# RLJ'ers



## SquareDaff (18 May 2011)

Almost got broadsided by a car this morning RLJ'ing. There was no room for doubt - I could see his lights on red and mine had been on green for a good 3-4 seconds. I'd already checked once for "amber gamblers" and had just set off. As it was - if I'd been a little more "fresh" I'd have been a few feet further forward and kissing this guys windscreen. Even the guy in the car next to me (dual carriageway) was shocked and let out an all mighty blast of the horn.

The RLJ'ing is getting stupid and it's not just by cyclists. Is it going to take someone to die before something is done about this epidemic?


----------



## I like Skol (18 May 2011)

This is the problem. You experienced blatent RLJ'ing and it is sheer lunacy and downright dangerous. Cyclists get accused of RLJ'ing but in reality what the majority of cyclists do is 'filtering' i.e passing a red light but proceeding with caution and defering to vehicles that are passing through the green and pedestrians that would cross if you had stopped at the red.

I admit that when cycling I do 'filter' at most traffic lights where it is safe to do so but not in a car, as putting a 1-2 ton roadblock into the path of unexpecting road users or randomly propelling a 1-2 ton metal missile across a busy junction is obviously STUPID even when I am wearing my moton hat! Some people just don't give a F**K!


----------



## Camgreen (18 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> This is the problem. You experienced blatent RLJ'ing and it is sheer lunacy and downright dangerous. Cyclists get accused of RLJ'ing but in reality what the majority of cyclists do is 'filtering' i.e passing a red light but proceeding with caution and defering to vehicles that are passing through the green and pedestrians that would cross if you had stopped at the red.
> 
> *I admit that when cycling I do 'filter' at most traffic lights where it is safe to do so but not in a car, as putting a 1-2 ton roadblock into the path of unexpecting road users or randomly propelling a 1-2 ton metal missile across a busy junction is obviously STUPID even when I am wearing my moton hat! Some people just don't give a F**K!*




Plenty of cyclists who "filter" at great speed through pedestrian lights around here ..... no thought of deference to the poor sods crossing .... and little evidence of giving a flying f**k for anyone unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Let's face it, your comment is a cop out. The red light is there for a reason and should be adhered to in accordance with the Highway Code .... it isn't an option where you can pick and choose the circumstances you follow it, regardless of your mode of transport.


----------



## SquareDaff (18 May 2011)

I really don't understand the mentality - there's another set of lights 200m up the road that are always on red whilst ours are on green (it's an access road for buses/bikes/traffic from an industrial estate). Why risk killing someone for the sake of one or two car lengths and no time gain?!?


----------



## 2Loose (18 May 2011)

I often see cars dangerously 'filtering' (In I like Skols terms), occasionally the odd darwin award candidate cyclist too. 

Very rarely see impacts, but it is justa question of time.


Red means stop and wait, Green means carry on - for ALL ROAD USERS - hardly rocket salad is it.

I think many drivers who do it will use the 'well cyclists always do it and get away with it, why not me.' argument to justify their actions.


----------



## SquareDaff (18 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Red means stop and wait, Green means carry on - for ALL ROAD USERS - hardly rocket salad is it.


I agree - I always stop at red lights. I'm open and exposed on a bike- why risk getting hit? Apart from that it's against the same law I expect other road users to abide by. 



2Loose said:


> I think many drivers who do it will use the 'well cyclists always do it and get away with it, why not me.' argument to justify their actions.


You're probably right there - but if I prang into a car the worst they'll probably end up with is a dent. If they prang into me chances are I'll end up in hospital. 

I'll balance the arguement and say that a lot more motorists obey the red light laws than cyclists and actions should be taken against both modes of transport that RLJ, firstly to take away any argument the motorist may have and secondly to stop cyclists putting themselves in a potentially dangerous position in the 1st place!


----------



## Dan B (18 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> I think many drivers who do it will use the 'well cyclists always do it and get away with it, why not me.' argument to justify their actions.


Because it's against the law. The laws of physics. Frontal area, volume, mass, momentum - all differences between a bike and a car that make the car unable to safely perform many of the manoeuvres that a bicycle can, and anyone who refuses to see the difference is either stupid or deluding themselves.

HGVs often turn left from the middle lane and go the wrong way round mini-roundabouts. Does this mean that car drivers or cyclists can copy them? No. Again, the laws of physics.


----------



## Dan B (18 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Red means stop and wait, Green means carry on *if the way is clear* - for ALL ROAD USERS - hardly rocket salad is it.




FTFY


----------



## 2Loose (18 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> Because it's against the law. The laws of physics. Frontal area, volume, mass, momentum -* all differences between a bike and a car that make the car unable to safely perform many of the manoeuvres that a bicycle can, and anyone who refuses to see the difference is either stupid or deluding themselves.*
> 
> HGVs often turn left from the middle lane and go the wrong way round mini-roundabouts. Does this mean that car drivers or cyclists can copy them? No. Again, the laws of physics.



Are you suggesting that a cyclist can safely jump a red light, but a car can't? 

Anyone that thinks so *is either stupid or deluding themselves. *


----------



## Angelfishsolo (18 May 2011)

+1


2Loose said:


> Are you suggesting that a cyclist can safely jump a red light, but a car can't?
> 
> Anyone that thinks so *is either stupid or deluding themselves. *


----------



## Dan B (18 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Are you suggesting that a cyclist can safely jump a red light, but a car can't?



In some situations, yes. For example, a cyclist proceeding in a cycle lane along the road and approaching a junction with a road on his right is unlikely to come into conflict with a driver approaching from the mouth of that right-hand road who is turning into the general-purpose traffic lane alongside him. A car driver, on the other hand, would not physically fit into the cycle lane and would cause the approaching driver to have to change his speed or direction to avoid him.


Have you never seen this happen?


----------



## 2Loose (18 May 2011)

Can't say I have as most traffic lit junctions I see are cross roads and tbh I don't see many other cyclists on my route, but I can concede that it would be fairly safe unless the front of the car swung over the line into the cycle lane while turning right. As would jumping a light which isn't responding to the presence of a bike when no other traffic is about.

Either way, both are naughty and the former is imo unjustifiable.

There is no doubt in my mind that bad road behaviour from individuals encourages others to believe that they can get away with it, be it bike or car, which in turn leads to even more unpredictable and dangerous driving.


----------



## subaqua (18 May 2011)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zeb_C3ILkAQ


is this filtering ?  

this is just one of the many I see each day. I could upload them all but i just don't have the time. 

RED light means STOP


----------



## SquareDaff (18 May 2011)

No that's impatience and stupidity. If we expect cars to stop then we should too. Otherwise we're as guilty of "road ownership superiority" as the car drivers!


----------



## Coco (18 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> No that's impatience and stupidity. If we expect cars to stop then we should too. Otherwise we're as guilty of "road ownership superiority" as the car drivers!



+1 If we want to be treated the same as other road users then we have to behave the same.


----------



## gambatte (18 May 2011)

As a cyclist and someone who's been knocked over by a cyclist ignoring a red light at a pedestrian crossing - red lights aren't advisory for cars, lorries or bikes.


----------



## BentMikey (18 May 2011)

I made this RLJer squirm and hang his head in shame:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUKXfcBbG3E


So satisfying!!


----------



## Howard (18 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I made this RLJer squirm and hang his head in shame:
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=TUKXfcBbG3E
> 
> So satisfying!!



I wonder he's squirming because he's caught on camera wearing his best hipster gear on what is quite clearly a women's bike, rather than some shiny fixed lo-pro with obligatory riser bars and neon grips


----------



## JamesAC (18 May 2011)

At every red light I stopped at down Stratford High Street this morning, I was "whooshed" by rlj cyclists. They had no regard for any other road user whatsoever.

Problem is, I doubt that many of them read this forum. They were either POB's, or had so much lycra and cool gear that anything like cycle chat was probably beneath them.


----------



## I like Skol (18 May 2011)

I knew my comments were going to be controversial and while I could simply have kept quiet and said nothing or joined the crowd in tutting, shaking my head and muttering comments like “only an idiot goes through a red light” I have no problem with admitting how I ride and defending my actions with *reasoned* argument.


Is what I do legal? *No*

Is it annoying to other road users? *Probably, but only the ones that don’t/can’t think for themselves*

Am I putting myself or others in increased danger? *No*




SquareDaff said:


> Almost got broadsided by a car this morning RLJ'ing. There was no room for doubt - I could see his lights on red and mine had been on green for a good 3-4 seconds. I'd already checked once for "amber gamblers" and had just set off


Clearly from the incident described by SquareDaff someone was completely in the wrong and it sounds as though the driver mentioned is one of those ‘that don’t give a F**K’. SquareDaff’s experience bears no relation to the description I gave of my RLJ’ing policy




2Loose said:


> I often see cars dangerously 'filtering' (In I like Skols terms), occasionally the odd darwin award candidate cyclist too.


Nothing dangerous about what I described but I am sure you do see motorists (not cars, remember they don’t drive themselves) and cyclists going through red lights dangerously and illegally. Do not confuse the two, illegal is not necessarily dangerous. You are right though, there are more than enough ‘Darwin Award candidates’ around as motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, the clue is in the title though and they are not expected to live as long as the fitter, cleverer and more adaptable amongst us.




2Loose said:


> I think many drivers who do it will use the 'well cyclists always do it and get away with it, why not me.' argument to justify their actions.


Again, these would be stupid people. There are many potentially fatal activities, pastimes and occupations that I would not attempt just because I have seen someone else do it and make it look easy.



2Loose said:


> Are you suggesting that a cyclist can safely jump a red light, but a car can't?
> 
> Anyone that thinks so *is either stupid or deluding themselves. *


Of course a car can be driven past a red light as safely as a bike can be ridden past. Do not confuse legality with safety and illegality with danger. The act of passing the red light is not in itself the danger, it is not considering other unexpecting road users that create the danger.


Let’s describe a few hypothetical scenarios

1, A motorist approaches a crossroads with traffic lights on a quiet day. They know the light sequence well and as their light has just turned red they know they have quite a few minutes to wait while all the other directions are given their turn. They can see clearly in all directions that there is no one approaching so they decide to cautiously drive through the red light and continue their journey rather than sit with the engine idling for 3 or 4 minutes while the lights give priority to vehicles that aren’t there. *Is this dangerous?*



2, A cyclist is riding home from work and filters past a queue of vehicles waiting at a red light during the busy rush hour. When he/she gets to the front of the queue they finds that by pure chance there is no traffic passing the lights in the other directions so rather than wait and join the rush to get away that will occur when the lights change to green he/she decides to set off and take advantage of the vehicle free space and time to navigate the complex junction with all its islands and pinch points. *Who has been put in danger here?*



3, A person is running for a bus but has to negotiate a busy pedestrian crossing at a junction to get to the bus stop of the approaching bus. Rather than press the button for the pedestrian crossing and wait for all the traffic to stop the person has a quick look and decides no one is coming their way so runs across the road. A vehicle comes around the corner having passed a green light only to be confronted by a pedestrian in the road and has to brake sharply to avoid running them down. *Is this illegal?*



What does any of this prove? Not a lot really. Jumping/passing a red traffic light can be dangerous if not done with care and attention. Passing a red light is illegal, no one is arguing with that. People risk their lives in plenty of ways that are legal but this doesn’t draw much if any comment from the pedants that mutter through gritted teeth “they shouldn’t do that, they’re not allowed” like RLJ’ing does.



I am not condoning RLJ’ing but I am happy with my own actions and I accept responsibility for them. I do not have a problem with cyclists that jump red lights providing they do it carefully with consideration for all other road users and are prepared to accept the consequences should they be caught or if it goes wrong.


