# Should police swoop on cyclists who ignore red lights? (ES poll)



## patheticshark (8 Jan 2008)

.


----------



## patheticshark (8 Jan 2008)

.


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Jan 2008)

I don't have a problem with this.
The "Motorists do it" argument cuts no Ice as far as I'm concerned, cycling must get it's own house in order.
We're an easy target because we are a nminority and we give them the ammunition to fire at us.

C'est la vie.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2008)

The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type. I suspect they would then get a lot of bus drivers, some car drivers, and lots of cyclists.


----------



## John Ponting (8 Jan 2008)

Haven't read the full article but ... Yes of course they should. Obviously, they should also swoop on ALL road users who ignore red lights.


----------



## Cab (8 Jan 2008)

Yet the focus seems to be so heavily on cyclists, which is what I dislike. I can stop at any junction I choose and see plenty of cars blatantly go through at red, yet there never seems to be any fuss about that at all.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

Given the question - Should police swoop on cyclists who ignore red lights? You have to ask, What for?

Assuming a perspective of road safety the only answer available is no.
If you want to crack down on things that simply annoy road users in general then you can answer yes.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type. I suspect they would then get a lot of bus drivers, some car drivers, and lots of cyclists.



I have a problem with this too. Given limited resources the police should be tackling the biggest threats to life, safety and quality of life for the general public. Cycling/cyclists should simply not be on their radar. There are two million uninsured drivers out there, my suggestion would be to get these off the roads first and then start looking at the next big problem.


----------



## goo_mason (8 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type. I suspect they would then get a lot of bus drivers, some car drivers, and lots of cyclists.



Yep - bring the force of the law down on every offending group, be they cyclists or motorised transport drivers. I'm always stunned sitting at light-controlled cycle and pedestrian crossings to see the crossing lights on green but a steady stream of cars, vans and buses continuing to go past as they follow each other through red lights. If I was blind or partially sighted and crossed by relying on the sound of the green man, I'd be dead by now.


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Jan 2008)

I stop at red lights, just makes sense to me not to put myself in potential danger and/or p*ss off motorists and other road users.

Without getting into a bun fight there are a lot of riders in London who think their primary position to be far more important than that of a fellow cyclist. I end up stuck behind these riders having got up good speed from the line and then have to pull back.
Fed up with arrogant cyclists who can't wait and want to barge past me and saunter on thru.
What is that all about?

T x


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> ...There are two million uninsured drivers out there, my suggestion would be to get these off the roads first and then start looking at the next big problem.



I think that's happening - I've certainly heard of the ANPR systems being used in conjunction with the insured vehicles database to do so. 

Edit: In fact, there's an article in the Standard about it, here.



BentMikey said:


> The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type.



Agreed entirely.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> I think that's happening - I've certainly heard of the ANPR systems being used in conjunction with the insured vehicles database to do so.



Great! 

So how many uninsured drivers are left on the roads now then?


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Great!
> 
> So how many uninsured drivers are left on the roads now then?



You could ask the Met, or the Home Office. I regret that I am unable to provide figures myself.

Is your point that so long as drivers/owners of motor vehicles break the law, cyclists should not be punished for doing so?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> there are a lot of riders in London who think their primary position to be far more important than that of a fellow cyclist. I end up stuck behind these riders having got up good speed from the line and then have to pull back



Surely that's about their own safety? If you want to overtake someone in primary, then you ought to wait until it's safe to do so, rather than wanting them to compromise that so you can just squeeze past? Your point seems no different to a car driver complaining about the same.

(Speaking as someone who has squeezed past other cyclists in the past myself, when I shouldn't have).


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> You could ask the Met, or the Home Office. I regret that I am unable to provide figures myself.
> 
> Is your point that so long as drivers/owners of motor vehicles break the law, cyclists should not be punished for doing so?



No, I made my point above which was:

"Given limited resources the police should be tackling the biggest threats to life, safety and quality of life for the general public. Cycling/cyclists should simply not be on their radar."

Or do you think that the police should be going after cyclists heavily even though they make an infinitesimally small contribution to road deaths, injuries and adverse quality of life/anti-social behaviour?


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Jan 2008)

I think I'm just banging about the sparce solidarity between cyclists in London.

T x


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Or do you think that the police should be going after cyclists heavily even though they make an infinitesimally small contribution to road deaths, injuries and adverse quality of life/anti-social behaviour?



Heavily is open to interpretation, but I don't see any reason that a cyclist breaking the law should escape punishment because x number of motorists do for their offences. I'd imagine that enforcing traffic law at junctions need not involve focussing particularly on one group of road users, unless that group was over represented among those breaking the law.

Hence my agreement with Bentmikey's statement;


> The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2008)

Domtyler has a point though. With limited resources, police should first be targeting the issues that most affect the community. I'm not sure that the hatred of cyclist RLJing is worse than the death and injury toll generated by RLJing motorists.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

Personally I would put red light jumping [by cyclists] at a similar level to graffiti and littering, in fact probably well below this level. Compare this to the 3,500 deaths directly caused by motorists, plus the thousands of extra deaths attributed to the pollution caused by motorists, plus the thousands and thousands of serious injuries (= lives wrecked) caused by motorists, plus the millions of people who have their lives blighted by speeding motorists on a constant basis right outside their own homes.

Do you still want to go after cyclists?


----------



## BentMikey (8 Jan 2008)

I think that cyclist RLJing is at least slightly worse than your estimate, given the number of peds reportly injured by such muppets, and that I personally know two cyclists who've been taken out by RLJers. 

Secondly, it's not fair to compare the total motorist death toll to RLJing cars, because RLJing will only be a small subset of that.

In any event, neither group has the slightest right to complain about being ticketed.


----------



## tdr1nka (8 Jan 2008)

What is wrong with expecting the same of all road users, only the penalties should be dealt out according to the transport involved.

T x


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Domtyler has a point though. With limited resources, police should first be targeting the issues that most affect the community. I'm not sure that the hatred of cyclist RLJing is worse than the death and injury toll generated by RLJing motorists.



I think if a junction is going to be policed, it should be policed. If there's only one officer present, and a bike *and* car go through, I can see the rationale for going for the car driver rather than the bike rider in terms of the potential for harm. (Presumably this means that the larger vehicle is the choice when a car and a bus, or a car and a lorry both ignore the signal).

I'm not entirely convinced that writing out a £30 ticket to cyclists ties up a huge amount of resource (although I'm willing to be corrected, given the amount of paper generated by the modern police service).


----------



## domd1979 (8 Jan 2008)

In fairness, nationally the amount of resource put into policing motorised traffic, against the odd Met Police action against cyclists is probably about in proportion.

Dealing with the death toll caused by motorised traffic isn't just a matter of policing. A lot more could be done like fitting speed limiters (GPS linked to speed limits if necessary) to cars. Attitudes in society towards the car as a status symbol need to change. The media's pro-motoring stance needs to change. Transport planning policy needs to change. Unfortunately many of those things are also politically unpalatable, will lose votes, and so politicians at all levels will refuse to deal with the problem properly.

