RLJ - don't do it
Comments
-
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.
So essentially, this is going full circle back to: Two wrongs don't make a _____?0 -
W1 wrote: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).
I don't understand why it is fine and acceptable for pedestrians to cross where and when they please, yet cyclists are not allowed to cross junctions in the same manner. I lived in Japan for a few years and out there, peds have to cross at crossings and have to wait for the green man. Crossing on red is seen in the same light as cyclists RLJ-ing in this country. It's all down to perception. In Paris I noticed that no one batted an eyelid as cyclists meandered onto pavements, through red lights etc at lesser junctions and no one cared, no one foamed at the mouth, no one batted an eyelid. There was a similar attitude in the Netherlands when I was last there.
Cyclists and peds are very manoevrable and able to cross junctions quickly and easily, have an unrivalled view of the road and able to make better judgements of when it's safe to cross than a driver in a car, boxed in with metal framework inhibiting their view of the road and with a large bonnet potruding out in front, and cars are far, far less manoevrable than cyclists or peds.
Somehow in this country peds crossing on red = OK, cyclists = not OK. I will cross on red when I feel it's safe for me to do so, I'm not trying to endorse cyclists flying through every junction at high speed, but if it's done slowly and carefully, it's fine. If this causes a Daily Mail style panic response in some blinkered individuals then that's up to them....Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
iPete wrote: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.
So essentially, this is going full circle back to: Two wrongs don't make a _____?
No but I'm trying to illustrate the general attitude to motorists breaking the law vs cyclists, motorists smirk, cyclists are condemned. I'm also trying to illustrate the frothing at the mout, Daily Mail attitude against ALL RLJing is ridiculous and ask why does the same attitude not apply to pedestrians? God knows they cause accidents stepping ojut without looking etc. Should we not be campaigning to get them to cross at crossings only and wait for the green man as in many other countries?Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
So its not about two wrongs don't make a right but a complaint about other people aka peds and drivers doing things wrong to justify your own actions? or have I missed something
As far as I'm concerned, if I can't comply with being a road user, I certainly can't moan about anyone else. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.0 -
The law may not be 'fair' and it is certainly different from that in other countries, but we are talking about this country, and the law doesn't have to be fair. If you disagree with the law, then surely the thing to do is to lobby for it to be changed. I just don't see that there is that much advantage to be gained from carefully and slowly jumping the few red lights in London at which it may be safe to do so.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
iPete wrote:So its not about two wrongs don't make a right but a complaint about other people aka peds and drivers doing things wrong to justify your own actions? or have I missed something
As far as I'm concerned, if I can't comply with being a road user, I certainly can't moan about anyone else. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
No, I don't actually want peds to have to cross on green man only etc, I just want the same flexibility to be extended to cyclists. I don't see why it shouldn't be and no one has convinced me otherwise, other than to say "it's the law"...Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
If you feel that the law should be changed then contact your local MP and make the case.
I don't RLJ as the law says I shouldn't. The other considerations don't come into it for me.
if light eq red then baloo = stop;
I am not going to judge anyone or try to convince anyone to adopt my stance. I can appreciate that others choose a different approach but obviously there can be no complaints if you are caught breaking the law.
This is the kind of debate that seems to polarize opinions the longer it goes on.
Now..... do people think you should wear a helmet when they are out on the bike?
(gets coat)0 -
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
*sigh*
There IS NO SUCH THING as ROAD TAX
What you are referring to as 'Road Tax' is actually 'Vehicle Exise Duty' (VED)
This is a tax on vehicle ownership (based on emmissions).
It is NOT a Tax giving permission to use the roads.
It is NOT a Tax that pays for the roads.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation.
And anyway, even if cyclists were required to pay VED, they would fall into the low/zero emissions category, and therefore would be required to pay £0.0 -
shm_uk wrote: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
*sigh*
There IS NO SUCH THING as ROAD TAX
What you are referring to as 'Road Tax' is actually 'Vehicle Exise Duty' (VED)
This is a tax on vehicle ownership (based on emmissions).
It is NOT a Tax giving permission to use the roads.
It is NOT a Tax that pays for the roads.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation.
And anyway, even if cyclists were required to pay VED, they would fall into the low/zero emissions category, and therefore would be required to pay £0.
Apologies SHM, Greg_T was baiting the tigers here. We know this
Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
shm_uk wrote: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
*sigh*
There IS NO SUCH THING as ROAD TAX
What you are referring to as 'Road Tax' is actually 'Vehicle Exise Duty' (VED)
This is a tax on vehicle ownership (based on emmissions).
