RLJer gets nicked

always_tyred · August 2009

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

what does that mean?

you seem to be in denial about RLJing - unless maybe I'm imagining being the only person not RLJing?

What do you think?

Simply that a couple of people stated that, in their experience RLJers were the minority, and you responded by stating that Lewisham was the exception.

So, pretty much, yeah, I'd say you were imagining it. Not in a bad way - just in the same way that RLJers are all that motorists seem to remember.

Jeeez! You are a consistent idiot - and I'm not the first to say that.

I said Lambeth and southwark - where did you get Lewisham from? :?:

I didn't say they were the exception - you said that - my implication which I thought was obvious was that the city does not represent the whole of London. I might also have mentioned Wandsworth, Merton, Bromley and Greenwich as boroughs where a high portion of cyclists run red lights regularly - but the concetnrations of cyclists in Lambeth and Southwark are about the highest in London - so I'll go with them - a larger sample - and unless you take those large boroughs into consideration you are deliberately deceiving yourself - to what ends I wonder?

And at least one other person backed me up - so that makes it 2 against 2. If you want to be childish :roll:

And I also suggested the City might be the exception - and another suggestion that possibly because of higher levels of enforcement there.

As an experiment just stepped out of my Holborn office - immediately saw the only cyclist on the road - who passed straight through a red light.

I'm not imagining it.

Nope - you and WeadMire have called me an idiot. Well done.

I deeply apologise for mixing up my London boroughs. Its such an important place, I can't imagine how offensive this was.

What you actually said, Porgy, was that 70-80% of cyclists run red lights there, in response to a couple of people suggesting that this wasn't their experience on the whole, so I asked you what was special about that particular area.

You have to remember that I'm actually in a different capital city entirely, so I hardly think that your interjection about the City of London policing is relevant.

There is no doubt that RLJing is common. However, I don't think that watching out of your office window is any more or less representative than me sitting next to several other cyclists at a red light (which I do on Lothian Road each morning - that's Lothian road, Porgy - I shall be most upset of you confuse it with Leith Walk in an hours' time) and claiming that all cyclists obey red lights.

What I am proposing is that if you think that "most cyclists jump red lights" whereas someone else with similar experience things otherwise, a possible explanation is that you dislike RLJing and therefore only make a mental note of RLJing cyclists.

Lets face it - that's what we do with motorists. We are each passed by 100's of cars a day, but we tend only to remember the 1 or 2 who buzzed us.

You don't have to agree with that, but its hardly idiotic to present a reasoned argument and expect one in return.

Onan · August 2009

I may have missed it somewhere in the previous 28 pages, but could somebody explain to me why the argument is being made that RLJing is safer IN GENERAL thatn waiting at lights? I can see that there might be certain specific sets of circumstances under which it might be safer, but not how it can be all the time.

Surely most of the time, it's more dangerous?

Porgy · August 2009

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Nope - you and WeadMire have called me an idiot. Well done.

I deeply apologise for mixing up my London boroughs. Its such an important place, I can't imagine how offensive this was.

What you actually said, Porgy, was that 70-80% of cyclists run red lights there, in response to a couple of people suggesting that this wasn't their experience on the whole, so I asked you what was special about that particular area.

You have to remember that I'm actually in a different capital city entirely, so I hardly think that your interjection about the City of London policing is relevant.

There is no doubt that RLJing is common. However, I don't think that watching out of your office window is any more or less representative than me sitting next to several other cyclists at a red light (which I do on Lothian Road each morning - that's Lothian road, Porgy - I shall be most upset of you confuse it with Leith Walk in an hours' time) and claiming that all cyclists obey red lights.

What I am proposing is that if you think that "most cyclists jump red lights" whereas someone else with similar experience things otherwise, a possible explanation is that you dislike RLJing and therefore only make a mental note of RLJing cyclists.

Lets face it - that's what we do with motorists. We are each passed by 100's of cars a day, but we tend only to remember the 1 or 2 who buzzed us.

You don't have to agree with that, but its hardly idiotic to present a reasoned argument and expect one in return.

When I cycle home tonight I predict that at every light between London Bridge and Greenwich there will be between 5 and 12 cyclists, of which maybe me and one other will not run each and every light. That is not me seeing RLJers and not seeing those who comply becasue I don;t want to - not unless I can render them invisible!!

