# RLJ, why do I bother...



## Cab (23 Aug 2007)

Stopped at a junction yesterday. Red light. Waited. Bloke cycles past me, looks carefully, keeps going. 

Lights change, within 50 yards I'm past him. Overtake another two cyclists, then next set of lights (dagnammit, nearly got them at green, oh well...).

Wait... Wait... One of the ladies I'd past caught up, waited next to me in the box. Second lady catches up, waits behind us in the box. Bloke catches up, ambles past, keeps going. Both ladies tut at him.

Went past very soon, told him "Red light, white line, applies to you like it applies to the rest of us". Got a venomous face and "No it doesn't". "Yes, it really does" I replied and contined on my way. I think he gave chase shouting, but that was a fairly futile thing to do, he wasn't really up for a chase.

I rarely talk to RLJ's, I think they're rather beneath me. But sometimes, sometimes I get sucked in and I give them a telling. Sometimes it helps (we get a lot of foreign kids here in Cambridge who genuinely don't know), other times they get shirty.


----------



## magnatom (23 Aug 2007)

He'll have raised his blood pressure a little bit for the rest of the day. Thinking about that usually provides me some solace.


----------



## domtyler (23 Aug 2007)

What exactly was wrong with this poor guys behaviour?


----------



## Paulus (23 Aug 2007)

domtyler said:


> What exactly was wrong with this poor guys behaviour?



I think you are trying to wind people up. Unless of course you were that man?


----------



## domtyler (23 Aug 2007)

Paulus said:


> I think you are trying to wind people up. Unless of course you were that man?



What? Never!!!! I have tried to wind Cab up on multiple occasions anyway and it is virtually impossible. The man is unflappable, made of pure granite.


----------



## Tynan (23 Aug 2007)

their decision, I don't think the self righteous approach is helpful or welcome, live and let live


----------



## zimzum42 (23 Aug 2007)

I just ignore it..........


----------



## peejay78 (23 Aug 2007)

i pointed out to serial rlj chap that he was risking serious injury.

he threatened to kill me. 

i wrote him down in my little black book under the heading "unpleasant south africans i have met".


----------



## frog (23 Aug 2007)

I would quite willingly 'live and let live' if only the numpties in cars would stop banging on about 'you lot jump red lights and ride on the pavement etc'. 

As long as it poisons the attitude of others towards me, who doesn't jump reds, I feel I have the right to say 'stop making trouble for me'

By all means make trouble for yourself. Ask Foska to make you a special 'I jump red lights and I don't care' jersey - I'll even pay half towards it for you. All I want to do is ride my bike in peace and RLJers jeopardise that peace.

Finally, before we all slide down the slippery slope of 'cars do it as well' can we just take stock of the fact there are more of them than us and we always come off worst in any incident.


----------



## col (23 Aug 2007)

There are bad drivers/riders in all forms of transport.The white van man,who speeds cuts up and passes too close,then the car driver similar,then the bus driver,again similar,and the cyclist too,and no doubt some of all these jump red lights too.It all comes down to safety, for yourself and others.How many of us have pushed a possible dangerous position,because we feel/know we have right of way?A few ill bet.but after spending a lot of time on the road,i have become a defensive(if thats the right term)driver,i would rather give way to other vehicles than push a position,just because i felt i had the right.After all,what are wesaving,?a few seconds?is it really worth it?


----------



## Tynan (23 Aug 2007)

drivers moaning about bikes jumping red lights is meaningless, it matter nothing to them at all, it's just something vaguely valid for them to moan about

if it wasn't that it'd be something else, road tax, licence, something else stupid

some cyclists jump reds because it's perfectly safe most of the time, some don;t because they respect the rules of the road above their convenience

lecturing red jumpers is a waste of breathe and just irritates them and yourself

leave them to it and let it go


----------



## Road Fiddler (23 Aug 2007)

Tynan said:


> leave them to it and let it go



I agree with your post but then if a RLJ got it wrong in front of me i would feel obliged to offer first aid whilst most car drivers would not bother stopping or those that did stop would be winging about his actions. I am happy to offer first aid to anyone but prefer to offer it to someone in an accident apposed to someone that deliberately put themselves in a situation.

RLJing is a sign of argent's and self importance and i dont care who i upset by saying it.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2007)

If I may....


Tynan said:


> some cyclists drivers jump reds speed because it's perfectly safe most of the time, some don;t because they respect the rules of the road above their convenience
> 
> lecturing red jumpers speeding motorists is a waste of breathe and just irritates them and yourself
> 
> leave them to it and let it go



No. Not good enough. I rarely bother shouting at RLJs because I can't afford the inevitable bill for throat sweets. But every idiot on two wheels who thinks they needn't bother with trivialities like red lights makes life more awkward for those of us who do bother. Condoning it or making facile excuses doesn't help.


----------



## HJ (24 Aug 2007)

Yep, too right Chuffy...


----------



## starseven (24 Aug 2007)

is this RLJ thing a London problem?

I sometimes go through a red if visibilty is good and its clear, theres some roundabouts near me with 16 lights on them, when clear I will ignore the lights and go through no problems. 

Could be driving in Eire for too long, whre lights are seen as advisory


----------



## magnatom (24 Aug 2007)

I'm with Chuffy on this one. 
I must admit I don't see many RLJ's on my commute so when I do I say something. On a couple of occasions it has made them think although as others have said most of the time they just swear back at you. However, if we all moaned at RLJ's we might just pee them off enough that they would either:

a) stop it
 stop cycling altogether
c) get so annoyed that they forget themselves and cycle under a bus

I think a and b would be a result. I wouldn't want c but it might just be Darwin at work.....


----------



## Cab (24 Aug 2007)

frog said:


> I would quite willingly 'live and let live' if only the numpties in cars would stop banging on about 'you lot jump red lights and ride on the pavement etc'.
> 
> As long as it poisons the attitude of others towards me, who doesn't jump reds, I feel I have the right to say 'stop making trouble for me'



Got it in one. I don't condone those motorists who believe that it is reasonable to have a go at all of us because of this, not for a moment, but I see no reason to give them extra ammo either.


----------



## Cab (24 Aug 2007)

starseven said:


> is this RLJ thing a London problem?



I'm in Cambridge, where we have a greater proportion of cyclists than those jonny-come-latelys in London  Its an issue here.


----------



## Arch (24 Aug 2007)

starseven said:


> is this RLJ thing a London problem?




I see plenty of yobs, and the occasional 'proper' cyclist (hi vis, lights, that sort of thing) jumping reds here in York. Actually, with the yobs, they often have a littler yob balanced on the rack or handlebars, so it's double darwinism.

I've pretty much given up saying anything, I try to tut and shake my head for the benefit of anyone else watching, so as to show we don't all do it.


----------



## Commuter (24 Aug 2007)

I always RLJ if I believe it is safe to do so . I've not been hit or caused an accident yet so I reckon I'm a good judge of the situation.

For those of you who feel it necessary to confront RLJ ers, do you ever , ever break the law ?? 

ie, 31mph in a 30 zone, 71mph on the motorway ? Do you always ensure that your wheels come to a stop when at a stop sign even if it's 3am and not anothe car on the road ??

I suspect not.

If you have a bee in you bonnet about RLJ ers, keep it to yourself.