It is NOT a Tax giving permission to use the roads.
It is NOT a Tax that pays for the roads.
Roads are paid for out of general taxation.
And anyway, even if cyclists were required to pay VED, they would fall into the low/zero emissions category, and therefore would be required to pay £0.
Hook, line and sinker! 0 -
Mr Sworld wrote:
Personally I was looking for more of a "Oh for God's Sake" but I'll take what i can get....
So. Have we got to the ad hominem bit yet?
Personally I thinkRLJing is sign of slow leg speed and bed wetting.Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
Greg T wrote:
I always know I'm not going to be disappointed reading a Greg T response in a RLJ thread. Fortunately, I'm experienced enough now to ensure I'm not drinking any coffee when I start reading his reply 0 -
I think it's down to perception as well as the legality of the thing. As a cyclist, I'm keen for our sport and pastime to be taken more seriously and for more time and money to be invested in it. I would like it to be seen in a better light.
It seems that pedestrians and drivers perceive cyclists to be irritating RLJers who are constantly putting themselves and others at risk by not following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if you think that the junction/pedestrian crossing is clear, by clearly and knowingly riding through a red light in front of people, you are harming our cause. Which seems a little selfish to me.FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
soundninjauk wrote:I think it's down to perception as well as the legality of the thing. As a cyclist, I'm keen for our sport and pastime to be taken more seriously and for more time and money to be invested in it. I would like it to be seen in a better light.
It seems that pedestrians and drivers perceive cyclists to be irritating RLJers who are constantly putting themselves and others at risk by not following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if you think that the junction/pedestrian crossing is clear, by clearly and knowingly riding through a red light in front of people, you are harming our cause. Which seems a little selfish to me.
There seem to be 2 argumemts against RLJ-ing. First "it's the law", well the law can be an ass.... Second, we somehow have to prove ourselves to other road users to validate our place on roads we have all paid for. I don't feel that need.Do not write below this line. Office use only.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?
We should probably reduce them and cycle lanes, and pavements. (Proper shared-usage roads)
This does seem to improve traffic flow and safety in certain situations.
One local company is obviously very proud of their temporary traffic lights, it outs them up even if the actual "obstruction" would be smaller than a parked car in a fairly quiet and wide road.
The lights often fail to detect cars let alone bikes.
I do run red lights in this situation. When I can see it is clear, and probably no other traffic for 5-minutes.0 -
I need to go and update this post :roll:OldSkoolKona wrote:RLJ Forum http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12644266
RLJers bother me more when on a bike than in a car http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12643872
Shouting at RLJers Part 2 http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12642277
RLJ Poll http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12642244
RLJ - What's the big deal? http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12641153
Red light jumping http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12639661
Drafting RLJer rear-ends car at Clapham South. http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12639859
Watch Out RLJ-ers... http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12638534
Shouting at RLJers http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12636316
RLJing http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12631121
RLJ outreach http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12631112
RLJ Fools! http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12629320
A police officer's view on RLJ and Pavement Hopping http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=12629371
Red light jumper makes us a laughing stock http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/foru ... t=126262070 -
Headhuunter wrote:soundninjauk wrote:I think it's down to perception as well as the legality of the thing. As a cyclist, I'm keen for our sport and pastime to be taken more seriously and for more time and money to be invested in it. I would like it to be seen in a better light.
It seems that pedestrians and drivers perceive cyclists to be irritating RLJers who are constantly putting themselves and others at risk by not following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if you think that the junction/pedestrian crossing is clear, by clearly and knowingly riding through a red light in front of people, you are harming our cause. Which seems a little selfish to me.
There seem to be 2 argumemts against RLJ-ing. First "it's the law", well the law can be an ass.... Second, we somehow have to prove ourselves to other road users to validate our place on roads we have all paid for. I don't feel that need.
Or thirdly (and most importantly) - it annoys other road users. We moan and complain enough about poor driving, what about this deliberately poor riding?
Or fourthly it adds an unnecessary element of danger to riding on the road (to the cylclist and other road users).
Or fifthly it sets a poor example to new riders, putting them perhaps in greater danger.
Or sixthly it just makes all cyclists look liket tw*ts, even those who don't jump red lights.
Or seventhly it provides an easy excuse/get out for dangerous drivers when confronted.
The law can be an ass. And if you want respect on the roads it does need to be earnt, and that means abiding by the rules and not annoying other people. You don't need so much to validate your position, you need to continue to prevent your position on the road becoming invalid due to the actions of a minority of riders.
