# RLJ-ing: A Minority Pastime?



## Davidsw8 (22 Oct 2012)

Hi

I've seen a number of discussion on RLJ-ing and it seems that here, it's generally frowned on which to me would indicate it's something only the idiotic minority engage in.

However, cycling to and from work in London, my perception is that it's a decent proportion of cyclists that do it, say 4 out of every 10 cyclists I see. Maybe it's my particular route or maybe it's a complete misperception on my part.

I'd include the people who not only jump the light as they just missed the amber and those that just happily sail through a blatant red but also those who stop and wait at red but go early before it's gone green again.

So, I'm curious as to what other people's perceptions of this are...


----------



## ohnovino (22 Oct 2012)

I haven't seen a cyclist RLJ for months; it really isn't an issue round here. I think that's because all our rubbish cyclists stick to the pavement.


----------



## ianrauk (22 Oct 2012)

I have voted 50/50. A heck of a lot of London cyclists RLJ.


----------



## Beebo (22 Oct 2012)

My perception is that a few bad apples spoil it for everyone. The red light jumper is easily spotted and people rember them, where as people quickly forget the lines of cyclist all stopped waiting for the lights.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Oct 2012)

Beebo said:


> My perception is that a few bad apples spoil it for everyone. The red light jumper is easily spotted and people rember them, where as people quickly forget the lines of cyclist all stopped waiting for the lights.


 
I hope that's the reality of it...

One especially notable incident I saw a few weeks ago was a pelican crossing next to the imperial war museum, the light turned red and was clearly red when 4 cyclists zipped through it round a mother pushing a pram, I think there was 1 cyclist who actually stopped.

I think that's quite an extreme example though.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Oct 2012)

Isn't this just another car driver jealousy issue, just like closing the gaps to stop filtering

Alan...


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Oct 2012)

Phaeton said:


> Isn't this just another car driver jealousy issue, just like closing the gaps to stop filtering
> 
> Alan...


 
Do most cyclists prefer to be in cars? I'd hate to drive in London, despite everything I feel much better off on my little bike 

It does seem odd to RLJ though because more often then not, I've caught up to these people at the next set of lights they've been unable to RLJ - so, it can't be about getting somewhere quicker...


----------



## Markymark (22 Oct 2012)

I don't in central London and I'm the odd one out.


----------



## RedRider (22 Oct 2012)

In London my perception is 'fewer'. Ten years ago the proportion seemed more. I've voted 'few' as I'd say it's less than half.

Incidentally, depending on the route I often see as many or more cars jump reds than bikes on my current short hop of a commute.


----------



## mcshroom (22 Oct 2012)

I see far more RLJing in London when I visit than anywhere else in the country. Unfortunately all the media and government are based there so that's the version of reality they see.


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Oct 2012)

50/50 for me in town too but getting noticeably better as the volume of summer riders begin to stay at home. However, it depends on what you may class as RLJ. Many riders "push off" early in anticipation of an orange that doesn't appear...this happens at almost every set of lights I find and I consider it just as dangerous as a full fly by.

Its also just plain stupid, why stop, de-gear, wait and then proceed to RLJ. (only to be caught and scalped by me anyway)

On this basis, its more like 80% as many folk (perhaps the offender themselves) may not consider this an RLJ because the they have actually stopped...Bonkers1


----------



## Drago (22 Oct 2012)

It's a pass time for eunuchs who live with Mummy.


----------



## Phaeton (22 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Do most cyclists prefer to be in cars? I'd hate to drive in London, despite everything I feel much better off on my little bike
> 
> It does seem odd to RLJ though because more often then not, I've caught up to these people at the next set of lights they've been unable to RLJ - so, it can't be about getting somewhere quicker...



Maybe that came out wrong I meant jealousy on the car drivers behalf lol

Alan...


----------



## hennbell (22 Oct 2012)

I never RLJ but I am guilty of of SSJ (stop sign jumping)

We have a rural 4 way stop with very little traffic and you can see for half a mile in each direction. If the is another vehicle is approaching I always stop. If I am on my own I slow down and diligently watch, but i do roll through it. Most of the car drivers do the exact same thing.


----------



## Maz (22 Oct 2012)

Most cyclists I see (not that I see many) do tend to stop for red lights.
RLJ'ing seems to be more of a south/Laarnden, cor blimey stone the crows, jellied eels, you're 'avin a laarf aintcha? type of passtime.


----------



## Jezston (22 Oct 2012)

Wasn't there that study saying 15% or so RLJ in London?


----------



## Rancid (22 Oct 2012)

South London commute here via Streatham/Tooting/Wimbledon.
The VAST majority (80%+) of cyclist jump red lights.
There are a couple of one way sections on my route and its the same cyclists who regularly don't bother to adhere to the rules.

Whilst some of these people look as it they just grabbed a cheap bike from sports direct, there are far too many on very expensive bikes with all the trimmings that really ought to know better.

i know its the wrong to encourage but the only cyclist im prepared to forgive for jumping a red light is the young chap who i have seen at least 3 times now jump the red light at the junction of the A24 and Longley road by doing a wheelie across the whole junction. True he is going to end up under a bus, but as i have never had the wheelie skillz, i tend to doff my crash hat in his direction. i mean if your going to piss off every motorist at the junction why not do it with style ?


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

TfL did a study and came up with a figure of 18% of cyclists RLJ in London. Which is round about the same percentage of drivers that RLJ *more than three seconds after* the light has gone red. Its also not a particularly dangerous thing to do - the number of cyclist deaths from RLJing are very low compared to the prevalence of RLJing.


----------



## ianrauk (22 Oct 2012)

Jezston said:


> Wasn't there that study saying 15% or so RLJ in London?


 

Well they weren't studying properly then.
You now cycle commute in London.
Do you agree with that figure?


----------



## Davidc (22 Oct 2012)

Don't see it much round here, but when I'm in London I see far more of it. I'd estimate that in central London it's probably as high as a third at some junctions and out in the wilds around Sutton about a fifth.

Stupid thing to do in/on any vehicle IMO.


----------



## Drago (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> TfL did a study and came up with a figure of 18% of cyclists RLJ in London. Which is round about the same percentage of drivers that RLJ *more than three seconds after* the light has gone red. Its also not a particularly dangerous thing to do - the number of cyclist deaths from RLJing are very low compared to the prevalence of RLJing.


How do you know this? I've scraped enough corpses off the Tarmac across the tears, conducted the investigations, and completed the official paperwork from which the Home Office will compile their road death figures, and there ain't not ticky box for RLJ'ing.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Well they weren't studying properly then.
> You now cycle commute in London.
> Do you agree with that figure?


 
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Drago said:


> How do you know this? I've scraped enough corpses off the Tarmac across the tears, conducted the investigations, and completed the official paperwork from which the Home Office will compile their road death figures, and there ain't not ticky box for RLJ'ing.


 
Well someone's recording it in London at least: http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/campaigns/0911_CP_RLJ-pavement_brf.pdf


----------



## ianrauk (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf


 

Yes thank you for that.
I think my experience of cycle commuting in London every day of the week for the last 7 years says a lot more then that 5 year old report.


----------



## Jezston (22 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Well they weren't studying properly then.
> You now cycle commute in London.
> Do you agree with that figure?


 
It certainly happens a lot, but I've never measured it.

I'd certainly not dismiss a proper study of anything over my anecdotal experience though, especially when it comes from a source I'd normally consider to be somewhat biased _against _cyclists.


----------



## AndyPeace (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> TfL did a study and came up with a figure of 18% of cyclists RLJ in London. Which is round about the same percentage of drivers that RLJ *more than three seconds after* the light has gone red. Its also not a particularly dangerous thing to do - the number of cyclist deaths from RLJing are very low compared to the prevalence of RLJing.


 
If it's so safe to jump red lights, why not ditch them altogether? or pass a law to say cyclist's don't have to stop at red lights?


----------



## Drago (22 Oct 2012)

The TfL link is very interesting and all, but offers no empirical data to support any figure for accidents caused as a consequence of RLJing.

It's easy to figure how many jump red lights by asking riders, or even standing there and counting ( or reviewing CCTV and counting, or whatever) but the lead investigating agency for serious road incidents involving injury or death, or the dibble, simply do not record and report RLJing as an accident cause, simply because they're not required to do so. Therefore, Twots fail London Simply do not have a reliable source of data re RLJ fatalities. No one does.

And you gotta live TfL rather un objective language - a recumbent rider "almost killed", eh? It would be equally accurate, although less exciting, to say the recumbent rider "was completely unscathed".


----------



## ianrauk (22 Oct 2012)

Jezston said:


> It certainly happens a lot, but I've never measured it.
> 
> I'd certainly not dismiss a proper study of anything over my anecdotal experience though, especially when it comes from a source I'd normally consider to be somewhat biased _against _cyclists.


 

No I've never measured it either. But as I said to another poster. 7 years of commuter cycling in London says a lot more then some old report of someone standing on a corner counting a few cyclists for a couple of hours.

And having a look at the report, the junctions where the transgressors were counted are some of the most busiest junctions in London where only the more foolhardy would RLJ. Next time they should do a better spread of minor junctions. Then watch as the stat's jump.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Yes thank you for that.
> I think my experience of cycle commuting in London every day of the week for the last 7 years says a lot more then that report.


 
You might have an impression of what is happening but its just that, an impression compared with actual measurements of what is happening. There are lots of places now where, if you count them bikes outnumber cars but the impression if you don't count them is that cars outnumber bikes.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

AndyPeace said:


> If it's so safe to jump red lights, why not ditch them altogether? or pass a law to say cyclist's don't have to stop at red lights?


 
That's exactly what has been trialled in some French cities - Lyon for example - with success and is now being extended to Paris.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Oct 2012)

What's a traffic light?

Wonder when we'll get them in rural Yorkshire?


----------



## ianrauk (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> You might have an impression of what is happening but its just that, an impression compared with actual measurements of what is happening. There are lots of places now where, if you count them bikes outnumber cars but the impression if you don't count them is that cars outnumber bikes.


 

It's not an impression. It's what I see on a daily basis.
That report is flawed anyway. It's examples are 5 of the most busiest junctions for car traffic in London. Next time they should report from minor junctions and ped crossing to see how many RLJ.


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2012)

I voted 50/50 but that's for my commute now. When commuting down the Old Kent Road I would say it was way over 60%. 60% means that only 2 in every 5 cyclists would stop for the red light, I was frequently on my own watching other cyclists pass me by.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Oct 2012)

Impression, anecdata and statistics. LMAO!


----------



## RedRider (22 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> No I've never measured it either. But as I said to another poster. 7 years of commuter cycling in London says a lot more then some old report of someone standing on a corner counting a few cyclists for a couple of hours.
> 
> And having a look at the report, the junctions where the transgressors were counted are some of the most busiest junctions in London where only the more foolhardy would RLJ. Next time they should do a better spread of minor junctions. Then watch as the stat's jump.


I agree about the junctions they chose, they're the sort it would be relatively foolhardy/difficult to jump. My own perception from 13 years cycle commuting these roads is it's less prevalent than it was and is probably somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent. Perception isn't fact tho.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Drago said:


> The TfL link is very interesting and all, but offers no empirical data to support any figure for accidents caused as a consequence of RLJing.
> 
> It's easy to figure how many jump red lights by asking riders, or even standing there and counting ( or reviewing CCTV and counting, or whatever) but the lead investigating agency for serious road incidents involving injury or death, or the dibble, simply do not record and report RLJing as an accident cause, simply because they're not required to do so. Therefore, Twots fail London Simply do not have a reliable source of data re RLJ fatalities. No one does.


 
I thought

_In London between 2001-05 (the most recent data we have), there were 3_
_cyclists, 7 pedestrians and 7 motor vehicle occupants killed in collisions_
_where a motorist jumped a red light._
_• Two cyclists were killed by red light jumping (i.e. fewer than the number of_
_cyclists killed by red-light-jumping drivers), while 7 motorcyclists got_
_themselves killed the same way._​​was empirical data collected by TfL. What do you suggest happened? They made the numbers up?

And I suppose they also made up the report about how many cyclists RLJ'd in London too rather than doing what you suggest and standing there counting them as they claim in their report.


----------



## Beebo (22 Oct 2012)

You can prove anything with lies and statistics.

Take this made up example. 4 riders cycle through 25 sets of lights. They all jump 4 lights on their journey.

So 100% of the riders are rlj'ers, but they only jumped 16% of the lights.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I voted 50/50 but that's for my commute now. When commuting down the Old Kent Road I would say it was way over 60%. 60% means that only 2 in every 5 cyclists would stop for the red light, I was frequently on my own watching other cyclists pass me by.


 
The Old Kent Road is kind of my neighbourhood, I wouldn't feel comfortable cycling down it though. We have not only cyclists RLJ'ing all over the place plus the buses plus the HGV's plus the further south you go, all those people driving and using their mobiles but we have the countless peds dragging their pre-school age children across 4 lanes of heavy traffic. I'm not exaggerating.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> TfL did a study and came up with a figure of 18% of cyclists RLJ in London. Which is round about the same percentage of drivers that RLJ *more than three seconds after* the light has gone red. Its also not a particularly dangerous thing to do - the number of cyclist deaths from RLJing are very low compared to the prevalence of RLJing.


 
I have to say, I don't think it's always about casualties and injuries, I think it's also a perception of safety. As a ped, I would like to feel that when a light is red, I can cross the road and as a cyclist, that I can proceed without someone slamming in to me from the side. without having to fear some nut-job chancing their arm to save themselves a few seconds of time.


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> The Old Kent Road is kind of my neighbourhood, I wouldn't feel comfortable cycling down it though. We have not only cyclists RLJ'ing all over the place plus the buses plus the HGV's plus the further south you go, all those people driving and using their mobiles but we have the countless peds dragging their pre-school age children across 4 lanes of heavy traffic. I'm not exaggerating.


I used to love it. I don't even have anyone to race anymore!!


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I thought
> 
> _In London between 2001-05 (the most recent data we have), there were 3_​_cyclists, 7 pedestrians and 7 motor vehicle occupants killed in collisions_​_where a motorist jumped a red light._​_• Two cyclists were killed by red light jumping (i.e. fewer than the number of_​_cyclists killed by red-light-jumping drivers), while 7 motorcyclists got_​_themselves killed the same way._​​was empirical data collected by TfL. What do you suggest happened? They made the numbers up?
> 
> And I suppose they also made up the report about how many cyclists RLJ'd in London too rather than doing what you suggest and standing there counting them as they claim in their report.


I could politely offer that cycling in London in 2012 is a completely different environment to that in 2005. I was commuting in 2005 (started around 1995) and there were hardly any cyclists around at all. Everyone thought we were nuts to cycle in London.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I could politely offer that cycling in London in 2012 is a completely different environment to that in 2005. I was commuting in 2005 (started around 1995) and there were hardly any cyclists around at all. Everyone thought we were nuts to cycle in London.


 
I have to disagree. Yes there are more cyclists around now but not that many more and cycling counts show they have risen a bit. What has changed is the concentration of cyclists on certain routes IME.


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2012)

Cycle journeys doubled between 2000 and 2010. It's widely accepted that the two main triggers for this increase have occurred since Jan 2005, namely the 7/7 bombings and the financial crisis. 

I'd say doubled is a significant increase.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Cycle journeys doubled between 2000 and 2010. It's widely accepted that the two main triggers for this increase have occurred since Jan 2005, namely the 7/7 bombings and the financial crisis.
> 
> I'd say doubled is a significant increase.


 
_"Cycle flows on London’s major roads continued to increase in 2006, with almost twice as many cycles recorded compared to 2000."_​London Travel Report 2007​​Cyclists crossing the River Thames Screenline daily increased by 83% between 2000 and 2005, an 83% increase
​Seems like most of that doubling was over by 2006


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

Another one on ignore - had enough of the drivel.


----------



## BlackPanther (22 Oct 2012)

I don't come across too many rljs as I'd say over 90% of cyclists I see ride on the pavements. Of the ones that do ride on the road maybe2 or 3 out of 10 jump reds. All the more satisfying when I over take them after obeying the lights myself.

That said, I do regularly jump one red light in Donny tc. At 6am there's no traffic, although I do always slow and make absolutely sure.


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Another one on ignore - had enough of the drivel.


Have to find out who got ignored, me or RL?


