# Red light jumping. Ok or not ?



## ian turner (19 Aug 2011)

So as it seems 51% or more of the cyclechat population see nothing wrong with jumping red lights (or so they claim see this thread) I thought it might be an idea to test this claim on the basis of a sample of those who answer polls (if RLJers don't answer polls then this may not work)


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

I think it is wrong to RLJ.
I won't include all rljers in my Silly Cyclists series, as I see most rljers as 'safe' and only a small minority do so dangerously.


----------



## barongreenback (19 Aug 2011)

Sensing this needs a forum like helmets.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.


----------



## Jezston (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.



That's not a good reason in of itself for something to be 'wrong'.

I still voted no.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> _*I think*_ that's not a good reason in of itself for something to be 'wrong'.
> 
> I still voted no.



FTFY


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament, dosn't mean it's wrong to die in there.



Yawn.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.



In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls if he is carrying a bow and arrow. That doesn't mean it is right.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls if he is carrying a bow and arrow. That doesn't mean it is right.



OK. There are some laws on the statute books that would never be enforced and in fact I am pretty sure if you did kill a Scotsman under said circumstances you would either be found guilty of murder or sent to a prison for the criminally insane. 

I see no comparison between these historic laws and ones that are for the benefit of all such as you MUST stop at a Red Light.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> Stop being such a post whore.



I don't charge for my services.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants – even, if she so requests, in a policeman’s helmet.
> 
> Please, for the love of god, tell me that is not right.



Ask a Policeman.


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls if he is carrying a bow and arrow. That doesn't mean it is right.




That's why I wouldn't carry a bow & arrow in York. Assuming I ever went to York.


----------



## iAmiAdam (19 Aug 2011)

I'm fairly sure that the red lights law would be waived under certain circumstances.

I'm not waiting for a pedestrian crossing in the middle of no where at half 6 in the morning when no body is crossing or looks as if they want to cross or if there are any people there at all anyway.


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament, dosn't mean it's wrong to die in there.




Interesting law. Who made that one up?


----------



## SportMonkey (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.



It used to be against the law for blacks to sit at the front of the bus.


----------



## Andy_R (19 Aug 2011)

SportMonkey said:


> It used to be against the law for blacks to sit at the front of the bus.



Pretty sure that was never the law in this country. As for RLJ...well let them. I don't but that's my choice. Perhaps you should only be allowed to RLJ if you're wearing a helmet


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

oopswrongemail said:


> If I'm reading that correctly, AFS stands with every law which is made. So if he was around in those days, he'll be a racist? Nice point.



That law has never existed in the UK. Actually this is the extent of racial segregation in England.


*England*
Segregation may have existed in early Anglo-Saxon England, restricting intermarriage and resulting in the displacement of the native British population by Germanic incomers.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-27[/sup] According to research led by the University College London, Anglo-Saxon settlers enjoyed substantial social and economic advantages over Celtic Britons.[sup][29][/sup] However, Stephen Oppenheimer and Bryan Sykes argue that there was no population displacement, as the Anglo-Saxons had relatively little genetic impact on England.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-29[/sup][sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-30[/sup] In 2002, the BBC used the headline "English and Welsh are races apart" to report a genetic survey of test subjects from market towns in England and Wales.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-31[/sup]

The Statutes of Kilkenny were a series of thirty-five acts passed at Kilkenny in 1366. They forbade the intermarriage between the native Irish and the English settlers in Ireland, the English fostering of Irish children, the English adoption of Irish children and use of Irish names and dress.[sup]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation#cite_note-32[/sup]


----------



## ohnovino (19 Aug 2011)

There's going to be hypothetical exceptions to pretty much any law you can think of.

The bulk of RLJs happen for no reason other than because the rider can't be bothered stopping, and that's wrong.

Now where's the quickest way out of this thread - I want to escape before it hits 50 pages


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2011)

I just wish everybody would stop talking about me as if I'm not here.


----------



## Jezston (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.

The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.

The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?


----------



## Theseus (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> I just wish everybody would stop talking about me as if I'm not here.




You should feel flattered, people are talking about jumping you. You could be in for a long night.


----------



## adds21 (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.
> 
> The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.
> 
> The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?



+1


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.
> 
> The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.
> 
> The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?



I am pursuing it in the context of Road Traffic Offences. We are not (as far as I am aware) discussing morality but rather legality as such the law does define right from wrong. If we are discussing morality then I would still not break a law designed to provide safety to all (such as red lights).

I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example) but do so within the law.


----------



## Buddfox (19 Aug 2011)

adds21 said:


> +1



+2


----------



## Buddfox (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am pursuing it in the context of Road Traffic Offences. We are not (as far as I am aware) discussing morality but rather legality as such the law does define right from wrong. If we are discussing morality then I would still not break a law designed to provide safety to all (such as red lights).
> 
> I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example) but do so within the law.




Please read the question. It does not say "Is red light jumping against the law?", it says "Is red light jumping OK?"

So we are discussing morality, and not legality. So it is possible to think it's morally OK, even if it's illegal.

FWIW and in response to the first post, I thought the conjecture in the other post was that the majority of cyclists (not CC forum members) might believe that RLJ'ing is OK?


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.
> 
> The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.
> 
> The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?



I have to agree legality and morality are different issues. The laws on homosexuality were wrong and there are laws which are grey areas even now. I don't think the red light laws are a bad law per se but having to stop at an empty ped crossing late at night is unnecessary. one can argue that unnecessary laws are an infringement of personal liberty and therefore bad. Blindly following a law because its the law is not in my opinion a good default position some awful things have happened by people doing that. The nuremburg trials defence of many was that they were following orders (consequently being lawful) its not good enough to say I follow the law whatever. You can quite justifiably argue that you agree with a law because ... but to argue that that one agrees with the law because it is the law gives too much power for the state to abuse if it so desires.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Aug 2011)




----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Please read the question. It does not say "Is red light jumping against the law?", it says "Is red light jumping OK?"
> 
> So we are discussing morality, and not legality. So it is possible to think it's morally OK, even if it's illegal.
> 
> FWIW and in response to the first post, I thought the conjecture in the other post was that the majority of cyclists (not CC forum members) might believe that RLJ'ing is OK?



I do not think it is morally right to break a law that is designed to keep people safe. If it were against the law to travel on a bus if you were ginger then I would fight against it as it is clearly morally wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I have to agree legality and morality are different issues. The laws on homosexuality were wrong and there are laws which are grey areas even now. I don't think the red light laws are a bad law per se but having to stop at an empty ped crossing late at night is unnecessary. one can argue that unnecessary laws are an infringement of personal liberty and therefore bad. Blindly following a law because its the law is not in my opinion a good default position some awful things have happened by people doing that. The nuremburg trials defence of many was that they were following orders (consequently being lawful) its not good enough to say I follow the law whatever. You can quite justifiably argue that you agree with a law because ... but to argue that that one agrees with the law because it is the law gives too much power for the state to abuse if it so desires.



Conversely to choose which laws you wish to obey is a step towards an Anarchic society. I may feel 70mph is too slow for motorway driving and elect the drive at 90mph. Is that morally valid? If we go down that path then laws become meaningless.


----------



## Buddfox (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I do not think it is morally right to break a law that is designed to keep people safe. If it were against the law to travel on a bus if you were ginger then I would fight against it as it is clearly morally wrong.



Indeed - and I'm not questioning your right to believe it's morally wrong to jump a red light, just your conjecture that this thread is a post about legality (which formed the basis of one of your other arguments).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> Indeed - and I'm not questioning your right to believe it's morally wrong to jump a red light, just your conjecture that this thread is a post about legality (which formed the basis of one of your other arguments).



I have answered the question with right or wrong in mind. I have also pointed out that a belief that something is right or wrong can fly in the face of the legal system and eventually lead to Anarchy.


----------



## Buddfox (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Conversely to choose which laws you wish to obey is a step towards an Anarchic society. I may feel 70mph is too slow for motorway driving and elect the drive at 90mph. Is that morally valid? If we go down that path then laws become meaningless.



I know the red light thing gets you worked up, but can we try just for one thread to move away from the extremes? There is a grey area between obeying all laws just because they are the law and a seemingly interminable descent into anarchy (I still can't believe Lord of the Flies was referenced in another thread) - it's where we are in the real world. Wouldn't we have reached anarchy by now since human society has never existed in a state where every person obeys every law? A step towards anarchy really means a step towards normality - anarchy's quite a long way from that! Or if it's a step, that's all it is - a step to a healthy world where people make their own decisions, and then stop.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> I know the red light thing gets you worked up, but can we try just for one thread to move away from the extremes? There is a grey area between obeying all laws just because they are the law and a seemingly interminable descent into anarchy (I still can't believe Lord of the Flies was referenced in another thread) - it's where we are in the real world. Wouldn't we have reached anarchy by now since human society has never existed in a state where every person obeys every law? A step towards anarchy really means a step towards normality - anarchy's quite a long way from that! Or if it's a step, that's all it is - a step to a healthy world where people make their own decisions, and then stop.


How is breaking the speed limit an extreme?


----------



## SportMonkey (19 Aug 2011)

Quick question with your moral rights; do you buy any Nestle, Nescafe, L'Oreal or Body Shop?


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Conversely to choose which laws you wish to obey is a step towards an Anarchic society. I may feel 70mph is too slow for motorway driving and elect the drive at 90mph. Is that morally valid? If we go down that path then laws become meaningless.



We all choose every day which laws we observe. laws are a societal construct by which the state controls its citizens. There are plenty of people who regularly step around the law and never harm anyone (some drug users for example) there are some people who stick to the law and destroy peoples lives (eg some bankers) I am of the opinion no harm no foul cycling through an empty red light at midnight puts nobody at risk and in my mind doesn't break the spirit of the law. cycling through a red light with peds there is a different matter. In my eyes being a good citizen involves questioning and understanding your society if you didn't do that bad laws will not get changed. Blindly following is not being a good citizen, good citizenry involves activism whether that be through volunteering, politics or whatever anyway I digress. I don't believe you when you say you follow the law because it's the law. You don't strike me as that unthinking. I believe you when you mention safety it is a valid, credible and honourable position but the "law is the law" is a copout and not a credible position for any rational person to take.


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.



*I think* Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.

FTFY


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> *I think* Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.
> 
> FTFY


If you can provide evidence that RLJ is legal then the amended statement is valid.


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you can provide evidence that RLJ is legal then the amended statement is valid.



