Confession - a RL I J..........

rolf_f

Am I bad here? On my way in to work I pass the traffic light below (generally at fairly high speed as it is on a long straight downhill). It serves only to allow two car lanes to merge; the adjacent cycle lane remains as a constant past the merge. First time I came that way when it was red, I stopped but felt a bit of a dipstick because the wait serves no practical purpose whatsoever. Another cyclist just came straight through and from then on, I have ignored it (unless a ped is present in which case obviously I do stop!)

Further up the hill is another, similar junction (this time 4 in to 2). Here the cycle lane is deliberately detoured round the lights which is surely how it should be.

So, should I feel bad about this? Occasionally, a cyclist stops there but most seem to ignore it. It is on a fairly fast bit of road so being stopped there 50% of the time for nothing would be somewhat irritating. I stop at Pelicans on red even if no-one is there!

lost_in_thought

Am I being stupid? Is the first one not a pelican crossing?

rolf_f

No buttons - it just cycles (during peak hours only) from side to side. Peds effectively wait for the lane nearest to stop, cross to the island and then wait for the other side to stop. The sequence isn't that long - designed to generate maximum queues to encourage car share (the left lane is a 2+ lane).

davis

You could always hack it down the middle, picking whichever lane happens to be moving...

(Disclaimer: I'm joking. That sounds dangerous.)

To answer your question... I probably wouldn't do it, but I don't think you're an evil, evil man for doing so. I wouldn't do it because I'd imagine the cars would be bunched up so much as to give me the feeling of being squeezed in. I don't like traffic much though.

YMMV..

always_tyred

You should stop at the first, no need to at the second. A red light is a red light.

Or am I missing something?

Clever Pun

Always Tyred wrote:

You should stop at the first, no need to at the second. A red light is a red light.

Or am I missing something?

you're technically correct, which is the best kind of correct; I think Rolf is just looking for guidance given you can go through the first when peds aren't around with very very little risk

mattrsa

I am in the same situation on my commute home here

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... .78,,0,1.4

Except there is no ped crossing, just one lane the bus lane and the other normal traffic

Sometimes I will change lanes if the light is on red for the bus lane, other times if it is busy I just go through the red as there is no crossing and the traffic is normally at a stand still

supersonic

It only takes a kid the height of the railing to step out and... not always easy to see 'em.

rolf_f

Always Tyred wrote:

You should stop at the first, no need to at the second. A red light is a red light.

Or am I missing something?

Nope, you are not. I'm really just curious if people think this as bad as most other rlj'ing.

supersonic wrote:

It only takes a kid the height of the railing to step out and... not always easy to see 'em.

You can easily see movement there from a long way off unless there are big vehicles to the right in which case I'll be slower anyway.

Note - as I said, it isn't a pelican crossing. There are no lights for the peds. They have to look at the traffic to see if it is safe to cross.

As I said, I'll happily stop at a red pelican even if the button presser is long gone. It is the fact that this light only serves the motorised traffic that makes me skip it- it is there for two lanes that I'm not in. Possibly I should try to adjust speed when I see the lights change at a distance. Trouble is, the sequence is too short so it isn't too easy. If it was a longer sequence, it would be easier to estimate and the queues would be much shorter........

lost_in_thought

Hmmm. It's a red light, therefore you shouldn't jump it...

Simples!

always_tyred

Clever Pun wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

You should stop at the first, no need to at the second. A red light is a red light.

Or am I missing something?

you're technically correct, which is the best kind of correct; I think Rolf is just looking for guidance given you can go through the first when peds aren't around with very very little risk

Upon which point the whole RLJ debate rests.

I wouldn't chase Rolf F down and strangle him with my spare tube until he admitted the errors of his ways, for this particular infraction, but I'd probably stop at that light myself.

Porgy

It's clearly a bad design with no thought given to cyclists. I'd have no problem with you ignoring it.

rolf_f

Porgy wrote:

It's clearly a bad design with no thought given to cyclists. I'd have no problem with you ignoring it.

It gets worse - you can see the end of the road where it kinks right - at that point the cycle track mounts onto the pavement for a short distance before rejoining the road - and then leaving it again for another short distance. No reason not to have carried the roadside cycle lane on there but they didn't. Surface is terrible even on an MTB and, this morning, there was a van parked on it belonging to billboard posters.

