# Jumping red lights



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

I overtook a guy 6 times this morning who kept pushing in and jumping red lights in central London. 

After the 5th he undertook me whilst slowing for traffic. 

Is this normal and should I just ignore it? Is the fact I kept overtaking him whilst riding 6 times embarrassing enough?

I was trying not to race him but was just faster than him. 

** Sorry, posted twice by accident!! **


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

If you'd have jumped the red lights too he wouldn't have had to repass you. By not jumping the lights yourself you were putting both of you at risk.


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I overtook a guy 6 times this morning who kept pushing in and jumping red lights in central London.
> 
> After the 5th he undertook me whilst slowing for traffic.
> 
> ...


If one is habitually jumping red lights I think that's normal, depending on how much the traffic lights sequence is working against you.


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey - are you serious???

I always stop at red lights - as did most of the other cyclists - which numbered in the dozens as was in central London.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Aug 2011)

I hate these selfish RLJers. Together with the same sorts in cars, they put my life at risk a couple of times a week, when I'm left bricking myself as to whether the vehicle behind me is going to stop whilst I'm stopping for a traffic light.


----------



## DrSquirrel (11 Aug 2011)

Block them from passing


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> If you'd have jumped the red lights too he wouldn't have had to repass you. By not jumping the lights yourself you were putting both of you at risk.



This is a joke right?


----------



## Danny251 (11 Aug 2011)

Nothing annoys me more than seeing cyclists jump red lights. As if we need to give motorists more reason to hate us.


----------



## Becs (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I overtook a guy 6 times this morning who kept pushing in and jumping red lights in central London.
> 
> After the 5th he undertook me whilst slowing for traffic.
> 
> ...




Pretty standard behaviour in London I'm afraid, doesn't mean you should join in though. I find overtaking them quite satisfying really, if I can block them safely all the better. Undertakers I usually have a word with!


----------



## Dan B (11 Aug 2011)

Danny251 said:


> Nothing annoys me more than seeing cyclists jump red lights.


You've never had bad sunburn? Lost a loved one? Had a car or house been broken into? Snapped a shoelace while out walking in the rain? Got a puncture on a night ride when you've already used your spare tube?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Becs said:


> _*Undertakers*_ I usually have a word with!



Surely they are just doing their jobs???


----------



## Theseus (11 Aug 2011)

Danny251 said:


> Nothing annoys me more than seeing cyclists jump red lights. As if we need to give motorists more reason to hate us.




Lots of things annoy me more than RLJers. ATM the idiots rioting are top of the list.

However I agree that they help to tarnish the image, as do pavement cyclist who are more likely to cause distress to other people.


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

I called him a *insert bad word here* when he undertook me but he had headphones on so didn't hear me.


----------



## Simba (11 Aug 2011)

I use red lights as rest time as when I cycle I always push hard. Also I usually block any potential jumpers. Once though someone nearly went straight in to the back of me, all I heard was screeching brakes, looked round and some muppet right up my arse. I had words with him.


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> SportMonkey - are you serious???
> 
> I always stop at red lights - as did most of the other cyclists - which numbered in the dozens as was in central London.



You'll find it easier if you count in decimal, and if you don't stop at lights.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> You'll find it easier if you count in decimal, and if you don't stop at lights.



OK then


----------



## Simba (11 Aug 2011)

One of these days, the jumpers will become a cropper.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> One of these days, the jumpers will become a cropper.



But is is statistically proven that it is safe and you can't argue with statistics


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> One of these days, the jumpers will become a cropper.



Now I'm sure you didn't mean many jumpers will turn in to a pigeon, because that's ridiculous.


----------



## Simba (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Now I'm sure you didn't mean many jumpers will turn in to a pigeon, because that's ridiculous.



You are ridiculous for condoning red light jumping.


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey - I'll choose whichever base I like. I would have said Cs of riders but thought that would be too confusing.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> You are ridiculous for condoning red light jumping.



SM's signature tells you all you need to know about him!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> SportMonkey - I'll choose whichever base I like. I would have said Cs of riders but thought that would be too confusing.



Maybe Hex could be better you could have 33DD riders for example


----------



## Danny251 (11 Aug 2011)

Right well maybe it was a bit much to say nothing annoys me more but it does really annoy me


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

Cs was Hex (dozens)


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> You are ridiculous for condoning red light jumping.



I wasn't condoning, I was actively encouraging.




Angelfishsolo said:


> SM's signature tells you all you need to know about him!



Your signature suggests you're a pain in the arse.


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Maybe Hex could be better you could have 33DD riders for example



Which isn't actually a bra size. Well done. Small even numbers (28-32) and letters above D (E-KK) are preferable. So, 28F riders would have been funny. I'm surprised I have to give you a lecture on tits.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> I wasn't condoning, I was actively encouraging.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Based upon your active encouragement of RL jumping I now conclude that you are indeed a bell-end and thus worthy of no further time.


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Based upon your active encouragement of RL jumping I now conclude that you are indeed a bell-end and thus worthy of no further time.



+1


----------



## gaz (11 Aug 2011)

I wish cyclists would live up to the name of red light jumping. I have not yet seen a cyclist jump over a traffic light and I expect it would be a sight to see.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Which isn't actually a bra size. Well done. Small even numbers (28-32) and letters above D (E-KK) are preferable. So, 28F riders would have been funny. I'm surprised I have to give you a lecture on tits.



Who said bra size? Oh you did?


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Based upon your active encouragement of RL jumping I now conclude that you are indeed a bell-end and thus worthy of no further time.



Aww, come on, you need a little hug?


----------



## Dan B (11 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I wish cyclists would live up to the name of red light jumping. I have not yet seen a cyclist jump over a traffic light and I expect it would be a sight to see.



Maybe one to suggest to Danny MacAskill?


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Maybe Hex could be better you could have 33DD riders for example





Angelfishsolo said:


> Who said bra size? Oh you did?



13277 riders is what you meant then? No. Be a man and at least stand by what you say.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> One of these days, the jumpers will become a cropper.



According to TfL in London over 5 years, two red light jumping cyclists were killed, with three killed by red light jumping cars out of a total of about 500 cyclists killed over the period. So whatever the legality or moral issues associated with it, its not dangerous.

There were also 7 pedestrians and 7 motor vehicle occupants killed by RLJ motorists, none by RLJ cyclists, and 7 RLJ motorcyclists were killed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> 13277 riders is what you meant then? No. Be a man and at least stand by what you say.



Ignored rather than lowering myself to SM's level.


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ignored rather than lowering myself to SM's level.



You didn't ignore it though, you replied saying you ignored it, hence acknowledging it.

Come on, you tried a puerile joke, it failed.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Cs was Hex (dozens)



There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> There are 10 types of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.



And computer scientists get Christmas and Halloween mixed up.


----------



## Becs (11 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> According to TfL in London over 5 years, two red light jumping cyclists were killed, with three killed by red light jumping cars out of a total of about 500 cyclists killed over the period. So whatever the legality or moral issues associated with it, its not dangerous.
> 
> There were also 7 pedestrians and 7 motor vehicle occupants killed by RLJ motorists, none by RLJ cyclists, and 7 RLJ motorcyclists were killed.




I don't think it's dangerous either in many situations (after all how many of us cross the street without the aid of a little green man?) but I don't do it because it makes cyclists look bad. I also hope that if the cars behind me see me stop they might be more inclined to behave in a courteous manner towards me when the lights go green.


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

I wasn't worried that he will kill himself doing it, but more than every time someone does it, it gives some stupid motorist a greater hatred of cyclists. How can we exepect motorists to follow the law and the HC when some cyclists don't follow the law, or the HC.


----------



## Becs (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I wasn't worried that he will kill himself doing it, but more than every time someone does it, it gives some stupid motorist a greater hatred of cyclists. How can we exepect motorists to follow the law and the HC when some cyclists don't follow the law, or the HC.




exactly


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I wasn't worried that he will kill himself doing it, but more than every time someone does it, it gives some stupid motorist a greater hatred of cyclists. How can we exepect motorists to follow the law and the HC when some cyclists don't follow the law, or the HC.



We can expect motorists to as they're licensed, cyclists aren't licensed.


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I wasn't worried that he will kill himself doing it, but more than every time someone does it, it gives some stupid motorist a greater hatred of cyclists. How can we exepect motorists to follow the law and the HC when some cyclists don't follow the law, or the HC.


How can we expect non-white people to follow the law and common courtesy when some white people don't follow the law or common courtesy?


----------



## BentMikey (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I wasn't worried that he will kill himself doing it, but more than every time someone does it, it gives some stupid motorist a greater hatred of cyclists. How can we exepect motorists to follow the law and the HC when some cyclists don't follow the law, or the HC.




I'm more worried that because of SportMonkey's puerile behaviour, that motons will expect me to jump lights also, and when I don't, sometimes get very close to rear-ending me. His riding and that of all other RLJers puts the rest of us directly in danger.


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

Tommi - it is a good analagy but not quite the same.

White people and non-white people are all people.

Cars and cyclists are different as cars pose a much greater physical threat to cyclists than cyclists do to cars.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

But when you drive do you have a similar level of dudgeon towards the drivers around you that are going over the speed limit or run a red light or are talking on the phone? This hatred specifically towards cyclists seems very peculiar given they are no more or less likely to break the law than any other road user.


----------



## the snail (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> Which isn't actually a bra size. Well done. Small even numbers (28-32) and letters above D (E-KK) are preferable. So, 28F riders would have been funny. I'm surprised I have to give you a lecture on tits.



seems that you know more about bras than cycling


----------



## BentMikey (11 Aug 2011)

Drivers/cyclists are humans/not humans?


----------



## ianrauk (11 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm more worried that because of *SportMonkey's puerile behaviour*, that motons will expect me to jump lights also, and when I don't, sometimes get very close to rear-ending me. His riding and that of all other RLJers puts the rest of us directly in danger.



Spot on Mike... do not feed the troll people.


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Spot on Mike... do not feed the troll people.



He fed me, he got personal. I love a good bit of anger. He also assumed I jumped red lights. Considering you're a law abiding citizen you've handed yourself in for the common assault you committed?


----------



## ianrauk (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> He fed me, he got personal. I love a good bit of anger. He also assumed I jumped red lights. Considering you're a law abiding citizen you've handed yourself in for the common assault you committed?



As Mikey quite rightly said... very purile. Do yourself a favour, you know what you are doing, so reign in the trolling comments a little.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (11 Aug 2011)

Can we get some of this?


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

The funny thing is they think they look clever .....


----------



## Moderators (11 Aug 2011)

Less of the personal insults please or the thread will be closed.
Thanks.


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

ianrauk said:


> As Mikey quite rightly said... very purile. Do yourself a favour, you know what you are doing, so reign in the trolling comments a little.



Come on, cheer up a little. I'll buy you a new dictionary if that will help?


----------



## SportMonkey (11 Aug 2011)

Moderators said:


> Less of the personal insults please or the thread will be closed.
> Thanks.



Are you going to beat us with your truncheon?


----------



## Boris Bike (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I overtook a guy 6 times this morning who kept pushing in and jumping red lights in central London.


I've only been commuting for months but both these things are my bugbears.

As has been said by other posters on this thread; whilst not statistically dangerous, jumping red lights gives cyclists a bad name, can annoy car drivers who will take it out on other cyclists, and potentially encourage more cyclists to do it.

Slow cyclists who push their way to the front of the queue at lights really get my goat too. Nearly everybody else has passed them between the last set of lights and these ones, now we're going to have to do it all again.



I'm also not enamored with cyclists riding two abreast on busy roads whilst chatting; cars waiting to turn onto a road and have edged their way onto the cycle lane; seeing cyclists bombing along a pedestrian-only pavement; taxi drivers telling me to f off.

But I still love it


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Tommi - it is a good analagy but not quite the same.
> 
> White people and non-white people are all people.
> 
> Cars and cyclists are different as cars pose a much greater physical threat to cyclists than cyclists do to cars.


But drivers and riders are all people. You wouldn't find it acceptable for a white person to disrespect all black people by default because of few black individuals. You wouldn't demand all black people to be more careful about their behaviour as to not give some whites more excuses to disrespect everyone.

Assuming someone who's actually been present has a problem with my behaviour then it reflects just the same on all generalisations, and yet only the cycling group plays along with the excuses made by morons in cars. Please snap out of it. Come back when prime minister comes telling you should change your behaviour because it's reflecting on all Brits and some extremists in East-Asia might use that as an excuse to be against all Brits. (Apologies for bad analogy, but you get the picture.)


