# RLJ’ers... a popular misconception



## rog (27 Nov 2008)

We all know that red light jumpers are either impatient, pushy blokes or scary messenger types right? 

Wrong! 

As the lady in pink will now demonstrate… 

View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fhqC_JafEFY


P.S. this thread is not an attempt to start another debate about RLJ’ing. This girl is clearly an idiot who will very shortly become another statistic…


----------



## jay clock (27 Nov 2008)

I got the impression it was going to be a mumsy type woman. She looked like a serious commuter with a high level of confidence. Too high. Having said that, it seemed that at the fisrt light she could probably see clearly if it was clear. The second one looked dodgier.

I would say that assuming the cam is on your helmet you do not seem to look left or right very much. As you approach light no 2 the Merc and the bus and other cars behind seem to close in on you as you prepare to undertake. You only look to the right very late on...


----------



## spandex (27 Nov 2008)

I think she is just impatient and has a death wish!


----------



## leoc (27 Nov 2008)

Welcome Rog! 




rog said:


> We all know that red light jumpers are either impatient, pushy blokes or scary messenger types right?



I don't think any regular cyclist thinks this, at least in London I see all sorts of folk RLJ and all sorts wait. 

I wait because I don't like having to work out if it's safe or not to do something that unpredictable. I.e I stay calmer if I wait


----------



## BentMikey (27 Nov 2008)

jay clock said:


> I would say that assuming the cam is on your helmet you do not seem to look left or right very much. As you approach light no 2 the Merc and the bus and other cars behind seem to close in on you as you prepare to undertake. You only look to the right very late on...



I'm not sure it's possible to make such assumptions about his looking. Your eyes move a lot more than your head and the camera do, and there's peripheral vision too.


----------



## spandex (27 Nov 2008)

Sorry Roq I missed that you was new


Welcome to CC


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Nov 2008)

What's happened to your avatar spandex?

The eyes used to spin round.


----------



## robz400 (27 Nov 2008)

Anyone else find her very attractive?

I get the impression she'd be great in bed


----------



## mr_cellophane (27 Nov 2008)

Whoa that second one. There could easily have been a car tight up behind that bus.


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Nov 2008)

robz400 said:


> Anyone else find her very attractive?
> 
> I get the impression she'd be great in bed



Fnar Fnar.


----------



## cheadle hulme (27 Nov 2008)

You held a good pace behind that Porsche - very impressive.
I think the second one she was just pi55ed off that you'd cruised past and wanted to prove a point - not sure what point though.
I stayed watching until the end of the clip thinking the light would go green and you'd catch back up at some sort of lightspeed.
Welcome.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Nov 2008)

robz400 said:


> Anyone else find her very attractive?
> 
> I get the impression she'd be great in bed



I would be very interested in the reasoning behind that conclusion!!!!

(Or is "red light jumping" a euphemism for something else?)


----------



## John the Monkey (27 Nov 2008)

The fella who nearly ran into me (he jumped a red without looking to see if anything was coming from the direction I was - fortunately for him I was watching, and was on a bike, not driving a bus, or similar) was an old-ish chap on a black roadster type bike - takes all sorts I suppose.


----------



## Twiggy (27 Nov 2008)

actually, you can clearly see the light was amber red, (hence changing to green). So pretty much all other traffic should be on red by that point. 

I don't brake for amber+red, because I know I'll be just pushing the peddles that much harder in less than two seconds. 

Second set of lights, depends, I might have chanced it if I thought some bloke was following me. 

But in all seriousness, I'd probably have done the first set of lights the same way, though wouldn't have chanced the second set.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (27 Nov 2008)

mr_cellophane said:


> Whoa that second one. There could easily have been a car tight up behind that bus.



She probably could have seen that there wasn't a car behind the bus.......however, there could have easily been another cyclist and if she hit a cyclist at that speed there would have been one big mess!

BTW wasn't that a ped waiting at the first zebra crossing?


