RLJ - What's the big deal?

DonDaddyD

jimjamyaharr wrote:

DonDaddyD
I didnt mean a sarkastic smile, more like oh well that was a close one have a nice day.
Iv almost bean killed allot in various cities on my motorbike bike instead of goin mental a little wave of acnollegment has allways seemed to of calmed the situation.

I am just disgusted sometimes with the London mentality.

sorry about the spelling

Never apologies for your spelling, it gives the pedants justification and power.

il_principe

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish twat.

secretsam

DonDaddyD wrote:

I am just disgusted sometimes with the London mentality.

+1

But no doubt some other major cities suffer the same, although a recent trip to Brum was a breath of fresh air, as the good folk there seem far more at peace with themselves. And fewer heads were up backsides. But I only ride in London...

Headhuunter

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

secretsam

Headhuunter wrote:

Well not exactly, I'm not saying that we have the right to RLJ because motorists speed, as I mentioned, 2 wrongs don't make a right. What I'm saying is that I don't believe that your reason NOT to RLJ should be that you might offend the sensibilities of the poor, ickle motorist.

Fair enough. You should not RLJ because it's daft and illegal. And unsafe, for everyone, including the poor ickle motorist (I assume you never travel in motorised transport?)

Headhuunter wrote:

Get real.

Sigh

Headhuunter wrote:

Motorists kill and maim thousands of people per year, they are hardly beyond the pale.

I think it's probably the cars that do the killing and maiming; two motorists bumping into each other would probably just result in some nasty bruises.

Headhuunter wrote:

If you believe that you should stop at EVERY red light on god's earth, do it for some other, more noble reason.

What, say, like it being the Law? Or simply good manners/considerate/etc.?

Headhuunter

SecretSam wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I am just disgusted sometimes with the London mentality.

+1

But no doubt some other major cities suffer the same, although a recent trip to Brum was a breath of fresh air, as the good folk there seem far more at peace with themselves. And fewer heads were up backsides. But I only ride in London...

On the other hand, I get the impression that there are a lot more cyclists in London. More cyclists means that motorists are more aware of cyclists and that we're all safer. I can imagine that there is more stupidity from motorists in smaller towns and cities, probably a lot more "sorry mate I didn't see you" situations.

Headhuunter

SecretSam wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Well not exactly, I'm not saying that we have the right to RLJ because motorists speed, as I mentioned, 2 wrongs don't make a right. What I'm saying is that I don't believe that your reason NOT to RLJ should be that you might offend the sensibilities of the poor, ickle motorist.

Fair enough. You should not RLJ because it's daft and illegal. And unsafe, for everyone, including the poor ickle motorist (I assume you never travel in motorised transport?)

OK. Daft and illegal. THat's your view and a better reason to stop at every red light than ingratiating yourself to the motorist. Yes, I drive now and then and use buses etc...

Headhuunter wrote:

Get real.

Sigh

Headhuunter wrote:

Motorists kill and maim thousands of people per year, they are hardly beyond the pale.

I think it's probably the cars that do the killing and maiming; two motorists bumping into each other would probably just result in some nasty bruises.

Yes, the cars, lorries, vans etc etc

Headhuunter wrote:

If you believe that you should stop at EVERY red light on god's earth, do it for some other, more noble reason.

What, say, like it being the Law? Or simply good manners/considerate/etc.?

That's a reason certainly, but the law can be an ass and there are plenty of laws broken regularly all across the country. Of course if you're a 100% law abiding citizen then go for it. I'm not. I pass through red lights when there is literally nothing going on.

il_principe

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

Headhuunter

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Eau Rouge

Headhuunter wrote:

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Back to my original remark, should we also do this while driving a car?

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Back to my original remark, should we also do this while driving a car?

No. That's stupid. See my previous remark for a number of reasons why.

Paulie W

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

We get it Headhunter: you jump red lights and you think there's nothing wrong with doing so. You dont think you're selfish or foolish or that you are undermining the 'cause' of cyclists in general to be viewed as 'proper' road users (in fact you dont think such a 'cause' is important).

