RLJing for safety

notsoblue

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I don't ride on the same roads as you do so I can't comment on how dangerous these junctions are. But to be honest, I've been on some pretty hairy intersections on major roads and I don't think I've ever felt the need to RLJ to protect myself. I just take an assertive primary position, try to make eye contact with the drivers, and I manage fine.

Its pretty hard to sympathise with you HH and J_T, but you'll keep doing what you're doing regardless of anyone's opinion on here.

The insinuation that a worry for personal safety is a reflection on urban riding skills is absolute nonsense. You could be the most skilled, the most aware, rider in the world and still be taken out by a careless or aggressive driver.

And as for the insinuation from a couple of people that I, and people of a similar opinion to me, are just stubborn in our opinions. Utter balls! I mentioned right at the beginning of this thread that I have only recently started performing my RLJ manoeuvre having been inspired by watching a cyclist through my car windscreen. All along I have been open to persuasion, yet so far I still think my method is safest.

Whoa now, I'm not making a value judgement on your urban riding skills, I'm just saying that I can't really recall or imagine a situation on my usual routes that would be made safer by RLJ. And I wasn't insinuating that you're stubborn, just that the anti-RLJ opinions that have been stated over and over and over again on this thread clearly aren't going to convince you that you should stop RLJ because its against the law. I'm not going to start jumping red lights to make my journeys safer myself, because I don't think it does. I have no desire to convince you to RLJ or not to RLJ. I don't really care if people jump red lights or not.

jonny_trousers

notsoblue wrote:

Whoa now, I'm not making a value judgement on your urban riding skills, I'm just saying that I can't really recall or imagine a situation on my usual routes that would be made safer by RLJ. And I wasn't insinuating that you're stubborn, just that the anti-RLJ opinions that have been stated over and over and over again on this thread clearly aren't going to convince you that you should stop RLJ because its against the law. I'm not going to start jumping red lights to make my journeys safer myself, because I don't think it does. I have no desire to convince you to RLJ or not to RLJ. I don't really care if people jump red lights or not.

Ok. Apologies

W1

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Ok. Apologies

Good to see that when you misinterpret what someone says you have the grace and manners to apologise....

jonny_trousers

W1 wrote:

grace and manners

That's me!

DonDaddyD

I did not expect this thread to have the mileage it has had.

I RLJ'd today, the lights were amber and as I passed through they turned red. I felt so guilty.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Ok. Apologies

Good to see that when you misinterpret what someone says you have the grace and manners to apologise....

Sorry W1. I probably overreacted in my posts earlier. But I'm pretty sure I haven't misinterpreted what you're saying.

gaz545

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

gaz545 wrote:

@JT i know the roads around brixton well, but i'm strugiling to see which set of lights you feel the need to jump?
google street view perhaps

I don't 'need' to jump these lights mate; I just feel it is safer and wiser to do so.

Let's hope this link works:

Click Here

I am talking about heading in the direction that the bus is travelling in. The line where the Astra in front of the white van is where I roll up to. The convertible on the other side of the box junction is where I am ultimately aiming for.

I don't see the need to 'jump' the red light there, unless you know the light phase perfectly you will be putting your self in more danger by RLJ.
It's fairly easy to control the lane to take the rightish turn, if you have difficulties with that, perhaps some bikability lessons would help.

jonny_trousers

gaz545 wrote:

I don't see the need to 'jump' the red light there, unless you know the light phase perfectly you will be putting your self in more danger by RLJ.
It's fairly easy to control the lane to take the rightish turn, if you have difficulties with that, perhaps some bikability lessons would help.

I don't know how many times I need say this or how much clearer I should be, but let's have another go shall we? I can ride that junction legally, but I see no good reason to put myself in such a potentially dangerous position in order to do so given the simple option I have of gliding across the line and waiting at the edge of the junction before progressing. In doing so I am technically only RLJing as much as those of you who allow your front wheel to pass the outer line of an ASL while waiting for the green.

