RLJing for safety

jonny_trousers

Sketchley wrote:

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.

Good post, and one I tend to agree with. I was actually going to ask what people thought about getting off their bike, walking beyond a red light (and the junction it applies to) and then getting on again and riding off. It is much the same manoeuvre, yet completely legal.

I rode into work this evening for the first time in months (hooray!) and found myself completely uninterested in RLJing simply because I did not wish to compromise my safety (as I would be doing at pretty much every junction). I do fully intent, however, to ride through the light I refer to earlier on in this thread on my way home (if it is on red) for safety’s sake. I won’t cross the actual junction, but I’ll get closer to it so that I can get a good start on the boy-racers when the lights finally turn green. Sure, I could get off, walk round the light and get back on again so as not to break the law, but that seems a bit silly.

DonDaddyD wrote:

End the thread.

If you want the thread to end then stop adding to it! I don't know what it is about a few members here who feel the letters 'RLJ' should never be uttered in a Harry-Potter-he-who-shall-not-be-namedesque way. What's the problem with discussing a matter that relates to cycle commuting? It may well have been done to death in the past, but not every member was here in the past. If you don't want to take part then don't take part, it's simple really.

Anyway DDD, thanks for agreeing with me: there are occasions - rare though they may be -when RLJing is the safest option for all concerned.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Anyway DDD, thanks for agreeing with me: there are occasions - rare though they may be -when RLJing is the safest option for all concerned.

That certainly doesn't appear to be the case in relation to the junction which you now intend to RLJ.

What has been dismissed out of hand (incorrectly, in my opinion) is that you put other cyclists in danger by enforcing the negative stereotype image or a reckless, ignorant, arrogant cyclist by RLJing. I care relatively little for the legal aspects of running red lights. I care much more that, due to your actions (and the actions of a substantial minority of cyclists) we all get tarred with the same negative brush. In practice, what that means is that whenever something happens to a cyclist there are always cries of "well, they all run red lights" or, in other words, cyclists deserve what they get. Why should I (and others) have to face that, because of what you choose to do?

You are welcome to do as you please of course, but as previously said, "safety" is a tenuous argument. It appears that although you could perfectly safely and legally cross the junction which you mention in your OP, you aren't going to because that would be "silly". And whilst you think it's safer for you (even when others who also ride that junction disagree), if you fail to consider the negative impacts that your actions may have on cyclists as a group then you haven't really considered the safety aspects "for all concerned".

DonDaddyD

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

End the thread.

If you want the thread to end then stop adding to it! I don't know what it is about a few members here who feel the letters 'RLJ' should never be uttered in a Harry-Potter-he-who-shall-not-be-namedesque way. What's the problem with discussing a matter that relates to cycle commuting? It may well have been done to death in the past, but not every member was here in the past. If you don't want to take part then don't take part, it's simple really.

Anyway DDD, thanks for agreeing with me: there are occasions - rare though they may be -when RLJing is the safest option for all concerned.

I don't think RLJ conversations are the big bad. I just don't understand why people try to dress it up as the greater good. It isn't. If it was all cyclists would be legally allowed to do so.

RLJ if you want to, I do, when I feel like it for a variety of reasons that are justifiable to me, personally. But I know in the grand scheme of things its wrong and I can admit that.

Also, I don't think I was agreeing with you.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

I don't think anyone here has said that RLJing every junction is 100% safe and a general modus operandi. However there are certain junctions which are certainly relatively unsafe and getting ahead of the traffic is safer than being stuck in it.

I certainly don't RLJ every junction every time, just those that allow me to get myself in a safer position on the road. As I have said, roads are designed for motor traffic as are most junctions, there is very little concession or consideration for cyclists and as far as I'm concerned, it cannot be said that it is 100% the safest option for cyclists to wait at every red lit traffic junction (designed for cars).