----------



## ianrauk (22 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Have to find out who got ignored, me or RL?


 

I've got a very good idea and I don't think it's you.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

No you [martin]. He talks utter turd. Read his stuff on heart rates and Lance. Had enough


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2012)

Phew!


----------



## totallyfixed (22 Oct 2012)

I am in sheer awe of the RLJers, and so many of them, I thought I was reasonably skilled jumping cattle grids........................Only 3 sets of lights in the county here, so don't get a lot of practice


----------



## gaz (22 Oct 2012)

Even in London I would have to say it was less than 50/50. pretty much because rarely anyone jumps the lights at the major junctions, which is what i'm stuck at more often than the small pelican crossings.


----------



## mcshroom (22 Oct 2012)

Three's quite a high concentration for a county the size of a postage stamp


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

Pure RLJ in and around Manc (which I mean going through red and not those that traffic light creep) I'd say about 2 to 3 in 10.

As mentioned, there's quite a lot who do the traffic light creep - start to make their way through the junction a few seconds before the lights change fully.


----------



## totallyfixed (22 Oct 2012)

mcshroom said:


> Three's quite a high concentration for a county the size of a postage stamp


----------



## summerdays (22 Oct 2012)

I would say that the majority stop, though I think it is slightly worse the nearer you get to peak commuting times though still only the minority RLJ. But I don't think motorists notice those of us who stop, just the few that jump the lights.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Oct 2012)

I'd guess I see about 40% of RLJers on my London wanderings. I'd love to know whether seeing one person stop has an effect on the riders behind - I'm sure it does have a small effect but without filming a junction over a long period I can't know how big that effect is. 

No saint, me. I confess to sometimes jumping a just red if I'm going quickly. Having had one perfectly decent car written off at a red light and the rear door of an estate destroyed by an uninsured druggie in a Golf also at a red light, there's no way I'm going to brake heavily if I'm not sure what's happening behind.


----------



## Bengarbage (22 Oct 2012)

majority in my quietish town (medway kent) purely seem that they can't be bothered to unclip, therefore dawdle around the box junction or whatever till it's clear. we are lucky in that our council provides asl's on busy routes however they still do it. No offence but it's usually middle aged high vis, erm new to cycling (can tell by the ultra clean kit) boardman cycle to work jobbies that do it...


----------



## potsy (23 Oct 2012)

I was going to do a scientific study on the commute last night, unfortunately I only saw 1 other cyclist and there were no traffic lights in the vicinity, maybe I'll have better luck going home at 6am?


----------



## Dan B (23 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> And having a look at the report, the junctions where the transgressors were counted are some of the most busiest junctions in London where only the more foolhardy would RLJ.


That sounds almost like you're suggesting the majority of potential rljs look at the traffic as they approach the junction and make the decision to stop or go based on (perceived) risk. It's certainly an interesting explanation, but does go against the received wisdom that they are all dangerous nutters who plunge headlong into oncoming traffic without a care and are going to get themselves killed tout suite


----------



## Davidsw8 (23 Oct 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I'd guess I see about 40% of RLJers on my London wanderings. I'd love to know whether seeing one person stop has an effect on the riders behind - I'm sure it does have a small effect but without filming a junction over a long period I can't know how big that effect is.


 
Hi

From what I've seen, it's a very marginal effect, if any. The set of lights outside Kennington Tube are on the main route through South London up to the City and I'd say maybe 60% stop at the lights - there seems to be the ones who've stopped (and not raced to beat the light) and then the ones who whizz by them on a blatant red, they don't seem to be fazed weaving through the stationary cyclists...


----------



## Davidsw8 (23 Oct 2012)

It's definitely got a lot more dangerous to cycle around London over the past 10-15 years. Circa 1997, I used to cycle 10 miles (Wimbledon to Whitehall) every day for about a year and I remember one close call with a taxi.

I started cycling again to work and back in Feb this year and my commute is about 4 miles, I encounter appalling driving from motorists, inconsiderate cyclists and mental peds every time I get on the bike.

Obviously, this is down to the massive increase in people using the roads over the last few years but I always think, if we just acted decently and followed the rules, we'd all get where we want to go at exactly the same time AND in one piece AND in a much better mood. Imagine that!!


----------



## martint235 (23 Oct 2012)

This is definitely just perception but it seems to go in cycles (). I found around 2005 - 2007 that motorists became better behaved then it went downhill a bit. Now it seems to be improving again. As I say it's just perception.

I'd add that the improvement was probably awareness that there were more cyclists then came the resentment that we got places quicker and tended to be in the way more and now I think we're getting acceptance that drivers just have to get along with us.


----------



## J.Primus (23 Oct 2012)

I saw 1 van and 1 car RLJ during one 20 minute journey this morning. Bloody motorist jumping red lights, they shouldn't be allowed on the road!


----------



## Recycle (23 Oct 2012)

I notice fewer RLJ'ers on HW7 than on other routes I use. HW7 carries a lot of cyclists and I wonder if peer pressure is involved?i.e., if a few cyclists stop at the lights then others are less likely to jump the lights because they feel they are being judged.


----------



## Davidsw8 (23 Oct 2012)

Recycle said:


> I notice fewer RLJ'ers on HW7 than on other routes I use. HW7 carries a lot of cyclists and I wonder if peer pressure is involved?i.e., if a few cyclists stop at the lights then others are less likely to jump the lights because they feel they are being judged.


 
HW7 was the section outside Kennington Tube I was referring to earlier. I only cross that road by foot with my bike and that one small section is rife with RLJ'ers. This is usually about 7.30am-ish.


----------



## Twilkes (23 Oct 2012)

I used to go through pedestrian lights that I could see were safe to go through, until I turned left onto Princes Street in Edinburgh once and almost went over an old lady. After that I never did it.

I also used to use pedestrian crossings to get across junctions that were on red, but half the time it wasn't worth the effort so now just sit on the reds.

So in summary, I now cycle like my dad.

Edinburgh cyclists seem pretty good, although I'm usually the only cyclist on any particular set of lights so rarely see anyone RL-anything.


----------



## veloevol (23 Oct 2012)

If I'm doing a commute with lots of commuting cyclists I find it's a small percentage that RLJ but a half hour before or a half hour after then I'd say more than 50% are at it.

Edit* This is in London of course


----------



## Cyclopathic (23 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I have voted 50/50. A heck of a lot of London cyclists RLJ.


A heck of a lot of London drivers RLJ. I've seen it a lot more when I've been down in that London than I do out here in the provinces.


----------



## newfhouse (23 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> This is definitely just perception but it seems to go in cycles (). I found around 2005 - 2007 that motorists became better behaved then it went downhill a bit. Now it seems to be improving again. As I say it's just perception.
> 
> I'd add that the improvement was probably awareness that there were more cyclists then came the resentment that we got places quicker and tended to be in the way more and now I think we're getting acceptance that drivers just have to get along with us.


 
Don't forget that many, probably most, of the additional cyclists are also car drivers. I'm definitely a better behaved and more considerate motorist since getting back on the bike. I doubt I'm alone.

Re the original question I can only speak for my commute up and down the A23 where I estimate less than one in five RLJ at traffic lights but noticeably worse, perhaps fifty percent, on pedestrian crossings.


----------



## Milo (23 Oct 2012)

Most in London. Less in Bath. Not many were I live but then not so many red lights or cyclists.


----------



## nigelnorris (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Hi
> I've seen a number of discussion on RLJ-ing and it seems that here, it's generally frowned on which to me would indicate it's something only the idiotic minority engage in.
> ..


On my commute I'd say most of us do, so it seems to me that it's generally accepted, which would by your logic imply that it's only the idiot minority that complain about it.

In heavy traffic, surrounded by heavy vehicles themselves shooting the lights, it's often by far the safest way to get about, deal with it.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (24 Oct 2012)

nigelnorris said:


> On my commute I'd say most of us do, so it seems to me that it's generally accepted, which would by your logic imply that it's only the idiot minority that complain about it.
> 
> In heavy traffic, surrounded by heavy vehicles themselves shooting the lights, it's often by far the safest way to get about, deal with it.


 
It isn't.



Cyclopathic said:


> A heck of a lot of London drivers RLJ. I've seen it a lot more when I've been down in that London than I do out here in the provinces.


 
Two wrongs do not make a right.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

Any cyclist who RLJs across my path risks being taken out as I will not stop. Candidates for Darwin Awards IMHO. Red lights mean STOP for everyone's safety - those who are required to stop and those who are proceeding on green. Period. And if cyclists RLJ a pedestrian crossing and I am crossing carrying a brolly it will go straight through their wheels.


----------



## Dan B (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Any cyclist who RLJs across my path risks being taken out as I will not stop.


Really, what part of 'go if the way is clear' are you not understanding?


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

It's very very common in Central London. Not on major junctions,but the countless pedestrian crossing,where the pedestrians have given up waiting and already crossed.
Don't see an issue with that personally.
If cyclists stopped at every light (see above) in London ... They might as well sit in a car or bus as the time advantage in commuting would be lost.
That might not be a popular thing to say,but it is the truth for central London.


----------



## Cyclopathic (24 Oct 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> It isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Two wrongs do not make a right.


It was just an observation not an atempt to justify it in cyclists.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> It's very very common in Central London. Not on major junctions,but the countless pedestrian crossing,where the pedestrians have given up waiting and already crossed.
> Don't see an issue with that personally.
> If cyclists stopped at every light (see above) in London ... They might as well sit in a car or bus as the time advantage in commuting would be lost.
> That might not be a popular thing to say,but it is the truth for central London.


Sorry but it's not the truth, it's utter b****cks. I commuted to Central London for years maintaining an average speed upwards of 16mph stopping for every red. Rljing is just impatient selfishness whether you do it on a bike or in a car.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

I've got a hunch that if you are involved in a collision with a vehicle whilst on your bike, and you suffer injuries, then if you have previously jumped red lights [which has been witnessed] then there is the possibility this could be used against you in court, which may mean any compensation you receive is reduced.

Am I correct?


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

I would have thought a 50/50 would be the best you'd get


----------



## Twizit (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but it's not the truth, it's utter b****cks. I commuted to Central London for years maintaining an average speed upwards of 16mph stopping for every red. Rljing is just impatient selfishness whether you do it on a bike or in a car.


 
^^^ this. Perfectly possible to maintain a good average through London stopping at all red lights. I consider it a challenge to scalp all those who pass me by RLJing 

As for the original OP question, even through London I reckon less than 30%. As noted by others, at the major junctions it's tiny (witness Vauxhall bridge this morning - 1 RLJ from over 20 cyclists), but this will rise to maybe 30 - 40% for minor junctions and ped crossings.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

@martin235 - It's not something i've looked into-would be interested in a response from those that know for certain.


----------



## ianrauk (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but it's not the truth, it's utter b****cks. I commuted to Central London for years maintaining an average speed upwards of 16mph stopping for every red. Rljing is just impatient selfishness whether you do it on a bike or in a car.


 

Yip, fully agree with this.


----------



## Recycle (24 Oct 2012)

Twizit said:


> ^^^ this. Perfectly possible to maintain a good average through London stopping at all red lights. I consider it a challenge to scalp all those who pass me by RLJing


The opposite happens to me. I get scalped at the lights by RLJ'ers I overtook before the lights . Worse than being "Armstrong'ed".


----------



## campbellab (24 Oct 2012)

Ped crossings that are red with no-one in sight are daft. We dont make it illegal for peds to cross on a red man when there is no traffic, because putting human judgement behind a simple timing circuit would be daft. Should be the same for drivers and cyclists - change them all to zebras; or amber flashing with normal usage during certain times of the day if they're required to keep traffic flowing.


----------



## Dan B (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but it's not the truth, it's utter b****cks. I commuted to Central London for years maintaining an average speed upwards of 16mph stopping for every red


 I note you say 'to' not 'through'. I think I once counted every signal-controlled junction between Old St roundabout and Oxford Circus, and it averaged about one every 120 metres. What average moving speed and what top speed would you have to ride between those lights to get a 16mph average including stops? Certainly faster than I'd be happier riding in 12mph traffic


----------



## Recycle (24 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> I note you say 'to' not 'through'. I think I once counted every signal-controlled junction between Old St roundabout and Oxford Circus, and it averaged about one every 120 metres. What average moving speed and what top speed would you have to ride between those lights to get a 16mph average including stops? Certainly faster than I'd be happier riding in 12mph traffic


I agree that pedestrian lights are a pain because the pedestrian who pressed the button has long since crossed and you are all to frequently stopped for the breeze but the inconvenience can be minimised.
If you are in a highly pedestrianised area then speed must be cut down anyway so you aren't losing a huge amount of invested energy by stopping. A red light can often be anticipated in advance & the red phase is quite short. My strategy is to anticipate the red and coast till the flashing amber, then cross if its safe. It doesn't always work but I live with that. I may be wrong but I think that pedestrian lights are mostly synchronised with each other and with the other lights - that's my observation anyway. If you cross your first light on flashing amber or a fresh green you are likely to get the rest green.


----------



## summerdays (24 Oct 2012)

I would say pedestrian lights are not synchronised with other lights. They should only react to the pressing of the button, though how fast they then react is down to how that light is set up. At some crossings it is almost instant, which is nice for the pedestrian and makes them less likely to cross, where they have to wait a long time then it isn't surprising when they cross before the green man.

As a pedestrian if I can cross without using the button I will do, but as a cyclist I'm frequently told by pedestrians "you don't have to stop - keep going". Usually I wait since if I have stopped anyway it won't make any difference waiting a few more seconds.


----------



## Recycle (24 Oct 2012)

summerdays said:


> I would say pedestrian lights are not synchronised with other lights. They should only react to the pressing of the button, though how fast they then react is down to how that light is set up. At some crossings it is almost instant, which is nice for the pedestrian and makes them less likely to cross, where they have to wait a long time then it isn't surprising when they cross before the green man.


True, but I think that you will find that many lights that are not instant are that way because they are synchronising their red phase with the other lights.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> I note you say 'to' not 'through'. I think I once counted every signal-controlled junction between Old St roundabout and Oxford Circus, and it averaged about one every 120 metres. What average moving speed and what top speed would you have to ride between those lights to get a 16mph average including stops? Certainly faster than I'd be happier riding in 12mph traffic


 
Does Martin235 just commute between those two places then?


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Oct 2012)

A good deal of my London cycling is done on CS7 and I think that there's been a marked improvement in the last couple of years. It may be that peer pressure has something to do with this - people are more reluctant to jump reds if a whole bunch of cyclists have stopped.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Oct 2012)

Rancid said:


> South London commute here via Streatham/Tooting/Wimbledon.
> The VAST majority (80%+) of cyclist jump red lights.


I think that's complete and utter nonsense


----------



## summerdays (24 Oct 2012)

Recycle said:


> True, but I think that you will find that many lights that are not instant are that way because they are synchronising their red phase with the other lights.


No I think that they are that way because they prioritise motor traffic over pedestrian traffic.

Thinking about the pedestrian lights near lights at junctions that I know of here, I don't think any of them are linked - well maybe a couple in the city centre? I can think of several occasions when on the road you go through the junction only to find the pedestrian set of lights on red for the road traffic (as a pedestrian I wouldn't notice what is happening up the road).


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but it's not the truth, it's utter b****cks. I commuted to Central London for years maintaining an average speed upwards of 16mph stopping for every red. Rljing is just impatient selfishness whether you do it on a bike or in a car.



Just my opinion .....
I see it so often that it has become the norm. This is going East down the uxbridge road towards shepherds bush.


----------



## AndyPeace (24 Oct 2012)

AndyPeace said:


> If it's so safe to jump red lights, why not ditch them altogether? or pass a law to say cyclist's don't have to stop at red lights?


 


Red Light said:


> That's exactly what has been trialled in some French cities - Lyon for example - with success and is now being extended to Paris.


 
I made a poor atempt to find out more about these trials, but came up with nothing. What did they trial in theese cities? and how did they define it a success?


----------



## Recycle (24 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2116644, member: 45"]I'd like it to go the other way. I could give examples of very busy pedestrian areas where I think the default should be green man and red traffic light until a sufficient number of vehicles are there to warrant stopping pedestrians.[/quote]
With a button for the motorist to push?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Oct 2012)

AndyPeace said:


> I made a poor atempt to find out more about these trials, but came up with nothing. What did they trial in theese cities? and how did they define it a success?