SmellTheGlove

My plan (though admittedly I only know that junction as a motorist): wait five or six car lengths back on the red. On green, surf through in primary at pretty much same speed as surrounding vehicles. Give the lane back on far side of junction.
Worth a go?

jonny_trousers

SmellTheGlove wrote:

My plan (though admittedly I only know that junction as a motorist): wait five or six car lengths back on the red. On green, surf through in primary at pretty much same speed as surrounding vehicles. Give the lane back on far side of junction.
Worth a go?

Worth a go. I'll try that in about 40 minutes time.

jonny_trousers

Ok so I just rode it legally among traffic again and it was no big deal. I still maintain the subtle RLJ is safer, but it is less legal and so I will consider that on future journeys.

shouldbeinbed

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

think yr falling on deaf ears. Just like theres some motorists that are always right about certain things no matter what you say to them, the cycling fraternity are just the same. I've never come across a junction I felt so frightened or technically incompetent that I couldn't figure where to safely put myself and stay within the bounds of the law & there are a few interesting little combos and traffic light locks to negotiate.

Each to their own but along with road tax quips which is nothing whatsoever to do with us, the single biggest gripe I see & hear from drivers is RLJ which is TOTALLY under cyclists control. No effect on us all???

Hang on. So just because I cannot agree that it is as safe or safer for me to stay alongside the traffic at that particular junction I am refusing to listen? Bit arrogant don't you think?

I have no problem with me riding that junction legally either; it's the drivers around me I worry about and if very careful passing of the red light before waiting for the green puts me in a much safer position then I'm sorry, I'm going to look after myself

I suggest you read back over this thread and see how I have discussed every point raised before you start accusing me of narrow-mindedness.

Fair play it was a harsh hastily knocked off post, my apologies but I stand by stating that I've never encountered a junction or series that compelled me to RLJ, even if it meant giving up the filter option and taking a super primary position & a full car space in line and only relinquishing it out the other side when I consider it safe for me to do so. Just cos I can filter doesn't mean I have to.

RLJs are a particular hatred of mine, the worst most foul and physically threatening abuse I got was over RLJing. Whilst I was stopped at a set of lights! The nutjob threatened to run me over and as we started off veered his car right across me and put me in a heap on the pavment. Frothy Mouthed Daily Mail reader for sure but someone provoked that reaction from him and it sure as hell wasn't me

jonny_trousers

Right, well like I said earlier on, I was always open to persuasion. So I promise I will ride that junction to the letter of the law until I experience an even remotely hairy situation that I feel could have been avoided by gliding forwards. At that point I will have to reconsider.

notsoblue

shouldbeinbed wrote:

RLJs are a particular hatred of mine, the worst most foul and physically threatening abuse I got was over RLJing. Whilst I was stopped at a set of lights! The nutjob threatened to run me over and as we started off veered his car right across me and put me in a heap on the pavment. Frothy Mouthed Daily Mail reader for sure but someone provoked that reaction from him and it sure as hell wasn't me

RLJ is against the law, and you shouldn't do it. But I just can't follow your logic... Please correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying here is:

- C*** has perception that all cyclists jump red lights
- C*** feels the need to recklessly endanger a random cyclist and uses this perception as justification
- Random cyclist then blames cyclists who RLJ for C***'s behaviour

I know plenty of motorists who have a "All cyclists run red lights" attitude, but they still wouldn't ever attack a random, law abiding cyclist like that. Thats because they're not c***s

In my view, this motorist attacked you because he's a c***. Not because at various points in the past he saw a number of cyclists run through red lights. Rational people don't abuse others for reasons as tenuous as that. And you can't blame others for the irrational behaviour of c***s.

