RLJing for safety

DonDaddyD

emac1987 wrote:

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...

While the human mind is able to "see" abstracts I cannot envisage the entire London traffic system and its timed traffic lights, partly because I know it exists (that damn Cat is partly out of the box so it is both alive and dead as oppose to either alive or dead - in the context of traffic regulation system, I know it exist and doesn't work).

The fact that the traffic flow system doesn't work does not mean traffic lights do not help regulate the flow of traffic (and allow people to cross the road). They do. How well they do is largely irrelvant. Their purpose remains.

daviesee

emac1987 wrote:

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...

So it is because you are impatient then. Nothing to do with safety. Case closed.

sketchley

emac1987 wrote:

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...

My understanding is that certain traffic lights are linked, so while you may see no reason to be held at your junction the reason for this is in fact a junction further up the road where too much traffic would be a problem. An example would be holding traffic at Clapham North of even Clapham Common in order to keep the number of cars on the stockwell gyratory below a level that would cause gridlock. In fact the slowing of traffic at several points outside of the centre of London to regulate the flow in to the most congested area is exactly what happens. If this works or not is another question entirely.


See http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 998397.stm


Of course the obvious issue for a cyclist, or motorcyclist, is that such holding back of traffic is primary aimed at cars and larger vehicles as these take up the space and cause congestion. An argument maybe for the introduction of advanced go signals for bikes, smaller vehicles, less polluting ones etc but the investment would be huge.

emac1987

"While the human mind is able to "see" abstracts I cannot envisage the entire London traffic system and its timed traffic lights, partly because I know it exists (that damn Cat is partly out of the box so it is both alive and dead as oppose to either alive or dead - in the context of traffic regulation system, I know it exist and doesn't work).

The fact that the traffic flow system doesn't work does not mean traffic lights do not help regulate the flow of traffic (and allow people to cross the road). They do. How well they do is largely irrelvant. Their purpose remains."

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities. So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

emac1987

Sketchley wrote:

emac1987 wrote:

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...

My understanding is that certain traffic lights are linked, so while you may see no reason to be held at your junction the reason for this is in fact a junction further up the road where too much traffic would be a problem. An example would be holding traffic at Clapham North of even Clapham Common in order to keep the number of cars on the stockwell gyratory below a level that would cause gridlock. In fact the slowing of traffic at several points outside of the centre of London to regulate the flow in to the most congested area is exactly what happens. If this works or not is another question entirely.


See http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne ... 998397.stm


Of course the obvious issue for a cyclist, or motorcyclist, is that such holding back of traffic is primary aimed at cars and larger vehicles as these take up the space and cause congestion. An argument maybe for the introduction of advanced go signals for bikes, smaller vehicles, less polluting ones etc but the investment would be huge.

Very good point, well made[/b]

dhope

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities. So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

Bollocks. yes, that's a carefully considered response that counters each of your points

You've not made any argument for it being a safe choice, you've just said that it's slow and it holds you up. If that's your reason then fine, but don't claim that it's The Man's fault when it's just your impatience.

W1

dhope wrote:

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities. So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

Bollocks. yes, that's a carefully considered response that counters each of your points

You've not made any argument for it being a safe choice, you've just said that it's slow and it holds you up. If that's your reason then fine, but don't claim that it's The Man's fault when it's just your impatience.

And it's someone elses fault of course, not the donut on the saddle.

DonDaddyD

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing

So if its so bad should motorised vehicles not wait as well?

and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities.

I'd also like to see their traffic related accident, collisions and fatality records.

So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

Right............

cee

I have driven in paris, madrid and rome.....not for the faint hearted let me tell you.

rjsterry

emac1987 wrote:

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...

I think you correctly identify why people (cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of both public and private transport) RLJ, but that still doesn't make it alright. Having said that I think shorter waiting times would improve the observance of red lights, by all road users. While an individual wait of 1 or even 2 minutes (very few lights make you wait that long), the number of sets of lights does mean that the cumulative amount of time spent waiting at lights quickly adds up to significant proportions of a journey (as much as a third in some cases from my experience). That said, London is an amazingly impatient city, and we could all do with calming down a bit.

sketchley

emac1987 wrote:

Very good point, well made

Thanks.

