RLJ - don't do it

W1

hstiles wrote:

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.

I'm afraid I don't agree with either point.

The lack of courtesy also includes enforcing the negaive stereotype of cycling by RLJing (in any form).

And I think that many new cyclists see other cyclists RLJing and presume it is somehow acceptable, being therefore a vicious circle.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

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.

Well thats cool, I can relate to that. I don't think theres anything particularly wrong with your perspective on RLJ, I just think you're being sanctimonious about it.

For all the talk about other people's dangerous riding, I'm sure that if any of us were riding together we'd get along fine. Perhaps the anti-RLJ brigade should try creating a thread on LFGSS. Plenty of lost souls there...

jds_1981

rjsterry wrote:

Ok, I'll bite. Two points:

1.

2.

1) - you can't & that's the main problem. Can attempt a standard DVLA "may pass through pedestrian lights slowly with due care and attention", then hammer down hard on anyone who doesn't.

2) - see other thread where RLJ got across safely, person waiting at lights got hit by van.

mroli

em1609 wrote:

I've cycled in london for the last 7 years and came to the following conclusions:
-some drivers will ALWAYS give you a hard time, RLJing or not. agreed - some people are just not very nice
-RLJing does reduce commute time significantly disagree massively. I have an 8 mile commute that takes me around 35 minutes in London. RLJing safely will knock at the very most 5 minutes off that - if I were to RLJ recklessly and dangerously
-90% of the traffic lights in london are useless, i.e. NO ONE is moving! this makes no sense - you have to have a safe "transition time" and RL are not a perfect situation.
-EVERYONE disobeys traffic laws, it's impossible not to. The most blatent example is speeding. It seems that it's ok for a car to drive at 35mph (in a 30mph zone) but it isn't for cycles to RLJ. Both are against the law yet one is deemed more outrageous. When cars decide to obey ALL the traffic laws then I will do the same. In the end they are the ones who pass the test etc... so they should set the example. Hang on - I think you may have missed the anti-speeding adverts on telly, the speed cameras etc etc. I like your rational though - when everyone else obeys the law, you will too. Hang on. What if THEY think like that too?
-Also, as a motorbike rider, i actually prefer when cyclist RLJ (if it's safe for them to do so) because i can then accelerate away from cars more safely. I'm guessing many drivers also share this opinion. I am a motorcycle rider too and actually I prefer cyclists not to RLJ, because there is less risk of me collecting one when I go through a green light and they RLJ. As for accelerating away from lights - generally I am on the RHS of the road and cyclists are on the LHS (which is as it should be), so there isn't an issue.
-Finally, to me commuting should be done so that it doesn't block others nor injure them. There are many instances when cyclists or motorists obey the law yet cause traffic jams (e.g. when a car decides to turn right but doesn't leave enough room for the traffic behind to proceed thus creating a traffic jam - legal but stupid)This isn't pro RLJing, this is just etiquette, the same way someone on a boris bike shouldn't pull up in front of you if you are quicker or become a danger to themselves or others. RLJing, if done properly, is safe AND faster...SCORE! Again - if done properly - who judges that? You? A policeman? It is subjective test and impossible to police.
quote]

jds_1981

W1 wrote:

And I think that many new cyclists see other cyclists RLJing and presume it is somehow acceptable, being therefore a vicious circle.

No, a glorious circle - when there are sufficient cyclists and enough of them do it the law will be changed

bigmat

rjsterry wrote:

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)?

1. No need, the existing laws aren't enforced. If the police caught me out, fair enough, but in reality they seem to accept that there is no great need to police the situation (I regularly see cyclists RLJ under the noses of the police and they aren't interested in the slightest - only risk is if there is a "sting" operation in place, or an over-zealous PCSO).

2. Main benefit is its quicker and avoids unnecessary stop / starts. Some red lights there is just no reason to stop at, other than the fact that the light is red. No pedestrians, no traffic, no possibility of either appearing out of nowhere. Its pure impatience on my part, I'll happily admit. But more to the point, if there is no good reason to stop (and for me a red light of itself is no good reason - its an indication that can be overridden) then I consider myself free to carry on. I don't always, but I like to have the freedom to do so if I choose. I'm not convinced by the "RLJ is safer" argument. That isn't my justification at all.

bigmat

mroli wrote:

em1609 wrote:

As for accelerating away from lights - generally I am on the RHS of the road and cyclists are on the LHS (which is as it should be), so there isn't an issue.

