# Cyclists - Please stop at red lights



## Pauluk (10 May 2012)

I think any of us that love cycling and cycle on our busy roads want to see safer roads for cyclists but the amount of times I see cyclists riding through red stop lights, picking their way through traffic, appalls me.
Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude. No wonder cyclists get a bad name.
Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (10 May 2012)

Never gonna happen with due respect.Not condoning it but just saying there isn't enough of a deterrent to stop it.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 May 2012)

and we're off....popcorn anyone?


----------



## musa (10 May 2012)

TBH fighting a loosing battle

advice them thats all that is possible


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2012)

Some would argue it's not dangerous and it's not rude.
Some would argue that it's safer sometimes to rlj then to not.


----------



## rich p (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> I think any of us that love cycling and cycle on our busy roads want to see safer roads for cyclists but the amount of times I see cyclists riding through red stop lights, picking their way through traffic, appalls me.
> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude. No wonder cyclists get a bad name.
> Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.


 You're new here, right?


----------



## Pauluk (10 May 2012)

ianrauk, some may argue that drinking alcohol improves their driving and using mobile phones while driving is just being sociable.


----------



## ladyjulian (10 May 2012)

One of my favourite commuting anecdotes: I was level with a council van thing, riding through central London, and we both stopped at a red light, and a couple of suicide cyclists came whizzing past, straight through the red, swerving to avoid oncoming traffic. Light went green, we carried on, and I got ahead, then he got ahead, and we both stopped at a red light, whereupon a couple of cyclists came whizzing past, straight through the red and disappeared. Light went green, we carried on, and we got to a pedestrian crossing, where we both stopped, and a couple of cyclists came straight through, narrowly missing the pedestrians with their superskillz. We carried on, and just as I thought I'd lose him, we both had to stand on the brakes a bit sharpish as a hipster came straight out of a side road without looking and nearly got hit by both of us.

By this time Mr Van had had enough, and since the cyclists who'd upset him were nowhere to be seen, leant out of his window and shouted "farking cyclists!" at me.


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> ianrauk, some may argue that drinking alcohol improves their driving and using mobile phones while driving is just being sociable.


 

I echo what Rich P has posted.


----------



## thefollen (10 May 2012)

I tried to jump a red light once. Was on foot though and unfortunately it was far too high- really hurt my gonads.


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2012)

ladyjulian said:


> By this time Mr Van had had enough, and since the cyclists who'd upset him were nowhere to be seen, leant out of his window and shouted "****ing cyclists!" at me.


 

same brush tarred with we are... says Yoda...

Similar thing happened to me.
Cyclist acting like an arse down the A21, weaving in and out, rlj. yet I got the flack off a driver for it. Said something like "Tell your mate to learn to ride a bike properly".

"My mate? Get the ferk outta here" was my reply.
He reply was "you're all the bloody same"......Seeing as the driver had probably followed myself and the arse of a cyclist along the road, his jumping to that conclusion was pretty wide of the mark.

If I weave and rlj, I weave and rlj properly.


----------



## Moodyman (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> I think any of us that love cycling and cycle on our busy roads want to see safer roads for cyclists but the amount of times I see cyclists riding through red stop lights, *picking their way through traffic*, appalls me.
> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude. No wonder cyclists get a bad name.
> Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.


 
Nowt wrong with filtering in and around stationery traffic.


----------



## snorri (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers.


Do these same drivers become infuriated by cars parked on pavements, cars jumping red lights, cars overtaking cyclists too closely, drivers using mobile phones etc etc.?
Infuriated drivers are dangerous drivers, we should be ensuring these drivers get appropriate counselling before driving again.


----------



## MontyVeda (10 May 2012)

if only the had barriers like those found at level crossings at the traffic lights too


----------



## gaz (10 May 2012)

bloody cyclists always going through red lights


----------



## calibanzwei (10 May 2012)

Said already; perfectly legal to filter through traffic and as to RLJ'ing I'd say everyone on here agrees with you, so wrong place to rant


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2012)

ladyjulian said:


> One of my favourite commuting anecdotes: I was level with a council van thing, riding through central London, and we both stopped at a red light, and a couple of suicide cyclists came whizzing past, straight through the red, swerving to avoid oncoming traffic. Light went green, we carried on, and I got ahead, then he got ahead, and we both stopped at a red light, whereupon a couple of cyclists came whizzing past, straight through the red and disappeared. Light went green, we carried on, and we got to a pedestrian crossing, where we both stopped, and a couple of cyclists came straight through, narrowly missing the pedestrians with their superskillz. We carried on, and just as I thought I'd lose him, we both had to stand on the brakes a bit sharpish as a hipster came straight out of a side road without looking and nearly got hit by both of us.
> 
> By this time Mr Van had had enough, and since the cyclists who'd upset him were nowhere to be seen, leant out of his window and shouted "****ing cyclists!" at me.


 
And the moral of this story is...... we are all going to get tarred with the same brush, no matter what. No point coming here to try and educate the cycle nutters, as they probably don't read this forum.

Having said that, there are red lights, and there are RED LIGHTS! Just one example of many: Tescos in Kilbirnie, Ayrshire, where the entrance to the car park was built off a main road and is traffic light controlled. There is nothing else there, apart from Tesco. So why, when the shop closes at 9pm til 8am, do they see the need to keep the traffic lights burning away all night, through the same sequence used while it is open?? Surely in this day and age of technology it wouldn't be too difficult to build in a sensor which can tell when there is traffic present, and adjust the sequence accordingly? Or better still, turn the bloody things off and save all that precious energy that Tesco claims to be bothered about. Not just the energy of the traffic lights, but the fuel used by cars having to stop, idle for a while, then move off again for no good reason!

Also, to quote my reply to one of the other RLJ threads......



> Here we go again! I'm sure RLJing is suicidal in places like the centre of London and other big cities. However, there are towns around here where they put up traffic lights for fun. Along our main street there are 4 traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings within about 200 yards. Despite that (or more likely because of that), pedestrians wander across the road at any random point. Often they press the button and then cross the road before the light has changed to allow them to cross. The traffic light then changes to red, but no-one is crossing. Are you really going to sit there waiting for green? Sorry but I don't. Hardly crime of the century, is it? Before anyone asks, no I wouldn't do it in the car; I have a licence that I don't want points on.
> 
> What I'm saying is; there is a time and a place where common sense should dictate when it is safe to cross on red. 2am at a deserted junction? If you can't judge when it is safe then you shouldn't be allowed out on your own!


----------



## Boris Bajic (10 May 2012)

snorri said:


> *Do these same drivers become infuriated by cars parked on pavements, cars jumping red lights, cars overtaking cyclists, drivers using mobile phones etc etc*.?
> Infuriated drivers are dangerous drivers, we should be ensuring these drivers get appropriate counselling before driving again.


 
This (my bold type) is a perceptive observation and applies to all road users, irrespective of their chosen mode of transport at the time.

If I compare the roads of today with those of twenty or thirty years ago, uncontrolled or barely controlled rage on the part of some road users is one of the key differences.

To answer first Snorri's question: Yes, many road users are often equally or similarly infuriated by RLJs, mobile-phone use, inconsiderate or illegal parking, ill-judged passing and a gazillion other things.

Should those road users infuriated by these phenomena get counselling? In my view, no.

I'm not sure how pointing out flaws in the on-road behaviour of Group A ( in this case motorists) mitigates or excuses any of the same in Group B (cyclists).

I am a keen cyclist with a long history of selectively hopping reds. I do it not for any logical reason or to avoid crashes or make a stand. I do it because for all my platitudes and lofty opinions, I am often impatient and am calculating enough to presume that most of the time I'll get away with it. I also quite like a little adrenalin (Oxford Street etc).

Is it excusable behaviour? Absolutely not.

Is it mitigable behaviour? Absolutely not.

I stopped serially speeding in my car because I was constantly counting my current points tally. It wasn't a morally driven choice.

I never hopped the tram or the trolleybus in the old USSR without paying; the plainclothes checkers were everywhere. By contrast, I rarely paid on the trams and trolleybuses in the old SRFJ because there was almost no chance of getting caught.

Cyclists hop red lights for many reasons, but it is wrong and it really does impact negatively on the popular perception of cyclists.


----------



## caimg (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> I think any of us that love cycling and cycle on our busy roads want to see safer roads for cyclists but the amount of times I see cyclists riding through red stop lights, picking their way through traffic, appalls me.
> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude. No wonder cyclists get a bad name.
> Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.



You're absolutely right with every point you've made but by and large you're preaching to the converted


----------



## gb155 (10 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Some would argue it's not dangerous and it's not rude.
> Some would argue that it's safer sometimes to rlj then to not.




Gotta agree here 

While I don't most of the time, sometimes!!!!!


----------



## Brandane (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude.


 
There are a small minority of car/van drivers who think it is dangerous and rude just to cycle on "their" road, and it infuriates them. I gave up a long time ago worrying about what others think. There are knobs on the road on bikes; motorbikes, cars, vans, HGVs, buses, taxis, and on foot. Why should a few persons actions affect the attitude towards that whole group? It seems strange that cyclists in particular berate other cyclists for breaking the law; yet when you are out driving do you feel the same way when a car driver does something stupid?


