RLJ - don't do it

tailwindhome

Greg T wrote:

Cyclists should pay road tax

[Irritating pedantic smug cyclist type]Theres no such thing[/Irritating pedantic smug cyclist type]

Greg T

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Cyclists should pay road tax

[Irritating pedantic smug cyclist type]Theres no such thing[/Irritating pedantic smug cyclist type]

There is...

I pay it for my CAR for the upkeep of ROADs that's why it's called ROAD TAX

Also Cyclists should be made to have insurance and pass tests

Monkeypump

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

notsoblue

Monkeypump wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

Just thought I'd get in there before the usual suspects chimed in with a comment about you being arrogant and/or a w*nker. You know the ones, those who are unable to tell the difference between reckless and non-reckless cycling and instead rely entirely on the authorities for the definition of these. An entirely reasonable stance, but just not very a very interesting one when encountered in a debate.

Wallace1492

Not going to comment on this topic, it annoys me too much.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

Just thought I'd get in there before the usual suspects chimed in with a comment about you being arrogant and/or a w*nker. You know the ones, those who are unable to tell the difference between reckless and non-reckless cycling and instead rely entirely on the authorities for the definition of these. An entirely reasonable stance, but just not very a very interesting one when encountered in a debate.

Just as long as you're prepared to allow the same lee-way to cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.

iainment

W1 wrote:

Aidy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

None of this makes it alright for cyclists to do it though, especially on ped crossings.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this.

I'm just a bit fed up with people villainising cyclists as red light jumpers, when all traffic does it.

Lets be honest though - cyclists as a group do it more regularly (and more blatently) than any other group of road users.

Do you have any evidence that supports this? From what I can see peds, drivers and cyclists all play fast and loose with red lights when it suits them.

And as long as it's done with regard to others I have no probs with peds or cyclists doing so.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

Just thought I'd get in there before the usual suspects chimed in with a comment about you being arrogant and/or a w*nker. You know the ones, those who are unable to tell the difference between reckless and non-reckless cycling and instead rely entirely on the authorities for the definition of these. An entirely reasonable stance, but just not very a very interesting one when encountered in a debate.

Just as long as you're prepared to allow the same lee-way to cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.

For the record, I stop at 99% of lights while most other cyclists on my commute just sail straight through them. But surely you can't believe that the consequences of a cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.. running red lights are equivalent to those of cyclists doing the same? Whats wrong with you? :P

bigmat

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

Just thought I'd get in there before the usual suspects chimed in with a comment about you being arrogant and/or a w*nker. You know the ones, those who are unable to tell the difference between reckless and non-reckless cycling and instead rely entirely on the authorities for the definition of these. An entirely reasonable stance, but just not very a very interesting one when encountered in a debate.

Just as long as you're prepared to allow the same lee-way to cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.

I'd have no problem with this provided they didn't interfere with other road users by doing so - in practice, that's almost impossible to do in a car or lorry (although could be done on a motorbike I would have thought) - its very easy on a push bike though.

W1

iainment wrote:

W1 wrote:

Aidy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

None of this makes it alright for cyclists to do it though, especially on ped crossings.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this.

I'm just a bit fed up with people villainising cyclists as red light jumpers, when all traffic does it.

Lets be honest though - cyclists as a group do it more regularly (and more blatently) than any other group of road users.

Do you have any evidence that supports this? From what I can see peds, drivers and cyclists all play fast and loose with red lights when it suits them.

And as long as it's done with regard to others I have no probs with peds or cyclists doing so.

Oh give over - I don't know where you ride but in London there's no need for a study. I have eyes and a brain, and I can tell you for a fact that far more cyclists run red lights (and I mean straight through reds that have been so for a number of seconds) than any other road user.

And peds don't have to obey red lights.

W1

MatHammond wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

Just thought I'd get in there before the usual suspects chimed in with a comment about you being arrogant and/or a w*nker. You know the ones, those who are unable to tell the difference between reckless and non-reckless cycling and instead rely entirely on the authorities for the definition of these. An entirely reasonable stance, but just not very a very interesting one when encountered in a debate.

Just as long as you're prepared to allow the same lee-way to cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.

I'd have no problem with this provided they didn't interfere with other road users by doing so - in practice, that's almost impossible to do in a car or lorry (although could be done on a motorbike I would have thought) - its very easy on a push bike though.

I'm rather surprised that you have that much faith in other road users, bearing in mind the potential consequences for a cyclist when said RLJer is actually wrong (as sometimes happens, regardless of how certain someone is that it is clear). On that basis isn't it preferable that everyone sticks to the same rules?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

I'm sure someone once raised the "if a tree falls in the forest..." point with regard to RLJing.

