RLJ - What's the big deal?

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

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!!!!

IMHO cyclists are neither the same as motor traffic or peds, but they have more in common with peds than motor vehicles. We are soft and exposed, do not have motors and weigh very little. The fact we have wheels has nothing to do with it, this is the only things we share with motorists.

simple_salmon

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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!!!!

IMHO cyclists are neither the same as motor traffic or peds, but they have more in common with peds than motor vehicles. We are soft and exposed, do not have motors and weigh very little. The fact we have wheels has nothing to do with it, this is the only things we share with motorists.

But the law and the Highway Code see things differently to you. If you ignore then then you are as bad as drivers who don't indicate, use mobiles whilst driving, don't consider other road users etc IMHO.

Porgy

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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!!!!

IMHO cyclists are neither the same as motor traffic or peds, but they have more in common with peds than motor vehicles. We are soft and exposed, do not have motors and weigh very little. The fact we have wheels has nothing to do with it, this is the only things we share with motorists.

we also share speed with motorists and the fact that we need to be on the roads, and therefore that we have to share infrastructure with the cars and are also a risk to pedestrians.

My contention has always been that road infratructure design should take cyclists into account - something that they don't currently except for the add-on cycle lanes and we all know how poor they are.

I have hopes for these new cycle cuperhighways - some of the claims are that cyclists will get priority over motorised traffic and that things like cycle priority lights will be considered.

This sort of this IMO will negate the current argument that RLJers regularly trot out - I would expect RLJers therefore to get involved witht he consultation process once it begins.

bigmat

I'm all for the status quo - ride alongside the traffic, use our greater manoeverability to filter when the traffic gets jammed and take advantage of the fact that the laws on red lights aren't really enforced, thereby allowing us to get through (when its safe to do so) and get ahead of the motorised traffic. The idea of "cycling super-highways" etc doesn't really appeal to me. I like the fact that I can move at speed through the current system and would hate to be marginalised on a separate cycle path, stuggling to get past slow moving kids and old women on shoppers. Would pretty much kill any kind of road cycling within any city where it was introduced.

I appreciate the above is all very selfish - not everybody is happy to deal with the dangers of traffic in a big city and for a lot of people the idea of separate dedicated cycle lanes is a good one, but I kind of like things how they are.

owenlars

To RLJ is against the law period. If those who RLJ on this forum can decide to break the law on their own judgement then where does it stop? Cycling on the pavement? Going up a one way street? Shoplifting? Stealing a bicycle? Burglary????????????

It's not optional it's the law.

Porgy

MatHammond wrote:

I'm all for the status quo - ride alongside the traffic, use our greater manoeverability to filter when the traffic gets jammed and take advantage of the fact that the laws on red lights aren't really enforced, thereby allowing us to get through (when its safe to do so) and get ahead of the motorised traffic. The idea of "cycling super-highways" etc doesn't really appeal to me. I like the fact that I can move at speed through the current system and would hate to be marginalised on a separate cycle path, stuggling to get past slow moving kids and old women on shoppers. Would pretty much kill any kind of road cycling within any city where it was introduced..

Well London's going to have two by May next year - so I hope you're wrong.

I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of superhighway here. It's a stupidnname I admit, but they are not going to be seperate paths. It's more a concept wherby problems and barriers to cyclists will be systematlically removed. It will all still be on the roads, and the LCC are insisting that they will all be on main roads.

They should in theory give you more space on the road and priority on the junctions.

While they are aimed at encouraging the 98% non-cyclists onto them - apparently the space set aside for cyclists will be doubled allowing overtaking, and there'll be nothing preventing confident cyclists - like you and me - continuing as before.

I am sceptical that this can be acheived but while political will exists I will be supporting the intiative.

Porgy

owenlars wrote:

To RLJ is against the law period. If those who RLJ on this forum can decide to break the law on their own judgement then where does it stop? Cycling on the pavement? Going up a one way street? Shoplifting? Stealing a bicycle? Burglary????????????

It's not optional it's the law.

you're right - but I still feel that it's more constructive to discuss this issue with the RLJers than just have a tantrum about how naughty it is.

bigmat

Porgy wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

I'm all for the status quo - ride alongside the traffic, use our greater manoeverability to filter when the traffic gets jammed and take advantage of the fact that the laws on red lights aren't really enforced, thereby allowing us to get through (when its safe to do so) and get ahead of the motorised traffic. The idea of "cycling super-highways" etc doesn't really appeal to me. I like the fact that I can move at speed through the current system and would hate to be marginalised on a separate cycle path, stuggling to get past slow moving kids and old women on shoppers. Would pretty much kill any kind of road cycling within any city where it was introduced..

