Took a swing at an RLJ'er today

tailwindhome

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I once caught up with a RLJer.

I put my hand gently on his back like this:

and very gently suggested he not jump lights in future, before speeding off.

Anyway, next lights, he went through, and turned around to say "see! it's clear! Why stop?!" before very narrowly avoiding a car turning right onto our road.

I guffawed.

But yeah, I picked my battle. He didn't seem the type to get angry.

But then.......


You picked a battle with The Badger!?

notsoblue

Headhuunter wrote:

I don't really understand the sentiment behind taking a swing at an RLJer on behalf of all cycling kind.... OK I understand you have strong views on RLJing but I don't understand why you feel we as cyclists have to prove ourselves to other road users.

You don't get car drivers taking a swing at each other for speeding or 1 driver taking a swing at another for talking on his/her mobile or not paying attention whilst driving. Personally I think that if other road users generalise that all cyclists run red lights and give you stick for it, it's their problem and you should be asking THEM why they don't feel the need to give other drivers stick for the usual transgressions of the law that they perpetrate or why they don't feel the need to have a go at pedestrians for jay walking across the road and getting under my wheels...

I think I might start taking a swing at pedestrians who annoy me from now on....

+1

Cyclists just get given a hard time by people in this country because they're seen as a minority group indulging in an unusual activity. They're not objectively less law abiding in the way that everyone makes them out to be.

jonny_trousers

Headhuunter wrote:

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Yeah, reluctant as I am to be a RLJ "apologist", surely if he didn't get in anybody's way then what is the big deal? Oh and newsflash - football forums are populated by the biggest tools on the planet, of which the OP is one (based on this thread anyway).

At the risk of turning this into another debate about RLJing, I agree... However the bigger question here is why do cyclists feel the need to prove themselves to the world and prove their right to the road?

Oh dear, you know that debate's going to happen now don't you? Maybe we should be forced to give our responses in no more than 140 characters a la Twitter.

My guess is two reasons: 1. the perfectly reasonable frustration when talking to non-cycling thickies who say, "Bloody cyclists, they all RLJ", and 2. the same frustration that riles said motorists at sitting still in a line of traffic when you really want to be moving because of a red light and then seeing someone so casually glide ahead of you. It's envy really, but of course, that doesn't make the RLJer right.

Just respond with "bloody motorists, they all speed and kill kids"... Seriously though, why is bad behaviour from motrorists just accepted as "1 of those things" Why when a motorist is stopped for speeding does s/he generally feel like a victim? Why when motorists explain that they were stopped by the police for speeding do they explain this to others with a rebellious mirk on their faces and other people generally respond with a similar smirk and a comment like "bloody police, haven't they got anything better to do?"? Yet RLJ-ing is somehow deemed a sin worse than taking a dump on a crucifix?

You are, of course, spot on. You're far less likely to kill someone other than yourself cycling slowly through a red light than you are driving a car at 90mph on the motorway (I suspect), but a huge number of people would consider the latter offence fairly minimal. It's like I say, I think the whole thing is born of the frustration in driving a car on busy roads. Stress levels are naturally heightened, which is what causes many motorists to drive like prats and to find any excuse to rant about others. It's illogical. That said, if people didn't jump red lights on their bikes then there would be no generalisation to be made.

The Rookie

Made a sarcastic comment to an RLJer on a high end Boardman Hybrid as I blew past on my Carrera last night.....just don't (to cap it off, he was so ssllloooowwwww.....), why antagonise car drivers more than necesary by blatantly RLJing in front of them, it endangers us all.

notsoblue

The Beginner wrote:

Made a sarcastic comment to an RLJer on a high end Boardman Hybrid as I blew past on my Carrera last night.....just don't (to cap it off, he was so ssllloooowwwww.....), why antagonise car drivers more than necesary by blatantly RLJing in front of them, it endangers us all.

I'm no apologist, but how does it endanger us all?

notsoblue

SecretSam wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Oh and newsflash - football forums are populated by the biggest tools on the planet, of which the OP is one (based on this thread anyway).

Nice - so I'm a tool because I'm angry that someone carrying out an illegal activity nearly ran me over at a busy crossing, and I vented my anger.

And everyone who uses any football forum is a tool as well.

I think the phrase is "it takes one to know one".

Not accusing you of being a tool or anything, but if you had the opportunity, would you take a swing at someone in a car who had just gone through a red light? Say they got caught in traffic immediately afterwards and their window was wide open.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Oh and newsflash - football forums are populated by the biggest tools on the planet, of which the OP is one (based on this thread anyway).