So I RLJ in the middle of nowhere, with no sign of traffic or peds. Nowhere else. Yes, I'm happy to part of THAT w*nker element - it's called being practical.

He's a witch! Burn him!!!!!!!

First genuine laugh-out-loud response this week. I salute you sir (or ma'am)!

Just thought I'd get in there before the usual suspects chimed in with a comment about you being arrogant and/or a w*nker. You know the ones, those who are unable to tell the difference between reckless and non-reckless cycling and instead rely entirely on the authorities for the definition of these. An entirely reasonable stance, but just not very a very interesting one when encountered in a debate.

Just as long as you're prepared to allow the same lee-way to cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.

For the record, I stop at 99% of lights while most other cyclists on my commute just sail straight through them. But surely you can't believe that the consequences of a cars, lorries, motorbikes etc.. running red lights are equivalent to those of cyclists doing the same? Whats wrong with you? :P

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be one clear, defined and irrefutable rule for one set of road users, yet some spurious argument that somehow cyclists are exempt. That's not how the law sees it, and cyclists running red lights is something that is always raised when cycling debates occur in the news. It's a big problem, which wouldn't exist but for a sizable minority of cyclists who think it's OK as they're on a bike. Either everyone obeys the rules, or no-one. Bikes aren't a special case. So if you want to run reds, accept that you are also agreeing that cars should be able to do so.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be one clear, defined and irrefutable rule for one set of road users, yet some spurious argument that somehow cyclists are exempt. That's not how the law sees it, and cyclists running red lights is something that is always raised when cycling debates occur in the news. It's a big problem, which wouldn't exist but for a sizable minority of cyclists who think it's OK as they're on a bike. Either everyone obeys the rules, or no-one. Bikes aren't a special case. So if you want to run reds, accept that you are also agreeing that cars should be able to do so.

Bikes *are* a special case. There are already concessions in certain areas of the City of London that indicate that the authorities believe this.

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... lable.html

And then there is the debate as to whether or not cyclists should be allowed to turn left through a red light at junctions:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... s-boris.do

Neither of these would work for motorised vehicles, would they?

Cyclists clearly are a special case. The fact that you equate a lorry going through a red light with a cyclist doing the same just makes no sense. Accepting that some cyclists occasionally go through red lights responsibly doesn't mean that you have to accept that motorised vehicles should be able to as well.

CiB

I normally stay out of these RLJ things, but that response about how there is absloutely no difference between motor vehicles and a person on a push-bike jumping a red light is nonsense on stilts.

I don't normally do it myself, but when I do it's in the middle of nowhere usually (tree falls in forest etc...) and I treat the lights as a Give Way. In our old road-rallying days not stopping at a Give Way meant exclusion if it was spotted by a Judge of Fact and that's stuck with me. But a GW is a GW and it takes no more sense to negotiate a GW than it does RL in a village on a quiet Sunday morning.

There is a difference between that and accepting that to drive on the road you have to pass the test and explicitly agree to the rules of the road. Motor vehicles are at the top of the pecking order on the roads and have much more duty to abide by the rules. Cyclists have such a vastly smaller potential to cause damage that to suppose we all sit at red lights when no-one's around is a bit bonkers to me. But then I'm talking about villages in the shires, not that there Lunnon. Different rules apply there by the looks of things.

BTW I still enjoy waiting at lights in urban situations, knowing that the drivers stuck behind me are a) miffed at me not jumping the light and thus proving their prejudices to be correct, and b) miffed at being stuck behind a cyclist who could have just hopped through a RL and been on his way.

For that and other reasons, I never RLJ in busy / built-up areas. But in sticksville where no-one can hear me scream, I do it. Occasionally.

Rgds
Bad Person.

rjsterry

But I wouldn't be able to sit there feeling smug and self-righteous if I was allowed to jump a red light. That's one of the best bits of my commute.

FWIW, I think Boris's 'allowed to jump red to turn left' is a stupid idea, and will be counterproductive, in the same way that allowing m'cycles into bus lanes has contribute to motorcyclists thinking they are entitled to use the ASL. Rules are best when they are nice and simple, not with littered with exceptions and special cases.

iainment

W1 wrote:

iainment wrote:

W1 wrote:

Aidy wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

None of this makes it alright for cyclists to do it though, especially on ped crossings.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this.

I'm just a bit fed up with people villainising cyclists as red light jumpers, when all traffic does it.

Lets be honest though - cyclists as a group do it more regularly (and more blatently) than any other group of road users.

Do you have any evidence that supports this? From what I can see peds, drivers and cyclists all play fast and loose with red lights when it suits them.

And as long as it's done with regard to others I have no probs with peds or cyclists doing so.

