# RLJing



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

One of the arguments put forward by people who run red lights on their bikes is that it doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't actually affect the reputation of all cyclists in any way.

I mention this because I was thinking about it as I slowed for a pedestrian crossing on red and the guy crossing was looking at me with what can only be described as terror on his face and was obviously ready to run back the way he came if I didn't stop.

I don't particularly like pedestrians thinking of me in that way.


----------



## summerdays (20 Jan 2016)

I hate it, and the fact it's one of the first things someone will use against you if you say you cycle! But perceptions can really vary. 

A friend who cycles locally and his experiences differ to mine, he thinks lots of cyclist jump lights more than car drivers, but he cycles earlier than me, and slightly different routes. I start further out than him and on the ring road, I'm watching the drivers lights to gauge when I can safely cross, so I'm going to see more car drivers going through a red.


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

I see that all tge time in London. A definite hesitation on green man when cyclists are around. Whether it's justified or not is another matter.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> One of the arguments put forward by people who run red lights on their bikes is that it doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't actually affect the reputation of all cyclists in any way.
> 
> I mention this because I was thinking about it as I slowed for a pedestrian crossing on red and the guy crossing was looking at me with what can only be described as terror on his face and was obviously ready to run back the way he came if I didn't stop.
> 
> I don't particularly like pedestrians thinking of me in that way.


Me either.

Arguments that it doesn't harm perception are utter bullsh1t. I believe the majority of non cycling population in the UK see cyclists as some form of risk, especially at lights. Worse, they see us as numpties.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> One of the arguments put forward by people who run red lights on their bikes is that it doesn't harm anyone and it doesn't actually affect the reputation of all cyclists in any way.


But Aunt Sally, your alternative approach of automatic cameras shooting all red-light jumpers is unreasonable because what about cyclists who need to get through the junction when a trigger detection loop has failed? 

I tend to see London pedestrians don't hesitate even when they have a red man and only rarely when they have a green. Maybe I need to look more threatening 

Oh and I also see far more motorists jump red than cyclists, not that two wrongs make a right but people are far too cowed into expecting ALL road users to RLJ, not only cyclists.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jan 2016)

Id actually go a little further and say that when you tell a person that you meet, that you cycle into work...you can see the life draining from their eyes.

I deal with the provision of workspace across Europe. My work takes me from Iceland to Spain, across Europe into the borders of Asia (plus some of the US).

In 25 years of doing this I am still astounded at the negative attitude that employers, specifically in the UK, really take (rather than publicly take) towards cyclists.

In December 2015 a fairly well know CFO of a very well known institutional investor told my design team that he wasn't prepared to invest any of the project budget towards provisions for "loosers who are too tight to buy a train ticket"

Happy to fit a gym,with showers, laundry and fruit bar... because working out in a gym is cool and aspirational.

How may red light jumpers, pavement riders, over aggressive riders, know it all riders and idiots on bikes...has he met, I wonder.

My guess, not that many.

Such is the power of negative impressions.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> But Aunt Sally, your alternative approach of automatic cameras shooting all red-light jumpers is unreasonable because what about cyclists who need to get through the junction when a trigger detection loop has failed?
> 
> I tend to see London pedestrians don't hesitate even when they have a red man and only rarely when they have a green. Maybe I need to look more threatening
> 
> Oh and I also see far more motorists jump red than cyclists, not that two wrongs make a right but people are far too cowed into expecting ALL road users to RLJ, not only cyclists.


I think the comparrison between red light jumping cars is, whilst accurate...a bit pointless.

We are all part ofbthebcar driving tribe and as such none of us are prepared to accept that we do wrong...even though we know we do.

But most people feel that cyclists are "others". They choose to be a bit weird, a bit different...so they deserve suspicion and besides, they think that, as I'm not one of them (and neither are most my mates) its good banter to join the bandwagon and knock them.

Pointing out that their own tribe is worse and decidedly more dangerous is a waste if time.

Better to lead by example and clean up our own act, untill the perception is that we are more aware, more diligent, more careful and more intelligent.

Perhaps, one day...more cool too.

Which is why I advocate specific licenses for those cycling within large cities. ( not elsewhere...just in large cities, during peak times)

Sorry, edit. When I say cyclist, I mean cycle commuters


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> I tend to see London pedestrians don't hesitate even when they have a red man and only rarely when they have a green. Maybe I need to look more threatening
> 
> Oh and I also see far more motorists jump red than cyclists, not that two wrongs make a right but people are far too cowed into expecting ALL road users to RLJ, not only cyclists.


A pedestrian is allowed to cross on a red man though but that's not the point.

And I accept that motorists RLJ far more than cyclists do (I was almost hit by one on Saturday) but the ped this morning looked at me and looked scared not at the trucks and cars around me (this was on the South Circular so think urban motorway with pedestrian crossings)


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> A pedestrian is allowed to cross on a red man though but that's not the point.
> 
> And I accept that motorists RLJ far more than cyclists do (I was almost hit by one on Saturday) but the ped this morning looked at me and looked scared not at the trucks and cars around me (this was on the South Circular so think urban motorway with pedestrian crossings)


The sensible thing then would be to crash into him and demonstrate that it doesn't hurt as much as a car.

He will then brush himself down and thank you for highlighting that cyclists don;t hurt as much and less likely to kill as cars.

Although don't go and kill him, that would be annoying.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> The sensible thing then would be to crash into him and demonstrate that it doesn't hurt as much as a car.
> 
> He will then brush himself down and thank you for highlighting that cyclists don;t hurt as much and less likely to kill as cars.
> 
> Although don't go and kill him, that would be annoying.


Mmm, might damage the bike though. And I have a feeling that 240lbs of cyclist might hurt a bit although not as much as a car.


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Mmm, might damage the bike though. And I have a feeling that 240lbs of cyclist might hurt a bit although not as much as a car.


YFB!!!!!


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> YFB!!!!!


Hey I'm in the green bit on most weight graphs I'll have you know. On some of them I count as slightly overweight.


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Hey I'm in the green bit on most weight graphs I'll have you know. On some of them I count as slightly overweight.


....America?? Or are you 8' 6"??


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> ....America?? Or are you 8' 6"??


6'6" so Banner Health says the upper limit for my ideal healthy weight is 235lbs. I was at 236lbs last Thursday.


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> 6'6" so Banner Health says the upper limit for my ideal healthy weight is 235lbs. I was at 236lbs last Thursday.


Ah, apologies.

YTB!!!!!


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Jan 2016)

We may be closing in on an alternative explanation for the pedestrian's look of terror.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Ah, apologies.
> 
> YTB!!!!!


Someone will be along with the photo again shortly.

But we digress.......


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Someone will be along with the photo again shortly.
> 
> But we digress.......


Oh, yes, I remember.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> But most people feel that cyclists are "others". They choose to be a bit weird, a bit different...so they deserve suspicion and besides, they think that, as I'm not one of them (and neither are most my mates) its good banter to join the bandwagon and knock them.