----------



## ianrauk (11 Aug 2011)

Best thing I found is when a RLJ goes through is to raise a hand and give a shake of the head, do it so car drivers can see.


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

Boris Bike said:


> Slow cyclists who push their way to the front of the queue at lights really get my goat too. Nearly everybody else has passed them between the last set of lights and these ones, now we're going to have to do it all again.


Ooh, that's one of my pet peeves as well. If you really feel the need to get in front of me while waiting at the red signal at least have the decency of making a quick start before me. It's just bizarre when, given enough space, I can overtake you before exiting the junction.


----------



## Dan B (11 Aug 2011)

Tommi said:


> Ooh, that's one of my pet peeves as well. If you really feel the need to get in front of me while waiting at the red signal at least have the decency of making a quick start before me. It's just bizarre when, given enough space, I can overtake you before exiting the junction.



This one I'm in two minds about. I'd rather that slow cyclists made their way to the ASL and occupied a safe spot in front of the cars than queued up in the left hand gutter alongside cars where they'll be in danger of being left-hooked. On the other hand, if I'm at the front of the box and there's an empty space behind me then really there's no need to push past.

TBH if I was going to complain that they were holding me up, I'd have to recognise that drivers (at least, drivers of performance cars with good reaction times) could say the same about me, and if we admit that as a legitimate complaint then that starts to call into question the whole point of the cycle box.


----------



## Glow worm (11 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm more worried that because of SportMonkey's puerile behaviour, that motons will expect me to jump lights also, and when I don't, sometimes get very close to rear-ending me. His riding and that of all other RLJers puts the rest of us directly in danger.



+ 1


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

Tommi, so you're saying stop at red lights because it's right and not because it stops infuriating drivers( I hope that's correct)? Fair enough, i do agree.

The trouble is that is DOES infuriate drivers and the rest of us have to suffer to consequences.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Tommi, so you're saying* stop at red lights* because it's right and not because it stops infuriating drivers( I hope that's correct)? Fair enough, i do agree.
> 
> The trouble is that *is DOES infuriate drivers* and the rest of us have to suffer to consequences.



What infuriates drivers? Stopping or not stopping at Red Lights?


----------



## Markymark (11 Aug 2011)

Sorry, I mean that not stopping infuriates drivers.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Sorry, I mean that not stopping infuriates drivers.


That's ok then


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

Boris Bike said:


> I'm also not enamored with cyclists riding two abreast on busy roads whilst chatting



What about car drivers dragging an empty seat round alongside them (and often another two empty seats behind them much of the time too). Think how much easier it would be to pass them without all that redundant width. At least the cyclists are having a conversation.


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Tommi, so you're saying stop at red lights because it's right and not because it stops infuriating drivers( I hope that's correct)? Fair enough, i do agree.
> 
> The trouble is that is DOES infuriate drivers and the rest of us have to suffer to consequences.


The trouble is that some black people infuriate white people and the rest of black people have to suffer the consequences.

I'm saying if someone gets infuriated when I'm behaving safely and considerately in the situation, it is they who have problems, not me. I'm also not inclined to put much weight on opinions from anyone who wasn't present and personally see me.


----------



## LosingFocus (11 Aug 2011)

Tommi is like some kind of CycleChat Confucius! Lovely stuff...


----------



## clarion (11 Aug 2011)

If you're riding along CS7 ignoring red lights, and you hear someone calling you 'Weak' or a 'Failure', then say hello to me


----------



## Domeo (11 Aug 2011)

clarion said:


> If you're riding along CS7 ignoring red lights, and you hear someone calling you 'Weak' or a 'Failure', then say hello to me



It's normally 'self-gratification artist' from me.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Aug 2011)

Colour Blind?!
from me


----------



## rb58 (11 Aug 2011)

"Oi! Red Light!" from me.


----------



## rowan 46 (11 Aug 2011)

I'm not a great believer that everytime I get on a cycle I become a representative for the cycling fraternity/sorority. I cycle for my own reasons. If I see a cyclist doing foolish things I don't assume all cyclists are fools the same with drivers. Most drivers let me go about my business some give me a hard time. Just because I've read about black guys who are muggers I don't assume all black guys are muggers. So where does this rlj'ers give all cyclists a bad name come from. It comes from inconsiderate people trying to justify why they are inconsiderate. They don't like cyclists because cyclists are an additional hazard to their dangerous driving and consequently they want rid that's all there is to it. If everybody stopped rlj'ing they would find something else to moan about and if everybody rode legally and perfectly they would still have a problem. Their main problem is they don't like cycles as cyclists are perceived as slower than cars. I don't generally rlj but I don't think that having to modify behaviour just because it annoys a minority of inconsiderate people is an option. The fact is if every cyclist rode perfectly every time these people would still hate cyclists. as to my occasional rlj i have on 3 occasions this year ridden through a ped crossing on red where the pedestrians have already crossed.


----------



## gaz (11 Aug 2011)

stop at red or silly cyclist from me


----------



## rowan 46 (11 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> stop at red or silly cyclist from me



to be honest I am not arguing with you my real point was that you should stop because it's the right thing to do not because you are used as a stereotype for people who are too lazy to think in any other terms


----------



## John90 (11 Aug 2011)

Simba said:


> I use red lights as rest time as when I cycle I always push hard.



I read somewhere that the effort required to stop/start requires more exertion overall than keeping going through lights. 

I have to confess I stop at lights mainly through fear of a dishonourable discharge from CycleChat. Before I came on here I did it on a couple of left hand turns on my normal commute and one right hand junction when the pedestrian green light went on. And before THAT, when I returned to cycling, I did it pretty much anywhere i thought was safe (which wasn't as often as I thought).

I have to say that when I was driving and not cycling it didn't phase me that cyclists jumped lights, any more than when pedestrians crossed the road when the lights were against them, providing it was safe. I suspect it is only drivers with an anti-cycling agenda who really think about it. 

There must be a separate chat site for RLJ cyclists because on my commute many if not the majority of them do it.


----------



## stowie (11 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> I read somewhere that the effort required to stop/start requires more exertion overall than keeping going through lights.
> 
> I have to confess I stop at lights mainly through fear of a dishonourable discharge from CycleChat. Before I came on here I did it on a couple of left hand turns on my normal commute and one right hand junction when the pedestrian green light went on. And before THAT, when I returned to cycling, I did it pretty much anywhere i thought was safe (which wasn't as often as I thought).
> 
> ...



Jumping red lights is to cyclists as speeding is to motorists. Everybody says they don't do it, yet there appear to be a lot of exceptions to the rule...

I, of course, don't RLJ...


----------



## SW19cam (11 Aug 2011)

There are occassions when I feel it is safer to go through a red light than not to. What are people's thoughts on that?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> There are occassions when I feel it is safer to go through a red light than not to. What are people's thoughts on that?


I would only do it if stopping would cause an accident or to allow an emergency vehicle access.


----------



## barongreenback (11 Aug 2011)

I can't imagine it's safer to jump a red light as you always have the option of taking primary position to ensure that you are seen. What really gets on my thrupennies is cyclists who cycle round pedestrian crossings to avoid the red light i.e. come off the road and onto the pavement at crossroads. Getting worse in Birmingham as lots of new cycle commuters take to the road.


----------



## Riverman (11 Aug 2011)

It's one of my pet hates. I'll pull cyclists over to have a go at them if they do it. This can back fire though as once it happened and I almost got run over whilst trying to chase after the offending cyclist.


----------



## stowie (11 Aug 2011)

barongreenback said:


> I can't imagine it's safer to jump a red light as you always have the option of taking primary position to ensure that you are seen. What really gets on my thrupennies is cyclists who cycle round pedestrian crossings to avoid the red light i.e. come off the road and onto the pavement at crossroads. Getting worse in Birmingham as lots of new cycle commuters take to the road.



I can give you one example. A10 up Stamford Hill. Main urban road, narrow dual carriageway with no bus-lane to aid. Cars fly up this drag whilst cyclists are slowed by the incline and there are multiple side-roads and a petrol station to add to the excitement. Go when the lights go green and you are at the front of a hoard of motorists jostling to get past. Jump the light and you are pretty much at the top by the time the lights go green and the grand-prix begins.

Not that I condone it - I normally try to time it so that I am going through towards the end of the green phase - not easy to do though.

I obey lights as it gives me a chance of a breather. My general unfitness working in perfect harmony with the highway code...


----------



## gaz (11 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> There are occassions when I feel it is safer to go through a red light than not to. What are people's thoughts on that?



Give us a few examples then.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

rb58 said:


> "Oi! Red Light!" from me.



You called sir?


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would only do it if stopping would cause an accident or to allow an emergency vehicle access.



I thought you never ever broke the law?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I thought you never ever broke the law?


They would be mitigating circumstances as I understand it. I have said as much before.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Aug 2011)

I don't usually GAF about red light jumpers but one this morning pished me off.

Jumped 3 sets of lights in a row, wobbling in the middle of the road at one waiting for cars to turn in front of him.

Shouted over to him at the last one that red is there for a reason.

I'm no angel but the guy was oblivious of his surroundings.


----------



## 400bhp (11 Aug 2011)

Riverman said:


> It's one of my pet hates. I'll pull cyclists over to have a go at them if they do it. This can back fire though as once it happened and I almost got run over whilst trying to chase after the offending cyclist.



Are you the police?


----------



## summerdays (11 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> I read somewhere that the effort required to stop/start requires more exertion overall than keeping going through lights.



I believe that you are right - however that start stop routine actually helps you to get faster I gather - can't remember what its called.

I only have one junction that I will go through a red light as it doesn't detect me (which means it is legal to go through the red as it deemed not to be working). However most times there are cars there as well. I have reported it and been told by the council that it does work for bikes so I keep meaning to go and test it out again in a quiet moment of the day.


----------



## pshore (11 Aug 2011)

There are some junctions in Cambridge where there is a lot of RLJ due to cyclists being disadvantaged because the road is designed for motor vehicles.

Some of these cases can be made safe and legal with some thought. Ideas here:
http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/97/article11.html


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> I read somewhere that the effort required to stop/start requires more exertion overall than keeping going through lights.


Yes, if you ride (drive) fast, stop at the lights, and accelerate when light turns green it takes more energy than if you slow down earlier and avoid stopping completely before the light turns. So if you're rolling forward when it's time to accelerate again you save on fuel. They (used to?) teach economic driving back in the day, but I don't recall ever seeing it in practice in London. But it does directly undermine TfL's obsession for "stacking" so I guess it's understandable.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> They would be mitigating circumstances as I understand it. I have said as much before.



People have been successfully prosecuted in both situations e.g.

Yorkshire case

The only situation in which you are allowed to cross the white line on a red light is if instructed to do so by a police officer.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> People have been successfully prosecuted in both situations e.g.
> 
> Yorkshire case
> 
> The only situation in which you are allowed to cross the white line on a red light is if instructed to do so by a police officer.


Oh well then in that case I would take my chances RL.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (11 Aug 2011)

That Yorkshire case has made me feel very angry.


----------



## ianrauk (11 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> That Yorkshire case has made me feel very angry.



yes indeed


----------



## Tommi (11 Aug 2011)

Oh, just to clarify, when speaking of jumping the red light you all mean crossing the stop line 2 metres (or more) away from pedestrian crossing or crossing traffic lane? Rather than crossing the junction, or crossing pedestrian crossing but stopping before crossing traffic lanes, or entering pedestrian crossing. Why is the stop line so far away from where other traffic goes anyway?


----------



## SW19cam (11 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Give us a few examples then.




The other day I filtered to an ASL, only to find there was no safe room at the front. Gliding carefully through the red light was the obvious, and safe, choice. 

Other examples include when a car (or truck) is on your arse, or when you are intending to turn right on a busy road directly after a set of lights. 

I'm not trying to encourage red light jumping, but there are instances when it is the safest. 

Also, I was in Holland recently, where it is legal I do believe (most things in fact), and I regularly saw it done safely, creating space between cars and bikes. I think that is a good thing.


----------



## SW19cam (11 Aug 2011)

Riverman said:


> It's one of my pet hates. I'll pull cyclists over to have a go at them if they do it. This can back fire though as once it happened and I almost got run over whilst trying to chase after the offending cyclist.




Fair enough if they are doing it dangerously. Everyone hates dangerous *. But if a cyclist glides through a red on the top of a T-junction, where all entrances are visible, and it is completely safe to do it, you still pull them over?

*Insert any type of transport (cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, canoeists, runners....)


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh well then in that case I would take my chances RL.



So you didn't mean it previously when you said:



> I would rather stay the right side of the law than rely on discression.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> I read somewhere that the effort required to stop/start requires more exertion overall than keeping going through lights.



