RLJing for safety

jonny_trousers

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?

So you are saying you always ride in a way that is designed to appease the unsympathetic motorist? You never ride in primary? You never force a motorist to hang back a little simply because you are there?

Again, you seem to be missing my fundamental point to the degree that I wonder if you are doing so deliberately. I am not for one second suggesting we cyclists completely ignore the rule of law simply because it suits us to do so. I am saying that there are certain junctions - that were presumably designed purely with the motorist in mind - where it could be considered safer for a cyclist to carefully RLJ than to hang back. Safety first, as the old saying goes. I know RLJing is illegal. I would hold my hands up and say 'It's a fair cop guvvna' if stopped by the police (as well as explaining my motivation for doing so), but my safety concerns are primary, not speed, not the narrow-minded attitudes of a small number of motorists, safety.

W1 wrote:

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".

Nonsense! If you want to rephrase your last sentence to, 'In which case the choice to RLJ goes from being not only "for safety" , but to avoid inconvenience also then I might accept your point, but your desperate crusade to insist the motivation behind RLJing is purely as a way of saving time is as ridiculous now as it was five pages ago.

All riding requires consideration, and I'm sure we've all made foolish errors of judgement in the past. For me, any time I RLJ (only potentially once on every round trip at the junction I mention above) I do so extremely cautiously, and only if I feel my safety might be compromised if I was to wait, and only if I perceive it to be completely safe for me to do so.

Yesterday evening, at the junction previously mentioned, I found myself among a small group of cyclists who had very carefully glided through the red light until meeting the edge of Camberwell New Rd before waiting. They were all riding decent bikes, wearing quality commuting gear and were clearly aware of the importance of high visibility clothing and sensible lighting, yet they too must have seen careful RLJing as being the sensible solution in that situation. But then again, perhaps they really only wanted to shave four seconds off their journey time.

Obviously I would rather have a road system designed where the cyclist's safety is taken into consideration, but until that system is put in place I will still put my personal safety and that of those around me first and the absolute rule of the law second.

soundninjauk

Jonny_Trousers 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?

So you are saying you always ride in a way that is designed to appease the unsympathetic motorist? You never ride in primary? You never force a motorist to hang back a little simply because you are there?

I guess the difference there is that riding in primary, forcing the motorist to hang back etc. are all perfectly legal activities, and therefore while they can get disgruntled if they want they don't have a legal leg to stand on, whereas RLJing is most certainly NOT legal.

I just think that some people will be impatient idiots whether they're on a bike (RLJing through a busy ped crossing for example) or in a car (complaining at notsoblue for having to avoid a parked car?!). The reason I personally don't RLJ is because I don't want to be hit by someone who assumed (not unreasonably I think) that I wasn't there because his light was green.

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

snip

I'm not missing the point you are making (deliberately or otherwise). I just don't agree that there are many situations where it is safer to RJL and IN ADDITION there is no other legal alternative in order to avoid having to RLJ. I.e. it's all well and good to bleat on about it being for safety, but if there is an alternative which is just as safe (or safer) but doesn't require RLJing, and you decide none-the-less to RLJ, then my point stands - it's still being done for convenience.

Of course safety is the primary objective, and of course I put my safety above motorists' convenience if required. But running red lights and taking primary are not comparable, because one is (generally) dangerous and unpredictable - not to mention illegal - whilst the other can ONLY be for safety.

It's impossible to appease everyone, obviously, but as I've said previously why give any more reasons for morons to hate us?

daviesee

notsoblue wrote:

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

I bet it won't be the last one though :twisted:

This is going nowhere but I am. Bye 8)

shm_uk

Re. a large number of comments I've read concerning RLJing on various forums:

Since when does having personal justification make it ok to break the law?
And just because someone on a web forum agrees with you doesn't make it ok either

The bottom line is, there is no instance nor occasion where RLJing is acceptable behaviour.

Nope, there's no grey areas in my view of the world!

jonny_trousers

soundninjauk wrote:

The reason I personally don't RLJ is because I don't want to be hit by someone who assumed (not unreasonably I think) that I wasn't there because his light was green.

The very same reason why I only very, very rarely RLJ. Safety! The reason for this entire topic. I've heard arguments for not RLJing from a moral standpoint (law breaking, bringing fellow cyclists into disrepute), but I have yet to be convinced that it is always safer to wait for the green (99% of the time I know it is), no matter how poorly the junction has been designed.

jonny_trousers

shm_uk wrote:

Re. a large number of comments I've read concerning RLJing on various forums:

Since when does having personal justification make it ok to break the law?

Since when you finally accept the satisfaction of being a law-abiding citizen is not as comforting as you might think while bouncing off the bonnet of some chav's Golf GTI simply because he wanted to beat the car to his right across the junction.

mroli

Johnny - can you give me an example of a junction where it is safer for you to RLJ than to wait? perhaps a link to a street view? I understand that you may want to "push" your way to the front of a queue to ensure that you are not "boxed in" by vehicles and that may involve putting your front wheel in front of a stop line - but how would riding through a RL be safer?