Edit - so there are a number of reasons not to RLJ, but I'm yet to see a convincing reason to justify it.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:soundninjauk wrote:I think it's down to perception as well as the legality of the thing. As a cyclist, I'm keen for our sport and pastime to be taken more seriously and for more time and money to be invested in it. I would like it to be seen in a better light.
It seems that pedestrians and drivers perceive cyclists to be irritating RLJers who are constantly putting themselves and others at risk by not following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if you think that the junction/pedestrian crossing is clear, by clearly and knowingly riding through a red light in front of people, you are harming our cause. Which seems a little selfish to me.
There seem to be 2 argumemts against RLJ-ing. First "it's the law", well the law can be an ass.... Second, we somehow have to prove ourselves to other road users to validate our place on roads we have all paid for. I don't feel that need.
Or thirdly (and most importantly) - it annoys other road users. We moan and complain enough about poor driving, what about this deliberately poor riding?
Or fourthly it adds an unnecessary element of danger to riding on the road (to the cylclist and other road users).
Or fifthly it sets a poor example to new riders, putting them perhaps in greater danger.
Or sixthly it just makes all cyclists look liket tw*ts, even those who don't jump red lights.
Or seventhly it provides an easy excuse/get out for dangerous drivers when confronted.
The law can be an ass. And if you want respect on the roads it does need to be earnt, and that means abiding by the rules and not annoying other people. You don't need so much to validate your position, you need to continue to prevent your position on the road becoming invalid due to the actions of a minority of riders.
Edit - so there are a number of reasons not to RLJ, but I'm yet to see a convincing reason to justify it.
3rd and 6th are the same point and seem to be borne of us somehow having to prove ourselves on the road. You don't need to behave like a tw@t to RLJ, it can be done carefully and with consideration. I do it daily and I haven't once been yelled at, shouted at, hit anyone or even nearly hit anyone. When I do it, no one really notices.
4th - I am highly, highly unlikely to come to a sticky end whilst RLJ-ing, I do it incredibly carefully at pootle pace, when the road is clear, if at all. I am more likely to get hit by a left hooking motorist or knocked under the wheels of a black cab by an errant, jaywalking ped
5th - You may have a point here, but new cyclists or not, grant them with a modicum of intelligence and instinct to stay alive! People are able to make their own decisions, if they don't they get removed from the gene pool.
7th - I don't feel the need to be on my best behaviour for no other reason than some irate, idiot, Daily Mail reading motorist might get a little bit cross. If they want to raise their blood pressure in anger, so be it. Not my problem.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Dudu wrote:MatHammond wrote:Otherwise, it remains a grey area.
No it's not. It's the law. Printed, mainly, in black and white.
RLJ=wrong
No RLJ=right.
No argument.
Except you are confusing right and wrong with legal and illegal
We made it illegal because it's wrong.
it's wrong because it frightens pedestrians and can cause inconvenience to pedestrians and injury to both pedestrians and cyclists.___________________________________________
People need to be told what to do so badly they'll listen to anyone0 -
Fine Headhuunter - you can RLJ, because you only do it when it is considerate and you are a good cyclist. And that bloke following you on the Litespeed can RLJ, because you do and because he has a nice bike and is a proper cyclist and is only going a little bit faster than you. And that bloke behind him can, he is on a specialised and going a little bit faster than that and he is going a bit closer to the car and that pedestrian, but its still safe. And that bloke on the BSO, well, he's going really quick and skimming the ped, but he's never had an accident in 10 years of commuting, so he's got to be safe too.
Don't be a fool. There is a subjective test - is there a red light? and there is an objective test - which is impossible to police.
Don't RLJ, you don't piss other people off, you obey the law, you make your commute a couple of minutes later which means more time out in the lovely fresh air.
You are articulating your point about why the arguments AGAINST RLJing don't apply to you (or you don't care about them), what I don't understand is why you HAVE to?http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
This is interesting. The general feeling seems to be that we are a breed of our own- The Cyclist.
I always thought there were two types out there. The Pedestrian who uses pavements and crosses roads in a safe manner using crossing available where possible (I know they don't always but that is their lookout) and the road user who drives/rides/cycles on the road and in doing so agrees to obey the rules of the road.
I consider myself as the latter and ride accordingly, taking primary as I wish and obeying traffic signs, including lights.
When did cyclists become their own breed?A biking runner
0 -
Hrun wrote:This is interesting. The general feeling seems to be that we are a breed of our own- The Cyclist.
I always thought there were two types out there. The Pedestrian who uses pavements and crosses roads in a safe manner using crossing available where possible (I know they don't always but that is their lookout) and the road user who drives/rides/cycles on the road and in doing so agrees to obey the rules of the road.
