# Red Light Jumping



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.


----------



## Moderators (31 Aug 2011)

This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525783"]
We've done this, and the thread was closed because it got personal. You know the reasons some don't agree with you, so I don't understand why you're dragging it up again.
[/quote]

Because the previous topic started an interesting discussion concerning the rlj issue but unfortunately had to be closed.
That is not reason for you to forbid discussing the issue.
The previous thread offered no valid reason why the legality of rlj should not be reconsidered under appropriate circumstances.
Like the part time lights they have abroad for example.


----------



## PK99 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where* it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.*



Because the highlighted argument leave it open for other road users to do the same?


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

1525786 said:


> Because we know that bit to be unobtainable.



That is a valid point and that should be revised to any reasonable person.
It would be impossible to legislate to everyones preference so we have to to accomodate the perceived best option.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

PK99 said:


> Because the highlighted argument leave it open for other road users to do the same?


Technically not as its just for cyclists and it would not "leave it open for other road users to do the same" but i see your point that theoretically the thinking behind it could be applied to other road users and although i dont really want to get side tracked with other road users i would say that in certain circumstances it might be reasonable to reconsider the rlj / traffic lights issue for all traffic - eg - part time lights like on the continent.
I agree the principal can be applied and does apply to other traffic not just cyclists.
However fundamentally legally a cycle specific change in the law would allow cycles to act as per the ammended law , other traffic would have to act according to the law specific to them.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

1525789 said:


> The best perceived option is that we all stop at red.



Why ?
Or rather why not consider improving our lighting arrangements so that many cyclists are not criminalised unnecessarily ?


----------



## Alun (31 Aug 2011)

1525789 said:


> The best perceived option is that we all stop at red.



+1


----------



## steve52 (31 Aug 2011)

beond the mentioned mantra, is a area that is jut fantasy and there can be little reasoned debate, other than why obay any law if breakinging it hurts no one causes no offence to any one ect ect, the next step could be well if i dont get caught it dosent count? we have rules and some breake them it seems to be what humans do


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Why ?
> Or rather why not consider improving our lighting arrangements so that many cyclists are not criminalised unnecessarily ?


They are not criminalised unnecessarily, they are criminalised because they have CHOSEN (and that's an important point) to break the law. 



Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525794"]
Valid reasons were given which you ignored. 

Part time lights do not involve rljing.
[/quote]
You gave the arguement that the reality is that nobody rljs at 2 in the morning on empty roads - that to say you only rlj in acceptable circumstances is disengenuous.
I to a degree agree with you but that does not preclude that some people do only rlj in circumstances where a reasonable judge would consider it safe and ok.
Does anyone have an arguement why rljing is wrong in these circumstances.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

1525796 said:


> Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
> 
> I would suggest that you start a different thread if you want to discuss a different issue. The two things are not linked.



But it seems to me that the only offence that it causes ( in the ok circumstances) is that it breaks the law which is if anything an arguement for reconsidering the rlj issue.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525797"]
Again, introducing part-time signals has nothing to do with red light jumping.

Would you like to change the thread title?
[/quote]

No because this topic is not part time signals it is about rlj - cyclists judging other cyclists.
Cyclists throwing all rljers in the same basket and judging them and condemning them.
Does anyone have a compelling reason why in circumstances mentioned rlj is wrong , why the issue should not be reviewed.


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> You gave the arguement that the reality is that nobody rljs at 2 in the morning on empty roads - that to say you only rlj in acceptable circumstances is disengenuous.
> I to a degree agree with you but that does not preclude that some people do only rlj in circumstances where a reasonable judge would consider it safe and ok.
> Does anyone have an arguement why rljing is wrong in these circumstances.



The whole reason for the legal system is that the judgement of individuals will always, at some point, run contrary to what is best for the population as a whole. Once again you're advocating that people should be allowed to, selfishly, choose which laws should apply to them.

Once again, as on other threads, if I walk down the street with a loaded shotgun, no one gets hurt do they? So if I promise not to discharge the shotgun that should be ok? It would make it more convenient for me to get to my shooting club/farm to be able to carry it down the street.

Now you could argue that seeing me walking down the street with a shotgun could alarm some people, cause them to re-evaluate the current risks to themselves. It could perhaps p*** off the owners of handguns who are not allowed to walk down the street with their weapon on show?

Now you could argue that seeing me rljing could alarm some people, cause them to re-evaluate the current risks to themselves. It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.....


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525800"]
No I didn't. I said that I didn't believe your claim that you only rlj at completely deserted junctions. Because that's not true. 

Anyway, that's about your behaviour, not one of the several arguments against running red lights which you continue to ignore.
[/quote]
Yes - lets not personalise it to me - lets talk in general terms - thanks.
Hearing these reasons referred to repeatedly but never defined.
Can you please give your reason / reasons why beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes - lets not personalise it to me - lets talk in general terms - thanks.
> Hearing these reasons referred to repeatedly but never defined.
> Can you please give your reason / reasons why beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.
> Thanks in advance.



The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?



I offend people by giving my opinion - should i not do it ?
Edit - ignore this as i dont want to personalise the dabate in any way - apologies.


----------



## Boris Bike (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.


Because I get tarred with the same brush as the RLJing people. RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

Boris Bike said:


> Because I get tarred with the same brush as the RLJing people. RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.



Bad rljers are indefensible.
Thats not what im reffering to.
We should all dissuade anyone from rljing where it is in anyway unsafe to anybody or might be anticipated that it might cause offence to a reasonable person. Indeed this is true in general.


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> But it seems to me that the only offence that it causes ( in the ok circumstances) is that it breaks the law which is if anything an arguement for reconsidering the rlj issue.






apollo179 said:


> I offend people by giving my opinion - should i not do it ?
> Edit - ignore this as i dont want to personalise the dabate in any way - apologies.



It was you who brought up the term "offence", I was just using your post as the starting point.

And as giving your opinion, on the whole, isn't illegal in this country then whether you cause offence or not, you are able to voice opinions.


----------



## lukesdad (31 Aug 2011)

Boris Bike said:


> Because I get tarred with the same brush as the RLJing people. RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.



And I get tarred with the same brush as the cyclecraft disciples. Not fair is it ? But we all have our cross to bear


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525810"]
And again, I've not mentioned the law. The importance of the above is that junctions are very rarely deserted during the day. If you really only run reds when there's no-one about then that's a different situation to the one you're arguing for. The reality is that you belong to a group who rlj not at deserted junctions but where you think you're not going to be hit. This includes junctions where there are pedestrians and other road users on conflicting paths. This scenario is what you need to be justifying, not the 2am situation. You focus on the 2am scenario because you know it's easier to justify, and you know that your justification for busy-time rljing is weak. Keep to the reality please. And for that you're going to have to change tack.
[/quote]

So can i interpret your response as you do not have any compelling argument why rljing is wrong in those circumstances.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> It was you who brought up the term "offence", I was just using your post as the starting point.
> 
> And as giving your opinion, on the whole, isn't illegal in this country then whether you cause offence or not, you are able to voice opinions.



Yes my point really was that in reply to your 
"The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?"

Post
Sometimes one just will offend people.
I offend car drivers by cycling down narrow country roads.
The point re rljing is that the fact rljing in what seems to me harmless situations offends people is simply because it is illegal. Situations where there is no substantive harm - it is safe and deserted.
Make this legal and people will not have reason to get annoyed (be offended) .
yes - no ?


----------



## Brandane (31 Aug 2011)

I don't get this argument that RLJers cause offence to other road users. If done sensibly and safely, then it shouldn't cause offence. If it does, then that is the problem of the offended person and they clearly have issues that they need to deal with. 

I am a RLJer in some circumstances. Not in a busy city environment where yes, it would be dangerous and possibly offensive to people trying to cross the road etc.. However, on a quiet road where a pedestrian has just crossed one of these modern crossings which has supposedly "intelligent sensors" that detect pedestrians on the crossings (yet they stay on red for about 30 seconds after the crossing is clear) then yes, I WILL RLJ! No I wouldn't do it in the car because I have a licence to lose and the law is quite clear about RLJ in a motorised vehicle. It is open to debate on a pedal cycle.

And that is my last word on this site. Wayyyy too heavy for me. Cycling is meant to be fun; not an endless debate on RLJing, helmet wearing and SPD pedals being the only way to go.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances *where it is safe to cyclist and others* and causes offence to no-one.



Because this is a matter of personal judgement - for example a guy this morning thought it was safe to go through a pelican crossing whilst there was a large crowd of people using it, weaving in and out of the pedestrians, which included small children.

Whilst I assume nobody here would be that idiotic, it is all down to the individual cyclists perception of what is safe and as we can't guarantee that each individual cyclist isn't going to endanger themselves or other road users, then the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of that (waiting at traffic lights).

You also can't guarantee that other road users aren't going to do something daft either (pedestrians dashing out on flashing amber, cars coming out from a crossroads as the lights change &c &c.

I wonder if anyone has ever considered the possibility of having a "head start light" for cyclists. (I know, too expensive and will never happen, this is in my evil, communist dictatorship in my head).


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

Brandane said:


> I don't get this argument that RLJers cause offence to other road users. If done sensibly and safely, then it shouldn't cause offence. If it does, then that is the problem of the offended person and they clearly have issues that they need to deal with.
> 
> I am a RLJer in some circumstances. Not in a busy city environment where yes, it would be dangerous and possibly offensive to people trying to cross the road etc.. However, on a quiet road where a pedestrian has just crossed one of these modern crossings which has supposedly "intelligent sensors" that detect pedestrians on the crossings (yet they stay on red for about 30 seconds after the crossing is clear) then yes, I WILL RLJ! No I wouldn't do it in the car because I have a licence to lose and the law is quite clear about RLJ in a motorised vehicle. It is open to debate on a pedal cycle.
> 
> And that is my last word on this site. Wayyyy too heavy for me. Cycling is meant to be fun; not an endless debate on RLJing, helmet wearing and SPD pedals being the only way to go.



Seems reasonable.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

I stand by my view that the OP is spoiling for a fight with everyone who thinks he/she is wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Brandane said:


> ! No I wouldn't do it in the car because I have a licence to lose and the law is quite clear about RLJ in a motorised vehicle. I_*t is open to debate on a pedal cycle.
> *_


_*
Not it is not.*_

*71*
You *MUST NOT* cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).

*[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]*


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Because this is a matter of personal judgement - for example a guy this morning thought it was safe to go through a pelican crossing whilst there was a large crowd of people using it, weaving in and out of the pedestrians, which included small children.
> 
> Whilst I assume nobody here would be that idiotic, it is all down to the individual cyclists perception of what is safe and as we can't guarantee that each individual cyclist isn't going to endanger themselves or other road users, then the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of that (waiting at traffic lights).
> 
> ...



Yes valid points tilly.
I can kind of see the arguement that some might have to wait unnecessarily at red lights for the greater good.
That acknowledges that some waiting at red lights is unnecessary and it therefore follows that the situation might benefit from being reviewed.
Also it is kindof a legalistic arguement.
Apart from the reason that people are offended by cyclists breaking the law by rljing which would be negated by changing the law / traffic light system - i still havnt heard a reason why it is wrong in certain aforementioned circumstances.


----------



## wiggydiggy (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.



This again 

'A compelling argument'

I can't be bothered to construct a argument that will persuade you otherwise and by the looks of it neither can a lot of other people, maybe just drop it?

Can I suggest all RLJ threads go in helmet debates from now on please


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

wiggydiggy said:


> This again
> 
> 'A compelling argument'
> 
> ...


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525816"]
See? That's exactly my point. If you can't get past this then the discussion will never move on. The ball is in your court. 

We're not talking about 2am. 

Please justify your daytime rljing. And that is, you running red lights whenever you think you'll get away without being hit or pulled up by the police.
[/quote]

If you are asking me to justify rljing where it is unsafe or likely to cause offence - i cant.
Because in these circumstances it is wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

1525824 said:


> Gordon Brown exhibited an error of judgement when he went back to apologize to "That bigoted woman". David Cameron similarly when he went back to give a tip to the waitress who hadn't actually served him at all.



Yes you are right. I should not have apologised.


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2011)

1525796 said:


> Because the RLJing does cause offence


As does the filtering in traffic queues, as does the riding two abreast, as does the riding in the road when there's a cycle lane, as does the riding in the road when there's a pavement, as does the riding the wrong way down a one-way road with cycle contraflow, as does the stopping in the ASL and "holding up" traffic, as does the riding in primary, as does the not wearing helmets/hi-vis, as does the not paying road(sic) tax, as does almost any act of cycling which is unavailable by law or by physics to the motorist. Some of these you can make a good case for doing on safety grounds, others (e.g. filtering/two abreast) are mostly just done for convenience. 

The difference seems to be that we (by "we" I mean the mainstream of internet cycling forum users opinions) don't care if we're causing offence when we're doing something legal: ISTM that irrespective of whether apollo179 is really only RLJing at 2am or whether he's actually scattering crowds of pedestrians and causing small children to toddle for their lives out of his path as other posters have suggested he does, the question "would you support a change in the law or the guidelines for its enforcement to allow cyclist RLJ when there is nothing coming the other way" is one that could reasonably be considered in the abstract - because "it would cause offence" is only an argument against if you believe there's a crucial maximum level of allowable offence which this change would tip us over. 

Probably not on this thread though, and probably not with these participants.


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes my point really was that in reply to your
> "The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?"
> 
> Post
> ...



How does rljing in a harmless situation offend anyone? A harmless situation is one that does not involve the presence of other people or making them change their behaviour to accommodate you breaking the law. As User has pointed out, there is a huge difference between a deserted junction at 2am (although if seen by a police officer, I don't think you'd have a right to complain against a ticket) and any junction that isn't deserted. I think you're struggling to justify rljing even to yourself, let alone anyone else.

Making it legal won't stop it offending people, as you've said you offend car drivers by performing the completely legal move of cycling down a country lane. As it's legal to do that, it puts the problem firmly in the court of the person feeling aggrieved. If you want to change the law (or if the motorist wants to change the law regarding country lanes) then work towards it. Don't just ignore laws for your benefit unless you're happy for others to operate in the same manner.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> "would you support a change in the law or the guidelines for its enforcement to allow cyclist RLJ when there is nothing coming the other way" is one that could reasonably be considered in the abstract -



So why can we not apply this concept to all road users?


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> As does the filtering in traffic queues, as does the riding two abreast, as does the riding in the road when there's a cycle lane, as does the riding in the road when there's a pavement, as does the riding the wrong way down a one-way road with cycle contraflow, as does the stopping in the ASL and "holding up" traffic, as does the riding in primary, as does the not wearing helmets/hi-vis, as does the not paying road(sic) tax, as does almost any act of cycling which is unavailable by law or by physics to the motorist. Some of these you can make a good case for doing on safety grounds, others (e.g. filtering/two abreast) are mostly just done for convenience.
> 
> The difference seems to be that we (by "we" I mean the mainstream of internet cycling forum users opinions) don't care if we're causing offence when we're doing something legal: ISTM that irrespective of whether apollo179 is really only RLJing at 2am or whether he's actually scattering crowds of pedestrians and causing small children to toddle for their lives out of his path as other posters have suggested he does, the question "*would you support a change in the law or the guidelines for its enforcement to allow cyclist RLJ when there is nothing coming the other way*" is one that could reasonably be considered in the abstract - because "it would cause offence" is only an argument against if you believe there's a crucial maximum level of allowable offence which this change would tip us over.
> 
> Probably not on this thread though, and probably not with these participants.



I have no problem with changing the law and would probably support it. What I have a problem with is people who seem to think they can just ignore the law (whilst of course fully expecting everyone else to obey laws that they may find inconvenient).


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

[QUOTE 1525816"]
See? That's exactly my point. If you can't get past this then the discussion will never move on. The ball is in your court. 

We're not talking about 2am. 

Please justify your daytime rljing. And that is, you running red lights whenever you think you'll get away without being hit or pulled up by the police.
[/quote]

We are talking about the set of circumstances that i have described.
If you want to answer a totally different question then i advise you start a topic that asks that question.
This topic is about the question i asked.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> We are talking about the set of circumstances that i have described.
> If you want to answer a totally different question then i advise you start a topic that asks that question.
> This topic is about the question i asked.



Ok so it is 2am and the roads are quiet. Why is it *not ok* for _*other road users*_ to ignore red lights?


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

1525830 said:


> Apollo how about you get a helmet cam so you can show us a video of your RLJing and we can then see how reasonable and harmless it all is.



Good idea - but ill have to buy some better lights as i only do it at 2am.
And an alarm clock for that matter.
And a helmet cam.
Im off out now.
Ill be thinking about this as my pedals are spinning.
Laterz.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2011)

I know, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing opinions and that an internet forum is highly unlikely to change those opinions and move on to who's making me a cake.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I know, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing opinions and that an internet forum is highly unlikely to change those opinions and move on to who's making me a cake.



What kind would you like?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2011)

ooh, Ginger parkin, I think, please!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> ooh, Ginger parkin, I think, please!



I'll get right on it


----------



## lukesdad (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> I have no problem with changing the law and would probably support it. What I have a problem with is people who seem to think they can just ignore the law (whilst of course fully expecting everyone else to obey laws that they may find inconvenient).




Mmm like the reflector law maybe ?


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I know, why don't we all just accept that we all have differing opinions and that an internet forum is highly unlikely to change those opinions and move on to who's making me a cake.



But Tilly, you'd be spoiling their fun. This thread has cropped up under various guises about 5 times in the last month. It's a pointless debate with no end but it seems to keep people happy






And why aren't you out training?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Aug 2011)

Ah my boss makes me come to work during the week - bummer!


----------



## twobiker (31 Aug 2011)

if you were turning left at a traffic light junction you could just push the bike round the corner and then just carry on with the flow of traffic, if you wanted to go straight ahead or turn right you could just bloody well wait like the rest of us have to.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> if you were turning left at a traffic light junction you could just push the bike round the corner and then just carry on with the flow of traffic, if you wanted to go straight ahead or turn right you could just bloody well wait like the rest of us have to.


----------



## oldroadman (31 Aug 2011)

What a pintless argument. It's either legal (OK) or illegal (not OK). Let's take, for instance, the argument that you can drive through a town at 70mph during the night, ignoring all lights and other laws, because "it's OK as no-one is affected". Then someone on a bike decides that it's OK to cross a red light for the same reason, and, boof!, end of bike rider. Which is why laws are made in an effort to keep everyone reasonably safe. Just because others ignore them (speeding is the classic) does not make it right to ride through red lights, for insyance. If you want the moral high ground, then it has to be from a position of responsibility. Which RLJ's demonstrate a lack thereof - because they are the very people who make the Daily Mail type brigade call bike riders "lycra louts", etc, whilst publishing articles by Clarkson types praising 180mph motors. You can't have it all ways. It's either right or wrong, and RLJ is wrong, can not be justified, end of. Stopping for a few seconds never hurt anyone, carrying on just might hurt us all!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

1525845 said:


> On reflection, don't. I cannot imagine that you would ever accept the validity of any negative criticism.



Careful. That will be taken as a personal attack.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

oldroadman said:


> What a pintless argument. It's either legal (OK) or illegal (not OK). Let's take, for instance, the argument that you can drive through a town at 70mph during the night, ignoring all lights and other laws, because "it's OK as no-one is affected". Then someone on a bike decides that it's OK to cross a red light for the same reason, and, boof!, end of bike rider. Which is why laws are made in an effort to keep everyone reasonably safe. Just because others ignore them (speeding is the classic) does not make it right to ride through red lights, for insyance. If you want the moral high ground, then it has to be from a position of responsibility. Which RLJ's demonstrate a lack thereof - because they are the very people who make the Daily Mail type brigade call bike riders "lycra louts", etc, whilst publishing articles by Clarkson types praising 180mph motors. You can't have it all ways. It's either right or wrong, and RLJ is wrong, can not be justified, end of. Stopping for a few seconds never hurt anyone, carrying on just might hurt us all!



Well said that man!


----------



## Mad at urage (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Bad rljers are indefensible.
> Thats not what im reffering to.
> We should all dissuade anyone from rljing where it is in anyway unsafe to anybody or might be anticipated that it might cause offence to a reasonable person. Indeed this is true in general.


This morning, at RL on a Xroads with two lanes in each direction, centre island - the works, whilst I (cycling) was stopped at the RL with a whole road full of motorists, a cyclist filtered down the outside lane to turn right .... OK so far. 

He rode over the stop line and onto the island. Then he dismounted. Was this OK? IMO not. 

Point is, he could easily have made the same manoevre legally and safely (and probably caused almost as much offence to the motorists, _but then they would have been wrong_) by dismounting before the stop line and walking onto the refuge. 

Would he have done *this*? I don't know but he was pushing towards that behaviour, which is unacceptable:



MissTillyFlop said:


> Because this is a matter of personal judgement - *for example a guy this morning thought it was safe to go through a pelican crossing whilst there was a large crowd of people using it, weaving in and out of the pedestrians, which included small children.
> *
> Whilst I assume nobody here would be that idiotic, it is all down to the individual cyclists perception of what is safe and as we can't guarantee that each individual cyclist isn't going to endanger themselves or other road users, then the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of that (waiting at traffic lights).
> 
> ...





martint235 said:


> I have no problem with changing the law and would probably support it. What I have a problem with is people who seem to think they can just ignore the law (whilst of course fully expecting everyone else to obey laws that they may find inconvenient).


Agree.

I'm still waiting for a reply from Newport buses to my email about an RLJing bus (two weeks so far).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

1525850 said:


> well it might, especially now that you have drawn attention to it.



Sorry about that.


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

The one thing on all these threads that hasn't been answered is why would you want to RLJ? It's red, you stop, it's green you go again. It's usually a matter of seconds.

I rarely bother entering into conversation on the road with RLJers nowadays but when I do my usual comment is "If you want to get where you're going earlier, pedal faster". The time lost at a red light could easily be made up by just getting that little bit fitter and that little bit quicker. And IME it's rarely the super speedy ones that RLJ.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> The one thing on all these threads that hasn't been answered is why would you want to RLJ? It's red, you stop, it's green you go again. It's usually a matter of seconds.
> 
> I rarely bother entering into conversation on the road with RLJers nowadays but when I do my usual comment is "If you want to get where you're going earlier, pedal faster". The time lost at a red light could easily be made up by just getting that little bit fitter and that little bit quicker. And IME it's rarely the super speedy ones that RLJ.



Apparently is it because of the energy expended by the cyclist when he/she has to restart from the lights.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

1525854 said:


> But what if you were to get fitter and still RLJ? Imagine how fast you could be then.



Working on the premise that stopping at red lights costs cyclists energy then it is arguable that doing so aids fitness.


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> The one thing on all these threads that hasn't been answered is why would you want to RLJ? It's red, you stop, it's green you go again. It's usually a matter of seconds.


On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant 


Now, despite that I argue on the internet a lot about theoretical RLJ, when I'm actually cycling I do stop at them almost all the time (3am deserted junctions, anticipation of the red+amber, and scooting across the line to get a head start being my major failings here), so I will thank you not to make some stupid remark about "just get up ten minutes earlier, problem solved" - heck, you might as well just say "get up twenty minutes earlier and you could walk that distance" - and, some days, I do. But if you have no concept that someone else's experience of inconvenience may be different to your own, you are unlikely ever to understand the the motivations behind their actions and if you don't understand where they're coming from how do you expect to change their mind?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

1525857 said:


> Indeed. My journey to and from work is a secession of sprints.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant
> 
> 
> Now, despite that I argue on the internet a lot about theoretical RLJ, when I'm actually cycling I do stop at them almost all the time (3am deserted junctions, anticipation of the red+amber, and scooting across the line to get a head start being my major failings here), so I will thank you not to make some stupid remark about "just get up ten minutes earlier, problem solved" - heck, you might as well just say "get up twenty minutes earlier and you could walk that distance" - and, some days, I do. But if you have no concept that someone else's experience of inconvenience may be different to your own, you are unlikely ever to understand the the motivations behind their actions and if you don't understand where they're coming from how do you expect to change their mind?



Never the less you make a choice to cycle to work. That choice being made you must accept the consequences of that choice.


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant
> 
> 
> Now, despite that I argue on the internet a lot about theoretical RLJ, when I'm actually cycling I do stop at them almost all the time (3am deserted junctions, anticipation of the red+amber, and scooting across the line to get a head start being my major failings here), so I will thank you *not to make some stupid remark about "just get up ten minutes earlier, problem solved"[sup]1[/sup] *- heck, you might as well just say "get up twenty minutes earlier and you could walk that distance" - and, some days, I do. * But if you have no concept that someone else's experience of inconvenience may be different to your own, you are unlikely ever to understand the the motivations behind their actions and if you don't understand where they're coming from how do you expect to change their mind?[sup]2[/sup]*



[sup]1[/sup]I didn't.

[sup]2[/sup]And that's why I asked the question.


----------



## twobiker (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant
> 
> 
> Now, despite that I argue on the internet a lot about theoretical RLJ, when I'm actually cycling I do stop at them almost all the time (3am deserted junctions, anticipation of the red+amber, and scooting across the line to get a head start being my major failings here), so I will thank you not to make some stupid remark about "just get up ten minutes earlier, problem solved" - heck, you might as well just say "get up twenty minutes earlier and you could walk that distance" - and, some days, I do. But if you have no concept that someone else's experience of inconvenience may be different to your own, you are unlikely ever to understand the the motivations behind their actions and if you don't understand where they're coming from how do you expect to change their mind?


