RLJer gets nicked

Bassjunkieuk

choirboy wrote:

As for why roadies shave their legs, fcuked if I know, I don't even shave my face.

Thankfully QI comes to the rescue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Y-pOym6Os

Saw it on Dave the other night and had to smile :-)

Greg T

weadmire wrote:

Have any of you convinced a woman to fall in love with you yet?

Is that a "real" woman or a made up internet woman?

I was going for him in a big way until he got outed as a Stavros-esque kebab salesman with as a much of a flair for disguise as a Crocodile in a big coat in a Wilderbeast only bar.

From my very poor knowledge of stats, causality and paternity based expertise derivation I confirm that RLJers are to man/woman odd feckers with sexual ambiguation issues and Oedipal complexes.

FACT.

iainment

Greg T wrote:

weadmire wrote:

Have any of you convinced a woman to fall in love with you yet?

Is that a "real" woman or a made up internet woman?

I was going for him in a big way until he got outed as a Stavros-esque kebab salesman with as a much of a flair for disguise as a Crocodile in a big coat in a Wilderbeast only bar.

From my very poor knowledge of stats, causality and paternity based expertise derivation I confirm that RLJers are to man/woman odd feckers with sexual ambiguation issues and Oedipal complexes.

FACT.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Even if they are so what. Personal and general abuse is so limiting and childish doncha think? Let's all get back to the issue, or is it too late for that.
Safe RLJ is possible.

Kieran_Burns

iainment wrote:

Greg T wrote:

weadmire wrote:

Have any of you convinced a woman to fall in love with you yet?

Is that a "real" woman or a made up internet woman?

I was going for him in a big way until he got outed as a Stavros-esque kebab salesman with as a much of a flair for disguise as a Crocodile in a big coat in a Wilderbeast only bar.

From my very poor knowledge of stats, causality and paternity based expertise derivation I confirm that RLJers are to man/woman odd feckers with sexual ambiguation issues and Oedipal complexes.

FACT.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Even if they are so what. Personal and general abuse is so limiting and childish doncha think? Let's all get back to the issue, or is it too late for that.
Safe RLJ is possible.

'tisn't

Rockbuddy

Iainment: If by safe RLJ you mean it is possible to do it without injuring yourself or anyone else then yes it's possible.

However, that's hardly the point is it. I mean I could quite possibly cross a busy 3 lane motor-way and not be run over, I'd be a right fool for trying it though.

I think, personal attacks aside, what most anti-RLJ people are trying to say is it's generally an unecessary risk with very little benifit to those that do it.

il_principe

This thread deserves to get repeated on Dave.

always_tyred

Rockbuddy wrote:

I think, personal attacks aside, what most anti-RLJ people are trying to say is it's generally an unecessary risk with very little benifit to those that do it.

Just to be clear - the personal attacks took about 12 pages of misplaced arrogance and outright rudeness to arrive. I think there was ample opportunity to have an adult debate, but you can only have your intelligence impugned so many times, in response to perfectly reasoned arguements, by someone with a double digit IQ before you are forced to have a little derision-related fun.

I'm perfectly happy to talk about RLJing - I disagree with it because its unecessary if you know what you are doing, and it does anger motorists.

Scotland has a lot of pretty agressive short little men in vans, with dental deficienies - I am frequently abused for merely being on the road - the only thing that is ever said relates to:

1. holding them up
2. riding on the pavement
3. running red lights

Sorry, but if you do it, you make my life harder and you are an incompetent selfish asshole. (Arguably)

Greg T

iainment wrote:

Personal and general abuse is so limiting and childish doncha think?.

Nope.

Why follow slavishly to other peoples rules of right and wrong - feck em.

il_principe

Greg T wrote:

iainment wrote:

Personal and general abuse is so limiting and childish doncha think?.

Nope.

Why follow slavishly to other peoples rules of right and wrong - feck em.

iainment

Greg T wrote:

iainment wrote:

Personal and general abuse is so limiting and childish doncha think?.

Nope.

Why follow slavishly to other peoples rules of right and wrong - feck em.

So how can you argue for or against anything then.

always_tyred

iainment wrote:

So how can you argue for or against anything then.

Thus far, your arguments have been restricted to "its possible to safely RLJ. I do it."

By all means join in, but so far, you haven't been able to contribute anything with any more basis than "its safe to text whilst steering with your knees - I do it and I've not hit anything yet".

Come on now.

Greg T

iainment wrote:

So how can you argue for or against anything then.

Other peoples rules of right and wrong and our collective attitude to them is what this is all about.