----------



## BentMikey (18 May 2011)

Can't be bothered to read that much bumf when it's so obviously unjustifiable.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (18 May 2011)

Got an outrageous RLJ on cam this evening. Can't make out the licence plate unfortunately.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVi6LIBOiPE


----------



## 2Loose (18 May 2011)

@I like Skol.

Kids and inexperienced drivers learn by example. You do set a bad one, but although I am sure that you don't mean to encourage others to do the things you do, less experienced riders and drivers will try and emulate your actions. Some drivers will stereotype all cyclists and treat them with disdain because of this. Some people will seriously believe that cyclists can legally do this - after all, so many people can't all be breaking the law, can they? Some of them will actually check the HC for themselves.

For example, how many times have you seen\heard\read that 'cyclists must stay in the gutter\on the path'? There is not a shred of truth in it, but many people do really believe it - drivers and cyclists alike. They are not (often) stupid, they have no reason to disbelieve what they have heard so they pass it on. Others then believe the same thing and so it continues. 

What you do is breaking the law and whether you like it or not, encourages bad road behavior in others.


----------



## Dan B (18 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Kids and inexperienced drivers learn by example. You do set a bad one, but although I am sure that you don't mean to encourage others to do the things you do, less experienced riders and drivers will try and emulate your actions.


Thanks for a serious and well-reasoned post. It's a strong argument (in fact, it's the strongest argument I've yet seen for obeying lights even when it's safe to jump them) but it's not 100% You could make the same monkey-see-money-do argument against filtering in traffic, for example: if you go through a gap and some less experienced rider comes a cropper following you, should you feel culpable for it?


----------



## I like Skol (18 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> I am not condoning RLJ’ing but I am happy with my own actions and I accept responsibility for them.






BentMikey said:


> Can't be bothered to read that much bumf when it's so obviously unjustifiable.


OK....... so anybody elses view/opinion that differs from yours is obviously wrong and you cannot possibly consider it or read it?



Dan B said:


> You could make the same monkey-see-money-do argument against filtering in traffic, for example: if you go through a gap and some less experienced rider comes a cropper following you, should you feel culpable for it?


I haven't copied anybody elses riding habits. I have developed my own technique/style through a lifetime of real experience and observation. I have been riding on the public roads since the age of 5 and by the age of 8 or 9 I was free to roam at will and I am not the rider that gets beeped, surprises other road users or has near misses/scrapes. Other than an incident as a 6 yr old when I ran across a road without looking (the driver walked me home and told me mum! like you could do in the late 70's without getting a mouthful of abuse) I have a good record as a pedestrian/cyclist. I have driven for a living from 1992 to 2007 covering between 40-50k most years, I drive a 4x4 off-road competitively, I am a parent, a pedestrian and a cyclist. How much experience and different view points do I need to make up my own mind? I acknowledge I am breaking the law and should I be caught I will accept my punishment without bleating about the unfairness of it all or trying to weasle out with lame excuses but I know it would have to be a slow day or a serious incident for a police officer to bother booking me for such a technicality.

DanB, you could have a good point though. Whatever happened to assessing a risk for yourself? I don't know how old you are but as a child in the late 70's and early 80's I would class myself as part of the last generation that had to learn how to look after themselves. Kids today are wrapped up in cotton wool by the Nanny State (You MUST wear a helmet to cycle, you may not play conkers incase a fragment flies off in your direction, you have to be driven to school incase you are run over/abducted/bullied by your classmates). I decide for myself if I am happy to do something. I do not do things just because others do it and I don't not do things because I am told not to but you know what, that's alright because if it all goes wrong who's to blame? Me, no-one else (unless some kn*b in a 2 ton car flies through a red light without even looking and wipes me out!!!) .


----------



## steveinnorthants (19 May 2011)

"Filtering" is what I do on my motorcycle, which I only undertake at low speeds or when stationary between 2 rows of vehicles, where road width permits. It is also what cyclists do under similar circumstances, either on the offside, or, the nearside (hopefully not taking risks where HGVs etc are concerned). It is not illegal but should obviously only been undertaken with great care and when safe to do so.

"Filtering" at red lights as an earlier post describes is merely RLJing - no better than the drivers jumping the red lights. That is an illegal practice. 

I am surprised that some posts seems to imply this is entirely acceptable and defenceable, whilst at the same time bemoaning a driver doing EXACTLY the same!

Sorry to be controversial but we cannot adopt such a "holier than thou" approach and expect to have our understandable concerns about bad driving heard by the public!


----------



## Tommi (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Whatever happened to assessing a risk for yourself?


As I found out in the recent Guardian thread I think you're not supposed to think for yourself; if it's illegal it's always wrong, if it's legal it's always right, now stop thinking.

I made a similar argument myself; I might consider breaking the letter of the law a viable option if it causes no concern to others and has notable advantage. Not doing it lightly.

The point about others copying bad habits is the best argument I've heard so far. But even copying good habits requires you to copy the underlying judgement call that make them good, legal manoeuvres can still be fatal if you failed to judge the situation correctly.


----------



## GrasB (19 May 2011)

There's one set of traffic lights I go through that in the early morning are an absolute pita, 95% of the time I'll have a green light if there's a car approaching from the side road I'll have to jam the brakes on 2 out 3 to avoid being taken out... it's not that I'm a cyclist either. I've seen cars having to do emergency stops to avoid collisions there.


----------



## martint235 (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> OK....... so anybody elses view/opinion that differs from yours is obviously wrong and you cannot possibly consider it or read it?
> 
> I acknowledge I am breaking the law and should I be caught I will accept my punishment without bleating about the unfairness of it all or trying to weasle out with lame excuses but I know it would have to be a slow day or a serious incident for a police officer to bother booking me for such a technicality.



On my commute and around work, thankfully the police have started taking this issue seriously due to the sheer number of cyclists who believe the law does not apply to them. In other RLJ threads, I'm afraid there is a lot of bleating along the lines of "don't they have real criminals to catch? I was only doing 5/15/25 mph when I went through the light"

The argument about whether it is safe or not is irelevant really, it's illegal. It's safe for me to walk down the street with a loaded shotgun or a large hunting knife. I'm not actually going to put anyone at risk by doing so but I would raise other people's perception of risk and I would be breaking the law.




steveinnorthants said:


> "Filtering" is what I do on my motorcycle, which I only undertake at low speeds or when stationary between 2 rows of vehicles, where road width permits. It is also what cyclists do under similar circumstances, either on the offside, or, the nearside (hopefully not taking risks where HGVs etc are concerned). It is not illegal but should obviously only been undertaken with great care and when safe to do so.
> 
> "Filtering" at red lights as an earlier post describes is merely RLJing - no better than the drivers jumping the red lights. That is an illegal practice.
> 
> ...



+1. We have to share roadspace with car drivers, lorry drivers etc, if we antagonise them by seeming to break the law at will we will always tend to come off worst in the long run.


----------



## pshore (19 May 2011)

Coco said:


> +1 If we want to be treated the same as other road users then we have to behave the same.



I know you said this in the context of RLJ, but in a wider context I do NOT want to be treated the same as other road users. It is pretty clear that cyclists and pedestrians cause far less harm than the motorcar, and are also far more vulnerable too so should be treated accordingly.

Re the RLJ: I see safe and considerate RLJ by cyclists at some junctions. In particular, the example I am thinking of is a cross roads with a 4 way pedestrian phase. In four years I have seen just one idiot cyclist scare the pedestrians. Everyday there are pedestrians and cyclists all moving through the junction without fear of the motorcar or each other.

I am not condoning RLJ, I am just pointing out that it is not all like the famous YouTube vid of the cycle courier race.


----------



## I like Skol (19 May 2011)

pshore said:


> I know you said this in the context of RLJ, but in a wider context I do NOT want to be treated the same as other road users. It is pretty clear that cyclists and pedestrians cause far less harm than the motorcar, and are also far more vulnerable too so should be treated accordingly.
> 
> Re the RLJ: I see safe and considerate RLJ by cyclists at some junctions. In particular, the example I am thinking of is a cross roads with a 4 way pedestrian phase. In four years I have seen just one idiot cyclist scare the pedestrians. Everyday there are pedestrians and cyclists all moving through the junction without fear of the motorcar or each other.
> 
> I am not condoning RLJ, I am just pointing out that it is not all like the famous YouTube vid of the cycle courier race.




Thank you. Someone else that is brave enough to stick their head above the parapet. As with all things in life, there are idiots that act selfishly and spoil it for everyone. Deal with the idiots and let the reasonable people get on with their quiet lives.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> there are *idiots that act selfishly and spoil it for everyone*.



Whilst you might feel that you're the reasonable and careful person, the rest of us think this ^^^^ about you RLJers.

I'm tired of having to talk about RLJing and defend cycling every single time someone mentions cycling, and the whole room/group of people turn on me. I'm tired of drivers using your RLJing as an excuse for their bad driving. Why do I have to suffer for your bad behaviour on the roads?


----------



## martint235 (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm tired of having to talk about RLJing and defend cycling every single time someone mentions cycling, and the whole room/group of people turn on me. I'm tired of drivers using your RLJing as an excuse for their bad driving. Why do I have to suffer for your bad behaviour on the roads?



I agree with BM on this. Given that I'm currently seeking sponsorship for a cycling challenge, I have conversations about cycling with people every day and 90% of the time it turns to RLJing by cyclists. Even if you travel with care through a red light, particularly on a pedestrian crossing, other people are forced to re-assess their personal risk based on your illegal action.


----------



## subaqua (19 May 2011)

martint235 said:


> I agree with BM on this. Given that I'm currently seeking sponsorship for a cycling challenge, I have conversations about cycling with people every day and 90% of the time it turns to RLJing by cyclists. Even if you travel with care through a red light, particularly on a pedestrian crossing, other people are forced to re-assess their personal risk based on your illegal action.




+1. 

i was talking in the office about doing the C2C next year for alzheimers soc and all i got wqas. I suppose you will be riding through red lights a lot then.

actions of a minority affect the majority


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

Tommi said:


> As I found out in the recent Guardian thread I think you're not supposed to think for yourself; if it's illegal it's always wrong, if it's legal it's always right, now stop thinking.


Oh well, I'll switch completely from cycling to skates then. Since rollerskates are not in law vehicles, traffic lights and most other signs don't apply to their users and I can legally blow through them with impunity. And by that argument it must be always right to do so.


(Note for the well-heeled: I suspect that horse riders have the same loophole available to them. You may want to ask a lawyer)


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

I assume all the "illegal therefore it must be wrong" types do not enter ASLs on red except by means of the feeder lane, then, because that's just as illegal as jumping the lights completely.


----------



## Coco (19 May 2011)

pshore said:


> I know you said this in the context of RLJ, but in a wider context I do NOT want to be treated the same as other road users. It is pretty clear that cyclists and pedestrians cause far less harm than the motorcar, and are also far more vulnerable too so should be treated accordingly.



You're not going to get a higher standard of respect if you show a lower regard for the law.

@I like Skol,
First of all thanks for taking the time (and being brave enough) to take part in this debate. It relly is interesting to hear your rationale. An insight into the criminal mind is always worthwhile  

Unfortunately your actions do not just affect the people around the red light you are jumping, they affect all of us cyclists - law abiding or otherwise.
I was at the doctor last week in full cycle gear and after a rather painful procedure, he asked about my cycling. No talk of how good regular exercise was, but straight into "Why do you cyclists go through red lights". He's never seen me cycle, he's never seen me go through a red light, but instantly that was his impression of cyclists. I for one am fed up of (and I'm sure a lot sorer) being tarred with the same brush because selfish people want to shave a few seconds off their travel time.

Although I was joking about being a criminal above (honest), it is interesting to see that you use the same techniques to rationalise your actions i.e. call it something else (filtering) so that it sounds less of a problem and more socially acceptable.