Nice - so I'm a tool because I'm angry that someone carrying out an illegal activity nearly ran me over at a busy crossing, and I vented my anger.

And everyone who uses any football forum is a tool as well.

I think the phrase is "it takes one to know one".

Not accusing you of being a tool or anything, but if you had the opportunity, would you take a swing at someone in a car who had just gone through a red light? Say they got caught in traffic immediately afterwards and their window was wide open.

Can we leave it at that?

Don't want this to descend into a slanging match.

secretsam

notsoblue wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Oh and newsflash - football forums are populated by the biggest tools on the planet, of which the OP is one (based on this thread anyway).

Nice - so I'm a tool because I'm angry that someone carrying out an illegal activity nearly ran me over at a busy crossing, and I vented my anger.

And everyone who uses any football forum is a tool as well.

I think the phrase is "it takes one to know one".

Not accusing you of being a tool or anything, but if you had the opportunity, would you take a swing at someone in a car who had just gone through a red light? Say they got caught in traffic immediately afterwards and their window was wide open.

It was with a copy of a freebie magazine, which would be tricky with a car. But yes, I've given a driver what for on occasion - I'm not proud that I lost my temper but I'm p155ed off with it. And I object to having that that NHS resources are used to clean up the mess when they get creamed by a car or whatever, when they could be dealing with someone who's had an accident that wasn't entirely avoidable.

jds_1981

SecretSam wrote:

It was with a copy of a freebie magazine, which would be tricky with a car. But yes, I've given a driver what for on occasion - I'm not proud that I lost my temper but I'm p155ed off with it. And I object to having that that NHS resources are used to clean up the mess when they get creamed by a car or whatever, when they could be dealing with someone who's had an accident that wasn't entirely avoidable.

NHS probably comes out ahead due to the exercise component.
Unlike drinking, smoking, not doing exercise, there are plenty of other things to get wound up about?

jds_1981

SecretSam wrote:

But yes, I've given a driver what for on occasion - I'm not proud that I lost my temper but I'm p155ed off with it.

You've taken a swipe at a driver before? What for, something that directly affected you?

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we leave it at that?

Don't want this to descend into a slanging match.

My point wasn't to insult. SecretSam's post just emphasizes for me the fact that cyclists are the recipient of abuse largely because its easy to dish it out to them.

diplomacy

notsoblue wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Made a sarcastic comment to an RLJer on a high end Boardman Hybrid as I blew past on my Carrera last night.....just don't (to cap it off, he was so ssllloooowwwww.....), why antagonise car drivers more than necesary by blatantly RLJing in front of them, it endangers us all.

I'm no apologist, but how does it endanger us all?

an angry driver who hates cyclists is a danger. the number one thing that makes drivers angry and hate cyclists is a RLJer. i believe that is the logic.

jumping a red is only dangerous in itself if you are an idiot. if every vehicle on the road ignored every red light we would not suddenly have a massive number accidents, we would just have a massive traffic jam. so RLJ = bad because of the audience of rage incubators stuck at the lights behind you.

the most effective way to counter this might be, in The Beginner's example above, if he had shoulder checked the boardman into the kerb and sent him skittering off the road. a driver seeing that would have a new hero - and a *cycling* hero. you can birch as many RLJers as you like as a pedestrian, but a driver would still see the cyclist as the enemy there. we need them on team.

or... maybe campaigning for bikes to be able to turn left on red might work. that way drivers would eventually adjust to the idea of bikes going ahead of them at lights and mightn't have quite the same frustration reflux.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Can we leave it at that?

Don't want this to descend into a slanging match.

My point wasn't to insult. SecretSam's post just emphasizes for me the fact that cyclists are the recipient of abuse largely because its easy to dish it out to them.

I know. But I can see where this is going :P.

mr_ribble

anonymousblackfg wrote:

iPete wrote:

Cycled into today with a VERY angry cyclist in a Barnsley club cycle kit. He was swearing at everything that came close, a car indicated to turn left, it didn't turn but he was effing at the driver. He nearly got himself in trouble a few times being an impatient rude fool.

Nearly told him to calm the f**k down.

Simple note to Barnsley club is surely the simple answer?

Too ask them if they have accounted for all members as one seems a bit lost?

Ben6899

TailWindHome wrote:

But then.......


You picked a battle with The Badger!?

*Like*

notsoblue

diplomacy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Made a sarcastic comment to an RLJer on a high end Boardman Hybrid as I blew past on my Carrera last night.....just don't (to cap it off, he was so ssllloooowwwww.....), why antagonise car drivers more than necesary by blatantly RLJing in front of them, it endangers us all.