People shouldn't RLJ because its against the law, not because c***s can use it as an excuse for behaving like c***s

bigmat

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

RLJs are a particular hatred of mine, the worst most foul and physically threatening abuse I got was over RLJing. Whilst I was stopped at a set of lights! The nutjob threatened to run me over and as we started off veered his car right across me and put me in a heap on the pavment. Frothy Mouthed Daily Mail reader for sure but someone provoked that reaction from him and it sure as hell wasn't me

RLJ is against the law, and you shouldn't do it. But I just can't follow your logic... Please correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying here is:

- C*** has perception that all cyclists jump red lights
- C*** feels the need to recklessly endanger a random cyclist and uses this perception as justification
- Random cyclist then blames cyclists who RLJ for C***'s behaviour

I know plenty of motorists who have a "All cyclists run red lights" attitude, but they still wouldn't ever attack a random, law abiding cyclist like that. Thats because they're not c***s

In my view, this motorist attacked you because he's a c***. Not because at various points in the past he saw a number of cyclists run through red lights. Rational people don't abuse others for reasons as tenuous as that. And you can't blame others for the irrational behaviour of c***s.

People shouldn't RLJ because its against the law, not because c***s can use it as an excuse for behaving like c***s

I guess the argument is that:

1. There are drivers out there who started out as perfectly reasonable, but who have been so enraged by witnessing cyclists RLJ that they now drive in a dangerous manner as a direct result.

2. Cyclists couldn't possibly complain about said dangerous driving / inadequate infrastructure because some other cyclists may not always adhere to the road traffic laws 100%.

Its nonsense in my opinion, but there you go.

On the safety issue, its interesting that there don't sem to be any stories of cyclists being injured / killed when RLJing. I would've thought that there would have been at least one high profile incident where a cyclist had been injured / killed and it was then shown to be the cyclist's own fault, but I'm not aware of any. On the other hand, there is an ever depessing roll call of cyclists following the rules and being killed. Not sure how that fits in with the "RLJing is dangerous" position, although obviously that is only relevant to the safety of the RLJing cyclist himself.

notsoblue

BigMat wrote:

I guess the argument is that:

1. There are drivers out there who started out as perfectly reasonable, but who have been so enraged by witnessing cyclists RLJ that they now drive in a dangerous manner as a direct result.

2. Cyclists couldn't possibly complain about said dangerous driving / inadequate infrastructure because some other cyclists may not always adhere to the road traffic laws 100%.

Its nonsense in my opinion, but there you go.

Indeed. It really is utter bollocks. There are two main reasons why I get annoyed by this attitude. The first is that I've seen it exhibited by the police. The cyclist is more often than not assumed to be in the wrong from the start. At the scene of an accident at a junction involving a cyclist, why should one of the first questions be "Did the cyclist jump a red light?". And the second is that there is *nothing* you can do about it as a law abiding goody two shoes cyclist. Like Mat says, there will never be a situation where all cyclists adhere to road traffic laws 100%. And thats not to say that theres no point in being law abiding, but that it is ridiculous to make all cyclists responsible for the behaviour of a proportion.

BigMat wrote:

On the safety issue, its interesting that there don't sem to be any stories of cyclists being injured / killed when RLJing. I would've thought that there would have been at least one high profile incident where a cyclist had been injured / killed and it was then shown to be the cyclist's own fault, but I'm not aware of any. On the other hand, there is an ever depessing roll call of cyclists following the rules and being killed. Not sure how that fits in with the "RLJing is dangerous" position, although obviously that is only relevant to the safety of the RLJing cyclist himself.

This is a good point and probably part of the reason for the OP. Many roads in this country just aren't designed with cyclists in mind at all and as such they can be dangerous to use. Its no wonder that there are so many cyclists out there that feel they need to bend or break the rules just to get home safely.

W1

If you're both so determined to not see the possibility of a causitive relationship between "people who don't like cyclists because they jump red lights" and "red light jumping cyclists" then there is little that anyone can do to highlight it better than has already been attempted in this thread. The clear logic isn't "nonsense" "b0llocks" or "ludicrous" though.


If no cyclists ever RLJ'd, do you think the police would question that fact in the event of a collision? No.

If no cyclists ever RLJ'd, do you think the ranty woman NSB met would have mentioned it? No.