I've not checked yet so I'm not 100% sure but I seem to remember the trials were about turning right on red lights.

EDIT: turning right or going straight on at a T-junction. See http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311182.ece 
And a bit more detail here: http://road.cc/content/news/52423-p...trial-scheme-allow-red-light-jumping-cyclists


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

nigelnorris said:


> On my commute I'd say most of us do, so it seems to me that it's generally accepted, which would by your logic imply that it's only the idiot minority that complain about it.
> 
> In heavy traffic, surrounded by heavy vehicles themselves shooting the lights, it's often by far the safest way to get about, deal with it.


 
Hi Nigel

Well, it's actually an offence to RLJ rather than a personal irk so it's not a question of dealing with it. I cycle in very heavy traffic and manage not to get surrounded by these heavy vehicles but maybe I've just been very lucky...

However, by far the majority of these RLJ'rs aren't doing so to get out of an unsafe situation (they're doing it at the very same lights I'm at), they're doing it to get ahead of everyone else for the sake of it (which they don't end up doing anyway).


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> It's very very common in Central London. Not on major junctions,but the countless pedestrian crossing,where the pedestrians have given up waiting and already crossed.
> Don't see an issue with that personally.
> If cyclists stopped at every light (see above) in London ... They might as well sit in a car or bus as the time advantage in commuting would be lost.
> That might not be a popular thing to say,but it is the truth for central London.


 
I totally disagree, I stop at every single red even if the street is deserted and I get where I'm going in excellent time.

In fact, my partner used to RLJ until he started to cycle to work with a mate who made him stop at all the lights and he got to work exactly the same time... and less stressed!

I don't get this attitude of 'I'll do it if I can get away with it', would that rationale carry on to cover other offences?


----------



## nigelnorris (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Hi Nigel
> 
> Well, it's actually an offence to RLJ rather than a personal irk so it's not a question of dealing with it. I cycle in very heavy traffic and manage not to get surrounded by these heavy vehicles but maybe I've just been very lucky...
> 
> However, by far the majority of these RLJ'rs aren't doing so to get out of an unsafe situation (they're doing it at the very same lights I'm at), they're doing it to get ahead of everyone else for the sake of it (which they don't end up doing anyway).


 
Maybe, round my way it seems that red lights are merely advisory to motorised traffic. Worst case scenario is turning right, oncoming traffic keeps oncoming all the way through red lights and then only stops when the traffic coming in the other direction gets in the way. Sitting at the front and waiting for a gap to slip between this traffic is too dangerous for words, not least because drivers behind get antsy. Coming out into the junction even worse because it's too easy to be still stuck there long after the lights have changed and the traffic is coming from somewhere new. Much safer to just go when there's a suitable gap, regardless of what the lights say. Best time is when all the lights are red to let pedestrians out, just idle safely in the middle of it all then stamp on it when the crossings are clear of foot traffic.

Doesn't much matter if its an offence, I've never been pulled and frankly it would be worth the occasional 30 quid fine to keep a slightly safer journey.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> I note you say 'to' not 'through'. I think I once counted every signal-controlled junction between Old St roundabout and Oxford Circus, and it averaged about one every 120 metres. What average moving speed and what top speed would you have to ride between those lights to get a 16mph average including stops? Certainly faster than I'd be happier riding in 12mph traffic


 Use a different route then. There's probably a route between those two places with about 5 signal controlled junctions on it.

And the Old Kent Road from Deptford up to the New Kent Road, through E&C and on through Westminster into Trafalgar Sq probably has a traffic signal every 200m or so at a guess (I never bothered to count them).


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

nigelnorris said:


> Maybe, round my way it seems that red lights are merely advisory to motorised traffic. Worst case scenario is turning right, oncoming traffic keeps oncoming all the way through red lights and then only stops when the traffic coming in the other direction gets in the way. Sitting at the front and waiting for a gap to slip between this traffic is too dangerous for words, not least because drivers behind get antsy. Coming out into the junction even worse because it's too easy to be still stuck there long after the lights have changed and the traffic is coming from somewhere new. Much safer to just go when there's a suitable gap, regardless of what the lights say. Best time is when all the lights are red to let pedestrians out, just idle safely in the middle of it all then stamp on it when the crossings are clear of foot traffic.
> 
> Doesn't much matter if its an offence, I've never been pulled and frankly it would be worth the occasional 30 quid fine to keep a slightly safer journey.


 
If someone really perceives themselves to be in real harms way then I don't see a problem with them chancing the red light, I just personally don't see very many cases where that applies.

As for the penalty aspect, I think that's the trouble with many traffic offences like mobile phone use and driving, people think 'ah, it's only a couple of points and £60, and I won't get caught anyway so it's deffo worth the risk'. If something's an offence, it needs to be enforced and the penalty needs to be a deterrent, otherwise you may as well not bother.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

In London?...

I'd say the number is under 10%. At least 90% of cyclists do not RLJ.

You may have 60%+ of junctions that have at least one red light jumper though, but that's not the same thing.

I spend a lot of time at junctions, often surrounded by 10 cyclists. It's rare to see more than one, maybe two, go on regardless.

By all means lynch me, but there are several junctions where I'll proceed with caution regardless of the colour of the light.

This one for example - http://goo.gl/maps/OYRgx (I keep way left)

I don't think that I'm big, special, or clever, but at this junction, and others, you can proceed with 100% certainty that you're not going to have an interaction with a pedestrian or vehicle. I don't need an endorsement, just stating my opinion.

I'm not advocating flying through any junction at speed, that's moronic, but whilst cycling, walking, or driving, there are many many junctions that I don't give a damn about cycles RLJ'ing.

It's the tools that do it here - http://goo.gl/maps/dhIGI - and places like it which baffle me.

That's all I've got.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> By all means lynch me, but there are several junctions where I'll proceed with caution regardless of the colour of the light.
> 
> This one for example - http://goo.gl/maps/OYRgx (I keep way left)
> 
> I don't think that I'm big, special, or clever, but at this junction, and others, you can proceed with 100% certainty that you're not going to have an interaction with a pedestrian or vehicle. I don't need an endorsement, just stating my opinion.


I know that junction well. My obvious question is, if your criteria is no interaction with pedestrian or vehicle, why jump that red light when 20 yards on is a synchronised pedestrian crossing that goes to red seconds after the first set or do you jump that one too?


----------



## Recycle (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> If someone really perceives themselves to be in real harms way then I don't see a problem with them chancing the red light, I just personally don't see very many cases where that applies.


That's true. On one or two occasions I have used my judgement when car is sucking my back wheel. The safety argument becomes stretched when this behaviour is more routine than by exception.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I know that junction well. My obvious question is, if your criteria is no interaction with pedestrian or vehicle, why jump that red light when 20 yards on is a synchronised pedestrian crossing that goes to red seconds after the first set or do you jump that one too?


 
I'll have to check that out tomorrow in terms of the synch, but I'll take your word for it for the point of discussion.

If there is nobody at the second set, I'll proceed there too. Like I said, my own personal opinion is that not all RLJ is created equal.

I stop more often than I jump, but the lights I jump, It'll pretty much be 100% of the time.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I'll have to check that out tomorrow in terms of the synch, but I'll take your word for it for the point of discussion.
> 
> If there is nobody at the second set, I'll proceed there too. Like I said, my own personal opinion is that not all RLJ is created equal.
> 
> I stop more often than I jump, but the lights I jump, It'll pretty much be 100% of the time.


 So the follow up question is for the purpose of the stats are you one rljer or two? I would count you twice, possibly 3 times because I'd count you likely to jump the next set outside Toys R Us. Would you be happy for cars to take the same approach? If yes then as someone up thread suggested we may as well do away with lights.


----------



## Jezston (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> If someone really perceives themselves to be in real harms way then I don't see a problem with them chancing the red light, I just personally don't see very many cases where that applies.


 
I've never really understood the argument I've heard many make that they are safer jumping lights and that they believe they are going to get rear ended if they ever stop, and suchlike.

If they really feel they are in so much danger continuously riding their bike on the road that they need to consistently flout the law to feel slightly safer, I wonder why they ride a bike on the road at all.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> So the follow up question is for the purpose of the stats are you one rljer or two? I would count you twice, possibly 3 times because I'd count you likely to jump the next set outside Toys R Us. Would you be happy for cars to take the same approach? If yes then as someone up thread suggested we may as well do away with lights.


 
I pointed that out too. You could say that I'm 1 RLJer by the poll. Yet I could jump anywhere between 0 and 10 on an average commute. Upwards of 60%, (and I think that's probably low ball), of junctions will have at least one RLJer.

Of course I wouldn't advocate cars taking the same approach. They're north of 1 tonne of metal thats several feet wide. Plus there are thousands of them.

You have your values, I'll have mine. I'm not the guy that screeches through a gap on a red at over 20mph. Nor am I creeping round the Elephant roundabout. I've never put anyone in danger by riding how I do, and I never will.


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> You have your values, I'll have mine. I'm not the guy that screeches through a gap on a red at over 20mph. Nor am I creeping round the Elephant roundabout. I've never put anyone in danger by riding how I do, and I never will.


 
I cycle round some of this area and you know you can usually get where you want to go more safely by going 1 street behind? Granted, it is difficult to find a back route parallel to the Old Kent Road into town but past the Albany Road there are some good side routes.

That's what I do anyway, I wouldn't cycle round E&C roundabout.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I pointed that out too. You could say that I'm 1 RLJer by the poll. Yet I could jump anywhere between 0 and 10 on an average commute. Upwards of 60%, (and I think that's probably low ball), of junctions will have at least one RLJer.
> 
> Of course I wouldn't advocate cars taking the same approach. They're north of 1 tonne of metal thats several feet wide. Plus there are thousands of them.
> 
> You have your values, I'll have mine. I'm not the guy that screeches through a gap on a red at over 20mph. Nor am I creeping round the Elephant roundabout.* I've never put anyone in danger by riding how I do, and I never will.*




That's a bold (and ultimately incorrect) statement to make.

You can mitigate risk but you can't remove it.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I cycle round some of this area and you know you can usually get where you want to go more safely by going 1 street behind? Granted, it is difficult to find a back route parallel to the Old Kent Road into town but past the Albany Road there are some good side routes.
> 
> That's what I do anyway, I wouldn't cycle round E&C roundabout.


 
Any suggestions of a swift New Cross to Vauxhall Bridge route appreciated....


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I totally disagree, I stop at every single red even if the street is deserted and I get where I'm going in excellent time.
> 
> In fact, my partner used to RLJ until he started to cycle to work with a mate who made him stop at all the lights and he got to work exactly the same time... and less stressed!
> 
> I don't get this attitude of 'I'll do it if I can get away with it', would that rationale carry on to cover other offences?



I suspect many cyclist that do jump pedestrian red lights would not start committing other road offences or crimes!
Some folks are liking the rlj'er to jack the ripper!


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> That's a bold (and ultimately incorrect) statement to make.
> 
> You can mitigate risk but you can't remove it.


 
True, it's a little too broadly encompassing, but you loosely see my point.

If someone or something is there, the light is red, if the coast is clear, I proceed with caution, basically.


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

Jezston said:


> I've never really understood the argument I've heard many make that they are safer jumping lights and that they believe they are going to get rear ended if they ever stop, and suchlike.
> 
> If they really feel they are in so much danger continuously riding their bike on the road that they need to consistently flout the law to feel slightly safer, I wonder why they ride a bike on the road at all.



Not an argument i would use. I see the logic in stopping at most junctions, but not an empty one with no adjoining roads or pedestrians using it.
Maybe it's different in the greater london area to other parts of the country????


----------



## CharlieB (24 Oct 2012)

Rancid said:


> South London commute here via Streatham/Tooting/Wimbledon.
> The VAST majority (80%+) of cyclist jump red lights.


I've never joined in an RLJ debate before, but I honestly think from 3¼ years doing a 10-11m commute through NW London (via as many variations as there are to get between Regent's Park and Harrow) that the %-age is nearer more than 90. It's not limited to age, gender, sartorial style, choice of bike or anything.
I gave up long ago saying anything between rude and conciliatory, because it's not going to make a hill of beans difference.

Certainly you will always catch these d###heads up at the next set, which helps to temper how cross it makes me.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> That's a bold (and ultimately incorrect) statement to make.
> 
> You can mitigate risk but you can't remove it.


 This.

Even by RLJing on an empty crossing you are affecting perception. The woman in the car behind you bringing her kid home from nursery will be less likely to trust the green man signal because of what she sees.

You are also forcing people to re-evaluate risks that the road rules are designed to mitigate against. The car you didn't see coming down what is a dual carriageway side street and turning right may see suddenly see a cyclist where he/she didn't expect one to be.

As stated above it is pure selfishness and although not on the level of Jack the Ripper, I feel the penalty should be enforced and then the penalty should be increased to a level where people stop doing it.

At the end of the day you are picking and choosing which laws you wish to obey on the basis of your judgement. It's a good thing that not everyone follows that example.


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> I suspect many cyclist that do jump pedestrian red lights would not start committing other road offences or crimes!
> Some folks are liking the rlj'er to jack the ripper!


 
lol hardly! 

It's a classic case of moral relativism though, the RLJ'er is making a judgement that this particular offence is one they can happily flout but they'll abide by all the others.

Despite the immediate potential harm they place themselves into, there's the harm they can inflict on others plus the ongoing damage to the perception of cyclists generally plus the perception to other cyclists that this behaviour is permissable... and so on...

I also think that if you have a tendency to RLJ then you'll get used to it and start to do it more often. I don't think I've ever seen a cycle courier stop at a red and I think that's down to the fact that they're cycling all day and it's just something they do.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> I suspect many cyclist that do jump pedestrian red lights would not start committing other road offences or crimes!
> Some folks are liking the rlj'er to jack the ripper!


 I suspect Jack the Ripper wouldn't start committing any other crimes either. What's your point? It is still people picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and you wouldn't want other people to do that would you?


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

By that reasoning.then all drivers doing 80mph on the motorway should be pulled over, anyone playing with sat nav,stereo,phone,smoking or drinking in a car should be penalised as those are the rules.
Some rules can be broken,dependant on the scene infront of that person. A cyclist going through a deserted pedestrian crossing (because the peds crossed when there was a break in the traffi, but lights were still green),is hardly a criminal is he/she?


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I suspect Jack the Ripper wouldn't start committing any other crimes either. What's your point? It is still people picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and you wouldn't want other people to do that would you?


 
People need to stop referencing Jack the Ripper. It's very silly.

Martin, how long would you wait at a red light for, at 3am, in your car? Let's say that the light is broken so only goes red every 20 minutes.

Nobody is around. Not a soul. How long before you break?


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I suspect Jack the Ripper wouldn't start committing any other crimes either. What's your point? It is still people picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and you wouldn't want other people to do that would you?



My point being a 1.5 tonne vehicle travelling at 30mph is going to have a much bigger consequence in the event of an accident,then a cyclist jumping light cautiously doing 10mph.
Why pick those speeds ... A vehicle will usually floor it to avoid stopping as the lights change from amber to red, a cyclist will be braking whilst looking all around for 1 tonne vehicles coming his way


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Any suggestions of a swift New Cross to Vauxhall Bridge route appreciated....


 
The more direct route seems to be Queens Rd, Peckham Rd, Camberwell New Rd past Oval and round Vauxhall Cross. I haven't tried that way, is it really busy?

I go to Vauxhall every day from the Old Kent Road (top) and I cut through Rodney Road, cross Walworth Road, cross Kennington Pk Rd and run parallel to Black Prince Rd. The streets are mostly v v quiet. It's north of the river that I have most of my traffic problems but most of that is unavoidable.


----------



## nigelnorris (24 Oct 2012)

Jezston said:


> I've never really understood the argument I've heard many make that they are safer jumping lights and that they believe they are going to get rear ended if they ever stop, and suchlike.
> 
> If they really feel they are in so much danger continuously riding their bike on the road that they need to consistently flout the law to feel slightly safer, I wonder why they ride a bike on the road at all.