I'll do what I have to to make myself safe whether or not motorists and others on the road have their Daily Mail cyclist views reinforced or not.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

you put other cyclists in danger by enforcing the negative stereotype image or a reckless, ignorant, arrogant cyclist by RLJing...
due to your actions (and the actions of a substantial minority of cyclists) we all get tarred with the same negative brush...
Why should I (and others) have to face that, because of what you choose to do?
...
your actions may have on cyclists as a group[/b]

For what its worth: This opinion is, to me, far more annoying that people who claim that they RLJ for safety reasons. You should consider that this makes you look like an apologist for arseholes ignorant and stupid enough to disrespect and endanger a whole group of people linked only by their desire to use the same form of transport because of bullshit made up statistics and hateful, biased anecdotes.

wgwarburton

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

... I was actually going to ask what people thought about getting off their bike, walking beyond a red light (and the junction it applies to) and then getting on again and riding off. It is much the same manoeuvre, yet completely legal.
....

I think that this isn't actually "completely legal"... My understanding is that if you "propel" the bike through the red, even dismounted, then you are technically in breach of the law, so to be completely legal you need to lift it up a few mm... Might be wrong though (anyone?) and maybe this is what you meant, anyway!
I often dismount to cross certain junctions on my commute where there's a pedestrian phase before cross-traffic. This links to the discussion in General about backpacks & panniers- on my fixie and with a backpack I can "rear-dismount" to walking without stopping and then hop back on again to set off almost as easily. With a clumsier bike it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle...

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't think anyone here has said that RLJing every junction is 100% safe and a general modus operandi. However there are certain junctions which are certainly relatively unsafe and getting ahead of the traffic is safer than being stuck in it.

I can't accept this. To me (and I have a knack for misreading posts) it reads as just another attempt to justify RLJing at certain lights. Or all, I mean after all any set of lights can be deemed unsafe and safer to RLJ.

Just admit that its generally wrong but you do it for your own personal reasons. Your personal safety and not that of others (you may have written that later on in your post).

Thing about using the road though is that you're not supossed to be a danger to yourself or others. RLJing breaches that principle.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

you put other cyclists in danger by enforcing the negative stereotype image or a reckless, ignorant, arrogant cyclist by RLJing...
due to your actions (and the actions of a substantial minority of cyclists) we all get tarred with the same negative brush...
Why should I (and others) have to face that, because of what you choose to do?
...
your actions may have on cyclists as a group[/b]

For what its worth: This opinion is, to me, far more annoying that people who claim that they RLJ for safety reasons. You should consider that this makes you look like an apologist for arseholes ignorant and stupid enough to disrespect and endanger a whole group of people linked only by their desire to use the same form of transport because of bullshit made up statistics and hateful, biased anecdotes.

Ouch, but I agree.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't think anyone here has said that RLJing every junction is 100% safe and a general modus operandi. However there are certain junctions which are certainly relatively unsafe and getting ahead of the traffic is safer than being stuck in it.

I can't accept this. To me (and I have a knack for misreading posts) it reads as just another attempt to justify RLJing at certain lights. Or all, I mean after all any set of lights can be deemed unsafe and safer to RLJ.

Just admit that its generally wrong but you do it for your own personal reasons. Your personal safety and not that of others (you may have written that later on in your post).

Thing about using the road though is that you're not supossed to be a danger to yourself or others. RLJing breaches that principle.

So you're saying it's all or nothing? Either I have to run every red light in town or none at all? That doesn't make sense to me.

RLJ-ing is certainly against the law, I concede that much, however I don't believe it's wrong to get yourself into a safer position on the road. I certainly do RLJ for my own personal safety - who else would benefit from me RLJing?! However I have never inconvenienced anyone at any time and have never hit anyone whilst RLJing, in fact I am probably at my most careful and aware on the roads when I'm RLJing. In fact the big crash I had last year was as I proceeded through a GREEN light (and someone turned their car across in front of me).

I completely disagree that RLJing poses a danger to me and other road users. Quite the opposite as I have explained a few times.

