# Red light jumping



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

As there is about as much chance of stopping all cyclists from jumping red lights as there is of, say, stopping politicians telling lies why not change the law in order to recognise the fact that it is a fairly innocuous activity and provide training and advice for cyclists on how to do it safely?

One of the main points of attack from the motoring lobby would evaporate into thin air in an instant. And it would make cycling even more quick and efficient.


----------



## Cab (19 Jun 2008)

A reasonable position.

Won't happen because 'they' hate cyclists...(remainder unstated because you know what I was about to say about non-cyclists, perceived outlier groups, etc.)


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

Cab said:


> A reasonable position.
> 
> Won't happen because 'they' hate cyclists...(remainder unstated because you know what I was about to say about non-cyclists, perceived outlier groups, etc.)



They have done it for one way streets so why not now address the "Biggy"?


----------



## CopperBrompton (19 Jun 2008)

I think the idea of allowing cyclists to treat a red light as a give-way sign is an issue worth exploring.

The two main issues I can see are (a) RLJing would be very dangerous to pedestrians in some cases (eg. cyclist in lane 1, bus or lorry stopped at red light in lane 2, blocking pedestrians from view) and ( complex junctions (eg. 5-way ones) where a cyclist might think it is safe to cross when it isn't.

Ben


----------



## TWBNK (19 Jun 2008)

It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

To be honest if you were to treat a red light as a give way would you need to wait for the junction to be clear rather than slipping between peds? It would be difficult to police as different cyclists would make different judgement calls. 

But then again saying that we have a stretch of road up here with pedestrian lights every 100 yards for half a mile or so and pedestrians still insist on crossing the road between the safe crossings. Making the issue of waiting at a clear crossing on red an annoyance beyond words.

I red light jump on a daily basis in my work. I really don't like doing it as there are often far too many surprises. When I am on my way home I am glad for the quick pauses at the lights.


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

TWBNK said:


> It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
> 
> To be honest if you were to treat a red light as a give way would you need to wait for the junction to be clear rather than slipping between peds? It would be difficult to police as different cyclists would make different judgement calls.
> 
> ...



Why would it be a recipe for disaster? As is pointed out on this forum on a daily basis thousands upon thousands of cyclists across the country are routinely treating red lights as give way signs already. I am just saying it needs to be legitimised.

A change in law and a nationwide information campaign would focus cyclists minds on the activity and make them think about how to do it safely. In essence it is perfectly safe to just give way at junctions, to both other vehicles and pedestrians. What is not safe is cyclists not giving way as often happens at the moment.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (19 Jun 2008)

Yeah, I think it could be done if peds crossing were given right of way and that we had to give way to them when crossing the red.

I never RLJ, but there are plenty of times that I feel I'm just wasting my time by stopping.


----------



## Cab (19 Jun 2008)

domtyler said:


> They have done it for one way streets so why not now address the "Biggy"?



Because its the 'biggy', making nationwide acceptance of such a thing unlikely.


----------



## TWBNK (19 Jun 2008)

But what about the peds crossing that you don't expect? The kids running ahead of their parents as they see the the 'green man'? The cyclist coming through on red the other way?

But you have a point, it is done anyway and would education make it better. There are a lot of people to educate...

The only people in real fear of RLJing are the car drivers who have licences to lose. Pedestrians seem to cross wherever and whenever they like. 

I really don't know. We aren't one thing or the other really. If you gave cyclist the option of RLJing how would it be policed and what would be the consequences if you got it wrong? 

You cross through a red light, misjudge the approaching speed of a car approaching on a green light and cause the car to alter speed or direction. You should have given way to that car but didn't. A near or not so near miss occurs, the car driver grumbles to the police but nothing can be done. No one is accountable.


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Jun 2008)

I have no trouble obeying the reds on my commute, and don't really see the need for the option to do otherwise, tbh. The fact that a number of other people don't obey them isn't really a basis for changing the law (lots of drivers ignore speed limits routinely, for example, I'd be against treating those as advisory).