I can understand it may be an inconvenience, but as the saying goes "thats just tough" no one should break the law just because it is an inconvenience, if it was a matter of life and death then you could go through like an ambulance etc, but even then you could be prosecuted if you hit someone, to choose to risk innocent lives just because it is inconvenient for you to stop is frankly astounding.


----------



## Norm (31 Aug 2011)

There is no reason needed beyond it being illegal. I've driven / ridden in the US where you can turn right on a red. I've lived where lights turn off when they aren't needed. Riding or driving carefully, people go through reds without dying.

However, it is illegal. Anyone that sees us doing it sees us as being a problem, boorish and irresponsible, worth less as humans because we jump queues and don't wait our turn. That, IMO, is the whole problem.


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> [sup]1[/sup]I didn't.
> 
> [sup]2[/sup]And that's why I asked the question.



1 - No, but others have before, and others have since.

2 - I misread it as a rhetorical question, then. My apologies


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2011)

twobiker said:


> to choose to risk innocent lives just because it is inconvenient for you to stop is frankly astounding.


I agree completely, but seeing as nobody here has made that choice you can remain unastounded.


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 Aug 2011)

Just because its safe to do something doesn't mean it should be made legal to do it.

Let me give you an easy one you'll actually disagree with. I'm a trained police driver, so when called to an emergency call I can utilise my blue lights and emergency sirens. There is of course an element of increased risk with this (as with RLJing) but as long as I stick to my training and drive to the system, this risk can be reduced and I can have a safe blue light run.

So, do you think the law should be changed to allow me to drive on lights and sirens all the time, whenever I want to, emergency call or not? Of course not.

The other thing you have to remember is cyclists can jump on a bike and go, having taken no 'driving test' of any sort. Loosen regulations like this and you'd actually encourage RLJing in situations where it isn't safe. Greater chance of accidents = greater chance of injury.

It isn't going to happen, and I don't think it should.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Just because its safe to do something doesn't mean it should be made legal to do it.
> 
> Let me give you an easy one you'll actually disagree with. I'm a trained police driver, so when called to an emergency call I can utilise my blue lights and emergency sirens. There is of course an element of increased risk with this (as with RLJing) but as long as I stick to my training and drive to the system, this risk can be reduced and I can have a safe blue light run.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dan B (31 Aug 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Just because its safe to do something doesn't mean it should be made legal to do it.


I take it from this that you agree it can be done safely, and that "you're choosing to risk innocent lives" is therefore not an argument against. I wasn't proposing "it can be safe therefore it should be legal" as an argument for, so I think we're square on that count




CopperCyclist said:


> The other thing you have to remember is cyclists can jump on a bike and go, having taken no 'driving test' of any sort. Loosen regulations like this and you'd actually encourage RLJing in situations where it isn't safe. Greater chance of accidents = greater chance of injury.


Would you, though? I'd suggest that the majority of cyclists have a self-preservation instinct at least equal to that of the majority of pedestrians, who can legally cross the road wherever and however they like and mostly get by without jumping out straight into the path of cars - and those that don't, well, if RLJ is illegal because you can't trust them to give way and need to protect them from themselves, what are they going to do when they reach a junction that only has a "give way" sign? As Norm points out, left-turn-on-red and other such allowances work perfectly well in other places, are UK cyclists so much more stupid?

Sorry, I don't buy it. The "it's unpredictable" and "it's rude/discourteous/scary" arguments are IMO good ones; the "we should respect the law because it's the law" argument is a moderate one (as you note yourself on the legal lights thread, some laws are more important than others), the "why not cars as well in that case?" argument is predicated on bad assumptions, the "we should take our turn" argument cannot honestly be proposed by anyone who filters past traffic queues, and the "drivers will respect us" argument is a complete non-starter because we all know they're more than happy to find some other reason not to.


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.



If we are seen to be a form of transport who does not stop for red lights. Then when we are faced with a light changing in front of us then drivers behind will expecting us to stop and will then follow us through. What happens when you decide to stop in this situation?

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gISWXq13ig[/media]


----------



## gaz (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant



I looked at the stats of my commutes for a several week period, and on average I spent about 15% of my time waiting at traffic lights for a 17 mile trip at just over an hour.


----------



## apollo179 (31 Aug 2011)

martint235 said:


> How does rljing in a harmless situation offend anyone? A harmless situation is one that does not involve the presence of other people or making them change their behaviour to accommodate you breaking the law. As User has pointed out, there is a huge difference between a deserted junction at 2am (although if seen by a police officer, I don't think you'd have a right to complain against a ticket) and any junction that isn't deserted. I think you're struggling to justify rljing even to yourself, let alone anyone else.
> 
> Making it legal won't stop it offending people, as you've said you offend car drivers by performing the completely legal move of cycling down a country lane. As it's legal to do that, it puts the problem firmly in the court of the person feeling aggrieved. If you want to change the law (or if the motorist wants to change the law regarding country lanes) then work towards it. Don't just ignore laws for your benefit unless you're happy for others to operate in the same manner.



I accept all what youve said.
But for the purposes of debate we are dealing with the "safe" rlj not the indefensible rlj.
I agree that ignoring the law is wrong and rlj is wrong full stop.
My question sought to question beyond this rigid legally designated mindset and ask the question what is actually wrong with rljing in certain circumstances.
Should the situation be reviewed - maybe the law changed or the lighting system altered.
And based on what i myself could conclude which was that in some conceivable circumstances the only thing wrong with rljing is that it is against the law then woudnt the sensible thing to do be to rethink this situation so that things are improved for all cyclists and those cyclists who do rlj at present are no longer criminalised.
This may upset car drivers but they can argue their own case.
The obeying the lights for the greater good arguement is a valid arguement but in the circumstances that i am talking about the greater good is served by catering for cyclists (all cyclists) so that they no longer are needlessly held up by traffic lights.
IE ; if there is no reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then review the current lights/ law setup.
if there is good reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then it is entirely valid to just leave things as they are.
Just think it would benefit everyone to question things and improve things where possible.


----------



## CopperCyclist (31 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I take it from this that you agree it can be done safely, and that "you're choosing to risk innocent lives" is therefore not an argument against. I wasn't proposing "it can be safe therefore it should be legal" as an argument for, so I think we're square on that count



Yes, you're correct I do agree it can be done safely. I also agree with the US law of right turning on a red light (left turn equivalent for us) and would love to see us bring this in.

However, the simple fact is that most of the cyclists I see DON'T do it safely, and I'd therefore hate to encourage their types of actions. If every RLJumper I saw did it safely, I'd be on your bandwagon asking for the law change too! Problem is, the majority don't.

For the record, I wait at red lights.


----------



## Norm (31 Aug 2011)

The issue with Apollo's suggestion for me is that you are separating cyclists from traffic. I consider that I am part of the traffic and that there is no reason to make an exception.

Therefore, make it so that the red lights don't always apply to everyone (allow turning left on red, for instance) or don't needlessly inconvenience anyone (turn the bloody things off). 

There is enough animosity and confusion anyway, don't make it worse.

IMO


----------



## martint235 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.






martint235 said:


> If you want to change the law (or if the motorist wants to change the law regarding country lanes) then work towards it. Don't just ignore laws for your benefit unless you're happy for others to operate in the same manner.






apollo179 said:


> I accept all what youve said.
> But for the purposes of debate we are dealing with the "safe" rlj not the indefensible rlj.
> I agree that ignoring the law is wrong and rlj is wrong full stop.
> My question sought to question beyond this rigid legally designated mindset and ask the question what is actually wrong with rljing in certain circumstances.
> ...



All the above plus as I've said before I've got nothing against the law being changed but until it is changed, cyclists should stop at red lights. Whether or not changing the law will make things better or not depends on the law change. If it's cyclists can turn left on a red, we'll still have nutters going straight through reds. I think a law change should be held off until we can convince the rljers to pay attention to the law as it stands


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

Norm said:


> The issue with Apollo's suggestion for me is that you are separating cyclists from traffic. I consider that I am part of the traffic and that there is no reason to make an exception.
> 
> Therefore, make it so that the red lights don't always apply to everyone (allow turning left on red, for instance) or don't needlessly inconvenience anyone (turn the bloody things off).
> 
> ...



Hence my questioning as to why only cycles? Why not cars and motorbikes?


----------



## PK99 (31 Aug 2011)

gaz said:


> If we are seen to be a form of transport who does not stop for red lights. Then when we are faced with a light changing in front of us then drivers behind will expecting us to stop and will then follow us through. What happens when you decide to stop in this situation?
> 
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gISWXq13ig[/media]




the car in your clip did exactly what some here judge ok for a cyclist to do: he saw no one was on the crossing or waiting to cross and ignored the red light


----------



## PK99 (31 Aug 2011)

apollo179 said:


> IE ; if there is no reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then review the current lights/ law setup.



Your logic and argument applies to ALL road users


----------



## Angelfishsolo (31 Aug 2011)

PK99 said:


> Your logic and argument applies to ALL road users



This is my argument. Apollo fails to see that point.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (31 Aug 2011)

Er... anyone fancy a pint?


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> Your logic and argument applies to ALL road users



Correct.
But were cyclists and this is a cycling forum so im restricting myself to discussing the situation re cyclists.
But yes you are correct.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> The issue with Apollo's suggestion for me is that you are separating cyclists from traffic. I consider that I am part of the traffic and that there is no reason to make an exception.
> 
> Therefore, make it so that the red lights don't always apply to everyone (allow turning left on red, for instance) or don't needlessly inconvenience anyone (turn the bloody things off).
> 
> ...



Yes - good points norm.
Where the no harm concept applies across the board to all traffic then there would be an arguement for the greater good being served by re-evaluating the lighting policy for all traffic.
I agree there is good reason that cyclists should not separate ourselves from traffic. I was not trying to do this i was just for simplicity restricting myself to discussing the cyclist situation.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> All the above plus as I've said before I've got nothing against the law being changed but until it is changed, cyclists should stop at red lights. Whether or not changing the law will make things better or not depends on the law change. If it's cyclists can turn left on a red, we'll still have nutters going straight through reds. I think a law change should be held off until we can convince the rljers to pay attention to the law as it stands



Cyclists should stop at red lights - thats an indisputable fact.
I was trying to examine the problem beyond this.

Using Martins shotgun example is useful.
If a man walks down the road with a concealed weapon it is conceivable that he might do no harm.
However despite no harm being done it is still right that the pactice is (in absolute terms) wrong and against the law.
This is because the carrying of firearms by ordinary people in public is in absolute terms wrong.
Regarding rljing ,road junctions and traffic lights i do not think this is the same.
Their is conceivable circumstances where a cyclist may rlj and do no apparent harm
However just because it does no harm does not mean it is ok as has been established above.
Looking beyond the wrong of simply rljing - the harmless rlj is differnt from the gun crime insofar as negotiating junctions by individual care and attention is not wrong in absolute terms - indeed at many junctions it is the correct way.
Traffic lights were brought in for a purpose - in circumstances where they do not serve a useful purpose and to rlj would be safe and reasonable the greater good would be in such circumstances to re-evaluate the rlj law/lights policy. 
Where there is no compelling arguement that rljing is wrong and causes no harm (aside from the default "it is wrong to rlj") then it seems to me reasonable to review the situation.
Obviously where there is a compelling arguement then clearly the status quo is ok.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

I was also hoping to throw another perspective on the subject that might influence those inclined to rigidly condemn people who rlj , regardless of circumstances.
I have read rljers described in a multitude of unflattering and even abusive terms.
Selfish , self centered - maybe.
Law breakers - i spose so yes.
Stupid. - some may be but others are not.
Some do rlj in as socially responsible way and as safe way as possible.
Obviously this is breaking the law and (in legal terms) wrong. I have stuck my head above the parapet to be shot at to try to put another perspective / opinion.
I thank all those who have debated in a nice polite and courteous way.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Yes, you're correct I do agree it can be done safely. I also agree with the US law of right turning on a red light (left turn equivalent for us) and would love to see us bring this in.
> 
> However, the simple fact is that most of the cyclists I see DON'T do it safely, and I'd therefore hate to encourage their types of actions. If every RLJumper I saw did it safely, I'd be on your bandwagon asking for the law change too! Problem is, the majority don't.
> 
> For the record, I wait at red lights.



Intersting and reasonable opinions.
Surely cyclists who rlj unsafely should be punished.
Unnacceptable rljing should be discouraged and safe responsible cycling (aka rljing) be encouraged (legitimised) - changing the law or the lights etc etc.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes - good points norm.
> Where the no harm concept applies across the board to all traffic then there would be an arguement for the greater good being served by re-evaluating the lighting policy for all traffic.
> I agree there is good reason that cyclists should not separate ourselves from traffic. I was not trying to do this i was just for simplicity restricting myself to discussing the cyclist situation.



So you actually believe that all vehicles should be allowed to run red lights if they deem it safe.


----------



## PK99 (1 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Correct.
> But were cyclists and this is a cycling forum so im restricting myself to discussing the situation re cyclists.
> But yes you are correct.



In that case your whole argument is Special Pleading nonsense and not worth anyone wasting time on.

*Special pleading* is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.


----------



## PK99 (1 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Cyclists should stop at red lights - thats an indisputable fact.
> I was trying to examine the problem beyond this.





Nonsense, your OP was:





> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.


 
That was not considering a change in the law it was seeking to justify cyclists breaking the law - you are now shifting you ground


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

Perhaps the rljers are after absolution from the Law abiding cyclists for their actions, after all if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter,like throwing snails from your garden into your neighbours, if he does'nt see you, so what !. The only people the rljers have to convince is themselves, we should agree to disagree.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Perhaps the rljers are after absolution from the Law abiding cyclists for their actions, after all if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter,like throwing snails from your garden into your neighbours, if he does'nt see you, so what !. The only people the rljers have to convince is themselves, we should agree to disagree.



Maybe.
Just trying to put another perspective on the issue.


----------



## Garnerboy (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Perhaps the rljers are after absolution from the Law abiding cyclists for their actions, after all if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter,like throwing snails from your garden into your neighbours, if he does'nt see you, so what !. The only people the rljers have to convince is themselves, we should agree to disagree.



And on that note, this thread is over


----------



## Boris Bike (1 Sep 2011)

What does everybody think of those people who stand up on aeroplanes just after it has landed but before the seatbelt sign has been turned off? The ones who start getting their bags out of the overhead locker because there is obviously something so important that they need to get to.

Statistically there is probably very little chance of anything dangerous happening to them, but everyone else on the plane who sees them is thinking "What a dick".


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

Boris Bike said:


> What does everybody think of those people who stand up on aeroplanes just after it has landed but before the seatbelt sign has been turned off? The ones who start getting their bags out of the overhead locker because there is obviously something so important that they need to get to.
> 
> Statistically there is probably very little chance of anything dangerous happening to them, but everyone else on the plane who sees them is thinking "What a dick".



Ive been on some flights home where everyone does it - literally everyone within my sight.
But i do get your point and to a large extent agree.
Good point.


----------



## fossyant (1 Sep 2011)

Is this the 'train spotters' thread of Cycling.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> Is this the 'train spotters' thread of Cycling.



No drugs so it can't be


----------



## fossyant (1 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> No drugs so it can't be



Hmm drugs might be a better choice


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> Hmm drugs might be a better choice



What's that saying. Reality is for people who can't handle drugs or strong liquor.


----------



## wiggydiggy (1 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> Is this the 'train spotters' thread of Cycling.



This thread gives train spotters a bad name, at least the last time this was discussed with the same people we had insults, sarcasm and banter to amuse the rest of us. This is just waffle.....


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Maybe.
> Just trying to put another perspective on the issue.


Just had a mental picture of a junction full of bikes and riders who all thought it was safe to go.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Just had a mental picture of a junction full of bikes and riders who all thought it was safe to go.



Apollo. Just accept that until the law is changed AND drivers are made aware of the fact that cyclists are allowed to do what you propose it will always be seen to be a stupid thing to do.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> *Apollo. Just accept that until the law is changed AND drivers are made aware of the fact that cyclists are allowed to do what you propose it will always be seen to be a stupid thing to do.*



_*Waits for hell to freeze over*_


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

ianrauk said:


> _*Waits for hell to freeze over*_



This is sadly very true


----------



## Norm (1 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So you actually believe that all vehicles should be allowed to run red lights if they deem it safe.


Now that isn't what he said, is it. 

If it is legal to cross a red, then that completely changes the playing field, IMO.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (1 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Now that isn't what he said, is it.
> 
> If it is legal to cross a red, then that completely changes the playing field, IMO.



He said he was restricting his comments to bikes as this was a bike forum. I am simply reading between the lines.


----------



## twobiker (1 Sep 2011)

What about rephasing the lights so that Orange means bikes only, and have three seperate light changes.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (1 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> What about rephasing the lights so that Orange means bikes only, and have three seperate light changes.



Only people riding bikes made by Orange would benefit.



(Sorry, couldn't resist it!).

Does anyone remember the good old days of the alt.mountain-bike newsgroup. That Vandeman fella was the greatest flamewar generator the world has ever seen!


----------



## Norm (1 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> He said he was restricting his comments to bikes as this was a bike forum. I am simply reading between the lines.


You don't need to read between the lines if you read the lines themselves.



apollo179 said:


> Yes - good points norm.
> Where the no harm concept applies across the board to all traffic then there would be an arguement for the greater good being served by re-evaluating the lighting policy for all traffic.
> I agree there is good reason that cyclists should not separate ourselves from traffic. I was not trying to do this i was just for simplicity restricting myself to discussing the cyclist situation.


If it is / became legal for any vehicle to go through a red traffic light where it is safe, then there is no problem with cars, trucks, buses and even cyclists to go through a red light, where it is safe. 

He says that fairly explicitly, there is no need to dig for subtext just to be antagonistic.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> Nonsense, your OP was:
> 
> "Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "
> 
> That was not considering a change in the law it was seeking to justify cyclists breaking the law - you are now shifting you ground



You clearly fail to understand that the original question is just a stepping off point.
And that If the answer to the question is that there is no compelling arguement then that logically leads us to re-evaluate traffic control policy - traffic lights etc etc.


----------



## User482 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525885"]
You're contradicting yourself. You say that all cyclists should stop at red, but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so. 

What do you do?
[/quote]

Cycling on the footway is illegal. Home Office guidelines state that only pavement cyclists behaving irresponsibly should be punished.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525885"]
You're contradicting yourself. You say that all cyclists should stop at red, but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so. 

What do you do?
[/quote]

Complete nonsense.
It is a commonsense gimme that all cyclists should stop at red lights.
Where do i say "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
You have failed to deliver your much promised reasons and have resorted to sheer lying.
You have no credibility left on this topic.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (1 Sep 2011)

No takers? I'll get the first round in and throw-in some pork scratchings...


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525912"]
Your post at 0756 this morning said exactly that. 

And you've had the reasons explained to you in simple terms over a fairly comprehensive thread. There's no need for me to repeat them for you to continue to ignore.
[/quote]

Completely untrue.
Please copy and paste where i said ;
"but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
You have given no reasons because you have no reasons .


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525913"]
That's the mechanics of authority, not an internet voice who has started with what would suit him without thinking about it much and then twizzled around to try to maintain his position when others have done the thinking for him.
[/quote]

You have tried to hijack this topic for your rlj hating agenda from the start.
Fortunately intelligent adult debate has prevailed.
As i have said before if you just want a topic to spout your anti rlj hatred then please start one and post it there.
This is not the place .


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525918"]
Read your own post and you'll see where you singled out some jumpers for punishment. 

Read the rest of this thread and the previous one and you'll see the counter arguments. Ignoring them is your choice.
[/quote]
So you cannot copy and paste because i didnt say it.


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525921"]
I can, but not on this phone. It's there in print though for all to see.
[/quote]
Good one.
It is not there in print for all to see because i didnt say it.
Completely untrue.
Please copy and paste at the earliest opportunity where i said ;
"but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
I do not say this !
I await with interest.


----------



## PK99 (1 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Completely untrue.
> Please copy and paste where i said ;
> "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
> I do not say this !
> You have given no reasons because you have no reasons .



your post from 07:56






> Intersting and reasonable opinions.
> Surely cyclists who rlj unsafely should be punished.
> Unnacceptable rljing should be discouraged and safe responsible cycling (aka rljing) be encouraged (legitimised) - changing the law or the lights etc etc.


 
i think " "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so." is a reasonable paraphrase


----------



## apollo179 (1 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> your post from 07:56
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im not going to argue this repeatedly so let User speak for himself and ill deal with it then at the appropriate time..
Thanks.


----------



## PK99 (1 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Im not going to argue this repeatedly so let User speak for himself and ill deal with it then at the appropriate time..
> Thanks.



Which roughly translates as: that's a hook I can't wriggle off so i will pretend it's not there.


----------



## User482 (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525913"]
That's the mechanics of authority, not an internet voice who has started with what would suit him without thinking about it much and then twizzled around to try to maintain his position when others have done the thinking for him.
[/quote]
It's an example of a law that's only enforced when breaking it causes harm to other groups.


----------



## Dan B (1 Sep 2011)

User482 said:


> It's an example of a law that's only enforced when breaking it causes harm to other groups.



Or at least, of a law that's _supposed to be_ enforced only when breaking it causes harm to other groups.


----------



## User482 (1 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Or at least, of a law that's _supposed to be_ enforced only when breaking it causes harm to other groups.


true! But I think the point stands...opposing an action solely because of its illegality isn't really tenable.


----------



## Norm (1 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> i think " "but only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so." is a reasonable paraphrase


 I read that as a suggestion that the things should be changed to allow crossing red lights to be legal under certain circumstances - he specifically says "changing the law or the lights". 

In other words, it wasn't saying that the unsafe ones should be punished but that the law should differentiate between responsible riding (turning left on red, for instance) and unacceptable riding.

I realise, though, that other interpretations are possible.


----------



## the snail (1 Sep 2011)

User482 said:


> true! But I think the point stands...opposing an action solely because of its illegality isn't really tenable.



It's a perfectly tenable position, just because the law isn't perfectly consistent doesn't invalidate that argument. You could argue that the law regarding footpath riding should be rigidly enforced. Personally I don't ride on the pavement, but I can see there are situations where a safety case can be made for doing so, like for young children, or dangerous roads. I don't see any safety case for rlj-ing, just impatient riders.


----------



## Norm (1 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525935"] That's an interpretation. And if correct, then the issue warrants objective discussion. Which means considering all of the issues, not repeatedly claiming that no-one has given any argument against rljing apart from the legal one when this claim is irrevocably untrue. [/quote] Indeed, my interpretation was based on my first reading, not the subsequent direction of the thread.

[QUOTE 1525936"] And such a law could never exist in this country, not with the present attitude of drivers. [/quote] I think it would be difficult but I don't think that I would say it "could never exist". Changing the lights in the way I suggested (way) above could be possible without a change in the law. Intelligent lights or the increased use of "peak period" signals would also be easy to implement and would remove a lot of the frustration that all users have with waiting on a red when there isn't another vehicle around. 

Changing the law to allow turning left on red would require something bigger but, given some of the huge changes which have been implemented, I wouldn't say never.


----------



## User482 (1 Sep 2011)

the snail said:


> It's a perfectly tenable position, just because the law isn't perfectly consistent doesn't invalidate that argument. You could argue that the law regarding footpath riding should be rigidly enforced. Personally I don't ride on the pavement, but I can see there are situations where a safety case can be made for doing so, like for young children, or dangerous roads. I don't see any safety case for rlj-ing, just impatient riders.


No. Oppose something because it is wrong, not because of its legal status.

Actually, I don't buy the argument that rlj ing is safer, but am prepared to accept that there are circumstances in which it can be done without harm.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> Which roughly translates as: that's a hook I can't wriggle off so i will pretend it's not there.


Incorrect its the proper thing to do.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525930"]
That's the one. Saves me quoting it.

I'm just trying to understand your position. You seem to be saying that no cyclists should jump red lights, but that only a selected group should be punished for it. And I don't see that that makes sense.
[/quote]

Firstly nowhere do i say "only the unsafe ones be punished for not doing so."
Your claim that i said this is irresponsible and factually incorrect.
It may just be irresponsible use of language but nevertheless it is irresponsible and factually incorrect.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> I read that as a suggestion that the things should be changed to allow crossing red lights to be legal under certain circumstances - he specifically says "changing the law or the lights".
> 
> In other words, it wasn't saying that the unsafe ones should be punished but that the law should differentiate between responsible riding (turning left on red, for instance) and unacceptable riding.
> 
> I realise, though, that other interpretations are possible.



Correct Norm.
I was saying where appropriate crossing red lights (at present illegal) should be legitimised / made legal.
You have expressed it better than me.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525935"]
That's an interpretation. And if correct, then the issue warrants objective discussion. Which means considering all of the issues, not repeatedly claiming that no-one has given any argument against rljing apart from the legal one when this claim is irrevocably untrue.

As always with these discussions it's essential to go further than what's being said and consider the motivation behind the view. In this case such consideration is being deliberately avoided.


[/quote]

You have in this topic given no arguements.
You have just brought your warped agenda over from an old post and seem intent on rehashing a completely differnt question and disrupting the majority who would like to discuss this issue in an adult and intelligent way.
If you want to "go further than what's being said and consider the motivation behind the view" then why dont you start a topic specifically to air your anti rljer bile.