I do sometimes speculate that this is part of the reason why I don't get regarded with terror often any more. In Norfolk or Cambridge, people probably know tons of cyclists anyway. Elsewhere, I just look like an ordinary person who happens to be riding a bike instead of walking. Conversely, I'd probably look with suspicion if something looking like @martint235's current avatar rode towards me 



martint235 said:


> A pedestrian is allowed to cross on a red man though but that's not the point.


Indeed and I don't say otherwise. Ability of bikes to cross on red men/bikes is about all that makes certain cycle tracks worth using - it's still nicer/easier if people crossing look and cooperate with other road users instead of stepping out without looking. Nevertheless, I've not hit one yet AFAICR


----------



## Drago (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> ...and it doesn't actually affect the reputation of all cyclists in any way.


I would suggest that this is the first thing many cycle haters point to when moaning about bicyclists.

It's unlawful, it gives ammo to the bike haters, and it's un-necessary.


----------



## Bazzer (20 Jan 2016)

I hate seeing it, whether as a motorist or cyclist, but sadly I think the general perception is all cyclists RLJ.

A couple of weeks ago on the radio programme I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, Jack Dee did his usual opening by making comical references to the area from where the programme was broadcast. One of the references was to someone who was colour blind and couldn't tell the difference between red and green. The punchline was, these days we call them cyclists.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> I would suggest that this is the first thing many cycle haters point to when moaning about bicyclists.
> 
> It's unlawful, it gives ammo to the bike haters, and it's un-necessary.


Yeah but almost all of the people who do it aren't reading this, so WTF does anyone expect the likes of me to do about it?


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> Yeah but almost all of the people who do it aren't reading this, so WTF does anyone expect the likes of me to do about it?


Quite often you'll get someone along to defend it on the basis it doesn't harm anyone and that it doesn't have any effect on the general perception of cyclists. It appears they are on holiday or locked up or something today.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Quite often you'll get someone along to defend it on the basis it doesn't harm anyone and that it doesn't have any effect on the general perception of cyclists. It appears they are on holiday or locked up or something today.


Oh OK. I'll keep on rejecting the concept of lumping all cyclists together as as nonsensical as lumping all motorists together and refusing to build any more motorways until Michael Carroll gets a full driving licence because that means probably all motorists are unlicensed.


----------



## derrick (20 Jan 2016)

I wonder if we had some of these guys over here it would help.


----------



## jonny jeez (20 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> Yeah but almost all of the people who do it aren't reading this, so WTF does anyone expect the likes of me to do about it?



Spread the word. When you meet other cyclists, be resolute in your disapproval, when you talk to potential cyclists, tell them how it damages perception and when you meet non cyclists tell them how you despise those that do it.

it all helps...slowly.


----------



## derrick (20 Jan 2016)

Who are these two going to catch.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

derrick said:


> Who are these two going to catch.


They appear to have those horns that Argos used to sell in the 1980s where you got to pick the noise


----------



## Lonestar (20 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Id actually go a little further and say that when you tell a person that you meet, that you cycle into work...you can see the life draining from their eyes.



Yup,then it's more dangerous to cycle so they won't do it/road tax/insurance/cyclists area menaces/criminals/helmet cam/red light jumping discussion which has been done a million times before and I end up defending the motorist because my brain turns to jelly.


----------



## sidevalve (20 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> But Aunt Sally, your alternative approach of automatic cameras shooting all red-light jumpers is unreasonable because what about cyclists who need to get through the junction when a trigger detection loop has failed?


Sorry not a real argument is it ? IF a cyclist has to wait for too long [yes all lights will eventually 'serve' all approaches] he can always just jump off and [OH SHOCK HORROR !!!] walk through the junction [just imagine having to use your feet for walking ?!!].


Markymark said:


> The sensible thing then would be to crash into him and demonstrate that it doesn't hurt as much as a car.
> 
> He will then brush himself down and thank you for highlighting that cyclists don;t hurt as much and less likely to kill as cars.
> Assuming it isn't one of those annoying 'old people' or stupid children who don't have the right to cross the road at all and suffers severe injury [dashed inconvenient that]. Clearly you as a VEHICLE [yes you are, get over it ] ALWAYS have right of way.
> ...


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Sorry not a real argument is it ? IF a cyclist has to wait for too long [yes all lights will eventually 'serve' all approaches] he can always just jump off and [OH SHOCK HORROR !!!] walk through the junction [just imagine having to use your feet for walking ?!!].


What on earth are you blathering on about?


----------



## Dogtrousers (20 Jan 2016)

There's a narrow railway bridge protected by a light here. The last couple of times I've gone that way, fairly early in the morning, no traffic about, I've got bored waiting and jumped the light. Phew, I'm glad I've got that off my chest.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> There's a narrow railway bridge protected by a light here. The last couple of times I've gone that way, fairly early in the morning, no traffic about, I've got bored waiting and jumped the light. Phew, I'm glad I've got that off my chest.


Just you wait until we have quiet, electric HGVs. Then you'll be sorry.......


----------



## Lonestar (20 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Just you wait until we have quiet, electric HGVs. Then you'll be sorry.......



Or old bill.



Dogtrousers said:


> There's a narrow railway bridge protected by a light here. The last couple of times I've gone that way, fairly early in the morning, no traffic about, I've got bored waiting and jumped the light. Phew, I'm glad I've got that off my chest.



Camera fingy on top...yes I know it isn't a camera but I sometimes shine my light @ it and it seems to work down Sumner Street near Blackfriars Bridge and Cannon Street (That one is now lying upside down).Whether it works during the day is debatable.


----------



## martint235 (20 Jan 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Or old bill.
> .



Bet mine shows up before yours


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Just the usual anti-cyclist stuff.


Ah, ok. I really did try and read it.


----------



## Ciar (20 Jan 2016)

Oddly enough in my part of London which is the East section, whenever peds are at a crossing they always give me a similar look of terror or is it concern that i'm going to jump them, even though i think i'm clearly stopping :/

Worse part is when another cyclists keeps on going straight through the red light, not even at speed as if it's their god given right and lots do it, makes me look a right daffodil. only time anyone has ever mentioned anything to me about other cyclists is the below incident, which made me chuckle.

Cyclist jumps lights at the top of Leytonstone high road by McD's, guy on motorbike pulls up and i quote, he gives you lot a bad name, i then said really because you were right behind him using the cycle lane to get to the lights, he was to say the least slightly embarrassed and didn't want to argue the point ;-)


----------



## Markymark (20 Jan 2016)

Ciar said:


> Cyclist jumps lights at the top of Leytonstone high road by McD's


First drive-thru in the country that was.


----------



## Lonestar (20 Jan 2016)

Ciar said:


> Oddly enough in my part of London which is the East section, whenever peds are at a crossing they always give me a similar look of terror or is it concern that i'm going to jump them, even though i think i'm clearly stopping :/



There's a look of terror on my face when I see a PED in London because half the time I haven't got a clue what ridiculous trickery they are going to get up to next.They are also more invisible at night than the general cyclist but still cross at ridiculous places or take silly risks.Bit like Addlescum Lee really.So I would guess not every road user is perfect.

Reminded me.I want a more reflective jacket for going out and about in.