Given the British motorist's level of interest in keeping their knowledge of the highway code and motoring law up to date, "recipe for disaster" is probably an accurate description of the consequences, certainly at junctions where cars and bikes come into conflict.


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> I have no trouble obeying the reds on my commute, and *don't really see the need for the option to do otherwise*, tbh. The fact that a number of other people don't obey them isn't really a basis for changing the law (lots of drivers ignore speed limits routinely, for example, I'd be against treating those as advisory).
> 
> Given the British motorist's level of interest in keeping their knowledge of the highway code and motoring law up to date, "recipe for disaster" is probably an accurate description of the consequences, certainly at junctions where cars and bikes come into conflict.



1) The main grumble from the motoring lobby would be eliminated

2) It would make cycling a lot faster and more efficient, meaning that more people may be attracted to cycling leading to a growth in numbers of people cycling, leading to even safer conditions and better facilities.

3) The new number one grumble would be pavement cycling, the police would then be able to focus on this activity which is much more dangerous and anti social.

4) It could be the catalyst for a huge safety campaign directed at cyclists.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Jun 2008)

domtyler said:


> As there is about as much chance of stopping all cyclists from jumping red lights *as there is of, say, stopping politicians telling lies* why not change the law in order to recognise the fact that it is a fairly innocuous activity and provide training and advice for cyclists on how to do it safely?
> 
> One of the main points of attack from the motoring lobby would evaporate into thin air in an instant. And it would make cycling even more quick and efficient.



.... or as of, say, stopping people taking drugs or being prostitutes in holland.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Jun 2008)

It would certainly take a very big arrow out of motorists' armour, and would probably spur a lot of them into the 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality.


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

bonj said:


> It would certainly take a very big arrow out of motorists' armour, and *would probably spur a lot of them into the 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality.*



Hopefully they will also remember to swap from car to bike first!


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Jun 2008)

domtyler said:


> 1) The main grumble from the motoring lobby would be eliminated



Again, I don't see that as a compelling reason to change the law - I subscribe to Cab's view on the grumblings of motorists (they're largely sublimations of their frustration at being stuck in a car).



> 2) It would make cycling a lot faster and more efficient, meaning that more people may be attracted to cycling leading to a growth in numbers of people cycling, leading to even safer conditions and better facilities.



Possibly - cycling is quite fast and efficient if you do it within the law though. I think the downside of changing this particular law is the probability of an increase in conflict at junctions, which may adversely affect the perceived safety of cycling.


> 3) The new number one grumble would be pavement cycling, the police would then be able to focus on this activity which is much more dangerous and anti social.


Until someone notices that a large number of cyclists do it anyway, and campaigns for a change in the law 


> 4) It could be the catalyst for a huge safety campaign directed at cyclists.


There'd certainly need to be a large campaign informing everyone of the change, possibly resigning or redesigning junctions etc. Is it the best way to spend that amount of money? (As opposed to improving the status quo by spending it on driver education etc).

I'm not entirely unconvinced by the arguments, just not sure that there'd be much of a benefit to it. There's possibly a certain instinctive resistance to yet another weakening of the idea of one taking ones turn at things, rather than rushing through ahead of others too...


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> There's possibly a certain instinctive resistance to yet another weakening of the idea of one taking ones turn at things, rather than rushing through ahead of others too...



Ah, no doubt you are British through and through John! Can't beat a good queue eh?


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Jun 2008)

domtyler said:


> Ah, no doubt you are British through and through John! Can't beat a good queue eh?



Well, one doesn't like to impose...


----------



## confused (19 Jun 2008)

Ben Lovejoy said:


> I think the idea of allowing cyclists to treat a red light as a give-way sign is an issue worth exploring.



If there is a set of signals at which it seems appropriate for a cyclist to treat 'red' as a give-way sign - then what about motorbikers? surely they could also treat it is a give-way instead equally safely.... and then its only a small jump from there to cars, buses and lorries....

