RLJing for safety

rjsterry

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

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).

As compared to what?

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

But if it's safe, then it's safe - regardless of the form of transport. If I can cross with my car "without endangering [my]self, peds and others" then that should be fine with you. Or don't you trust my judgement enough, just because I'm in a car? A cyclist is not a ped, as much as you might want to be - we are on the road, not the pavement.

They can't be slow-moving, gridlocked traffic and overtaking you at the same time into "clear" road (or have I misunderstood)? If you were filtering through gridlocked traffic I can't see the need to RLJ for the safety of getting away - the traffic won't move!

I'm not suggesting you wait at the back, more that you don't go right to the front of each queue.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

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?

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).

If the options are "tangling" by being left hooked, or "tangling" by being in the traffic, or "tangling" by jumping red lights then I'll go with the traffic option. You can move over once clear of the junction, but I'd have no problem taking my road space in that situation.

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker. Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

jonny_trousers

rjsterry wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

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).

As compared to what?

As opposed to not cycling. Perhaps I should have said city roads.

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker.

No one’s saying all incidences of RLJing are commited for safety reasons. I’m suggesting that there might be certain – perhaps rare – circumstances where it might well be the safer option.

W1 wrote:

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

Because it is not always the case. I suspect 99% of people who run red lights do so to save time or because they are simply stupid, but maybe, just maybe, there are occasions when it is not such a bad idea where personal safety is concerned. Your blanket statement that every incident of RLJing is done purely to save time is presumptuous at best and arrogant at worst.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

But if it's safe, then it's safe - regardless of the form of transport. If I can cross with my car "without endangering [my]self, peds and others" then that should be fine with you. Or don't you trust my judgement enough, just because I'm in a car? A cyclist is not a ped, as much as you might want to be - we are on the road, not the pavement.

They can't be slow-moving, gridlocked traffic and overtaking you at the same time into "clear" road (or have I misunderstood)? If you were filtering through gridlocked traffic I can't see the need to RLJ for the safety of getting away - the traffic won't move!

I'm not suggesting you wait at the back, more that you don't go right to the front of each queue.

Drivers' point of view of the road is much lower, a cyclists is able to see far further ahead, cyclists have a view completely unobstructed by metal framework or hearing impeded by stereo, glass and insulation. Cars have a large sticky out bonnet in front, a cyclist is able to nudge right to the edge of a junction and gain a clear all round view before deciding to proceed. Cars cannot do this and larger motor vehicles like lorries definitely can't.

No, cyclists are not peds but we're a darn sight more like peds than we are cars. The only thing we share in common with cars is that we have wheels. We have no motor, are basically "human sized", move at up to around 20mph. Cars are metal and glass shells which move at speeds of up to 100+mph and are capable of a lot of damage.

As I moved away from the junction, the cars moved ahead of me, but about 100m after the junct they were forced to slow down as the next junction (a roundabout) came up. At this point I was moving more quickly (in the bus lane) than the cars at which point one of the slow moving cars flashed another to turn right from the other direction across my path into a turning on my left. SImple.

I would argue that right at the front and ahead of traffic in clear spots is by far the safest place to be and RLJing can help facilitate that

Headhuunter

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker.

No one’s saying all incidences of RLJing are commited for safety reasons. I’m suggesting that there might be certain – perhaps rare – circumstances where it might well be the safer option.

W1 wrote:

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

Because it is not always the case. I suspect 99% of people who run red lights do so to save time or because they are simply stupid, but maybe, just maybe, there are occasions when it is not such a bad idea where personal safety is concerned. Your blanket statement that every incident of RLJing is done purely to save time is presumptuous at best and arrogant at worst.

Exactly. I'm afraid that there is no black and white. The law and the roads are set up for motor vehicles not bicycles and it is sometimes safer to RLJ.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker.

No one’s saying all incidences of RLJing are commited for safety reasons. I’m suggesting that there might be certain – perhaps rare – circumstances where it might well be the safer option.

W1 wrote:

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

Because it is not always the case. I suspect 99% of people who run red lights do so to save time or because they are simply stupid, but maybe, just maybe, there are occasions when it is not such a bad idea where personal safety is concerned. Your blanket statement that every incident of RLJing is done purely to save time is presumptuous at best and arrogant at worst.