If no cyclist RLJ'd do you think anyone would have a (negative) image of cyclists "all jumping red lights"? No.

And it's not about the "haters" who are (a) in a minority and (b) completely unable to have rational thought. It's about those who don't really care either way, but are pre-disposed to stereotyping (of which we are all guilty to some extent). For cyclists that stereotype is generally a negative one. And it's due, in part (IMO) to RLJers. And balance that negative against the positives of RLJing (which, as this thread has shown, is hard to justify on safety grounds) and using logic the net balance is - RLJing is a negative thing.
And I don't see why I should suffer any negative consequences from the actions of others. So I'm happy to speak out against bad driving, and happy to speak out against bad cycling. I don't see why this is such an emotive thing to do.

BTW - none of that gives any justification for poor driving around cyclists. But it does provide a reason. And it's a reason that is easyfor us to tackle on an individual basis at least, so why not try?

DCowling

Has anybody on here actually been knocked down as a reulst of recklessly RLJing and if so has it stopped them from doing it again

jonny_trousers

I've seen a cyclist ride into a car through not bothering to give way, but he really was being reckless and I suspect was pissed. On his way back from the Morpeth perhaps? I think it might be fair to assume that those intelligent cyclists who occasionally RLJ pay particularly careful attention to the traffic around them as they do so and perhaps are less likely to come into direct contact with careless or aggressive drivers as they are already looking out for them. It fits with that Norwegian study I mentioned before.

It would be extremely easy fo Lambeth council to make the RLJ manoeuvre in my example legal by extending the cycle lane right up to the edge of CNR, but that would,of course, cost them money.

The cyclist I saw nearly bite the dust at that junction was not being particularly car aware, but he was not doing anything wrong. It was the driver who'd had the time to get some serious speed up and was aggressively trying to swing a left who was at fault.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

If you're both so determined to not see the possibility of a causitive relationship between "people who don't like cyclists because they jump red lights" and "red light jumping cyclists" then there is little that anyone can do to highlight it better than has already been attempted in this thread.

An excuse isn't the same thing as a causative relationship. Motorists that harass cyclists do so because they're in their way. Not because of some desire for restorative justice. Yelling some crap about jumping red lights while honking the horn at two cyclists riding abreast or someone riding in primary to safely navigate a junction has nothing to do with other cyclists who jump red lights. Shouldbeinbed is suggesting that he was abused on the road because the cyclist saw and was enraged by an RLJ. Wheres the logic in that?

W1 wrote:

The clear logic isn't "nonsense" "b0llocks" or "ludicrous" though.


If no cyclists ever RLJ'd, do you think the police would question that fact in the event of a collision? No.

If no cyclists ever RLJ'd, do you think the ranty woman NSB met would have mentioned it? No.

If no cyclist RLJ'd do you think anyone would have a (negative) image of cyclists "all jumping red lights"? No.

And it's not about the "haters" who are (a) in a minority and (b) completely unable to have rational thought. It's about those who don't really care either way, but are pre-disposed to stereotyping (of which we are all guilty to some extent). For cyclists that stereotype is generally a negative one. And it's due, in part (IMO) to RLJers. And balance that negative against the positives of RLJing (which, as this thread has shown, is hard to justify on safety grounds) and using logic the net balance is - RLJing is a negative thing.
And I don't see why I should suffer any negative consequences from the actions of others. So I'm happy to speak out against bad driving, and happy to speak out against bad cycling. I don't see why this is such an emotive thing to do.

BTW - none of that gives any justification for poor driving around cyclists. But it does provide a reason. And it's a reason that is easyfor us to tackle on an individual basis at least, so why not try?

I suffer negative consequences due to the stereotype. But I am of the opinion that it is impossible to prevent every cyclist in the country from ever running a red light. In fact, I don't believe that anything I can do personally, beyond being responsible for my own behaviour, will have any effect on motorists that accept that stereotype and use it as an excuse to abuse cyclists. If it wasn't an accusation that we all RLJ, it would be the accusation that we all ride without lights, or turn without indicating, or ride too slow on the road, or cause traffic....

