RLJ - don't do it
Comments
-
Greg T wrote: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
And pay the congestion charge; don't forget the congestion charge.
And require an MOT.
And only use cycle lanes.
And wear a helmet because cycling is so dangerous and the NHS is funded by taxpayers and cyclists don't pay tax.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
RichardSwt wrote: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.
They're not amber for a whole minute.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
supersonic wrote:I was once admiring a bit of crumpet on the pavement and rode straight into a Supertram.
I was once admiring a Supertram and rode straight into a bit of crumpet.
(Actually I didn't but it had to be said.)This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
W1 wrote: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?
++ a large Universe0 -
Well, I saw a cyclist RLJ and hit a pedestrian in Southall yesterday. She was shaken up and when I had a go at the cyclist he said "sorry mate - didn't see her". Irrelevant if he'd stopped at the red light.http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
notsoblue wrote:
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.
not in the eyes of sec 109 of the Highway code The bold is already there on a very telling MUST
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_070289
do these is London links have regulatory status and the ability to override the Highway code and laws of the land? How far does Boris's influence stretch when in contravention of the HC? I really want to know, I'm not a Londoner its not my sphere of knowledge.
So what that (probably) non legislatory bodies and buffoons suggest alternatives, the first of your links is irellevant to RLJ'ing as its adjusting the use of the thoroughfare for specific road users akin to making bus lanes etc not agreeing to what is (whether done through common sense and caution or banzai recklessness) a criminal act.
the second one, whilst tragic, in many reported cases appears to be a poor choice of when to filter and bad road positioning by the cyclist after the 'killer' vehicke is already there is pandering to this assumption that we have a god given right to special treatment and the impression to others that we feel ourselves to above the law and not needing to use our own common sense or show any awareness to the danger or vulnerability of others on the road when compared to us.
neither of which mark us out as a special case in the eyes of the law.
and yes if its quiet (usually middle of the night commuting) and there is no-one about I do on occasion RLJ very slowly and keeping eyes and ears peeled with hands on brakes. if I get caught by a crafty cop then tough on me I'd grit my teeth pay the fine and get on with it, not pretend I've got some moral right or magical legal exemption through having 2 less wheels and no engine.0 -
W1 wrote: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?
This. That is all.0 -
MatHammond wrote: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...
It's very notable that that is your only (and presumably best) response.0 -
W1 wrote: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.
Right HH, this morning's non-scientific study:
11 cyclists ran red lights
one taxi
one moped
Whilst all the cyclists ran blatent reds, both the taxi and the moped were not very good amber gamblers.
How did you get on?0 -
supersonic wrote:I was once admiring a bit of crumpet on the pavement and rode straight into a Supertram.
Man, you must have been hungry or had it been recently toasted and then spread with butter and honey?Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
W1 wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Right HH, this morning's non-scientific study:
11 cyclists ran red lights
one taxi
one moped
Whilst all the cyclists ran blatent reds, both the taxi and the moped were not very good amber gamblers.
How did you get on?
I didn't count I'm afraid, I mean it's not in the slightest bit representative but it will be taken to have some meaning. I don't even know how far you travel, how many lights you go throught etc. 11 cylists, 1 moped and 1 taxi would be shocking at 1 junction, but over 10 it really isn't a surprise.
I did notice the usual stream of about 3 black cabs and a white van jumping the lights at the roundabout by Sainsbury's office. I couldn't see their red light, but mine was green and as I headed across, as usual I was forced to brake to let the RLJ-ing drivers through.
For me, the number of RLJ-ing motorists is very dependent on route, if I cycle through Bermondsey and the back streets where there are quieter, less major traffic lit crossroads, I generally see a couple at each junction, if I cycle through Deptford and along the major roads I see it less so simply counting will produce very varied results.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Of those 11 cyclists, how many of them were causing any trouble to anyone else at all? (except the bloke at the side of the road foaming at the mouth about how we're all being "tarred with the same brush" and being "given a bad name"). The whole "they jump red lights" complaint is a false argument underpinning a wider anti-cyclist movement. Look at the comments on any local news story about cycling, you get the whole list of:
- they slow us down by wobbling along
- they have no right to be on the road
- they should ride on the pavement
- they don't pay road tax
- they are a danger to themselves
- they look like idiots in lycra
- bikes are toys for kids
etc.etc
Somewhere quite far down the list, you get "they jump red lights". So you have to cut across all the other bull before that even becomes an issue. I'm not going to pander to the whims of a bunch of idiots with an illogical hatred of a mode of transport. As I have said, dangerous cycling is bad, whether it involves jumping lights or not. If you can do it safely, without interfering with anybody else, the arguments against start to look very weak in my opinion and you end up with "but its the law". I'm obviously an anarchist.