Looked at the other way around then the problem seems to be that some road users seem to consider certain sets of 'green=go, red=stop' traffic lights to be inappropriate and better served by some kind of 'go / give-way' system (like a roundabout - or maybe just require cleverer timing on the lights) - hopefully leading to more respect of traffic signals where they are installed.

I've tried the same argument with speed camera's with little success though - ie. all those people complaining about being caught speeding shouldn't be complaining about the cameras enforcing the limit - but instead arguing that they think the limit is too low wherever it was they were caught (or - and I've never met anyone yet in this catagory - admitting that they were doing something 'wrong' and deserved the fine)


----------



## bonj2 (19 Jun 2008)

> The barrier is the pedestrian issue. Red lights are often there to force road users to stop so that peds can cross.



There's normally enough room for a bike to cross a crossing at the same time as a ped is crossing. I can always anticipate peds crossing and know when they're going to be crossing my path and know whether to go in front of them or behind them (usually behind). Not always the case with a car.


----------



## marinyork (19 Jun 2008)

confused said:


> If there is a set of signals at which it seems appropriate for a cyclist to treat 'red' as a give-way sign - then what about motorbikers? surely they could also treat it is a give-way instead equally safely.... *and then its only a small jump from there to cars, buses and lorries....*
> Looked at the other way around then the problem seems to be that some road users seem to consider certain sets of 'green=go, red=stop' traffic lights to be inappropriate and better served by some kind of 'go / give-way' system (like a roundabout - or maybe just require cleverer timing on the lights) - hopefully leading to more respect of traffic signals where they are installed.
> 
> I've tried the same argument with speed camera's with little success though - ie. all those people complaining about being caught speeding shouldn't be complaining about the cameras enforcing the limit - but instead arguing that they think the limit is too low wherever it was they were caught (or - and I've never met anyone yet in this catagory - admitting that they were doing something 'wrong' and deserved the fine)



No I think you're very wrong on that one I'm afraid, at an extremely conservative estimate the typical lorry would have 500 times the kinetic energy I do and even a car 20 times. In reality they would likely be doing higher speeds than if I jumped a red and hit someone. The laws of physics simply do not agree with your assertion about it being a small step up in any set of circumstances.


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Jun 2008)

Is there any merit in the argument that if we want to be treated as vehicles on the road whilst cycling (rather than an impediment to the progress of "proper" road users) it might be good not to have these sort of exemptions reinforcing our difference?


----------



## bonj2 (19 Jun 2008)

> That's you bonj. Look at it from the point of view of the timid pedestrian.



It's not the timid ones that you have to worry about. 'Timid' is probably one of the best qualities if you're a pedestrian. The timid ones hang back till they're sure it's *completely* safe to cross, and that's a good thing for both their own safety and that of any cyclists that may be approaching. The dozy ones that just don't look or the ones that just militantly stride out because they've "got the right to" are the ones you have to watch out for.


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Jun 2008)

IMO, it's clear and simple for road-users to understand red lights mean stop. No if's, no buts, no special rules for other road users (Emergency services accepted). Why introduce different rules for different vehicles? It certainly wont stop motorists bitching, their problem is not cyclists, it's themselves. However, we would get even more flak from Pedestrians at junctions.

I agree that if we want to be treated as legitimate road users we should act like ones. It's pretty simple not to RLJ. Take the high ground and set a good example.


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Is there any merit in the argument that if we want to be treated as vehicles on the road whilst cycling (rather than an impediment to the progress of "proper" road users) it might be good not to have these sort of exemptions reinforcing our difference?



Vive la Différence!