However, to be clear on my position on this; while I think there is an argument to do things differently, I do not think this justifies taking the matter into your own hands (e.g. RLJ) and just because I can see better ways for doing things from a cycling perspective does not mean this is the correct solution when viewing the problem as a whole. In fact I would expect the cost of introducing advanced go lights for bikes etc to be prohibitive given the benefit it would give to road users as a whole.

I would like to see “Stop Give Way Go” trialed particularly for left turns, pedestrian crossings and straight on at right hand turn only T Junctions, all of which would be fairly low cost as no infrastructure change. However, there are other things I would like to see done first, namely the enforcement of ASLs & solid white line cycle lanes, better education of drivers and riders of motor vehicles in matters of cycling (e.g Blocking ASL and Entry to them), and a ban on goods vehicles on major cycle routes (Superhighways) in peak hours in peak direction.

soundninjauk

I refuse to believe that it's safer to cycle and drive in any major Italian city than in London. I feared for my life as a pedestrian in the few that I've been to.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

I think you correctly identify why people (cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of both public and private transport) RLJ, but that still doesn't make it alright. Having said that I think shorter waiting times would improve the observance of red lights, by all road users. While an individual wait of 1 or even 2 minutes (very few lights make you wait that long), the number of sets of lights does mean that the cumulative amount of time spent waiting at lights quickly adds up to significant proportions of a journey (as much as a third in some cases from my experience). That said, London is an amazingly impatient city, and we could all do with calming down a bit.

Don't know about you, but I'm usually grateful for the chance to have a rest!

gaz545

emac1987 wrote:

"While the human mind is able to "see" abstracts I cannot envisage the entire London traffic system and its timed traffic lights, partly because I know it exists (that damn Cat is partly out of the box so it is both alive and dead as oppose to either alive or dead - in the context of traffic regulation system, I know it exist and doesn't work).

The fact that the traffic flow system doesn't work does not mean traffic lights do not help regulate the flow of traffic (and allow people to cross the road). They do. How well they do is largely irrelvant. Their purpose remains."

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities. So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

And thats where your argument FAILS! you talk about how it is pointless because you could be moving. But you say you jump the red lights because it's safe, the two don't match.

What is so dagerous about waiting at red lights?

emac1987

dhope wrote:

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities. So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

Bollocks. yes, that's a carefully considered response that counters each of your points

You've not made any argument for it being a safe choice, you've just said that it's slow and it holds you up. If that's your reason then fine, but don't claim that it's The Man's fault when it's just your impatience.

Yes I am impatient and I wouldn't RLJ if it wasn't safe to do so. Why would I? Life is worth more than that. And it's obvious when RLJ is a safe choice. I mean ask yourself when do u jaywalk? Apply same principle(s) to RLJing...

And what's wrong with being impatient???? Do u feel 'happy' when u arrive at work late because trains in the UK r a disgrace? Isn't that somebody's fault???? Patience is good but there's a limit and impatience can actually improve things in certain situations.

emac1987

DonDaddyD wrote:

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing

So if its so bad should motorised vehicles not wait as well?

For me, cyclists (n rollerbladders, skateboards etc...) lie in the same category as pedestrians and not in the car category. Cars dont have the same vision as cyclist, they cant hear as well as cyclists and they take a lot more space that's y i dont treat bicycles the same as cars.

emac1987

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think you correctly identify why people (cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of both public and private transport) RLJ, but that still doesn't make it alright. Having said that I think shorter waiting times would improve the observance of red lights, by all road users. While an individual wait of 1 or even 2 minutes (very few lights make you wait that long), the number of sets of lights does mean that the cumulative amount of time spent waiting at lights quickly adds up to significant proportions of a journey (as much as a third in some cases from my experience). That said, London is an amazingly impatient city, and we could all do with calming down a bit.

Don't know about you, but I'm usually grateful for the chance to have a rest!

Lol but dont you feel more tired when you have to start again? breaks your whole rhythm doesnt it?

dhope

emac1987 wrote:

dhope wrote:

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing and we shouldn't point the finger at traffic users who RLJ but at the authorities, they r not doing their job properly. I mean london has the slowest traffic in Europe and isnt even the most densely populated city. Paris, Madrid, Milan all have more cars than london per square mile and yet they manage to enjoy faster journeys across their cities. So until london get its act together with its traffic system, Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal.

