RLJing for safety

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

dhope

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Perhaps RLJing for safety is like taking the odd puff of a joint: you feel you can keep it under control, but before you know it you are offering hand relief to sailors simply to fund your crack habit (or deliberately riding over small children at pedestrian crossings just so you can shave half a second off your journey time)

*Deliberately* taking out small children only shaves half a second off if you need to mount the kerb and you're on your road or SS bike. In those instances the child provides a softer ramp and less chance of ruining the rim. Police are duty bound to applaud you for your quick thinking.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

No.

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

No.

You sure?

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

No.

You sure?

Positive. But surpise me with an argument not raised in the other thread and maybe I'll think again.

Headhuunter

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

Yes you do. There are most definitely situations on the road in which it's safer to RLJ. The road system is by and large set up to cater for motor traffic with little if any concession to cyclists. If motor traffic were competely removed from our roads we would not need most of the traffic lights, roundabouts and complex junctions and filter systems anyway.

Initialised

So much of the HWC is designed to idiot proof the road, unfortunately this just enbiggens the idiocy of the average road user

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

Yes you do. There are most definitely situations on the road in which it's safer to RLJ. The road system is by and large set up to cater for motor traffic with little if any concession to cyclists. If motor traffic were competely removed from our roads we would not need most of the traffic lights, roundabouts and complex junctions and filter systems anyway.

Well, we wouldn't have "roads" for a start.

When is it safer to RLJ? Not on the OP's example, where in fact (from the sounds of it) it's poor road positioning by the cyclist that puts him in danger, not the obeyance of the traffic light.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Yes you do. There are most definitely situations on the road in which it's safer to RLJ. The road system is by and large set up to cater for motor traffic with little if any concession to cyclists. If motor traffic were competely removed from our roads we would not need most of the traffic lights, roundabouts and complex junctions and filter systems anyway.

Well, we wouldn't have "roads" for a start.

Yeah, because roads have only existed since the invention of the internal combustion engine. Hang on... Were you making a joke there W1?

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

ENOUGH.

If anyone has anything to add to the 14 pages of debate here - http://static.bikeradar.com/commuting/f ... sc&start=0 - please do so. Otherwise we're all just repeating ourselves.

So I win then?

Yes you do. There are most definitely situations on the road in which it's safer to RLJ. The road system is by and large set up to cater for motor traffic with little if any concession to cyclists. If motor traffic were competely removed from our roads we would not need most of the traffic lights, roundabouts and complex junctions and filter systems anyway.

Well, we wouldn't have "roads" for a start.

When is it safer to RLJ? Not on the OP's example, where in fact (from the sounds of it) it's poor road positioning by the cyclist that puts him in danger, not the obeyance of the traffic light.

Why wouldn't we have roads? Roads have existed for a lot longer than cars/the internal conbustion engine! As have bicycles and tarmac. We do no owe roads to the car! We may not have as comprehensive and complex system of roads, dual carriageways and motorways etc without cars, I'll admit that but all that wouldn't be necessary if there were no motor traffic.

In terms of when it's safer to RLJ than not, AFAIC pretty much any time you can get across a traffic lit junction ahead of the traffic without endangering yourself, peds and others, it's fine by me.

Only yesterday I was returning home after a supermarket trip. I got to a red lit junction and waited because there was no way I could have safely jumped the red. When the lights went greeen I sent off with everyone else. After about 100 metres, the motor traffic started to grind to a halt as it approached a heavily trafficked roundabout. There was a turning on my left and one of the cars on my right stopped to flash a driver turning right from the opposite direction (into the left). I was a little faster then the motor traffic filtering through but could not see the car turning across having been flashed. In the end the car noticed me and jammed the brakes on, I only saw him at the last minute because his bonnet started to potrude from the traffic.

If I had RLJed I would have been ahead of all the traffic and would have had a clear view ahead of both sides of the road, unhindered. No one would have been "flashed" and I would have ben very obvious in my hi viz jacket and Fenix torch light. As it was, I was only visible through the traffic at the last minute because I was caught up in it. AFAIC any time you can get yourself ahead and onto a clear section of road, you should.

Before you say it's my fault as I should have been watching for traffic turning across my path, no, it's the cars responsiblility to ensure nothing is coming on my side of the road, unfortunately most cars, having been flashed, accelerate through as fast as possible without watching for cyclists. RLJ-ing removes this risk.

hatbeard

Headhuunter wrote:

If I had RLJed I would have been ahead of all the traffic and would have had a clear view ahead of both sides of the road, unhindered. No one would have been "flashed" and I would have ben very obvious in my hi viz jacket and Fenix torch light. As it was, I was only visible through the traffic at the last minute because I was caught up in it. AFAIC any time you can get yourself ahead and onto a clear section of road, you should.