No-one has yet provided an example of an increase in safety (for everyone of course, not just the cyclist) so it's far from presumptious or arrogance.

MonkeyMonster

Wheeee, page five already. Might need to go get a 2nd bowl of popcorn...

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

Drivers' point of view of the road is much lower, a cyclists is able to see far further ahead, cyclists have a view completely unobstructed by metal framework or hearing impeded by stereo, glass and insulation. Cars have a large sticky out bonnet in front, a cyclist is able to nudge right to the edge of a junction and gain a clear all round view before deciding to proceed. Cars cannot do this and larger motor vehicles like lorries definitely can't.

No, cyclists are not peds but we're a darn sight more like peds than we are cars. The only thing we share in common with cars is that we have wheels. We have no motor, are basically "human sized", move at up to around 20mph. Cars are metal and glass shells which move at speeds of up to 100+mph and are capable of a lot of damage.

As I moved away from the junction, the cars moved ahead of me, but about 100m after the junct they were forced to slow down as the next junction (a roundabout) came up. At this point I was moving more quickly (in the bus lane) than the cars at which point one of the slow moving cars flashed another to turn right from the other direction across my path into a turning on my left. SImple.

I would argue that right at the front and ahead of traffic in clear spots is by far the safest place to be and RLJing can help facilitate that

I'll repeat myself - if it's safe, then it's safe, right? Or are you saying it can never be safe?

I still don't see why RJLing would have helped you in this scenario, except for a coincidence of timing (which as outlined earlier, is a rather absurd position to take because an equal argument would be valid if you'd held back in the traffic) - there would still be a queue, and you will still have faced the turning car.

il_principe

Headhuunter wrote:

If the road ahead is completely clear (as it is after RLJing), IME you are much safer and more visible.

Yeah, this is something that happens all the time in London, and there's never and side roads, peds, or oncoming traffic to consider...

Greg T

Have we started ad hominen attacks yet

Bastards

jonginge

And yet I still live*


* echoes of Galileo

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker.

No one’s saying all incidences of RLJing are commited for safety reasons. I’m suggesting that there might be certain – perhaps rare – circumstances where it might well be the safer option.

W1 wrote:

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

Because it is not always the case. I suspect 99% of people who run red lights do so to save time or because they are simply stupid, but maybe, just maybe, there are occasions when it is not such a bad idea where personal safety is concerned. Your blanket statement that every incident of RLJing is done purely to save time is presumptuous at best and arrogant at worst.

No-one has yet provided an example of an increase in safety (for everyone of course, not just the cyclist) so it's far from presumptious or arrogance.

The reality of whether it is safer or not is irrelevant, you are assuming you know the motivation of anyone who has ever ridden through a red light. I’d call that presumptuous at the very least.

Soul Boy

Headhuunter wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker.

No one’s saying all incidences of RLJing are commited for safety reasons. I’m suggesting that there might be certain – perhaps rare – circumstances where it might well be the safer option.

W1 wrote:

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

Because it is not always the case. I suspect 99% of people who run red lights do so to save time or because they are simply stupid, but maybe, just maybe, there are occasions when it is not such a bad idea where personal safety is concerned. Your blanket statement that every incident of RLJing is done purely to save time is presumptuous at best and arrogant at worst.

Exactly. I'm afraid that there is no black and white. The law and the roads are set up for motor vehicles not bicycles and it is sometimes safer to RLJ.

I can't believe this has brought me out of retirement, but I use that junction daily (Black Cotic Soul), never felt the need to RLJ it. If the lights are green as you approach, move out a bit and take your lane, indicate clearly that you are going straight on (actually bearing slghtly right, so I use a right signal, but pointing down), make it obvious and do not allow yourself to be bullied. Once you are clear of any possible left hook i.e. past the East bound lane of Camberwell New Road, move back to the (edit) LEFT.

If lights are red, you have a large ASL to get yourself in the primary. Again set off and make it clear that you are not going left, by being primary and move back once past CNR.