And as for my "only (and presumably best) response", I hope the above helps with your little studies. I'll expand a little - I think your "hatred" of people based on their abuse of the road traffic laws is a bit extreme and unnecessary. Hatred should be reserved for murderers and paedophiles and the like. That isn't the case in Daily Mail world, and clearly not in W1 world either.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Right HH, this morning's non-scientific study:
11 cyclists ran red lights
one taxi
one moped
Whilst all the cyclists ran blatent reds, both the taxi and the moped were not very good amber gamblers.
How did you get on?
I didn't count I'm afraid, I mean it's not in the slightest bit representative but it will be taken to have some meaning. I don't even know how far you travel, how many lights you go throught etc. 11 cylists, 1 moped and 1 taxi would be shocking at 1 junction, but over 10 it really isn't a surprise.
I did notice the usual stream of about 3 black cabs and a white van jumping the lights at the roundabout by Sainsbury's office. I couldn't see their red light, but mine was green and as I headed across, as usual I was forced to brake to let the RLJ-ing drivers through.
For me, the number of RLJ-ing motorists is very dependent on route, if I cycle through Bermondsey and the back streets where there are quieter, less major traffic lit crossroads, I generally see a couple at each junction, if I cycle through Deptford and along the major roads I see it less so simply counting will produce very varied results.
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).0 -
MatHammond wrote:As I have said, dangerous cycling is bad, whether it involves jumping lights or not. If you can do it safely, without interfering with anybody else, the arguments against start to look very weak in my opinion and you end up with "but its the law".
So, by the same token, should motorbikes, cars and lorries be able to jump red lights too, if they can do it safely and without interfering?
Perhaps we should do away with lights altogether?0 -
MatHammond wrote:Of those 11 cyclists, how many of them were causing any trouble to anyone else at all? (except the bloke at the side of the road foaming at the mouth about how we're all being "tarred with the same brush" and being "given a bad name"). The whole "they jump red lights" complaint is a false argument underpinning a wider anti-cyclist movement. Look at the comments on any local news story about cycling, you get the whole list of:
- they slow us down by wobbling along
- they have no right to be on the road
- they should ride on the pavement
- they don't pay road tax
- they are a danger to themselves
- they look like idiots in lycra
- bikes are toys for kids
etc.etc
Somewhere quite far down the list, you get "they jump red lights". So you have to cut across all the other bull before that even becomes an issue. I'm not going to pander to the whims of a bunch of idiots with an illogical hatred of a mode of transport. As I have said, dangerous cycling is bad, whether it involves jumping lights or not. If you can do it safely, without interfering with anybody else, the arguments against start to look very weak in my opinion and you end up with "but its the law". I'm obviously an anarchist.
And as for my "only (and presumably best) response", I hope the above helps with your little studies. I'll expand a little - I think your "hatred" of people based on their abuse of the road traffic laws is a bit extreme and unnecessary. Hatred should be reserved for murderers and paedophiles and the like. That isn't the case in Daily Mail world, and clearly not in W1 world either.
It's a great shame that you don't appear to care or understand that your actions cause a negative impact on other cyclists.
The irony is that the (as you call it) anti-cyclist movement is based on a number of factors, but RLJers do the cycling movement no favours at all, and reduce respect for cyclists from other road users. It's a hypocritical stance to accept that there is an anti-cycling movement but yet contriubute to it by your actions. I'm not sure on what basis you dismiss RLJing as "somewhere quite far down the list" - it's important enough for the police to spend time specifically targetting RLJing cyclists in London. It is by no means a false argument - it's a very real one, although you obviously don't like to hear it as you're guilty of doing it!
Your hyperbole is undermining any point you are trying to make - but I am fed up with other cyclists' poor riding impacting badly on the perception of cycling as a whole, and RLJing is the most evident and least justifiable. That's what I hate.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:MatHammond wrote:As I have said, dangerous cycling is bad, whether it involves jumping lights or not. If you can do it safely, without interfering with anybody else, the arguments against start to look very weak in my opinion and you end up with "but its the law".