----------



## fossyant (27 Nov 2008)

That second one was well dodgy....no way could you/she see past that bus.... hope you caught her up again.....


----------



## Bugner (27 Nov 2008)

Twiggy said:


> actually, you can clearly see the light was amber red, (hence changing to green). So pretty much all other traffic should be on red by that point. quote]
> 
> And that's the thought of the car driver coming across the juction, "lights have only just changed to red, other lights won't be green yet" and you get hit by a RLJ speeding car.
> 
> IMO, just not worth the risk for 5-10 seconds difference


----------



## robz400 (27 Nov 2008)

> I would be very interested in the reasoning behind that conclusion!!!!



She rode that thing with an air of convidence that is rarely seen, especially with a cheeky pink jacket 

I admit the second set of lights was a triffle dodgy but i'd made my mind up by then!!


----------



## gazzaputt (27 Nov 2008)

She's a f*cking idiot and needs to be told so.


----------



## rog (27 Nov 2008)

Afternoon all…

… I guess this post isn’t really about who I think RLJ’ers actually are. Cycling in London means you see all sorts of people doing all sorts of stoopid and dangerous things all of the time. 

What struck me about this incident though (beyond the obvious gender reference) was _the speed_ at which she belted through the second right light – it really took me by surprise. She didn’t look to be in control at all and was heading straight across a very busy junction…

Yes, the camera is mounted on my helmet but it doesn’t give an exact reflection of spaces, distances or movements. Think I need to adjust its position - it’s a very recent purchase and this is the first video I’ve captured. As I go through the second junction though and my head moves to the right, I am literally looking back over my shoulder and so the camera doesn’t pick up the small glances you make (or the sounds of the cars around you).


----------



## Maz (27 Nov 2008)

robz400 said:


> Anyone else find her very attractive?
> 
> I get the impression she'd be great in bed


-1


----------



## Tharg2007 (27 Nov 2008)

i think you were looking at her arse when in fact you should have been looking to see if anyone was waiting at the zebra crossing


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Nov 2008)

rog,what camera was that?

I want a camera on my helmet (fnar fnar) as opposed to mounted on the bike.(fnar fnar)


----------



## Tharg2007 (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> What a load of self righteous bollox. I find it almost funny OP that you were so eager to keep up the cyclist that you failed to stop for the ped at the zebra crossing that you can clearly see leading up to the crossing, whom you should have anticipated for, but did not stop at 0.59. Now we have another vid going about about RLJing, thank you very much!!



er, i just mentioned that.


----------



## 4F (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> What a load of self righteous bollox. I find it almost funny OP that you were so eager to keep up the cyclist that you failed to stop for the ped at the zebra crossing that you can clearly see leading up to the crossing, whom you should have anticipated for, but did not stop at 0.59. Now we have another vid going about about RLJing, thank you very much!!



And also being a pedantic git how about not letting a bus out who was indicating. (not that I would have done either on a bike)
To be fair on the ped crossing as the ped had not started to cross then I believe you don't have to stop. I am sure from memory the rule is that you have to stop once they have started to cross however who would want to start to cross in busy traffic is a different matter.

She clearly was a loony on the 2nd jumped light.


----------



## Tharg2007 (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> So?



so?


----------



## Eat MY Dust (27 Nov 2008)

Tharg2007 said:


> er, i just mentioned that.



If you're going to be like that, I mentioned it first!


----------



## Tharg2007 (27 Nov 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> If you're going to be like that, I mentioned it first!



so?


----------



## Jake (27 Nov 2008)

it is annoying when people rlj, i think its worse when they just mount the pavement cyclce along it, then hop back on the road - as if that makes it ok to go through red lol. just watching the vid now. MY GOD!!! its like her breaks don't work and she cant stop. the 2nd red light, what a moron! it's almost laughable if it wasnt so scary. I guess Dawin will catch up with her. She's the type of person, i guess, who gets squahed by lorries and the like, then (if she were still alive), think why did that happen. NExt time you see her, slap a copy of the highway code in her face.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Nov 2008)

Eat MY Dust said:


> BTW wasn't that a ped waiting at the first zebra crossing?