Bollocks. yes, that's a carefully considered response that counters each of your points

You've not made any argument for it being a safe choice, you've just said that it's slow and it holds you up. If that's your reason then fine, but don't claim that it's The Man's fault when it's just your impatience.

Yes I am impatient and I wouldn't RLJ if it wasn't safe to do so. Why would I? Life is worth more than that. And it's obvious when RLJ is a safe choice. I mean ask yourself when do u jaywalk? Apply same principle(s) to RLJing...

And what's wrong with being impatient???? Do u feel 'happy' when u arrive at work late because trains in the UK r a disgrace? Isn't that somebody's fault???? Patience is good but there's a limit and impatience can actually improve things in certain situations.

Uh huh, but you'd said "Im just gonna take the safest choice, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal" when you actually meant the quickest. I'm not disputing that jumping the lights is quicker. And jaywalking is perfectly legal here, hence there being less of a stigma than RLJing.

I'll roll through pedestrian reds at times if there's nobody there to see, and it's very tempted to skip the long waits at some sets of lights but as long as I complain about pedestrians waltzing out into the road without a care or taxis occupying the ASL then I figure the vast, vast, majority of the time I should show them the same respect that I expect to receive.

Traffic being slow, lights not being perfectly in sync, drivers being numpties or poor timekeeping might be the reason people RLJ but it's not a valid excuse for it. Again, don't take this as me being holier than thou, I'm certainly not and will try to get away with most things if I can, but I don't claim that it's someone else's fault, it's entirely my choice.

hatbeard

emac1987 wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I think you correctly identify why people (cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers of both public and private transport) RLJ, but that still doesn't make it alright. Having said that I think shorter waiting times would improve the observance of red lights, by all road users. While an individual wait of 1 or even 2 minutes (very few lights make you wait that long), the number of sets of lights does mean that the cumulative amount of time spent waiting at lights quickly adds up to significant proportions of a journey (as much as a third in some cases from my experience). That said, London is an amazingly impatient city, and we could all do with calming down a bit.

Don't know about you, but I'm usually grateful for the chance to have a rest!

Lol but dont you feel more tired when you have to start again? breaks your whole rhythm doesnt it?

they have something for that... it's called MTFU

sketchley

emac1987 wrote:

Yes I am impatient and I wouldn't RLJ if it wasn't safe to do so. Why would I? Life is worth more than that. And it's obvious when RLJ is a safe choice.

You’ve drifted away from the original question now it was about RLJ sometime being the safer option not about it being a safe choice in some circumstance. Very different things.

Rolling ahead a few meters to avoid the lorry in the ASL turning left, is very different from rolling through a empty pedestrian crossing at 4am in the morning. Very different situations, the first one is the safer option, the second is probably safe, both constitute RLJ.

Note: I would do the first but I wouldn’t cross the junction and in fact would normally try to avoid situation entirely and I would not do the second.

jonny_trousers

Nice to see this discussion still going strong. May I just distance myself from most of emac's postings. My original point is about RLJing to maintain safety and for no other reason.

A few points worth mentioning/reiterating:

Just because I question whether there might be times where careful RLJing may be worth considering it does not mean I support indiscriminate RLJing.

I just cannot accept the 'bringing fellow cyclists into disrepute' argument. I have non-cycling friends and colleagues who have moaned about cyclists carelessly jumping reds in the past and I have agreed with them that such people are a nuisance. They have also complained, just as vehemently, however, about cyclists riding too far out from the pavement so that they cannot overtake them in their cars. I've tried to explain that this is often the safest way to ride and that even the institute of advanced motorists recommend cyclists ride at least a metre from the pavement, but that still doesn't stop them from thinking, bloody cyclists - getting in the way and slowing the traffic down. As I said early on in this thread, if you want to suggest any cyclist who RLJ’s – no matter what his motivation – sullies the reputation of all cyclists, then you equally have to accept that any cyclist who causes frustration among motorists by forcing them to drive slowly while he rides in primary position – as has been advised as a way to deal with dangerous junctions legally – is also putting their fellow cyclists in danger by encouraging unsympathetic drivers to make dangerous overtaking manoeuvres simply to get that little bit further ahead.

