# running red lights



## jim55 (28 Jun 2011)

well do you ,,,????

lets hear the stories


----------



## gaz (29 Jun 2011)

No


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

Sometimes. My commute home is often at 2am / 3am in the morning, when the streets are quiet and, on occasion, there are red lights on cycle where it just doesn't make sense to stop.


----------



## Furkz (29 Jun 2011)

i stop for a break, prob coz im a fatty


----------



## slowmotion (29 Jun 2011)

I come to Albert Gate on the west end of London's Battersea park every day. There are traffic lights, but it is a very quiet junction. I have never seen any cyclist stop on red in the last two years. I guess I'm in a bit of a minority, and "well un-cool".


----------



## Alan Whicker (29 Jun 2011)

Sometimes. At Hackney Wick there's a set of lights under the flyover where I see cars fly through red all the time. I never stop there 'cos I've no wish to be a BMW's bonnet mascot. I'd never jump a pedestrian crossing.


----------



## corshamjim (29 Jun 2011)

In a word ..

No


----------



## John the Monkey (29 Jun 2011)

No.

Generally on my commute, you can avoid the "it's safer if you do" by using road position.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

No.

I'm definitely an exception on my commute though. Vast majority of cyclists go straight through then a significant minority ignore the stop line completely, usually pulling up in front of me just to give me something else to be aware of once the light goes green. 

I just don't understand the logic for either apart from selfishness and impatience. Surely if you're concerned about your safety with regards to a vehicle running into the back of you, the safest place to be is behind that vehicle rather than in front of it........


----------



## BSRU (29 Jun 2011)

No, unless the detector is faulty or not sensitive enough.


----------



## Paladin - York (29 Jun 2011)

One cyclist "nurd" did yesterday in York, nearly took out a load of pedestrians on a zebra crossing - including me.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (29 Jun 2011)

No, and it annoys me to see other road users doing it.


----------



## Andrew_P (29 Jun 2011)

I have one set of lights where I need a car to pull up behind me, gets frustrating waiting when it is empty.

On occasion at this junction I have been known to ride 15ft on the pavement, just so I do not RLJ, pavement scum is a little better than RLJ scum.

This time last year when I firsted started cycling to work I used to jump some of them, caused me much more aggro than it saved me time, I had someone try and take me out due to RLJ, who then shat himself when he realised I was about to catch him, darted off a side road with me still chasing, nigh on nearly gave me a heart attack trying to catch the fecker.

Anyway confession over, I realised even when you can do it "safely" it is not sensible. I have been known to shout at a pedistrian walking up to a set of ped lights "no wait for me!"


----------



## moralcrusader (29 Jun 2011)

Nope, never. I get very tempted at a particular junction where the lights just won't change without a car there, but havn't taken the RLJ plunge to date.


----------



## coffeejo (29 Jun 2011)

Furkz said:


> i stop for a break, prob coz im a fatty



 Me too!


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (29 Jun 2011)

LOCO said:


> I have one set of lights where I need a car to pull up behind me, gets frustrating waiting when it is empty.
> 
> On occasion at this junction I have been known to ride 15ft on the pavement, just so I do not RLJ, pavement scum is a little better than RLJ scum.



That's no excuse for cycling on the pavement. Get off and push and then contact the council about the faulty sensor.


----------



## sabian92 (29 Jun 2011)

Never. My life is not worth the time saved jumping a red right, and if you think yours is, I'll laugh when you get killed.

Not really, but you deserve it if you see a red light and jump it. It's illegal, yet cyclists who jump them complain that road users don't like them. There's your reason (or one of them).


----------



## wesa (29 Jun 2011)

I don't have any traffic lights on my commute.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Jun 2011)

Roadsafe have put forward for prosecution quite a few of the red light jumping drivers I've filmed. If I could do the same for cyclists, I'd have no hesitation.


----------



## StuartG (29 Jun 2011)

ABikeCam said:


> That's no excuse for cycling on the pavement. Get off and push and then contact the council about the faulty sensor.


Interested to know what do you do when you are driving and encounter a faulty traffic light?


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

StuartG said:


> Interested to know what do you do when you are driving and encounter a faulty traffic light?



You're legally allowed to go through it.


----------



## John the Monkey (29 Jun 2011)

sabian92 said:


> Not really, but you deserve it if you see a red light and jump it.



No they don't. They really don't.

Green means "Go if it is clear". It does not mean "plough through whatever is ahead of you".

I don't jump red lights. I don't like that other people do. They don't deserve to die though, and there's no granted right to run into them - if traffic on green can stop safely, it should, must.


----------



## Davidc (29 Jun 2011)

No.

Orange ones occasionally.


----------



## SquareDaff (29 Jun 2011)

Always stop at red's. I like my bones and bike as they are at the moment, i.e. in one piece!


----------



## VamP (29 Jun 2011)

I do RLJ the occasional pedestrian crossing if there are no pedestrians in the vicinity. Otherwise no.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

I have crossed at light controlled crossings when the the road is clear but have never cycled through a red light when on the road (to my knowledge)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Jun 2011)

Not any more.

But there is one set of lights on a crossroads in the 'sham that are defective at detecting my presence on a bike (yes I have written and several times too, to no avail) without other vehicles present and the phasing is set so the lights never go green unless triggered so then I cross the junction on red when the pedestrians' green man is lit. I'm travelling parallel to said pedestrians so there is no conlict twixt me and them

But, on reflection, I find myself conflicted about this because the detectors don't pick me up when I'm driving the chunkychicken (too short) either and I would not dream of jumping the lights then. I either wait for ages for another car to pull up behind me or back the 'chicken up to sit it over the detectors.

We also have on bizarre pedestrian crossing in the 'sham, right outside the council offices, which seems to take a week to change to red once a ped has pressed the button and which then stays red for what seems like another week by which time said ped is probably at their desk drinking their first coffee of the morning. But I don't jump that one ever.


----------



## Becs (29 Jun 2011)

Not at junctions, occasional pedestrian crossings if there are no pedestrians any where near. I will cross the white line when the ASL is full of taxis though!


----------



## Bromptonaut (29 Jun 2011)

Not any more.

Junction of Bloomsbury Way and Southampton Place in Holborn. At this point I need to cross three lanes of traffice to go down Southampton Row. Until a recent redesign there was an eastbound bus lane which got an early green making the crossing manouever a cinch - fine if I was in it but traffic further sometimes meant I was not. In that case I'd go from the stopped main flow when the bus lane got green. 

No longer necessary as the road has been remodelled and the bus lane moved to be a westbound contraflow. The revised junction discourages cars from the previous Grand Prix start.


----------



## JohnHenry (29 Jun 2011)

I went to Amsterdam last year and cycled through a whole area of red lights - some girls waved at me but that was the worst thing that happened.


----------



## StuartG (29 Jun 2011)

"*If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?*"


A philosophical question which can be related to if you cross a red light and nobody is around to see - is it a crime?


Before you say yes, remember the law is there to adjudicate/mediate between the interests of different people. On a island inhabited by one person there is no need for law (except maybe for animal cruelty). The law would be an unjust imposition.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

So would said person live in anarchy? I've never thought about such a question before.


StuartG said:


> "*If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?*"
> 
> A philosophical question which can be related to if you cross a red light and nobody is around to see - is it a crime?
> 
> Before you say yes, remember the law is there to adjudicate/mediate between the interests of different people. On a island inhabited by one person there is no need for law (except maybe for animal cruelty). The law would be an unjust imposition.


----------



## Melonfish (29 Jun 2011)

i stop at all red lights bar one.

well that's not entirely true i do stop at it but when the damn thing stays red (one of those radar jobbies) i either need to wait for a car to follow me to to get the lights to change, or i have to wait until the junction is totally clear of traffic.
its a fast road i'm turning onto so i need to be sure its clear, i don't like going through the red but i have little choice i've got no other way of changing the light.


----------



## fossyant (29 Jun 2011)

No.

It's good interval training. Stop start - good for the lactic acid threshold. I remember switching from a relatively stop free commute to an urban one of less miles but lots of stops - the constant stop start was killing me at first.

Just not worth it, especially if you get caught out and hit something - not a leg to stand on, literally.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

Melonfish said:


> i stop at all red lights bar one.
> 
> well that's not entirely true i do stop at it but when the damn thing stays red (one of those radar jobbies) i either need to wait for a car to follow me to to get the lights to change, or i have to wait until the junction is totally clear of traffic.
> its a fast road i'm turning onto so i need to be sure its clear, i don't like going through the red but i have little choice i've got no other way of changing the light.



Is there a pedestrian crossing at the junction on the main road? Could always get off, walk to the pedestrian crossing, trigger it and get back on again on the road.


----------



## Andrew_P (29 Jun 2011)

ABikeCam said:


> That's no excuse for cycling on the pavement. Get off and push and then contact the council about the faulty sensor.


Could you explain the what difference it makes to anyone on an empty pavement with an empty road? Apart from people on this forum? The Bypass I avoid outbound is because I am expected to ride *on a unmarked shared pavement* having gone up a HUGE constant u turning footbridge. The Cycle path then delivers you at the end on the wrong side of the road at a roundabout.

To be frank if there was even light traffic I wouldn't do it, and if there are Pedestrians I do not do it. But @ 6.30am if I am so inclined I will do it and without any guilt, shameful I know.


----------



## JamesAC (29 Jun 2011)

No.
It's illegal.

If there's an argument for cyclists to ignore red lights at 2 a.m or whatever and they can see that it's "safe", then the same argument is true for motorcyclists, WVM and drivers of articulated trucks.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Agreed.


JamesAC said:


> No.
> It's illegal.
> 
> If there's an argument for cyclists to ignore red lights at 2 a.m or whatever and they can see that it's "safe", then the same argument is true for motorcyclists, WVM and drivers of articulated trucks.


----------



## Bman (29 Jun 2011)

No, except this one. 

It doesnt detect me going through from one side of the lights, so its not technically RLJ'ing. 

I once sat there waiting for ages. Until I gave up, dismounted and started pushing my bike past on the pavement. The car behind me edged forward and instantly triggered the lights


----------



## goo_mason (29 Jun 2011)

No.


----------



## sabian92 (29 Jun 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> No they don't. They really don't.
> 
> Green means "Go if it is clear". It does not mean "plough through whatever is ahead of you".
> 
> I don't jump red lights. I don't like that other people do. They don't deserve to die though, and there's no granted right to run into them - if traffic on green can stop safely, it should, must.



I know green means "Proceed If Safe", but let's be honest - do you drive a car and expect to see a cyclist in the middle of a junction when they aren't supposed to be there? I certainly don't. Maybe wishing death upon cyclists is a bit harsh but everybody else stops (or rather, is legally obliged to) so what makes cyclists so special? I certainly don't RLJ and I don't see why I should. It costs me time, but I'd rather it cost me that than my life.

As a (newer) cyclist I don't understand a lot of things about cycling, but I understand that they are not above the law. Nobody else is.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

I was taught to expect the unexpected. Always treat an empty road as being full of potential hazzards. Rather like a gun being always loaded. When you know it is return to beginnig of sentence.


sabian92 said:


> I know green means "Proceed If Safe", but let's be honest - do you drive a car and expect to see a cyclist in the middle of a junction when they aren't supposed to be there? I certainly don't. Maybe wishing death upon cyclists is a bit harsh but everybody else stops (or rather, is legally obliged to) so what makes cyclists so special? I certainly don't RLJ and I don't see why I should. It costs me time, but I'd rather it cost me that than my life.
> 
> As a (newer) cyclist I don't understand a lot of things about cycling, but I understand that they are not above the law. Nobody else is.


----------



## John the Monkey (29 Jun 2011)

sabian92 said:


> ... do you drive a car and expect to see a cyclist in the middle of a junction when they aren't supposed to be there? I certainly don't.



Expect? No. Am I ready if there is one? Yep, or as much as I can be, in any case. Same as I am if it's a truck, a car (increasingly likely these days, sadly) a horse &c. 

On a bike, not assuming that the road ahead is clear *solely* because my light is green has saved my bacon a number of times. On one memorable occasion, from an RLJ'ing bus, pursuing a car whose driver the bus driver had got the hump with, and decided to chase after (in his bus).

I've been put at risk exactly once by a red light jumping cyclist, in nearly four years of commutes in and out of Manchester. In bad weeks, motorists will put me at risk once or twice a day - it's certainly possible to care about both problems, but I think the drivers worry me most.



> ... but everybody else stops (or rather, is legally obliged to) so what makes cyclists so special? I certainly don't RLJ and I don't see why I should. It costs me time, but I'd rather it cost me that than my life.



I'm not disagreeing - I don't RLJ, I'd very much prefer others not to. But stuff happens - driving (or riding) sensibly when others don't can avoid such situations becoming something worse than a source of annoyance. Think of it as herd immunity against stupidity.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

I'm an occassional RLJer. Never on a busy junction or pedestrian crossing... and I would never try to persuade anyone to do it, or judge someone who did or didn't unless they were endangering themselves or others.
...But sometimes I do here: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Approaching the lights you have a clear view on anything approaching from the right, and there will only ever be cars approaching from the right if on red.

It's a slight climb, so not stopping allows you to keep momentum (obviously while still slowing to check that it's clear) and hold primary so as not to get squeezed at the top around the bend. I wouldn't go up here in secondary.