----------



## Melonfish (10 May 2012)

Dude in that last one why the hell weren't those PCSO's on their radio's? un-real!
i was walking down kingsway in widnes the other week, a cyclist shot through the lights at the junction and had to stop on the island next to me, i turned to him and said "Nice way to get yourself killed that m8"
to which he replied.
"Its my life"

but that's such a selfish attitude, what about the people who hit him? how are their lives going to be effected not only by the memory of possibly killing someone but perhaps physically as his ignorant arse flies through their windscreen?


----------



## ianrauk (10 May 2012)

1842854 said:


> Sorry i'm late. Have we had everything covered?


 

Am sure there are a few more stokes of the fire needed....


----------



## SquareDaff (10 May 2012)

Oh sod it - lets shove a stick in the ants nest and twist!

As someone that ALWAYS stops at red lights  I think anybody that jumps them gets what they deserve!


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

I confess - there are 1 set of lights i usually jump.


----------



## SquareDaff (10 May 2012)

1842878 said:


> A quicker journey?


To the Pearly Gates, maybe! Then again, they'd be cyclists and red light jumpers so doubly damned!


----------



## mickle (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> I think any of us that love cycling and cycle on our busy roads want to see safer roads for cyclists but the amount of times I see cyclists riding through red stop lights, picking their way through traffic, appalls me.
> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude. No wonder cyclists get a bad name.
> Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.


Yawn.


----------



## Nearly there (10 May 2012)

Is this like asking car owners to use indicators


----------



## SquareDaff (10 May 2012)

And about as likely as getting horse owners to put their animals poo in bags like dog owners have to do!


----------



## subaqua (10 May 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Is this like asking car BMW or AUDI owners to use indicators


 
FTFY


----------



## snorri (10 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Should those road users infuriated by these phenomena get counselling? In my view, no.


You don't agree with me that an infuriated driver is a dangerous driver?


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (10 May 2012)

I never jump red lights....... I can't get the bike that high off the ground.


----------



## Nearly there (10 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> FTFY


I love trying to guess which way a cars turning


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

Anyone reading this thread - STOP IT - you are making it worse for somebody or something.


----------



## Pauluk (10 May 2012)

caimg. Don't think people are converted judging by some of the comments here.

We are all capable of having a little joke about such issues but, have people considered what would happen if they were injured or killed carrying out this type of maneuver. What would happen to their next of kin. Do they think for one minute that the understanding car insurance company would pay them any sum of money to make their life more comfortable in their wheel chair, or pay for their children to go on holiday or through college etc etc...

To me, safe driving and cycling is about discipline as well as being thoughtful to other road users. Cycling through red lights is a sign of a lack of discipline, poor road skills and yes rudeness.


----------



## subaqua (10 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> Anyone reading this thread - STOP IT - you are making it worse for somebody or something.


 please think of the children


----------



## SquareDaff (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> caimg. Don't think people are converted judging by some of the comments here.


I do stop at red lights Paul {seriously} The reason I've been keeping things "light" is that I know from other "red light jumper" threads exactly how heated they can become. You'll never manage to convince the ones that do. Ultimately it's personal choice, whether it be selfish or not!


----------



## Boris Bajic (10 May 2012)

snorri said:


> You don't agree with me that an infuriated driver is a dangerous driver?


 
I think it may be a matter of degree.

As far as I can tell (with no professional training in this area) many road users are mildly infuriated for much of the time they are on the road.

I have the impression that this applies to motorists more than it does cyclists, for reasons many of us will appreciate.

Some road users are really very, very angry for brief periods, but I don't see a direct correlation between infuriation and dangerous behaviour.

Whenever I've been biffed by a motorist, the cause has been their (or my) inattention.

I've seen many, many angry road users whose conduct in traffic has not led me to perceive any threat. They are just cross.

I accept completely that by the time infuriation and a disturbed, undisciplined or loveless childhood have combined to produce road rage, a correlation begins to emerge quite convincingly.

But generally, most road users (cyclist and motorist) seem quite able to get a little bit cross and retain their manners, skill, courtesy and sense of proportion.


----------



## Ian Cooper (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.


 
The likelihood of any stop-light-running cyclist attending cycling forums is virtually nil. And the few who will read this just don't care. Cyclists who run stop lights care less about motorists' perception of cyclists than they do about the law, the rules of the road, or even their own safety.

As a cyclist who has never knowingly run a red light, and as a person who has passed cycling instructor exams and who has spent time learning the risks, all I can say is this - if they keep it up, they will meet their destiny (ahead of schedule). It's just a matter of time. Red light jumping is suicidal. Sadly, it's not a very effective way to commit suicide, so some people keep doing it, thinking they can beat the odds. When the odds catch up to them, let's all hope that the cyclists involved are able to learn from their stupidity and aren't consigned to months spent being fed through a tube followed by the inevitable switching off of life support.


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> The likelihood of any stop-light-running cyclist attending cycling forums is virtually nil. And the few who will read this just don't care. Cyclists who run stop lights care less about motorists' perception of cyclists than they do about the law, the rules of the road, or even their own safety.
> 
> As a cyclist who has never knowingly run a red light, and as a person who has passed cycling instructor exams and who knows the risks, all I can say is this - *if they keep it up, they will meet their destiny. It's just a matter of time. Red light jumping is suicidal. Sadly, it's not a very effective way to commit suicide, so some people keep doing it until the odds catch up to them*.


 
OK, ok, I don't RLJ any more (I did back in 80s London on a fixed long before they were cool ....) or condone those who do simply because we all get tarred with the same brush etc ...

But on your safety stance (in bold), where's the evidence?
How many bodies are we talking about?


----------



## Boris Bajic (10 May 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> OK, ok, I don't RLJ any more (I did back in 80s London on a fixed long before they were cool ....) or condone those who do simply because we all get tarred with the same brush etc ...
> 
> But on your safety stance (in bold), where's the evidence?
> How many bodies are we talking about?


 
I think the post by Ian Cooper is slightly more dramatic than it needs to be, but I have some evidence to support him.

Everyone born before 1847 has already 'met their destiny'. Many born since then have done so too.

Taking the data for births and deaths since records began, I feel reasonably comfortable stating that all red-light-jumping cyclists will meet their destiny.

Sadly, it appears that the rest of us will too. I've been over the figures several times, looking for a loophole.

I couldn't find one. Ian Cooper is right. It's just a matter of time. Finding this out has suddenly made me terribly sad.


----------



## Ian Cooper (10 May 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> But on your safety stance (in bold), where's the evidence?


 
The League of American Bicyclists (where I was taught the cycling instructor course) bases its safety advice on Jerrold Kaplan's 1974 data and William Moritz's 1996 data. The crash statistics suggest that 8% of bicycle crashes come from red light jumping. Running red lights makes up 17% of crashes where fault was attributable to the cyclist's actions. In my opinion, the road is hazardous enough - I see no need to add 8% to the risk.

Extrapolating, in terms of bodies, we're probably talking in the region of 50 cyclists a year in the US, and about 9 in the UK (2010 figures). Though I have no idea if deaths due to RLJ crashes are more likely or less likely than the average.


----------



## Ian Cooper (10 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Ian Cooper is right. It's just a matter of time. Finding this out has suddenly made me terribly sad.


 
There's a big difference between meeting one's destiny in one's own good time and demanding that it come sooner.


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> The League of American Bicyclists (where I was taught the cycling instructor course) bases its safety advice on Jerrold Kaplan's 1974 data and William Moritz's 1996 data. The crash statistics suggest that 8% of bicycle crashes come from red light jumping. Running red lights makes up 17% of crashes where fault was attributable to the cyclist's actions. In my opinion, the road is hazardous enough - I see no need to add 8% to the risk.


Ahh, leftpondia data.
Fair enough, but we're not in America and this is not 1974, even 1996 seems a while ago in cycling terms.
Got anything recent and relevent?


----------



## Ian Cooper (10 May 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Ahh, leftpondia data.
> Fair enough, but we're not in America and this is not 1974, even 1996 seems a while ago in cycling terms.
> Got anything recent and relevent?


 
It is relevant. No one has anything more recent that's better. As far as I know, those were the best studies done anywhere on this issue. I keep hoping that Stuart Reid et al will come out with a British study on the issue. No one seems interested, probably because it's such a no-brainer (Newsflash - Running red lights dangerous, claims new study! Also, scientists confirm rain is wet!) that it would be a complete waste of time.

What better, more recent and/or more relevant studies do you base your opinion on? The studies done by 'Gutfeeling et al' weren't exactly peer reviewed, last time I checked.

Really wanting RLJ to be safe doesn't make it so.


----------



## caimg (10 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> caimg. Don't think people are converted judging by some of the comments here.



Yeah you're right but that's not necessarily down to them not agreeing...you're new and have every right to bring up a topic as important as this. Unfortunately there are some guys that have been here for ages and forget that some people are approaching topics for the first time (and so seem to be exasperated at the thought of talking about them again?)

I totally agree with you, and never jump reds. If you're impatient then dismount, walk down the pavement and mount again IMO. I've said it before that running reds angers every other road user, whether you're a car, bike, lorry, motorbike. It's an offense (right...?) and impatience or self-confidence / awareness isn't an excuse.