----------



## Mile195 (20 Jan 2016)

Absolutely not condoning it in any way. However, I can't help feeling there would be less inclination to do it in the first place if there weren't so many pointless ones. I live 20 miles from where I work and there are 98 sets of traffic lights between the two. Some are very necessary. Many are very necessary at certain times of day, but there's definitely a few that seem to have been put there simply to use up some budget...

The futility of waiting for a green light at midnight, at the junction to a supermarket car park which closed at 10pm must surely have been felt by others besides myself.

Just to be clear though, I agree that it still doesn't make it right.


----------



## Drago (20 Jan 2016)

derrick said:


> I wonder if we had some of these guys over here it would help.


The village people?


----------



## StuartG (20 Jan 2016)

Of course cyclists jump lights more than motorists - myths prove it.

But let's look at it again. Suppose the propensity to RLJ was the same for a motorist and a cyclist. Let us say it is 30% (you can do the same math if you would prefer another number). 

Ten cyclists and ten motorists hit a light turning red. 30% of the cyclists go through. Simples.
Or put it another way the chance of no cycles going through is .7 to power 10 or very, very small to anybody without a calculator. In other words at a busy junction it is almost certain that at least one cyclist will go through if the figure was that high.

There is a 70% chance of the first car stopping. If it stops no cars behind will go through.
There is a 30% chance of at least one car going through, 9% of two cars going through etc

Actually the flattened pedestrian probably isn't counting. The first is enough. So it looks on these assumptions that cyclists are way over 3 times as likely to jump as a motorist (when the real intention is the same). So cyclists are mostly bad boys aren't they? But the observable result its just that in practice any good cyclist (the majority) cannot stop the rot of bad cyclists. It takes only one good motorist to stop the rot of bad motorists.

I know the model above is a bit simplistic but the principle is there. Cyclists have to be hugely more law abiding than motorists before we would see parity in cycles and motors crossing the stop line. If they are only twice as law abiding they will still look bad as a group.


----------



## mjr (20 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> What on earth are you blathering on about?


@sidevalve is failing to detect sarcasm being used to point out a flaw in the OP. 



Lonestar said:


> There's a look of terror on my face when I see a PED in London because


No need to be scared of the sight of performance-enhancing drugs - just don't take them.

And finally, I can't find on-duty pictures (I guess people are scared to photograph police since a few well-publicised heavy-handed responses) but here's some of Norfolk Constabulary (and friends, probably) off-duty:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fUO486xmZM


----------



## summerdays (20 Jan 2016)

StuartG said:


> Of course cyclists jump lights more than motorists - myths prove it.
> 
> But let's look at it again. Suppose the propensity to RLJ was the same for a motorist and a cyclist. Let us say it is 30% (you can do the same math if you would prefer another number).
> 
> ...


Your model assumes the 2nd motorist doesn't go around the first especially when there is more than one lane or the road is wider which I've seen happen, and the 2nd motorist following the first is a common occurrence.


----------



## StuartG (20 Jan 2016)

summerdays said:


> Your model assumes the 2nd motorist doesn't go around the first especially when there is more than one lane or the road is wider which I've seen happen, and the 2nd motorist following the first is a common occurrence.


Yes I said it was a simplistic model. Here in London the ability and space to go around is very limited in commuting time. Cars are very, very effective at holding each other up. That's what thy do. Cycles very much less so. YMMV but not by too much methinks.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Such is the power of negative impressions.



Such is the power for the hard of thinking.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Jan 2016)

StuartG said:


> Of course cyclists jump lights more than motorists - myths prove it.
> 
> But let's look at it again. Suppose the propensity to RLJ was the same for a motorist and a cyclist. Let us say it is 30% (you can do the same math if you would prefer another number).
> 
> ...



That's actually a very good way of explaining it (I guess to maths bores like me).

What we really should say that perhaps people don't differentiate (change behaviour to) red light jumping by the mode of transport they operate.


----------



## robjh (20 Jan 2016)

RLJ (or perceptions of RLJ) by cyclists and drivers tend to be two different behaviours. Considerable numbers of drivers pass red lights just after they have changed, but this phenomenon lasts only a few seconds after the lights change. Almost no drivers, on arriving at an already-red light, will proceed straight through it.
Some cyclists may also do the first type, but this is not the RLJ that gets noticed - that is the second type, which is almost unique to cyclists. Now we all know that it is practised by only a small minority, but it stands out as car drivers do not do it.
Any comparisons of the % of RLJ by each group are fairly meaningless if this basic difference is not taken into account.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jan 2016)

Local roundabout has frequent red light jumping, by drivers. Often long after they've gone to red.
As cyclists we lack that same power , and protection, to get us through most red lights.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2016)

classic33 said:


> Local roundabout has frequent red light jumping, by drivers. Often long after they've gone to red.
> As cyclists we lack that same power , and protection, to get us through most red lights.


Same here, especially for the A47 eastbound to A149 northeastbound movement  Look before you pull out, even on green, just like good instructors teach.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

When I drive and slow down at a zebra crossing waiting for the person to cross, I start cursing "why the hell isnt this guy crossing already?" but then it occurs to me that he's looking out for his own safety because many car/van drivers do not stop at zebra crossing or red lights.

@op: I think you gave that guy a good pression of a cyclist stopping when required and put a positive image of us in his head. (Later I will go out and undo the good you have done )


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I think the comparrison between red light jumping cars is, whilst accurate...a bit pointless.
> 
> We are all part ofbthebcar driving tribe and as such none of us are prepared to accept that we do wrong...even though we know we do.
> 
> ...



I agree with most of your opinion .

Except that bit about licenses.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> First drive-thru in the country that was.


I went there on my bike and the lady told me I'm not allowed to be there on my bike.


----------



## benb (21 Jan 2016)

I don't condone RLJ, but it is blown out of all proportion to the actual harm.

Yes, some cyclists RLJ, but they KSI almost no-one doing so.
Some motorists RLJ, and KSI hundreds.
The same offence, but only one group is posing significant harm to others. 
Yet for some reason, the RLJ by cyclists is perceived as more widespread and as more of a problem than RLJ by drivers.

I was lucky enough to cycle in Paris last year, and they allow cyclists to treat certain reds as give way (where you don't cross another lane, so right turns (left in the UK) or straight on where a road is joining from the left (joining from right in the UK)). 
It works very well, and I wish politicians in the UK would have the stones to implement something similar.


----------



## martint235 (21 Jan 2016)

benb said:


> I don't condone RLJ, but it is blown out of all proportion to the actual harm.
> 
> Yes, some cyclists RLJ, but they KSI almost no-one doing so.
> Some motorists RLJ, and KSI hundreds.
> ...


Using KSI figures does not show up the fear it obviously instils in pedestrians as I witnessed. That is harm I believe.

It's true that the perception is that it's more widespread than with drivers but that's not going to get any better by just allowing it to continue.

FWIW, in my neck of the woods the perception of drivers jumping red lights seems to be increasing, it's even becoming a topic of conversation and is a valid response in a pub debate to "all cyclists jump reds". It used to just get waved away by other participants but now I find people saying "Yeah you're right. Only the other day a car jumped a red right in front of me" etc. It's a start.