I am not arguing with the legality aspect but right and wrong is a moral perspective therefore the statement is not valid 
the factual part is RLJ is illegal


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> I am not arguing with the legality aspect but right and wrong is a moral perspective therefore the statement is not valid


You stated "I think RLJing is illegal". Thus you are arguing the legality of it.


----------



## Glover Fan (19 Aug 2011)

Ignoring all the drivel and pedanticities above I am in the sometimes camp.

When turning left with good visibility I will sometimes RLJ, remember as cyclists we can hear as well as see whereas in most situations car/van and lorry drivers can-not.

I personally feel after midnight a lot of traffic lights in quiet areas should be switched off. I have known a lot of people to RLJ after midnight and the problem you will get is that someone will rightfully go through a green light without checking whether if it is safe to do so* and there lies a problem. If they had to treat it as a junction then everybody would have to concentrate. Obviously there are situations where traffic lights could and should not be switched off.

*I think if my memory serves me right you should always check the road is clear even when going through a green light anyway.

Obviously I will be in the minority judging from the poll but hey forums are about opinions.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Buddfox said:


> FWIW and in response to the first post, I thought the conjecture in the other post was that the majority of cyclists (not CC forum members) might believe that RLJ'ing is OK?



Correct and an important distiction.

Can i just qualify the findings of your research with a few considerations.
The people on this forum are generally intelligent, informed and interested about cycling issues, and socially responsible. The majority of cyclists out there do not belong to this forum and imho are not so well informed or interested about cycling issues and display varying levels of intelligence and social responsibility.
Therefore given that your poll is confined to this forum and its socially responsible members i would predict that the results will show an inclination to the "it is not ok to rlj" more so than if a poll was conducted of all cyclists.
The homeland of rljing is little britain territory - the kind of person who if they saw this forum and this topic would wonder what on earth we are doing discussing rljing - bothered - i think not.


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> You stated "I think RLJing is illegal". Thus you are arguing the legality of it.


You stated "RLJ is illegal thus it is wrong " one sentence, the "thus it is wrong" bit changes the meaning of the sentence from a fact to an opinion by introducing the moral dimension. It is your opinion that it is wrong to disobey a law a view that not everybody shares


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> Ignoring all the drivel and pedanticities above I am in the sometimes camp.
> 
> When turning left with good visibility I will sometimes RLJ, remember as cyclists we can hear as well as see whereas in most situations car/van and lorry drivers can-not.
> 
> ...



I'll join your minority as I feel you are talking sense


----------



## Jezston (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> *I think* Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.
> 
> FTFY





I think what you meant to say was:

Red light jumping is against the law thus *I think *it is wrong.


----------



## Seigi (19 Aug 2011)

I believe that RLJing can be OK so long as it's done either A. In a safe manner (For instance, getting off bike and pushing through, or riding through slowly checking all directions) or B. For your own safety (Such as to escape impatient drivers encroaching up your back end, or to move for emergency vehicles). However I've never had to jump a red light for the record. I would consider jumping a red light if I was literally the only person in the area.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> I think what you meant to say was:
> 
> Red light jumping is against the law thus *I think *it is wrong.


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> I think what you meant to say was:
> 
> Red light jumping is against the law thus *I think *it is wrong.



you are right it just irritated me when I saw him correcting/editing other peoples posts and I wanted to get my own back


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> you are right it just irritated me when I saw him correcting other peoples posts and I wanted to get my own back


When you try to stab somebody ensure you have the correct end of the knife in your hand!


----------



## Jezston (19 Aug 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> I personally feel after midnight a lot of traffic lights in quiet areas should be switched off. I have known a lot of people to RLJ after midnight and the problem you will get is that someone will rightfully go through a green light without checking whether if it is safe to do so* and there lies a problem. If they had to treat it as a junction then everybody would have to concentrate. Obviously there are situations where traffic lights could and should not be switched off.



I think you are right, I think we have too many traffic lights so people tend to just follow them rather than follow what's actually going on in the road. I think at certain times we should turn them off, and I think many traffic lights should be removed from junctions.

I'll be happy to back any such campaign to do so, but AFAIK such campaigns have been so far restricted to local and specific junctions nowhere near me.

But until then, I'll stop at the lights even when there's no one around - unless they are sensor based and effectively faulty*. Why? Why not?

*which reminds me. Angelfishsolo - in such cases, where a light is faulty, you are legally allowed to jump the light. So again, not quite as black and white even within the law.


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> When you try to stab somebody ensure you have the correct end of the knife in your hand!



and don't edit\ correct other peoples posts unless they ask you to


----------



## Mad at urage (19 Aug 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> Ignoring all the drivel and pedanticities above I am in the sometimes camp.
> 
> *When turning left with good visibility I will sometimes RLJ, remember as cyclists we can hear as well as see whereas in most situations car/van and lorry drivers can-not.*
> 
> ...


Re the bolded text: Would you consider it OK for me to drive up to the lights in my Prius (in electric mode 'cos the batteries are full), with all windows down so that I can hear what's going on around just as well as if I'm cycling and jump the lights because I reckon it's safe to turn left?

Re the italicised: Agree


----------



## Glover Fan (19 Aug 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Re the bolded text: Would you consider it OK for me to drive up to the lights in my Prius (in electric mode 'cos the batteries are full), with all windows down so that I can hear what's going on around just as well as if I'm cycling and jump the lights because I reckon it's safe to turn left?
> 
> Re the italicised: Agree


Well firstly, you will not have full vision due to blind spots due to the car dashboard and A pillars, so visibility would be worse, but to be honest in America it is legal to turn left through a red light provided it is safe to do so. I would support such a motion in this country.

I think with traffic lights comes diminished responsibility any form of legislation that puts more responsibility in the hands of a qualified motorist or road user has to be in some situations safer. Far too many people treat the roads as a foolproof haven where we are all controlled by roadside furniture.

So in essence I suppose you would be OK in your Prius if turning left. You could even leave the windows up. 

I wonder how much energy we could save by turning off just 25% of traffic lights in this country for just 5 hours? Also think of the fuel saved by not having to stop at a red light at 2am in the morning with no-one about. 

I know I have kind of drifted off into motorist mode, but I cover over 50,000 miles a year in a car as well as a lot on the bike!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> *which reminds me. Angelfishsolo - in such cases, where a light is faulty, you are legally allowed to jump the light. So again, not quite as black and white even within the law.



Granted. I took it as read (not red) we were talking about functioning lights.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (19 Aug 2011)

Voted 'no' although I would do so if it were unsafe for me not to (not yet had a case of this). I do occasionally move forward past the front end of the ASL, if I feel not visible in the ASL or up the inside of a vehicle; but then remain stationary until the lights change. And no, not doing the track-wobble in the middle of the junction either.

The 'late at night if no-one is around' doesn't apply in my part of the world, it seems all our lights are sensor based and sensitive enough to trigger from my bike. 
I have jumped lights where the sensor has been faulty after giving them two full cycles / waiting 5 minutes if no-one else triggers them.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> and don't edit\ correct other peoples posts unless they ask you to.



So sorry. Won't do it again, ever; I promise!!!!


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So sorry. Won't do it again, ever; I promise!!!!



seriously it is rude to tell other people what they are thinking. If you have a problem with what they say call them out don't redit and tell them you fixed it for them


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> seriously it is rude to tell other people what they are thinking. If you have a problem with what they say call them out don't redit and tell them you fixed it for them.



I am visibly shaking now!!!


----------



## rowan 46 (19 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am visibly shaking now!!!



you are a waste of time


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> You are a waste of time.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> you are a waste of time


----------



## Brandane (19 Aug 2011)

Glover Fan said:


> Ignoring all the drivel and pedanticities above I am in the sometimes camp.
> 
> When turning left with good visibility I will sometimes RLJ, remember as cyclists we can hear as well as see whereas in most situations car/van and lorry drivers can-not.
> 
> ...



+1 to that.

I confess; I am a RLJer, SOMETIMES! Clearly as has been debated countless times on here, there are circumstances when it is not safe to RLJ, and conversely there are times when it IS. Common sense is all it takes.

FWIW, no I don't RLJ while in the car. That is different. For starters, it is a much bigger obstruction to clear out of the way IF it all goes wrong. IMHO cycling is just an extension of being a pedestrian, and who waits for the green man signal at crossings?

Another point is that it is perhaps debatable whether section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 even applies to cyclists. Here is the wording of the section:

_Drivers to comply with traffic signs.(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign—(a)of the prescribed size, colour and type, or(b)of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the M1Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

_Is a cyclist a "driver"? Is a bike a "vehicle"? I tried to find the answer within the Road Traffic Act, and couldn't find any reference to a bicycle under the various definitions of a "vehicle". If RLJ applies to cyclists, what about skateboards? Prams? There was a stated case in a Scottish court some years ago IIRC, in which a bicycle was deemed to be an extension to pedestrianism and therefore pretty much immune to road traffic laws.


----------



## Arch (19 Aug 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> seriously it is rude to tell other people what they are thinking. If you have a problem with what they say call them out don't redit and tell them you fixed it for them



I think quoting a post with changes and saying FTFY (fixed that for you) is a common and recognised way of commenting on an opinion on a forum in order to disagree. I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it - I've certainly seen it used on forums where people would get very cross about breaches of nettiquette.


On the subject of red lights, I'm in the Not OK camp. I can see why people argue about lights in the middle of the night etc, personally I'll wait, or if it seems to be struck, I'll probably get off and push through (the one exception being on my recumbent trike, I will hold my hand up to going through a red once, when it had cycled twice with no change for me). But that sort of thing isn't really the problem. The problem is the people who swan through in broad daylight, who either seem not to know there's a rule, or don't care that there is, and often don't seem to care about crossing pedestrians, or other road users. Those are the people who get us all a bad name, and fuel the 'lycra lout' rants. Waiting at a red light will rarely lose more than a few seconds overall on a journey, and indeed most of us will have had the experience of constantly overtaking a jumper, proving that they don't save any time at all. I suspect it isn't the time that matters to them anyway, they simply don't care about rules.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Arch said:


> I think quoting a post with changes and saying FTFY (fixed that for you) is a common and recognised way of commenting on an opinion on a forum in order to disagree. I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it - I've certainly seen it used on forums where people would get very cross about breaches of nettiquette.
> 
> 
> On the subject of red lights, I'm in the Not OK camp. I can see why people argue about lights in the middle of the night etc, personally I'll wait, or if it seems to be struck, I'll probably get off and push through (the one exception being on my recumbent trike, I will hold my hand up to going through a red once, when it had cycled twice with no change for me). But that sort of thing isn't really the problem. The problem is the people who swan through in broad daylight, who either seem not to know there's a rule, or don't care that there is, and often don't seem to care about crossing pedestrians, or other road users. Those are the people who get us all a bad name, and fuel the 'lycra lout' rants. Waiting at a red light will rarely lose more than a few seconds overall on a journey, and indeed most of us will have had the experience of constantly overtaking a jumper, proving that they don't save any time at all. I suspect it isn't the time that matters to them anyway, they simply don't care about rules.