If I stop at the red I've been honked for being slow clipping in when in my cycle zone by the car behind, and for holding up cars getting up the small climb in primary from a standing start. 
I've also been honked for doing a RLJ by a car annoyed that he'd had to wait and I didn't. 

If safe to do so, I'd rather get up the climb without a white van up my arse tbh. I'm not going to risk my body and bike in a collision with a vehicle. I know what the result would be. I'm not going to pull a manouvre like that if I'm not 100% certain that it's safe to do so. Lots of traffic lights are nothing to do with safety, they're to manage congestion and give traffic an even chance at getting out at junctions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in America, certain states allow left turns at red lights if safe. Makes sense to me.


----------



## abo (29 Jun 2011)

Naw, I'm not a RLJ'er. Bloke I was following today did one in town, making a right turn, and although I didn't follow him I can't see issue with what he did (other than it actually being illegal lol). Road was clear both ways, no peds or traffic.

I did use a couple of crossings though, to save myself a half-mile detour.


----------



## jim55 (29 Jun 2011)

I'm an occassional RLJer. Never on a busy junction or pedestrian crossing... and I would never try to persuade anyone to do it, or judge someone who did or didn't unless they were endangering themselves or others.
...But sometimes I do here: http://maps.google.c...ps?hl=en&tab=wl

Approaching the lights you have a clear view on anything approaching from the right, and there will only ever be cars approaching from the right if on red.

It's a slight climb, so not stopping allows you to keep momentum (obviously while still slowing to check that it's clear) and hold primary so as not to get squeezed at the top around the bend. I wouldn't go up here in secondary.

If I stop at the red I've been honked for being slow clipping in when in my cycle zone by the car behind, and for holding up cars getting up the small climb in primary from a standing start. 
I've also been honked for doing a RLJ by a car annoyed that he'd had to wait and I didn't. 

If safe to do so, I'd rather get up the climb without a white van up my arse tbh. I'm not going to risk my body and bike in a collision with a vehicle. I know what the result would be. I'm not going to pull a manouvre like that if I'm not 100% certain that it's safe to do so. Lots of traffic lights are nothing to do with safety, they're to manage congestion and give traffic an even chance at getting out at junctions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in America, certain states allow left turns at red lights if safe. Makes sense to me. 


my feelings exactly!!
there is two sets of lights on my
way into work and one is an acess route into tesco ,,theres good visibility all round and if theres nobody around then il just keep going ,,BUT ,,,if theres a car /bike /whatever in the vicinity i wont (bearing in mind its about 550 am and its gen very quiet ),,in pretty much every other situ i would stop and just take my place in the q ,,,but im afraid at those aforementioned lights im guilty as charged ,,its very much a judgement call there ,,but thats not always the case 
iv seen a few blatant rlj through the yrs and just wondered what the general opinion is


----------



## VamP (29 Jun 2011)

jim55 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in America, certain states allow left *right* turns at red lights if safe. Makes sense to me.




There, fixed that for you. And apart from the obvious you're right.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

VamP said:


> There, fixed that for you. And apart from the obvious you're right.



Of course... thanks


----------



## jack the lad (29 Jun 2011)

I don't fully understand the blanket 'No, it's against the law' position. Just because something is 'the law' doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. Then there's a possibility that the law gets changed. OK so poor traffic management systems are not in the same league as colonial exploitation, apartheid or oppressive dictatorships, as justifying civil disobedience, but the principle is the same.

Many, if not most traffic lights are entirely sensible and well-designed systems for controlling traffic. There is no justification for failure to observe them even if it causes a minor inconvenience from time to time. This is a compromise that preserves the safety and convenience of all road users.

Sometimes there are lights whose design and operation causes significant inconvenience or even danger to one or more groups of road users because they prioritise the interests of one group over others or, more commonly in my experience, they have simply not taken into account the interests of all road users. In such instances I feel morally entitled, or even obliged, to break the law. This is Jim Callaghan's "contingent right to break a bad law". You should not inconvenience or endanger any other road user and you have to be aware that you are breaking the law and be prepared to accept the sanctions. However most law enforcement agencies recognise that some laws are bad laws and exercise their discretion not to enforce them. If you are a sensible RLJer, exercising your discretion responsibly, the police are quite likely to agree with you!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Surely the way to get laws changes is to operate within the law and use the structures in place that allow for that. Campaigning, pestering MP's, petitions, public awareness campaigns. All legal, all will possably bring about changes in the law. Breaking a law because you do not agree with it or feel it is wrong is no justification at all. I will admit to driving above the speed limit on roads when I feel it is safe to do so but if I am caught I would take full responsability for my actions and not make a fuss as the "law is wrong". If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.




jack the lad said:


> I don't fully understand the blanket 'No, it's against the law' position. Just because something is 'the law' doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. Then there's a possibility that the law gets changed. OK so poor traffic management systems are not in the same league as colonial exploitation, apartheid or oppressive dictatorships, as justifying civil disobedience, but the principle is the same.
> 
> Many, if not most traffic lights are entirely sensible and well-designed systems for controlling traffic. There is no justification for failure to observe them even if it causes a minor inconvenience from time to time. This is a compromise that preserves the safety and convenience of all road users.
> 
> Sometimes there are lights whose design and operation causes significant inconvenience or even danger to one or more groups of road users because they prioritise the interests of one group over others or, more commonly in my experience, they have simply not taken into account the interests of all road users. In such instances I feel morally entitled, or even obliged, to break the law. This is Jim Callaghan's "contingent right to break a bad law". You should not inconvenience or endanger any other road user and you have to be aware that you are breaking the law and be prepared to accept the sanctions. However most law enforcement agencies recognise that some laws are bad laws and exercise their discretion not to enforce them. If you are a sensible RLJer, exercising your discretion responsibly, the police are quite likely to agree with you!


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Surely the way to get laws changes is to operate within the law and use the structures in place that allow for that. Campaigning, pestering MP's, petitions, public awareness campaigns. All legal, all will possably bring about changes in the law. Breaking a law because you do not agree with it or feel it is wrong is no justification at all. I will admit to driving above the speed limit on roads when I feel it is safe to do so but if I am caught I would take full responsability for my actions and not make a fuss as the "law is wrong". If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.



You're assuming laws need changing. There is the ability within the British legal system to allow that laws aren't fixed, you can break them and sometimes the reason doesn't even have to be good, just appropriate.

People even break the law to protest against the law, there are also some horrendous bits of UK law. You do realise that under the Computers Misuse Act you can be commiting a law break quite easily, even reading a friends phone, changing their Facebook status as a joke. To state how bad the law is, a hacker can solicit passwords from a search box and be legally searching the site (a wonderful grey area) whilst if the CycleChat forum owner put a message on each page asking you not to post you'd be commiting a clear offence if you did.


----------



## jack the lad (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Surely the way to get laws changes is to operate within the law and use the structures in place that allow for that. Campaigning, pestering MP's, petitions, public awareness campaigns.



It would be good if that were always the case, but sometimes these things are only taken seriously once there has been a bit of law breaking to make people sit up and take notice.



> If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.



I don't think that would _necessarily_ be a problem. The important point is there is reasonableness in the law breaking and unreasonableness in the law that is being broken. Most laws, in most situations, are complied with through mutual consent and mutual self interest, not as a result of enforcement or threat of sanction and they have to have legitimacy for that to happen. If that was not the case you would have a chaotic society and it is why illegitimate states have to rely on force and oppression to keep order. An anarchic society can be very ordered, but I think that is idealistic and we have to have enforcement and sanctions to recognise that there are some people who choose to behave anti-socially. Not all illegal behaviour is anti-social and there is plenty of lawful behaviour that is!


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

jack the lad said:


> I don't fully understand the blanket 'No, it's against the law' position. Just because something is 'the law' doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. Then there's a possibility that the law gets changed. OK so poor traffic management systems are not in the same league as colonial exploitation, apartheid or oppressive dictatorships, as justifying civil disobedience, but the principle is the same.
> 
> Many, if not most traffic lights are entirely sensible and well-designed systems for controlling traffic. There is no justification for failure to observe them even if it causes a minor inconvenience from time to time. This is a compromise that preserves the safety and convenience of all road users.
> 
> Sometimes there are lights whose design and operation causes significant inconvenience or even danger to one or more groups of road users because they prioritise the interests of one group over others or, more commonly in my experience, they have simply not taken into account the interests of all road users. In such instances I feel morally entitled, or even obliged, to break the law. This is Jim Callaghan's "contingent right to break a bad law". You should not inconvenience or endanger any other road user and you have to be aware that you are breaking the law and be prepared to accept the sanctions. However most law enforcement agencies recognise that some laws are bad laws and exercise their discretion not to enforce them. If you are a sensible RLJer, exercising your discretion responsibly, the police are quite likely to agree with you!



I think there's quite a big difference between breaking a law because it is bad ie it doesn't operate for the majority of the society it applies to and picking and choosing which laws apply to you. 

I don't think you can say that the laws regarding red lights are bad. They work for the majority of people they affect although I assume at one point or another every user gets frustrated at being held at a red. Similarly the rules regarding shotgun ownership in this country work for the majority of people they affect although again there are users (clay pigeon shooters, hunters, bank robbers etc) who may be frustrated by them occasionally. Would you want people to be able to pick or choose whether to obey that law? And before you say "Oh but that's different, people get hurt by shotguns" see it from a hunters' perspective. He/she will say no one will get hurt by them not putting their gun in a locked cupboard or by them not holding a valid license and I'm sure some people find it frustrating to have to jump through these hoops.

I would hope that any policeman seeing any road user going through a red will book them for it.


----------



## jack the lad (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> I think there's quite a big difference between breaking a law because it is bad ie it doesn't operate for the majority of the society it applies to and picking and choosing which laws apply to you.




A law can be bad because it operates for the majority of society and oppresses a minority. The majority/minority point is irrelevant. It is a bad law if it disproportionately affects one person. That is not the same as picking and choosing.

In the case of some traffic lights they disproportionately affect cyclists (and pedestrians too quite often) because, for example, they don't include simple measures like cycle filters or light timings that take into account average cycling speed that would enable cycle traffic to flow at some junctions as freely as the car traffic flows which have been taken as the sole design parameter.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

That sounds like the type of rant that gives the cycling community a bad name. I drive and cycle and have never noticed that I am discriminated against when I am on the bike.


jack the lad said:


> A law can be bad because it operates for the majority of society and oppresses a minority. The majority/minority point is irrelevant. It is a bad law if it disproportionately affects one person. That is not the same as picking and choosing.
> 
> In the case of some traffic lights they disproportionately affect cyclists (and pedestrians too quite often) because, for example, they don't include simple measures like cycle filters or light timings that take into account average cycling speed that would enable cycle traffic to flow at some junctions as freely as the car traffic flows which have been taken as the sole design parameter.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

jack the lad said:


> A law can be bad because it operates for the majority of society and oppresses a minority. The majority/minority point is irrelevant. It is a bad law if it disproportionately affects one person. That is not the same as picking and choosing.
> 
> In the case of some traffic lights they disproportionately affect cyclists (and pedestrians too quite often) because, for example, they don't include simple measures like cycle filters or light timings that take into account average cycling speed that would enable cycle traffic to flow at some junctions as freely as the car traffic flows which have been taken as the sole design parameter.



And a bad law isn't one that disproportionately affects one person, it can't be. The laws governing paedophilia and murder disproportionately affected Ian Huntley but I don't think anyone would want them changed. It prevented him doing what he wanted to because it would affect others. The law on red light jumping, while not in anyway as serious, does exactly the same thing. Every time you jump a red light, anyone else present has to re-evaluate the risk to themselves based on your actions. That re-evaluation may come up with "no change" but it still needs to be done.

Laws in a society have to have consensus. If a law is found to be truly bad, for example the poll tax laws, the Govt will either change them or lose the election or both.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> And a bad law isn't one that disproportionately affects one person, it can't be. The laws governing paedophilia and murder disproportionately affected Ian Huntley but I don't think anyone would want them changed. It prevented him doing what he wanted to because it would affect others. The law on red light jumping, while not in anyway as serious, does exactly the same thing. Every time you jump a red light, anyone else present has to re-evaluate the risk to themselves based on your actions. That re-evaluation may come up with "no change" but it still needs to be done.
> 
> Laws in a society have to have consensus. If a law is found to be truly bad, for example the poll tax laws, the Govt will either change them or lose the election or both.



You keep missing the point. You can't argue with shotgun versus a bike, the same way as you can't argue murder versus jumping a red light. They are not the same thing, and to argue so is frankly ridiculous. Poll tax wasn't a law. Laws don't have to be a consensus. Laws are there to protect and help govern a state, they do not have to be right, righteous or fair, they do not have to be a consensus, or work for the majority.

Tell me, is it right to hold someone without evidence or proof for several weeks, like Hungarians did during their Soviet occupation? That was law.

Also, can you show me the law that explicitly prohibits jumping a red light.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

I've just read your signature. I understand now.


SportMonkey said:


> You keep missing the point. You can't argue with shotgun versus a bike, the same way as you can't argue muder versus jumping a red light. They are not the same thing, and to argue so is frankly ridiculous. Poll tax wasn't a law. Laws don't have to be a consensus. Laws are there to protect and help govern a state, they do not have to be right, righteous or fair, they do not have to be a consensus, or work for the majority.
> 
> Tell me, is it right to hold someone without evidence or proof for several weeks, like Hungarians did during their Soviet occupation? That was law.
> 
> Also, can you show me the law that explicitly prohibits jumping a red light.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I've just read your signature. I understand now.