A lot of other people here, me included, think you are dead wrong.

Is there really any more to say at this point?

Headhuunter

Paulie W wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

We get it Headhunter: you jump red lights and you think there's nothing wrong with doing so. You dont think you're selfish or foolish or that you are undermining the 'cause' of cyclists in general to be viewed as 'proper' road users (in fact you dont think such a 'cause' is important).

A lot of other people here, me included, think you are dead wrong.

Is there really any more to say at this point?

Well I've made a couple of points that I haven't made previously. I have a right to my view and a right to reply. If you're not interested, don't read or comment!

MrChuck

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Back to my original remark, should we also do this while driving a car?

No. That's stupid. See my previous remark for a number of reasons why.

You've given a number of reasons why you think they shouldn't, but if they can see clearly, have had a good look around and are pretty sure there isn't anything coming, then I can't see how you'd have a problem with it? Because that's exactly what you're doing. This is partly why RLJing gets people's backs up I think: your ignoring laws/rules when you find them inconvenient depends pretty heavily on everybody else not doing the same, and that's pretty antisocial.
And remember that this 'bikes aren't cars' stuff cuts both ways- be carefull what you wish for.

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Back to my original remark, should we also do this while driving a car?

No. That's stupid. See my previous remark for a number of reasons why.

Yeah but you also think that what cyclists do has no effect on how car drivers behave.

I jumped a red light this morning. I was turning onto a road I don't usually use because of a diversion, cars were also turning into it from the opposite direction, and there were parked cars and and a bike to avoid. I didn't even realise there were lights there until the car alongside me stopped. Oops.

Eau Rouge

Headhuunter wrote:

Cars are large, metal boxes, insulated from sound, often with a stereo going. Drivers are effectively deaf. Also they do not have the unrivalled view of the road that cyclists have, with the framework of the car and the lower road position. They also have a large sticky out bonnet in front which would have to protrude way across the junction before the driver had any chance of seeing what was coming. Motorbike abnd moped riders, although small pieces of traffic similarly have sound and view of the road inhibited by the lagre helmet they have to wear.

Do you drive?
At the vast majority of the traffic lights I come accross in Hampshire, any driver could quite easily ignore the lights altogether and still not cause an accident by treating the junction like one without lights, even with their limited visability and deafening stereo's. It's not exactly hard to do. I would estimate the lights where you couldn't do that are few and far between. It would cause traffic chaos, but it's no harder to do in a car than on a bike.
Sorry, bikes are traffic and should obey traffic controls, such as lights.

roussell

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

roussell wrote:

When it's a red light to let pedestrians cross, but there's nobody crossing, why not jump it?

When it's a red light to let traffic pass, but there's nothing coming, why not jump it?

Surely it aids traffic flow and leads to less conflict and aggravation between cars and cyclists?

I have to drive to work tomorrow, I'll give it a shot and let you know how I get on.

I know we've already argued abouty this til kingdom come but I always find the argument that car drivers could do the same a pretty stoopid one.

Cars are large, metal boxes, insulated from sound, often with a stereo going. Drivers are effectively deaf. Also they do not have the unrivalled view of the road that cyclists have, with the framework of the car and the lower road position. They also have a large sticky out bonnet in front which would have to protrude way across the junction before the driver had any chance of seeing what was coming. Motorbike abnd moped riders, although small pieces of traffic similarly have sound and view of the road inhibited by the lagre helmet they have to wear.

Bikes on the other hand are incredibly nippy and manoeverable and essentially have more in common with pedestrians than cars. No one ever questions a peds right to cross on a red man. Well not in the UK anyway.

And in any case, as discussed before, drivers DO jump reds! I see it every morning and every evening. In fact this very morning I particularly noticed a silver Renault van skip through a red near Holborn and turn right in front of me.

This is my point. I see cyclists as the same as pedestrians. But nobody ever seems to think pedestrians are idiots for crossing a road when it's a red light. If there's no traffic what are you waiting for? Same for cyclists and cars.