Well London's going to have two by May next year - so I hope you're wrong.

I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of superhighway here. It's a stupidnname I admit, but they are not going to be seperate paths. It's more a concept wherby problems and barriers to cyclists will be systematlically removed. It will all still be on the roads, and the LCC are insisting that they will all be on main roads.

They should in theory give you more space on the road and priority on the junctions.

While they are aimed at encouraging the 98% non-cyclists onto them - apparently the space set aside for cyclists will be doubled allowing overtaking, and there'll be nothing preventing confident cyclists - like you and me - continuing as before.

I am sceptical that this can be acheived but while political will exists I will be supporting the intiative.

Sounds good when put like that - will see what the results are like.

lost_in_thought

You know what I think? I think tesla coils...

You remember, like in red alert, that silly strategy game. Set them up with the lights, so they become active when the lights turn red. Pop a little sign up saying 'tesla-controlled intersection'... you RLJ... BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT ZAP!

Yeah. That would be cool.

Not a lethal zap, obv, just a nasty sting.

Kieran_Burns

lost_in_thought wrote:

You know what I think? I think tesla coils...

You remember, like in red alert, that silly strategy game. Set them up with the lights, so they become active when the lights turn red. Pop a little sign up saying 'tesla-controlled intersection'... you RLJ... BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT ZAP!

Yeah. That would be cool.

Not a lethal zap, obv, just a nasty sting.

Wash your mouth out.

Red Alert was NOT a silly strategy game. It was brilliant! :P

DonDaddyD

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

Secondly, Peeing outside in city centres is illegal, but drunk after a night out post kebab I'm prone to 'being with nature'....

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

Homer J

People on bikes costing less than 3K should not be allowed to RLJ

d21dga

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

+1

In one of the later versions wasn't there a Tesla coil mounted on top of a tank? :twisted:

lost_in_thought

d21dga wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

+1

In one of the later versions wasn't there a Tesla coil mounted on top of a tank? :twisted:

YES! That was awesome... I'd forgotten about that...

biondino

lost_in_thought wrote:

You know what I think? I think tesla coils...

You remember, like in red alert, that silly strategy game.

LiT. Happy memories of gaming fun! Tesla coils were hardcore.

bomberesque

MatHammond wrote:

The idea of "cycling super-highways" etc doesn't really appeal to me. I like the fact that I can move at speed through the current system and would hate to be marginalised on a separate cycle path, stuggling to get past slow moving kids and old women on shoppers. Would pretty much kill any kind of road cycling within any city where it was introduced.

erm. no

I commute in Antwerp and we have several designated cycle lanes separated from the main highways by fencing or even Armco. The Flemish would have something to say if you accused cycling of being dead in their city!

as for RLJing I ..... erm .... kinda agree with headhunter, ..(sorry) :oops:

My contemporary experience isn't in London but my memory of commuting there back in the late 80s plus the assumption that it's got worse not better since tells me that the context is very different from mine in Antwerp. Here people (peds and cyclists) broadly follow the lights but will cross a red when the junction is obviously clear, they will *not* blast through a la NY-cycle-courier-on-a-fixie but will "proceed with caution". And so do I. This is not legal and there are those who tut, but the situation continues and seems to co-exist fairly well with motorised traffic. This works I believe because, in Antwerp at least, a broad majority of people ride bikes on a regular basis and so have some understanding of the issues as they face cyclists. Plus most of the lights I wait at or otherwise are cycle stop lights, not shared with motor traffic (save for mopeds :roll: ) and parallel the ped crossings.

Where I live (Brussels) OTOH is full of EU beaurocrats and mini/BMW driving estate agents*** with a cycilng infrastructure that is nothing like as good as that in Antwerp and so not so great.... I'll admit that I take a more circumspect approach there, just because it's less safe and there's *loads* of foreign nationals who know little or nothing of local subtlties in road rules (eg priority a droit and the perfectly legal right for bikes to ride against the flow of traffic in most oneway streets) and I don't want to die just for being in the right.

The subtext about cyclists' place in the hierachy of peds/motorbikes and cars is, I think a significant part of the whole problem. Bikes *are* somewhere in between as things stand. If we had to choose between being classed with cars or with peds we'd have little choice but to class ourselves as cars and act accordingly. However, the rules and layouts of the roads are almost wholly set up to make driving convenient and keep peds from being run over. Cyclists hardly get a look-in (OK, some cycle lanes but quite often they can make things worse, especially if they're the "white bike signs painted on a normal traffic lane" or the "never cleaned, good for smashing cider bottles on" variety)

In conjunction with the registration thread, cycling, like pedestrianism (is that a word?) is a somewhat immediate and unregulated persuit and I'd rather like it to stay that way.