----------



## domtyler (19 Jun 2008)

confused said:


> If there is a set of signals at which it seems appropriate for a cyclist to treat 'red' as a give-way sign - then what about motorbikers? surely they could also treat it is a give-way instead equally safely.... and then its only a small jump from there to cars, buses and lorries....
> 
> Looked at the other way around then the problem seems to be that some road users seem to consider certain sets of 'green=go, red=stop' traffic lights to be inappropriate and better served by some kind of 'go / give-way' system (like a roundabout - or maybe just require cleverer timing on the lights) - hopefully leading to more respect of traffic signals where they are installed.
> 
> I've tried the same argument with speed camera's with little success though - ie. all those people complaining about being caught speeding shouldn't be complaining about the cameras enforcing the limit - but instead arguing that they think the limit is too low wherever it was they were caught (or - and I've never met anyone yet in this catagory - admitting that they were doing something 'wrong' and deserved the fine)



Good point, and it can only be a matter of time before we're all shooting up heroin too eh?


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Jun 2008)

confused said:


> (or - and I've never met anyone yet in this catagory - admitting that they were doing something 'wrong' and deserved the fine)



Well, you have now...


----------



## marinyork (19 Jun 2008)

FWIW (not much) I don't think the law should be changed, I think wrt to cycling activities the law and punishments already distinguishes that activities done whilst cycling are not as bad as motoring ones and that's the way it should be. It's misapplication that's the problem. Like when I lived in York and the police would spend quite a bit of time dishing out tickets to cyclists cycling in the joke pedestrian zone but spent a mere hour once a year dishing out tickets for those who were not supposed to drive down a particular street (notoriously ignored) or even completely ignoring those motorists who drove down the so called pedestrian streets in York or a famous no right turn, or a famous 20mph stretch of road or an infamous junction for car RLJing that had had accidents because of it. That's the problem, muppets like them.

It's the people who go on about RLJing and pavement cycling being as bad as with cars that gets my wick or that it happens more often with cyclists (a load of nonsense). Same crime, much, much less serious and it is naughty to pretend otherwise. I get a bit tired of the exaggeration of RLJing that goes on outside of london too. These people seem blind, I rarely see cycle RLJing but see motor RLJing to various extents at every set of traffic lights ever constructed. Some of them being extremely blatent ooh there's nothing coming I'll edge forward and drive through it examples that people here pretend never happen can happen too.


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Jun 2008)

domtyler said:


> Vive la Différence!



"Get on the cyclepath, Frenchy!"


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jun 2008)

confused said:


> I've tried the same argument with speed camera's with little success though - ie. all those people complaining about being caught speeding shouldn't be complaining about the cameras enforcing the limit - but instead arguing that they think the limit is too low wherever it was they were caught (or - and I've never met anyone yet in this catagory - admitting that they were doing something 'wrong' and deserved the fine)



Slightly OT, but regarding speed cameras, I've always found that obeying the limit (as opposed to the cameras) works for me. 20 years behind the wheel, 10 as a professional driver and ... no points!


----------



## Rhythm Thief (20 Jun 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Is there any merit in the argument that if we want to be treated as vehicles on the road whilst cycling (rather than an impediment to the progress of "proper" road users) it might be good not to have these sort of exemptions reinforcing our difference?



Yes, I think so. That's why I obey red lights.


----------



## gillan (20 Jun 2008)

yup....but are we are vehicles on the road that can dismount and walk across the junction...indeed some even have green bikes as well as men

seems silly not to stay on the bike doesn't it?


----------



## Moonlight (27 Jun 2008)

They are allowed to wreck the environment with thier petrol fumes, we are allowed to jump reds. Fair is fair. When they stop polluting, I'll stop jumping.
I also think electric cars should be able to use bus lanes and have priorities and such.


----------



## simon l& and a half (28 Jun 2008)

(good grief)


----------



## domd1979 (28 Jun 2008)

Eh? What does pollution have to do with RLJing? 

Why should electric cars have access to bus lanes then? Electric cars are still private transport, and an inefficient use of road space. Bus lanes are there to prioritise public transport, not cars.




Moonlight said:


> They are allowed to wreck the environment with thier petrol fumes, we are allowed to jump reds. Fair is fair. When they stop polluting, I'll stop jumping.
> I also think electric cars should be able to use bus lanes and have priorities and such.


