RLJing for safety

Drysuitdiver

have you a google map link to the junction Johnny.

can't seem to find one on here. would like to see the Junction

sketchley

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&sug ... a=N&tab=wl

A23 heading south where it crosses the A202

As I've said before I went through it last week, but not at 11pm.

I can see JT's point a little about this junction it not been designed for cyclist. I would also argue that it's not been designed for motorist either, both would benefit for the lights to moved to where the A23 meets to A202. The lights are where they are for the benefit of pedestrians cross from Oval Tube in to Kennington Park as holding the traffic back here means they do not have to walk to end just to come back.

I think it's perfectly safe to ride the junction if you take primary between the two lanes in the ASL. Only a complete muppet would try and left hook you from the right hand lane and it's very unlikely someone from the left lane would try and go round you if you are that far out and clearly leaving them room on inside. There are also a couple of other ways to avoid completely if it's that bad at 11pm.

beverick

Sketchley wrote:

The law currently says you should stop at red light. Therefor you should stop even if not the saftest option for you at the time. Doesn't mean the law is correct. Stop Give Way Go maybe appropriate in some circumstances, see below article with Boris' opinion a few years back which also higlights that being legally allowed to jump red light when turning left might cut down on HGV deaths.

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

No the law says you MUST stop at a red light - it is not optional.

My cousin was charged and convicted with running a red light in a car when he crossed the red line to avoid a stolen car being persued by the police. His solicitor told him he had no option to but to plead guilty and submit the above reasons as mitigation against a conviction (he'd been caught by an enforcement camera).

He received a fixed penalty although his conviction was eventually overturned on appeal.

Bob

sketchley

beverick wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The law currently says you should stop at red light. Therefor you should stop even if not the saftest option for you at the time. Doesn't mean the law is correct. Stop Give Way Go maybe appropriate in some circumstances, see below article with Boris' opinion a few years back which also higlights that being legally allowed to jump red light when turning left might cut down on HGV deaths.

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

No the law says you MUST stop at a red light - it is not optional.

My cousin was charged and convicted with running a red light in a car when he crossed the red line to avoid a stolen car being persued by the police. His solicitor told him he had no option to but to plead guilty and submit the above reasons as mitigation against a conviction (he'd been caught by an enforcement camera).

He received a fixed penalty although his conviction was eventually overturned on appeal.

Bob

Bob – I don’t mean to be impolite but which part of “The law currently says you should stop at red light” did you not get?

And in case you are picking me up on the use of the word should

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Should

3.
must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.

Drysuitdiver

actually Bob the Law says MUST not should or should not. there is a difference in LAW regardless of what the OED definition says.

this is to stop smart ass defence teams using it as a lever .

should implies there is a choice of doing something. MUST is definitive.

sketchley

Drysuitdiver wrote:

actually Bob the Law says MUST not should or should not. there is a difference in LAW regardless of what the OED definition says.

this is to stop smart ass defence teams using it as a lever .

should implies there is a choice of doing something. MUST is definitive.

Even if I accept your point that "there is a difference in law between "should" and "must" regardless of what the OED says". I am not a smart arse lawyer and we are not in court; the context of my original message is clear and I was not implying choice, unless that is you are a smart arse lawyer looking to score a cheap point.

Maybe I shouldn't feed the trolls....

jonny_trousers

Well I half RLJ'd that junction again last night and, man, it felt good! It was like snorting coke off a thousand dollar hooker's ass.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Well I half RLJ'd that junction again last night and, man, it felt good! It was like snorting coke off a thousand dollar hooker's ass.

Have you ever done that?

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Well I half RLJ'd that junction again last night and, man, it felt good! It was like snorting coke off a thousand dollar hooker's ass.

Have you ever done that?

Alas no. But the night is still young...

EKE_38BPM

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Well I half RLJ'd that junction again last night and, man, it felt good! It was like snorting coke off a thousand dollar hooker's ass.

Have you ever done that?

Who hasn't? Some people lead really sheltered lives.

W1

EKE_38BPM wrote:

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Well I half RLJ'd that junction again last night and, man, it felt good! It was like snorting coke off a thousand dollar hooker's ass.

Have you ever done that?

Who hasn't? Some people lead really sheltered lives.

Exactly. But there are a lot of internet wannabes out there.

Drysuitdiver

Sketchley wrote:

Drysuitdiver wrote:

actually Bob the Law says MUST not should or should not. there is a difference in LAW regardless of what the OED definition says.

this is to stop smart ass defence teams using it as a lever .

should implies there is a choice of doing something. MUST is definitive.

Even if I accept your point that "there is a difference in law between "should" and "must" regardless of what the OED says". I am not a smart ars* lawyer and we are not in court; the context of my original message is clear and I was not implying choice, unless that is you are a smart ars* lawyer looking to score a cheap point.