What are you referring to? If you can't argue a point don't just abuse someone.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

I am refering to the fact that your argument makes no sense. You are advocating being able to choose which laws to break which to me is the thinking of either an anarchist or an idiot. As your sig proclaims you the latter......


SportMonkey said:


> What are you referring to? If you can't argue a point don't just abuse someone.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am refering to the fact that your argument makes no sense. You are advocating being able to choose which laws to break which to me is the thinking of either an anarchist or an idiot. As your sig proclaims you the latter......



What in my argument makes no sense? Don't call abuse, or say something makes no sense without reason. Actually, you're neither an idiot or an anarchist if you are not so willing to stick to the rules of another blindly.

And my signature is humour.


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am refering to the fact that your argument makes no sense. You are advocating being able to choose which laws to break which to me is the thinking of either an anarchist or an idiot. As your sig proclaims you the latter......



What doesn't make sense in what's being argued here? It seems clear at least to me, and pretty well reasoned.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

What in your argument makes no sense? Your assertion that it is ok to break a law that makes no sense (to you). Also your assertion that road traffic lights are discrimimatory to cyclists. It is harder for a HGV driver to get back up to speed than a cyclist so they should run red lights when they see fit should they? Many aspects of British Law make little sense but until such time as those laws are changed the majority of people will happily comply with them. Those who do not will at ond point or another feel the weight of the Law.


SportMonkey said:


> What in my argument makes no sense? Don't call abuse, or say something makes no sense without reason. Actually, you're neither an idiot or an anarchist if you are not so willing to stick to the rules of another blindly.
> 
> And my signature is humour.


----------



## RedRider (29 Jun 2011)

Traffic light rules pertaining to cyclists should be changed. There's no obvious reason why riders should not be trusted to make left turns on a red if the way is clear, for example.

If such a change does take place then those who currently break the law will rightly claim they played a part.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

and will they claim continued discrimination if the law does not change?


RedRider said:


> Traffic light rules pertaining to cyclists should be changed. There's no obvious reason why riders should not be trusted to make left turns on a red if the way is clear, for example.
> 
> If such a change does take place then those who currently break the law will rightly claim they played a part.


----------



## Andy_R (29 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Also, can you show me the law that explicitly prohibits jumping a red light.



* Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36*


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What in your argument makes no sense? Your assertion that it is ok to break a law that makes no sense (to you). Also your assertion that road traffic lights are discrimimatory to cyclists. It is harder for a HGV driver to get back up to speed than a cyclist so they should run red lights when they see fit should they? Many aspects of British Law make little sense but until such time as those laws are changed the majority of people will happily comply with them. Those who do not will at ond point or another feel the weight of the Law.



We're rapidly moving off topic here compared to the OP, so apologies for continuing this line of debate (not entirely unexpected in a conversation on the emotive topic of RLJs).

If it's not OK for an individual to break a law that makes no sense to them, doesn't that suggest the individual has abdicated their decision making processes to law-makers? We're all free to do what we want - you're quite right that if we break a law and we are caught we should be punished: that's part of our social contract. On the (rare) occasions I RLJ, I'm not going to argue with a police officer that stops and fines me - that's all part of the decision making process in doing it.

I may not think it's OK if someone else breaks a particular law, but if they think it's OK then that's their prerogative. We have structures in society to control this - the police, the courts, parliament - and I'm happy to leave it to them to do that. Through various democratic means I can engage with those bodies to ensure my views are represented. But I don't think you can say it makes no sense if people choose to exercise their free will, however much you may not like the consequences of their actions?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

Both shotgun and red light jumping are similar in that they are equally illegal. I've never argued whether the law is morally right or not. It's not relevant. 

And the poll tax was on the statute book as primary legislation and therefore was a law. 

Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Those two assertations that you refer to were by another author, so if that's the reason for you being abusive I'd quite like an apology.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Andy_R said:


> * Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36*



And what does that say about traffic lights exactly?


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Both shotgun and red light jumping are similar in that they are equally illegal. I've never argued whether the law is morally right or not. It's not relevant.



But in different situations, they are not equally dangerous, neither do they have the same consequences. That's why different crimes have different punishments. Ignoring these factors when considering whether or not to break a law seems very strange to me. I'm fairly sure most court cases take into consideration mitigating circumstances, the consequences of someone's actions etc. That's why you can get different punishments for the same crime. So saying you shouldn't RLJ simply because it's illegal misses the point when it's being used to criticise people that do. There are other factors at play in the decision making process.


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> And what does that say about traffic lights exactly?



I believe - though others more qualified than me will correct this if I'm wrong - that a traffic light counts as a traffic sign in exactly the same way as a Give Way sign does, for example.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

In Post #52 you state you can break laws. I appologise for attributing the 2nd assertion to you. 


SportMonkey said:


> Those two assertations that you refer to were by another author, so if that's the reason for you being abusive I'd quite like an apology.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

We're getting there. Yes there are different punishments for breaking different laws and even for breaking the same law. But they are equally illegal, it's the mitigating factors that govern the seriousness. 

Now provide situations where there are mitigating factors for jumping a red light. The only one I can think of is to allow an emergency vehicle to pass 





Edited to add the following:

As I'm not interest in starting any kind a flame war I'd better add my actual thoughts about this. I'm playing devils advocate to an extent but I do believe the law is the law and should be obeyed. The law is nothing to do with what is morally right or even on occasions what is common sense but should still be obeyed whilst working for change.

Now from a personal point of view, if you go through a red light past me and then stay well in front of me for the rest of my journey, I don't really care one way or the other. Don't bleat if you get caught though.

If however you get in front of me by RLJing and then travel more slowly than I am doing, you are inconveniencing me as I now need to assess risks and choose a safe place to pass you and frankly that will p**s me off.
Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

No a traffic light is like a solid white stop line. Very few people treat those as law.


Buddfox said:


> I believe - though others more qualified than me will correct this if I'm wrong - that a traffic light counts as a traffic sign in exactly the same way as a Give Way sign does, for example.


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

There's no-one around and I want to get home quicker? (This in response to post #75)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

The only other I can think of is if by stopping you would cause an accident eg being tailgated by an idiot.


martint235 said:


> We're getting there. Yes there are different punishments for breaking different laws and even for breaking the same law. But they are equally illegal, it's the mitigating factors that govern the seriousness.
> 
> Now provide situations where there are mitigating factors for jumping a red light. The only one I can think of is to allow an emergency vehicle to pass
> 
> Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

You said I asserted we should break laws that make no sense to us, indeed I would only ever suggest we break laws that we or our peers may deem unjust, afterall it is the justice system. It is of note that in the UK statute is set by government, policing controlled by government and justice is controlled by the Law Lords


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Are you seriously suggesting that is a mitigating circustance?
"Well Officer I was doing 150Mph on the motorway as it was quiet and I wanted to get home faster......"


Buddfox said:


> There's no-one around and I want to get home quicker? (This in response to post #75)


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

So jumping a clear pedestrian crossing pinch point when followed by a White van who has previously close passed you by 4 inches good enough?


----------



## RedRider (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> and will they claim continued discrimination if the law does not change?



If the law doesn't change people will continue to break it unless far more resources are thrown at policing. Bad laws get broken all the time. Who's claiming discrimination?

Back to OP, I don't go through reds, at least very, very rarely. I used to but that was ten years ago when I'd feel a bit embarrassed sat there when most everyone else was piling through. More comfortable doing my own thing now.


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that is a mitigating circustance?
> "Well Officer I was doing 150Mph on the motorway as it was quiet and I wanted to get home faster......"




Of course. Riding a bike through a red light is neither as serious nor as dangerous as driving a car at 150mph (in my judgement, of course yours may be different and I'm not questioning that), so why is this comparison being drawn? The question was what mitigating circumstances would there be for riding through a red light on a bike. For me, there being no-one around and it allowing me to get home quicker fits the bill.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Only if by stopping you would cause an accident. Past events are not mitigation for breaking a law, an on going action maybe. Remember mitigation is a defence not a get out od jail free card.


SportMonkey said:


> So jumping a clear pedestrian crossing pinch point when followed by a White van who has previously close passed you by 4 inches good enough?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

But no judge or jury would accept that as mitigating evidence and you should expect to be done if caught 

Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Mitigation is a legal defence so I would think both would be treated with the same distain in a court of law.


Buddfox said:


> Of course. Riding a bike through a red light is neither as serious nor as dangerous as driving a car at 150mph (in my judgement, of course yours may be different and I'm not questioning that), so why is this comparison being drawn? The question was what mitigating circumstances would there be for riding through a red light on a bike. For me, there being no-one around and it allowing me to get home quicker fits the bill.


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

Of course, it's not about constructing a legal defence it's about justifying the decision to do it. That's how I interpreted the reference to mitigation. If I get stopped by a police officer for jumping a red light, then I'll take my punishment.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Now provide situations where there are mitigating factors for jumping a red light. The only one I can think of is to allow an emergency vehicle to pass



How about my example where the red light only has traffic filtering from the right, and stopping places the cyclist in more danger than carrying on through the red because:
a) it is on a hill with a right to left curve - anyone using clipless pedals and carrying heavy panniers knows that it is trickier to get going than otherwise. Therefore... 
b)Trying to clip in whilst in secondary position can be dangerous with all the traffic attempting to get past pushing the cyclist into the kerb on a right to left corner... 
c) Trying to clip in up a hill in a primary position puts additional pressure on the cyclist from the traffic behind.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

I sware I am not leaning over your shoulder watching what you type 


martint235 said:


> But no judge or jury would accept that as mitigating evidence and you should expect to be done if caught
> 
> Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## Buddfox (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I sware I am not leaning over your shoulder watching what you type


----------



## Angelfishsolo (29 Jun 2011)

Interesting. I think the response would be you shouldn't ride the bike that ladden in traffic if you know it will cause you that much of a problem.


lejogger said:


> How about my example where the red light only has traffic filtering from the right, and stopping places the cyclist in more danger than carrying on through the red because:
> a) it is on a hill with a right to left curve - anyone using clipless pedals and carrying heavy panniers knows that it is trickier to get going than otherwise. Therefore...
> b)Trying to clip in whilst in secondary position can be dangerous with all the traffic attempting to get past pushing the cyclist into the kerb on a right to left corner...
> c) Trying to clip in up a hill in a primary position puts additional pressure on the cyclist from the traffic behind.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> How about my example where the red light only has traffic filtering from the right, and stopping places the cyclist in more danger than carrying on through the red because:
> a) it is on a hill with a right to left curve - anyone using clipless pedals and carrying heavy panniers knows that it is trickier to get going than otherwise. Therefore...
> b)Trying to clip in whilst in secondary position can be dangerous with all the traffic attempting to get past pushing the cyclist into the kerb on a right to left corner...
> c) Trying to clip in up a hill in a primary position puts additional pressure on the cyclist from the traffic behind.



They are inconveniences not mitigating evidence sorry. Again no judge would accept them. "I was carrying very heavy bags your honour and to put them down and pick them up would have been a pain so as the victim was in my way I headbutted him in the back of the head", doesn't work does it?

Another devil's advocate one. You go through a red light because it's inconveniencing you and making you slow down. By doing so you overtake me. I am naturally a faster cyclist and catch you up quickly. You are now inconveniencing me because you are slowing me down. I barge you out of my way. Let's now make two assumptions, no one was hurt by you crossing the red light although a pedestrian was shook up as they were about to cross. You are also not hurt but are obviously quite shaken. Would you consider my action defensible?


----------



## Andy_R (29 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> And what does that say about traffic lights exactly?



(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign—

(a)of the prescribed size, colour (red) and type (light), or

(b)of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the M1Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle (on bike, pedalling) who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.




Now you can try and weasle your way around this, but any argument about this would be spurious!


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Actually, I doubt that the CPS would prosecute unless they were out to make an example, so the point of judge and jury is moot.


----------



## Andrew_P (29 Jun 2011)

Anyway, lot and lots of road laws are broken daily. I think bikes are similar to people on foot and should be allowed to take similar risks. Defintely left turns at traffic lights should be treated as a give way for cyclists and even cars. The problem is only going to get worse more and more new cyclists.

In Germany I made the mistake of crossing a road whilst the the ped signal was still red, fine over here but I was looked at as if I had commited some heneous crime by the waiting masses either side.

95% or more of junctions I am perfectly happy to stop and wait, for my own safety.

Lot of things piss me off more than occasional RLJ's, having said that I think if I rode in London or other major city I would feel a lot stronger about it.

If I see a person press the button on a pedistrian crossing and carrying on walking and no one else around I am not going to stop and wait like some tit. I would in my car merely because it takes no effort to stop and start but mainly because it could cost me three points.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

I reckon an expensive solicitor could interpret that differently.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Interesting. I think the response would be you shouldn't ride the bike that ladden in traffic if you know it will cause you that much of a problem.



I disagree. My initial response would be that a tourer would not necessarily know the road he was riding on, therefore make a judgement on whether it was safer to stop or continue purely based on what is in front of him. You can never control the conditions around you. Roads can get busy for any number of reasons. 

Also, how is a cyclist ever supposed to improve his skill at riding (laden or not) and clipping into pedals without actually getting out there and doing it. A cyclist doesnt have to be carrying weight for clipping in on a steep hill to cause a problem - although the weight definitely increases the difficulty.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Actually, I doubt that the CPS would prosecute unless they were out to make an example, so the point of judge and jury is moot.