----------



## domtyler (24 Aug 2007)

Commuter said:


> I always RLJ if I believe it is safe to do so . I've not been hit or caused an accident yet so I reckon I'm a good judge of the situation.
> 
> For those of you who feel it necessary to confront RLJ ers, do you ever , ever break the law ??
> 
> ...



Well said, unfortunately you may as well politely ask a dog to stop barking.


----------



## Arch (24 Aug 2007)

Interesting, commuter. So I take it you would never ever suggest to anyone that they should stop doing anything illegal, because you know you're not perfect?

Of course none of us are perfect - generally out of carelessness rather than deliberate act, but it's true, we all make errors and carelessness is no excuse. Does that mean none of us have any right to uphold the law when we see it being ignored and we care?


----------



## Commuter (24 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Interesting, commuter. So I take it you would never ever suggest to anyone that they should stop doing anything illegal, because you know you're not perfect?



If it was damaging to someone's health / property etc then I would probably intervene. 

If it was something that I had an irrational dislike about that wasn't hurting / damaging anyone then I'd try to keep my thoughts to myself.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

RLJing only directly affects the safety of the RLJer. Their choice. The only way it might affect another cyclist as I see it, is if you as a cyclist feel it damages the _image_ of cycling and you would like others to see you as part of that _image_.

Personally, that image is not that important to me so I don't mind it when I see RLJers, and I don't feel that anyone who gets on a bike in this country has the ability to damage my reputation or safety while I'm cycling, simply by doing something that may be perceived as dangerous to another. A parallel would be as in Commuter's example, if every time you see someone speeding in a car, you feel that your image as a motorist is being tarnished by that behaviour.

That said, my feelings are probably the result of what I think is generally good motoring behaviour on my commute plus the fact that I meet very few cyclists on my route. And if you are someone who these things are important to, then fair enough you're perfectly entitled to get annoyed by it.


----------



## magnatom (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse,

What happens if they do get hit and maybe killed by a car? Is it still just the RLJer that is the victim? What about the driver of the car? The people who run to the RLJers aid, their family etc? 

Yes I know there are those who say I can RLJ safely, but that is exactly the same argument as those that say they can speed safely in a car. The same argument young lads make every day after just passing their test just before they crash (look at the road fatality statistics).

Maybe just maybe that is true but lines have to be drawn to ensure that those that can't speed/RLJ etc safely don't do it. Thus, there is a law and that law applies to all. We can't go making exemptions about what laws apply to us can we?


----------



## Arch (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> A parallel would be as in Commuter's example, if every time you see someone speeding in a car, you feel that your image as a motorist is being tarnished by that behaviour.




But I think you can't compare the examples of cyclists and drivers, thanks to the enormously biased car culture in this country. All of us on here are cyclists, which already makes us odd in a lot of folks eyes. We know that there are good and bad cyclists, like there are good and bad drivers. But there are a huge number of unthinking people out there who only see what they want to see because it reinforces their mindless stereotypes and sense of superiority. They are drivers, and so immersed in the necessity of thier crs that they will ignore the transgressions of other drivers and pick on (verbally, or sadly, in some cases physically) a group they don't belong to... It's true, without rljing, they'd no doubt find some other thing to moan about - maybe pavement cycling, which is also something that _could_ be done safely, but has to be legislated against for the greater good, because of the eejits who don't take care. And without that, they'd be forced back on the roadtax thing -which is where they fall down because it's a false idea.

When you've worked in a job trying to encourage more people to cycle, and you know that every time you do an event someone will come up and start on all the rljing and pavement cycling stuff, you tend to get annoyed, because it takes you away from the useful job of helping people find the right bike, or the right route or whatever, defending yourself against a false accusation. That's my reason for getting annoyed.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> RLJing only directly affects the safety of the RLJer. Their choice. *The only way it might affect another cyclist as I see it, is if you as a cyclist feel it damages the image of cycling and you would like others to see you as part of that image.*
> 
> Personally, that image is not that important to me so I don't mind it when I see RLJers, and I don't feel that anyone who gets on a bike in this country has the ability to damage my reputation or safety while I'm cycling, simply by doing something that may be perceived as dangerous to another. A parallel would be as in Commuter's example, if every time you see someone speeding in a car, you feel that your image as a motorist is being tarnished by that behaviour.


It's not about how I want to be seen, it's how I (as a cyclist) _am_ seen. The moaners in the local rag don't distinguish between the idiot brigade and someone who signals, doesn't RLJ, doesn't ride on the pavement and is lit up like a Christmas tree at night. To them, we're all one single mass.

Incidentally, for me it's not the danger of RLJing that is the main issue, it's the perceived arrogance and lack of respect for other road users.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> Tetedelacourse,
> 
> What happens if they do get hit and maybe killed by a car? Is it still just the RLJer that is the victim? What about the driver of the car? The people who run to the RLJers aid, their family etc?
> 
> ...



All fair points Magna. I hadn't thought about the act of RLJing in terms of causing damage to a motorist. I guess it boils down to whether you think you can do it safely or not though, and the likelihood of this behaviour causing accidents, as the same could be said of getting on a bike in the first place.

Of course it is indisputably against the law, and I fully appreciate that the law exists to protect road users. In my experience though not a day goes by when I don't see someone breaking the law on the road and I don't feel less safe as a result. I'm in grave danger of slipping into aimless rambling mode (it's possible I already have!) but my view is that I don't feel threatened by RLJing, I don't feel my image as a cyclist is damaged by it, and I don't feel the need to complain about it just because it's against the law. And I'm not convinced it's actually that dangerous.


----------



## Keith Oates (24 Aug 2007)

Quite agree with that Chuffy, and it could lead to a situation where some goverment committee or what ever, makes even more rules to restrict the use of bikes on the roads, such as enforcing cycle paths to be used!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> But I think you can't compare the examples of cyclists and drivers, thanks to the enormously biased car culture in this country. All of us on here are cyclists, *which already makes us odd in a lot of folks eyes. *We know that there are good and bad cyclists, like there are good and bad drivers. *But there are a huge number of unthinking people out there who only see what they want to see because it reinforces their mindless stereotypes and sense of superiority.* *They are drivers, and so immersed in the necessity of thier crs that they will ignore the transgressions of other drivers and pick on (verbally, or sadly, in some cases physically) a group they don't belong to...* It's true, without rljing, they'd no doubt find some other thing to moan about - maybe pavement cycling, which is also something that _could_ be done safely, but has to be legislated against for the greater good, because of the eejits who don't take care. And without that, they'd be forced back on the roadtax thing -which is where they fall down because it's a false idea.
> 
> *When you've worked in a job trying to encourage more people to cycle,* and you know that *every time you do an event someone will come up and start on all the rljing and pavement cycling stuff,* you tend to get annoyed, because it takes you away from the useful job of helping people find the right bike, or the right route or whatever, *defending yourself against a false accusation.* That's my reason for getting annoyed.



Fair enough Arch, sounds reasonable. The parts I highlighted above are the parts I have absolutely no experience of. I simply haven't either experienced that attitude, or seen or sensed it from fellow road users up here in Scotland. I think if I felt I was being tarred with the same brush as someone who was behaving dangerously or irresponsibly then I would certainly be annoyed. But personally, I haven't felt that way...yet.