As for having a reasoned argument - what reasoned argument do i need when I can see RLJers for my own eyes. The only evidence that would be relevent would be empirical - and as for what makes those boroughs different? Well - that's a red herring from you again as I don;t believe they are different. Most cyclists in London run red lights. And I haven't noticed a significant difference when I cycle elsewhere.

So it must be you who's imagining things.

Or maybe you just can't bear to accept the reality.

Also - I am not anti RLJ - it doesn;t bother me - I'm just pointing out the facts - I do it myself on occasion. I do not think that law is sancrosanct - the right to break bad laws is part of our unwirtten constitiuion - and currrently the facts that traffic laws are all geared up to keeping motorised transport running to detriment of all others means traffic laws are bad laws to anyone other than motorists.

always_tyred · August 2009

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Nope - you and WeadMire have called me an idiot. Well done.

I deeply apologise for mixing up my London boroughs. Its such an important place, I can't imagine how offensive this was.

What you actually said, Porgy, was that 70-80% of cyclists run red lights there, in response to a couple of people suggesting that this wasn't their experience on the whole, so I asked you what was special about that particular area.

You have to remember that I'm actually in a different capital city entirely, so I hardly think that your interjection about the City of London policing is relevant.

There is no doubt that RLJing is common. However, I don't think that watching out of your office window is any more or less representative than me sitting next to several other cyclists at a red light (which I do on Lothian Road each morning - that's Lothian road, Porgy - I shall be most upset of you confuse it with Leith Walk in an hours' time) and claiming that all cyclists obey red lights.

What I am proposing is that if you think that "most cyclists jump red lights" whereas someone else with similar experience things otherwise, a possible explanation is that you dislike RLJing and therefore only make a mental note of RLJing cyclists.

Lets face it - that's what we do with motorists. We are each passed by 100's of cars a day, but we tend only to remember the 1 or 2 who buzzed us.

You don't have to agree with that, but its hardly idiotic to present a reasoned argument and expect one in return.

When I cycle home tonight I predict that at every light between London Bridge and Greenwich there will be between 5 and 12 cyclists, of which maybe me and one other will not run each and every light. That is not me seeing RLJers and not seeing those who comply becasue I don;t want to - not unless I can render them invisible!!

As for having a reasoned argument - what reasoned argument do i need when I can see RLJers for my own eyes. The only evidence that would be relevent would be empirical - and as for what makes those boroughs different? Well - that's a red herring from you again as I don;t believe they are different. Most cyclists in London run red lights. And I haven't noticed a significant difference when I cycle elsewhere.

So it must be you who's imagining things.

Or maybe you just can't bear to accept the reality.

Also - I am not anti RLJ - it doesn;t bother me - I'm just pointing out the facts - I do it myself on occasion. I do not think that law is sancrosanct - the right to break bad laws is part of our unwirtten constitiuion - and currrently the facts that traffic laws are all geared up to keeping motorised transport running to detriment of all others means traffic laws are bad laws to anyone other than motorists.

Look, Porgy, I don't have the same opinion as you, but that's fine. Maybe the % of RLJing is higher than I care to think, maybe its higher in London and/or where there are more cyclists (in writing this, I recall cycling in Oxford..... )

But I do think I present a reasoned argument, which may or may not be flawed, your response to which was essentially "you are an idiot".

It really ought to be possible to completely disagree, but enjoy the discussion. I was probably a bit ascerbic, but I've got an avatar of a Clanger, how serious can things get?

always_tyred · August 2009

Onan wrote:

I may have missed it somewhere in the previous 28 pages, but could somebody explain to me why the argument is being made that RLJing is safer IN GENERAL thatn waiting at lights? I can see that there might be certain specific sets of circumstances under which it might be safer, but not how it can be all the time.

Surely most of the time, it's more dangerous?

I'm afraid that I have yet to comprehend that one myself!! Although I don't personally RLJ, that's basically my position in a nutshell.

the_hundredth_idiot · August 2009

I'd say my experience tallies more with Porgy's.

I cycle through both Lambeth and Southwark every (week)day and it certainly feels as if many more cyclists RLJ than not. I very much feel in the minority by stopping at red lights. Often I am the only one stopped as a number of other cyclists pootle past me, sometimes with a tut/sigh at me blocking their way.