FAIL!

iPete

You know, the more bored I get by this thread (it kind of concluded 5 pages ago) the more I realise how much I'd miss the RLJ cyclists, I mean, who would I chase down? I'd have to schedule in some fartlek training sessions to compensate.

Clever Pun

not enough talk about the people rlj'ing and the correlation with helmet use

tailwindhome

Red Light Jumping is the equivalent of parking in a disabled space without having entitlement to do so.

It harms no one

Its faster and more convenient

I only do it if there's no disabled people around

I make personal choices which rules to follow rather that be dictated to be some convential 'authority'.

If I'm fined it's proof that the police have nothing better to do than generate revenue.


I'm frickin awesome me

bails87

I think RLJing is like smoking. Sure, you look cool for a while, but it makes you smell and eventually your teeth turn yellow.

rjsterry

MatHammond wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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)?

1. No need, the existing laws aren't enforced. If the police caught me out, fair enough, but in reality they seem to accept that there is no great need to police the situation (I regularly see cyclists RLJ under the noses of the police and they aren't interested in the slightest - only risk is if there is a "sting" operation in place, or an over-zealous PCSO).

2. Main benefit is its quicker and avoids unnecessary stop / starts. Some red lights there is just no reason to stop at, other than the fact that the light is red. No pedestrians, no traffic, no possibility of either appearing out of nowhere. Its pure impatience on my part, I'll happily admit. But more to the point, if there is no good reason to stop (and for me a red light of itself is no good reason - its an indication that can be overridden) then I consider myself free to carry on. I don't always, but I like to have the freedom to do so if I choose. I'm not convinced by the "RLJ is safer" argument. That isn't my justification at all.

Well we seem to have a different approach to laws (I don't see that I have any authority to decide which laws I'd like to abide by and which not - maybe I'm just too much of a goody two shoes), but I'm still not convinced that RLJing is that much quicker. On my 13+ mile commute, there are maybe a 4 or 5 sets of lights where it might be reasonable to jump a red without cutting up pedestrians or other traffic. Plus, I take great pleasure in chasing down RLJers, just to prove that it's not faster

mroli

MatHammond wrote:

mroli wrote:

em1609 wrote:

As for accelerating away from lights - generally I am on the RHS of the road and cyclists are on the LHS (which is as it should be), so there isn't an issue.

FAIL!

Sorry Mat - don't understand this. If I am riding mymotorbike, I don't ride up the inside of cars - if I filter, I filter round the outside of standing traffic. GENERALLY, cyclists are on the inside of traffic - as that is where the bike lanes are and slow moving traffic generally moves to the left. In relation to ASLs, yes bikes can be anywhere across the road, but in practice, they tend to gather on the left. Therefore when lights change, I tend not to have cyclists in front of me and it makes no difference whether they RLJ or not? Maybe my words "(which is as it should be)" caused confusion - this was intended to apply more to me riding my motorbike and not sticking it into the front of ASLs or cycle lanes.

tailwindhome

bails87 wrote:

I think RLJing is like smoking. Sure, you look cool for a while, but it makes you smell and eventually your teeth turn yellow.

No

It's more like invading Russia in the Winter; seems big, seems clever but may not end well.

mroli

TailWindHome wrote:

It's more like invading Russia in the Winter; seems big, seems clever but may not end well.

And encourages others to do it??!!

bigmat

It's not that much quicker which is why I don't usually bother. You'd never chase me down though, just like I don't chase down a lot of people who RLJ past me.

bigmat

mroli wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

mroli wrote:

em1609 wrote:

As for accelerating away from lights - generally I am on the RHS of the road and cyclists are on the LHS (which is as it should be), so there isn't an issue.

FAIL!

Sorry Mat - don't understand this. If I am riding mymotorbike, I don't ride up the inside of cars - if I filter, I filter round the outside of standing traffic. GENERALLY, cyclists are on the inside of traffic - as that is where the bike lanes are and slow moving traffic generally moves to the left. In relation to ASLs, yes bikes can be anywhere across the road, but in practice, they tend to gather on the left. Therefore when lights change, I tend not to have cyclists in front of me and it makes no difference whether they RLJ or not? Maybe my words "(which is as it should be)" caused confusion - this was intended to apply more to me riding my motorbike and not sticking it into the front of ASLs or cycle lanes.

Ah OK, yes it sounds like your mbike riding is "as it should be", I don't believe cyclists should necessarily be on the left though - or on the right, or in the middle. That depends on all sorts of things.