I don't subscribe to the notion that the police should ignore RLJers. The police are there to deal with all crime, and cyclists aren't above the law.




BentMikey said:


> Domtyler has a point though. With limited resources, police should first be targeting the issues that most affect the community. I'm not sure that the hatred of cyclist RLJing is worse than the death and injury toll generated by RLJing motorists.


----------



## snorri (8 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> plus the millions of people who have their lives blighted by speeding motorists on a constant basis right outside their own homes.
> 
> Do you still want to go after cyclists?



Yes, and drivers as well. Just because aggressive cyclists are not killing people, it does not mean to say they are not blighting lives by brushing through groups of peds who are going forward on the green light.


----------



## Old Walrus (8 Jan 2008)

I'll 'do' either if they run a red light in front of me! Practically a car is easier as it's got an index number and you can always summons them if they get away. No I'm not advocating index numbers for bikes.........

Whatever FPN is issued it takes 10 minutes maximum if you're unlucky, don't start on how long even the easiest file takes!


----------



## yenrod (8 Jan 2008)

Some bloke, whom I work with, Son got nabbed by the police for riding on the pavement !

£30 quid fine !

He (father) went to the local police sta. and complained...to no amends...

The lad had gone to Macs for a bite and was riding home when the police nearly ran him off the pave' - unjust I feel and unneccessary !

Heavy-handed police tactics !


----------



## Old Walrus (8 Jan 2008)

Yenrod, one of the biggest complaints we get is about bikes on pavements, having said that a word in the ear is usually the best remedy, it would have to be a particularly obtuse pavement rider who ended up with one of my £30'ers. I fear your friend's son probably failed the 'attitude test', but as for them nearly running him off the pavement I am not impressed.


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

Old Walrus said:


> Yenrod, one of the biggest complaints we get is about bikes on pavements, having said that a word in the ear is usually the best remedy, it would have to be a particularly obtuse pavement rider who ended up with one of my £30'ers. I fear your friend's son probably failed the 'attitude test', but as for them nearly running him off the pavement I am not impressed.



I have a pavement... and a road outside my house. I hate pavement cyclists as I am never too sure when I walk out of my gate that I won't get hit, constantly prays on my mind. I would like to complain to the police about these dreaded pavement cyclists. 

The speeding motorists that are a constant presence I hate much more, they are a far, far, far bigger threat to the health and safety of me and my family than the one or two pavement cyclists (estimate) that go past each day. I probably wouldn't bother complaining about the cars though, there's just no point is there?


----------



## yenrod (8 Jan 2008)

Old Walrus said:


> Yenrod, one of the biggest complaints we get is about bikes on pavements, having said that a word in the ear is usually the best remedy, it would have to be a particularly obtuse pavement rider who ended up with one of my £30'ers. I fear your friend's son probably failed the 'attitude test', but as for them nearly running him off the pavement I am not impressed.



I'll expand as you appear to be a servant of her majesty's police force.

As much as I recognise and back the police wholeheartedly. 

Attitude or not i feel the police brought that upon themselves, nearly running someone over especially as this lad was only supporting the local business community ie macdonalds !

Police 0 member of the Public 1


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

> One could argue that cars RLJing is no more dangerous, and just annoying.



One could, but then one would be an idiot.


----------



## yenrod (8 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> I have a pavement... and a road outside my house. I hate pavement cyclists as I am never too sure when I walk out of my gate that I won't get hit, constantly prays on my mind. I would like to complain to the police about these dreaded pavement cyclists.
> 
> The speeding motorists that are a constant presence I hate much more, they are a far, far, far bigger threat to the health and safety of me and my family than the one or two pavement cyclists (estimate) that go past each day. I probably wouldn't bother complaining about the cars though, there's just no point is there?



Horses for courses Dom' horses for courses !

Yoo hypocrite !


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

yenrod said:


> Horses for courses Dom' horses for courses !
> 
> Yoo hypocrite !



Why do you have such an unhealthy obsession with animals and young boys?


----------



## Old Walrus (8 Jan 2008)

I don't know what my colleagues were doing almost running him off the pavement, just plain stupid & unjustified!


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

> You don't get many accidents, considering that at many junctions at least one car does it at every phase. the ratio would be very very low.
> 
> I take it you accept the rest of my post then.



I don't know how many people are killed or seriously injured by red light jumping cars, if, as you say, it is a very small number then there should be a correspondingly small amount of resources devoted to combating this.

My one and only priority, were I to have it within my power to make a difference, would be to reduce the death toll and serious injury toll on the roads, closely seconded by reducing the massive adverse impact on society that cars have.


----------



## Cab (8 Jan 2008)

> One could argue that cars RLJing is no more dangerous, and just annoying.
> 
> The police do sweeps. They have a go at bikes, then they have a go at cars. They spend a week in bus lanes nabbing drivers, then they have an evening doing breath tests on the roads out of town. Then they spend a day with an ANPR van stopping dodgy cars.
> 
> ...



I'm not convinced that you could make a convincing argument that RLJing cars are no more dangerous than bikes. 

Its clearly reasonable that if a cyclist is caught RLJing, he's fair game for being fined if a copper happens to be about. He's broken the law, he's got it coming. But really, considering how little harm is actually done, to actually put special effort into stopping cyclists doing this... I dunno, it just seems disproportionte to the harm they're doing. That same amount of effort would surely be better spent on tackling crimes that do more harm.


----------



## Cab (8 Jan 2008)

> I'd say that the resources devoted to RLJing cars are much higher than RLJing bikes.



Really? What are you basing that on? I've never seen a car stopped for this, I've seen cyclists stopped for it lots of times.


----------



## yenrod (8 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Why do you have such an unhealthy obsession with animals and young boys?



Grow up Dom' - grow seriously up !


----------



## domtyler (8 Jan 2008)

> Neither do I. I was just trying to illustrate the point that thousands of drivers RLJ every day without causing any accident. And this could be used as an argument against RLJers in cars being brought to book, given limited resources etc.
> 
> Not by me though. Conformity to the law shouldn't be selective. Of course it is by everyone, and we all draw the line somewhere. But we all know that we are breaking it when we do, and so have no defence when caught and punished.



You're basically saying that all crimes are equal and thus all laws should carry the same weight. I think you should go away and think about this before posting again.


----------



## Terminator (8 Jan 2008)

yenrod said:


> Grow up Dom' - grow seriously up !



Some hope.