----------



## Road Fiddler (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> RLJing only directly affects the safety of the RLJer. Their choice. The only way it might affect another cyclist as I see it, is if you as a cyclist feel it damages the _image_ of cycling and you would like others to see you as part of that _image_.



This sounds like the sort of thing said by someone who is not taking responsibility for there actions. Ok you my be an adult of sound mind and you are probably capable of judging the conditions and probable dangers by acting in a given way, for instance RLJ. 

But, what happens when you are approaching a junction which you pass everyday, you know the light sequence and you plow through without regard and there is someone, possibly a preteen riding to school, who is following you and decides to follow you through just because if its safe for you so it must be safe for him and he is taken out. Would you take responsibility for your actions then?

The way it affects other cyclists is by encouraging them to take silly risks themselves and the younger the cyclist the less developed there judgement, road sense and there self preservation instinct. You are putting per-pressure on them to follow how ever unintentional it is.


----------



## frog (24 Aug 2007)

> And I'm not convinced it's actually that dangerous.



I have to disagree. RLJing takes advantage of the fact that others will obey the rules and you are the sole rule breaker. If three or four people arrive at a junction all with the same poor attitude to the rules then someone will get hurt. 

Not only are we hearing of people getting near misses as they cross junctions against the rules we have situations where those who have legitimatly stopped at red getting rammed by RLJers who expected them to proceed over the crossing on a red light. 

As a cyclist one of the first things I learned was whatever I hit it damn well hurts no matter how big or small it is.

If we keep antogonizing the public then they'll demand something be done about us. It then becomes a very simple vote catcher and our *right*, under the Carrigages Act, could be in jeopardy.


----------



## Cab (24 Aug 2007)

Commuter said:


> I always RLJ if I believe it is safe to do so . I've not been hit or caused an accident yet so I reckon I'm a good judge of the situation.



I once heard something very similar.

"I often drink and drive, I rekon I'm safe to do so, I know my limits..."

Do you believe that each individual should have the freedom to pick and choose which laws apply to them?



> For those of you who feel it necessary to confront RLJ ers, do you ever , ever break the law ??



Can't think of any law (other than not doing archery on a Sunday...) that I habitually break.



> ie, 31mph in a 30 zone, 71mph on the motorway ? Do you always ensure that your wheels come to a stop when at a stop sign even if it's 3am and not anothe car on the road ??



I come to pretty near a stop, i.e. my forward momentum more or less halts; I don't put my feet down if I can help it. And I don't drive, so I don't speed.

[qoute]
I suspect not.

If you have a bee in you bonnet about RLJ ers, keep it to yourself.[/QUOTE]

No. If you red light jump then stop it, your selfish and illegal behaviour reflects badly on all of us.


----------



## Cab (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> RLJing only directly affects the safety of the RLJer. Their choice.



Not true. RLJers often come out with this argument. I suppose therefore you're happy for cars, lorries, busses and vans to red light jump because the driver believes its safe to do so? And if they get that judement wrong...?

The purpose of having laws like this is that they take the decision away from the individual, when the individual isn't trusted to make that choice for themself within the wider context of safety and welfare of everyone. You break this law, you're stepping outside of that context and saying you don't give a monkeys about everyone else. That matters. It matters _even more_ that enough cyclists do so that the generalisation of cyclists being selfish nutters appears to many to hold true.



> That said, my feelings are probably the result of what I think is generally good motoring behaviour on my commute plus the fact that I meet very few cyclists on my route. And if you are someone who these things are important to, then fair enough you're perfectly entitled to get annoyed by it.



Loads of cyclists here. I see this every day. And I see more aggression towards cyclists than anywhere else I've ridden. The two are linked, bad cycling behaviour breeds bad treatment of cyclists.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

Road Fiddler said:


> This sounds like the sort of thing said by someone who is not taking responsibility for there actions. Ok you my be an adult of sound mind and you are probably capable of judging the conditions and probable dangers by acting in a given way, for instance RLJ.
> 
> But, what happens when you are approaching a junction which you pass everyday, you know the light sequence and you plow through without regard and there is someone, possibly a preteen riding to school, who is following you and decides to follow you through just because if its safe for you so it must be safe for him and he is taken out. Would you take responsibility for your actions then?
> 
> ...


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

frog said:


> I have to disagree. *RLJing takes advantage of the fact that others will obey the rules and you are the sole rule breaker. If three or four people arrive at a junction all with the same poor attitude to the rules then someone will get hurt. *
> 
> Not only are we hearing of people getting near misses as they cross junctions against the rules we have situations where those who have legitimatly stopped at red getting rammed by RLJers who expected them to proceed over the crossing on a red light.
> 
> ...



But if the attitude was "it's safe to proceed so I will" then no-one would get hurt. 

Your last point Frog - I think this (both the act of RLJ and the antagonistic attitude) must be more prevalent down south and so I'll take your word for it. I haven't heard that attitude expressed up north.


----------



## magnatom (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Your last point Frog - I think this (both the act of RLJ and the antagonistic attitude) must be more prevalent down south and so I'll take your word for it. I haven't heard that attitude expressed up north.



I'm from Glasgow and I have heard this attitude on a number of occasions.

'Shouldn't be on the road', 'Don't pay road tax', 'all break the rules' etc.

I was in a taxi once (in Glasgow) when the driver started cursing a cyclist on the road (who was doing no wrong) and said something like 'they all break the f**kn' rules'

Suffice it to say he was corrected an did not receive a tip!!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> Not true. RLJers often come out with this argument. I suppose therefore you're happy for cars, lorries, busses and vans to red light jump because the driver believes its safe to do so? And if they get that judement wrong...?
> 
> The purpose of having laws like this is that they take the decision away from the individual, when the individual isn't trusted to make that choice for themself within the wider context of safety and welfare of everyone. You break this law, you're stepping outside of that context and saying you don't give a monkeys about everyone else. That matters. It matters _even more_ that enough cyclists do so that the generalisation of cyclists being selfish nutters appears to many to hold true.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cab (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> ^I haven't seen this ever happen^. I will take your word for it if you have though.



I see it every day. I'm amazed that more of the younger, inexperienced cyclists in Cambridge don't get squished; I see plenty of knocks though, and if their bikes were worth more dosh then I rekon we'd be plagued with reported accidents here.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> I'm from Glasgow and I have heard this attitude on a number of occasions.
> 
> 'Shouldn't be on the road', 'Don't pay road tax', 'all break the rules' etc.
> 
> ...



Did you have your cycling gear on? I'd probably say something in that instance too.


----------



## dondare (24 Aug 2007)

Is Atlantis up North? I didn't know that.

Cab is 100% correct, bad behaviour by cyclists breeds bad treatment of cyclists. If as an RLJer you take responsibility for your actions, then realize that you are responsible for other cyclists getting killed or injured on the road by motorists who treat all of us as outlaws because they see so many cyclists breaking the law. 
RLJing also gives ammunition to those who insist that cycling should be further regulated. The sense of freedom that you feel because you are happy to ignore the laws that constrain others could lead to a real loss of freedom for yourself and for me which is why I think that you are such Rsoles.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

dondare said:


> Is Atlantis up North? I didn't know that..