The pedestrian was not actually on the crossing, so Rog didn't have to stop. It would have been manners and tolerant to stop, but is not required.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah, and while you're at it give one to the OP about Zebra crossings



LOL, the irony of video critique coming from you!


----------



## Eat MY Dust (27 Nov 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The pedestrian was not actually on the crossing, so Rog didn't have to stop. It would have been manners and tolerant to stop, but is not required.



That's kind of why I put the winky in. TBH I think the OP was more interested in catching up with pinky than manners!


----------



## Jake (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yeah, and while you're at it give one to the OP about Zebra crossings



lol - borris should give them out to everyone  i;'ve had my fair share of people walk out into me and accuse me of bad cycling


----------



## rog (27 Nov 2008)

So, just to be clear then Lee. I was in the wrong because I didn't anchor on the brakes for a ped that decided to cross the road just as I got level with him but the girl who hurtled through two sets of reds is fine? 

Bit rich to quote the HC and then go on to justify RLJ'ing in the same post. You cant have it both ways!


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Nov 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, the irony of video critique coming from you!



Will you two get a room?


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Nov 2008)

Wind up.


----------



## Twiggy (27 Nov 2008)

Bugner said:


> IMO, just not worth the risk for 5-10 seconds difference



actually, nearer a minute for rog to catch up, and he's cycling faster overall (as shown by the fact he does catch up)
So in fact the cyclist saved herself over a minute of travel time, by going through on amber+red rather than stopping. 

Though I'd say the second set of lights just seems too risky for my tastes. 

To your point about some driver going through on red, they can just as easily go through on red at any time, you tend to get one or two going through just after the lights change to red, but after that people tend to come to a stop, esp if other drivers are stopped at the lights.


----------



## rog (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> The difference between a RLJ and a zebra crossing is who you have a collision with should the shoot hit the fan. RLJing is more then likely to be a vehicle where as a zebra crossing it will be a ped.



what about the peds who are using the green-man crossing at the second set of lights? do they not count?


----------



## Bollo (27 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Not at all, just annoyed and amused by some of the dumb vids that get posted on here and the perception of bad cycling.
> 
> I just find it ironic that the OP posts a vid of RLJing yet runs through a zebra crossing. Then comes out with some half arsed reply saying that the he was level with the crossing when this clearly is not the case.



Easy to spot when Lee's on a wind-up. Because he's typing.

BUUUUUT - I must admit I raised a bushy greying eyebrow at the zebra crossing bit, and that was before reading on from the OP. I'd hold my hand up to that one Rog (welcome BTW) so we can get on with the matter in hand and Lee can go on his huff ride (which usually happens on Page 7).


----------



## hackbike 6 (27 Nov 2008)

rog said:


> what about the peds who are using the green-man crossing at the second set of lights? do they not count?



Good point.


----------



## ferret fur (27 Nov 2008)

rog, just ignore the troll. sadly even then he still doesn't go away


----------



## ferret fur (27 Nov 2008)

Actually , what _is_ relevant about the ped at the zebra is that while roj is well out into the road,the moron in the pink makes no attempt to move out of the gutter so she would have smacked straight into him had he stepped out.


----------



## ferret fur (27 Nov 2008)

rog, just ignore the troll. sadly even then he still doesn't go away


----------



## rog (27 Nov 2008)

i didnt post this vid to provoke an argument or expect comments on my riding. guess that what happens here though?

i am typically ambivalent to RLJ'ers - i don't have a big axe to grind about it as i ride a lot and see it everyday but this example really shocked me. simple as that really. 

however, i have encountered a lot more dangerous motorists over recent months which is why i bought the camera in the first place!

time to move on eh?