_Brun_

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

you put other cyclists in danger by enforcing the negative stereotype image or a reckless, ignorant, arrogant cyclist by RLJing...
due to your actions (and the actions of a substantial minority of cyclists) we all get tarred with the same negative brush...
Why should I (and others) have to face that, because of what you choose to do?
...
your actions may have on cyclists as a group[/b]

For what its worth: This opinion is, to me, far more annoying that people who claim that they RLJ for safety reasons. You should consider that this makes you look like an apologist for arseholes ignorant and stupid enough to disrespect and endanger a whole group of people linked only by their desire to use the same form of transport because of bullshit made up statistics and hateful, biased anecdotes.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

When I very conspicuously wait at a light while other cyclists jump it, the very least I'd expect is to be able to accelerate away from the junction without having some irate motorist desperate to get past at the earliest opportunity. If drivers actually want cyclists to wait at lights, they certainly don't do an awful lot to encourage it.

tailwindhome

WGWarburton wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

... I was actually going to ask what people thought about getting off their bike, walking beyond a red light (and the junction it applies to) and then getting on again and riding off. It is much the same manoeuvre, yet completely legal.
....

I think that this isn't actually "completely legal"... My understanding is that if you "propel" the bike through the red, even dismounted, then you are technically in breach of the law, so to be completely legal you need to lift it up a few mm... Might be wrong though (anyone?) and maybe this is what you meant, anyway!
I often dismount to cross certain junctions on my commute where there's a pedestrian phase before cross-traffic. This links to the discussion in General about backpacks & panniers- on my fixie and with a backpack I can "rear-dismount" to walking without stopping and then hop back on again to set off almost as easily. With a clumsier bike it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle...

Cheers,
W.

Cyclocross bikes *are* the perfect commuter bike

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't think anyone here has said that RLJing every junction is 100% safe and a general modus operandi. However there are certain junctions which are certainly relatively unsafe and getting ahead of the traffic is safer than being stuck in it.

I can't accept this. To me (and I have a knack for misreading posts) it reads as just another attempt to justify RLJing at certain lights. Or all, I mean after all any set of lights can be deemed unsafe and safer to RLJ.

Just admit that its generally wrong but you do it for your own personal reasons. Your personal safety and not that of others (you may have written that later on in your post).

Thing about using the road though is that you're not supossed to be a danger to yourself or others. RLJing breaches that principle.

So you're saying it's all or nothing? Either I have to run every red light in town or none at all? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that if you can deem one set of lights unsafe to wait at when red. Then what is to stop another cyclist deeming the lights further along the road unsafe ad infinitum.

Your reasons for RLJing at a set of lights are your own. I just don't approve of people trying to claim that its safer for all parties to do so.

Waiting in the centre of the lane behind one car and infront of another is another option, should you not be able to get to the ASL.

The actions to ensure personal safety is subjective to the individual. This leads to actions that cannot be accounted for by everyone around you. This becomes a danger when you are sharing space with people around you and your actions affect them. This is why we have one set of traffic laws and guidelines so that everyone can follow, everyone is on the same page and everyone is aware that they must not be both a danger to themselves and others.

I may RLJ (like an empty hill with lights halfway u) but when I do I know I breach the above and I can admit that.

wgwarburton

Headhuunter wrote:

...I completely disagree that RLJing poses a danger to me and other road users. Quite the opposite as I have explained a few times.

There seems to be a good deal of heat being generated around this difference of opinion.

It's clear that a number of people on this forum think that by RLJing a cyclist may increase the risk of injury to someone else- the illegal and in many cases unexpected action of passing a light at red increasing the risk that someone, whether pedestrian, driver or other cyclist will be in the wrong place at the wrong time and end up getting hurt.
A "considered RLJ" may or may not be safer for the RLJing cyclist, but will it always be safer for everyone else in their vicinity?

Cheers,
W.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

you put other cyclists in danger by enforcing the negative stereotype image or a reckless, ignorant, arrogant cyclist by RLJing...
due to your actions (and the actions of a substantial minority of cyclists) we all get tarred with the same negative brush...
Why should I (and others) have to face that, because of what you choose to do?
...
your actions may have on cyclists as a group[/b]

For what its worth: This opinion is, to me, far more annoying that people who claim that they RLJ for safety reasons. You should consider that this makes you look like an apologist for arseholes ignorant and stupid enough to disrespect and endanger a whole group of people linked only by their desire to use the same form of transport because of bullshit made up statistics and hateful, biased anecdotes.