I consider myself as the latter and ride accordingly, taking primary as I wish and obeying traffic signs, including lights.
When did cyclists become their own breed?
There are no groups. There are just people. Today you might be driving, tomorrow you might be walking or riding a bike. This is the bottom-line - give others as much respect as you would expect them to give you. Although it makes sense to create a special rule for cyclists to treat read light as a STOP sign - for that contact your MP, until the law is changed do not RLJ.0 -
Headhuunter wrote:W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:soundninjauk wrote:I think it's down to perception as well as the legality of the thing. As a cyclist, I'm keen for our sport and pastime to be taken more seriously and for more time and money to be invested in it. I would like it to be seen in a better light.
It seems that pedestrians and drivers perceive cyclists to be irritating RLJers who are constantly putting themselves and others at risk by not following the rules of the road. It doesn't matter if you think that the junction/pedestrian crossing is clear, by clearly and knowingly riding through a red light in front of people, you are harming our cause. Which seems a little selfish to me.
There seem to be 2 argumemts against RLJ-ing. First "it's the law", well the law can be an ass.... Second, we somehow have to prove ourselves to other road users to validate our place on roads we have all paid for. I don't feel that need.
Or thirdly (and most importantly) - it annoys other road users. We moan and complain enough about poor driving, what about this deliberately poor riding?
Or fourthly it adds an unnecessary element of danger to riding on the road (to the cylclist and other road users).
Or fifthly it sets a poor example to new riders, putting them perhaps in greater danger.
Or sixthly it just makes all cyclists look liket tw*ts, even those who don't jump red lights.
Or seventhly it provides an easy excuse/get out for dangerous drivers when confronted.
The law can be an ass. And if you want respect on the roads it does need to be earnt, and that means abiding by the rules and not annoying other people. You don't need so much to validate your position, you need to continue to prevent your position on the road becoming invalid due to the actions of a minority of riders.
Edit - so there are a number of reasons not to RLJ, but I'm yet to see a convincing reason to justify it.
3rd and 6th are the same point and seem to be borne of us somehow having to prove ourselves on the road. You don't need to behave like a tw@t to RLJ, it can be done carefully and with consideration. I do it daily and I haven't once been yelled at, shouted at, hit anyone or even nearly hit anyone. When I do it, no one really notices.
4th - I am highly, highly unlikely to come to a sticky end whilst RLJ-ing, I do it incredibly carefully at pootle pace, when the road is clear, if at all. I am more likely to get hit by a left hooking motorist or knocked under the wheels of a black cab by an errant, jaywalking ped
5th - You may have a point here, but new cyclists or not, grant them with a modicum of intelligence and instinct to stay alive! People are able to make their own decisions, if they don't they get removed from the gene pool.
7th - I don't feel the need to be on my best behaviour for no other reason than some irate, idiot, Daily Mail reading motorist might get a little bit cross. If they want to raise their blood pressure in anger, so be it. Not my problem.
I don't know whether you're being blind or deliberately obtuse.
You say "not my problem" - again, another indicator (together with your "couldn't care less" who you annoy comment earlier) that you fail to understand that your actions impact on other cyclists. That makes it their problem. Do you think that's fair? What if that person (with boiling blood, due to your actions) actually takes it out on another cyclist? Do you think it's right (due to your actions) that comments sections on cyclists deaths regularly repeat the implied justification that said cyclist deserved it "because they all run red lights"?
And quite evidently there are "other reasons" - I've helpfully listed them! There are plenty of other reasons to behave - not aggravating other road users is a good one though, don't you think?
3 and 6 are not the same. You want respect for cyclists on the road? That does need to be earned, and serlfish moron RLJers undermine that respect.
As to point 4 - you may be a hero blessed with cat-like senses. I'm sure most people think the same, right up until they get it wrong. Ever made a mistake? Yes? Did you mean to? No? If they obeyed the light that risk is diminished to zero. Why risk it? You think no-one notices, but they do - they all see yet another bloody cyclist running another red. Bloody lycra louts!
5 - are you serious?
It is notable that you fail to outline why you should do it - instead you've complained that it's basically unfair because motorists get off and peds don't have any laws. That's hardly positive justification.
I've said before in this thread, it's pretty simple. If you RLJ, it makes us all look like tw*ts, even those who don't RLJ. Your actions have a negative impact on cycling as a whole. If you're happy to do that, then you are indeed a tw*t.