----------



## dave r (10 May 2012)

[quote="Boris Bajic, post: 1843010, member: 20691"
Sadly, it appears that the rest of us will too. I've been over the figures several times, looking for a loophole.

I couldn't find one. Ian Cooper is right. It's just a matter of time. Finding this out has suddenly made me terribly sad. [/quote]

With most people there comes a time in their lives when they realise that there's more time behind them than there is in front of them, this makes them sad until they realise they haven't got time to be sad, sadly I passed that point several years ago.


----------



## subaqua (10 May 2012)

do the Instructors of the League of Ameican Bicyclists have their own Association ?


----------



## Dan_h (10 May 2012)

I jump red lights sometimes, usually it is early on Sunday morning at lights where I have clear visibility there is nothing coming and I know that I have to wait for a car to come up behind me to set off the pressure sensors that will allow me to go. I don't think that is dangerous, AND if I can wait 5 mnutes without them changing I believe I am allowed to carefully cross them so I am in effect speeding that process up a little!


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> It is relevant. No one has anything more recent that's better. As far as I know, those were the best studies done anywhere.I keep hoping that Stuart Reid et al will come out with a British study on the issue. No one seems interested, probably because it's such a no-brainer (Newsflash - Running red lights dangerous, claims new study! Also, rain is wet!) that it would be a complete waste of time.
> 
> What better, more recent and/or more relevant studies do you base your opinion on? The studies done by 'Gutfeeling et al' weren't exactly peer reviewed, last time I checked.


 Just because nobody has come up with something better doesn't make it any more applicable.
But your 'no brainer' doesn't hold much water either. There's alot of stuff that people believe is obvious that simply isn't the case.
So I ask the question again, with UK cycling deaths over any time period you wish to choose are attributable to RLJ? How many pedestrians have been killed by RLJ?
The fact is I don't believe there is much data because very few serious incidents arise from RLJ. Cyclists are pretty bloody good at self preservation.


----------



## Blurb (10 May 2012)

Slightly OT, but I have taken to dismounting at certain lights on my commute and using the phasing to cross the junction as a pedestrian before continuing my journey. Whilst it only gets me a marginal time advantage per junction it does add up and ,more importantly IMO, allows me to clear the initial surge of traffic and the occasional wobble as I start moving.


Is this "acceptable" RLJing, or am I going straight to hell? AFAIK it is legal as long as I dismount and safe as I use the pedestrian phase to cross. Thoughts?


----------



## Theseus (10 May 2012)

I find that getting onto the pavement before a set of lights allows me to ride through them without breaking the law.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> The likelihood of any stop-light-running cyclist attending cycling forums is virtually nil.


clearly you are not familiar with the way the matter is debated on virtually _every_ UK cycling forum then, with a significant number of pro-RLJ contributions in evidence, not all from London-based tragic hipster cockwombles.


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Is this like asking car owners to use indicators


 
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/11/bmw.html


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> do the Instructors of the League of Ameican Bicyclists have their own Association ?


 
No, they never quite made it to the "Extrodinary" level.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

Blurb said:


> Slightly OT, but I have taken to dismounting at certain lights on my commute and using the phasing to cross the junction as a pedestrian before continuing my journey. Whilst it only gets me a marginal time advantage per junction it does add up and ,more importantly IMO, allows me to clear the initial surge of traffic and the occasional wobble as I start moving.
> 
> 
> Is this "acceptable" RLJing, or am I going straight to hell? AFAIK it is legal as long as I dismount and safe as I use the pedestrian phase to cross. Thoughts?


 
Weird


----------



## Blurb (10 May 2012)

1843124 said:


> Legal. A bit sad nevertheless but legal.


 
Bit sad I guess, but I'm usually on the Brompton, so I see it more as eccentric and befitting.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (10 May 2012)

Blurb said:


> Bit sad I guess, but I'm usually on the Brompton, so I see it more as eccentric and befitting.


I don't see it as sad. You're using a multi-mode means of transport - a sort of pedalestrianism - to deal with the absurdity of junctions, where it's legal for pedestrians to proceed but but illegal for people sat on a saddle. 

(Generally I can't be bothered to get off and I'm pretty road legal while on the road, but there is one type of traffic light that I almost always ignore - I'm talking about those Cyclepseudohighways, where cyclist-orientated lights are actually excluded from the light phase, meaning you always have to stop, press a button and then wait for the traffic phase to complete a full sequence before showing a green cycle. I've no more respect for toucan crossings on pseudohighways either when they're showing red: peds can proceed, cars can proceed, the only thing on the road/path that's not allowed to move is a bike. This is a complete arsy-versy travesty of cycling facilities and, insofar as I consider myself an ambassador for cycling and *not* an ambassador for highway engineers, I cross almost as a matter of principle.)


----------



## Blurb (10 May 2012)

1843220 said:


> You didn't explain about the Brompton riding aspect of things. Anything goes for those twats.


----------



## potsy (10 May 2012)

Blurb said:


>


Me thinks Adrian has a Brompton too


----------



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Is this like asking car owners to use indicators


Does anyone here actually believe that watching for indicators on cars is a reliable way of telling what direction they are going to take? Why worry when they don't use them?


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> It is relevant. No one has anything more recent that's better.


 
There is better data. According to TfL, in London (where RLJing is about 18%) RLJing accounts for about 2% of cyclist fatalities. Motor vehicles RLJing account for about 3% of cyclist fatalities and TfL concluded cyclists not-RLJing accounted for quite a lot more cyclist fatalities.

Allowing cyclists to RLJ to improve their safety on the roads has been debated in the House of Lords this year and Paris has now made cyclist RLJing legal to cut the cyclist death and injury rates.

So lets cut all the bullshit about RLJing being dangerous/suicidal for cyclists.


----------



## Fab Foodie (10 May 2012)

potsy said:


> Me thinks Adrian has a Brompton too


 and his mucker dell as well ...


----------



## subaqua (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> There is better data. According to TfL, in London (where RLJing is about 18%) RLJing accounts for about 2% of cyclist fatalities. Motor vehicles RLJing account for about 3% of cyclist fatalities and TfL concluded cyclists not-RLJing accounted for quite a lot more cyclist fatalities.
> 
> Allowing cyclists to RLJ to improve their safety on the roads has been debated in the House of Lords this year and Paris has now made cyclist RLJing legal to cut the cyclist death and injury rates.
> 
> So lets cut all the bullshit about RLJing being dangerous/suicidal for cyclists.


 
thats as bad a twist of statistics as using the figure of 25% of accidents are caused by drink drivers meaning 75% are by sober drivers which means its safer to drive drunk.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> There is better data. According to TfL, in London (where RLJing is about 18%) RLJing accounts for about 2% of cyclist fatalities. Motor vehicles RLJing account for about 3% of cyclist fatalities and TfL concluded cyclists not-RLJing accounted for quite a lot more cyclist fatalities.
> 
> Allowing cyclists to RLJ to improve their safety on the roads has been debated in the House of Lords this year and *Paris has now made cyclist RLJing legal to cut the cyclist death and injury rates.*
> 
> So lets cut all the bullshit about RLJing being dangerous/suicidal for cyclists.


How does Paris reduce a cyclist death rate of zero?

They've allowed RLJ'ing, when turning iirc, in a very specific, tiny, set of places/circumstances within Paris which already had pre-existing very specific speed restrictions, traffic calming measures etc., because it is now safe to do it there as a result..... they haven't just gone "feck it, RLJ if you want, when you want, wherever you want!'


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

1843307 said:


> Just for a moment I had hoped that Red Light's contribution to a thread exhorting us to stop at Red Light's would be an assurance that we would be welcome and there would always be a cup of tea on offer.


 
Get off my steps!


----------



## gaz (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> There is better data. According to TfL, in London (where RLJing is about 18%) RLJing accounts for about 2% of cyclist fatalities. Motor vehicles RLJing account for about 3% of cyclist fatalities and TfL concluded cyclists not-RLJing accounted for quite a lot more cyclist fatalities.


The last part is not that black and white.


----------



## gaz (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> How does Paris reduce a cyclist death rate of zero?
> 
> They've allowed RLJ'ing, when turning iirc, in a very specific, tiny, set of places/circumstances within Paris which already had pre-existing very specific speed restrictions, traffic calming measures etc., because it is now safe to do it there as a result..... they haven't just gone "feck it, RLJ if you want, when you want, wherever you want!'


turning and going straight. but all liability is on the cyclist if a collision is caused by them going through the light.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (10 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> Does anyone here actually believe that watching for indicators on cars is a reliable way of telling what direction they are going to take? Why worry when they don't use them?


 

Usually,where the wheels are pointing are a good indication.


----------



## caimg (10 May 2012)

Arfcollins said:


> Does anyone here actually believe that watching for indicators on cars is a reliable way of telling what direction they are going to take? Why worry when they don't use them?



I'll bite...er yes? The vast majority of cars on the road indicate and don't tend to go in the opposite direction when they do.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

I watch the steering wheel and front wheels, until I see movement the light is merely an indication of intent not a promise.


----------



## subaqua (10 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Usually,where the wheels are pointing are a good indication.


 
did that work for you just past Henniker point the other night? hasn't always worked for me in this locale


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> How does Paris reduce a cyclist death rate of zero?


 
I said death and injury rates.