I'm not an apologist - but I am a realist. What I can't understand is why you seem to be an apolgist for RLJers. Whether you like it or not, people who tarr all cyclists with the "yobs" brush exist. Until such people who are thick cannot vote or drive you can't just dismiss their opinions, whether you agree or not.

And, to a degree, they have a point. It's hard to argue with someone who says that cyclists are often seen to be, on the one hand demanding money be invested in pro-cycling ingrastructure, and on the other thinking that they can ignore red lights; ride on pavements; fail to have lights; and generally ride in a manner which annoys and intimidates other road users. It's not every cyclist, but it is a substantial minority.

It's not hard to ride well, and it doesn't save much time to RLJ; and, as is I hope pretty clear I'm not swayed by the safety arguments. Therefore I can easily see the negatives, but not the positives.

Much more importantly, it's classed as cheating in SCR!

Hoopdriver

The argument that one should pick up and carry your bike when walking across an intersection in order to be within the law is weird beyond belief. Where and how do people think this nonsense up?

I would - and do - often walk my bike across what I feel are tricky intersections rather than RLJ, especially when I am up in London. I can see where someone could convince themselves that jumping lights might be a safe option, but I just won't. Too risky and too poor style. A few seconds extra time not only keeps you safe, but in better regard.

On my very early morning rides at home though - and I mean early, as I usually go out on long pleasure rides between 4:30am and 6am (it fits my schedule) I tend to come to a rolling stop at red lights and then proceed - there is literally nobody on the roads, especially on my outward bound leg at 4:30. Not only would it be a little weird to stand there at a completely deserted intersection watching the pretty light turn colour, but on some of the intersections I pass through on my way out of town there are often some quite unpleasant rowdies and drunks making their way home after big nights boozing on the beach; on those intersections stopping, even slowing, is not a good idea.

On my way home though, back in town and coming on for 6-6:30am when the world is waking up and the drunks passed out, then I stop and wait at the lights like everybody else.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

The actions to ensure personal safety is subjective to the individual. This leads to actions that cannot be accounted for by everyone around you. This becomes a danger when you are sharing space with people around you and your actions affect them. This is why we have one set of traffic laws and guidelines so that everyone can follow, everyone is on the same page and everyone is aware that they must not be both a danger to themselves and others.

Indeed.

The whole "I've never crashed when RLJing" is exactly like the 45mph everywhere drivers who have never had an accident but leave a trail of destruction in their wake. And it's not as though not crashing is guaranteed in future, is it?

How do you know you've never caused someone to fear for their safety? You can't.

And as evidenced by a post on here recently, one cyclist got hit by a van because the driver "thought he would run the red light" - why did he think that? Because so many cyclists do it. Would he have thought that if no cyclists ran red lights? No, of course not. So, arguably,. RLJers cause accidents even if they're no-where near the site of the crash....

I'm not a mindless moron. If I thought that stopping at a red light would actually be dangerous I wouldn't just stop for the sake of the red light. However I would consider other legal, safe options instead of RLJing if at all possible. There will always be an alternative way, whether that's waiting in the trafffic or getting off and using ped crossings. Which comes back to the argument that, given other options for increasing safetly, those who still decide to RLJ are simply doing so to save themselves time or faffing. And that's not a good enough reason IMO, for potentially putting others in danger nor re-enforcing the negative stereotype of urban cyclists..

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't think anyone here has said that RLJing every junction is 100% safe and a general modus operandi. However there are certain junctions which are certainly relatively unsafe and getting ahead of the traffic is safer than being stuck in it.

I can't accept this. To me (and I have a knack for misreading posts) it reads as just another attempt to justify RLJing at certain lights. Or all, I mean after all any set of lights can be deemed unsafe and safer to RLJ.

Just admit that its generally wrong but you do it for your own personal reasons. Your personal safety and not that of others (you may have written that later on in your post).

Thing about using the road though is that you're not supossed to be a danger to yourself or others. RLJing breaches that principle.

So you're saying it's all or nothing? Either I have to run every red light in town or none at all? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that if you can deem one set of lights unsafe to wait at when red. Then what is to stop another cyclist deeming the lights further along the road unsafe ad infinitum.