----------



## Nibor (21 Jan 2016)

I recently on a Sunday morning got stuck at a red light which wouldn't respond to me so I dimounted and walked around it rather than running it.


----------



## benb (21 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Using KSI figures does not show up the fear it obviously instils in pedestrians as I witnessed. That is harm I believe.



Yes, I agree that is also harm.
But it's still massively less harm than that inflicted by drivers, which goes either unnoticed or unremarkable.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, but it's massively less of a problem than that posed by drivers and is completely blown out of proportion.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Jan 2016)

If the lights are not at a junction, and there are no pedestrians, and there is only a taxi driver to see it - is it RLJing?


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

mustang1 said:


> I agree with most of your opinion .
> 
> Except that bit about licenses.


Yes, that last bit tends to split opinion but its really not as weird as it sounds.

A trained, card carrying, fully licenced rider, entering a city with full knowledge and understanding...would be better qualified than the other road users.

Plus, we could police riders who break the terms of their licence and throw the off of city roads.

If nothing else, it would remove an argument that city cyclists are a law unto themselves, may even earn us some respect.


----------



## Tim Hall (21 Jan 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Or old bill.
> 
> 
> 
> Camera fingy on top...yes I know it isn't a camera but I sometimes shine my light @ it and it seems to work down Sumner Street near Blackfriars Bridge and Cannon Street (That one is now lying upside down).Whether it works during the day is debatable.


Correct, it's not a camera. Incorrect, shining your light has no effect on it. It's a doppler radar, which detects things moving towards it, such as a car, bus or in your case, bike.


----------



## Tim Hall (21 Jan 2016)

derrick said:


> I wonder if we had some of these guys over here it would help.


Police uniforms by Tom of Finland.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> we could police riders who break the terms of their licence and throw the off of city roads.



Who's we?

Sorry Jon, this is such a crap idea that it's laughable. Who would administer and pay for it. It's a one way street to stopping people cycling, and that is a bad thing.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> A trained, card carrying, fully licenced rider, entering a city with full knowledge and understanding...would be better qualified than the other road users.


Better qualified doesn't mean better behaved! Some of the worst city riders are trained card-carrying fully licensed racers who won't/can't hold back the racing spirit when in ordinary traffic. They know they shouldn't take chances but do it anyway - just like I'm sure most RLJers know they shouldn't and do it anyway because they're not getting caught... and they still wouldn't get caught to have their licence revoked... and probably wouldn't get caught if they carried on after having their licence revoked, just like loads of unlicensed motorists do for ages.

It also imposes a whole load of admin costs, which I guess cyclists would have to pay - or just give up and start driving into cities, polluting them, which I guess is what you want, so you can have the cycle lanes to yourself? Except it won't be any quicker with the police stopping you to do doing licence checks. 

And what about all the edge cases like children or visitors? It's a crazy unworkable system.

And does anyone really trust government to come up with a sensible cycling test nowadays and not buckle to motoring lobby pressure to make the test or licensing system obnoxious bow-to-Mr-Toad stuff?



jonny jeez said:


> If nothing else, it would remove an argument that city cyclists are a law unto themselves, may even earn us some respect.


No, having cyclists attack other cyclists with crazy ideas like this just diminishes what little respect we currently have. Focus on things that neutralise the effects of the bad road users for the good ones, not on burdening the good ones because there are bad ones.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> Who's we?
> 
> Sorry Jon, this is such a crap idea that it's laughable. Who would administer and pay for it. It's a one way street to stopping people cycling, and that is a bad thing.


Self funding. £60 for a one day cbt, renewable every three years.

As far as stopping cyclists, well...it will help to stop cyclists who don't take it seriously...better that than trying to segregate us..at huge expense and with dubious outcomes.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Self funding. £60 for a one day cbt, renewable every three years.
> 
> As far as stopping cyclists, well...it will help to stop cyclists who don't take it seriously...better that than trying to segregate us..at huge expense and with dubious outcomes.



Sorry Jon, your on a complete wind up here and it's not a very funny one.

And for those that couldn't afford the £60?
And I ask again, who is we? You said 'WE' could police other cyclists.

Stopping cyclists who don't take it seriously? Seriously? That is just elitist.
What about the millions of Boris Bike trips that are taken in London? I would imagine that most of those are not serious cyclists. What would happen to that scheme? 


Bonkers.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> Better qualified doesn't mean better behaved! Some of the worst city riders are trained card-carrying fully licensed racers who won't/can't hold back the racing spirit when in ordinary traffic. They know they shouldn't take chances but do it anyway - just like I'm sure most RLJers know they shouldn't and do it anyway because they're not getting caught... and they still wouldn't get caught to have their licence revoked... and probably wouldn't get caught if they carried on after having their licence revoked, just like loads of unlicensed motorists do for ages.
> 
> It also imposes a whole load of admin costs, which I guess cyclists would have to pay - or just give up and start driving into cities, polluting them, which I guess is what you want, so you can have the cycle lanes to yourself? Except it won't be any quicker with the police stopping you to do doing licence checks.
> 
> ...


I take your point but its not an intention to make life harder...actually easier. Training just helps minimise collisions. Removal of the liscence I what stops bad behaviour. 
I'm sure visitors could sign up to the terms if the licence as part of their. Hire agreement (this one is tricky but I'm sure could be worked out)

No road side stops are needed. Anyone seen breaking the terms of the licence can be stopped (by any law enforcement officer) and identified by their registration...a small flag under the seat, attached to the seatpost...just like all those sportive/audux/triathlon riders sport for months after entering an organised ride.

All pretty simple really. As for cost to the cyclist...£20 a year...my guess is most cyclists spend more than that on compressed air for their tyres....which is free already.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> Sorry Jon, your on a complete wind up here and it's not a very funny one.
> 
> And for those that couldn't afford the £60?
> And I ask again, who is we? You said 'WE' could police other cyclists.
> ...


We...is just society and I agree the word seriously is the wrong one.


----------



## benb (21 Jan 2016)

Well seeing as tested licenced drivers KSI thousands every year, I fail to see what problem cycle licences is trying to solve.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

User said:


> A renewable licence every three years sounds a fine idea but I reckon it would be expensive to put into place for all drivers.


I suppose if the experiment proved to work for cyclists, it could actually roll out to all city road users.

Would certainly aid congestion.

I am half joking in this point.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I take your point but its not an intention to make life harder...actually easier. Training just helps minimise collisions. Removal of the liscence I what stops bad behaviour.
> I'm sure visitors could sign up to the terms if the licence as part of their. Hire agreement (this one is tricky but I'm sure could be worked out)
> 
> No road side stops are needed. Anyone seen breaking the terms of the licence can be stopped (by any law enforcement officer) and identified by their registration...a small flag under the seat, attached to the seatpost...just like all those sportive/audux/triathlon riders sport for months after entering an organised ride.
> ...



Don't forget the cost of the mandatory insurance, helmet replaced on a yearly basis and full head to toe high vis clothing.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

benb said:


> Well seeing as tested licenced drivers KSI thousands every year, I fail to see what problem cycle licences is trying to solve.