> They've allowed RLJ'ing, when turning iirc, in a very specific, tiny, set of places/circumstances within Paris which already had pre-existing very specific speed restrictions, traffic calming measures etc., because it is now safe to do it there as a result..... they haven't just gone "feck it, RLJ if you want, when you want, wherever you want!'


 
It is being trialled in the 10th Arrondisement of Paris prior to being rolled out across the city if there is no rise in death and injury rates. The only special circumstances is it has to be on a road with a 30kph speed limit. It also follows a successful trials elsewhere in France.

But whatever way you want to spin it, people are talking seriously now about improving the safety of cyclists by making RLJing legal.


----------



## Boris Bajic (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> It is being trialled in the 10th Arrondisement of Paris prior to being rolled out across the city blah... blah.... blah... .
> 
> .


 
Apologies for clipping away much of your post but when I saw that RLJing was going to be _'rolled out across the city',_ I suffered an involuntary giggle.

I've stopped giggling now and am taking this whole topic very seriously again.

Carry on everyone.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> But whatever way you want to spin it, people are talking seriously now about improving the safety of cyclists by making RLJing legal.


 
in 20mph zones.


----------



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

caimg said:


> I'll bite...er yes? The vast majority of cars on the road indicate and don't tend to go in the opposite direction when they do.


I'm not talking about opposite directions. I won't pull out of a side road that somone is indicating left into untiI they are just about turning in, or they are far enough away to be no danger. As for roundabouts, how many drivers do you see that start to indicate left at the exit before the one they are taking? I think the roads would actually be safer if vehicles only had right hand indicators or, failing that, none at all. Sorry this is off topic, so I'll start a new post. It will be fabulously interesting.


----------



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> Usually,where the wheels are pointing are a good indication.


Right on.


----------



## Arfcollins (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I watch the steering wheel and front wheels, until I see movement the light is merely an indication of intent not a promise.


Right on.


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> in 20mph zones.


 
In Paris. But the discussion in the House of Lords had no speed limits associated with it. In any case there is serious thought being given to making 20mph the norm for many urban roads.


----------



## subaqua (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> In Paris. But the discussion in the House of Lords had no speed limits associated with it. In any case there is *serious thought being given to making 20mph the norm for many urban roads*.


 
but sadly no seriuos thoughts about how to enforce it so it means drivers will actually obey the limit. i live in a 20 zone and its like the wacky races most days. even when driving at 20i get abuse from other drivers for going too slow, and this is past 2 , yes 2 primary schools within 300 yds of each other and a fairly large secondary.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> In Paris. But the discussion in the House of Lords had no speed limits associated with it. In any case there is *serious thought being given to making 20mph the norm for many urban roads*.


Where is this serious thinking being done, outside of the living rooms of a few campaigners like me? Not in West Sussex according to the cabinet member for Highways, and Director for same, on Monday.


----------



## Dan_h (10 May 2012)

Blurb said:


> Slightly OT, but I have taken to dismounting at certain lights on my commute and using the phasing to cross the junction as a pedestrian before continuing my journey. Whilst it only gets me a marginal time advantage per junction it does add up and ,more importantly IMO, allows me to clear the initial surge of traffic and the occasional wobble as I start moving.
> 
> 
> Is this "acceptable" RLJing, or am I going straight to hell? AFAIK it is legal as long as I dismount and safe as I use the pedestrian phase to cross. Thoughts?


 
To be legal you don't have to wait for the pedestrian phase to cross. There is no law that says a pedestrian cannot walk accross when the lights are at red for them, it might of course be a little risky if there is a lot of traffic...


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Where is this serious thinking being done, outside of the living rooms of a few campaigners like me? Not in West Sussex according to the cabinet member for Highways, and Director for same, on Monday.


 
I didn't know he was considered the sole repository of serious thinking in this country. You live and learn.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> but sadly no seriuos thoughts about how to enforce it so it means drivers will actually obey the limit. i live in a 20 zone and its like the wacky races most days. even when driving at 20i get abuse from other drivers for going too slow, and this is past 2 , yes 2 primary schools within 300 yds of each other and a fairly large secondary.


but they ignored the previous 30mph limit too didn't they? They roar past ours at 40+. I think the 'it won't be enforced' line is the weakest of all counter arguments. Still waiting for Sussex Police to answer my FoI request about speeding tickets issued in 30mph zones by traffic patrols rather than static cameras.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> I didn't know he was considered the sole repository of serious thinking in this country. You live and learn.


so enlighten me. where is the serious thinking being done?

edit :the cabinet member and director are two different people. you knew that right?


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> but sadly no seriuos thoughts about how to enforce it so it means drivers will actually obey the limit. i live in a 20 zone and its like the wacky races most days. even when driving at 20i get abuse from other drivers for going too slow, and this is past 2 , yes 2 primary schools within 300 yds of each other and a fairly large secondary.


 
You could say the same of any speed limit in this country. But for the subject under discussion your point is irrelevant. Even if we accepted the Paris restriction to legal RLJing on 30kph roads, its the speed limit not the actual traffic speed which is the defining requirement.


----------



## HLaB (10 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> but sadly no seriuos thoughts about how to enforce it so it means drivers will actually obey the limit. i live in a 20 zone and its like the wacky races most days. even when driving at 20i get abuse from other drivers for going too slow, and this is past 2 , yes 2 primary schools within 300 yds of each other and a fairly large secondary.


Its not perfect but a lot of people advocate natural enforcement, designing the road so that people cant speed (tighter geometries, etc); or on an existing street you could implement traffic calming but thats not perfect; and what ever you do you'll always get some idiot


----------



## Red Light (10 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> so enlighten me. where is the serious thinking being done?


 
The European Parliament came out with a strong recommendation last September for 30kph limits "in all residential areas and on single-lane roads in urban areas which have no separate cycle lanes"

The last Government planned to introduce wide area 20mph zones and the current Government continues that objective.



> edit :the cabinet member and director are two different people. you knew that right?


 
Does it matter? I really don't care whether they are one or two people but if you want people to know then perhaps you should be less ambiguous in your writing.


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> The last Government planned to introduce wide area 20mph zones and the current Government continues that objective.


 
It is supposed to be introduced in Manchester


----------



## slowmotion (10 May 2012)

RLJing

I just pick the laws that I want to obey. I'm comfortable with that. Tomorrow, I fancy a spot of burglary.

It's my right, innit?.....


----------



## 400bhp (10 May 2012)

slowmotion said:


> I just pick the laws that I want to obey. I'm comfortable with that. Tomorrow, I fancy a spot of burglary.
> 
> It's my right, innit?.....


 
Although you joke, in seriousness it kind of is. You choose brake the law you choose to run the risk of the consequences.


----------



## I like Skol (10 May 2012)

Oh Feck, that's 23 minutes I ain't going to get back................


----------



## musa (11 May 2012)

If you think statistics will help you've got another thing coming 

Is it fair to say That this is life those one of those things?


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2012)

gaz said:


> The last part is not that black and white.


Pretty sure the zebra crossing discussion is in a separate thread


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (11 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> did that work for you just past Henniker point the other night? hasn't always worked for me in this locale


 
I did actually notice the car was throwing a right.

(Actually,I thought he was overtaking for a second,not actually parking on the other side of the road.)


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> thats as bad a twist of statistics as using the figure of 25% of accidents are caused by drink drivers meaning 75% are by sober drivers which means its safer to drive drunk.


I'm sure that riding Bromptons accounts for far far less than 2% of cycling fatalities, so should we all buy folding bikes or should we accept that (as i think may have been Red Light's point) this particular number tells us almost nothing useful either way?


----------



## subaqua (11 May 2012)

Dan_h said:


> I jump red lights sometimes, usually it is early on Sunday morning at lights where I have clear visibility there is nothing coming and I know that I have to wait for a car to come up behind me to set off the pressure sensors that will allow me to go. I don't think that is dangerous, AND if I can wait 5 mnutes without them changing I believe I am allowed to carefully cross them so I am in effect speeding that process up a little!


 
1) they are not pressure sensors they are inductive loops that detect ferrous metal mass to speed up the change sequence. the lights will change in the sequence they are programmed, hence the lights turningred for no aparent reason as you approach them in acar sometimes and no other vehicles go through.
2) that is not RLJing, there is a time provision for lights being faulty , 5 minutes could be argued to be a reasonble amount of time to wait for a light change.


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> I'm sure that riding Bromptons accounts for far far less than 2% of cycling fatalities, so should we all buy folding bikes or should we accept that (as i think may have been Red Light's point) this particular number tells us almost nothing useful either way?


 
It was not my point. It tells you that despite one in five cyclists jumping red lights, it is the cause of only one in fifty cyclist deaths and only two deaths in five years in London out of 89 deaths total. That means its not the highly dangerous activity it is being painted as. Illegal yes. Dangerous no. And as has been pointed out by the Times and TfL, not red light jumping has probably caused the deaths of many tens of women cyclists under lorries over that period in London.

I don't red light jump by the way.


----------



## 400bhp (11 May 2012)

Are we all stopping at red lights now?

:tumbleweed:

Ah, no answer - must still be waiting at them.


----------



## SquareDaff (11 May 2012)

I see things kicked off nicely after I left last night!!


----------



## SquareDaff (11 May 2012)

1843798 said:


> Well if this is all just a bit of fun to you.