----------



## bonj2 (9 Jan 2008)

Course they should get stopped and fined. Probably only in London though, not much point anywhere else. It's mainly only for image, the media and tourists - but there's nothing wrong with that.
Reason 1, whenever a cyclist is stopped and fined in London, lots of motorists are likely to see it - that's a lot of motorists that have just had their prejudices that cyclists get away with jumping red lights wiped out. Not to mention tourists - if tourists see it, they're going to think not only how good we are at cracking down on road safety infringements but also what a technologically advanced country we are. Whatever the police may pretend, the main objective is the image projected - but what's wrong with that? As the pro-speed camera lobby keep banging out - if you break the law you run the risk ofbeing punished, it's very easy not to get fined, just don't break the law.
Reason 2, _*and the main reason*_, a cyclist who is stupid enough to get stopped by the police for RLJing can't be a very observant cyclist! As was demonstrated on Road Rage on BBC1, one of the police officers said "we're not exactly hiding!" If you're in so much of a daze you can't see a bloody policeman on a distinctive white bike in reflective gear, chances are you haven't got much chance of seeing something coming over a junction, so they _need_ to be given a kick up the arse into taking responsibility for their own safety.
FWIW I must admit I do actually RLJ a lot less than I used to, although I have done it in full view of police waiting at lights in a van (i.e. not on a shout) before and they haven't batted an eyelid - although most of thetime I do it it's completely safe and without risk of it being in sight of a police officer. I never wait at lights 'pointlessly' though.


----------



## col (9 Jan 2008)

Old Walrus said:


> I don't know what my colleagues were doing almost running him off the pavement, just plain stupid & unjustified!




Ah but did they?Iv found that people on the recieving end of being in the wrong,tend to exagerate,or even tell lies,to somehow blame someone else for their wrongdoing.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

> Cameras. That never sleep.



Except, of course, when they _do_ sleep. Or, rather, when they're not on. Which seems to be a heck of a lot of them.

But it isn't really a good comparison; speed cameras don't take up much police time. Many of them take up _no_ police time or effort. Posting someone at a junction to stop anyone red light jumping on a bike takes _more_ time and effort, admittedly to stop a crime, but to stop a crime that doesn't much harm anyone (if the accident stats are to be believed).

More people are killed, hit by cars, _on pavements_, than by bikes. Put that police officer in a suburb, have him arrest people as they drive on to pavements. Such expenditure of effort would be more worthwhile.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

> People don't always know whether cameras are working. It's a resource put in place to address some RLJ problems. And they don't work for bikes. So it makes sense that the police should be on the street occasionally stopping cyclists for the same behaviour.



I see those cameras every day, and I see the same vehicles RLJ at those junctions every day. To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the incidence of red light jumping by cars has not declined at all in recent years; go on, try going to the police station and say you were nearly hit by an RLJ and that theres a camera there, they'll tell you that they don't have resources to look into 'nearly hit'. So I don't accept that such cameras really are a resource to cut RLJing, at least they're not a resource being used as such.

In that context, and in the context of RLJing cyclists actually causing orders of magnitude less harm than cars, I just don't see that the presence of cameras is relevant to an argument that the police should be paying someones wages to stop cyclists doing something illegal, irritating but ultimately hardly important.



> I don't think the financial/time resource argument is an issue. A CCTV camera could prevent a murder, but it doesn't cost much.
> 
> The driving on pavements issue is interesting. I'd like to see the situations behind the killings.



If a CCTV camera catches a murder, it will only be the first part of a large expenditure of resources in following up the crime. Thats worth doing; it isn't generally thought to be worth doing with, say, red light jumping, which is why there aren't hoards of red light jumping motorists in court. With or withoug cameras, its a resource issue.

And when resources _are_ an issue you've got some simple choices; red light jumping cars or red light jumping bikes? Grafitti or RLJ bikes? Dangerous overtaking motorists or RLJ bikes? You've got limited resources, do you focus your energy on cyclists breaking a law that isn't really harming people (irritates the hell out of me, but thats a different matter) or do you use those resources on something that does cause genuine harm?


----------



## PrettyboyTim (9 Jan 2008)

I don't buy this bollocks that some people are spouting that RLJing on a bike is 'mostly harmless' and prosecution by the Police is petty and they should be concentrating on bigger crimes. RLJing is dangerous, and pedestrians can get hurt or killed by those who do it. Sure, you're more likely to get killed by an RLJing lorry than an RLJing bike, but that's scant comfort to those pedestrians who get hit by cyclists and have to look out for some self-centred twat on a bike despite the fact they're crossing on a green man.

The thing is this: jumping a red light, _regardless_ of what kind of vehicle you're riding/driving can be safe in some circumstances. If you feel that you can safely cross a red on a bike, why shouldn't someone on a motorbike or a car or a lorry, as long as they are careful? The answer is that people can't be trusted to make that decision accurately, even if they think they can. 

Lights are there for a reason. They ensure that those who should have priority on the road at that time have it regardless of the ability of the others, _as long as the road signals are obeyed_.

We can't have some two-tier system where those with the leet skills to cross reds safely have different rules from those who can't. The law must be applied evenly.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> I don't buy this bollocks that some people are spouting that RLJing on a bike is 'mostly harmless' and prosecution by the Police is petty and they should be concentrating on bigger crimes. RLJing is dangerous, and pedestrians can get hurt or killed by those who do it. Sure, you're more likely to get killed by an RLJing lorry than an RLJing bike, but that's scant comfort to those pedestrians who get hit by cyclists and have to look out for some self-centred twat on a bike despite the fact they're crossing on a green man.



I'd love to agree with you, because I hate RLJing cyclists. I really do.

But there aren't any accident stats that I've ever seen that back that case up. The fact, as far as I can see it, is that cyclists aren't causing carnage by going through red lights. And as thats what the stats say (or rather, we have no stats that say that they ARE causing a big problem, at least not that I've ever seen) why should police resources be spent on this?



> The thing is this: jumping a red light, _regardless_ of what kind of vehicle you're riding/driving can be safe in some circumstances. If you feel that you can safely cross a red on a bike, why shouldn't someone on a motorbike or a car or a lorry, as long as they are careful? The answer is that people can't be trusted to make that decision accurately, even if they think they can.



I agree. Thats why I'm opposed to people RLJing. I'm also opposed to spending resources on staking out crossings specifically to stop cyclists doing this; by all means if a copper sees it happen then get hold of the cyclist and impose a fine or whateve. But it doesn't seem appropriate to spend more resources on this that could be more profitably (in terms of preventing harm) be spent elsewhere.



> Lights are there for a reason. They ensure that those who should have priority on the road at that time have it regardless of the ability of the others, _as long as the road signals are obeyed_.
> 
> We can't have some two-tier system where those with the leet skills to cross reds safely have different rules from those who can't. The law must be applied evenly.




The law _isn't_ applied evenly either in theory or in practice; some roads have more scrutiny than others, some road users have more stringent checks on vehicle safety than others, etc. The argument that the law must be applied evenly... Why? Isn't there a practicality issue here somewhere?


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2008)

I think RLJing (and I include zebra and other crossings in this as well as traffic lights) can't be as harmless as many cyclists suggest. There are lots of anecdotal stories of people being hit by cyclists, including other cyclists. Even though most are minor injuries, that's still very upsetting. And for the more serious injuries, that just makes me MAD.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (9 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> The fact, as far as I can see it, is that cyclists aren't causing carnage by going through red lights.