We're not peds. We're not cars either. We're bicycles. In Antwerp (and to an even greater extent up in Holland) this is realised and bikes have a place in the traffic system separate from either.

sorry that was too long and I think I said the same thing at least 4 times.....

***very glib comment about Brussels is a bit of a joke, honest. I love the place really

Bassjunkieuk

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

They only rock up until the point where I waste your power stations, instant power deficit turns your tesla coils into street furniture :-D

bigmat

bomberesque wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

The idea of "cycling super-highways" etc doesn't really appeal to me. I like the fact that I can move at speed through the current system and would hate to be marginalised on a separate cycle path, stuggling to get past slow moving kids and old women on shoppers. Would pretty much kill any kind of road cycling within any city where it was introduced.

erm. no

I commute in Antwerp and we have several designated cycle lanes separated from the main highways by fencing or even Armco. The Flemish would have something to say if you accused cycling of being dead in their city!

as for RLJing I ..... erm .... kinda agree with headhunter, ..(sorry) :oops:

My contemporary experience isn't in London but my memory of commuting there back in the late 80s plus the assumption that it's got worse not better since tells me that the context is very different from mine in Antwerp. Here people (peds and cyclists) broadly follow the lights but will cross a red when the junction is obviously clear, they will *not* blast through a la NY-cycle-courier-on-a-fixie but will "proceed with caution". And so do I. This is not legal and there are those who tut, but the situation continues and seems to co-exist fairly well with motorised traffic. This works I believe because, in Antwerp at least, a broad majority of people ride bikes on a regular basis and so have some understanding of the issues as they face cyclists. Plus most of the lights I wait at or otherwise are cycle stop lights, not shared with motor traffic (save for mopeds :roll: ) and parallel the ped crossings.

Where I live (Brussels) OTOH is full of EU beaurocrats and mini/BMW driving estate agents*** with a cycilng infrastructure that is nothing like as good as that in Antwerp and so not so great.... I'll admit that I take a more circumspect approach there, just because it's less safe and there's *loads* of foreign nationals who know little or nothing of local subtlties in road rules (eg priority a droit and the perfectly legal right for bikes to ride against the flow of traffic in most oneway streets) and I don't want to die just for being in the right.

The subtext about cyclists' place in the hierachy of peds/motorbikes and cars is, I think a significant part of the whole problem. Bikes *are* somewhere in between as things stand. If we had to choose between being classed with cars or with peds we'd have little choice but to class ourselves as cars and act accordingly. However, the rules and layouts of the roads are almost wholly set up to make driving convenient and keep peds from being run over. Cyclists hardly get a look-in (OK, some cycle lanes but quite often they can make things worse, especially if they're the "white bike signs painted on a normal traffic lane" or the "never cleaned, good for smashing cider bottles on" variety)

In conjunction with the registration thread, cycling, like pedestrianism (is that a word?) is a somewhat immediate and unregulated persuit and I'd rather like it to stay that way.

We're not peds. We're not cars either. We're bicycles. In Antwerp (and to an even greater extent up in Holland) this is realised and bikes have a place in the traffic system separate from either.

sorry that was too long and I think I said the same thing at least 4 times.....

***very glib comment about Brussels is a bit of a joke, honest. I love the place really

I'm guessing commuting in Antwerp is similar to Ghent? I commuted there for a year and what you say rings true. I'm just not convinced we could ever achieve that situation in the UK, but I guess that is no reason not to try. Agree on pretty much everything else, by the way - well done!

lost_in_thought

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

They only rock up until the point where I waste your power stations, instant power deficit turns your tesla coils into street furniture :-D

You won't get anywhere near my power stations... not with this many tesla coils. I'll be all like BZZZZZZZT ZAP and you'll be all like 'oh no'! :P

iainment

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?

If the road is clear I don't see that there's a problem, as long as no one elses right of way is impeded no one can complain.

Apart from the keyboard warriors on here.

pip pip

Headhuunter

Porgy wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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!!!!

IMHO cyclists are neither the same as motor traffic or peds, but they have more in common with peds than motor vehicles. We are soft and exposed, do not have motors and weigh very little. The fact we have wheels has nothing to do with it, this is the only things we share with motorists.

we also share speed with motorists and the fact that we need to be on the roads, and therefore that we have to share infrastructure with the cars and are also a risk to pedestrians.