Link


----------



## Angelfishsolo (11 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So you didn't mean it previously when you said:


Mitigation is not the same as discression, but then I am sure you knew that. My gods you are a sad, sad little man.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> He fed me, he got personal. I love a good bit of anger. He also assumed I jumped red lights. Considering you're a law abiding citizen you've handed yourself in for the common assault you committed?


congratulations! And goodbye!


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> *The other day I filtered to an ASL, only to find there was no safe room at the front. Gliding carefully through the red light was the obvious, and safe, choice. *
> 
> Other examples include when a car (or truck) is on your arse, or when you are intending to turn right on a busy road directly after a set of lights.
> 
> ...


the safer choice would have been not to go for the ASL


----------



## JonnyBlade (11 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> You didn't ignore it though, you replied saying you ignored it, hence acknowledging it.
> 
> Come on, you tried a puerile joke, it failed.





You're ignored too. LMAO you are in good company


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Mitigation is not the same as discression, but then I am sure you knew that. My gods you are a sad, sad little man.



Correct. You were saying you would use your discretion and hope mitigation would get you off. So would you rather stay on the right side of the law or use your discretion?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Correct. You were saying you would use your discretion and hope mitigation would get you off. So would you rather stay on the right side of the law or use your discretion?


I am saying that if my life would be endangered or I would hold up an emergency vehicle with blues and twos I would take the necessary action. Make of that what you will. Insomnia is a bitch, isn't it?


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Insomnia is a bitch, isn't it?



Is it? I sleep very well, I just don't need much of it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Is it? I sleep very well, I just don't need much of it.


Good for you. Good bye.


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> The other day I filtered to an ASL, only to find there was no safe room at the front. Gliding carefully through the red light was the obvious, and safe, choice.
> 
> Other examples include when a car (or truck) is on your arse, or when you are intending to turn right on a busy road directly after a set of lights.



It's not the safest thing to do in either case. You should be looking at the ASL well before you are at it to see if it is clear to use. If it isn't then the safest thing to do is to slot into a central position in the lane behind a vehicle.

I don't see how a car or truck on your arse in any case is a reason to jump a red light. especially to turn right. How do you get across to the right with the other traffic crossing your path?


----------



## Boris Bike (12 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> <br />I read somewhere that the effort required to stop/start requires more exertion overall than keeping going through lights.


Yeah. It also takes more petrol to stop and start again, but you'd still expect motorists to stop.


----------



## Boris Bike (12 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> The other day I filtered to an ASL, only to find there was no safe room at the front.


So then you stop and wait until the lights turn green. It's not that difficult.

Unless you'd already pushed yourself into the junction?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

User said:


> Actually you're wrong. Both the examples given by angelfishsolo are 'lawful excuses' for failing to stop at a red light. Both have been held to be such by the courts
> 
> I doubt the veracity of the story you highlight.



Thank you User - I wasn't able to find the cases I was looking for last night so I had to rely on memory.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Aug 2011)

I'd love to see some definitive evidence either way, myself.

Otherwise I'm largely with Angelfishsolo - if I have to cross the stop line to avoid someone rear-ending me then I will. It won't be the first time I've been forced to do this.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'd love to see some definitive evidence either way, myself.
> 
> Otherwise I'm largely with Angelfishsolo - if I have to cross the stop line to avoid someone rear-ending me then I will. It won't be the first time I've been forced to do this.



I think it's a matter of "if obeying the law would cause you or another harm then break it". I can think of very few instances where that would be the case and so if those two RLJing examples are the exceptions to my rules then so be it.


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

User said:


> Actually you're wrong. Both the examples given by angelfishsolo are 'lawful excuses' for failing to stop at a red light. Both have been held to be such by the courts



Do you have anything beyond your say so?



> I doubt the veracity of the story you highlight.



So the papers made it all up?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So the papers made it all up?



You mean everything the press reports is true??????????????????????


----------



## Tynan (12 Aug 2011)

in ten years of London cycling I've never had to cross a stop line to avoid being rear ended

how do you know that someone's going to rear end you?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> in ten years of London cycling I've never had to cross a stop line to avoid being rear ended
> 
> how do you know that someone's going to rear end you?



I would guess if the Muppet is riding your back wheel. I have never had to do it either TBH but I would if the situation ever arose.


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

I've had it several times.
Only a few months ago I had a HGV that clearly wasn't going to stop for a light which he should have been able to do with quite some ease. My options where to either cycle through the red light or risk getting hit by a HGV.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> in ten years of London cycling I've never had to cross a stop line to avoid being rear ended
> 
> how do you know that someone's going to rear end you?



Perhaps you've been lucky? It's pretty obvious when you do see it happening.

The worst one I had was on my motorbike, and the emergency taxi behind me had smoking wheels trying to stop, I rolled further forwards into the intersection, and the taxi still just ended up with his front wheels over the line. This one wasn't London, mind, as the phrase "emergency taxi" should convey.


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You mean everything the press reports is true??????????????????????



So do you think it was concocted entirely by a journalist while sat on the loo or do you think it was a report of a real case?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So do you think it was concocted entirely by a journalist while sat on the loo or do you think it was a report of a real case?



I think that we may not be in possession of all the facts.


----------



## SW19cam (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> It's not the safest thing to do in either case. You should be looking at the ASL well before you are at it to see if it is clear to use. If it isn't then the safest thing to do is to slot into a central position in the lane behind a vehicle.
> 
> I don't see how a car or truck on your arse in any case is a reason to jump a red light. especially to turn right. How do you get across to the right with the other traffic crossing your path?




I don't think you are getting the crucial point. If there is traffic crossing your path, it wouldn't be safe. If there is no traffic to cross you path, and you can see all of the exits / entrances, it could be safe. Add in the fact that you are on a busy road, and it's safer to create space rather than trust cars to give you it... well, then we're nearly there.


----------



## SW19cam (12 Aug 2011)

Boris Bike said:


> So then you stop and wait until the lights turn green. It's not that difficult.
> 
> Unless you'd already pushed yourself into the junction?




Pushed to the junction? In the circumstances it was reasonable to filter to the ASL, which appeared to be free. Add in a late come cyclist who changes lane, a slight corner, and a nose of a car.. now it's not free. Much safer for me to glide through the red lights (I can see all of the entrances to the junction, and a bit further).

I should be able to dig out the video at some point, given it's on my commute..


----------



## SW19cam (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I've had it several times.
> Only a few months ago I had a HGV that clearly wasn't going to stop for a light which he should have been able to do with quite some ease. My options where to either cycle through the red light or risk getting hit by a HGV.



Confused as to why you have a problem with going through a red light when it's safer then. This seems to be fairly self negating unless I have read it wrong (Did you risk getting hit by the HGV?)


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> I don't think you are getting the crucial point. If there is traffic crossing your path, it wouldn't be safe. If there is no traffic to cross you path, and you can see all of the exits / entrances, it could be safe. Add in the fact that you are on a busy road, and it's safer to create space rather than trust cars to give you it... well, then we're nearly there.


I understand that 99% of 'rljing' is done in a perfectly safe manner, that is why very few cyclists get hurt or hurt others by doing it. But you are trying to make a reason as to why you should do it. You do not know how the vehicle behind you is going to act. You are just presuming that they might be a danger to you and that you would prefer to get out of the way. If that's the case then why don't you cycle on the pavement?



chrisk said:


> Confused as to why you have a problem with going through a red light when it's safer then. This seems to be fairly self negating unless I have read it wrong (Did you risk getting hit by the HGV?)



I was forced to go through the red light because a lorry behind me showed no signs of stopping. I'm not putting my self in harms where. The difference is you do not know if the vehicles behind you will run you of the road, where as i knew if i stopped, i would be flattened.


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I understand that 99% of 'rljing' is done in a perfectly safe manor,



Where's that? Kensington or Chelsea?


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Where's that? Kensington or Chelsea?



 Dyslexia, what more can i say.


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Dyslexia, what more can i say.



ITYM Dial Sexy


----------



## clarion (12 Aug 2011)

Or Daily sex


----------



## Domeo (12 Aug 2011)

All I can see is rlj trying to justify their breaking the law. I have been riding into central london for nearly 20 years and I have never felt the need to run the lights and neither have I been rear ended by either a motor vehicle or bike. The choice on whether or not to cross a red light has been taken away from you by making it illegal and if you do your a plank.

I get so pissed off with these holier than thou riders who ride across lights and crossing full of pedestrians and throw a gob full of abuse when they get pull up it. If I continue to see peanut running lights or crossings I will continue to let you know what I think of you. There is no excuse or justification for such anti social behaviour. Grow up.


----------



## JonnyBlade (12 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Good for you. Good bye.


----------



## JonnyBlade (12 Aug 2011)

Domeo said:


> All I can see is rlj trying to justify their breaking the law. I have been riding into central london for nearly 20 years and I have never felt the need to run the lights and neither have I been rear ended by either a motor vehicle or bike. The choice on whether or not to cross a red light has been taken away from you by making it illegal and if you do your a plank.
> 
> I get so pissed off with these holier than thou riders who ride across lights and crossing full of pedestrians and throw a gob full of abuse when they get pull up it. If I continue to see peanut running lights or crossings I will continue to let you know what I think of you. There is no excuse or justification for such anti social behaviour. Grow up.



+1


----------



## BentMikey (12 Aug 2011)

Just because you've never had to avoid someone about to rear end you doesn't invalidate others' who've had to do this. It's not a justification for RLJing either, simply avoiding a collision. On the couple of times I've had to do this, I didn't need more than a few meters of extra space, and I didn't need to go across the junction itself, I still waited for the green before proceeding.

Actual RLJing is for no reason other than selfish impatience.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Actual RLJing is for no reason other than selfish impatience.



I only RLJ at pedestrian crossings when I can see no danger to anyone what so ever. I dont go soaring through the lights but just creep incase someone does a Usaine Bolt and runs like a rocket in front of me. 

I never RLJ at traffic junctions because it is just simply too dangerous and stupid.


----------



## BentMikey (12 Aug 2011)

That rather proves my point!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> That rather proves my point!


Indeed it does


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> That rather proves my point!



I know it is impatient but I just dont see the point of hanging around for some invisible people to cross the road when the majority of ped crossings are on red for far too long. (I am turning into one of those bad drivers now).


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> I know it is impatient but I just dont see the point of hanging around for some invisible people to cross the road when the majority of ped crossings are on red for far too long. (I am turning into one of those bad drivers now).



Would you do that in your car?


----------



## rowan 46 (12 Aug 2011)

I have been known to rlj on ped crossings when the peds have gone early. As I see it a pelican crossing is to let pedestrians across safely, If there's nobody there no foul if there's anybody near the crossing I stop. I never rlj at traffic signals but i will not modify my behaviour for the sake of what a motorist thinks. The way I see it those who moan about rlj or whatever else are lying. The reason they hate cyclists is because they hate cyclists and the only behaviour they would find acceptable is if every cyclist was off the road.


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

1502453 said:


> Pelican crossings really could use a redesign as they are way too inflexible. They often leave pedestrians or car drivers waiting for no good reason.



Definitely. They are designed to hold pedestrians up so that the most amount of pedestrians cross at the same time and delay the road users for the least amount of time. Unfortunately what often happens is there is a gap in the traffic and the pedestrians cross and some time later the lights turn red, with no one there to cross.

There are two main problems with this, it causes unwanted delays and it puts road users above pedestrians.


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

1502456 said:


> All agreed, apart from drawing a distinction between pedestrians and road users.



yes, i was just being lazy


----------



## BentMikey (12 Aug 2011)

Vehicular road users?

Skaters = pedestrians?


----------



## Red Light (12 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> The reason they hate cyclists is because they hate cyclists and the only behaviour they would find acceptable is if every cyclist was off the road.



"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’.. "
_Transport Research Laboratory research report 549, 2003_


----------



## Dan B (12 Aug 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Skaters = pedestrians?


TTBOMK yes. Which means that any traffic light I stop for when skating is entirely at my own discretion.


----------



## Matthew_T (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Would you do that in your car?



Porbably not in a car because it doesnt wear you down, stopping and starting.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> Porbably not in a car because it doesnt wear you down, stopping and starting.


So you break laws that inconvenience you.


----------



## Dan B (12 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So you break laws that inconvenience you.



Be pretty pointless to break laws that didn't even inconvenience you, wouldn't it?