I'm no apologist, but how does it endanger us all?

an angry driver who hates cyclists is a danger. the number one thing that makes drivers angry and hate cyclists is a RLJer. i believe that is the logic.

jumping a red is only dangerous in itself if you are an idiot. if every vehicle on the road ignored every red light we would not suddenly have a massive number accidents, we would just have a massive traffic jam. so RLJ = bad because of the audience of rage incubators stuck at the lights behind you.

the most effective way to counter this might be, in The Beginner's example above, if he had shoulder checked the boardman into the kerb and sent him skittering off the road. a driver seeing that would have a new hero - and a *cycling* hero. you can birch as many RLJers as you like as a pedestrian, but a driver would still see the cyclist as the enemy there. we need them on team.

I honestly can't understand this opinion at all. Its a bit like saying that black people need to be extra harsh on other black people who break the law or are in some other way annoying to prevent violent racists from taking our their hatred on other random black people.

Baffling.

mr_ribble

Stevo 666 wrote:

fossyant wrote:

You were a ped ! Shame on you ! Hope it wasn't the Mail !

Better to use The Telegraph, you get more reach to swipe the fecker that way

No go with the FT. Ok so its £2, but you take the Companies and Markets section out of the main bit, roll them into two pipes and slide one just inside the other for extra long reach. You now have a 5 foot long pink sword!

ga02clr

I think we can all agree we (cyclist) have a perception problem with a considerable number of the general public in this country. As with all things people pay more attention to bad than they do good. You remember something going wrong a whole lot more than things just being done as they should.
The two most common complaints I seem to hear about cyclists is jumping red lights and riding on pavements.
Before I give my own personal opinion on the merits and downfall of these let’s make it clear, both are against the highway code and you can be fined for them ‘illegal’ if you want.
In a sensible modern society, if you agree with a law or not if everyone sticks to them in general the world would be a happier place.
One thing I have observed in the past few months is that as we get a little warmer and there are more riders on the roads the standard of riding has got worse. I have almost been hit when going through a green light but someone turning on a red and trying to sneak the left turn before I got there. Completely misjudging speed.
I would love there to be enough police to clamp down on drivers on mobiles, ASL box blockers, speeders etc but there simply isn’t. At the same time I would like them to fine riders on pavements and jumping red lights far more often. This obviously in the current climate just won’t happen.
That said should it really be needed? We all know the rules and people make a census decision to break them. It’s a moral thing. Because thankfully we don’t have licence plates most riders thing (and do) get away scot free. I don’t want to get to the point where cyclists are ridiculed and resented and the powers that be implement some form of licence to cyclist or number plate that let’s be honest would make most of our lives a lot more hassel with multiple bikes etc.
I would simply ask that as a common decent person you abide by the laws that we have. Most wouldn’t steel because they think they can get away with it so why should you brake another law?
I have had a very close friend of mine hit on a zebra crossing (half way across) as the cyclist didn’t bother to stop and was out of control. She was in a coma for a month. You might think this will never be you but no one is above a mistake. Why take the risk.
I have no problem telling cyclists not to jump red lights. Most of the time they are really slow anyway and just trying to save 30 seconds.
Each time they jump a red light they put that ‘cyclists don’t abide by road laws’ mentality into people’s heads.
Someone asked how does them jumping a red light affect others? Well by building up this mentality it influences decisions people make regarding cyclists. Those include if new riders will chose to ride on roads as they perceive other riders to be a danger (and some of them certainly are), government policy decisions though to I strongly believe the sentencing of drivers involved in accidents with cyclists.

As a body, cyclists cannot reasonably expect to have the full force of the law backing them up if they develop a reputation (which we already have) for consistently breaking those very same laws that are in place to protect us and others.
Yes it will take a long time but I think we should take the moral high ground on this and abide by the laws that are in place and stop using the pathetic excuse that some motorists break laws so you can to.
If you jump red lights 99 times out of a 100 you a probably being a complete twat. When that accident does happen and someone has to ring your wife/family/girlfriend your being a selfish twat.
Just grow a pair. Get fitter and then you won’t have to jump lights to get to work in the same time you currently set out.

raymondo60

I think there's only one way to deal with the issues raised above, and that's to concentrate on what WE do, as individuals. We can only be responsible for our own actions after all; personally I don't jump lights - that makes my daily commute a little longer sometimes, and I often wait at lights while other cyclists go flying past, but that's THEIR decision; MY decision is to abide by the rules of the road. Not because I'm some 'goody two-shoes', but because to me, that seems the sensible thing to do. I do sometimes point out to other riders the error of their ways, but always politely and always with regard to their safety - but WE (as a group of individuals) CANNOT be responsible for the actions of others; it just isn't possible. All we can do is lead by example and provide help and support to others where we can. When I get harangued about the behaviour of other cyclists by non-cyclists, I simply say "That may be the case, but as an individual I don't jump red lights and where possible I encourage others not too. Do you do the same for car drivers/motorcyclists/pedestrians?"