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1525944"]
Hmm, And I do recall you labelling me an ''aggressive hater.''
[/quote]

Do you really hate aggressives or just mildly dislike them?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

1525945 said:


> You started this whole thread because you were dissatisfied with the previous one being closed and you didn't wish to stop pursuing your agenda. If at the start you had made it clear that only people who agree with you are allowed to contribute it would have made things much easier all round.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

The Police could Just take the bike and crush it if you get caught rlj, ..........oh yeah thats what could happen if you rlj, only by some Artic instead, if rljers are so worried about losing time why don't they just jump off and run across the road . maybe there fitness levels would'nt take the strain.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

1525945 said:


> You started this whole thread because you were dissatisfied with the previous one being closed and you didn't wish to stop pursuing your agenda. If at the start you had made it clear that only people who agree with you are allowed to contribute it would have made things much easier all round.


First bit has an element of truth .
Second bit i disagree with.
I welcome other people with other opinions.
However Mr Pauls only arguement seems to be based on attacking me personally.
Mr Paul has posted in this topic about me to date thus :
"I said that I didn't believe your claim that you only rlj at completely deserted junctions. Because that's not true."
"Please justify your daytime rljing. And that is, you running red lights whenever you think you'll get away without being hit or pulled up by the police. "
"So you admit that your behaviour is indefensible? "
"You don't rlj at 2am. You rlj whenever you think you can get away with it."
"What do you do? "
Make any arguements you want but please do not personalise it to me - that is where the last thread ran aground.
I would love to hear Mr Pauls arguement so long as it isnt based on attacking me personally.
If you want a Topic specifically for the purpose of attacking me then please create a new topic.
Thanks.


----------



## gaz (2 Sep 2011)

If you don't like the way he is 'picking' at your posts. Then block him.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Setting legality aside, there is a huge problem with allowing bikes to RLJ; namely the ignorance of drivers. Drivers already get upset when we hold primary or even secondary. They do not understand that this is legal. Some truly believe bikes should not be allowed on the roads. Add into this mix something that has the potential to be dangerous and expect a backlash from drivers.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> If you don't like the way he is 'picking' at your posts. Then block him.



Or MTFU


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> First bit has an element of truth .
> Second bit i disagree with.
> I welcome other people with other opinions.
> However Mr Pauls only arguement seems to be based on attacking me personally.
> ...


I to am always suprised when people quote things I have said and rubbish it,..... and when the tooth fairy comes , and when pigs fly past,


----------



## gaz (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Or MTFU


 or STFU


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> or STFU


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

*"Most people are offended by RLJ'ing cyclists"* 

*Its probably worth pointing out that this is one huge myth.*

The only people who routinely get offended are a minority of unreasonable drivers and a noisy minority of unreasonable cyclists who prefer to sit around breathing toxic pollution rather than continue their journeys in a safe an reasonable manner.

I would suggest that most people are mature enough to recognize that bicycles, being small and nimble, are perfectly able to cross light controlled junctions and filter into traffic without causing the slightest inconvenience to anyone.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> *"Most people are offended by RLJ'ing cyclists"*
> 
> *Its probably worth pointing out that this is one huge myth.*
> 
> ...



Many drivers have no idea that cyclists can ride in primary or secondary position legally so I doubt the accuracy of that argument.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Its just based on my experience; most drivers I know think the ability to RLJ is just a perk (albeit it bit cheeky) of riding a bicycle. I don't know any who are offended by it.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Should we start 2 new threads, I do rlj, and, I obey the law, ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Should we start 2 new threads, I do rlj, and, I obey the law, ?



Oh your head be it


----------



## MissTillyFlop (2 Sep 2011)

Should we start a thread on - Things we all agree on?

Like ermm... cake is quite good, smearing poo on a baby is bad? That sort of thing?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

1525965 said:


> I fought the law,



and I beat it with my logical arguments, oh wait no, that's not how it goes......


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Should we start a thread on - Things we all agree on?
> 
> Like ermm... cake is quite good, smearing poo on a baby is bad? That sort of thing?



I guarantee you will get little consensus even then


----------



## fossyant (2 Sep 2011)

I think Mr Apollo only starts threads like this to spout rubbish. He only has 1 other post out of General Cycling of over 700 - I smell a dirty big...

TROLL ! :troll:


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

To counter the problem of drivers not knowing what a cyclist is going to do maybe rljers could wear a flashing beacon on their head.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (2 Sep 2011)

OR to carry a rolled up newspaper and a pink carnation and they have to say the code:

"The seagull is eating a barmcake"


----------



## Wankelschrauben (2 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> I think Mr Apollo only starts threads like this to spout rubbish. He only has 1 other post out of General Cycling of over 700 - I smell a dirty big...
> 
> TROLL ! :troll:




He should crawl back under his bridge, leave us in peace and live out his lonely existance quietly.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> I think Mr Apollo only starts threads like this to spout rubbish. He only has 1 other post out of General Cycling of over 700 - I smell a dirty big...
> 
> TROLL ! :troll:



Yep. I have long suspected this.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

1525974 said:


> Logical conclusion though that is, I think we should give Zeus' boy the benefit of the doubt here. I suspect that he is entirely genuine in his campaign to get RLJing recognized for the perfectly reasonable practice he feels it to be, when undertaken by sensible people that is.



Who defines who sensible people are?


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> OR to carry a rolled up newspaper and a pink carnation and they have to say the code:
> 
> "The seagull is eating a barmcake"


Or print their phone number and address on their jacket so that a law abiding person could report them.


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2011)

1525974 said:


> Logical conclusion though that is, I think we should give Zeus' boy the benefit of the doubt here. I suspect that he is entirely genuine in his campaign to get RLJing recognized for the perfectly reasonable practice he feels it to be, when undertaken by sensible people that is.



You have to remember though that at the start of the last thread he claimed to genuinely not know that red lights applied to cyclists.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> You have to remember though that at the start of the last thread he claimed to genuinely not know that red lights applied to cyclists.



Even though he/she was a driver.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Who defines who sensible people are?


I am the only sensible person here as I am the only one who's jacket does up at the back with straps and buckles.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (2 Sep 2011)

Ok, here goes :-Where there's a red light showing everyone stops.
This is a law.
If you are an emergency vehicle you can go through. Everyone seems to accept this, and we move aside and stop to allow it to happen.

I would prefer the situation to stay like this.

Why do I think this?:
1. It means everyone acts in a uniform and predictable manner.
2. No-one has to sit and work out from what vehicles or pedestrians are present whether there is a reason to expect a different behaviour.
3. No-one has to decide whether there is a risk that they believe is worth taking if they proceed.
4. If someone goes past that light, believing the risk is their own, and minimal, and is sadly mistaken, then gets squished under 44 tons of Scania:
a. The driver of the Scania has to suffer,
b. The emergency services have to suffer, having to use rubber gloves and plastic bags to retrieve the pieces,
c. The cyclists family have to find meaning.
5. I will never be convinced that a cycle journey is so urgent that they require the same priority as an ambulance.
6. I believe RLJ is like speeding or tailgating, it's a selfish, ignorant practice.

Please feel free to raise a petition to have the law changed. I won't sign it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ok, here goes :-Where there's a red light showing everyone stops.
> This is a law.
> If you are an emergency vehicle you can go through. Everyone seems to accept this, and we move aside and stop to allow it to happen.
> 
> ...



Enough said


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ok, here goes :-Where there's a red light showing everyone stops.
> This is a law.
> If you are an emergency vehicle you can go through. Everyone seems to accept this, and we move aside and stop to allow it to happen.
> 
> ...


You've stirred up a bloody hornets nest now!


----------



## Mad at urage (2 Sep 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ok, here goes :-Where there's a red light showing everyone stops.
> This is a law.
> If you are an emergency vehicle you can go through. Everyone seems to accept this, and we move aside and stop to allow it to happen.
> 
> ...


That's just _anti-rlj hatred_! You're an *rlj-ist*, I can tell! 
















And anyway .... _aside from all that_,  are there any good reasons not to rlj?


No, thought not. Glad we all agree on that then! 


(Apart from the rlj-ists of course, but they don't count 'cos they're nasty ).


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> Ok, here goes :-Where there's a red light showing everyone stops.
> This is a law.
> If you are an emergency vehicle you can go through. Everyone seems to accept this, and we move aside and stop to allow it to happen.
> 
> ...



Good reason .
I agree a red light should represent a uniform and predictable command that everyone obeys.
However the high rate of rljing reflects that this is sadly not true on the ground.
If we tweaked the road traffic control a bit to accomodate circumstances that justify modification we would end up with an overall better traffic control situation and increased overall obeyance / respect of lights.
To cite an extreme example for the purpose of illustration - Unnecessary traffic lights could be turned off on deserted streets late at night. Thereby erradicating rlj and the associated disrepute to traffic light obeyance.
Respect for lights does appear to have been slightly eroded and this might in some way be retreived by re-thinking our overall traffic control strategy and specifically the utilisation and application of traffic lights in varying situations.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

I don't use lights at night, I never see anybody.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Good reason .
> I agree a red light should represent a uniform and predictable command that everyone obeys.
> However the high rate of rljing reflects that this is sadly not true on the ground.
> If we tweaked the road traffic control a bit to accomodate circumstances that justify modification we would end up with an overall better traffic control situation and increased overall obeyance / respect of lights.
> ...



Then you have moved the goalposts radically. If lights are turned off then on one can run them.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Then you have moved the goalposts radically. If lights are turned off then on one can run them.



The original question is just a stepping off point.

"Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "

If the answer to the question is that there is no compelling arguement then that logically leads us to re-evaluate traffic control policy - traffic lights , the law etc etc.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The original question is just a stepping off point.
> 
> "Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "
> 
> If the answer to the question is that there is no compelling arguement then that logically leads us to re-evaluate traffic control policy - traffic lights , the law etc etc.



There are many compelling argument and they have been put forward. You deny there existence. Another is "Define safe" because you can be sure what one person feels is safe another will not. Look at it from the perspective of a driver. The light controlled junction appears safe, there is a cyclist in front, the driver assumes the cyclist will go through the lights. The cyclist stops, the car crashes into the cyclist. Who is to blame and more importantly who is hurt?


----------



## Norm (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Then you have moved the goalposts radically. If lights are turned off then on one can run them.


I think that Apollo recognised that the goal posts should be moved several pages ago.

He has since been making reference to changing the laws or changing the way they are implemented and changing the way that lights are used.


----------



## rowan 46 (2 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Good reason .
> I agree a red light should represent a uniform and predictable command that everyone obeys.
> However the high rate of rljing reflects that this is sadly not true on the ground.
> If we tweaked the road traffic control a bit to accomodate circumstances that justify modification we would end up with an overall better traffic control situation and increased overall obeyance / respect of lights.
> ...



Unfortunately there is an assumption that most rlj'ers do it for a good reason. I doubt that is the case. as somebody who has on occasion run through an empty pelican crossing on red My only defense has been that I followed traffic. It's not a good defense because the truth is that I couldn't be bothered to slow down for a light that was telling me to stop for no reason, It is ultimately a selfish act. There are conceivably situations where there is a safety element to a decision but that would have to be argued at court. I don't think changing the law because some people are selfish is a good idea. I don't believe in following something because "it's the law" is a good argument but generally, stopping at a red light I believe to be a wise law. I may on occasion go through an empty pelican on red in future ( never say never) but It's not general practice for me and I always stop at traffic control lights.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 Sep 2011)

OK, here's one for you:

Opposite my work is a cycle path across a junction - the lights are phased so that any cyclists going straight ahaid parallel to the main road will be crossing when

(1) Traffic from the (busy) side road is on a green light - cyclist rides agross the flow of traffic when s/he feels it safe to do so

(2) Traffic along the main road is at green, with a fairly constant stream of traffic turning left across the side road or traffic turning right from the opposite direction. Either way the cyclist has to cross the path of motorised traffic on a green light

There is the sanctuary of an island in the middle


Negotiating that junction by the cycle path is no different to going through a red light carefully - crossing the flow of traffic when a safe gap presents itself. In fact, I would argue that a SAFER method of crossing the junction would be to use the road and jump the red light, allowing crossing of the first half of the junction with zero chance of being left hooked or turned into from the opposite direction, and wait at the island for a safe gap in the same way one would if using the cycle path. It would actually be safer (assuming no pedestrians crossing) than using the road, not taking primary at the light, and leaving the door open for a left hook as the lights change to green)

So if careful red-light-jumping is so bad, why is it effectively designed into a cycle "facility"? (apart from the "farcility" being atrocious of course)


Other point to note this morning - as always at one particular junction a line of about 8 cars went through a clear no-entry sign 

In my whole trip 2 cyclists jumped a red

Bloody cyclists, if they had number plates they would get prosecuted like car drivers do(n't)


----------



## Norm (2 Sep 2011)

I don't think anyone wants the law to change because some people are selfish. 

Changing the way that lights work at night will have safety and environmental benefits which far outweigh those arising from reducing frustration levels in the selfish. 

Allowing left turns on red could reduce congestion and stop cyclists passing up the left side of lorries (possibly, not sure, just thought of that one). 

The point is that other countries do have different ways of dealing with red lights already, and some allow passing a red light. This is why 'if it is allowed and safe, then is rljing a problem' deserves a considered response, IMO.


----------



## Mad at urage (2 Sep 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> *So if careful red-light-jumping is so bad, why is it effectively designed into a cycle "facility"? (*apart from the "farcility" being atrocious of course)
> 
> 
> Other point to note this morning - as always at one particular junction a line of about 8 cars went through a clear no-entry sign
> ...


*
For the same reason this was designed.* Oh, you've excluded the obvious and probable answer .

RLJing cars: I'm still waiting (5 weeks and counting) for a reply from Newport buses about an RLJing bus I reported to them !


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:

In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?


----------



## Mad at urage (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> A question for* all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law*:
> 
> In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?


*Who's that then*? Or are you simply ignoring all the other valid reasons for not rlj-ing that have already been posted in this thread?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:
> 
> In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?



Yes.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Yes.




Seriously?


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:
> 
> In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?


Rlj is against the law, so is Murder, I would'nt kill someone, even if I thought I could get away with it just because its simply against the law but because its wrong,the people who stole stuff in the riots knew it was simply against the law but thought they would'nt be identified and would get away with it, we cannot choose to ignore laws which we don't like just because we don't agree with them.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (2 Sep 2011)

Yeah, why wouldn't you?

The law is the law, not everyone will agree with the law but it doesn't mean they will actively break it.

RLJ'ing is a seriously dangerous offence, many believe it is a victimless crime. Other victimless crimes include speeding, and sexually assaulting the unconcious. Often these are not victimless crimes, the victims of such crimes often paying in many ways for the selfish actions of another.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Seriously?



If it were made illegal then yes.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> *Who's that then*? Or are you simply ignoring all the other valid reasons for not rlj-ing that have already been posted in this thread?



You can read about the car-centric anti bike laws here (can't believe anyone would advocate obedience to this sort of fascism!)

As for ignoring your 'valid' reasons; obviously I don't regard them as being all that valid.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If it were made illegal then yes.




That's very worrying indeed.


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> Unfortunately there is an assumption that most rlj'ers do it for a good reason. I doubt that is the case. as somebody who has on occasion run through an empty pelican crossing on red My only defense has been that I followed traffic. It's not a good defense because the truth is that I couldn't be bothered to slow down for a light that was telling me to stop for no reason, It is ultimately a selfish act. There are conceivably situations where there is a safety element to a decision but that would have to be argued at court. I don't think changing the law because some people are selfish is a good idea. I don't believe in following something because "it's the law" is a good argument but generally, stopping at a red light I believe to be a wise law. I may on occasion go through an empty pelican on red in future ( never say never) but It's not general practice for me and I always stop at traffic control lights.



As Norm has pointed out nobody has argued that the law should be changed because some people are selfish.
It has been suggested that traffic control strategy might be reviewed where appropriate for the common good.
I would reiterate that the rights and wrongs of stopping at red lights is not the issue . It is universally agreed that stopping at red lights is right and correct.
The question is (slightly edited) - Beyond the simple legal fact "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes no apparent harm."
The sub plot being that in circumstances where there is not harm it raises the question - "is there scope for review of traffic control measures for the common good.
We have had some interesting reasons and i suspect everyone is chewing them over as i am.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> That's very worrying indeed.



What is worrying is that you feel it OK to pick and choose which laws to obey. Say for example we met and I decided I didn't like you and shot you. I have chosen to break the law as you were annoying me and by removing you my life was better. Is that a valid reason?


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

1525988 said:


> I thought that that was in some earlier, more innocent existence before the scales were shed from his/her eyes.



Correct before i joined this forum and began mixing with the cycling intelligentsia.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> As Norm has pointed out nobody has argued that the law should be changed because some people are selfish.
> It has been suggested that traffic control strategy might be reviewed where appropriate for the common good.
> I would reiterate that the rights and wrongs of stopping at red lights is not the issue . It is universally agreed that stopping at red lights is right and correct.
> The question is (slightly edited) - Beyond the simple legal fact "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes no apparent harm."
> ...



Look at it from the perspective of a driver. The light controlled junction appears safe, there is a cyclist in front, the driver assumes the cyclist will go through the lights. The cyclist stops, the car crashes into the cyclist. Who is to blame and more importantly who is hurt?


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> Yeah, why wouldn't you?
> 
> The law is the law, not everyone will agree with the law but it doesn't mean they will actively break it.
> 
> RLJ'ing is a seriously dangerous offence, many believe it is a victimless crime. Other victimless crimes include speeding, and sexually assaulting the unconcious. Often these are not victimless crimes, the victims of such crimes often paying in many ways for the selfish actions of another.




"RLJ'ing is a seriously dangerous offence"


Well frankly that's complete and utter B.S! It must happen litterally hundreds of thousands of times a day without incident. What you seem to be in denial of, is the fact that most traffic lights were installed to control the congestion caused by motor vehicles. As bicycles don't really contribute its hardly crime of the century to treat them with a bit of discretion is it?


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What is worrying is that you feel it OK to pick and choose which laws to obey. Say for example we met and I decided I didn't like you and shot you. I have chosen to break the law as you were annoying me and by removing you my life was better. Is that a valid reason?




Obedience to unfair regressive laws is one step on the road to fascism!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Obedience to unfair regressive laws is one step on the road to fascism!



OMG - Ignored


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OMG - Ignored



And this from the man who, in only his last post, compared RLJ'ing to murder!


----------



## Norm (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Look at it from the perspective of a driver. The light controlled junction appears safe, there is a cyclist in front, the driver assumes the cyclist will go through the lights. The cyclist stops, the car crashes into the cyclist. Who is to blame and more importantly who is hurt?


This is not the experience in those countries where more progressive thinking of traffic light legislation and use has been implemented.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> You can read about the car-centric anti bike laws here (can't believe anyone would advocate obedience to this sort of fascism!)
> 
> As for ignoring your 'valid' reasons; obviously I don't regard them as being all that valid.
> 
> If the law was changed to stop filtering then so be it, fascism is seen by some as a way to rebuild society after it has degraded,perhaps these countries feel they need to do something different and changing the law was their response. we are not all urban revolutionaries.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Well, all I can say, is that it my sincere hope that in those countries unfortunate enough to have such regressive legislation, there are enough people prepared to treat the regressive laws to the contempt they deserve!


----------



## Wankelschrauben (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> "RLJ'ing is a seriously dangerous offence"
> 
> 
> Well frankly that's complete and utter B.S! It must happen litterally hundreds of thousands of times a day without incident. What you seem to be in denial of, is the fact that most traffic lights were installed to control the congestion caused by motor vehicles. As bicycles don't really contribute its hardly crime of the century to treat them with a bit of discretion is it?



Really? So for all the incidents that have occured involving RLJ'ing, they're all fine because normally it occurs without incident.


----------



## Mad at urage (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> As for ignoring your 'valid' reasons; obviously I don't regard them as being all that valid.



That's very worrying indeed


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

1526022 said:


> Civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws is a valid response. The right to RLJ is hardly an issue for manning the barricades though, is it?



I was talking specifically about this sort of anti bike legislation.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> This is not the experience in those countries where more progressive thinking of traffic light legislation and use has been implemented.



Norm, comparing countries is like comparing apples and oranges. India has a very "interesting" approach to driving. many would call it progressive. Would you want to see Indian style driving and driving tests over here?


----------



## crisscross (2 Sep 2011)

I've always thought of rlj's as the scourge of the cycling community.

Their selfishness and inability to wait for a light to change, not to mention law breaking probably winds up ( correctly IMO) motorists and pedestrians more than anything else pedallers do.

It's against the law so why should you even think about doing i?


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> I was talking specifically about this sort of anti bike legislation.


Reading the article it is difficult to pin down a country that has actualy prohibited it.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

1526027 said:


> Do we have such legislation here?




No we don't. I posed the question: If we had such laws, would people be urging obedience? 

My point being that absolute obedience to laws is not always that productive.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Reading the article it is difficult to pin down a country that has actualy prohibited it.




That's probably because it doesn't stay prohibited for long; if enough people disregard the laws they get repealed because there is no public interest in criminalising large numbers of otherwise law abiding people.


----------



## twobiker (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> No we don't. I posed the question: If we had such laws, would people be urging obedience?
> 
> My point being that absolute obedience to laws is not always that productive.



I just want to ride my bike............my head hurts.


----------



## Mad at urage (2 Sep 2011)

Collected the valid reasons (well, as many as I could before I got too bored):


Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.

The whole reason for the legal system is that the judgement of individuals will always, at some point, run contrary to what is best for the population as a whole.

Seeing a cyclist rljing could alarm some people, cause them to re-evaluate the current risks to themselves. It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.

RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.

Junctions are very rarely deserted during the day. This includes junctions where there are pedestrians and other road users on conflicting paths.

In a busy city environment it would be dangerous and possibly offensive to people trying to cross the road etc

Because choosing where it is safe is a matter of personal judgement - for example a guy this morning thought it was safe to go through a pelican crossing whilst there was a large crowd of people using it, weaving in and out of the pedestrians, which included small children.

You also can't guarantee that other road users aren't going to do something daft either (pedestrians dashing out on flashing amber, cars coming out from a crossroads as the lights change &c &c.

If you were turning left at a traffic light junction you could just push the bike round the corner and then just carry on with the flow of traffic

No one should break the law just because it is an inconvenience,

Loosen regulations like this and you'd actually encourage RLJing in situations where it isn't safe. Greater chance of accidents = greater chance of injury.

"it's unpredictable" and "it's rude/discourteous/scary" 

Most of the cyclists who do it, DON'T do it safely, so we should not encourage (still less join in) their types of actions.

It makes traversing a junction safely, unpredictable - because you never know if someone else is going to rlj.



Raa said:


> As for ignoring your 'valid' reasons; obviously I don't regard them as being all that valid.



Selfish, self-centred tw@t or :troll: ?


----------



## apollo179 (2 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Collected the valid reasons (well, as many as I could before I got too bored):
> 
> 
> Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Selfish, self-centred tw@t or :troll: ?



Now there is a good question.


----------



## pepecat (2 Sep 2011)

Maybe it's just me, but i don't get why people think it's ok TO rlj, whether on a bike, in a car, whatever. The law is (as far as I know), that if the light's red, you stop. I've been at junctions several times where cyclists have rlj'd and narrowly missed being hit by cars coming across the juntion. And, when i'm out cycling OR driving and see a cyclist jump a red light, it winds me up and makes me want to shout 'Oi, red light' at them. No wonder some people hate cyclists......
Again, it's probably me, but if it is 1 or 2am and i'm driving and the light's red, I'll stop. _Possibly_ i wouldn't if i were cycling at this time of the night, but i've never done it, so i don't know.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Collected the valid reasons (well, as many as I could before I got too bored):
> 
> 
> Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
> ...





What a shame you were unable to keep things objective without getting personal.

Very little of what you have written above stands up to scrutiny; most of it seems to revolve around not annoying the car drivers. If you think that every cyclist waiting at red lights would make drivers welcome cyclists on the road then you are very naive indeed

If you are interested in some constructive criticism, your assessment fails to take account of 3 main factors.

1, To reiterate an earlier point, many (the majority?) of traffic light controlled junctions exist to control the congestion caused by motor traffic. As cyclists occupy the grey area between a motor vehicles and pedestrians and do not cause congestion, many (most?) cyclists feel able to treat certain traffic laws as discretionary. 

2, The assertion that RLJ'ing by cyclists is inherently dangerous is simply not backed up in the accident statistics.

3, As I have tried to show with earlier posts, absolute obedience to laws is not always smart or productive.

Speaking for myself, there are many, many situations where stopping for a red light would not benefit anyone at all, so I don't. You may not agree, that's fine, but if you are not even prepared to consider the reasoning then i'm afraid it comes down to extreme narrow mindedness.


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> 3, As I have tried to show with earlier posts, absolute obedience to laws is not always smart or productive.



The problem with this is, as pointed out in previous posts, if obedience to the law is allowed to become subjective we have a problem.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> The problem with this is, as pointed out in previous posts, if obedience to the law is allowed to become subjective we have a problem.



But if we obey all laws we are apparently fascists!


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> But if we obey all laws we are apparently fascists!



