RANT - RLJ's
Comments
-
I am aware that some cyclists jump off their bikes at a red light, walk their bikes around on the pavement and remount after the light. Seems entirely legal, if a bit absurd and risks mildly annoying drivers stuck at the lights.
Now, has anyone seen a cyclist do this but, instead of walking their bike on the pavement, walked their bike on the road through the red light. Is this legal? I'm sure it would be much more annoying to drivers (those who choose to be annoyed, that is). Not sure if it is more or less "absurd".0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:If cyclists didn't RLJ, that presumption wouldn't exist and the accident wouldn't have occurred.
OT, but I still can't figure out exactly why that opinion annoys me so much. I guess its partly because people who voice it seem to be saying that if nobody broke the law, nothing bad would ever happen. Theres something about that kind of deference to authority and order that seems so sanctimonious and short sighted. Just follow the rules and everything will be fine. And if its not, at least you're in the right. Its such a passive, self-victimising stance because you can't possibly have any influence on other people's RLJ habits, so your default position is to impotently moan and/or rant about things you can't change.
And your default position is to shrug your shoulders and accept it? Yet also complain about receiving abuse due to other riders' actions? How is that better? That is truly passive deference!
Just because you can't change something (or think you can't), doesn't mean you should (a) not try or (b) adopt/support/not criticise the behaviour that you find objectionable.
The other responses have said it all for me.0 -
hatbeard wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:If cyclists didn't RLJ, that presumption wouldn't exist and the accident wouldn't have occurred.
OT, but I still can't figure out exactly why that opinion annoys me so much. I guess its partly because people who voice it seem to be saying that if nobody broke the law, nothing bad would ever happen. Theres something about that kind of deference to authority and order that seems so sanctimonious and short sighted. Just follow the rules and everything will be fine. And if its not, at least you're in the right. Its such a passive, self-victimising stance because you can't possibly have any influence on other people's RLJ habits, so your default position is to impotently moan and/or rant about things you can't change.
I think what they're saying is that by acting the way they do they're re-enforcing negative stereotypes which in turn get applied to all cyclists in broad strokes by those who prefer to see things in black and white rather than shades of grey.
To me it's akin to me liking to wear hooded tops but nowadays they're the mark of a chav/thug/criminal or 'hoodie' because the most notable wearers were the ones going round exhibiting antisocial behaviour and breaking the law and as such eventually there was a public backlash against them, thanks in no small part to smears by the media who all love a dig at things like hoodies (and RLJ).
If enough people within any group that are perceived to be a certain way based on looks, beliefs, opinions etc act in a negative way then that group will invariably end up being stereotyped imo. it's not right but there's plenty of bigots/idiots out there who make it impossible to avoid.
Interesting analogy, but have you ever suffered from wearing a hoodie as a result of this? And if, say, you were escorted out of a shopping centre because you were wearing one would you consider that reasonable? If not, would you blame the jumped up security guard or would you blame the chavs that had given hoodies a bad name?
Saw a girl almost get mown down by a bike at a ped crossing this morning, cyclist ahead of me was undertaking a bus at the time. Very lucky to avoid her, goes to show how potentially bad RLJ can be but I still think there has to be an element of riding sensibly according to the situation.0 -
Sketchley wrote:However, the for me the argument is that some motorists use the fact that cyclists RLJ to as reason not listen to any criticism from cyclists of bad driving or cycling problems in general. Then despite cycling campaigners being assertive and trying to change things, rather than “passive and self-victimising” they get met with stock responses such as "Something need to be done about cyclists RLJ, riding on pavements …." and you reach a stand off, a pattern that has gone on for years. Furthermore, when taken an assertive approach as an individual cyclist and confronting bad driving there is often a refusal to listen because “all cyclists red light jump”, case in point yesterday morning when I tapped on a windows of FedEx van who had left hooked me, first words out of his mouth “f**ck off you lot all read light jump so don’t lecture me”, at this point he’s made up his mind that he will not even consider that I may have a point. I haven’t given him this opinion so who has?
This happened to me - cycling though green lights at a cross roads and a car turns right across my bows - my right of way, lights on etc. We both stop inches away from each other and the guy is on a mobile phone as well. I obviously shout at him and his response in justification of being on a mobile whilst driving and nearly hitting me was "you cyclists always jump red lights!" - WTF?1997 Gary Fisher Big Sur
2009 Scott Spark 60
2010 Ghost 5000
2011 Commencal Ramones AL1
2012 Commencal Meta AM10 -
snailracer wrote:I am aware that some cyclists jump off their bikes at a red light, walk their bikes around on the pavement and remount after the light. Seems entirely legal, if a bit absurd and risks mildly annoying drivers stuck at the lights.