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Nov 2008)

I think of myself as a supremely considerate rider when it comes to pedestrians, but there's no way I would've stopped at that zebra. Face it, the traffic was constant, and when it's like that, the ped's ability to cross is determined by motor vehicles, not by bikes. If the OP had stopped, the ped still wouldn't have been able to cross without being mown down by the Porsche. 

And my take on it, HC nit-picking notwithstanding, is that if the ped has a foot on the crossing, you have to stop, otherwise you don't. As someone said, it would be _nice_, but it's not in any way required...or even expected. If I'd been that ped and a cycle stopped, I think I'd have been more baffled than anything else. (And the Porsche certainly wouldn't have.)

As for the RLJs, the first looked fine to me, the second idiotic.

As for the time it took the OP on what looked a proper racer to catch up with a pick-clad girlie on a hybrid, for shame sir, for shame....


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

Except yours isn't worth very much, mookboy.

The only must is when the ped steps out onto the crossing, and it was obvious they intended to wait with all the motor vehicle traffic doing the same. It's not perfect practice, but it's hardly wrong either.


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

It's not always safe to stop just like that is it?

Depending on whether you have a moton behind you and whether he decides whether he is going to stop,that's if he is paying attention.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

That's where you're wrong, and Hackers is right. I'm sure Hackers does far more forward planning than many.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

Just setting aside the ped on at the zebra crossing, which you & Pink failed to stop for, my take on Pink's riding follows.

RLJ 1: As far as I can see the lights to the left go to red/amber at 00:35 by which time Pink is already close to halfway across the junction. A clear and deliberate RLJ.

RLJ 2: Obviously a clear RLJ but what amazed me was her confidence that there was nothing behind the bus!! Also had that bus stopped without warning she would have hit it square on!

My feelings are that you should stop at red lights(and zebra crossings, end of story.
When I started riding the only vehicles you saw go thru red lights were either the emergency services or hardened crims on the run from the law.

I makes me sad when cyclists wave RLJ-ing about as some sort of extra dividend to make them faster and somehow safer than they'd be if they stopped.

It's an excuse, that's all, the same as you'd get from some SMIDSY motorist with the same idea that it's ok if some of the rules simply don't apply to them.

It is arrogant, selfish and it arms equally stupid motons with yet another excuse to hurl at all cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> The ped was not at the crossing when the woman went through.



Wrong, the ped was right there. It's obv. in the high quality version.

Besides which, the law doesn't require any of the vehicles, the pink girl, the porsche, or the OP to stop until the ped places a foot on the crossing.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Don't talk to me about forward thinking, I use it all the time in my job and my record for both cycling and driving speaks for itself.



*gobsmacked*


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

The ped was at, not on the crossing, you can see him look to his right as he stops, which is a good thing he did or Pink might have ridden into him.


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's where you're wrong, and Hackers is right. I'm sure Hackers does far more forward planning than many.



Thanks for that mikey.


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

Im not going to bother answering a wind up.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

Reposting that isn't going to change that you are wrong. You said Rog broke the law. He didn't, because the must comes only for the ped actually being on the crossing.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Thanks for that mikey.



Praise indeed!


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Because you know there is nothing to answer, I'm right.



No,but because you are trolling.


----------



## goo_mason (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> *Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing*
> 
> *look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross*
> you *MUST* give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing
> ...



Here's one for you Lee, from the Highway Code. Read the bit about what a red light means in this, since you seem keen to quote the Highway Code at others and question what it is about the statements therein that they don't understand.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Because I'm not, the fact that the ped was not on the crossing does not alter the fact that the OP should have slowed down and stopped regardless of what other traffic is doing, and he had more then enough time.



You are wrong, because Rog was not required to stop by law, and you said he was. 

Can't tell from the camera angles, but it looks right in the grey area of whether there was enough time/space to stop or not.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

I think it has been wholeheartedly agreed that one MUST stop if a ped is ON a crossing.
In this circumstance it would have been more courteous for both rog & Pink to have stopped to let the ped cross, depending on the distance of the traffic behind of course.