I also disagree with the suggestion that RLJing has to be dangerous. Just because ‘RLJ’ immediately conjures up the image of some young chav gliding through the red light on his nicked bike without so much as a care in the world, it does not mean that it cannot be done extremely carefully, paying close attention to pedestrians, fellow cyclists and motorists coming from all directions. Ever driven/ridden one of those junctions when the lights are temporarily out and everyone has to approach with caution? The traffic moves very smoothly and carefully. The Norwegians have even experimented with removing all road markings, signs and traffic lights in some towns and the results saw RTA’s drop dramatically (I’m not suggesting this would work for London).

An interesting thing happened to me last night on my cycle home: I reached the junction I have used as an example above only to find the lights on green. I began to sail through them when they suddenly changed to amber. Now, ordinarily that should give a cyclist enough time to safely cross the junction, but not here. I’m not at all unfit, but there was no bloody way I was going to cycle the 30 metres or so before even meeting the rather wide Camberwell New Road ahead. I slowed my bike and waited at the edge of CNR for the lights to change to green again (as I suggested I would even if the lights had been red to begin with). Did I break the law? I’m really not sure. Should I have wheeled my bike back behind the traffic light just to make sure? What was the difference between me riding through that green that suddenly turned to amber and me carefully riding through the red (checking to make sure there were no pedestrians anywhere near)? A legal technicality? The result was much the same either way.

Love the Mr Bean clip.

Finally – I hope – I do not support carefree RLJing. Riding a bike on London roads is dangerous enough without taking unnecessary risks simply to shave a few seconds off your journey. What I do question – and all along I was prepared to be persuaded otherwise given reasoned argument – is that there may be times when a judicious crossing of a red light may be the safer option.

daviesee

emac1987 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

emac1987 wrote:

I didn't say traffic lights are irrelevant but it's because the current traffic regulation system in london is so bad at what it's supposed to do (like u said, regulate the flow of traffic) that i see an increase in RLJing

So if its so bad should motorised vehicles not wait as well?

For me, cyclists (n rollerbladders, skateboards etc...) lie in the same category as pedestrians and not in the car category. Cars dont have the same vision as cyclist, they cant hear as well as cyclists and they take a lot more space that's y i dont treat bicycles the same as cars.

Unfortunately some car drivers take the same view. Get off the bleeding road!

Why reinforce that wrong opinion?

W1

But why give drivers any more excuses to be unsympathetic to cyclists? Unless what you're saying is - in effect - they're all going to hate us regardless of what we do. In which case we might as well ignore every rule in the book when it suits us. Do you think that will assist cyclists as a group in seeking better facilities or respect?

And even if RLJ could be considered "safer" there is usually going to be an alternative which is also safe but doesn't necessitate RLJing. In which case the choice to RLJ goes from being "for safety" to being "for convenience".

emac1987

Apologies for drifting off the topic of this discussion, should have read the title more carefully. To answer the question directly, I would say if it's possible for a pedestrian to walk across the junction then I would say it is safe to RLJ. And I think it's always safe to go through ped lights IF there r no pedestrians.

Ok that's my opinion n sorry again for drifting off.

Safe cycling!

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

But why give drivers any more excuses to be unsympathetic to cyclists? Unless what you're saying is - in effect - they're all going to hate us regardless of what we do. In which case we might as well ignore every rule in the book when it suits us. Do you think that will assist cyclists as a group in seeking better facilities or respect?

Again, this opinion irritates the crap out of me. I have no control over the way Johnny_Trousers, emac1987, daviesee or you cycle, so why should I be made to share a collective punishment for any mistakes made by others? It is simply ludicrous to accept the fact that a motorists indignation at ALL CYCLISTS is justified. You're clearly either trolling or some kind of self-flagellating masochist if you actually think this.

And yes, I do believe that there are motorists out there that will hate us regardless of what "we" do. I was cycling down NKR last night minding my own business, pootling along at a fair pace. A car ahead is parked in the cycle lane, and I signal about 20-30 yards in advance that I'm going to overtake it. As I'm doing so, a woman in a car behind me leans on her horn as she approaches me. I haven't wildly swung out into the road, I'm not going at slow pace, and I'm not holding her up blocking the road. I catch up with her at the lights, and I politely ask her what was wrong. I'm not angry, I'm not all sweaty and pumped with adrenaline and intimidating. I'm wearing a cotton jacket, shirt, a scarf and jeans. I'm not in my "Lycra lout" uniform. My voice is calm, and I'm just curious as to why she beeped. She tells me I was dangerously in the way and that I shouldn't be on the road, then mutters something about jumping red lights and drives off. She was merely annoyed at having to share the road with me. So much so she chooses to try and intimidate me with her car horn. What could I possibly have done to prevent this other than having not used the bike to get home that evening.