"Sigh"!. See previous comments in the thread! Personally, I think you have a point about Red Light jumping and not doing it BUT you won't change peoples opinions in this manner. Maybe I've been on this forum for too long - but I also know there are some people out there that will "light the blue touch paper" and stand back as long as there are people out there willing to bite!


----------



## SquareDaff (11 May 2012)

1843817 said:


> Joke


That was too subtle for me at this time of the morning! I need to wake up. Soz


----------



## Dan_h (11 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> *1) they are not pressure sensors they are inductive loops that detect ferrous metal mass to speed up the change sequence. the lights will change in the sequence they are programmed, hence the lights turningred for no aparent reason as you approach them in acar sometimes and no other vehicles go through.*
> 2) that is not RLJing, there is a time provision for lights being faulty , 5 minutes could be argued to be a reasonble amount of time to wait for a light change.


 
Ah, that makes sense, I wondered why jumping up and down on them made no difference!


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2012)

Dan_h said:


> Ah, that makes sense, I wondered why jumping up and down on them made no difference!


An older and more pure meaning of "red light jumping"


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2012)

Dan_h said:


> Ah, that makes sense, I wondered why jumping up and down on them made no difference!


----------



## BentMikey (11 May 2012)

If you jump red lights I will call you a muppet, and put your shame on YouTube.


----------



## redcard (11 May 2012)

There was a guy on my commute this morning, jumped through 3 red lights before we met at the 4th (I caught him easily every time). He turns round and grunts something, think it was a hello, but he was obviously in such a state he had lost the power of speech. I told him he should stop at the lights more often as he obviously needed the rest.
I let him get 20 yards ahead then completely leathered him.

It's not just the fact that he was jumping the lights, he wasn't slowing down, he wasn't having a good look around, he looked to be completely oblivious, although I'm sure he probably had some awareness if his surroundings.


----------



## Brandane (11 May 2012)

redcard said:


> I let him get 20 yards ahead then completely leathered him.


 
I am assuming that the meaning of "give someone a leathering" has changed since my yoof? Otherwise it's a bit of an over-reaction to someone RLJing . Sorry; I just have an image in my head of a RLJ cyclist lying in the gutter somewhere as you cycle off into the distance......


----------



## the snail (11 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> Sorry; I just have an image in my head of a RLJ cyclist lying in the gutter somewhere as you cycle off into the distance......


... clad in lederhosen and gimp mask?


----------



## Jdratcliffe (11 May 2012)

the snail said:


> ... clad in lederhosen and gimp mask?


 
made my morning !  could be the manic day and the unrelenting phone calls but this comment made me giggle a little at my desk! so thank you..


----------



## benb (11 May 2012)

A moment's thought, combined with Red Light's figures, illustrate that it's perfectly possible to RLJ without much danger to yourself or others.

RLJ by cyclists is blown out of all proportion, and what I really object to is motorists lumping us all in together, and expecting all cyclists to share responsibility for cyclists who RLJ. Why should I take responsibility for the actions of other cyclists? I see many more motorists running red lights, and much more dangerously, than cyclists, but I don't feel the need to berate every motorist I see for the RLJer's actions.

Traffic lights are really only there to control motorised traffic. In some ways, cyclists are closer to pedestrians than vehicles, so I think it would be worth _considering_ making red lights equivalent to stop signs - let cyclists proceed if it is safe to do so, but on the understanding that they accept presumed liability should a collision occur. 

I'm not suggesting cyclists should break traffic laws: I'm suggesting we _change_ the traffic laws.

I almost never RLJ, BTW.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (11 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> but sadly no seriuos thoughts about how to enforce it so it means drivers will actually obey the limit. i live in a 20 zone and its like the wacky races most days. even when driving at 20i get abuse from other drivers for going too slow, and this is past 2 , yes 2 primary schools within 300 yds of each other and a fairly large secondary.


It can be fun, though. On our 20mph approach road, I stick the cruise control on at 20mph in 3rd gear and then enjoy seeing the face of the driver behind get redder and redder.

Seriously, though, I think this is an important point. The road I refer to has speed bumps severe enough to make be concerned about the suspension when I take them at 20mph, but I still see many drivers bouncing over them at 30mph plus.


----------



## subaqua (11 May 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> It can be fun, though. On our 20mph approach road, I stick the cruise control on at 20mph in 3rd gear and then enjoy seeing the face of the driver behind get redder and redder.
> 
> Seriously, though, I think this is an important point. *The road I refer to has speed bumps severe enough to make be concerned about the suspension when I take them at 20mph*, but I still see many drivers bouncing over them at 30mph plus.


 

sounds like the road I live on. one thing to never try is ride like crazy at them and try and bunny hop at the peak. ends up with a face full of tarmac, not that i have ever tried that one of course. i am far to smart for that


----------



## redcard (11 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> I am assuming that the meaning of "give someone a leathering" has changed since my yoof? Otherwise it's a bit of an over-reaction to someone RLJing . Sorry; I just have an image in my head of a RLJ cyclist lying in the gutter somewhere as you cycle off into the distance......



I'll maybe check on him on the way home, make sure he managed to call an ambulance


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> And as has been pointed out by the Times and TfL, *not red light jumping has probably caused the deaths of many tens of women cyclists under lorrie*s over that period in London.
> 
> .


 
Not so: the cause of a many of those has been poor positioning by the cyclist:

Follow cycle craft and never allow another large vehicle to share your lane at lights:

Arrive first = stop in primary at the head of the queue, if a lorry stops close behind, move forward a little to be visible by the driver.
Arrive later = stop in primary in the queue well behind the next vehicle and wait.
NEVER EVER stop hard left against kerb/railings at a traffic light.
NEVER EVER ride up the inside of any large vehicle stopped at a junction.


----------



## marzjennings (11 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> I think any of us that love cycling and cycle on our busy roads want to see safer roads for cyclists but the amount of times I see cyclists riding through red stop lights, picking their way through traffic, appalls me.
> Do they realise how much this infuriates some motor vehicle drivers. Its dangerous and rude. No wonder cyclists get a bad name.
> Anyone reading this that engages in this practice - STOP IT. Your making it worse for ever other road user.


 
No and I shall continue to ride how I please; knickers to you!


----------



## rich p (11 May 2012)

7 bleedin' pages!


----------



## Moodyman (11 May 2012)

Let's see if we can stretch it to 8


----------



## Moodyman (11 May 2012)

Needs one more me thinks


----------



## Moodyman (11 May 2012)

try again...


----------



## Moodyman (11 May 2012)

Never mind, someome else have a go


----------



## Moodyman (11 May 2012)

1844675 said:


> These are fine rules for those who need such things. If however you have seen the light change green to red and you know that this means you have got 45 seconds, say, to get clear in front, *why shouldn't you go up the inside*?


 
No reason other than space. Unless there's a cycle lane, there is usually too little space between vehicle and kerb to filter comfortably.


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 May 2012)

1844675 said:


> These are fine rules for those who need such things. If however you have seen the light change green to red and you know that this means you have got 45 seconds, say, to get clear in front, why shouldn't you go up the inside?


 
Well said. I do this a lot when riding in London and other cities...

However, I become a real mother hen when my children are riding with me in these situations. Their lack of experience makes this sort of riding a scary thing to witness.

I have no issues with them having their elbws brushed by close passes on NSL country roads, but seeing them nearside filtering on Holloway Road induces cold sweats.

You're quite right here though, in my book. If you have confidence that you won't be squashed, do it.


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> Not so: the cause of a many of those has been poor positioning by the cyclist:
> 
> Follow cycle craft and never allow another large vehicle to share your lane at lights:
> 
> ...


 
Ah, so its all the womens' fault that they got killed by the trucks is it?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (11 May 2012)

A wee story: my work exit is next to a taxi rank, after a few hundred meters you get to a junction. The taxis RLJ there all the time. I don't  But the other day I had one right behind me, deserted streets on a Sunday, got the jiby jibis 'cose I don't like black taxis behind me jumped the red light leaving behind muddy tire tracks: the cheeky so and so had the effrontery to beep at me!


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah, so its all the womens' fault that they got killed by the trucks is it?


 
I agree with the may comments made by Gaz on his videos to and about riders going up the inside of HGVs.

IMO riding up the inside of an HGV or stopping hard left against railings or kerb at lights is the equivalent of auditioning for a Darwin Award.

Refusing to acknowledge that for cycling-lobby/PC reasons obstructs the education and informing of those cyclists most in need of the advice and contributes to the cause of the deaths.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

Is jumping the red light ever the safest thing to do?


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2012)

gaz said:


> Is jumping the red light ever the safest thing to do?


 Sorry, but when somebody starts an explaination with 'Quite Obviously' I turn off....


----------



## subaqua (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah, so its all the womens' fault that they got killed by the trucks is it?


 
tell you what, i will ride round not jumping red lights , and following the advice in cyclecraft about where to put yourself at lights and you can continue doing WTF you want looking like a complete twunt


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> tell you what, i will ride round not jumping red lights , and following the advice in cyclecraft about where to put yourself at lights and you can continue doing WTF you want looking like a complete twunt


 
That would make you look like a complete twunt too since I don't jump red lights either (as posted ^). But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

gaz said:


> Is jumping the red light ever the safest thing to do?


