RLJ - don't do it
Comments
-
also in your post you mentioned that RLJing gives cyclists a bad name. I really wish that was the case. Unfortunately after 2 months of trying to be a perfect cyclist, cars still brushed past me when the lights turned green. I failed to notice any form of improvement. I really admire u lot stopping at all the red lights, i tried to do that but had to give up in the end when someone on a mountain bike was constantly overtaking me at the lights despite being clearly slower than me on the straights (guess i've got an extreme form of SCR!).
This is a bit of illogical thinking. One person on a bicycle not RLJing will not change the attitude of drivers in 2 months. I takes a large percentage of the cyclists who don't RLJ to change it. If you RLJ do not blame it on others who do.0 -
ndru wrote:This is a bit of illogical thinking. One person on a bicycle not RLJing will not change the attitude of drivers in 2 months. I takes a large percentage of the cyclists who don't RLJ to change it. If you RLJ do not blame it on others who do.
Are you suggesting that if all cyclists stopped RLJing that drivers in general would be more considerate towards them? Tosh.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
If you're bored of all this there's a helmet debate over in Commuting Boring Forum which is crying out for some statistical analysis.
Where's Always Tyred when you need him?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
jds_1981 wrote:ndru wrote:This is a bit of illogical thinking. One person on a bicycle not RLJing will not change the attitude of drivers in 2 months. I takes a large percentage of the cyclists who don't RLJ to change it. If you RLJ do not blame it on others who do.
Are you suggesting that if all cyclists stopped RLJing that drivers in general would be more considerate towards them? Tosh.
If no cyclists RLJ'd would motorists use RLJing in order to criticise cyclists? Of course not.
It's all been said before and we're going round in circles. But if you want bikes to have a legitimacy on the road then cyclists need to be more considerate to other road users too. That includes not RLJing. Now I know that all the pro RLJers on here only cross reds in the middle of nowhere, at night, having stopped already to calculate safety margins and having carried out a 100 point risk assessment et etc and are perfect. But setting a bad example to other cyclists means that a number of RLJers actually blast through junctions or pedestrian crossings.
It's simply a matter of coutesy and respect (which we as cyclist expect from others). That isn't just from motorists - as is evident from this thread (and the SCR thread) RLJing also annoys other cyclists too.
Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?0 -
W1 wrote:Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?
Why should I care about the "anti-cycling movement"?0 -
W1 wrote:jds_1981 wrote:Are you suggesting that if all cyclists stopped RLJing that drivers in general would be more considerate towards them? Tosh.
If no cyclists RLJ'd would motorists use RLJing in order to criticise cyclists? Of course not.
So you agree that cyclists not RLJing wouldn't make drivers in general more considerate towards cyclists?FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
You can jump the lights in different ways. I openly admit to slowing down for red lights, creeping up to the junction ro crossign and if there's nothing coming, stealing a few sneaky seconds on the traffic and crossing. Likewise, if I approach a pedestrian crossing that's on red and everyone has crossed and there's clearly no one about to dash across, I'll keep going before the flashing amber light.
However, that's a world of difference to the kind of arsehole I frequently encounter on the bike that sails straight through red lights, glaring at cars that might be daring to cross, or nearly taking out pedestrians on a crossing and - this is the charming bit - shouting "Go f*ck yourself" or some other epithet of wisdom when said pedestrian has the temerity to shout "Oi" or "The light's red"0 -
jds_1981 wrote:W1 wrote:jds_1981 wrote:Are you suggesting that if all cyclists stopped RLJing that drivers in general would be more considerate towards them? Tosh.
If no cyclists RLJ'd would motorists use RLJing in order to criticise cyclists? Of course not.
So you agree that cyclists not RLJing wouldn't make drivers in general more considerate towards cyclists?
I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.0 -
If no-one RLJed, then no-one would accuse cyclist of RLJing.
Now if there are so many proRLJ cyclists you can successfully lobby for a change in the law. Perhaps for bicycles red light = STOP sign plus free left turn? I'd sign a petition like that.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?
Why should I care about the "anti-cycling movement"?
Wow. I know it's early, but still.....