I v politely said "excuse me" to a ped in a cycle lane yesterday only to be met with a tirade of abuse about why should he get out of a cycle lane when all cyclists jumped red lights. I politely informed ped that I stopped at every red light, to which I got the response "bullsh*t". I offered to share with him my garmin information that would show my stops, but for some reason this was a step beyond the level of our conversation.

Said ped was a well to do man in his 50s.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

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

First of all, I don't support jumping red lights. I don't buy the "I RLJ for safety" argument. Nor do I fume with rage as commuters on my route stream past me as I'm stopped at red, or fantasise about clotheslining them as some form of street justice to appease our mighty motorised overlords.

W1 wrote:

Why give people like that any excuse to hate cyclists more than they do?

My point is that I don't. They don't need an excuse. So stop saying that they have one.

W1 wrote:

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".

So the only thing we can do to help is to 'encourage people not to RLJ'. In practice this amounts to posting an anti-RLJ opinion on a cycle forum, or to tut as people ride past you at traffic lights. I'm sure the 'motorist lobby' appreciates your efforts.

Whether you think other people RLJing explains or justifies motorists behaving like dangerous morons is besides the point. They'd act that way if every cyclist behaved impeccably. They simply object to sharing 'their' road with anything other than motorised transport. And theres nothing you or I can do about that.

I accept your point that some motorists see cyclists RLJ and tar others with the same brush. My counterpoint is that the fact that someone is ignorant enough to group such a diverse collection of people together and to write them all off as worthy of human respect, means that there is no amount of tutting or arguing on forums that is going to ever change their mind. If you want to go all Vichy and join in the anti-cyclist chorus then by all means, go ahead, but don't say you're doing it to improve my life as a fellow cyclist.

W1 wrote:

And as for calling me a troll - pathetic.

For the record, this is what I actually said:

"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."

Personally I think you're more of a self-flagellating masochist than a troll.

soundninjauk

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

The reason I personally don't RLJ is because I don't want to be hit by someone who assumed (not unreasonably I think) that I wasn't there because his light was green.

The very same reason why I only very, very rarely RLJ. Safety! The reason for this entire topic. I've heard arguments for not RLJing from a moral standpoint (law breaking, bringing fellow cyclists into disrepute), but I have yet to be convinced that it is always safer to wait for the green (99% of the time I know it is), no matter how poorly the junction has been designed.

Well I think by this point all we're doing is not acting like mindless automatons. I mean, I try and judge what's going to happen before it does, and if I think that being at the front won't be safe, I'll take primary and wait in the traffic a few cars back. However, if I get it wrong and danger presents itself, then I will get the shit out of the way.

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

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.

If W1 (and others, my rant wasn't meant to just single out W1) was simply stating that we're better off not fueling their prejudices, and we shouldn't RLJ because of that, then I'd have no problem. Instead what he's doing by offering RLJ as an explanation for misanthropic, bad drivers is empathising with them. That is what I object to, its no excuse. I'm not going to take the responsibility for somebody else's generalisations and prejudices.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

If W1 (and others, my rant wasn't meant to just single out W1) was simply stating that we're better off not fueling their prejudices, and we shouldn't RLJ because of that, then I'd have no problem. Instead what he's doing by offering RLJ as an explanation for misanthropic, bad drivers is empathising with them. That is what I object to, its no excuse. I'm not going to take the responsibility for somebody else's generalisations and prejudices.

No, I'm not. Offering an explanation is not "emphathising" - it's just offering an explanation. Explanation and justification are NOT the same thing.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Of course safety is the primary objective, and of course I put my safety above motorists' convenience if required. But running red lights and taking primary are not comparable, because one is (generally) dangerous and unpredictable - not to mention illegal - whilst the other can ONLY be for safety.

The point is that they *are* comparable if you're being criticised by a motorist for one, because of someone else doing the other.

W1 wrote:

It's impossible to appease everyone, obviously, but as I've said previously why give any more reasons for morons to hate us?

I see what you're saying, but its a ludicrous argument. Morons will be morons, I'm not going to attack another cyclist for their attitude to jumping red lights in a vain attempt to protect me from being knocked off the bike by someone who irrationally hates bikes.

Just stick with "RLJ is against the law". Its a less offensive opinion.

jonny_trousers

mroli wrote:

Johnny - can you give me an example of a junction where it is safer for you to RLJ than to wait? perhaps a link to a street view?