----------



## SW19cam (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I understand that 99% of 'rljing' is done in a perfectly safe manner, that is why very few cyclists get hurt or hurt others by doing it. But you are trying to make a reason as to why you should do it. You do not know how the vehicle behind you is going to act. *You are just presuming that they might be a danger to you and that you would prefer to get out of the way*. If that's the case then why don't you cycle on the pavement?
> 
> 
> 
> I was forced to go through the red light because a lorry behind me showed no signs of stopping. I'm not putting my self in harms where. The difference is you do not know if the vehicles behind you will run you of the road, where as i knew if i stopped, i would be flattened.



Personal judgement: I think that's absolutely key to safe cycling. Be aware of what is around you and make reasonable decisions on light of your judgements.


----------



## HLaB (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Definitely. They are designed to hold pedestrians up so that the most amount of pedestrians cross at the same time and delay the road users for the least amount of time. Unfortunately what often happens is there is a gap in the traffic and the pedestrians cross and some time later the lights turn red, with no one there to cross.
> 
> There are two main problems with this, it causes unwanted delays and it puts road users above pedestrians.



I can't remember when they done it but the council retimed the ped x-ings in Edinburgh a while ago, so that if its not been pressed in the x seconds before they change almost instantly for the pedestrians; holding up vehicles instead of pedestrians mostly.


----------



## gaz (12 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> Personal judgement: I think that's absolutely key to safe cycling. Be aware of what is around you and make reasonable decisions on light of your judgements.



But why break road laws? You can keep perfectly safe without doing it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> But why break road laws? You can keep perfectly safe without doing it.


Because those lights makes their poor legs tired.


----------



## pshore (12 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> how do you know that someone's going to rear end you?



Somebody funny please finish that joke ! This thread needs a bit of humour.


----------



## JonnyBlade (12 Aug 2011)

1502453 said:


> Pelican crossings really could use a redesign as they are way too inflexible. They often leave pedestrians or car drivers waiting for no good reason.



Don't they have to take into account those less fortunate who need extra time to cross? Disabled, elderly etc


----------



## JonnyBlade (12 Aug 2011)

1502473 said:


> I was thinking about the way in which they have a massive delay between button push and green man. I'm sure that we could quite easily build in a facility to allow enough time for whoever is using them each time but nothing excessive more along with changing to green man immediately, unless there has just been one less than x seconds ago. That sort of thing.



Fair comment


----------



## rowan 46 (12 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Don't they have to take into account those less fortunate who need extra time to cross? Disabled, elderly etc



yes they do and I'm all for it but sometimes late at night if there's nobody about I will go through an empty pelican crossing, however If there's anybody on or near I stop and they can take as long as they need to cross. I had words with some bully the other night who was honking his horn at an elderly lady crossing the road slowly. I asked him if he'd like to get out of his car to discuss it but he declined and shut up.


----------



## crazy580 (12 Aug 2011)

1502453 said:


> Pelican crossings really could use a redesign as they are way too inflexible. They often leave pedestrians or car drivers waiting for no good reason.


This is why most new light controlled crossings are now puffin crossings.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (13 Aug 2011)

What annoys me (as a pedestrian) about many pedestrian crossings is how, when you push the button to cross, they remain on green for the traffic until there's a gap in the flow. Then, when it's safe to cross anyway, they turn red, stopping the now non existent traffic. I want a pedestrian crossing to actually stop the traffic for me, not merely to tell me when it's safe to cross. I can work that out for myself.


----------



## Matthew_T (13 Aug 2011)

JonnyBlade said:


> Don't they have to take into account those less fortunate who need extra time to cross? Disabled, elderly etc



But what if noone like that is there? ped crossings should be like temporary traffic lights - when the lights sense repetitive flashing lights, they automatically think that it is an emergency vehicle, and change quicker, even though you are just flashing your own lights. 

Ped crossings should have some sort of senser so it can tell when people have safely crossed.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> I wasn't condoning, I was actively encouraging.


You should be locked up before you kill yourself or (worse) someone else.


The number of times I have had to swerve or almost taken out a cyclist when I'm crossing on green [and they're on red] on my motorbike in London is huge. - Perhaps next time I should just ride straight into you and not bother to swerve?
If ever I hit you and I drop my fireblade , I hope you are adequately insured coz _I will sue the arse off you.

Moron
_


----------



## summerdays (13 Aug 2011)

HLaB said:


> I can't remember when they done it but the council retimed the ped x-ings in Edinburgh a while ago, so that if its not been pressed in the x seconds before they change almost instantly for the pedestrians; holding up vehicles instead of pedestrians mostly.



My favourite set of traffic lights in the whole of Bristol is on Coronation Road just by the Goal Ferry Bridge - cycle across the bridge and then hit the button and the lights change within 15 seconds, even if someone did that only a minute previously. I've never had to wait long there and so all the pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge appear to have priority over the cars.



Matthew_T said:


> Ped crossings should have some sort of senser so it can tell when people have safely crossed.



A lot of the new ones that I hate do. If you look on top of the light pole there is a black square thing pointing at the crossing or maybe they can just tell that someone is waiting to cross. The reason that I hate them is that instead of having the red/green man on the far side of the road, it is on the light column beside you. I find it harder to watch the traffic and the light, or when my kids were younger to keep an eye on them and far easier for someone to stand obscuring the red/green man.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> You should be locked up before you kill yourself or (worse) someone else.
> 
> 
> The number of times I have had to swerve or almost taken out a cyclist when I'm crossing on green [and they're on red] on my motorbike in London is huge.
> ...



GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.

Not condoning the RLJ cyclists but if you are having to take evasive action or almost hitting them all the time you might look at your own riding style.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear.
> 
> Not condoning the RLJ cyclists but if you are having to take evasive action or almost hitting them all the time you might look at your own riding style.


Often it is clear on approach and then a RLJ doing 15-20 comes across from a side road......I'm approaching the lights on green @30....I have had to swerve many times to avoid cycling RLJs.


next time I'll just hit the RLJ and sue the arse off him.

Cyclists don't seem to see motorcycles at cross roads [just like half the myopic car drivers]...why they are RLJing is beyond me, it's asking for trouble.

I can't believe you are implying that if an accident was to occur between me crossing on green and an RLJ crossing on red that it would in any way be my fault!!!!!


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> Often it is clear on approach and then a RLJ doing 15-20 comes across from a side road......I'm approaching the lights on green @30....I have had to swerve many times to avoid cycling RLJs.



a) its highly unlikely that the RLJs are doing 15-20mph. That would imply running a red light at full speed. All the RLJs I see cross the junction as if they were pedestrians having checked for traffic. 
b) 30mph is a limit not a target. If you know this is happening regularly then you should slow down for the junction not blast through at the speed limit.



> next time I'll just hit the RLJ and sue the arse off him.



Not a hope now you've posted here that it happens to you regularly. You would have contributory negligence as a minimum for not slowing down if you knew there was a risk.

Phethan-Hubble v Coles (High Court, 2011):


The Defendant would have known that there was no cycle path and that there was a real risk the cyclist could choose to come on to the road way rather than go down the footpath. He saw a cyclist who was not displaying lights and who therefore may not be so mindful to take such care of his own safety, that the motorist could rely upon his not coming into the road. 

Even at the maximum permitted speed of 30mph he would have been at the limit of the margin of safety he ought to have afforded to other road users. 

In this case there was a significant difference between the two road users. One a cyclist balanced on two wheels with little protection, the other a motorist in a stable enclosed vehicle that has fatal potential.

The Defendant's speed ought to have been in the margin of 3/4 miles or so under the maximum speed limit of 30mph. 



I hold that the primary liability for this accident was that of the Defendant by virtue of the excessive speed at which he was travelling.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> a) All the RLJs I see cross the junction as if they were pedestrians having checked for traffic.



Well they are obviously blind to motorcycles.

WTF are they crossing on red lights for anyway?

If a motorist crosses on a red light into the path of a vehicle on a green light, it is ALWAYS the fault of the RLJ, why should it be any different when the RLJ is a cyclist?

A few years ago I knocked down a ped (on my m/c) who stepped onto a pelican crossing when the ped's light was on red.
The incident was witnessed by a policeman and I was exonerated of any blame, despite travelling at the speed limit.
I would have sued the stupid bint for the £500 damage she caused but I never discovered who she was as she was unconscious at the scene and carted off in an ambulance and the police wanted £50 for the accident report and anyway she looked like she was on benefits.

I'm sticking to my line of RLJs are blind morons with a death wish and next time one pulls across in front of me, I'll take him out rather than take avoiding action.

Fed up with them tbh.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> If a motorist crosses on a red light into the path of a vehicle on a green light, it is ALWAYS the fault of the RLJ, why should it be any different when the RLJ is a cyclist?



Really. Motorist jailed for four years for killing an RLJ cyclist




> I'm sticking to my line of RLJs are blind morons with a death wish and next time one pulls across in front of me, I'll take him out rather than take avoiding action.
> 
> Fed up with them tbh.



I would be extra careful now with those RLJers if I were you. If you hit one now it could become an (attempted) murder charge if they link you to your statement above.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Really. Motorist jailed for four years for killing an RLJ cyclist
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IRDGAS

RLJs should be shot on sight.

Dangerous bastards.


----------



## stowie (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> IRDGAS
> 
> RLJs should be shot on sight.
> 
> Dangerous bastards.



Maybe the cyclists are having to cross the junction since the ASL is full of motorcyclists? Just a thought...


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> IRDGAS
> 
> RLJs should be shot on sight.
> 
> Dangerous bastards.



Yep:

In London between 2001-05 there were 3 cyclists, 7 pedestrians and 7 motor vehicle occupants killed in collisions where a motorist jumped a red light. Two cyclists were killed by red light jumping (i.e. fewer than the number of cyclists killed by red-light-jumping drivers), while 7 motorcyclists got themselves killed the same way. 

So looks like motorcyclists like you should be first in the line to be shot on sight. Dangerous bastard!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> You should be locked up before you kill yourself or (worse) someone else.
> 
> 
> The number of times I have had to swerve or almost taken out a cyclist when I'm crossing on green [and they're on red] on my motorbike in London is huge. - Perhaps next time I should just ride straight into you and not bother to swerve?
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> IRDGAS
> 
> RLJs should be shot on sight.
> 
> Dangerous bastards.



RL,it seems, has no experiences of his own. He can only quote from reports or statistics.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So looks like motorcyclists like you should be first in the line to be shot on sight. Dangerous bastard!



I NEVER jump red lights.

SSTIYPASI


----------



## gaz (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I NEVER jump red lights.
> 
> SSTIYPASI



I can see why, they are pretty high.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> Maybe the cyclists are having to cross the junction since the ASL is full of motorcyclists? Just a thought...



They could always wait until they have a GREEN light.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> They could always wait until they have a GREEN light.



But then there poor legs get tired


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> RL,it seems, has no experiences of his own. He can only quote from reports or statistics.



I find it quite refreshing that somebody gives independant evidence for an assertion. Being one myself who never lets a good fact get in the way of an opinion, I am grateful that someone has taken the trouble to get some facts.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I find it quite refreshing that somebody gives independant evidence for an assertion. Being one myself who never lets a good fact get in the way of an opinion, I am grateful that someone has taken the trouble to get some facts.



There us nothing wrong with "facts". However if I had to choose between facts or personal experience I would take the latter every time. eg BMW's are reported as being one of the best drivers cars on the market. Having driven several of them (3 through top end 5 series) I do not like then in the slightest. In my experience the equivalent Audi is a much better car.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> But then there poor legs get tired



I always thought it was coz they couldn't get out of their SPD-SL pedals.

God forbid they should have to stop start like everyone else.......I suppose that makes putting all road users' lives at risk worth it.

They are just selfish dangerous people who really should be banned from the road coz of their ignorance.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I find it quite refreshing that somebody gives independant evidence for an assertion. Being one myself who never lets a good fact get in the way of an opinion, I am grateful that someone has taken the trouble to get some facts.



Your statistician is quoting 'facts' without linking his source.
That does not a fact make.

He has no idea how many near misses occur as a result of RLJs.
It is a daily occurence in London.

If the motorists taking avoiding action (and in so doing often swerving into the path of oncoming traffic thus endangering even more lives) didn't take that avoiding action, the stats would be even grimmer reading.


----------



## Jezston (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman - I don't like RLJers either, but from the things you've said here, your complete lack of compassion for an injured and unconcious pedestrian that you put in hospital and the fact you care more for the £500 damage to your bike than someone's life, suggests that you are a selfish and dangerous person who really should be banned from the road because of your ignorance.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I always thought it was coz they couldn't get out of their SPD-SL pedals.
> 
> God forbid they should have to stop start like everyone else.......I suppose that makes putting all road users' lives at risk worth it.
> 
> They are just selfish dangerous people who really should be banned from the road coz of their ignorance.