W1

MatHammond wrote:

2. Main benefit is its quicker and avoids unnecessary stop / starts. Some red lights there is just no reason to stop at, other than the fact that the light is red. No pedestrians, no traffic, no possibility of either appearing out of nowhere. Its pure impatience on my part, I'll happily admit. But more to the point, if there is no good reason to stop (and for me a red light of itself is no good reason - its an indication that can be overridden) then I consider myself free to carry on. I don't always, but I like to have the freedom to do so if I choose. I'm not convinced by the "RLJ is safer" argument. That isn't my justification at all.

Excellent, I'll use those arguments to ignore red lights in my car too.

Let's hope I never make a mistake, eh?

jds_1981

W1 wrote:

Excellent, I'll use those arguments to ignore red lights in my car too.

Let's hope I never make a mistake, eh?

TBH, I'm fine with that. I suspect you wouldn't get away with it for too long though.

rjsterry

MatHammond wrote:

It's not that much quicker which is why I don't usually bother. You'd never chase me down though, just like I don't chase down a lot of people who RLJ past me.

Ooooooh.

I'm unlikely ever to be going the same way as you, and your RP TT results suggest this to be true, but it wouldn't stop me trying

DonDaddyD

OK i'll bite,

RLJing has to remain illegal. In London, specifically the Wimbledon to London Bridge, Southwark Bridge and City area, given the number of cyclists if they decided to make it OK for cyclists to RLJ there would be nothing but blood and carnage. You might as well turn all the traffic lights off altogether. That wouldn't work would it?

Traffic lights are there for a reason, they regulate and control traffic flow. They make using the road system safer and should be observed and respected at all times.

But seriously, if it happens one time at a remote crossing on a straight road, with no side roads and there is hardly anyone around and no one planning to cross. If it happens there, the person is on a bike and the potential risk and potential damage is completely different, in the grand scheme of crime does it really matter?

Should we divert police resources to this epic social cancer threatening our way of life? Jeez. :roll:

Kazz_uk

TailWindHome wrote:

No

It's more like invading Russia in the Winter; seems big, seems clever but may not end well.

True.

It almost ended for cyclist who was going in the other direction last night at a junction. Our light was on red and the road cutting across had just went from amber to red.
Of course he just jumped it, but so did a car going across us. Uhh, the sound of screeching tyres goes right through me, not sure how the driver didn't hit him, was a good swerve.

When the cyclist had finished sh*ting himself, he rode passed me staring like I was the numpty :? .

supersonic

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.

You missed my point - it is about judgement. If you can judge an RLJ, why can't a motorist judge when the roads are 'safe' and when to break laws?

_Brun_

The only reason motorists don't judge when they can sneak through a red light more than they do already is because the penalties are relatively harsh. If it was the same £60 fine that cyclists face, they'd be at it all the time.

They don't give a crap about respect for the law, just the potential for endorsements on their license.

ndru

They don't give a crap about respect for the law, just the potential for endorsements on their license.

Penalties are one way of making people respect the law. Peer pressure is much better though.

notsoblue

ndru wrote:

They don't give a crap about respect for the law, just the potential for endorsements on their license.

Penalties are one way of making people respect the law. Peer pressure is much better though.

lol! Peer pressure? Giving withering looks to people you see RLJ? Tutting? Disapproving posts in threads about RLJ on biking forums?

ndru

Sometimes even raising an eyebrow suffices.

shm_uk

What the ???!!!

Is this thread still going ?

Sorry, I've been out bangin my head against a brick wall.
(Well, it achieves the same thing as this bloomin' thread, i.e. notihng)

dhope

notsoblue wrote:

ndru wrote:

They don't give a crap about respect for the law, just the potential for endorsements on their license.

Penalties are one way of making people respect the law. Peer pressure is much better though.

lol! Peer pressure? Giving withering looks to people you see RLJ? Tutting? Disapproving posts in threads about RLJ on biking forums?

Sure, why not? Stopped me RLJing when I startd commuting a couple of months ago. Would casually sail through the lights before, not because it got me anywhere faster but just because it was easier not to bother slowing down and looked like it'd probably be safe. I'm a changed man though, and I blame this forum and the opportunity to feel a bit holier than though every now and then. Jesus didn't RLJ you know. He also rode fixed. Is this thread still going?

roger_merriman

shm_uk wrote:

What the ???!!!

Is this thread still going ?

Sorry, I've been out bangin my head against a brick wall.
(Well, it achieves the same thing as this bloomin' thread, i.e. notihng)

what about helmets while on a hybrid?.........