I linked one up as best I could very early in this thread. It really is an exceptional junction and the only one I ever RLJ (apart from the occasional pedestrian crossing at 11:00 at night and I can see the ped has crossed and there's no one around - and yes, I do still slow up justincase). I highlight the difficulty with this junction as a cyclist and a few members have very kindly pointed out how they would tackle it legally, but I am afraid they failed to convince me it would be safer than gently gliding through the red until meeting where the two roads cross, waiting there for the green and then getting the jump on the area's often very aggresive/careless drivers behind. I suppose it's funny, it's an RLJ, but you still wait for the green before crossing.

I've ridden it legally many times in the past, but there have been far too many occasions when I have had to consider a change of shorts afterwards.

Can I just add that there have been occasions in the past when I have hit this junction on a green yet have slowed my pace until either all traffic has past ahead or the light turns to red (thus giving me the opportunity to get a headstart on the cars next time). It really is a dangerous one.

I suppose I could dismount and walk the junction (I usually do exactly this, earlier on in my journey, when turning right from Great Queen St onto Kingsway for safety reasons), but I really, trully believe I am not putting anyone in danger by gliding forwards and I do not accept that me doing so will endanger my fellow cyclists.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

If W1 (and others, my rant wasn't meant to just single out W1) was simply stating that we're better off not fueling their prejudices, and we shouldn't RLJ because of that, then I'd have no problem. Instead what he's doing by offering RLJ as an explanation for misanthropic, bad drivers is empathising with them. That is what I object to, its no excuse. I'm not going to take the responsibility for somebody else's generalisations and prejudices.

No, I'm not. Offering an explanation is not "emphathising" - it's just offering an explanation. Explanation and justification are NOT the same thing.

I hate to get into semantics with you, but if you're criticising a third party while explaining the motives of a second, then it looks like empathy to me.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

If W1 (and others, my rant wasn't meant to just single out W1) was simply stating that we're better off not fueling their prejudices, and we shouldn't RLJ because of that, then I'd have no problem. Instead what he's doing by offering RLJ as an explanation for misanthropic, bad drivers is empathising with them. That is what I object to, its no excuse. I'm not going to take the responsibility for somebody else's generalisations and prejudices.

No, I'm not. Offering an explanation is not "emphathising" - it's just offering an explanation. Explanation and justification are NOT the same thing.

I hate to get into semantics with you, but if you're criticising a third party while explaining the motives of a second, then it looks like empathy to me.

Semantics aside, it is not my opinion that you should have to suffer abuse because the OP (or any other cyclist) decides to run red lights. That's actually the keystone to my stance on RLJing, not the legality of it.

Nor, I should add, does RLJing cyclists justify poor and dangerous driving.

shm_uk

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

Re. a large number of comments I've read concerning RLJing on various forums:

Since when does having personal justification make it ok to break the law?

Since when you finally accept the satisfaction of being a law-abiding citizen is not as comforting as you might think while bouncing off the bonnet of some chav's Golf GTI simply because he wanted to beat the car to his right across the junction.

Whereas I understand the sentiment, this kind of scenario still doesn't make it ok to break the law.

gtvlusso

Ran out of popcorn....bugger.

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

Semantics aside, it is not my opinion that you should have to suffer abuse because the OP (or any other cyclist) decides to run red lights. That's actually the keystone to my stance on RLJing, not the legality of it.

I agree with you: no cyclist should have to suffer abuse because of my actions. If they do so it is because the person offering up the abuse is an idiot not because of anything I have done (in this particular incidence anyway, I've made plenty of foolish mistakes in the past to which I will always accept responsibility and offer an apology wherever I can). I'm afraid I refuse to put myself in a very dangerous situation, however, just in case said idiot happens to be behind and chooses to take my careful, slow progression beyond this particular red light as justification for being abusive to a fellow cyclist.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Semantics aside, it is not my opinion that you should have to suffer abuse because the OP (or any other cyclist) decides to run red lights.That's actually the keystone to my stance on RLJing, not the legality of it.

I understand this, and my point is that being against RLJ because it gives motorists and excuse to abuse cyclists, is like being against pedophilia because it gives racists in Blackburn an excuse to abuse Pakistanis.

W1 wrote:

Nor, I should add, does RLJing cyclists justify poor and dangerous driving.

Agreed.

jonny_trousers

shm_uk wrote:

Whereas I understand the sentiment, this kind of scenario still doesn't make it ok to break the law.

Which is why I would not argue a fine should I be issued with one.

dawebbo

If you think it is unsafe to ride through a junction legally, I would suggest getting off your bike and walking around / take a different route. Picking and choosing what laws apply to you and when is always (and rightly so) going to cause resentment.

jonny_trousers

dawebbo wrote:

If you think it is unsafe to ride through a junction legally, I would suggest getting off your bike and walking around / take a different route. Picking and choosing what laws apply to you and when is always (and rightly so) going to cause resentment.

Resentment from whom? The same idiots who get annoyed because cyclists ride too far out from the pavement? The same idiots who are agrieved that we don't pay 'road tax'?