So, by the same token, should motorbikes, cars and lorries be able to jump red lights too, if they can do it safely and without interfering?
Perhaps we should do away with lights altogether?
+1 Maybe I'm being old fashioned and reactionary, but "it's the law" still sounds like a fairly good reason to do something. I'm sure we could all make our lives a little bit easier by bending this law here, and that law there. For example, I'm sure you could construct an argument that it was alright in some circumstances to use a mobile phone whilst driving, then before long, someone has an accident whilst on the phone, and their defence was that they thought it was OK. The point is that individuals are usually pretty rubbish at analysing risk, so giving people an "if you think it's safe" get out clause will only make things more dangerous.
Also, by the time you've slowed enough to be able to properly assess whether it is safe to jump a red or not, you have lost most of the advantage that you might have had by jumping it anyway.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:MatHammond wrote:As I have said, dangerous cycling is bad, whether it involves jumping lights or not. If you can do it safely, without interfering with anybody else, the arguments against start to look very weak in my opinion and you end up with "but its the law".
So, by the same token, should motorbikes, cars and lorries be able to jump red lights too, if they can do it safely and without interfering?
I think that has been covered above.
As for doing away with lighte altogether, we are at risk of straying into "weadmire" territory. I do think there are too many lights, and that the sequencing on some is ridiculous (how many times do you find yourself waiting at a junction where nobody is moving in any direction?!)
Anyway, I rarely jump red lights, I just think the rabid sentiment against those who do so safely is unnecessary and ridiculous.0 -
Whoever you are you touched a good point: Why should we not do away with lights altogether? It's not a bad idea. Every time I've ever come upon an intersection where the lights were faulty, traffic was flowing through much, much better than usual with everyone taking more care, proceeding cautiously - but all the same, proceeding.0
-
W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:W1 wrote: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.
Right HH, this morning's non-scientific study:
11 cyclists ran red lights
one taxi
one moped
Whilst all the cyclists ran blatent reds, both the taxi and the moped were not very good amber gamblers.
How did you get on?
I didn't count I'm afraid, I mean it's not in the slightest bit representative but it will be taken to have some meaning. I don't even know how far you travel, how many lights you go throught etc. 11 cylists, 1 moped and 1 taxi would be shocking at 1 junction, but over 10 it really isn't a surprise.
I did notice the usual stream of about 3 black cabs and a white van jumping the lights at the roundabout by Sainsbury's office. I couldn't see their red light, but mine was green and as I headed across, as usual I was forced to brake to let the RLJ-ing drivers through.
For me, the number of RLJ-ing motorists is very dependent on route, if I cycle through Bermondsey and the back streets where there are quieter, less major traffic lit crossroads, I generally see a couple at each junction, if I cycle through Deptford and along the major roads I see it less so simply counting will produce very varied results.
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
But as Matt points out AFAIC it is no more a problem for cyclists to RLJ safely than it is for peds to cross the road when the red man is showing. In many cases getting ahead of traffic, away from wacky races away from the lights, to me, feels safer than waiting, probably next to a moped that has blocked the ASL and sat in front of/alongside some idiot in a BMW concerned that he is going to lose a tenth of a second away from the lights when they turn green.
Frankly if I can get across the lights safely because there are no peds and there is no traffic coming the other way, I will, whether or not the law if on my side. The law and the road infrastructure is designed with motor traffic in mind (apart from a few green/blue stripes in the gutter). Until there is a positive step to recognise cyclists vulnerability on the road, for example by setting up filter lights allowing cyclists to head off first at major junctions, rather than the box ticking exercise of painting a green strips in eth gutter, I'll do what I feel is safest for me (without putting others in danger).Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:Whoever you are you touched a good point: Why should we not do away with lights altogether? It's not a bad idea. Every time I've ever come upon an intersection where the lights were faulty, traffic was flowing through much, much better than usual with everyone taking more care, proceeding cautiously - but all the same, proceeding.