Well I'd rather be a fascist than allow some of the people I meet on a daily basis to pick and choose which laws they'd like to obey!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Well I'd rather be a fascist than allow some of the people I meet on a daily basis to pick and choose which laws they'd like to obey!



Amen to that!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

1526044 said:


> But it would be OK if people picked and chose reasonably.



So is it reasonable that as I am poor I can shoplift?


----------



## PK99 (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Speaking for myself, there are many, many situations where stopping for a red light would not benefit anyone at all, so I don't.



Speaking for yourself, would you accept that the same logic apples to all vehicles?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

1526047 said:


> Apologies, I should have used one of those expressing yellow face things



I should have as well. My reply was a bolt on to yours


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2011)

1526047 said:


> Apologies, I should have used one of those expressing yellow face things



I'm sure there are some pink ones too. 

Sent while following my Garmin's instructions


----------



## Norm (2 Sep 2011)

pepecat said:


> Maybe it's just me, but i don't get why people think it's ok TO rlj, whether on a bike, in a car, whatever. The law is (as far as I know), that if the light's red, you stop. I've been at junctions several times where cyclists have rlj'd and narrowly missed being hit by cars coming across the juntion. And, when i'm out cycling OR driving and see a cyclist jump a red light, it winds me up and makes me want to shout 'Oi, red light' at them. No wonder some people hate cyclists......
> Again, it's probably me, but if it is 1 or 2am and i'm driving and the light's red, I'll stop. _Possibly_ i wouldn't if i were cycling at this time of the night, but i've never done it, so i don't know.


 Indeed.

Also, if some think it's OK to choose which laws to follow and which can be broken because you are on a bike and can get away with it, there's a continuum from riding without pedal reflectors to crossing red lights to cycling in pedestrianised areas to cycling the wrong way up a one way street to cycling on the wrong side of the road to cycling on the wrong side of the road at night without lights to cycling on the hard shoulder of a motorway to... etc. Most people would, I guess, consider some of those to be ok and others to be beyond the line, where we draw the line will be different.

I'm all for working to get the laws changed but, as they stand currently, I obey them. (except pedal reflectors, but I have reflectors on my shoes and wear reflectives on my ankles instead  ).


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526053"]
Raa and Apollo -have they ever been seen in the same room together?



Have Jedward managed to smuggle an iPad in with them?
[/quote]


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2011)

1526055 said:


> Are you ever likely to be able to get over it?



Time heals all wounds they say!!


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> Speaking for yourself, would you accept that the same logic apples to all vehicles?



Well, of course not, my car and motorcycle both have number plates, meaning the chances of being busted are much, much, higher, therefore I would always stop. Given the vastly greater potential of motor vehicles over bicycles to cause harm to others, this seems an entirely reasonable situation.


----------



## Raa (2 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> So is it reasonable that as I am poor I can shoplift?




You mean, if you were hungry and had no money, would it be reasonable to shoplift?

I don't know. Interesting question, you could run a long way with it. 

BTW it is nice to see that you have softened your line and are no longer comparing RLJ'ing to murder


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well, of course not, my car and motorcycle both have number plates, meaning the chances of being busted are much, much, higher, therefore I would always stop. Given the vastly greater potential of motor vehicles over bicycles to cause harm to others, this seems an entirely reasonable situation.



Chances of being busted? Cyclists get away with it and cars don't? See my earlier post

EIGHT vehicles driving through a clear no entry sign.

This happens daily, probably at any time 8 vehicles, because of restriction a 3 minute light phase so 8 vehicles queueing every 3 minutes = 20 changes * 8 cars = 160 cars p/h * 3hr = 480 cars per day over the course of a morning, because "it's not really a no-entry because the sign changes at 10am, so it's okay to go through it at 8am"

I wonder if 480 cyclists jump a red light in Sheffield every morning?


----------



## thehairycycler (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> You mean, if you were hungry and had no money, would it be reasonable to shoplift?
> 
> I don't know. Interesting question, *you could run a long way with it.*
> 
> BTW it is nice to see that you have softened your line and are no longer comparing RLJ'ing to murder




If they were that hungry they wouldn't be able to run that far with it, a short distance to get away from the scene due to adrenalin maybe


----------



## CopperCyclist (2 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Obedience to unfair regressive laws is one step on the road to fascism!



Remind me to beat the shoot out of the next rapist/robber I arrest and quote you as justification.

Please don't go down that path. If there are laws you disagree with, you write to your MP, you raise e-petitions - you don't claim they are 'facist'. Hell, simply ignore them and be willing to pay the accepted price laid down in law if you must, but don't claim some righteous crusade in the ignoring of them!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (2 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Remind me to beat the shoot out of the next rapist/robber I arrest and quote you as justification.
> 
> Please don't go down that path. If there are laws you disagree with, you write to your MP, you raise e-petitions - you don't claim they are 'facist'. Hell, simply ignore them and be willing to pay the accepted price laid down in law if you must, but don't claim some righteous crusade in the ignoring of them!



 What is it about this site that is causing it to attract :troll: s?


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Remind me to beat the shoot out of the next rapist/robber I arrest and quote you as justification.
> 
> Please don't go down that path. If there are laws you disagree with, you write to your MP, you raise e-petitions - you don't claim they are 'facist'. Hell, simply ignore them and be willing to pay the accepted price laid down in law if you must, but don't claim some righteous crusade in the ignoring of them!



Much of our modern society is built upon the tradition of civil disobedience.....


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Remind me to beat the shoot out of the next rapist/robber I arrest and quote you as justification.
> 
> Please don't go down that path. If there are laws you disagree with, you write to your MP, you raise e-petitions - you don't claim they are 'facist'. Hell, simply ignore them and be willing to pay the accepted price laid down in law if you must, but don't claim some righteous crusade in the ignoring of them!



I suggest you go to the link and read the article to which the comment refered. Thankfully we don't have those laws here but if we did it would definitly be fascist and any disobedience would be highly commendable.

So far the daily reality of bicyclists ignoring red lights has been compared to: murder, assault and battery, and shoplifting. Can people please get real!!!


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> What is it about this site that is causing it to attract :troll: s?



So anyone with a differing viewpoint is a



? I think your fascist tendencies are really beginning to show


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> Much of our modern society is built upon the tradition of civil disobedience.....



yes indeed....


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> I suggest you go to the link and read the article to which the comment refered. Thankfully we don't have those laws here but if we did it would definitly be fascist and any disobedience would be highly commendable.
> 
> So far the daily reality of bicyclists ignoring red lights has been compared to: murder, assault and battery, and shoplifting. Can people please get real!!!


The link you keep bleating on about clearly states that no countries have these laws, so why don't you keep it real, and also it is only in your opinion that such a law would be fascist, the whole thing is farcical not fascist.


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

Well some US states do have the laws......but anyway it was only an example.

Are you honestly suggesting that a law prohibiting 2 wheelers moving faster than the speed of gridlocked traffic would be anything other than fascist???

That's about as reasonable as comparing RLJ'ing to murder!!

If you cannot see a problem with systems of traffic law and road infrastructure which are designed primarily for the convenience of motorists then you are very blinkered indeed.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well some US states do have the laws......but anyway it was only an example.
> 
> Are you honestly suggesting that a law prohibiting 2 wheelers moving faster than the speed of gridlocked traffic would be anything other than fascist???
> 
> ...


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

Well I think I referred to it 3 or 4 times as a useful example of a regressive law.

If that's what passes for "obsessive preoccupation" i'd better get myself off to the shrink first thing....thanks for the diagnosis


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage - reason 1.
"Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.
RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.
rljers annoy others (including it is apparent their fellow cyclists) and if rljing were made legalfor cyclists only it would still cause this annoyance."


Although im not totally feeling this reason myself i can appreciate that it is valid inso far as offence would be caused to some number of people.
Technically i am not sure where the "causing offence to others" idea stacks up in directing legislation but am not going to argue the point as it is redundant because
i am persuaded ny Norms opinion that it is a bad idea to separate cyclists from other traffic and introduce measures just for cycling.
This reason is negated by making any revisions to traffic management apply to all traffic.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Mad@urage - reason 1.
> "Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.
> It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.
> RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.
> ...




If you seek to change the law for all traffic at given times then that makes far more sense than changing for just one mode of transport.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Mad@urage - reasons 2
No one should break the law just because it is an inconvenience,

I agree that it is imperative that the integrity of the "stop at red light" concept is upheld.
The red light is the cornerstone of our traffic control strategy and should be in no way comprimised.
To introduce exceptions would be corrosive and a bad idea.
I agree legal rljing should not be considered. (the law should not be changed to allow rljing in any circumstances.)


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Im not going to respond to all of mad@rages reasons as some i can see and some i cant.
I do see the fundamental requirement to maintain the integrity of the red light.
I am disappointed that some people has misinterpreted my intentions on this post .
I am disappoined that Mr Paul has been determined to insult me personally from the get go and still appears only to be on this topic to insult me personally.
Mr Paul your Jedwood commect was childish and pathetic. I will not stoop to your depths as it is readily apparent the kind of person you are.


----------



## martint235 (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well some US states do have the laws......but anyway it was only an example.
> 
> Are you honestly suggesting that a law prohibiting 2 wheelers moving faster than the speed of gridlocked traffic would be anything other than fascist???
> 
> ...



You really do like throwing the word "fascist" around a lot don't you? Do you actually understand the meaning both literal and historical? On a literal basis it does not necessarily have to be bad. Definitions are very wide but it can boil down to suppressing the rights of the individual in favour of the nation as a whole.

On a historical basis, well I'll let you read up on what fascism achieved around the world (I wouldn't suggest you limit yourself to European history, there's been other stuff done in the name of fascism). 

Then let's see if being asked to stop at a red light is really a fascist measure.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If you seek to change the law for all traffic at given times then that makes far more sense than changing for just one mode of transport.


Agreed.
Im not sure the law does need changing.
More like traffic control strategy for all traffic should be reviewed and ammended as deemed appropriate. 
It seems to me that the current situation is that traffic control measures are insiduously multiplying , therby making unnecessary waiting more of an acute problem which is in turn undermining the integrity of the "stop at red" ideal.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

As Dan B highlighted. Something like 30 to 40 lights in a 3.5 miles.
On busy roads where the lights serve a purpose then thats great but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting is going to be annoying and undermine respect towards traffic lights.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well I think I referred to it 3 or 4 times as a useful example of a regressive law.
> 
> If that's what passes for "obsessive preoccupation" i'd better get myself off to the shrink first thing....thanks for the diagnosis



Your welcome.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> As Dan B highlighted. Something like 30 to 40 lights in a 3.5 miles.
> On busy roads where the lights serve a purpose then thats great but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting is going to be annoying and undermine respect towards traffic lights.


I always respect red lights , I respect them so much if I could get their phone number I would ring them the next day, and if they brought in the system where the lights on some junctions were put on Orange overnight that would be good ,but, until they do then I will not break the law nor start a campaign of civil disobedience against any other law, "I know you did not say that bit".


----------



## Norm (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526083"]
It's not unnecessary waiting.
[/quote]Is an alternative opinion. 

When the roads were otherwise empty, I'd consider slowing and stopping at a red to be unnecessary and wasteful. The overall fuel consumption on my 27 mile commute drops by 5% if the traffic lights are red on one specific junction.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Is an alternative opinion.
> 
> When the roads were otherwise empty, I'd consider slowing and stopping at a red to be unnecessary and wasteful. The overall fuel consumption on my 27 mile commute drops by 5% if the traffic lights are red on one specific junction.


How do you measure the fuel consumption on a bike ?


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

MrPaul - Im not sure in you are genuinely unable to see any opinion other than your own or if you are doing it deliberately just to be disruptive.
Anyways you are wrong - It was a reference to my post saying "at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting is going to be annoying and undermine respect towards traffic lights."
If i understand correctly Norm is saying ; When the roads were otherwise empty, he would consider slowing and stopping at a red to be unnecessary and wasteful. And as a further consideration fuel consumption drops as a result of stopping at lights. Unnecessary stopping at traffic lights has a negative and undesireable impact on fuel consumption.


----------



## Norm (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526086"]
It was with reference to a specific commuting route, on a pedal cycle. The roads aren't otherwise empty during a peak time inner city commute. [/quote] Apollo's post said " but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting ". Unnecessary was specifically "when roads are otherwise empty" and (to twobiker as well) did not make any mention of cycling.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Apollo's post said " but at a time when the roads are empty all that (unnecessary) waiting ". Unnecessary was specifically "when roads are otherwise empty" and (to twobiker as well) did not make any mention of cycling.


I am confused as to why it would be of any interest that your fuel consumption drops if you stop in your car, on a cycle forum, my fuel consumption drops at 70mph in my car, oh, thats not relevant either, unless you are expanding the thread to rljing in a car.


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> You really do like throwing the word "fascist" around a lot don't you? Do you actually understand the meaning both literal and historical? On a literal basis it does not necessarily have to be bad. Definitions are very wide but it can boil down to suppressing the rights of the individual in favour of the nation as a whole.
> 
> On a historical basis, well I'll let you read up on what fascism achieved around the world (I wouldn't suggest you limit yourself to European history, there's been other stuff done in the name of fascism).
> 
> Then let's see if being asked to stop at a red light is really a fascist measure.




Yeah its a nice word! Aside from its historical use, which you are clearly informed about, in modern use "fascist" is an epitaph, a synonym for authoritarian instincts, which is pretty much what we have here.

Rather than keep the highly effective selective enforcement of laws we enjoy in this country, some would seem to prefer a regression to zero tolerance enforcement for even minor offences.

Every day people choose which laws they will obey, its the daily reality and always has been, get over it. 

Please at least try to understand that in this country laws are enforced as required.

So it is with RLJ'ing cyclists; if it was a huge social problem, as some seem to suggest it is, then we would be seeing a lot more enforcement. As things are, the authorities, quite rightly, are not wasting much time on it. 

The few exceptions prove the rule: in places like London where cyclists ignoring pedestrian crossings has made things dangerous and stressful for pedestrians. This is clearly anti-social and so, quite rightly, there is quite a bit of enforcement.


Its exactly the same with: One way streets, cycling on pavements beside busy roads, pedal reflectors, fixies with no front brake, carrying passengers on racks etc, etc.


----------



## Norm (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> ...unless you are expanding the thread to rljing in a car.


 I think the references to red lights and their application to all vehicles has been fairly well addressed already in this thread. Stopping at a red is just as much of a pain and waste of energy on a bike (IMO) but I cannot quantify the energy required for a cyclist to stop and start as plainly as I can in the car.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Yeah its a nice word! Aside from its historical use, which you are clearly informed about, in modern use "fascist" is an epitaph, a synonym for authoritarian instincts, which is pretty much what we have here.
> 
> Rather than keep the highly effective selective enforcement of laws we enjoy in this country, some would seem to prefer a regression to zero tolerance enforcement for even minor offences.
> 
> ...


So apart from London the authorities are not as "Fascist" as you would have us believe then, perhaps the London authorities are trying to protect the law abiding majority,  for the London cops.


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> So apart from London the authorities are not as "Fascist" as you would have us believe then, perhaps the London authorities are trying to protect the law abiding majority,  for the London cops.



Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.



A major problem is that some people of restricted outlooks only response to the issue of rljing is "its against the law therefore its wrong".
And on this basis call rljers a colourfull assortment of names.
With no consideration of the issue in a wider perspective.
Unfortunately for some on this forum the issue of rljing will always just be a stick to berate other cyclists with and not a motivation to improve road traffic control and benefit society. 
Fundamentally i do not understamd this willingnness of some cyclists to judge, critiscise and condenm ( sometimes in quite hateful terms) other cyclists over the issue of rljing. I can think of issues that would propmt me to express opinions of extreme dissaproval and hatred but someone rljing isnt one of them. Why this proclivity in some ?.


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> A major problem is that some people of restricted outlooks only response to the issue of rljing is "its against the law therefore its wrong".
> And on this basis call rljers a colourfull assortment of names.
> With no consideration of the issue in a wider perspective.
> Unfortunately for some on this forum the issue of rljing will always just be a stick to berate other cyclists with and not a motivation to improve road traffic control and benefit society.
> Fundamentally i do not understamd this willingnness of some cyclists to judge, critiscise and condenm ( sometimes in quite hateful terms) other cyclists over the issue of rljing. I can think of issues that would propmt me to express opinions of extreme dissaproval and hatred but someone rljing isnt one of them. Why this proclivity in some ?.




Well I guess if you're sat behind the stop line in a cloud of diesel smoke and a group of riders ride straight on through, then its bound to piss you off! Doesn't really excuse the belligerent narrow mindedness though........


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well a guess if you're sat behind the stop line in a cloud of diesel smoke and a group of riders ride straight on through, then its bound to piss you off! Doesn't really excuse the belligerent narrow mindedness though........



Maybe.
My default position is not judging , condemning and hating others.
I would only tend to do so if there was an acute reason to do so. 
Thoughtless rljing - going through a light causing danger to pedestrians etc i would condemn. 
But that behaviour is the exception. The majority of rljing is done safely and responsibly so my default position on rljing is not one of judging , condemning and hating. 
The fact that the law is not enforced implies some acknowledgement that it is not the most important crime ever committed and unless there is some acute aggravating circumstance i would not think it warrants the judgmental , condemnatory and name calling that it ellicits from some on this forum.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (3 Sep 2011)

1526073 said:


> Over trivial matters?



The conversation has bizarrely included murder, so I would hardly suggest that this thread (or aspects of the conversation) relates to only trivial matters anymore

Besides, what is trivial to one may not be trivial to another.

Bless those dear little women and their fanciful notions of suffrage, but they're not REALLY important....


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.
> 
> I am not misrepresenting you at all, on one page you are asking us to look at an item on "Wiki" which has no relevance to this country and calling it a Fascist regime, and then you say later, that some minor laws need enforcing more than others, it is you who is fascist, you wish to have the law changed to whatever you think is right, in the minority, luckily in a Democracy the majority make the law


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Maybe.
> My default position is not judging , condemning and hating others.
> I would only tend to do so if there was an acute reason to do so.
> Thoughtless rljing - going through a light causing danger to pedestrians etc i would condemn.
> ...


Perhaps the reason that the law is not enforced is because the rljer has a checklist, 1,no traffic,2,no pedestrians, 3, no body who looks like he might get to angry, 4, no cops, ok, safe to go.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526101"]
A reasonable and serious question for you-

Your view is that the majority of rljing is done safely and responsibly, yet you also have the view that all cyclists should obey red lights.

What then is your view as to why cyclists shouldn't RLJ?
[/quote]

Your question may be genuine but given your past history of attacking me personally you will understand if i do not want to go down this road - with you at least.

My view point on "why cyclists shouldn't RLJ" has been pretty clearly expressed .


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Clearly you are either deliberately mis-representing what I wrote or you have trouble reading.
> Should it not be, "misrepresenting what I have written" , not "misrepresenting what I wrote", perhaps thats where the confusion arose?.


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526093"]
As to the rest, you're trolling. There's been plenty of reasonable discussion on this thread. It started to get reasonable again yesterday when we were talking about flashing amber. You ignored that part of the discussion. If you continue to choose to ignore such, then that's your loss only.
[/quote]
I mentioned on page 9 about changing the lights, try to keep up,


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526106"]
Well no, it hasn't. Which is why I'm asking you the reasonable question.

Again, you're ignoring stuff. That's your call, but it only strips away any credibility you're trying to gain.

The question will remain open as long as this thread does.
[/quote]

To be clear.
Given your apparent sole determination of attacking me personally please be advised that i will not be answering any questions from you.
I bestowed upon you the decency to appreciate this - clearly i over estimated your decency.
Your above reply shows precisely what your agenda is.


----------



## Cyclopathic (3 Sep 2011)

Does it count as rljing if when one gets to a red light one mounts the pavement and whilst stil mounted cross the road with either the green man for pedestrians or where there is no green/red man just crossing the road when there is no traffic as one would on foot. When safely over the road then scooting off the kirb again and back on to the road.

Does this lessen the offense to riding on the pavement as one would have essentialy crossed the lights in the same way as if one had ridden there all the way on the pavement, basicaly acting like a pedestrian but on a bike (excuse the contradiction in terms)

I have used this tactic occasionaly at very busy multilaned trafic islands when I just havent felt like I had enough fighting spirit to really motor my way around the thing maintaining enough speed and road position not to get honked at or swerved for. When the will and the flesh have been weak I've just thought sod it and used the crossings to get around but have not dismounted. At the time it didn't feel like I was commiting much of an offense and as I had used the crossings (albeit on my bike) I didn't consider it to be jumping the lights.

I now look to this thread to try and ascertain the seriousness of my crime as judged by other cyclists and throw myself on its mercy regarding the verdict. M'lud.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Cyclopathic said:


> Does it count as rljing if when one gets to a red light one mounts the pavement and whilst stil mounted cross the road with either the green man for pedestrians or where there is no green/red man just crossing the road when there is no traffic as one would on foot. When safely over the road then scooting off the kirb again and back on to the road.
> 
> Does this lessen the offense to riding on the pavement as one would have essentialy crossed the lights in the same way as if one had ridden there all the way on the pavement, basicaly acting like a pedestrian but on a bike (excuse the contradiction in terms)
> 
> ...



I would be inclined to let you off so long as you havnt killed any pedestrians although i am probably err towards the more telerant end of the spectrum.
Another "its against the law therefore its wrong" judge might look on it differntly.
I woudnt call it rljing. Im not sure but presumably your going on the pavement is wrong and also presumably its also wrong to cycle over the crossing - i will have to check with my highway code.
Anyway depends what judge you get.
Good luck with the verdict.


----------



## Raa (3 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Perhaps the reason that the law is not enforced is because the rljer has a checklist, 1,no traffic,2,no pedestrians, 3, no body who looks like he might get to angry, 4, no cops, ok, safe to go.



Well i'd ignore number 3, but other than that I think you've summed it up quite nicely, congratulations, the quality of your posting just improved


----------



## twobiker (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well i'd ignore number 3, but other than that I think you've summed it up quite nicely, congratulations, the quality of your posting just improved
> Still illegal.


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well i'd ignore number 3, but other than that I think you've summed it up quite nicely, congratulations, the quality of your posting just improved



I would also largely dismiss number 4 on twobikers checklist.
In my experience dating back to before i joined this forum when i didnt realise that rljing was illegal for bikes i have rljed in view of police many times and never had a problem. I think the emphasis on twobikers checklist should be on the safety concerns.
Still illegal but in my experience the police do a good job in differentiating between careless dangerous cycling and safe carefull cycling.  for the police.


----------



## oldroadman (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526119"]
So, back to flashing amber. Can anyone see a problem with this as an option? Or are there others?

Similar, but relating to speeding, in Portugal I've driven into villages which have a flashing amber where the road joins the village. There's a speed sensor, and if you're over the limit the light turns to read to force you to stop, before allowing you on your way. It's a great idea IMO.
[/quote]

Having experienced the average driving standard in parts of Portugal, it would be safer if they were all permanently stopped!


----------



## apollo179 (3 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526117"]
And the real answer is that they don't have the resources to pull up every RLJer they see, or every speeding car. They address it with campaigns as I said before.

Let's not pretend it's anything to do with discretion, because it's not. Any bobby will tell you that.
[/quote]

I think you are not giving the police the credit due to them.
I agree the police do not pull up every rljer they see - so in your opinion what determines wether they pull up one rljer and not another ?


----------



## pepecat (3 Sep 2011)

Norm said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Also, if some think it's OK to choose which laws to follow and which can be broken because you are on a bike and can get away with it, there's a continuum from riding without pedal reflectors to crossing red lights to cycling in pedestrianised areas to cycling the wrong way up a one way street to cycling on the wrong side of the road to cycling on the wrong side of the road at night without lights to cycling on the hard shoulder of a motorway to... etc. Most people would, I guess, consider some of those to be ok and others to be beyond the line, where we draw the line will be different.
> 
> I'm all for working to get the laws changed but, as they stand currently, I obey them. (except pedal reflectors, but I have reflectors on my shoes and wear reflectives on my ankles instead  ).



Ditto. Including pedal reflectors, but that's cos they came with the bike! I wouldn't drive in a pedestrian area, or up a one way street the wrong way or on the wrong side of the road, so I don't see why it's ok to do those things on a bike, just cos it's smaller, and (i guess in most people's heads) less dangerous to others than a car.

Maybe that's the difference - we all know cars are dangerous and kill people, but most people don't perceive bikes in the same way. Including me.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Sep 2011)

I had a bit of a revelation on my ride today. None of this stuff really matters at all. We will do what we do and if others see what we do they may or may not adjust their behaviour. The rest is just ephemera.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (3 Sep 2011)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jr9hPbYmBo&feature=related


----------



## Angelfishsolo (3 Sep 2011)

MissTillyFlop said:


> http://www.youtube.c...feature=related


----------



## twobiker (4 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Perhaps the reason that the law is not enforced is because the rljer has a checklist, 1,no traffic,2,no pedestrians, 3, no body who looks like he might get to angry, 4, no cops, ok, safe to go.


The number 3 is the motorist who overtakes you after the lights and cuts you up for no "apparent" reason.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526123"]
It's not discrediting the police to accept that they have to prioritise their focus. 

What determines whether they stop a light jumper? Whether they can be bothered, what they're doing at the time, whether they even noticed, what priorities they've been given, what they've been told to focus on, which part of their shift they're at. And many more. 