Which is why I don't buy this argument that RLJ is bad because it gives cyclists a bad name. Cyclists have a bad name for most simply because they're cyclists. You seem to be implying that if we all stop jumping red lights, that we will live in perfect harmony with the motorist, and never the two shall clash ever again. *That* is what is ludicrous.

RLJ is against the law, just leave it at that. Just don't try and convince me that people like Johnny Trousers or anyone who occasionally runs a red light are to blame for tw@ts cutting me up or shouting abuse at me while I'm riding my bike. Its insulting.

daviesee

I've been hit by a RLJer while in the car. He sailed through red while I was on green waiting to turn right, straight into and over my boot.
No damage to the car and no sympathy.

shouldbeinbed

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

RLJs are a particular hatred of mine, the worst most foul and physically threatening abuse I got was over RLJing. Whilst I was stopped at a set of lights! The nutjob threatened to run me over and as we started off veered his car right across me and put me in a heap on the pavment. Frothy Mouthed Daily Mail reader for sure but someone provoked that reaction from him and it sure as hell wasn't me

RLJ is against the law, and you shouldn't do it. But I just can't follow your logic... Please correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying here is:

- C*** has perception that all cyclists jump red lights
- C*** feels the need to recklessly endanger a random cyclist and uses this perception as justification
- Random cyclist then blames cyclists who RLJ for C***'s behaviour

I know plenty of motorists who have a "All cyclists run red lights" attitude, but they still wouldn't ever attack a random, law abiding cyclist like that. Thats because they're not c***s

In my view, this motorist attacked you because he's a c***. Not because at various points in the past he saw a number of cyclists run through red lights. Rational people don't abuse others for reasons as tenuous as that. And you can't blame others for the irrational behaviour of c***s.

People shouldn't RLJ because its against the law, not because c***s can use it as an excuse for behaving like c***s

I don't blame cyclists who RLJ I have never felt the need or want to do it, I simply report that as the reason given for the one and only time in 20+ years commuting that I've been seriously & forcefully abused & deliberately driven at.
If he was simply a c**t he could have used any or several lines in his verbal abuse, pavements, slower than cars, road tax, stupid looking, bike lanes, filtering et al but he specifically stuck to RLJ. Something triggered that above any other Ckarkson Martin Rayner anti bike rhetoric he could have tried.

emac1987

daviesee wrote:

I've been hit by a RLJer while in the car. He sailed through red while I was on green waiting to turn right, straight into and over my boot.
No damage to the car and no sympathy.

I really despise this attitude of "it was his fault so I don't care if he's seriously injured, his problem anyway". I mean when there's an accident and someone's injured is being "right" really the priority??

Instead of having no sympathy to the RLJer, you should have been thankful he wasn't driving a car instead :!:

And unintentionally this proves why it's ok for cyclists to RLJ and it's not for cars. Why? Because cyclists take THEIR OWN RISKS! If they r not cautious, they pay it with their life, NOT with other people's life. Seriously how many car drivers have been killed by cyclists going through red light? None. How many pedestrians were killed by RLJing cyclists? I dunno but I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than cars. So now, do you really think RLJing cyclists are a big issue?? cos unless they suddendly become dangerous to other road users, I don't see why we should care...

emac1987

shouldbeinbed wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

RLJs are a particular hatred of mine, the worst most foul and physically threatening abuse I got was over RLJing. Whilst I was stopped at a set of lights! The nutjob threatened to run me over and as we started off veered his car right across me and put me in a heap on the pavment. Frothy Mouthed Daily Mail reader for sure but someone provoked that reaction from him and it sure as hell wasn't me

RLJ is against the law, and you shouldn't do it. But I just can't follow your logic... Please correct me if I'm wrong but what you're saying here is:

- C*** has perception that all cyclists jump red lights
- C*** feels the need to recklessly endanger a random cyclist and uses this perception as justification
- Random cyclist then blames cyclists who RLJ for C***'s behaviour

I know plenty of motorists who have a "All cyclists run red lights" attitude, but they still wouldn't ever attack a random, law abiding cyclist like that. Thats because they're not c***s

In my view, this motorist attacked you because he's a c***. Not because at various points in the past he saw a number of cyclists run through red lights. Rational people don't abuse others for reasons as tenuous as that. And you can't blame others for the irrational behaviour of c***s.