What the OT is about Lee is just how foolish and potentially dangerous it is to believe you are entirely above the law when it comes to traffic lights.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

Rather than a fine, how about you buy a Red Light Exemption Certificate?
The funds could then go into an insurance policy to cover yourself and anyone you might inadvertently injure?

You Sir are a filthy Braggard. Put your cash away, you can't buy excuses for riding like that.


----------



## dondare (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> I don't think I am above the law at all in respect of RLJing. If I was ever caught I would admit to it and *except* my £30 fine




A Freudian slip, perhaps?
Anyway, a £30 fine is hardly the worst thing that could happen as a result of RLJing. Would you *ac*cept the blame for any accident if you were the only one breaking the law?


----------



## LLB (28 Nov 2008)

Christ that 2nd RLJ was close B) She must absolutely have a death wish as she had no idea what was behind the bus, could have been a car, another cyclist or another bus.

Just strikes me as total arrogance to others on the road. Looking good in a pink outfit is not mitigation for stupidity. She is playing with fire and will get burnt


----------



## dondare (28 Nov 2008)

LLB said:


> Christ that 2nd RLJ was close B) She must absolutely have a death wish as she had no idea what was behind the bus, could have been a car, another cyclist or another bus.
> 
> Just strikes me as total arrogance to others on the road.* Looking good in a pink outfit is not mitigation for stupidity.* She is playing with fire and will get burnt



Perhaps partial mitigation. Should be, anyway.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

The real problem with these discussions is that everyone is working on the basis of how 'potentially' dangerous peoples actions are, thus you'll get those who say how Pink rode was allowable because, as we can see, she gets thru these junctions 'safely'.B)

Just sometimes tho, it is seriously worth remembering that when assessing risk on the roads you should, by rights, be including others that might be effected by your actions.

An insular 'I'm all right Jack' or 'I'm always in control' attitude in any road user is pompous, deluded and expects other road users to be alert and aware of your riding which in the case of RLJ-ing is, IMO, nurturing a deathwish and is bad practice.

If it is alright for a cyclist to RLJ then by rights it should be fine for everyone else to do the same if they decide it is safe to do so?


----------



## nickb (28 Nov 2008)

I can't help feeling that the sad gits riding around with video cameras strapped to themeselves would be gutted if everyone on the road behaved impeccably as they'd be unable to post their holier-than-thou footage up here for all to tut-tut at.

And when did 'red-light-jump' become a verb? 'RLJing' - WTF is all that about?


----------



## LLB (28 Nov 2008)

nickb said:


> I can't help feeling that the sad gits riding around with video cameras strapped to themeselves would be gutted if everyone on the road behaved impeccably as they'd be unable to post their holier-than-thou footage up here for all to tut-tut at.
> 
> And when did 'red-light-jump' become a verb? 'RLJing' - WTF is all that about?



To be fair to them, the cam is to record the very often very near misses not the indiscretions of other where it doesn't affect the author directly.

It is easy to adopt a siege mentality when being threatened on a regular basis thus they feel the need to tool up with a cam.


----------



## ferret fur (28 Nov 2008)

I don't think the OP is being holier than thou. The point about the 2nd RLJ is just how scarily dangerous it is. Even if the light had been green & it had been legal for her to cycle straight on the chances of something following the bus round are pretty high. With the light at red and any following vehicle assuming that nothing should be oncoming it really does qualify for a an attempted Darwin. Everyone on this forum ought to be able to recognise this.

Part of the reason why the troll is such a berk is that this should be a road safety video: It is about someone riding in a way which genuinely jeopardises their own safety. His pathetic attempts to draw attention to the zebra shows that he really just doesn't get it. I wish people would just stop feeding him.


----------



## tdr1nka (28 Nov 2008)

nickb said:


> I can't help feeling that the sad gits riding around with video cameras strapped to themeselves would be gutted if everyone on the road behaved impeccably as they'd be unable to post their holier-than-thou footage up here for all to tut-tut at.
> 
> And when did 'red-light-jump' become a verb? 'RLJing' - WTF is all that about?