Your reasons for RLJing at a set of lights are your own. I just don't approve of people trying to claim that its safer for all parties to do so.

Waiting in the centre of the lane behind one car and infront of another is another option, should you not be able to get to the ASL.

The actions to ensure personal safety is subjective to the individual. This leads to actions that cannot be accounted for by everyone around you. This becomes a danger when you are sharing space with people around you and your actions affect them. This is why we have one set of traffic laws and guidelines so that everyone can follow, everyone is on the same page and everyone is aware that they must not be both a danger to themselves and others.

I may RLJ (like an empty hill with lights halfway u) but when I do I know I breach the above and I can admit that.

Yep, you are right about that. I can see that safety can be subjective and that it's not ideal to have everyone taking safety into their own hands. This is the only argument I can see against RLJing for personal safety, certainly not all this rubbish about motorists somehow thinking we're all @rseholes and tarring all of us with the same brush if they see 1 cyclist RLJ. If some motorist has a problem with "all cyclists", if they are as bigotted as that then I have no sympathy or care for their point of view and they are irrelevant to me. What about my opinion? AFAIC "all motorists" speed, park illegally/dangerously, talk on the phone whilst driving etc etc...

I think the ideal solution to RLJing would be for some proper investment in cyclist filter lights at major/dangerous junctions allowing cyclists to clear junctions before motor traffic starts moving. Peds have the green/red man filter lights but there is nothing for to make junctions safer for cyclists. ASLs are never enforced, cycle lanes are largely pointless green (or now blue) stripes on the road which come and go. IMO investment in cycling facilities on roads should centre on making junctions safer rather than pointless nods towards the cyclists with useless "superhighways" and green paint in the gutter...

Headhuunter

...However why should pedestrians be allowed to cross roads and junctions whenever and wherever they wish and be permitted to judge for themselves when this is safe, yet somehow when the same pedestrian is on a bike, he or she is suddenly unable to make the same judgement?

soundninjauk

...However why should pedestrians be allowed to cross roads and junctions whenever and wherever they wish and be permitted to judge for themselves when this is safe, yet somehow when the same pedestrian is in a car, he or she is suddenly unable to make the same judgement?

DCowling

WGWarburton wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

... I was actually going to ask what people thought about getting off their bike, walking beyond a red light (and the junction it applies to) and then getting on again and riding off. It is much the same manoeuvre, yet completely legal.
....

I think that this isn't actually "completely legal"... My understanding is that if you "propel" the bike through the red, even dismounted, then you are technically in breach of the law, so to be completely legal you need to lift it up a few mm... Might be wrong though (anyone?) and maybe this is what you meant, anyway!
I often dismount to cross certain junctions on my commute where there's a pedestrian phase before cross-traffic. This links to the discussion in General about backpacks & panniers- on my fixie and with a backpack I can "rear-dismount" to walking without stopping and then hop back on again to set off almost as easily. With a clumsier bike it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle...
Cheers,
W.

could lead to this though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtCNhABlLw

Headhuunter

soundninjauk wrote:

...However why should pedestrians be allowed to cross roads and junctions whenever and wherever they wish and be permitted to judge for themselves when this is safe, yet somehow when the same pedestrian is in a car, he or she is suddenly unable to make the same judgement?

As we've already discussed, it is far harder to judge in a car. Viewpoint is much lower, sound is largely or comlpetely blocked, there is metalwork/pillars blocking the view and motor vehicles are much bulkier and slower in this sort of situation. Peds and cyclists on the other hand are easily able to judge what's around them and are very manoevreable, certainly a zillion times more so than someone in a car.

soundninjauk

Headhuunter wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

...However why should pedestrians be allowed to cross roads and junctions whenever and wherever they wish and be permitted to judge for themselves when this is safe, yet somehow when the same pedestrian is in a car, he or she is suddenly unable to make the same judgement?

As we've already discussed, it is far harder to judge in a car. Viewpoint is much lower, sound is largely or comlpetely blocked, there is metalwork/pillars blocking the view and motor vehicles are much bulkier and slower in this sort of situation. Peds and cyclists on the other hand are easily able to judge what's around them and are very manoevreable, certainly a zillion times more so than someone in a car.