Have you seen our climate?



dondare said:


> Cab is 100% correct, bad behaviour by cyclists breeds bad treatment of cyclists. .



OK I accept that this may be true, although I personally have not experienced this.




dondare said:


> motorists who treat all of us as outlaws because they see so many cyclists breaking the law. .



Well no they don't, see above.



dondare said:


> RLJing also gives ammunition to those who insist that cycling should be further regulated. The sense of freedom that you feel because you are happy to ignore the laws that constrain others could lead to a real loss of freedom for yourself and for me.



This could well be the case, I agree.



dondare said:


> I think that you are such Rsoles.



Eh, I never said that I RLJ, just that I'm not sure it's dangerous or worth pulling others up for, and that I haven't directly experienced the animosity or attitude against cyclists as a whole that quite clearly others have. But you are entitled to your opinion Don.


----------



## magnatom (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Did you have your cycling gear on? I'd probably say something in that instance too.



No I was dressed as a pedestrian (do they have a dress code?)

As I left he agreed to disagree, I just thought he was a tosser.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

dondare said:


> Is Atlantis up North? I didn't know that.
> 
> Cab is 100% correct, bad behaviour by cyclists breeds bad treatment of cyclists. If as an RLJer you take responsibility for your actions, then realize that you are responsible for other cyclists getting killed or injured on the road by motorists who treat all of us as outlaws because they see so many cyclists breaking the law.
> RLJing also gives ammunition to those who insist that cycling should be further regulated. The sense of freedom that you feel because you are happy to ignore the laws that constrain others could lead to a real loss of freedom for yourself and for me which is why I think that you are such Rsoles.





magnatom said:


> No I was dressed as a pedestrian (do they have a dress code?)
> 
> As I left he agreed to disagree, I just thought he was a tosser.



But a useful one at least.


----------



## domtyler (24 Aug 2007)

dondare said:


> Is Atlantis up North? I didn't know that.
> 
> Cab is 100% correct, bad behaviour by cyclists breeds bad treatment of cyclists. If as an RLJer you take responsibility for your actions, then realize that you are responsible for other cyclists getting killed or injured on the road by motorists who treat all of us as outlaws because they see so many cyclists breaking the law.
> RLJing also gives ammunition to those who insist that cycling should be further regulated. The sense of freedom that you feel because you are happy to ignore the laws that constrain others could lead to a real loss of freedom for yourself and for me which is why I think that you are such Rsoles.



What freaking planet are you from?


----------



## magnatom (24 Aug 2007)

domtyler said:


> What freaking planet are you from?




Thats a nice constructive comment Dom!


----------



## dondare (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Well no they don't, see above.



All of the above confirms my opinion. What are you refering to?








> Eh, I never said that I RLJ .



Then I do not think that you are an Rsole.


----------



## dondare (24 Aug 2007)

domtyler said:


> What freaking planet are you from?



Behave badly, get treated badly. That's simply how society reacts. On planet Earth.


----------



## Road Fiddler (24 Aug 2007)

Other road users dislike cyclists for a number of reasons, riding in primary and sometimes secondary position, filtering, not using cycle facility's or for just getting in there way. These things are just down to the lack of knowledge of law and safety issues regarding cycling on the part of the other road users but RLJing, cycling on pavements and ignoring one way systems and the like, is total disregard to the law and this gives everyone else ammunition to dislike cyclists and makes us fair game.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

dondare said:


> All of the above confirms my opinion. What are you refering to?



Your statement that "motorists treat all of us as outlaws because..."

I have had no bad experiences on or off my bike either as a result of RLJing or indeed of being treated as an outlaw! This is making me smile now though!


----------



## Road Fiddler (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Your statement that "motorists treat all of us as outlaws because..."
> 
> I have had no bad experiences on or off my bike either as a result of RLJing or indeed of being treated as an outlaw! This is making me smile now though!



It might be the case you have had no bad experiences but that does not mean it has effected other road users attitude to cyclists.

And, i take it by your statement you are admitting you are a RLJ.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

Road Fiddler said:


> It might be the case you have had no bad experiences but that does not mean it has effected other road users attitude to cyclists.
> 
> And, i take it by your statement you are admitting you are a RLJ.



no, i meant as a result of others RLJing.

I never claimed that my experiences have effected others' attitudes. YOU claimed that WE ALL have suffered. Well that's wrong because not ALL of us have.


----------



## Road Fiddler (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> YOU claimed that WE ALL have suffered.



Did i make that claim? We all do suffer on occasions from the lack of respect from some other road users, this could be for a number of reasons not just because some of us wish to break the law but how i have read most of the posts on this thread and others as well as talking to none cyclists is that RLJ among other things does effect peoples opinion of cyclists.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

dondare said:


> motorists who treat all of us as outlaws because they see so many cyclists breaking the law.



you did.


----------



## Arch (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Fair enough Arch, sounds reasonable. The parts I highlighted above are the parts I have absolutely no experience of. I simply haven't either experienced that attitude, or seen or sensed it from fellow road users up here in Scotland. I think if I felt I was being tarred with the same brush as someone who was behaving dangerously or irresponsibly then I would certainly be annoyed. But personally, I haven't felt that way...yet.



Well, if you have never had the experience of someone moaning about cyclists jumping red lights, that's nice for you. Maybe you don't often talk to non-cyclists about being cycling? I've often heard it - from complete strangers, and from family and family friends. As have many people here. In fact, find any online newspaper story involving a cyclist, and you'll probably find the same sort of comments posted below it eventually...

Often, I admit, it might be completely unthinking - like the folk who go on about Polish people coming over here and living on our welfare. They may never have actually met a Polish person, but they've heard of someone who knew someone who knew a Polish guy on benefit, and they've picked it up and it doesn't take much to reinforce the idea. It's easier to reinforce a stereotype than to break it, I think. So maybe it is a waste of time to try and change the behaviour of rljers because the moaners won't care anyway.

However, that doesn't stop me resenting people who disregard the law for their own convenience, and I retain my right to vent that resentment as I wish.


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Well, if you have never had the experience of someone moaning about cyclists jumping red lights, that's nice for you. Maybe you don't often talk to non-cyclists about being cycling? I've often heard it - from complete strangers, and from family and family friends. As have many people here. In fact, find any online newspaper story involving a cyclist, and you'll probably find the same sort of comments posted below it eventually...
> 
> Often, I admit, it might be completely unthinking - like the folk who go on about Polish people coming over here and living on our welfare. They may never have actually met a Polish person, but they've heard of someone who knew someone who knew a Polish guy on benefit, and they've picked it up and it doesn't take much to reinforce the idea. It's easier to reinforce a stereotype than to break it, I think. So maybe it is a waste of time to try and change the behaviour of rljers because the moaners won't care anyway.
> 
> However, that doesn't stop me resenting people who disregard the law for their own convenience, and I retain my right to vent that resentment as I wish.



Again, fair enough.


----------



## magnatom (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> Again, fair enough.




No, no no! You aren't supposed to agree with the people who your debating with. Your supposed to back up your opinion with complete fabrications! 

Haven't you learned anything from Bonj........


----------



## Arch (24 Aug 2007)

If everyone was like TDLC, there'd be no long threads. His willingness to see my side leads in turn to me trying to see his, and we'll end up in a nice balanced equilibrium...


