I saw a forum user jumping a red light today

notsoblue

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's quite encouraging that the tide now seems to be turning against RLJT's (Red Light Jumping Tw@ts) on this forum.

Are you kidding? RLJ has always been frowned upon on these forums.

gabriel959

Colinthecop wrote:

I for one am disappointed he didn't go after him, rugby tackle him to the ground (if you can rugby tackle someone on a bike...?) and perform a citizens arrest.

I tell you, we need more vigilantes to keep the streets safe. :?



Albeit the other half of me thinks of the trusted phrase, Snitches get Stitches. :roll:

I was just disappointed, nothing else. Cambridge is pretty bad though.

Stevo_666

notsoblue wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It's quite encouraging that the tide now seems to be turning against RLJT's (Red Light Jumping Tw@ts) on this forum.

Are you kidding? RLJ has always been frowned upon on these forums.

Nope, I'm not kidding. Are you?

bigmat

The majority on this forum have always had a bee in their bonnet about RLJ. Personally I've always been more concerned about what other road users are doing that might actually put me and others at direct risk. How about getting angry at red-man jumping peds like the idiot that put me in hospital on Friday? :x

Headhuunter

BigMat wrote:

The majority on this forum have always had a bee in their bonnet about RLJ. Personally I've always been more concerned about what other road users are doing that might actually put me and others at direct risk. How about getting angry at red-man jumping peds like the idiot that put me in hospital on Friday? :x

Absolutely, this forum always seems to pursue RLJers with medieval witch hunter general type passion. As you say, AFAIC, RLJing cyclists are faaaar from the biggest concern on the road but somehow it ends up the focus. I think "little" misdemeanors by motorists like speeding, parking illegally, talking on the mob whilst driving etc are somehow accepted as the norm and somehow harmless...

meanredspider

Headhuunter wrote:

Absolutely, this forum always seems to pursue RLJers with medieval witch hunter general type passion. As you say, AFAIC, RLJing cyclists are faaaar from the biggest concern on the road but somehow it ends up the focus. I think "little" misdemeanors by motorists like speeding, parking illegally, talking on the mob whilst driving etc are somehow accepted as the norm and somehow harmless...

Except we all get tarred with the same brush. That then is used as an excuse by motorists for their poor behaviour & lack of respect towards cyclists. RLJing and lack of road tax come up again and again. Obviously the road tax is nonsense but RLJing isn't. That's why I get pi55ed off about it as a cyclist. As a driver, I get pi55ed off about the things you mention there. But this is a cycling forum...

notsoblue

It seems to be more the principle of RLJ than the actual consequence of it that people are most annoyed about.

I subscribe to the opinion that its mostly harmless, but you probably shouldn't do it.

notsoblue

meanredspider wrote:

Except we all get tarred with the same brush.

This will be something that cyclists will have to put up with as long as they remain a minority out-group in this country. And theres nothing you can do about it.

meanredspider

notsoblue wrote:

And theres nothing you can do about it.

The minority bit or the RLJing?

MonkeyMonster

There has been a segment (not majority based on numbers however) that vocally hate rlj and those who do but also a large(ish) volume of quieter "it's not that bad really but don't do it" members (to paraphrase such a person) in that 2nd camp. There are also some members who don't give a shit about the legality or the side effect of the negative stereotyping of cyclists by people who do it - who unless really provoked stay quiet on here when such debates occur as they have been shouted more than a few times but we nominally know who they are.
So this forum isn't changing really in terms of real numbers merely the visible bias is more supportive against the people and the act but the number of forumites in that bandwagon have not increased significantly.
You can of course disagree with this summary

notsoblue

meanredspider wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

And theres nothing you can do about it.

The minority bit or the RLJing?

The being tarred with the same brush bit. No amount of yelling at people who RLJ on bikes is going to stop the odd driver yelling at you for simply being in their way, or people making ignorant anti cyclist RLJ/Roadtax comments on internet forums.

junglist_matty

I have just read this thread.... Please get your facts right first.

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me; the pedestrians that walked straight out into the road were crossing from (the co-op) to the central reservation did so when the pedestrian man was red (only remember about the incident after reading this thread).... They started walking across the road well before I got to the bit where they were crossing; for the record, they were a bunch of Chinese students, and they are the absolute worst at ignoring any form of traffic control. You of all, living in (or near) Cambridge, should know that.

For those who don't know, this is the junction in question:



I have never and will never RLJ that junction; cars come flying out from the left (from chesterton) as soon as the lights go red.... You'd get knocked straight off and be an idiot to RLJ there; I have however, ridden through amber there on many occasions.