Again, thanks for taking part in this thread. Its good to get a civil discussion on the topic.

cheers


----------



## I like Skol (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> BentMikey said:
> 
> 
> > Can't be bothered to read that much bumf when it's so obviously unjustifiable.
> ...






BentMikey said:


> Whilst you might feel that you're the reasonable and careful person, the rest of us think this ^^^^ about you RLJers.



Well, that’s ok because I don’t agree, I am not going to listen, I have my fingers in my ears la la la la..... sound familiar? Also, “the rest of us think this ^^^^”. You mean *YOU *think that, you cannot claim to know or represent the thoughts of *ALL* the other people, whether you are referring to the cyclechat community or the public at large.




BentMikey said:


> I'm tired of having to talk about RLJing and defend cycling every single time someone mentions cycling, and the whole room/group of people turn on me.


That is not my experience at all. I do not hide the fact I am a cyclist under a bushel but I do not get any similar reactions from the people I meet through work or in the car clubs. Are you sure you are not mixing up the vitriol trotted out in chat rooms and forums with what happens in real rooms with ‘real’ people. If you do experience this type of attack in the real world what are you saying to incite such aggression and why do you feel you have to defend yourself against something you do not do. Surely a simple solution is to agree with any comments condemning red light jumping and add that yes, it is a problem, there is a minority of cyclists that ride recklessly with no consideration for others? End of discussion!



Coco said:


> Although I was joking about being a criminal above (honest), it is interesting to see that you use the same techniques to rationalise your actions i.e. call it something else (filtering) so that it sounds less of a problem and more socially acceptable.


You are right, I have used language that is more acceptable to describe my actions as in my opinion (and I could be wrong) if the public are asked for their views on red light jumping they will nearly always conjure images of cars or cycles careering through junctions causing all other road users to brake or swerve to avoid a collision. That is not what I do but at various points throughout this thread I have openly admitted and accepted that I pass red lights and doing so is illegal. We all have different views on this and I can accept that without saying yours or anyone else’s view is wrong.


----------



## 2Loose (19 May 2011)

Can I ask why you do it Skol? Is it only because you can?

Why is it too much bother to wait with the other traffic while the red light is in place?

You hav told us that you do rlj and that you do it (in your eyes) safely, but not actually why.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

Yes, people in real life complain about your behaviour jumping red lights. LMAO, are you saying forum people aren't real? Are you not listening then to the vast majority who don't agree with your RLJing behaviour?


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Can I ask why you do it Skol? Is it only because you can?
> 
> Why is it too much bother to wait with the other traffic while the red light is in place?
> 
> You hav told us that you do rlj and that you do it (in your eyes) safely, but not actually why.



There's only one reason to do it consistently, and that's for pure selfish impatience and lazyness.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> I assume all the "illegal therefore it must be wrong" types do not enter ASLs on red except by means of the feeder lane, then, because that's just as illegal as jumping the lights completely.


I tried to find this regulation, but failed. It doesn't seem to be in the highway code, and I couldn't find it in the RTA or the TSRGD. Do you have a reference to it?


----------



## BSRU (19 May 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I tried to find this regulation, but failed. It doesn't seem to be in the highway code, and I couldn't find it in the RTA or the TSRGD. Do you have a reference to it?



You do have to enter the ASL via the feeder lane if the light is red, assuming it has a feeder lane that is.
It is a fairly stupid rule, especially if you need the right hand lane as the filter lane tends to be on the left by the kerb but it does exist.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> I tried to find this regulation, but failed. It doesn't seem to be in the highway code, and I couldn't find it in the RTA or the TSRGD. Do you have a reference to it?



TSRGD 2002 


> 36.—(1) The significance of the light signals prescribed by regulations 33, 34 and 35 shall be as follows—
> 
> 
> (a) [...] the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line;
> ...





Unless you're a pedal cycle _proceeding in the cycle lane_ you must stop at the first stop line. Seems pretty clear to me


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> I knew my comments were going to be controversial and while I could simply have kept quiet and said nothing or joined the crowd in tutting, shaking my head and muttering comments like “only an idiot goes through a red light” I have no problem with admitting how I ride and defending my actions with *reasoned* argument.


Do you think, then, that it is reasonable for a car, van or lorry to proceed carefully through a red light, if it is safe to do so? They have "right turn on red" for motor vehicles in the USA, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems, so perhaps motor vehicle drivers should just ignore our stupid laws as long as it is "safe"?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> TSRGD 2002
> 
> Unless you're a pedal cycle _proceeding in the cycle lane_ you must stop at the first stop line. Seems pretty clear to me


Thanks, I didn't see that. It's a pity the HC doesn't reference TSRGD section 43 at the bottom of rule 71.

It is interesting, though, that many of the ASLs I come across don't have a feeder cycle lane, and some don't even have a dashed section in the first stop line. I guess it is illegal to use those ASLs at all then.


----------



## 2Loose (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> There's only one reason to do it consistently, and that's for pure selfish impatience and lazyness.



Must perform a selfish manoeuver to save thirty seconds...sounds all to familiar.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Thanks, I didn't see that. It's a pity the HC doesn't reference TSRGD section 43 at the bottom of rule 71.
> 
> It is interesting, though, that many of the ASLs I come across don't have a feeder cycle lane, and some don't even have a dashed section in the first stop line. I guess it is illegal to use those ASLs at all then.



I came to the same conclusion. It's probably not a surprise that road painters don't read primary legislation, though

Thinking aloud here, but you might be able to bunny hop into them. The laws against pavement parking are rarely enforced because the car has to be witnessed actually driving on the pavement (it might just have been lowered there by a crane, for example) so perhaps if you're airborne when you cross the line you're not legally riding across it? Just a thought


----------



## I like Skol (19 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Can I ask why you do it Skol? Is it only because you can?



A few reasons-

It saves me time, maybe only a couple of minutes over a 35 minute each way commute but it's my time and it adds up over the year and that is more time I get with my family so I can set off slightly later and get home a little earlier.
It makes the journey physically a bit easier. Not so many standing starts to contend with so the journey flows a bit better.
Safety. I have no doubt that I am safer crossing a junction devoid of traffic rather than being in close proximity to tons of metal that should someone make an innocent mistake (which we all do sometimes) could easily inflict serious injuries on me.
Because I hate the world and everyone in it! (sorry, I made this last one up  )



BentMikey said:


> Yes, people in real life complain about your behaviour jumping red lights. LMAO, are you saying forum people aren't real? Are you not listening then to the vast majority who don't agree with your RLJing behaviour?


Of course forum people are real but their views and opinions are not really representative of the population at large. The environment we are having this discussion in does tend to attract vocal people with distinct views so we cannot claim to be having a debate that accurately represents the general opinion on the topic. There will be plenty of forum members that have no strong views on the subject so will remain silent and an even greater number of public who really aren't bothered by this so will hardly stand up and say in a loud clear voice "THIS REALLY DOESN'T BOTHER ME".



BentMikey said:


> There's only one reason to do it consistently, and that's for pure selfish impatience and lazyness.


Name calling again. Impatience, not at all. I stop when it is safest to stop and go when it is safe to do so, not really bothered or upset if conditions dictate that I stop. Lazyness?!?!? get real. I have access to 2 perfectly good cars that I could drive to work in and I can well afford the fuel to do so despite it's current price but I choose to cycle because I enjoy it and benefit from the exercise. Anyone that knows me would definitely NOT describe me as lazy. Selfish, well I do pass the red lights for my own benefit and no-one elses but I am not sure that is really selfish?


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> [/size]
> In some situations, yes. For example, a cyclist proceeding in a cycle lane along the road and approaching a junction with a road on his right is unlikely to come into conflict with a driver approaching from the mouth of that right-hand road who is turning into the general-purpose traffic lane alongside him. A car driver, on the other hand, would not physically fit into the cycle lane and would cause the approaching driver to have to change his speed or direction to avoid him.



Ah, look, here's an example where it may even be legal -

http://www.cyclechat...77#entry1674077

What would you do at that junction? The letter of the law says it's OK to carry on, the perceptions of the average motorist says it's not, local custom apparently says it is. I'd say it's a grey area and depends on circumstances, but hey, let's hear some dogmatic views


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> A few reasons-
> 
> It saves me time, maybe only a couple of minutes over a 35 minute each way commute but it's my time and it adds up over the year and that is more time I get with my family so I can set off slightly later and get home a little earlier.
> It makes the journey physically a bit easier. Not so many standing starts to contend with so the journey flows a bit better.



No laziness or impatience? Sounds like you've just admitted to it in the quote above, and all the benefits are clearly for yourself whilst causing disadvantage to the rest of us. That's most definitely selfish behaviour. As for representative views of the general population, that's so obviously against RLJing I'm surprised you're even trying to argue against it.


----------



## BSRU (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> A few reasons-
> 
> It saves me time, maybe only a couple of minutes over a 35 minute each way commute but it's my time and it adds up over the year and that is more time I get with my family so I can set off slightly later and get home a little earlier.
> It makes the journey physically a bit easier. Not so many standing starts to contend with so the journey flows a bit better.
> ...



1) Just four minutes a day saved, just ride faster. If metal box drivers start using that as an excuse where all doomed.
2) Stopping for a rest and then sprinting away is great fun, good exercise too.
3) Sounds more like fear or lack of self confidence in one's own abilities.
4) Who doesn't.

If you're breaking the law for your own benefit, with no regard for anyone else then it is selfish.


----------



## Jezston (19 May 2011)

1 and 2 - impatience. Not a good reason.

3 - safety? Nonsense. I've not heard of many cases of people being hit from behind waiting at lights or starting off. If you are that scared of cars behind you when you start off at the lights then I suggest you find another mode of transport.


----------



## User482 (19 May 2011)

I don't RLJ and don't condone it, but can we have a bit more perspective here? Clearly, there is an appreciable difference between a truck plowing through a red light at 30mph, and a cyclist proceeding slowly with caution, having checked that the way is clear. What's legal and what's safe are not always the same thing.

Turning to the argument that we must obey all traffic laws if we expect motorists to do the same - does anyone think that's true? That if all cyclists were perfect models of law-abiding obedience then motorists would stop speeding, parking on pavements, jumping lights and the rest of it? I don't believe it for a second.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

User482 said:


> Turning to the argument that we must obey all traffic laws if we expect motorists to do the same - does anyone think that's true? That if all cyclists were perfect models of law-abiding obedience then motorists would stop speeding, parking on pavements, jumping lights and the rest of it? I don't believe it for a second.


I think it more likely that they would continue to give us grief for riding two abreast, "blocking the road", filtering in traffic, wearing lycra, not wearing lycra, wearing helmets, not wearing helmets, riding on the pavement, not riding on the pavement, not paying road tax, looking like we're enjoying ourselves, and eating lentils. Any or all of which they will often mistakenly insist is illegal. 


Face it, anti-cyclist ranting has approximately zero to do with community enforcing of legal or moral standards, and is mostly about frustration or envy.


----------



## lukesdad (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> No laziness or impatience? Sounds like you've just admitted to it in the quote above, and all the benefits are clearly for yourself whilst causing disadvantage to the rest of us. That's most definitely selfish behaviour. As for representative views of the general population, that's so obviously against RLJing I'm surprised you're even trying to argue against it.


..and what about the selfish behaviour you and the like promote that reflects on all of us.

From the man in the gutter


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> ..and what about the selfish behaviour you and the like promote that reflects on all of us.
> 
> From the man in the gutter



Do you mean like this?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0CRUpmypYk


...and like this?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz_-xD9EJu0


...or like this?

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgqfnFi78Rs


As for taking the lane when appropriate, that behaviour, unlike jumping red lights, is both best practice cycling and legal, and what is taught to adults and children in schools across the UK. It's up to you if you choose to cycle at a lower standard than that, of course. 

