights.

bomberesque

in the same way that I accept that peds should be able to cross the road at crossings, even when they're red ... just so long as they're clear, I think the same for bikes. The point (for me) is that the crosser (ped or cyclist) must appreciate and act on their own lack of any right of way in that situation. Stop, look, be SURE there is no-one going to be troubled/inconvenienced/haveto change direction then go. Taking responsibility is the key. Cyclists who blindly blast through lights etc on the assumption that they're fast enough to clear the junction before any of the waiting cars can accellerate and flatten them are being exactly as stupid (and exactly as illegal) as a car jumping the same light using the same logic and they deserve no better consideration.

However I, like you, am a cyclist and so perhaps see the logic in this because ... well... it's to my own benefit as a cyclist.

I rekon the acid test for empathy amongst road users (peds/cyclists whatever) is whether, as a pedestrian, you expect a bike to stop at a pelican crossing or you wave them through. Of course they should stop, them's the rules, but all that momentum going into the brakes when all you as the ped have to do is hold back 5 seconds. I wave cyclists through. Unless they're on fixies, then I step out and try to make them fall off :P

Aidy

I agree, I've been working on this kinda basis for a good number of years now.

I do often feel that the safest thing I can do is jump red lights, to avoid the pile up of cars that feel they *have* to floor the accelerator as soon as the light turns amber. Particularly when they've decided they're going to pile into, and beyond the advanced stop line.

The Rookie

Sorry, having watched a VERY near miss between a child and a cyclist RLJing a ped' crossing, its an absolute no-no in my book, My car is a boxy estate, not overly big (lower roof than latest Focus) yet the cyclist didn't see and nearly wiped out the kid (If they had hit, I would have severly regretted leaving room on my left for the cyclist to progress to the stopline through).

Besides the highway code applies equally, if you drive that can still be 3 points on your licence, and if you don't like motorists RLJing you, don't do it to peds - we all have to share the same road!

Simon

Mike Healey

Headhuunter wrote:

That's exactly my view DDD.

To me it feels far safer to get away from red lights than to wait at them

.
And your evidence for this is? As opposed to opinion? I commuted for 23 years by bike, after having returned to cycling at 42. I never RLJ's and did not find it dangerous, even with the occasional left hook.

Whether filtering on left or right I did not feel unsafe, presumably as a result of careful observation and thought about other road users. The only collision was a rear-ender by an RLJer who cursed me for stopping and was completely unaware that it was caused by his total lack of forethought and use of the Mk 1 eyeball.

As long as you carefully cross on red, without mowing down crossing peds, or colliding with anything comuing the other way, getting yourself out of the way of cars as they accelerate and jostle for position away from green lights is definitely preferable and I always do it, when possible/safe.

Your argument in favour of your right to break the law is a mirror image of the Safe Speeders, who always know when it is safe to break the limit, because they carefully consider their options before doing so.

R_T_A

Much as I understand everyone's view on this, aren't the rules of the road exactly that? Isn't it everyone's interpretation of the rules that causes problems in the first place?

This is why everyone gets annoyed with everyone else, whether it's a car/cyclist/ped. One driver breaking the "rule" that another adheres to (e.g. one on phone whilst another speeds).

Effectively what you're saying here is "I'll RLJ as long as it's to my advantage, regardless of what the Highway Code states".

DDD I completely agree with the logic of what you're saying in the OP, but we can hardly moan about cars driving "badly" if we do the same.

If the rules aren't working, then change the rules - don't break them.

DonDaddyD

@Mike,

Waiting at the lights of a crossing, I could be between two cars, at the front of the queue or beside a car. Doesn't matter. Once the lights go green and I'm pedaling those initial moments moving off from the lights means that I'm going to have a number of cars accelerating past me when I'm at my most wobbly speed. As a cyclist this doesn't feel safe.

shoulder_of_orion

As a cyclist I think that using your mobile while driving is normally safe. I think that speeding is normally safe. I think that not indicating while manoeuvring is normally safe.