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> No, no no! You aren't supposed to agree with the people who your debating with. Your supposed to back up your opinion with complete fabrications!
> 
> Haven't you learned anything from Bonj........



lol. I can confirm I haven't learned anything from him.

I meant fair enough Arch you're entitled to your opinions, not fair enough I will now get annoyed at RLJers and realise the level of animosity directed at me from motorists because other cyclists RLJ. 

Actually, thinking about it, my old man has often come out with the sort of guff your taxi driver came out with. He is usually ill-informed and just likes to try and provoke people into entertaining him with arguments. I've never really considered it to be an attack on the way I cycle or behave. I also have a colleague who constantly complains about "kamikaze" cyclists on her route home. I guess my mind just disassociates me from these folk so as to preserve tranquil equilibrium in Teteworld.


----------



## Arch (24 Aug 2007)

Tetedelacourse said:


> I meant fair enough Arch you're entitled to your opinions, not fair enough I will now get annoyed at RLJers and realise the level of animosity directed at me from motorists because other cyclists RLJ.



Yeah, yeah, I know. But 'fair enough' is still nicer than some of the responces you get here sometimes...


----------



## Tetedelacourse (24 Aug 2007)

Arch said:


> Yeah, yeah, I know. But 'fair enough' is still nicer than some of the responces you get here sometimes...



Never mind all this tosh about RLJs. This thread has now served its purpose - two adjacent posts containing the word "EQUILIBRIUM". Honest I didn't see your post before I posted mine.

I expect the planets will now align and peace will once again be restored to the galaxy. Satisfying work, particularly for a Friday. And calls for a 38 smiley salute:

:?::8:


----------



## Cab (24 Aug 2007)

> To make this RLJing thread genuine, I have the following to say-
> 
> Ignore the lights and watch the traffic. Every single cycle-related accident at a road junction is the fault of the cyclist because he/she did not RLJ.
> 
> There you go...




Its like millions of people cried out in fear...


----------



## Elmer Fudd (24 Aug 2007)

Road Fiddler said:


> This sounds like the sort of thing said by someone who is not taking responsibility for there actions. Ok you my be an adult of sound mind and you are probably capable of judging the conditions and probable dangers by acting in a given way, for instance RLJ.
> 
> But, what happens when you are approaching a junction which you pass everyday, you know the light sequence and you plow through without regard and there is someone, possibly a preteen riding to school, who is following you and decides to follow you through just because if its safe for you so it must be safe for him and he is taken out. Would you take responsibility for your actions then?
> 
> The way it affects other cyclists is by encouraging them to take silly risks themselves and the younger the cyclist the less developed there judgement, road sense and there self preservation instinct. You are putting per-pressure on them to follow how ever unintentional it is.


Totally agree RF, as I've said before on here, if I go to a pelican crossing and the road is clear *but* there's a little kid waiting then I wait for the green man too, setting a bad example isn't right (ok, on me way home at night I'll just walk out if the road is clear).


----------



## atbman (26 Aug 2007)

Agree strongly with Arch. Have been on both sides of the fence, first as a campaigner and then as a council cycling officer.

Every time a new councillor came to the cycling liason c'tee, RLJing was almost always the first thing raised by them. when dealing with complaints from the public, usually about un-cycling related problems, guess what came up more often than not.

Agreed that there is an enormous amount of ignorance on the part of many drivers about the law relating to cycling, and a fiar bit of childishness, but if RLJers think that image doesn't count for anything in this brand obsessed age, think again - marketers would not agree.

I've also dealt with it on interviews on local radio and it interfered with the possibility of concentrating on the behaviour which causes the most deaths and injuries.

sorry, but RLJing is wrong in law and wrong in itself.


----------



## bonj2 (27 Aug 2007)

it's not your job to go around telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing. he didn't cause you any harm, so it's wrong to pick a conflict where no conflict is necessary.


----------



## Keith Oates (27 Aug 2007)

Sorry if I've missed something, but who was that reply aimed at, bonj!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## bonj2 (27 Aug 2007)

the OP


----------



## dondare (27 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> the OP


It's not your job to tell him that.


----------



## Cab (27 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> it's not your job to go around telling people what they should and shouldn't be doing. he didn't cause you any harm, so it's wrong to pick a conflict where no conflict is necessary.



He picked the conflict by breaking the law and perpetuating the bad image we get as cyclists. All I did was let him know that responsible cyclists think he's a cretin. Doesn't seem unreasonable.


----------



## goo_mason (27 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> He picked the conflict by breaking the law and perpetuating the bad image we get as cyclists. All I did was let him know that responsible cyclists think he's a cretin. Doesn't seem unreasonable.



I agree. If we feel the need to be responsible citizens, then we should speak our mind. Mind you, with some of the pavement riders I see around Leith I keep my mouth firmly shut rather than find it wired shut when I wake up in hospital


----------



## magnatom (28 Aug 2007)

goo_mason said:


> I agree. If we feel the need to be responsible citizens, then we should speak our mind. Mind you, with some of the pavement riders I see around Leith I keep my mouth firmly shut rather than find it wired shut when I wake up in hospital



Ya big Jessie!


----------



## Tetedelacourse (28 Aug 2007)

Too right - Leith's full of yuppies, webmasters and accountants nowadays. Get them "telt".


----------



## goo_mason (28 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> Ya big Jessie!





It's the greater-burberried 'Nedyabas Yerclaimed' species rather than the garishley-plumed 'Daaaahling mwah-mwah' genus that I meant


----------



## magnatom (28 Aug 2007)

goo_mason said:


> It's the greater-burberried 'Nedyabas Yerclaimed' species rather than the garishley-plumed 'Daaaahling mwah-mwah' genus that I meant




I draw the line when I see they have Buckfast tattoo's on both arms


----------



## Tetedelacourse (28 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> I draw the line when I see they have Buckfast tattoo's on both arms



I can hear it now:

"BATTER! Pit rat oan yer munkin camera ya prick!"


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2007)

Nurse, the voices in my head. They've turned all....Scottish!


----------



## magnatom (29 Aug 2007)

Chuffy said:


> Nurse, the voices in my head. They've turned all....Scottish!



Did you not notice who runs the country? First Cyclechat, then the UK, then we will take over the world.....


----------



## Road Fiddler (29 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> Did you not notice who runs the country? First Cyclechat, then the UK, then we will take over the world.....



Oh Nooo! LOL


----------



## Tetedelacourse (29 Aug 2007)

Fear not. It's only the deserters who know what's what. Most of us haven't got a scooby.


----------



## trustysteed (29 Aug 2007)

*yawn

if you want to rlj, rlj.

if you don't want to rlj, don't rlj. but stay off your high horse as well.

next week, the great helmet debate.

**** it, let's get it over with before another 10 pages of rubbish:

if you want to wear a helmet, wear one. but stay off your high horse.

if you don't want to wear a helmet, don't wear one.


----------



## magnatom (29 Aug 2007)

I'm sorry this bores you, trustysteed, but that is no reason not to have the debate. If it wasn't for debate how would we ever reach any sort of consensus.


I disagree with your live and let live attitude for things like RLJing. Would you like to debate this or are you off for a nap?


----------



## Cab (29 Aug 2007)

trustysteed said:


> *yawn
> 
> if you want to rlj, rlj.
> 
> if you don't want to rlj, don't rlj. but stay off your high horse as well.