Maybe I shouldn't feed the trolls....

oooh touched a nerve have I.

i suggest you read the relevant law it quite implicitly states MUST .

not a troll but you do seem to be evenly balanced with a chip on both shoulders

jonny_trousers

Last two days I've noticed that at pretty much every junction I have pulled up at where the lights have been on red (I actually stop at all but one of them) there has been a motor vehicle stopped in the ASL (there was a police car in one this afternoon), thus blocking my chances of positioning myself safely. It's annoying as hell, but I don't use their poor driving as justification for me ranting and raving, or behaving aggressively towards all motorists. I therefore further reject the hypothesis that a cyclist RLJing is indirectly responsible for a small number of drivers having an aggressive attitude towards all cyclists. Dicks will find any excuse to be dicks, plain and simple.

jonny_trousers

And another thing... there's no need to own up, but I wonder how many of you who are dead against RLJing under any circumstance will use your excellent knowledge of light phases to set off just as they begin to turn. You know what I mean: you know with absolute certainty that you have exactly four seconds after the pedestrian crossing turns to red before you get your amber. You've ridden that junction a thousand times and it has always been that way. So, you get on the pedals, clip in and gently roll forwards as you look up at the lights in anticipaton. Then bam! your front wheel crosses that white line a milisecond before it's your turn to go. You are an RLJer my friend and will join me in hell.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Last two days I've noticed that at pretty much every junction I have pulled up at where the lights have been on red (I actually stop at all but one of them) there has been a motor vehicle stopped in the ASL (there was a police car in one this afternoon), thus blocking my chances of positioning myself safely. It's annoying as hell, but I don't use their poor driving as justification for me ranting and raving, or behaving aggressively towards all motorists. I therefore further reject the hypothesis that a cyclist RLJing is indirectly responsible for a small number of drivers having an aggressive attitude towards all cyclists. Dicks will find any excuse to be dicks, plain and simple.

I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself until you're blue in the face, even in light of a number of people giving you perfectly good, sensible and practical advice relating to the very junction you're complaining about. Your only justification for not using the pedetrian crossing is that it's "silly", and with that you somewhat undermine your "safety" argument....

Yeah, why not give the dicks their excuses? If they're going to be dicks anyway you might as well run every light you can and save yourself a few seconds. And ride down the pavements too, if that's easier for you.

daviesee

W1 - have you not realised that he is just trying to keep his own thread going.

Don't feed the trolls. Doh! Fail. See, you made me do it

gaz545

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I therefore further reject the hypothesis that a cyclist RLJing is indirectly responsible for a small number of drivers having an aggressive attitude towards all cyclists. Dicks will find any excuse to be dicks, plain and simple.

That is deffinetly true, but not a reason to do it.

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

And another thing... there's no need to own up, but I wonder how many of you who are dead against RLJing under any circumstance will use your excellent knowledge of light phases to set off just as they begin to turn. You know what I mean: you know with absolute certainty that you have exactly four seconds after the pedestrian crossing turns to red before you get your amber. You've ridden that junction a thousand times and it has always been that way. So, you get on the pedals, clip in and gently roll forwards as you look up at the lights in anticipaton. Then bam! your front wheel crosses that white line a milisecond before it's your turn to go. You are an RLJer my friend and will join me in hell.

Why aren't you or others track standing?

hatbeard

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

And another thing... there's no need to own up, but I wonder how many of you who are dead against RLJing under any circumstance will use your excellent knowledge of light phases to set off just as they begin to turn. You know what I mean: you know with absolute certainty that you have exactly four seconds after the pedestrian crossing turns to red before you get your amber. You've ridden that junction a thousand times and it has always been that way. So, you get on the pedals, clip in and gently roll forwards as you look up at the lights in anticipaton. Then bam! your front wheel crosses that white line a milisecond before it's your turn to go. You are an RLJer my friend and will join me in hell.

but I only do it for my own safety!

there's a man with a sniper rifle who once told me if I didn't roll slightly over the line at every junction just before the lights changed then one day he'd be watching and would shoot me. i don't know if it's true or not but safety first!

jonny_trousers

daviesee wrote:

W1 - have you not realised that he is just trying to keep his own thread going.

Don't feed the trolls. Doh! Fail. See, you made me do it

So I'm a troll because I want to express my opinion on this matter? Um, ok then.

I love the fact that me trying to justify my thinking is considered wrong. Am I missing something or isn't that what you're meant to do in a discussion?

jonny_trousers

I just thought I'd finish this one off by saying that I have relented. I still think that particular junction is very badly designed for the cyclist; I still think semi-RLJing it is a safer option than staying put, but I also now agree that I should seek an alternative route rather than routinely putting myself in danger or RLJing. Of course, I will sneak through the very occasional red light when it falls over in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, but let's face it, we all do that, don't we? As indiscriminate RLJers do annoy me, I have decided, on reflection, that I should not be a hypocrite as alternative routes are available to me.

For what it's worth, I was always open to persuasion in this thread and the considered, respectful reasoning of a few of you guys (Sketchley stands out) is what has caused me to come to my present conclusion and not the accusatory, RLJers-only-ever-do-it-to-save-time-and-if-they-say-they-don't-then-they-are-liars responses only really got my back up. Might be worth bearing that in mind if ever someone else needs persuading that RLJing is not the way to go.

Anyway, thanks for all the input.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

For what it's worth, I was always open to persuasion in this thread and the considered, respectful reasoning of a few of you guys (Sketchley stands out) is what has caused me to come to my present conclusion and not the accusatory, RLJers-only-ever-do-it-to-save-time-and-if-they-say-they-don't-then-they-are-liars responses only really got my back up. Might be worth bearing that in mind if ever someone else needs persuading that RLJing is not the way to go.

Anyway, thanks for all the input.

An RLJ thread running full circle? Surely not?!

To defend myself, you and Setch are both relative newbies on here. When this has come round a hundred times I'm sure you'll lose patience and diplomacy!

Anyway, we'll send any more newbs to this and the other monster RLJ thread, and when they've finished with those and not changed their opinions we'll sacrifice them to the PF.