This isn't the olden days - it's rare that police are able to just patrol these days.
[/quote]

I think it your are being slight unfair to the police.
If the police see a cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists i would hope and expect them to take action (obviously)
If the police see a cyclist rljing carefully and carefully i would understand in view of the other considerations you have pointed out if they did not take action.
Isnt this differentiation (you call it discretion) just a good common sense approach given that "this isn't the olden days". 
 for the police.


----------



## twobiker (4 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I think it your are being slight unfair to the police.
> If the police see a cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists i would hope and expect them to take action (obviously)
> If the police see a cyclist rljing carefully and carefully i would understand in view of the other considerations you have pointed out if they did not take action.
> Isnt this differentiation (you call it discretion) just a good common sense approach given that "this isn't the olden days".
> for the police.


Or is it the the slow breakdown of our Policeing due to the cutbacks .


----------



## PK99 (4 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Or is it the the slow breakdown of our Policeing due to the cutbacks .



What facile nonsense!


----------



## Vikeonabike (4 Sep 2011)

I really can't believe this thread has gone on so long. Yes it is against the law to RLJ! No argument about that. Should you be punished for every infringement of every law going, road traffic or anything else. Lets just leave that down to a bit of common sense, dictated by the situation it takes place in. 

Dealing with it can be left to several different methods..

The maximum penalty for RLJing is DEATH....yes you heard me, you do it, you get it wrong you're dead. I don't have the power to hand out that kind of justice, (Only Odin does) however thats the penalty. 


Secondly we could be looking at dangerous cycling..stand by for a very hefty fine or prison sentence if someone is killed or seriously hurt because you RLJ'd. You could actually get seriously hurt and still face prison if somebody is killed or seriously hurt. Double Whammy!

Cycling without due care doesn't count, red lights, you chose to ignore them, I won't believe you didn't see them. If you didn't, you shouldn't have been on the road (the CPS may disagree). 

Next level is a £30 fine....fair play you got caught, Section 13 of the Un effing lucky act 1971. Or section 1 (1) of the I should have been paying more attention act 1842, or Section 21(2) of the My attitued stinks officer, I would rather pay the fine than be civil about this and listen to the words of advice you are giving me act of 2010.

Sometimes you may get caught but because you didn't fall foul of the above act (Sect 21(2)) you may get away with words of advice.

You may be lucky and RLJ for months on end without any of the above happening.

Then one day your luck will run out!


Your choice, your decision.....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> I really can't believe this thread has gone on so long. Yes it is against the law to RLJ! No argument about that. Should you be punished for every infringement of every law going, road traffic or anything else. Lets just leave that down to a bit of common sense, dictated by the situation it takes place in.
> 
> Dealing with it can be left to several different methods..
> 
> ...





Mods - Can we have this as a sticky please


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526133"]
Kind of, but it's more because they can't stop all of the second group than they don't see the need to. There's no guidance on discretion as there is with pavement cycling. They're very different.
[/quote]

I think Vikes post summed it up perfectly!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526135"]
It does, but Apollo is trying to downplay the practice. 

There is guidance for the police to allow discretion because they see acceptable reasons for people to ride on the pavement. They don't for red light jumping. 

The focus in these discussions is always on why people should not jump lights. In my view it should be as much about reasons why cyclists should jump lights.
[/quote]

I agree with you completely. As I have said before the only reasons I would do so would be to save my life and to allow and emergency vehicle access (I know I would potentially have to argue both in court).


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526135"]
It does, but Apollo is trying to downplay the practice. 

There is guidance for the police to allow discretion because they see acceptable reasons for people to ride on the pavement. They don't for red light jumping. 

The focus in these discussions is always on why people should not jump lights. In my view it should be as much about reasons why cyclists should jump lights.
[/quote]


How does me applauding the police for their sensible common sense way of dealing with rljing equate (in your head) to downplaying the practice ?

You state that "There's no guidance on discretion as there is with pavement cycling." by which you presumably mean the rlj law should technically be enforced.
You further say whether the police stop a light jumper is determined by : "Whether they can be bothered, what they're doing at the time, whether they even noticed, what priorities they've been given, what they've been told to focus on, which part of their shift they're at. And many more." 
And "Let's not pretend it's anything to do with discretion."

I suggest that you are being unfair to the police

If the police see a cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists i would hope and expect them to notice and be very bothered and take action, even if they were near the end of their shift or had been given other priorities, other focus etc. I would expect the police to take action and i am of the beleif that most would.

I suggest that your appraisal of what determines wether the police take action is very unfair and very wrong.
How the police act is imho based on an intelligent considered common sense appraisal of the individual rlj incident. Not if they can be bothered.

You have a history of irresponsible use of language and attacking me personally which you have now compounded with some questionable comments about the police. I see that you have now edited your post above but your personal agenda against me is still evident in angelfishsolos reply. Why ?


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526138"]
This is the third time you've made that claim, and again I'm going to have to remind you that this isn't an attack on the police. It's the realistic position. It's not unfair, or wrong, but the way it is.

It's about resources. The police aren't able to stop every red light jumper that they see because they don't have the resources. It's not because they've been given guidance to ignore RLJers, its because they can't physically deal with them all. And the same with speeding. And if you need any proof of that all you have to do is read these forums. There are plenty of examples of where poor resourcing has resulted in a disappointing police response. 

And I think you know that. But instead you claim that it's an approach which backs up your view of RLJing.

You have no idea how closely I work with the police, so you're not in a position to state my opinion of them, especially since all you have to base this on is your (perhaps chosen) misunderstanding of what's being said.

And I edited your name out because I knew you'd try to distract from the debate by moaning about personalisation. Whether I put your name in or not makes no difference to what's going on here. 

I don't have a personal agenda against you. I just know your method. You have an agenda which you're trying to conceal by ignoring some posts and trying to divert with others (as above). At least Raa is honest about where he stands. Refusal to answer basic questions I ask you while still responding to my posts when you want to just shows this more. It's disappointing that you're not able to hold a debate in an honest and open manner. Don't see it as an attack on you but rather a robust counter to your argument, complicated by the fact that you're intentionally withholding aspects of your argument which would put you on sandy ground should they be shared.

Another question for you (and anyone else for that matter)- what are the benefits of RLJing? An essential question, because benefits needs to be weighed up against counter-benefits. As I said before, all that this discussion is at the moment is reasons not to RLJ put against claims as to why those reasons aren't reasons not to RLJ. And fortunately that's not how policy making works.
[/quote]

"Whether they can be bothered" is not about resources its a slight on their professionalism. 
And i dont agree with it.
Its got nothing to do with my view on rljing.
You say you dont have a personal agenda against me so why do you insist on trying to personalise the debate to me despite me repeatedly asking you not to. 
How does having a "debate in an honest and open manner" depend on me giving you loads of personal information about myself.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526053"]
Raa and Apollo -have they ever been seen in the same room together?



Have Jedward managed to smuggle an iPad in with them?
[/quote]
How infantile. 
The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person only serves to illustrate just how narrow minded you are.
There are likely many people who hold opinions different from you - about 30% of forum members rlj according to a recent poll.
As twobiker said in this topic "if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter."
I suspect that for a quiet life thats precisely what many do do.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> How infantile.
> The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person only serves to illustrate just how narrow minded you are.
> There are likely many people who hold opinions different from you - about 30% of forum members *who bothered to vote* rlj according to a recent poll.
> As twobiker said in this topic "if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter."
> I suspect that for a quiet life thats precisely what many do do.


----------



## twobiker (4 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> What facile nonsense!



UP yours


----------



## twobiker (4 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> UP yours



It is not nonsense I have two relations in the force and they are very clear on the fact that the cutbacks will result in less Policing, and the things that have to give are the incidents which take up time for a relatively minor offence, Grow up and smell the roses.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

"who bothered to vote"

yes but we can only go on the information we have.
About 30% on this forum.
When you consider that this forums members are (imho) probably above normal in terms of intelligence , social responsibility and law abidingness then in the wider cycling world the % will be much higher.
Anyway thats kinda beside the point that i was trying to make which was that for User to suggest that just because there are 2 members who hold different opinions from him on an issue is grounds for saying they are the same person is the most puerile of comment and reflects an unhealthy lack of willingness to consider other opinions.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526144"]
Funny, I gave several reasons why, with no indication of proportions. Yet you chose one in an attempt to discredit me. It doesn't work.

The police force is full of people. And some people can be lazy sometimes.


That's ok.

I didn't say it did.

I've explained the position. You've got a view on RLJing. You're withholding some information, which shows that you're not being open and that you have an agenda which you're reluctant to share. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of this view of yours. It's not an attack on you, but a drilling into your opinion. Exposure of all information would show a different picture to that which you're trying to paint.

Raa is clear that he/she jumps red lights, and why. While I don't agree with him, I respect his opinion and his honesty.


I'm not asking you that, and you know it. There are questions which you refuse to answer. I'll repeat two (though you'll either claim that you've answered them or refuse to on some daft grounds that you gave yesterday.

You referred to the fact that you used to jump red lights before you realised that not stopping at a red stop light was illegal. I asked you if your behaviour had changed and why since you realised that RLJing is illegal. You said that you weren't going to answer the question.

I've asked you what you think the benefits of RLJing are. You've refused to answer.


See -two questions, neither of which is asking for loads of personal information, but truthful answers to them will I suspect put you in an awkward position.

The questions remain open...



[/quote]


Why do you want to put me in an awkward position.
The topic is about rljing.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526148"]
I don't.

You have a view on RLJing. If you answered the questions you're ignoring it would give a fuller picture to your position. But then you'd be in an awkward position.

For example, you have said that you think all cyclists would stop at red lights. You refuse to answer when I ask if you still jump red lights.


[/quote]

Where have i said i think "all cyclists would stop at red lights."
What context.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526145"]
It's not a response to your opinion, but your behaviour. 


[/quote]


The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person.
Please explain how this is a response to my behaviour and how it is an appropriate and responsible thing to suggest with no justification.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person.
> Please explain how this is a response to my behaviour and how it is an appropriate and responsible thing to suggest with no justification.


why are you pursuing this? It's a genuine question. What satisfaction can it give you?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (4 Sep 2011)

I don't always stop at red lights.

There's a pedestrian crossing on a straight stretch of road with no other junctions near it and I can see the approach to both sides very, very clearly. 

Today a cyclist pressed to cross, waited for the green man, then crossed and was at the other side as I got near the crossing.
I'm watching this as I'm approaching on the main road, nobody else is anywhere near the crossing. It's pissing down. 

I don't see what purpose stopping there would serve. In a car, I would wait though, as I'd be dry.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526151"]
Why are you asking me? You said it, on this thread, and you know that. I've just checked back, and it's still there. 

You said it in the context of whether cyclists should jump reds or not.

Let's not start this denial game again because that's the Jedward behaviour.





[/quote]

You have a history of posting innacurate and irresponsible statements.

Please substantiate your claim and point out where i have said "all cyclists would stop at red lights."
Without context it is meaningless.
Please cut and paste where i have said this.


----------



## apollo179 (4 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526158"]
You didn't say "all cyclists would stop at red lights." You said they should. You know you did. 


[/quote]

Ok so before you said 
"For example, you have said that you think all cyclists would stop at red lights."
Dismissing my denials with the stringent protestations of its truth and jedwood behaviour you now admit i didnt say it .
Ok.
Now you are saying that i said they should stop at red lights.
Sounds reasonable.
Anyway - brief time out as ive got to go out.

Laterz..


----------



## Angelfishsolo (4 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "who bothered to vote"
> 
> yes but we can only go on the information we have.
> About 30% on this forum.
> ...



Nope 30% of the people who responded is NOT 30& of the forum.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (4 Sep 2011)

and now....The Interlude.


[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q55uzETntkw[/media]


----------



## Raa (4 Sep 2011)

Wow nice to see so many bikes; no helmets, no lycra, no respect for the lights; must be the Netherlands........


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Nope 30% of the people who responded is NOT 30& of the forum.


Yes - i repeated my mistake. 
About 30% of forum members *who bothered to vote* rlj according to a recent poll.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526160"]
Oops. A typo which makes no difference to the situation.


[/quote]

That attitude is consistent with your history of irresponsible use of language.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526160"]

So, you said that cyclists should stop at red lights.

You refuse to answer when asked whether you do. Answering the question would put you in an awkward situation, so you continue to refuse to answer.

The question remains......
[/quote]

I fail to see how my personal behaviour has any to a relevance to the discussion of the designated topic.
Please explain. 
You say previously " You've got a view on RLJing. You're withholding some information, which shows that you're not being open and that you have an agenda which you're reluctant to share. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of this view of yours. It's not an attack on you, but a drilling into your opinion. Exposure of all information would show a different picture to that which you're trying to paint."
Why are you so obseessed with my view and my agenda ?
I started this topic to discuss the issue of rljing not my own personal habits.
Im not painting any kind of picture.
Your drilling is inappropriate - please understand.
My views are pretty well aired - im generally not one to hide my views but in the present arena it is not appropriate.
The Moderator specifically told us "Debate the issue, but don't make it personal."
+
You have already stated on this topic ; "I said that I didn't believe your claim that you only rlj at completely deserted junctions. Because that's not true. "
So its apparent that you have already asked your own question , answered it for yourself and made your mind up.
Your mind seems to have been made up before you asked the question.
So really when your mindset is clearly so narrow and so inflexible - whatever answer i give you will clearly beleive what you want to anyway.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526160"]
Oops. A typo which makes no difference to the situation.
So, you said that cyclists should stop at red lights.

You refuse to answer when asked whether you do. Answering the question would put you in an awkward situation, so you continue to refuse to answer.

The question remains......
[/quote]

The Moderator said 

"This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal." Think of this as like a red light to all your personal stuff.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526170"]
You misunderstand. Asking you about your behaviour is not 'making it personal'. If I were to call you a fat short-arse on the other hand, that would be making it personal and worthy of reporting. 

All you're doing is trying to use something else to enable you to avoid answering a very relevant question. Which still stands. *Did you stop jumping red lights once you discovered that it was illegal?* And, what are the benefits to jumping lights as you see it?
[/quote]

No. You misunderstand.
Personal - definition ; "Of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else."
I am not avoiding , i am proceeding in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the moderator.
You are not so much exhibiting jedwood behaviour as dedwood behaviour.
Are you being deliberately unintelligent ?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526168"]
...and you can't build any assumption onto that because it's not representative.
[/quote]

Speaks he of the narrow mind.
Its a poll.
Its an indicator.
Are you just going to argue everything.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526172"]
You're trying to find a legitimate excuse for not answering the question, and this isn't it. 

Continue to avoid it as you like. The question remains, and your continued wriggling is more revealing than you'd like it to be...
[/quote]

On the contrary - i suggest that any right thinking person would clearly see that i am following the moderators rules in a responsible manner whereas you are blatantly disobeying the rules in a wholey irresponsible way.
This in turn says alot about you , your credibility and the credibility of your arguments when you accuse others of "deciding to ignore the law when he sees fit." 
Dont the rules apply to you Mr Paul ?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526176"]
Just more attempts to ignore a completely relevant question. Look up the page to see yourself ignoring your interpretation of the personalisation issue. The question remains...

Did you stop running red lights when you discovered it was illegal?
[/quote]

Ok aside from it clearly being contrary to the rules laid down by the moderator how is it relevant to the topic subject.
It may be relevant to your own twisted agenda but as i have previously advised i am not willing to fuel your personal attacks on me.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526179"]
And, what do you think are the benefits of ignoring red lights?
[/quote]

What do you think are the benefits of ignoring red lights?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526181"]
The question is asked of you. So....
[/quote]

So are you asking me a question you are not willing to answer yourself ?


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> So are you asking me a question you are not willing to answer yourself ?


you're being ridiculous. He's not saying that there are benefits.

Reported for asininity.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I fail to see how my personal behaviour has any to a relevance to the discussion of the designated topic.
> Please explain.
> You say previously " You've got a view on RLJing. You're withholding some information, which shows that you're not being open and that you have an agenda which you're reluctant to share. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of this view of yours. It's not an attack on you, but a drilling into your opinion. Exposure of all information would show a different picture to that which you're trying to paint."
> Why are you so obseessed with my view and my agenda ?
> ...



I will try and explain. In the beginning you didn't know RLJ was illegal so you did it. Now you know it is. The question therefore is has the knowledge changed your actions?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I will try and explain. In the beginning you didn't know RLJ was illegal so you did it. Now you know it is. The question therefore is has the knowledge changed your actions?



Yes (between you and me it has).
However
The moderator said "This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal."
I hope you can see that i want to keep to the moderators rules and not make it personal.


----------



## Moodyman (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> *Yes (between you and me it has*).
> However
> The moderator said "This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal."
> I hope you can see that i want to keep to the moderators rules and not make it personal.



Not quite. We all know now.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes (between you and me it has).
> However
> The moderator said "This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal."
> I hope you can see that i want to keep to the moderators rules and not make it personal.



I am glad to read that. Thank you. 

I am certain that the mods meant not calling name et al when they said don;t make it personal and not "have your actions changed since you learned..." Otherwise any poll on behaviour would be personal.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am glad to read that. Thank you.
> 
> I am certain that the mods meant not calling name et al when they said don;t make it personal and not "have your actions changed since you learned..." Otherwise any poll on behaviour would be personal.



"Debate the issue, but don't make it personal." Moderator.
I interpret this literally.
Polls are personal but anonymous so are not so susceptible to becoming acrimonious.
"Did you stop running red lights when you discovered it was illegal? " is imho personal.
Anyway Mr Paul has displayed a predisposition to abuse me personally so i am suspicious of his motivation.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "Debate the issue, but don't make it personal." Moderator.
> I interpret this literally.
> Polls are personal but anonymous so are not so susceptible to becoming acrimonious.
> "Did you stop running red lights when you discovered it was illegal? " is imho personal.
> Anyway Mr Paul has displayed a predisposition to abuse me personally so i am suspicious of his motivation.



Oh please!

Anyway we have the answer to one question 

What benefits can be found in ignoring Red Lights? (General question not aimed at you.)


----------



## theclaud (5 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Reported for asininity.



Asininity is against the rules?! If I'd known that, the P&L years would have been easier...


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Good question - i will think and get back to you.

Whatever else - i do try and view issues in a multidimensional perspective rather than the blinkered way some around here seem to - not you i hasten to add. 
Thats why i asked the original question.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Good question - i will think and get back to you.
> 
> Whatever else - i do try and view issues in a multidimensional perspective rather than the blinkered way some around here seem to - not you i hasten to add.
> Thats why i asked the original question.



FYI I am happy to admit I have a blinkered view when it comes to the law.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2011)

theclaud said:


> Asininity is against the rules?! If I'd known that, the P&L years would have been easier...


if it isn't it should be. Along with reincarnation


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> if it isn't it should be. Along with reincarnation



 Just one question; how do you know you are not reincarnated?


----------



## Raa (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Oh please!
> 
> Anyway we have the answer to one question
> 
> What benefits can be found in ignoring Red Lights? (General question not aimed at you.)



Here's 3 which work for me....


1, Managing ones pollution intake. I much prefer to have vehicles pass me when they are up to speed and cruising rather then when they are accelerating up through the gears belching out loads of crap. With the number of filthy diesels on the road, for me this is number 1, it makes my journeys so much more pleasant.

2, Minimisation of wasted time. 

3, Minimisation of wasted energy.

All 3 are of course subject to the aforementioned considerations regarding: not getting hurt, not hurting anyone else, and not getting caught.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Just one question; how do you know you are not reincarnated?


I don't prevail upon Mr. Paul's patience for page after page after page after page....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I don't prevail upon Mr. Paul's patience for page after page after page after page....


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526195"]
Thank you for your acknowledgement that the legal aspect to red light jumping is important. It's very good to make some progress from where we were at the opening of this thread.
[/quote]
it's not good. It might be a blessed relief, but it's not good. It's not even average.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> it's not good. It might be a blessed relief, but it's not good. It's not even average.



Apollo has come a long way. Lets be fair


----------



## ianrauk (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> *Apollo has come a long way*. Lets be fair



*Through many red lights...*


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

ianrauk said:


> *Through many red lights...*


----------



## livpoksoc (5 Sep 2011)

because it's a law of the road, you must obey it. You're a road user & shouldn't disobey the laws when you see fit. If you're at a red light @ 3am in your car, would you jump it? No...so don't try to state a difference between cars & bikes.


----------



## martint235 (5 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Here's 3 which work for me....
> 
> 
> 1, Managing ones pollution intake. I much prefer to have vehicles pass me when they are up to speed and cruising rather then when they are accelerating up through the gears belching out loads of crap. With the number of filthy diesels on the road, for me this is number 1, it makes my journeys so much more pleasant.
> ...



2 and 3 are just ways of increasing your exercise. And from what I've noticed of rljers in SE London, two things are true: they do need more exercise as a general; and if you want to save time pedal faster.

Plus a lot of rljers waste my time: I stop at the red light, they sail through. Light changes and within 20 yards I've caught them up. I then need to hang around behind them waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake. Next time it happens I'll just slap them on my way past (after all we can still pick and choose our laws can't we??)


----------



## twobiker (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526195"]
Aside from recognising that you've intentionally not admitted to continuing with your red light jumping, as the recognition is irrelevant...

Thank you for your acknowledgement that the legal aspect to red light jumping is important. It's very good to make some progress from where we were at the opening of this thread.
[/quote]
If the recognition is irrelevant why did you recognise it? or did you just want to type something ?


----------



## Domeo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one. "



Because all the noobs and inexperienced follow others through red lights, not knowing any better and not having the accumulated skills to deal with any problems and wonder why they are dead.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2011)

Domeo said:


> Because all the noobs and inexperienced follow others through red lights, not knowing any better and not having the accumulated skills to deal with any problems and wonder why they are dead.



Also an argument against filtering. And against cycling on busy roads.

(Which is not to dismiss it as an argument, but it's not a sufficiently good one to stop me from filtering or from cycling on busy roads)


----------



## Domeo (5 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?



Yes.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> Along with reincarnation


Often treated quite leniently on the first offence.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Plus a lot of rljers waste my time: I stop at the red light, they sail through. Light changes and within 20 yards I've caught them up. I then need to hang around behind them waiting for a safe opportunity to overtake. Next time it happens I'll just slap them on my way past (after all we can still pick and choose our laws can't we??)


Hmm. I could make that argument against pretty much all cyclists when I'm driving. I overtake them, then when we get to the next lights they get to the front of the queue, by using bike lanes, bus lanes or filtering, and thus they force me to overtake them again.


----------



## martint235 (5 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Hmm. I could make that argument against pretty much all cyclists when I'm driving. I overtake them, then when we get to the next lights they get to the front of the queue, by using bike lanes, bus lanes or filtering, and thus they force me to overtake them again.



True I suppose. I'd like to think that if a driver is stuck behind me (rare in London as once I'm past a driver, chances are I'll stay in front while he/she is caught in traffic) I'll do my best to help them overtake me safely. Rljers don't tend to have that level of consideration for other road users ime.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526179"]
And, what do you think are the benefits of ignoring red lights?
[/quote]
The one that comes immediately to mind is that You get to your destination faster and using less energy. Same as the benefits of using a light bicycle instead of a barclays hire bike, or indeed the benefits of cycling to work instead of running, walking, or crawling on hands and knees. That could be considered "selfish" in the sense that the benefit accrues entirely to the RLJing cyclist and not to anybody else,but it seems to me that that particular pejorative is only legitimately applied when the RLJ causes _dis_benefit to someone else. Which in your classic 3am-deserted-road or empty-pedestrian-crossing-with-nobody-waiting situations is not the case.


----------



## martint235 (5 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> The one that comes immediately to mind is that You get to your destination faster and using less energy. Same as the benefits of using a light bicycle instead of a barclays hire bike, or indeed the benefits of cycling to work instead of running, walking, or crawling on hands and knees. That could be considered "selfish" in the sense that the benefit accrues entirely to the RLJing cyclist and not to anybody else,but it seems to me that that particular pejorative is only legitimately applied when the RLJ causes _dis_benefit to someone else. Which in your classic 3am-deserted-road or empty-pedestrian-crossing-with-nobody-waiting situations is not the case.



As said though the majority of rljers that I see on my commute would get to work quicker by pedalling faster. They would then have time to stop at the red light. Probably have time for a coffee some of them.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> As said though the majority of rljers that I see on my commute would get to work quicker by pedalling faster. They would then have time to stop at the red light. Probably have time for a coffee some of them.


And they'd get to work even quicker yet by pedalling faster _and_ jumping red lights (a point which I think has already been made somewhere in the last three volumes), so while you are correct that there are many ways to achieve that objective, it doesn't contradict the point that RLJ can be one of them

Personally having just returned from a weekend in Holland I'm not sure that an inability or unwillingness to pedal quickly should be treated as a character failing - there's an interesting discussion to be had about the relationship between speed and vehicular cycling which Dellzeqq touched on somewhere else today.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526213"]
Because, in his transparent way, Apollo is hoping that I'll claim that he's admitted to light jumping so that he can divert off onto another path of distraction.
[/quote]that would be it.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526213"]
Because, in his transparent way, Apollo is hoping that I'll claim that he's admitted to light jumping so that he can divert off onto another path of distraction.
[/quote]

You are deluded.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> if it isn't it should be. Along with reincarnation



If i understand correctly - Dellegg is saying that because i hold an opinion different from his own then i must be the reincarnation of a some previous forum member (presumably one he disagreed with).