 
In the last eighteen months I've been involved in three separate collisions. Once a motorist misjudged my speed and hadn't properly overtaken me before turning into her drive, left hooking me and bouncing me into the street. Second time I was in a completely stationary traffic queue, the car in front of me made to pull off so I stood on the pedal, then the driver changed his mind so I stood down again. The car behind had seen me stand up so also started to pull off but he didn't see me stand down so didn't pull back so just ran straight into the back of me. That one wrote the bike off. Third time a car didn't see a set of lights change so when I slowed she ran clean into the back of me. That one embedded my bike so deep into her bumper that it didn't even fall over. All three in broad daylight, and I ride dressed up in flouro colours even so.

Three incidents entirely the motorists' faults. In no way related to my riding style, I was stationary for two of them. Ok I've been unfortunate to meet such a run of bad luck, but two out of these three meet your criteria for getting rear ended. So maybe your holier than thou attitude is protecting you from stuff like this but I'll take my chances where I get them.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> The more direct route seems to be Queens Rd, Peckham Rd, Camberwell New Rd past Oval and round Vauxhall Cross. I haven't tried that way, is it really busy?
> 
> I go to Vauxhall every day from the Old Kent Road (top) and I cut through Rodney Road, cross Walworth Road, cross Kennington Pk Rd and run parallel to Black Prince Rd. The streets are mostly v v quiet. It's north of the river that I have most of my traffic problems but most of that is unavoidable.


 
No idea, will give it a bash. I ride in from Wilmington. Used to work in The City, then Victoria, so I've never really tried to cut out that section.

Cheers


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> By that reasoning.then all drivers doing 80mph on the motorway should be pulled over, anyone playing with sat nav,stereo,phone,smoking or drinking in a car should be penalised as those are the rules.
> Some rules can be broken,dependant on the scene infront of that person. A cyclist going through a deserted pedestrian crossing (because the peds crossed when there was a break in the traffi, but lights were still green),is hardly a criminal is he/she?


 
...or reading a paper whilst driving or having a dog loose on one's lap in a car on the motorway... (both of which I've seen), those people probably saw nothing wrong with doing that.

I agree though, a cyclist going through a deserted pedestrian crossing on a red isn't doing much harm, but I still wouldn't do it myself - it's the principle


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> By that reasoning.then all drivers doing 80mph on the motorway should be pulled over, anyone playing with sat nav,stereo,phone,smoking or drinking in a car should be penalised as those are the rules.
> Some rules can be broken,dependant on the scene infront of that person. A cyclist going through a deserted pedestrian crossing (because the peds crossed when there was a break in the traffi, but lights were still green),is hardly a criminal is he/she?


 No some rules can't be broken. Some rules are broken because people feel a. they won't be caught and b. the consequences of being caught are not high enough. What people do is risk assess which is based on likelihood and impact. Raise the likelihood of being caught and increase the fine and drivers won't do 80mph on motorways and cyclists won't rlj.


----------



## martint235 (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> People need to stop referencing Jack the Ripper. It's very silly.
> 
> Martin, how long would you wait at a red light for, at 3am, in your car? Let's say that the light is broken so only goes red every 20 minutes.
> 
> Nobody is around. Not a soul. How long before you break?


 Without looking it up I can't remember but I'm sure there is guidance on when a red light counts as broken. The longest I've waited is 10 mins in the centre of Maidstone (poxy town) at which point I got off my bike, crossed the pedestrian crossing nearby and continued on my merry way.


----------



## Recycle (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> ...or reading a paper whilst driving or having a dog loose on one's lap in a car on the motorway... (both of which I've seen), those people probably saw nothing wrong with doing that.


Off topic but about 15 years ago I was overtaken on the motorway by a guy talking on his mobile phone (still legal then) with his toddler standing on his lap "play steering". The scary bit is that if the toddler has survived his fathers driving then he/she will probably be driving now with the same acquired habits.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Without looking it up I can't remember but I'm sure there is guidance on when a red light counts as broken. The longest I've waited is 10 mins in the centre of Maidstone (poxy town) at which point I got off my bike, crossed the pedestrian crossing nearby and continued on my merry way.


 
Then you and I are just worlds apart and very different..... But then someone far wiser than both of us once said something like;

"Much of the beauty in this world lies in the differences between people"

Or something like that.


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

Recycle said:


> Off topic but about 15 years ago I was overtaken on the motorway by a guy talking on his mobile phone (still legal then) with his toddler standing on his lap "play steering". The scary bit is that if the toddler has survived his fathers driving then he/she will probably be driving now with the same acquired habits.


 
Not being flippant but last week I heard a chap on the radio talk about his daughter who has Asperger's, her condition was overlooked for years but eventually diagnosed. He said he was worried for her future because she has no sense of danger.

Maybe there's a low level autism with some people, that's more common than we realise, who take these risks and can't see any kind of consequence...


----------



## nigelnorris (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Not being flippant but last week I heard a chap on the radio talk about his daughter who has Asperger's, her condition was overlooked for years but eventually diagnosed. He said he was worried for her future because she has no sense of danger.
> 
> Maybe there's a low level autism with some people, that's more common than we realise, who take these risks and can't see any kind of consequence...


 
And an equally prevalent low level OCD that makes some people behave much more cautiously than they need to.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Really, what part of 'go if the way is clear' are you not understanding?


 
I take it you are a RLJer? Watch out, if I don't get you then a bigger faster moving vehicle might.


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

nigelnorris said:


> And an equally prevalent low level OCD that makes some people behave much more cautiously than they need to.


 
lol touche!  I probably am a bit OCD. However, in the case of red lights, I feel I'm just abiding by the law, that's all.

I do stress though, I wasn't being flippant there, I do see people take extraordinary and unnecessary risks to their well being and there must be something behind that.


----------



## nigelnorris (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> lol touche!  I probably am a bit OCD. However, in the case of red lights, I feel I'm just abiding by the law, that's all.
> 
> I do stress though, I wasn't being flippant there, I do see people take extraordinary and unnecessary risks to their well being and there must be something behind that.


 
Oh gosh no I wasn't referring to you, that was just a general observation that life usually balances itself out that way.


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Oct 2012)

nigelnorris said:


> Oh gosh no I wasn't referring to you anyway, that was just a general observation that life usually balances itself out that way.


 
I have been referred to as overly cautious by people, no worries 

I understand what you say though, life does have a way of creating a balance.


----------



## campbellab (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> No some rules can't be broken. Some rules are broken because people feel a. they won't be caught and b. the consequences of being caught are not high enough. What people do is risk assess which is based on likelihood and impact. Raise the likelihood of being caught and increase the fine and drivers won't do 80mph on motorways and cyclists won't rlj.


 
Lots of rules/laws can be broken, if the circumstances dictate. We have a complex legal system, some judgements are based on the opinions of our peers, laws are intepreted differently by different people (hence all the appeals), laws are revoked, changed, reworded, or new laws are brought in. If rules were perfect we wouldn't need all of the above.

Pretty easy to argue a ped crossing is defective if its red with no peds in sight!


----------



## J.Primus (24 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2117055, member: 45"]RLJing is a social crime[/quote]

What's a social crime? Like farting in a lift?


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

Swearing before small children.
Leering at women
Urinating in public on a saturday night
......... 

Cycling through red lights!!!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha


----------



## defy-one (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> I take it you are a RLJer? Watch out, if I don't get you then a bigger faster moving vehicle might.



A bit uncalled for!
Now your wishing a fellow cyclist harm becuase he doesn't suscribe to your way of thinking?


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> A bit uncalled for!
> Now your wishing a fellow cyclist harm becuase he doesn't suscribe to your way of thinking?


 
To be fair, unless there has been a major technological leap, I'm sure everyone is pretty safe in their war bunker, armed with their keyboard and mouse.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

defy-one said:


> A bit uncalled for!
> Now your wishing a fellow cyclist harm becuase he doesn't suscribe to your way of thinking?


 
No I am not. He may well be a law breaker which if he is a RLJer and he runs a red light the likelihood of getting knocked down is quite high or causing an accident whether he is invloved or not is high. He deserves all he gets if he does do this. It is the poor sod who is using a junction legitimately who collides with him or another road user in an effort to avoid a collision with the RLJer that I feel sorry for and any other party who is injured as a result of his selfishness and stupidity. Red lights are in place to protect us all. Deciding that you won't obey them is just plain wrong and selfish toward the rest of us who do adhere to traffic signals.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Red lights are in place to protect us all.


 
They're not actually... But that's a whole nother convo


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> They're not actually... But that's a whole nother convo


 
Ehh???? You've lost me.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Ehh???? You've lost me.


 
Traffic lights were not invented, and are not designed, to 'Protect us all'.

They are made, and used, to control traffic. Much has been written on their effectiveness in society, but you'd need to leave your preconceptions at the door, which I can't see happening.


----------



## dodd82 (24 Oct 2012)

On a separate note, I have long wondered why some sets of traffic lights are not switched off late at night.

There are some junctions where the control is unquestionably needed during the day, but outside of normal daylight hours, people would be perfectly capable of treating it as a junction without lights.

Not only would it be easier for traffic, but it'd save electricity


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Traffic lights were not invented, and are not designed, to 'Protect us all'.
> 
> They are made, and used, to control traffic. Much has been written on their effectiveness in society, but you'd need to leave your preconceptions at the door, which I can't see happening.


 
There is no need to be obtuse. If you were to take your blinkers off you might see some thing .............. .

Of course traffic lights controll traffic flow but they also provide road safety for everyone if road users adhere to them. It gets tricky if one group of road users arbitarily decides they are going to opt out of obeying them.


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> There is no need to be obtuse. If you were to take your blinkers off you might see some thing .............. .
> 
> Of course traffic lights controll traffic flow but they also provide road safety for everyone if road users adhere to them. It gets tricky if one group of road users arbitarily decides they are going to opt out obeying them.


 
No.

They do not provide road safety. This is an indication of how you feel about it, not what is actually true.

They act as stop/go signs and turn off our brains. I'm not being obtuse at all. Take a read of the various studies and arguments on the subject.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

dodd82 said:


> On a separate note, I have long wondered why some sets of traffic lights are not switched off late at night.
> 
> There are some junctions where the control is unquestionably needed during the day, but outside of normal daylight hours, people would be perfectly capable of treating it as a junction without lights.
> 
> Not only would it be easier for traffic, but it'd save electricity


 

In France many lights turn to flashing amber - proceed with caution. However for the speeding motorist approaching a green or amber flashing traffic light, it can strangely turn to red. Hidden just out of sight will be a couple of gendarmes waiting to nick the speeder if he/she fails to slow and jumps the red light.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> No.
> 
> They do not provide road safety. This is an indication of how you feel about it, not what is actually true.
> 
> They act as stop/go signs and turn off our brains. I'm not being obtuse at all. Take a read of the various studies and arguments on the subject.


 
You are claiming that there have been various studies to support your view so you provide evidence or links to them. Jeees ............


----------



## dodd82 (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> In France many lights turn to flashing amber - proceed with caution. However for the speeding motorist approaching a green or amber flashing traffic light, it can strangely turn to red. Hidden just out of sight will be a couple of gendarmes waiting to nick the speeder if he/she fails to slow and jumps the red light.


 
Sounds about as fair as having a stretch of average speed cameras on das autobahn


----------



## Scruffmonster (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> You are claiming that there have been various studies to support your view so you provide evidence or links to them. Jeees ............


 
No. We're not talking in absolute terms. It's a change of conciousness, you either open yourself up to a different way of looking at something, or you don't. It's reasoned, intellectual, debate.

Switch it up this way, if traffic lights had never been invented, you'd never get them onto streets now. Not a chance.

EDIT::: This is the first google result worth a read. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7187165.stm - It doesn't cover everything, it's very lightweight, but it's somewhere to start if it piques your interest.


----------



## J.Primus (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> You are claiming that there have been various studies to support your view so you provide evidence or links to them. Jeees ............


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=removing-roads-and-traffic-lights



> Another kind of anarchy could actually speed travel as well—namely, a counterintuitive traffic design strategy known as shared streets. The practice encourages driver anarchy by removing traffic lights, street markings, and boundaries between the street and sidewalk. Studies conducted in northern Europe, where shared streets are common, point to improved safety and traffic flow.


 
Also

http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/


----------



## summerdays (24 Oct 2012)

Jezston said:


> I've never really understood the argument I've heard many make that they are safer jumping lights and that they believe they are going to get rear ended if they ever stop, and suchlike.
> 
> If they really feel they are in so much danger continuously riding their bike on the road that they need to consistently flout the law to feel slightly safer, I wonder why they ride a bike on the road at all.


Whilst I don't do it, there are a number of times when I've stopped and the car behind me has gone through the red light, by going around me. Sometimes I do worry that they are going to assume that I'm going.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (24 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Not being flippant but last week I heard a chap on the radio talk about his daughter who has Asperger's, her condition was overlooked for years but eventually diagnosed. He said he was worried for her future because she has no sense of danger.
> 
> Maybe there's a low level autism with some people, that's more common than we realise, who take these risks and can't see any kind of consequence...


 
I get this.I spent hours walking through Bangkok today in the p1551ng rain looking for a railway station.In the end I got well lost and in desperation I hopped onto a moped,riding as pillion passenger with a heavy suitcase.I don't think I would ever do it again and if I was driving it i wouldn't ride at 50mph while my pillion passenger carried a suitcase.Madness,pure madness.Must admit it though I got a bit of a thrill from it.


----------



## Jezston (24 Oct 2012)

nigelnorris said:


> Three incidents entirely the motorists' faults. In no way related to my riding style, I was stationary for two of them. Ok I've been unfortunate to meet such a run of bad luck, but two out of these three meet your criteria for getting rear ended. So maybe your holier than thou attitude is protecting you from stuff like this but I'll take my chances where I get them.


 
I've no idea what you've just said has anything to do with what I said. Are you saying that if you had RLJ'd in those instances you wouldn't have been hit?


----------



## nigelnorris (24 Oct 2012)

Jezston said:


> I've no idea what you've just said has anything to do with what I said. Are you saying that if you had RLJ'd in those instances you wouldn't have been hit?


 
I'm saying that taking the gaps when they come reduces the chances of such things happening.

[You're just being obtuse trying to pin it down to individual instances but since you started it, one of those incidents was a collision when someone ran into the back of me when I stopped at a set of lights, so in fact, if I hadn't stopped but had sailed right through then yes you're right I wouldn't have been hit from behind.]


----------



## Dan B (24 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> I take it you are a RLJer? Watch out, if I don't get you then a bigger faster moving vehicle might.


Perhaps you'd like to address the question instead of making assumptions about the poster. What part of 'go if the way is clear' don't you understand?


----------



## RedRider (24 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Any suggestions of a swift New Cross to Vauxhall Bridge route appreciated....


Peckham Rd continued into Camberwell New Rd, Vassall Rd then Caldwell onto Fentiman and South Lambeth Rds. The Vassall etc detour avoids Oval and gives you some respite from heavy traffic. Not sure if it's any quicker overall but it's more pleasant and you're not held up by so many cars. If you wanna get off Camberwell New rd sooner turn left at The Bear, right under the railway bridge and make your way past Myatts Field onto Vassall that way. Fewer red lights, little traffic and a bit more interesting.


----------



## Dan B (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I suspect Jack the Ripper wouldn't start committing any other crimes either. What's your point? It is still people picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and you wouldn't want other people to do that would you?


Personally I really wouldn't mind that much unless in doing so they were acting dangerously or antisocially in matters that would still be dangerous or antisocial even if the law did not exist. Theft and murder, for example, are held to be wrong in most circumstances by most ethical systems around, and you really don't need to have a law on the books to know not to do them. Ripping your own CDs onto mp3 so you can play then on the bus, on the other hand, I would find it hard to get aerated about.


----------



## Dan B (24 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Does Martin235 just commute between those two places then?


I'm assuming not, given that he believes the journey could be made with only five traffic lights. No route that I can think of gets much further than Farringdon on five lights. But the point is not to argue about the specifics of Martin's commute, the point is to remind people that generalizing from their specific experience ("that's the reality of riding in cities" vs "that's bollocks", generalizations both) is not advancing the discussion when that experience is not universal. What if, just suppose, other people have different scenarios in mind when they make their distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable, and the reason they are coming to different answers from you is not because they're sociopaths with single digit IQs but because they started with a different question in mind?

That question not aimed personally at anyone in this discussion, btw, just a general observation about debates of this kind where posters apparently believe they get more points for sticking to an entrenched position and becoming more creative with insults than they might for looking at the other guys point of view.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

I only asked the question as you seemed to be questioning his personal experience - fair enough if you weren't, but that's a difficulty with communicating via words. People can get the wrong end of ths stick.