The problem of respect. Of not being treated as equals on the road. Of being assumed to be lawless and treated as such, regardless of the evidence.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> We...is just society and I agree the word seriously is the wrong one.



And the rest of my post? Care to answer that?


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> Don't forget the cost of the mandatory insurance, helmet replaced on a yearly basis and full head to toe high vis clothing.


None of those are requirements or proper arguments against.

So far, to me the biggest issue is casual riders, which I admit I don't have an answer to but it doesn't stop me thinking that we can do more to improve the perception.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

Bottom line is Jon. You are putting up barriers that will stop people cycling. And that is wrong, very wrong.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> And the rest of my post? Care to answer that?


Sorry, Ian I thought the other points were answered in the replies prior to this one.

Apologies if they aren't I'm reading this on a tiny phone screen


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Sorry, Ian I thought the other points were answered in the replies prior to this one.
> 
> Apologies if they aren't I'm reading this on a tiny phone screen




What about those that can't afford the fee?
What about the Boris Bike scheme?


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> None of those are requirements or proper arguments against.



If you stop and think about your argument you will find that is not proper or a requirement either. The difference is, I was taking the piss by suggesting cyclists should be forced to have that paraphernalia, when in reality all they need is a bike and a sense of adventure.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> Bottom line is Jon. You are putting up barriers that will stop people cycling. And that is wrong, very wrong.


Well...yes I get that and of course you are right. I don't want to do anything to discourage riding but my intentions are well meant, I am sick of seeing cyclists being treated as some form of second class citizen. I probably see a little more of this than most due to some of the work that I do, which I involves surveying opinion across wide demographics...and I am always saddened at how...even cyclists, look down a little at those who cycle to work


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> And the rest of my post? Care to answer that?





jonny jeez said:


> I take your point but its not an intention to make life harder...actually easier. Training just helps minimise collisions. Removal of the liscence I what stops bad behaviour.
> I'm sure visitors could sign up to the terms if the licence as part of their. Hire agreement (this one is tricky but I'm sure could be worked out)
> 
> No road side stops are needed. Anyone seen breaking the terms of the licence can be stopped (by any law enforcement officer) and identified by their registration...a small flag under the seat, attached to the seatpost...just like all those sportive/audux/triathlon riders sport for months after entering an organised ride.
> ...


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> What about those that can't afford the fee?
> What about the Boris Bike scheme?


Sorry, replied to the wrong post...see above.


----------



## Glow worm (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Sorry, Ian I thought the other points were answered in the replies prior to this one.
> 
> Apologies if they aren't I'm reading this on a tiny phone screen



It's a vision of hell Jon. The kind of thing I'd expect from the Daily Heil.
Taking away the sheer joy of simply jumping on a bike without a care in the world, presumably just to satisfy drivers, seems perverse to me. If anyone told me I needed a licence to ride my bike, I'd tell them where to shove it!


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Sorry, replied to the wrong post...see above.




You haven't. Those that may not be able to afford it?


----------



## benb (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> The problem of respect. Of not being treated as equals on the road. Of being assumed to be lawless and treated as such, regardless of the evidence.



Well if someone hates all cyclists because of the actions of a minority, they are by definition irrational.
So it won't matter a jot what ridiculous schemes you come up with to try and make cyclists appear more respectable, whatever that means. The people that already irrationally hate cyclists will continue to do so.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

Glow worm said:


> It's a vision of hell Jon. They kind of thing I'd expect from the Daily Heil.
> Taking away the sheer joy of simply jumping on a bike without a care in the world, presumably just to satisfy drivers, seems perverse to me. If anyone told me I needed a licence to ride my bike, I'd tell them where to shove it!


Only in cities


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Only in cities




What about big, busy towns?


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> You haven't. Those that may not be able to afford it?


Ok, I get your point, there may be some riders who cycle to work simply as its the most affordable means of getting there.

Perhaps a monthly payment scheme of £1.20. Cheaper than a single coffee.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> What about big, busy towns?


I would say just cities or perhaps "towns" that already have some form of congestion or environmental...control...like congestion charge or pollution zones.

Classification...and control of creep into more urban areas, would be a legitimate concern.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

Sorry got to leave the coffee shop and get back to work.

Happy to hear discussion on this as its something that I think "could" work, and I really welcome objections to kind of test the idea. Will try to reply later.

So far...if I'm right, casual riders and classification are the biggest unknowns

Other than just downright objection to the whole idea, which is fine..its just an idea.

Keep in mind, I do not support licencing riders...just city riders. Think of it as a congestion charge for riders interests in assisting integration and harmony ( that's better than serious ) who wish to enter a city


----------



## Markymark (21 Jan 2016)

Drivers hate cyclists because we slow them down.

We could have licenses, insurance, helmets and anything else you can dream of. We'll still be hated. Nothing will change.

Might as well forget the silly ideas and just ignore them.


----------



## martint235 (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Anyone seen breaking the terms of the licence can be stopped (by any law enforcement officer) and identified by their registration...*a small flag under the seat,* attached to the seatpost...just like all those sportive/audux/triathlon riders sport for months after entering an organised ride.
> .


So I need 5 of these? One for each bike. I assume they are not easy to remove because then there'll be a black market in stolen flags within days (if not hours in London)


----------



## ianrauk (21 Jan 2016)

I say again.. sorry to repeat myself.

It's a barrier to stop some people cycling where in fact we want to do the opposite.

How about a better idea of if you drive a car or will be taking a test, you have to ride a bike in the city for 3 months first.


----------



## benb (21 Jan 2016)

I fail to see how a driver, having been of the opinion that all cyclists are self-gratification artists, will become disabused of this opinion due to the presence of cyclists licences.

In other words, it's a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## si_c (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> The problem of respect. Of not being treated as equals on the road. Of being assumed to be lawless and treated as such, regardless of the evidence.



I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that any of these problems would be solved with a licensing scheme for cyclists. Far better would be a scheme to better educate the minority of road users that we have a right to be on the road regardless of their wishes otherwise.

Licensing is a red herring and which would only serve to raise a barrier to cycling on the roads for people who have every right to be there, whilst satiating the dog-whistles of narrow minded, ill informed cockheads. Evidence would suggest that adding these barriers (mandatory helmet laws) diminish the prevalence of cycle commuting.

In addition to the cost (which for me would be non-significant) which may be non-trivial to some people, particularly those on a limited income, how would you decide who requires this? Would children under the age of 16 need a license? How about under 10s? Would you need one if using a cycle path that merges with a main road?

I could go on.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Jan 2016)

Pedestrianise city centres.

End "problem".


----------



## Dogtrousers (21 Jan 2016)

si_c said:


> satiating the dog-whistles of narrow minded, ill informed cockheads.


I just wanted to quote this bit because I liked it.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Jan 2016)

@jonny jeez Maybe worth a read http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> @jonny jeez Maybe worth a read http://ipayroadtax.com/licensed-to-cycle/licensed-to-cycle/


Thanks. really interesting Just dipped in a read the first few paras, seems to be reflecting the discussion that we are all having too...so far.