The CTC published a report showing how much extra energy it took stopping and starting at lights and IIRC called for RLJ'ing to me made legal in some situations. I am sure RL will have the report link.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Twigman - I don't like RLJers either, but from the things you've said here, your complete lack of compassion for an injured and unconcious pedestrian that you put in hospital and the fact you care more for the £500 damage to your bike than someone's life, suggests that you are a selfish and dangerous person who really should be banned from the road because of your ignorance.



She put herself in hospital.
I didn't put her in hospital.

I'm not going to cry over some idiot that almost kills herself by stepping out in front of me.

Nothing I could do about it so why should I worry?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Twigman - I don't like RLJers either, but from the things you've said here, your complete lack of compassion for an injured and unconcious pedestrian that you put in hospital and the fact you care more for the £500 damage to your bike than someone's life, suggests that you are a selfish and dangerous person who really should be banned from the road because of your ignorance.



Do you not think that the RLJers are ignorant and selfish as well?


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The CTC published a report showing how much extra energy it took stopping and starting at lights and IIRC called for RLJ'ing to me made legal in some situations.



I assume that was thrown out as a preposterous idea by those that legislate?

If not then common sense has been thrown out the window.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I assume that was thrown out as a preposterous idea by those that legislate?
> 
> If not then common sense has been thrown out the window.



I don't know what happened to it TBH. Awaiting Red Light to illuminate us all.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> There us nothing wrong with "facts". However if I had to choose between facts or personal experience I would take the latter every time. eg BMW's are reported as being one of the best drivers cars on the market. Having driven several of them (3 through top end 5 series) I do not like then in the slightest. In my experience the equivalent Audi is a much better car.



don't mean to be picky but , BMW best drivers car on the market is an opinion not fact. A fact is produced from empirical research and does not involve opinion. If Bmw was the best drivers car on the market you would be wrong in your assertion that it wasn't. The fact that you have found it not to be so proves the statement was opinion not fact.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I always thought it was coz they couldn't get out of their SPD-SL pedals.
> 
> God forbid they should have to stop start like everyone else.......I suppose that makes putting all road users' lives at risk worth it.
> 
> They are just selfish dangerous people who really should be banned from the road coz of their ignorance.



So how many road users have cyclists have killed in London over say the past ten years just to put it in perspective? 

And why are there half as many motorcyclists as cyclists on London's roads but over twice as many motorcyclist deaths?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> don't mean to be picky but , BMW best drivers car on the market is an opinion not fact. A fact is produced from empirical research and does not involve opinion. If Bmw was the best drivers car on the market you would be wrong in your assertion that it wasn't. The fact that you have found it not to be so proves the statement was opinion not fact.



OK It is fact according to every motoring journalist that I am aware of. IMHO it shows that facts are only facts until they are disproven.


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> _Nothing I could do about it_ so why should I worry?


Well, blatantly that's not true as you could have slowed down on the approach to the junction.


P.S. the fact that you were "exonerated" by a policeman doesn't mean that a court would have come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, blatantly that's not true as you could have slowed down on the approach to the junction.
> 
> 
> P.S. the fact that you were "exonerated" by a policeman doesn't mean that a court would have come to the same conclusion.



So do you slow down as you pass through every green light you see?


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OK It is fact according to every motoring journalist that I am aware of. IMHO it shows that facts are only facts until they are disproven.



that's nearer the mark. That's the problem with statistics that although the data is factual the conclusions sometimes are not.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> that's nearer the mark. That's the problem with statistics that although the data is factual the conclusions sometimes are not.



Stats tell you what you want them to tell you. That is why there are so many data manipulation / moulding methods.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I assume that was thrown out as a preposterous idea by those that legislate?
> 
> If not then common sense has been thrown out the window.



http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ld-be-allowed-to-run-red-lights-says-boris.do

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

The US has successfully used Right on a Light for decades without problems as have cyclists in the Netherlands.

Pedestrians successfully cross on red lights all the time without problems.

As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, blatantly that's not true as you could have slowed down on the approach to the junction.



When you're playing Need for Speed on your Fireblade, slowing down is not an option.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, blatantly that's not true as you could have slowed down on the approach to the junction.
> 
> .


It wasn't a junction.
It was a pelican crossing.

There was a crowd of people waiting on the pavement.

She stepped out of the crowd with her wheeled shopping bag, I tried to miss her, she paniced and jumped right into my path.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

I can't believe there are so many folk on here defending RLJs.

You're all dangerous morons.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> It wasn't a junction.
> It was a pelican crossing.



If I see someone near a crossing, I slow down in case they step into the road or the lights change on me.

On a pelican crossing legally your green light is permission to proceed if it is safe to do so, not a right to proceed. For the pedestrian the light has no legal meaning whatsoever and the pedestrian is perfectly entitled to cross the road at any time.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I can't believe there are so many folk on here defending RLJs.
> 
> You're all dangerous morons.



So are you a cyclist or have you just joined to have a go at cyclists?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I can't believe there are so many folk on here defending RLJs.
> 
> You're all dangerous morons.



Tell me about it. There is a militant "cyclists are always right" group on here I am sure.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If I see someone near a crossing, I slow down in case they step into the road or the lights change on me.
> 
> On a pelican crossing legally your green light is permission to proceed if it is safe to do so, not a right to proceed. *For the pedestrian the light has no legal meaning whatsoever and the pedestrian is perfectly entitled to cross the road at any time.
> *



Link please.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If I see someone near a crossing, I slow down in case they step into the road or the lights change on me.



If you slowed down for every group of people waiting at a pelican crossing for the green man you'd not only get nowhere fast (London's pavements are full of people) but you'd also likely cause accidents in the traffic behind you - motorists in London tend to expect to be able run at a constant speed green light after green light, slowing down at every crossing is just going to cause a concertina effect in the traffic and someone will overbrake and there'll be a rump crunch accident.

Maintaining a constant speed normally results in hitting all junction lights at green.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> If you slowed down for every group of people waiting at a pelican crossing for the green man you'd not only get nowhere fast (London's pavements are full of people) but you'd also likely cause accidents in the traffic behind you - motorists in London tend to expect to be able run at a constant speed green light after green light, slowing down at every crossing is just going to cause a concertina effect in the traffic and someone will overbrake and there'll be a rump crunch accident.
> 
> Maintaining a constant speed normally results in hitting all junction lights at green.



Amen. Red Light - If the lights have no legal significance for pedestrians why don't the government just make the lights face the traffic and save a fortune in unneeded pedestrian facing lights?


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So are you a cyclist or have you just joined to have a go at cyclists?



I am a cyclist.

I'm just not one of those cyclists who believe they have a God given right to have priority on the road over every other road user.
I am not one of those cyclists who believe the Highway Code does not apply to cyclists.

I am a cyclist.
I am a motorcyclist
I am a motorist

I have a clean driving licence.

I NEVER jump red lights


----------



## stowie (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> They could always wait until they have a GREEN light.



Maybe they don't wait for the green light for the same reason that Motorcyclists don't bother respecting ASLs or use cycle lanes, or buzz down bus lanes at much higher speeds than the 30mph limits.

Which is that people are sometimes a bit selfish, occasionally stupid, often a bit impatient and our brains aren't really well designed to calculate risk.

I believe one should always take care proportionate to the mode of travel one is engaged upon. In a car I always slow at junctions simply because pedestrians tend to cross at junctions, and I really don't want to run one over, even if I am technically "in the right". The thought train that says the pedestrian was "asking for it" because they didn't obey the highway code sounds very slightly psychopathic in my view.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I am a cyclist.
> 
> I'm just not one of those cyclists who believe they have a God given right to have priority on the road over every other road user.
> I am not one of those cyclists who believe the Highway Code does not apply to cyclists.
> ...



Ditto to all but the Motorcyclist part. (although I would jump a red if to stop would put my life in danger or to allow an emergency vehicle to pass.)


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> Maybe they don't wait for the green light for the same reason that Motorcyclists don't bother respecting ASLs or use cycle lanes, or buzz down bus lanes at much higher speeds than the 30mph limits.
> 
> Which is that people are sometimes a bit selfish, occasionally stupid, often a bit impatient and _*our brains aren't really well designed to calculate risk.*_
> 
> I believe one should always take care proportionate to the mode of travel one is engaged upon. In a car I always slow at junctions simply because pedestrians tend to cross at junctions, and I really don't want to run one over, even if I am technically "in the right". The thought train that says the pedestrian was "asking for it" because they didn't obey the highway code sounds very slightly psychopathic in my view.



Our brains are very well developed to calculate risk. That is one reason we have become the dominant species on the planet.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> If you slowed down for every group of people waiting at a pelican crossing for the green man you'd not only get nowhere fast (London's pavements are full of people) but you'd also likely cause accidents in the traffic behind you - motorists in London tend to expect to be able run at a constant speed green light after green light, slowing down at every crossing is just going to cause a concertina effect in the traffic and someone will overbrake and there'll be a rump crunch accident.
> 
> Maintaining a constant speed normally results in hitting all junction lights at green.


I'm talking about the occasional times I rlj on a pelican crossing, I don't do it often but it has been known


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> . The thought train that says the pedestrian was "asking for it" because they didn't obey the highway code sounds very slightly psychopathic in my view.



I cared to the extent that I asked after her health and whether she survived but I really had nothing on my conscience and wasn't going to let it bother me.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Our brains are very well developed to calculate risk. That is one reason we have become the dominant species on the planet.



absolutely

Some have a greater aversion to risk than others but we can all assess risk extremely accurately.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I cared to the extent that I asked after her health and whether she survived but I really had nothing on my conscience and wasn't going to let it bother me.



OK there we differ. No matter who was at fault I would feel for the person injured (after the initial "righteous indignation" had died down)


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Link please.




The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997

Traffic on a green is required to proceed with due regard for the safety of others, the red light for pedestrians is just a safety warning.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> If you slowed down for every group of people waiting at a pelican crossing for the green man you'd not only get nowhere fast (London's pavements are full of people) but you'd also likely cause accidents in the traffic behind you - motorists in London tend to expect to be able run at a constant speed green light after green light, slowing down at every crossing is just going to cause a concertina effect in the traffic and someone will overbrake and there'll be a rump crunch accident.
> 
> Maintaining a constant speed normally results in hitting all junction lights at green.



If you don't slow down for crossings with people waiting you will in time collect a pedestrian or two as you have indeed done. They take opportunities to cross all the time and you have to be prepared for it in London. But it seems maintaining your speed to avoid delaying your important journey over-rides their safety.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Amen. Red Light - If the lights have no legal significance for pedestrians why don't the government just make the lights face the traffic and save a fortune in unneeded pedestrian facing lights?



The red and green pedestrian lights are there to inform pedestrians when the traffic has a red light and they can cross safely and when it has a green like and therefore less safe to cross.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would jump a red if to stop would put my life in danger



So you support women cyclists jumping red lights then?


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Our brains are very well developed to calculate risk. That is one reason we have become the dominant species on the planet.



Actually our brains are pretty crap at assessing risk. Which is why people think cycling is dangerous but walking or driving is not, why they will happily drive but are scared of flying, why they happily burn fossil fuels but are fearful of nuclear power, why they fear stranger danger but not friends and family, why they smoke and eat unhealthy diets etc etc


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> If you slowed down for every group of people waiting at a pelican crossing for the green man you'd not only get nowhere fast (London's pavements are full of people) but you'd also likely cause accidents in the traffic behind you - motorists in London tend to expect to be able run at a constant speed green light after green light, slowing down at every crossing is just going to cause a concertina effect in the traffic and someone will overbrake and there'll be a rump crunch accident.



This again is demonstrably untrue, at least in zone 1. Motorists in London - or at least those motorists without great big dents in their vehicles - expect to frequently and regularly encounter cyclists, pedestrians, buses, traffic queues, U-turning taxis and all classes of imbecile in the road. If you don't have the skills to ride safely and anticipate hazards in a complex environment, don't expect much sympathy for the excuse that you "shouldn't have to"


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> But it seems maintaining your speed to avoid delaying your important journey over-rides their safety.



If they stayed on the pavement until the traffic stopped, it would assure their safety.

If they step out into moving traffic they deserve anything that's coming to them.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Bored with this now.

If you want to RLJ don't cry Foul when someone collects you.
It will be your own bleeding fault.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So you support women cyclists jumping red lights then?