How about this for a counter proposal:

If you want to use the roads then obey the laws. There will be rare occasions where you have to do something outside of the rules to remain safe, but that is _very_ much the exception rather than the rule. If you're caught out breaking the rules in anything other than truly exceptional circumstances, just accept that you're in the wrong. Because you are. And we would be a better society if each individual had the balls to stand up to law breakers.


----------



## trustysteed (29 Aug 2007)

problem is, it's never a debate about RLJing.

Every few weeks, someone starts a new RLJ thread (seriously, why do they keep doing it?) complaining about a RLJer that offended them by doing it in front of them. then half the people jump in and say, yeah, it annoys me too. then the other half jump in and say let them be.

why do people think that starting the squillionth thread on rljing is going to make the difference that the other squillionth -1 didn't?

as i said earlier:

*yawn.


----------



## Cab (29 Aug 2007)

trustysteed said:


> as i said earlier:
> 
> *yawn.



Then don't read it. Seriously, its the easy way for you to avoid being bored by it.

I just don't get why people feel the need to post that they're bored by a discussion. Why the heck read it then?


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (29 Aug 2007)

Well, its not 50/50 really, more like 85/15 in favour of anti-rlj. 

All these constant threads do is highlight just _quite_ how bl**ody irritating rlj-ing is... and we are cyclists ourselves! What about all the cagers who don't want bikes on the road in the first place?!

Its also not that people think that another thread will make a difference, because if people are arrogant/lazy/etc enough to rlj, they are not going to suddenly have a tweak of concience and realise that jumping lights is the cyclists equivalent of cars that _must_ overtake a bike.


----------



## col (29 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> How about this for a counter proposal:
> 
> If you want to use the roads then obey the laws. There will be rare occasions where you have to do something outside of the rules to remain safe, but that is _very_ much the exception rather than the rule. If you're caught out breaking the rules in anything other than truly exceptional circumstances, just accept that you're in the wrong. Because you are. And we would be a better society if each individual had the balls to stand up to law breakers.





Standing up to law breakers if they target you is one thing,but getting their attention because you think you have the right to, is just asking for a reaction that you might not like,and then saying "but its my right too",while on the recieving end of what they do in retaliation to your comments.while your at it,approach these antisocial lot who stand outside someones house shouting all night,it doesnt matter that its on the other side of town to you,after all you have the right dont you?If you have the balls for it that is?because after all,law breakers are law breakers,and you should obviously stand up to them,or are you going to be selective in your approach?oh and while we are all getting the balls to do it,why dont we set up a vigilanti group and go around sorting law breakers out,after all the world would be a better place wouldnt it?so you think taking the law into your own hands is the way to go eh? Im not so sure,like my exagerated bit above,how far does it go?And which law breakers do you have the balls to stand up to?Is it a select few that you feel more comfortable approaching?Or are you going to hint that people dont have the balls to do something,because they would rather not make things worse?would you have the balls to tell a brick wielding bunch of yobs ,busy smashing someones house up what you think of them? i think not.But if a cyclist does something unlawful like rlj,its "im within my rights to point it out to them" I bet you dont do that with something seriously dangerous to other people.
In fact your more than welcome to come to my town centre on a saturday dinner time,you would be able to sort out the cycling idiots on the roads,that weave in and out of everyone,and sit in the middle of the road talking while blocking traffic,and nearly knocking people over.Because like you said,the world would be a better place if we had the balls to stand up to them.


----------



## Cab (29 Aug 2007)

col said:


> Standing up to law breakers if they target you is one thing,but getting their attention because you think you have the right to, is just asking for a reaction that you might not like,and then saying "but its my right too",while on the recieving end of what they do in retaliation to your comments.



So what you're saying is that I should avoid telling people that what they're doing is antisocial, illegal and gets in my way because I might then face some retaliation? 

Heres an alternative plan: I'll tell them and then deal with the consequences if they do try to do something stupid. Honestly, your approach is _precisely_ what is wrong with the UK, people just aren't prepared to stand up and do the right thing. Shame on you.



> while your at it,approach these antisocial lot who stand outside someones house shouting all night,it doesnt matter that its on the other side of town to you,after all you have the right dont you?



Heres a better idea. If I come across antisocial behaviour I'll make a judgement there and then about whether or not handling it is within my capability. I'll err on the side of beliving that it is, because my experience tells me that I can handle a range of situations. Yeah, maybe I'll get it wrong one day, but it hasn't happened yet. 

And yes, if someone IS making a racket outside my home or causing damage there, I'll go out and stop them. If its a big crowd of louts (hasn't happened lately) then I'll stll stop them, or if in my judgement is that I can't do so I'll call the police. Whats your alternative, put up with it?



> oh and while we are all getting the balls to do it,why dont we set up a vigilanti group and go around sorting law breakers out,after all the world would be a better place wouldnt it? so you think taking the law into your own hands is the way to go eh? Im not so sure,like my exagerated bit above,how far does it go?



It goes as far as taking action within the law to better the state of things for myself and everyone else; why on earth did you bring vigilantism into this? Do you seriously think I was about to clout the bloke? How is that even related to what I did?



> And which law breakers do you have the balls to stand up to?Is it a select few that you feel more comfortable approaching?Or are you going to hint that people dont have the balls to do something,because they would rather not make things worse?would you have the balls to tell a brick wielding bunch of yobs ,busy smashing someones house up what you think of them? i think not.



Depends. If I think I can stop them then I absolutely will. I've certainly stepped in and prevented assaults, criminal damage and worse because its the right thing to do and because I know I can do so. If I don't believe I can handle it that doesn't mean walk away, it means handle the situation differently. I'm baffled that you seem willing to let things just deteriorate around you. 



> But if a cyclist does something unlawful like rlj,its "im within my rights to point it out to them" I bet you dont do that with something seriously dangerous to other people.



Then you bet wrong, and I hope you gain some courage and belief in you own ability to do the right thing yourself one day.


----------



## col (29 Aug 2007)

My alternative is call the police,i didnt say otherwise did i?And i always try to do the right thing as i said it was an exagerated thing to make a point
There are some curcumstances that require certain actions,and some dont,if im wrong in prefering to go down the road of not antagonising a situation if it can be helped,then so be it,but i would act, if at the time i thought i had to.As i said earlier,most of the scenarios will not change anything ,by voicing an opinion,or quoting rules and regs,except getting yourself into possibly more trouble,when you neednt.
And vigilantism doesnt mean hitting people,i dont think so anyway?


----------



## Arch (30 Aug 2007)

col said:


> And vigilantism doesnt mean hitting people,i dont think so anyway?



Vigilantism means taking the law into your own hands and acting illegally to do so or threatening to do so - whether that be beating someone up, or firebombing their house, or as has happened recently in N. Ireland a return to the "good old fashioned tar and feathering". Simply challenging someone in the street is not vigilantism, provided you stay within the law yourself - it's responsible social behaviour, something that is sadly lacking in this country.

Trusty, if you are bored, bog off and read something else. People's attitudes do get changed, very slowly maybe, but there were plenty of people back on C+ who said "I used to rlj, but after reading those threads, I realised it was stupid and wrong."