Well said Arch


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Brandane said:


> There was a stated case in a Scottish court some years ago IIRC, in which a bicycle was deemed to be an extension to pedestrianism and therefore pretty much immune to road traffic laws.



That may well be the case but I believe Scottish Law is different to that of the rest of the UK in some aspects.


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2011)

1513187 said:


> What is the punishment for breaking this one?



Being kept alive in the House of Lords


----------



## Angelfishsolo (19 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> _*Promotion to*_ the House of Lords



FTFY


----------



## John90 (19 Aug 2011)

I voted sometimes (very rarely) while recognising that it is against the law and in that sense uncontroversially wrong.

On my route to work there is a combined cycle and foot path and at the end a light-controlled crossing shared by cyclists and pedestrians. If it's on red but there is no traffic in sight am I at liberty to join the pedestrians in crossing? Do I stop being a vehicle for that period of time? 

Of course, it's not a crossing that motorists can use but that reinforces my view that the law should find a 'third way' for bikes.


----------



## Nebulous (19 Aug 2011)

Some very strong views on here - I voted no. 

I can't remember ever going through a red light since I restarted cycling. When I was a youngster I used to get off and push across on the green man, but I've never done that recently either. I don't think I've been out at midnight though.


----------



## Moderators (19 Aug 2011)

I would just like to remind people to be nice. It's a contentious enough topic of debate as it is without people resorting to personal snipes and insults. So please keep the post on topic.

Thanks.


----------



## apollo179 (19 Aug 2011)

Moderators said:


> I would just like to remind people to be nice. It's a contentious enough topic of debate as it is without people resorting to personal snipes and insults. So please keep the post on topic.
> 
> Thanks.


Hey where were you when abo called me a moron.
Theres never one around when you need it !


----------



## kedab (19 Aug 2011)

i don't do it but i see why some cyclists do in certain situations - if it's the dead of night, if there's blatantly no traffic to endanger you and no chance of you endangering someone/thing else, then i get why it's done. doesn't mean i agree with it entirely though. cambridge is (as most cities are i guess) dreadful for it. and it's not the people i mention above that are the cause of my fury on some of my commutes.

it's the total moron's who will look at the traffic lights as though square in the eye and then just hack (or pootle) through them even if they've been red for 10 seconds or so - with pedestrians crossing the freakin road! oooh it makes my blood boil! the other night on the way home i was extremely vexed by a man who came whipping by me as i was stood at a set of lights (which other cyclists cross from a blind alley on the pathway as though it were an extreme form of 'chicken')...i caught him going up the bridge...next set of lights change with more peds waiting to cross and he has time to brake but doesn't - i catch him again and ask him if he ever stops at ped crossings etc to which he gave a disinterested shrug and continued on his way - no doubt scaring the behjaysus out of the remaining pedestrians in town


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Hey where were you when abo called me a moron.
> Theres never one around when you need it !



If you don't like what someone said about you then use the report button on that post.
Either that or just be the bigger person and ignore them.


----------



## kedab (19 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> If you don't like what someone said about you then use the report button on that post.
> Either that or just be the bigger person and ignore them.



nothing to so with this gaz but i must say - your website is looking rather swish these days...all your own work mate?


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2011)

kedab said:


> nothing to so with this gaz but i must say - your website is looking rather swish these days...all your own work mate?



Not all my own work. Unfortunately I don't have the time to make my own wordpress skin so I modify something else to suit my needs.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> If you don't like what someone said about you then use the report button on that post.
> Either that or just be the bigger person and ignore them.



TBH qaz i was not being entirely serious.
My views dont seem to conform with the majority on this forum and i accept that i am going to receive the occasional insult when i offer a different opinion.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

The choice of a yes option and a sometimes option is somewhat superfluous. 
Nobody rljs all the time. Anyone who does rlj only rljs sometimes - ie - when it is safe to do so.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The choice of a yes option and a sometimes option is somewhat superfluous.
> Nobody rljs all the time. Anyone who does rlj only rljs sometimes - ie - when it is safe to do so.



No it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means just that, Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances"


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are you sure about this? Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest otherwise.


What evidence?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> What evidence?



Post changed Gaz. Brain not engaged a the mo


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means just that, Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances"


So does voting yes mean you think it is ok to rlj in any circumstances - like even if theres a 10 tonne juggernaut coming?
Surely that is a nonsensical option.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So does voting yes mean you think it is ok to rlj in any circumstances - like even if theres a 10 tonne juggernaut coming?
> Surely that is a nonsensical option.



I would read it as RLJing is OK (unless I am going to die).


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would read it as RLJing is OK (unless I am going to die).


That's generally why you write a little bit here to state why you choose the option you did.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> That's generally why you write a little bit here to state why you choose the option you did.



Indeed  Second cup of Tea. Brain starting to de-fuzz now


----------



## Arch (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So does voting yes mean you think it is ok to rlj in any circumstances - like even if theres a 10 tonne juggernaut coming?
> Surely that is a nonsensical option.



I dunno. Only yesterday I watched a chav on a bike pedal across a junction over a red, causing a bus driver turning into the road to have to stand on the brakes. He was on the phone too (the chav, not the bus driver). I think there are a few people out there who really are that stupid. Of course then it's a moot point as to whether they think it's OK, because I suspect they don't think at all, or think they are invulnerable. Just like those pedestrians who walk out without looking.

It would serve them right if they got mashed, but it would be hard on the driver in question.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I would read it as RLJing is OK (unless I am going to die).



So it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means yes - unless i am going to die. Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances" .
The differentiation is somewhat pointless because the reality that anyone who rljs , rljs "Only under a given set of circumstances" one of which is that it is safe and they are not going to die.


----------



## Arch (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means yes - unless i am going to die. Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances" .
> The differentiation is somewhat pointless because the reality that anyone who rljs , rljs "Only under a given set of circumstances" one of which is that it is safe and they are not going to die.



or, see my previous post (I think we cross posted).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So it is asking "Do you thing RLJing is OK?" Yes means yes - unless i am going to die. Sometimes means "Only under a given set of circumstances" .
> The differentiation is somewhat pointless because the reality that anyone who rljs , rljs "Only under a given set of circumstances" one of which is that it is safe and they are not going to die.



One can be taken as "most of the time", the other "rarely". I'll leave you work out which is which.


----------



## Oldbloke (20 Aug 2011)

Arch said:


> I dunno. Only yesterday I watched a chav on a bike pedal across a junction over a red, causing a bus driver turning into the road to have to stand on the brakes. He was on the phone too (the chav, not the bus driver). *I think there are a few people out there who really are that stupid*. Of course then it's a moot point as to whether they think it's OK, because I suspect they don't think at all, or think they are invulnerable. Just like those pedestrians who walk out without looking.
> 
> It would serve them right if they got mashed, but it would be hard on the driver in question.





Sadly a lot more than a few, I can assure you.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Arch said:


> I dunno. Only yesterday I watched a chav on a bike pedal across a junction over a red, causing a bus driver turning into the road to have to stand on the brakes. He was on the phone too (the chav, not the bus driver). I think there are a few people out there who really are that stupid. Of course then it's a moot point as to whether they think it's OK, because I suspect they don't think at all, or think they are invulnerable. Just like those pedestrians who walk out without looking.
> 
> It would serve them right if they got mashed, but it would be hard on the driver in question.


Agreed arch you can allways find extremes of any kind on behaviour that can be extrapolated to cast a cloud over the entirety.
For example dodgy charities set up for their own benefit discredit charities as a whole.
There are rljers who are indefensible - there are a majority of rljers who rlj in as responsible a way as possible.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> One can be taken as "most of the time", the other "rarely". I'll leave you work out which is which.



I cant see how society benefits from marginalising and criminalising people in this way.


----------



## Arch (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Agreed arch you can allways find extremes of any kind on behaviour that can be extrapolated to cast a cloud over the entirety.
> For example dodgy charities set up for their own benefit discredit charities as a whole.
> There are rljers who are indefensible - there are a majority of rljers who rlj in as responsible a way as possible.



Agreed, but....

Those who rlj 'responsibly' may be doing it with a view to their own safety. The thing is, it gets seen and adds fuel to the fire of those determined to see all cyclists as louts. Of course, that shows that the ranters have limited imagination, but it doesn't help the rest of us who are just getting on and obeying the rules - so it's pretty selfish. Anyway, why should they choose which laws to obey and which to follow?


----------



## Glover Fan (20 Aug 2011)

Arch said:


> Agreed, but....
> 
> Those who rlj 'responsibly' may be doing it with a view to their own safety. The thing is, it gets seen and adds fuel to the fire of those determined to see all cyclists as louts. Of course, that shows that the ranters have limited imagination, but it doesn't help the rest of us who are just getting on and obeying the rules - so it's pretty selfish. Anyway, why should they choose which laws to obey and which to follow?


Same goes for all road users. I get far more irate by 90% of drivers who do not indicate at all times than a chav on a BSO who goes through a red light. What is more dangerous to the general public? A cyclist is only ever likely to hurt himself.

Well, physically, the mental damage to someone who runs someone over must be pretty horrific as well.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Arch said:


> Agreed, but....
> 
> Those who rlj 'responsibly' may be doing it with a view to their own safety. The thing is, it gets seen and adds fuel to the fire of those determined to see all cyclists as louts. Of course, that shows that the ranters have limited imagination, but it doesn't help the rest of us who are just getting on and obeying the rules - so it's pretty selfish. Anyway, why should they choose which laws to obey and which to follow?



I cant understand why anyone would have a problem with responsible rljing. When i was driving i certainly didnt have a problem with cyclists rljing in a safe and courteous way.
I can understand the disapproval over reckless rljing the same as i would over any reckless behaviour but as i said before we should all have the sense not to judge the majority by the actions of just a few.
The "its the law so its right" is an easy arguement for you to make and there has been extensive debate surrounding the law , the lack of enforcement and the gray areas that result. Numerous examples i wont bore you with.


----------



## lukesdad (20 Aug 2011)

If the forum is as described "responsible cyclists " the poll results are enlightening. Maybe that 51% in the original thread isn t that far off the mark ?


----------



## Glow worm (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I cant understand why anyone would have a problem with responsible rljing. When i was driving i certainly didnt have a problem with cyclists rljing in a safe and courteous way.