LOCO said:


> Anyway, lot and lots of road laws are broken daily. I think bikes are similar to people on foot and should be allowed to take similar risks. Defintely left turns at traffic lights should be treated as a give way for cyclists and even cars. The problem is only going to get worse more and more new cyclists.



It's not moot as I'm arguing from a point of law. I did edit a post a while back that may have been missed as i tried to give my actual point of view. If an RLJer passes me and I never see them again, I really don't care so long as they don't bleat if they get caught.

The law in this country has two distinct points: are you guilty or not guilty? That's very black and white, there is no middle ground. Juries are not asked to return a verdict of partially guilty. Then if you are guilty the judge (and this is one of the things he is paid to do) has to decide if you have presented any mitigating evidence that will help him/her when it comes to passing sentence. If you are found guilty and the judge decides that there are enough mitigating factors for you not to receive punishment you will walk from court. However you are still guilty of the crime and will still have a criminal record.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> I disagree. My initial response would be that a tourer would not necessarily know the road he was riding on, therefore make a judgement on whether it was safer to stop or continue purely based on what is in front of him. You can never control the conditions around you. Roads can get busy for any number of reasons.
> 
> Also, how is a cyclist ever supposed to improve his skill at riding (laden or not) and clipping into pedals without actually getting out there and doing it. A cyclist doesnt have to be carrying weight for clipping in on a steep hill to cause a problem - although the weight definitely increases the difficulty.



I fully accept it's a problem and I agree that without practice you'll never get the hang of it. I don't accept it could be used as a mitigating factor though.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

No, I don't believe it's that black and white. 
If you assault a person on the street then you are committing assault. 
If you assault a burglar on your property then whilst also committing assault, you are protecting your home, yourself and your family. The same crime, presumably differing outcomes. 

In my example, jumping the light is a measured decision to protect my safety, not a time saving exercise so I would hope that the law would protect me in that instance.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> No, I don't believe it's that black and white.
> If you assault a person on the street then you are committing assault.
> If you assault a burglar on your property then whilst also committing assault, you are protecting your home, yourself and your family. The same crime, presumably differing outcomes.
> 
> In my example, jumping the light is a measured decision to protect my safety, not a time saving exercise so I would hope that the law would protect me in that instance.



No you are still guilty of assault, I'm afraid that doesn't change. The judge may be lenient enough to feel that as you were defending your home you shouldn't receive punishment and thereby receive very little sentence. The bit that applies is "the same crime". You have committed a crime, you have a criminal record but in crime A you will possibly go to jail, in crime B I would expect a suspended sentence.

Mitigating evidence usually but not always applies to spur of the moment decisions, for example attacking a burglar. In the case of the tourer you have begun your journey knowing you may have a problem, your personal risk assessment should have accounted for those problems and borne in mind your requirement to obey the law. A mitigating factor at a red light would be one that meant the situation in front of you did not affect your action eg you were in such fear of being hit from behind that you would jump the light regardless of whether there was someone in front of you or not


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> They are inconveniences not mitigating evidence sorry. Again no judge would accept them. "I was carrying very heavy bags your honour and to put them down and pick them up would have been a pain so as the victim was in my way I headbutted him in the back of the head", doesn't work does it?
> 
> Another devil's advocate one. You go through a red light because it's inconveniencing you and making you slow down. By doing so you overtake me. I am naturally a faster cyclist and catch you up quickly. You are now inconveniencing me because you are slowing me down. I barge you out of my way. Let's now make two assumptions, no one was hurt by you crossing the red light although a pedestrian was shook up as they were about to cross. You are also not hurt but are obviously quite shaken. Would you consider my action defensible?



I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about inconvenience. That should never be a reason for an RLJ. Im talking about protecting my personal safety.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> No you are still guilty of assault, I'm afraid that doesn't change. The judge may be lenient enough to feel that as you were defending your home you shouldn't receive punishment and thereby receive very little sentence. The bit that applies is "the same crime". You have committed a crime, you have a criminal record but in crime A you will possibly go to jail, in crime B I would expect a suspended sentence.
> 
> Mitigating evidence usually but not always applies to spur of the moment decisions, for example attacking a burglar. In the case of the tourer you have begun your journey knowing you may have a problem, your personal risk assessment should have accounted for those problems and borne in mind your requirement to obey the law. A mitigating factor at a red light would be one that meant the situation in front of you did not affect your action eg you were in such fear of being hit from behind that you would jump the light regardless of whether there was someone in front of you or not



I am aware that an RLJ is a crime in any circumstance - as is defending yourself from a burglar. The point is that a punishment would likely be reduced or removed due to the nature of these particular circumstances. Hence an understanding from a legal perspective that there are times when it is more appropriate than others.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

Martin, wheat does the sent while following directions mean?


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> I am aware that an RLJ is a crime in any circumstance - as is defending yourself from a burglar. The point is that a punishment would likely be reduced or removed due to the nature of these particular circumstances. Hence an understanding from a legal perspective that there are times when it is more appropriate than others.



This is where there is a difference between RLJing and other crimes. There are very rare situations where it is safety issue to go through a red light. To RLJ cos no one is around is not a safety issue. To RLJ because you have heavy panniers is also not a safety issue. The law works like this:

1. Are you guilty or not guilty? This is your opportunity to provide evidence that you didn't do the crime. It is also the prosecutions opportunity *and obligation* to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did do the crime. In an RLJ case I would expect to see CCTV evidence.
2. Now we've ascertained that you are guilty, you now get an opportunity to provide evidence that you had a mitigating factor in your decision to break the law. This is where I believe there is a huge difference between "there was a stranger in my house and I was protecting my family" and "my panniers are heavy, I would have held up the traffic behind me and been beeped at if I'd stopped"


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Martin, wheat does the sent while following directions mean?



Oh it's my signature when I'm replying from my mobile phone. It's kind of an in joke cos my GPS system is sh**e and forever sending me in the wrong direction!


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Oh it's my signature when I'm replying from my mobile phone. It's kind of an in joke cos my GPS system is sh**e and forever sending me in the wrong direction!



Ah, sorry, it gave me the distinct impression you were driving and using the forum at the same time.


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> This is where there is a difference between RLJing and other crimes. There are very rare situations where it is safety issue to go through a red light. To RLJ cos no one is around is not a safety issue. To RLJ because you have heavy panniers is also not a safety issue. The law works like this:
> 
> 1. Are you guilty or not guilty? This is your opportunity to provide evidence that you didn't do the crime. It is also the prosecutions opportunity *and obligation* to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did do the crime. In an RLJ case I would expect to see CCTV evidence.
> 2. Now we've ascertained that you are guilty, you now get an opportunity to provide evidence that you had a mitigating factor in your decision to break the law. This is where I believe there is a huge difference between "there was a stranger in my house and I was protecting my family" and "my panniers are heavy, I would have held up the traffic behind me and been beeped at if I'd stopped"



I completely understand and accept your points... however you are slightly underplaying my defence. I wouldn't be arguing that "my panniers are heavy, I would have held up the traffic behind me and been beeped at if I'd stopped". That simplifies and trivialises the issue. 

It would be more along the lines of that I had sufficient concern that by stopping at the lights I'd have put myself at an increased risk of injury due to whatever issue it was... the large vehicle, or volume of traffic behind wanting to overtake or force me to the kerb etc.


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Ah, sorry, it gave me the distinct impression you were driving and using the forum at the same time.



Now that would be illegal. In my defence the only crime committed was replying to the forum whilst the telly was on!


----------



## martint235 (29 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> I completely understand and accept your points... however you are slightly underplaying my defence. I wouldn't be arguing that "my panniers are heavy, I would have held up the traffic behind me and been beeped at if I'd stopped". That simplifies and trivialises the issue.
> 
> It would be more along the lines of that I had sufficient concern that by stopping at the lights I'd have put myself at an increased risk of injury due to whatever issue it was... the large vehicle, or volume of traffic behind wanting to overtake or force me to the kerb etc.





But my argument is that you have knowingly put yourself in a position you consider to be dangerous. You are aware of the weight carried on your bike, of the likely traffic behind you and the road condition and yet have persisted in your course of action. Whilst I personally understand your argument, I don't feel it classes as mitigation in the eyes of the law. What would be the effect of stopping at the red light, dismounting, proceeding around the corner on foot to a safe location and remounting for example?


----------



## Cycle_Stu (29 Jun 2011)

I was walking to work the other day in Glasgow and I saw a cyclist waiting at a red light at a crossroads. The road was downhill and he seemed to make a decision to go for it. If only he'd looked behind him first 'cos there was a police van right behind him . Cue the blue lights! He got maybe 30 yards and was pulled over. 

Have to admit to having a bit of a chuckle over that one .


----------



## lejogger (29 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> But my argument is that you have knowingly put yourself in a position you consider to be dangerous. You are aware of the weight carried on your bike, of the likely traffic behind you and the road condition and yet have persisted in your course of action. Whilst I personally understand your argument, I don't feel it classes as mitigation in the eyes of the law. What would be the effect of stopping at the red light, dismounting, proceeding around the corner on foot to a safe location and remounting for example?



Yes, you are right, in the eyes of the law it wouldn't be mitigating circumstances... I accept that getting off and walking would have been the correct option in any circumstance rather than a RLJ. 

I don't think the aim of my argument has ever been to say that laws are wrong and there should be a legalisation of RLJing for cyclists in certain situations like some of the posts today. I merely hoped to show that however illegal, there may be situations that the most hardened of RLJ opponents may sympathise with if personal safety on the bike were called into question, that while wrong in the eyes of the law, may be understood by a rational human. 

I think I've managed that to a point, while you have upheld your legal arguments... warm handshakes all round?!


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> I think I've managed that to a point, while you have upheld your legal arguments... warm handshakes all round?!



Absolutely. A pleasure to have a reasoned discussion on this topic for a change! Shall we do helmets next?


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442696"]
Ok, mini poll time. Who here has ever had to RLJ because not doing so would have resulted in the following vehicle hitting you?
[/quote]

Nope not me. Although a driver just missed me last night as I stopped at a red. I had a brief chat with them at the next set of lights and offered to send the video evidence of them running a red light to the police.

Just in case anyone thinks of me as a "holier than thou" type, I should confess to going through an amber this morning purely because I wasn't paying attention and didn't have time to stop when I noticed it


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442696"]
Ok, mini poll time. Who here has ever had to RLJ because not doing so would have resulted in the following vehicle hitting you?
[/quote]

Complete guess work. You can't say there'd be an accident because one didn't happen.


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442699"]
That's another no then.
[/quote]

It can't be anything but a no, it's impossible. The joys of causality.

It's a bad question to be fair. You should be asking about fear of being involved in an accident. You ever heard of Bad Science or Freakonomics?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Never.
[QUOTE 1442696"]
Ok, mini poll time. Who here has ever had to RLJ because not doing so would have resulted in the following vehicle hitting you?
[/quote]


----------



## BentMikey (30 Jun 2011)

I have, I was on the motorbike and had to roll into the intersection to make space for the moton with smoking tyres and an inability to stop before me and before the stop line. Long time ago though.


----------



## 2Loose (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442703"]

The easier one would be to ask who here has ever been hit up the chuff while waiting at lights? 

Anyone?
[/quote]

Me, twice. Once on a C90 and once on a Honda 600. Not at all on my bike.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Never. [I was hit whilst in a queue on the M25 though lol (my Audi 80 wrote of a Merc Convertable )]
[QUOTE 1442703"]
It's not a bad question, because it's led you on to the next point. Which is, if it is impossible to pay whether an accident could have happened, then those claiming it as a reason for RLJing are basing the reason on nothing. 

As it stands, it's not an impossible question at all. If you jump out of the way of an approaching car and it passes through the space you were standing in then there's your example. 

The easier one would be to ask who here has ever been hit up the chuff while waiting at lights? 

Anyone?
[/quote]


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Bang goes your mitigating circumstances then 


SportMonkey said:


> Complete guess work. You can't say there'd be an accident because one didn't happen.


----------



## psmiffy (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Interesting. I think the response would be you shouldn't ride the bike that ladden in traffic if you know it will cause you that much of a problem.




The trouble is when you are touring fully laden with panniers that is not always an option – the answer is you accept that you are slow and lumbering – you do not run red lights – because you are slow it takes longer to clear a junction – anticipate the red, make yourself big and control the traffic behind you and stop early otherwise you are in danger from traffic jumping the green phase across you

As to starting off – anticipate the green and make yourself space in the traffic so you do not have to unclip –do not ride in the gutter - make yourself big in the traffic so that you have a vehicle sized space – learn to automatically select the right gear – learn how to be clipped in properly by at least the second pedal stroke – learn to be thickskinned


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Don't get me wrong I was not having a dig at touring cyclists. The comment was taylor-made for the question presented. I had assumed that all other options had been explored before running the hypothetical red light.


psmiffy said:


> The trouble is when you are touring fully laden withpanniers that is not always an option – the answer is you accept that you areslow and lumbering – you do not run red lights – because you are slow it takeslonger to clear a junction – anticipate the red, make yourself big and controlthe traffic behind you and stop early otherwise you are in danger from trafficjumping the green phase across you
> 
> As to starting off – anticipatethe green and make yourself space in the traffic so you do not have to unclip –do not ride in the gutter - make yourself big in the traffic so that you have avehicle sized space – learn to automatically select the right gear – learn howto be clipped in by at least the second pedal stroke – learn to be thickskinned


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Bang goes your mitigating circumstances then



You've missed a point, again. I was answering a loaded and bad question. It's all about perception not causality.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Of course it is. Every pre-emptive decision we make is about perception. I see a car going way to fast to stop (my perception) I will run the light as I will otherwise be hit (my perception) and also my mitigating circumstance. If I run the light and claim I have no idea whether or not an accident would have happened then I expect the book to get thrown at me.