I shall take a good look next week, packing for a ski trip to the alps tonight, so cycling shall be far from my thoughts for a week.

thanks for the link.


----------



## Andrew_P (21 Jan 2016)

lol it even happens to me at the pedestrian lights outside Redhill station, I assume London commuters they watch me with a mixture of distain and anticipation that I am going to plough straight through


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> So I need 5 of these? One for each bike. I assume they are not easy to remove because then there'll be a black market in stolen flags within days (if not hours in London)


That's a good point...perhaps yes, I would guess its uncommon for most commuters to have more than two commuter bikes....maybe even more than one.


----------



## Milkfloat (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I shall take a good look next week, packing for a ski trip to the alps tonight, so cycling shall be far from my thoughts for a week.



There is always a way.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

si_c said:


> Would children under the age of 16 need a license? How about under 10s? Would you need one if using a cycle path that merges with a main road?
> 
> I could go on.



I cant see why an under 16 or under 10 year old would be cycling in a city during the rush hour? remember, this a city specific licence, for rush hour riding, not a general thing.

As for the merge, well, yes if the lane is in a city...for exactly the reason that, the pointless segregation solutions always need to merge eventually.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I shall take a good look next week, packing for a ski trip to the alps tonight, so cycling shall be far from my thoughts for a week.


Have you got your ski licence?



jonny jeez said:


> I cant see why an under 16 or under 10 year old would be cycling in a city during the rush hour?


Going to school?


----------



## martint235 (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> That's a good point...perhaps yes, I would guess its uncommon for most commuters to have more than two commuter bikes....maybe even more than one.





User said:


> Really? Not a summer commuter, a winter commuter, and a Brompton?


In summer particularly I just tend to pick one. Even in winter Lelly, commuter and MTB are interchangeable and all have been out since the beginning of Dec


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Yes, that last bit tends to split opinion but its really not as weird as it sounds.
> 
> A trained, card carrying, fully licenced rider, entering a city with full knowledge and understanding...would be better qualified than the other road users.
> 
> ...



So here's the thing about bike RLJ: if there's a pedestrian crossing, about to cross, or anywhere near traffic lights, the cyclist should stop just in case pedestrian decides to cross. Once it's all clear, I see no reason why a cyclist shouldnt continue. Part of the appeal of cycling is a lack of obstacles preventing forward progress. I'm all for laws that allow turning-left on red and Idaho stops for example. These laws would not have come about if cyclists didn't bend the law in the first place (must have got govt thinking that it may be a good idea to bring laws up to date).

If we want to not RLJ just to make motorists happy, well, ya know, screw the motorist. I respect motorists, allow them to get in front if its obvious they will make good progress, always wave a thank you when letting me go etc. Putting myself out to please the motorist isn't my thing. 

Edit: spelling mistake and a few additional words at the end.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I take your point but its not an intention to make life harder...actually easier. Training just helps minimise collisions. Removal of the liscence I what stops bad behaviour.
> I'm sure visitors could sign up to the terms if the licence as part of their. Hire agreement (this one is tricky but I'm sure could be worked out)
> 
> No road side stops are needed. Anyone seen breaking the terms of the licence can be stopped (by any law enforcement officer) and identified by their registration...a small flag under the seat, attached to the seatpost...just like all those sportive/audux/triathlon riders sport for months after entering an organised ride.
> ...



I wish you all gave me £20/year just for the heck of it because, well y'all spend more money than that on bike parts anderm, coffee. And clonthes. Oh and er stuff.


----------



## benb (21 Jan 2016)

But why? You need to provide some evidence that:
1) there is a significant problem that needs addressing, and
2) that cycle licences are the best way of addressing #1

It seems rather obvious that cycle licencing would not only be expensive and virtually impossible to enforce, but it wouldn't solve any problem, and would discourage people from cycling - which we don't want to do, no matter how "not serious" they are.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> The problem of respect. Of not being treated as equals on the road. Of being assumed to be lawless and treated as such, regardless of the evidence.


There is no problem with respect. Those licenced car drivers abuse not only cyclists but other drivers too road rage was a problem with licenced drivers long before cycling became popular.


----------



## Mile195 (21 Jan 2016)

benb said:


> But why? You need to provide some evidence that:
> 1) there is a significant problem that needs addressing, and
> 2) that cycle licences are the best way of addressing #1
> 
> It seems rather obvious that cycle licencing would not only be expensive and virtually impossible to enforce, but it wouldn't solve any problem, and would discourage people from cycling - which we don't want to do, no matter how "not serious" they are.


...And plus, I understand it's already been done. I remember reading somewhere that they did it in Switzerland in the 1960s. I forget the details but obviously they axed it in the end. Presumably because it turned out to be unworkable.


----------



## mustang1 (21 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Drivers hate cyclists because we slow them down.
> 
> We could have licenses, insurance, helmets and anything else you can dream of. We'll still be hated. Nothing will change.
> 
> Might as well forget the silly ideas and just ignore them.





si_c said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that would suggest that any of these problems would be solved with a licensing scheme for cyclists. Far better would be a scheme to better educate the minority of road users that we have a right to be on the road regardless of their wishes otherwise.
> 
> Licensing is a red herring and which would only serve to raise a barrier to cycling on the roads for people who have every right to be there, whilst satiating the dog-whistles of narrow minded, ill informed cockheads. Evidence would suggest that adding these barriers (mandatory helmet laws) diminish the prevalence of cycle commuting.
> 
> ...


I agree. 

And to add, licenced drivers who do not see licenced motorcyclists, or who drink and drive, didn't need additional locenses, bit an awareness campaign. 

Following this, cyclists arent the ones who require licensing, its the drivers who require an awareness campaign.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

benb said:


> But why? You need to provide some evidence that:
> 1) there is a significant problem that needs addressing, and
> 2) that cycle licences are the best way of addressing #1
> 
> It seems rather obvious that cycle licencing would not only be expensive and virtually impossible to enforce, but it wouldn't solve any problem, and would discourage people from cycling - which we don't want to do, no matter how "not serious" they are.


Again...not cycle licencing...city licencing.


----------



## jonny jeez (21 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> Going to school?



Fair point, hadn't considered that. So an age limit could apply I guess.


----------



## theclaud (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Fair point, hadn't considered that.



Confirmation, if it were needed, that we may treat your suggestion with all the seriousness it deserves.


----------



## hennbell (21 Jan 2016)

I routinely run into a rural four way stop, in the UK it would be replaced by a roundabout. Clear sight lines for a mile in each direction. If there are any other vehicles I come to a complete stop if is just me I cautiously continue on my way. I don't consider my actions unsafe.


----------



## newfhouse (21 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Which is why I advocate specific licenses for those cycling within large cities. ( not elsewhere...just in large cities, during peak times)


WTF?


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Jan 2016)

theclaud said:


> Confirmation, if it were needed, that we may treat your suggestion with all the seriousness it deserves.


Who is "we"...

You, perhaps some. Or are you suggesting that you speak on behalf of the entire internet?