I am quite happy for the Police to prosecute RLJers simply for their harassment of pedestrians as they try and cross on the green man, irrespective of the injury they cause when they do collide.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I think RLJing (and I include zebra and other crossings in this as well as traffic lights) can't be as harmless as many cyclists suggest. There are lots of anecdotal stories of people being hit by cyclists, including other cyclists. Even though most are minor injuries, that's still very upsetting. And for the more serious injuries, that just makes me MAD.



The world is _full_ of anecdotes about bad things though. Anecdotes about old people feeling scared to go to the local shops because hoodies hang out nearby. Anecdotes about pavements being impassable because cars are parked there. Anecdotes about people being scared to cross suburban roads because of speeding motorists.

Some of those anecdotes can be readily backed up through use of data, some cannot. Despite all of the complaints about RLJing cyclists I've yet to see any data that backs up the claim that it is causing harm.

Do you want the police to spend their finite resources on things that are demonstrably harmful or things that are only anecdotally harmful?


----------



## magnatom (9 Jan 2008)

RLJing is a serious problem among cyclists. A significant proportion do it. It is against the law and should therefore be enforced. 

Other road users RLJ, it is a serious problem and it should be enforced as well.


Often the police blitz certain types of crime, drink driving, driving up bus lanes, speeding, etc. These blitzs keep the issue in the publics mind and hopefully reduce the incidents of offence to some extent outside the blitz. If it wasn't a problem (i.e. it wasn't happening a lot) the police wouldn't have to blitz it.

Cyclists who RLJ need reminding that it is against the law and will be punished. Therefore I am all for it. If you don't RLJ then you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> I am quite happy for the Police to prosecute RLJers simply for their harassment of pedestrians as they try and cross on the green man, irrespective of the injury they cause when they do collide.



So am I. If a police officer sees this happening, then do the cyclist for it. Can't disagree there.

A police 'swoop', actually staking junctions out to catch cyclists breaking the law, requires more resources than just happening to catch someone though. You really think that this is more worthy than, say, spending the same police time preventing people driving on to roads, preventing close overtaking of cyclists, or actually taking data from existing CCTV footage that undoubtedly shows _thousands_ of motorist RLJers (who pose a bigger risk) getting away with it?

I don't disagree with stopping cyclists RLJ, I just don't get why this can be justified as any kind of priority for the police.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> If you don't RLJ then you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that.



I don't RLJ, but I worry about this because relative to the benefit that could be obtained by spending resources more effectively, I think that such an effort would be a waste.


----------



## magnatom (9 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> I don't RLJ, but I worry about this because relative to the benefit that could be obtained by spending resources more effectively, I think that such an effort would be a waste.



I disagree. Remember damage is not just measured in injuries and deaths, it is also measured in perception and animosity. 

Far to often car drivers throw the old line at you about RLJing. They hate cyclists because they see us breaking the laws that they (and we) have to stick by. That 'bloody cyclists' attitude can lead to dangers for cyclists when the drivers take their animosity out on the next cyclist they see. 


So yes I think it is worth the police taking time to catch these cyclists. It might just improve things for us all.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (9 Jan 2008)

My guess is that if the Police didn't get any complaints about RLJing they wouldn't be targeting RLJers, which would suggest to me that it _is_ justified.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> My guess is that if the Police didn't get any complaints about RLJing they wouldn't be targeting RLJers, which would suggest to me that it _is_ justified.



I'd agree. And with the level of anecdotal injuries from these cyclists, I'd suggest there is almost certainly a real problem. I just wish the police would also do more on bus and car RLJers as the number of those RLJing would seem to indicate much more work is needed.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

Terminator said:


> Some hope.



Terminal, why are you such a total cock? Eh?


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> I don't buy this bollocks that some people are spouting that RLJing on a bike is 'mostly harmless' and prosecution by the Police is petty and they should be concentrating on bigger crimes. RLJing is dangerous, and pedestrians can get hurt or killed by those who do it. Sure, you're more likely to get killed by an RLJing lorry than an RLJing bike, but that's scant comfort to those pedestrians who get hit by cyclists and have to look out for some self-centred twat on a bike despite the fact they're crossing on a green man.
> 
> The thing is this: jumping a red light, _regardless_ of what kind of vehicle you're riding/driving can be safe in some circumstances. If you feel that you can safely cross a red on a bike, why shouldn't someone on a motorbike or a car or a lorry, as long as they are careful? The answer is that people can't be trusted to make that decision accurately, even if they think they can.
> 
> ...



This is the biggest load of emotionally charged crap I have read in a long time. The last time was when I accidentally picked up a copy of the Express. Seriously, there is not one valid point in all this.


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jan 2008)

Some one has to set the trend/example on RLJ'ing, why not cyclists?

All the sh*te I've taken from car drivers, on and off road, over the years because of an ingrained predjudice brought about by cyclists who, most quoted example; jump red lights.

There is a serious lack of courtesy all round on the roads these days and being some of the most splendid and intelligent individuals out there, cyclists should be keen to lead the way to the moral high ground.
(In primary and not going thru no red lights, ya hear?)


T x


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I disagree. Remember damage is not just measured in injuries and deaths, it is also measured in perception and animosity.
> 
> Far to often car drivers throw the old line at you about RLJing. *They hate cyclists because they see us breaking the laws that they (and we) have to stick by. *That 'bloody cyclists' attitude can lead to dangers for cyclists when the drivers take their animosity out on the next cyclist they see.
> 
> ...



Funniest post of the year so far mate that!!! Absolute cracker!

A little test for you, how many car trips do NOT involve breaking the speed limit at least once do you think?


----------



## PrettyboyTim (9 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> This is the biggest load of emotionally charged crap I have read in a long time.



Do I win a prize?


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Funniest post of the year so far mate that!!! Absolute cracker!
> 
> A little test for you, how many car trips do NOT involve breaking the speed limit at least once do you think?



Well, that would really depend on wot C*nt wos driving, wouldn't it?


LOL

T x


----------



## User482 (9 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I disagree. Remember damage is not just measured in injuries and deaths, it is also measured in perception and animosity.
> 
> Far to often car drivers throw the old line at you about RLJing. They hate cyclists because they see us breaking the laws that they (and we) have to stick by. That 'bloody cyclists' attitude can lead to dangers for cyclists when the drivers take their animosity out on the next cyclist they see.
> 
> ...



I agree with this. It is a grossly irrational, hypocritical and unfair attitude, but we've all heard it. My commute to work involves three crossings at cycle/ pedestrian pelicans - it's very noticeable that cars RLJ much more often when I'm there on my own, as opposed to when pedestrians are waiting.


----------



## magnatom (9 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> Funniest post of the year so far mate that!!! Absolute cracker!
> 
> A little test for you, how many car trips do NOT involve breaking the speed limit at least once do you think?



Your a little confrontational today aren't you Dom

Indeed they do, but does that make it right. Does that mean that it should be allowed. I think you will find that the police come down quite hard on speeding (although the courts don't always). 