Now, has anyone seen a cyclist do this but, instead of walking their bike on the pavement, walked their bike on the road through the red light. Is this legal? I'm sure it would be much more annoying to drivers (those who choose to be annoyed, that is). Not sure if it is more or less "absurd".
I do this fairly regularly- my commute has some lights where the ped phase is followed by a long cross-traffic phase, so if I arrive at the start of the ped phase I reckon it's worth hopping off, walking across the junction & then remounting to carry on.
The dismount/remount is no hassle- rear dismount means I don't need to stop and I'm practiced enough with my pedals not to need to faff around to get going.
It has the advantage that I'm on clear road again, too.
I read somewhere that it's technically illegal if you push the bike, since that can be interpreted as "propelling" it but otherwise I don't think it's wrong.
Why would it be annoying? I would expect to have it interpreted as relatively considerate cycling- not RLJing but dismounting to avoid hassling Peds...
Cheers,
W.0 -
hatbeard wrote:I think what they're saying is that by acting the way they do they're re-enforcing negative stereotypes which in turn get applied to all cyclists in broad strokes by those who prefer to see things in black and white rather than shades of grey.
To me it's akin to me liking to wear hooded tops but nowadays they're the mark of a chav/thug/criminal or 'hoodie' because the most notable wearers were the ones going round exhibiting antisocial behaviour and breaking the law and as such eventually there was a public backlash against them, thanks in no small part to smears by the media who all love a dig at things like hoodies (and RLJ).
If enough people within any group that are perceived to be a certain way based on looks, beliefs, opinions etc act in a negative way then that group will invariably end up being stereotyped imo. it's not right but there's plenty of bigots/idiots out there who make it impossible to avoid.
Yeah, I get all that. And I have no problem with condemnation of RLJ within the cycling "community" because besides being against the law, it is pretty antisocial. But when the primary reason for this is to try and prevent bigots/idiots from acting according to their wont, it just seems so futile and needlessly self flagellating. Haters gonna hate, theres nothing you can do about it.
I wear hoodies. The analogy is a good one because it highlights just how ridiculous it would be for me to go around saying that my fellow hoodie wearers should refrain from shoplifting, trashing bus shelters and sniffing glue so that I won't feel bad for wearing them myself.0 -
Sketchley wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:If cyclists didn't RLJ, that presumption wouldn't exist and the accident wouldn't have occurred.
OT, but I still can't figure out exactly why that opinion annoys me so much. I guess its partly because people who voice it seem to be saying that if nobody broke the law, nothing bad would ever happen. Theres something about that kind of deference to authority and order that seems so sanctimonious and short sighted. Just follow the rules and everything will be fine. And if its not, at least you're in the right. Its such a passive, self-victimising stance because you can't possibly have any influence on other people's RLJ habits, so your default position is to impotently moan and/or rant about things you can't change.
I see you point clearly the statement “if nobody broke the law, nothing bad would ever happen” is wrong.
However, the for me the argument is that some motorists use the fact that cyclists RLJ to as reason not listen to any criticism from cyclists of bad driving or cycling problems in general. Then despite cycling campaigners being assertive and trying to change things, rather than “passive and self-victimising” they get met with stock responses such as "Something need to be done about cyclists RLJ, riding on pavements …." and you reach a stand off, a pattern that has gone on for years. Furthermore, when taken an assertive approach as an individual cyclist and confronting bad driving there is often a refusal to listen because “all cyclists red light jump”, case in point yesterday morning when I tapped on a windows of FedEx van who had left hooked me, first words out of his mouth “f**ck off you lot all read light jump so don’t lecture me”, at this point he’s made up his mind that he will not even consider that I may have a point. I haven’t given him this opinion so who has?
I agree with you that stopping cyclist from RLJ jumping will not stop bad driving, but it would at least mean we could move the conversation with said motorists on from the "You all red light jump" stand off and on to hopefully a more meaningful debate.