It does feel as if roadies are more likely to stop at lights than hybrid riders - though plenty of roadies still RLJ. (MTB riders are too busy bouncing along the pavement to need to worry about red lights. I don't think I've ever seend a fixie rider stop at lights!

) No comment on what to read into that.

These are all my completely unscientific observations - I've never done a formal tally. Happy to accept that there is some bias in my observations - as you say, I notice the tiny proportion of bad drivers more than the vast majority of sane and careful drivers so there is clear bias there.

biondino · August 2009

Here's a challenge for everyone - try and go a whole page - 20 posts - without using any sarcasm (Weadmire can do what he likes, his posts are unreadable tripe).

Porgy · August 2009

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Nope - you and WeadMire have called me an idiot. Well done.

I deeply apologise for mixing up my London boroughs. Its such an important place, I can't imagine how offensive this was.

What you actually said, Porgy, was that 70-80% of cyclists run red lights there, in response to a couple of people suggesting that this wasn't their experience on the whole, so I asked you what was special about that particular area.

You have to remember that I'm actually in a different capital city entirely, so I hardly think that your interjection about the City of London policing is relevant.

There is no doubt that RLJing is common. However, I don't think that watching out of your office window is any more or less representative than me sitting next to several other cyclists at a red light (which I do on Lothian Road each morning - that's Lothian road, Porgy - I shall be most upset of you confuse it with Leith Walk in an hours' time) and claiming that all cyclists obey red lights.

What I am proposing is that if you think that "most cyclists jump red lights" whereas someone else with similar experience things otherwise, a possible explanation is that you dislike RLJing and therefore only make a mental note of RLJing cyclists.

Lets face it - that's what we do with motorists. We are each passed by 100's of cars a day, but we tend only to remember the 1 or 2 who buzzed us.

You don't have to agree with that, but its hardly idiotic to present a reasoned argument and expect one in return.

When I cycle home tonight I predict that at every light between London Bridge and Greenwich there will be between 5 and 12 cyclists, of which maybe me and one other will not run each and every light. That is not me seeing RLJers and not seeing those who comply becasue I don;t want to - not unless I can render them invisible!!

As for having a reasoned argument - what reasoned argument do i need when I can see RLJers for my own eyes. The only evidence that would be relevent would be empirical - and as for what makes those boroughs different? Well - that's a red herring from you again as I don;t believe they are different. Most cyclists in London run red lights. And I haven't noticed a significant difference when I cycle elsewhere.

So it must be you who's imagining things.

Or maybe you just can't bear to accept the reality.

Also - I am not anti RLJ - it doesn;t bother me - I'm just pointing out the facts - I do it myself on occasion. I do not think that law is sancrosanct - the right to break bad laws is part of our unwirtten constitiuion - and currrently the facts that traffic laws are all geared up to keeping motorised transport running to detriment of all others means traffic laws are bad laws to anyone other than motorists.

Look, Porgy, I don't have the same opinion as you, but that's fine. Maybe the % of RLJing is higher than I care to think, maybe its higher in London and/or where there are more cyclists (in writing this, I recall cycling in Oxford..... )

But I do think I present a reasoned argument, which may or may not be flawed, your response to which was essentially "you are an idiot".

It really ought to be possible to completely disagree, but enjoy the discussion. I was probably a bit ascerbic, but I've got an avatar of a Clanger, how serious can things get?

My response was not just you're an idiot - I responded fully - but added that in as an observation. and again you prove your idiocy by quoting me out of context and ignoring 80% of my post.

Your previous act of idiocy was to not read what I said - I said 'Lambeth and Southwark' and you read that as 'Lewisham'.

Or am I being unfair - if you have special reading difficulties then I apologise.

btw - I am an action man - I eat Clangers for breakfast. :twisted:

snooks · August 2009

So when do we start Mr B? from page 29 or page 30???

Porgy · August 2009

biondino wrote:

Here's a challenge for everyone - try and go a whole page - 20 posts - without using any sarcasm (Weadmire can do what he likes, his posts are unreadable tripe).

ooops - looks like I've blown it already :oops:

Wallace1492 · August 2009

Is anyone like me and getting pretty bored of this thread? So much sniping, bickering and getting nowhere. Fact is some will always RLJ, some wont ever. Some will do a few where they judge it to be safer than not. Please end it!!

OldSkoolKona · August 2009

snooks wrote:

So when do we start Mr B? from page 29 or page 30???

I still favour a 'Greg T random witty comment appreciation' thread.