Perception plays a big part, especially as we are a minority. If we want to improve the perception of cyclists then we have to follow the laws of the land. 

At the moment speeding is culturally acceptable. Drink driving was once acceptable. I think/hope that one day this will change.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (9 Jan 2008)

Police setting out to specifically catch cycling RLJers is not best use of their time.

I've been reluctantly convinced that RLJing gets motorists' backs up, but I've yet to be convinced that it's dangerous, or at least as dangerous as other motoring offences that are committed routinely on the roads eg speeding, mobile phones, RLJ in cars, tailgating, lack of insurance etc etc etc.

The fuzz should prioritise their overstretched resources accordingly.


----------



## wafflycat (9 Jan 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type. I suspect they would then get a lot of bus drivers, some car drivers, and lots of cyclists.



Well said. Where I live, I see far more motorists jumping red lghts than cyclists, yet the meeja would have us believe it's only cyclists who are the problem. All RLJ'ers irrespective of mode of transport should be targeted, not just one little group within the RLJ'ers.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> Do I win a prize?



Not a prize as such, but you do get a clip round the ear


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> Your a little confrontational today aren't you Dom



Unfortunately I have been given work to do today so only had a few seconds to offend as many people as possible get my points across.


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jan 2008)

a cycle clip is that?




T x


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jan 2008)

If you have Police stopping cycle RLJ's, it surely stands to reason their presence at a junction should not only deter motorists from jumping the lights, they'd be able to catch them at it too?

T x


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

> I blame the press.



Surely it's mostly down to Global Warming?


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I disagree. Remember damage is not just measured in injuries and deaths, it is also measured in perception and animosity.
> 
> Far to often car drivers throw the old line at you about RLJing. They hate cyclists because they see us breaking the laws that they (and we) have to stick by. That 'bloody cyclists' attitude can lead to dangers for cyclists when the drivers take their animosity out on the next cyclist they see.
> 
> ...



True, at a personal level I'd love to see cyclists who RLJ get caught and fined, its an irritating thing that they do! And yes, they do get us all a bad name, and I'd love to see them stopped from doing that. But thats as far as I can go and still agree with you 

Blitzing cyclists on a single issue doesn't work, at least not when I've seen it done. I've seen this happen with RLJing, I've seen it with lights, and a month after the blitz the streets here in Cambridge are as infested with RLJers or unlit cyclists as they were before. Therefore I don't accept that the problem isnt solveable with a crack down.

And even if it _was_, there are more worthy targets that cause more harm and distress.

To solve this you have to address what the cause of the problem is, just fining those you catch over a fortnights period doesn't do that. And the cause of this problem on our roads, like many others, is that there is an endemic opinion that if you're not obviously causing any harm it is okay to break the rules. So its the same as motorists RLJing, speeding, etc. You can't have a once in a while crackdown and expect it to cause a cultural change.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> My guess is that if the Police didn't get any complaints about RLJing they wouldn't be targeting RLJers, which would suggest to me that it _is_ justified.



Yep, they get complaints about it (I'd be fascinated to see a demographic breakdown of those complaining about it). That in itself doesn't justify spending resources on it though. Why should it?


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> A little test for you, how many car trips do NOT involve breaking the speed limit at least once do you think?



While you're right that speeding is an endemic crime, its less visible because it _is_ so endemic. Cyclists getting to the front of the queue of traffic and crossing the white line in front of motorists is way mote visible. Re-read the post you were responding to, the point was correct in that context.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

> Or rather, the fact as you choose to see it.



No, the 'fact' being derived from the oft-discussed data on RLJing. The 'fact' being that RLJers are not reported as being responsible for accidents or as causing serious injury.



> The many drivers I see every day, at every junction, RLJing aren't causing carnage either.



Interesting, isn't it? And do you notice that the police largely ignore them, even though there are more of them than cyclists and they have the potential to cause much more harm? Rather makes the claim that RLJing cyclists are a problem seem... I dunno... rather petty.



> You haven't picked a very good defence.



What is it that you think I'm defending?


----------



## PrettyboyTim (9 Jan 2008)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Police setting out to specifically catch cycling RLJers is not best use of their time.
> 
> I've been reluctantly convinced that RLJing gets motorists' backs up, but I've yet to be convinced that it's dangerous, or at least as dangerous as other motoring offences that are committed routinely on the roads eg speeding, mobile phones, RLJ in cars, tailgating, lack of insurance etc etc etc.
> 
> The fuzz should prioritise their overstretched resources accordingly.



Yeah, yeah - the same old excuse used by speeding motorists. "Why are you bothering me doing my <insert allegedly 'minor' offence here> when you could be off catching rapists and murderers?" I could almost be on a SafeSpeed forum.

Let's get things in perspective here: RLJing by cyclists is rife among a sizeable minority - and the Police have decided to do a limited-time crackdown on it. What's the problem? It's not as if they're suddenly dedicating a quarter of their annual budget to the problem. RLJing is illegal, it is dangerous and it is anti-social. Are you seriously suggesting it should be completely ignored by the Police?


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

> You'd say the same then about a police swoop to catch drivers using bus lanes then? Too many resources to hide a couple of bobbies behind a wall for an hour in the morning rush-hour? Why?



Depends on the bus lane. I can think of one in Cambridge where they'd be mad to do so, its almost unavoidable that those not intimitely familiar with Newmarket Road will end up in the bus lane at some point. 

But yeah, fair question, and I don't know whether I'd object or not. Got any data that says that using bus lanes is causing an increase in accidents or adversely affecting other road users in any way? If not, I'd say that a blitz is uncalled for but nick'em if you catch 'em (as for RLJing cyclists). If yes, then depending on the increase in risk I'd say yeah, spend resources that way.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (9 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> Yep, they get complaints about it (I'd be fascinated to see a demographic breakdown of those complaining about it). That in itself doesn't justify spending resources on it though. Why should it?



Well, if they get a lot of complaints about people getting hurt or narrowly avoiding getting hurt because of somebody else's lawbreaking activity, shouldn't they look in to it?


----------



## Tynan (9 Jan 2008)

where I cycle the majority rlj

I was waiting at to cross Holloway road this morning with about seven cyclists and loads of traffic, long lights, come the bit where the ped lights to the left go green and it's safe to cross the huge junction, with cars waiting in all directions, five of the bikes set off, very very visible indeed

I really did cringe at the spectacle, especially as it only gave them a 15 odd second head start

I've slowly become a bit of a RLS fascist now, I make apoint of stopping at almost everything now, and I've started to scowl at those carrying on


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

> Neither has it for cyclists. But that's not what we're talking about.
> 
> Of course they are a resource to cut RLJing. You've given the example of a junction where you don't think the camera is working, or where you claim there are regulars who ignore this. What about those who aren't familiar to the junction? What about all of the other cameras?