Red Light Jump - ing
Red Light Jump - er

Makes abbreviated sense to even the most hardened pedant.B)

FWIW Most that ride with cams are doing so to record instances of dangerous driving by motorised vehicles.
IMO This thread was intended to highlight the fact that jumping red lights 
is not restricted to wannbe couriers on fixies.


----------



## John the Monkey (28 Nov 2008)

nickb said:


> I can't help feeling that the sad gits riding around with video cameras strapped to themeselves would be gutted if everyone on the road behaved impeccably as they'd be unable to post their holier-than-thou footage up here for all to tut-tut at.


I don't ride with a cam, but I'd be over the moon if folk stuck to the law and rode/drove with consideration for others. Having been hit twice this year by impatient drivers (couldn't wait to overtake until it was safe, and couldn't wait to join a roundabout until it was safe, respectively) and had a very close call with an RLJ'ing cyclist recently (he was bloody lucky I was watching his side of the junction, because he wasn't watching mine), I find it hard to describe critique of the selfish twats occupying Britain's roads as "holier than thou".

YMMV, of course.


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (28 Nov 2008)

Is it wrong that I want to know where she got her groovy pink jacket so I can get one? 

*backs out of the room quietly...*


----------



## Bollo (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> Explain why I am a troll?


Because you've admitted it?


----------



## Bollo (28 Nov 2008)

User3143 said:


> No I admitted to some fishing on another thread.


From wikipedia...


"It is thought to be a truncation of the phrase _trolling for suckers_, itself derived from the fishing technique known as trolling."


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

Lee, MUST in the highway code means that the item is law. Should means only advice, not law. You said Rog broke the law. You are this: WRONG.

You should ride on cyclepaths according to the highway code. Are you breaking the law? Same goes for Rog and the crossing. Looks like you've learnt something else new today.


----------



## Twiggy (28 Nov 2008)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> Is it wrong that I want to know where she got her groovy pink jacket so I can get one?
> 
> *backs out of the room quietly...*



Looks simmilar to mine, which I got from aldi. 

Got a whole set of cycling gear from aldi for around £50 total, including shoes. Given I was quoted around £50 just for shoes before, I think it was a pretty good deal.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

the reluctant cyclist said:


> Is it wrong that I want to know where she got her groovy pink jacket so I can get one?
> 
> *backs out of the room quietly...*




LOL, it was rather nice, wasn't it!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (28 Nov 2008)

Wow! - I've not posted on this site before but when/if I put a topic on for discussion I'll make sure to duck once I have. That's my lunchbreak gone just reading this one thread and I haven't even seen the vid because our masters consider 'youtube' one of those dangerous sites that needs blocking so we're not corrupted by subversive views or some such b#llocks. I'm making tea now if anyone wants one.


----------



## HF2300 (28 Nov 2008)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I'm making tea now if anyone wants one.



Just had one, but cheers anyway!


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Nov 2008)

Hi 3bikes - welcome to the board. Now get back to work.


----------



## 4F (28 Nov 2008)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Wow! - I've not posted on this site before but when/if I put a topic on for discussion I'll make sure to duck once I have. That's my lunchbreak gone just reading this one thread and I haven't even seen the vid because our masters consider 'youtube' one of those dangerous sites that needs blocking so we're not corrupted by subversive views or some such b#llocks. I'm making tea now if anyone wants one.



Got any biscuits to go with the tea ?


----------



## Bollo (28 Nov 2008)

One sugar


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Wow! - I've not posted on this site before but when/if I put a topic on for discussion I'll make sure to duck once I have. That's my lunchbreak gone just reading this one thread and I haven't even seen the vid because our masters consider 'youtube' one of those dangerous sites that needs blocking so we're not corrupted by subversive views or some such b#llocks. I'm making tea now if anyone wants one.