In the WeAdmire debate :roll: I said I had seen the result of a accident at that junction. A cyclist being put in an Ambulance, a shattered windscreen (car coming from CNR heading toward Oval Station), and a bike, albeit BSO, in two bits being moved to the side of the road. Perhaps he thought it safer too, or more likely as W1 states, he just thought he'd save himself some time. Either way, it wasn't and it didn't.

Lights are also there to protect predestrians - too many times I have seen RLJers totally unaware they've just stopped someone from crossing safely.

Having said that, if it's done very carefully, a slow down, look for cars AND peds, make sure theres nothing coming, and go, so be it, your choice - no moaning if you get caught. I just choose not too, seems like a bit too much hassle to save a minute or two on my commute.

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Please can we drop this argument that RLJing is "safer". It's not. It is, however, quicker.

No one’s saying all incidences of RLJing are commited for safety reasons. I’m suggesting that there might be certain – perhaps rare – circumstances where it might well be the safer option.

W1 wrote:

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

Because it is not always the case. I suspect 99% of people who run red lights do so to save time or because they are simply stupid, but maybe, just maybe, there are occasions when it is not such a bad idea where personal safety is concerned. Your blanket statement that every incident of RLJing is done purely to save time is presumptuous at best and arrogant at worst.

No-one has yet provided an example of an increase in safety (for everyone of course, not just the cyclist) so it's far from presumptious or arrogance.

Yes I have! You just don't agree, so we're back to stalemate. I believe it's safer, you don't, yes, no, yes no etc etc

Headhuunter

W1 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Drivers' point of view of the road is much lower, a cyclists is able to see far further ahead, cyclists have a view completely unobstructed by metal framework or hearing impeded by stereo, glass and insulation. Cars have a large sticky out bonnet in front, a cyclist is able to nudge right to the edge of a junction and gain a clear all round view before deciding to proceed. Cars cannot do this and larger motor vehicles like lorries definitely can't.

No, cyclists are not peds but we're a darn sight more like peds than we are cars. The only thing we share in common with cars is that we have wheels. We have no motor, are basically "human sized", move at up to around 20mph. Cars are metal and glass shells which move at speeds of up to 100+mph and are capable of a lot of damage.

As I moved away from the junction, the cars moved ahead of me, but about 100m after the junct they were forced to slow down as the next junction (a roundabout) came up. At this point I was moving more quickly (in the bus lane) than the cars at which point one of the slow moving cars flashed another to turn right from the other direction across my path into a turning on my left. SImple.

I would argue that right at the front and ahead of traffic in clear spots is by far the safest place to be and RLJing can help facilitate that

I'll repeat myself - if it's safe, then it's safe, right? Or are you saying it can never be safe?

I still don't see why RJLing would have helped you in this scenario, except for a coincidence of timing (which as outlined earlier, is a rather absurd position to take because an equal argument would be valid if you'd held back in the traffic) - there would still be a queue, and you will still have faced the turning car.

It's obvious why I would have been safer! If I had been able to RLJ I would have been on a (mostly) traffic free road with increased visibility and the advantage of being more visible. I don't understand why you don't see this. Very obvious to me.

I would have moved across the red to an open road, passed the junction on the left before any of the cars at the red (now behind me) would have caught up with me. I would have been very visible and the car turning would not have needed to be flashed and would not have turned through traffic almost taking me out.

jonny_trousers

Soul Boy wrote:

Having said that, if it's done very carefully, a slow down, look for cars AND peds, make sure theres nothing coming, and go, so be it, your choice - no moaning if you get caught. I just choose not too, seems like a bit too much hassle to save a minute or two on my commute.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. I certainly wouldn’t dream of crossing CNR when traffic driving along it has a green. I will, however, just like the cyclist I observed, consider carefully riding beyond the red light (yes, looking out for pedestrians as I go) until I meet the edge of CNR. Once I see the lights on the opposite side turn to green I will get going and then beat the cars behind me back onto Brixton Road.

I don’t know whether it makes a difference, but I tend to hit that junction at about 10:45 at night when it is routine for car drivers to try to overtake in the left lane, on the junction, and on into the bus lane beyond.