Shall we allow those things too??

DonDaddyD

R_T_A wrote:

Much as I understand everyone's view on this, aren't the rules of the road exactly that? Isn't it everyone's interpretation of the rules that causes problems in the first place?

This is why everyone gets annoyed with everyone else, whether it's a car/cyclist/ped. One driver breaking the "rule" that another adheres to (e.g. one on phone whilst another speeds).

Effectively what you're saying here is "I'll RLJ as long as it's to my advantage, regardless of what the Highway Code states".

DDD I completely agree with the logic of what you're saying in the OP, but we can hardly moan about cars driving "badly" if we do the same.

If the rules aren't working, then change the rules - don't break them.

I would argue that:

- There have never been more cars on the road as there are now, especially in London.

[ii] - There have never been more cyclist on the road as there are now.

In my experience, cyclists have always been viewed as a nuisance, something the car must get ahead of. With the increased number of bicycles the nuisance is even more so and people still treat cyclists as something they need to overtake. At lights this is dangerous because at slow moving off speeds cyclists wobble and are vulnearble to overtaking cars.

The increase in road usuage demands that not only the attitudes towards cyclists is changed (new motorist - the ones that are learning to drive now - should be taught to be more aware of cyclists and how to treat/interact with them on the road) but also the rules need to be changed because when the rules were made I don't think they considered:

-This many vehilces, obsticles, complex junctions etc on the road

[ii] - This many non motorised vehicles (bicycles) on the road.

(If suddenly horse riding in England shot up more than 200% and there were as many horses on the road as there are cyclists right now. I'd wager that the rules would change and/or there would be some sort of public annoucement trying to change attitudes).

DonDaddyD

Shoulder of Orion wrote:

As a cyclist I think that using your mobile while driving is normally safe. I think that speeding is normally safe. I think that not indicating while manoeuvring is normally safe.

Shall we allow those things too??

But what you've said here is different. All of the above are wither things that can distract or other road users cannot interpret.

Being allowed, legally, to ride through an empty crossing is entirely different.

It would be like treating all crossings regardless of the lights like a Zebra crossing.

bigmat

I'm not exactly an anarchist, but some people's blind adherence to the letter of the law does leave me scratching my head. Jumping a red light when you don't interfere with any other road user is 100% harmless but some people on here would have you believe that it should be a hanging offence. The OP makes a refreshingly realistic assessment but will inevitably be shot down in flames by the usual parties. Rule 1: don't interfere with anybody else on the road; Rule 2: Keep yourself safe. Not in the highway code, but it works for me.

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

@Mike,

Waiting at the lights of a crossing, I could be between two cars, at the front of the queue or beside a car. Doesn't matter. Once the lights go green and I'm pedaling those initial moments moving off from the lights means that I'm going to have a number of cars accelerating past me when I'm at my most wobbly speed. As a cyclist this doesn't feel safe.

can you not hold the pace i normally find cars don't take off terribly fast, they will get to 30/40mph which i'm unlikely to match on the bike but coming away from the lights particaly behind a car or two where on can clip in and roll forward just behind as the car before gets into gear?

as a driver i don't like jumping lights, bike/car what ever as for one it sends the wrong message out, if we want to be traffic we should behave like it, most don't check but simply charge though safe in the knowledge it's clear as it was last time.

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

In my experience, cyclists have always been viewed as a nuisance.

Well with your advocated riding habits its no suprise really is it?

I understand why people think its OK to RLJ but its not.

Not RLJ but twice I have nearly been knocked over in town by cyclists ignoring the fact that cars have stopped at 'zebra' crossings and illegally passing the front stationary car, in your book that was OK as well?

Its easy to say as long as its harmless, which it will be until you hit someone, at which point you've proved its not and should stop (and have proven it never was so never should have been doing it!), are you telling me NO-ONE has EVER been hit in those circumstances - exactly!