People shouldn't RLJ because its against the law, not because c***s can use it as an excuse for behaving like c***s

I don't blame cyclists who RLJ I have never felt the need or want to do it, I simply report that as the reason given for the one and only time in 20+ years commuting that I've been seriously & forcefully abused & deliberately driven at.
If he was simply a c**t he could have used any or several lines in his verbal abuse, pavements, slower than cars, road tax, stupid looking, bike lanes, filtering et al but he specifically stuck to RLJ. Something triggered that above any other Ckarkson Martin Rayner anti bike rhetoric he could have tried.

Mate, he was obviously a c**t. He calls you a RLJer eventhough you stopped at a red light :shock: just shows the stupidity of some drivers. There's nothing you can do to please them, even if you obeyed the law to the letter all the time, these people will manage to find something to discriminate cyclists. That's y I think people who say RLJer give a bad name to cyclists r wrong because even if there were 0 RLJers in the UK, car drivers will just resort to another insult. Why? Because they have an UNJUSTIFIED hatred for cyclists, simple.

notsoblue

shouldbeinbed wrote:

I don't blame cyclists who RLJ I have never felt the need or want to do it, I simply report that as the reason given for the one and only time in 20+ years commuting that I've been seriously & forcefully abused & deliberately driven at.
If he was simply a c**t he could have used any or several lines in his verbal abuse, pavements, slower than cars, road tax, stupid looking, bike lanes, filtering et al but he specifically stuck to RLJ. Something triggered that above any other Ckarkson Martin Rayner anti bike rhetoric he could have tried.

I think you're placing far too much relevance on the specific words he chose to insult you.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

If you're both so determined to not see the possibility of a causitive relationship between "people who don't like cyclists because they jump red lights" and "red light jumping cyclists" then there is little that anyone can do to highlight it better than has already been attempted in this thread.

An excuse isn't the same thing as a causative relationship. Motorists that harass cyclists do so because they're in their way. Not because of some desire for restorative justice. Yelling some crap about jumping red lights while honking the horn at two cyclists riding abreast or someone riding in primary to safely navigate a junction has nothing to do with other cyclists who jump red lights. Shouldbeinbed is suggesting that he was abused on the road because the cyclist saw and was enraged by an RLJ. Wheres the logic in that?

W1 wrote:

The clear logic isn't "nonsense" "b0llocks" or "ludicrous" though.


If no cyclists ever RLJ'd, do you think the police would question that fact in the event of a collision? No.

If no cyclists ever RLJ'd, do you think the ranty woman NSB met would have mentioned it? No.

If no cyclist RLJ'd do you think anyone would have a (negative) image of cyclists "all jumping red lights"? No.

And it's not about the "haters" who are (a) in a minority and (b) completely unable to have rational thought. It's about those who don't really care either way, but are pre-disposed to stereotyping (of which we are all guilty to some extent). For cyclists that stereotype is generally a negative one. And it's due, in part (IMO) to RLJers. And balance that negative against the positives of RLJing (which, as this thread has shown, is hard to justify on safety grounds) and using logic the net balance is - RLJing is a negative thing.
And I don't see why I should suffer any negative consequences from the actions of others. So I'm happy to speak out against bad driving, and happy to speak out against bad cycling. I don't see why this is such an emotive thing to do.

BTW - none of that gives any justification for poor driving around cyclists. But it does provide a reason. And it's a reason that is easyfor us to tackle on an individual basis at least, so why not try?