It is interesting although probably completely unrelated that you also have a threat about being hit by a left hook. Maybe, just maybe however you need to pay a little more attention to your surroundings whilst on the bike.


SportMonkey said:


> You've missed a point, again. I was answering a loaded and bad question. It's all about perception not causality.


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Of course it is. Every pre-emptive decision we make is about perception. I see a car going way to fast to stop (my perception) I will run the light as I will otherwise be hit (my perception) and also my mitigating circumstance. If I run the light and claim I have no idea whether or not an accident would have happened then I expect the book to get thrown at me.
> 
> It is interesting although probably completely unrelated that you also have a threat about being hit by a left hook. Maybe, just maybe however you need to pay a little more attention to your surroundings whilst on the bike.



Thread. And please stop putting comments before quotes, it reads terribly and is just wrong.

You seem to have an issue separating reality and hypothesis, so don't use the fact I got hit to score a point here. The fact I got hit will always affect my future decisions, and frankly discussing with you is like arguing with a child.

I also find the attitude of "you deserve to be hit" quite appalling. Telling members of this forum that you wish injury on them, or that they deserve it is frankly disgusting.


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442711"]
Well no, it isn't. That's been explained to you and you've also been given an example of what you said was an impossible scenario to evidence. 

Perception does come in to it, and it's useful to explain to those who would RLJ out of fear that the fear is unfounded and that there are learning opportunities which would enable them to overcome this.
[/quote]

I've not, because no accident happened. Maybe the accident wouldn't have happened if the rider had stayed put. Nothing is definite.

Are you saying all fear of being hit is unfounded? Can we put you on a bike and keep trying scenarios with you with real cars? The downside is you may get hit.

We're all talking here, hypothesizing, as is much the case you make judgement often in a split second under pressure. We all know that we behave differently under pressure than discussing on a calm forum. How often do you yell at intelligent people reduced to idiots on game shows?


----------



## summerdays (30 Jun 2011)

I was very good the other day and sat at a temporary red light (as did the car behind me) whilst watching the man dismantle the temporary light on one of the other sides of the junction knowing that if I had arrived a minute later it probably wouldn't even be there. The guy taking down all the signs kept looking at me....

I would say that the majority wait at red lights that I see ... but that there is a reasonable number that do go through the red light.

And this thread has prompted me to report (again!!!) the only red I go through,because it isn't triggered by a bike - though luckily most times I have a car behind me. But it is an annoying set of lights as it turns back to red so quickly that if I'm not in the ASL but at the back of the queue it doesn't even notice my approach and turns to red before I get to the front! (Kellaway Ave for anyone that knows it).

As for the question about whether I've gone through to get out of the way of a car behind - only once when I could hear an emergency vehicle approaching and I was the only thing there waiting in the middle of the ASL - I cycled onto the empty pedestrian island immediately in front of the line.


----------



## psmiffy (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Don't get me wrong I was not having a dig at touring cyclists. The comment was taylor-made for the question presented. I had assumed that all other options had been explored before running the hypothetical red light.



Do not get me wrong - but there even less excuse for runninga red light on a bicycle than there is in a car - the general principles arethe same - anticipate the red light - at cycle speeds if it has beengreen for a reasonable length of time it is likely it is going to red - beprepared - amber means stop - only cyclists without brakes should be incapableof stopping -

There is no excuse for running a red light - it is not just amatter of it being against the law - deliberate rlj-ing is just showing a contemptfor all other road users - a mega arrogance – which seems to transmit itself tothe whinny diatribe of self justification/bogus rationalisation that appears onhere from time to time.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Thread. And please stop putting comments before quotes, it reads terribly and is just wrong.
> 
> You seem to have an issue separating reality and hypothesis, so don't use the fact I got hit to score a point here. The fact I got hit will always affect my future decisions, and frankly discussing with you is like arguing with a child.
> 
> I also find the attitude of "you deserve to be hit" quite appalling. Telling members of this forum that you wish injury on them, or that they deserve it is frankly disgusting.




I do not wish you injury. I wish you safety on the bike. Your attitude is one of "the cyclist is always right" and "obeying laws is a choice rather than an obligation". That to me sounds like the thinking of a child. I do feel that you need to re-evaluate your road sense and perception of the possible however rather than just run red light "because I was hit before".


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2011)

Thought experiment: if it were made illegal as a pedestrian to cross the road at a crossing point except when the "green man" signal is showing (as I believe it is in some other countries including Germany and the US), what would be your response?

Currently it's legal to cross when and where you wish to, and the social expectation of the majority of other road users is that people will do this, and I for one am perfectly happy with this state of affairs. I know the law is indifferently (and inconsistently) enforced in places where they do have it, too, which I think is a indicator that it's not a very good law if the police don't think it's worth their time

(I might suggest further that cyclists behaving "as pedestrians" - i.e. moving at walking pace and giving way as necessary - should be treated de facto if not de jure as pedestrians are, but perhaps that's another tangent. )


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I would obey the law.


Dan B said:


> Thought experiment: if it were made illegal as a pedestrian to cross the road at a crossing point except when the "green man" signal is showing (as I believe it is in some other countries including Germany and the US), what would be your response?
> 
> Currently it's legal to cross when and where you wish to, and the social expectation of the majority of other road users is that people will do this, and I for one am perfectly happy with this state of affairs. I know the law is indifferently (and inconsistently) enforced in places where they do have it, too, which I think is a indicator that it's not a very good law if the police don't think it's worth their time
> 
> (I might suggest further that cyclists behaving "as pedestrians" - i.e. moving at walking pace and giving way as necessary - should be treated de facto if not de jure as pedestrians are, but perhaps that's another tangent. )


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442715"]
Of course I'm not saying that, please don't exaggerate. 

What I'm saying is that we can look at how often cyclists are hit at lights. It's rare. We can also ask for examples of where accidents were avoided by moving, and Mikey provided one. 

The fact is that the risk is minimal, and can be reduced even more using behaviours described by others on this thread. So it's pretty weak mitigation for RLJing.
[/quote]

I know there are no real mitigating circumstances, and I know I was wrong, hence my admission etc.. I've just had fun arguing the point, I'm stopping now as someone has taken it upon themselves to wish injury on my because of the views I argued.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Who has wished injury upon you. Can you quote the post please?


SportMonkey said:


> I know there are no real mitigating circumstances, and I know I was wrong, hence my admission etc.. I've just had fun arguing the point, I'm stopping now as someone has taken it upon themselves to wish injury on my because of the views I argued.


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I do not wish you injury. I wish you safety on the bike. Your attitude is one of "the cyclist is always right" and "obeying laws is a choice rather than an obligation". That to me sounds like the thinking of a child. I do feel that you need to re-evaluate your road sense and perception of the possible however rather than just run red light "because I was hit before".





Angelfishsolo said:


> It is interesting although probably completely unrelated that you also have a threat about being hit by a left hook. Maybe, just maybe however you need to pay a little more attention to your surroundings whilst on the bike.



You said in double-speak I deserved it. I have never said the cyclist is always right, nor inferred it. Obligations aren't always fulfilled, that is a case. It is not child like to follow the rules of others blindly, you have your own mind. It is rather disappointing that our education system fosters the I will obey.

Anyway, that's my last post as you want of harm to me has decidely bought me to abusive posts for want of me playing devils advocate or agent provacteur.

Good day to you sir, I wish you safety although you do not wish me.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Me thinks he doth protest too much. Good bye and safe riding to you.


SportMonkey said:


> You said in double-speak I deserved it. I have never said the cyclist is always right, nor inferred it. Obligations aren't always fulfilled, that is a case. It is not child like to follow the rules of others blindly, you have your own mind. It is rather disappointing that our education system fosters the I will obey.
> 
> Anyway, that's my last post as you want of harm to me has decidely bought me to abusive posts for want of me playing devils advocate or agent provacteur.
> 
> Good day to you sir, I wish you safety although you do not wish me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442703"]
It's not a bad question, because it's led you on to the next point. Which is, if it is impossible to pay whether an accident could have happened, then those claiming it as a reason for RLJing are basing the reason on nothing. 

As it stands, it's not an impossible question at all. If you jump out of the way of an approaching car and it passes through the space you were standing in then there's your example. 

The easier one would be to ask who here has ever been hit up the chuff while waiting at lights? 

Anyone?
[/quote]


Yep. Twice in sarf landan in the 00'swhen I used to commute from Clapham Junction/East Croydon to Brixton. My stupid, ill considered and idiotic response was to start RLJ'ing


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Jun 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Yep. Twice in sarf landan in the 00'swhen I used to commute from Clapham Junction/East Croydon to Brixton. My stupid, ill considered and idiotic response was to start RLJ'ing




Me too, twice up the chuff in S London - Ladywell and Brixton. ''Luckily" I was in a car both times so apart from bad whiplash injuries when my car was written off in Ladywell by a red-light shunter no physical harm. Just a lot of expense and a reluctance to trust the driver behind me to be paying attention.


----------



## Andrew_P (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would obey the law.


You have never ever broken any laws of the road?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Yes I have when I was younger. Now I do my utmost to stay with in law. I may accidentally drift above the prescribed speed limit but not intentionally. I will not run red lights unless it would be foolish not to do so (emergency vehicle behind for example). I stop at Stop signs, give way at junctions, never use a mobile phone, I could go on??


LOCO said:


> You have never ever broken any laws of the road?


----------



## gavintc (30 Jun 2011)

Here in Naples, red lights for cyclists are completely optional. I do not think I have stopped at one for over a year. Indeed, I have found that edging forward from the line and choosing when to cross is so much safer than waiting for green. The green light can become a 'whacky races start' scenario and on a bike, I do not want to be worrying about what is going on behind me. It works here, but when I lived in UK, I would stop at red lights.


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes I have when I was younger. Now I do my utmost to stay with in law. I may accidentally drift above the prescribed speed limit but not intentionally. I will not run red lights unless it would be foolish not to do so (emergency vehicle behind for example). I stop at Stop signs, give way at junctions, never use a mobile phone, I could go on??



The advice from the emergency services is that you should not break the law to get out of their way.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I'll remember that the next time a Police Car is running blue and twos and I am at a set of lights.


Dan B said:


> The advice from the emergency services is that you should not break the law to get out of their way.


----------



## lejogger (30 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Absolutely. A pleasure to have a reasoned discussion on this topic for a change! Shall we do helmets next?



Haha, I'm sure we'll cross paths again in another post...  

I thought we'd all made friends, but it's rumbled on for another couple of pages... as I imagine red lights, helmets and pavements always do every time they surface!


----------



## RedRider (30 Jun 2011)

Dan B said:


> Thought experiment: if it were made illegal as a pedestrian to cross the road at a crossing point except when the "green man" signal is showing (as I believe it is in some other countries including Germany and the US), what would be your response?





Practicality, common sense and duty as an alert citizen would lead me to disobey such a law and I suspect organised campaigns of civil disobedience would make a joke of it in short time. 

So in that case why don't we RLJ on our bikes even when safe to do so? Existing social expectation/habit comes into play here and a linked concern not to diminish the image of cyclists. For me anyway, but *I am conflicted about it*. (Is it ok to be unsure about something on this forum?)

In London at least where there are many cyclists and therefore many who run red lights, is it fanciful to suggest that RLJers are beating a *desire line* towards a more sensible law?


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

RedRider said:


> Practicality, common sense and duty as an alert citizen would lead me to disobey such a law and I suspect organised campaigns of civil disobedience would make a joke of it in short time.



Would it though? Many countries have similar laws with no campaign of disobedience. IIRC France has a similar law, several US states only allow you to cross at a green man crossing etc. And if any one was going to go for civil disobedience it would be the French. In the UK, I think it would take a while to bed in but eventually people would just get on with it. Remember the "I'll still smoke in the pub they'll never stop me" and "Not wearing a seatbelt ever" brigades, sure there are people who break the law but the majority have just adapted. The UK, as a country, is fantastic in its ability to adapt to something that is hated initially by the majority.


----------



## Norm (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I'll remember that the next time a Police Car is running blue and twos and I am at a set of lights.



It would be good to do so. If there is a traffic light camera, for instance, you shouldn't be certain that you could get off the fine with that as a defence.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Very well put - Go back further 1925 or 1930 and you have drink driving laws introduced. Even in 1968 when the breathalyser was authorised for use people where up in arms but most people abide by the drink drive laws.


martint235 said:


> Would it though? Many countries have similar laws with no campaign of disobedience. IIRC France has a similar law, several US states only allow you to cross at a green man crossing etc. And if any one was going to go for civil disobedience it would be the French. In the UK, I think it would take a while to bed in but eventually people would just get on with it. Remember the "I'll still smoke in the pub they'll never stop me" and "Not wearing a seatbelt ever" brigades, sure there are people who break the law but the majority have just adapted. The UK, as a country, is fantastic in its ability to adapt to something that is hated initially by the majority.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I appreciate that. In that one instance however I would plead mitigation.