According to a recent poll about 30% of forum members who voted rlj . 
For Delegg to suggest that just because i hold a different opinion from him on an issue is grounds for saying that i am a reincarnation of some previous person is the most senseless of arguements and reflects an alarming degree of narrow mindedness on his part.. 
I could just as well say that dellegg is the reincarnation of some previous narrow minded individual.
But i woudnt because i fully realise that there is an endless supply of people just as narrow minded and senseless as dellegg himself.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Here's 3 which work for me....
> 
> 
> 1, Managing ones pollution intake. I much prefer to have vehicles pass me when they are up to speed and cruising rather then when they are accelerating up through the gears belching out loads of crap. With the number of filthy diesels on the road, for me this is number 1, it makes my journeys so much more pleasant.
> ...



I would add 
4. Lack of awareness that it is illegal
5. Lack of awareness that there is anything wrong in it.
6. Lack of awareness that anyone would be so anal as to get agravated by it.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would add
> _*4. Lack of awareness that it is illegal
> 5. Lack of awareness that there is anything wrong in it.*_
> 6. Lack of awareness that anyone would be so anal as to get agravated by it.



If 4 and 5 were true I would say that those people have serious learning disabilities.
6 is just a copout for doing something you know to be wrong.


----------



## Dan B (5 Sep 2011)

Why would you add those? I wouldn't add any of those, because they're not benefits of jumping red lights.

I continue to hope for a minimum of intellectual rigour from either side in this "discussion", and I continue to be regularly (though not continuously) disappointed. Oh well


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Often treated quite leniently on the first offence.



I am no reincarnation be assured.
The forum dinosaur mob just feel it necessary to stoop to any level to discredit someone who has the affrontery to suggest an opinion other than there own.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Sep 2011)

qq - not gg


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Why would you add those? I wouldn't add any of those, because they're not benefits of jumping red lights.
> 
> I continue to hope for a minimum of intellectual rigour from either side in this "discussion", and I continue to be regularly (though not continuously) disappointed. Oh well



I thought we were giving reasons - as in explanations for the behaviour.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I thought we were giving reasons - as in explanations for the behaviour.



Er no. You were asked for benefits.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er no. You were asked for benefits.



What benefits can be found in ignoring Red Lights? (General question not aimed at you.) 
Oh yes - i got it into my head that we were after explanations.
Ignore my three then.
Sorry.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526223"]
Reading the above you don't whether to  or  .
[/quote]

No i fully believe you woudnt.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526230"]
No, I'm right.

I believe that a *simpleton* would say at this point, pwnd!
[/quote]

FTFY


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

ianrauk said:


> *Through many red lights...*



Has hell frozen over ?
Maybe one on the forum dinosoars could take the blinkers off , have a look out the window and let us know.


----------



## Moodyman (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526223"]
Reading the above you don't whether to  or  .
[/quote]


I've been doing both. I had tears rolling down my face with laughter.

Anyway, who's this Deadleg fella?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

Are we in hell then Apollo?


----------



## martint235 (5 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I would add
> 4. Lack of awareness that it is illegal
> 5. Lack of awareness that there is anything wrong in it.
> 6. Lack of awareness that anyone would be so anal as to get agravated by it.






apollo179 said:


> Has hell frozen over ?
> Maybe one on the forum dinosoars could take the blinkers off , have a look out the window and let us know.



I'm assuming the criteria for being a "forum dinosaur" is awareness of rljing being illegal, wrong, and that people get aggravated by it. Oh and having the experience that comes from having cycled a few thousand miles safely.

This thread has now made it past 30 pages and should really be killed although it is quite fun watching you have a go at people you may one day actually meet in the flesh so perhaps we should let it continue for a while longer.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Sep 2011)

Infinite monkey theorem


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Are we in hell then Apollo?



My reply was with reference to :
Angelfishsolo, on 01 September 2011 - 09:08:09, said:
*Apollo. Just accept that until the law is changed AND drivers are made aware of the fact that cyclists are allowed to do what you propose it will always be seen to be a stupid thing to do.*

ianrauk, on 01 September 2011 - 09:20:59, said:
_*Waits for hell to freeze over*

_Angelfishsolo, on 05 September 2011 - 10:40:35, said:
*Apollo has come a long way*. Lets be fair 



ianrauk, on 05 September 2011 - 11:16:01, said:
*Through many red lights...*


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> I'm assuming the criteria for being a "forum dinosaur" is awareness of rljing being illegal, wrong, and that people get aggravated by it. Oh and having the experience that comes from having cycled a few thousand miles safely.
> 
> This thread has now made it past 30 pages and should really be killed although it is quite fun watching you have a go at people you may one day actually meet in the flesh so perhaps we should let it continue for a while longer.



No by forum dinosaur i mean someone with a very blinkered narrow minded outlook.
Someone that if there are 2 other members expressing an opinion different from his would suggest that they are the same person under 2 different names.
Or someone who if another member expressed an opinion different from their own would suggest that they were a reincarnation of a prior forum member.
Basically someone with a very restricted viewpoint , unwilling to consider other opinions and intolerant of anyone expressing alternative views willing to resort to any nasty depths to discredit the interloper.
Often found in groups acting in unison like hyenas

Im glad you find it amusing. You are probably laughing like a hyena?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526243"]
My motives are different to yours Apollo, as we've established today.

As said before, you were exhibiting Jedward behaviour previously.
[/quote]

Your motives seem to be attacking me based on the motives that you perceive me to have.

For you to suggest me and raa are the same forum member dosnt that mean that we were both exibiting Jedward behaviour ?

Is jedward behaviour basically just having an opinion different from you ?

If 3 people expressed an opinion different from you would that be the jedward triplets ?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526246"]
What do you see are the benefits of jumping red lights?
[/quote]
If i naively answer you and say the benefits of rljing are blah bla h blah are you then going to turn round and say oh so thats why you rlj is it ?
Like if you ask me why do people do drugs ?
Well because it feels good i guess.
Oh so your a drug addict then.
Are you trying to snare me like that ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (5 Sep 2011)

Apollo, look up the word Paranoia.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Apollo, look up the word Paranoia.



Ok - im hanging myself out to dry here.
The benefits of jumping red lights is you dont have so much waiting and you get to your destination quicker.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526246"]
What do you see are the benefits of jumping red lights?
[/quote]

Ok ive answered your question.
Can you please clarify what jedward behaviour is in relation to your thought process re thinking me and raa are the same person.


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526251"]
What do you see are the benefits of jumping red lights?

Oh, I see you've answered.

So, you getting there quicker -does this outweigh the reasons not to?
[/quote]

Ok ive answered your question.
How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ?


----------



## apollo179 (5 Sep 2011)

1526252 said:


> OK. Do we have the capacity for everyone to avail themselves of the same advantage?



In appropriate circumstances yes we do.
Sometimes the common good is not served by these lights and they should be turned of.


----------



## twobiker (5 Sep 2011)

Rlj is not done by a seasoned professional who has made, assesments of traffic flow,pedestrian activity and Police proximity,but is someone who is basing his possibly life changing choice on whether all the other people on the road will obey the law, suppose they are all of the same view , and decide its safe to rlj.


----------



## Raa (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526255"]
Can I ignore them in my car if it gets me there quicker?
[/quote]

Yawn.....does the difference in kinetic energy between 1500kgs of car and a bloke on a bicycle really need to be pointed out?


----------



## Raa (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526261"]
But we only do it when it's safe to, so it doesn't matter how big the vehicle is.

Or are you saying that by RLJing you increase the risk to other road users?
[/quote]


You could ask yourself why motor vehicles require licence/mot/insurance etc etc, whereas the humble bicycle does not. 

Could it be its infinity smaller potential for causing third party damage?


----------



## lukesdad (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526168"]
...and you can't build any assumption onto that because it's not representative.
[/quote]


Wrong.

Its representative of those who voted. What would you call representative 0 %.

Just because its not the result you would hope for on a CC poll don t rubbish it.


----------



## Raa (5 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526264"]
But by your comment you're suggesting that when you RLJ you're increasing the risk to other road users. If it's completely safe then there's no chance of you causing any damage to anyone, so the size of the vehicle is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Well hardly, I don't think being sat on your butt behind a steering wheel, surrounded by safety glass and blind spots caused by door pillars, is a good place to assess the wisdom of blowing a red light. I just don't think the comparison you are making is valid.


----------



## Raa (5 Sep 2011)

1526265 said:


> There is a common tendency to get the words ever so slightly wrong.



It will probably go on for infinity


----------



## Raa (5 Sep 2011)

1526268 said:


> It's just about the shear **** offness of it all with you isn't it?



Unfair, its not JUST about that.....


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526255"]
Can I ignore them in my car if it gets me there quicker?
[/quote]

No . You cant ignore them wether you are on a bike or a car.

How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ? 
Why do you interpret 2 people holding a diferent view from you as they must be the same person?
Please answer.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526271"]
If you read around the statistic it was put forward as representing the view of forum members, when it isn't. Of course it's representative of the group that voted, but with no further information available (who voted) it can't be taken to represent any group because we don't know who they are.
[/quote]
You do come across as being rather blinkered and narrow minded unwilling to even consider any opinion other than your own regardless of the rights and wrongs involved.
You seem resolved to read around any other opinion whatever its merits.


----------



## PK99 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Yawn.....does the difference in kinetic energy between 1500kgs of car and a bloke on a bicycle really need to be pointed out?



An utterly spurious point: 

Try tgis question : if a car stops and looks, as many RLSers do, is it then ok for the driver to continue through a red light if he considers it safe, as some argue it is for cyclists?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526275"]
Why can't you ignore them?
[/quote]
"its against the law therefore its wrong" 
I dont see what you are trying to get at here.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526274"]
Do you think that the benefits of your RLJing behaviour outweigh(ed) the risks, legality and other reasons not to? 

It's ok, you can say yes if that's what you think.
[/quote]

How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ? 
Why do you interpret 2 people holding a diferent view from you as they must be the same person?
Please answer.


----------



## PK99 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> You could ask yourself why motor vehicles require licence/mot/insurance etc etc, whereas the humble bicycle does not.
> 
> Could it be its *infinity smaller potential for causing third party damage?*





Infinitly?

a guy i know got a £40,000 payout from the insurance of a fellow cyclist on a group run who caused an accident that resulted in badly broken hip.

Your pointless hyperbole simply devalues you point.


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.



I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.


----------



## PK99 (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
> Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
> Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.



As befroe: all of that applies equally well to motorists





> I think - rljing motorists will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
> Irresponsible unsafe driving is deplorable in any circumstances.
> Driving safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
> Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
> Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.


If any cyclist is so unaware of the Traffic Laws that they do not understand a Red light means stop then they should sign up for some safety lessons pronto. trying to change a persons mind when they have convinced themselves that what they are doing is harmless because for some reason they are able to make descisions which overule the laws to which mere mortals are bound is similar to telling a child not to put their hand in a fire, You know it will end in tears, but until they do it and get burnt they won't believe you.


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.




Well if thats what you truly believe; that its really such a dangerous thing to do, then you are certainly doing the right thing by always stopping. Good for you!


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> As befroe: all of that applies equally well to motorists



As before, it doesn't apply that well to motorists at all. Due, of course, to the vast difference in kinetic energy and thus third party risk (between motor vehicles and bicycles)....


----------



## PK99 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> As before, it doesn't apply that well to motorists at all. Due, of course, to the vast difference in kinetic energy and thus third party risk (between motor vehicles and bicycles)....



If a driver stops at a red light, sees no one coming and eases through at walking pace, the kinetic energy argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter b*ll*ks.

A driver doing that is no different from a cyclist rljing

If it's ok for a cyclist, is it ok for a car driver?


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> Well if thats what you truly believe; that its really such a dangerous thing to do, then you are certainly doing the right thing by always stopping. Good for you!



Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,or was until you posted.


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> As before, it doesn't apply that well to motorists at all. Due, of course, to the vast difference in kinetic energy and thus third party risk (between motor vehicles and bicycles)....


if Rljers are so confident that it is ok to do it if they deem it safe, why do they refrain from it if there is a Police presence ?.


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> As befroe: all of that applies equally well to motorists



I agree, i think the only difference is motorists generally travel faster and can make up the time lost at lights easier than a cyclist, no justification for doing it but the real reason imho


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526288"]
See? You think that cyclists should stop at red, yet you don't. 

And you wonder why people are confused by you.
[/quote]

Where have i said that i dont stop at red lights.
As usual you are being irresponsible and making groundless allegations.


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> If a driver stops at a red light, sees no one coming and eases through at walking pace, the kinetic energy argument is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter b*ll*ks.
> 
> A driver doing that is no different from a cyclist rljing
> 
> If it's ok for a cyclist, is it ok for a car driver?



No different from a cyclist rljing except that their vehicle still takes up much more space on the road, so cannot avail themselves of any opportunities to filter into a gap without disrupting other traffic that a cyclist could. But at 3am when the road is deserted? Yes, legality aside, what actually _is_ wrong with a car driver RLJing in that circumstance? It's no different than if a pedestrian were to cross the road with the red light against him


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Where have i said that i dont stop at red lights.
> As usual you are being irresponsible and making groundless allegations.



forgive me ive just joined the thread, do you think cyclists should or should not have to stop at red lights?


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Rljers will never accept that what they do is wrong, because they are too narrow minded to accept the consequences for their actions, until the day they get hit by another vehicle, then they will cry bitterly about the other driver not obeying the lights.



A bit like the douche featured at 1:49 and 2:55 in this clip:
http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=5986557

Story - guy is killed during an alleytwat after being hit by a car when he jumped a red light light into a busy intersection. Guy they interviewed's response is "cars are bad".


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526292"]
Again, irrelevant if there's no risk.
[/quote]

How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ? 
Why do you interpret 2 people holding a diferent view from you as they must be the same person?
Is this just indicative of someone so narrow minded that the only explanation that they can conceive of their being 2 people with differnt view from them is that those 2 people must in fact be the same person.
Please answer.


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526302"]
Pedestrians are not legally bound by red lights.
[/quote]

That's why I said "legality aside". What is the actual difference between a pedestrian walking across the road against the lights and a car driving across the road at walking pace, against the lights, save that in this place and at this time one is legal and the other not? Perhaps consideration of this scenario will shed some light on whether the same laws should apply to both modes of transport or whether they should be treated differently


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> forgive me ive just joined the thread, do you think cyclists should or should not have to stop at red lights?



Its a gimme that cyclists should stop at red lights.
The purpose of the topic was to try and explore the issue beyond just the "its against the law therefore its wrong" perspective.
Once we get beyond this we can see that there are circumstances and situations where it is possible to proceed safely at junctions unrestricted by traffic lights and when you acknowledge this then it raises the subject of doing something about it. Like turning lights of when they are not appropriate like at night etc.
MrPaul seems to be on some kind of personal crusade to paint me as a rljer and put me in the wrong


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526303"]
I've told you several times. At the time you were both exhibiting Jedward behaviour. Raa has since stopped. 

If you think that all cyclists should stop at red then why don't you?
[/quote]

But that dosnt explain why you think 2 people with opinions different from yours have to be the same person.
Why suggest this?


----------



## Wankelschrauben (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ?
> Why do you interpret 2 people holding a diferent view from you as they must be the same person?
> Is this just indicative of someone so narrow minded that the only explanation that they can conceive of their being 2 people with differnt view from them is that those 2 people must in fact be the same person.
> Please answer.




An easy answer to this one.

We just can not believe that there is another person who totally disregards the laws of the road and defends his or her actions whilst knowing full well it is illegal in such a blatantly moronic manner as you do.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> forgive me ive just joined the thread, do you think cyclists should or should not have to stop at red lights?



Hi again.
Not sure if i was sufficiently clear before.
Yes i think cyclists should stop at red lights.
Some more narrow minded members are determiined to attack me for merely raising the topic much in the same way that some more unenlightened people automatically shout rascist at the mention of multiculturism.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> An easy answer to this one.
> 
> We just can not believe that there is another person who totally disregards the laws of the road and defends his or her actions whilst knowing full well it is illegal in such a blatantly moronic manner as you do.



According to a recent poll about 30% of forum members who voted rlj . 
It seems you yourself prove that there is at least one blatantly moronic narrow minded member on the forum.


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526303"]
I've told you several times. At the time you were both exhibiting Jedward behaviour. Raa has since stopped. 

If you think that all cyclists should stop at red then why don't you?
[/quote]


What is 'Jedward behavior'?


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526305"]
Because for the roads to work properly we should at least be able to have some expectation of the actions of other road users. And that is that vehicles obey traffic lights. And that pedestrians are not restricted to crossings.
[/quote]
But the other road users would be just as predictable if the law were vice versa and everyone adhered to it: that car drivers could treat red lights as advisory and pedestrians were bound by them. So what's the reason for having it this way around? I would postulate that it is mostly an accident of history, but why is it desirable? Is it desirable? (I think it's desirable, mostly because it imposes the greater burden on the party that brings the greater danger: I would be more interested at this point in a discussion of the best traffic law than a continual reiteration of the point that it's-the-law-so-you-must-obey-it, but I'm only skimming your ouroborous exchange with apollo which apparently requires it)

Predictability is IMO the best (and probably the only valid) argument for obeying red lights in scenarios where one might otherwise be able to safely courteously and non-scarily jump them, just as it is the best argument for driving on the left hand side of the road in this country and the right hand side when in Belgium, but even then, it doesn't stack up when nobody is present who would need to predict your decisions in order to make their own.


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526302"]
Pedestrians are not legally bound by red lights.
[/quote]
In many countries they have the ridiculous "jaywalking' law, whereby humans are only allowed to cross the road at certain points, so as not to disrupt the flow of machinery. Not really relevant to this discussion, but I reckon if we had that law here, there would be plenty of healthy disobedience!


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526317"]
Lights are set to maximise traffic flow, so they're essential. If they're not enforced then flow suffers.

At 3am it's a different scenario, but we're not really talking about 3am.
[/quote]
Who's not talking about 3am? I'm talking about 3am. I thought the whole thread was supposed to be about scenarios where nobody else is affected by a decision to RLJ, and the times when nobody else is even _present_ would seem to me to be most of those occasions


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526317"]
Lights are set to maximise traffic flow, so they're essential. If they're not enforced then flow suffers.

At 3am it's a different scenario, but we're not really talking about 3am.
[/quote]
Suppose you were of the opinion that urban areas should not be full of vehicles. Maybe you wouldn't feel too obliged to be constrained by lights which are there 'to maximise traffic flow', whilst riding a bicycle?


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

Steady there. "Maximising traffic flow" was advanced by Mr Paul as a reason that lights should be enforced _for car drivers. _

He may feel that the same reason applies to enforcing lights for cyclists, but he wasn't asked the question and given that most light-controlled junctions are a long way from suffering cycle congestion (i.e. would probably be served perfectly well with mini-roundabouts or ordinary Stop signs), it would be unwise to assume


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

Good point...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
> Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
> Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.



If they are not aware of the law how can it be a factor in their considerations?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,or was until you posted.


----------



## PK99 (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> No different from a cyclist rljing except that their vehicle still takes up much more space on the road, so cannot avail themselves of any opportunities to filter into a gap without disrupting other traffic that a cyclist could. But at 3am when the road is deserted? Yes, legality aside, what actually _is_ wrong with a car driver RLJing in that circumstance? It's no different than if a pedestrian were to cross the road with the red light against him



3 in the afternoon in Wimbledon town centre where cyclists regularly go over pedestrian crossings with or without people present. I'm often stopped in the car with no cars or pedestrians to interfere with if i slowly move on through. Cyclist regularly do. is it ok for me as a car driver?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> An easy answer to this one.
> 
> We just can not believe that there is another person who totally disregards the laws of the road and defends his or her actions whilst knowing full well it is illegal in such a blatantly moronic manner as you do.



If you hadn't said it I would have!


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> According to a recent poll about 30% of forum members who voted rlj .
> It seems you yourself prove that there is at least one blatantly moronic narrow minded member on the forum.



I am sure there is more than one!


----------



## PK99 (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> A bit like the douche featured at 1:49 and 2:55 in this clip:
> http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=5986557
> 
> Story - guy is killed during an alleytwat after being hit by a car when he jumped a red light light into a busy intersection. Guy they interviewed's response is "cars are bad".



and he complains about victim blaming FFS!

the guy who died was a law breaking peanut. the victim was the innocent law abiding motorist who has to live with the idea that someone died when they hit him. Just as train drivers are the victim when someone kills themselves by walking in-front of a train.


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526328"]
Let's be real. Some on here are trying to translate the 3am scenario to commuting. 
[/quote]

If you're talking about apollo, your claim is that he wants to justify his RLJ at busy junctions, but as far as I can remember (and I acknowledge that I had a very good weekend and so I may have forgotten parts of the thread) he hasn't actually said so


If you're talking about anyone else they're off-topic


If you're seriously suggesting that the purpose of this whole thread has been nothing more than 30 pages of back and forth "RLJing at night is OK"/"That's irrelevant because you refuse to admit you RLJ in the daytime and that's wrong", perhaps it would have been better conducted as an exchange of private messages?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> If you're talking about apollo, your claim is that he wants to justify his RLJ at busy junctions, but as far as I can remember (and I acknowledge that I had a very good weekend and so I may have forgotten parts of the thread) he hasn't actually said so
> 
> If you're talking about anyone else they're off-topic
> 
> If you're seriously suggesting that the purpose of this whole thread has been nothing more than 30 pages of back and forth "RLJing at night is OK"/"That's irrelevant because you refuse to admit you RLJ in the daytime and that's wrong", perhaps it would have been better conducted as an exchange of private messages?



Dan both scenarios are true


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

400bhp said:


> Infinite monkey theorem


Bob Newhart?


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526337"]
This thread is about red light jumping and is the same as all the rest, with the occasional mention of introducing alternative light programming. 

It's about the pros and cons of RLJing. And as with every other jumping thread there are attempts to translate the low-risk of any 3am activity to the reality of the commute. 

*Simply, just because a junction may be deserted at 3am doesn't mean that it's ok to ignore lights on your ride into work*.
[/quote]unless you're riding an Apollo, and must, perforce, set off five hours early. 

IGMC


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> 3 in the afternoon in Wimbledon town centre where cyclists regularly go over pedestrian crossings with or without people present. I'm often stopped in the car with no cars or pedestrians to interfere with if i slowly move on through. Cyclist regularly do. is it ok for me as a car driver?


The law says it's not, as you well know (but I need to point out to avoid someone else doing it)

In my view: it might be but it's unlikely to be. It would depend on whether pedestrians were discommoded, frightened, or intimidated by your action - perhaps you would get on better in a smaller car than in a 4x4, for example, or if you were in a convertible with the top down so that they could more readily identify you as human and make eye contact with you. I would say that pedestrians - especially the infirm and elderly - by and large mistrust motor vehicles and don't like sharing space with them, so on balance I would probably say "no". But I would probably also say "no" to many of the cyclists that you see doing the same thing too, and for the same reason. A cyclist pushing or sedately scooting his bike is not obviously going to accelerate to light speed and push peds to the ground like dominoes before him, ditto granny on her shopper: a BMXer weaving all over the road or a lycra-ed up roadie with wrap-around shades - again, that eye contact thing - would represent a bigger potential threat, and anyone in a tin box would likely be perceived as more dangerous yet. It's a matter of degree




Sorry I can't give a more categorical answer. It's all about being able to have expectations of the actions of others: by choosing to blow that light you have violated their expectations, and I think there are few (not zero but not far from it) occasions in scenarios like that where you could ensure that your unexpected action is not going to give rise to alarm or concern in other road users

(Caveat: I don't know Wimbledon very well)


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526337"]
Simply, just because a junction may be deserted at 3am doesn't mean that it's ok to ignore lights on your ride into work.
[/quote]
Can we just take that as given and move on? Would anyone like to disagree with it?


----------



## Tim Hall (6 Sep 2011)

1526315 said:


> It's when your sockpuppet starts disagreeing with you that you know that you are in real trouble.



One or other will be banished to Thunderbird 5, and then he'll be sorry.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Can we just take that as given and move on? Would anyone like to disagree with it?



To summaridse the "MrPaul" scenario.
I started this topic to explore the issue of rljing beyong just the "its against the law therefore its wrong" perspective.
MrPauls tried to get me to disclose my own personal habits because MrPauls arguement basically is that in the real world noone rljs at 2 in the morning when it is safe, everyone rljs when it is busy and unsafe.
Obviously there is some truth in what MrPaul says but it is juxtapose to what the thread is about.
This topic is about considering circumsatnces where it is safe to navigate junctions and the implications that that has one the implementation of traffic lights.
I refused to cooperate with MrPauls personal line of inquiry as i thought it irrevevant and at odds with the Moderators direction : "Debate the issue, but don't make it personal. "
Ever since MrPaul has been on this bizarre crusade to biscredit me by painting me as a dangerous rljer etc etc rather than discuss the issue in a sensible manner.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> To summaridse the "MrPaul" scenario.
> I started this topic to explore the issue of rljing beyong just the "its against the law therefore its wrong" perspective.
> MrPauls tried to get me to disclose my own personal habits because MrPauls arguement basically is that in the real world noone rljs at 2 in the morning when it is safe, everyone rljs when it is busy and unsafe.
> Obviously there is some truth in what MrPaul says but it is juxtapose to what the thread is about.
> ...