What about them? Theres a staggering number of cameras, and an amazing number of red light jumping motorists. If the cameras were a realistic deterrent, we wouldn't see so much RLJing, and if they were being used to prosecute motorists for that then the courts would be full of this. Ain't happening though.



> Anyway, you're dragging the argument off a bit. All I said was that there are measures used to address the problem of RLJing cars, as there are to address the problem of RLJing cyclists.



No, I'm not. Those measures are clearly not being used to stop cars RLJing. In principle they could be, but the lack of wave after wave of prosecutions suggests otherwise.



> Maybe they should introduce license plates for bikes then. That would relieve the police. Not that I'm advocating it at all, it's a ridiculous idea.
> 
> They do things to catch RLJing bikes, RlJing cars, pavement cyclists, cars in bus lanes, etc etc. Any suggestion that the authorities are picking on cyclists is ignoring the bigger picture and ridiculous.



If you'd like to point to where I've said that the authorities are picking on cyclists, I'm curious to hear. You've constructed the straw many that I'm opposed to this because its picking on cyclists and tried to topple that down. Well done, straw man dead. My opposition to this is actually because its a foolish way to spend resources. 

The rest of your post is just dragging the thread of the argument from side to side.[/QUOTE]

I think that you're rather ignoring the points I've put forward. Not sure why you're doing that.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> If you have Police stopping cycle RLJ's, it surely stands to reason their presence at a junction should not only deter motorists from jumping the lights, they'd be able to catch them at it too?
> 
> T x



You'd have thunk. I've never seen it happen though.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> Let's get things in perspective here: RLJing by cyclists is rife among a sizeable minority - and the Police have decided to do a limited-time crackdown on it. What's the problem?



The argument that I have put forward is that any expenditure of resources specifically on this will neither work nor will it be effective. Don't get me wrong, I'd take great personal satisfaction in seeing RLJing cyclists beaten with mackerel, its just that I don't see any reason to believe that the police should specifically target that.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> Well, if they get a lot of complaints about people getting hurt or narrowly avoiding getting hurt because of somebody else's lawbreaking activity, shouldn't they look in to it?



In an ideal world, yes.

In the real world the stats they have don't support the claim that this really is a highly dangerous activity. 

They have limited resources.

Should they target things that are demonstrably dangerous or those that spook people a bit?


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> where I cycle the majority rlj
> 
> I was waiting at to cross Holloway road this morning with about seven cyclists and loads of traffic, long lights, come the bit where the ped lights to the left go green and it's safe to cross the huge junction, with cars waiting in all directions, five of the bikes set off, very very visible indeed
> 
> ...



Sounds very, very familiar  

For some reason, cyclists who undertake me and turn right through the red light in front of me really get on my nerves, perhaps more than anyone else on the road.


----------



## Tynan (9 Jan 2008)

indeed, I cut it out after going out for a drink a few times a while back and the first question I got asked by almost everyone, when I mentioned cycling, was 'do you jump red lights', closely followed by 'do you ride on pavements'


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

PrettyboyTim said:


> Well, if they get a lot of complaints about people getting hurt or narrowly avoiding getting hurt because of somebody else's lawbreaking activity, shouldn't they look in to it?



It's a proven scientific fact that 98% of RLJ complaints are phoned in by people doing 40 in a 30 while on their moby's!


----------



## magnatom (9 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> Blitzing cyclists on a single issue doesn't work, at least not when I've seen it done. I've seen this happen with RLJing, I've seen it with lights, and a month after the blitz the streets here in Cambridge are as infested with RLJers or unlit cyclists as they were before. Therefore I don't accept that the problem isnt solveable with a crack down.
> 
> And even if it _was_, there are more worthy targets that cause more harm and distress.
> 
> To solve this you have to address what the cause of the problem is, just fining those you catch over a fortnights period doesn't do that. And the cause of this problem on our roads, like many others, is that there is an endemic opinion that if you're not obviously causing any harm it is okay to break the rules. So its the same as motorists RLJing, speeding, etc. You can't have a once in a while crackdown and expect it to cause a cultural change.



To solve the problem it needs to be approached in a number of ways. I like these three words: education, humiliation and ramification. 

People need to be educated that red light jumping can be dangerous, is against the law and is not morally acceptable. They need to realise that as a minority group being seen as law breakers (anarchists even!) brings with it animosity and the resulting dangers.

Humiliation, i.e. of the sort that is associated with being labeled a drink driver. Of course this would be to a lesser degree, but it needs to become socially unacceptable. We need to instill embarrassment at being labeled a RLJ. 

As for ramifications that requires knowing that you could get caught and punished for RLJing. Blitzing sends out a message, that the police will prosecute if you are caught and that the police take it seriously. People will think twice about doing something if they know they can be penalised.

Now I agree that often too much emphasis is placed on ramifications, but it is a vital part of stopping RLJing.

Education is the job of the police, government, ROSPA etc. More work is needed here and others are better qualified than I to determine what should be done.

Humiliation to some extent falls on us, the CTC etc. We need to make it known on the net and on the streets and in the media that certain behaviours are not acceptable. In that respect the programme on road rage the other night did a good job. If I was RLJer watching that I am sure I would think twice about doing it again, because it did come across as socially unacceptable. I suppose I do my small part by pulling folk up who red light jump. It works for me because I don't see it often (not as many cyclists in Glasgow). I'm not sure I would bother in London.

I don't have the answers cab, but I do know that we need the police from time to time to remind us all that RLJ is not on.


----------



## User482 (9 Jan 2008)

domtyler said:


> It's a proven scientific fact that 98% of RLJ complaints are phoned in by people doing 40 in a 30 while on their moby's!



Quite. Hence my response to the question from motorists:

"Do you RLJ?". 
"No. Do you ever break the speed limit?"


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

magnatom said:


> I don't have the answers cab, but I do know that we need the police from time to time to remind us all that RLJ is not on.



I agree with you here (and indeed with much of the rest of what you have said). Its just the methodology I don't agree with; blitzing a crime once in a while isn't in any way a good way to change the culture.

Presently, police ignore red light jumping cyclists. I've seen it many times, heck, I've seen our local PCSOs go through red lights on their bikes. We sometimes see a local blitz on such things as red light jumping, lack of lights, etc. It doesn't make people think 'oh no, we're in the wrong', it just makes them think 'I can't do it here and now because I'd get caught'. Its exactly like the effect that highly visible speed cameras have, they don't make poeple think 'oh no, I must not speed, its wrong', the attitude becomes 'I can't speed here and now because I'd get caught'. 

You get to the end of the blitz period and nothing has changed. Happens here nearly every year.

So yes, I agree, something has to be done, but this is the wrong approach. If the proposal was 'lets blitz red light jumping road users while simultaneously putting real effort into educating people, we're not going to concentrate on the least harmful, the least dangerous road users we're going to go for everyone' then I'd be all in favour. If it was a meaningful proposal to change things on the roads for the better then that would be great. But to specifically crack down on RLJing cyclists for a couple of weeks... Waste of time and effort.