It's all about perception. You might percieve that your RLJ is safe and courteuous, sadly the miffed driver who sees it and then undertakes a recklessly close pass on the next cyclist he sees (ie non RLJing me) as a punishment pass may not see it the same way.

I'm fed up of taking the flack off drivers for the poor cycling standards of others and disregard of those people for their fellow cyclists well being. Just stop at red, have a breather and don't be a muppet.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> If the forum is as described "responsible cyclists " the poll results are enlightening. Maybe that 51% in the original thread isn t that far off the mark ?


----------



## peppyuk (20 Aug 2011)

I expect the same respect from other road uses wether I'm on my bike or driving my car, so I play my the same rules on my bike as I would driving my car and I don't jump red lights in my car.


----------



## Ian 74 (20 Aug 2011)

It all seems to have gotten a little heavy on this thread.

I voted sometimes, because nothing in life is black and white, except zebras.


most of the lights I see are on country lanes and are temporary in nature. Some of them don't register the fact that I am there so I check to see nothing is coming and "jump it" its either that or wait an indefinite time for a car to come and trigger the sensor.

We should play by the rules of the road in the towns etc, for our safety and the safety of others, every time a cyclist jumps a red in a town we are just adding to the bad public perception of cyclists. Save the speed and the races against the garmin for the country side and slow down in town (a little bit anyway).


----------



## rowan 46 (20 Aug 2011)

Arch said:


> Agreed, but....
> 
> Those who rlj 'responsibly' may be doing it with a view to their own safety. The thing is, it gets seen and adds fuel to the fire of those determined to see all cyclists as louts. Of course, that shows that the ranters have limited imagination, but it doesn't help the rest of us who are just getting on and obeying the rules - so it's pretty selfish. Anyway, why should they choose which laws to obey and which to follow?



I don't hold with every cyclist is a representative of every other. most people don't have good reasons for their prejudices only excuses if every cyclist was an angel those drivers with prejudice would still hate cyclists. If I only read this forum and didn't cycle I could easily form the impression that all motorists are out to get us. On the road however I find that not to be the case. I often come into cases of inattention or drivers who are a little inconsiderate but its unusual for drivers to be hostile on the road. There's a good safety case for cyclists going early when making a left turn at a junction especially if there are lorries nearby. there was an incident recently on the forum where a cyclist making a perfectly legal right turn was nearly taken out by a car doing a careless overtake so I don't condemn those cyclists who feel they are taking responsibility for their own safety. Although the law says cyclists have rights to the roads custom and practice on the roads is making it increasingly frightening for new cyclists which is why so many give up after a short time admittedly I only have this information from friends who have given up so its not scientific but they have no reason to lie. some new cyclists stick to pavements because they feel threatened by roads they don't feel having the law on their side protects them from a careless driver likewise some cyclists who rlj claim its safer in some circumstances. I agree some cyclists are selfish I'm one I sometimes go through empty pelican crossings at night but in the scheme of things its not the worst thing you could do. "it's the law" isn't a good argument I feel because implicit in that statement is that all laws are good I don't think they are I think there are some bad laws about.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Glow worm said:


> It's all about perception. You might percieve that your RLJ is safe and courteuous, sadly the miffed driver who sees it and then undertakes a recklessly close pass on the next cyclist he sees (ie non RLJing me) as a punishment pass may not see it the same way.
> 
> I'm fed up of taking the flack off drivers for the poor cycling standards of others and disregard of those people for their fellow cyclists well being. Just stop at red, have a breather and don't be a muppet.


A driver who sees a cyclist rlj and goes out on a vendetta to drive so as to endanger every cyclist he sees is an individual who it is in reality going to be difficult to legislate for.
Such an individual is likely to get equally angry when he gets stuck behind a cyclist or any similar circumstance.
Such motorists are innaccountable. If you are intent on accomodating such motorists your only option is to stay home and let them have the road to themselves.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I cant see how society benefits from marginalising and criminalising people in this way.


How can you see this as marginalisation? If it were ok for bikes worth >£1.5k to jump jump lights but not ok for bikes worth less than that then it would cause marginalisation. If you believe bikes should be allowed to do this then why not motorbikes?


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

I see it as marginalisation because it is - if you have a counter arguement then id like to hear it (famous last words)
Its not a money issue.
Its about the criminalisation of a sizeable otherwise law abiding segment of the population over a trivial matter. 
It behoves society to attend to these issues rather than just blindly condemning and criminalising the offenders.
.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Angelfishsolo: I'm not sure why you are persuing this point.
> 
> The law is only one part of what makes something 'right' or 'wrong'. It is not absolute. Homosexuality was illegal until relatively recently, there are plenty things that are legal which I would consider wrong.
> 
> The law only defines what is legal and what is illegal. It does not define what is right and wrong. It is not absolute. Get it?



You have just gone up in my estimation.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I see it as marginalisation because it is - if you have a counter arguement then id like to hear it
> .


Well with logic like that how can one possibly argue. Oh I know. The rules are for all road users that way no one is marginalised.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> The rules are for all road users that way no one is marginalised.



They aren't though.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> They aren't though.


Please explain.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Please explain.



Not every rule applies to all road users. For example, speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well with logic like that how can one possibly argue. Oh I know. The rules are for all road users that way no one is marginalised.



The fact that the rules are for all road users does not necessarily mean that no-one is marginalised.
The fact that on the ground it results in a lot of cyclists , wittingly and unwittingly , breaking the law does result in a lot of cyclists being marginalised and criminalised. A lamentable situation in my opinion.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Not every rule applies to all road users. For example, speed limits only apply to motorised vehicles.


Ok I take the point. These rules / laws do not marginalise cyclists though.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The fact that the rules are for all road users does not necessarily mean that no-one is marginalised.
> The fact that on the ground it results in a lot of cyclists , wittingly and unwittingly , breaking the law does result in a lot of cyclists being marginalised and criminalised. A lamentable situation in my opinion.


Ah so cyclists are marginalised because they do not acquaint themselves with the required rules. If I entered a boxing comp and used karate am I being marginalised for being wrong. After all I have seen MMA fights.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

If we take a look at the poll so far it would indicate that around 30% of forum members are (presumably wittingly) marginalised by this law.
In the poulation as a whole it will be higher. 
I have in another topic aired the idea that beyond the realms of this forum over 51% of cyclists dont even realise that rljing is illegal.
Whatever the figures a significantly large proportion of cyclists are breaking this law and thereby being criminalised and marginalised by it.
It behoves a dynamic society to be proactive regarding the laws that it lives by and review those that reveal themselves as equivocal.
The result may be staying with the staus quo where it is decided that the law is correct in principal but the powers that be decide not to enforce it. If that is the case then those of us who rlj in a safe responsible way will just have to reconcile ourselves as law breakers.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If we take a look at the poll so far it would indicate that around 30% of forum members are (presumably wittingly) marginalised by this law.
> In the poulation as a whole it will be higher.
> I have in another topic aired the idea that beyond the realms of this forum over 51% of cyclists dont even realise that rljing is illegal.
> Whatever the figures a significantly large proportion of cyclists are breaking this law and thereby being criminalised and marginalised by it.
> ...


No you are talking about people who marginalise themselves through omission of action or ignorance. That is not the same as being marginalised.


----------



## chris grace (20 Aug 2011)

I've read this thread and have a couple of points to make.



Running a red light is illegal(not the same as going through a broken one or going through to prevent injury to yourself).We can't pick the laws we want to obey and ignore them knowing the cost.

A red light stops you because there is something coming the other way or it is not safe to proceed,why would you want to jump a red light knowing this?(again,not the same a a broken light or getting to safety.)


----------



## lukesdad (20 Aug 2011)

chris grace said:


> I've read this thread and have a couple of points to make.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Second part isn t strictly true though is it ? Traffic lights control traffic. Going through a red light can be safe, as can going through a green not be.


----------



## Adasta (20 Aug 2011)

I think we are seeing a clear division between those who look for "justice" within the law and those that look for "compassion".

I selected "Sometimes" for RLJ because I have done it in the past. For example, when I was the only user on the road and the lights were red even though there was no traffic at all. Am I "wrong" for jumping that red light? One could say yes. The problem with this sort of absolutism is that it undoes everyone that engages in it.

The law does not exist to regulate morality; "wrong" and "right" should not really apply, for they truly are aspects of morality. Nevertheless, there is a feeling that the law is the extension of one's own morality, or of a collective morality. This is problematic, since people do not realise the extent to which our laws derive from Christian morality and Anglo-Saxon notions of community. When speaking in these terms, am I "right" to chastise someone for RLJing? In this context, what would that even signify?

It's tricky.


----------



## chris grace (20 Aug 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Second part isn t strictly true though is it ? Traffic lights control traffic. Going through a red light can be safe, as can going through a green not be.





It is strictly true.

Yes going through a red light CAN be safe but it's not legal for a reason.Generally going through a green light is unsafe when someone goes through the red light on the set when they shouldn't.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

chris grace said:


> It is strictly true.
> 
> Yes going through a red light CAN be safe but it's not legal for a reason.Generally going through a green light is unsafe when someone goes through the red light on the set when they shouldn't.



Why is it any more unsafe for the cyclist than for a pedestrian deciding to cross at the same time? Ones legal, ones not, the danger is the same (or probably less for the cyclist because they can cross quicker. Pedestrians do it all the time without annoying anyone much.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

chris grace said:


> Running a red light is illegal(not the same as going through a broken one or going through to prevent injury to yourself).We can't pick the laws we want to obey and ignore them knowing the cost.



80% of the people on here don't obey the law on pedal reflectors at night so most of us are picking the laws we want to obey.


----------



## chris grace (20 Aug 2011)

I don't think either is safer but I think there are more pedestrians doing it more often so car drivers have become a bit blase about pedestrians.


----------



## chris grace (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> 80% of the people on here don't obey the law on pedal reflectors at night so most of us are picking the laws we want to obey.





I'll rephrase it then.

We SHOULDN'T pick the laws we want to obey.
I suppose in an ideal world we'd all obey all the laws and be able to do away with the whole justice system,but it's not going to happen so we have to accept that if we do break a law ,then there's a chance we will be caught and punished.

I wonder which is worse in the eyes of the law.Someone deliberately lawbreaking or someone doing it through ignorance of the law.I know justice is alledgedly blind and ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
,but I wonder how blind the law is.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No you are talking about people who marginalise themselves through omission of action or ignorance. That is not the same as being marginalised.