I like your suggestion of a hand signal to indicate you are carrying straight on. I always thought there should be a recognised signal for that intention.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The reality of whether it is safer or not is irrelevant, you are assuming you know the motivation of anyone who has ever ridden through a red light. I’d call that presumptuous at the very least.

Isn't that the point of the thread?

Is it not therefore equally presumptious that you've said that 99% of people do it to save time?

I've made it absolutely clear that I think that the "safety" argument is balls, and that there are other options to increase safety without having to jump the red light (such as road positioning). You, in turn, have agreed (for 99% of RLJers).

I can think of a couple of instances where it would be justifiable, but I've never seen one happen.

green thing

I've done it once that I'd claim on safety grounds - lights changed to red, I was on a motorbike and was going to stop....until I glanced at my mirror and saw that the car behind was now RIGHT behind and assuming I wasn't going to stop.

There's one pedestrian crossing here (Edinburgh) that I'll cross if there are no pedestrians on it. It's part of the ongoing tram farce layout.

Red lights allow you a bit of a breather.

deptfordmarmoset

Why can't RLJers just admit that they do it to save time, and any "safety" argument is dubious at best and absurd at worst?

When I owned up to RLJing up-thread, way back on page 3...

(And yet I almost never RLJ - though, here's an exception: I own up to being at a toucan crossing on the CS7 earlier this week, realising that if I dismounted I could have walked across the empty road perfectly legally yet crossing on the bike before the green bike appeared would be an infraction, and saying ''sod this for a cycle superhighway'' before cycling over. Stopping at an empty junction on a cycle superhighway where a pedestrian can cross but a cyclist can't because of a control system devised to restrict a danger that cyclists don't represent is simply too ridiculously illogical for my simple mind to accept. There, I've said it!)

I made no claim about safety, nor did I make a claim about saving time. I can't admit to doing it to save time because I didn't do it to save time. I was out for exercise and a bit of exploring, there was plenty of daylight left (and I had lights with me anyway), I was already stopped so it wasn't going to affect my average speed. However, I admit to doing it out of impatience. It was cold, I wasn't getting any exercise sitting there waiting for a green bike to appear, all the rhythm I had gained was broken up and (this is where I get most impatient) there was no car, pedestrian or other cyclist within 50 metres, moreover, a car could have gone anywhere because the lights there were on green for cars, a pedestrian could have crossed safely and without contravening any law, the only thing on earth that was barred from crossing the road at that point was a bike. And that is on a so-called superhighway!

Now in 99% of situations I will happily follow a kind of rule-based approach to utilitarianism - I don't go thinking ''me first'' or ''this law does not apply to me.'' But when the rule makes absolutely no sense - as in the situation I'm describing where the rules combine to state: ''you can't go because you're not a car and you can't go because you're not a pedestrian either'' I have to make a personal call and slip into an act-based approach to utilitarianism.

And yes, doing so does entail me, in the smallest of ways, putting myself above the law but I do so in the knowledge that if I'm stupid enough to not be able to spot a car hurtling towards me or espy a police officer peeking out from behind that big old wall over there, then it's a fair cop. A stupid law but a fair cop.

jonny_trousers

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

The reality of whether it is safer or not is irrelevant, you are assuming you know the motivation of anyone who has ever ridden through a red light. I’d call that presumptuous at the very least.

W1 wrote:

Isn't that the point of the thread?

Nope, in the above quote I was simply replying to your reply regarding presumption. The point in this thread it is to put forward an argument that perhaps there are times when judicious RLJing could be considered a sensible option.

W1 wrote:

Is it not therefore equally presumptious that you've said that 99% of people do it to save time?

No, if you take a look back you will see that I said 'I suspect that 99%...' I was suspecting not stating. Although, my figures may be incorrect and on reflection I now wonder if somewhere between 87% and 93% might be a more accurate representation.

W1 wrote:

I've made it absolutely clear that I think that the "safety" argument is balls, and that there are other options to increase safety without having to jump the red light (such as road positioning). You, in turn, have agreed (for 99% of RLJers).

Absolutely, which leaves us with 1% of RLJing, to be carried out for reasons other than to shorten the length of a journey. I would completely accept you believing that the safety argument is misguided or wrong, but to suggest it is a lie is, well, somewhat presumptuous.