Mr Paul us doing no such thing. He is simply seeking to establish whether or not your behaviour has changed since your realised RLJing was against the law. He may well have missed your reply to me. Once again asking "do you or don't you" is not the type of "personal" the mods were referring to.


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> This topic is about considering circumsatnces where it is safe to navigate junctions and the implications that that has one the implementation of traffic lights.



Is it ever safe?
In another thread a poster is suggesting he is unaware of the presence of motorcycles on the road until they have overtaken him.
Perhaps in view of that RLJing can never be deemed to be safe as there may well be an invisible, inaudible motorcycle approaching (at mach3 - as suggested by another sensationalist poster in the same thead).


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

To summarise 38 pages of mainly dross:

1. RLJing is against the law. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.
2. If it is made legal, most people don't have a problem with it. See 1.
3. The original question of "Is it only wrong because it is illegal" is irrelevant. It was made illegal for valid reasons of safety for the majority. It allows other road users to anticipate what will happen in a given situation. This is a good thing.
4. Yes we know that pedestrians operate outside these rules of consistency. Get over it.
5. Apollo is refusing to answer Mr Paul's question on the basis that it is personal. All questions directed towards a person are by nature personal. It does not mean it is a personal attack which is what the moderators wanted to cease on earlier threads.

Now I'm sure (or at least I would hope) that people have better things to do with their lives.

Now how do I block a thread.........


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> What is 'Jedward behavior'?



'Jedward behavior'
This is when 2 people hold an opinion that is different from MrPauls prompting MrPaul to conclude that the only explanation must be that the 2 people are in fact the same person.
In MrPauls narrow minded world it is inconceivable that there are 2 people that hold an opinion different from his own.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526345"]
No, I didn't miss the reply. Apollo answered your question without saying that he no longer jumps red lights. Which goes to show, as does the contradiction seen in his long post above, that he did not start this thread for the reason he claims. It's just a continuation of the last one, and an attempt to legitimise jumping lights.
[/quote]

I read the "Yes" my actions have changed to mean he/she no longer runs Red Lights. One second reading my question was not as specific as it should have been and thus the answer meaningless.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> 'Jedward behavior'
> This is when 2 people hold an opinion that is different from MrPauls prompting MrPaul to conclude that the only explanation must be that the 2 people are in fact the same person.
> In MrPauls narrow minded world it is inconceivable that there are 2 people that hold an opinion different from his own.



No it is when two people behave in _*exactly the same way*_. Like clones.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

perhaps a break is in order. Three and a quarter minutes of light relief http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Rk1PxpZ-hfE - and not a red light in sight!


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> To summarise 38 pages of mainly dross:
> 
> 1. RLJing is against the law. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.
> 2. If it is made legal, most people don't have a problem with it. See 1.




RLJing on roller skates is (as far as I can tell) most probably legal. Are you suggesting that most people don't have a problem with it? Although I haven't conducted extensive surveys this is definitely counter to my personal experience


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> To summaridse the "MrPaul" scenario.
> I started this topic to explore the issue of rljing beyong just the "its against the law therefore its wrong" perspective.
> MrPauls tried to get me to disclose my own personal habits because MrPauls arguement basically is that in the real world noone rljs at 2 in the morning when it is safe, everyone rljs when it is busy and unsafe.
> Obviously there is some truth in what MrPaul says but it is juxtapose to what the thread is about.
> ...


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> To summarise 38 pages of mainly dross:
> 
> 1. RLJing is against the law. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.
> 2. If it is made legal, most people don't have a problem with it. See 1.
> ...



The main dross elements are when people play fast and loose with the facts.


Number 3 on your list is incorrect, Traffic lights were a response to the congestion caused by motor vehicles and did not exist before.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> RLJing on roller skates is (as far as I can tell) most probably legal. Are you suggesting that most people don't have a problem with it? Although I haven't conducted extensive surveys this is definitely counter to my personal experience



I've not come across anyone with a problem with it.

To be fair it's not high up in my topics of conversation with people, when rollerskating is mentioned in a bad way it's usually people rollerskating in pedestrianised areas at speed that gets on people's nerves.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> The main dross elements are when people play fast and loose with the facts.
> 
> 
> Number 3 on your list is incorrect, Traffic lights were a response to the congestion caused by motor vehicles and did not exist before.



Nope sorry they were introduced to control competing flows of traffic which is more of a safety issue than a congestion issue. I doubt there was much congestion in 1868. Please check facts.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> The main dross elements are when people play fast and loose with the facts.
> 
> 
> Number 3 on your list is incorrect, Traffic lights were a response to the congestion caused by motor vehicles and did not exist before.


I'm not so sure. The first traffic light was introduced in 1868 and killed a policeman


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Nope sorry they were introduced to control competing flows of traffic which is more of a safety issue than a congestion issue. I doubt there was much congestion in 1868. Please check facts.



That is really splitting hairs. One leads to the other.


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

pedantry in the extreme


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> The main dross elements are when people play fast and loose with the facts.
> 
> 
> Number 3 on your list is incorrect, Traffic lights were a response to the congestion caused by motor vehicles and did not exist before.






Angelfishsolo said:


> That is really splitting hairs. One leads to the other.






Raa said:


> pedantry in the extreme



Sorry but when someone says that the main dross is people playing fast and loose with facts, I don't think it's inappropriate or pedantry to point out when they haven't actually checked their own


----------



## theclaud (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> your ouroborous exchange



I might have to use that!


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> I've not come across anyone with a problem with it.


Yes you have.

I have a problem with it.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but when someone says that the main dross is people playing fast and loose with facts, I don't think it's inappropriate or pedantry to point out when they haven't actually checked their own


If martin235 feels that he has been unjustly treated then he is entitled to reply however pedantic it may appear to others.


----------



## theclaud (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Yes you have.
> 
> I have a problem with it.




Yebbut you have a problem with cyclists who wobble. You should probably take a few deep breaths.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Yes you have.
> 
> I have a problem with it.



Ok. @Dan, I've now met someone who has a problem with it. If they were rollerskating in the road, I would expect them to stop at a red light as they are technically a road user. However I can't find any specific mention in either the HC or the RTA.

If it is legal and you have a problem with it, then in the same way as cyclists having a problem with having to stop at red lights, you'll need to petition for a change in the law.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> Is it ever safe?
> In another thread a poster is suggesting he is unaware of the presence of motorcycles on the road until they have overtaken him.
> Perhaps in view of that RLJing can never be deemed to be safe as there may well be an invisible, inaudible motorcycle approaching (at mach3 - as suggested by another sensationalist poster in the same thead).



In general terms i think it is possible that it can be safe in certain circumstances.
In specific circumstances it can prove to be safe by the safe outcome or prove to be unsafe by harm incurred.
*CopperCyclist*: 31 August 2011 - 15:35:37
Yes, you're correct I do agree it can be done safely.

Coppercyclists adds that the reality is that most of the time it is unsafe and most of the time that it is done it is done in unsafe circumstances thereby unsafely.
This is common sense and agreed.
However the answer to your question is ; yes it is possible that it can be safe.


----------



## Twigman (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> yes it is possible that it can be safe.



I am not disputing that it may be safe at times. I am questioning people's judgement to determine whether it is safe or not. The poster who claims not to notice motorcycles until they've overtaken him is obviously incapable of determining whether the junction is safe to cross as he is unable to spot approaching traffic. One may believe the junction is safe but it might not be. Perhaps then leaving the decision as to whether the junction is safe to the traffic control system is the safest bet?


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but when someone says that the main dross is people playing fast and loose with facts, I don't think it's inappropriate or pedantry to point out when they haven't actually checked their own



It is pretty pedantic to dispute that traffic lights were introduced in response to congestion, then go on to say that in fact they were introduced to control 'competing flows of traffic'.....


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> I am not disputing that it may be safe at times. I am questioning people's judgement to determine whether it is safe or not. The poster who claims not to notice motorcycles until they've overtaken him is obviously incapable of determining whether the junction is safe to cross as he is unable to spot approaching traffic. One may believe the junction is safe but it might not be. Perhaps then leaving the decision as to whether the junction is safe to the traffic control system is the safest bet?



That is a fair point. 
The poster who claims not to notice motorcycles until they've overtaken him is obviously incapable of determining whether the junction is safe to cross as he is unable to spot approaching traffic.
If thats any junction then that begs the question should he be on the road in the first place.
If you cater to this individual then you would have to instal lights at every junction.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> It is pretty pedantic to dispute that traffic lights were introduced in response to congestion, then go on to say that in fact they were introduced to control 'competing flows of traffic'.....



But you were the one who said part of the dross was people playing fast and loose with facts only to then do it yourself


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> If thats any junction then that _*begs the question should he be on the road in the first place*_.



As does not being aware of basic road laws such as stopping at red lights!


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> I am not disputing that it may be safe at times. I am questioning people's judgement to determine whether it is safe or not. *The poster who claims not to notice motorcycles until they've overtaken him is obviously incapable of determining whether the junction is safe to cross as he is unable to spot approaching traffic.* One may believe the junction is safe but it might not be. Perhaps then leaving the decision as to whether the junction is safe to the traffic control system is the safest bet?



Assuming you are referring to this thread: https://www.cyclechat.net/ then you are being bang out of order.

That guy has taken no issue with you personally and yet you are slagging him off on another thread because of an unpleasant incident that occurred to him, which you appear to be assuming must be his fault because apparently you have a much lower opinion of pedal cyclists than motorcyclists and the latter can never be in the wrong.

If you are enjoying the negativity this is creating then I would expect you won't last long here.

Don't bother replying, I've added you to my ignore list.


----------



## Raa (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Ok. @Dan, I've now met someone who has a problem with it. If they were rollerskating in the road, I would expect them to stop at a red light as they are technically a road user. However I can't find any specific mention in either the HC or the RTA.
> 
> If it is legal and you have a problem with it, then in the same way as cyclists having a problem with having to stop at red lights, you'll need to petition for a change in the law.




The said cyclists could indeed start a petition. In support of the petition they could point to the 1000's of infringements that occur every hour, along with the accident statistics which show it to be a relatively safe activity!

Actually I think changing the law would be a crap idea. The situation we have is reasonable, with the autorities realizing it is not adding significantly to the accident stats, and so not wasting resources on it.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> As does not being aware of basic road laws such as stopping at red lights!



Fair comment.
Thats leads us slightly off topic to the "should cyclists have to take compulsory highway code education" question.

I know you are apalled by the idea that anyone could be unaware that rljing is illegal for bikes but when you consider that although rlj is technically illegal it is in the main tolerated (not enforced) so is it so big a stretch to beleive that someone would not realise that it is illegal. Just a thought.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Fair comment.
> Thats leads us slightly off topic to the "should cyclists have to take compulsory highway code education" question.
> 
> I know you are apalled by the idea that anyone could be unaware that rljing is illegal for bikes but when you consider that although rlj is technically illegal it is in the main tolerated (not enforced) so is it so big a stretch to beleive that someone would not realise that it is illegal. Just a thought.



Children are taught from a very young age red means stop. In my time leading cycle groups the only people who had no concept of "red means stop" had quite severe learning difficulties. 

So no, I don't think compulsory highway code eduction is required although cycle training for school children is a great idea it is not always possible due to LA budgets.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (6 Sep 2011)

Raa said:


> The said cyclists could indeed start a petition. In support of the petition they could point to the 1000's of infringements that occur every hour, along with the accident statistics which show it to be a relatively safe activity!
> 
> Actually I think changing the law would be a crap idea. The situation we have is reasonable, with the autorities realizing it is not adding significantly to the accident stats, and so not wasting resources on it.




STFU will you.

The authorities have been hot on the tail of RLJ'ing cyclists and motorists for a long time. 

It was only a few weeks ago that the police were out in force on the high street in the crappy little town of Maidstone pulling cyclists up for this very situation.

The problem was the lights and their sensativity to weight, I know this because I phoned the council and asked why the lights failed to recognise cyclists.

Their solution is a simple yet brilliant one, they rest the default setting of the lights from red to green for traffic. The police have now lost interest in the RLJ'ing problem on the high street.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> STFU will you.
> 
> The authorities have been hot on the tail of RLJ'ing cyclists and motorists for a long time.
> 
> ...



Lost interest or RLJing has stopped happening?


----------



## Wankelschrauben (6 Sep 2011)

RLJ'ing has stopped happening, the lights are now green by default and only go red when a pedestrian pushes the button.

It was the other way around before.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> STFU will you.



Theres no need for that.
Attempting to silence people just because they hold a different opinion from you is pretty indefensible.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> RLJ'ing has stopped happening, the lights are now green by default and only go red when a pedestrian pushes the button.
> 
> It was the other way around before.



I just wanted to clarify. I thought that was what you meant


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Theres no need for that.
> Attempting to silence people just because they hold a different opinion from you is pretty indefensible.



Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings?


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526271"]
If you read around the statistic it was put forward as representing the view of forum members, when it isn't. Of course it's representative of the group that voted, but with no further information available (who voted) it can't be taken to represent any group because we don't know who they are.
[/quote]


How about this for representative then, 6 of you squabbling on this thread. The rest dont give 2 hoots about RLJing or for that matter helmets ,cycling on the pavement,or secondary or primary position. Life goes on funnily enough.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> How about this for representative then, 6 of you squabbling on this thread. The rest dont give 2 hoots about RLJing or for that matter helmets ,cycling on the pavement,or secondary or primary position. Life goes on funnily enough.



Ahhh Mark, are you trying to take the fun out of life indoors???


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Ok. @Dan, I've now met someone who has a problem with it. If they were rollerskating in the road, I would expect them to stop at a red light as they are technically a road user. However I can't find any specific mention in either the HC or the RTA.p


As they are (most probably) not a vehicle user, the laws relating to vehicular conduct at traffic lights don't apply. Nevertheless, most people do indeed expect that skaters in the road will stop at traffic lights, their legal status as supercharged pedestrians notwithstanding.

(Is a rollerskate a vehicle? Am I really wearing a vehicle on each foot? It's an interesting grey area if that's the kind of thing that you find interesting. The DfT don't know, and I suspect nor will anybody until such unfortunate time as there is case law, but the RVLR updates required will be challenging)

My point here, such as it is, is that the desirable situation is that road users act predictably and in accordance with custom and convention, and that the law _per se_ is pretty much immaterial except insofar as it establishes what those conventions are. We're mostly all agreed that the law on entering ASL reservoirs other than via the feeder lane is not an important one, aren't we?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> How about this for representative then, 6 of you squabbling on this thread. The rest dont give 2 hoots about RLJing or for that matter helmets ,cycling on the pavement,or secondary or primary position. Life goes on funnily enough.



7 including you.


----------



## martint235 (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> As they are (most probably) not a vehicle user, the laws relating to vehicular conduct at traffic lights don't apply. Nevertheless, most people do indeed expect that skaters in the road will stop at traffic lights, their legal status as supercharged pedestrians notwithstanding.
> 
> (Is a rollerskate a vehicle? Am I really wearing a vehicle on each foot? It's an interesting grey area if that's the kind of thing that you find interesting. The DfT don't know, and I suspect nor will anybody until such unfortunate time as there is case law, but the RVLR updates required will be challenging)
> 
> My point here, such as it is, is that the desirable situation is that road users act predictably and in accordance with custom and convention, and that the law _per se_ is pretty much immaterial except insofar as it establishes what those conventions are. We're mostly all agreed that the law on entering ASL reservoirs other than via the feeder lane is not an important one, aren't we?



I think so. I tend not to use ASLs often unless I'm the first in the queue to arrive. 

Quite a few ASLs round here don't even have feeder lanes either.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings?



Are trying to stifle opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language things that you agree with ?
Cos i dont.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Are trying to stifle opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language things that you agree with ?
> Cos i dont.



In what way am I stiffening opinions? I am simply trying to point out that such phrases are commonly used when a discussion gets interesting.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> In what way am I stiffening opinions? I am simply trying to point out that such phrases are commonly used when a discussion gets interesting.


"STFU" imho is not conducive to the free airing of opinions and exchange of ideas.
You seem to think my position on this is bizarre - 
"Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings? "
The implication being that stifling opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language is ok with you.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "STFU" imho is not conducive to the free airing of opinions and exchange of ideas.
> You seem to think my position on this is bizarre -
> "Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings? "
> The implication being that stifling opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language is ok with you.



OMG. I take it that the people you associate with are all perfectly polite and never swear then. Living in a bubble referred to not having listened to how people talk to each other! STFU is a term of exasperation as much as anything else.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> OMG. I take it that the people you associate with are all perfectly polite and never swear then. Living in a bubble referred to not having listened to how people talk to each other! STFU is a term of exasperation as much as anything else.



Fine - if its ok with you then its ok with you.
I was just voicing another opinion.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Fine - if its ok with you then its ok with you.
> I was just voicing another opinion.



I understand that and I simply asked you a question.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I understand that and I simply asked you a question.



yes.
"Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings? "
A question that implies that my opinion that trying to stifle opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language is not ok is in some way bizarre.
Do you think it is bizarre?


----------



## gaz (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> STFU is a term of exasperation as much as anything else.



No it isn't.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> yes.
> "Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings? "
> A question that implies that my opinion that trying to stifle opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language is not ok is in some way bizarre.
> Do you think it is bizarre?



I was simply curious as to why you take offence at things so easily.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> No it isn't.



Er it is.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I was simply curious as to why you take offence at things so easily.



I suspect that is something you are incapable of understanding.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I suspect that is something you are incapable of understanding.



Try me.


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> "STFU" imho is not conducive to the free airing of opinions and exchange of ideas.
> You seem to think my position on this is bizarre -
> "Were you brought up in a bubble having no contact with other human beings? "
> The implication being that stifling opinions you dont agree with and the use of bad language is ok with you.



You must have come upon situations in your life where people did not agree with you before, come on you must have, even just a little bit, or maybe they just left the room and went , AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH,...................... leaves room.


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> 7 including you.


Eight.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526401"]
Now that's a sig line if anyone is after one....
[/quote]


----------



## Jezston (6 Sep 2011)

> ... attempting to stifle opinions ...





Angelfishsolo said:


> In what way am I stiffening opinions?



Freudian Slip?

Also, telling someone to Shut The F*** Up is pretty damn aggressive and rude.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526400"]
Then I claim the statistic that 6/7 (85.7%) of the people in the whole wide world think that your views on RLJing are a bit bonkers.
[/quote]
Are you counting me and raa as one person or 2 ?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Also, telling someone to Shut The F*** Up is pretty damn aggressive and rude.



+1


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

Jezston said:


> Freudian Slip?
> 
> Also, telling someone to Shut The F*** Up is pretty damn aggressive and rude.



Damn spell checker  

As for STFU, I would take it in the same way as MTFU but clearly others disagree.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526400"]
Then I claim the statistic that 6/7 (85.7%) of the people in the whole wide world think that your views on RLJing are a bit bonkers.
[/quote]

why do you think that 87% of the people in the world think that my view "i think cyclists should stop at red lights." is a bit bonkers.
Are you trying to misrepresent me ?


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> why do you think that 87% of the people in the world think that my view "i think cyclists should stop at red lights." is a bit bonkers.
> Are you trying to misrepresent me ?


One gets the feeling that this is'nt about rlj anymore.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526411"]
No need for me to.
[/quote]

The scary thing is that MrPaul has intimated that he works closely with the police - scary that a person clearly so irresponsible and prepared to resort to making unfounded accusations maybe in a position to do real harm.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2011)

martint235 said:


> Ahhh Mark, are you trying to take the fun out of life indoors???



Sorry forgot Martin, Winters almost upon us and they re only just warming up !


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The scary thing is that MrPaul has intimated that he works closely with the police - scary that a person clearly so irresponsible and prepared to resort to making unfounded accusations maybe in a position to do real harm.



OMG you truly are a strange and overly sensitive soul.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

Twigman said:


> *I am not disputing that it may be safe at times. I am questioning people's judgement to determine whether it is safe or not.* The poster who claims not to notice motorcycles until they've overtaken him is obviously incapable of determining whether the junction is safe to cross as he is unable to spot approaching traffic. One may believe the junction is safe but it might not be. Perhaps then leaving the decision as to whether the junction is safe to the traffic control system is the safest bet?


that's very well put, and, I suggest, far beyond the wit of Apollo to comprehend.....


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> that's very well put, and, I suggest, far beyond the wit of Apollo to comprehend.....


Usual idiotic nonsense from dellegg.
I myself replied to this post "That is a fair point."


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Usual idiotic nonsense from dellegg.
> I myself replied to this post "That is a fair point."


doesn't mean you understood it........


----------



## gaz (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Er it is.


Telling someone to shut the **** up is not acceptable and you trying to back it up as something else and making some personal attacks towards apollo is just plain childish. Have you not got anything better to do than insult his intelligence?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Telling someone to shut the **** up is not acceptable and you trying to back it up as something else and making some personal attacks towards apollo is just plain childish. Have you not got anything better to do than insult his intelligence?



Firstly I did not use the term STFU. Secondly I have not insulted his /her intelligence in the slightest. I have stated my observations regarding those who do not know to stop at red light and questioned why he/she is so sensitive.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (6 Sep 2011)

No but I did and I'd say it again.

Raa & Apollo have lost the "argument" it is illegal, no matter the conditions or the excuse, in this country right now RLJ'ing is illegal.

To claim the authorities turn a blind eye to us cyclists as they understand that it is a "silly law" is wrong, they do not turn a blind eye, in some areas it is strictly enforced.

To repeatedly call us stupid, narrow minded or to imply we are of lesser intelligence for adhering to the law is in itself insulting.


----------



## gaz (6 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Firstly I did not use the term STFU. Secondly I have not insulted his /her intelligence in the slightest. I have stated my observations regarding those who do not know to stop at red light and questioned why he/she is so sensitive.


I'm fully aware that you didn't use the term STFU. If you trace the quotes back then you will see that I am pointing out you backing up the use of STFU in a 'debate' when it is quite clearly an insulting phrase.

I apologise for bring up you insulting his intelligence, I believe it was someone else that did that and I got mixed up.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> No but I did and I'd say it again.
> 
> Raa & Apollo have lost the "argument" it is illegal, no matter the conditions or the excuse, in this country right now RLJ'ing is illegal.
> 
> ...




They are n t the only ones who ve lost something.


----------



## gaz (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> No but I did and I'd say it again.
> 
> Raa & Apollo have lost the "argument" it is illegal, no matter the conditions or the excuse, in this country right now RLJ'ing is illegal.
> 
> ...


So that means you can tell people to shut the **** up?


----------



## Sittingduck (6 Sep 2011)

I'm not being funny but hasn't this ridiculous thread gone on long enough? It's a pretty crap advert for CC (given that it's been towards the top of the General Cycling board for days on end and that newcomers will likely look in GC a lot). Shame room 101 or whatever it was called has gone, this sh!tefest would be an ideal candidate.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> No but I did and I'd say it again.
> 
> Raa & Apollo have lost the "argument" it is illegal, no matter the conditions or the excuse, in this country right now RLJ'ing is illegal.
> 
> ...



It is illegal, no matter the conditions or the excuse, in this country right now RLJ'ing is illegal.
Correct and there is no arguement to lose about this.
I have not described it as a "silly law"(i dont think so anyway) but the law is mainly not enforced - im not sure what Wankelschrauben point is here so i cant really counter it.
I have not called Wankelschrauben stupid.
I would definitely not imply that anybody is of lesser intelligence for adhering to the law - i would applaud them.
Those people that i have called narrow minded i have done so for reasons mainly based on them using underhand attacts to discredit me or misrepresenting the truth about me.


----------



## Glow worm (6 Sep 2011)

Sittingduck said:


> I'm not being funny but hasn't this ridiculous thread gone on long enough? It's a pretty crap advert for CC (given that it's been towards the top of the General Cycling board for days on end and that newcomers will likely look in GC a lot). Shame room 101 or whatever it was called has gone, this sh!tefest would be an ideal candidate.



I was thinking exactly the same but didn't want to extend the thread further by contributing. Doh!


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Sep 2011)




----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526429"]
His point is that the reason the law is not enforced with every every jumper is not the reason you claim or would like it to be.
[/quote]

The police dont have the resources to enforce it rigidly so adopt a pragmatic sensible common sense approach based on discretion and tackling the worst cases of cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists.
Is this ok ?
This is what i would like it to be.


----------



## gaz (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The police dont have the resources to enforce it rigidly so adopt a pragmatic sensible common sense approach based on discretion and tackling the worst cases of cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists.
> Is this ok ?
> This is what i would like it to be.



That statement is a bit bold. The police are rarely around when someone drives or cycles through a red light. 9/10 of ten when they are they will pick up on it if they saw it clearly.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (6 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> I'm fully aware that you didn't use the term STFU. If you trace the quotes back then you will see that I am pointing out you backing up the use of STFU in a 'debate' when it is quite clearly an insulting phrase.
> 
> I apologise for bring up you insulting his intelligence, I believe it was someone else that did that and I got mixed up.



Thank you for the apology. I stand by the fact that STFU is no worse than MTFU though.