If so, then do "we" really think its possible to have thought of everything, on every point and if so...do "we" stop asking for input when we decide we are right.
Perhaps we need to be a little less sanctimonious.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Jan 2016)

Those who want licences for cyclists are usually those least able to spell licence.


----------



## benb (22 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Again...not cycle licencing...city licencing.



My arguments against this scheme are still perfectly valid.

1. What problem are you trying to solve?
2. How are city cycle licences the best way to solve #1?
3. What negative consequences will there be (ie discouraging people from cycling) and are they bad enough to make the scheme not worth it even if you have demonstrated #2?

Again, this would be expensive, unworkable, unenforceable, wouldn't solve any problems but would cause some.


----------



## theclaud (22 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> *Who is "we"...*
> 
> You, perhaps some. Or are you suggesting that you speak on behalf of the entire internet?
> 
> ...



Your readers on this thread. I am one of them. Hence the perfectly legitimate 'we'. The subtext about the response_ I_ think your suggestion deserves will not be lost on you. Others, of course, remain free to furrow their brows and give it lengthy consideration (assuming they have finished sorting their allen-bolts into M-size order and rearranging the pebbles in their driveway to achieve the most pleasing gradation of shades). Is it possible to be any more touchy?

I don't mind entertaining the odd obviously-barmy idea, on the offchance that it might throw up something interesting, but barmy _and _half-baked is a step too far.


----------



## Markymark (22 Jan 2016)

It seems I should be paying to stop people hating me. 

In case you hadn't guessed I couldn't care less if people hate me or not. In fact annoying people amuses me.


----------



## ianrauk (22 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> It seems I should be paying to stop people hating me.
> 
> In case you hadn't guessed I couldn't care less if people hate me or not. In fact annoying people amuses me.




People only hate you in the Cities or so it seems.


----------



## benb (22 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> In fact annoying people amuses me.


In which case you must be ecstatic!


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Jan 2016)

ianrauk said:


> People only hate you in the Cities or so it seems.


I guess I can always make an exception.


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Jan 2016)

User said:


> You were speaking for "we" yesterday.


On behalf of society and as Ian pointed out, I was wrong to do so. However, I wasn't attempting to represent cyclchat or other members opinions.


----------



## martint235 (22 Jan 2016)

User said:


> In the great Venn diagram of life, surely representing society encompasses CycleChat.


Ooh I don't know. Would you let this lot out in society?


----------



## Katherine (23 Jan 2016)

Cyclists who rlj at pedestrian crossings and junctions are thoughtless and careless at best, and selfish and dangerous at worst. I've seen a cyclist go through a red light at the bottom of a motorway slip road, causing the cars coming off the motorway to emergency brake. The ones who weeve in and out of rush hour traffic make everyone else's journey more stressful and dangerous. Even though it's the few giving a bad name for the many, it's because their actions have such an effect on other road users that creates their reputation.


----------



## sidevalve (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> So how come all those rude, inconsiderate, dangerous things that drivers do don't have a similar effect?


Yes it does and if spotted by the police they will be stopped [unlike cyclists who will mostly just carry on their merry way]. 
BUT why does this old chestnut keep cropping up anyway ?
Red means stop - not to do so is a criminal act - it is illegal - it is dangerous - there is NO justification or excuse for it. Yes sometimes we've all see other doing it but no that doesn't make it ok so any bulls--t argument about car drivers is just that - a pathetic excuse for criminality. It really is time to stop finding excuses and grow up.


----------



## theclaud (23 Jan 2016)

With cyclists like @sidevalve to keep us in our place, motorists are almost superfluous.


----------



## Lonestar (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> So how come all those rude, inconsiderate, dangerous things that drivers do don't have a similar effect?



I fink the answer is that it's a car friendly society.The car rules.I pay road tax,blah blah blah.


----------



## Drago (23 Jan 2016)

I think the answer is don't pick and choose which laws you feel like obeying. If you want cyclists as a user group to be taken seriously and treated with respect by other road users and society as a whole, then we need to smarten up our act as a group. It's unfair, but the reality is that because society is so Car-O-Centric then infringements, nobbish riding, RLJ's, no lights etc by a few reflect disproportionately upon the well behaved majority. This is why I tend not to get too het up by the videos of bad driving posted by the camera Taliban - plenty of cyclists still behave like twots, so why should we expect other road users to be any better?

Look after your own riding, keep yourself safe, set a good example, that's all you can do. If enough of us do it and keep doing it then eventually we may get treated with the consideration and dignity that we feel we deserve.


----------



## Markymark (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> So do I. The bit I don't understand is playing up to it and accepting some sort of group responsibility.


Like taxi drivers or 4x4 drivers?


----------



## Drago (23 Jan 2016)

Markymark said:


> Like taxi drivers or 4x4 drivers?



Alas Marky, we should be concentrating in improving out own image, not what others are up to. As aforementioned by myself, society is inherently Car-O-Centric so the weight of opinion is inherently against us before we've even started. The old "I can be naugthy and justify it because someone else is being naughty" is hogwash at the best of times, and when were viewed as a minority by the car-oriented majority it just comes across as wheedling and whining.

Set the example, keep setting it, day in, day out, and after years, decades, our image will improve and treating cyclists badly will hopefully become as socially unacceptable as drink driving has become. Set the example, encourage others to do the same. Eventualkly they too will start doing it and hopefully encourage more people. Camera vigilantes, making little boy excuses about taxi drivers doing it serves to do nothing except perpetuate friction between different user groups. Do you want things to change, or do you just want to whine a lot?


----------



## growingvegetables (23 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> Set the example, encourage others to do the same. Eventualkly they too will start doing it and hopefully encourage more people.


Couldn't agree more - and I've got 50 years cycling experience to back me up .........




*NOT!*


----------



## Markymark (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Fair point but we don't have an equivalent of all couriers and MTB riders.


Lycra clad?


----------



## Drago (23 Jan 2016)

growingvegetables said:


> Couldn't agree more - and I've got 50 years cycling experience to back me up .........
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough. We'll all just complain about everyone else, and do what we want and justify it by blaming the taxi drivers. With luck it should all be sorted by february.

Oh, wait a sec...


----------



## newfhouse (23 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> Fair enough. We'll all just complain about everyone else, and do what we want and justify it by blaming the taxi drivers.


Who has suggested doing that?


----------



## Drago (23 Jan 2016)

I did, a moment ago, as an alternative to paying attention to our own riding behaviour. You are reading the posts as they go on?


----------



## newfhouse (23 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> I did, a moment ago, as an alternative to paying attention to our own riding behaviour. You are reading the posts as they go on?


Yes, I am. Is it possible to ride well but also expect something more meaningful to be done about poor driving? I don't believe it should be either/or.


----------



## benb (23 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> I think the answer is don't pick and choose which laws you feel like obeying.



So I take it you have orange reflectors fitted to all of your pedals then? And only ever enter ASZs by the feeder lane on the left?


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Red means stop - not to do so is a criminal act - it is illegal - it is dangerous - there is NO justification or excuse for it.