I'm special and I do what I feel like....... Makes me sound like a dick - non?

il_principe

iainment wrote:

Greg T wrote:

iainment wrote:

Personal and general abuse is so limiting and childish doncha think?.

Nope.

Why follow slavishly to other peoples rules of right and wrong - feck em.

So how can you argue for or against anything then.

Whoops, something's just flown right over your head Iainment.

iainment

Always Tyred wrote:

iainment wrote:

So how can you argue for or against anything then.

Thus far, your arguments have been restricted to "its possible to safely RLJ. I do it."

By all means join in, but so far, you haven't been able to contribute anything with any more basis than "its safe to text whilst steering with your knees - I do it and I've not hit anything yet".

Come on now.

Seems to be a valid argument to me. If it's safe for you and other road users cross, if not don't. It's not rocket science is it and doesn't need to be complicated.
I don't believe that antsy drivers opinions of drivers will change if RLJ stops, they are aggressive anyway and will pick on what they see as road users lower down the feeding chain than them.
The biggest danger on the roads to anyone is motor vehicles, not bicycles.

Rockbuddy

Always Tyred wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

I think, personal attacks aside, what most anti-RLJ people are trying to say is it's generally an unecessary risk with very little benifit to those that do it.

I think there was ample opportunity to have an adult debate, but you can only have your intelligence impugned so many times, in response to perfectly reasoned arguements, by someone with a double digit IQ before you are forced to have a little derision-related fun.

Random thought, but then this thread hasn't quite been on topic for the last 12 pages or so. I believe that the average IQ is around 100 (if you believe the stats ), which would mean about 50% of the population have double digit IQs. Just a thought

Anyways, just to be clear, I wasn't having a go at the personal attacks, found most of the last few pages quite entertaining if anything

onebravemonkey

iainment wrote:

The biggest danger on the roads to anyone is motor vehicles, not bicycles.

oooooooooooooooooobviously, but wouldn't you agree that running a red light puts you at greater risk from other motor vehicles... that are enforcing their right of way and may not see a cyclist illegally crossing in front of them.

At the very least it's giving other, more dangerous road users something else to add to the equation.

always_tyred

Rockbuddy wrote:

Random thought, but then this thread hasn't quite been on topic for the last 12 pages or so. I believe that the average IQ is around 100 (if you believe the stats ), which would mean about 50% of the population have double digit IQs. Just a thought

Anyways, just to be clear, I wasn't having a go at the personal attacks, found most of the last few pages quite entertaining if anything

I know. Frightening isn't it?

In fact, I seem to recall that this is not true of the cycling community. We are superior. 8)

always_tyred

iainment wrote:

Seems to be a valid argument to me. If it's safe for you and other road users cross, if not don't. It's not rocket science is it and doesn't need to be complicated.
I don't believe that antsy drivers opinions of drivers will change if RLJ stops, they are aggressive anyway and will pick on what they see as road users lower down the feeding chain than them.
The biggest danger on the roads to anyone is motor vehicles, not bicycles.

I never text and steer with my knees on country roads. Generally I make sure I'm safely doing about 80mph on a straight bit of motorway. I can decide for myself what is safe and what isn't.

Back to you.

iainment

onebravemonkey wrote:

iainment wrote:

The biggest danger on the roads to anyone is motor vehicles, not bicycles.

oooooooooooooooooobviously, but wouldn't you agree that running a red light puts you at greater risk from other motor vehicles... that are enforcing their right of way and may not see a cyclist illegally crossing in front of them.

At the very least it's giving other, more dangerous road users something else to add to the equation.

But as I have said many times before always cede right of way, only rlj if road clear and no one else's right of way is effected.

Bassjunkieuk

iainment wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

iainment wrote:

So how can you argue for or against anything then.

Thus far, your arguments have been restricted to "its possible to safely RLJ. I do it."

By all means join in, but so far, you haven't been able to contribute anything with any more basis than "its safe to text whilst steering with your knees - I do it and I've not hit anything yet".

Come on now.

Seems to be a valid argument to me. If it's safe for you and other road users cross, if not don't. It's not rocket science is it and doesn't need to be complicated.
I don't believe that antsy drivers opinions of drivers will change if RLJ stops, they are aggressive anyway and will pick on what they see as road users lower down the feeding chain than them.
The biggest danger on the roads to anyone is motor vehicles, not bicycles.