Oh give over - I don't know where you ride but in London there's no need for a study. I have eyes and a brain, and I can tell you for a fact that far more cyclists run red lights (and I mean straight through reds that have been so for a number of seconds) than any other road user.

And peds don't have to obey red lights.

I ride in London and Kerry.

Headhuunter

MatHammond wrote:

Crikey, I'm glad I got in early on this one - where's Headhuunter when you need him?!

Here I am. Sorry I nipped out to the gym and missed the next exciting round of "to RLJ or not to RLJ". I agree with you, I do it. I see no point in sitting at a red light when there's nothing coming, the road is clear, no peds and nothing whatsoever going on. I would never blast through a load of peds crossing on a green man or a zebra.

Just as it's perfectly acceptable and easy for peds to cross roads wherever they wish, as long as they've checked both ways, or fine for peds to cross on a red man at a junction, again if they've checked carefully, as far as I'm concerned it's OK to RLJ and gets you ahead of the traffic and into a space freer of traffic. It doesn't work for cars and other motor vehicles because they are nowhere near as manoeverable as pedestrians or cyclists.

As we have discussed previously, it is perfectly acceptable for cyclists to RLJ in other countries and no one bats an eyelid. Antwerp for example. It's as accepted as it is for peds to wander across wherever they please. In Paris I noticed that cyclists happily blended in with peds on pavmements and RLJed when the way was clear and no one felt the need to swear, shout or otherwise abuse them. It's simply a question of perception.

SamWise72

People who RLJ at risk of their own lives are stupid. People who RLJ at the risk of the lives and health of others are bad. Ergo, the person who hit the OP's colleague is a Bad Person, whereas most of the RLJ advocates on this thread are probably merely stupid.

In other news, Thatcher broke the Miner's Strike by getting the scabs to RLJ in their armoured buses.

Headhuunter

as for the supposed statistic that more cyclists than motorists RLJ, I highly doubt it. As someone pointed out earlier, most motorists see a red light as "oh go on, just another 3". The difference is that cyclists do it when the lights have been red for a while rather than when they have only just changed and somehow little indiscretions by motorists are just seen as "1 of those things"...

the_hundredth_idiot

I don't RLJ. There, got that out of the way to start with.

But, I don't buy that cyclists are the same as other road users. They're not and the law does treat them separately. Cyclists have a special section in the Highway Code just for them with rules just for them. Cyclists are allowed to ride on the "footpath" when signs indicate. Cyclists have special lanes set aside just for them.

Cyclists can get off and walk their bike through a red light if they wish - is there any difference in substance between walking through pushing your bike and riding through on your bike? I think I asked in a previous RLJing thread what would be the legal status of getting off your pedals and saddle and walking through the red light with your top tube between your legs. At what point are you walking and at what point are you riding? Is there a legal definition that includes bum on saddle and feet on pedals?

On my commute home, I use a cycle lane on the Bricklayer's Arms roundabout at the top of the OKR. It has a button you press like on a pedestrian crossing - you press it, wait a little while and the traffic lights on the OKR turn to red and the little red cyclist changes to green so I have right of way. It's next to a pedestrian crossing on the shared use path which also has a cyclist light (as well as a pedestrian light). Can I cycle through this when the little cyclist is red? Paragraph 81 of the Highway Code says I MUST not - but does it really make sense for me to wait at the little red cyclist as all the peds 3 feet away from me are scampering across because there is no traffic - after all, I do then join them on the other side of the road? And if I use the shared use path rather than the cycle route (i.e. I am now 3 feet to my left) I can then cycle across as paragraph 80 doesn't prohibit it - but there is no practical difference between the two positions.
(If that didn't make a great deal of sense, I'll try and find a street view picture of what I mean.)

But, as long as RLJing is illegal, cyclists shouldn't RLJ. Using arguments that you know better than the law is no different from speeding motorists justifying why they should be allowed to exceed the speed limit (because they "know better", "are better drivers than other people", etc). It saves very little time, and just makes cyclists seem arrogant as if they think they are above the law. Stopping at the red gives one a little rest and time to admire the hotties crossing the road. 8)

Phew. I feel better for that. Only 1 hour to go and I can go home and relax for a nice long weekend.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

as for the supposed statistic that more cyclists than motorists RLJ, I highly doubt it. As someone pointed out earlier, most motorists see a red light as "oh go on, just another 3". The difference is that cyclists do it when the lights have been red for a while rather than when they have only just changed and somehow little indiscretions by motorists are just seen as "1 of those things"...

Amazing. Try counting one day and let us know how you get on.

the_hundredth_idiot

Ah, what the heck, here's where I mean (and conveniently showing a cyclist about to use the toucan crossing in the opposite direction to me).