I know LiT and AT are right and I do feel a bit guilty about it (hence the thread) but, when I'm actually there, the feeling of prattishness waiting so pointlessly has tended to more than offset my guilt! It's one place where I think a few of the car drivers would wonder what I was waiting for.

DonDaddyD

I'll tell you that I go commando, I'll tell you my three words during and after sex. But, on this site, I'll never admit to willingly RLJing... even at a lights that makes no sense.

Some skeletons stay in the closet.

coopster_the_1st

Here is a red light I jump with explaination below http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=51.470798,-0.557342&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.470931,-0.557247&panoid=FIyc0bSGCmAEoP4EbKvCkg&cbp=12,207.01,,0,5

It is a 330m length of wide single lane road over a railway bridge.

The decision is to wait for green and not make it off the bridge so you have 50-100m of road where the cars are driving towards you from the opposite direction(there is enough room and I am not sqeezed)

or

Jump the red light when you can see that the flow of cars has stopped. This means I generally crest the bridge with the cars and leave the roundabout before the lights change for the cars coming the otherway.

I prefer the latter as I am in more control of the situation and it feels the safer way to ride the bridge.

Does anyone know this bridge near Sunnymeads railway station and have a better way to ride it?

supersonic

Note - as I said, it isn't a pelican crossing. There are no lights for the peds. They have to look at the traffic to see if it is safe to cross

But if the cars/buses etc have stopped, a person may deem it safe to cross. Of course you should always be on the lookout, but they might not see you if infront of a stopped car, and you might not see them.

rolf_f

supersonic wrote:

Note - as I said, it isn't a pelican crossing. There are no lights for the peds. They have to look at the traffic to see if it is safe to cross

But if the cars/buses etc have stopped, a person may deem it safe to cross. Of course you should always be on the lookout, but they might not see you if infront of a stopped car, and you might not see them.

Point taken but visibility is good, I'm not travelling at breakneck speed - maybe 20ish - and I can brake sharpish on the discs. Realistically, the only likely chance of a ped appearing from nowhere would be if they leapt out of the bushes on the left which is possible but unlikely - in that circumstance, they'd have to have a deathwish as they wouldn't know which side had the green light.

It's interesting that there is a ped crossing in the Google street view shot; I very rarely see anyone on that crossing though, of course, that might breed some complacency.

DDD - my closet has few skeletons in it but it is packed a bit tightly and sometimes some fall out. This one needed to!

sharm1969ca

hiya rolf, i know the road well as if i take the little wifey to work I'm on that road. Now to answer your question, what would you say if you got knocked on your ar5e doing said RLJ. sorry mate but a RLJ is a RLJ, however you look at it. so am gonna agree with lost_in_thought on this one. sorry. And i hope it dosnt happen btw.

Agent57

I'd stop at the first, but not at the second as there isn't a stop line on the cycle route anyway, as well as it being on the pavement.

Specialized Needs

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Rolf feels uncomfortable about RLJ at this place. So, rather than discussing the rights and wrongs of crossing the light when red (I am sure Rolf really doesn't need others to tell him), if it is such a stupid and non-cyclist friendly road layout are there any suggestions for how the layout could be changed both to retain its current purpose and to make it more cycle-friendly?

If there are any ideas, then I suppose it would be a case of trying to lobby the council to make those changes (presumably enlisting the help of any local cycle groups or CTC).

AidanR

I'd do it. I'd feel a bit guilty, and think that everyone on the commuting forum would banish me to hell for it, but I'd do it. Obviously whilst keeping a good lookout for peds.

rolf_f

Specialized Needs wrote:

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Rolf feels uncomfortable about RLJ at this place. So, rather than discussing the rights and wrongs of crossing the light when red (I am sure Rolf really doesn't need others to tell him), if it is such a stupid and non-cyclist friendly road layout are there any suggestions for how the layout could be changed both to retain its current purpose and to make it more cycle-friendly?

If there are any ideas, then I suppose it would be a case of trying to lobby the council to make those changes (presumably enlisting the help of any local cycle groups or CTC).

Now that's a good idea. As it happens, there are plans to do something along that road (it is one of the new, revamped cycle routes into town which are supposedly soon to come)but a bit of pressure might help . Hopefully they'll also deal with the bit further down I mentioned. This is the first section - completely pointlessly attached to the pavement and no use in the snow.

Just found a link to the plans - all a bit vague and not very promising.....
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/Internet2 ... con-01.pdf