----------



## byegad (28 Jun 2008)

I want the bike one of the BBC's interviewees complained about. 
Quote. 'Whizzing past cars in a queue at 1000mph.' Oh! Yes!!!!


----------



## dondare (15 Jul 2008)

I'd rather see the law enforced than changed.
I'd also like to see a speed camera on every lamp-post and other cameras to identify every driver who uses a mobile. You can be certain before long there'd be more bikes on the roads than cars if all this came to pass.


----------



## bb1 (24 Jul 2008)

There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.

What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.

A cyclist decided not to stop at their red light, and obviously thinking the pedestrian would get out their way, ran the blind man over, killing him.

To make an awful sitation even more abhorrent, the cyclist fled the scene and police are still trying to identify the cyclist responsible.

On my morning cycle to work I often experience packs of cyclists racing past me at a red light. It's plain illegal and dangerous. If you need just one reason NOT to fly through a red light, let the poor blind man's last moments be it.


----------



## tdr1nka (24 Jul 2008)

This filtering works really well in California and I had thought why it hadn't been considered in the UK.

FWIW, it's not the act of legalised cycle filtering at left hand turns on red(which I believe is what has been proposed?)which is the problem, but of successfully educating every single person, ped, cyclist and moton in the country and convincing them to accept the idea in practice.

Lets face it ASL's are to be observed by law but how many drivers know and/or accept this.

RLJ'ing is just arrogant and needless, the voice of cyclists will always be dismissed while this practice continues.


----------



## Fab Foodie (24 Jul 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> .
> 
> RLJ'ing is just arrogant and needless, the voice of cyclists will always be dismissed while this practice continues.



How true. Don't bleat about drivers on phones or in ASL's if you can't follow the rules of the road yourself. Our biggest battle in winning greater acceptance and public support is within ourselves.


----------



## JamesAC (30 Jul 2008)

bb1 said:


> There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.
> 
> What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.
> 
> ...




I quite agree. By all means agitate to have the light sequence changed, or a "cycle only" phase - like existing left filter, but just for cyclists. But to have fuzzy rules is a recipe for disaster. To my mind, red (and amber) mean stop. green means proceed, if it is clear and safe to do so. Once you allow people to make their own minds up about what red means, then carnage will follow.

James


----------



## jonesy (30 Jul 2008)

JamesAC said:


> I quite agree. By all means agitate to have the light sequence changed, or a "cycle only" phase - like existing left filter, but just for cyclists. But to have fuzzy rules is a recipe for disaster. To my mind, red (and amber) mean stop. green means proceed, if it is clear and safe to do so. Once you allow people to make their own minds up about what red means, then carnage will follow.
> 
> James



Or find non-signalised alternatives to the junction.


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (30 Jul 2008)

bonj said:


> The dozy ones that just don't look or *the ones that just militantly stride out because they've "got the right to"* are the ones you have to watch out for.


That'll be me, then. If the vehicle approaching has time to stop (I'm judging by my own experience of being both a car driver and a cyclist) I am perfectly within my rights to step onto the crossing... in fact they are not legaly obliged to stop until I put a foot onto the crossing to indicate my intent.

If the muppets decide to continue in front of me whilst I am on the crossing they can expect a bang on the top of the roof or some verbal from me (to cyclists) or even (assuming they haven't sped up too much) a well aimed kick at the side of the car.

Is it criminal damage? Perhaps. Are *they *acting within the law? Definitely not. 

Maybe I'm just a grumpy b*stard who can't stand idiots.


----------



## Arch (31 Jul 2008)

Sh4rkyBloke said:


> That'll be me, then. If the vehicle approaching has time to stop (I'm judging by my own experience of being both a car driver and a cyclist) I am perfectly within my rights to step onto the crossing... *in fact they are not legaly obliged to stop until I put a foot onto the crossing to indicate my intent.*




Aren't you thinking of Zebras? Whereas the question is really about Pelican crossings and other red light situations... In those cases, road users are legally obliged to stop at a red (or amber) whether you have a foot out, or indeed, whether you are standing there or not...