Norm said:


> It would be good to do so. If there is a traffic light camera, for instance, you shouldn't be certain that you could get off the fine with that as a defence.


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Would it though? Many countries have similar laws with no campaign of disobedience. IIRC France has a similar law, several US states only allow you to cross at a green man crossing etc.


Indeed. The cultural norms seem to be unrelated to the legal requirements: compare Dallas with NYC for example. I didn't even realise it was the law in France, but most of my time near any French roads has been in Paris. In Berlin I'd say it was about 50% observed.


----------



## lejogger (30 Jun 2011)

gavintc said:


> Here in Naples, red lights for cyclists are completely optional. I do not think I have stopped at one for over a year. Indeed, I have found that edging forward from the line and choosing when to cross is so much safer than waiting for green. The green light can become a 'whacky races start' scenario and on a bike, I do not want to be worrying about what is going on behind me. It works here, but when I lived in UK, I would stop at red lights.



It would be interesting to know whether cyclist's obedience of red lights is based on their respect for the law, or their own opinions of good and bad cycling. Is it just the fact that it is law stopping you from doing it?

What would you do if cycling in Naples, or for arguments sake that the law was changed to reflect this in the UK? Exercise your right to RLJ as permissable by law, or disagree with the law and stick to your belief that the law allowing you to RLJ is a bad/wrong one.


----------



## akb (30 Jun 2011)

Honestly...? :-) 

I stop at every red light, especially junctions; just isnt worth the risk. 

If there is a pedestrian cross which has a red light and is clear, I may move off before the lights change back to green, but only if I have checked that there is no one else about the use the crossing and if it is safe to do so.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> It would be interesting to know whether cyclist's obedience of red lights is based on their respect for the law, or their own opinions of good and bad cycling. Is it just the fact that it is law stopping you from doing it?
> 
> What would you do if cycling in Naples, or for arguments sake that the law was changed to reflect this in the UK? Exercise your right to RLJ as permissable by law, or disagree with the law and stick to your belief that the law allowing you to RLJ is a bad/wrong one.



Should the law be changed to allow cyclists to treat a red light as optional then I would do just that. It would become similar to when I cross the road as a pedestrian, look at the risks and act accordingly so on quite a lot of my commute (T-junctions, left turns etc) I would probably go straight through.

Bear in mind though that even if going through a red light was an option, pedestrians would still have priority.


----------



## RedRider (30 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Would it though? Many countries have similar laws with no campaign of disobedience. IIRC France has a similar law, several US states only allow you to cross at a green man crossing etc. And if any one was going to go for civil disobedience it would be the French. In the UK, I think it would take a while to bed in but eventually people would just get on with it. Remember the "I'll still smoke in the pub they'll never stop me" and "Not wearing a seatbelt ever" brigades, sure there are people who break the law but the majority have just adapted. The UK, as a country, is fantastic in its ability to adapt to something that is hated initially by the majority.



Not knowing the history of legislative changes on 'jaywalking' in France it's difficult to say how and why the law became acceptable. I also don't have enough experience of France to know whether people abide by it or whether it's policed. Perhaps others could enlighten?

The smoking ban arrived on the back of good evidence and a change in social expectation/cultural habits. I suppose if there were compelling and understandable arguments for introducing jaywalking into British law it's possible it would be accepted but there aren't so it wouldn't IMO.


----------



## Origamist (30 Jun 2011)

gavintc said:


> Here in Naples, red lights for cyclists are completely optional. I do not think I have stopped at one for over a year. Indeed, I have found that edging forward from the line and choosing when to cross is so much safer than waiting for green. The green light can become a 'whacky races start' scenario and on a bike, I do not want to be worrying about what is going on behind me. It works here, but when I lived in UK, I would stop at red lights.



Wow, you cycle in Naples! When I went there earlier this year is was chaos - close passes (inches, not a copuple of feet) every other car had a scrape or dent (as did most of the mopeds), there was a constant cacophony of beeps and sirens, lots of mopeds would often not bother stopping at reds and I saw dozens of motorists jump lights too (I only saw one collision though). I saw a hardly any cyclists and decided I didn't fancy it.


----------



## psmiffy (30 Jun 2011)

gavintc said:


> Here in Naples, red lights for cyclists are completely optional. I do not think I have stopped at one for over a year. Indeed, I have found that edging forward from the line and choosing when to cross is so much safer than waiting for green. The green light can become a 'whacky races start' scenario and on a bike, I do not want to be worrying about what is going on behind me. It works here, but when I lived in UK, I would stop at red lights.



Ive cycled quite a lot in Italy in many of the cities - I agree that there is a definite wacky races feel to being at a red light with all the mopedists - but on the contrary - I always stop at the red lights and find - in the north anyway - that most other people do as well - I find it best to hang back a bit and be able to see what is front of me rather than not worrying about not worrying about what is behind me.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

RedRider said:


> The smoking ban arrived on the back of good evidence and *a change in social expectation/cultural habits*. I suppose if there were compelling and understandable arguments for introducing jaywalking into British law it's possible it would be accepted but there aren't so it wouldn't IMO.



I think this came after the smoking ban and is a sign of our adaptability. 

You could argue that there would be fewer accidents if everyone used pelican or other designated pedestrian crossings. I assume that's how the countries that do have jaywalking laws came to that decision.


----------



## lejogger (30 Jun 2011)

Ok... slight change of tack...

What is the forum's view on getting a jump on the lights... eg. you're waiting at the red, but forward enough to see when the signals for the other traffic change. Obviously if you know the lights then you know your turn is next, and you've checked for certain that no cars are going to RLJ, do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

I wait for the light to change, but prepare myself to be able to set of the instant the light change.


lejogger said:


> Ok... slight change of tack...
> 
> What is the forum's view on getting a jump on the lights... eg. you're waiting at the red, but forward enough to see when the signals for the other traffic change. Obviously if you know the lights then you know your turn is next, and you've checked for certain that no cars are going to RLJ, do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.


----------



## psmiffy (30 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> Ok... slight change of tack...
> 
> do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.



No - If I am at the front of the lights I am in primary anyway - positioned to be able to take the road around parked cars - if there are no parked cars I have the discretion to cede my position to allow cars to pass - similarly if I am a few cars back - (do not really believe in ASZs) - then I am in primary - same same


----------



## Mad at urage (30 Jun 2011)

[QUOTE 1442696"]
Ok, mini poll time. Who here has ever had to RLJ because not doing so would have resulted in the following vehicle hitting you?
[/quote]
Near thing this morning, I ran an amber light because I considered that the vehicle behind me was unlikely to stop. Looked back half-way across the junction and sure enough the car had accelerated through the lights (which must have been red by that time, I was on late amber). Rather glad I did as if the same acceleration had been applied (likely as I heard the revs rise before I went through), I'd have been hit.



BentMikey said:


> I have, I was on the motorbike and had to roll into the intersection to make space for the moton with smoking tyres and an inability to stop before me and before the stop line. Long time ago though.


On a motorbike I've been hit by the* bus* that was driving behind me (no I had not just overtaken him): His response was "I didn't expect you to stop" my reply "Would you have stopped for the old dear you just catapulted me past?" 

[QUOTE 1442703"]
It's not a bad question, because it's led you on to the next point. Which is, if it is impossible to pay whether an accident could have happened, then those claiming it as a reason for RLJing are basing the reason on nothing. 

As it stands, it's not an impossible question at all. If you jump out of the way of an approaching car and it passes through the space you were standing in then there's your example. 

The easier one would be to ask who here has ever been hit up the chuff while waiting at lights? 

Anyone?
[/quote]
Yes, see above, also two other occasions on a motorbike also witnessed another cyclist hit at a roundabout (he stopped to give way and the motorist attempted to go). It's not an infrequent or theoretical occurrence.


----------



## lejogger (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I wait for the light to change, but prepare myself to be able to set of the instant the light change.



That's the textbook answer... and it's what I do more often than not. 

I guess that my personal feelings (to some extent) are that every advantage you can take to preserve your own safety should be taken, to get away ahead of traffic and away from danger if you feel that it's necessary. But that doesn't necessarily mean an RLJ.


----------



## lejogger (30 Jun 2011)

psmiffy said:


> No - If I am at the front of the lights I am in primary anyway - positioned to be able to take the road around parked cars - if there are no parked cars I have the discretion to cede my position to allow cars to pass - similarly if I am a few cars back - (do not really believe in ASZs) - then I am in primary - same same



Again you're quoting textbook riding that doesn't always translate. In the real world, you can get caught last minute at lights in secondary with a car immediately to your right and too far forward to allow you to more to primary. Even if it's an error, it's easy to get caught in a poor position that you need to get out of. Maybe there's a filter left as well, and waiting for traffic to pass on your right is leaving you a sitting duck? 

I perfectly understand and respect your views and opinion. In the above scenario, I might try to give myself a 2 second start in order to recover road position and move safely out the way of filtering left turners.


----------



## RedRider (30 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> I think this came after the smoking ban and is a sign of our adaptability.
> 
> You could argue that there would be fewer accidents if everyone used pelican or other designated pedestrian crossings. I assume that's how the countries that do have jaywalking laws came to that decision.



As a one-time smoker I can safely say the ban followed years of increasing marginalisation (first aeroplanes, next trains, eventually workplaces etc) and decades of increasing social unacceptability, both driven by good evidence on health.

This kind of drip, drip, drip accumulation would perhaps be the way to sneak a universal jaywalking law under our noses but it would take years and then only if there was compelling evidence in favour. I doubt whether health benefit arguments could be made compelling as we are waking up from our 'car is king' mindset and it could more easily be argued cars should be banned from city streets rather than pedestrians banned from city roads.

But leaving that aside, are RLJers another sign of human adaptability? What of my question about whether they could in fact be inadvertant angels beating a desire line towards more sensible traffic light laws eg cyclists allowed to turn left on reds if clear?


----------



## Buddfox (30 Jun 2011)

gavintc said:


> Here in Naples, red lights for cyclists are completely optional. I do not think I have stopped at one for over a year. Indeed, I have found that edging forward from the line and choosing when to cross is so much safer than waiting for green. The green light can become a 'whacky races start' scenario and on a bike, I do not want to be worrying about what is going on behind me. It works here, but when I lived in UK, I would stop at red lights.



Ha...! My in-laws from Naples... from driving there, red lights are optional for cars as well!


----------



## RedRider (30 Jun 2011)

psmiffy said:


> No - If I am at the front of the lights I am in primary anyway - positioned to be able to take the road around parked cars - if there are no parked cars I have the discretion to cede my position to allow cars to pass - similarly if I am a few cars back - (do not really believe in ASZs) - then I am in primary - same same



Me too.


----------



## jonny jeez (30 Jun 2011)

I did when I first started riding,(for about 3 weeks) but then got interested in improving my cycleskills and learnt how dodgy it was...so stopped.

never jumped one since, not even tempted...thats nearly 3 years ago..blimey time flies


----------



## skudupnorth (30 Jun 2011)

No and never will !


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

RedRider said:


> As a one-time smoker I can safely say the ban followed years of increasing marginalisation (first aeroplanes, next trains, eventually workplaces etc) and decades of increasing social unacceptability, both driven by good evidence on health.
> 
> This kind of drip, drip, drip accumulation would perhaps be the way to sneak a universal jaywalking law under our noses but it would take years and then only if there was compelling evidence in favour. I doubt whether health benefit arguments could be made compelling as we are waking up from our 'car is king' mindset and it could more easily be argued cars should be banned from city streets rather than pedestrians banned from city roads.
> 
> But leaving that aside, are RLJers another sign of human adaptability? What of my question about whether they could in fact be inadvertant angels beating a desire line towards more sensible traffic light laws eg cyclists allowed to turn left on reds if clear?



I'll bow to your knowledge on the smoking thing. I've never smoked but also never really noticed other people smoking. It was about 3 months after the ban that I woke up one Saturday morning and thought "That's weird, I was in the pub all night and don't smell of smoke"

Our adaptation isn't quick by any means but it would be good if it led to banning cars by the drip drip method. However there are more voters that own a car than don't I think and therefore the car will be king for a while yet.

If RLJers consisted solely of people turning left carefully and with due consideratio on reds or going through empty pedestrian crossings at 5mph at 2am, I'd be tempted to agree with you. However, along with all cyclists, these RLJers will forever be associated with the nutters who go screaming through packed pedestrian crossings scaring the beejeezus out of everyone.


----------



## psmiffy (30 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> Again you're quoting textbook riding that doesn't always translate. In the real world, you can get caught last minute at lights in secondary with a car immediately to your right and too far forward to allow you to more to primary. Even if it's an error, it's easy to get caught in a poor position that you need to get out of. Maybe there's a filter left as well, and waiting for traffic to pass on your right is leaving you a sitting duck?
> 
> I perfectly understand and respect your views and opinion. In the above scenario, I might try to give myself a 2 second start in order to recover road position and move safely out the way of filtering left turners.



Ive never read a textbook on cycling -before I came here I didnt realise that the middle of the lane was called primary - my method - if you want to call it that - is culled from cycling for many years , in many countries for many thousands of kilometres - in the real world - In my world I never cycle in any less than what you might call "strong secondary" - you control the traffic you dont let it control you - I dont give traffic the chance to turn left across me - they can either wait or I move right to an even stronger position to let them filter behind me


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2011)

RedRider said:


> What of my question about whether they could in fact be inadvertant angels beating a desire line towards more sensible traffic light laws eg cyclists allowed to turn left on reds if clear?