 
Pity your conclusions are at odds with the evidence.


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> I agree with the may comments made by Gaz on his videos to and about riders going up the inside of HGVs.
> 
> IMO riding up the inside of an HGV or stopping hard left against railings or kerb at lights is the equivalent of auditioning for a Darwin Award.
> 
> Refusing to acknowledge that for cycling-lobby/PC reasons obstructs the education and informing of those cyclists most in need of the advice and contributes to the cause of the deaths.


 
So tell me, if you are stopped at the white line at a red light and a truck pulls up right on your back wheel what do you do? Do you follow your rules and move forward across the white line, which legally is jumping the red light, so the driver can see you? Do you rapidly dismount and drag your bike out of the way of the lorry while hoping the lights don't change?

And from your reply I can see that you do indeed blame women cyclists for getting killed by trucks even though in the vast majority of cases they were not at fault.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Pity your conclusions are at odds with the evidence.


Hardly 'evidence'


----------



## subaqua (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> That would make you look like a complete twunt too since I don't jump red lights either (as posted ^). But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.


 
oh the irony. can you point me to where i said in that post that you jump red lights. or are you reading things that are not there. looks like the avatar has it fairly close


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 May 2012)

This was a light-hearted but informative thread about the wisdom or otherwise of hopping red lights.

Full of disagreement but largely good natured and not without wit.

The recent addition of bizarre and repeated accusations that a poster is blaming cycists for the collisions that killed them seems tasteless, cheap and undignified.

I know that's often the currency of the online forum, but this can start to look tawdry.


----------



## CopperBrompton (11 May 2012)

Dan B said:


> I'm sure that riding Bromptons accounts for far far less than 2% of cycling fatalities, so should we all buy folding bikes or should we accept that (as i think may have been Red Light's point) this particular number tells us almost nothing useful either way?


Any argument which results in someone buying a Brompton is a good argument.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 May 2012)

1844675 said:


> These are fine rules for those who need such things. If however you have seen the light change green to red and you know that this means you have got 45 seconds, say, to get clear in front, why shouldn't you go up the inside?


I used to do that, en route from Clapham to Brixton, when such a journey was a daily event, then some twunt in a van RLJ'ed and turned left in front of me.


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

gaz said:


> Hardly 'evidence'


 
So where is your evidence that red light jumping is dangerous? And proof by assertion - "Its obvious innit" - doesn't count.


----------



## John90 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah, so its all the womens' fault that they got killed by the trucks is it?


 
No, but it is the position of their bike rather than the red light that got them killed. Allowing RLJs would not make it advisable and safe to undertake any vehicle at a junction, as I'm sure you'd agree. So the solution to the danger you've highlighted is education and training of cyclists and drivers, not changing the law on jumping red lights.

On the other hand that doesn't mean RLJs are necessarily dangerous (although they are irritating).


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The recent addition of bizarre and repeated accusations that a poster is blaming cycists for the collisions that killed them seems tasteless, cheap and undignified.


 
So you tell me what PK99 meant if it wasn't blaming women cyclists for their own demise?



Red Light said:


> And as has been pointed out by the Times and TfL, not red light jumping has probably caused the deaths of many tens of women cyclists under lorries over that period in London.


 


PK99 said:


> Not so: the cause of a many of those has been poor positioning by the cyclist:


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

John90 said:


> No, but it is the position of their bike rather than the red light that got them killed.


 
Ah, sorry, I hadn't realised the bike had positioned itself and they were innnocent victims of their bike's stupidity.


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 May 2012)

You brought up the topic of these deaths in a strangely tasteless piece of wordplay about 'not red light jumping causing death'.

I'm not sure why you did so; it seems gratuitous. Anything to prove a point. Or fail to. 

PK99 responded perfectly reasonably and neither of his subsequent replies to your implication that he was blaming the killed seemed of themselves to speak of blame.

I find that raising of the deaths and then the continued reference to them tasteless, gauche and undignified. I may be wrong.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> So where is your evidence that red light jumping is dangerous? And proof by assertion - "Its obvious innit" - doesn't count.


Where did I say it was dangerous? 
I may have implied that there is an element of danger by saying that something else was safer.


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> So tell me, if you are stopped at the white line at a red light and a truck pulls up right on your back wheel what do you do? Do you follow your rules and move forward across the white line, which legally is jumping the red light, so the driver can see you? Do you rapidly dismount and drag your bike out of the way of the lorry while hoping the lights don't change?
> 
> .


 
I move forward - a technical breach to help ensure safety. But the point at issue is not technical breaches, but deliberate flouting of the law by jumping red lights and crossing pedestrian and or traffic lanes


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> You brought up the topic of these deaths in a strangely tasteless piece of wordplay about 'not red light jumping causing death'.
> 
> I'm not sure why you did so; it seems gratuitous. Anything to prove a point. Or fail to.
> 
> ...


 
Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. Or perhaps you think that any debate about why the death rates of women cyclists under lorries is so high should be swept under the carpet and quietly ignored. Blaming the victim for what is in the majority of cases found to be the fault of the driver is what is not acceptable.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. Or perhaps you think that any debate about why the death rates of women cyclists under lorries is so high should be swept under the carpet and quietly ignored. Blaming the victim for what is in the majority of cases found to be the fault of the driver is what is not acceptable.


Do you have a link to the study? If it is the one I think you are referring to, it doesn't quite say that but that is instead a few peoples interpretations of the numbers....


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. Or perhaps you think that any debate about why the death rates of women cyclists under lorries is so high should be swept under the carpet and quietly ignored. Blaming the victim for what is in the majority of cases found to be the fault of the driver is what is not acceptable.


 
To avoid putting yourself at risk from an inattentive or careless HGV/lorry driver, follow the guidance of cyclecraft.

Arrive first = stop in primary position at the head of the queue

Arrive later = stop in primary position in the queue a good distance behind the HGV

NEVER EVER cycle up the inside of an HGV at a junction.

Any cyclists who do not know or head that advice need to be educated - to deny that truth for pc/cycling-lobby reasons is to make the problem worse and contributes to the terrible toll.


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

gaz said:


> Do you have a link to the study? If it is the one I think you are referring to, it doesn't quite say that but that is instead a few peoples interpretations of the numbers....


 
It has not been published but it has been widely reported including in the Times and BBC.

It says "Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights." During the period 1999 - 2004 86% of women cyclist deaths were from lorries while it was only 47% for men.


----------



## Blurb (11 May 2012)

http://camdencyclists.org.uk/tmp/Pedal Cyclist Fatalities Involving Goods Vehicles.pdf


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> It has not been published but it has been widely reported including in the Times and BBC.
> 
> It says "Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights." During the period 1999 - 2004 86% of women cyclist deaths were from lorries while it was only 47% for men.


Yes, the one I thought.. unpublished.

I'm sure we can all understand that other circumstances could have come into play in all of those collisions, poor filtering, poor road position and poor reading of other vehicles actions. It is not black and white that going through red is safer than not.


----------



## gaz (11 May 2012)

Blurb said:


> http://camdencyclists.org.uk/tmp/Pedal Cyclist Fatalities Involving Goods Vehicles.pdf


so the above research basis its figures on the report *Behaviour at cycle advanced stop lines.* which states



> 20% of male cyclists violated the red light across all sites compared with 12% of female cyclists


 
If we look at *Proportion of Cyclists Who Violate Red Lights in London*


> 17% of male cyclists chose to disobey traffic signals when evidence from all sites was combined, whilst just 13% of female cyclists did.


 
So whilst yes, men seem to be more likely to cycle through the red light. it isn't by much.


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC _*and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London*_ - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. .


 
if the report you purport to quote is the one linked to later in this thread you are deliberately distorting the contents:

1 . para 4.1 from the body of the report, a speculative comment,for which no supporting data is presented and which does not appear in the conclusions



> Table 1 shows that a higher proportion of female cyclists (18 out of 21) were involved in fatal collisions with goods vehicles than fatal collisions with other types of vehicle. Women *may* be over-represented in this type of collision because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.* This *might increase* the likelihood of coming into conflict with turning goods vehicles waiting at junctions.


 
2. para 4.4 again from the body of the report, not appearing in the conclusions



> As many collisions occur at signalised junctions when goods vehicles are turning left, nearside lead-in lanes to advanced stop line reservoirs may exacerbate the problem by encouraging cyclists to approach along the nearside kerb. A recent study§ found that a larger proportion of cyclists approach junctions along the nearside kerb when a kerbside feeder lane is provided that when it is not.


 
later




> Advanced Stop Lines (ASL)
> Information on the provision of ASLs was available for 11 of the signalled junctions. Only 2 of these junctions had ASL provision for cyclists on the relevant arm and the ASL was not mentioned as being related to the collision.


 
3. the conclusion in full:



> 5. Conclusions
> Casualty data indicate that over half of pedal cycle fatalities between January 1999 and May 2004 resulted from collisions with goods vehicles. Data from various sources were investigated for these 49 pedal cyclist fatalities involving goods vehicles.
> 
> Over half of those collisions occurred at signalled junctions or crossings, often when goods vehicles had been stationary at the signals. A larger proportion of these fatalities (49%) compared with all pedal cycle casualties (27%) in 2003 occurred on the TLRN.
> ...