I suffer negative consequences due to the stereotype. But I am of the opinion that it is impossible to prevent every cyclist in the country from ever running a red light. In fact, I don't believe that anything I can do personally, beyond being responsible for my own behaviour, will have any effect on motorists that accept that stereotype and use it as an excuse to abuse cyclists. If it wasn't an accusation that we all RLJ, it would be the accusation that we all ride without lights, or turn without indicating, or ride too slow on the road, or cause traffic....

Which is why I don't buy this argument that RLJ is bad because it gives cyclists a bad name. Cyclists have a bad name for most simply because they're cyclists. You seem to be implying that if we all stop jumping red lights, that we will live in perfect harmony with the motorist, and never the two shall clash ever again. *That* is what is ludicrous.

RLJ is against the law, just leave it at that. Just don't try and convince me that people like Johnny Trousers or anyone who occasionally runs a red light are to blame for tw@ts cutting me up or shouting abuse at me while I'm riding my bike. Its insulting.

Oh Jesus. FFS NSB READ what I SAID. "Causitive effect" is not the same as "excuse". It is a REASON. How many times do I have to highlight this distinction before you start to actually take it on borad? If you cannot understand that maybe the REASON behind you receiving RLJ-based abuse is because of RJLers then I give up - you are simply unable to comprehend the logic that ties the two together.

And as for it making no difference - maybe not. But that is - obviously - no reason to possibly make things worse, is it?

DonDaddyD

HJow much safer can RLJ make you considering your riding a pedal bike alongside moving vehicles the majority of the time?

Personally I think the concept of RLJing is blindingly simply. There are junctions that I hate but if I position myself in the middle of the lane and act as a car as oppose to a cyclist which may lead me to being squashed, I'm usually fine.

Blackfriars Bridge heading towards the City comes to mind. DON'T use the cycle, position yourself in the middle of the lane and then back left back into the cycle after the left turning. This will help prevent vehicles turning left across you as you try to go straight. In fact that road layout assumes that cyclists on the left will be turning left, which is why vehicles don't give way. Its even happened to me.

Really, only time I RLJ these days is when I'm in a rush or cannot be arsed stopping.

I may go past the lights and stop on the other side of the crossing but not go across the junction to give myself room. Is that RLJing?

daviesee

emac1987 wrote:

daviesee wrote:

I've been hit by a RLJer while in the car. He sailed through red while I was on green waiting to turn right, straight into and over my boot.
No damage to the car and no sympathy.

I really despise this attitude of "it was his fault so I don't care if he's seriously injured, his problem anyway". I mean when there's an accident and someone's injured is being "right" really the priority??

Instead of having no sympathy to the RLJer, you should have been thankful he wasn't driving a car instead :!:

And unintentionally this proves why it's ok for cyclists to RLJ and it's not for cars. Why? Because cyclists take THEIR OWN RISKS! If they r not cautious, they pay it with their life, NOT with other people's life. Seriously how many car drivers have been killed by cyclists going through red light? None. How many pedestrians were killed by RLJing cyclists? I dunno but I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than cars. So now, do you really think RLJing cyclists are a big issue?? cos unless they suddendly become dangerous to other road users, I don't see why we should care...

Precisely! He gambled and lost. If he had stopped for the red nothing would have happened and he certainly wasn't RLJing for safety. He wasn't seriously injured by the way but entirely at fault.

jonny_trousers

DonDaddyD wrote:

I may go past the lights and stop on the other side of the crossing but not go across the junction to give myself room. Is that RLJing?

Well if I am RLJing by passing through the red in my example then yes, you are.

straas

I jump one red light nearly every morning, but don't really class it as a RLJ - going right out of a minor road across a major one the light sequence is only triggered when a car sits over the sensor.

I can't trigger the sensor but there is a bit of a gap between the filter from across where I can nip out before the main road gets moving again.

Would this be classed as legal due to a faulty signal, or would I have to wait for a car to turn up?