I'm sure that anybody lobbying for such sensible laws is happy to use RLJers as evidence that there is a desire for that change, yes.


----------



## Dan B (30 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> if you know the lights then you know your turn is next, and you've checked for certain that no cars are going to RLJ, do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.


Yes, I do that. But I'm a forum heretic anyway, because I also go forward of the stop line in order to position myself ahead of vehicles (if there's no ASL or the ASL is full) and enter ASLs other than via the feeder lane - both of which other practices are also still RLJs

_And_ I most often stop and wait for red lights when I am on skates instead of on the bike, when by law I am a pedestrian and they therefore don't apply to me. This is probably illegal in that I am potentially obstructing any following pedestrians who have a similar legal freedom to ignore traffic signals that apply only to vehicle operators.


----------



## summerdays (30 Jun 2011)

lejogger said:


> Ok... slight change of tack...
> 
> What is the forum's view on getting a jump on the lights... eg. you're waiting at the red, but forward enough to see when the signals for the other traffic change. Obviously if you know the lights then you know your turn is next, and you've checked for certain that no cars are going to RLJ, do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.



I watch the lights but wait for the lights to actually start changing on the set of lights on my side - all except one junction - there I do anticipate the light change if I can because it is much safer. It is on a Puffin crossing where I'm joining the main road - the only thing you can do as the other side of the road it isn't legal to cycle on the pavement, but the council in their infinite wisdom have decided that cars can turn right (not left as pedestrians are crossing), and either go down the main road or cross it and in doing so cross my path at the same time. The car drivers have no signage to except cyclists to be crossing their path so it is a race to cross the junction before they do. That is the only junction I anticipate the green light.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> I think this came after the smoking ban and is a sign of our adaptability.




Is it permissiible to RLJ whilst smoking then?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Only is you are using a handsfree device 


GregCollins said:


> Is it permissiible to RLJ whilst smoking then?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jun 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> You're legally allowed to go through it.



It is also legal in most states over here on this side of the pond. In some states one has to wait at least two full cycles before proceeding through the intersection.

I have an intersection not too far from my home that is controlled by an induction loop sensor. If I position myself in the center of it I'll never trip it, however if I position myself to the left or the right I can usually trip it. Also this is a single not a double loop sensor. Double loop sensor's are easier to work as one can position themselves in the middle of the loop and trip it.

Sadly, the other day while I was at this intersection sitting on the left side of the loop I had a woman in a big black SUV, yakking on her mobile pull up right along side of me on my right. At first I thought that she was going to make a right hand turn, but it became clear that she was going straight. As soon as the light changed and she pulled away. I called out a nice loud "Thank you," and flipped her off.

There is another intersection that is much further away from where I live that is also controlled by an induction loop sensor. As I rolled up on it, the light turned red. And a pickup truck pulled up in the left turn lane. The left turn arrow lit up and traffic from both sides of the intersection made their turns, but the through lane never got a green. Another vehicle pulled up in the left hand turn lane, again I waited to see what would happen. Again only the left turning arrow lit up. This time there wasn't any turning or crossing traffic coming from the other side of the intersection. So I proceeded through the intersection.

The sad/ironic thing is that not only are there induction loop sensors but other sensors that are capable of detecting bicycles, and they don't cost any more than the induction loop sensors that are currently being used.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jun 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> No they don't. They really don't.
> 
> Green means "Go if it is clear". It does not mean "plough through whatever is ahead of you".
> 
> I don't jump red lights. I don't like that other people do. They don't deserve to die though, and there's no granted right to run into them - if traffic on green can stop safely, it should, must.



Over here on this side of the pond we have what is known as the doctrine of the last clear change. Basically what it means is that say you have a person who is running a red light. Even though their actions are illegal, if the person who is going through the green light has the ability to stop and avoid the crash that they have to.


----------



## psmiffy (30 Jun 2011)

The traffic lights closest to where I live are vehicle controlled on the leg from the south and frequently do not detect me and have a very short green cycle - luckily for about 500m on the approach there are always cars parked - by adopting a primary position in the right hand lane I nearly always collect a car which I am able to let pass about 50m from the lights - by the time I get there the car has triggered the lights


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jun 2011)

jack the lad said:


> I don't fully understand the blanket 'No, it's against the law' position. Just because something is 'the law' doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. Then there's a possibility that the law gets changed. OK so poor traffic management systems are not in the same league as colonial exploitation, apartheid or oppressive dictatorships, as justifying civil disobedience, but the principle is the same.
> 
> Many, if not most traffic lights are entirely sensible and well-designed systems for controlling traffic. There is no justification for failure to observe them even if it causes a minor inconvenience from time to time. This is a compromise that preserves the safety and convenience of all road users.
> 
> Sometimes there are lights whose design and operation causes significant inconvenience or even danger to one or more groups of road users because they prioritise the interests of one group over others or, more commonly in my experience, they have simply not taken into account the interests of all road users. In such instances I feel morally entitled, or even obliged, to break the law. This is Jim Callaghan's "contingent right to break a bad law". You should not inconvenience or endanger any other road user and you have to be aware that you are breaking the law and be prepared to accept the sanctions. However most law enforcement agencies recognise that some laws are bad laws and exercise their discretion not to enforce them. If you are a sensible RLJer, exercising your discretion responsibly, the police are quite likely to agree with you!



Are there a lot of bad and/or unenforceable laws on the books? Yes, there are. Does that mean that we can/should break those laws? I don't know. What I like to see happen is this: starting at the local level and working up review *ALL* of the laws that are on the books. And any that are no longer enforceable either repeal them or amend them so that they are enforceable. Next again starting at the local level working up is to review all the laws that are on the books and if there are any laws that are duplicated at the next higher level then repeal the lower law and repeat working up to the highest level law.

An example of I guess one could call it/them bad lights. Are the lights that are close to my home. I have contacted the engineering office about getting them timed so that pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross the street could do so. I was told that in order to time the lights so that pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross the street would cause an "unacceptable" delay to motorists. How is that for a kick in the teeth? Pedestrian/cyclist safety isn't as important as the convenience of motorists.

I could be mistaken, but shouldn't it be the other way around?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Surely the way to get laws changes is to operate within the law and use the structures in place that allow for that. Campaigning, pestering MP's, petitions, public awareness campaigns. All legal, all will possably bring about changes in the law. Breaking a law because you do not agree with it or feel it is wrong is no justification at all. I will admit to driving above the speed limit on roads when I feel it is safe to do so but if I am caught I would take full responsability for my actions and not make a fuss as the "law is wrong". If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.



+1,000


----------



## Angelfishsolo (30 Jun 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> +1,000


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The only other I can think of is if by stopping you would cause an accident eg being tailgated by an idiot.



Agreed, and it is my understanding that (at least in America) if one encounters a "defective" traffic light and after waiting a "reasonable" amount of time proceeding through is not "breaking the law." As the light is "defective." Of course for those cities/counties/states that don't require one to wait for two cycles (or some other predefined amount of time) before what is a "reasonable" amount of time to wait? Also if a particular light on a person's normal route is a "defective" light and they know this do they still have to wait a "reasonable" amount of time before they proceed?


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (30 Jun 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are you seriously suggesting that is a mitigating circustance?
> "Well Officer I was doing 150Mph on the motorway as it was quiet and I wanted to get home faster......"



Methinks that they would get laughed out of court if they tried that "defense."


----------



## John the Monkey (30 Jun 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Even though their actions are illegal, if the person who is going through the green light has the ability to stop and avoid the crash that they have to.



It happens all the time here - busier junctions often end up with cars across them between phases. Granted, they've not jumped the light to arrive there, but no one is under the impression that they have the right to plough through them to cross the junction.


----------



## martint235 (30 Jun 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Are there a lot of bad and/or unenforceable laws on the books? Yes, there are. Does that mean that we can/should break those laws? I don't know. What I like to see happen is this: starting at the local level and working up review *ALL* of the laws that are on the books. And any that are no longer enforceable either repeal them or amend them so that they are enforceable. Next again starting at the local level working up is to review all the laws that are on the books and if there are any laws that are duplicated at the next higher level then repeal the lower law and repeat working up to the highest level law.
> 
> An example of I guess one could call it/them bad lights. Are the lights that are close to my home. I have contacted the engineering office about getting them timed so that pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross the street could do so. I was told that in order to time the lights so that pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross the street would cause an "unacceptable" delay to motorists. How is that for a kick in the teeth? Pedestrian/cyclist safety isn't as important as the convenience of motorists.
> 
> I could be mistaken, but shouldn't it be the other way around?



I agree totally. However we have several levels of law in this country. I'm not an expert on them but what I can say is that primary legislation ie on the statute requires primary legislation to remove it and sorry, as a civil servant, we really don't have the time. Priority is given to bringing in NEW primary legislation. You then have secondary legislation, which IIRC a judge can change or certainly challenge. Again they kind of have enough to do.

It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (1 Jul 2011)

martint235 said:


> I agree totally. However we have several levels of law in this country. I'm not an expert on them but what I can say is that primary legislation ie on the statute requires primary legislation to remove it and sorry, as a civil servant, we really don't have the time. Priority is given to bringing in NEW primary legislation. You then have secondary legislation, which IIRC a judge can change or certainly challenge. Again they kind of have enough to do.
> 
> It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.



Sadly, I think over here on this side of the pond that we have the same sort of problem. As not too long ago one of our local TV stations ran a story about the "dumb laws" that are still on the books. As part of that story they interviewed an legal expert from Stetson University. And according to her it would be "too expensive" to conduct such a review of the existing laws.

I'm sorry don't see how it could be "too expensive," as correct me if I'm not mistaken, but isn't it "too expensive" not to? I mean couldn't a good defense attorney use as part of their defense to get their client off is: "Well your honor we still have the law on the books that requires all drivers of an automobile to pull over to the side of the road, dismantle their car and 'hide' it behind the bushes," or "Your honor we still have on the books a law that requires the operators of a motor vehicle to stop every so many feet/yards and fire a shotgun/rifle/pistol into the air to warn any livestock that a car is coming." And neither law is enforced today so way should my client be charged with violating the speed limit? Or "Your honor, as you know we still have on the books laws prohibiting 'unnatural sex acts, yet I'd be willing to bet that *EVERYONE* in this courtroom today has commited an 'unnatural sex act.'"

The real irony is that a lot of the old/"dumb" laws that are still on the books the LEO's(Law Enforcement Officals)/Bobbies would have to break the law themselves in order to enforce them. And as I think we all know "the ends do *NOT* justify the ends.

That is a very good idea, a 5 (or whatever period) year review of the laws to repeal those that are no longer enforceable/effective/enforced.


----------



## YahudaMoon (1 Jul 2011)

What could we call the RLJ (red light jumper). I was thinking somthing we could shout at them as they wizz pass as we are stuck at the red lights.


----------



## martint235 (1 Jul 2011)

YahudaMoon said:


> What could we call the RLJ (red light jumper). I was thinking somthing we could shout at them as they wizz pass as we are stuck at the red lights.



If you want to call them something, how about "b*****d"? I usually just overtake them, clicking down a gear as I do so. If I'm feeling really chatty I say "If you want to get to work/home faster why don't you just pedal quicker rather than jumping red lights". They rarely see the funny side.


----------



## benb (1 Jul 2011)

Not worth its own thread, but got this on video yesterday. Saved him all of 10 seconds.
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8URNSDBtf3k[/media]


----------



## jack the lad (1 Jul 2011)

Digital_Cowboy said:


> Are there a lot of bad and/or unenforceable laws on the books? ...
> 
> An example of I guess one could call it/them bad lights. Are the lights that are close to my home. I have contacted the engineering office about getting them timed so that pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross the street could do so. I was told that in order to time the lights so that pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross the street would cause an "unacceptable" delay to motorists. How is that for a kick in the teeth? Pedestrian/cyclist safety isn't as important as the convenience of motorists.
> 
> I could be mistaken, but shouldn't it be the other way around?



I think this summarises the issue neatly as I see it. I don't think, to be fair, that we can really state that traffic signals exist due to a 'bad law' it is more, as you say here, a bad implementation of the law in SOME instances. In those instances I think that I am justified in breaking the law PROVIDED THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO AND DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE OTHER PEOPLE. 

If other people want to sit like a lemon waiting for a red light to change on an otherwise deserted road - then that is their right and I'm sure they can feel just as smug doing that as I would cycling past them and through the red! If you want to catch me and pass me to prove a point, you can feel even more smug if that makes you happy. I would just have been even slower if I had made a pointless stop and restart!


----------



## Dan B (1 Jul 2011)

martint235 said:


> It's a real shame that we can't set up some kind of 5 year judicial review to go through the statute book and repeal (with parliament's prior approval) all the laws that are now irrelevant... sheep over Southwark bridge and all that.


You mean something like the Statute Law Repeals Team does?


----------



## martint235 (1 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> You mean something like the Statute Law Repeals Team does?