Marginalise themselves or become marginalised the upshot is the same - a significantly large segment of otherwise honest socially responsible cyclists marginalised as law breakers.
Legally you may be correct.
But i dont think you are correct to condemn your fellow cyclists quite as peremptorily as you do.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

chris grace said:


> I'll rephrase it then.
> 
> We SHOULDN'T pick the laws we want to obey.



But most of us do as demonstrated by pedal reflectors and anyone riding a bent at night.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Marginalise themselves or become marginalised the upshot is the same - a significantly large segment of otherwise honest socially responsible cyclists marginalised as law breakers.
> Legally you may be correct.
> But i dont think you are correct to condemn your fellow cyclists quite as peremptorily as you do.


As a bikeability instructor I feel I am correct in doing so.


----------



## apollo179 (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As a bikeability instructor I feel I am correct in doing so.



What about as a compassionate human being and as a member of a global cycling brotherhood (sisterhood)? , all of whom have there own individual weaknesses and fallibilities.


----------



## briantrumpet (20 Aug 2011)

If one wanted to muddy the waters even more, it is still currently illegal to rip CDs, even just for personal use. Although it is likely to change in the near future through the Digital Economy Act, this is a clear case of the law being completely out-of-step with common practice. What percentage of us consider that law to have been out-dated for a long time, and have 'broken the law'?

My own law breaking:

Ripping CDs (knowing that the current law is an ass)

Speeding (only marginally, knowing what the police-announced allowances are)

Lack of pedal reflectors (the law's an ass: if it's dark, I'm fully lighted)

Very occasional RLJ, on lights where there is no-one else around (and they are stupid lights that either don't register me, or turn against me late at night when there's no-one coming)

The law always needs interpeting, either by the police (did the person commit an offence?), by the CPS (is there a case to answer?) or by a judge (and possibly jury). In all the above instances of my 'law breaking', my judgement is that, somewhere along the line of interpreting the law, common sense would prevail, and I would not be penalised. That does not make the activity legal, but it reflects that there is an institutionalised way of blurring the the boundaries: whilst there appear to be clear legal boundaries, the whole legal process allows either tolerances or, in some cases, the complete disregarding of something that. legally, is clear-cut.

Without wishing to open a can of worms, for a strong example of how a clear-cut law and an extremely complex moral argument collides, one need look no further than the subject of 'mercy killing', such as when a partner assists in the death of a loved-one suffering from dreadful terminal illness: though the uninterpreted law doesn't recognise the term and doesn't allow for any such actions (as far as I understand it), the courts have repeatedly passed sentences which on the one hand uphold 'the law', but effectively exculpate the 'perpetrator'.


----------



## Glow worm (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If you are intent on accomodating such motorists your only option is to stay home and let them have the road to themselves.



No - I've no interest in any motorist, but am simply intent on being safe, not breaking the law and therefore not pissing the rest of the world off in the process, including peds who are more at risk from RLJrs than anyone. I just don't see why saving myself a few seconds should take priority over everyone else on the road. Maybe if I was a smug, self obsessed, selfish bar sterward, I'd RLJ, but I'm not so I don't!


----------



## TheCharityShop (20 Aug 2011)

Rules are for FOOLS, live your life with gay abandon, disreguard petty laws made by fallable weak men in order to assert control over our free will

To hell with the law, so long as you are not hurting anyone, act with compassion and consideration for those around you and believe you are behaving in concert with nature and the universe, do not let manufactured arbitrary rules on personal freedom and liberty impede your way

This is my approach to this fleeting existence on this sphere suspended in infinity

No mortal flesh and bone bureaucrat filth will curtail my life and my place in this infinite uncomprehensible univers we find ourselves concious to appreciate

RULES ARE FOR FOOLS


----------



## Glow worm (20 Aug 2011)

TheCharityShop said:


> Rules are for FOOLS, live your life with gay abandon, disreguard petty laws made by fallable weak men in order to assert control over our free will
> 
> To hell with the law, so long as you are not hurting anyone, act with compassion and consideration for those around you and believe you are behaving in concert with nature and the universe, do not let manufactured arbitrary rules on personal freedom and liberty impede your way
> 
> ...



To be read in the style of........


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> What about as a compassionate human being and as a member of a global cycling brotherhood (sisterhood)? , all of whom have there own individual weaknesses and fallibilities.


Oh be serious. I have a vast amount of compassion to any one / thing who/that deserves it. That does not cover people who choose to ignore or remain ignorant of basic road law.
As I have saie before the I didn't know excuse doesn't cut it. It is one of the excuses used by illegal off road motorbikers. So why not find out first!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

To those who feel so strongly about RLJing being ok on a bike why not use epetitions to get it legalised?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Aug 2011)

Ah sod it just tell everyone they only have to obey the laws they want to. After all it isn't illegal to ride/drive on the right is it?

If plod stop me for not having pedal reflectors on two of the fleet, almost certainly never going to happen, I won't plead ignorance. I won't try a smart arsed argument to show the law in an ass. I'll take what is coming to me.

RLJ'ing is illegal. RLJ'ing is unexpected, like suddenly deciding to ride/drive on the right. Unexpected behaviour in a shared road space is inconsiderate, selfish, uncivilised and anti-social. All of which adds up to a big heap of stupid. So there you have it...

RLJ'ing is stupid.




and stupid in a way that having no pedal reflectors ever can be.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Ah sod it just tell everyone they only have to obey the laws they want to. After all it isn't illegal to ride/drive on the right is it?
> 
> If plod stop me for not having pedal reflectors on two of the fleet, almost certainly never going to happen, I won't plead ignorance. I won't try a smart arsed argument to show the law in an ass. I'll take what is coming to me.
> 
> ...


Well said that man!


----------



## Hip Priest (20 Aug 2011)

I'd never RLJ. The roads only work because everyone, by-and-large, agrees to a certain set of rules. Without them, it'd be bedlam. And I know there are situations where it's 'safe' to RLJ, but that's true for cars as well. I bet none of us ever RLJs in a car.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

Its fascinating in the absence of any clear and consistent reason to watch people rationalising it away with unclear or inconsistent reasons.


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> To those who feel so strongly about RLJing being ok on a bike why not use epetitions to get it legalised?



I would guess because e-petitions don't work


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> I would guess because e-petitions don't work


I want proof goddamit


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I want proof goddamit



12,000 epetitions, only one reaching the threshold 100,000 signatures and I bet nothing gets done about that. But since you don't believe statistics you will need to raise your own epetition so you can get proof from your own experience. Enjoy!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> 12,000 epetitions, only one reaching the threshold 100,000 signatures and I bet nothing gets done about that. But since you don't believe statistics you will need to raise your own epetition so you can get proof from your own experience. Enjoy!


RL 'twas a joke. I know they don't work.


----------



## Bicycle (20 Aug 2011)

It's really not OK.

I've done it in the past and when still living in my birthplace (London) I was a frequent transgressor.

I no longer do it, but I can't use the 'holier than thou' gun as I hopped just about every light in the smoke for years. 

Why it's not OK (in my eyes) is as follows:

1. It winds up other road users. This can generate more tension and resentment, neither of which mix well with 200 bhp and testosterone.

2. The light is red for a reason. 

3. How much difference to your journey time will a couple of hopped lights really make? I worked in transport for years; caning it from London to Leeds and ignoring speed limits offers little time advantage over driving there within the limit and staying calm. You also arrive in better mental shape. I think the same comparison can be made between hopping reds and stopping for them.

It's not OK to hop reds, but people will always do it and some will try to justify it.


----------



## growingvegetables (20 Aug 2011)

> > Ah sod it just tell everyone they only have to obey the laws they want to. After all it isn't illegal to ride/drive on the right is it?
> >
> > If plod stop me for not having pedal reflectors on two of the fleet, almost certainly never going to happen, I won't plead ignorance. I won't try a smart arsed argument to show the law in an ass. I'll take what is coming to me.
> >
> ...



+1


----------



## Angelfishsolo (20 Aug 2011)

Bicycle said:


> It's really not OK.
> 
> I've done it in the past and when still living in my birthplace (London) I was a frequent transgressor.
> 
> ...


Very well put indeed.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> RL 'twas a joke. I know they don't work.



<AFS>Perhaps I should have put a smiley on it for you </AFS>.


----------



## Dreamcatcher (20 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls if he is carrying a bow and arrow. That doesn't mean it is right.



Yes it does...lol


----------



## gaz (20 Aug 2011)

> Cyclists *must* stop at red lights.Motorists *must* stop at red lights.
> 
> Motorists *must not* accuse all cyclists of being “red light-jumping scofflaws”.
> 
> Motorists *must not* labour under the delusion that no motorist ever jumps a red light.


Grammer For Motorists


----------



## Kenny Gray (20 Aug 2011)

Dreamcatcher said:


> Yes it does...lol


Ill bring down my bow and arrow. Haha.


----------



## Kenny Gray (20 Aug 2011)

Kenny Gray said:


> Ill bring down my bow and arrow. Haha.


And i dont jump red lights dont want to increase the chance of getting knocked down again.....


----------



## BSRU (20 Aug 2011)

My opinion is that I do not jump red lights in a car, even when safe to do so, so why would I do something different on two wheels, I'm the same person.

In the end it's a personal choice whether to take the risk of being caught or the risk of being involved in a collision, personally I am never in such a rush that it is ever necessary.

RLJ's should always remember there is a hance they maybe seen by less competent cyclists who then may perceive RLJ'ing as OK.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh be serious. I have a vast amount of compassion to any one / thing who/that deserves it. That does not cover people who choose to ignore or remain ignorant of basic road law.
> As I have saie before the I didn't know excuse doesn't cut it. It is one of the excuses used by illegal off road motorbikers. So why not find out first!


The "i didnt know excuse" does cut it for other offences.
For example where you have turned right at a no right turn ; If you can establish that you didnt know because their was inadequate information you then you will get off it - many cases of bushes obscuring road signs testify to this where drivers hasve been cleared.
In the same way regarding cyclists and rljing. You could assert that since there is no legal requirement for cyclists to undergo training , education and testing before going on the road that it is entirely conceivable that a cyclist may be cycling without the knowledge that it is wrong to go through a red light.


----------



## John90 (21 Aug 2011)

If, as has been mooted, it is made legal for cyclists to go through red lights at a left turn in appropriate circumstances, is there anyone here who will still not do so?


----------



## martint235 (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The "i didnt know excuse" does cut it for other offences.
> For example where you have turned right at a no right turn ; If you can establish that you didnt know because their was inadequate information you then you will get off it - many cases of bushes obscuring road signs testify to this where drivers hasve been cleared.
> In the same way regarding cyclists and rljing. You could assert that since there is no legal requirement for cyclists to undergo training , education and testing before going on the road that it is entirely conceivable that a cyclist may be cycling without the knowledge that it is wrong to go through a red light.