I'm not saying you should pull out blind at a red light, but if you can clearly see that there's no traffic and no pedestrians, surely you're just wasting time hanging around at a light, and slowing your journey, and causing yourself extra effort to go from stationary to full pace again.

Headhuunter

MrChuck wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Back to my original remark, should we also do this while driving a car?

No. That's stupid. See my previous remark for a number of reasons why.

You've given a number of reasons why you think they shouldn't, but if they can see clearly, have had a good look around and are pretty sure there isn't anything coming, then I can't see how you'd have a problem with it? Because that's exactly what you're doing. This is partly why RLJing gets people's backs up I think: your ignoring laws/rules when you find them inconvenient depends pretty heavily on everybody else not doing the same, and that's pretty antisocial.
And remember that this 'bikes aren't cars' stuff cuts both ways- be carefull what you wish for.

But that's the point, there are very few junctions at which a car, lorry, van etc can easily move up to the edge of the junction, see clearly what, if anything, is coming and move safely across. However, it's very easy for a cylist to do this. But anyway, as I pointed out, motorists DO jump reds anyway...

In some countries in fact, traffic lights have been completely removed and it has created a safer road environment as drivers, cyclists etc are far more hesitant and consider carefully what's ahead before moving. I used to live in a small French town on La Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. The town was set up on a grid system with hundreds of crossroads, but none at all had traffic lights. There were simply give way signs on all entries. Not that this would work in a major city like London, but it's just an example of how slavishly stopping at every red whether or not something is coming is not alway the answer.

Let me just set the record straight again. I don't blast through every red at full speed. I only RLJ when there is literally nothing happening. Peds are either waiting or not around, there are no cars etc etc. When I RLJ no one is around to inconvenienced.

Aidy

Paulie W wrote:

We get it Headhunter: you jump red lights and you think there's nothing wrong with doing so. You dont think you're selfish or foolish or that you are undermining the 'cause' of cyclists in general to be viewed as 'proper' road users (in fact you dont think such a 'cause' is important).

I'm not arguing for or against red light jumping, it's a pretty tiresome subject.

But if there's literally noone around, then how does jumping the red light harm the "cause"? I mean, there's noone around, who's going to know except the cyclist?

roussell

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

You seriously think that every time you jump a red light, you endanger others?

That's like saying every time you sneeze you endanger others with your germs, and therefore you shouldn't sneeze.

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

No can't see how it's selfish to cross a red light when nothing, literally nothing, is happening. Goodbye.

Back to my original remark, should we also do this while driving a car?

No. That's stupid. See my previous remark for a number of reasons why.

Yeah but you also think that what cyclists do has no effect on how car drivers behave.

I jumped a red light this morning. I was turning onto a road I don't usually use because of a diversion, cars were also turning into it from the opposite direction, and there were parked cars and and a bike to avoid. I didn't even realise there were lights there until the car alongside me stopped. Oops.

I expect car drivers to behave safely. They do not always do so but that's what I expect. I don't feel I have to set an example on the road to prove that I have the right to be there by the "dominant" motorist.

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Cars are large, metal boxes, insulated from sound, often with a stereo going. Drivers are effectively deaf. Also they do not have the unrivalled view of the road that cyclists have, with the framework of the car and the lower road position. They also have a large sticky out bonnet in front which would have to protrude way across the junction before the driver had any chance of seeing what was coming. Motorbike abnd moped riders, although small pieces of traffic similarly have sound and view of the road inhibited by the lagre helmet they have to wear.

Do you drive?
At the vast majority of the traffic lights I come accross in Hampshire, any driver could quite easily ignore the lights altogether and still not cause an accident by treating the junction like one without lights, even with their limited visability and deafening stereo's. It's not exactly hard to do. I would estimate the lights where you couldn't do that are few and far between. It would cause traffic chaos, but it's no harder to do in a car than on a bike.
Sorry, bikes are traffic and should obey traffic controls, such as lights.

I do drive sometimes and I certainly feel less able to judge junctions in a car than on the bike. However I am speaking mostly from experience in London, with higher levels of traffic, perhaps you're right about junctions in Hampshire.