Hmm, good argument. If only all drivers thought the same...

sketchley

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The actions to ensure personal safety is subjective to the individual. This leads to actions that cannot be accounted for by everyone around you. This becomes a danger when you are sharing space with people around you and your actions affect them. This is why we have one set of traffic laws and guidelines so that everyone can follow, everyone is on the same page and everyone is aware that they must not be both a danger to themselves and others.

Indeed.

The whole "I've never crashed when RLJing" is exactly like the 45mph everywhere drivers who have never had an accident but leave a trail of destruction in their wake. And it's not as though not crashing is guaranteed in future, is it?

How do you know you've never caused someone to fear for their safety? You can't.

And as evidenced by a post on here recently, one cyclist got hit by a van because the driver "thought he would run the red light" - why did he think that? Because so many cyclists do it. Would he have thought that if no cyclists ran red lights? No, of course not. So, arguably,. RLJers cause accidents even if they're no-where near the site of the crash....

I'm not a mindless moron. If I thought that stopping at a red light would actually be dangerous I wouldn't just stop for the sake of the red light. However I would consider other legal, safe options instead of RLJing if at all possible. There will always be an alternative way, whether that's waiting in the trafffic or getting off and using ped crossings. Which comes back to the argument that, given other options for increasing safetly, those who still decide to RLJ are simply doing so to save themselves time or faffing. And that's not a good enough reason IMO, for potentially putting others in danger nor re-enforcing the negative stereotype of urban cyclists..

^^ This

RLJ for safety is a poor excuse for wanting to get there quicker. As there are alternative legal ways to address the safety issue choosing the non legal method because it's quicker, or “won’t look silly” has nothing to do with safety.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

Yep, you are right about that. I can see that safety can be subjective and that it's not ideal to have everyone taking safety into their own hands. This is the only argument I can see against RLJing for personal safety, certainly not all this rubbish about motorists somehow thinking we're all @rseholes and tarring all of us with the same brush if they see 1 cyclist RLJ.

I don't buy into the whole "you'll give us all a bad name argument". I think its blinkered and shortsighted. If a person is going to hate a group of people, they'll find a reason, even if that reason is positive (like a racist saying that a particular race have stolen all the jobs, isn't it a good thing that they're working? For example.)

Investment in cyclist filter lights at major/dangerous junctions allowing cyclists to clear junctions before motor traffic starts moving.

ASLs are never enforced, cycle lanes are largely pointless green (or now blue) stripes on the road which come and go. IMO investment in cycling facilities on roads should centre on making junctions safer rather than pointless nods towards the cyclists with useless "superhighways" and green paint in the gutter...

I'm all for better cycling facilities.

I'm a fan of the superhighways. As a person who rides from South West London through the City, East London and onto Essex (boo-ya! ). I can firmly say that at the very least riding through an area with superhighways motorists are generally more aware of cyclists than riding through an area without them.

gaz545

Putting your self in a situation where you need to jump the red light for safety is just silly (see what i did there )
There is no sensible reason as to why you should jump red lights, you wouldn't do it in any other vehicle, why on a bike?

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Yep, you are right about that. I can see that safety can be subjective and that it's not ideal to have everyone taking safety into their own hands. This is the only argument I can see against RLJing for personal safety, certainly not all this rubbish about motorists somehow thinking we're all @rseholes and tarring all of us with the same brush if they see 1 cyclist RLJ.

I don't buy into the whole "you'll give us all a bad name argument". I think its blinkered and shortsighted. If a person is going to hate a group of people, they'll find a reason, even if that reason is positive (like a racist saying that a particular race have stolen all the jobs, isn't it a good thing that they're working? For example.)

Maybe (actually, not maybe, comparing it to racism is ridiculous).

At one end of the scale will be the anti cycling bunch who will not be persuaded that cyclists aren't devil spawn. At the other will be cyclists who, as we all know, are enlightened and forward thinking folk that do no wrong.
In the middle are the sheep who will go with the crowd.