If you want to see this in action read the comments on here http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/MP ... rivers.htm. It doesn’t take long to get to RLJ, Cycling on the pavement, cycling the wrong way down a one way street, dark clothing and no lights, completely deflecting the debate away from the issues raised by the MP. If you wish to carry on reducing every cycling related debate to these points and never addressing the real issues then you could consider RLJ to be an individual choice that doesn’t affect other cyclists.
I totally understand what you're saying here, but I don't think that anything can be done to counter the claim that 'all cyclists run red lights, ride on the pavement, and are a menace to polite society' other than to simple call bullshit on it. Cycling is perceived by some to be far more dangerous that it actually is.
Example:The City of London Police meeting in the Barbican area in October saw one resident claim some statistics showing that 1,000 pedestrians had been injured in the City in the past nine years, 28% of whom were injured by pedal cyclists.
The reality:TfL receives details of all roadtraffic collisions reported to the police in the Greater London area thatoccurred on the public highway and resulted in injury to one or morepersons. In the latest 12 months to 31 August 2010 (the latest dataavailable from the Police), there were138 collisions in which apedestrian was injured by a pedal cyclist – these collisions resulted in 139pedestrian casualties (1 fatal, 30 serious and 108 slight injuries).
During this period, the totalnumber of reported casualties in which a pedestrian was injured by a pedalcyclist represented less than 0.3% of the total number of pedestrian casualtieswithin Greater London. Due to relatively small numbers, there is notsufficient statistical significance to identify particular hot spots. Please be aware that all 2010 data is provisional and may be subject to changeprior to the year being finalised and closed."
I repeat, the answer to this skewed perception is not to ramp up self criticism within the 'community' but to call people out on the bullshit they're spouting. Its a flawed perception. It doesn't warrant a rational response. There already is a healthy amount of condemnation of RLJ in my opinion.0 -
notsoblue wrote:I wear hoodies. The analogy is a good one because it highlights just how ridiculous it would be for me to go around saying that my fellow hoodie wearers should refrain from shoplifting, trashing bus shelters and sniffing glue so that I won't feel bad for wearing them myself.
I wouldn't say ridiculous, futile perhaps. stopping RLJ is indeed as unlikely as preventing crime from ever occurring or getting people to act like sensible adults with manners and common sense when using the tube, none of these things will ever fully happen, not until the government figure out mass behavioural programming. until then people will act however they want and the sad fact is most people are selfish ignorant ****s when left to their own devices.
the reason people like to moan about it and talk as if it's a problem to solve is that deep down they known it's never going to change, not really and the status quo will be maintained but the act of discussing it and positing possible solutions is cathartic and stops it festering up inside them, in much the same way people spend money on the lottery to have that short amount of time where they can imagine what they'll spend their millions on 'when' they win. of course the fantasy is short-lived and they soon drop back to reality but it was nice to think about it while it lasted.Hat + Beard0 -
notsoblue wrote:I repeat, the answer to this skewed perception is not to ramp up self criticism within the 'community' but to call people out on the bullshit they're spouting. Its a flawed perception. It doesn't warrant a rational response. There already is a healthy amount of condemnation of RLJ in my opinion.
Won't that be equally ineffective?
And the reality is that an awful number of cyclists DO run red lights. I'm sure you know what. Of course it's not all, but it is a significant minority. Now that doesn't justify bad driving (before you accuse me of doing that again), but it does provide a basis for generally anti-cycling arguments and negative stereotyping.
And I don't see a "healthy" amount of condemnation for RLJers. If that were the case, there wouldn't be numerous multi-page threads on here on the subject.
As a cyclist, I feel I can do my bit by stopping at red lights myself (which, as I've said previously does appear to also reduce the number of riders who then cross the lights) and by providing an alternative viewpoint to those who think it's OK to RLJ on threads on here.0 -
hatbeard wrote:notsoblue wrote:I wear hoodies. The analogy is a good one because it highlights just how ridiculous it would be for me to go around saying that my fellow hoodie wearers should refrain from shoplifting, trashing bus shelters and sniffing glue so that I won't feel bad for wearing them myself.
I wouldn't say ridiculous, futile perhaps. stopping RLJ is indeed as unlikely as preventing crime from ever occurring or getting people to act like sensible adults with manners and common sense when using the tube, none of these things will ever fully happen, not until the government figure out how mass behavioural programming then people will act however they want and the sad fact is most people are selfish ignorant ****s when left to their own devices.
the reason people like to moan about it and talk as if it's a problem to solve is that deep down they known it's never going to change, not really and the status quo will be maintained but the act of discussing it and positing possible solutions is cathartic and stops it festering up inside them, in much the same way people spend money on the lottery to have that short amount of time where they can imagine what they'll spend their millions on 'when' they win. of course the fantasy is short-lived and they soon drop back to reality but it was nice to think about it while it lasted.
