RLJer gets nicked
Comments
-
Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
No, riding on pavements causes death. Now stop being silly and post something relevant to the discussion.Wallace1492 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is relevant to the discussion as it has progressed here: the cyclist is described as mounting the pavement because he chose not to comply with the red lights - did you actually read it I wonder?!
+1, was going to point this out myself. I will continue to be as "silly" as necessary, it is my democratic right!! He might not have RLJ'd in the purists way, but if light was green, accident would not have happened. Therefore is extremely relevent to the discussion. Apologies not necessary...."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
No, riding on pavements causes death. Now stop being silly and post something relevant to the discussion.Wallace1492 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is relevant to the discussion as it has progressed here: the cyclist is described as mounting the pavement because he chose not to comply with the red lights - did you actually read it I wonder?!
No one would have died if he hadn't mounted the pavement however, that's the issue here. The RLJ is a side point. If he'd stayed on the road I assume he would either have had to stop for traffic, or been run down...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Ok, so can one of you brainboxes point out which law this cyclist was breaking?0
-
weadmire wrote:Soul boy,
Even if you have seen the aftermath of a jumping incident and I very much doubt it, you are much more likely to see the aftermath of non jumping incidents. That is the key point I am making which you do not seem to like. Why?
Snipes aside, I have quoted LCC and strangley they have not come to the same conclusion as you. what I'm saying is I've rode my bike in London for all my life, I stop at red lights, and guess what, I'm still here to type this. Go figure? :?0 -
gabriel959 wrote:Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
No, riding on pavements causes death. Now stop being silly and post something relevant to the discussion.Wallace1492 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is relevant to the discussion as it has progressed here: the cyclist is described as mounting the pavement because he chose not to comply with the red lights - did you actually read it I wonder?!
It’s denial – that is why the terms stubborn, hard-headed and inflexible exist – because they only believe their truth.
Just as zealous anti RLJ-ers only believe their own point of view and that RLJ-ing even in the face of a mass of other dangerous behaviour on the roads (listening to headphones whilst riding for example), appears to be the sin of sins. We've already had an article posted a few pages back that RLJ-ing is in fact safer in many situations. I'm afraid there is always going to be collateral damage to both sides, cyclists die, whether they RLJ or not. As far as I'm concerned, it's safer as it gets me out of the way of traffic. As far as you (and others) ar concerned, it's not. Each to their own...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Mmm, the CTC seem to be saying there is a risk of cyclists being killed / injured and killing / injuring peds while RLJing. The focus, however, is that motor vechiles are much worse though, still quite relevant;
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0810_CP_RLJ-pavement_brf.pdf
By the way thanks for the idea of googling Wallace1942, 2 mins later already several interesting finds.
Mmm, I hope I don't sound too up beat about this - feel like I am talking ill of the deceased or something :?
No doubt weadmire will deny it ever happened
0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
No, riding on pavements causes death. Now stop being silly and post something relevant to the discussion.Wallace1492 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is relevant to the discussion as it has progressed here: the cyclist is described as mounting the pavement because he chose not to comply with the red lights - did you actually read it I wonder?!
No one would have died if he hadn't mounted the pavement however, that's the issue here. The RLJ is a side point. If he'd stayed on the road I assume he would either have had to stop for traffic, or been run down...
Look, you may think that's the issue, I dont. Your RLJing may not involve hopping up on the pavement but for a lot of cyclists it does.
You've happily stated that your RLJing is a victimless crime. This event resulted from the decision of the cyclist not to comply with the lights, so his RLJing was patently not victimless.0 -
_Brun_ wrote:Ok, so can one of you brainboxes point out which law this cyclist was breaking?
Does it matter what law he was breaking in the context of this thread? Jumping a red light led to the fatal 'accident' and therfore it is relevant to this debate. I dont see why you are having problems with grasping this!0 -
I think what this shows is that there are pro's and con's for it.
Depends on the individual situation whether it is safe or not.
What I would say is that it is more than likely to be the more confident rider that RLJ's therefore is likely to ensure they are safe in doing it. The less confident rider will not RLJ and therefore has poorer roadcraft and is therefore more likely to be involved in an accident.
It is the ability, knowledge and roadcraft of the cyclist than (generally) keeps them safe, rather than if thet RLJ or not.
Of course there are always exceptions, but these should not be quoted as being the be all and end all. Some die from jumping, some die from not jumping. I am sure the debate will go on...."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:Ok, so can one of you brainboxes point out which law this cyclist was breaking?
Does it matter what law he was breaking in the context of this thread? Jumping a red light led to the fatal 'accident' and therfore it is relevant to this debate. I dont see why you are having problems with grasping this!