It's already been done in other countries, it was proved that drivers and other road users actually engage their brain, slow down and actually pay attention rather than roll up to a light with brain and gears in neutral and hit the accelerator when it goes green, brain still in neutral, entrusting the lights with theirs and others' safety. My experience when traffic lights are down and road users have to use their own judgement as to when to cross, is that traffic is generally much more courteous and moves more slowly and drivers are much more aware or what's around them.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?0 -
W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
My points at least acknowledge a range of opinions and (in my view) offer a more realistic view of the issues involved in cycling in heavily trafficked areas. As I said at the very outset, the rights and wrongs of RLJ on a bicycle is a grey area. I think there are situations where it can be acceptable. You don't. We disagree. That is the nature of debate.0 -
W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
Just because it "annoys other people", should the police be responding by targetting cyclists? Motorists are responsible for nearly 4000 deaths and injuries on the road per year, surely the police should be spending more time targetting them? I couldn't care less if some driver or ped who is having a bad morning is annoyed by me crossing a clear junction on red.
II was stopped for moving across an ASL (it was blocked by a cab and several mopeds), across the ped crossing and onto the other side to await a green light. As I proceeded across the junction (when the light had turned), I was stopped by a plod who told me I had to remain in the ASL, I asked why he hadn't stopped the drivers blocking the ASL, he said he had taken a not of their reg plates, whcih was utter rubbish as his eyes had been on me the entire time. In a letter from the police later, I was informed that police do not feel that the punishment for drivers in ASLs is not reflective of the crime so they do not enforce, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law, in many cases these drivers have RLJ-ed. This annoyed me but do the drivers concerned care?Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
W1 wrote:Whilst all the cyclists ran blatent reds, both the taxi and the moped were not very good amber gamblers.
How did you get on?
1 MB ran every red light that I saw him approach. No other RLJers of any other kind on a 15mile run.0 -
MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
My points at least acknowledge a range of opinions and (in my view) offer a more realistic view of the issues involved in cycling in heavily trafficked areas. As I said at the very outset, the rights and wrongs of RLJ on a bicycle is a grey area. I think there are situations where it can be acceptable. You don't. We disagree. That is the nature of debate.
I'm baffled on the law being a grey area? Actaully don't answer that, you've tried several times from what I've read, this could go in circles for a very long time.
Headhuunter: The fact that it annoys people backs up the point by W1 that RLJ gives cycling a negative image.
If your happy to contribute to this, thats your choice.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
Just because it "annoys other people", should the police be responding by targetting cyclists? Motorists are responsible for nearly 4000 deaths and injuries on the road per year, surely the police should be spending more time targetting them? I couldn't care less if some driver or ped who is having a bad morning is annoyed by me crossing a clear junction on red.
II was stopped for moving across an ASL (it was blocked by a cab and several mopeds), across the ped crossing and onto the other side to await a green light. As I proceeded across the junction (when the light had turned), I was stopped by a plod who told me I had to remain in the ASL, I asked why he hadn't stopped the drivers blocking the ASL, he said he had taken a not of their reg plates, whcih was utter rubbish as his eyes had been on me the entire time. In a letter from the police later, I was informed that police do not feel that the punishment for drivers in ASLs is not reflective of the crime so they do not enforce, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law, in many cases these drivers have RLJ-ed. This annoyed me but do the drivers concerned care?
The role of the police is not just to tackle the "top tier" of criminal behaviour and activities. It's also to stop anti-social behaviour. If communities raise particular issues of unlawful behaviour then of course the police should tackle it. Otherwise they would just go after the murderers and leave the muggers alone....
You and I agree that the enforcement of ASLs is unjustifiable. But that doesn't make any difference - at all - to the responsibilities of cyclists not to jump red lights and thereby avoid giving any sticks to the anti-cyclist mob to beat us with.
Whilst I appreciate that everyone here who confesses to RLJing claims to only do so when safe etc that really isn't the point. I can say the same RLJing in my car. I'm afraid that I don't have enough faith in the general public's ability to use their sense to allow a free for all of RJLing. Do you?
And whilst you say you couldn't care less if you annoy another road user by you running an red light - that's exactly the poor attitude I'm talking about that means that whenever an incident, accident or death occurs, the predicatable "but they all run red lights" comment is made. That couldn't happen if people like you did actually care who they annoyed whilst breaking the law. It provides drivers with a handy excuse - and there aren't that many people that would disagree, because it is a blatent problem (however much the blinkered posters on here try to claim that cyclists don't RJL as much as motorists).0 -
iPete wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
My points at least acknowledge a range of opinions and (in my view) offer a more realistic view of the issues involved in cycling in heavily trafficked areas. As I said at the very outset, the rights and wrongs of RLJ on a bicycle is a grey area. I think there are situations where it can be acceptable. You don't. We disagree. That is the nature of debate.