Did I say that? No I didn't. I spoke about myself only. Read enough surveys and you will do nothing from fear of everything.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> This again is demonstrably untrue, at least in zone 1. Motorists in London - or at least those motorists without great big dents in their vehicles - expect to frequently and regularly encounter cyclists, pedestrians, buses, traffic queues, U-turning taxis and all classes of imbecile in the road. If you don't have the skills to ride safely and anticipate hazards in a complex environment, don't expect much sympathy for the excuse that you "shouldn't have to"



Maybe we should have a special London sun forum as it seems to operate under different parameters to the rest of the country.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Actually our brains are pretty crap at assessing risk. Which is why people think cycling is dangerous but walking or driving is not, why they will happily drive but are scared of flying, why they happily burn fossil fuels but are fearful of nuclear power, why they fear stranger danger but not friends and family, why they smoke and eat unhealthy diets etc etc



Ok right. The professor has once again spoken. I had better . No hang on he's wrong. The risks you talk about are higher level risks. The basic Fight or flight risks involved in road warfare usage are pretty good unless judgement is impaired though lack of experience or chemical interference.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> This again is demonstrably untrue, at least in zone 1. Motorists in London - or at least those motorists without great big dents in their vehicles - expect to frequently and regularly encounter cyclists, pedestrians, buses, traffic queues, U-turning taxis and all classes of imbecile in the road. If you don't have the skills to ride safely and anticipate hazards in a complex environment, don't expect much sympathy for the excuse that you "shouldn't have to"



2. All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> 2. All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue.



As does stopping at red lights.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

I'm back - I'm so angry at you morons I just had to ask:

Why _do_ you jump red lights?



Is it because your journey is more important than the other road users?
Is it because you believe you are superior to other road users?
Is it because you disrespect other road users?
Is it because you are just plain selfish?
Is it because you can't get your feet out of your pedals?
Is it because you don't want to have to accelerate from standing when the lights turn green?
Is it because you believe that any accident involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle is always the other guy's fault?


Enlighten me - why would anyone in their right mind jump red lights?


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As does stopping at red lights.



Traffic queues rarely impede me on my bike in London. I do stop at red lights though.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Traffic queues rarely impede me on my bike in London. I do stop at red lights though.



So how does your statement


> 2. All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue.


 tally (especially as m'bike can filter in the same way as cycles)?


----------



## stowie (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Ok right. The professor has once again spoken. I had better . No hang on he's wrong. The risks you talk about are higher level risks. The basic Fight or flight risks involved in road warfare usage are pretty good unless judgement is impaired though lack of experience or chemical interference.




Calculation of risk by humans is generally poor. If one decides to do 40mph instead of 30mph then there isn't an innate part of the brain that instantly can factor in the risk based upon the squared law describing the relationship between Kinetic Energy and velocity. All that happens is that human does 40mph once down the road without incident and then this activity becomes "safer" in their mind so does it again, which reinforces the "safeness".

Our risk analysis seems to be based upon experience in this way. Which may be a good way to determine if the large cat with pointy teeth may want to eat us, but isn't so great at determining risk in much more complex environments.

One only has to consider how humans calculate probability in general to realise that our ability to ascertain risk isn't inherently great.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

With me its a mixture of 4, 5, and 6 I always stop at traffic lights its just empty pelican crossings I very occasionally ignore, I am not defending it to you I'm just saying I have been known to do it


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

stowie said:


> Calculation of risk by humans is generally poor. If one decides to do 40mph instead of 30mph then there isn't an innate part of the brain that instantly can factor in the risk based upon the squared law describing the relationship between Kinetic Energy and velocity. All that happens is that human does 40mph once down the road without incident and then this activity becomes "safer" in their mind so does it again, which reinforces the "safeness".
> 
> Our risk analysis seems to be based upon experience in this way. Which may be a good way to determine if the large cat with pointy teeth may want to eat us, but isn't so great at determining risk in much more complex environments.
> 
> One only has to consider how humans calculate probability in general to realise that our ability to ascertain risk isn't inherently great.



I would argue that whilst those doing 40 in a 30 are still alive their ability to calculate self preservation is very good. When it comes to risk involving others then we are not so good.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

How many of you are adequately insured so that in the (what seems to be likely) event that you do cause an accident by RLJing, you would be able to cover the injury claim from that paraplegic motorcyclist that came off and hit the lampost without paying for it for the rest of your days after he's sued you and won?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Pulls up chair and waits for statistical proof that RLJing is safe on a bicycle.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Pulls up chair and waits for statistical proof that RLJing is safe on a bicycle.



That's your 3rd snide comment about people with proof , what's your problem? If somebody brings evidence rather than just opinion it should be a cause for celebration not denigration.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> That's your 3rd snide comment about people with proof , what's your problem? If somebody brings evidence rather than just opinion it should be a cause for celebration not denigration.



Evidence to support illegal activity does not make said activity right. Also there is no such thing as _*proof*_ only proofs which stand until overturned.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> I'm back - I'm so angry at you morons I just had to ask:
> 
> Why _do_ you jump red lights?



I don't.

But unlike you I've never hit a pedestrian with any vehicle, I recognise that RLJing is done by all transport modes to about the same degree with cyclists representing the lowest risk to others of any of them and I don't see it as my duty to declare cycle RLJing a capital offence and carry out the execution of offenders getting in my way.

As Dan said London is full of people doing all sorts of stupid and illegal things in all sorts of vehicles. If you can't handle that safely then don't ride in London.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So how does your statement tally (especially as m'bike can filter in the same way as cycles)?



They can't, especially big bikes like Fireblades. The gaps are generally too narrow to get a motorbike through and they are too unmanoeuvrable to thread through the traffic (which is where small wheeled Bromptons are so good). You often see them though stopped at a gap they can't get through and blocking cyclists who can.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Evidence to support illegal activity does not make said activity right. Also there is no such thing as _*proof*_ only proofs which stand until overturned.


Redlight never said his evidence made it right and has also said he didn't do it. I have admitted to it and admit I'm a very naughty boy so why are you being so snide to the person with evidence rather than to me who just has dangerous opinions


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Pulls up chair and waits for statistical proof that RLJing is safe on a bicycle.



Do keep up at the back AFS - I gave it way back up there ^ in the thread.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Redlight never said his evidence made it right and has also said he didn't do it. I have admitted to it and admit I'm a very naughty boy so why are you being so snide to the person with evidence rather than to me who just has dangerous opinions



I am being snide as I am yet to see RL speak from personal experience.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> They can't, especially big bikes like Fireblades. The gaps are generally too narrow to get a motorbike through and they are too unmanoeuvrable to thread through the traffic (which is where small wheeled Bromptons are so good). You often see them though stopped at a gap they can't get through and blocking cyclists who can.



Should make little difference though as one jam leads to another (as you say).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Do keep up at the back AFS - I gave it way back up there ^ in the thread.



I know, I was waiting for those figures to be rolled out yet again.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> How many of you are adequately insured so that in the (what seems to be likely) event that you do cause an accident by RLJing, you would be able to cover the injury claim from that paraplegic motorcyclist that came off and hit the lampost without paying for it for the rest of your days after he's sued you and won?



Most of us. The risk is so low that even those notoriously mean actuaries at the insurance companies allow it to be thrown in for free with all home insurance policies. Many more of us have duplicate insurance, again thrown in for free, as part of membership of cycling clubs like the CTC. In fact I suspect there may be fewer uninsured cyclists than drivers - 13% in London. Next?


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I know, I was waiting for those figures to be rolled out yet again.



Yeah, sure you were, which is why you said



> Pulls up chair and waits for statistical proof that RLJing is safe on a bicycle.



You could be a little less blatant about it.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Should make little difference though as one jam leads to another (as you say).



Not for cyclists, jams are pretty permeable to a cyclist.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Yeah, sure you were, which is why you said
> 
> 
> 
> You could be a little less blatant about it.



Why?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Not for cyclists, jams are pretty permeable to a cyclist.



As are red lights is seems!


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Should make little difference though as one jam leads to another (as you say).



Youv'e been in london and you know what it's like in the rush hour are you really suggesting it's one steady FLOW of traffic. My experience didn't find it to be so.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Youv'e been in london and you know what it's like in the rush hour are you really suggesting it's one steady FLOW of traffic. My experience didn't find it to be so.



No I'm not. Red Light is.


* Red Light 

 Posted Today, 13:21:10 *




Senior Member
 






 
 Posts: 1,454
 Joined: 09-April 11
 

Dan B, on 13 August 2011 - 13:08:45, said:

This again is demonstrably untrue, at least in zone 1. Motorists in London - or at least those motorists without great big dents in their vehicles - expect to frequently and regularly encounter cyclists, pedestrians, buses, traffic queues, U-turning taxis and all classes of imbecile in the road. If you don't have the skills to ride safely and anticipate hazards in a complex environment, don't expect much sympathy for the excuse that you "shouldn't have to"


2. All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would argue that whilst those doing 40 in a 30 are still alive their ability to calculate self preservation is very good. When it comes to risk involving others then we are not so good.



People used to justify their drunk driving like that and still justify their driving while on the phone like that. Its because they are one of the 86% of drivers who think their driving is better than average - its known as illusory superiority. 

The problem is they may still be alive in their steel cocoons but the survival chances of anyone they do hit are far lower at 40mph than 30mph. Still as Strawman says, that's their lookout, not yours.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

2. "All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue."
I understood that to mean that there is no point speeding as It will not improve your journey time


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No I'm not. Red Light is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've put a hint in there for the hard of understanding.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I've put a hint in there for the hard of understanding.



_*Motorists*_ or not by saying one jam leads to another you are implying a steady flow of traffic.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> People used to justify their drunk driving like that and still justify their driving while on the phone like that. Its because they are one of the 86% of drivers who think their driving is better than average - its known as illusory superiority.
> 
> The problem is they may still be alive in their steel cocoons but the survival chances of anyone they do hit are far lower at 40mph than 30mph. Still as Strawman says, that's their lookout, not yours.



It is in no way a justification but as they are alive it does imply their risk assessment to be valid.


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> _*Motorists*_ or not by saying one jam leads to another you are implying a steady flow of traffic.



It seems to me to be quite the contrary


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> 2. "All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue."
> I understood that to mean that there is no point speeding as It will not improve your journey time



Every time in central London where there has been a noticeably identifiable car - usually one with loud music coming out, lots of customisation on the outside and an aggressive driving style - I have made faster progress than them. It usually involves them doing an aggressive overtake and speeding off and then me catching them up and pootling past them at the next traffic queue. This is repeated multiple times with them getting further and further back each time. Eventually all you hear is their stereo fading into the distance behind if they haven't turned off.

And to date I have never been beaten to the next meeting or back to the station by colleagues taking a taxi or the tube so it seems more generally true. Even Top Gear's race from Kew to City Airport was won by the cyclist by a big margin. Even public transport was faster than the car.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> It seems to me to be quite the contrary



Does it. If light patterns are a constant then after you stop at one red light the traffic in front of you will also stop at the next red light and so on. Seems straight forward to me. Unless London is a place like on other with different rules and traffic flows. Hence mention of a London Sub Forum.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> _*Motorists*_ or not by saying one jam leads to another you are implying a steady flow of traffic.



So according to you what we need for a steadier flow of traffic is more jams. I see.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So according to you what we need for a steadier flow of traffic is more jams. I see.



Your words not mine.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> They can't, especially big bikes like Fireblades. The gaps are generally too narrow to get a motorbike through and they are too unmanoeuvrable to thread through the traffic



What total bollocks - filtering on a FireBlade is a piece of piss.

All it takes is a little forward planning....the tossers who get stuck filtering aren't thinking ahead, aren't planning their route or are total novices.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> What total bollocks - filtering on a FireBlade is a piece of piss.



Howe dare you argue with RL. He is the font of all knowledge!


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Does it. If light patterns are a constant then after you stop at one red light the traffic in front of you will also stop at the next red light and so on. Seems straight forward to me. Unless London is a place like on other with different rules and traffic flows. Hence mention of a London Sub Forum.



the comment about jams was made in reference to motorists. I have seen cars dive out from the lights to stop at the next queue just the other side so one does wonder why the frantic urgency


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> the comment about jams was made in reference to motorists. I have seen cars dive out from the lights to stop at the next queue just the other side so one does wonder why the frantic urgency



I did get the bit about motorists!!! There are idiot drivers in the same way there are idiot cyclists. Your point is?


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

1502579 said:


> I often find myself stuck behind bikers who think this and jam up gaps I could fit through.



See my comment above ^^^



It's novices and people who only think a few yards ahead that get stuck - and that's quite a small proportion.