Checkmate, I do believe. LOLOL!


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> I assume all the "illegal therefore it must be wrong" types do not enter ASLs on red except by means of the feeder lane, then, because that's just as illegal as jumping the lights completely.



Oh, bad assumption

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFTk_EDKReM


----------



## SquareDaff (19 May 2011)

Let me try and put some of the orginal thread perspective on this. If I did consider RLJ'ing as a cyclist OK (which I don't) I'd have assumed it was safe to set off from the junction (see Post #1) as a) the other sides lights had changed and b) other cars had stopped, even though my own lights were on red (there's about a 3-4 second delay). I'd have put myself right in the line of fire of an RLJ'er in a much bigger vehicle who thought he didn't have to obey the rules either!

Just because I assume it's safe doesn't mean it is. Am I assuming it's safe because everyone else is going to follow the rules that I'm not?!?!?) Taking all the legal eagle bits out of the arguement the rules are there for my own protection and I will follow them as I don't want to end up as the subject of a "cyclist down" thread on this forum!


----------



## lukesdad (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Do you mean like this?
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=s0CRUpmypYk
> 
> ...and like this?
> ...


I agree totally my standards have gone through the floor,posting in commuting whatever next ? 

But reflect on this for a moment, it matters not that something maybe right, if it is perceived by the majority to be wrong.

The majority here being unfortunately motorists, and it ain t going to change soon !

Your strategy relies on people of the majority understanding the rules of the minority and playing by them. They dont!

The " They shall not pass at all costs" stance is antagonistic and promotes the reaction " I shall pass at all costs" Remember your laws of physics every action has a reaction  

This of course will make the roads even more dangerous.

Id resign your king now if I were you


----------



## Borbus (19 May 2011)

There is a crossroads near my house where sometimes 3-4 cars will RLJ. There have been many accidents on the crossroads and we have contacted the police to ask them what they are doing about it but so far have had no response.

I usually cycle back across the smaller of the two roads where there are as many RLJers, when my lights go green it's just to signal to me to think about going, I don't actually go until I see cars stopped at the lines.

Of course this crossroads like any have silly cyclists who jump the ASL and go right up to the edge of the main road to wait. I have even seen people trying to trackstand there and slowly creeping across the main road while its light is green. Very silly.

Something that pisses me off as much as RLJers is zebra crossing jumpers. As a cyclist I always slow down a bit and be very observant when approaching a zebra in case I need to stop and change down gears. So naturally I always stop if there actually is a pedestrian. But nearly every time 2-3 cars behind me will skip it after I have already stopped, and cars on the other side will keep going. Meaning that the pedestrian and I have to wait even longer. And the most annoying thing is there's absolutely nothing I can do, the police will laugh it off if I report it.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

Borbus said:


> Something that pisses me off as much as RLJers is zebra crossing jumpers. As a cyclist I always slow down a bit and be very observant when approaching a zebra in case I need to stop and change down gears. So naturally I always stop if there actually is a pedestrian. But nearly every time 2-3 cars behind me will skip it after I have already stopped, and cars on the other side will keep going. Meaning that the pedestrian and I have to wait even longer. And the most annoying thing is there's absolutely nothing I can do, the police will laugh it off if I report it.



Agree completely: legal or illegal or whatever, it's bloody rude. Especially on narrow roads or buildouts: the driver is not _required_ to stop unless the pedestrian's in the carriageway, but the pedestrian with a reasonable self-preservation instinct is probably not going to step into the path of oncoming cars unless he can see they're stopping. So, car drivers can intimidate them by refusing to slow down


----------



## pshore (19 May 2011)

martint235 said:


> ... I have conversations about cycling with people every day and 90% of the time it turns to RLJing by cyclists.



There is definitely a perception of cyclists problem and RLJ fuels that. (BTW I do not RLJ for this very reason). But you have to wonder why non-cyclists always think of you as a RLJer yet when talking about you as a driver they are not thinking of you speeding and driving around with your mobile stuck to your ear.

We are an 'out' group to most and they do not understand us. When you have those conversations you can educate them and show that not all cyclists break the law and perhaps explain why you think some do and what kinds of people do.


----------



## martint235 (19 May 2011)

pshore said:


> We are an 'out' group to most and they do not understand us. When you have those conversations you can educate them and show that not all cyclists break the law and perhaps explain why you think some do and what kinds of people do.



I try, I really, really try!!

There are also those occasions when I pull up at a red at a pedestrian and the ped stays put on the assumption that I will RLJ. I smile sweetly and point out that right of way is theirs!!


----------



## pshore (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> Ah, look, here's an example where it may even be legal -




It is probably worth pointing out at this point that it has been proposed a number of times that some RLJing should be legalised under the guise of "turn left on a red" for both motor vehicles and cyclists.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/5039326.stm (Conservatives)
http://road.cc/conte...turn-red-trials (RAC)
http://www.guardian....johnson-cycling (Boris)
http://news.bbc.co.u...ght/7187165.stm (Martin Cassini)

I don't know if any of these proposals are still active or have been shot down in flames. It does show that there is some support for it in higher places and perhaps the _all RLJ's should be shot_ position is harsh.


----------



## Beebo (19 May 2011)

pshore said:


> We are an 'out' group to most and they do not understand us. When you have those conversations you can educate them and show that not all cyclists break the law and perhaps explain why you think some do and what kinds of people do.



Does any one else feel this, I cant really explain it very well but here goes. 

When I am on a bike and another cyclist RLJ's , I feel guilty by association and feel I have to defend myself by saying that not all cyclists RLJ.

Where as ,when I drive my car and another driver RLJ's I feel no guilt by association. 

No one would seek to blame all drivers for the mistakes of a few, but with cylists we are all grouped together.


----------



## subaqua (19 May 2011)

Beebo said:


> Does any one else feel this, I cant really explain it very well but here goes.
> 
> When I am on a bike and another cyclist RLJ's , I feel guilty by association and feel I have to defend myself by saying that not all cyclists RLJ.
> 
> ...




yes. i understand the feelings. I shake my head often in despair at the lunatic illegal ( and sometimes perfectly legal ) actions of other cyclists.


----------



## Jezston (19 May 2011)

Beebo said:


> Does any one else feel this, I cant really explain it very well but here goes.
> 
> When I am on a bike and another cyclist RLJ's , I feel guilty by association and feel I have to defend myself by saying that not all cyclists RLJ.
> 
> ...



Having visited the states I would be VERY much AGAINST a "turn left on red" rule from the number of times I've almost been flattened by someone turning a corner onto me despite having a green light as a pedestrian.

I recall John Snow trying to argue that as a defence after the D*ily M*il caught him riding like a total penis despite being head of the CTC.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I agree totally my standards have gone through the floor,posting in commuting whatever next ?
> 
> But reflect on this for a moment, it matters not that something maybe right, if it is perceived by the majority to be wrong.
> 
> ...




I appreciate that you're clearly a good enough and experienced rider to minimise the disadvantages of riding sub-optimally, but that doesn't make you a not-selfish rider. Other parts of your riding will make you not-selfish and a good rider, sure, but riding too far to the left isn't one of them. In the same way, taking the lane when I should doesn't make me a selfish rider either. Making it easy for motorists to pass is good riding, and it's generous of me to wait and allow others past as I regularly do, even when I don't need to.

Most motorists are quite understanding of taking the lane through pinch points, and although YouTube video channels don't often give that impression, it's usual to get at least 10 instances of grateful motorists for every impatient one. It's fairly obvious from the hazard flashes and waves of thanks when pulling left after the pedestrian refuge.

The italic bit - I think that perhaps this is either a straw man, or your understanding of Cyclecraft and good riding is significantly flawed. This is the general order of importance of good and sharing road use:

My safety
Your safety
My convenience
Your convenience

I imagine you must be a RLJer yourself, yes? Otherwise I'm not sure why you would try to defend RLJing as acceptable selfishness.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> Oh, bad assumption
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFTk_EDKReM




I'm not exactly sure what your point is here? Are you trying to differentiate between illegal, immoral, dangerous to others, and regularly enforced, such as full-on RLJing, and technically illegal, moral and never ever enforced [1] and never even understood by anyone other than uber-cycling-traffic-geeks on cycling forums?

[1] Can anyone point to any example of a cyclist being fined for crossing the stop line into an ASL? What about a car driver for being fined in the ASL. I suspect that there may have been one or two of the latter, but doubt a single cyclist has ever been fined for going into the green box.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not exactly sure what your point is here? Are you trying to differentiate between illegal, immoral, dangerous to others, and regularly enforced, such as full-on RLJing, and technically illegal, moral and never ever enforced [1] and never even understood by anyone other than uber-cycling-traffic-geeks on cycling forums?


Yes! Any act of illegal red-line-crossing may be assessed for its danger, immorality and likelihood of being enforced, and I welcome sensible discussion on all three of those topics (although I don't think the enforcement angle is an especially interesting one, given the lack of enforcement of, say, mobile-phone-use - is that an argument that there's nothing wrong with it?). But you can't simply assert that it's always dangerous because it's illegal or that it's immoral because it's illegal, because crossing the line into an ASL is illegal too and I think we can both agree that's not dangerous or immoral. So where do you draw the line? Many people stop ahead of the white line when there's no ASL - is that OK? Some people cross the junction completely when they've waited a while and the lights won't change for them - how about that? Some people cross without stopping when it's 3am and there is good visibility and nobody to see them - what about that? You conceded that it's a matter of degree and circumstance when you used the weasel words "technically illegal", so how about a grown-up discussion of what is and isn't appropriate and when?


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

martint235 said:


> I try, I really, really try!!
> 
> There are also those occasions when I pull up at a red at a pedestrian and the ped stays put on the assumption that I will RLJ. I smile sweetly and point out that right of way is theirs!!


Haha yes, I've done that. But I'm never quite sure afterwards whether I'm actually being nice to them or merely messing with their heads


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

OK, how about that entering an ASL is only technically illegal because there was no easy way to make the laws work properly without the silly work-around which we are discussing? And it is silly, I think most people will agree, given that now there are so many ASL junctions that have no feeder lane. I'm not sure your enforcement point is valid, given that mobile phone use is enforced a lot, despite not being nearly enough to deal with it, and this particular ASL "infringement" was unintentional law and has to my knowledge never been enforced. Ever.

The point remains that most people obey the law about stopping at red lights, both motorists and cyclists.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

If removing two occurences of the phrase "proceeding in the cycle lane" from TSRGD 2002 s43 before publishing it is not "easy", I hesitate to imagine what would be. This law was clearly written with ASLs in mind, surely if they'd wanted to permit entering the box at any point they could have done


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> If removing two occurences of the phrase "proceeding in the cycle lane" from TSRGD 2002 s43 before publishing it is not "easy", I hesitate to imagine what would be.



Well, IANAL but from what I recall it has to do with crossing stop lines - if there's no feeder lane, then no vehicle can enter the ASL, not even a bicycle, because you'd have to cross the first of the two stop lines. Apparently amending the law so that bicycles but no other vehicle can cross the first line would have been quite a bit more difficult, enough that they wouldn't have bothered with the whole ASL idea otherwise.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

I've heard that story too, but I suspect it relates to the law when the ASLs were originally introduced (1986), not the law as it stands now. It certainly doesn't seem to be borne out by the actual law (Transport Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, the text is available though Google) which explicitly says that you must stop at the first line except in the case of "a pedal cycle proceeding in the cycle lane" - i.e. it was drafted with ASLs in mind as it explicitly tells the cyclist they can ignore the first line if they're in the cycle lane. So if they'd wanted to permit ASL access from any part of the road they could just as easily have said so. Your guess as to their intentions here in not doing so is as good as mine, but it remains a guess.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

...and we might need to remember that not everyone in this discussion wants to look through a microscope watching us splitting hairs. The big picture remains that full RLJing is a much more serious issue than silly ASL stuff. I personally don't even bother with cars in the ASL, which could be considered as much more serious than how a bicycle got in there.