----------



## Dan B (24 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2117160, member: 45"]Seriously, this is an aspect that people often forget. In the same way that speeding down a street has a knock-on effect to the community it happens in, RLJing has more of an impact than people consider.[/quote]
Indeed, I've seen pedestrians look surprised and grateful when I stop at a crossing even when the light was in their favor, which must be because of bad previous experiences with rljing cyclists because there was nothing in my riding style (I was going at about walking pace) other than the fact I was on a bike to suggest that I might not give way to them.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (25 Oct 2012)

dodd82 said:


> On a separate note, I have long wondered why some sets of traffic lights are not switched off late at night.
> 
> There are some junctions where the control is unquestionably needed during the day, but outside of normal daylight hours, people would be perfectly capable of treating it as a junction without lights.
> 
> Not only would it be easier for traffic, but it'd save electricity


 
Although I disagree strongly with rljing I think possibly the signalling system needs to be re-thought out to a bit like what they have here.I have seen flashing red and flashing yellow signals and stuff like that.Yes I can get what those signals mean.


----------



## veloevol (25 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Indeed, I've seen pedestrians look surprised and grateful when I stop at a crossing even when the light was in their favor, which must be because of bad previous experiences with rljing cyclists because there was nothing in my riding style (I was going at about walking pace) other than the fact I was on a bike to suggest that I might not give way to them.


 
I get this a lot, from a stunned look to complete bewilderment that I've stopped for them.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2117160, member: 45"]Seriously, this is an aspect that people often forget. In the same way that speeding down a street has a knock-on effect to the community it happens in, RLJing has more of an impact than people consider.[/quote]

That's an interesting point and truth be told is probably the crux of it [RLJ'ing]. Does that incremental/infinitisimally small personal jump of a red light make a difference?

-It can, at the very least, irritate other people.
-Many people now assume that cyclists automatically jump red lights.

Does it in some way lead to a less happy society/more insular society?

Clearly, it's a small cog in a very large wheel but it's something to ponder.


----------



## campbellab (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> That's an interesting point and truth be told is probably the crux of it [RLJ'ing]. Does that incremental/infinitisimally small personal jump of a red light make a difference?
> 
> -It can, at the very least, irritate other people.
> -Many people now assume that cyclists automatically jump red lights.
> ...


 
When I started commuting I can remember the rage as the driver shouted out his passenger window, we have to stop for red lights, whilst traversing a roundabout - after I skipped a ped crossing. Ped had crossed over 10 seconds+ before I got to the crossing and her button press had made the lights go red - everyone saw this, there were no other peds on the pavement, great visibility, I didn't go through at speed and this was just a normal section of straight road.

Driver couldn't fathom a logically informed choice that endangered nobody and made no difference for anyone else shouldn't be followed up by a rant whilst performing a maneuvre which endangered myself, himself and other road users.

So tis best to stick to the rules because there are a lot of raging morons out there


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

I suspect there is an air of facetiousness in your post.

You might class them as morons, but we all have to get on with each other. You just believe your action affected no-one, which actually it did.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Indeed, I've seen pedestrians look surprised and grateful when I stop at a crossing even when the light was in their favor, which must be because of bad previous experiences with rljing cyclists because there was nothing in my riding style (I was going at about walking pace) other than the fact I was on a bike to suggest that I might not give way to them.


 
I've pulled up to a red light at a crossing and had a pedestrian wave my through. Ditto for zebra crossings.

It works both ways.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I suspect there is an air of fictitious in your post.
> 
> You might class them as morons, but we all have to get on with each other. You just believe your action affected no-one, which actually it did.


 
No. We're conditioned to believe that it did... but it really didnt.

You can't abandon all common sense just so you don't get shouted at.

When was the last time you/you saw anyone scream at a pedestrian for not pushing the button and then waiting for the green man, as they simply crossed the road as and when they saw fit to?

If we're going to rope in all external factors we could say silly things like;

"A cyclist or ten waiting at a needless red causes traffic to wait marginally longer as they cannot pull away instantly, thus increasing emissions, throttling traffic flow, increasing anger towards slow to start cyclists, and so on....."

I'm not really still rabbiting on to convert people, nor to advocate RLJing... but a lot of people could maybe blur the edges of their thoughts a little, just to soften them.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I've pulled up to a red light at a crossing and had a pedestrian wave my through. Ditto for zebra crossings.
> 
> It works both ways.


 
I've had peds smile and thank me for stopping at Zebra crossing too even though it's something I'm obliged to do. It's nice but it's also a shame that they don't expect a cyclist will stop.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

So, in your opinion common sense = going through red lights?

Pedestrians have no legal obligation to cross on green at junctions by the way.

We could also say silly things like;

"A car or ten waiting at a needless red causes traffic to wait marginally longer as they cannot pull away instantly, thus increasing emissions, throttling traffic flow, increasing anger towards slow to start car drivers, and so on....."

My point is aimed squarely at the social aspect, and sometimes perhaps we have to concede that, although we might actually be right, in societal terms we need to compromise.

I'm no angel by the way and have jumped red lights too. Perhaps I need to stop doing it.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> "A cyclist or ten waiting at a needless red causes traffic to wait marginally longer as they cannot pull away instantly, thus increasing emissions, throttling traffic flow, increasing anger towards slow to start cyclists, and so on....."


 
More cyclists should get Bromptons then, I get away like nobodies business 

Those Boris bikes are awful for being so slow though, I can see why people get frustrated being stuck behind them!


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> So, in your opinion common sense = going through red lights?
> 
> Pedestrians have no legal obligation to cross on green at junctions by the way.
> 
> ...


 
No. My point is not 'Common sense = going through red lights' and you know this.

My points are also in terms of social structure. Most people, I'd say upwards of 90%, do not give a damn about cyclists sensibly rolling through some red lights. I'll apply my own common sense with regards to how I ride a bike. I do not need a set of lights running an algorithm to tell me if I can proceed in every instance.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> That's an interesting point and truth be told is probably the crux of it [RLJ'ing]. Does that incremental/infinitisimally small personal jump of a red light make a difference?
> 
> -It can, at the very least, irritate other people.
> -Many people now assume that cyclists automatically jump red lights.
> ...


For a related symptom of social malaise, see the zebra crossing down the road from my house: it connects a housing estate (maybe about 200 families) with their nearest green park/playground and a bus stop, and most of the people who use it won't step onto the carriageway until the cars have stopped already, because they (quite reasonably) don't trust 30 mph drivers to obey it.

But the problem here is not that the vehicle users (cyclists too!) are breaking the law, because most of them are not breaking the law - they're just using their greater speed and mass to legally intimidate pedestrians. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am against irrespective of whether it's allowed


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> No. My point is not 'Common sense = going through red lights' and you know this.
> 
> My points are also in terms of social structure. Most people, I'd say upwards of 90%, do not give a damn about cyclists sensibly rolling through some red lights. I'll apply my own common sense with regards to how I ride a bike. I do not need a set of lights running an algorithm to tell me if I can proceed in every instance.


 
I'm not convinced about the 90%. It's often thrown at me, along with no lights so (although low on the agenda) it's still an issue. So, I'm not sure we should go down the road of putting a figure of the number of people interested or not.

Would you agree that car drivers can do the same in respect of lights too?


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> For a related symptom of social malaise, see the zebra crossing down the road from my house: it connects a housing estate (maybe about 200 families) with their nearest green park/playground and a bus stop, and most of the people who use it won't step onto the carriageway until the cars have stopped already, because they (quite reasonably) don't trust 30 mph drivers to obey it.
> 
> But the problem here is not that the vehicle users (cyclists too!) are breaking the law, because most of them are not breaking the law - they're just using their greater speed and mass to legally intimidate pedestrians. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am against irrespective of whether it's allowed


 
Good example.


----------



## summerdays (25 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> For a related symptom of social malaise, see the zebra crossing down the road from my house: it connects a housing estate (maybe about 200 families) with their nearest green park/playground and a bus stop, and most of the people who use it won't step onto the carriageway until the cars have stopped already, because they (quite reasonably) don't trust 30 mph drivers to obey it.
> 
> But the problem here is not that the vehicle users (cyclists too!) are breaking the law, because most of them are not breaking the law - they're just using their greater speed and mass to legally intimidate pedestrians. Which, for the avoidance of doubt, I am against irrespective of whether it's allowed


As an adult without small children now, I always step onto the zebra crossing looking as though I intend to cross but then stop. Even then some cars will carry on. But without looking assertive about crossing the road you find that a number of drivers will ignore you. When my children were small I didn't do that.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

summerdays said:


> As an adult without small children now, I always step onto the zebra crossing looking as though I intend to cross but then stop. Even then some cars will carry on. But without looking assertive about crossing the road you find that a number of drivers will ignore you. When my children were small I didn't do that.


 
I had one close call about a year ago. Stepped onto a zebra crossing with my 3 year old daughter after cars had stopped. Driver overtakes the stopped car whilst on a mobile phone.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I'm not convinced about the 90%. It's often thrown at me, along with no lights so (although low on the agenda) it's still an issue. So, I'm not sure we should go down the road of putting a figure of the number of people interested or not.
> 
> Would you agree that car drivers can do the same in respect of lights too?


 
No.

A car weighs 1200kg, is 5 feet wide, has larger blind spots and is made of solid metal. It can do serious damage at 5mph, let alone 10mph.

Me and my bike weigh maybe 85kg combined. About the same weight as the average pedestrian.

We can't compare bikes and cars, they are not the same. Pedestrians don't treat them the same, nor do cyclists, nor do motorists. Bikes are more akin to ped's than cars.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> We can't compare bikes and cars, they are not the same. Pedestrians don't treat them the same, nor do cyclists, nor do motorists. Bikes are more akin to ped's than cars.


Half the heat that these threads generate is because people are (implicitly) comparing _ bikes_ with bikes - that is, the apparent dangerousness of a cyclist might depend greatly on whether it's a courier bowling round a bend in the rain, or a granny with a dog in a wicker basket sauntering to church, or a small child riding along the pavement. Some of these are more comparable to cars than others


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> No.
> 
> A car weighs 1200kg, is 5 feet wide, has larger blind spots and is made of solid metal. It can do serious damage at 5mph, let alone 10mph.
> 
> ...


 
Isn't that being a little binary?

There are times when it is safe to go through red in a car is it not?

You're also taking about the damage a bike/vehicle can do to someone else. What about the damage another vehicle can do to to the cyclist that goes through red.

[edit] I get all the arguments about the relative risks between the modes of transport and don't want to go off at a tangent. The main point of discussion is on the social negativity RLJ brings.


----------



## summerdays (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I had one close call about a year ago. Stepped onto a zebra crossing with my 3 year old daughter after cars had stopped. Driver overtakes the stopped car whilst on a mobile phone.


I've had the same sort of thing where I was on the crossing with my children when a car overtook the stationary one - still remember it some 10 years on. 

It is one of the reasons I think we should stop at zebra's and red lights because sometimes the act of us stopping makes the driver on auto-pilot realise he should stop too.


----------



## Jezston (25 Oct 2012)

Witnessed a rather blatant RLJ myself this morning.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q23Qn9d8alY&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Isn't that being a little binary?
> 
> There are times when it is safe to go through red in a car is it not?
> 
> You're also taking about the damage a bike/vehicle can do to someone else. What about the damage another vehicle can do to to the cyclist that goes through red.


 
Ok. My line in the sand time.

I'm not being binary at all. You're completely inventing something, pretending that I said it, then asking me what I feel about the outcome.

99.99% of the time, a car should NEVER go through a red light. There are times when it is safe to, sure, but I don't apply the same laws to cars as I do cycles some of the time. Tens and hundreds of 1200kg lumps of metal can sit and wait, while 1-15 80kg of person can make a few rational judgement calls.

I've got a decent moral compass, I'm never a d1ck on purpose, I'm happy enough.

EDIT::: Spotted the edit. Agreed.

I think I've exhausted my worth here. People will do as they please, as long as they are responsible, it's all good to me.


----------



## veloevol (25 Oct 2012)




----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Ok. My line in the sand time.
> 
> I'm not being binary at all. *You're completely inventing something, pretending that I said it, then asking me what I feel about the outcome.*
> 
> ...


 
Apologies if it came across as that as it wasn't my intention. I thought the question marks at the end of sentences would help but as I alluded to earlier it can be difficult to get a point/inflections/mood across in the written word.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

AndyPeace said:


> If it's so safe to jump red lights, why not ditch them altogether? or pass a law to say cyclist's don't have to stop at red lights?


 
Personally I'd be in favour of making red lights the equivalent of give way for cyclists. That is, it is the cyclist's responsibility to ensure it is safe to proceed.

Until then though, I am totally against RLJ.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> At the end of the day you are picking and choosing which laws you wish to obey on the basis of your judgement. It's a good thing that not everyone follows that example.


 
I'm curious what you think about entering an ASZ other than by the feeder lane?


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> No I am not. _[wishing a fellow cyclist harm]_


 
However:



Crankarm said:


> Any cyclist who RLJs across my path risks being taken out as I will not stop.


 
So you've basically said you will deliberately knock someone down if they have RLJ into your path. Nice.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I'm curious what you think about entering an ASZ other than by the feeder lane?


Can't remember the last time I entered one at all. 

On my current commute there are only 4 and 2 of those don't have a feeder lane. I tend to hold my place in the traffic or filter to just behind the front car


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I'm curious what you think about entering an ASZ other than by the feeder lane?


 
Is this the same as an Advanced Stop Line?


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Is this the same as an Advanced Stop Line?


 
Yes.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Can't remember the last time I entered one at all.
> 
> On my current commute there are only 4 and 2 of those don't have a feeder lane. I tend to hold my place in the traffic or filter to just behind the front car


 
What do you think about people who do enter them by means other than the feeder lane?


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> What do you think about people who do enter them by means other than the feeder lane?


They are jumping a red light in exactly the same way that a car entering the box is doing.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> They are jumping a red light in exactly the same way that a car entering the box is doing.


 
Oh, OK. So if there was a three lane road (one for left, one for straight on, and one for right) you would advise a cyclist turning right to enter the ASZ in the legal manner, and then have to swing across 2½ lanes of traffic to take up proper position?


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> Oh, OK. So if there was a three lane road (one for left, one for straight on, and one for right) you would advise a cyclist turning right to enter the ASZ in the legal manner, and then have to swing across 2½ lanes of traffic to take up proper position?


No I'd advise them to ignore the ASZ completely and behave like a car. Indicate right, take your place in traffic.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> No I'd advise them to ignore the ASZ completely and behave like a car. Indicate right, take your place in traffic.


 
Doesn't that rather defeat one of the main advantages of cycling: that you can filter through traffic. If I had to wait in traffic I might as well drive.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> Doesn't that rather defeat one of the main advantages of cycling: that you can filter through traffic. If I had to wait in traffic I might as well drive.


See above. I filter to behind the first car. You asked what I would advise someone else to do and the safest thing is to behave like a car.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> Yes.


 
I read some parts of a very long report on the use of ASL's:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Behaviour-at-cycle-advanced-stop-lines.pdf

I thought it was interesting that the implication is that the ASL lessens the encroachment of vehicles into the pedestrian crossing area, i.e. it looks like motorists are expected to 'push-it' in terms of going over the line they're meant to stop at, so if you introduce this extra line then it'll somehow placate their desire for going over a line and stop them going over a 2nd one 

Half this stuff seriously is mind-games.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> See above. I filter to behind the first car. You asked what I would advise someone else to do and the safest thing is to behave like a car.


 
OK. I would say the law that requires entry to an ASZ by the feeder lane is ridiculous, and if a cyclist wants to use the ASZ it is safer to enter it in the middle of the lane they want to be in.

My point was that something being illegal doesn't automatically make it unsafe or even necessarily wrong (except in the legal sense).


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

The discussion is whether or not laws should be obeyed not whether or not they are ridiculous. Personally I think the laws that stop me slashing the tyres of cars parked illegally across my drive are ridiculous. However, despite the fact that no one would get hurt, I still obey the law.