The woman in the article posted a few pages back didn't break any laws either, she sat behind the red light as good as gold, but she still got crushed by an HGV. The article went on to point out that women who often DON'T RLJ, end up in accidents. Seems like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. These articles do not prove RLJ-ing is always dangerous. As for breaking the law, as I mused earlier, if anyone on these forums can say that they have NEVER broken the law, I'd be genuiinely surprised.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:gabriel959 wrote:Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
No, riding on pavements causes death. Now stop being silly and post something relevant to the discussion.Wallace1492 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is relevant to the discussion as it has progressed here: the cyclist is described as mounting the pavement because he chose not to comply with the red lights - did you actually read it I wonder?!
It’s denial – that is why the terms stubborn, hard-headed and inflexible exist – because they only believe their truth.
Just as zealous anti RLJ-ers only believe their own point of view and that RLJ-ing even in the face of a mass of other dangerous behaviour on the roads (listening to headphones whilst riding for example), appears to be the sin of sins. We've already had an article posted a few pages back that RLJ-ing is in fact safer in many situations. I'm afraid there is always going to be collateral damage to both sides, cyclists die, whether they RLJ or not. As far as I'm concerned, it's safer as it gets me out of the way of traffic. As far as you (and others) ar concerned, it's not. Each to their own...
I didn't say the the opposite though
You did!
RLJ can be safe even in a car – you just have to wait until no one is crossing and voila!
But that’s not the point – the thing most people do is trying to be safe and within the rules myself included. I don’t RLJ – I personally don’t see the point, in my opinion people that RLJ are people that can't be arsed to wait. One might say a truck behind them might crush them, well, I tend to stay behind trucks when at the traffic lights or making the driver of a vehicle like that aware of my presence.
There are loads of ways to stay SAFE and don’t jump traffic lights.x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
Headhuunter wrote:Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:Ok, so can one of you brainboxes point out which law this cyclist was breaking?
Does it matter what law he was breaking in the context of this thread? Jumping a red light led to the fatal 'accident' and therfore it is relevant to this debate. I dont see why you are having problems with grasping this!
The woman in the article posted a few pages back didn't break any laws either, she sat behind the red light as good as gold, but she still got crushed by an HGV. The article went on to point out that women who often DON'T RLJ, end up in accidents. Seems like you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. These articles do not prove RLJ-ing is always dangerous. As for breaking the law, as I mused earlier, if anyone on these forums can say that they have NEVER broken the law, I'd be genuiinely surprised.
Its not ALWAYS dangerous to RLJ, but is is not ALWAYS safe either."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
gabriel959 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:gabriel959 wrote:Paulie W wrote:_Brun_ wrote:
No, riding on pavements causes death. Now stop being silly and post something relevant to the discussion.Wallace1492 wrote:
I'm sorry but this is relevant to the discussion as it has progressed here: the cyclist is described as mounting the pavement because he chose not to comply with the red lights - did you actually read it I wonder?!
It’s denial – that is why the terms stubborn, hard-headed and inflexible exist – because they only believe their truth.
Just as zealous anti RLJ-ers only believe their own point of view and that RLJ-ing even in the face of a mass of other dangerous behaviour on the roads (listening to headphones whilst riding for example), appears to be the sin of sins. We've already had an article posted a few pages back that RLJ-ing is in fact safer in many situations. I'm afraid there is always going to be collateral damage to both sides, cyclists die, whether they RLJ or not. As far as I'm concerned, it's safer as it gets me out of the way of traffic. As far as you (and others) ar concerned, it's not. Each to their own...
I didn't say the the opposite though You did!
RLJ can be safe even in a car – you just have to wait until no one is crossing and voila!
But that’s not the point – the thing most people do is trying to be safe and within the rules myself included. I don’t RLJ – I personally don’t see the point, in my opinion people that RLJ are people that can't be arsed to wait. One might say a truck behind them might crush them, well, I tend to stay behind trucks when at the traffic lights or making the driver of a vehicle like that aware of my presence.
There are loads of ways to stay SAFE and don’t jump traffic lights.
Well I just find that when I RLJ ( I don't always) I can take up primary road position for a while as the traffic is all behind me. I find that often I can stay ahead of a lump of traffic rather than constantly moving with it and getting caught up in it.
I have pionted out before, it is much harder for a motorist to RLJ safely coccooned in a metal frame, stereo going, large bonnet potruding in front. Even moped/motorbikers have big helmets restricting their view. A cyclist is basically a ped on wheels and able to move to the edge of a junction, look both ways and proceed if clear.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
Il Principe wrote:
Yeah, I really shouldn't bother anymore. I'm just repeating my arguments again and again and again and again..... :roll:Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:
What I would say is that it is more than likely to be the more confident rider that RLJ's therefore is likely to ensure they are safe in doing it. The less confident rider will not RLJ and therefore has poorer roadcraft and is therefore more likely to be involved in an accident.