Now are you suggesting that I should divert my own personal indignation at having been treated like crap, for apparently no reason, towards people I have no connection with that may choose to jump red lights? Is that really what you're saying W1? Are you saying that also, because of people to which I have no connection who choose to jump red lights, I have no right to expect councils to put in and maintain cycle specific infrastructure like ASLs and cycle lanes? Because thats what sentences like "But why give drivers any more excuses to be unsympathetic to cyclists?" and "Do you think that will assist cyclists as a group in seeking better facilities or respect?" appear to make me think you're saying

RLJ is against the law, we all agree with this. You don't do it, others do. Some see grey areas in traffic laws, others respect them to the letter. I don't care about any of this. But what I do care about is the insinuation that we all have some kind of collective responsibility to behave like saints so that arseholes who drive motor vehicles don't have an excuse to treat us like crap. You're not alone in using this "collective responsibility" for "our" public image to give some kind of authority to your witch hunt, but yeah, it annoys the crap out of me. I don't accept the assertion at all. Its ludicrous.

daviesee

Bottom line. you are either pedestrian or traffic, you can't be both.

If you are pedestrian you stick to the pavements and obey that set of rules (basically, be under 10 years old).

If you are traffic you stick to the road and obey those rules.

You want to pick and choose as and when it suits. You are wrong .

Absolutely nothing to do with safety.

In the example you give the lady is pi$$ed off because she has watched too many cyclists RLJ. This simply re-inforces my argument that people RLJ are indirectly causing the rest of us grief. You say you were safe, she says you weren't. One is wrong and I don't know which but her attitude has been influenced by cyclists RLJ so RLJ is directly or indirectly dangerous,

notsoblue

daviesee wrote:

In the example you give the lady is pi$$ed off because she has watched too many cyclists RLJ. This simply re-inforces my argument that people RLJ are indirectly causing the rest of us grief. You say you were safe, she says you weren't. One is wrong and I don't know which but her attitude has been influenced by cyclists RLJ so RLJ is directly or indirectly dangerous,

Bullsh!t. Thats the only response I have for that argument.

Also, for the record, I'm not whining about the woman beeping her horn at me. It happens. I'm used to it. Its just a part of riding in the road in this country. I mostly just let it slide, as I do when I see cyclists or cars RLJ. I gave it as an example of someone being annoyed at me simply because I was riding a bike. I object to being told that members of the public are justified in treating me like crap and endangering me while I'm cycling because other cyclists behave badly. Its a ludicrous position to have. And to see it wheeled out every time theres a "debate" on RLJ is irritating to the extreme.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

But why give drivers any more excuses to be unsympathetic to cyclists? Unless what you're saying is - in effect - they're all going to hate us regardless of what we do. In which case we might as well ignore every rule in the book when it suits us. Do you think that will assist cyclists as a group in seeking better facilities or respect?

snip.

Not for the first, nor probably last time NSB, you're mis-reading what is being said.

I am not "justifying" such action, but I am providing a possible explanation which, as a group, we could (and in my opinion, should) try to do something about. I am not saying you SHOULD suffer the consequences of others' action. What I am saying is that in fact you DO. So yes, you should be as angry with RLJing selfish morons as you are with stupid, moronic drivers. You, on the other hand, are busy supporting red light jumpers whilst also finding out personally that such RLJers can cause drivers to have the attitude they do. That is truly ludicrous.

You must be being deliberately obtuse to be unable to see any form of connection between the two. Even in your own example your indignant motorist mentions red light jumpers FFS! Why give people like that any excuse to hate cyclists more than they do? What possible benefit is there to doing so? None, that's what.

What I am saying is that, as a group (of which we are members, whether we like it or not) if we wish to argue for better facilities it would help to have positive support. That will not be firthcoming unless cyclists are seen to better obey the rules of the road.

Of course there is little that, as individuals, we can do to help. But encouraging people not to RLJ (and also not doing it ourselves) may perhaps help in a small way. Clearly that's not something that you are willing to do, but it is certainly not "ludicrous".