----------



## Origamist (19 May 2011)

My guess is that there was an expectation in 2002 that all ASLs would/should have a "feeder" cycle lane (as this was recommended practice), but with the proliferation and possible relaxation (or ignorance) of the regs regarding the deployment of ASLs in the last 9 years or so, the situation on the ground has made entering ASLs without cycle lanes or stubbie gates an offence. My experience is that these ASL (without stubbies or lanes) are in the minority.


----------



## I like Skol (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> ...and we might need to remember that not everyone in this discussion wants to look through a microscope watching us splitting hairs. The big picture remains that full RLJing is a much more serious issue than silly ASL stuff. I personally don't even bother with cars in the ASL, which could be considered as much more serious than how a bicycle got in there.



Wait, have I got this right. You are picking and choosing which laws you want to obey? How do you decide which laws are important to you and which are 'silly'? How can you be sure that by not obeying the law you are not helping to undermine civil lawfulness and while that may not have any consequences for you it could seriously impact on someone else in a way you haven't considered!


----------



## martint235 (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> So where do you draw the line? Many people stop ahead of the white line when there's no ASL - is that OK? Some people cross the junction completely when they've waited a while and the lights won't change for them - how about that? Some people cross without stopping when it's 3am and there is good visibility and nobody to see them - what about that? You conceded that it's a matter of degree and circumstance when you used the weasel words "technically illegal", so how about a grown-up discussion of what is and isn't appropriate and when?



I'm not sure they are weasel words, redundant words possibly similar to "always unique". It's illegal. I don't think morality comes into it and I've tried to be careful not to imply "wrong" as it isn't. At the end of the day, it's personal choice but everyone should be aware of the effect that exercising their personal choice has on the ability of others to exercise theirs.

Also if it is 3 am and there's good visibility and no one around (except a bored policeman), anyone going through a red light shouldn't complain about being fined.


----------



## I like Skol (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> I acknowledge I am breaking the law and should I be caught I will accept my punishment without bleating about the unfairness of it all or trying to weasle out with lame excuses






martint235 said:


> Also if it is 3 am and there's good visibility and no one around (except a bored policeman), anyone going through a red light shouldn't complain about being fined.




Exactly what I said a couple of pages ago. It might not be dangerous but it is illegal so if you do end up in the sights of the law you only have yourself to blame for choosing to disregard the law.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> The big picture remains that full RLJing is a much more serious issue than silly ASL stuff. I personally don't even bother with cars in the ASL, which could be considered as much more serious than how a bicycle got in there.


Er, nice begging the question there. Your assertion is that "full RLJing" is much more serious (which on balance and in many cases I agree with, fwiw). But that's not a viewpoint you came to based on its legal status, so on what grounds did you decide that? You choose to get aerated about some subset of road users who are behaving illegally at traffic light junctions, while ignoring the illegal behaviour of others (cars and bikes in the ASL) so clearly you must be assessing the situation on something other than/additional to the law. So do I. The difference is that you apparently get annoyed more often than I do: illegal RLJ doesn't bother me when there is clearly nothing coming and nobody around who is going to be affected by it - but apparently it does bother you. So why is your view right and my view wrong? Is this really not a subject on which different people can have different opinions?


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> the situation on the ground has made entering ASLs without cycle lanes or stubbie gates an offence. My experience is that these ASL (without stubbies or lanes) are in the minority.


Yes, but I think you've missed half the point (not surprisingly, it's long and technical and tedious and only really serves as a reductio ad absurdum) - entering an ASL _other than by means of_ the lane/gate is an offence. My experience is that most cyclists don't - unless they happen to be in the right part of the road to use the lane/gate already, they will not change their path to use it. Because that would be stupid, legal or otherwise.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Wait, have I got this right. You are picking and choosing which laws you want to obey? How do you decide which laws are important to you and which are 'silly'? How can you be sure that by not obeying the law you are not helping to undermine civil lawfulness and while that may not have any consequences for you it could seriously impact on someone else in a way you haven't considered!




So I'm a hypocrite? Considerably less of one than you are, and rather less selfish too.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

@Dan B, no it's mostly because it's illegal that I choose to dislike RLJing. Safety is a small additional reason, but then cyclists rarely risk themselves or others when jumping red lights, the remainder is the way it affects the rest of us who don't jump lights.

Don't you think it's time to stop being quite such a pedant? I don't think I'll bother to debate further with you unless you can come up with an instance of a cyclist getting a ticket for going into the ASL illegally. I'll be slightly interested if you can find one where a driver was ticketed, but I bet that's almost as unlikely.


----------



## Dan B (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> @Dan B, no it's mostly because it's illegal that I choose to dislike RLJing.


Well, then you're mostly inconsistent (as you agree you don't dislike other illegal things) and your argument is not convincing.


----------



## BentMikey (19 May 2011)

So on that count not very different from you then...


----------



## Origamist (19 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> *Yes, but I think you've missed half the point *(not surprisingly, it's long and technical and tedious and only really serves as a reductio ad absurdum) - entering an ASL _other than by means of_ the lane/gate is an offence. My experience is that most cyclists don't - unless they happen to be in the right part of the road to use the lane/gate already, they will not change their path to use it. Because that would be stupid, legal or otherwise.



You'd articulated that point in post 76 and I've mentioned it in threads passim! 

In the 2010 TSRGD amendment consultation there were no proposals to change the wording re: the requirement to use the cycle lane, but a bit about including the stubbie was added.


----------



## GrasB (19 May 2011)

Dan B, you might be a pedant for whom this is an following this bit of law to the letter is important but I'm fairly certain you'll find your self in a very small minority. I'm also sure that the majority of the road going public would give 2 hoots about the exact wording, however they understand the *spirit* of the ASL which is that the red/green/blue box at the traffic lights to let cyclists gain some kind of advantage, they may or may not understand what this advantage is however, in when at the traffic lights,


----------



## Origamist (19 May 2011)

GrasB said:


> Dan B, *you might be a pedant for whom this is an following this bit of law to the letter is important *but I'm fairly certain you'll find your self in a very small minority. I'm also sure that the majority of the road going public would give 2 hoots about the exact wording, however they understand the *spirit* of the ASL which is that the red/green/blue box at the traffic lights to let cyclists gain some kind of advantage, they may or may not understand what this advantage is however, in when at the traffic lights,



That is not Dan's point, but he'll set you straight...


----------



## subaqua (19 May 2011)

whats Ken Clarkes opinion on serious RLJing and not so serious RLJing ??


----------



## Coco (19 May 2011)

The light said red, but meant green.


----------



## Becs (19 May 2011)

There was a Sunday London Ride last year where the entire peloton was nearly wiped out by a police car RLJing (without blue lights or sirens before or after the event), there's no hope really!


----------



## lukesdad (19 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I appreciate that you're clearly a good enough and experienced rider to minimise the disadvantages of riding sub-optimally, but that doesn't make you a not-selfish rider. Other parts of your riding will make you not-selfish and a good rider, sure, but riding too far to the left isn't one of them. In the same way, taking the lane when I should doesn't make me a selfish rider either. Making it easy for motorists to pass is good riding, and it's generous of me to wait and allow others past as I regularly do, even when I don't need to.
> 
> Most motorists are quite understanding of taking the lane through pinch points, and although YouTube video channels don't often give that impression, it's usual to get at least 10 instances of grateful motorists for every impatient one. It's fairly obvious from the hazard flashes and waves of thanks when pulling left after the pedestrian refuge.
> 
> ...



I havnt commented on RLJing.


----------



## User482 (20 May 2011)

So in summary, stuff people do is ok, and stuff they don't do, isn't.

(Reaches for rolls eyes smiley).


----------



## Dan B (20 May 2011)

Origamist said:


> You'd articulated that point in post 76 and I've mentioned it in threads passim!


OK, my apologies. In my defence I can only plead that it was a long, tedious and technical thread ;-)



Origamist said:


> In the 2010 TSRGD amendment consultation there were no proposals to change the wording re: the requirement to use the cycle lane, but a bit about including the stubbie was added.


That's interesting (well, to me, obviously not to Mikey). Given the likelihood of novice cyclists going up the gutter to an ASL between a railing and an HGV and getting crushed by it when it turns left, I'm quite surprised that nobody said "hey, why don't we write the law properly this time so that cyclists can legally enter the box anywhere".


----------



## Dan B (20 May 2011)

User482 said:


> So in summary, stuff people do is ok, and stuff they don't do, isn't.


I agree wholeheartedly and futhermore


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2011)

...you're still not good enough to find anyone who's been fined for entering an ASL "wrongly" on a bicycle. 

(B-) Must try harder.


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I appreciate that you're clearly a good enough and experienced rider to minimise the disadvantages of riding sub-optimally, but that doesn't make you a not-selfish rider. Other parts of your riding will make you not-selfish and a good rider, sure, but riding too far to the left isn't one of them. In the same way, taking the lane when I should doesn't make me a selfish rider either. Making it easy for motorists to pass is good riding, and it's generous of me to wait and allow others past as I regularly do, even when I don't need to.
> 
> Most motorists are quite understanding of taking the lane through pinch points, and although YouTube video channels don't often give that impression, it's usual to get at least 10 instances of grateful motorists for every impatient one. It's fairly obvious from the hazard flashes and waves of thanks when pulling left after the pedestrian refuge.
> 
> ...



OK Mikey enough of the sparing lets cut to the chase shall we ? You and I both know that, you dont spend your life in the middle of the road and I dont spend mine in the gutter. The reason that prompted me to enter this thread is your thoughts on the light that is cast on cyclists by RLJers ( I happen to agree with your position as it happens.). Continuing this further I would extend this to obstructive cycling. Now Im not accusing you of being one, but IMO you have endorsed this type of riding on occasion (the blue mini thread for example). Now I know what your response to this will be, but irrespective of who is right and who is wrong on where the OP s position in the road should have been, in the mind of the driver, he was being obstructive (the evidence of the drivers reaction was plain to see) this in turn put another vulnerable road user at risk. The motorist believed this was another cyclist being selfish rightly or wrongly.


The above illustrates the fatal flaw with cyclecraft. Nobody other than a small minority of cyclists has ever heard of it let alone knows whats in it ! Its the blind leading the blind at the cost of personal judgement and common sense.

As for the posting of videos on you tube and blogs etc. It has exactly the same effect in the eyes of the motoring majority. Cyclists are trouble. By all means forward them to the relevent authority in cases of bad driving but, dont plaster them all over the internet you re not doing us any favours.

As for scarecrows, I have no need for them.


----------



## Dan B (20 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> ...you're still not good enough to find anyone who's been fined for entering an ASL "wrongly" on a bicycle.
> 
> (B-) Must try harder.


Frankly, I haven't even looked. How would it advance the argument if I did?


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2011)

Yup, that confirms the only fatal flaw here is your misunderstanding of how good road positioning and cyclecraft works. It doesn't require any understanding by drivers. A little knowledge of the highway code, but even that, not so much.

BRSU got the mini driver to behave exactly as he intended, he successfully herded that driver as per good cyclecraft and discouraged them from overtaking through a pinch point. After that, the driver overtook easily as we would all want them to do. Job done. Even if the driver had pushed through on the pinch point as happens occasionally, at least the primary position allows two things - room to BRSU's left to dive out of the way, and it'll also have pushed the driver much further to the right through the pinch point. It's a double safety win.

BRSU was not cycling obstructively there - he didn't make it at all difficult for the driver to overtake.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> Frankly, I haven't even looked. How would it advance the argument if I did?



Yeah, it certainly wouldn't advance your "debate", and it shows your search fu is made of this: FAIL.