Kieran_Burns · August 2009

Wallace1492 wrote:

Is anyone like me and getting pretty bored of this thread? So much sniping, bickering and getting nowhere. Fact is some will always RLJ, some wont ever. Some will do a few where they judge it to be safer than not. Please end it!!

Hell No!

I look forward to it

It's like the Quibbler of the Bike Radar world

I'm just trying to work out whether weadmire is Luna or Zenophilius

Aguila · August 2009

weadmire wrote:

From Aquilla, aka doctor doctor: "Is there no end to the topics you are a world expert on?

I don't recall claiming to be expert about anything let alone a world expert? Why do you say otherwise? Are you teasing me? Is this charm? You are right there is some evidence antibiotics help in Crohn's in about the same proportion of cases where they help with stomach ulcers about er...well well that's about er 90% of cases. It has been amusing re reading about the treatment of Crohn's with antibiotics. I thought I had better refresh myself about the subject. Lots of damning with faint praise. Which category your comments might reasonably said to fall into. What is "Antibiotics are still not widely prescribed for the treatment of crohns." supposed to mean? That because they are not prescribed there is some doubt as to their efficacy? Or is this an admission many doctors are still getting it wrong?

Are you going to answer the questions I posed? And if not are you going to put "Rocks for brains" straight about his silly claim that the Australian medical establishment's resistance to the prospect of treating stomach ulcers with antibiotics was probably driven by concern about the over use of such pharmaceuticals? And what about his claim that Nobel Prizes are won on the strength of research? Apparently it's not the result that counts it's the years of research. Well well.

You lose your bet regarding MMR, I haven't given it a moments thought. If you had said I bet you are generally sceptical about medics you would on more certain ground but there again I think you are sceptical about medics too? I do not see you rushing to defend them, that's been left to Rocks.

.

Antibiotics do not successfully treat 90% of crohns cases, that's simply wrong. Your approach to this is a good illustration of your thought processes in general. You seem to latch onto some piece of information and treat it as gospel whilst ignoring everything else,especially as if it disagrees with you. If crohns could be treated in this way I can assure you it would be, the pharma companies making the antibiotics in question would soon see to that. We would have reps in the hospital on a daily basis telling us about these trials with 90% success rates. We dont because such evidence does not exist as yet, your brothers experience is not generalisable. There are larger better designed clinical trials in progress which will be able to tell you the answer. In the mean time we will continue with the treatments for which there is evidence: steroids, ASA, immunosuppression, infliximab, elemental diet etc etc.

As for your other questions I'm afraid I dont really know what you are on about, except to say that whenever someone comes up with a theory that is totally off the wall and contrary to established practice there is always going to be skepticism. rather like your views on RLJing. Like the H Pylori researchers the burden on you is now to produce robust evidence to show you are not just talking nonsense. Oh and dont think that the nobel prize is the best guide to what research really matters, few people do.

Being sceptical about medics is just fine with me BTW, I always say to my patients that we are not in the business of telling people what to do, I will advise you and allow you to make an informed decision, what you do is entirely up to you.

Aguila · August 2009

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Is anyone like me and getting pretty bored of this thread? So much sniping, bickering and getting nowhere. Fact is some will always RLJ, some wont ever. Some will do a few where they judge it to be safer than not. Please end it!!

Hell No!

I look forward to it It's like the Quibbler of the Bike Radar world

I'm just trying to work out whether weadmire is Luna or Zenophilius

+1

Weadmire does come out with some bizarre ideas and claims but the posts are entertaining. I see him/her as a Chris Eubank style figure. The world would be poorer without them.

always_tyred · August 2009

Porgy wrote:

Your previous act of idiocy was to not read what I said - I said 'Lambeth and Southwark' and you read that as 'Lewisham'.

Or am I being unfair - if you have special reading difficulties then I apologise.

btw - I am an action man - I eat Clangers for breakfast. :twisted:

I think I can cope with that. Its a bit like thinking you are at Worcester Park when, in fact, you are at Raynes Park. I used to do that all the time. ITs all the same innit?

always_tyred · August 2009

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

I'd say my experience tallies more with Porgy's.

I cycle through both Lambeth and Southwark every (week)day and it certainly feels as if many more cyclists RLJ than not. I very much feel in the minority by stopping at red lights. Often I am the only one stopped as a number of other cyclists pootle past me, sometimes with a tut/sigh at me blocking their way.