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

I understand this, and my point is that being against RLJ because it gives motorists and excuse to abuse cyclists, is like being against pedophilia because it gives racists in Blackburn an excuse to abuse Pakistanis.

Phil Collins says that's just nonce sense!

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

W1 wrote:

Semantics aside, it is not my opinion that you should have to suffer abuse because the OP (or any other cyclist) decides to run red lights. That's actually the keystone to my stance on RLJing, not the legality of it.

I agree with you: no cyclist should have to suffer abuse because of my actions. If they do so it is because the person offering up the abuse is an idiot not because of anything I have done (in this particular incidence anyway, I've made plenty of foolish mistakes in the past to which I will always accept responsibility and offer an apology wherever I can). I'm afraid I refuse to put myself in a very dangerous situation, however, just in case said idiot happens to be behind and chooses to take my careful, slow progression beyond this particular red light as justification for being abusive to a fellow cyclist.

But it takes both a moron and a RLJer to make a "moron who hates cyclists because they all RLJ", so you simply can't say it's "not because of anything I have done" - because, from my view, it very much is. A moron can't give abuse to other cyclists for RLJing if no cyclists RLJ'd....

And I can't say any more on the safety aspect than I have done. If there is a non RLJ way of crossing a dangerous junction but you chose to RLJ anyway, then you're just another RLJer....

_Brun_

Here's one junction on my route home: Link. I'm turning right.

The lights in either direction both change at the same time, so when they go green I'll roll into the middle of the junction in the vicinity of that arrow, and wait for a gap in the traffic coming in the other direction. Problem is, because the space to turn right is very generous, it's very difficult to dissuade drivers from trying to get alongside in an attempt to cross through the oncoming traffic at the same time as yourself. This is obviously a bit of a pain in the arse, and of course has the potential to be dangerous. I also take the first right immediately after the junction, so it's important I'm in primary.

On the other hand, when the lights are red as in the link, the only traffic with a green light is coming from the right where the two pedestrians are crossing. Even in the link, it's obvious whether there's anything coming, and more often than not there isn't. In that case, it's possible to turn right with the confidence that absolutely nothing is moving. It's hard to argue that this is not safer than the first, law-abiding, example.

Incidentally, I once witnessed someone jumping off their bike at this red, running it across the middle of the junction and performing a flying remount at the other side. I pointed out that this made him look a bit of a prick, but he assured me that a 'policeman friend' told him it was perfectly legal. Then he had a go at me, for not wearing a helmet and having 'no brakes', obviously being too stupid to spot the front one, or appreciate my demonstration of why I don't need a rear.

So, in the case that the above might be legal (I suspect a policeman would at least stop you and have a word), is it therefore justifiable even though it would probably annoy drivers just as much as riding through the red is alleged to?

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

But it takes both a moron and a RLJer to make a "moron who hates cyclists because they all RLJ", so you simply can't say it's "not because of anything I have done" - because, from my view, it very much is. A moron can't give abuse to other cyclists for RLJing if no cyclists RLJ'd....

But the moron will still be a moron whether he has a lame justification for it or not. If no one in the country ever RLJ'd cyclists would still get beeped by morons who don't like being held up for two seconds by the cyclist in front. Why don't we give the morons no excuse to be morons by just not riding on the roads at all?

W1 wrote:

And I can't say any more on the safety aspect than I have done. If there is a non RLJ way of crossing a dangerous junction but you chose to RLJ anyway, then you're just another RLJer....

Sure, if I RLJ then I am an RLJer. I am not, however, an RLJer who RLJs simply to shave time off my journey, as you previously insisted.

_Brun_

W1 wrote:

But it takes both a moron and a RLJer to make a "moron who hates cyclists because they all RLJ", so you simply can't say it's "not because of anything I have done" - because, from my view, it very much is. A moron can't give abuse to other cyclists for RLJing if no cyclists RLJ'd....

They'd just carry on hating cyclists for whatever other reason they fancied. Presumably if no one is jumping red lights, then it will be because they're constantly stuck behind them at junctions.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

But it takes both a moron and a RLJer to make a "moron who hates cyclists because they all RLJ", so you simply can't say it's "not because of anything I have done" - because, from my view, it very much is. A moron can't give abuse to other cyclists for RLJing if no cyclists RLJ'd....

If said moron then goes on to recklessly endanger a cyclist that has never jumped a red light in her life, then it is ludicrous to say that the RLJer shares any of the responsibility for the moron's actions.

shm_uk

someone wrote:

Which is why I would not argue a fine should I be issued with one.

I think this pretty much sums up attitiudes toward law-breaking in this country (and certainly not only RLJing)...

Chance of getting caught: slim
Punishment if caught: slight

Conclusion: No real reason to be law-abiding therefore I'll do what I like regardless of social responsibility