----------



## twobiker (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The police dont have the resources to enforce it rigidly so adopt a pragmatic sensible common sense approach based on discretion and tackling the worst cases of cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists.
> Is this ok ?
> This is what i would like it to be.


And in the meantime someone may die.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> That statement is a bit bold. The police are rarely around when someone drives or cycles through a red light. 9/10 of ten when they are they will pick up on it if they saw it clearly.


I am reluctant to disagree with you qaz but :
All of my personal experience and observation leads me to beleive otherwise.
Before i joined this forum when i didnt realise rljing was wrong i used to rlj quite openly in front of police and never had any resulting action taken even to advise me that rljing was wrong.
I nowadays observe lots of rljing and have never seen anyone stopped or any action taken.
I may be wrong or it may be different down your neck of the woods.
Some increased policing of irresponsible unsafe rljing would be a good thing.


----------



## gaz (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I am reluctant to disagree with you qaz but :
> All of my personal experience and observation leads me to beleive otherwise.
> Before i joined this forum when i didnt realise rljing was wrong i used to rlj quite openly in front of police and never had any resulting action taken even to advise me that rljing was wrong.
> I nowadays observe lots of rljing and have never seen anyone stopped or any action taken.
> ...



Have you thought that non-traffic police officers won't target law breakers on the road?
What is the percentage of traffic officers on the road compared to other officers?


----------



## Dan B (6 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> And in the meantime someone may die.


I think most of us agreed about 20 pages ago that whatever the reasons not to RLJ may be, "because it's dangerous" really isn't a credible one. It's no wonder these threads go round and round in circles when people insist on posting their opinion without even reading anybody else's


----------



## gavintc (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> I think most of us agreed about 20 pages ago that whatever the reasons not to RLJ may be, "because it's dangerous" really isn't a credible one. It's no wonder these threads go round and round in circles when people insist on posting their opinion without even reading anybody else's





I have to agree. In my 18 months here in Naples, I do not think I have stopped at a red light on a bicycle more than once or twice. It is not dangerous and the traffic expect bikes and motorbikes to treat lights as give way junctions. The traffic flows, you know when to go and when to stop based on the traffic movements. Thankfully road rage is not a Naples issue as drivers accept and live and let live. They respect bikes and I have more space here than in UK. So, it is not a 'dangerous' thing, but a willingness to fit in with the car culture. If there were no cars, how many traffic lights would there be?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

1526440 said:


> Hang about, did you manage to participate in all 38 pages of Police fining cyclist for breaking the law.. without realising that the Police do take action on RLJing?



"Before i joined this forum"
Helps if you read the post before replying Adrian (prevent yourself looking so silly in future)


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526246"]
What do you see are the benefits of jumping red lights?
[/quote]




not having to wait


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> I think most of us agreed about 20 pages ago that whatever the reasons not to RLJ may be, "because it's dangerous" really isn't a credible one. It's no wonder these threads go round and round in circles when people insist on posting their opinion without even reading anybody else's




i wouldnt agree to that, there are times when it may not be dangerous and there are times when it would be very very dangerous


----------



## Ian 74 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526264"]
But by your comment you're suggesting that when you RLJ you're increasing the risk to other road users. If it's completely safe then there's no chance of you causing any damage to anyone, so the size of the vehicle is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Nothing in life is certain... No activity is completely safe 100% of the time... RLJing increase's risk to yourself and other road users/ pedestrians... Unless nobody is about, for all we Know a car could be speeding to the junction but because of the topography we would have no knowledge of this... Hmm Red light seems clear oh, mmm boy I'm in such a rush (thats the point of RLJing isn't it to maintain speed to arrive at ones destination quicker?)

I guess my point is never discount physics, certain fundamentals are more reliable than the human perception of completely safe.

For clarification I made my position on RLJing clear earlier in the thread.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> Have you thought that non-traffic police officers won't target law breakers on the road?
> What is the percentage of traffic officers on the road compared to other officers?



Tbh i havnt considered the ins and outs of enforcement that closely as it not my main focus of interest.
Whatever i have no problem with the way the police deal with rljing.


----------



## fossyant (6 Sep 2011)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 44 pages zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Can we have another sub forum like Helmet ones ? Room 101 stuff this


----------



## 2Loose (6 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 44 pages zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> 
> Can we have another sub forum like Helmet ones ? Room 101 stuff this



Just put Apollo there and let him talk to argue with the wall.


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

Ian 74 said:


> Nothing in life is certain... No activity is completely safe 100% of the time... RLJing increase's risk to yourself and other road users/ pedestrians... Unless nobody is about, for all we Know a car could be speeding to the junction but because of the topography we would have no knowledge of this... Hmm Red light seems clear oh, mmm boy I'm in such a rush (thats the point of RLJing isn't it to maintain speed to arrive at ones destination quicker?)
> 
> I guess my point is never discount physics, certain fundamentals are more reliable than the human perception of completely safe.
> 
> For clarification I made my position on RLJing clear earlier in the thread.




this is a good observation, i would add that some red lights would be more dangerous to jump than others based on view etc

could they not turn off some safer red lights late at night like they do with the roundabout ones after peak times?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

1526443 said:


> Sorry did I manage to misunderstand you when you wrote "I nowadays observe lots of rljing and have never seen anyone stopped or any action taken. I may be wrong or it may be different down your neck of the woods."?


Yes so i now know rljing is illegal and
"I nowadays observe lots of rljing and have never seen anyone stopped or any action taken. I may be wrong or it may be different down your neck of the woods."
Whats are you talking about a topic on this forum for. Observe as in i see , with my eyes , when im out on my bike.
Are you deliberately being silly ?


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

1526453 said:


> Different subject for another time.






Turning red lights off at certain times suggestion is sufficiently different to red lighting to regard it as a 'different subject'?


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

1526452 said:


> Nowadays, as in current, as in a period contemporaneous with the other thread about the Police taking action as opposed to your former more innocent life.



Yes yes yes.
*"nowadays* observe lots of rljing" = Nowadays i see lots of rljing when im out.
Please explain your point.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> this is a good observation, i would add that some red lights would be more dangerous to jump than others based on view etc
> 
> could they not turn off some safer red lights late at night like they do with the roundabout ones after peak times?



Very sensible suggestion and worthy of discussion.


----------



## 2Loose (6 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> Turning red lights off at certain times suggestion is sufficiently different to red lighting to regard it as a 'different subject'?



Adhering to the legal road markings compared to ignoring them, I'd say so, yes.

EDIT: Jinx Adrian.


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes yes yes.
> *"nowadays* observe lots of rljing" = Nowadays i see lots of rljing when im out.
> Please explain your point.




please explain what you mean by 'nowadays' would that be days around now? we need clarity on this board, you cannot expect to post a word like 'nowadays' without it requiring further explanation


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

1526459 said:


> I have the option.



Indeed you do.
But for the sake of my sanity try and use it a bit more sparingly.
Thanks


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

1526457 said:


> Yes, if the lights are turned off there is no RL to J.



and therefore a sensible suggestion as an alternative to jumping Rl's at off peak times


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> please explain what you mean by 'nowadays' would that be days around now? we need clarity on this board, you cannot expect to post a word like 'nowadays' without it requiring further explanation


Im off to watch the football.


----------



## Bicycle (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.




I feel honour-bound to cap this thread. I believe the OP asks a trick question.

The RLJ that causes offence to no-one does not exist.

The question cannot therefore be answered.

Even if the offence was in Ankara and the offended party in Anchorage, offence may be caused merely by the jumping of red lights.

Every RLJ offends someone, even if they weren't present.


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Im off to watch the football.



football, is that playing ball with ones foot? is football as obvious as the dogs bollocks?


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Indeed you do.
> But for the sake of my sanity try and use it a bit more sparingly.
> Thanks



you may be asking too much


----------



## Bicycle (6 Sep 2011)

*I feel honour-bound to cap this thread. I believe the OP asks a trick question.

The RLJ that causes offence to no-one does not exist.

The question cannot therefore be answered.

Even if the offence was in Ankara and the offended party in Anchorage, offence may be caused merely by the jumping of red lights.

Every RLJ offends someone, even if they weren't present.

*


----------



## Ian 74 (6 Sep 2011)

1526457 said:


> Yes, if the lights are turned off there is no RL to J.



Bosh... Glad we sorted that out chaps lets have a cup of tea. I'm sure we can find another way of putting ourselves in harms way and maybe even committing an offence in the eyes of the law (I thought she was blind, no thats justice, WE are talking about lady law.... Yes she has eyes, mmm and cameras... mmm). Yes turn the buggers off when they are of no use



.


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

1526467 said:


> If you offered it as an alternative to waiting futilely in the middle of the night, yes I would agree. But it is still not the subject under discussion here.



but this sensible suggestion would disable the need for the topic under discussion


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> *I feel honour-bound to cap this thread. I believe the OP asks a trick question.
> 
> The RLJ that causes offence to no-one does not exist.
> 
> ...




cannot hear yyooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuu


----------



## fossyant (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526449"]
Good idea. RLJing is one of those topics when reading that brings on the same thoughts and feelings of someone about to launch themself off a building into a vat of concentrated HCI - one of utter despair.
[/quote]

Lee I agree. It's one of those hot topics that does not really contribute anything, and in a General forum just distracts and may make potential members run away - this is one big argument - more Pub/P&L style than General - a sub forum might help.

Helmet's sub-forum just keeps itself entertained...ho ho !!


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> Lee I agree. It's one of those hot topics that does not really contribute anything, and in a General forum just distracts and may make potential members run away - this is one big argument - more Pub/P&L style than General - a sub forum might help.
> 
> Helmet's sub-forum just keeps itself entertained...ho ho !!



How dare you


----------



## Ian 74 (6 Sep 2011)

fossyant said:


> Lee I agree. It's one of those hot topics that does not really contribute anything, and in a General forum just distracts and may make potential members run away - this is one big argument - more Pub/P&L style than General - a sub forum might help.
> 
> Helmet's sub-forum just keeps itself entertained...ho ho !!



As a new member I agree +1 and such,where is this helmet?


----------



## Ian 74 (6 Sep 2011)

Hold on you on about helmets compulsion and wot not..... Arrrrghhhhhh. I thought you where referring to a happy satirical place. Humph.


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

Bicycle said:


> *I feel honour-bound to cap this thread. I believe the OP asks a trick question.
> 
> The RLJ that causes offence to no-one does not exist.
> 
> ...



I knew i could rely on an ex motorbike courier to come up with some insightful perspective.
I did not wittingly ask a trick question.
As you point out and as Adrian pointed out on the first page of this topic it seems that rljing offends some in its very existence - even without being present.
However i do not recognise the quality of being offending as something that can direct legislation.
In the same way ;
The sale of pig meat offends some.
The exposure of womens bodies in public offends some.
Smoking offends some.
Pornography offends some.
Alcohol offends some.
All legal despite being offensive.
To warrant legislation imho some substantive harm is necessary.

The only valid reason i can comprehend is ; the concept of maintaining the integrity of the "red light means stop" ideal.
This is fundamental to traffic control and should not be undermined.
Consequently i would not advocate rljing being legalised in any circumstances.
But the proliferation of (in both perception and reality) unnecessary traffic lights fuels the undermining of the "red light means stop" ideal (witness rljing) and i would suggest this undermining be remedied by measures like what david k suggests - turning lights of at peak times etc etc anything to alleviate the burden of unnecessary waiting.


----------



## david k (6 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> But the proliferation of (in both perception and reality) unnecessary traffic lights fuels the undermining of the "red light means stop" ideal (witness rljing) and i would suggest this undermining be remedied by measures like what david k suggests - turning lights of at peak times etc etc anything to alleviate the burden of unnecessary waiting.



but we were told that suggestion has no place here


----------



## apollo179 (6 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526482"]
You're saying that you don't understand the other reasons why cyclists shouldn't jump red lights. Is this true?
[/quote]
Obviously depends on the specific reason in question.
But i mean - the only reason that stacks up as being valid in my understanding is the reason of maintaining the integrity of the red light.
I will take another look at mad@rages list of reasons but i looked before - i looked to find reasons , i did not look with a precondition to dismiss reasons. I found 1 .


----------



## 2Loose (6 Sep 2011)

1 that was missed: Jumping Reds encourages others to jump reds. They not be as safe as you seem to think you are.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2011)

2Loose said:


> 1 that was missed: Jumping Reds encourages others to jump reds. They not be as safe as you seem to think you are.




Do you have concrete evidence for this outrageous claim ?


----------



## fossyant (6 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> How dare you



Gloves down. 

Fancy a hill climb challenge like the old days - we'll forget the pistols.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

2Loose said:


> 1 that was missed: Jumping Reds encourages others to jump reds. They not be as safe as you seem to think you are.



Encouraging others is not sufficient in itself to imho be a valid reason why rljing is wrong.

Its like arguing watching pornography should be wrong wrong because it encourages others to do it. The encouragement aspect is largely a red herring. There needs to be some objective substantial quantative harm. 

Where encouragement (on its own) is an issue that needs to be dealt with you have specific laws to deal with it - laws against incitement (terrorism etc etc)

My criteria for validity are legalistic because if you allow any reason then picking your nose would be illegal because it is offensive.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526490"]
I've occasions where timid-looking cyclists have been waiting at junctions and then followed confident RLJers. Anecdotal, and possibly other explanations, but it looked that way to me.
[/quote]

Rljing isnt wrong because it encourages others to do it.
Rljing is wrong for other reasons.
In the same way speeding is wrong because its going to fast and dangerous , not because it encourages others to speed.


----------



## 2Loose (7 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Do you have concrete evidence for this outrageous claim ?



Not exactly concrete, but even Apollo admitted to originally RLJing because it was common and seemingly not enforced, therefore he knew no better, just followed the herd. An occasional cyclist at work admits to doing it because 'everyone else does'.

Incitement to rlj? lol.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Sep 2011)

david k said:


> this is a good observation, i would add that some red lights would be more dangerous to jump than others based on view etc
> 
> could they not turn off some safer red lights late at night like they do with the roundabout ones after peak times?


San Salvador! Where, if memory serves, the traffic lights were turned off after sunset and the streets reverted to two ways from one-way. Fabulous stuff!


----------



## twobiker (7 Sep 2011)

Two choices , 1, you are waiting at a set of tempoary lights, they are at red, you can see the other set of lights , they are at green ,the set of lights is 20yds apart on a straight section of road, do you go through?. 2, you are at a set of temporary lights, they are at red, the other set of lights is round a bend, out of sight, do you go through ? .


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526497"]
If accurate, it's a negative consequence of the activity, and so a bad thing. You're only relating the activity to risk, and as you've been shown several times it's not just about risk.
[/quote]

I agree that it is a negative consequence of the action but that does not necessarily equate to it being a bad thing on that basis. 
Rljing is wrong but not on the basis that it encourages others.
The encouragement factor is a byproduct of the action - it does not define why it is essentially wrong in the first place.
Anyway lets not get fixated on arguing a silly point.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

twobiker said:


> Two choices , 1, you are waiting at a set of tempoary lights, they are at red, you can see the other set of lights , they are at green ,the set of lights is 20yds apart on a straight section of road, do you go through?. 2, you are at a set of temporary lights, they are at red, the other set of lights is round a bend, out of sight, do you go through ? .



I wait at both.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526499"]
Interesting that you claim only legal criteria and in the same post acknowledge that there's also a risk factor. So that's two. Any more reasons you accept?
[/quote]
Yes - correction - not just legal criteria. 
"does anyone have a *compelling arguement* why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others"
But by compelling arguement i dont mean cos it upsets mr angry.
In questioning the issue beyond "its against the law therefore its wrong" we can examine any arguement but to be compelling for me it needs to convince in a number of ways - legal and social etc etc.
I am considering other reasons.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> I agree that it is a negative consequence of the action but that does not necessarily equate to it being a bad thing on that basis.
> Rljing is wrong but not on the basis that it encourages others.
> The encouragement factor is a byproduct of the action - it does not define why it is essentially wrong in the first place.
> *Anyway lets not get fixated on arguing a silly point.*


oh, come on..................


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

1526495 said:


> Think of it as a cultural thing. The comparison with speeding might help. It is most definitely normal behavior for drivers to exceed speed limits. A policing regime with a tolerance of x%+y over the limit before anything is done serves to encourage it.
> Similarly with RLJING, a widespread tolerance of it breeds a culture IG RLJing. Once the proportion of cyclists ignoring the lights reaches a significant number it becomes the norm. It isn't individuals encouraging others to do it in a literal sense but has the same effect.



Yes.
Its the tolerance that serves to encourage.
Should society choose to tolerate law breaking that undermines the rule of law or should it legislate to its capacity to enforce ?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes - correction - not just legal criteria.
> "does anyone have a *compelling arguement* why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others"
> But by compelling arguement i dont mean cos it upsets mr angry.
> In questioning the issue beyond "its against the law therefore its wrong" we can examine any arguement but to be compelling for me it needs to convince in a number of ways - legal and social etc etc.
> I am considering other reasons.




I would treat a Red Light like a Gun in that it is always loaded even when you know it isn't.

Compelling argument. Have you ever had a chain snap, have you ever had a puncture. These things can happen at any time and usually not at opportune times. Get halfway across the red light and snap a chain. Splat no thinking time left.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526504"]
That kind of nonsensical, dismissive reasoning is why you can't be taken seriously.
[/quote]

Oh dear - i had hoped i was making some progress with you but you seem to have relapsed in jedward behaviour.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Oh dear - i had hoped i was making some progress with you but you seem to have relapsed in jedward behaviour.



Who is Mr Paul mimicking?


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2011)

Claiming that RLJ is bad because it encourages other people to RLJ is like claiming that eating meat is good because it encourages other people to eat meat. Except, no, wait, maybe it's the other way around. Er.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Claiming that RLJ is bad because it encourages other people to RLJ is like claiming that eating meat is good because it encourages other people to eat meat. Except, no, wait, maybe it's the other way around. Er.



Not at all. If people like Apollo (who claimed to have no idea of Road Traffic Law) see the activity they may believe it is acceptable or even legal.


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

Exactly Dan B - its a nonsensical arguement.

I am receptive to valid arguements but the "something is bad because it encourages" arguement is just plain senseless.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Exactly Dan B - its a nonsensical arguement.
> 
> I am receptive to valid arguements but the "something is bad because it encourages" arguement is just plain senseless.



You now know it is illegal so are you saying encouraging illegal activity it good?


----------



## 400bhp (7 Sep 2011)

Is there a point to this thread


----------



## totallyfixed (7 Sep 2011)

Sorry, not read all of this thread so if this reason not to RLJ has been used then apologies, children watching then copying?


----------



## apollo179 (7 Sep 2011)

[QUOTE 1526516"]
If some are encouraged to jump lights because others do then that's a problem.
[/quote]

Yes thats a problem.
But is isnt a valid reason "why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe" etc.
Let me explain.
You are starting off from the premise that it is wrong. It is wrong because it encourages others to do wrong.
The idea is to re evaluate it. Why is it wrong?
Start from a clean slate - not from the starting point it is wrong because it is wrong.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> Yes thats a problem.
> But is isnt a valid reason "why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe" etc.
> Let me explain.
> You are starting off from the premise that it is wrong. It is wrong because it encourages others to do wrong.
> ...



You know why it is wrong. You have had many reasons given to you. You even say that you no longer do it because it is wrong. I seriously am now calling you a :troll:


----------



## roadrash (7 Sep 2011)

because its illegal .....end of


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> Not at all. If people like Apollo (who claimed to have no idea of Road Traffic Law) see the activity they may believe it is acceptable or even legal.


And if people who have no knowledge of nutrition see other people eating meat they may believe it is safe or even healthy


----------



## wiggydiggy (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> And if people who have no knowledge of nutrition see other people eating meat they may believe it is safe or even healthy



I saw 2 dogs humping on the way in this morning, I'll be dammed if I try to mount lassie on the way home later.....


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> And if people who have no knowledge of nutrition see other people eating meat they may believe it is safe or even healthy



I am a vegetarian and even I would question that logic


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> I am a vegetarian and even I would question that logic


Do you not believe that the public consumption of meat (e.g. in restaurants, take aways etc) legitimises the practice in some people's eyes and thus encourages them to think of eating animals as normal?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Do you not believe that the public consumption of meat (e.g. in restaurants, take aways etc) legitimises the practice in some people's eyes and thus encourages them to think of eating animals as normal?



As Veganism or vegetarianism is deemed abnormal then yes.


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2011)

Well, by the logic of "RLJing is bad because it encourages others to RLJ", eating meat where other people can see you must therefore be wrong


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, by the logic of "RLJing is bad because it encourages others to RLJ", eating meat where other people can see you must therefore be wrong



What an "interesting" syllogism. Lets break it down a little shall we.
RLJing is illegal.
Eating meat is not.

Encouraging people to do something illegal is not acceptable.
Encouraging people to do something legal is acceptable.


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2011)

So you agree that if RLJ were not wrong, the fact that it encourages other people to RLJ would not make it wrong?


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> So you agree that if RLJ were not wrong, the fact that it encourages other people to RLJ would not make it wrong?



If RLJ was legalised then I would have no issue with people encouraging others to do it.


----------



## totallyfixed (7 Sep 2011)

Apologies for butting in earlier, just realised this is a private debate


----------



## Dan B (7 Sep 2011)

Angelfishsolo said:


> If RLJ was legalised then I would have no issue with people encouraging others to do it.



Well, there we are then. When you say "it's wrong because it encourages copycat behaviour", it turns out that the copycat behaviour is only a problem because you've already decided that it's wrong for other reasons. 


I would happily concede that we all need to think about the example we set when we indulge in potentially dangerous behaviours that others might copy - but these behaviours might also include filtering, or riding fast, or riding on busy roads, or riding without hi-viz, or even riding bikes at all. Or crossing the road. The only reason you have for singling RLJ out from these others is that you have already decided it is (in general) wrong and they are (in general) not, but you can't use "it encourages copycats" as a reason for it being wrong, because that's simply circular reasoning. Stick with the good reasons (which so far imo are that it reduces your predictability on the road because you're not following the conventions for road use enshrined in law) and consider the copycat issue as merely an intensifying factor


----------



## Angelfishsolo (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, there we are then. When you say "it's wrong because it encourages copycat behaviour", it turns out that the copycat behaviour is only a problem because you've already decided that it's wrong for other reasons.
> 
> 
> I would happily concede that we all need to think about the example we set when we indulge in potentially dangerous behaviours that others might copy - but these behaviours might also include filtering, or riding fast, or riding on busy roads, or riding without hi-viz, or even riding bikes at all. Or crossing the road. The only reason you have for singling RLJ out from these others is that you have already decided it is (in general) wrong and they are (in general) not, but you can't use "it encourages copycats" as a reason for it being wrong, because that's simply circular reasoning. Stick with the good reasons (which so far imo are that it reduces your predictability on the road because you're not following the conventions for road use enshrined in law) and consider the copycat issue as merely an intensifying factor



I have not already decided anything. The law of the land has decided. 

I have singled out RLJing as it is the only item listed that is illegal. I'm sure you already know this however..........


----------



## roadrash (7 Sep 2011)

Dan B said:


> Well, there we are then. When you say "it's wrong because it encourages copycat behaviour", it turns out that the copycat behaviour is only a problem because you've already decided that it's wrong for other reasons.
> 
> 
> I would happily concede that we all need to think about the example we set when we indulge in potentially dangerous behaviours that others might copy - but these behaviours might also include filtering, or riding fast, or riding on busy roads, or riding without hi-viz, or even riding bikes at all. Or crossing the road. The only reason you have for singling RLJ out from these others is that you have already decided it is (in general) wrong and they are (in general) not, but you can't use "it encourages copycats" as a reason for it being wrong, because that's simply circular reasoning. Stick with the good reasons (which so far imo are that it reduces your predictability on the road because you're not following the conventions for road use enshrined in law) and consider the copycat issue as merely an intensifying factor



do you actually believe what you type or are you just playing devils advocate


----------



## PK99 (7 Sep 2011)

apollo179 said:


> The encouragement factor is a byproduct of the action -* it does not define why it is essentially wrong in the first place.*



*It is essentially wrong in the first place because*: 


Roads are by their nature populated by a variety of dangerous vehicles from cycles to juggernauts which put users of other vehicles and pedestrians at risk.

Relative safety is ensured by a system of rules that ensure, among other things, a reasonable degree of predictability as the the likely behaviour of other users: Behaviour within the rules is, in normal circumstances, safe and behaviours outside the rules are less safe and potentially put other users at risk.

Anarchic behaviour by random individuals choosing which rules to obey destroys the predictability and potentially puts road users at higher risk.


ie RLJing is wrong in principle not because it is against the law but because it disrupts the saftey system making the roads more unpredictable and less safe


There is a whole different argument about what rules *should* be set as to priorities and duties of road users at light controlled junctions eg left on red, or flashing amber at night on some junctions. But, whatever new rules emerged from that argument, the point would remain that anarchic behaviours such as RLJing would be outside the safety system


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (7 Sep 2011)

PK99 said:


> ie RLJing is wrong in principle not because it is against the law but because it disrupts the saftey system making the roads more unpredictable and less safe



Whilst you do have a point, I'm not sure whether predictability is always as much of a good thing as your argument paints - familarity breeds contempt and all that


----------



## Moderators (7 Sep 2011)

Closed due to petty squabbling and the 'discussion' going nowhere other than downwards.


----------