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2007)

Yup, I'm one person who got convinced not to RLJ any more. The threads were on urc rather than C+, but same principle.


----------



## Cab (30 Aug 2007)

col said:


> As i said earlier,most of the scenarios will not change anything ,by voicing an opinion,or quoting rules and regs,except getting yourself into possibly more trouble,when you neednt.




This is where we fundamentally disagree. I see the tiny, tiny risk in such a situation as worthwhile because sometimes you do have a positive impact through such action. I've done it, and seen it.


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2007)

I have to say I am 100% with you on this one cab. It always seems to be _someone else's problem_. Of course there never tends be someone else to deal with it.

Like Cab I make comments and suggestions to people, some get pee'd off about it, fair enough. I have also had others situations where I have pointed out what (I thought!) they were doing wrong and they have thanked me for the advice. I have also received advice before and although I didn't always agree with it I didn't find the need to blow up in their face and have sometimes heeded their advice.

Generally we are all risk adverse which is a good thing, but as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk. We see murders etc on the TV and we think that goes on everywhere and that the risks are very high. In fact the risks are never as high as we perceive. 

I will continue to point out infractions where I think I see them (cycling related or not). I feel that is far better than standing back and waiting for the nonexistent someone else to sort it out.


----------



## Eat MY Dust (30 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> I will continue to point out infractions where I think I see them (cycling related or not). I feel that is far better than standing back and waiting for the nonexistent someone else to sort it out.



David Cameron would be proud of you!


----------



## bonj2 (30 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> I have to say I am 100% with you on this one cab. It always seems to be _someone else's problem_. Of course there never tends be someone else to deal with it.


I'm afraid I agree with col. It does always seem to be someone else's problem - becuase it _is_ someone else's problem - i.e. the person doing the RLJing. NOT yours.
I don't disagree with the fact that the people who've taken your advice have been educated to a better standard than they would otherwise have been, I just disagree with the assumption that it's _your_ job to do it.
It's the police's job to do it. It may be a strongly held opinion that the police are under-resourced, but again - you're basically playing judge jury and executioner all in one in taking that opinion forward into action, which even if it may seem overwhelmingly like the right thing to do at the time - it isn't, for that reason, imho.

By the 'live and let live' approach, surely helping people who RLJ is the evolutionary equivalent of 'backing the underdog' - i.e. it's like, well - Darwinism should have wiped him out, but thanks to you he'll live to reproduce and will give birth to offspring who will then have a higher than average chance of RLJing - and thus you are sending the human race backwards.
If on the other hand you let other people's tendencies influence their actions and their outcome, then the sensible people will become more prevalent in the genetic make up of the human race. Oh, and by telling off RLJers you're not doing the population problem any favours.


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2007)

Eat MY Dust said:


> David Cameron would be proud of you!



Ah but I would never hug a hoodie! (unless my wife ever decided to don a hooded top of course)


----------



## Cab (30 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> I'm afraid I agree with col. It does always seem to be someone else's problem - becuase it _is_ someone else's problem - i.e. the person doing the RLJing. NOT yours.



As has been said here previously, it IS our problem. Its our problem because the more RLJ'ing, pavement riding and generally bad riding there is on our roads the more we get bad treatment from motorists. It IS our problem because claims that cyclists should be restricted from the main lane and kept in cycle lanes become more and more credible the more cyclists act like berks. It IS our problem because the more cyclists do dangerous things, the more there will be pressure on law makers to force us off road.

It ISN'T someone elses problem; as a responsible cyclist, a red light jumper is YOUR problem. 



> I don't disagree with the fact that the people who've taken your advice have been educated to a better standard than they would otherwise have been, I just disagree with the assumption that it's _your_ job to do it.
> It's the police's job to do it.



No, it isn't. If you report this kind of thing to the police they'll try very hard to dissuade you from making your report; they'll try to dodge giving you an incident number and they'll certainly not take action on it. They're obliged to record crime, they're not obliged to take action every time someone infringes on the law. 



> It may be a strongly held opinion that the police are under-resourced, but again - you're basically playing judge jury and executioner all in one in taking that opinion forward into action, which even if it may seem overwhelmingly like the right thing to do at the time - it isn't, for that reason, imho.



So you shouldn't take action when someone is breaking the law and causing a problm, you should just leave it to someone else, even though that someone else demonstrably doesn't have to do anything about it. The word 'anarchy' springs to mind 



> By the 'live and let live' approach, surely helping people who RLJ is the evolutionary equivalent of 'backing the underdog' - i.e. it's like, well - Darwinism should have wiped him out, but thanks to you he'll live to reproduce and will give birth to offspring who will then have a higher than average chance of RLJing - and thus you are sending the human race backwards.
> If on the other hand you let other people's tendencies influence their actions and their outcome, then the sensible people will become more prevalent in the genetic make up of the human race. Oh, and by telling off RLJers you're not doing the population problem any favours.



Darwinism isn't a moral imperative. Why would you argue that it should be?


----------



## bonj2 (30 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> As has been said here previously, it IS our problem. Its our problem because the more RLJ'ing, pavement riding and generally bad riding there is on our roads the more we get bad treatment from motorists. It IS our problem because claims that cyclists should be restricted from the main lane and kept in cycle lanes become more and more credible the more cyclists act like berks. It IS our problem because the more cyclists do dangerous things, the more there will be pressure on law makers to force us off road.


It's only our problem in the sense that the fact that 'the world isn't perfect' is our problem.



Cab said:


> No, it isn't. If you report this kind of thing to the police they'll try very hard to dissuade you from making your report; they'll try to dodge giving you an incident number and they'll certainly not take action on it. They're obliged to record crime, they're not obliged to take action every time someone infringes on the law.


In the ideal world which you seem fairly hopeful of moving towards, you would have enough policeman about so that if someone RLJed, a police officer (or camera linked to one) would see it and they would be stopped within seconds and given an on-the-spot fine.



Cab said:


> Darwinism isn't a moral imperative. Why would you argue that it should be?



Being atheistic towards Darwinism would equate to telling off RLJers so they are reformed. But being Darwinist wouldn't involve NOT telling them off, it would involve shooting them on the spot. Being agnostic would be just doing nothing. So if it isn't a moral imperative, then you should be agnostic towards it, unless you think the _reverse_ of it is a moral imperative? Which would make you pretty weird.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2007)

Cab, please could stop troll-wrestling with bonj?


----------



## Tetedelacourse (30 Aug 2007)

magnatom said:


> I have to say I am 100% with you on this one cab. It always seems to be _someone else's problem_. Of course there never tends be someone else to deal with it.
> 
> Like Cab I make comments and suggestions to people, some get pee'd off about it, fair enough. I have also had others situations where I have pointed out what (I thought!) they were doing wrong and they have thanked me for the advice. I have also received advice before and although I didn't always agree with it I didn't find the need to blow up in their face and have sometimes heeded their advice.
> 
> ...




I suggest that you mean risk-averse



> as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk.



I don't agree with this at all. If we were _very poor_ at assessing risk, there would be much much more accidents and incidents.


----------



## Cab (30 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> It's only our problem in the sense that the fact that 'the world isn't perfect' is our problem.



No, its a problem in the fact that what they do influcences how we're treated. Its our problem.