Sorry but they really don't add up, in fact I'd go as far as to say it's complete b*****ks. 

On most junctions you can turn right (where a right turn option is available), therefore you expect to be able to turn right. If a sign telling you that you cannot turn right is obscured, you can probably use that in mitigation. 


At all red lights, you are expected to stop. Pleading ignorance that you didn't know this would not be accepted as mitigation.


----------



## Bicycle (21 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> Grammer For Motorists




Grammer?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Aug 2011)

Red Light said:


> <AFS>Perhaps I should have put a smiley on it for you </AFS>.



No worried. I was a little stressed when I replied.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The "i didnt know excuse" does cut it for other offences.
> For example where you have turned right at a no right turn ; If you can establish that you didnt know because their was inadequate information you then you will get off it - many cases of bushes obscuring road signs testify to this where drivers hasve been cleared.
> In the same way regarding cyclists and rljing. You could assert that since there is no legal requirement for cyclists to undergo training , education and testing before going on the road that it is entirely conceivable that a cyclist may be cycling without the knowledge that it is wrong to go through a red light.



There is a difference to being ignorant of the law and ignorant of a specific piece of signage. I know you know this.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> If, as has been mooted, it is made legal for cyclists to go through red lights at a left turn in appropriate circumstances, is there anyone here who will still not do so?



If it is made legal _*and*_ it safe to do so then yes.


----------



## John90 (21 Aug 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If it is made legal _*and*_ it safe to do so then yes.



You've been consistent on that Angelfishsolo. I suspect everyone would give the same answer and that therefore all the reasons for answering categorically 'no' to the topic question boil down to 'it's against the law'.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (21 Aug 2011)

John90 said:


> You've been consistent on that Angelfishsolo. I suspect everyone would give the same answer and that therefore all the reasons for answering categorically 'no' to the topic question boil down to 'it's against the law'.



One would hope so


----------



## Piemaster (21 Aug 2011)

I have jumped lots of red lights today, cycled the wrong way down a one-way street alongside a cycling PCSO. Cycled past a 'no cycling' sign down a pedstrian precinct. In fact I tried to break as much of the highway code rules as possible.






Wonder when the next SkyRide is.


----------



## apollo179 (21 Aug 2011)

Piemaster said:


> I have jumped lots of red lights today, cycled the wrong way down a one-way street alongside a cycling PCSO. Cycled past a 'no cycling' sign down a pedstrian precinct. In fact I tried to break as much of the highway code rules as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope youve voted.


----------



## doogle84 (12 Sep 2011)

BSRU said:


> My opinion is that I do not jump red lights in a car, even when safe to do so, so why would I do something different on two wheels, I'm the same person.
> 
> In the end it's a personal choice whether to take the risk of being caught or the risk of being involved in a collision, personally I am never in such a rush that it is ever necessary.
> 
> RLJ's should always remember there is a hance they maybe seen by less competent cyclists who then may perceive RLJ'ing as OK.




I have read up the various threads on RLJing out of mild interest (I don't actually come across any traffic lights on 99% of my rides), but I feel it's worth pointing out something which seems obvious to me and I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. For the record I'm firmly in the "no" camp, but could be convinced to move to the "yes" camp only when dealing with the 3am and quiet roads scenario (or clearly-pedestrian-free pelican crossings...).

When bringing up the argument "why not motorbikes/cars", there is an important advantage a cyclist has - his/her ears.

A driver or motorcyclist is cocooned in a world of road noise, engine noise, windows & doors or a helmet. However, we generate much less road or engine noise and hence have much more confidence over whether something is coming or not.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

doogle84 said:


> I have read up the various threads on RLJing out of mild interest (I don't actually come across any traffic lights on 99% of my rides), but I feel it's worth pointing out something which seems obvious to me and I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. For the record I'm firmly in the "no" camp, but could be convinced to move to the "yes" camp only when dealing with the 3am and quiet roads scenario (or clearly-pedestrian-free pelican crossings...).
> 
> When bringing up the argument "why not motorbikes/cars", there is an important advantage a cyclist has - his/her ears.
> 
> A driver or motorcyclist is cocooned in a world of road noise, engine noise, windows & doors or a helmet. However, we generate much less road or engine noise and hence have much more confidence over whether something is coming or not.



So cyclists do not suffer from the noise of other vehicles, wind noise or any other sounds do they?


----------



## Norm (12 Sep 2011)

Oooo... I can now feel this one transmogrifying from "the rlj thread" to "the headphones thread", just as it was going quiet.


----------



## doogle84 (12 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So cyclists do not suffer from the noise of other vehicles, wind noise or any other sounds do they?



Im referring to the 3am and dead roads scenario, and if you're going quickly enough to get significant wind noise I'd agree it's unsafe. If there's doubt, it's unsafe.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

doogle84 said:


> Im referring to the 3am and dead roads scenario, and if you're going quickly enough to get significant wind noise I'd agree it's unsafe. If there's doubt, it's unsafe.



If the roads are dead then surely it is safe for any vehicle to rlj?


----------



## doogle84 (12 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If the roads are dead then surely it is safe for any vehicle to rlj?



I'm talking about how you reach the conclusion that the roads are dead, this is much easier when on a bike and able to hear approaching traffic and get much closer to the junction before deciding.

Admittedly, say there was no doubt that the roads were dead and I were in a car, I wouldn't be arguing that RLJing in this situation was acceptable. Why not? Maybe the perceived consequences to me (lose licence) and others around (can cause much more harm with a car than a bike) are worse?


----------



## abo (12 Sep 2011)

I clicked sometimes and I'll tell you why: I rolled up to some lights at a t-Junction on Friday which were red so I stopped. Waited for a while, lights didn't change. Car pulled up behind me, lights still didn't change. So I rode cautiously out into the junction, waited for a gap and rode off. The car behind did likewise.

I reckon it is ok when the lights clearly have a fault.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

abo said:


> I clicked sometimes and I'll tell you why: I rolled up to some lights at a t-Junction on Friday which were red so I stopped. Waited for a while, lights didn't change. Car pulled up behind me, lights still didn't change. So I rode cautiously out into the junction, waited for a gap and rode off. The car behind did likewise.
> 
> I reckon it is ok when the lights clearly have a fault.



Absolutely. If the lights are faulty then you are not RLJing in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

doogle84 said:


> I'm talking about how you reach the conclusion that the roads are dead, this is much easier when on a bike and able to hear approaching traffic and get much closer to the junction before deciding.
> 
> Admittedly, say there was no doubt that the roads were dead and I were in a car, I wouldn't be arguing that RLJing in this situation was acceptable. Why not? Maybe the perceived consequences to me (lose licence) and others around (can cause much more harm with a car than a bike) are worse?



I disagree that it is easier. At night you can see on coming headlights and sound carries further (no idea why). Also a motorised vehicle can clear teh junction faster than a pedal powered machine. 

As for the why nots. Your self preservation instincts are off. If under the same set of conditions you risk hurting someone my RLJing in a car, you risk hurting someone else and yourself on a bike.


----------



## doogle84 (12 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I disagree that it is easier. At night you can see on coming headlights and sound carries further (no idea why). Also a motorised vehicle can clear teh junction faster than a pedal powered machine.
> 
> As for the why nots. Your self preservation instincts are off. If under the same set of conditions you risk hurting someone my RLJing in a car, you risk hurting someone else and yourself on a bike.




I'm not convinced a car would be significantly quicker or have an equivalent ability to hear approaching traffic, particularly as the car would have to open its windows and come to a complete stop to overcome road/wind noise and would still have the engine ticking away. Whereas the bike wouldn't need to stop completely and obviously hasn't got an engine.

I phrased the consequences badly. I trust my decision making skills much more when my life is in danger. In a car you are much less exposed and the incentive to be completely risk averse is gone, so a stricter application of the rules is necessary. On a bike, I'm not a lemming so would never RLJ if there was any doubt to its safety, but I think peoples' decision making in a car might be compromised.


----------



## apollo179 (12 Sep 2011)

doogle84 said:


> I'm not convinced a car would be significantly quicker or have an equivalent ability to hear approaching traffic, particularly as the car would have to open its windows and come to a complete stop to overcome road/wind noise and would still have the engine ticking away. Whereas the bike wouldn't need to stop completely and obviously hasn't got an engine.
> 
> I phrased the consequences badly. I trust my decision making skills much more when my life is in danger. In a car you are much less exposed and the incentive tone compeltely risk averse is gone, so a stricter application of the rules is necessary. On a bike, I'm not a lemming so would never RLJ if there was any doubt to its safety, but I think peoples' decision making in a car might be compromised.



Agreed.
Look at the situation on non traffic light junctions.
How often do cyclists throw themselves into the path of oncoming traffic - never or at least very very rarely.
But motorists do it with alarming regularity.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

I despair sometimes. Oh well each to their own. I had a few red lights on my ride today and enjoyed the recovery time they afforded me.


----------



## apollo179 (12 Sep 2011)

Dont despair - i merely think that if we look at the empirical evidence it would tend to support doogles opinion that cyclists are in any circumstance likely to preceed with more caution than motorists due to their inate vulnerability.
This combined with superior sensory awareness of their surroundings and it could be argued that this makes them less likely to cycle unsafely or dangerously and more capable of cycling safely.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Dont despair - i merely think that if we look at the empirical evidence it would tend to support doogles opinion that cyclists are in any circumstance likely to preceed with more caution than motorists due to their inate vulnerability.
> This combined with superior sensory awareness of their surroundings and it could be argued that this makes them less likely to cycle unsafely or dangerously and more capable of cycling safely.



One might also assume that they know the laws of the road but that has already been disproved. As for superior sensory awareness I am not so sure. A car driver has to assimilate as much information as a cyclist and do so at faster speeds. All things being equal the driver will be more aware. Think of coming of a motorway and onto a B road. Your reactions are still heightened and everything around you seems to move slowly.

Anyway you cut it if you want to allow RLJing for one you have to allow it for all.


----------



## doogle84 (12 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I despair sometimes. Oh well each to their own. I had a few red lights on my ride today and enjoyed the recovery time they afforded me.



I would have been waiting at the lights alongside you.

I certainly wouldn't want to see RLJing legalised because most of the time it is probably wrong, but the way I see it is that there will always be a few cyclists who do it. 

I just think if we acknowledge that bikes are different to cars, try to justify why it is sometimes safe to behave differently and apply a bit of common sense, it might dampen some of the bad vibes we get from drivers. Or it might encourage more of us to do it....hopefully not!