I'm baffled on the law being a grey area? Actaully don't answer that, you've tried several times from what I've read, this could go in circles for a very long time.
Headhuunter: The fact that it annoys people backs up the point by W1 that RLJ gives cycling a negative image.
If your happy to contribute to this, thats your choice.
AFAIC motorists speeding, parking on the pavement, driving whilst on the phone is annoying and gives them a bad name, however somehow motorists "foibles" are often seen as "just one of those things".
How often have you met someone who has been caught speeding and been fined or whatever and when they've told you they've said it with a roll of the eyes and a little smirk as though they're admitting to a cheeky misdemeanour rather than something that could kill, whereas if I mentioned at work that I had been caught RLJ-ing, people's eyes would widen in horror as though I had stabbed a woman in the street. I met a guy on the train to Norfolk the other week who told me that the only reason he wasn't driving was that he had been caught 3 times by the same policeman driving with a mobile clamped to his ear and had finally been banned. He said this with a little grin as though I'd appreciate his misbehaviour as a little kid would appreciate another's naughtiness.
I don't feel the need to prove myself to other road users as I have as much right to be there as they do.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
My points at least acknowledge a range of opinions and (in my view) offer a more realistic view of the issues involved in cycling in heavily trafficked areas. As I said at the very outset, the rights and wrongs of RLJ on a bicycle is a grey area. I think there are situations where it can be acceptable. You don't. We disagree. That is the nature of debate.
Indeed - so labelling arguments as "simplistic" is rather pointless.
You see I do understand the reasons that you cite - I just don't agree with them, because it is not a grey area, it is black and white. RLJing is a problem; it is always raised in anti-cycling rants; it thereby undermines respect for all cyclists, even those who don't RLJ.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:iPete wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:MatHammond wrote:W1 wrote:
What matters is that five times more cyclists jumped red lights than motorists. That's a 10 mile central London route via approximatley 45 sets of lights. I can only go by my experience, but I think that's conservative (it was quiet this morning, not many bikes about). I don't think my experience is unusual at all for a central London rider. Cyclists are conspicuous by how many of them jump red lights. That's why the police specifically target RLJers, as it's an evident problem. It doesn't need some scientific study to prove the obvious - cyclists RLJ many more times over than cars (in central London at least).
Or it could be because its a nice income stream on a quiet day. Or because they are pandering to the whims of the Daily Mail haters. Or because they are combatting RLJ across the board and cyclists are the only vehicles that can't be identified with cameras. Your arguments are very simplistic.
Or maybe because it's something that really annoys other people (not just the Daily Mail)?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... red-lights
Do you think the points you are making are particularly sophisticated?
My points at least acknowledge a range of opinions and (in my view) offer a more realistic view of the issues involved in cycling in heavily trafficked areas. As I said at the very outset, the rights and wrongs of RLJ on a bicycle is a grey area. I think there are situations where it can be acceptable. You don't. We disagree. That is the nature of debate.
I'm baffled on the law being a grey area? Actaully don't answer that, you've tried several times from what I've read, this could go in circles for a very long time.
Headhuunter: The fact that it annoys people backs up the point by W1 that RLJ gives cycling a negative image.
If your happy to contribute to this, thats your choice.
AFAIC motorists speeding, parking on the pavement, driving whilst on the phone is annoying and gives them a bad name, however somehow motorists "foibles" are often seen as "just one of those things".
How often have you met someone who has been caught speeding and been fined or whatever and when they've told you they've said it with a roll of the eyes and a little smirk as though they're admitting to a cheeky misdemeanour rather than something that could kill, whereas if I mentioned at work that I had been caught RLJ-ing, people's eyes would widen in horror as though I had stabbed a woman in the street. I met a guy on the train to Norfolk the other week who told me that the only reason he wasn't driving was that he had been caught 3 times by the same policeman driving with a mobile clamped to his ear and had finally been banned. He said this with a little grin as though I'd appreciate his misbehaviour as a little kid would appreciate another's naughtiness.
I don't feel the need to prove myself to other road users as I have as much right to be there as they do.
You undermine your right to be there by your actions that are contrary to the rules of the road.
The police do target speeding, mobile phone use, drink driving - there's a whole department for it (called "Traffic").
You met an idiot. There are a few around.0