----------



## BSRU (20 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> OK Mikey enough of the sparing lets cut to the chase shall we ? You and I both know that, you dont spend your life in the middle of the road and I dont spend mine in the gutter. The reason that prompted me to enter this thread is your thoughts on the light that is cast on cyclists by RLJers ( I happen to agree with your position as it happens.). Continuing this further I would extend this to obstructive cycling. Now Im not accusing you of being one, but IMO you have endorsed this type of riding on occasion (the blue mini thread for example). Now I know what your response to this will be, but irrespective of who is right and who is wrong on where the OP s position in the road should have been, in the mind of the driver, he was being obstructive (the evidence of the drivers reaction was plain to see) this in turn put another vulnerable road user at risk. The motorist believed this was another cyclist being selfish rightly or wrongly.
> 
> 
> The above illustrates the fatal flaw with cyclecraft. Nobody other than a small minority of cyclists has ever heard of it let alone knows whats in it ! Its the blind leading the blind at the cost of personal judgement and common sense.
> ...



I have never read Cyclecraft.
The type of driver who finds some cyclists obstructive probably thinks anyone going slower than them or causing them to slow down are obstructive and speed camera's violate their human rights.


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Yup, that confirms the only fatal flaw here is your misunderstanding of how good road positioning and cyclecraft works. It doesn't require any understanding by drivers. A little knowledge of the highway code, but even that, not so much.
> 
> BRSU got the mini driver to behave exactly as he intended, he successfully herded that driver as per good cyclecraft and discouraged them from overtaking through a pinch point. After that, the driver overtook easily as we would all want them to do. Job done. Even if the driver had pushed through on the pinch point as happens occasionally, at least the primary position allows two things - room to BRSU's left to dive out of the way, and it'll also have pushed the driver much further to the right through the pinch point. It's a double safety win.
> 
> BRSU was not cycling obstructively there - he didn't make it at all difficult for the driver to overtake.



Yup and that confirms your selfish opinion, in regard to other cyclists as it is the drivers view that puts all our lives at risk.


----------



## Dan B (20 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> The above illustrates the fatal flaw with cyclecraft. Nobody other than a small minority of cyclists has ever heard of it let alone knows whats in it !


It's a reasonable argument but the fault is not with cyclecraft or the cyclists following it, it's with the drivers who don't understand why and assume it must be antagonistic. The same could be said about riding two abreast, filtering (aka "queue jumping"), or just about any other cycle-specific maneouvre that the driver doesn't understand, and it's with the driver for assuming the cyclist is reckless/selfish, not with the cyclist for riding in a way that could be misinterpreted as such. You might, from self-preservation, wish to avoid provoking drivers int he same way as you might wish to avoid walking alone at night through rough areas, but if you don't and if they take "revenge", it is quite definitely them to blame and not you. 

tl;dr "he brought it on himself"/"she was asking for it" is not an excuse for retaliatory bad behaviour, and doubly so when the victim was doing it (whatever "it" is) for a perfectly good reason


----------



## Dan B (20 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, it certainly wouldn't advance your "debate"


So why ask for it in the first place? Work with me here, Mike, I'm sure there's some profound insight you're attempting to convey


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2011)

Once again youve stunningly missed the point.


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Yup and that confirms your selfish opinion, in regard to other cyclists as it is the drivers view that puts all our lives at risk.



We've already shown how cyclecraft, and my riding for that matter, is not selfish. Perhaps you can give over now, you lost that point comprehensively some pages back on this topic. How about your riding and approach? Is it safe and sharing of the road?


----------



## BentMikey (20 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> So why ask for it in the first place? Work with me here, Mike, I'm sure there's some profound insight you're attempting to convey




If you want your point about legality to be valid, then you'll have to show that someone was fined for wrongly entering an ASL. Can't do it, then go back to playing with your keyboards. KTHXBAI.


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> It's a reasonable argument but the fault is not with cyclecraft or the cyclists following it, it's with the drivers who don't understand why and assume it must be antagonistic. The same could be said about riding two abreast, filtering (aka "queue jumping"), or just about any other cycle-specific maneouvre that the driver doesn't understand, and it's with the driver for assuming the cyclist is reckless/selfish, not with the cyclist for riding in a way that could be misinterpreted as such. You might, from self-preservation, wish to avoid provoking drivers int he same way as you might wish to avoid walking alone at night through rough areas, but if you don't and if they take "revenge", it is quite definitely them to blame and not you.
> 
> tl;dr "he brought it on himself"/"she was asking for it" is not an excuse for retaliatory bad behaviour, and doubly so when the victim was doing it (whatever "it" is) for a perfectly good reason


At last !


----------



## lukesdad (20 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> We've already shown how cyclecraft, and my riding for that matter, is not selfish. Perhaps you can give over now, you lost that point comprehensively some pages back on this topic. How about your riding and approach? Is it safe and sharing of the road?



Shown to who ? The millions of motorists out there ? Why should I give over? Sorry Im not towing the party line am I spoiling your manifesto ?


----------



## SquareDaff (20 May 2011)

Is this still about RLJ'ing or has it got personal?!?!


----------



## BSRU (20 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> Is this still about RLJ'ing or has it got personal?!?!



Is it about RLJ'ing ?

Someone was banging on about me being a bad boy taking primary at a pinch point, not a red light in sight.


----------



## Dan B (20 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> If you want your point about legality to be valid, then you'll have to show that someone was fined for wrongly entering an ASL. Can't do it, then go back to playing with your keyboards.


Er, no. The law exists whether it's enforced or not. I have quoted the relevant legislation: you can check for yourself if you doubt my word, but you do not need a case report to confirm that it's a real law.

If your position is that a law only really "counts" if someone's enforcing it, then fair enough (but you could have said that in the first place). But then what do you do when enforcement priorities change? How about, for example, pavement cycling? At some places and times the official guidance has been that penalties should only be applied to "inconsiderate" pavement cyclists, at other times and in other places PCSOs are standing on deserted pavements that bypass gyratories expressly to catch cyclists. Do you change your view of whether something is wrong based on how likely you are to get caught doing it?




BentMikey said:


> KTHXBAI.


Your mastery of ten-year-old internet memes is impressive as always. Would you like to include a picture of a kitten with a speech bubble in your next post?


----------



## 400bhp (20 May 2011)

This is another weird thread.


----------



## SquareDaff (20 May 2011)

BSRU said:


> Is it about RLJ'ing ?


It is/was!  



BSRU said:


> Someone was banging on about me being a bad boy taking primary at a pinch point, not a red light in sight.


I do that too - had too many instances of motorists thinking they can get through a gap that's not there and squeezing me into the curb / which is as dangerous as RLJ'ing - I do it as a personal safety thing!


----------



## subaqua (20 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> It is/was!
> 
> 
> I do that too - had too many instances of motorists thinking they can get through a gap that's not there and squeezing me into the curb / which is as dangerous as RLJ'ing - I do it as a personal safety thing!




I got abuse for keeping primary through pinch points. I got abuse in comments on one of my videos for keeping primary so i didn't get doored. 

screw em. screw all RLJers who think its their right to do it. but don't come running to us when you get knocked off and break both your legs ( see what i did there )  . you keep taking the risk to gain 5 or 10 seconds and keep giving a lot of drivers the ammunition they want. 

do i go into ASLs across the whit eline- no as if i cant enter it I filter as far forward as I can . if i get delayed a little longer then so what .


----------



## SquareDaff (20 May 2011)

subaqua said:


> I got abuse for keeping primary through pinch points. I got abuse in comments on one of my videos for keeping primary so i didn't get doored.


There are people on here who play devils advocate just for the sake of winding other people up. Ignore them. Your safety is more important and anyones life is worth more than a couple of seconds of motorists time.


----------



## User482 (20 May 2011)

just jim said:


> RLJ'rs are free thinkers yeh? the rest of us sheeple just can't "think for ourselves".



And don't get me started on the ASL creepers...


----------



## Midnight (20 May 2011)

I hate RLJers.

I saw one yesterday who decided to lunge across a junction just as cross-traffic was moving off. He came within a foot of being squished. Even if it can be done without incident, it encourages other, less-confident cyclists to do the same, and perpetuates the myth that all cyclists are lycra louts.

I think shooting them is a bit extreme though. Some people have no sense of proportion. Cut their bits off with a rusty billhook, maybe... but don't shoot 'em.


----------



## Howard (20 May 2011)

RLJers - why should I have to overtake you again and again and again and again and aga....


----------



## GrasB (24 May 2011)

Wonderful example of why you don't RLJ this morning. The cyclist checks there's nothing coming from down the road which has the green light before proceeding across... straight into the path of a motorist who's pulling out of their drive into the junction. The motorist pips their horn (not a blaring horn held for many seconds but a quick tap maybe half a second long) which results in a torrent of abuse from the rider towards the motorist.


----------



## martint235 (24 May 2011)

GrasB said:


> Wonderful example of why you don't RLJ this morning. The cyclist checks there's nothing coming from down the road which has the green light before proceeding across... straight into the path of a motorist who's pulling out of their drive into the junction. The motorist pips their horn (not a blaring horn held for many seconds but a quick tap maybe half a second long) which results in a torrent of abuse from the rider towards the motorist.



That's part of what gets to me. They are obviously in the wrong but will scream abuse at anyone who questions their behaviour. This morning I politely asked one (he'd RLJ'd 3 consecutive red lights, passing me each time) why, if he was in such a rush, he didn't just pedal faster? Got told to f off. I unclipped at the next lights but he stayed well back. Maybe he's cured.


----------



## CharlieB (24 May 2011)

I had a little contretemps this very morning with an RLJ'er, 'cos it does make me CROSS.

Crossroads into Kilburn High Road (under the big iron bridge for anyone that knows it) - I'm waiting to turn right into the High Road. Guy passes me across the RLs and into the traffic.
Lights change - I turn right to see him scatter a couple of pedestrians at the next RL on a pelican X-ing. At this point I decide, wisely or unwisely, that I'm going to have a word.
So I'm stopped at the X-ing, watching him to see where he's going, the lights change, and I move off to see him jump the next set of lights at another X-roads.
Dag nabbit, I'm thus caught again. A-ha - in a bit, he's turning left, exactly where I'm going anyway. I put the hammer down to catch him, get alongside, slow down and say 'Please don't jump red lights - it makes us all look like tw@ts'
He responds with 'Oh fcuk off, you to$$er'

'Whatever, but you know I'm right', and I'm gone before he can commit murder.

GRRRR.


----------



## SquareDaff (24 May 2011)

As a cyclist and a pedestrian if one of these idiots tried to filter past me whilst I was crossing I'd clothesline them! Maybe then they'd learn some patience!


----------



## benb (24 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> As a cyclist and a pedestrian if one of these idiots tried to filter past me whilst I was crossing I'd clothesline them! Maybe then they'd learn some patience!



Or if not, they would at least be patients.


----------



## User482 (25 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> As a cyclist and a pedestrian if one of these idiots tried to filter past me whilst I was crossing I'd clothesline them! Maybe then they'd learn some patience!



Yes, because committing an assault gives you the moral high ground.


----------



## Raa (25 May 2011)

Wow, what a lot of narrow mindedness here!

Basically we have a lamentable situation where our urban areas were completely re-engineered from the 1950's to the 80's for the convenience of motorised traffic. Now we are suffering the consequences in the form of towns and cities which are downright stressful and unhealthy, and where cycle commuting often requires nerves of steel.

Traffic lights (no, I don't mean pedestrian crossings) exist solely to manage the congestion caused by motor vehicles, the same can be said of one-way streets and gyratory systems. 

Neither of these features were constructed with bicyclists in mind, so for me it begs the question: why don't more cyclists treat them as discretionary?