If you ask me, those junctions should be turned into roundabouts allowing motorists to make their own judgement as to whether they proceed or not, rather than sitting, engine turning over, at a red light, waiting for - nothing. Roundabouts are effectively junctions which allow motorists to proceed when they feel it's safe and traffic chaos does not ensue. It's Far more fuel efficient as well and therefore environmentally friendly.

Headhuunter

roussell wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

You seriously think that every time you jump a red light, you endanger others?

That's like saying every time you sneeze you endanger others with your germs, and therefore you shouldn't sneeze.

Exactly.

DonDaddyD

At least when/if I jump a red light, which isn't often these days I know its wrong and that I'm taking advantage/the p*ss because I'm on a bike.

I'd never so blindly try and argue or try to justify it.

rhext

Headhuunter wrote:

roussell wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

I thought about RLJ'ing to work today, but then I remembered that I'm not a selfish fool.

Strange thing to say. OK you cuold accuse an RLJer of being a fool, that's your view, but selfish??

Actually I typed tw@t. RLJ'ing is a Tw@tish thing to do. Do I really need to explain why choosing to jump reds and potentially endanger others is selfish, or are you so self absorbed that you can't work it out for yourself?

End of debate for me, not getting sucked into another pointless argument.

You seriously think that every time you jump a red light, you endanger others?

That's like saying every time you sneeze you endanger others with your germs, and therefore you shouldn't sneeze.

Exactly.

I agree. Sneezing is dangerous and antisocial. Sneezing creates a bad impression of cyclists as a whole and should be banned. Although I understand that the risk can be reduced if you wear a helmet. With a red light on it!

Paulie W

I agree that RLJing is acceptable in a 28 Days Later or I Am Legend type scenario (which seems suddenly to be the world in which Headhunter lives) but what we are talking about in reality is jumping red lights in towns and cities where there are cars and people about nearly all the time. Leaving out the nutters who fly through red lights without any nod to safety I see many RLJers making what I'm sure they believe are considered judgements about their progress. But those judgements must be based on a set of expectations of other people's behaviour: the paradox, of course, is that the RLJer him/herself is behaving contrary to other people's expectations.

Eau Rouge

roussell wrote:

I see cyclists as the same as pedestrians.

Forget RLJ'ing, THAT is a far bigger problem for cyclists.
Cyclists are not pedestrains, should not act like pedestrains, and should not be treated like pedestrians. Councils treating cyclists as pedestrians is a huge problem in this country. Car drivers seeing cyclists as pedestrians is a huge problem in this country. Cyclists seeing cyclists as pedestrians is a huge problem in this country.
Cyclists as traffic, not pedestrians.

DonDaddyD

I see cyclists as viable road users but not a part of modern day traffic. I see 'traffic' as that long line of motorised vehicles not moving. That will never be a bike, we rule!!!!

Headhuunter

Paulie W wrote:

I agree that RLJing is acceptable in a 28 Days Later or I Am Legend type scenario (which seems suddenly to be the world in which Headhunter lives) but what we are talking about in reality is jumping red lights in towns and cities where there are cars and people about nearly all the time. Leaving out the nutters who fly through red lights without any nod to safety I see many RLJers making what I'm sure they believe are considered judgements about their progress. But those judgements must be based on a set of expectations of other people's behaviour: the paradox, of course, is that the RLJer him/herself is behaving contrary to other people's expectations.

But if there's no one else around, there are no expectations to be contrary to... I only go through reds when there is literally nothing going on, cars are at reds, possibly 1 ped waiting to cross and I can clearly see all around me.

If I ever die cycling it won't be through RLJing, I can bet my house on that. I am sooo careful when doing that. If I die on my bike it'll probably be in one of the streets near home where I'm most relaxed and not expecting anything then BANG, someone'll accelerate out of a side street or somethnig.

prawny

I think britain shoul introduce the 4 way stop cross raod like in America, whoever got there first has right of way. Roundabouts are unfair if you come from a junction that no one else is turning down.

I don't RLJ because I do what I'm told, I am a drone.