No not really mate they probably want you to do some work.


----------



## Tynan (28 Nov 2008)

wow, that second one was appalling, that bus could have been hiding/holding back anything and seh didn;t slow for it at all

either she knows that junction very well indeed or she's mad

ballsy for a bird

always amuses me when peope wear a hi viz top and then put a black rucksack over it

you were tearing along on the second half of the between lights section


----------



## robz400 (28 Nov 2008)

> always amuses me when peope wear a hi viz top and then put a black rucksack over it



Even with a giant black back pack you can see the arms and parts of the back, not to mention the front!!

What an odd mind you have


----------



## the reluctant cyclist (28 Nov 2008)

Quote:*
always amuses me when peope wear a hi viz top and then put a black rucksack over it *


_
Even with a giant black back pack you can see the arms and parts of the back, not to mention the front!!

What an odd mind you have _ 


I agree - I don't think it's a good idea to put the backpack over the high vis - I put my high vis vest onto my backpack - that way everyone can see me more clearly as they point and say "look at that hunchback on a bike"!


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

Lee, you are wrong. That first bullet point you quoted is not backed by law, it is only advisory. You need to read the into to the Highway Code where it's carefully explained how only MUST statements are legal requirements.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236

I'm not sure you're big enough to admit this though.


----------



## soulful dog (28 Nov 2008)

Tynan said:


> ballsy for a bird


Stupid, not ballsy!

I just don't understand why people ride on the road if they're not going to obey the rules of the road. Fair enough it might get you to where you are going a little quicker but I doubt there are many cyclists out there who don't want drivers to show them a little bit more respect than many of them do, so why get other road users backs up by ignoring red lights like that?


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Lee, you are wrong. That first bullet point you quoted is not backed by law, it is only advisory. You need to read the into to the Highway Code where it's carefully explained how only MUST statements are legal requirements.
> 
> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236
> 
> I'm not sure you're big enough to admit this though.




You might as well talk to a brick wall mate.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

Great, you've admitted you're wrong about Rog not actually breaking the law there. As for the rest, yes I agree with you that it's polite and good practice to stop.

I'll leave the debate as to whether he could have stopped easily or only with an emergency full anchor stop for that crossing, since it's hard to tell not being familiar with his particular camera angle. I suspect grey area between the two though.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Nov 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> You might as well talk to a brick wall mate.



Wow, I'm impressed with his latest post, surprised me too. Respect to Lee for admitting he was wrong.


----------



## hackbike 6 (28 Nov 2008)

Thank The Lord.


----------



## Tynan (29 Nov 2008)

robz400 said:


> Even with a giant black back pack you can see the arms and parts of the back, not to mention the front!!
> 
> What an odd mind you have



I base my remarks on seeing it a thousand times in front of me, a cyclist's arms are facing forward in my experience, a rucksack must cover the vast majority of the effective visible area of a top viewed from the rear

I make your comment odd, I presume you wear a rucksack and are being defensive?

oo and I always stop for a ped waiting at a zebra, I understand them to have the right of way there, it seems a bt much to expect them to have to step out in fromt of traffic to assert their right, the vast majority of road users take that approach surely?


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

I have one of those hump covers.


----------



## Tynan (29 Nov 2008)

seen them, look a bit silly (sorry) but they certainly get the job done


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

Ironically in Bangkok I didn't wear Hi-Viz of which I swear to normally.

Oh only once on the first day when I went on the bike tour and we were cycling through the market and the fish market with all those peds.

Well it seemed ok as part of the tour.


----------



## peanut (29 Nov 2008)

only just seen this 
Can't believe the speed she went through the second set of lights . She has got to be on something for sure. There was no way on god's earth you could stop at that speed had there been anything behind that bus. Took a while for you to catch her and she was getting out of the saddle quite a bit to keep in front.

Guess she is a pretty experienced cyclist .( I typed cycletits there by misatke 

Thats a good bit of video editing and belated welcome to the madhouse .