You only have to look at my Strava from that day to realise I was quite happy to slow & wait at red lights; even coming out of the Business park right at the start of my ride home (and the lights just before the mentioned "incident"), where I waited for nearly a minute.

http://www.strava.com/activities/83286849

joenobody

junglist_matty wrote:

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me;

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this, and I haven't checked the Highway Code, but I believe this is correct. At least, the only colour you should be proceeding under is green. All others pretty much mean "stop if safe to do so". Just you're unlikely to get in to trouble for proceeding on amber. That's just my understanding though and, as I said, happy to be proved wrong

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Absolutely, this forum always seems to pursue RLJers with medieval witch hunter general type passion. As you say, AFAIC, RLJing cyclists are faaaar from the biggest concern on the road but somehow it ends up the focus. I think "little" misdemeanors by motorists like speeding, parking illegally, talking on the mob whilst driving etc are somehow accepted as the norm and somehow harmless...

Except we all get tarred with the same brush. That then is used as an excuse by motorists for their poor behaviour & lack of respect towards cyclists. RLJing and lack of road tax come up again and again. Obviously the road tax is nonsense but RLJing isn't. That's why I get pi55ed off about it as a cyclist. As a driver, I get pi55ed off about the things you mention there. But this is a cycling forum...

As I've mentioned before, tarring with the same brush is also ridiculous... Somehow just because I'm on a bike I immediately, in some driver's eyes, have an affinity with every other person on a bike and if some motorist sees someone jump a red a mile or 2 back they have the right to drive aggressively near me? That's not a reason cyclists should "witch hunt" other cyclists for minor transgressions of the law. How about getting up on your high horse about the REAL danger on the road - idiot motorists speeding, drink driving, driving on the phone etc....? These are the things we need to focus on and the things which pose most danger on the road...

joenobody

JoeNobody wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me;

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this, and I haven't checked the Highway Code, but I believe this is correct. At least, the only colour you should be proceeding under is green. All others pretty much mean "stop if safe to do so". Just you're unlikely to get in to trouble for proceeding on amber. That's just my understanding though and, as I said, happy to be proved wrong

And a quick Google shows this: http://www.search2drive.com/hway_signals.html so it seems I understand correctly.

veronese68

I think MM's summary is reasonable.
Regarding the bias of drivers definitely not much we can do about that. My former boss, a total twunt, once said he'd only ever seen one cyclist stop at a red light and that was his little office favourite. I then told him this was plainly complete BS as I was stopped at a red light right next to him the previous evening. He muttered something like "ok, so I've only ever seen 2 stop at lights" to which I told him this was probably also untrue he just chose to either not see or ignored the fact as it didn't fit in with his bias.
I wonder why he never liked me?

gabriel959

junglist_matty wrote:

I have just read this thread.... Please get your facts right first.

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me; the pedestrians that walked straight out into the road were crossing from (the co-op) to the central reservation did so when the pedestrian man was red (only remember about the incident after reading this thread).... They started walking across the road well before I got to the bit where they were crossing; for the record, they were a bunch of Chinese students, and they are the absolute worst at ignoring any form of traffic control. You of all, living in (or near) Cambridge, should know that.

For those who don't know, this is the junction in question:



I have never and will never RLJ that junction; cars come flying out from the left (from chesterton) as soon as the lights go red.... You'd get knocked straight off and be an idiot to RLJ there; I have however, ridden through amber there on many occasions.


You only have to look at my Strava from that day to realise I was quite happy to slow & wait at red lights; even coming out of the Business park right at the start of my ride home (and the lights just before the mentioned "incident"), where I waited for nearly a minute.

http://www.strava.com/activities/83286849

I don't have any images to prove what I saw but the light was red as you went past it (it might have turned that moment mind you) and the pedestrians had a green light. Yes they were Chinese, and as you say their traffic awareness sometimes is poor, but their lights were green. I know what I saw.

junglist_matty

JoeNobody wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me;

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this, and I haven't checked the Highway Code, but I believe this is correct. At least, the only colour you should be proceeding under is green. All others pretty much mean "stop if safe to do so". Just you're unlikely to get in to trouble for proceeding on amber. That's just my understanding though and, as I said, happy to be proved wrong

In that case, I hold my hands up; didn't know amber was RLJ'ing.

Even so, the Chinese students "pedestrian crossing RLJ'd", and is the only reason I remember the incident fairly clearly as they simply walked straight across the junction right in front of me without a care in the world.... I looked up and the man was clearly still red.

Kieran_Burns

junglist_matty wrote:

I have just read this thread.... Please get your facts right first.

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me; the pedestrians that walked straight out into the road were crossing from (the co-op) to the central reservation did so when the pedestrian man was red (only remember about the incident after reading this thread).... They started walking across the road well before I got to the bit where they were crossing; for the record, they were a bunch of Chinese students, and they are the absolute worst at ignoring any form of traffic control. You of all, living in (or near) Cambridge, should know that.

<snip>

Sorry - it is. Amber means stop (if safe to do so) not "Oh go on then, have a go"

gabriel959

junglist_matty wrote:

JoeNobody wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me;

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this, and I haven't checked the Highway Code, but I believe this is correct. At least, the only colour you should be proceeding under is green. All others pretty much mean "stop if safe to do so". Just you're unlikely to get in to trouble for proceeding on amber. That's just my understanding though and, as I said, happy to be proved wrong

In that case, I hold my hands up; didn't know amber was RLJ'ing.