It seems to me that those who advocate absolute obedience to outdated traffic laws are giving implicit support to the status quo prioritizing motor vehicles.

More than once it has been suggested that our image in the eyes of motorists should dictate how we ride (as if always stopping at red would improve anything?). Why be so concerned about what they think? Most are making short urban journeys which are morally indefensible; polluting our urban centers with cancerous filth through sheer laziness, but hey unlike RLJ'ers, at least they're not breaking the law...


----------



## martint235 (25 May 2011)

Raa said:


> why don't more cyclists treat them as discretionary?
> 
> outdated traffic laws are giving implicit support to the status quo prioritizing motor vehicles.



To the first point, errrmmmm because they aren't.

To the second point because they're aren't outdated, they are still on the statute books and will be until further primary legislation is brought in to over-rule them.

There's a lot of laws I don't like. There's some I can see the point of. There's some I positively like such as it's illegal for someone to stab me. I think we're all on very dangerous ground once we allow people to pick and choose which laws we obey.

Now start a campaign for cyclists to go the opposite direction down a one way street, or turn left at red, or treat red lights as give way signs and I'm first in the queue to sign up because I believe the rules do need to be changed. But while they are in force, they should be obeyed. It's one of the cornerstones of what passes for civilisation.


----------



## Raa (25 May 2011)

martint235 said:


> To the second point because they're aren't outdated, they are still on the statute books and will be until further primary legislation is brought in to over-rule them.
> 
> There's a lot of laws I don't like. There's some I can see the point of. There's some I positively like such as it's illegal for someone to stab me. I think we're all on very dangerous ground once we allow people to pick and choose which laws we obey.
> 
> Now start a campaign for cyclists to go the opposite direction down a one way street, or turn left at red, or treat red lights as give way signs and I'm first in the queue to sign up because I believe the rules do need to be changed. But while they are in force, they should be obeyed. It's one of the cornerstones of what passes for civilisation.



I see your point but I just don't see it that way. It seems the most effective way to get silly laws changed is simply for a significant number of people to ignore them without causing problems. There is little benefit to society in criminalizing people's everyday activities if they are not to the detriment of others.

Actually with RLJing I like the present situation where it remains illegal but there is little enforcement. I think I read somewhere that the UK has more laws than any other country but we are very selective as to which ones are enforced.

As an aside, I had a situation back along when approaching a traffic light light controled roundabout. The approach road was gridlocked with cars as was the roundabout itself. Having filtered to the head of the queue, I of course used my discression and did not wait for green to continue filtering through the gridlock. Would others on here honestly have sat there for minutes in the fumes waiting for a green light under these circumstances?


----------



## 2Loose (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> I see your point but I just don't see it that way. It seems the most effective way to get silly laws changed is simply for a significant number of people to ignore them without causing problems. There is little benefit to society in criminalizing people's everyday activities if they are not to the detriment of others.
> ...
> As an aside, I had a situation back along when approaching a traffic light light controled roundabout. The approach road was gridlocked with cars as was the roundabout itself. Having filtered to the head of the queue, I of course used my discression and did not wait for green to continue filtering through the gridlock. Would others on here honestly have sat there for minutes in the fumes waiting for a green light under these circumstances?



Give me one example of people ignoring laws resulting in it being changed? Mass protesting maybe, but ignoring...I await you example.


Your example, yes I would stop. 

Red means stop to me, but a motorcycle or another cyclist on another part of the RAB would have green. The gridlocked cars would make it difficult for me to see them filtering in my direction. Gridlock would mean limited space for them to avoid me. You aren't the only two wheeler on the road you know! Those cars would be still be there to breeze past in a minutes time when the lights change, what is the rush.

As for narrow mindedness, riding for 'me, me, me' rather than considering everyone else's welfare and safety shows a surprising amount of it.


----------



## martint235 (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> I see your point but I just don't see it that way. It seems the most effective way to get silly laws changed is simply for a significant number of people to ignore them *without causing problems*. There is little benefit to society in criminalizing people's everyday activities if they are not to the detriment of others.



This is the problem. You get through the red light, no harm done. Every single day at work, I hear "I was nearly knocked over by a cyclist going through red light x" or "I had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist who had gone through a red light". It is causing problems for other people. It is also now so widespread that many people feel they can't use pedestrian crossings in the way they were intended to be used because they really have no idea if that cyclist is going to stop.

The law should be enforced and heavily. If the fine is high enough, it could effectively pay for itself to be enforced.


----------



## PBancroft (26 May 2011)

martint235 said:


> This is the problem. You get through the red light, no harm done. Every single day at work, I hear "I was nearly knocked over by a cyclist going through red light x" or "I had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist who had gone through a red light". It is causing problems for other people. It is also now so widespread that many people feel they can't use pedestrian crossings in the way they were intended to be used because they really have no idea if that cyclist is going to stop.
> 
> The law should be enforced and heavily. If the fine is high enough, it could effectively pay for itself to be enforced.



I was almost run down by a car running a red light the other day. You know what? It's not unusual. A couple of months back I was on a pedestrian crossing when THREE cars ran the red light very nearly knocking me over.

It's not a bicycle problem, it's a people problem. Some people just don't seem to give a $h1t about others.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

User482 said:


> Yes, because committing an assault gives you the moral high ground.


And if they hit me at speed because they couldn't be @rsed to stop whilst I was legitimately crossing as a pedestrian then that would be OK then?!?!?! Would it still be OK if it was your kids/elderly parents crossing?


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

martint235 said:


> This is the problem. You get through the red light, no harm done. Every single day at work, I hear "I was nearly knocked over by a cyclist going through red light x" or "I had to slam on my brakes to avoid hitting a cyclist who had gone through a red light". It is causing problems for other people. It is also now so widespread that many people feel they can't use pedestrian crossings in the way they were intended to be used because they really have no idea if that cyclist is going to stop.


How many people on here have grumbled because a pedestrian has still used the crossing even though the red man has shown and we've had to wait as a result. And we'd all soon start complaining if they decided to use said crossing because it was ONLY a cyclist heading towards them and we had to slam on the brakes!! 

It's the same thing if a cyclist decides not to bother stopping on a red light and others have to wait. Pure selfishness!


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> How many people on here have grumbled because a pedestrian has still used the crossing even though the red man has shown and we've had to wait as a result.


Rarely: if I don't have much momentum to lose I will almost always gladly cede priority to pedestrians - they were here first.


But I don't think that's what Raa is talking about. I think he is talking about treating red lights as if they were "give way" markings: you still have to give way if there;s anyone to give way to ...


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1399788"]
Pedestrian crossings were created to force traffic to stop, not to limit when a pedestrian can cross.
[/quote]
But aren't some of us on here saying that we're not going to and plow through anyway?!?!?


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> But aren't some of us on here saying that we're not going to and plow through anyway?!?!?



I'm not going to reread the whole thread to check, but I don't think anyone has spoken in favour of ploughing through pedestrians. I'd have been pretty shocked if anyone had


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

But if red lights become "advisory" that is precisely what you'll end up with (you just have to watch some of the videos on here to realise that WILL happen) - resulting in more accidents for cyclist and pedestrian alike. We all like to think that we wouldn't make a mistake in judgement but in reality we all do. Why increase your risks, and from a non-selfish point of view, the risks to others, in an attempt to save yourself a couple of seconds? Try obeying the same laws you expect others adhere to.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> Try obeying the same laws you expect others adhere to.


As someone else has said on here - you can't pick and chose which ones you want to obey - everyone has different opinions as indicated by this thread - you'd end up with chaos!


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> I'm not going to reread the whole thread to check, but I don't think anyone has spoken in favour of ploughing through pedestrians. I'd have been pretty shocked if anyone had




Nail on the head there Dan. Some people just want to conveniently label and box all RLJ'rs as "smashing through pedestrians like they are skittles and dashing in front of oncoming traffic regardless" so they can justify their argument. Ok some cyclists (and other road users) do behave like that but, as in all areas of humanity, there are always some complete nobs that are entirely selfish while the majority of folk that pass red lights (myself included) will do so meekly and completely giving way to anyone that would rightly expect them to stop. Some of the individuals putting forward arguements in this thread are stubbornly refusing to accept the difference. These people must be so sure that their view of right and wrong is the only view that I hope I never have the misfortune to meet them on the road, they are likely to plough me down just because 'they are in the right'!!!


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> As someone else has said on here - you can't pick and chose which ones you want to obey - everyone has different opinions as indicated by this thread - you'd end up with chaos!




Yes but. One of the most vitriolic debaters in this thread claims the law is the law and must be obeyed, then openly admits to choosing to 'ignore one of the silly unimportant' laws because there is no example of it ever being enforced. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> But if red lights become "advisory" that is precisely what you'll end up with (you just have to watch some of the videos on here to realise that WILL happen) - resulting in more accidents for cyclist and pedestrian alike.


Really not sure about this. Do we have carnage at "give way" signs? Or where lanes merge? Or on roundabouts? Or at driveways where people need to pull out onto the road? Most people, most of the time, seem to be able to successfully negotiate their use of the road with everyone else on it, and mass chaos has not ensued.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1399794"]
I'm with you. What I was suggesting is that, as with speed apologists, RLJers always put themselves across as safe and experienced and never putting anyone else out when what we see on the roads every day is different.
[/quote]
I don't RLJ - I stop at them and will do no matter how safe and experienced I think I am - so I think we agree.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Yes but. One of the most vitriolic debaters in this thread claims the law is the law and must be obeyed, then openly admits to choosing to 'ignore one of the silly unimportant' laws because there is no example of it ever being enforced. You can't have it both ways.


I'm not he/she.
But based on that - apparently you need laws to help bring order to the chaos of everyone arriving at different conclusions/decisions based on the same inputs.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> Really not sure about this. Do we have carnage at "give way" signs? Or where lanes merge? Or on roundabouts? Or at driveways where people need to pull out onto the road? Most people, most of the time, seem to be able to successfully negotiate their use of the road with everyone else on it, and mass chaos has not ensued.


You're describing situations here where people are looking for "dangers" (for want of a better word). If I'm going through a set of green lights in my car then I'm not going to be looking for a cyclist wandering into my path (maybe due to an error in judgement about how far away I am/speed I'm travelling - any other reason - we've all made mistakes for various reasons) when he/she should have been stopped at a red light!

I've been stopped at enough lights where nothing has come through from the other junction to be able to appreciate your point of view. However I don't agree that choosing to ignore a law just because you don't happen to agree with it is the way forward. The laws are there as much for our protection as they are for the protection of other road users!


----------



## I like Skol (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> I'm not he/she.




Quite right, you are not he/she. The person I refer to is exceedingly confrontational and seems to spend the majority of their time while cycling looking for fault and criticising the actions of other road users while they proclaim to the world how excellent, skillful and reasonable they are as a road user. I am just glad I am not such a capable cyclist because if I had that many near misses and incidents while cycling I don't think I would get on a cycle again.

Peace and love, peace and love.  

Edit: speeling!


----------



## subaqua (26 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Quite right, you are not he/she. The person I refer to is exceedingly confrontational and seems to spend the majority of their time while cycling looking for fault and criticising the actions of other road users while they proclaim to the world how excellent, skillful and reasonable they are as a road user. I am just glad I am not such a capable cyclist because if I had that many near misses and incidents while cycling I don't think I would get on a cycle again.
> 
> Peace and love, peace and love.
> 
> Edit: speeling!



do they have a blog in East London


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Give me one example of people ignoring laws resulting in it being changed? Mass protesting maybe, but ignoring...I await you example.