I would gently suggest that you should care because you're a cyclist? Though if you only care about yourself, and not other cyclists too, then I can see why you think RLJing is acceptable.0 -
hstiles wrote:You can jump the lights in different ways. I openly admit to slowing down for red lights, creeping up to the junction ro crossign and if there's nothing coming, stealing a few sneaky seconds on the traffic and crossing. Likewise, if I approach a pedestrian crossing that's on red and everyone has crossed and there's clearly no one about to dash across, I'll keep going before the flashing amber light.
However, that's a world of difference to the kind of arsehole I frequently encounter on the bike that sails straight through red lights, glaring at cars that might be daring to cross, or nearly taking out pedestrians on a crossing and - this is the charming bit - shouting "Go f*ck yourself" or some other epithet of wisdom when said pedestrian has the temerity to shout "Oi" or "The light's red"
There's not actually a huge world of difference at all (at least not legally speaking). If you (and others) didn't jump red lights, do you think less perfect cyclists would also RLJ or not? Or do you think new cyclists see RLJing (in whatever form) as part of cycling "culture" as so many do it, and can justify their own poor riding in that way?0 -
W1 wrote:jds_1981 wrote:W1 wrote:jds_1981 wrote:Are you suggesting that if all cyclists stopped RLJing that drivers in general would be more considerate towards them? Tosh.
If no cyclists RLJ'd would motorists use RLJing in order to criticise cyclists? Of course not.
So you agree that cyclists not RLJing wouldn't make drivers in general more considerate towards cyclists?
I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.
Ah, so you think that if cyclist didn't RLJ then drivers would in general become more considerate towards them?FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
jds_1981 wrote:W1 wrote:jds_1981 wrote:W1 wrote:jds_1981 wrote:Are you suggesting that if all cyclists stopped RLJing that drivers in general would be more considerate towards them? Tosh.
If no cyclists RLJ'd would motorists use RLJing in order to criticise cyclists? Of course not.
So you agree that cyclists not RLJing wouldn't make drivers in general more considerate towards cyclists?
I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.
Ah, so you think that if cyclist didn't RLJ then drivers would in general become more considerate towards them?
Again, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from what I said. You're obviously trying to make a point - why not just make it?
If we are speaking in general terms then I think that cyclists would be in a better position to argue for their legitimacy to be on the roads if cyclists themselves obeyed the rules of the road. That includes obeying red lights.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?
Why should I care about the "anti-cycling movement"?
Wow. I know it's early, but still.....
I would gently suggest that you should care because you're a cyclist? Though if you only care about yourself, and not other cyclists too, then I can see why you think RLJing is acceptable.
Seriously though, who are the "anti-cycling movement"? Are you referring to the kind of people who post on forums and phone into radio shows demanding that cyclists only use cycle paths, should pay "road tax" and only have themselves to blame when they get killed on the road? The kind of people who overtake closely and hound cyclists that cycle two abreast on a wide road honking their horn and shouting abuse? Is this the "anti-cycling movement"?
Because if it is, I don't care what these people think. Their opinion is hateful. irrational and isn't at all linked to the bad behaviour of other people who ride bikes. And no amount of cowed obedience from me or you, or anyone else reading this is going to change the fact that they're c*nts.
And before you try and counter all I've said by claiming that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not pro-rlj, or anti-rlj, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I just think all this pious "you're spoiling it for the rest of us with your reckless immoral behaviour" gets us nowhere.0 -
em1609 wrote:Many would say that being on the phone is while driving, or doing 50mph in a 40 zone (That reduces time too) is safe... If done properly ;-). Or to be honest many other things that are against the law.
Yep, speeding can be safe in certain places and personally i have nothing against it. However talking on the phone whilst driving is dangerous simply because the driver is no longer 100% focused. The majority of accidents are caused by distractions (oh and btw this is a fact, it's a shame that i can't find the exact figure), NOT by speeding and likewise NOT by RLJing.
).
Wrong.
Speeding is the single largest factor in fatal accidents, and it is never a victimless crime.
There does not have to be someone killed or put in a wheelchair for speeding to ne aggressive, anti-social and bullying.
Speeding intimidates vulnerable road users. It's noisy, it divides communities, and it's against the law. Breaking the law is anti-social.