How often do you see couriers/despatch riders stuck?
Rarely, I'd wager - that's because they know what they're doing, and have experience to plan ahead.
You won't see me stuck filtering.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> See my comment above ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you saying personal experience is of value???? Shock horror


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> P.S. the fact that you were "exonerated" by a policeman doesn't mean that a court would have come to the same conclusion.



Errr to get to court surely the police would have to convince the CPS I had a case to answer?
If the police don't believe I have a case to answer then it's got no chance of getting to court with me in the dock.

I could've brought a civil case and I'm sure the fact that the police were prepared to state that there was nothing more that I could've done to avoid the incident would've worked in my favour.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> Errr to get to court surely the police would have to convince the CPS I had a case to answer?
> If the police don't believe I have a case to answer then it's got no chance of getting to court with me in the dock.
> 
> I could've brought a civil case and I'm sure the fact that the police were prepared to state that there was nothing more that I could've done to avoid the incident would've worked in my favour.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> See my comment above ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> ...



See them stuck all the time. The bigger the bike the easier it is to get stuck because its too wide, too heavy and can't turn through a narrow gap to change lanes easily. The Fireblade chassis is 50% wider than my Brommie handlebars and weighs 20 times as much. Keep up the pretence though.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> See them stuck all the time. The bigger the bike the easier it is to get stuck because its too wide, too heavy and can't turn through a narrow gap to change lanes easily. The Fireblade chassis is 50% wider than my Brommie handlebars and weighs 20 times as much. Keep up the pretence though.



Which part of novice riders did you miss?


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Which part of novice riders did you miss?



Which part of courier/dispatch riders did you miss?

Ah, experienced riders can do a Knight Bus can they and pass through gaps narrower than they are? I'd love to see Strawman filter through the buses and cars coming off the north end of Waterloo Bridge. Hope he has some spare mirrors, indicator lights and a pipe cutter for his handlebars.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Which part of courier/dispatch riders did you miss?
> 
> Ah, experienced riders can do a Knight Bus can they and pass through gaps narrower than they are? I'd love to see Strawman filter through the buses and cars coming off the north end of Waterloo Bridge. Hope he has some spare mirrors, indicator lights and a pipe cutter for his handlebars.



Pinklight I missed none of the courier /dispatch riders bit. 

I read twigmans post to mean that an experienced rider knows when he /she can filter not that he/she can fit through any gap. Again it is down to interpreting the given data.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Pinklight I missed none of the courier /dispatch riders bit.



So why did you say "Which part of novice riders did you miss?' when the only question he asked was "How often do you see courier/despatch riders stuck?"



> I read twigmans post to mean that an experienced rider knows when he /she can filter not that he/she can fit through any gap. Again it is down to interpreting the given data.



More comprehension problems AFS? 

Strawman wrote 
"What total bollocks - filtering on a FireBlade is a piece of piss.

All it takes is a little forward planning....the tossers who get stuck filtering aren't thinking ahead, aren't planning their route or are total novices" followed by "You won't see me stuck filtering"

If you can't fit through the gaps you're stuck.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> So why did you say "Which part of novice riders did you miss?' when the only question he asked was "How often do you see courier/despatch riders stuck?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



PinkLight it is you who has comprehension problems. To me thinking ahead implies (as stated) planning a route. If those though processes conclude that you will get stuck then you do not filter.

Also to some people cleaning a Black Route is a piece of piss whilst to others it is impossible.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> If you can't fit through the gaps you're stuck.



I don't end up in positions where I face gaps narrower than my vehicle.
I filter down the outside of traffic as often as I can and very rarely lane split.
I plan my route several vehicles ahead, ensuring I pass on the correct side of islands in gaps in the traffic.
The only things that hold me up is when cars are signalling right and red lights, oh and the odd ped waiting at a zebra but then I don't filter on the zigzag approaches anyway as that would be just wrong wouldn't it?

It's the lane splitters that find themselves stuck and more often than not it's because of some resentful cage driver moving over to block the filterer.


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2011)

Twigman said:


> Errr to get to court surely the police would have to convince the CPS I had a case to answer?
> If the police don't believe I have a case to answer then it's got no chance of getting to court with me in the dock.



Fortunately for you, yes, if nobody is minded to bring a case to court then we'll never find out what the court would have said. But it doesn't follow that they'd have agreed with the police at the scene - if they always did that, there'd be no need for the police and the judiciary to be separate entities, would there?


Do you think an advanced driving instructor would recommend going past pedestrian crossings at 30mph?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> [/size]
> Fortunately for you, yes, if nobody is minded to bring a case to court then we'll never find out what the court would have said. But it doesn't follow that they'd have agreed with the police at the scene - if they always did that, there'd be no need for the police and the judiciary to be separate entities, would there?
> 
> 
> Do you think an advanced driving instructor would recommend going past pedestrian crossings at 30mph?


If the lights are green then yes.


----------



## Twigman (13 Aug 2011)

1502595 said:


> Which one, "She looked like she was on benefits"?



nope


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If the lights are green then yes.



You've just failed your hazard perception test.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> You've just failed your hazard perception test.


I am so happy about that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

1502600 said:


> Why?


The best driver I have ever met was a member of the Royal Protection Team (a family friend) and he had distain for the Advanced Driving Test.


----------



## gaz (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If the lights are green then yes.



What if there are lots of pedestrians there? Small children?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> What if there are lots of pedestrians there? Small children?


Thank you, a sensible question. I would slow and cover the brake, watching out for any signs of potential road crossing. Once on the crossing I would resume previous speed.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The best driver I have ever met was a member of the Royal Protection Team (a family friend) and he had distain for the Advanced Driving Test.



Ermmmm......the Hazard Perception Test is part of the driving test.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> Ermmmm......the Hazard Perception Test is part of the driving test.


A crossing is not a hazard. It becomes one when their are peds et al on or near it.


----------



## Tynan (13 Aug 2011)

lots of things are hazards in that they are areas likely to be dangerous

blind bends, etc etc

and indeed crossings


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> lots of things are hazards in that they are areas likely to be dangerous
> 
> blind bends, etc etc
> 
> and indeed crossings


Blind bends yes. Crosrings have the potential to be dangerous.


----------



## Tynan (13 Aug 2011)

yes they do

as do blind binds

all relative and dependant on definition

as a man on seems to enjoy those things you'll understand that


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> yes they do
> 
> as do blind binds
> 
> ...


In some eyes everything is a hazard. I would say that if a crossing is clear and so are the streets on either side then there is no hazard. Slowing at an empty crossing could be said to be a greater hazard.


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In some eyes everything is a hazard. I would say that if a crossing is clear and so are the streets on either side then there is no hazard. Slowing at an empty crossing could be said to be a greater hazard.


Yes. Now let's look at what Twigman said


> If you slowed down for every group of people waiting at a pelican crossing for the green man you'd not only get nowhere fast (London's pavements are full of people) but you'd also likely cause accidents in the traffic behind you - motorists in London tend to expect to be able run at a constant speed green light after green light, slowing down at every crossing is just going to cause a concertina effect in the traffic and someone will overbrake and there'll be a rump crunch accident.


If we're now talking about empty crossings then I agree with you, but I missed the bit where we changed the subject


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Take a look back through the last several posts, you will see RL asking if I would slow at a crossing.


----------



## JonnyBlade (13 Aug 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> But what if noone like that is there? ped crossings should be like temporary traffic lights - when the lights sense repetitive flashing lights, they automatically think that it is an emergency vehicle, and change quicker, even though you are just flashing your own lights.
> 
> Ped crossings should have some sort of senser so it can tell when people have safely crossed.



Unfortunately you have to assume that someone 'like that' is there. Crossings are not smart enough to pick up the change of type of person. Now if they could recognise the pace at which we cross then that would be OK too


----------



## JonnyBlade (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> A crossing is not a hazard. It becomes one when their are peds et al on or near it.



Not so. The crossing is the hazard because it has the potential to have people using it. When not in use it becomes a sleeping hazard as such


----------



## JonnyBlade (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In some eyes everything is a hazard. I would say that if a crossing is clear and so are the streets on either side then there is no hazard. Slowing at an empty crossing could be said to be a greater hazard.



Do driving regs stick expect you to slow a traffic lights even when on green to enable you to look for signs of danger. ie RLJs? Is this not similar in principal?


----------



## JonnyBlade (13 Aug 2011)

User said:


> Please don't feed the trolls. It only encourages them.


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Take a look back through the last several posts, you will see RL asking if I would slow at a crossing.



No I didn't.


----------



## Dan B (13 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Take a look back through the last several posts, you will see RL asking if I would slow at a crossing.


Can't find that one, all I see is the post where I ask Twigman whether an advanced driving instructor would. I didn't specify full or empty, although if he's still reading this i'd like to clarify that I was still talking about crossings with pedestrians waiting


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> No I didn't.


My apologys it was DanB.


----------



## SportMonkey (14 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If the lights are green then yes.



You are a dangerous moron, if that is the buzzword of this thread. A protection officer may be technically the best driver you know, but he is not necessarily the best actual driver.

Now, I've been using the trolling dark art of sarcasm on here, whilst I don't go through red lights everyone is free to do as he or she wishes based on their own personal experience.

What we now have is you defending a dangerous thug of a motorcyclist who thinks it is aright to mow down people in front of them.

As for cars, you stick with your Audi's - I know what myself and Topgear think of the aggressive nature of their drivers, I'll stick with my fuel efficient Skoda.

And if you feel the need to prove yourself after going on about poor RLJ'ers legs do you want to come and give me a race.

I feel for people like you who our education system has failed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

Please do not feed the :troll:


----------



## Angelfishsolo (14 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1502624"]
LOL, the irony. I suggest you look at your first few posts in this thread before you start slagging off other people. As for a race? I would do but the thought of going up to Warrington whose only claim to fame is that half the people speak Scouse and the other half Manc does not appeal.
[/quote]
 Don't feed the :troll: s


----------



## Mad at urage (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please do not feed the :troll:


To true. On the basis of this thread, you are the first ever person to go on my ignore list: Anywhere, ever. 

Congratulations :troll:


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> To true. On the basis of this thread, you are the first ever person to go on my ignore list: Anywhere, ever.
> 
> Congratulations :troll:



Woot


----------



## SW19cam (15 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> But why break road laws? You can keep perfectly safe without doing it.



Nail on the head in regards to what our disagreement is. You can't always keep perfectly safe when following the road laws.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

You can't always keep perfectly safe anywhere full stop! It's to do with risk management.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> Is jumping a red light risk management?



No. Unless to do so would save your life or the life of another.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> Surely that is an arbitrary decision though, and based on the rider's perspective at the time?



A qualified yes. If you life is in danger most of the time you run a red light then it would bring your judgement into question.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> There us nothing wrong with "facts". However if I had to choose between facts or personal experience I would take the latter every time. eg BMW's are reported as being one of the best drivers cars on the market. Having driven several of them (3 through top end 5 series) I do not like then in the slightest. In my experience the equivalent Audi is a much better car.



You've said this plenty of times, and I must say I find it quite odd.
If people took that view, we would still think the Earth was flat, and that the sun orbited us, rather than the other way around.

The whole point of the scientific method is to remove the prejudices and biases that the observer/experimenter holds due to personal experience.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> Yes, but even science is biased by it's funding. It is also biased by the hypothesis these reports are written to research. Still, without science, and the fact we regularly abuse the principles of it we'd be in the dark ages, with no penicillin, etc..



True, but for the most part it works extremely well, because there are few things scientists like more than proving other scientists wrong.
So if, for example, a scientists with undeclared vested financial interests in the results, fraudulently establishes a link between MMR and autism, there are plenty of other scientists, who can try and replicate the research and say "you're full of shoot".

Not to say some bad research doesn't get through, but it's the minority.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In some eyes everything is a hazard. I would say that *if a crossing is clear and so are the streets on either side then there is no hazard*. Slowing at an empty crossing could be said to be a greater hazard.



Might as well ignore those red lights then.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Might as well ignore those red lights then.


Slowing at empty crossing when light is green...


----------



## Theseus (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Not to say some bad research doesn't get through, but it's the minority.



hmmmm .... Thompson, Rivara, Thompson springs to mind


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> You've said this plenty of times, and I must say I find it quite odd.
> If people took that view, we would still think the Earth was flat, and that the sun orbited us, rather than the other way around.
> 
> The whole point of the scientific method is to remove the prejudices and biases that the observer/experimenter holds due to personal experience.



I think you have me wrong. What I dislike is usage of statistics or other proofs used in isolation. Rather like an Ivory Tower academic making comments about the London riots when the real answers come from those who took part in them and who were policing the front lines. 