SimonAH

I'm very much in accordance with diplomacy's post above - notsoblue, you do have a point also with the colour argument, but these days racism is not tolerated - but blanket antagonism towards cyclists is...... makes it harder.

We have to become whiter than white as a body if we are not to expect to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. T'aint fair, but it's true.

RLJing is the poster boy of the simmering resentment toward cyclists.

And as for noobs, yes, they do. I did. It was scanning this forum (in my vacuum of other cyclists around here) that stopped me from doing it.

As experienced city cyclists it is your moral duty to educate the new and chastise the old. With a big stick.

(SimonAH does not condone the smacking of RLJers with big sticks.)

woodnut

Mr_Ribble wrote:

You now have a 5 foot long pink sword!

Fnarr

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

I'm very much in accordance with diplomacy's post above - notsoblue, you do have a point also with the colour argument, but these days racism is not tolerated - but blanket antagonism towards cyclists is...... makes it harder.

We have to become whiter than white as a body if we are not to expect to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. T'aint fair, but it's true.

RLJing is the poster boy of the simmering resentment toward cyclists.

I hate to draw parallels to racism, but it kinda suits the argument. Racism is not tolerated in this country because it is the majority opinion that its not "OK" to be racist. This wasn't achieved by non-whites being "whiter than white".

bails87

I don't agree with the "As a body, cyclists cannot reasonably expect to have the full force of the law backing them up if they develop a reputation (which we already have) for consistently breaking those very same laws that are in place to protect us and others" statement.

F*ck the 'reputation'! If I have done nothing wrong and a driver decides to run me over/punch me/ throw stuff at me then the police should deal with that individual case on it's merits. It's their job, same goes for the entire justice system. To say "well, he probably deserved it, there's absolutely no evidence for it, but he probably did" would be shocking. It happens, I'm sure, but it shouldn't and it shouldn't be excused!

I ride legally, it's not my job to educate people I never see/speak to.

diplomacy

notsoblue wrote:

I honestly can't understand this opinion at all. Its a bit like saying that black people need to be extra harsh on other black people who break the law or are in some other way annoying to prevent violent racists from taking our their hatred on other random black people.

Baffling.

is that baffling really? i think it's unfortunately quite common for none-black people to judge all blacks based on a minority of kids that are involved in gangs, drugs, muggings etc. that certainly seems to be a big problem in the US. a lot of people believe the best way to solve this is on a community level, with family or neighbours sorting out the wayward behaviour, rather than the us / them of the police. it's always an individual's choice whether to break a law or not, but when those choices affect a wider community the community should do something about it.

having said that i actually don't chastise RLJers. whenever i have in the past it's always had the same result as talking to drivers. aka nothing, it's not a good venue for them to think about it i suppose. so education? or campaign to legalise it.

bails87

diplomacy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I honestly can't understand this opinion at all. Its a bit like saying that black people need to be extra harsh on other black people who break the law or are in some other way annoying to prevent violent racists from taking our their hatred on other random black people.

Baffling.

is that baffling really? i think it's unfortunately quite common for none-black people to judge all blacks based on a minority of kids that are involved in gangs, drugs, muggings etc. that certainly seems to be a big problem in the US. a lot of people believe the best way to solve this is on a community level, with family or neighbours sorting out the wayward behaviour, rather than the us / them of the police. it's always an individual's choice whether to break a law or not, but when those choices affect a wider community the community should do something about it.

Oddly enough, this was mentioned on the scoobynet thread that kieran_burns linked to a few days ago.

When (I think) KB said that not all cyclists break the law (RLJ/pavement riding), another poster replied with something along the lines of "well it's like a black acocuntant complaining that he gets pulled over by the police. If his 'pals' weren't breaking the law all the time then he wouldn't get hassled, so it's their fault really, not the police's".

Which stinks, frankly, but it's exactly the attitude we see. All member of the 'out group' know each other and are responsible, collectively, for the group's actions. And if someone entirely innocent is picked on as a result of prejudice towards that group (helped by perception bias) then it's their own fault for not making the rest of the group stop doing whatever it is that riles the 'in group'.

bigmat

SecretSam wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SecretSam wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Oh and newsflash - football forums are populated by the biggest tools on the planet, of which the OP is one (based on this thread anyway).