----------



## Cab (9 Jan 2008)

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, I'd apply the same logic to speed cameras. Highly visible cameras, well labelled, with (usually) pitiful penalties and a lack of accompanying education to improve behaviour... Doesn't work. 

Hide the cameras, publicise the negative effects of speeding more assertively, increase penalties just a a little bit, and you have my _full_ support.


----------



## cupoftea (9 Jan 2008)

I was at the lights by Tower Bridge on Monday morning and Plod was playing games. So I asked a PSO what they were doing, he replied that they were targeting cyclists RLJing, and people blocking the ASL box, I then point out that Taxi behind me had his front wheel over the rear white line. He said oh he’s not blocking the box. At this point the lights changed and I couldn’t be bothered. What should I have expected?

This junction gets a lot of attention, because coming the other way theirs a left feeder lane that pedestrian need to cross and that a number of cyclists feel it’s safe to jump. 

I should say that I’ve had words with peds here, but only because they’re crossing when they shouldn’t. They seem happy to stop for cars but when you turn up they just keep walking or rush out in front. They just see you as gap in the traffic.


----------



## domtyler (9 Jan 2008)

Cab said:


> ......
> 
> But to specifically crack down on RLJing cyclists for a couple of weeks... Waste of time and effort.



No it's not, it allows the station supervisor to do a few press releases and inform the local nag brigade that they are doing something about it at the local community meeting.


----------



## Tynan (9 Jan 2008)

hiding cameras breaks the law, human rights


----------



## Zoom (9 Jan 2008)

There's a cycle / pedestrian crossing just before my work; you have to wait ages and ages and ages before it goes green as it's usually only automatically activated by a push button or a camera in the side road controlled by the same set (left turn only but cyclists can ride straight across into the park) which is hardly ever used. So I do the good thing and wait and wait to cross an often empty stretch of road. Of course 3 times out of 10 as soon as it actually goes red some B^%*&(*d driver goes through it! it's crying out for a camera but as the cyclists and peds are too smart to actually cross it without looking it doesn't have any accidents (which is apparently what determines which lights get cameras)


----------



## spindrift (9 Jan 2008)

I've stood and watched cops in The City ticket cyclists whilst cars RLJ willy nilly.


----------



## tdr1nka (9 Jan 2008)

spindrift said:


> I've stood and watched cops in The City ticket cyclists whilst cars RLJ willy nilly.



These drivers probably had a momentary lapse of consentration while overcome with the sheer excitment of seeing a cyclist being booked. 

T x


----------



## Cab (10 Jan 2008)

> Why don't _you think _it will make a difference?



Go read my posts. I've said why.


----------



## CotterPin (10 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> where I cycle the majority rlj
> 
> I was waiting at to cross Holloway road this morning with about seven cyclists and loads of traffic, long lights, come the bit where the ped lights to the left go green and it's safe to cross the huge junction, with cars waiting in all directions, five of the bikes set off, very very visible indeed
> 
> ...



Tynan,
I think I might do the same junction as you. Tollington Way/Holloway Road? I do a left here to go down Holloway Road. 

You are right - there are a number of cyclists who roll through the red lights and like you I find it annoying. I do a "stern stare" although I don't think it comes out quite right. 

However I can almost understand (although not condone) why they do it at this junction. Once you get over the Holloway Road you have the option to go straight ahead to Camden or bear left to Kings Cross. You should be in the correct lane before the lights but I have had many an occasion when cycling towards Camden of being cut up by a car that suddenly decides to switch lane and usually at speed.

Some of those people at that junction jump the lights because for them it works as a safe way of getting across that junction and not being cut up on the other side. Obviously others jump the lights here because they're mindless and stupid idiots.

However, those motorists are being equally mindless and stupid idiots and they are doing it in a potentially more lethal manner. But who does everyone notice behaving badly at this junction? The cyclists. So who gets all the flak? The cyclists.

As I said I don't condone rljers, and I don't do it myself. But I equally do not condone the dangerous and illegal behaviour of motorists which can have more lethal consequences but which somehow seems to go unobserved.


----------



## Tynan (10 Jan 2008)

yep cotter, that's the one and I don't agree with that justification, they'll be the same people that jumped all the earlier lights, I get into the right lane as early as necessary, easy, christ knows what goes through the mind of the people that start on the left and cross the lane to get onto the Camden Road, see that every day and it's dangerous and relies on the drivers' goodwill, riders like that shouldn't do junctions like that

yes a few cars decide to go to Camden rather than Kings Cross rather late in the day but not many at all, the cyclists are simply in the wrong bloody lane

I think they jump because they can mostly

watch out for me when the weather gets good enough for the cyclechat jerseys, wrecked old Scott and a lurid nightvision jacket is me, heading to Camden through that junction at about 8.20ish

cars jumping lights is just as frowned upon surely, more so by far


----------



## Cab (10 Jan 2008)

> Sorry. I'll rephrase that. You've said why you think it won't make a difference.


 (rest cut, as its just pointless)

Nope, I gave as evidence that blitzes haven't worked in the past, reasoning as to why I believe such don't work, parallels that also don't work, and suggestions for what I believe would work. You, in return, have constructed in your mind a fictional account of your own to respond to rather than directly respond to points put forward.


----------



## CotterPin (10 Jan 2008)

Tynan said:


> yep cotter, that's the one and I don't agree with that justification, they'll be the same people that jumped all the earlier lights, I get into the right lane as early as necessary, easy, christ knows what goes through the mind of the people that start on the left and cross the lane to get onto the Camden Road, see that every day and it's dangerous and relies on the drivers' goodwill, riders like that shouldn't do junctions like that
> 
> yes a few cars decide to go to Camden rather than Kings Cross rather late in the day but not many at all, the cyclists are simply in the wrong bloody lane
> 
> ...




I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Tynan 

As I said I am not condoning their behaviour and chances are some of them are serial rljers who give it no thought at all. But having crossed that junction myself on many a occasion it can be one hell of a hairy experience suddenly realising that the car next to you is trying to swing across your path, even when you are holding your lane.

For a newbie cyclist who has had that experience, jumping the lights could be perceived to be the easy option, especially when they see someone else do it. Regrettably we know that it definitely ain't and could result in even worse consequences for the cyclist.

I do that junction every day usually a little later than you (I am rubbish at getting out of bed in the morning!) I am on Fuji Track bike (freewheel as I am too much of wimp to try fixed  ) and usually wear an Altura jacket.


----------



## Cab (10 Jan 2008)

> The fact (yes, fact) remains that no-one should be jumping red lights. You don't need evidence for that.
> 
> And so it follows that the people who do have no argument against being caught, nor the resources used, nor the resources not used on others. But that's irrelevant really, because it's pandering to the silly "look!! over there!!!" argument.