My contention has always been that road infratructure design should take cyclists into account - something that they don't currently except for the add-on cycle lanes and we all know how poor they are.

I have hopes for these new cycle cuperhighways - some of the claims are that cyclists will get priority over motorised traffic and that things like cycle priority lights will be considered.

This sort of this IMO will negate the current argument that RLJers regularly trot out - I would expect RLJers therefore to get involved witht he consultation process once it begins.

I would agree that the current infrastructure does not provide well for bikes. The government seems keen to get people on bikes but has yet to provide anything like a decent, safe road system for us. A start would be to have filter traffic lights allowing cyclists to cross junctions before motorists. Just as peds have their own lights, why can't we?

Headhuunter

MatHammond wrote:

I'm all for the status quo - ride alongside the traffic, use our greater manoeverability to filter when the traffic gets jammed and take advantage of the fact that the laws on red lights aren't really enforced, thereby allowing us to get through (when its safe to do so) and get ahead of the motorised traffic. The idea of "cycling super-highways" etc doesn't really appeal to me. I like the fact that I can move at speed through the current system and would hate to be marginalised on a separate cycle path, stuggling to get past slow moving kids and old women on shoppers. Would pretty much kill any kind of road cycling within any city where it was introduced.

I appreciate the above is all very selfish - not everybody is happy to deal with the dangers of traffic in a big city and for a lot of people the idea of separate dedicated cycle lanes is a good one, but I kind of like things how they are.

I agree completely. I really don't want to be segredated behind some wall or fence or even a ridge on the road surface. If this happens, all cyclists will be forced to queue behind the slowest. I relish the ability to filter quickly thruogh gridlocked traffic and jump reds when nothing is going on.

pangolin

lost_in_thought wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

They only rock up until the point where I waste your power stations, instant power deficit turns your tesla coils into street furniture :-D

You won't get anywhere near my power stations... not with this many tesla coils. I'll be all like BZZZZZZZT ZAP and you'll be all like 'oh no'! :P

I used to make the most ridiculously elaborate defences out of teslas and flame towers. Bridges were the best - nothing survived.

Headhuunter

as for RLJing I ..... erm .... kinda agree with headhunter, ..(sorry) :oops: .

Sorry, what was that? Don't be afraid to state your view. It's just a discussion. I hope there's no ill will. Just because we disagree, we don't have to be ashamed of our views or dislike each other.

I'm glad you say that RLJ-ing works in places like Antwerp, it just shows that there IS another way other than the "computer says no", "it's the law" auto-response...

DonDaddyD

If a person RLJ's and there is no one around to see it, does it count?

It like a tree falling in the middle of the forest.

Abstracts people, think abstracts....

jimjamyaharr

the tree stiil makes a niose

does an RLJer?

Bassjunkieuk

jimjamyaharr wrote:

the tree stiil makes a niose

does an RLJer?

They make a bloody loud noise when they get hit by the boy racer chav in his Nova @ 3am in the morning!

bomberesque

Headhuunter wrote:

If this happens, all cyclists will be forced to queue behind the slowest.

again .... no

it will be this way whilst cycle lanes are made the width of one bike but there are several cities (old ones with narrow windy streets too) which show that this need not be the case.

I share the cycle lanes with all and sundry. old ladies, suits, kids, TDF wannabes and even the odd moped. I rarely get held up and while I'm not the fastest out there, I dare to say I'm top 1/4. The difference is that the cycle lanes have been made about 2.5m wide where at all possible, so there's space for 2 abreast easy and 3 at a squeeze. Of course this means prioritising bike lanes in some case at the expense of car traffic lanes, something the UK isn't very progressive at. Gets the bikes off the road though, which is what the drivers seem to want so it's win-win from where I stand.

Given the choice between filtering through traffic and having my own bike lane, my choice is clear. I really hope that the Superhighway scheme in London fulfills its potential but having seen some of the "artist's impressions" I suspect it will be a rather symbolic effort

lost_in_thought

pangolin wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

LiT, do you play Command and Conquer?

I used to, haven't done in years.

Tesla coils rock.

They only rock up until the point where I waste your power stations, instant power deficit turns your tesla coils into street furniture :-D

You won't get anywhere near my power stations... not with this many tesla coils. I'll be all like BZZZZZZZT ZAP and you'll be all like 'oh no'! :P

I used to make the most ridiculously elaborate defences out of teslas and flame towers. Bridges were the best - nothing survived.

Ooooh yeah, flame towers! The teslas were more effective but still. I wonder if you can download red alert like you can GTA1 and 2...