I'm an unfit 42yo and can hold my space safely in a line of accelerating cars until a comfortable 15mph ish at which point they then pass me as normal, I normally stop just behind the lead car and then pull off behind it taking charge of my piece of road blending back as I approach cruising speed - no probs!

Simon

DonDaddyD

roger merriman wrote:

if we want to be traffic we should behave like it, most don't check but simply charge though safe in the knowledge it's clear as it was last time.

Forget the message we're give out...

If we were traffic cars wouldn't desperately try to overtake us at the lights as we are moving off or get annoyed when we are at the centre of the lane riding at 20mph/25mph with nothing ahead of us, a sceanrio where many still try and overtake...

Fact is we aren't traffic, we are cyclists. Until we have a motorised engine, front lights, beams and fully working brake lights we won't be traffic. If we had all those things we wouldn't be cyclists we'd be motorcyclists.

MrChuck

MatHammond wrote:

Jumping a red light when you don't interfere with any other road user is 100% harmless but some people on here would have you believe that it should be a hanging offence. .

That's because the people advocating it usually mean that it's OK for them to do it, but not people who aren't blessed with their impeccable judgement (i.e. everbody else). I think a lot of people find that a bit short-sighted.

DonDaddyD

The Beginner wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In my experience, cyclists have always been viewed as a nuisance.

Well with your advocated riding habits its no suprise really is it?

I think this is an unfounded assumption. You haven't ridden with me, you have no clue how competent a cyclist I am. Anything you say to the contary is an assumption, wild and unsupported.

Not RLJ but twice I have nearly been knocked over in town by cyclists ignoring the fact that cars have stopped at 'zebra' crossings and illegally passing the front stationary car, in your book that was OK as well?

Er, no... The Zebra wasn't clear. I clearly stated if the crossing is clear.

You know its illegal for a car to pass a crossing, any crossing with a pedestrian still on it. The driver has to look at the crossing establish that its clear, that there isn't anyone else going to try and run across and there aren't any ninja's going to jump out of nowhere before moving off. They do this from behind a windscreen, so why cyclists aren't allowed to do this at crossings with red lights - determine that the crossing is in fact clear - apart from the fact that it is illegal, I don't know.

DonDaddyD

MrChuck wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Jumping a red light when you don't interfere with any other road user is 100% harmless but some people on here would have you believe that it should be a hanging offence. .

That's because the people advocating it usually mean that it's OK for them to do it, but not people who aren't blessed with their impeccable judgement (i.e. everbody else). I think a lot of people find that a bit short-sighted.

Do you stop at every single Zebra crossing, whether in a car or on a bike?

No, you determine that it is clear and drive/ride across. If you view of said Zebra is blurred/blocked you will slow/stop accordingly.

If you can make that decision why can't you do so at a crossing with red lights? If you've got clear view of the crossing, and can see up both sides of the pavement (as you would a Zebra) then I think you are in a position to determine whether its clear or not.

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

if we want to be traffic we should behave like it, most don't check but simply charge though safe in the knowledge it's clear as it was last time.

Forget the message we're give out...

If we were traffic cars wouldn't desperately try to overtake us at the lights as we are moving off or get annoyed when we are at the centre of the lane riding at 20mph/25mph with nothing ahead of us, a sceanrio where many still try and overtake...

Fact is we aren't traffic, we are cyclists. Until we have a motorised engine, front lights, beams and fully working brake lights we won't be traffic. If we had all those things we wouldn't be cyclists we'd be motorcyclists.

It's very rare for cars to try squeeze though with me, i'm a fairly calm and confident bloke i also ride my bike very much like a car, ie i don't jump lights or dart for gaps. i do filter but much more like a motorbike ie over rather than undertaking.

i probably look fairly confident? i don't ride the roads you do but normally the routes into central look roads where cars are slow beast on a fastish bike your one of the fastest parts of traffic, even i am and i'm far by no means the last word in speedy lycra.