(Imagine the QI klaxon here)
Not been true for at least twenty years. Red circle means stop and it's a criminal act to pass it, but red bike/man is advisory and like a give way sign. I don't think that's brilliant (they should have been amber or white) but that's the law today.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2016)

benb said:


> So I take it you have orange reflectors fitted to all of your pedals then?


I've even got amber reflectors on pedals of bikes that are exempt from that regulation!


----------



## martint235 (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Do you seriously believe that, if every single cyclist were to behave in an exemplary way, drivers would start respecting cyclists and behave better towards us? I reckon that to be nonsense.


No but it might, to go back to how this thread started, mean that pedestrians are no longer terrified of us.


----------



## jonny jeez (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> It is the binary thing some people here have. If a thing isn't something then it must be some other thing that may or may not be the opposite. There are no other options or graduations between.


But then, to your own point...


User said:


> Do you seriously believe that, if every single cyclist were to behave in an exemplary way, drivers would start respecting cyclists and behave better towards us? I reckon that to be nonsense.


...this is an example of that same binary association.

Sure, if cyclist behave it won't solve the issue, on its own. It's a much larger package of issues, perceptions, acceptance and effort.

society has to start somewhere, so why not with the cycle community, after all, we should be the ones most motivated.

Also Adrian on a previous post you mention that car drivers act rudely and aggressively and get away with it...I'm paraphrasing.

Well, in my opinion that 's only because they are secure inside a lockable, sound absorbing box. If they were as exposed as motorcyclists or even cyclists, I think a lot of them wouldn't dare act as rudely as they do.


----------



## martint235 (23 Jan 2016)

User said:


> I have never noticed pedestrians to be terrified by me.


Really? You scare the beejezus out of me!!!


----------



## slowmotion (23 Jan 2016)

I ride down The Thames Path quite a bit. It's a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists. I find it utterly depressing that if I follow pedestrians really slowly and they suddenly realise that there is somebody on a bike behind them, they spring apart with a look of absolute terror, muttering apologies.
We really do have some work to do on our popular image.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Jan 2016)

User13710 said:


> Or maybe you do? In that situation I find that when I call out, 'Is it OK to come past?' people are not in the least terrified, and often smile and say good morning.


 @TMN, just leave it. OK?


----------



## theclaud (24 Jan 2016)

Drago said:


> society is *inherently* Car-O-Centric


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


----------



## jonny jeez (24 Jan 2016)

User said:


> Because we are not a community?


Fair point.

Perhaps we should be. Maybe that should be the first move.


----------



## jonny jeez (24 Jan 2016)

User13710 said:


> Or maybe you do? In that situation I find that when I call out, 'Is it OK to come past?' people are not in the least terrified, and often smile and say good morning.


Asking for permission to ride, is not the answer. People should not feel frightened or the need to mutter at us as we pass.

Perhaps a good morning, will do the trick, with a thank you. But work still needs to be done to change attitudes.


----------



## martint235 (24 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> Fair point.
> 
> Perhaps we should be. Maybe that should be the first move.


Mmmm, if that's the answer I don't really want to be part of the solution. I don't think you can build a community out of the disparate groups of people who self propel themselves on wheels.


----------



## jonny jeez (24 Jan 2016)

martint235 said:


> Mmmm, if that's the answer I don't really want to be part of the solution. I don't think you can build a community out of the disparate groups of people who self propel themselves on wheels.


We have one here already.


----------



## martint235 (24 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> We have one here already.


Yes populated with people who couldn't agree how to get out of a burning fire exit factory......


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I ride down The Thames Path quite a bit. It's a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists. I find it utterly depressing that if I follow pedestrians really slowly and they suddenly realise that there is somebody on a bike behind them, they spring apart with a look of absolute terror, muttering apologies.


It's because you snuck up on them, surely? People do the same if you walk up behind them quietly.


----------



## burntoutbanger (24 Jan 2016)

When I started cycling again one of the first things I did was remove the bell, "I don't need this, these are for kids I thought". Occasionally riding on shared paths I soon put it back on again.

Far less confrontational than a shout of excuse me and is often followed up and returned with a "thank you".


----------



## slowmotion (24 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> It's because you snuck up on them, surely? People do the same if you walk up behind them quietly.


I hang well back. Sometimes I make a really noisy gear change to alert them of my presence. Sometimes I just say "ping". Maybe their fear is just a London thing. I quite regularly get thanked for actually stopping at a zebra FFS!


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2016)

slowmotion said:


> I hang well back. Sometimes I make a really noisy gear change to alert them of my presence. Sometimes I just say "ping".


If you're close enough to hear and be heard, that ain't well back, that's sneaking up behind, even in London.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Jan 2016)

mjray said:


> If you're close enough to hear and be heard, that ain't well back, that's sneaking up behind, even in London.


Should I shout "Get out the f~cking way, morons!". I don't seem well up on etiquette.


----------



## slowmotion (24 Jan 2016)

User13710 said:


> Oh do grow up. Just say excuse me or can I come past. And while we're at it, please don't tell me to leave things. I'll leave it when I've finished, thanks.


I have noticed.


----------



## Glow worm (24 Jan 2016)

User13710 said:


> Oh do grow up. Just say excuse me or can I come past. And while we're at it, please don't tell me to leave things. I'll leave it when I've finished, thanks.





slowmotion said:


> I have noticed.



FFS get a room you two!


----------



## Smurfy (25 Jan 2016)

Trouble with traffic lights is a lot of them have been reprogrammed from their original purpose, in order to fulfil the dual purpose of traffic control and traffic calming. You can spot when this happens because the exercise starts with speed and traffic volume measuring cables across the road, and then lo and behold, a month or so later the timing and priority has been hugely adjusted. I'd much rather the timing and priority was left alone, and the police did their job and came out with their speed guns to catch people.


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (26 Jan 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I take your point but its not an intention to make life harder...actually easier. Training just helps minimise collisions. Removal of the liscence I what stops bad behaviour.
> I'm sure visitors could sign up to the terms if the licence as part of their. Hire agreement (this one is tricky but I'm sure could be worked out)
> 
> No road side stops are needed. Anyone seen breaking the terms of the licence can be stopped (by any law enforcement officer) and identified by their registration...a small flag under the seat, attached to the seatpost...just like all those sportive/audux/triathlon riders sport for months after entering an organised ride.
> ...


so what about kids who ride bikes? you are really going down a one way street kids will not be able to ride on the road, so much for cycling holidays with the family ect ect next will be tax on how far you cycle before we know it it will be as expensive to ride as it is to drive


----------



## theclaud (26 Jan 2016)

BEHMOTH66 said:


> so what about kids who ride bikes?


See upthread. He just forgot about them. It's all part of the refreshingly spontaneous alternative to thinking.


----------



## BEHMOTH66 (26 Jan 2016)

theclaud said:


> See upthread. He just forgot about them. It's all part of the refreshingly spontaneous alternative to thinking.


Yeah I did see that after I posted, but once you start taxing in any shape or form will only lead to more taxing in the future imagine insurance for your car £350 p/y Insurance for your bike £200 per year because it will happen sooner or later and charging cyclist for one thing and they will start to charge for everything


----------