Yep although as you can see from their website they've only found time for 18 bills to be passed repealing 2,500 acts of parliamentin the last 46 years . It's this finding time for the passage of the Bill that will hold things up.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Jul 2011)

jack the lad said:


> I think this summarises the issue neatly as I see it. I don't think, to be fair, that we can really state that traffic signals exist due to a 'bad law' it is more, as you say here, a bad implementation of the law in SOME instances. * In those instances I think that I am justified in breaking the law PROVIDED THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO AND DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE OTHER PEOPLE. *
> 
> If other people want to sit like a lemon waiting for a red light to change on an otherwise deserted road - then that is their right and I'm sure they can feel just as smug doing that as I would cycling past them and through the red! If you want to catch me and pass me to prove a point, you can feel even more smug if that makes you happy. I would just have been even slower if I had made a pointless stop and restart!



That's great. Can I do the same? In my opinion driving up and down your street at 70mph with open exhausts and doing donuts is safe and inconveniences no one. In fact many find it highly entertaining as a spectator sport. You may disagree of course but what the heck everyone is to entitled to take this self regulatory cafeteria approach and decide what laws to follow and which to ignore.

Welcome to anarchy. What you propose is the very definition of uncivilised behaviour.


----------



## jack the lad (1 Jul 2011)

GregCollins said:


> That's great. Can I do the same? *In my opinion* driving up and down your street at 70mph with open exhausts and doing donuts is safe and inconveniences no one. In fact many find it highly entertaining as a spectator sport. *You may disagree of course* but what the heck everyone is to entitled to take this self regulatory cafeteria approach and decide what laws to follow and which to ignore.
> 
> Welcome to anarchy. What you propose is the very definition of uncivilised behaviour.




If one's opinion is wrong and others disagree, with good reason - then there has, arguably, been inconvenience and/or danger to others - in which case you take the consequences of your choice to break the law. If everyone in the vicinity and earshot of your car stunt is happy with it and entertained by it - then your judgement was right and there will be no consequence. A policeman standing nearby might give you a ticking off, but probably no more. If you are frightening children and old ladies - he'll throw the book at you. 

Everywhere in English law there are discretions exercised whether to enforce a breach or not. All the surrounding circumstances are relevant - there will be very few examples where every breach is prosecuted in every circumstance - it would be neither desirable nor practicable. The law is there to prevent harm, not to turn us into unthinking compliant morons.

Do you remember Clive Ponting? He was a civil servant who broke the Official Secrets Act to reveal goverment lies about the sinking of the General Belgrano. He completely admitted the breach but still pleaded not guilty. His only case was to invite the jury to acquit him on the ground that he had, in the circumstances, a moral right to break the law - and they did. This is not anarchy - it is widely regarded that the ability of juries to subvert authoritarian laws gives greater strength and legitimacy to the rule of law.


----------



## Cosmicned (1 Jul 2011)

Nope- but I can understand the temptation- like this morning having got the roadie up to cruising speed around 24mph with empty road ahead (bloody miracle) a bunch of knuckle draggers decide to piss me off by pressing the button on a Pelican & them not bothering to cross... Arse!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Jul 2011)

When you eventually get done for RLJ try the Ponting defence, I dare you. 


jack the lad said:


> If one's opinion is wrong and others disagree, with good reason - then there has, arguably, been inconvenience and/or danger to others - in which case you take the consequences of your choice to break the law. If everyone in the vicinity and earshot of your car stunt is happy with it and entertained by it - then your judgement was right and there will be no consequence. A policeman standing nearby might give you a ticking off, but probably no more. If you are frightening children and old ladies - he'll throw the book at you.
> 
> Everywhere in English law there are discretions exercised whether to enforce a breach or not. All the surrounding circumstances are relevant - there will be very few examples where every breach is prosecuted in every circumstance - it would be neither desirable nor practicable. The law is there to prevent harm, not to turn us into unthinking compliant morons.
> 
> Do you remember Clive Ponting? He was a civil servant who broke the Official Secrets Act to reveal goverment lies about the sinking of the General Belgrano. He completely admitted the breach but still pleaded not guilty. His only case was to invite the jury to acquit him on the ground that he had, in the circumstances, a moral right to break the law - and they did. This is not anarchy - it is widely regarded that the ability of juries to subvert authoritarian laws gives greater strength and legitimacy to the rule of law.


----------



## Tommi (2 Jul 2011)

jack the lad said:


> I think this summarises the issue neatly as I see it. I don't think, to be fair, that we can really state that traffic signals exist due to a 'bad law' it is more, as you say here, a bad implementation of the law in SOME instances. In those instances I think that I am justified in breaking the law PROVIDED THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO AND DOES NOT INCONVENIENCE OTHER PEOPLE.


Right, there's the spirit of the law (don't cause harm or distress) and the letter of the law (dont' cross on red) .. It's very bizarre to see such obsession to the letter of the law[sup]1[/sup] with the claim you can't just pick and choose which laws to follow. And yet the same people pick and choose the laws they follow themselves; there's no such obsession for entering ASLs only through the filtering lanes, is there?


Anyway, jumping a red light isn't what causes problems, it's the failure to give way to those who have legitimate priority that does. Conversely unloading in mandatory cycle lane is legal but is it safe and not inconvenience to other people?


1) makes me question how much of Orwell's 1984 really is fiction after all


----------



## ismailzd (2 Jul 2011)

jim55 said:


> well do you ,,,????
> 
> lets hear the stories



When I work as a courier, I have no time to stop otherwise I will get a shout at from the controlla "Where is the package ?" lol, In non-working days or times I don't jump them


----------



## al78 (2 Jul 2011)

Tommi said:


> Right, there's the spirit of the law (don't cause harm or distress) and the letter of the law (dont' cross on red) .. It's very bizarre to see such obsession to the letter of the law[sup]1[/sup] *with the claim you can't just pick and choose which laws to follow*. And yet the same people pick and choose the laws they follow themselves; there's no such obsession for entering ASLs only through the filtering lanes, is there?
> 
> 
> Anyway, jumping a red light isn't what causes problems, it's the failure to give way to those who have legitimate priority that does. Conversely unloading in mandatory cycle lane is legal but is it safe and not inconvenience to other people?
> ...



Which is true, because once you allow everyone to do this*, combined with the fallibility of human nature, it will ultimately end up being detrimental to quality of life in general.

*which you must do if you want to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.

Saying it is ok to run red lights just because you personally think it is ok is no different to a motorist thinking it is ok to speed just because they personally think it is safe to do so. If anything, there is more argument for the motorist being able to override the law with judgement as they have had to pass a test of competancy, whereas cyclists have not.


----------



## gaz (2 Jul 2011)

How long till we get a rljing subform?
Place your bets now...


----------



## Tommi (2 Jul 2011)

al78 said:


> Which is true, because once you allow everyone to do this*, combined with the fallibility of human nature, it will ultimately end up being detrimental to quality of life in general.
> 
> *which you must do if you want to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.
> 
> Saying it is ok to run red lights just because you personally think it is ok is no different to a motorist thinking it is ok to speed just because they personally think it is safe to do so. If anything, there is more argument for the motorist being able to override the law with judgement as they have had to pass a test of competancy, whereas cyclists have not.


I don't really see a problem with that with penalties proportional to risk and consequences. It should be OK to break the letter of the law if the spirit of the law is still maintained. Sure, use your judgement and break the law, but if you were wrong face the maximum penalty with very little wiggle room for defence. (And by penalties I mean something that actually deters bad driving rather than being a friendly reminder to not do that again - somewhere between traffic law penalties and knife/gun law penalties one might find a good compromise for sanity.)

Speeding on an empty motorway with good visibility is very different from speeding on residential roads with parked cars and everything restricting visibility, any law that's only about "breaking the speed limit" is going to miss the point completely. Just like running a red light by itself may be an indicator, but not proof of dangerous driving. But yes, I realise black and white laws are easier. It just seems to lead to focusing on the minutiae and not addressing the whole point, and you end up with legal but dangerous behaviour somehow being more acceptable than illegal and safe.

Regarding hypocrisy, where's the outrage towards all those not using filter lanes to enter ASLs? After all such anarchist behaviour has to be by far more common that jumping red lights.


----------



## Dan B (2 Jul 2011)

al78 said:


> Saying it is ok to run red lights just because you personally think it is ok is no different to a motorist thinking it is ok to speed just because they personally think it is safe to do so


This is true, but this is not what anyone is saying. You can say "I think it is OK because of X, Y and Z", or even "it is OK because of X, Y and Z" with the "I think that ..." implicit as it is in almost every statement of opinion on a forum such as this, but it doesn't follow either that "It must be OK because I think it is OK" or that anyone suggests it does.

I don't insist that carrots are OK just because I think they are. I say carrots are OK because the available evidence is that they don't often kill people. If someone else wants to make the same claim about fire juggling, then they similarly have to do that based on the objective facts and not on "just because"


----------



## subaqua (2 Jul 2011)

if any of you RLJers get knocked off and break both your legs don't come running to me .........


----------



## Tommi (2 Jul 2011)

subaqua said:


> if any of you RLJers get knocked off and break both your legs don't come running to me .........









what if I break just one leg, can I hobble your way then...? anyway, wearing a helmet would prevent such injuries anyway.


----------



## on the road (2 Jul 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Surely the way to get laws changes is to operate within the law and use the structures in place that allow for that. Campaigning, pestering MP's, petitions, public awareness campaigns. All legal, all will possably bring about changes in the law. Breaking a law because you do not agree with it or feel it is wrong is no justification at all. I will admit to driving above the speed limit on roads when I feel it is safe to do so but if I am caught I would take full responsability for my actions and not make a fuss as the "law is wrong". If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the Suffragettes operated within the law all those years ago then women still wouldn't have the vote now.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Jul 2011)

It's a bit of a stretch trying to compare what the Suffragettes did to what a bunch of selfish red light jumping oiks are doing. There's no normal reason to jump lights apart from selfish impatience and 'k everyone else attitude.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Jul 2011)

I would also like to think the worid has moved on for the betteq since then.


----------



## martint235 (2 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> It's a bit of a stretch trying to compare what the Suffragettes did to what a bunch of selfish red light jumping oiks are doing. There's no normal reason to jump lights apart from selfish impatience and 'k everyone else attitude.





+1



Angelfishsolo said:


> I would also like to think the worid has moved on for the betteq since then.



You've got an iphone haven't you??


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Jul 2011)

No lol


martint235 said:


> You've got an iphone haven't you??


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Jul 2011)

YahudaMoon said:


> What could we call the RLJ (red light jumper). I was thinking somthing we could shout at them as they wizz pass as we are stuck at the red lights.



The irony is that a month or so ago. I was stopped at a red light (I was the first vehicle at the intersection) and also ironically the owner of the LBS that I hang out at the most was in line behind me.

While we were waiting for the light to change we had a "lane splitter" shot by me on the left running/jumping the red light. I'm sure most here probably know what a "lane splitter" is, but ya may have a different term for it. A "lane splitter" is someone who on a multi-laned road will ride between two lanes of stopped or slow moving traffic.

Shortly after the "lane splitter" runs the right here comes another guy on a "bicycle shaped object" this time on the sidewalk/pavement he too runs/jumps the red light, but unlike the the first one. This guy is carrying a curling bar across his handlebars.






The really sad thing is that the motorists who were sitting around that intersection will only remember the two cyclists who ran/jumped the red light. Also sadly these two guys ran/jumped the next red light or two down the road as the one that they passed me at.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Jul 2011)

Tommi said:


> I don't really see a problem with that with penalties proportional to risk and consequences. It should be OK to break the letter of the law if the spirit of the law is still maintained. Sure, use your judgement and break the law, but if you were wrong face the maximum penalty with very little wiggle room for defence. (And by penalties I mean something that actually deters bad driving rather than being a friendly reminder to not do that again - somewhere between traffic law penalties and knife/gun law penalties one might find a good compromise for sanity.)
> 
> Speeding on an empty motorway with good visibility is very different from speeding on residential roads with parked cars and everything restricting visibility, any law that's only about "breaking the speed limit" is going to miss the point completely. Just like running a red light by itself may be an indicator, but not proof of dangerous driving. But yes, I realise black and white laws are easier. It just seems to lead to focusing on the minutiae and not addressing the whole point, and you end up with legal but dangerous behaviour somehow being more acceptable than illegal and safe.
> 
> Regarding hypocrisy, where's the outrage towards all those not using filter lanes to enter ASLs? After all such anarchist behaviour has to be by far more common that jumping red lights.



Actually, if you look at the first link in my signature. It is about a JAM (Jacka$$ Motorist) who had a blood alcohol well over the legal limit, who also had a history of running/jumping red lights, speeding, driving without a license, and/or insurance, who ended up hitting and killing a cyclist. So I would have to say that those who habitually engage in such behavior are a clear and present danger to *EVERYONE* on the road.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Jul 2011)

on the road said:


> If the Suffragettes operated within the law all those years ago then women still wouldn't have the vote now.



I don't think that anyone is saying that there is never a good or legitimate reason for breaking a particular law. At times there are. Hell, if we want to get technical about it. My country exists because several men broke the law a couple of hundred of years ago. They were also willing to face the consequences of their actions.

Sadly, though watching most speeders, and red light runners/jumpers, I think that it is safe to say that they do *NOT* have the same goals in mind when they are speeding or are running/jumping red lights as the suffragettes or the founding fathers of my country.


----------



## Digital_Cowboy (3 Jul 2011)

BentMikey said:


> It's a bit of a stretch trying to compare what the Suffragettes did to what a bunch of selfish red light jumping oiks are doing. There's no normal reason to jump lights apart from selfish impatience and 'k everyone else attitude.



+100


----------