Before you say it's my fault as I should have been watching for traffic turning across my path, no, it's the cars responsiblility to ensure nothing is coming on my side of the road, unfortunately most cars, having been flashed, accelerate through as fast as possible without watching for cyclists. RLJ-ing removes this risk.

in my mind those two incidents are completely separate, rlj'ing in this case has just as much bearing on what ultimately amounts to you finding yourself riding in heavy traffic as as whether you watched extra 5 minutes of everyone loves raymond before you set off that morning and hit the school run.

you take each road obstacle/junction as they come, it's what's happening in the traffic ahead of you that's most important, not behind you (within reason of course).

daviesee

Re Headhunter's post.

^^^^^ in other words if there were no cars on the road we would not need traffic lights ^^^^

That incident had 0% of anything to do with traffic lights and could have occurred anywhere.

Headhuunter

hatbeard wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

If I had RLJed I would have been ahead of all the traffic and would have had a clear view ahead of both sides of the road, unhindered. No one would have been "flashed" and I would have ben very obvious in my hi viz jacket and Fenix torch light. As it was, I was only visible through the traffic at the last minute because I was caught up in it. AFAIC any time you can get yourself ahead and onto a clear section of road, you should.

Before you say it's my fault as I should have been watching for traffic turning across my path, no, it's the cars responsiblility to ensure nothing is coming on my side of the road, unfortunately most cars, having been flashed, accelerate through as fast as possible without watching for cyclists. RLJ-ing removes this risk.

in my mind those two incidents are completely separate, rlj'ing in this case has just as much bearing on what ultimately amounts to you finding yourself riding in heavy traffic as as whether you watched extra 5 minutes of everyone loves raymond before you set off that morning and hit the school run.

you take each road obstacle/junction as they come, it's what's happening in the traffic ahead of you that's most important, not behind you (within reason of course).

I completely disagree. One of the biggest dangers on the roads to cyclists IME is right turning cars, when drivers coming the oppsite way get "flashed" through. If the road ahead is completely clear (as it is after RLJing), IME you are much safer and more visible.

hatbeard

Headhuunter wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

If I had RLJed I would have been ahead of all the traffic and would have had a clear view ahead of both sides of the road, unhindered. No one would have been "flashed" and I would have ben very obvious in my hi viz jacket and Fenix torch light. As it was, I was only visible through the traffic at the last minute because I was caught up in it. AFAIC any time you can get yourself ahead and onto a clear section of road, you should.

Before you say it's my fault as I should have been watching for traffic turning across my path, no, it's the cars responsiblility to ensure nothing is coming on my side of the road, unfortunately most cars, having been flashed, accelerate through as fast as possible without watching for cyclists. RLJ-ing removes this risk.

in my mind those two incidents are completely separate, rlj'ing in this case has just as much bearing on what ultimately amounts to you finding yourself riding in heavy traffic as as whether you watched extra 5 minutes of everyone loves raymond before you set off that morning and hit the school run.

you take each road obstacle/junction as they come, it's what's happening in the traffic ahead of you that's most important, not behind you (within reason of course).

I completely disagree. One of the biggest dangers on the roads to cyclists IME is right turning cars, when drivers coming the oppsite way get "flashed" through. If the road ahead is completely clear (as it is after RLJing), IME you are much safer and more visible.

which is why we have asl's

Headhuunter

hatbeard wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

If I had RLJed I would have been ahead of all the traffic and would have had a clear view ahead of both sides of the road, unhindered. No one would have been "flashed" and I would have ben very obvious in my hi viz jacket and Fenix torch light. As it was, I was only visible through the traffic at the last minute because I was caught up in it. AFAIC any time you can get yourself ahead and onto a clear section of road, you should.

Before you say it's my fault as I should have been watching for traffic turning across my path, no, it's the cars responsiblility to ensure nothing is coming on my side of the road, unfortunately most cars, having been flashed, accelerate through as fast as possible without watching for cyclists. RLJ-ing removes this risk.

in my mind those two incidents are completely separate, rlj'ing in this case has just as much bearing on what ultimately amounts to you finding yourself riding in heavy traffic as as whether you watched extra 5 minutes of everyone loves raymond before you set off that morning and hit the school run.

you take each road obstacle/junction as they come, it's what's happening in the traffic ahead of you that's most important, not behind you (within reason of course).

I completely disagree. One of the biggest dangers on the roads to cyclists IME is right turning cars, when drivers coming the oppsite way get "flashed" through. If the road ahead is completely clear (as it is after RLJing), IME you are much safer and more visible.

which is why we have asl's

Which the police never, ever enforce and are invariably occupied by a black cab, a motorbike and a moped.... Oh and perhaps white van man...

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

When is it safer to RLJ? Not on the OP's example, where in fact (from the sounds of it) it's poor road positioning by the cyclist that puts him in danger, not the obeyance of the traffic light.