Stuey01

Then what is the point of a crossing with lights? If a cyclist can use their judgement then why can't a driver?

By this logic all crossings would be zebra crossings without lights and we would all use our impeccable judgement and manners to just get along and everyone would go about their day tipping their hats at other road users, whistling and generally being a jolly old soul.

But they aren't and we don't.

Rockbuddy

DonDaddyD wrote:

You know its illegal for a car to pass a crossing, any crossing with a pedestrian still on it. The driver has to look at the crossing establish that its clear, that there isn't anyone else going to try and run across and there aren't any ninja's going to jump out of nowhere before moving off. They do this from behind a windscreen, so why cyclists aren't allowed to do this at crossings with red lights - determine that the crossing is in fact clear - apart from the fact that it is illegal, I don't know.

Is the legality not an issue then

Apart from the fact that it is illegal there are more than enough people saying here and in the last RLJ debate http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12616446&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=rlj&start=0 that RLJing, even when you think it is safe, can end in tears. Especially if the roads are soo clogged with cars, how can you see past them to know the crossing is safe to RLJ???

MrChuck

DonDaddyD wrote:

MrChuck wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Jumping a red light when you don't interfere with any other road user is 100% harmless but some people on here would have you believe that it should be a hanging offence. .

That's because the people advocating it usually mean that it's OK for them to do it, but not people who aren't blessed with their impeccable judgement (i.e. everbody else). I think a lot of people find that a bit short-sighted.

Do you stop at every single Zebra crossing, whether in a car or on a bike?

No, you determine that it is clear and drive/ride across. If you view of said Zebra is blurred/blocked you will slow/stop accordingly.

If you can make that decision why can't you do so at a crossing with red lights? If you've got clear view of the crossing, and can see up both sides of the pavement (as you would a Zebra) then I think you are in a position to determine whether its clear or not.

Stuey01 has pretty much answered for me here:

Then what is the point of a crossing with lights? If a cyclist can use their judgement then why can't a driver?

By this logic all crossings would be zebra crossings without lights and we would all use our impeccable judgement and manners to just get along and everyone would go about their day tipping their hats at other road users, whistling and generally being a jolly old soul.

But they aren't and we don't.

If you can use your judgement and do what you see fit, then obviously it's OK for everybody else to do the same, drivers and cyclists alike. If it's not OK for everybody else to do the same, why not, and why is it different for you?

DonDaddyD

The reason I raised the issue. Isn't one of pedestrians or motorists. Its of cyclists.

I think its a myth to believe and expect cyclists to act as though they are part of traffic. The average cyclist cannot move consistently as fast as a car, cannot indicate like a car nor can it accelerate off the line like a car. It cannot give braking or hazard signals like car nor is a bike as safe as a car.

Bicycles are not motorised vehicles and even with an engine would fail many EU regulations.

Fact is a cyclist isn't part of traffic, that is why cyclists ride over to the left and motorised vehicles do everything to overtake. Its also why we don't pay road tax or insurance and are allowed in bus lanes and many have championed for bike lanes. Bicycles are not traffic.

If they aren't traffic but must ride on the road, I figured at a particular spot (the lights) where I hate being a cyclist next or near to cars or being in a car and having bikes swarm around me. In the interests of their safety to the cyclist it would make more sense to allow them to pass through the lights if said crossing (not a junction) was clear. - I'm sure they do this in other countries and it works fine.

jedster

I disagree with going through reds at ped crossings (perhaps with an honourable exception for doing so on a completely desserted street).

My logic is as follows:
1. peds should KNOW that they don't have to worry about vehicles crossing when the lights are in their favour. Certainly I don't think anyone should pass through the crossing when a ped is on it. The elderly, people with small children can find it quite stressful if people don't respect the crossing

2. When you are driving/cycling you piece together from all the available information (sights, noises) what is going on around you. Sometimes people follow other road-users in a sheep like fashion. At othertimes, seeing a cyclist going through a crossing may lead to people assuming that the light is green. Theyy shouldn't assume that of course and it would not be a defence for their error but the cyclist would have contributed to the error.