Look, this is turning into what the Americans would call a pissing contest now and, before someone, quite rightly, gets out the picture of the Down’s syndrome kid winning his race, may I suggest you and I call it a day. Let’s just agree that you say, there is almost never any reasonable excuse to RLJ and I suggest that there might be. If we are both still alive this time next year we can compare notes.

Best wishes and have a super weekend.

rjsterry

Talking of following authority, did anyone see that programme on BBC4 last night - Secrets of the Mind or something like that - which contained a very interesting section on the Milgram experiments. These looked into people's behaviour in relation to perceived authority figures. Some scary findings: in short if we perceive someone to be in authority, we will by and large do what they say regardless of how it conflicts with our personal beliefs and morals. There was also a more light-hearted section where the presenter walked around a shopping centre asking seated shoppers if he could have their seat. Over half gave up their seat without asking for a reason.

Philcho

RLJing is BAD :evil: Although i have no experience of riding through london - or any large city for that matter so i can't really debate whether there should be exceptions in certain circumstances :?

waddlie

I am 99% against RLJing.

However, imagine you are here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=linden+road,+bristol&sll=53.389518,-2.840294&sspn=0.00581,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Linden+Rd,+Westbury+Park,+Bristol,+Avon+BS6,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.478764,-2.60715&spn=0.012134,0.038581&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.478692,-2.607242&panoid=t3XIMGNSQET26cKOavE18A&cbp=12,218.86,,0,5

It's dark and raining. The lights are red, and you're in the ASL preparing to turn right. The crossroads are narrow and the approach is up a steep hill. The upslope and the distance from the ASL to the turning means you can't accelerate smartly away and turn before the oncoming traffic hits you. So the lights change and you roll forward in the middle of the road and wait for a gap while lorries try to squeeze past on your nearside and oncoming traffic passes inches away. Thanks, but no thanks.

Or in an alternative universe, if all the lights are red for the ped crossing, do you slowly roll through the crossroads and make your turn safely, taking care not to put any peds in danger?

shouldbeinbed

Only if you ring a bell, wear a helmet, have hi viz clothing and pay some bloody road tax. Wearing headphones is optional but only if they help you hear more clearly.

Clever Pun

Jonny Trousers" wrote:

The point in this thread it is to put forward an argument that perhaps there are times when judicious RLJing could be considered a sensible option.

89% of rlj'ing is wrong 92.6% of the time

There...done

johnny2legs

I mostly jump red lights when I'm drunk

sketchley

Been thinking about the OP original question. Is it ok to RLJ for Saftey reasons?

My answer to this would be yes but only if there are no other legal ways to ensure your own saftey and that of others at a dangerous junction. However, I cannot think of a situation where it would not be possible to dismount and walk your bike out of the danger zone which would be both safe and legal, albeit slower than RLJ. Additionally if you reguarly hit a junction with such problems you should do everything you can to find the safe way to navigate the junction that does not result in you breaking the law, e.g. find an alternative route, better anticipation, better road positioning, or even dismounting before the junction and walking through it.

RLJing for saftey seems to be just a choice made be some cylists who do not like the alternative safe and legal ways of navigating a dangerous junction as these would be slower than RLJ the same junction. Therefore IMO no difference from just RLJ because you don't want to stop.

DonDaddyD

Almost nothing is 100% absolutely safe. You could RLJ for safety in one circumstance and immediately put yourself in another kind of danger (Peds, junctions, oncoming traffic etc).

If I RLJ (and its very rare that I do) then yeah its sometimes for immediate safety and sometimes that action places me in a more difficult situation. Sometimes its because I haven't judged stopping distance. Sometimes I don't want to stop and feel its safe enough to go through. There are many more rationales I could devise.

What I don't do is try to convince myself and others that as a rule RLJing is safer at a particular lights or any lights. It's a risk. Sometimes its a risk I'm willing to take. Today it wasn't. I won't delude myself that it is somehow completely safer with no other potential dangers arising from the action taken.

And no, if I was in a car I would never RLJ.

End the thread.