Nice - so I'm a tool because I'm angry that someone carrying out an illegal activity nearly ran me over at a busy crossing, and I vented my anger.

And everyone who uses any football forum is a tool as well.

I think the phrase is "it takes one to know one".

Not accusing you of being a tool or anything, but if you had the opportunity, would you take a swing at someone in a car who had just gone through a red light? Say they got caught in traffic immediately afterwards and their window was wide open.

It was with a copy of a freebie magazine, which would be tricky with a car. But yes, I've given a driver what for on occasion - I'm not proud that I lost my temper but I'm p155ed off with it. And I object to having that that NHS resources are used to clean up the mess when they get creamed by a car or whatever, when they could be dealing with someone who's had an accident that wasn't entirely avoidable.

So when you said:

"So when some prat on a Spesh piled through the lights outside Baker St (only to be held up at lights 50 metres down the road) I lost my rag and took a swipe at him with my paper (I am out on the sauce tonight so not riding)."

you just forgot to mention that he "nearly ran you over"?

Are you sure? Because it sounds like you were just being the usual nellie know-all whinging about something that in fact had no direct impact on anybody else, and took it upon yourself to (attempt to?) physically assault someone. And you thing that by coming onto a cycling forum and revelling in your aggressive outburst against another cyclist, you aren't going to come across at least a few people who think you were acting like a tool?

I will apologise for the abusive language, although I did qualify it by saying "based on this thread" - I'm sure you are a great bloke the rest of the time.

notsoblue

bails87 wrote:

When (I think) KB said that not all cyclists break the law (RLJ/pavement riding), another poster replied with something along the lines of "well it's like a black acocuntant complaining that he gets pulled over by the police. If his 'pals' weren't breaking the law all the time then he wouldn't get hassled, so it's their fault really, not the police's".

Which stinks, frankly, but it's exactly the attitude we see. All member of the 'out group' know each other and are responsible, collectively, for the group's actions. And if someone entirely innocent is picked on as a result of prejudice towards that group (helped by perception bias) then it's their own fault for not making the rest of the group stop doing whatever it is that riles the 'in group'.

Exactly. Its totally irrational and unreasonable behaviour.

Headhuunter

bails87 wrote:

I don't agree with the "As a body, cyclists cannot reasonably expect to have the full force of the law backing them up if they develop a reputation (which we already have) for consistently breaking those very same laws that are in place to protect us and others" statement.

F*ck the 'reputation'! If I have done nothing wrong and a driver decides to run me over/punch me/ throw stuff at me then the police should deal with that individual case on it's merits. It's their job, same goes for the entire justice system. To say "well, he probably deserved it, there's absolutely no evidence for it, but he probably did" would be shocking. It happens, I'm sure, but it shouldn't and it shouldn't be excused!

I ride legally, it's not my job to educate people I never see/speak to.

Absolutely. It's not up to the police to enforce the rules based on a particular groups "reputation"! That's how the police itself got a reputation for racial discrimination... Stop and search being exercised regularly on young, black, males...

Headhuunter

notsoblue wrote:

diplomacy wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Made a sarcastic comment to an RLJer on a high end Boardman Hybrid as I blew past on my Carrera last night.....just don't (to cap it off, he was so ssllloooowwwww.....), why antagonise car drivers more than necesary by blatantly RLJing in front of them, it endangers us all.

I'm no apologist, but how does it endanger us all?

an angry driver who hates cyclists is a danger. the number one thing that makes drivers angry and hate cyclists is a RLJer. i believe that is the logic.

jumping a red is only dangerous in itself if you are an idiot. if every vehicle on the road ignored every red light we would not suddenly have a massive number accidents, we would just have a massive traffic jam. so RLJ = bad because of the audience of rage incubators stuck at the lights behind you.

the most effective way to counter this might be, in The Beginner's example above, if he had shoulder checked the boardman into the kerb and sent him skittering off the road. a driver seeing that would have a new hero - and a *cycling* hero. you can birch as many RLJers as you like as a pedestrian, but a driver would still see the cyclist as the enemy there. we need them on team.

I honestly can't understand this opinion at all. Its a bit like saying that black people need to be extra harsh on other black people who break the law or are in some other way annoying to prevent violent racists from taking our their hatred on other random black people.

Baffling.

100%....

SimonAH

It's not the law that's the problem, it's the perception of motorists.

The second I get out of my Golf and onto my bike I am immediately assumed to be a rules of the road scofflaw due to the highly visible antics of the minority. I don't like that guilt-by-association.