Science hand in hand with experience is the way forward. I understand how scientific method works but it does not make it flawless in the same way the personal experience is not flawless.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> You're now taught to slow for crossings at green, and if we can find ourselves a tamed driving examiner I'm sure they could tell us you'd get a minor for not slowing. It is part of efficient driving too, if it's green it's going to change, no point in racing through.



Then things have changed since I took my test in 1991. I would never advocate racing through lights but when it is safe and clear to go through a green light I seen no reason to slow. It is rather like moving into the outer lane of dual carriageway to allow slip road traffic access even if the slip road is clear IMHO.


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> It is rather like moving into the outer lane of dual carriageway to allow slip road traffic access even if the slip road is clear IMHO.



Only if it's safe to do so


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Only if it's safe to do so



Er yes. Take it as read that in future statements that is implicit unless otherwise stated.


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er yes. Take it as read that in future statements that is implicit unless otherwise stated.



I thought i would put it in there before someone else tries to imply that your action was dangerous.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> They are two different things, often you can't clearly see everything around a crossing all the time - people and animals accelerate quickly. I'd argue moving out to allow even a clear slip road is the same as slowing for a green light - you're allowing for everything. Moving out for a slip road is taught to be done whenever.
> 
> Also, how do you know, if you don't retard, that the lights aren't going to change. Running constant speed at a green light may actually cause you to be an amber gambler or to screech to a halt, meaning you are out of control of your car.
> 
> We can argue this many ways as our perceptions are different, and that is the essence of the whole RLJ debate.



If moving away from a slip road is taught regardless of traffic conditions then it is a retrograde step in my opinion. It is not teaching you to read the road.

I have never come to a screeching halt at lights even though I don't slow when they are on green. Maybe the brakes in the cars I have had are at fault.

It is different to the RLJ debate in that currently going through a green light is legal where as it is not for a red.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I think you have me wrong. What I dislike is usage of statistics or other proofs used in isolation. Rather like an Ivory Tower academic making comments about the London riots when the real answers come from those who took part in them and who were policing the front lines.
> 
> Science hand in hand with experience is the way forward. I understand how scientific method works but it does not make it flawless in the same way the personal experience is not flawless.



I apologise for misunderstanding you.
My point was that sometimes reality disagrees with our personal experience - sometimes our personal experience is just wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> If you hit a pedestrian on a green light crossing that you'd not slowed for after deciding it was clear what would happen to you?
> 
> I didn't say it was taught regardless, but it is the default motion. Whilst you are reading the traffic conditions you are taking every possible precaution to not hit someone, which is sensible. You not slowing for a green crossing is not taking every possible precaution, and therefore not sensible in my opinion, it is in yours.
> 
> ...



As you approach green lights you look to see if the road ahead is clear if it is you proceed with care. That does not necessary mean a need to slow down but can simply mean greater observation. If I drop to 25 instead of 30 and hit a ped who runs out of nowhere onto a crossing through the red man then I am pretty sure the result would be the same as if I hit him/her at 30. 30+ would be a different story. 

Moving away from a slip road by default is fine as long as you are taught why you are doing it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I apologise for misunderstanding you.
> My point was that sometimes reality disagrees with our personal experience - sometimes our personal experience is just wrong.



Undoubtedly. What I was trying to get at is if I *had* to pick one source only I would pick experience. Sometimes personal experiences disagree with presented reality. eg a newsletter posted to all members of the housing association I am a member of paints a very rosy picture of life in the estates. The reality is very different (I use that as an example as have not long returned from a meeting about that very subject).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> The result to the pedestrian isn't the same though.



So why don't road have 20 mph speed limits one the approach to all ped crossings?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> Because the law, and your judgement as a licensed driver, covers it. People don't need a million signs, and there are studies - I've not got the link - that suggest fewer signs (and markings) promote safer driving.



Judgement and the law. Thank you. Thus if the crossing is clear and it is obvious there is no one with the potential to step onto it there is no need to slow.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Undoubtedly. What I was trying to get at is if I *had* to pick one source only I would pick experience. Sometimes personal experiences disagree with presented reality. eg a newsletter posted to all members of the housing association I am a member of paints a very rosy picture of life in the estates. The reality is very different (I use that as an example as have not long returned from a meeting about that very subject).



I don't think a newsletter would count as evidence.

If compelling evidence contradicts personal experience or common sense, then evidence wins.

Luckily you don't have to pick one source, but do try and be more open to proper evidence, even when it contradicts your experience. It's very healthy to question your own beliefs.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Touche said:


> hmmmm .... Thompson, Rivara, Thompson springs to mind



You saw the word minority in my post, right?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I don't think a newsletter would count as evidence.
> 
> If compelling evidence contradicts personal experience or common sense, then evidence wins.
> 
> Luckily you don't have to pick one source, but do try and be more open to proper evidence, even when it contradicts your experience. It's very healthy to question your own beliefs.



I come from an IT background and so science was my Bread and Butter for a long while. I am open to evidence. It is hard to accept however when what you have seen is contradicted by statistics. It is very possible that my personal experience has been to one side or the other of the bell curve but it does not make it any less valid.

My biggest issue is with people who seem to speak solely from a statistical evidence platform without any personal experience to back it up. They seem to be like people who engaged in T and M studies and told workers they could do their jobs better. When challenged to do said task themselves they were unable to do so.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> How far back are we talking, because you should be anticipating the change to amber/red also. How many times do you see a perfectly clear crossing, that from 100 metres at 30mph (limit, not target) that someone can't definitely not be in the middle of when you cruise through it without any regard? The answer is none, even with clear vision the eye can play tricks and most of the time crossings are there in built up areas, which means street furniture, bins, walls, front doors, the lot. And if you hit a child in your Audi because you didn't ease off you'd blame them right? You're a scary man, preaching law abidance, but sticking to something that has the potential for far worse damage than that which you are railing against. You've seen the statistics for red light jumping earlier, it'd be interesting to know crossing strikes on green. From this thread I can see no-one has been hit RLJ'ing, but someone has hit a pedestrian going through a green light without letting off. What does that tell you?



If I hit somebody in my imaginary Audi (I no longer own a car) I would feel terrible. That said in the 20 years I have been driving I have never done so. Only once has a ped even come into contact with a car of mine and that was whilst I was crawling through a town centre at pub closing time and a drunk fell off a pavement onto the side of my car. Faster or slower he would have hit the tarmac instead.

As for the remaining question - It tells me that of the people on this thread no one has been hit RLJ'ing, but someone has hit a pedestrian going through a green light without letting off. Nothing more than that.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I come from an IT background and so science was my Bread and Butter for a long while. I am open to evidence. It is hard to accept however when what you have seen is contradicted by statistics. It is very possible that my personal experience has been to one side or the other of the bell curve but it does not make it any less valid.
> 
> My biggest issue is with people who seem to speak solely from a statistical evidence platform without any personal experience to back it up. They seem to be like people who engaged in T and M studies and told workers they could do their jobs better. When challenged to do said task themselves they were unable to do so.



I do see your point, but you also need to bear in mind that what you have seen or experienced might be an anomaly.

To analogise: the sum of the evidence shows that homeopathy works no better than a placebo. But if someone is suffering from an illness, sees a homeopath and subsequently improves, their experience could now be that "there must be something in it". It doesn't matter if they may have got better anyway, or were responding to the placebo effect - the evidence now contradicts their experience. In that situation, their experience is simply wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I do see your point, but you also need to bear in mind that what you have seen or experienced might be an anomaly.
> 
> To analogise: the sum of the evidence shows that homeopathy works no better than a placebo. But if someone is suffering from an illness, sees a homeopath and subsequently improves, their experience could now be that "there must be something in it". It doesn't matter if they may have got better anyway, or were responding to the placebo effect - the evidence now contradicts their experience. In that situation, their experience is simply wrong.



I take that point as well. I think I may not have expressed myself as well as I could have. It has been a good while since I have had a chance to debate anything interesting and I am a little rusty.

Also just to play Devils Advoctae - Maybe the placebo effect actualy proves that the human brain is more powerful and capable of far more than we realise.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

User said:


> _*Just to pedantic philosophical point*_, personal experience is not 'wrong' - it simply is. It may not conform with the norm but that does not invalidate it or make it wrong.
> 
> The risk is reading to much into personal experience without placing it in the wider context of others' experiences.
> 
> But as you were...



Just to_* make a *_surely?


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Also just to play Devils Advoctae - Maybe the placebo effect actualy proves that the human brain is more powerful and capable of far more than we realise.



I don't think anyone would dispute that. The placebo effect is mysterious and fascinating. 
Luckily for us, we require medical interventions to perform _better _than placebo.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I don't think anyone would dispute that. The placebo effect is mysterious and fascinating.
> Luckily for us, we require medical interventions to perform _better _than placebo.



Is that true in all cases?


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Is that true in all cases?



For medical interventions where we have no existing treatment, it has to perform better than placebo to be licensed by NICE.
Where a treatment already exists, the proposed intervention has to perform better than the best existing treatment to be licensed.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> For medical interventions where we have no existing treatment, it has to perform better than placebo to be licensed by NICE.
> Where a treatment already exists, the proposed intervention has to perform better than the best existing treatment to be licensed.



No I mean are there not cases where a placebo has worked as well as medical intervention? They maybe urban legend but I am sure I have read cases of cancer going into remission after homoeopathic treatment.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No I mean are there not cases where a placebo has worked as well as medical intervention? They maybe urban legend but I am sure I have read cases of cancer going into remission after homoeopathic treatment.



I'm sure there are a handful of cases where a cancer has gone into remission after a homeopathic treatment. It would be rather presumptuous to conclude that it was the homeopathy that caused it, as occasionally cancers can spontaneously go into remission anyway.

That's why we do multiple large randomised, placebo controlled, double blind studies, and then meta-analyses of those studies, before we can confidently conclude that a treatment is or is not effective.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I'm sure there are a handful of cases where a cancer has gone into remission after a homeopathic treatment. It would be rather presumptuous to conclude that it was the homeopathy that caused it, as occasionally cancers can spontaneously go into remission anyway.
> 
> That's why we do multiple large randomised, placebo controlled, double blind studies, and then meta-analyses of those studies, before we can confidently conclude that a treatment is or is not effective.



I would in no way suggest that homoeopathy was the cure but rather the brains of those individuals caused the remission. It may be an ability only a few people have or can access. Like I say just playing Devils Advocate.


----------



## benb (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would in no way suggest that homoeopathy was the cure but rather the brains of those individuals caused the remission. It may be an ability only a few people have or can access. Like I say just playing Devils Advocate.



_Possibly_. If so, then it's something we seem unable to detect or identify, and certainly unable to tap or develop for synthesis into effective treatments. So an interesting curiosity, but not very helpful (at the moment - who knows what we'll find out in the next 20 years).

I am more inclined to believe that cancers can very very occasionally just spontaneously go into remission, and there is no particular reason for that.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> _Possibly_. If so, then it's something we seem unable to detect or identify, and certainly unable to tap or develop for synthesis into effective treatments. So an interesting curiosity, but not very helpful (at the moment - who knows what we'll find out in the next 20 years).
> 
> I am more inclined to believe that cancers can very very occasionally just spontaneously go into remission, and there is no particular reason for that _*that we can find at the moment*_



FTFY


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Aug 2011)

gaftaz said:


> I am in an IT background, and whilst having done some colour physics at a previous IT employer I can quite clearly state that an IT background is not akin to science, nor would one say it was their bread and butter. Whilst a research scientist, bearing in mind I have my licentiateship, the use of scientific methodology, evidence and proof was far different.



So Computer Science is not Science? OK then.


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So Computer Science is not Science? OK then.



You didn't state that though did you. IT as a whole is a very vast collection of potential jobs with most of them having very little to down science. I work in IT and could get to where I am without having a science background.


----------



## fossyant (15 Aug 2011)

25 PLUS pages of sh!te ! 

Get a life, FFS !


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (24 Aug 2011)

OK...this is going to sound like the rants of a madman (thats me btw)

A couple of days back, me and my *pregnant* wife where waiting at a junction waiting for the lights to change and the green man to show so we could both cross the road. Apon this happening a guy on a road bike cycled though the red light and disappeared on his way. To be fair to him no pedestrians had actualy started crossing the road yet (is that an excuse - I dont know?)

But this got me thinking as to what I would do if he came close to hitting my wife, and well....I got myself quite wound up about it as my brain lept from one posible consequence to another.

I realise assulting anyone is against the law, and rightly so. But in a hypothetical case like this I doubt I would consider the law in that split second. I think that if my wife was fine, I would just be fumming, shouting and probably swinging my arms in his general direction like a lunatic!


----------