It does feel as if roadies are more likely to stop at lights than hybrid riders - though plenty of roadies still RLJ. (MTB riders are too busy bouncing along the pavement to need to worry about red lights. I don't think I've ever seend a fixie rider stop at lights! ) No comment on what to read into that.

These are all my completely unscientific observations - I've never done a formal tally. Happy to accept that there is some bias in my observations - as you say, I notice the tiny proportion of bad drivers more than the vast majority of sane and careful drivers so there is clear bias there.

You are an idiot, like the 99 idiots before you.

always_tyred · August 2009

biondino wrote:

Here's a challenge for everyone - try and go a whole page - 20 posts - without using any sarcasm (Weadmire can do what he likes, his posts are unreadable tripe).

I like your hair.

(FAIL)

Jay dubbleU · August 2009

Onan wrote:

I may have missed it somewhere in the previous 28 pages, but could somebody explain to me why the argument is being made that RLJing is safer IN GENERAL thatn waiting at lights? I can see that there might be certain specific sets of circumstances under which it might be safer, but not how it can be all the time.

Surely most of the time, it's more dangerous?

Long and complicated story but the gist of it is that weirdmire said he/she could produce stats that proved RLJing was safer and then failed to do so. Since then he/she has been having a go at Aquila for not believing in unproven medical theories and Allways Tyred for (apparently) existing and not knowing London like the back of his hand. Greg T has been generally stirring and has collapsed into chav mode - think that sums it up

always_tyred · August 2009

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Onan wrote:

I may have missed it somewhere in the previous 28 pages, but could somebody explain to me why the argument is being made that RLJing is safer IN GENERAL thatn waiting at lights? I can see that there might be certain specific sets of circumstances under which it might be safer, but not how it can be all the time.

Surely most of the time, it's more dangerous?

Long and complicated story but the gist of it is that weirdmire said he/she could produce stats that proved RLJing was safer and then failed to do so. Since then he/she has been having a go at Aquila for not believing in unproven medical theories and Allways Tyred for (apparently) existing and not knowing London like the back of his hand. Greg T has been generally stirring and has collapsed into chav mode - think that sums it up

You forgot that Einstein proved that all schooling was a waste of time and that patent attorneys were demons bent on disguising the merits of poor inventors' work.

It hasn't yet been conclusively proved that I do exist.

Jay dubbleU · August 2009

Always Tyred wrote:

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Onan wrote:

I may have missed it somewhere in the previous 28 pages, but could somebody explain to me why the argument is being made that RLJing is safer IN GENERAL thatn waiting at lights? I can see that there might be certain specific sets of circumstances under which it might be safer, but not how it can be all the time.

Surely most of the time, it's more dangerous?

Long and complicated story but the gist of it is that weirdmire said he/she could produce stats that proved RLJing was safer and then failed to do so. Since then he/she has been having a go at Aquila for not believing in unproven medical theories and Allways Tyred for (apparently) existing and not knowing London like the back of his hand. Greg T has been generally stirring and has collapsed into chav mode - think that sums it up

You forgot that Einstein proved that all schooling was a waste of time and that patent attorneys were demons bent on disguising the merits of poor inventors' work.

It hasn't yet been conclusively proved that I do exist.

I believe in you and therefore you exist in my reality

Rockbuddy · August 2009

Hey Weady

weadmire wrote:

Are you going to answer the questions I posed? And if not are you going to put "Rocks for brains" straight about his silly claim that the Australian medical establishment's resistance to the prospect of treating stomach ulcers with antibiotics was probably driven by concern about the over use of such pharmaceuticals?

I highlighted probably as I was merely speculating, sorry if I didn't make this clear - my point was if the Australian's were sceptical about the causes of the inflammation they wouldn't want to treat with antibiotics as improper use leads to anti-biotic resistance. As far as I know Chron's Disease is an auto-immune disease, which is most probably caused by inproper immune activation by commensal gut flora (the bacteria that is naturally resident in the gut) not an infection as with H.pylori, which causes gastritis. This is why anti-biotics are hit and miss with treating Chron's disease, you might aswell take a chance with "probiotics" :roll:

And what about his claim that Nobel Prizes are won on the strength of research? Apparently it's not the result that counts it's the years of research. Well well.