It is the ability, knowledge and roadcraft of the cyclist than (generally) keeps them safe, rather than if thet RLJ or not.
I regularly see loads of cyclists RLJing when up in London, mainly due to the high concentration of cyclists you find in the city, but can't really agree it is the more confident riders that do it. I agree that you have to be rather confident to move across a junction when you shouldn't be there but I've seen many a RLJ that just amble across without so much as a care in the world. I consider myself a confident rider but as some others on here have said just can't see the whole point of RLJing, I think I might spend about 5-10 minutes waiting at lights on a typical London bound commute and I just don't see the point in rushing, besides the regular stops along with some prudent gear selection makes for a nice workout :-D When I approach lights I won't just try and make my way to the front/ASL automatically but instead position myself where I feel safest given the situation. If this means sitting a few cars off the front so be it, no skin off my back as I'll make up the ground at the next traffic jam!
I've also witnessed a couple of incidents similar to the OP's where the RLJer has gone on through a light when there has been a policeman on a bike waiting. These both ended the same way with the RLJer getting a word from the policeman after we move off.0 -
Rockbuddy,
I feel we might be getting somewhere with your examples of claimed deaths of cyclists RLJing, I am counting a couple of recent probables. Now please in the name of balance start searching for the details of those that did not involve cyclists jumping. No need to look back further than about October 2005, according TfL there weren't any? Given that that is the case, and was the case between 1999 and 2005 you will understand my expression of scepticism about Soul Boy's claims. I did not call him a liar I said I doubt him. In trying to claim that I called him a liar you doth protest too much...
If the lights were not there the conflicts would not exist. Lights have been way overdone in London, just about every junction minor or major has them.
If that's the question (“Don't you see any negative repercussions of your promoting RLJing?” and it does not seem clear to me that is the question.) I only see positive results form RLJing. In time motor vehicle drivers will thank us for being in the vanguard of people who rid them of a useless and polluting hindrance.
Gabriel959,
I was invited to get a life by some fart who probably does not have one. Do you have a problem with my response or are you, like the most recent raft of responders to this thread, really worried that indeed Well Tyred has lost the plot?WeAdmire.net
13-15 Great Eastern Street
London EC2A 3EJ0 -
Weadmire - you used to post under a different name didn't you? Your wprose is very familiar, I remember you used to bang on about someone who owned a drape shop or summat. But the TFL obsession was strong then as well.
Yep, defo an old poster reincarnated.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
weadmire wrote:Do you have a problem with my response or are you, like the most recent raft of responders to this thread, really worried that indeed Well Tyred has lost the plot?
Don't worry about Tyred - I don't think he ever had the plot to lose.
BTW - i'm not taking part in this debate as work prevents me - and i'm having a holiday from distributing (or receiving) random abuse on the internet. But from my point of view you're arguing well and making valid points - even if I don;t agree with everything you've said - i think you're broadly correct....i've always believed that we should be moving away from traffic lights and going more towards systems that allow flexibilty and rewards cooperation between defferent road users. However this will take intelligence - not a plentiful resource in traffic planning. Travel to other countries and you don't see traffic lights like we have! Now even a supermarket entrance or a new block of flats merits a set of traffic lights. I suspect that the CEO of whoever makes the traffic lights has a close relationship with someone on govenrment or the civil service.0 -
weadmire wrote:
JayW,
"Get a life" ? Is this an attempt at patronage? Do you jump them or comply with them? I am guessing you are a closet jumper. You quite frequently jump them but you have a taste for sanctimony and delusions of being influential so in threads go with the perceived consensus while trying to come on sort of wise. FYI I have a pleasant life. You can go to www.weadmire.net and view the opportunity I have for self expression, I am a director and shareholder of the company. What brought me here is the inclination to stamp on dangerous BS of the sort that damages lives, that and being naturally disinclined to misogyny. Both of these things have had a good airing on this thread.
Never RLJ'd in my life - just got bored with the incessant doublespeak and the assumptions that your opinion is of greater validity than others here0 -
I've never actually suggested that anyone isn't clever.SecretSam wrote:Can I just say how pleased I am that people have taken enough interest in my posts to generate almost ten pages of replies, even if most of them go as follows:
Weadmire: "I'm right and clever and RLJ'ing rules"
Always Tyred: "no you're not and I'm cleverer and RLJ'ing sucks"
Etc.