----------



## Red Light (11 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> Any cyclists who do not know or head that advice need to be educated - to deny that truth for pc/cycling-lobby reasons is to make the problem worse and contributes to the terrible toll.


 
Perhaps the road planners who place cycle lanes and ASL feeder lanes down the inside need to be educated first. TRL PPR240 found more cyclists went up the inside if there was an ASL feeder lane there.


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

1845120 said:


> As I understand it, and as ever may be well wide of the mark, it is this technical breach which separates the quick and the dead. Men are more likely than women to be prepared to cross the line at lights and wait 3-4m beyond the lorry *which might kill those who stop alongside it.*


 
the essential thing is to educate ALL cyclist not to stop alongside a lorry nor to stop hard against the kerb allowing a lorry to stop alongside them - and that does not mean jumping red lights


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Perhaps the road planners who place cycle lanes and ASL feeder lanes down the inside need to be educated first. TRL PPR240 found more cyclists went up the inside if there was an ASL feeder lane there.


 
using advance feeder lanes to pass a queue of cars immediately on the lights turning red is a valid thing to do.

All cyclists need to be educated not to use the feeder lane:

1 if they do not know how long till the change of light

2 EVER if it involves passing along the inside of an HGV


----------



## PK99 (11 May 2012)

1845136 said:


> Almost perfectly the wrong way around. The essential thing is to educate lorry drivers to keep well away from cyclists.


 

A lorry driver, arriving first at a traffic light junction, signalling left and stopped positioned ready to turn left has done everything she can to keep well away from cyclists.

If a cyclist then advances alongside the lorry and stops between the lorry and the kerb, the cyclist has made a serious and dangerous error. ALL cyclists need to be educated to avoid that hazard.

Lorry drivers need to be educated to be alert for cyclists putting themselves such a dangerous position, but in this scenario the initiating error is by the cyclist.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1845153, member: 9609"]I like to get away early too. As soon as I see the other routes starting to stop and I know my turn is imminent, i'm off. I would rather take my chance with an amber gambler *than setting off at the same time as the lorry, by the time we've waited at the lights the driver may have forgot about us*.[/quote]

do you mean you have positioned yourself to the left of the lorry?


----------



## Dan B (12 May 2012)

1845156 said:


> This is why we need to define what we mean by red light jumping precisely. Riding clear across on red is fairly easy. Putting yourself 3-4m over the line but staying there until the light is green is a different matter. Legally it is RLJing but practically it is being sensible about road positioning. Similarly waiting behind the line but setting off 2-3 seconds early.


Surely your definition will depend on your reasons for not rljing? If because it's illegal, you will eschew all forms of rlj even up to entering an asl other than via the feeder lane. If because it's dangerous, you might be happy with amber gambling or with jumping a junction when you can see there's nothing coming . If because it's rude, maybe you jump lights only when there's nobody around at all. If because it annoys car drivers, well, honestly, who knows what will or won't annoy someone who's already irrational? If that's your goal you might wish to stop filtering and to make a voluntary donation to the road fund (sic) while you're at it.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

1845146 said:


> Not if that lorry driver has just overtaken the cyclist they haven't .


 
Cyclecraft: Occupy the primary riding position at the approach to the signals .... do not allow any other vehicle to share the same lane to the side of you


----------



## Francesca (12 May 2012)




----------



## John90 (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah, sorry, I hadn't realised the bike had positioned itself and they were innnocent victims of their bike's stupidity.


 
Not what I said.

There has been nothing in this thread to suggest that a better understanding of filtering and taking primary behind vehicles when more appropriate is not the best way to avoid these deaths and injuries. Allowing left turns at red lights might prevent them or it might encourage more poor filtering and greater risk. I've no idea and have seen no evidence either way.

None of which means RLJing is OK as most people on here seem to agree. If the light is red it means someone else, pedestrian or vehicle or other cyclist, has the right of way and there is a possible risk involved in ignoring that right. It's not necessarily a life or death issue, it may cause no more than inconvenience, but it is their right of way, not the cyclist's. Most cyclists might RLJ responsibly, some (too many) do not, so it seems reasonable to have a rule prohibiting it, and reasonable to obey that rule. 

If it turns out that allowing RLJs in certain specific circumstances would save lives then fair enough - 'when the facts change, I change my mind' as the saying goes.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

John90 said:


> Not what I said.
> 
> There has been nothing in this thread to suggest that a better understanding of filtering and taking primary behind vehicles when more appropriate is not the best way to avoid these deaths and injuries.


 
You are assuming that the deaths are caused by filtering up the inside and hiding in blind spots rather than lorries pulling up alongside or behind cyclists at junctions.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

I don't see any conflict here. We need to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists at junctions, and cyclists not to go up the inside of lorries and to take primary at junctions. It's not an either-or.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

1845347 said:


> And the program to achieve the former, how is it going?


 
No hgv driver ever pulls up alongside me in the same lane - but then again i do put myself in Primary Position


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845347 said:


> And the program to achieve the former, how is it going?


 
Probably much more successful than the latter, given that HGV drivers have to undertake compulsory training. Cyclists? Errrm; no. Unless of course they are among the tiny minority that read on-line forums.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

1845365 said:


> That is not answering the question though, is it? That is fine as an individual but it doesn't* address the problem at source*.


 
*The problem at source - the initiating error in the chain of events* leading to a cyclist being squished by a left turning lorry - is sometimes the cyclist failing to follow the guidance of Cyclecraft and stopping hard to the left of the left lane at the junction or passing on the inside of the lorry stopped at the junction.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1845372, member: 45"]You've got completely the wrong end of the stick, and are making the ridiculous suggestion that people who are not capable of riding safely within current road restrictions would be safer following the suggestion not to obey red lights.

Have a serious think about what you're saying.[/quote]

Why do you think its either/or and not both? There is no evidence that RLJing is dangerous for cyclists. The world is not asymmetrical as you seem to assume with it all being the result of unwise actions by the cyclist going down and stopping on the inside. Cyclists are also placed in danger by lorry drivers' actions and that appears to be the dominant problem. Even holding primary as you keep stating doesn't help - there are plenty of cases of lorries pulling up behind a cyclist who is then in the blind spot in front of the cab and gets forgotten. In those circumstances a red light jump may well save someone from a much greater danger. Cyclist deaths from lorries are many many times those from red light jumping despite red light jumping being a very common occurrence (about one in five cyclists) and encounters with lorries at traffic lights being relatively rare (between 1 and 5% of vehicles on the roads in London depending on how you define a "lorry").

You seem to think that there is one and only one answer to this and that is not the case. Red light jumping could save many many more cyclists than it kills even with all your Cyclecraft rules.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> *The problem at source - the initiating error in the chain of events* leading to a cyclist being squished by a left turning lorry - is *sometimes* the cyclist failing to follow the guidance of Cyclecraft and stopping hard to the left of the left lane at the junction or passing on the inside of the lorry stopped at the junction.


 
Sometimes. And for the rest of the time what is your solution?


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> No hgv driver ever pulls up alongside me in the same lane - but then again i do put myself in Primary Position


 
What about directly behind you placing you in their blindspot in front of the cab?


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845366 said:


> Nonsense. Lorries routinely display signs warning cyclists not to go up the inside. Suggest that a lorry driver should refrain from duplicating the exact same juxtaposition by overtaking and you will encounter blank incomprehension.


 
That is not what you were asking. You asked


> And the program to achieve the former, how is it going?


referring to:


> We need to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists at junctions, and cyclists not to go up the inside of lorries and to take primary at junctions. It's not an either-or.


 
So my reply is not nonsense. How is the program to achieve education of cyclists going? Other than sticking warning signs on the rear left side of HGVs of course, which is done by haulage companies.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> What about directly behind you placing you in their blindspot in front of the cab?


 
In fact I can never recall that happening, but if it did i would roll forward our of the blind spot


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845398 said:


> It is nonsense, there is no general program to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists.
> The other way round is well publicised with warnings on the backs and sides of commercial vehicles.


 
Really? I suggest you read a copy of the DSA official publication "Driving goods vehicles, the official DSA syllabus" (ISBN 0-11-552485-1).
I am sitting with my copy in front of me right now. I can recommend pages 14, 15, 28, 86, 88, 91, 128, 177, 183, and 192; all of which refer to cyclists.

If you want, I will quote bits of it later when I have more time .


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

1845398 said:


> It is nonsense, there is no general program to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists.
> The other way round is well publicised with warnings on the backs and sides of commercial vehicles.


 
http://www.hackney.gov.uk/HGV-CPC.htm


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

1845398 said:


> It is nonsense, there is no general program to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists.
> The other way round is well publicised with warnings on the backs and sides of commercial vehicles.


 
And a great one from one HGV on the Embankment the other day 'beep beep, this vehicle is turning left, beep beep, this vehicle is turning left'. It really focusses your attention to it!

Like others have expressed on here I do not like the assumption from other cyclists who believe that with responsible road positioning you can prevent yourself from being squished. A girl in my office a few years ago got crushed by a HGV. She was in the ASL going straight on and the HGV was turning left. Nothing she could have done about it. If you go up St John Street in London you can see the ghost bike there. The HGV driver did not see her. You sit up in one of those HGV cabs and you can see why. I can't help but think that she may be alive today if she had heard that 'this vehicle is turning left beep beep'.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

1845347 said:


> And the program to achieve the former, how is it going?