You're kinda miss-quoting me here Weads, what I actually said was this;

Rockbuddy wrote:

nobel prizes are usually given a number of years after the initial discovery as it is impossible at the time to ascertain the impact of the initial discovery.

Results are important but research is generally what gives results, no research no results. There are years of research to realise the initial discovery, no matter how clever the initial find is. Maybe it’s our sceptical nature but you need more than one statement or experiment to categorically prove anything in science (if you can ever categorically prove anything!?). For the Nobel prize they usually quote the initial discovery but that shouldn’t detract from the immense amount of research needed for the discovery to be realised.

Take penicillin for instance; discovered by Flemming 1928 but not realised as a useful clinical antibiotic until the 1940’s. Not due to Flemming but to the other two Laureates who share the Nobel prize for Penicillin [Ernst Boris Chain and Sir Howard Walter Florey]. Without years of research and development we wouldn’t have Penicillin as an anti-biotic and the discovery (a mold that kills bacteria) would be pretty worthless to medicine and not worth a Nobel Prize. Instead with all the research behind the initial discovery it became one of the major finds of the 20th Century.

So maybe you are right in your assumptions of RLJing based on the mysterious “withheld” data but either way it won’t be realised until there are overwhelming amounts of data to back up your assumptions. Who know’s you may even be accredited a ‘Nobel Peace Prize’ for your contributions to road traffic safety

Sea_Green_Incorruptible · August 2009

Is there some kind of national surplus of troll food at the moment that we need to get rid of?

Rockbuddy · August 2009

Sea_Green_Incorruptible wrote:

Is there some kind of national surplus of troll food at the moment that we need to get rid of?

Are you troll feeding to warn about troll feeding???

Nearly as bad as the thread about RLJing set up to moan about how many threads there are about RLJing

iainment · August 2009

What exactly is a troll? For many on tinterweb it seems to me that it is anyone with the temerity to argue a point against someone.

IMHO it's become a meaningless piece of abuse.

Rockbuddy · August 2009

iainment wrote:

What exactly is a troll? For many on tinterweb it seems to me that it is anyone with the temerity to argue a point against someone.

IMHO it's become a meaningless piece of abuse.

Yeah, everytime I think I understand what is meant by the term "troll" I see it used in a new context that throws me. Accorrding to Wiki;

Wikipedia wrote:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

In that context most of this thread has been "trolling", although IMO it's been more like off topic banter, which has been some what entertaining for the most part.

always_tyred · August 2009

Rockbuddy wrote:

iainment wrote:

What exactly is a troll? For many on tinterweb it seems to me that it is anyone with the temerity to argue a point against someone.

IMHO it's become a meaningless piece of abuse.

Yeah, everytime I think I understand what is meant by the term "troll" I see it used in a new context that throws me. Accorrding to Wiki;

Wikipedia wrote:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

In that context most of this thread has been "trolling", although IMO it's been more like off topic banter, which has been some what entertaining for the most part.

According to this definition, most of the Commuting section is trolling.

the_hundredth_idiot · August 2009

Always Tyred wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

I'd say my experience tallies more with Porgy's.

I cycle through both Lambeth and Southwark every (week)day and it certainly feels as if many more cyclists RLJ than not. I very much feel in the minority by stopping at red lights. Often I am the only one stopped as a number of other cyclists pootle past me, sometimes with a tut/sigh at me blocking their way.

It does feel as if roadies are more likely to stop at lights than hybrid riders - though plenty of roadies still RLJ. (MTB riders are too busy bouncing along the pavement to need to worry about red lights. I don't think I've ever seend a fixie rider stop at lights! ) No comment on what to read into that.

These are all my completely unscientific observations - I've never done a formal tally. Happy to accept that there is some bias in my observations - as you say, I notice the tiny proportion of bad drivers more than the vast majority of sane and careful drivers so there is clear bias there.

You are an idiot, like the 99 idiots before you.

I'm not just any idiot, I am The Hundredth Idiot. Despite having sh1te for brains, I am uncannily right about things

- that's why I chose this moniker (well, that and that all the usual usernames I pick had been taken - despite those people never apparently having posted on bikeradar :evil: ).

OldSkoolKona · August 2009

Rockbuddy wrote:

Nearly as bad as the thread about RLJing set up to moan about how many threads there are about RLJing

always_tyred · August 2009

That's hilarious.

RLJer gets nicked

Comments

Categories