Keep going and maybe I'll catch up with "Silly Commuting Racing" :P
I love these kind of threads. It isn't a thread about RLJing any more. This, to me, is a thread about people's ability to allow their preconceptions to colour the way they interpret facts.
Very similar to a lot of helmet threads (which I also throw more than the odd spanner into :oops: )
A couple of facts and figures have been quoted, togther with some supposition and opinions. It really ought to be possible to sift out facts from opinion and speculation. However, its astonishing that despite the paucity of information, people are willing to regard this Times article, and some unqualified 3rd hand info about RLJing on the A23, as in any way conclusive about anything. Even more interesting is the reaction to pointing out what the information doesn't actually say, and the general assumption that therefore I must mean the opposite.
I do apologise if I'm a bit over enthusiastic sometimes - this is a busman's holiday for me!0 -
Porgy,
Here here.
Principe.
You are thinking of my father. When I started cycling he wanted to make sure I did not repeat his experience of lights in London. He was smashed up on about 8 occasions in and around traffic lights, always on green ones, never jumping red ones.
Tyred,
Helmets? He also influenced me about those. He refers to them as comforters, as in blankets. I am guessing Principe wears one and knows someone who would be dead now if they had not been wearing theirs.WeAdmire.net
13-15 Great Eastern Street
London EC2A 3EJ0 -
So the crux of your argument is that your dad said it so it must be true?
Then you have gone out and found a load of evidence that tenuously supports your dear old dad's opinion.
And now helmets, how original.Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur0 -
weadmire wrote:Helmets? He also influenced me about those. He refers to them as comforters, as in blankets. I am guessing Principe wears one and knows someone who would be dead now if they had not been wearing theirs.
you couldn't be more wrong fella! Ask any of the regular Morpeth/social ride crew... - 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
You have got to be kidding me. For your own safety, take cycling lessons from more than one person.weadmire wrote:He was smashed up on about 8 occasions in and around traffic lights, always on green ones, never jumping red ones.0 -
Il Principe wrote:weadmire wrote:Helmets? He also influenced me about those. He refers to them as comforters, as in blankets. I am guessing Principe wears one and knows someone who would be dead now if they had not been wearing theirs. you couldn't be more wrong fella! Ask any of the regular Morpeth/social ride crew... Until Pinarello make a red/black/white carbon fibre helmet IP will be sporting the lil cappie unless the rides rules say otherwise :-D That's as far as I'm going on helmets.... 0
-
Il Principe wrote:
+10 -
Jesus guys, just ageee to disagree...."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0
-
weadmire wrote:Gabriel959,
I was invited to get a life by some fart who probably does not have one. Do you have a problem with my response or are you, like the most recent raft of responders to this thread, really worried that indeed Well Tyred has lost the plot?
LOL - mate, I am stubborn like you are but unlike you I really know I am right
I am no mates of Not admired or despised or off tired or untyred btw
Peace out :twisted:x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
I have studiously avoided this debate because I am a sh!t stirrer and I only would have made matters worse. However, .....Porgy wrote:..But from my point of view you're arguing well and making valid points - even if I don;t agree with everything you've said - i think you're broadly correct....i've always believed that we should be moving away from traffic lights and going more towards systems that allow flexibilty and rewards cooperation between defferent road users. However this will take intelligence - not a plentiful resource in traffic planning. Travel to other countries and you don't see traffic lights like we have! Now even a supermarket entrance or a new block of flats merits a set of traffic lights...
I totally agree with this. I heard about an experiment they did in Amsterdam, where in a busy part of the city, they removed all street signs and traffic lights for six months and apparently accidents were down (esp. w/ cyclists) as well as congestion reducing and journey times being quicker. They decided not to roll it out across the country because they thought it was just too big a change for people to stomach.
I was a serial RLJer for years and used the kinds of arguments that weadmire and headhuunter have espoused relatively cogently (AT made good points too btw!).
A few years ago, I decided that if we are going to be lumbered with the system we have, then as cyclists we should be assertive about our rights (ie riding primary etc) but respect the rules of the road i.e. being appreciative and sharing with others. Perhaps that way we can have "skin in the game" when it comes to changing things.
There are far worse things than RLJing, such as using mobile phones when driving, not looking or thinking when driving or my particular favourite: improper use of the horn (amongst many, many other things e.g. not indicating, speeding, tailgating etc etc etc).
They should just enforce the law on all these things including RLJing. Today, I had a case of a white van man, on the phone, pull out without looking, no indicators and nearly hit me (I shouted "LOOK!" at the right moment and he slammed on the brakes). The vehicle in front was a police van, I pointed at the guy on his mobile and the copper shrugged (the guy was going in the opposite direction).0