But hell, go ahead - jump all the red lights you like, encourage others to do so. Just don't moan and complain when, on the question of cycling and the dangers that cyclists face, the response that you will get is "yeah, but they all jump red lights". Nor can you complain about the stupid woman you came accross having her attitude reinforced by all the RLJers you support. Yep, that sounds like a much better idea to me. Go wild for it. Have a gold medal.

And as for calling me a troll - pathetic.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

daviesee wrote:

In the example you give the lady is pi$$ed off because she has watched too many cyclists RLJ. This simply re-inforces my argument that people RLJ are indirectly causing the rest of us grief. You say you were safe, she says you weren't. One is wrong and I don't know which but her attitude has been influenced by cyclists RLJ so RLJ is directly or indirectly dangerous,

Bullsh!t. Thats the only response I have for that argument.

Also, for the record, I'm not whining about the woman beeping her horn at me. It happens. I'm used to it. Its just a part of riding in the road in this country. I mostly just let it slide, as I do when I see cyclists or cars RLJ. I gave it as an example of someone being annoyed at me simply because I was riding a bike. I object to being told that members of the public are justified in treating me like crap and endangering me while I'm cycling because other cyclists behave badly. Its a ludicrous position to have. And to see it wheeled out every time theres a "debate" on RLJ is irritating to the extreme.

And what a brilliant counter argument that is.

No-one is justifying it. But it might explain it. Why you can't see the distinction between the two is beyond me.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

But why give drivers any more excuses to be unsympathetic to cyclists? Unless what you're saying is - in effect - they're all going to hate us regardless of what we do. In which case we might as well ignore every rule in the book when it suits us. Do you think that will assist cyclists as a group in seeking better facilities or respect?

Again, this opinion irritates the crap out of me. I have no control over the way Johnny_Trousers, emac1987, daviesee or you cycle, so why should I be made to share a collective punishment for any mistakes made by others? It is simply ludicrous to accept the fact that a motorists indignation at ALL CYCLISTS is justified. You're clearly either trolling or some kind of self-flagellating masochist if you actually think this.

And yes, I do believe that there are motorists out there that will hate us regardless of what "we" do. I was cycling down NKR last night minding my own business, pootling along at a fair pace. A car ahead is parked in the cycle lane, and I signal about 20-30 yards in advance that I'm going to overtake it. As I'm doing so, a woman in a car behind me leans on her horn as she approaches me. I haven't wildly swung out into the road, I'm not going at slow pace, and I'm not holding her up blocking the road. I catch up with her at the lights, and I politely ask her what was wrong. I'm not angry, I'm not all sweaty and pumped with adrenaline and intimidating. I'm wearing a cotton jacket, shirt, a scarf and jeans. I'm not in my "Lycra lout" uniform. My voice is calm, and I'm just curious as to why she beeped. She tells me I was dangerously in the way and that I shouldn't be on the road, then mutters something about jumping red lights and drives off. She was merely annoyed at having to share the road with me. So much so she chooses to try and intimidate me with her car horn. What could I possibly have done to prevent this other than having not used the bike to get home that evening.

Now are you suggesting that I should divert my own personal indignation at having been treated like crap, for apparently no reason, towards people I have no connection with that may choose to jump red lights? Is that really what you're saying W1? Are you saying that also, because of people to which I have no connection who choose to jump red lights, I have no right to expect councils to put in and maintain cycle specific infrastructure like ASLs and cycle lanes? Because thats what sentences like "But why give drivers any more excuses to be unsympathetic to cyclists?" and "Do you think that will assist cyclists as a group in seeking better facilities or respect?" appear to make me think you're saying

RLJ is against the law, we all agree with this. You don't do it, others do. Some see grey areas in traffic laws, others respect them to the letter. I don't care about any of this. But what I do care about is the insinuation that we all have some kind of collective responsibility to behave like saints so that arseholes who drive motor vehicles don't have an excuse to treat us like crap. You're not alone in using this "collective responsibility" for "our" public image to give some kind of authority to your witch hunt, but yeah, it annoys the crap out of me. I don't accept the assertion at all. Its ludicrous.

I don't think that W1 is saying that those motorists that think all cyclists are RLJing, tax-dodging scum are justified, just that we are better off not doping anything to fuel their prejudices. I agree that we don't have a collective responsibility as cyclists any more than motorists in general do for bad drivers, but people are lazy and do make generalisations - for example WVM, Addison Lee driver, and so on.