And once again you're waving a straw man in the air before beating it senseless. I've said _quite clearly_ that I don't approve of red light jumping, that I'm more than happy for cyclists who are caught doing so to be punished. You also know full well that the stats don't back up the claim that red light jumping by cyclists is a major cause of accidents (nor is being safer by red light jumping a valid claim), because you've been involved in debates that went on and on based on those stats. Therefore the claim that practically any other kind of law breaking that _is_ more directly responsible for causing harm is a more appropriate target for expending resources is valid, providing you believe that resources should be used where they can most effectively prevent harm. You do believe that, don't you?



> You really need to see the bigger picture Cab. If you're going to moan about the resources used in this then you need to know what they are, in proper comparison to other resources.



No, I really don't need to know or comment on that; the fact is that with finite resources, targeting any _specifically_ on something that is annoying but not (demonstrably) generally harmful is inappropriate. 

If there is data suggesting that there are specific locations that buck this, where RLJing cyclists _are_ causing harm, then the argument changes. If there is not, then this is not a good way to spend resources.



> I anticipate that when you do this (as if), along with the necessary consideration of _all _the positives and negatives, you'll see that proportionally resources are appropriate.



You mean, I'll agree that some of a finite pool of resources should be spent on something that is not demonstrably (or even likely) going to work, that doesn't tackle a problem causing real harm, when similar policies not accompanied by any kind of public re-education have similarly not worked? I don't think so, not while other areas of police work remain so under resourced.


----------



## 02GF74 (11 Jan 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> I stop at red lights, just makes sense to me not to put myself in potential danger and/or p*ss off motorists and other road users.



hmmmm I find the exact opposite - it is safest to go over crossroads when the traffic is stopped by red lights. (obviously that is after checking there is nothing coming from the sides).


----------



## User482 (11 Jan 2008)

02GF74 said:


> hmmmm I find the exact opposite - it is safest to go over crossroads when the traffic is stopped by red lights. (obviously that is after checking there is nothing coming from the sides).



Not so. You hack off the car driver that was behind you, who will then attempt to run you down.


----------



## domtyler (11 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Not so. You hack off the car driver that was behind you, who will then attempt to run you down.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jan 2008)

02GF74 said:


> hmmmm I find the exact opposite - it is safest to go over crossroads when the traffic is stopped by red lights. (obviously that is after checking there is nothing coming from the sides).



Not really, no. If you're looking to be safer, then go across with the green, legally. Best of all, get yourself in primary position behind the first or second car in the queue.


----------



## User169 (11 Jan 2008)

User482 said:


> Not so. You hack off the car driver that was behind you, who will then attempt to run you down.



I rather suspect that if someone is prepared deliberately to run a cyclist down, running red lights is neither here nor there.


----------



## User482 (14 Jan 2008)

Delftse Post said:


> I rather suspect that if someone is prepared deliberately to run a cyclist down, running red lights is neither here nor there.




You do realise that my last post wasn't entirely serious?


----------



## hackbike 6 (17 Oct 2008)

*You are right - there are a number of cyclists who roll through the red lights and like you I find it annoying. I do a "stern stare" although I don't think it comes out quite right.*

I think i've really gone past caring now.

That RLJer this morning was so fking slow I lost him easily.


----------



## fofo (17 Oct 2008)

Yes fines should be handed out to all cyclists that jump red lights. This morning I stopped at a pedestrian crossing and this guy went straight through and nearly took out the girl who gave me a smile; he was only going about 5 mph and I caught him and told him how close he was to knocking someone over he told me to mind my own business. After locking my bike in work I went to shop and guess who I saw jumping a red light as pedestrians were crossing! i don't know if he heard me shout twat at him but if I see him again I am sure he will


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (17 Oct 2008)

fofo said:


> After locking my bike in work I went to shop and guess who I saw jumping a red light as pedestrians were crossing!


Clearly you need to speed on ahead of him, jump off your bike and be a ped on a crossing when he comes through... a swift push and he'll be off the roads for a while and given some time to think about the error of his ways. 

Having said that in jest though, if I was on a crossing and someone barrelled through I'd have no qualms about pushing them off or at least making contact.


----------



## Jake (17 Oct 2008)

mate got fined £30 for going through red during the "summer".


----------



## hackbike 6 (17 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The police should do every red light jumper, and not focus on one particular type. I suspect they would then get a lot of bus drivers, some car drivers, and lots of cyclists.



Hang on,they focus on car drivers for speeding (sometimes) so I think yes.


----------



## upandover (17 Oct 2008)

I wonder if this link might offer an incentive not to rlj 

As seen in London


----------



## Pongunagu (17 Oct 2008)

I jump red lights and I ride on pavements.

I jump the red light at a pedestrian crossing if the road is completely empty and the pedestrian who pushed the button finished crossing the road ages ago. Of course, if there are pedestrians on the crossing, or if there is any other traffic on the road, I don't jump the red light. And of course I never jump red lights at road junctions. Interestingly, I would never jump the red light _at all_ if I was in my car, not even in the 'empty road' scenario above.

I ride on pavements when I'm travelling up the inside of a huge queue of stationary traffic and I reach the single car which is 3 inches from the kerb. I ride on the pavement for about 10ft to get past, if there are no pedestrians nearby.

I did see one very gratifying outcome one day, on my way to work: a cyclist came charging towards a pedestrian crossing, at rush hour, clearly with no intention of stopping despite the fact that many pedestrians had started to cross. As usual, I shouted "RED LIGHT, AS**OLE!", and at the same time the lady who was at the front of the group of pedestrians swung her umbrella right at his head. She missed, narrowly, but the cyclist got such a fright he lost his balance and planted his face on the boot of a car which was parked just a few yards ahead. That was great.

As someone else has said above, the laws are in place to ensure safety and to ensure that all road users are given the appropriate priority. If those other users have enjoyed their priority, and it's safe to do so (I mean safe as in 'there are NO other pedestrians or vehicles), then I don't see the problem with moving forwards. Americans have acknowledged this with their traffic light system which permits right turn if the road is clear.

It seems to me that some of the views expressed here are saying the opposite - that the full weight of the law should be brought down upon anyone who jumps a red, no matter what the time of night or circumstances. I'd say that inflexible attitude is unreasonable.

Edit - sorry - that must appear a bit arrogant as a first post! I just got a bit worked-up when reading through the rest of the thread...


----------



## goo_mason (19 Oct 2008)

I shouted at a RLJ'er on Friday - first time I've ever done it when I was on the bike. Bearded young-ish guy on a Tesco special - straight through the red light and left across a pedestrian crossing when the green man was on and a doddery old man was half-way across. The guy on the bike just missed him, so I yelled out, "Red light means STOP !"

He pedalled on for a while and then sheepishly turned back to see who'd yelled at him, so I just glowered and shook my head.

It was rather gratifying when a pedestrian thanked me and said I was quite right to shout at the idiot. So I felt good and smug... 

Then with under half-a-mile to go, I was changing down through the gears approaching a stop when there was a strange noise and the lever felt rather slack. The gear cable had shredded and was only hanging on in there by a few metal threads - giving me just enough of a small selection of gears to see me to the flat. Was that my reward for shouting ?


----------