As to ASZ, I think they should be abolished altogether along with cycle lanes on the carriageway. Neither serve any real purpose. Cycle lanes are for those who for whatever reason don't really want to mix it up with the traffic so the lane should be segregated and away from the traffic. The rest of us can carry on as we are.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> OK. I would say the law that requires entry to an ASZ by the feeder lane is ridiculous, and if a cyclist wants to use the ASZ it is safer to enter it in the middle of the lane they want to be in.
> 
> My point was that something being illegal doesn't automatically make it unsafe or even necessarily wrong (except in the legal sense).


 
There aren't many mandatory feeder lanes though? I'm not aware of any (though not sure how I'd know if one was mandatory or advisory).


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> There aren't many mandatory feeder lanes though? I'm not aware of any (though not sure how I'd know if one was mandatory or advisory).


 
I thought that if there was a feeder lane you were obliged to use it. I might be wrong.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> The discussion is whether or not laws should be obeyed not whether or not they are ridiculous. Personally I think the laws that stop me slashing the tyres of cars parked illegally across my drive are ridiculous. However, despite the fact that no one would get hurt, I still obey the law.
> 
> As to ASZ, I think they should be abolished altogether along with cycle lanes on the carriageway. Neither serve any real purpose. Cycle lanes are for those who for whatever reason don't really want to mix it up with the traffic so the lane should be segregated and away from the traffic. The rest of us can carry on as we are.


 
So any law should be obeyed no matter what? Despite the fact that in the example above it is more dangerous than disobeying it?


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I thought that if there was a feeder lane you were obliged to use it. I might be wrong.


 
They seem to be advisory for the most party:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ASL-Findings-Report-October-011106.pdf


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> They seem to be advisory for the most party:
> 
> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ASL-Findings-Report-October-011106.pdf


 
'part' not 'party', doh!!


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> So any law should be obeyed no matter what? Despite the fact that in the example above it is more dangerous than disobeying it?


Yes until it's changed. And your example isn't valid because I gave a perfectly legal way of proceeding safely. Better to get rid of the ASZ entirely.

If a cyclist judges that he/she is fine to disobey the law on red lights, what authority do they have to criticise the driver who thinks he/she is fine to drive after 3 pints? Or to use a mobile while driving? The vast majority of rljs as has been pointed out, harm no one. The vast majority of drivers on mobiles harm no one.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Yes until it's changed. And your example isn't valid because I gave a perfectly legal way of proceeding safely. Better to get rid of the ASZ entirely.
> 
> If a cyclist judges that he/she is fine to disobey the law on red lights, what authority do they have to criticise the driver who thinks he/she is fine to drive after 3 pints? Or to use a mobile while driving? The vast majority of rljs as has been pointed out, harm no one. The vast majority of drivers on mobiles harm no one.


 
I guess I don't see things as black and white as you.

As I have said, I am generally against RLJing. But it's ludicrous to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a cyclist RLJing and someone driving a car after 3 pints.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> If a cyclist judges that he/she is fine to disobey the law on red lights, what authority do they have to criticise the driver who thinks he/she is fine to drive after 3 pints? Or to use a mobile while driving? The vast majority of rljs as has been pointed out, harm no one. The vast majority of drivers on mobiles harm no one.


 
This is really really silly. Really silly.

People need to understand the difference between sensible debate and argument.

To compare a car with a chatty cathy on the phone, and a cyclist breezing along a clear road with nothing but a red light for company... it's silly.

Were whites that treated black people with respect pre 1840(?) criminals?
Were gay couples wearing wedding rings criminals pre 2000ish?

I'm not comparing basic human rights to RLJ'ing, but it's a pretty clear indication of how thick you are if you rely on the laws of the land at any given moment to govern your own common sense and ideals of what's right and wrong.

I can jump a red light and stop at the next junction to stop someone stealing a car. The thief doesn't get a pass because 'Us criminals stick together'.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I guess I don't see things as black and white as you.
> 
> As I have said, I am generally against RLJing. But it's ludicrous to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a cyclist RLJing and someone driving a car after 3 pints.


Why? The majority of the results are exactly the same. Both protagonists will say that what they are doing is absolutely fine. Both will say "what's the problem, no one will get hurt". The only difference is that one has supporters on here and the other doesn't


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> This is really really silly. Really silly.
> 
> People need to understand the difference between sensible debate and argument.
> 
> ...


Ooh I like being called thick. Please come out on a ride soon.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Ooh I like being called thick. Please come out on a ride soon.


 
Sorry, that read very badly. I didn't aim 'thick' at you as an individual, though it reads 100% like that.

Though if anyone relies on a government to tell them what's right and wrong, yes, they're thick.

If your job forced you to move to Saudi Arabia, would you start to treat women as second clas citizens? Of course not.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Sorry, that read very badly. I didn't aim 'thick' at you as an individual, though it reads 100% like that.
> 
> Though if anyone relies on a government to tell them what's right and wrong, yes, they're thick.
> 
> If your job forced you to move to Saudi Arabia, would you start to treat women as second clas citizens? Of course not.


It's not about right or wrong. Obeying the law does not put me in a moral predicament. It doesn't inconvenience me. It doesn't cost anything. So why not just obey it?


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

There's a popular adage that common sense ain't all that common. Unfortunately, for a lot of people, it takes legislation to stop people drink driving, make them wear their seat belts and not run red lights and we can't pick or choose which of those laws we abide by.

These are laws concerning safety, laws concerning behaviour & 'morality' are a whole other matter and should be discussed separately.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> It's not about right or wrong. Obeying the law does not put me in a moral predicament. It doesn't inconvenience me. It doesn't cost anything. So why not just obey it?


 
THAT'S the point. We are all responsible for our own morality and our own actions.

Disobeying that law doesn't put me in a moral predicament. It doesn't cost anything to disobey it, it doesn't inconvenience me to disobey it.

If you feel it's wrong, that's ok. You be happy being you, I'll be fine being me. We'll both continue to shake our heads at the idiots creeping across major junctions and gambling on being faster than cars.


----------



## benb (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Why? The majority of the results are exactly the same. Both protagonists will say that what they are doing is absolutely fine. Both will say "what's the problem, no one will get hurt". The only difference is that one has supporters on here and the other doesn't


 
Because drink driving and driving whilst on the phone is always extremely dangerous, and not just to yourself, whereas a cyclist RLJing usually isn't. Consequences, or rather potential consequences.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

Do you know what's really wrong? There are people here that would willingly berate a low level RLJer but stand by and not risk a smack in the face if they saw a guy treating a woman badly in the street.

I think that fuels a lot of how I feel about things. You cannot rely on the police and the government to always be on hand. You know what's right and what's wrong. You don't need a rule book. Just act like a good person and don't screw anyone over. Apologise if you fcuk up and try to do the right thing. That's how I live.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Do you know what's really wrong? *There are people here that would willingly berate a low level RLJer but stand by and not risk a smack in the face if they saw a guy treating a woman badly in the street.*
> 
> I think that fuels a lot of how I feel about things. You cannot rely on the police and the government to always be on hand. You know what's right and what's wrong. You don't need a rule book. Just act like a good person and don't screw anyone over. Apologise if you fcuk up and try to do the right thing. That's how I live.


I will do both. And in both cases, give me lip and I hope you're very quick (particularly as I've not forgotten you called me thick)

Now I'm pretty sure there's a law around here somewhere that's against me hitting people that call me thick however it wouldn't cost me anything to disobey it. It wouldn't put me in a moral predicament of any kind and it certainly wouldn't inconvenience me.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I will do both. And in both cases, give me lip and I hope you're very quick (particularly as I've not forgotten you called me thick)
> 
> Now I'm pretty sure there's a law around here somewhere that's against me hitting people that call me thick however it wouldn't cost me anything to disobey it. It wouldn't put me in a moral predicament of any kind and it certainly wouldn't inconvenience me.


 
God dammit, I've found the toughest guy in the world hiding in some hidden backwater of the internet....

For what it's worth, I fully explained that I wasn't labelling you as an individual to be thick.

I now do though. That last post is practically a dunces hat to put on your head. I'm sure you're a really nice guy but you're increasingly sounding like an oxygen thief.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> If a cyclist judges that he/she is fine to disobey the law on red lights, what authority do they have to criticise the driver who thinks he/she is fine to drive after 3 pints?


This very morning I disobeyed the law by entering an ASZ other than by the feeder Lane. Are you seriously suggesting that makes me no better than someone who is driving after three pints?


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> God dammit, I've found the toughest guy in the world hiding in some hidden backwater of the internet....
> 
> For what it's worth, I fully explained that I wasn't labelling you as an individual to be thick.
> 
> I now do though. That last post is practically a dunces hat to put on your head. I'm sure you're a really nice guy but you're increasingly sounding like an oxygen thief.


You don't get it do you? Rljing isn't some victimless crime. Peds get scared (or worse hurt) and yet this is ok. Me ignoring one law that inconveniences one person is not ok? Surely it's my right to use my moral judgement to decide which laws I pay attention to because I shouldn't rely on the Govt to tell me what's right or wrong.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> This very morning I disobeyed the law by entering an ASZ other than by the feeder Lane. Are you seriously suggesting that makes me no better than someone who is driving after three pints?


You've both broken the law. I don't know (or care) whether you're a better person or not cos that's irrelevant. Is the driver who has had 3 pints better than the selfless doctor who has worked in Africa for 25 years but then murders his wife?


----------



## dodd82 (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> You've both broken the law. I don't know (or care) whether you're a better person or not cos that's irrelevant. Is the driver who has had 3 pints better than the selfless doctor who has worked in Africa for 25 years but then murders his wife?


 
This is why we have degrees of punishment.

Perhaps ask yourself what a police officer would do after witnessing each event, and then you have your answer as to whether grouping it all under the 'you've broken the law' comment is relevant or sensible.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> You don't get it do you? Rljing isn't some victimless crime. Peds get scared (or worse hurt) and yet this is ok. Me ignoring one law that inconveniences one person is not ok? Surely it's my right to use my moral judgement to decide which laws I pay attention to because I shouldn't rely on the Govt to tell me what's right or wrong.


 
I do get it.

Some RLJing is a victimless crime. I don't even deem it a crime. You do, and that's ok.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

@Martin235 - Let's put this to bed. For one night and one night only, let's switch. This evening. I'll stop at every single red light, if you promise to proceed on red when it's intelligent to do so.

There is no point, it's just for sh1ts n giggles.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

I've seen police watch people go through red lights on many occasions and they've barely blinked, people RLJ mainly because they know nothing will be done about it.

All those thousands of people rioting last year thought they could get away with stealing stuff because they thought they were protected by a crowd of anonymity in a situation of anarchy. It does concern me that people need the law to tell them how to behave.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> @Martin235 - Let's put this to bed. For one night and one night only, let's switch. This evening. I'll stop at every single red light, if you promise to proceed on red when it's intelligent to do so.
> 
> There is no point, it's just for sh1ts n giggles.


Unfortunately not on my bike today. Tomorrow I'm on a group ride. Strangely enough given that Rljing is ok, the ride leader asks, and expects, us to stop at red lights. This despite the fact it'll be the middle of the night. Can't think why.


----------



## J.Primus (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I will do both. And in both cases, give me lip and I hope you're very quick (particularly as I've not forgotten you called me thick)
> 
> Now I'm pretty sure there's a law around here somewhere that's against me hitting people that call me thick however it wouldn't cost me anything to disobey it. It wouldn't put me in a moral predicament of any kind and it certainly wouldn't inconvenience me.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> @Martin235 - Let's put this to bed. For one night and one night only, let's switch. This evening. I'll stop at every single red light, if you promise to proceed on red when it's intelligent to do so.
> 
> There is no point, it's just for sh1ts n giggles.


 
Joking aside it would be interesting to see the difference in actual time between the same journey ridden where you RLJ and another time when you stop at every red.


----------



## ianrauk (25 Oct 2012)

**Mods Hat On**

Alright guys.
Calm it down please.
Thanks.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Joking aside it would be interesting to see the difference in actual time between the same journey ridden where you RLJ and another time when you stop at every red.


I would think it's minimal seriously. It's traffic that slows me down not red lights


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

J.Primus said:


> View attachment 14291


Ah shucks. Thanks, it's like a badge


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I would think it's minimal serious. It's traffic that slows me down not red lights


 
Well, I think I said before, my partner used to RLJ all the time and now doesn't. He said he gets to work at the same time and less stressed.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Unfortunately not on my bike today. Tomorrow I'm on a group ride. Strangely enough given that Rljing is ok, the ride leader asks, and expects, us to stop at red lights. This despite the fact it'll be the middle of the night. Can't think why.


 
I rode the Rourkie Cat & Fiddle a few weeks back. At the start;

"Please please please do not jump any red lights. We get complaints if you do and that jeoparises the future of the ride"

I obeyed. I was then working within the confines of a different dynamic. My behaviour affected others directly.

I'm really not an A.hole. I am bored though.

Off home. Crimes await.


----------



## martint235 (25 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> I note you say 'to' not 'through'. I think I once counted every signal-controlled junction between Old St roundabout and Oxford Circus, and it averaged about one every 120 metres. What average moving speed and what top speed would you have to ride between those lights to get a 16mph average including stops? Certainly faster than I'd be happier riding in 12mph traffic


Because I'm feeling particularly bored. Here's Old St to Oxford Circus with (I think, difficult to tell on some junctions) 4 lights.


----------



## campbellab (25 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> So, in your opinion common sense = going through red lights?
> 
> Pedestrians have no legal obligation to cross on green at junctions by the way.
> 
> ...


 
I was trying to support your argument that we shouldn't do it to appease others


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

campbellab said:


> I was trying to support your argument that we shouldn't do it to appease others


 
Sorry man, wasn't paying close enough attention.


----------



## 400bhp (25 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I rode the Rourkie Cat & Fiddle a few weeks back. At the start;
> 
> "Please please please do not jump any red lights. *We get complaints if you do and that jeoparises the future of the ride"*
> 
> ...


 
There you go.


----------



## Scruffmonster (25 Oct 2012)

FWIW...

I counted this evening...

I jumped 10 out of 19 Reds. Way higher than I expected and I don't quite know how I feel about it yet.


----------



## Dan B (25 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> You've both broken the law. I don't know (or care) whether you're a better person or not cos that's irrelevant.


OK, let me phrase the question better: are you seriously suggesting that having entered the asz illegally robs me of any basis on which to criticize a driver who does something dangerous?


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> OK, let me phrase the question better: are you seriously suggesting that having entered the asz illegally robs me of any basis on which to criticize a driver who does something dangerous?


Well put it this way, if you do and then criticise the driver in the car next to you in the ASZ then you're a hypocrite


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Right I counted. On my route to work, I have 36 sets of lights. There are 6 ASZs, only 1 of which doesn't have a gate (that was surprising, thought there were more. That puts perception back in its box).

I didn't go through any red lights or enter an ASZ while the light was red. I used one small section of cycle lane as it helps to filter on what is quite a narrow road.

The road was damp, I've got a 100 miler to ride tonight so I was by no means pushing it. I still maintained an average of 15.3mph. I would not have had a higher average from going through the red lights.


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Because I'm feeling particularly bored. Here's Old St to Oxford Circus with (I think, difficult to tell on some junctions) 4 lights.


An exceedingly inventive effort, but sadly I count at least seven.


martint235 said:


> Well put it this way, if you do and then criticise the driver in the car next to you in the ASZ then you're a hypocrite


But that wasn't the question. The question was whether I can criticise a driver who's had three pints. That wasn't even going to be the followup question, which was "how about a driver who's had no sleep in two days?"

Have a good FNRTTC, by the way. I'm missing it _again_ this month :-(


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> An exceedingly inventive effort, but sadly I count at least seven.
> 
> But that wasn't the question. The question was whether I can criticise a driver who's had three pints. That wasn't even going to be the followup question, which was *"how about a driver who's had no sleep in two days?"*
> 
> Have a good FNRTTC, by the way. I'm missing it _again_ this month :-(


 This I don't feel particularly able to comment on as by the time I get home tomorrow I won't have had any sleep for close to 36 hours. However as far as I know it isn't illegal.

The driver who is just over the limit is likely to be driving far more carefully than if he/she hadn't had any alcohol at all. However their reasoning for breaking the law will be exactly the same as the person who jumps a red light into the ASZ.

All through this thread, what I'm trying to get across is why break a law that is so easy not to break. It's as if cyclists are going out of their way to break the law.

It should be a good FNRttC tonight although likely to be cold!!