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe. As has been said previously there are some terrible drivers out there and it will be those people (most likely without insurance) who'll be the ones that blast through junctions like the couriers you see on youtube who scatter peds everywhere, I just think it will be a bit messier to be hit by a ton of metal rather then a whippet on his SS. But then why aren't we already seeing wipespread RLJing from them as they are all aggressive? I suppose we can also say then that as cars are RLJing then this will annoy those next up the food chain i.e those in trucks/buses etc. and then what?

Think I'm with RB on this one, whilst I can see that there are times when it's safe to RLJ, I don't see it as something that needs to be done, I think weadmire classed helmets as comforters, I'd say RLJing is his/her comforter.

biondino

Why bother though? Are you always in so much of a hurry, or so knackered that you must preserve momentum, that you break the law and make cyclists look like arrogant pr!cks?

Patience is a virtue. And it's good for the soul. Try it!

Rockbuddy

Always Tyred wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

Random thought, but then this thread hasn't quite been on topic for the last 12 pages or so. I believe that the average IQ is around 100 (if you believe the stats ), which would mean about 50% of the population have double digit IQs. Just a thought

Anyways, just to be clear, I wasn't having a go at the personal attacks, found most of the last few pages quite entertaining if anything

I know. Frightening isn't it?

In fact, I seem to recall that this is not true of the cycling community. We are superior. 8)

It's only scary if you believe that IQ tests are a valid form of measuring itelligence (but I'm not gonna go that off topic )

I do remember, however, a few studies in recent years purporting that excerise increases intelligence. Something to do with better oxigenated blood flow to the brain etc.

Anyways, yes cyclists rule, FACT! 8)

Paulie W

It's like friggin' Groundhog Day in here!!

And is it me but has the RLJing monster got more heads than the hydra?!

biondino

Paulie W wrote:

It's like friggin' Groundhog Day in here!!

And is it me but has the RLJing monster got more heads than the hydra?!

I know - as I posted mine I almost wrote "...and so it begins"

st199ml

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

the_hundredth_idiot

Rockbuddy wrote:

Random thought, but then this thread hasn't quite been on topic for the last 12 pages or so. I believe that the average IQ is around 100 (if you believe the stats ), which would mean about 50% of the population have double digit IQs. Just a thought

Anyways, just to be clear, I wasn't having a go at the personal attacks, found most of the last few pages quite entertaining if anything

I can't remember who, but someone on this board has a sig which I've always liked which goes along the lines of, "Think how stupid the average person is ... half the people out there are more stupid than that." And those half have double-digit IQs - IQ is supposed to be Normally distributed with mean 100 and SD 15, I think. So, in theory at least, exactly half of the population has a double-digit IQ.

(Of course,all that does require you to buy in to IQ being a good measure of intelligence.)

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

Why bother though? Are you always in so much of a hurry, or so knackered that you must preserve momentum, that you break the law and make cyclists look like arrogant pr!cks?

Patience is a virtue. And it's good for the soul. Try it!

Naaaaah.... Gotta go, gotta go. Places to be, people to meet, things to do. This is London, mate, not the Lake District. If they get in your way, mow 'em down. That's my motto.

_Brun_

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Headhuunter

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Yes I don't get that either, if the car was RLJ-ing the the cyclist must've been going through a green.

If you RLJ you have to do it carefully. Obviously if you just blast through every junction without a glance you will eventually die. You pootle up to the edge of the junction, check both ways (just as a ped would crossing the road) and then keep going if it's clear. It's next to impossible for a motorist to do this at most junctions as to get a clear view both ways you have to stick your bonnet out into the traffic. Motor vehicles are inherently unwieldy and need lights to govern their progress. Bikes on the other hand are nippy and able to stop/start very quickly.

_Brun_

Headhuunter wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

st199ml wrote:

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

So from this statement then I'm guessing you'd be happy for cars to jump red lights when it's "safe", but the problem comes from the fact that we are relying on everyone else to judge when it's safe.

+1 on this. RLJ is safe for these that do it only on the basis that everyone else is sticking to the rules. Case in point, yesterday morning a car flagrantly runs a red onto the Old Kent Road. Very next junction a bike shoots past me RLJing. If he'd done it one junction earlier he'd most likely have been dead.

RLJing retains its fig-leaf of safety only while its exponents (whether car, bike or hovercraft) are in a minority.

I don't follow your logic. Surely you're more likely to be hit by an RLJ-ing car while cycling through a green light?

Yes I don't get that either, if the car was RLJ-ing the the cyclist must've been going through a green.

Except for when all the pedestrian lights are green of course, which does seem to make a lot of cyclists complacent thinking the junction is clear of big metal traffic.