Edit - if it's a pootle pace, why not just stop? Or at least get off and walk through? it's not like I don't just repeat-scalp RLJers all day every day....0 -
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).
+1 to thisFine Headhuunter - you can RLJ, because you only do it when it is considerate and you are a good cyclist. And that bloke following you on the Litespeed can RLJ, because you do and because he has a nice bike and is a proper cyclist and is only going a little bit faster than you. And that bloke behind him can, he is on a specialised and going a little bit faster than that and he is going a bit closer to the car and that pedestrian, but its still safe. And that bloke on the BSO, well, he's going really quick and skimming the ped, but he's never had an accident in 10 years of commuting, so he's got to be safe too.
Don't be a fool. There is a subjective test - is there a red light? and there is an objective test - which is impossible to police.
And this. All this stuff about the law being an ass, and competent adults being able to make their own decisions is fine, but traffic lights, speed limits, protocol at roundabouts etc. all exist because people are often not capable of exercising good judgment. Yet at the same time everyone thinks they are the exception, that they shouldn't have to follow the rules like those other sheep, and it's those other idiots that cause the problems.
Cyclists get a hard enough time in this country as it is, why people would go out of their way to give the media/Daily Fail a huge stick to beat us with is beyond me.
I'm also astonished that anyone can say with a straight face that motorists RLJ just as much as cyclists. Granted I've never lived in London, but here in Brum I probably see a car run a red one or two times a week, whereas it's a virtual certainty that any cyclist I see approaching a red will run it.
And those motorists are probably using their superior judgement to decide it's OK for them to do it, so it is... right?0 -
Headhuunter wrote:iPete wrote:So its not about two wrongs don't make a right but a complaint about other people aka peds and drivers doing things wrong to justify your own actions? or have I missed something
As far as I'm concerned, if I can't comply with being a road user, I certainly can't moan about anyone else. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
No, I don't actually want peds to have to cross on green man only etc, I just want the same flexibility to be extended to cyclists. I don't see why it shouldn't be and no one has convinced me otherwise, other than to say "it's the law"...
For all the same reasons you cite for not allowing cars, busses and lorries to RLJ - manoeuvreability, visibility etc etc?
Why should cyclists be given the same flexibility? Cyclists and peds are as different as cyclists and cars - and you seem pretty keen to ensure that you're allowed to RLJ, but cars aren't....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?
12 - 1 this morning (and the one was a white van that may or may not have amber gambled - I couldn't see his light but he was in the way as my lights turned green).0 -
Ped xings are good to get a start over the traffic at some red lights if you have already stopped at the red light (but needless to say carefully).0
-
Would you go through a red light at a level crossing?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!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.
+10, This...
OT: I think you can tell a great deal about someone depending on how they regard authority. This is what seems to determine the two most polarised groups in discussions like these. I don't understand what joy or satisfaction some people get out of rabidly defending authority by going out of their way to outdo eachother's hatred of minor rule transgressors.
And again, for the record, I don't particularly endorse RLJ, I just think its ridiculous how much irrational hatred there is from some against people who do. "Its the law" and "What will drivers think?" are the two main arguments used by those who are particularly bilious to justify their hate. Neither of these are compelling enough for me to grab my pitchfork and light my torch.0 -
W1 wrote:Headhuunter wrote:iPete wrote:So its not about two wrongs don't make a right but a complaint about other people aka peds and drivers doing things wrong to justify your own actions? or have I missed something
As far as I'm concerned, if I can't comply with being a road user, I certainly can't moan about anyone else. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
No, I don't actually want peds to have to cross on green man only etc, I just want the same flexibility to be extended to cyclists. I don't see why it shouldn't be and no one has convinced me otherwise, other than to say "it's the law"...
For all the same reasons you cite for not allowing cars, busses and lorries to RLJ - manoeuvreability, visibility etc etc?
Why should cyclists be given the same flexibility? Cyclists and peds are as different as cyclists and cars - and you seem pretty keen to ensure that you're allowed to RLJ, but cars aren't....
No. I completely disagree. Cyclists have more in common with peds than they do with cars. A bike and rider weighs what? 100kg? A ped without bike wouldn't weigh much less. A bike is able to travel at up to around 20mph in busy London. A car weighs 2 tonnes ish (lorries and vans much more) of insulated sheet steel and glass able to travel at over 100mph in some cases (admittedly not in central London). They are far, far less manoevrable and far slower and more cumbersome in close quarters, in heavy traffic. No, peds and cyclists are alike, cyclists and motor vehicles are most definitely not. Cycles are essentially faster moving, wheeled pedestrians.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0