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (12 Sep 2011)

barongreenback said:


> Sensing this needs a forum like helmets.



+1


----------



## ian turner (13 Sep 2011)

Nooo not another forum. Just change the Helmet debate to Fightclub forum and list Helmet,RLJ and Headphones on bikes
as contents (plus possibly BSOs as references to them seem to cause uproar amongst the owners of Burberry racing caps  )


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example)




I had a feeling you were one of them . . . . .


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> I had a feeling you were one of them . . . . .



Meaning what exactly?


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Meaning what exactly?



An anti-viv. Campaigning to change the law in this country will only ever send the research to other countries where the rules aren't as strict as they are in the UK, as it did for many of the companies using HLS. The animal welfare laws and the laws governing biomedical research in this country are the strictest in the world and animals in labs are very well looked after in the UK. The same cannot be said for other countries, even the USA. The UK is still one of the leading nations providing new treatments for many awful diseases, and none of this can be done without experiments using animal models. Stop wasting your time.

Anyway completely off topic . . . . . back to red light jumping!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> An anti-viv. Campaigning to change the law in this country will only ever send the research to other countries where the rules aren't as strict as they are in the UK, as it did for many of the companies using HLS. The animal welfare laws and the laws governing biomedical research in this country are the strictest in the world and animals in labs are very well looked after in the UK. The same cannot be said for other countries, even the USA. The UK is still one of the leading nations providing new treatments for many awful diseases, and none of this can be done without experiments using animal models. Stop wasting your time.
> 
> Anyway completely off topic . . . . . back to red light jumping!



Becs you are spouting crap. I was there when Hillgrove was closed down.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Becs you are spouting crap. I was there when Hillgrove was closed down.




As a vet and a scientist who has worked in both the UK and the USA I can assure you I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> As a vet and a scientist who has worked in both the UK and the USA I can assure you I know what I'm talking about.



No you know what you have been taught. Have you seen the flip side of it? The animals kept in cages 24/7, eyes forced open to have god knows what dripped into them, drug testing carried out out on them,. I have. I have also rescued animals from this life of hell and am proud of it. That is the one law I am happy to break.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No you know what you have been taught. Have you seen the flip side of it? The animals kept in cages 24/7, eyes forced open to have god knows what dripped into them, drug testing carried out out on them,. I have. I have also rescued animals from this life of hell and am proud of it. That is the one law I am happy to break.



No I know what laws scientists have to work within and believe me they are strict! The research animals I have encountered (in this country at least) are incredibly well cared for and have a better quality of life than most pets (I'm talking small furry things like mice and rats here). All you lot do is slow down the development of therapies that can be life-saving to humans AND animals. Most anti-viv propaganda is at least 20 years old in my experience, and often from outside the UK. The anti-vivs I've met are incredibly ill-informed, ignorant and narrow minded. Traits that you have displayed in many threads including this one.


----------



## adds21 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No you know what you have been taught. Have you seen the flip side of it? The animals kept in cages 24/7, eyes forced open to have god knows what dripped into them, drug testing carried out out on them,. I have. I have also rescued animals from this life of hell and am proud of it. * That is the one law I am happy to break*.



I know it's out of vogue, but to try and get back on-topic here, you're saying that it's okay to break some laws, despite saying



Angelfishsolo said:


> Red Light jumping is against the law thus it is wrong.



and



Angelfishsolo said:


> I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example) but do so within the law.



Interesting.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

adds21 said:


> I know it's out of vogue, but to try and get back on-topic here, you're saying that it's okay to break some laws, dispite saying
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry adds, this man just bugs the hell out of me!


----------



## VamP (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Well with logic like that how can one possibly argue. Oh I know. The rules are for all road users that way no one is marginalised.




I think you might be confusing marginalisation with discrimination.


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> Sorry adds, this man just bugs the hell out of me!



Please carry on, its more interesting to read than another bloody RLJ thread.

Oh and I agree with you BTW


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1513351"]
<voiceover from Dragon's Den>
An interesting development. Very unusually, a member pops up who is qualified enough to know what they're talking about. With an intelligent response Becs sweeps AFS off his feet. Will he be able to come back from this rebuke?...
</voiceover from Dragon's Den>
[/quote]

I am always sickened when a person who works in a profession where animal care is paramount is OK with animal experimentation and legalised torture.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am always sickened when a person who works in a profession where animal care is paramount is OK with animal experimentation and legalised torture.




where do you think the drugs come from to treat pets? 


I doubt you will find a single vet that doesn't appreciate the need for using a small number of animals in research


----------



## gbb (13 Sep 2011)

Coming in late to this one...
IMO, like all questions of this sort, you can't see it black and white, its a matter of common sense and in some circumstances, even the police would at best agree, at worst, turn a blind eye.

Scenario1 ...you've arrived at some red lights, there's other traffic or peds using the junction, you jump the red lights....you've wrong and deserve anything that comes your way.

Scenario 2...you approach the lights at say 11pm, the roads are empty, there is no other traffic, nothing. Acceptable to pass the red with caution...yes IMO, but with all due care.

Scenario 3...you approach the lights and stop...and wait. Nothing happens. Its reasonable to assume your bike hasn't activated the loop, so if you blindly follow the law, you'll be there until the next car arrives...which may be an hour.

Scenario 4..and this actually happened to me the other day. Arrived at some red lights in a quiet industrial estate....IN A CAR. Waited...waited...waited, for maybe 2 or 3 minutes. I know the phases there, it NEVER takes that long but do notice the've had the road up and resurfaced a lot. 
So, even if i'm wrong, its reasonable to assume the lights have failed for some reason. I pulled away, checking carefully first that there's no other traffic...lo and behold, i looked in my rear view from about 200 yards further on, they'd finally changed to green.

Now, some may argue if you arrived at some TLs on a bike and they didnt change, you should dismount and walk around or across. Working on that principle...should i have pushed my car across....of course not, neither would i on a bike.

Its about common sense. They're just 4 scenarios i can be bothered to think of, they all have different reasons and outcomes. Nothings black and white, not even the law.
If a policeman had seen me...i think it'd have been reasonable to expect him to see the common sense in it all.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> where do you think the drugs come from to treat pets?
> 
> 
> I doubt you will find a single vet that doesn't appreciate the need for using a small number of animals in research



So why do we as humans need to test drugs for humans on animals? I know several vets against that.


----------



## martint235 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So why do we as humans need to test drugs for humans on animals? I know several vets against that.



I'm all for testing human drugs on humans but unfortunately there seems to be an even bigger outcry about that.

Testing treatments on animals has led to huge leaps forward in medical science that shouldn't be ignored. 

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the human race as a whole and certainly don't believe that we are "better" than animals, we are just another species. What we are doing though is what any other animal does which is using every method we can come up with to ensure the survival of the species. This unfortunately for the animals involved means they bear the brunt of the testing. 

Other animals tend to die for my steak. I can live with this.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

What Martin said!

To be honest, nothing we say will ever change your mind so there is no point continuing this conversation. All i know is that if my son was born with a fatal disease I be very glad a few mice were humanely sacrificed to find something that would reduce his suffering.

Anyway. BACK TO RED LIGHT JUMPING!


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1513351"]
<voiceover from Dragon's Den>
An interesting development. Very unusually, a member pops up who is qualified enough to know what they're talking about. With an intelligent response Becs sweeps AFS off his feet. Will he be able to come back from this rebuke?...
</voiceover from Dragon's Den>
[/quote]

Not to be pedantic, but seeing as (AGFS) loves pointing out where others sidestep questions that may cause difficulty......

So, why do you (AGFS) take the stance not to RLJ as it is wrong and against the law, but you are happy to break different laws to further your personal interest in preventing animal testing?

Actually, heres the deal breaker, you'll like this 

You are on your way to rescue animals illegally from legal licensed premises yet you stop at each and every red light because it is illegal to run through them.

By the way I'm not looking to score points there, I'm just trying to squeeze some amusement from the latest RLJ saga, its like George Lucas pops up every so often to remake RLJ threads in a slightly different way to the last time.....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Not to be pedantic, but seeing as (AGFS) loves pointing out where others sidestep questions that may cause difficulty......
> 
> So, why do you (AGFS) take the stance not to RLJ as it is wrong and against the law, but you are happy to break different laws to further your personal interest in preventing animal testing?
> 
> ...


----------



## wiggydiggy (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


>



Aww come on, I bet you smiled a little


----------



## Dan B (13 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> By the way I'm not looking to score points there, I'm just trying to squeeze some amusement from the latest RLJ saga, its like George Lucas pops up every so often to remake RLJ threads in a slightly different way to the last time.....


Let the Wookie win


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

@Mr Paul. Yes I would rather visit a dignitas facility.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

That is an invalid leap of logic Paul.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Your basic logic is flawed Paul. I would not want to live with Cancer full stop.


----------



## adds21 (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Your basic logic is flawed Paul. I would not want to live with Cancer full stop.



But some cancers have a 95% survival rate.

Edit: source


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Unless you take no medication, use no cleaning products, no soaps, shampoos, don't wear any leather or wool, are a true vegan and don't give your "rescued" animals any medication (which could be argued constitutes cruelty in itself if they are sick) you really don't have a leg to stand on mate.


----------



## Cyclopathic (13 Sep 2011)

Is it ok for me to go through red lights if I switch on my flashing red light and have one mounted on the front as well. And if I ding my bell as well to let people know I'm comming through.


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

This is a whole different avenue and probably deserves a place in the Crank Arms rather than commuting.

Re: Red Light jumping

If it was 2 o'clock in the morning, no one was around,I could see clearly at all junctions and there were no rozzers around, then I would do it.


----------



## Cyclopathic (13 Sep 2011)

Without wishing to sound facetious (but possibly failing) what are peoples feelings towards stopping at a red light on say a pedestrian crossing; dismounting, walking the bike the 8 feet across the lights and then getting back on and continuing. I would probably keep my bike on the road whilst I pushed it along from the pavement.
Doesn't this get around almost all the problems except for it having to still slow the cyclist down a bit?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Then I have a chance of survival without treatment.
My real point was that Mr P made a faulty assumption.


----------



## Cyclopathic (13 Sep 2011)

4F said:


> This is a whole different avenue and probably deserves a place in the Crank Arms rather than commuting.
> 
> Re: Red Light jumping
> 
> If it was 2 o'clock in the morning, no one was around,I could see clearly at all junctions and there were no rozzers around, then I would do it.