And cyclists who jump lights are muppets, they make it harder for the rest of us.0 -
Excellent post. +1, as we say round here.notsoblue wrote:Seriously though, who are the "anti-cycling movement"? Are you referring to the kind of people who post on forums and phone into radio shows demanding that cyclists only use cycle paths, should pay "road tax" and only have themselves to blame when they get killed on the road? The kind of people who overtake closely and hound cyclists that cycle two abreast on a wide road honking their horn and shouting abuse? Is this the "anti-cycling movement"?
Because if it is, I don't care what these people think. Their opinion is hateful. irrational and isn't at all linked to the bad behaviour of other people who ride bikes. And no amount of cowed obedience from me or you, or anyone else reading this is going to change the fact that they're c*nts.
And before you try and counter all I've said by claiming that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not pro-rlj, or anti-rlj, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I just think all this pious "you're spoiling it for the rest of us with your reckless immoral behaviour" gets us nowhere.0 -
W1 wrote:
Again, I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from what I said. You're obviously trying to make a point - why not just make it?
If we are speaking in general terms then I think that cyclists would be in a better position to argue for their legitimacy to be on the roads if cyclists themselves obeyed the rules of the road. That includes obeying red lights.
I was trying to ascertain what your opinion was on it & how it then related to your statement about legitimacy. TBH I'm surprised that someone with an opinion on 'legitimacy' doesn't have an opinion on whether certain actions which would supposedly gain cyclists legitimacy would then make drivers more courteous towards cyclists.
Please then see notsoblue's post.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?
Why should I care about the "anti-cycling movement"?
Wow. I know it's early, but still.....
I would gently suggest that you should care because you're a cyclist? Though if you only care about yourself, and not other cyclists too, then I can see why you think RLJing is acceptable.
Seriously though, who are the "anti-cycling movement"? Are you referring to the kind of people who post on forums and phone into radio shows demanding that cyclists only use cycle paths, should pay "road tax" and only have themselves to blame when they get killed on the road? The kind of people who overtake closely and hound cyclists that cycle two abreast on a wide road honking their horn and shouting abuse? Is this the "anti-cycling movement"?
Because if it is, I don't care what these people think. Their opinion is hateful. irrational and isn't at all linked to the bad behaviour of other people who ride bikes. And no amount of cowed obedience from me or you, or anyone else reading this is going to change the fact that they're c*nts.
And before you try and counter all I've said by claiming that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not pro-rlj, or anti-rlj, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I just think all this pious "you're spoiling it for the rest of us with your reckless immoral behaviour" gets us nowhere.
But do you think your ambivalence gets us anywhere either?
I refer to all people who dislike cyclists and cycling - and yes, that does include the mouth breather morons, but also includes rational, normal people who witness bad, dangerous and anti-social cycling every day and as a result have no respect or particular consideration for cyclists. They won't go out of their way to injure someone, but equally they won't agree with (or understand, or vote for) someone who is pro-cycling which - as I would like to think most people on here would agree - is not good for cyclists as a whole, nor for the continuing promotion of cycling. You should care what they think because the current state of affairs is that cycling gets half hearted funding and priority and if we want that changed we ought to keep our house in order.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Wrong.
Speeding is the single largest factor in fatal accidents, and it is never a victimless crime.
There does not have to be someone killed or put in a wheelchair for speeding to ne aggressive, anti-social and bullying.
Speeding intimidates vulnerable road users. It's noisy, it divides communities, and it's against the law. Breaking the law is anti-social.
And cyclists who jump lights are muppets, they make it harder for the rest of us.
Hmm, I'm obviously in an argumentative mood today.
1) you could easily change 'speeding' to 'traveling quicky; in the above statement and it would read as true
2) "Breaking the law is anti-social." - probably the most stupid statement I've seen so far this week.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
Other road users would legitimately expect other road users to obey the law.
There isn't a road in this country where anyone can categorically say they will encounter no other road user or unexpected hazard. Speeding, in the sense of breaking the limit or too fast for the conditions, say 30mph in a 30mph limit past a school in the rain, is recklessly stupid.
the only possible way you could confidently state that your speeding bothered nobody would be to go back along the road you sped along and ask everyone else if your behaviour intimidated or annoyed them.