----------



## rog (29 Nov 2008)

nickb said:


> I can't help feeling that the sad gits riding around with video cameras strapped to themeselves would be gutted if everyone on the road behaved impeccably as they'd be unable to post their holier-than-thou footage up here for all to tut-tut at.



i would be thrilled if other drivers behaved impeccably towards me and other cyclists...and somewhat shocked and surprised if they did! 

seriously though, after two and half years of commuting into London, I found that the no of 'incidents' i've been caught-up in have recently increased - to a point where i feel i needed some 'extra protection'. plus, the stories posted on this site have clearly proved the value of having access to AV footage if the worst should occur. let's face it, there isn't a whole lot of respect for cyclists out there - either on the road or the way in which we are presented in the media.

i dont think my riding is perfect (as everyone has enjoyed pointing out! ) but i promised myself that when i got the camera, i would record and share incidents involving any other road user - including cyclists. seems only fair


----------



## rog (29 Nov 2008)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Wow! - I've not posted on this site before but when/if I put a topic on for discussion I'll make sure to duck once I have.



tell me about it...! maybe we should change the name of the site to cycle-squabble?


----------



## rog (29 Nov 2008)

Tynan said:


> you were tearing along on the second half of the between lights section



cheers tynan.

its a tricky bit of road as i either can hug the left hand lane all the way to the junction and then try to cross two lanes or traffic or move earlier to the middle of the road and pick-up the pace with the surrounding traffic. typically get up to 25mph+ on this section but eased off in this vid as i knew there was a good chance the lights were gonna change on me...


----------



## Bollo (29 Nov 2008)

rog said:


> tell me about it...! maybe we should change the name of the site to cycle-squabble?



Don't sweat it. Along with helmet debates, cams and RLJing are guaranteed to get the cyclechat tribes shaking our spears, and its not helped by the odd wind-up merchant.

On the subject of speed, can I borrow your legs please mister?


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

*and its not helped by the odd wind-up merchant.*

Where is lee tonight?

*Don't sweat it. Along with helmet debates, cams and RLJing are guaranteed to get the cyclechat tribes shaking our spears,*

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your starter for 10.Which one of those *are* illegal?


----------



## rog (29 Nov 2008)

Bollo said:


> On the subject of speed, can I borrow your legs please mister?



sure, any time! its a simple formula really, just ride longer and harder. particularly up hills. lots of hills...


----------



## tdr1nka (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> *and its not helped by the odd wind-up merchant.*
> 
> Where is lee tonight?
> 
> ...



Shaking our spears?


----------



## hackbike 666 (29 Nov 2008)

*guaranteed to get the cyclechat tribes shaking our spears*

This is funny though.

Do you RLJ bollo?


----------



## Bollo (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> Where is lee tonight?


At counselling hopefully.




hackbike 666 said:


> *Don't sweat it. Along with helmet debates, cams and RLJing are guaranteed to get the cyclechat tribes shaking our spears,*
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Your starter for 10.Which one of those is illegal?


You'll be soooorreeeee!


----------



## Bollo (29 Nov 2008)

hackbike 666 said:


> *guaranteed to get the cyclechat tribes shaking our spears*
> 
> This is funny though.
> 
> Do you RLJ bollo?



Never, but I suspect one or two people on this forum might, the scamps!


----------



## jonesy (29 Nov 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> Shaking our spears?



Spear shaking is OK as long as you wear a helmet.


----------



## Bollo (29 Nov 2008)

rog said:


> sure, any time! its a simple formula really, just ride longer and harder. particularly up hills. lots of hills...



I ride smarter, not harder!


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Nov 2008)

Why not?


----------



## zimzum42 (30 Nov 2008)

Sweet bit of riding by the lady, pretty clear there was nothing behind that bus.

She's not very quick but she's clearly got potential! 

RLJing is great fun in Singapore, the cops don't care and there are some massive junctions, real grit your teeth and go for it stuff...


----------