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I would not have had a higher average from going through the red lights.


 
[I hope we've moved away from name calling, preaching, and urges to convince others of our righteousness.... That's aimed as much at me as anyone else]

Getting some facts out is interesting and has a purpose though?.....

The average speed thing is often quoted but always wrong. It's obviously quicker to jump lights. You've only got to run some numbers. Using my example of 10 out of 19 not adhered to, with an arbitrary speed added;

15 Miles in 1 Hour = 15mph average speed

Average red light wait = 60 seconds
10 x 60 seconds = 10 minutes
15 Miles in 1hr 10Mins = 12.85mph average

Average red light wait = 30 seconds
10 x 30 seconds = 5 minutes
15 Miles in 1hr 5Mins = 13.84mph average

Unless of course you're talking about moving average speed, which obviously wouldn't be affected, but is irrelevant.

I took the day off as I'm away on the bike this weekend, but I'll have a crack in both directions on Monday, waiting at every light, to see how much time it adds. I reckon it will add 10-15 minutes to my commute.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> [I hope we've moved away from name calling, preaching, and urges to convince others of our righteousness.... That's aimed as much at me as anyone else]
> 
> Getting some facts out is interesting and has a purpose though?.....
> 
> ...


 I'll maintain that the only way a red light would seriously affect my average speed is if I was on an empty road and then stopping for red lights. What slows me is traffic and roundabouts.

I'm assuming you at least slow for a red light which would have to be built in to your calculations.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I'll maintain that the only way a red light would seriously affect my average speed is if I was on an empty road and then stopping for red lights. What slows me is traffic and roundabouts.


 
I can't tally your first paragraph with my mock work up. If you stop, it kills your average speed. Kills it.

Let's say you ride 20 miles (The length of my commute) hitting every green light, in 1 hour. That's an average speed of 20mph.

Now, hit every green aside from the two biggest junctions that result in a solid 2 minute wait. You take 1hr 4mins to cover 20 Miles. That's an average of 18.75mph. Huge difference*.

I don't know if maybe you're suggesting that you don't ride fast enough to hit the Red and ride slower to ensure you hit a green. I've tried this for a time but I find I end up amongst cars. I'd rather lead cars away from a red than merge with them on green.

Anyway, This can actually evolve into a decent study.

Anyone know how I could set up a Garmin to register this? If I just hit lap everytime I stop and start, I'd build a profile of time spent not moving and moving, right?

EDIT = * - I fully understand that 4 minutes is not a huge slice of life. The illustration is merely one of average speed and the effect that stopping has.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Let's say you ride 20 miles (The length of my commute) hitting every green light, in 1 hour. That's an average speed of 20mph.
> 
> Now, hit every green aside from the two biggest junctions that result in a solid 2 minute wait. You take 1hr 4mins to cover 20 Miles. That's an average of 18.75mph. Huge difference*.


This isn't real world cycling though. I will probably lose more speed by hitting a line of traffic at a light that has just turned green than I would hitting a line of traffic queueing at a red (due to being able to filter which I wouldn't do alongside traffic starting to move).

I agree it would be interesting to find out by doing a series of experiments but unsure how to gather accurate data.


----------



## dodd82 (26 Oct 2012)

I can see both your points here - it reminds me of an old episode of Top Gear where Jeremy Clarkson refused to accept that not speeding/rushing in rush hour makes no difference to your arrival time.

We all accept that stopping at red lights will reduce your average speed if analysed with no other interruptions.

But what martin is trying to get across, I believe, is that stopping at red lights is such a minimal part of his journey, and there are so many other factors, that there is no correlation between jumping red lights and getting to work earlier.

A point that the racers in rush hour would do well to consider I think.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2012)

Materiality is the word that's been omitted.

I believe Martin is implying that [low level] RLJ is immaterial on commute journey times. Forget averages.

I'd be inclined to agree.

My immaterial threshold would probably be about 7 mins per hour.

One simple broadbrush experiment would be to pick a route to work and stick to it for, say a month. Jump reds/don't jump reds every other day. Stick between a min/max cruising speed. Average out the commutes where RLJ and average out where don't RLJ.

I'm in no way advocating doing this though!! Jumping reds is not on.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> The driver who is just over the limit is likely to be driving far more carefully than if he/she hadn't had any alcohol at all. However their reasoning for breaking the law will be exactly the same as the person who jumps a red light into the ASZ.


 
I can't believe you are seriously suggesting someone entering an ASZ illegally is just as dangerous as someone who is driving over the alcohol limit.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I can't believe you are seriously suggesting someone entering an ASZ illegally is just as dangerous as someone who is driving over the alcohol limit.


 
I don't believe he is, I believe he's stating that it makes it difficult to take the moral high ground.

This doesn't mean I'm agreeing with Martin btw.

Forum "conversations" can be tricky can't they.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

The experiment begins then.

I think I'd lose the will to live if I tried to stick it for a month, but I could do a week of each easy enough.

To reiterate for anyone that hasn't read all that went before this... I'm not talking about brazen, aggressive, speed laden RLJing at every junction.


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Oct 2012)

Isn't it worth a journey potentially taking an extra 10-15 mins if it means you're so much less likely to get hurt (or hurt someone else)? Personally, I'd rather get to where I'm going a little later than not at all...


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (26 Oct 2012)

Why do moped/motorcyclists stand patiently at the lights only to witness some cyclist come steaming through?


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Isn't it worth a journey potentially taking an extra 10-15 mins if it means you're so much less likely to get hurt (or hurt someone else)? Personally, I'd rather get to where I'm going a little later than not at all...


 
Any light I go through on red, there is risk in front of me and plenty behind me.

But to the people that RLJ when that's not the case... I support your point 100%.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I can't believe you are seriously suggesting someone entering an ASZ illegally is just as dangerous as someone who is driving over the alcohol limit.


Nope I'm suggesting they have equally broken the law for their own selfish purposes


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Why do moped/motorcyclists stand patiently at the lights only to witness some cyclist come steaming through?


 
Cyclists shouldnt go steaming through


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (26 Oct 2012)

Out here motorcyclists/moped riders ride on the pavement to get through the traffic in the Bangkok rush-hours.Although I haven't really had a problem with this when I was busting a gut to catch a train which I eventually missed,I think the signalling system could be tweaked to what they have out here,like flashing red and yellow signals and legal left turn at lights,if it's done responsibly it would be ok,unfortunately what I see in London sometimes is just pure lunacy including steaming through ped lights.Then again I have seen some pure lunacy out here.Someone remind me to put reflectives on my suitcase,when I get back.

Oh,this doesn't mean when I get back I will be jumping the reds,I will still obey them as per usual.


----------



## Buddfox (26 Oct 2012)

Ah, I miss a good old RLJ thread! Where's Angelfishsolo when you need him?


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> The experiment begins then.
> 
> I think I'd lose the will to live if I tried to stick it for a month, but I could do a week of each easy enough.
> 
> To reiterate for anyone that hasn't read all that went before this... I'm not talking about brazen, aggressive, speed laden RLJing at every junction.


 


Can we have a daily update?


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Nope I'm suggesting they have equally broken the law for their own selfish purposes


 
Well I wouldn't disagree with that, but surely the consequences have to come into it when we decide how serious the infractions are?

Entering an ASZ illegally:
Not even worthy of comment, as the law itself is stupid and dangerous
Bicycle RLJ: 
Generally not acceptable (to me), but should not be blown out of proportion (which it is)
Car RLJ: 
Worse than a bicycle doing the same, as the consequences are generally much more serious (because most of the time when cyclists RLJ, they do so quite carefully, whereas cars do not. And cars have tens if not hundreds of times higher KE)
Driving over the alcohol limit: 
Stupid, extremely dangerous, and utterly beyond contempt
I fail to see why someone being guilty of one infraction means they then cannot comment with any credibility on others.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Can we have a daily update?


 
I don't know how tongue in cheek that was, (lots I guess) but no. I wouldn't have the energy for that, though I will happily release this ground breaking data when finished.

If the 'results' are anything like interesting, even if they render me uber wrong, I'll upload them all to a Strava profile. If I created two 15ish Mile segments to serve as the test, it would be a simple process to see if there was a correlation between days of crime and days of good citizenship.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> Well I wouldn't disagree with that, but surely the consequences have to come into it when we decide how serious the infractions are?
> 
> Entering an ASZ illegally:
> Not even worthy of comment, as the law itself is stupid and dangerous
> ...


 
If you are going to grade them then I would offer that driving after 3 pints carries the same risk as bike RLJ and car RLJ. I'm sure all perpetrators will say they've done it carefully, no one will get hurt etc etc.

I'm not defending drink driving in any way I'm just saying that at 3 pints it's criminal as is entering the ASZ illegally (and I still maintain the ASZ is of no practical use and should be done away with) and RLJing. Your view of whether or not the law regarding ASZ is stupid and dangerous (I don't see how it is dangerous as you're not compelled to use the ASZ) is irrelevant. It's the law and as discussed we shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which ones we obey.

Just to put the cat among the pigeons I would also offer that our justice system has a degree of how sorry the person is for the crime they've committed and I'd say most people who drive after 3 pints are more contrite than your average bike RLJer who will maintain he/she has a god given right to do so.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Oct 2012)

I have a feeling that the only red light nobody has ever jumped is a red light installed to protect other road users from a danger presented by cyclists. Because, in the UK as far as I know, there isn't a single one.

Does anybody know of one?

I only ask the question because where lights are in place for safety reasons, and until someone shows me an exception, they are there exclusively to protect other road users from motorised vehicles. The cyclist is simply lumped in with motor vehicles. This fact alone does not condone red light jumping, in my view, but it does certainly stop me condemning RLJing. The law should be applied equally. But the _need_ for the law vis-à-vis cyclists does not apply.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2120128, member: 45"]The only (arguably) justifiable reasons for RLJing are selfish ones, and that's about time wasted and not wanting to bother. Personal safety claims don't come into it.[/quote]
Agree entirely.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> It's the law and as discussed we shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which ones we obey.
> 
> Just to put the cat among the pigeons I would also offer that our justice system has a degree of how sorry the person is for the crime they've committed and I'd say most people who drive after 3 pints are more contrite than your average bike RLJer who will maintain he/she has a god given right to do so.


 
If you drive after 3 points and get caught, I assume you'd get banned from driving?
If you jump a red light and get caught, you'd get told 'Don't do that'

I've jumped a red light in full view of a police car. No action taken.
I don't rate my chances of being ignored if I'm supping a can of special brew next to the fuzz...

You can say it's AS criminal. Which is true, they are both 100% criminal offences. Yet you understand the fact that all crime isn't created equal?


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I have a feeling that the only red light nobody has ever jumped is a red light installed to protect other road users from a danger presented by cyclists. Because, in the UK as far as I know, there isn't a single one.
> 
> Does anybody know of one?
> 
> I only ask the question because where lights are in place for safety reasons, and until someone shows me an exception, they are there exclusively to protect other road users from motorised vehicles. The cyclist is simply lumped in with motor vehicles. This fact alone does not condone red light jumping, in my view, but it does certainly stop me condemning RLJing. The law should be applied equally. But the _need_ for the law vis-à-vis cyclists does not apply.


 Then the law needs to be changed. I have never said I'm against changing the road laws regarding cycling, I just feel that while they are there they should be obeyed. I would like the law changed regarding me being allowed to slash the tyres of cars parked across my drive. However I fully accept that I'm probably in a slight minority with this one and therefore it's unlikely to be changed.


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Oct 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I have a feeling that the only red light nobody has ever jumped is a red light installed to protect other road users from a danger presented by cyclists. Because, in the UK as far as I know, there isn't a single one.
> 
> Does anybody know of one?
> 
> I only ask the question because where lights are in place for safety reasons, and until someone shows me an exception, they are there exclusively to protect other road users from motorised vehicles. The cyclist is simply lumped in with motor vehicles. This fact alone does not condone red light jumping, in my view, but it does certainly stop me condemning RLJing. The law should be applied equally. But the _need_ for the law vis-à-vis cyclists does not apply.


 
I might have misunderstood your point, so sorry if I have, but I think it's right for cyclists to be lumped in with motor vehicles, we're asking for the same consideration when we're amongst motor vehicles aren't we?

Also, a cyclist running a red and smacking into a pedestrian can cause a lot of injury, e.g. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/719063-cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law (though that's a pavement cyclist) and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...rians-peril-Why-tartars-wheels-think-law.html (I feel slightly grubby quoting the Daily Mail but there you go ).


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> If you are going to grade them then I would offer that driving after 3 pints carries the same risk as bike RLJ and car RLJ. I'm sure all perpetrators will say they've done it carefully, no one will get hurt etc etc.


 
What the perpetrators say is irrelevant. What are the actual consequences?
You would be wrong. Drink drivers and car RLJs kill and seriously injure many times more people than cyclist RLJs. A cyclist RLJ is very unlikely to KSI anyone, including themselves.



> I'm not defending drink driving in any way I'm just saying that at 3 pints it's criminal as is entering the ASZ illegally (and I still maintain the ASZ is of no practical use and should be done away with) and RLJing. Your view of whether or not the law regarding ASZ is stupid and dangerous (I don't see how it is dangerous as you're not compelled to use the ASZ) is irrelevant. It's the law and as discussed we shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which ones we obey.


 
I would disagree, and say that if a law is more dangerous to comply with than to obey, we have every right to disregard it. You are not compelled to use the ASZ, but if you want to, and want to comply with the law, you are forced to cycle in a dangerous manner. Therefore the law is stupid and dangerous and we should ignore it.



> Just to put the cat among the pigeons I would also offer that our justice system has a degree of how sorry the person is for the crime they've committed and I'd say most people who drive after 3 pints are more contrite than your average bike RLJer who will maintain he/she has a god given right to do so.


I doubt that, but even if true, what has remorse got to do with anything? I am far more likely to be injured by a drink driver than a RLJing cyclist, so I really couldn't care less whether the former was more remorseful.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Then the law needs to be changed. I have never said I'm against changing the road laws regarding cycling, I just feel that while they are there they should be obeyed. I would like the law changed regarding me being allowed to slash the tyres of cars parked across my drive. However I fully accept that I'm probably in a slight minority with this one and therefore it's unlikely to be changed.


 
And I agree, to an extent. I don't think all laws should be unquestioningly obeyed though. We wouldn't have the rights we have now if people weren't willing to break the law occasionally, so I simply don't accept that something being illegal automatically makes it wrong. I am not in favour of RLJing, as I have said many times. However I do think it is blown up out of all proportion to its seriousness, which I don't like.

I personally would be in favour of making red lights the equivalent of give way for cyclists, but until that happens I do think cyclists should stop at red.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> If you drive after 3 points and get caught, I assume you'd get banned from driving?
> If you jump a red light and get caught, you'd get told 'Don't do that'
> 
> I've jumped a red light in full view of a police car. No action taken.
> ...


 It is created equal. Unfortunately we live in a world of finite police resources. Ideally I would expect them all to prosecuted AND for the penalties to be sufficient to discourage repeat offending. I'm waiting for the Met to launch the zero tolerance they keep going on about.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I would disagree, and say that if a law is more dangerous to comply with than to obey, we have every right to disregard it. You are not compelled to use the ASZ, but if you want to, and want to comply with the law, you are forced to cycle in a dangerous manner. Therefore the law is stupid and dangerous and we should ignore it.
> 
> 
> I doubt that, but even if true, what has remorse got to do with anything? I am far more likely to be injured by a drink driver than a RLJing cyclist, so I really couldn't care less whether the former was more remorseful.


 You are not forced to cycle in a dangerous manner because you are not forced to use the ASZ.

Like it or not, remorse is a key part of our legal system. Parole for example is incredibly unlikely until remorse is shown.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> And I agree, to an extent. I don't think all laws should be unquestioningly obeyed though. We wouldn't have the rights we have now if people weren't willing to break the law occasionally, so I simply don't accept that something being illegal automatically makes it wrong. I am not in favour of RLJing, as I have said many times. However I do think it is blown up out of all proportion to its seriousness, which I don't like.
> 
> *I personally would be in favour of making red lights the equivalent of give way for cyclists, but until that happens I do think cyclists should stop at red*.


 See we do agree on stuff!!!