Just get out of bed earlier, there's no excuse for using the roads as your own personal racetrack because you over slept.
Speed cameras, chicanes, speed bumps etc are there because of drivers too stupid or arrogant to think the law should apply to them.0 -
bails87 wrote:My 15 miles commute (soon to be started) will involve a total of 0 traffic lights. There is a lollypop man though, should I jump him instead?
I would think it would be polite to at least buy him a drink first?FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?
Why should I care about the "anti-cycling movement"?
Wow. I know it's early, but still.....
I would gently suggest that you should care because you're a cyclist? Though if you only care about yourself, and not other cyclists too, then I can see why you think RLJing is acceptable.
Seriously though, who are the "anti-cycling movement"? Are you referring to the kind of people who post on forums and phone into radio shows demanding that cyclists only use cycle paths, should pay "road tax" and only have themselves to blame when they get killed on the road? The kind of people who overtake closely and hound cyclists that cycle two abreast on a wide road honking their horn and shouting abuse? Is this the "anti-cycling movement"?
Because if it is, I don't care what these people think. Their opinion is hateful. irrational and isn't at all linked to the bad behaviour of other people who ride bikes. And no amount of cowed obedience from me or you, or anyone else reading this is going to change the fact that they're c*nts.
And before you try and counter all I've said by claiming that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not pro-rlj, or anti-rlj, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I just think all this pious "you're spoiling it for the rest of us with your reckless immoral behaviour" gets us nowhere.
But do you think your ambivalence gets us anywhere either?
I refer to all people who dislike cyclists and cycling - and yes, that does include the mouth breather morons, but also includes rational, normal people who witness bad, dangerous and anti-social cycling every day and as a result have no respect or particular consideration for cyclists. They won't go out of their way to injure someone, but equally they won't agree with (or understand, or vote for) someone who is pro-cycling which - as I would like to think most people on here would agree - is not good for cyclists as a whole, nor for the continuing promotion of cycling. You should care what they think because the current state of affairs is that cycling gets half hearted funding and priority and if we want that changed we ought to keep our house in order.
My ambivalence doesn't get "us" anywhere, but then I don't claim that it can. I'm just being pragmatic.
You and I have very different ideas of what "rational" means. Someone who witnesses RLJ, and then uses this as the baseline view of all cyclists, and then allows this to have a negative influence on what cycle provision they think there should be - isn't thinking rationally in my view.
Also, you keep saying "we" and "us" and "our house", I assume you mean the incredibly broad and diverse group of people that use bikes. From Bradley Wiggins to a kid on estate in Bradford, from Danny McAskill to my nan and all the occasional weekend riders and daily commuters, and hipsters and boris bike riders..... If you're expecting unity and group accountability from "cyclists" then you're only ever going to be disappointed and frustrated.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:there's no excuse for using the roads as your own personal racetrack
+1 - mods, lock the SCR thread NOW!!!!!
Seriously, this thread is great - normally there are only a couple of pro-RLJ posters (I'm not actually "pro" RLJ, I just feel the sanctimonious anti movement needs to be opposed) but on this one they are increasingly in the majority. It normally ends up with one lone voice being accused of being a troll, generally abused and then getting banned when they fight back...
I imagine most of the people who normally make measured comments against RLJ have just gone outside to watch the grass grow or something similarly more interesting though.0 -
MatHammond wrote:
Seriously, this thread is great - normally there are only a couple of pro-RLJ posters (I'm not actually "pro" RLJ, I just feel the sanctimonious anti movement needs to be opposed) but on this one they are increasingly in the majority.
No, they aren't.0 -
I suspect most RLJers don't give a damn what a few cyclists on this thread thinks and are probably working hard right now
This morning about 30 cyclists went through the crossroads I was waiting at (while pedestrian lights were on. I thought it great that so many people cycled.FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
MatHammond wrote:I imagine most of the people who normally make measured comments against RLJ have just gone outside to watch the grass grow or something similarly more interesting though.
I think that we are desperately breaking our own fingers whenever tempted to post on the subject.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Still none of the pro RLJers have come up with any convincing reason why they should do it, whilst there are a number of reasons why they shouldn't. Why gift so easily the anti-cycling movement any more mud to throw?