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

as for the supposed statistic that more cyclists than motorists RLJ, I highly doubt it. As someone pointed out earlier, most motorists see a red light as "oh go on, just another 3". The difference is that cyclists do it when the lights have been red for a while rather than when they have only just changed and somehow little indiscretions by motorists are just seen as "1 of those things"...

Amazing. Try counting one day and let us know how you get on.

I haven't specifically stood an counted but there are certain junctions on my commute at which, with every light change, at least 3 cars go through on red and there often aren't even that many cyclists there so there are easily more car RLJers than cyclist. Sometimes I've had to brake sharply when setting off across a junction on green when a car, taxi or whatever has shot through on red.

Wallace1492

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

and time to admire the hotties crossing the road. 8)

Phew. I feel better for that. Only 1 hour to go and I can go home and relax for a nice long weekend.

Well, you don't commute up and down Maryhill Road!! If you did, you would be a RLJ'r rather than stop to have the "hotties" there near you!!

supersonic

I was once admiring a bit of crumpet on the pavement and rode straight into a Supertram.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be one clear, defined and irrefutable rule for one set of road users, yet some spurious argument that somehow cyclists are exempt. That's not how the law sees it, and cyclists running red lights is something that is always raised when cycling debates occur in the news. It's a big problem, which wouldn't exist but for a sizable minority of cyclists who think it's OK as they're on a bike. Either everyone obeys the rules, or no-one. Bikes aren't a special case. So if you want to run reds, accept that you are also agreeing that cars should be able to do so.

Bikes *are* a special case. There are already concessions in certain areas of the City of London that indicate that the authorities believe this.

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/201 ... lable.html

And then there is the debate as to whether or not cyclists should be allowed to turn left through a red light at junctions:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... s-boris.do

Neither of these would work for motorised vehicles, would they?

Cyclists clearly are a special case. The fact that you equate a lorry going through a red light with a cyclist doing the same just makes no sense. Accepting that some cyclists occasionally go through red lights responsibly doesn't mean that you have to accept that motorised vehicles should be able to as well.

Erm, you can turn right through a red in the US in a car - seems to work for them.

Look, this is pretty simple. If cyclists want respect on the road, as road users, they need to behave within the rules of the road to earn that respect. If cyclists run red lights, it makes us all look bad - like we are arrogant "lycra louts". It sets a bad example for new cyclists who may not have the god-like ability to fully assess the safety of a junction (which is controlled by lights for a reason, rather than to look pretty).

I don't care if you think you can justify it, the fact remains that we all get tarred with the "red light jumpers" badge because some of you decide you can just do what you please becuase - for some reason - you think you have a right to do so. And if you're happy for all cyclists to be treated with contempt due to your actions (because that's how drivers and peds see cyclists treat other road users) then you are indeed a tw*t.

I hate all RLJers, ninja no-lighters, pavement riders etc because they all give the Daily Mail lot a stick to beat the entire cycling community with - and always appear in the comments section when another cyclist is killed. And we wonder why we get such bad press?

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

as for the supposed statistic that more cyclists than motorists RLJ, I highly doubt it. As someone pointed out earlier, most motorists see a red light as "oh go on, just another 3". The difference is that cyclists do it when the lights have been red for a while rather than when they have only just changed and somehow little indiscretions by motorists are just seen as "1 of those things"...

Amazing. Try counting one day and let us know how you get on.

I haven't specifically stood an counted but there are certain junctions on my commute at which, with every light change, at least 3 cars go through on red and there often aren't even that many cyclists there so there are easily more car RLJers than cyclist. Sometimes I've had to brake sharply when setting off across a junction on green when a car, taxi or whatever has shot through on red.

More often than not I've had to do the same to avoid an RLJing cyclist.

Seriously, count how many you seen on your next commute. I'll do the same and we can compare on Tuesday.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

I hate all RLJers, ninja no-lighters, pavement riders etc because they all give the Daily Mail lot a stick to beat the entire cycling community with - and always appear in the comments section when another cyclist is killed. And we wonder why we get such bad press?

You're coming across like one of the "Daily Mail lot", just with a different agenda...

supersonic

I can see why people think it may be safe in certain circumstances to RLJ, but I'd never do it, for the simple reason I am not perfect. I might just miss that kid behind the railings who thinks it safe to cross, and send them flying, and I would have the book thrown at me, deservedly so.

Anonymous

If I jump through a amber light at the last minute, or set off just before the lights go green, it's fine, or perhaps I'm just a little cheeky.

If I see other people doing this, then they're irresponsible w*nkers giving us responsible cyclists a bad name.