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> You are not forced to cycle in a dangerous manner because you are not forced to use the ASZ.
> 
> Like it or not, remorse is a key part of our legal system. Parole for example is incredibly unlikely until remorse is shown.


 
I said that if you want to use the ASZ, and want to enter it legally, you are forced to cycle dangerously.


----------



## J.Primus (26 Oct 2012)

Did anyone who says breaking the law under any circumstances is wrong use flashing lights on their bike before 2005?

The only reason that got changed was because it was so clearly wrong and so widely ignored by both cyclist and law enforcement that it had to be altered to end the farce. This doesn't mean I'm ardently pro-RLJing but I just think the argument that it's illegal therefore it's wrong is a flawed one.


----------



## Jezston (26 Oct 2012)

I rode from South Kensington to Homerton last night and there were two oiks I encountered around Hyde Park corner on mountain bikes jumping every single red they came across. I seemed to stay with them until Angel where the traffic was too tight for them to get through and they stopped behind me. Suggested jumping the lights all the time wasn't really getting them anywhere any quicker. They just looked at me blankly.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> See we do agree on stuff!!!


 
Probably more than it would appear. I simply don't think RLJ by cyclists is as serious as RLJ by motorists, and I don't like the way it is blown out of proportion.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

benb said:


> I said that if you want to use the ASZ, and want to enter it legally, you are forced to cycle dangerously.


 All the more reason to abolish ASZs.


----------



## Buddfox (26 Oct 2012)

J.Primus said:


> Did anyone who says breaking the law under any circumstances is wrong use flashing lights on their bike before 2005?
> 
> The only reason that got changed was because it was so clearly wrong and so widely ignored by both cyclist and law enforcement that it had to be altered to end the farce. This doesn't mean I'm ardently pro-RLJing but I just think the argument that it's illegal therefore it's wrong is a flawed one.


 
It's only a matter of time before the triumvirate of pointless laws that always get rolled out in the typical RLJ thread is raised - that of not having reflectors on the back of clipless pedals. Also illegal, and a law broken day in day out. It's almost the same as drink driving, but not quite.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> I might have misunderstood your point, so sorry if I have, but I think it's right for cyclists to be lumped in with motor vehicles, we're asking for the same consideration when we're amongst motor vehicles aren't we?


 
If cyclists had been given appropriate consideration, they would never have been lumped in with the motor vehicles in the first place. And cycle lanes that disappear when the road gets narrower or busier, light phases on ''cycle superhighways'' that actually write bikes out of the phase until you've stopped and pressed a button, traffic calming build ins that narrow the road, speed bumps to slow down vehicles (vehicles with suspension, unlike most bikes which don't have suspension) oh...I could go on...; these are all indications of that same contemptuous lack of consideration. 

We don't get equal consideration, and we're never going to get anything like it, while the laws are as they stand.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> All the more reason to abolish ASZs.


 
Or all the more reason to ignore the stupid and dangerous law.


----------



## benb (26 Oct 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> We don't get equal consideration, and we're never going to get anything like it, while the laws are as they stand.


 
I don't want equal consideration, I want more consideration. Why? Because cyclists are vulnerable road users.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> I don't know how tongue in cheek that was, (lots I guess) but no. I wouldn't have the energy for that, though I will happily release this ground breaking data when finished.
> 
> If the 'results' are anything like interesting, even if they render me uber wrong, I'll upload them all to a Strava profile. If I created two 15ish Mile segments to serve as the test, it would be a simple process to see if there was a correlation between days of crime and days of good citizenship.


 
Partially - but it wouldn't take a moment to post "Monday, cycled x miles in y minutes ignoring z lights". x shouldn't change & you can change the other words accordingly.


----------



## dodd82 (26 Oct 2012)

What is the point of people saying that RLJs is breaking the law as is drink driving?

Whilst technically true, of what relevance is it? The law has degrees of severity and without it, it becomes nonsensical, and as such, any debate about an act that is against the law should surely be discussed in the that context.


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> It's only a matter of time before the triumvirate of pointless laws that always get rolled out in the typical RLJ thread is raised - that of not having reflectors on the back of clipless pedals.


... esp on recumbents, whose pedals don't even have forward and rearward edges to which reflectors could be attached should the rider so wish


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Oct 2012)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> If cyclists had been given appropriate consideration, they would never have been lumped in with the motor vehicles in the first place. And cycle lanes that disappear when the road gets narrower or busier, light phases on ''cycle superhighways'' that actually write bikes out of the phase until you've stopped and pressed a button, traffic calming build ins that narrow the road, speed bumps to slow down vehicles (vehicles with suspension, unlike most bikes which don't have suspension) oh...I could go on...; these are all indications of that same contemptuous lack of consideration.
> 
> We don't get equal consideration, and we're never going to get anything like it, while the laws are as they stand.


 
I agree with most of that but I feel that the cycle lanes and superhighways are at least a starting point, there didn't use to be anything like that available so we're better of than we were.

It'd be interesting to see what comes of these sky cycle lanes: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3546471.ece


----------



## dodd82 (26 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2120232, member: 45"]Yehbut, Hitler.[/quote]

?


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Oct 2012)

dodd82 said:


> ?


 
We reached Godwin's Law so soon?


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> It's only a matter of time before the triumvirate of pointless laws that always get rolled out in the typical RLJ thread is raised - that of not having reflectors on the back of clipless pedals. Also illegal, and a law broken day in day out. It's almost the same as drink driving, but not quite.


 Errm my clipless pedals do have reflectors on them.

Also the rule about flashing lights was that you weren't to have ONLY flashing lights. I still make sure I have one steady light front and back as the reason for the rule was that a motorist (or anyone else) cannot accurately judge the speed/distance of a flashing light.


----------



## Scruffmonster (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Then the law needs to be changed. I have never said I'm against changing the road laws regarding cycling, I just feel that while they are there they should be obeyed. I would like the law changed regarding me being allowed to slash the tyres of cars parked across my drive. However I fully accept that I'm probably in a slight minority with this one and therefore it's unlikely to be changed.


 
Which would you choose first? Purely for joint Friday afternoon entertainment, not for anything to document...


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Which would you choose first? Purely for joint Friday afternoon entertainment, not for anything to document...


 Well I'm not that fussed about stopping at red lights so I'd like the law on me being allowed to slash the tyres of cars parked across my drive changed first please m'lud!!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Errm my clipless pedals do have reflectors on them.
> 
> Also the rule about flashing lights was that you weren't to have ONLY flashing lights. I still make sure I have one steady light front and back as the reason for the rule was that a motorist (or anyone else) cannot accurately judge the speed/distance of a flashing light.


 
Can they do it any better with a mobile phone glued to their ears?


----------



## nigelnorris (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Errm my clipless pedals do have reflectors on them.
> 
> Also the rule about flashing lights was that you weren't to have ONLY flashing lights. I still make sure I have one steady light front and back as the reason for the rule was that a motorist (or anyone else) cannot accurately judge the speed/distance of a flashing light.


Surely those reflector panels are just made to be temporary? Both my pairs of recently bought pedals [520s and 505s] came fitted with them and because they blank off one side of the pedal I immediately took them off and threw them away. But even so they look so insubstantial that I imagine they'd have disintegrated and fallen off anyway in a fairly short time. The point being that those things are pretty much lip service to the requirement to fit reflectors and most pedals that come fitted with them end up with no reflectors at all in very short time.


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> Which would you choose first? Purely for joint Friday afternoon entertainment, not for anything to document...


Ok I've had a proper think now:

1. All traffic allowed to turn left at a red if safe to do so
2. All traffic lights revert to flashing amber between 10pm and 6am signalling give way to the right.
3. All ASZ and in carriageway cyclelanes abolished.
4. A law to state that if you are breaking a law you are therefore outside of the law and should not expect or receive any protection from the law.

Ok, 4 is a bit iffy but I'm not a tolerant person and I think one of the problems in the UK is that respect for the law has gone. It's time to bring it back by making the consequences of breaking the law meaningful again. Once we've restored respect in the law we can start looking at which laws are stupid and repeal them.


----------



## RedRider (26 Oct 2012)

@martint235 Enjoy your ride tonight!

Provocative post alert (not that this fire needs stoking lol)!!!

*Cyclists who currently RLJ make it more likely the law will be changed allowing future cyclists to pass legally through red lights.**

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting RLJ-ers are latter day Rosa Parks' embarked on a moral campaign of civil disobediance but they do break the law in such numbers they show it to be unenforcable and somewhat pointless. If it's apparent to everyone the law is an ass then it makes it more vulnerable to change. If the law changes it makes cycling an even more attractive proposition and everyone's a winner.

*Disclaimer: I don't RLJ but there was a coupla youthful years I did when I first came to London in 1999.


----------



## 400bhp (26 Oct 2012)

RedRider said:


> @martint235 Enjoy your ride tonight!
> 
> Provocative post alert (not that this fire needs stoking lol)!!!
> 
> ...


 
Or (like mobile phone use in cars led to a specific change to the law).


*Cyclists who currently RLJ make it more likely the law will be changed such that cyclists will face much larger fines/tougher sanctions (e.g bicycle crushed) etc etc*


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2012)

Neither of these outcomes sound exactly plausible to me.


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Ok, 4 is a bit iffy but I'm not a tolerant person and I think one of the problems in the UK is that respect for the law has gone. It's time to bring it back by making the consequences of breaking the law meaningful again. Once we've restored respect in the law we can start looking at which laws are stupid and repeal them.


 I think you may be confusing "respect" with "fear".


----------



## RedRider (26 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Neither of these outcomes sound exactly plausible to me.


You don't think there's a possibility left turns on red may become legal in the future? Would you say you're a pessimist in general?


----------



## martint235 (26 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> I think you may be confusing "respect" with "fear".


No I think there is an increasing level of low importance crime by people you wouldn't normally expect to be criminally minded. That suggests that respect has gone. It's not "Oh well if I get caught nothing will happen to me" (fear of consequence) but "Everyone else is doing it/no one gets hurt/who gives a stuff/they can afford to lose it" lack of respect for law.


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2012)

RedRider said:


> You don't think there's a possibility left turns on red may become legal in the future? Would you say you're a pessimist in general?


I expect there's a possibility, and I'd like to see it happen. If it does, though, I think it'll have more to do with special interest groups lobbying Parliament than with the prevalence or otherwise of cyclists doing it illegally, except maybe that the former group will be able to point to the comparative lack of accidents among the latter as evidence that it's pretty safe. But they would just as effectively be able to point to the evidence of other countries where it's legal already


----------



## Dan B (26 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> No I think there is an increasing level of low importance crime by people you wouldn't normally expect to be criminally minded. That suggests that respect has gone. It's not "Oh well if I get caught nothing will happen to me" (fear of consequence) but "Everyone else is doing it/no one gets hurt/who gives a stuff/they can afford to lose it" lack of respect for law.


Oh well, by that definition I have no respect for the law (qua law) either, then. I have respect for many _of the laws_, because I recognise the ethical or moral or organisational reasons for their existence - and I obey many other laws that I don't respect on that basis, because that kind of thing makes society tick along a little better - but if you said "you must respect some arbitrary law 'thou shalt do F' because It Is The Law", I have to wonder what that actually _means_ when that law is changed or revoked or superseded and I need no longer do F, or I need to not do it.

Sorry, that's a bit cod-philosophical for a Friday night. But threatening me with increasingly dire consequences for breaking a stupid law is not going to mean I think more of the law - more likely the reverse, if anything. We are governed by our own consent, or so the theory goes.


----------



## martint235 (27 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> I expect there's a possibility, and I'd like to see it happen. If it does, though, I think it'll have more to do with special interest groups lobbying Parliament than with the prevalence or otherwise of cyclists doing it illegally, except maybe that the former group will be able to point to the comparative lack of accidents among the latter as evidence that it's pretty safe. But they would just as effectively be able to point to the evidence of other countries where it's legal already


Oh dear. Are we going to keep agreeing? 

There is a school of thought on here that by cyclists ignoring red lights the law will be changed. However you need wider public support to change a law and unfortunately I think the majority of those that can be a****d to care about cyclists are unlikely to want the law changed.


----------



## mcshroom (27 Oct 2012)

I think there is a logic failure here. Rider's ignoring red lights is a serious public perception issue, indeed the number one issue for a lot of non-cyclists when you ask them about cycling. The reasons for this are not really relevant here, but making the population angry with your actions is unlikely to persuade them that you should be allowed a relaxing of rules to give you a privilege over other road users.

On a separate note, can anyone give me a good positive reason to RLJ? So far we've had a lot of excuses for why you feel it doesn't do any harm, but there is little/no suggestion of any positives it creates, save for the selfish line that is incredibly similar to the way that most motorists excuse speeding.


----------



## Dan B (27 Oct 2012)

mcshroom said:


> On a separate note, can anyone give me a good positive reason to RLJ?


'Smoothing the traffic flow' is accepted as good practice among highway engineers. By reducing the amount of stop/start riding we reduce congestion, reduce energy use, and make cycling a more accessible pursuit for the average person who does not want every commuting journey to resemble interval training.

Personally I quite like interval training, so I don't say that out of selfishness. I'm only thinking of the rest of the road-using public who would benefit from having more bikes on the roads


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (28 Oct 2012)

Where I live there aren't really the numbers of cyclists around to RLJ like they'd potentially do in cities like London or Cambridge where every junction has cyclists. Most of the chavs ride on the pavement anyway.


----------



## Jezston (28 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> No I think there is an increasing level of low importance crime by people you wouldn't normally expect to be criminally minded. That suggests that respect has gone. It's not "Oh well if I get caught nothing will happen to me" (fear of consequence) but "Everyone else is doing it/no one gets hurt/who gives a stuff/they can afford to lose it" lack of respect for law.


 
I think it's more that you know you are seriously unlikely to get even so much as caught.

That and we have popular voices in the media telling us that such behaviour is acceptable, and have had them for so long it's become normal.

We need the kind of campaigning that pushes a moral shift in the same way we have had for drink driving and seatbelt use. However I can't see that being done for red light jumping because it mostly just annoys people and very rarely kills anyone - and when a death does occur it's invariably the perpetrator.


----------



## Bromptonaut (28 Oct 2012)

Haven't waded through whole thread so apologies for repetition. Observation on my Central London commute is that RLJ comes in three predominant types. The first is kerbside; rider going left or across top of T junction. Second is lights with daft phasing; held at red on an empty junction. Third is abuse of pedestrian lights/phases - some overlap with second group. 

So the figures for major junctions over Euston Road or say Southampton Row/Kingsway with High Holborn are very low. Nobody dives straight across with only a few kerb huggers ignoring the red.

Russell Sq & Montague St lights are ignored by over half - the phasing is way out of kilter with actual traffic flows.

Motor vehicles are different. NOBODY stops on amber as the law requires. Quite common for professional bus or taxi drivers to cross after 2-3 seconds of red.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> 'Smoothing the traffic flow' is accepted as good practice among highway engineers. By reducing the amount of stop/start riding we reduce congestion, reduce energy use, and make cycling a more accessible pursuit for the average person who does not want every commuting journey to resemble interval training.
> 
> Personally I quite like interval training, so I don't say that out of selfishness. I'm only thinking of the rest of the road-using public who would benefit from having more bikes on the roads


 
Interesting point that. If done correctly it should be the case shouldn't it?

It used to annoy me when driving in contraflows where 2 lanes merge into 1. Drivers wouldn't drive to the end of the 2 lanes and merge consecutively. Sometimes you'd get someone blocking one of the lanes and most of the time there would be a long single queue. A waste of space and increase in congestion.


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2012)

I've removed some posts from this thread.if the language and attitude is repeated, some posters will also be removed.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (30 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Ok I've had a proper think now:
> 
> 1. All traffic allowed to turn left at a red if safe to do so
> 2. All traffic lights revert to flashing amber between 10pm and 6am signalling give way to the right.
> ...


 
I've seen flashing amber and flashing red out here.I suppose flashing red is like a legal rlj or something like that.Sort of a look before you leap thingy?

Sure I got us doing this on the camera footage thingy.

*It means that you must come to a complete stop. Check for vehicles coming from your left and your right. If it is safe for you to continue, you may go. If it is a 4 way flashing light, the vehicle that stops first has the right to continue first but DO NOT trust the other driver. Make sure the other driver does not think he or she stopped first **and therefore cause you to collide. Use common sense..*

Looked it up,flashing red.


----------