If most cyclists don't RLJ then the crowd will have a vague inkling that we're virtuous folk, sound in body and mind.
If most cyclists do RLJ then the crowd will have a vague inkling that we're all tossers.

It's the crowd that need persuading we're not tossers, the anti cycling bunch are a lost cause and should probably be culled (fight intolerance with intolerance, huzzah!)

Headhuunter

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Yep, you are right about that. I can see that safety can be subjective and that it's not ideal to have everyone taking safety into their own hands. This is the only argument I can see against RLJing for personal safety, certainly not all this rubbish about motorists somehow thinking we're all @rseholes and tarring all of us with the same brush if they see 1 cyclist RLJ.

I don't buy into the whole "you'll give us all a bad name argument". I think its blinkered and shortsighted. If a person is going to hate a group of people, they'll find a reason, even if that reason is positive (like a racist saying that a particular race have stolen all the jobs, isn't it a good thing that they're working? For example.)

Maybe (actually, not maybe, comparing it to racism is ridiculous).

At one end of the scale will be the anti cycling bunch who will not be persuaded that cyclists aren't devil spawn. At the other will be cyclists who, as we all know, are enlightened and forward thinking folk that do no wrong.
In the middle are the sheep who will go with the crowd.

If most cyclists don't RLJ then the crowd will have a vague inkling that we're virtuous folk, sound in body and mind.
If most cyclists do RLJ then the crowd will have a vague inkling that we're all tossers.

It's the crowd that need persuading we're not tossers, not the anti cycling tossers.

However I don't believe we have the need to "persuade" anyone. Motorists don't feel the need to persuade cyclists of their right to be on the road, nor do peds, so why should cyclists have to persuade anyone of anything. We have as much right to bve there as other road users. To feel the need to persuade anyone of that is lending credence to the "you don't pay road tax so you shouldn't be on the road" argument.

W1

Headhuunter wrote:

However I don't believe we have the need to "persuade" anyone. Motorists don't feel the need to persuade cyclists of their right to be on the road, nor do peds, so why should cyclists have to persuade anyone of anything. We have as much right to bve there as other road users. To feel the need to persuade anyone of that is lending credence to the "you don't pay road tax so you shouldn't be on the road" argument.

No, it isn't.

This isn't about the "right" to use the road. Arguably (and ironically) it's about safety. Cyclists benefit from receiving respect from car drivers, in that a careful, cautious pro-cyclist driver is more likely to check mirrors, pass at a safe distance and not encroach on ASLs. Obviously on this basis car drivers have no need to gain respect from cyclists.

Cyclists are a minority, and as such are easily targetted. Why people seem to support making this easier by annoying other road users for no real benefit is beyond me. But the fact remains, if you wish to demand respect on the road (which we do), the very least we can do to help ourselves is not piss people off by showing no respect at all for the law.

emac1987

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

I'd like to out 'rlj for safety' as the utter horseshit it is

you come to a ped crossing it's red there is no one around you go through it, nothing to do with safety, it's about not wanting to stop

This.

There is always going to be a circumstantial scenario where it may be safer to RLJ (like getting out the way of an ambulance.

But traffic lights are there to regulate traffic flow and increase safety. To not follow them is to reduce the effectiveness of traffic flow and decrease safety (not always but more often than not).

Traffic lights didn't somehow suddenly become wrong and we should all ignore them.

Unfortunately this is not true in London. So many times motorists n cyclists wait at traffic lights in excess of 1-2 mins and for what? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! That's y cyclists are getting fed up now, even motorbikes and car drivers r starting to RLJ... Also, does anyone here commute through New Cross? Well, they've redone the junction and it's now slower than before (in a car), whats the deal??? If 90% traffic lights were efficient than im sure most people (cyclists included) would respect them but because they are stupid, less n less people respect them.

Thats my experience anyway...

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

Maybe (actually, not maybe, comparing it to racism is ridiculous).

What I was comparing wasn't the racism itself but the fact that a person, who is intent on hating something, is willing to take a relativly positive aspect and hate that. The only thing I could think of was a racist hating the good qualities of a race for the sake a hating them further.

Another example would be people hating Arsenal because they actually play good football.