Well my treatment of red lights is somewhat along those lines anyway. I will rlj if there is no one around to annoy and no one to influence. Basicaly I'l do it if no ones around therfor it will never come to anyones attention because no one will ever know....Oh bugger.


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> Without wishing to sound facetious (but possibly failing) what are peoples feelings towards stopping at a red light on say a pedestrian crossing; dismounting, walking the bike the 8 feet across the lights and then getting back on and continuing. I would probably keep my bike on the road whilst I pushed it along from the pavement.
> Doesn't this get around almost all the problems except for it having to still slow the cyclist down a bit?



Bit of a faff, If you were really that bothered about saving a few seconds you might as well blatt straight on and ignore the lights. Or like me, stop and use the lights for some interval sprinting once they turn green.


----------



## VamP (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> @Mr Paul. Yes I would rather visit a dignitas facility.




Ahhh wait.... but that's not legal in the UK.


Kinda brings us neatly back to the point of legality vs. morality.


RLJing (on a bicycle) is mildly illegal, and mainly a victimless misdemeanour. Euthanasia is a serious offence, and will earn the perpetrator many years in jail.

Still want to maintain the ''it's illegal and therefore wrong'' position?


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

VamP said:


> Ahhh wait.... but that's not legal in the UK.
> 
> 
> Kinda brings us neatly back to the point of legality vs. morality.
> ...




 awesome


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

If it is not carried out in Britian and I visit the clinic alone it is not illegal. Failing that there are other legal methods at my disposal.


----------



## Cyclopathic (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If it is not carried out in Britian and I visit the clinic alone it is not illegal. Failing that there are other legal methods at my disposal.




I thought suicide was itself ilegal in this country. Or did they change that. Or have I just got it wrong. I do that sometimes.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

That law was repealed over 50 years ago,


----------



## martint235 (13 Sep 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> I thought suicide was itself ilegal in this country. Or did they change that. Or have I just got it wrong. I do that sometimes.




I think it's attempting suicide that was (if AFS is correct about it being repealed) illegal.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1513381"]
So you do take medication that's tested on animals then?
[/quote]

Not through choice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> Unless you take no medication, use no cleaning products, no soaps, shampoos, don't wear any leather or wool, are a true vegan and don't give your "rescued" animals any medication (which could be argued constitutes cruelty in itself if they are sick) you really don't have a leg to stand on mate.



There are cleaning products and shampoos that are not tested on animals. I neither wear leather or wool. Medication tested on animals is used through necessity and not choice.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1513385"]
You could choose not to.
[/quote]

I tried and I ended up trying to take my own life.


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> Well my treatment of red lights is somewhat along those lines anyway. I will rlj if there is no one around to annoy and no one to influence. Basicaly I'l do it if no ones around therfor it will never come to anyones attention because no one will ever know....Oh bugger.




  

AFS, you shudda kept your gob shut! 

Once you've conceded the moral high ground it's bleedin' difficult if not impossible to regain it!


p.s. I take drugs, eat meat and occasionally ride on the pavement and rlj. Phew, I've got it off my chest  Now, where's the amoral low-ground, please?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

rich p said:


> AFS, you shudda kept your gob shut!
> 
> Once you've conceded the moral high ground it's bleedin' difficult if not impossible to regain it!
> 
> ...



Honesty is the best policy. I thought about it a long time before stating I was involved in animal liberation.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> There are cleaning products and shampoos that are not tested on animals. I neither wear leather or wool. Medication tested on animals is used through necessity and not choice.



The products themselves aren't but the ingredients all have been. It's a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs (including those topical compounds found in shampoos etc) are tested on animals before they go onto the human market.

Interesting how your morals break down when you need to be treated.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> The products themselves aren't but the ingredients all have been. It's a legal requirement in this country that all new drugs (including those topical compounds found in shampoos etc) are tested on animals before they go onto the human market.
> 
> Interesting how your morals break down when you need to be treated.



Not if they are vegan friendly I assure you. As for my morals breaking down it is about surviving. Half the time I wish I could just end it all TBH.


----------



## lukesdad (13 Sep 2011)

You take drugs ?  

You re no better than that Armstrong geezer !


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> You take drugs ?
> 
> You re no better than that Armstrong geezer !



Odd thing is mine slow me down!


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not if they are vegan friendly I assure you. As for my morals breaking down *it is about surviving*. Half the time I wish I could just end it all TBH.




A bit like using a few well cared for mice to find treatments to stop kids from dying?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

Becs said:


> A bit like using a few well cared for mice to find treatments to stop kids from dying?



By well cared for you mean apart from when they die because the meds had the wrong effect.

Use lifers instead. They have lost all human rights.


----------



## Becs (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> By well cared for you mean apart from when they die because the meds had the wrong effect.
> 
> Use lifers instead. They have lost all human rights.




And on that note . . . . I'm off to ride my bike!





Sorry for provoking a thread hijack, I promise I'll stop at all the red lights


----------



## apollo179 (13 Sep 2011)

Why cant you all just stop bickering as i find it quite upsetting.


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2011)

1513393 said:


> It's in Sodom & Gomorrah-by-Sea.




Shoreham? Hove?......


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Use lifers instead. They have lost all human rights.




Bloody nora! I think I'll back out of this thread again!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1513399"]
...and I'm very glad then that you did mate. 

I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely interested in how those with views like yours deal with the conflict.
[/quote]

I appreciate that. You are 100% right it is conflict and something I am not 100% happy with but the other option hurts more people. As I care more about others than myself it is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## martint235 (13 Sep 2011)

rich p said:


> p.s. I take drugs, eat meat and *occasionally ride on the pavement and rlj.* Phew, I've got it off my chest  Now, where's the amoral low-ground, please?



And I'd always thought of you as a friend!!


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> And I'd always thought of you as a friend!!




Don't go Mart, I have so few left!

The pavement bit is a stretch to get into my driveway and the rlj was on an fnr at 4 am and we all did


----------



## lukesdad (13 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1513351"]
<voiceover from Dragon's Den>
An interesting development. Very unusually, a member pops up who is qualified enough to know what they're talking about. With an intelligent response Becs sweeps AFS off his feet. Will he be able to come back from this rebuke?...
</voiceover from Dragon's Den>
[/quote]


.....and you know this ?......How ?


----------



## wiggydiggy (14 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> By well cared for you mean apart from when they die because the meds had the wrong effect.
> 
> *Use lifers instead. They have lost all human rights.*



Really how? How have they lost all human rights? 

What possible argument can anyone put across for this view, if I am to believe what you say is true about animal testing then to understand your stance correctly you condone the torture and caging of human beings for the benefit of others?

And why, because they have been found guilty of a crime and sentenced to life. 

Got a another one for you, if the penalty for breaking into premises and releasing caged animals was 'life', would you be happy to be on the receiving of your view that lifers should replace animals being used for testing?

In all seriousness I normally find what you post to be a bit pedantic at times but generally sound and something I can agree with, this stance though I cannot.

I'm going to take anothers advice here and let the wookie win, although for all I know you could be a honey monster.


----------



## apollo179 (14 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Not to be pedantic, but seeing as (AGFS) loves pointing out where others sidestep questions that may cause difficulty......
> 
> So, why do you (AGFS) take the stance not to RLJ as it is wrong and against the law, but you are happy to break different laws to further your personal interest in preventing animal testing?
> 
> ...



If saving the imprisoned animals takes a higher moral priority than stoping at red lights then logically (groan) you would rlj on your way to the animal rights activity.
Much in the same way that any normal person would rlj (safely) on route to freeing an imprisoned loved one.


----------



## Wobbly Wheels (14 Sep 2011)

I don't jump red lights in my car, so why would I think it was alright to do so on my bike?

Red lights are there for all road users, not just cars. Even pedestrians have to stop at red lights when on a level crossing. No, a red light, is a red light. You have to stop.


----------



## Sittingduck (14 Sep 2011)

Is that cat's face Photo-shopped?^ Looks weird...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Really how? How have they lost all human rights?
> 
> What possible argument can anyone put across for this view, if I am to believe what you say is true about animal testing then to understand your stance correctly you condone the torture and caging of human beings for the benefit of others?
> 
> ...



I was having a very bad day when I wrote this. Enough said.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (15 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Got a another one for you, if the penalty for breaking into premises and releasing caged animals was 'life', would you be happy to be on the receiving of your view that lifers should replace animals being used for testing?



In answer to this question yes I would. If I can save one animal for pain and suffering I will.


----------



## apollo179 (15 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was having a very bad day when I wrote this. Enough said.



You really should warn us when your having a bad day.


----------



## wiggydiggy (15 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was having a very bad day when I wrote this. Enough said.



Ok I will leave it at that


----------



## Mad at urage (15 Sep 2011)

Wobbly Wheels said:


> I don't jump red lights in my car, so why would I think it was alright to do so on my bike?
> 
> Red lights are there for all road users, not just cars. * Even pedestrians have to stop at red lights when on a level crossing. * No, a red light, is a red light. You have to stop.


Agreed, except the bolded: Just noticed "level crossing" ... Do you know where the regulations are for this? Specifically railway law I guess?


----------



## Dan B (15 Sep 2011)

Railways are not public places. Roads are. And pedestrians don't have to stop at red lights which control road junctions. Really, I don't see how level crossings are relevant to any of the points made in this thread


----------



## wiggydiggy (15 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Railways are not public places. Roads are. And pedestrians don't have to stop at red lights which control road junctions. Really, I don't see how level crossings are relevant to any of the points made in this thread



Its only relevent as it is far more dangerous to jump the lights at a crossing and is treated as such, one example here of a lorry driver being arrested for several railway offences: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-11006018 

Its peoples perception, its entirely possible for a similiar incident to occur at traffic lights where a serious accident occurs and someone is arrested for more than just jumping the light. (we'd need a bus/lorry though, doubt a train would run well on tarmac).

Its peoples perception, RLJ is judged to be less dangerous at a junction than a railway crossing.

Dammit I'm discussing RLJ now, oh well its a slow day lol


----------



## Dan B (15 Sep 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> Its peoples perception, RLJ is judged to be less dangerous at a junction than a railway crossing.




I'd be surprised if that perception were not correct, based on what little I know about the stopping distance of a train.


----------



## wiggydiggy (15 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> [/size]
> 
> I'd be surprised if that perception *were not correct*, based on what little I know about the stopping distance of a train.



Do you mean was not correct? Or that it is correct? 

Either way I'm happy disagree or agree with anyone on that statement, I'm not having that debate lol But based on the number of people who I see willing to jump a red light at a junction, compared to a level crossing theres definately a judgement of risk that it is less dangerous to RLJ at a junction.


----------