Cannabis was reclassified from B to C in 2004, removing the threat of arrest for possession. This change in the law would almost certainly would not have happened if nobody was smoking it.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Quite right, you are not he/she. The person I refer to is exceedingly confrontational and seems to spend the majority of their time while cycling looking for fault and criticising the actions of other road users while they proclaim to the world how excellent, skillful and reasonable they are as a road user. I am just glad I am not such a capable cyclist because if I had that many near misses and incidents while cycling I don't think I would get on a cycle again.
> 
> Peace and love, peace and love.
> 
> Edit: speeling!


There are a couple of people like that on these forums. There are also a few "tongue in cheek" comedy merchants and a few that just like to sh1t stir and step back and watch the fallout. Just enjoy your cycling safely. That's what my aim is!


----------



## 2Loose (26 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> Cannabis was reclassified from B to C in 2004, removing the threat of arrest for possession. This change in the law would almost certainly would not have happened if nobody was smoking it.



Damn you, you are right! But it was changed back in 2009 despite people still smoking it...so I won't count it after all.


----------



## lukesdad (26 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Damn you, you are right! But it was changed back in 2009 despite people still smoking it...so I won't count it after all.



Defying the courts over gagging orders ?


----------



## arallsopp (26 May 2011)

[QUOTE 1399788"]
Pedestrian crossings were created to force traffic to stop, not to limit when a pedestrian can cross.
[/quote]

Worth repeating, I think.


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Quite right, you are not he/she. The person I refer to is exceedingly confrontational and seems to spend the majority of their time while cycling looking for fault and criticising the actions of other road users while they proclaim to the world how excellent, skillful and reasonable they are as a road user.


Assuming you're talking about Mike, I think you're actually being a bit harsh there: he's perfectly happy to discuss his cycling errors just he would the errors of anyone else.


----------



## Raa (26 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Give me one example of people ignoring laws resulting in it being changed? Mass protesting maybe, but ignoring...I await you example.



How about an example that's nice and close to home. Flashing LED lights were illegal for a long time but because people ignored the law and went ahead and used them the silly law got changed.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> How about an example that's nice and close to home. Flashing LED lights were illegal for a long time but because people ignored the law and went ahead and used them the silly law got changed.


I've only just got back into cycling so feel free to correct me, but weren't they only illegal if you used them exclusively? If used in conjunction with a static light they were OK weren't they?


----------



## Raa (26 May 2011)

Thats probably true but I think there were plenty of people with just the one (flashing) light...


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> Damn you, you are right! But it was changed back in 2009 despite people still smoking it...so I won't count it after all.


That's not what you originally specified ;-) OK, I'd have to do more research to be definite on this one, but I am reasonably sure that prior to 1988 it was illegal (breach of copyright) to take a backup of the software installed on your computer, for your personal use. Now, I don't recall any particular mass protests to get this changed, but I am pretty sure that every sane computer user ignored that law anyway.

Ripping your music CDs - e.g. to Ipod - is _still_ illegal, incidentally. I hope that nobody who says we cannot "pick and choose" the laws we obey is doing that. I mention it because that law is also widely ignored and the Government are looking at changing it


----------



## 2Loose (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> How about an example that's nice and close to home. Flashing LED lights were illegal for a long time but because people ignored the law and went ahead and used them the silly law got changed.



I believe that this change was to bring it into line with the more sensible European law in 2005, not due to people flouting it.


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> Thats probably true but I think there were plenty of people with just the one (flashing) light...



LED lights (flashing or otherwise) were illegal and in widespread use for a very long time, because the law specified filament lights.

Pedal reflectors that point front and rear - technically impossible on a recumbent - are also a legal requirement, as we all know. That's kind of off the point, though, because I don't know of any moves to get that law changed


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> Thats probably true but I think there were plenty of people with just the one (flashing) light...


I suspect you may be right - but your talking on a forum where most people tend to need a small nuclear generator to power their lighting setups


----------



## Raa (26 May 2011)

I also hear the government are looking at ways to legalize cycling contraflow on one-way streets. I doubt they would be bothering if it were not for the large numbers of people ignoring the restrictions on a daily basis without incident.


----------



## GrasB (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> I suspect you may be right - but your talking on a forum where most people tend to need a small nuclear generator to power their lighting setups


Please not get carried away, we merely need a hundred weight batteries ... I'll take mine in the lithium ion variety thanks


----------



## 2Loose (26 May 2011)

And the people campaigning for the change with well reasoned arguments.

If a law was changed just because it was often flouted, then mobile phone useage while driving and speeding would already be fine in law. 
My point is that it takes a campaign to do this, not just ignoring the law because it doesn't suit you.


----------



## User482 (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> And if they hit me at speed because they couldn't be @rsed to stop whilst I was legitimately crossing as a pedestrian then that would be OK then?!?!?! Would it still be OK if it was your kids/elderly parents crossing?



In one short post you've a) completely missed my point and b) attributed an opinion to me that I do not hold.

Quite an effort. What other tricks do you do?


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

In all honesty I think you're being a bit binary about this. No, laws are not repealed simply because lots of people break them. Conversely, though, they are unlikely to be repealed if nobody has a problem with them - what would be the point of all that expense legalising something that nobody wants to do anyway? Bringing about a change in the law requires (among other things) the ability to demonstrate that the change would have popular public support: campaigns are part of this, and being able to point to people who are already ignoring it is another part. And the experience of other countries and so on, etc etc. You can't simply say it's A or B or C: there are 600-odd people voting for or against the change and they each have their own reasons which are probably some combination of the above in varying proportions


----------



## Raa (26 May 2011)

2Loose said:


> And the people campaigning for the change with well reasoned arguments.
> 
> If a law was changed just because it was often flouted, then mobile phone useage while driving and speeding would already be fine in law.
> My point is that it takes a campaign to do this, not just ignoring the law because it doesn't suit you.



Hmm, I think flouted 'without harm' is the point, I don't think you could argue speeding and texting at the wheel are without harm in the same way you could, for example riding contra on one way streets, or treating red lights as give ways. 

I don't think a campaign would do anything if you couldn't demonstrate that the law in question was unnecessary.


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

Raa said:


> Hmm, I think flouted 'without harm' is the point


Most of the time! I really wouldn't want to be the driver that hit a cyclist RLJ'ing because they had an error in judgement. The fact that they'd been breaking the law as it stands today would be no comfort to me at all!


----------



## 2Loose (26 May 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Defying the courts over gagging orders ?



LoL, this may well be the one!


----------



## Mad at urage (26 May 2011)

Red light means STOP. What it cannot mean is "STOP (_or Give Way, if you want to - because you are special_")" and (as it would need to do) add "*OH, but not at THIS junction because what you can't see as you approach is ...* (oh sh1t)"  .

There may be (all right there is) a case for arguing that at many junctions it should not be necessary to always stop; that "Give Way" would work (often better). I've heard of this being demonstrated in several locations where traffic lights have been removed and Give Way signs installed (miraculously cutting congestion). For that however, we already have Give Way signs. Campaigners would do better* to concentrate on getting unnecessary traffic lights replaced by Give Way signs, rather than trying to alter (or ignore) the existing STOP signal.

_
*Always assuming of course that they are trying to improve the overall environment, rather than campaigning for 'special privileges for us saintly cyclists' _


----------



## BentMikey (26 May 2011)

SquareDaff said:


> You're describing situations here where people are looking for "dangers" (for want of a better word). *If I'm going through a set of green lights in my car then I'm not going to be looking for* a cyclist wandering into my path (maybe due to an error in judgement about how far away I am/speed I'm travelling - any other reason - we've all made mistakes for various reasons) when he/she should have been stopped at a red light!
> 
> I've been stopped at enough lights where nothing has come through from the other junction to be able to appreciate your point of view. However I don't agree that choosing to ignore a law just because you don't happen to agree with it is the way forward. The laws are there as much for our protection as they are for the protection of other road users!



Well, green light only means go if it is safe to do so, so you should be looking for cyclists and other vehicles despite you having a green light. I'm sure like most people on here you probably do this, but it's not coming across that way in the above post.

I'm worried enough about being hit by some James Blunt jumping the lights that I usually look both ways for traffic despite having a green light. There are a couple of intersections on my way home where the risk of a car coming through at speed is higher than usual, these I check with extra care.


----------



## BentMikey (26 May 2011)

I like Skol said:


> Quite right, you are not he/she. The person I refer to is exceedingly confrontational and seems to spend the majority of their time while cycling looking for fault and criticising the actions of other road users while *they proclaim to the world how excellent, skillful and reasonable they are as a road user*. I am just glad I am not such a capable cyclist because if I had that many near misses and incidents while cycling I don't think I would get on a cycle again.
> 
> Peace and love, peace and love.
> 
> Edit: speeling!



Looking in the mirror old chap? The bolded bit bit couldn't be further from the truth about me, and the rest doesn't match at all well either.


----------



## Dan B (26 May 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Red light means STOP. What it cannot mean is "STOP (_or Give Way, if you want to - because you are special_")" and (as it would need to do) add "*OH, but not at THIS junction because what you can't see as you approach is ...* (oh sh1t)"  .



That's actually a pretty good description of what the red man means for pedestrians, and most pedestrians treat it as such (wait if there's something coming or they have a poor view; cross the road if it's empty or if traffic is stopped). I suggest there are probably circumstances in which it might work just as well for some other classes of road user and that there should be a way of managing the change such that it doesn't turn into the free-for-all that some posters obviously assume would result

The problem with replacing traffic lights with Give Ways is that then you need to designate a minor road (which gives way) and a major road (which doesn't), and if the major road is busy traffic on the minor road could wait for ages. Traffic lights (or roundabouts) give everyone a fair chance. Perhaps we need some new class of signal-controlled Give Way signs


----------



## SquareDaff (26 May 2011)

BentMikey said:


> Well, green light only means go if it is safe to do so, so you should be looking for cyclists and other vehicles despite you having a green light. I'm sure like most people on here you probably do this, but it's not coming across that way in the above post.


I do - but I'm also in the minority that ride a bike regularly as well as drive. Like you, knowing my vulnerability on a bike, I tend to look everywhere and 2nd guess everyone and that transfers across when I drive the car. My statement was a sweeping generalisation which, unfortunately, is probably the opinion held by the vast majority of drivers. 

Sad I know but the driving lessons instruction "be prepared to stop at every junction" is probably forgotten by most drivers at the same time they forget "don't cross your hands on the steering wheel" (i.e. as soon as you pass). I know I must have been guilty of it to some extent as my observation in the car has improved no end now I've started cycling again!!


----------



## Mad at urage (26 May 2011)

Dan B said:


> That's actually a pretty good description of what the red man means for pedestrians, and most pedestrians treat it as such (wait if there's something coming or they have a poor view; cross the road if it's empty or if traffic is stopped). I suggest there are probably circumstances in which it might work just as well for some other classes of road user and that there should be a way of managing the change such that it doesn't turn into the free-for-all that some posters obviously assume would result


As has been said before:[QUOTE 1399788"]
That's different. The red man is advisory, and I believe there's nothing to stop a pedestrian crossing whenever he or she wants to. 

Pedestrian crossings were created to force traffic to stop, not to limit when a pedestrian can cross.
[/quote]
Roads belong to Pedestrians; they were smooth-surfaced for vehicles (such as bicycles) which don't like cobbles; motor vehicles use them by licence.


Dan B said:


> The problem with replacing traffic lights with Give Ways is that then you need to designate a minor road (which gives way) and a major road (which doesn't), and if the major road is busy traffic on the minor road could wait for ages. Traffic lights (or roundabouts) give everyone a fair chance. Perhaps we need some new class of signal-controlled Give Way signs


Sure, that's what mini-roundabouts (with Give Way signs) are for - if only everyone understood how they change the topography and who gives way to whom!. Signal-controlled Give Ways have recently been talked: Changing the meaning of flashing amber to 'Proceed with caution'. However that is the meaning of traffic lights that are switched off anyway!


----------