Why should I care about the "anti-cycling movement"?
Wow. I know it's early, but still.....
I would gently suggest that you should care because you're a cyclist? Though if you only care about yourself, and not other cyclists too, then I can see why you think RLJing is acceptable.
Seriously though, who are the "anti-cycling movement"? Are you referring to the kind of people who post on forums and phone into radio shows demanding that cyclists only use cycle paths, should pay "road tax" and only have themselves to blame when they get killed on the road? The kind of people who overtake closely and hound cyclists that cycle two abreast on a wide road honking their horn and shouting abuse? Is this the "anti-cycling movement"?
Because if it is, I don't care what these people think. Their opinion is hateful. irrational and isn't at all linked to the bad behaviour of other people who ride bikes. And no amount of cowed obedience from me or you, or anyone else reading this is going to change the fact that they're c*nts.
And before you try and counter all I've said by claiming that two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not pro-rlj, or anti-rlj, I'm pretty ambivalent about it. I just think all this pious "you're spoiling it for the rest of us with your reckless immoral behaviour" gets us nowhere.
But do you think your ambivalence gets us anywhere either?
I refer to all people who dislike cyclists and cycling - and yes, that does include the mouth breather morons, but also includes rational, normal people who witness bad, dangerous and anti-social cycling every day and as a result have no respect or particular consideration for cyclists. They won't go out of their way to injure someone, but equally they won't agree with (or understand, or vote for) someone who is pro-cycling which - as I would like to think most people on here would agree - is not good for cyclists as a whole, nor for the continuing promotion of cycling. You should care what they think because the current state of affairs is that cycling gets half hearted funding and priority and if we want that changed we ought to keep our house in order.
My ambivalence doesn't get "us" anywhere, but then I don't claim that it can. I'm just being pragmatic.
You and I have very different ideas of what "rational" means. Someone who witnesses RLJ, and then uses this as the baseline view of all cyclists, and then allows this to have a negative influence on what cycle provision they think there should be - isn't thinking rationally in my view.
Also, you keep saying "we" and "us" and "our house", I assume you mean the incredibly broad and diverse group of people that use bikes. From Bradley Wiggins to a kid on estate in Bradford, from Danny McAskill to my nan and all the occasional weekend riders and daily commuters, and hipsters and boris bike riders..... If you're expecting unity and group accountability from "cyclists" then you're only ever going to be disappointed and frustrated.
Whether or not you or I think or agree on their rationality isn't the point.
And yes, I include the broad spectrum of cyclists. The unity and group accountability is formed from being bound by the same rules of the road as everyone else - don't forget, the motoring world is also pretty diverse and they are equally bound.
What is frustrating is that even those who on the surface don't appear to be ignorant, introspective morons try and legitimise RLJing for their own personal gain to others' cost.
Also being pragmatic, I don't think this thread will stop anyone from RLJing - but at least it gives them another perspective as to their actions.0 -
W1 wrote:There's not actually a huge world of difference at all (at least not legally speaking). If you (and others) didn't jump red lights, do you think less perfect cyclists would also RLJ or not? Or do you think new cyclists see RLJing (in whatever form) as part of cycling "culture" as so many do it, and can justify their own poor riding in that way?
I readily accept that technically/legally there's not a jot of difference between the different types of behaviour, but there's a world of difference in terms of courtesy towards other people, etc...
I don't think that it has anything to do with cycling culture, I just think it's another manifestation of the selfish attitude you see throughout modern society.0 -
Ok, I'll bite. Two points:
1. If, as someone suggested the law on cyclists passing red lights is 'an ass' could one of the pro RLJers come up with a way that a law could be worded such that it would allow 'safe' RLJing, but still prohibit razzing across a busy ped crossing or junction?
2. Nobody has convinced me of any great benefit from RLJing you save maybe 30 seconds to a couple of minutes on your journey (after all, it's not every light that can be jumped), and I've also yet to be convinced that leaving a junction 10 seconds early, only to be passed by the same traffic that would have passed you further back improves your safety in any way. So is the real reason for RLJing just impatience (much as it is with other vehicles)?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