Yup, I agree. To be honest, I was just ranting about people ranting and thinking out loud about what it was that annoyed me so much about the opinion. But you're right, its just noise. I should really ignore it if it annoys me so much.
Both antisocial behaviour and futile moaning about antisocial behaviour are just things you have to put up with when you live in a place like London
0 -
W1 wrote:As a cyclist, I feel I can do my bit by stopping at red lights myself
I am 100% in agreement with you. This is the best thing you could possibly do.0 -
No problem, next time someone says "all cyclists RLJ" I will point them at this survey by TFL http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... lights.pdf
Apparantly only 16% of cyclist RLJ. Hopefully that'll make all the difference and the motorist will stop going on about RLJ and instead listen to what I have to say about their driving.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
notsoblue wrote:Both antisocial behaviour and futile moaning about antisocial behaviour are just things you have to put up with when you live in a place like London
all part of the rich tapestry... at least we don't get many tourists round our part, now there's something to rant about!
Hat + Beard0 -
Sketchley wrote:No problem, next time someone says "all cyclists RLJ" I will point them at this survey by TFL http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... lights.pdf
Apparantly only 16% of cyclist RLJ. Hopefully that'll make all the difference and the motorist will stop going on about RLJ and instead listen to what I have to say about their driving.The following general conclusions can be made based on the evidence described
above:
• The majority of cyclists (84%) obey red traffic lights.
• Violation is not endemic, but 1 in 6 (16%) of cyclists do jump a red light, and at
this level may encourage more to do so in the future.
• A much greater number of men cycle during the morning and evening peaks.
When a comparison is made of the behaviour of male and female cyclists it
can be concluded that men are slightly more likely to violate red lights (17%
compared to 13%).
• In general cyclists who ride through red lights are more likely to do so whilst
travelling straight ahead at a junction. They are least likely to do so when
turning right.
• Red light violations are most common by cyclists travelling towards central
London in the morning, and away from central London in the evening.
Interesting - cycling has increased significantly since the report so wonder what the conclusions would be now.0 -
JZed wrote:Sketchley wrote:No problem, next time someone says "all cyclists RLJ" I will point them at this survey by TFL http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... lights.pdf
Apparantly only 16% of cyclist RLJ. Hopefully that'll make all the difference and the motorist will stop going on about RLJ and instead listen to what I have to say about their driving.The following general conclusions can be made based on the evidence described
above:
• The majority of cyclists (84%) obey red traffic lights.
• Violation is not endemic, but 1 in 6 (16%) of cyclists do jump a red light, and at
this level may encourage more to do so in the future.
• A much greater number of men cycle during the morning and evening peaks.
When a comparison is made of the behaviour of male and female cyclists it
can be concluded that men are slightly more likely to violate red lights (17%
compared to 13%).
• In general cyclists who ride through red lights are more likely to do so whilst
travelling straight ahead at a junction. They are least likely to do so when
turning right.
• Red light violations are most common by cyclists travelling towards central
London in the morning, and away from central London in the evening.
Interesting - cycling has increased significantly since the report so wonder what the conclusions would be now.
And I wonder how they would differ from anecdotal testimony :P0 -
Quick thought for the OP...
First, from your description you were in the right and the people behind you were idiots.
That said, I'm interested in why you felt the need to move back to the kerb at the lights. You were absolutely within your rights to do that of course but I'm not sure why you would want to. I tend to do the reverse if anything - take the lane when I'm stopped at lights. I do that because I think I am more visible to following traffic and less likely to find a car pulled alongside me in a single lane. Plus of course if you are mid lane at lights your road positioning is clearly signalling that you intend to go straight on (which I think you were).
Anyway, just a thought.
BTW - disclosure: I cocked things up this morning. I was heading towards a zebra crossing this morning. Had a good look for peds and saw a woman pushing a buggy on the pavement some distance from the crossing but heading towards it. I judged that I had enough time to get across it before she reached it. I put the power down and took the middle of the lane to get away from the kerb. As it happened my wheel reached the crossing, just as the front wheel of the buggy reached the kerb (she didnt look left or right but just marched ahead and pushed the buggy out). Cue squealing brakes and a "whoaaa!!!!" from me.