BTW - I don't really understand this comment DDD:

Waiting at the lights of a crossing, I could be between two cars, at the front of the queue or beside a car. Doesn't matter. Once the lights go green and I'm pedaling those initial moments moving off from the lights means that I'm going to have a number of cars accelerating past me when I'm at my most wobbly speed.

I find that I am almost always quicker off the mark and for the first couple of yards than cars - this means I am already stable by the time they are ready to come past. Also if I am in primary cars cannot get past me until I move over and let them through.

Don't see the problem

J

Clever Pun

Stuey01 wrote:

Then what is the point of a crossing with lights? If a cyclist can use their judgement then why can't a driver?

By this logic all crossings would be zebra crossings without lights and we would all use our impeccable judgement and manners to just get along and everyone would go about their day tipping their hats at other road users, whistling and generally being a jolly old soul.

But they aren't and we don't.

don't they do this in Europe... not the hat tipping bit but the if it's clear I'm going through the red bit

MrChuck

Clever Pun wrote:

Stuey01 wrote:

Then what is the point of a crossing with lights? If a cyclist can use their judgement then why can't a driver?

By this logic all crossings would be zebra crossings without lights and we would all use our impeccable judgement and manners to just get along and everyone would go about their day tipping their hats at other road users, whistling and generally being a jolly old soul.

But they aren't and we don't.

don't they do this in Europe... not the hat tipping bit but the if it's clear I'm going through the red bit

This 'naked streets' thing has been tried in a few places- basically you remove all the road markings/furniture and just rely on people's good sense. Good results I think, but I expect as it becomes normalised people would get just as complacent eventually.

Dudu

Headhuunter wrote:

That's exactly my view DDD. To me it feels far safer to get away from red lights than to wait at them. <snip>

What we really need is proper enforcement of ASLs to allow cyclists to wait ahead of the traffic or even better, a separate green light for cyclists letting them get a march on motor traffic from the lights.

Hmmm... In my view, the safest place to be when stationary is directly in front of the middle of a car. If you can't do it in the ASL due to invading motor vehicles or large number of cyclists, either don't go for the ASL in the first place and stay in primary position in your place in the queue, or get past the obstruction and stop in front of it.

Being stationary beside or between motor vehicles at a junction is suicidal.

The Rookie

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

In my experience, cyclists have always been viewed as a nuisance.

Well with your advocated riding habits its no suprise really is it?

I think this is an unfounded assumption. You haven't ridden with me, you have no clue how competent a cyclist I am. Anything you say to the contary is an assumption, wild and unsupported.

Actually I'm going by the fact that you not only admit RLJing but are advocating it, that is all I need to know really.

Laws may be for the abeyance by fools and the guidance of wise men, but the best way for the wise men to get the fools to obey the rules is by setting a good example, you can't complain at the actions of other raod users when you happily flout them yourself, that is after all the first step towards anarchy.

Simon

Stuey01

All vehicles on the road are traffic, having a motor is not a requirement.

Bicycles, buses, motorcycles, black cabs - all traffic, all can use bus lanes.
Horse and cart, also traffic, but I don't know where they stand on use of bus lanes.

OldSkoolKona

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think its a myth to believe and expect cyclists to act as though they are part of traffic.

DDD, while I respect your honesty in posing these questions and don't doubt your intentions, the statement above is used by those opposed to allowing cyclists to use the roads and instead forcing them onto inadequate cycle facilites, away from that 'nasty traffic'. I'll take my chances as 'part of the traffic' and behave as a road user.

Said it before, read cyclecraft, read it again and then ride accordingly. RLJing has no place in a responsible cyclist's behaviour.