> In the ideal world which you seem fairly hopeful of moving towards, you would have enough policeman about so that if someone RLJed, a police officer (or camera linked to one) would see it and they would be stopped within seconds and given an on-the-spot fine.



Gosh, what a frightening idealised world view that is! Whether thats something to aspire to or not, we haven't got that. And we're not getting that. So opening your gob and telling people they're in the wrong remains the only real way on a regular basis that we can affect change in this area.



> Being atheistic towards Darwinism would equate to telling off RLJers so they are reformed. But being Darwinist wouldn't involve NOT telling them off, it would involve shooting them on the spot. Being agnostic would be just doing nothing. So if it isn't a moral imperative, then you should be agnostic towards it, unless you think the _reverse_ of it is a moral imperative? Which would make you pretty weird.



Darwinism isn't a religious belief structure, its a model for how species differentiate through the process of evolution by natural selection. It isn't about morality, its a description of what is. It isn't something from which morality can rationally be derived; I find your statement most peculiar.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2007)

Did someone just delete my post asking Cab to stop troll wrestling?

And I can't add him to my ignore list either. Arrrrgghh!!!!


----------



## BentMikey (30 Aug 2007)

Oops, sorry!!! Blonde moment I guess.


----------



## domtyler (30 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> It isn't something from which morality can rationally be derived; I find your statement most peculiar.



Given that it was posted by bonj how can you possibly find it peculiar?


----------



## bonj2 (30 Aug 2007)

Cab said:


> No, its a problem in the fact that what they do influcences how we're treated. Its our problem.


"We" being cyclists as a whole, as opposed to "we" as in me and you specifically. Who says it's your place to decide how to act for _all_ cyclists?
There's plenty of objecting arguments - you may not consider them right, but for instance, people could view cyclists as nosey buggers always sticking their nose into other people's business and telling other people how to behave. What gives _you_ the right to encourage other road users to tar me with that brush?
In other words, since there could be disadvantages to what you're doing, even if they don't outweight the advantages, then it isn't your place to do it.
It isn't your place to decide on _my_ behalf, and on the behalf of all other cyclists, that I want to suffer the consequences of those disadvantages.



Cab said:


> Whether thats something to aspire to or not, we haven't got that. And we're not getting that. So opening your gob and telling people they're in the wrong remains the only real way on a regular basis that we can affect change in this area.


But you're not going to affect change. More people who will RLJ are bieng born every day. And you're encouraging that. You only do it to feel important.



Cab said:


> Darwinism isn't a religious belief structure, its a model for how species differentiate through the process of evolution by natural selection. It isn't about morality, its a description of what is. It isn't something from which morality can rationally be derived; I find your statement most peculiar.



Yes but whether it's a belief "structure" or not, _my_ belief that evolution is a good thing, and that you shouldn't deliberately try to hamper its progress.


----------



## Jacomus-rides-Gen (30 Aug 2007)

> > as a species we are very poor at assessing the true level of risk.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with this at all. If we were very poor at assessing risk, there would be much much more accidents and incidents.



Not true!! It is because humans are very poor at assessing risk that we have the number that we do. Humans routinely overestimate risk.


----------



## magnatom (30 Aug 2007)

I seem to have very quickly lost the will to take part in this thread. Maybe it's because I'm wrong and Bonj is right, who knows....xx


----------



## Cab (30 Aug 2007)

domtyler said:


> Given that it was posted by bonj how can you possibly find it peculiar?



Bonj has moments when he makes good sense. Admittedly I do get the occasional blow to the head.


----------



## Cab (30 Aug 2007)

bonj said:


> "We" being cyclists as a whole, as opposed to "we" as in me and you specifically. Who says it's your place to decide how to act for _all_ cyclists?



You haven't been paying attention Bonj, we've discussed this earlier in the thread.



> There's plenty of objecting arguments - you may not consider them right, but for instance, people could view cyclists as nosey buggers always sticking their nose into other people's business and telling other people how to behave. What gives _you_ the right to encourage other road users to tar me with that brush?


(further cut)

You're being absurd. Quit it.


----------



## col (30 Aug 2007)

I think we are splitting hairs a bit here?dont you think? I mean iv said i wont antagonise a situation if i feel it would,but if i needed to i would,so there lies the conundrum.What i think is a risk, may not be what someone else see's as a risk,its really as simple as that isnt it?So in actual fact ,we are all right,we just see things differently,er i think


----------



## Terminator (21 Mar 2008)

People RLJ and make up the rules as they go along and then get upset when said motorist breaks law of the road.

Ok I follow the rules of the road and it irritates the hell out of me when an ignorant motorist is using his mobile phone but at least im not being an acehole.At least I hope not.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Mar 2008)

Blimey mate, ancient topic mining!


----------



## PBancroft (21 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Blimey mate, ancient topic mining!




Still pertinent, and probably always will be.

I don't say anything to RLJers, unless I happen to overtake them again further down the road. Even then, it's usually just a quick "if you were halfway good at this, you wouldn't need to break the law"

I doubt that they have any idea what I was banging on about, mind you.


----------



## Trillian (21 Mar 2008)

Commuter said:


> I always RLJ if I believe it is safe to do so . I've not been hit or caused an accident yet so I reckon I'm a good judge of the situation.
> 
> For those of you who feel it necessary to confront RLJ ers, do you ever , ever break the law ??
> 
> ...



but how many people have you peed off?

i've no idea about speeding by 1mph, i've not driven a car with a speedo that accurate, and i doubt you have either

yes, i come to a stop due to the junctions round here marked with a stop sign require slowing to first gear speed anyway and its likely a tractor will emerge from it at any time.

have a nice day


----------



## tdr1nka (21 Mar 2008)

Commuter said:


> I always RLJ if I believe it is safe to do so . I've not been hit or caused an accident yet so I reckon I'm a good judge of the situation.
> 
> For those of you who feel it necessary to confront RLJ ers, do you ever , ever break the law ??
> 
> ...




I've cycled at over 30 in a 40 limit, I stop at stop signs, even at 3am.

But as I'm not actually allowed to cycle on the motorway I can't answer the 
71mph question but I also don't think my knees could manage it anyway.

RLJ'ing is condoned by crap braggards equaling that of tiny minded drivers who denounce all cyclists for this behaviour.

Remember, you are using the same parts of your brain to decide that your way is clear at a red light that a driver employs to take a call on his/her mobile while driving.

How many times have you just wished you could sit a driver down and calmly pointed out their errors without it becoming a fight?

I do feel it is my position to inform or bring to the attention of others, the dangers and image of the RLJ and the effect it has on the public view of cyclists.


----------



## BentMikey (21 Mar 2008)

I'm also annoyed with RLJers since a few of the stupid zarks have nearly crashed into me, and have wiped out two of my friends. Managed to see and avoid them all so far myself at least.

Selfish and ignorant impatience. Nothing more.


----------



## Terminator (21 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Blimey mate, ancient topic mining!





.....and for my next trick im going to stop at a traffic light.


----------



## Terminator (21 Mar 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm also annoyed with RLJers since a few of the stupid zarks have nearly crashed into me, and have wiped out two of my friends. Managed to see and avoid them all so far myself at least.
> 
> * Selfish and ignorant impatience. Nothing more.*



Agreed.Motorists also fall into this category.


----------