A "friendly" armed diplomatic protection policeman saw the incident. The woman walked on with her buggy without turning her head. The policeman gave me a dressing down for not "granting precedence". We had a little discussion about when precedence was ue given that she wasnt on the crossing when I reached it. But he made the unarguable point that I should have anticipated the potential incident and slowed down. It is a fair cop. I'm normally better at that kind of thing. That said, I reckon he should have had a word with the woman - it's not really on launching a baby into the road without looking left or right.
J0 -
jedster wrote:Quick thought for the OP...
First, from your description you were in the right and the people behind you were idiots.
That said, I'm interested in why you felt the need to move back to the kerb at the lights. You were absolutely within your rights to do that of course but I'm not sure why you would want to. I tend to do the reverse if anything - take the lane when I'm stopped at lights. I do that because I think I am more visible to following traffic and less likely to find a car pulled alongside me in a single lane. Plus of course if you are mid lane at lights your road positioning is clearly signalling that you intend to go straight on (which I think you were).
No problem. Because I always pull back to the left once I've overtaken, habit arrising out of driving cars (and yes, I do that on motorways as well - no middle lane hogging for me!). In this instance, I would still have said I was 1m out from the curb. I'm aware of being in primary but with a clear road in front and having my front wheel on the line, I will still get away clean and out accelerate those around me. So, I just did what was habit.1997 Gary Fisher Big Sur
2009 Scott Spark 60
2010 Ghost 5000
2011 Commencal Ramones AL1
2012 Commencal Meta AM10 -
Hmmm
I don't RLJ on my commute, but on one big interchange it is worthwhile getting off my bike and walking on the pedestrian route (never more than one person, but v busy with cars) then setting off again on the other side.
Last night I did this and a driver overtook me on the other side of the junction, engine racing, with a volley of abuse. He promptly drove right into the back of a car stopped at the pedestrian crossing, knocking the stationary car over the line and through people who were crossing - thank god no-one was injured. This was in Bitterne, Southampton.
I actually feel guilty about this. Yes the driver was obviously an arsehole, but his reaction bloody nearly injured people on a crossing (not just pelican lights either). I'm commuting more than ever by bike these days, and have noticed far more bikes on the road than ten years ago. However I've also noticed more bloody stupid driving, the worst being drivers deliberately overtaking with inches to spare, then cutting in right onto the kerb.0 -
voodooman wrote:I actually feel guilty about this.
Don't, the guy was a complete tool. You should have stayed around to be a witness for whoever he drove into. Dangerous driving and no mistake.0 -
I never RLJ. I agree with the bit about everyone should do their bit.
On that survey, I wonder how many people said they don't RLJ, when actually they do.
On teh final bit of my commute, I always see an idiot who rides on the road until you get to the traffic and then takes the pavement, there is then a left turn and a right within a short distance of each other, I've got to then do a sharp right turn down a one way street to get the bike through the back. It made me feel good whenh I first of all came out well ahead of him due to being a hell of a lot faster but also beating somebody who took the pavement (no pushing involved).
In my area I see loads of people with no helmet, no lights and generally go slow. I take great enjoyment from overtaking them and then watching then struggle out of the saddle to beat me when I'm happily spinning along. They never do, I'm still faster than them.0 -
I forgot to say, that basically my mantra is 'peds and other roads users how you would like to be treated'.
The motorists that overtake with 6" to spare annoy me though.0 -
getonyourbike wrote:On that survey, I wonder how many people said they don't RLJ, when actually they do.
Absolutely! I suspect there a few members here who are vocally anti-RLJ yet will cheekily glide through the odd red light when there is no one around to see them.
While I am sure W1 would like to think I support indiscriminate RLJing simply because I openly confess to gliding through one particular red light (without actually crossing the junction) to put myself in a safer position, I actually do think the vast majority of RLJers are a real nuisance. These cyclists are not simply RLJers, however: they are careless riders in general and are a danger to their fellow road users and to themselves. They are a growing problem too and it's only going to get worse as more people turn to cycling as a cheaper, quicker alternative to public transport. While I still maintain the positioning I started using at my particularly badly planned junction is way safer for both me and the motorists around me, I do accept that it is against the law and have now altered my route so that I no longer use it, thus cutting out any need to RLJ and leaving me utterly squeaky clean to pass sneering judgement on others. Wehay! 0