Even so, the Chinese students "pedestrian crossing RLJ'd", and is the only reason I remember the incident fairly clearly as they simply walked straight across the junction right in front of me without a care in the world.... I looked up and the man was clearly still red.

You looked wrong. It was green.

junglist_matty

gabriel959 wrote:

I don't have any images to prove what I saw but the light was red as you went past it (it might have turned that moment mind you) and the pedestrians had a green light. Yes they were Chinese but their lights were green and you had to weave around them.

Fair enough; I was fairly sure it was amber, as you say, may have changed at the moment I passed through..... Even so, the pedestrian crossing lights were not green.

Every pedestrian crossing gives at least 5 seconds between the car traffic lights going red and the pedestrian crossing lights going green.... They were half way across the road when I got to the crossing.

I'm more than happy to take the blame if I was at fault and doing something stupid / dangerous, but in my eyes it wasn't dangerous; a huge majority of road users (cyclists included) go through amber lights.... If it was definitely a red light, fair enough, I'll hold up my hands; I'm not saying I've never RLJ'd because I know I have.

sketchley

JoeNobody wrote:

JoeNobody wrote:

junglist_matty wrote:

If riding through an amber is RLJ'ing, then that's news to me;

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this, and I haven't checked the Highway Code, but I believe this is correct. At least, the only colour you should be proceeding under is green. All others pretty much mean "stop if safe to do so". Just you're unlikely to get in to trouble for proceeding on amber. That's just my understanding though and, as I said, happy to be proved wrong

And a quick Google shows this: http://www.search2drive.com/hway_signals.html so it seems I understand correctly.

This sums it up including references to relvant ligisaltion / law.

http://www.hilldickinson.com/publicatio ... eware.aspx

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 deal with light signals for traffic and pedestrians.

Regulation 36 – significance of light signals
Regulation 36(1)(c) states that the amber-with-red signal shall not alter the prohibition conveyed by the red signal.

Regulation 36(1)(e) states that the amber-alone signal shall convey the same prohibition as the red signal, namely that vehicular traffic (other than tramcars) shall not proceed beyond the stop line, except that, as respects any vehicle (other than a tramcar) which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line. In such circumstances, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it.

Regulation 36(1)(a) states that the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line.

Regulation 43(1) defines the term “stop line” in relation to light signals as the road marking placed on a carriageway in conjunction with those signals.

daviesee

junglist_matty wrote:

.......
Every pedestrian crossing gives at least 5 seconds between the car traffic lights going red and the pedestrian crossing lights going green....

Not true.
The lights outside my office go green man as soon as anyone pushes the button.
Many a ped has nearly been taken out by cars that don't have a chance to stop.

Just cos a light says it is safe doesn't make it so.

junglist_matty

Fair enough, I didn't realise you had to stop on amber, I genuinely thought of it as "prepare to stop", in that case I'm happy to admit that I did RLJ.

Like it or not, at the same time I'm also happy to admit that I'm not going to stop riding through amber lights; on more dangerous junctions I do stop on amber, but in the majority of cases, I'll just ride through and will continue to do so.

rubertoe

I dont think that we should turn this into a witch hunt against J_M. It was clearly a mistake and he was unaware of the rulez, as was I!

notsoblue

Er, it can be pretty dangerous to come to a sudden stop if lights turn amber as you're getting close to them.

junglist_matty

notsoblue wrote:

Er, it can be pretty dangerous to come to a sudden stop if lights turn amber as you're getting close to them.

You can't win mate

joenobody

notsoblue wrote:

Er, it can be pretty dangerous to come to a sudden stop if lights turn amber as you're getting close to them.

That's why amber means "stop if safe to do so"

MonkeyMonster

junglist_matty wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Er, it can be pretty dangerous to come to a sudden stop if lights turn amber as you're getting close to them.

You can't win mate

Which the law says fine treat it as a green then. That is acceptable. If you were stationary and it went orange with simultaneously traffic being cleared and so you went through (likely following a car) that is jumping the red. You all know the difference and can argue within the grey area too, but feel free to argue the toss on the web. You've read the rules and know when you should apply them. When you actually do (apply said rules) is up to your own conscience.

veronese68

rubertoe wrote:

I dont think that we should turn this into a witch hunt against J_M. It was clearly a mistake and he was unaware of the rulez, as was I!

Agreed.
I will happily push through an amber if I know it is safe to do so. I did it this morning in fact, the choice was to push through an amber then ride c150 yards on a clear stretch of urban dual carriageway and have the room to turn right without having to battle the traffic. Or, brake moderately hard and then have to pull away amongst 2 lanes of traffic and then have to turn right across them.
It would have been safe to stop, the bit after I got going would have been a little less so.