Have you ever ridden that junction? It's nuts. Not only do you have South East London knob-ends who think they are on a race track to contend with, but you have a 50 metres or so from the lights to getting across to the other side of the junction. By the time you reach Camberwell New Rd the traffic to your right has reached a good 25mph plus and may very well want to turn left across your path ( I saw a cyclist very nearly meet a sticky end in that very situation a few months ago). Sure, you could sit in the middle of the lane to make your intent clear, but you would suffer some seriously irate drivers behind you if you did (yeah, yeah, hard luck on them, but are you really comfortable winding up a line of drivers in that part of London? Do you really want them taking massive risks to get past you – as they would?). You could position yourself to the left of the right hand lane, but then most drivers do go straight ahead onto Brixton Rd whereupon you become sandwiched between two tight lanes of would-be-Lewis-Hamiltons. Or... you could look to see that there were no pedestrians around, carefully cycle through the red light until you reach the edge of Camberwell New Rd, wait there until the red turns to green and be across and back onto Brixton Rd before the waiting traffic behind you has had chance to knock you off. I know what I'm going to do in future.

I don't know how to post map pics, but here's a link (travelling south remember).

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 1&t=h&z=19

Edit* The link isn’t the best. Click on the up arrow once until you see the ASL where the lights are.

rjsterry

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

When is it safer to RLJ? Not on the OP's example, where in fact (from the sounds of it) it's poor road positioning by the cyclist that puts him in danger, not the obeyance of the traffic light.

Have you ever ridden that junction? It's nuts. Not only do you have South East London knob-ends who think they are on a race track to contend with, but you have a 50 metres or so from the lights to getting across to the other side of the junction. By the time you reach Camberwell New Rd the traffic to your right has reached a good 25mph plus and may very well want to turn left across your path ( I saw a cyclist very nearly meet a sticky end in that very situation a few months ago). Sure, you could sit in the middle of the lane to make your intent clear, but you would suffer some seriously irate drivers behind you if you did (yeah, yeah, hard luck on them, but are you really comfortable winding up a line of drivers in that part of London? Do you really want them taking massive risks to get past you - as they would?). You could position yourself to the left of the right hand lane, but then most drivers do go straight ahead onto Brixton Rd whereupon you become sandwiched between two tight lanes of would-be-Lewis-Hamiltons. Or... you could look to see that there were no pedestrians around, carefully cycle through the red light until you reach the edge of Camberwell New Rd, wait there until the red turns to green and be across and back onto Brixton Rd before the waiting traffic behind you has had chance to knock you off. I know what I'm going to do in future.

I don't know how to post map pics, but here's a link (travelling south remember).

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 1&t=h&z=19

I've ridden that junction plenty of times (A23 Brixton Road <=> A3 Kennington Park Road) and while you need to not hang about, it's never really been that bad. Maybe Camberwell New Road is much worse.

daviesee

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

jonny_trousers

rjsterry wrote:

I've ridden that junction plenty of times (A23 Brixton Road <=> A3 Kennington Park Road) and while you need to not hang about, it's never really been that bad. Maybe Camberwell New Road is much worse.

That way around's fine; it's the opposite direction that can get hairy.

notsoblue

daviesee wrote:

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

jonny_trousers

daviesee wrote:

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

It's true we have particularly shitty drivers to contend with.

Headhuunter

daviesee wrote:

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

There's a lot more traffic in London. I doubt I would feel the need to RLJ if I lived in The Highlands or something....

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

There's a lot more traffic in London. I doubt I would feel the need to RLJ if I lived in The Highlands or something....

Contradiction overload! Surely it would a lot safer (if you're going to do it) when there isn't any traffic about!

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Yes you do. There are most definitely situations on the road in which it's safer to RLJ. The road system is by and large set up to cater for motor traffic with little if any concession to cyclists. If motor traffic were competely removed from our roads we would not need most of the traffic lights, roundabouts and complex junctions and filter systems anyway.

Well, we wouldn't have "roads" for a start.

Yeah, because roads have only existed since the invention of the internal combustion engine. Hang on... Were you making a joke there W1?

Well we wouldn't have roads in their current form, at least! Hence the inverted commas.

deptfordmarmoset

daviesee wrote:

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

That's just because we were the first ones to get traffic lights - we've lived with them for longer than anyone else. We also know that, since the first ever set of traffic lights exploded and killed its operator outside the Houses of Parliament, the whole project was doomed from the start. They should have realised back then that the future of traffic lights was always going to be troubled. But they wouldn't listen, would they?

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

In terms of when it's safer to RLJ than not, AFAIC pretty much any time you can get across a traffic lit junction ahead of the traffic without endangering yourself, peds and others, it's fine by me.

Same for cars then I presume?