I'm firmly in the 'stop at red lights and don't see an reason to change rules for cyclists' camp. Since so many people (cyclists and drivers) seem to have trouble coping with understanding the rules as it is, introducing tiered levels of law is only going to confuse them more...


----------



## Sapper (31 Jul 2008)

Fab Foodie said:


> IMO, it's clear and simple for road-users to understand red lights mean stop. No if's, no buts, no special rules for other road users (Emergency services accepted). Why introduce different rules for different vehicles? It certainly wont stop motorists bitching, their problem is not cyclists, it's themselves. However, we would get even more flak from Pedestrians at junctions.
> 
> I agree that if we want to be treated as legitimate road users we should act like ones. It's pretty simple not to RLJ. Take the high ground and set a good example.



and



bb1 said:


> There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.
> 
> What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.
> 
> ...



These are the best arguments that go against these suggestions for changing the law about RLJ 

Most laws of the road are there for safety and or fair usage. By changing the law for some groups of vehicles make the who issue more dangerous IMHO.

The high way code is there to ensure 'fairness' for all users of the road, ranging from pedestrians to HGVs.

A few yesrs ago, I met up with some city friends in London for a lunchtime drink. The law on afternoon opening had just changed and we were meeting to 'enjoy the new legislation'. 

We were all in the TA at the time. As we crossed a crowded pelican pedestrian crossing under the guard of the gree man, a cyclist courier shouted "make way" or simialar. 

The crossing was too crowded for people to hurry out, esp a mother in her wheel chair and her children.

I faced him, hands held out and i was fortunate to time it correctly and caught his handlebars. He ended up on the deck...

He was also rather irate.

But if I had not stood froun, the list of injured other than him and myself almost certainly would have been worse. Fortunately as he approached me, my TA colleagues closed up on me in their business suits.

He looked at us, swore for Blightly and cycled off...

We had right of way and he should have stopped.

Saying that, I am not totally clean. I cycle up Barnet hill, a steep hill in North London. Half way up is a pedestrian crossing 

If the red light is displayed and there are pedestrians, then I stop and lose all my momentum. If it is free of pedestrians, I have cycled through it !!

I have not jumped knowing on my bike any other red lights.

If the RLJ law was enforced, then I would always stop. No problem

Adrian


----------



## spindrift (1 Aug 2008)

bb1 said:


> There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.
> 
> What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.
> 
> ...




No press or media have any details of this and The Met police version is rather different, what's your source please?


----------



## simon l& and a half (16 Aug 2008)

I've used the Grays Inn Road, and the behaviour of cyclists on that road, and on Rosebery Avenue, is so appalling, and so embarrassing, that I found another route to work.


----------



## wafflycat (16 Aug 2008)

I've never had the need or desire to RLJ in any town/city I've cycled in. Home or abroad


----------



## Globalti (26 Aug 2008)

What a feckin' ridiculous idea! I can see the headlines now: "Now red light jumping cyclists want law changed for their exclusive benefit...." and so on.

The very reason why traffic lights are such a successful invention is the knowledge that everybody will behave in the same predictable way at a light-controlled junction. Allow any variation in the predictability and you'll have anarchy. 

I can only assume that the stupidity of this idea is inspired by some deep-rooted need to antagonise the public.


----------



## spindrift (9 Sep 2008)

Any response, bb1?


----------



## LLB (9 Sep 2008)

I nipped into town on my cycle yesterday evening and on the way back I came up to a controlled junction. Sat in the ASL waiting for the sequence, the ped lights come up green and a few seconds later, a hybrid riding helmet wearing knob head come whistling past me and straight through the junction (a bit too close for comfort). Guy was a total twat and totally ignored the priority of the peds.

The greatest shame was that someone else didn't have the same idea


----------