Sorry, I just don't trust people enough to think they can assess whether it's safer for everyone to cross a junction against expectations, and still consider it "safe". That's a very loose term. Safe for you might not be the same as "safe" for me.]

There has to be an acceptance that if cyclists wish to argue for respect from other road users they need to obey the rules of the road. It's very difficult to criticise ASL abusers when cyclists don't even bother with red lights themselves.

As to your anecdote, I don't see the connection at all. In that instance it sounds like you would have been safer taking your lane a couple of cars back from the front and forming part of the traffic, rather than storming ahead early.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Have you ever ridden that junction? It's nuts. Not only do you have South East London knob-ends who think they are on a race track to contend with, but you have a 50 metres or so from the lights to getting across to the other side of the junction. By the time you reach Camberwell New Rd the traffic to your right has reached a good 25mph plus and may very well want to turn left across your path ( I saw a cyclist very nearly meet a sticky end in that very situation a few months ago). Sure, you could sit in the middle of the lane to make your intent clear, but you would suffer some seriously irate drivers behind you if you did (yeah, yeah, hard luck on them, but are you really comfortable winding up a line of drivers in that part of London? Do you really want them taking massive risks to get past you – as they would?). You could position yourself to the left of the right hand lane, but then most drivers do go straight ahead onto Brixton Rd whereupon you become sandwiched between two tight lanes of would-be-Lewis-Hamiltons. Or... you could look to see that there were no pedestrians around, carefully cycle through the red light until you reach the edge of Camberwell New Rd, wait there until the red turns to green and be across and back onto Brixton Rd before the waiting traffic behind you has had chance to knock you off. I know what I'm going to do in future.

Thanks for the link. What I should have said that "in my opinion" it doesn't sound safer to jump the lights. Having looked at the map I stand by that. I'd take the lane there (a few cars back from the front, in the traffic itself) in order to avoid being hooked. I don't see that junction as giving, as it were, a green light for cyclists to RLJ.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

In terms of when it's safer to RLJ than not, AFAIC pretty much any time you can get across a traffic lit junction ahead of the traffic without endangering yourself, peds and others, it's fine by me.

Same for cars then I presume?

Sorry, I just don't trust people enough to think they can assess whether it's safer for everyone to cross a junction against expectations, and still consider it "safe". That's a very loose term. Safe for you might not be the same as "safe" for me.]

There has to be an acceptance that if cyclists wish to argue for respect from other road users they need to obey the rules of the road. It's very difficult to criticise ASL abusers when cyclists don't even bother with red lights themselves.

As to your anecdote, I don't see the connection at all. In that instance it sounds like you would have been safer taking your lane a couple of cars back from the front and forming part of the traffic, rather than storming ahead early.

No, not same for cars. In my view, cyclists are more like pedestrians than they are cars. If it's OK for peds to cross on red man, then it's OK for cyclists to cross on red light (when it's clear), in fact in some cities this is completely accepted as the norm. Cars nd other motor vehicles are far less manoevrable and much bulkier than cyclists and visibility is relatively poor, drivers are in far less position tro judge whether it's safe to cross on red.

I disagree that I would have been better "taking the lane", in this situation I was actually in my own lane - there were 2 lanes, 1 full of cars the other a bus lane (if I remember correctly) and I do not believe that cyclists should be forced to sit behind slow moving gridlocked traffic, the main beauty of cycling is that you can bypass jams and traffic.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Ever notice how most people that are pro RLJ are London based?

Yet more examples of why people fail to convince me that London is so great.

There's a lot more traffic in London. I doubt I would feel the need to RLJ if I lived in The Highlands or something....

Contradiction overload! Surely it would a lot safer (if you're going to do it) when there isn't any traffic about!

I only RLJ when the way across is completely clear and in fact I am at moy most attentive when I am RLJ-ing. My only major bike accident was actually as I passed through a green light and I was mown down by a right turning car.

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

Thanks for the link. What I should have said that "in my opinion" it doesn't sound safer to jump the lights. Having looked at the map I stand by that. I'd take the lane there (a few cars back from the front, in the traffic itself) in order to avoid being hooked. I don't see that junction as giving, as it were, a green light for cyclists to RLJ.

I still think it would be safer as you wouldn't then have to tangle with motor vehicles driven by retards. The question is, is it wise?

There is the perfectly decent argument that by RLJing (no matter what the circumstance) you are adding to many drivers' perception that all cyclists are cnuts (I’m not wholly convinced by this argument myself, however).

There is the excellent argument that the law is the law and should be obeyed no matter what.

And then there is the argument that riding a bike on British roads is a pretty dangerous thing to do and that the cyclist needs to stack the odds in his favour where safety is concerned. And if that means occasionally braking the law then so be it (providing he is not putting anyone else's well-being in jeopardy that is).