I don't know as I always take primary if I arrive first at lights, so I don't give HGVs the chance to get alongside me.

Which is for me the pragmatic answer: I have no control over what other road-users do, but I can control what I do. Arguing about who is right/wrong, or what proportion of blame falls to each party in these accidents, is kind of futile. As a cyclist, I want the ability to ensure I don't get into a situation where it can happen.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> And a great one from one HGV on the Embankment the other day 'beep beep, this vehicle is turning left, beep beep, this vehicle is turning left'. It really focusses your attention to it!
> 
> Like others have expressed on here I do not like the assumption from other cyclists who believe that *with responsible road positioning you can prevent yourself from being squished.* A girl in my office a few years ago got crushed by a HGV. She was in the ASL going straight on and the HGV was turning left. Nothing she could have done about it. If you go up St John Street in London you can see the ghost bike there. The HGV driver did not see her. You sit up in one of those HGV cabs and you can see why. I can't help but think that she may be alive today if she had heard that 'this vehicle is turning left beep beep'.


 
You cannot prevent, but you can avoid increasing the risk. There will always be occasions where it is 100% the HGV drivers fault, but every time i cycle in central London i see behaviour by cyclists at junctions in the vicinity of HGVs that is the very antithesis of assertive defensive cycling.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

1845413 said:


> What we don't have is the same level of effort being directed at making the dangerous less so.


What's your evidence for that? Personally I've seen material aimed at each, but I have no way to quantify the relative efforts.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

1845418 said:


> So why do people who have learned all that kill cyclists?


 
Why do so many cyclists audition for Darwin Awards?
http://www.sillycyclists.co.uk/


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> You cannot prevent, but you can avoid increasing the risk. There will always be occasions where it is 100% the HGV drivers fault, but every time i cycle in central London i see behaviour by cyclists at junctions in the vicinity of HGVs that is the very antithesis of assertive defensive cycling.


 
Quite, preventative measures are good. But, I do not blame the HGV drivers. I don't think that anyone is. As the HGV driver told me when I stepped up into his cab, they have a multitude of mirrors to look into and a very big blind spot. Rebecca (the girl that died on the corner of St John Street and Old Street) was in that blind spot. The HGV didn't see her. That wasn't his fault. It wasn't her fault too as she was in the ASL, she was doing what she was supposed to be doing. Can we do something about this? Yes, we bloody well can.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

1845417 said:


> Which is all well and good, but is still all about transferring responsibility from the cause of the danger to the victims.


I agree. Although it did save Jane's/Sairose's life a few years ago as she can attest to. Not getting squished = a good thing.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> As the HGV driver told me when I stepped up into his cab, they have a multitude of mirrors to look into and a very big blind spot.


 
Plenty of examples though of where subsequent police investigation has shown the cyclist would have been quite clearly visible in the drivers mirrors for some time before they moved off and killed them. In a number of cases the driver has been to busy looking at paperwork, using their mobile or being drunk to use their mirrors though.


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845418 said:


> So why do people who have learned all that kill cyclists?


 
You would have to ask the individual drivers involved to answer that, as anything else would be speculation. Again though, I was only answering in reference to the incorrect statement you made.....


> It is nonsense, there is no general program to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists.
> The other way round is well publicised with warnings on the backs and sides of commercial vehicles.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> Why do so many cyclists audition for Darwin Awards?
> http://www.sillycyclists.co.uk/


 
Seems most of those are not from the UK anyway. I've no doubt there are some silly cyclists out there but scouring the videos of cyclists globally to get enough material to pretend its endemic in the UK is a it desperate. And if a Darwin Award is what they are after, they seem to be complete failures at winning one.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

1845418 said:


> So why do people who have learned all that kill cyclists?


 
Because some people can't be bothered, don't think and on't care. It has emerged recently that a truck driver who killed a cyclist went on to kill a pedestrian, another who killed a cyclist while drunk and on the phone had had multiple convictions but was still being employed to drive. The driver who nearly wiped out BoJo and Lord Adonis when his rear dorrs swung open and picked up and hurled a car at them had held them together with a wire coat hanger. When 12 lorries were stopped randomly by City Police all twelve lorries were breaking the law in at least one way. The offences included overweight loads (2 cases), mechanical breaches (5 cases), driver hours breaches (5 cases), mobile phone use while driving (2 cases), driving without insurance (2 cases) and no operator license (1 case)_._

It doesn't need training, it need penalties serious enough to make them stop and think for a change. Addison Lee boasts about the training it gives its drivers, including about cyclists, but we all know they have a reputation of some of the worst drivers in London where cyclists are concerned.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1845455, member: 45"]Ok, now that I'm at a computer and not on my phone..


"dangerous" and "safe" are irrelevant terms. It's about level of risk.
WRT KSIs at junctions, it's not all about cyclists going down the inside of lorries. Though with regard to the women you keep going on about it's largely about being left-hooked as a result of being in a place where the actions of a lorry driver result in conflict.
It's not about your repetitious scenario of lorries pulling up behind cyclists and the conflict occuring when the lights change. The risk associated with that is minimal and you only keep bringing it up because it's the best you can come up with to try and argue against proper positioning at lights. It's a red herring which you need to drop if this is going to continue as a valid discussion.
RLJing won't safe many more lives. That's a nonsensical dramatisation driven by your desire to prove that the situation is how you want it to be.
I'll repeat -you're suggesting that those who cannot manage junctions safely within the current expected and accepted boundaries would be safer ignoring reds and placing themselves in the path of other vehicles. It's ridiculous to suggest that that would be ok because we could make sure they're trained in managing RLJing with reduced risk when the solution is much easier -training for drivers and cyclists in how to minimise risk within the accepted boundaries.

The problem of left-hooking lorries can be successfully addressed by awareness. There's absolutely no need to try (and it would be unsuccessful) to introduce a new practice (legal RLJing) into a culture that doesn't accept cyclists on roads as it is.

The fundamental risk presented on the roads is from road vehicles. That's taken as read by everyone. Until that it reduced then cyclists have a responsibility to accept what's going on on the roads and to make contingencies for that. Wrong that we have to, but completely necessary.[/quote]


The big problem with your case above is that RLJing is not by any measure dangerous and it is many more than myself who have suggested it would save lives including TfL, the House of Lords and the French. And most of what you wrote is speculation on your part and much of it demonstrably wrong. For example no-one is suggesting they pull away from a lorry into the path of another vehicle as you speculate but that they cross the junction as a pedestrian would by going in a gap in the cross traffic.

But coming back to the start of this thread, red light jumping as practiced by cyclists is not, from the evidence, the dangerous activity many try to portray it as and there are good indications that it might actually save more lives than it costs.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Redlight, I do agree that RLJing isn't dangerous, but it is unnecessary and poor behaviour. I agree that jumping a red is probably better than waiting between a lorry and pedestrian railings. What you're ignoring is that by far the best option of all is to wait in primary as per Cyclecraft.

I'm sorry, but Mr P is right here.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1845455, member: 45"]

The problem of left-hooking lorries can be successfully addressed by awareness. There's absolutely no need to try (and it would be unsuccessful) to introduce a new practice (legal RLJing) into a culture that doesn't accept cyclists on roads as it is.

The fundamental risk presented on the roads is from road vehicles. That's taken as read by everyone. Until that it reduced then cyclists have a responsibility to accept what's going on on the roads and to make contingencies for that. Wrong that we have to, but completely necessary.[/quote]

No no no, it cannot be successfully addressed by *just* awareness. I hope that I am not taking your point out of context. 16 cyclists were killed in London last year, including a young lass in Bermondsey that was mown down by an HGV (I am also not counting the number of serious cycling injuries as well). This is despite huge campaigns in London by the GLA, LCC and many borough councils training their HGV drivers on awareness of cyclists. Its gone beyond now, something more radical has to be proposed. Am not sure about the legal RLJ-ing to be honest with you. I would go with what other European cities have implemented, which is a ban on lorry driving in central city areas at peak times.


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845459 said:


> Oh sorry, I thought you were speaking on their behalf


 
No; merely fighting my corner when accused of posting "nonsense".


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Redlight, I do agree that RLJing isn't dangerous, but it is unnecessary and poor behaviour. I agree that jumping a red is probably better than waiting between a lorry and pedestrian railings. What you're ignoring is that by far the best option of all is to wait in primary as per Cyclecraft.
> 
> I'm sorry, but Mr P is right here.


 
Not at the junction where you turn right onto Vauxhall Bridge it doesn't. I wait until the lights go to amber on the other traffic lights, as I was getting sick of punishment passes all the time.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

I could be very confused, but I don't think I turn right onto Vauxhall Bridge? I usually turn left onto it in both directions.


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845500 said:


> It is still nonsense. Lorries have stickers on them exhorting me as a cyclist not to pass on the left. No one has offered me a sticker to put on my back to exhort lorry drivers not to pass on my right.


 
Are you a Politician or what? Well versed in evading the point in any case. This is what you said was nonsense....


> Probably much more successful than the latter, given that HGV drivers have to undertake compulsory training. Cyclists? Errrm; no. Unless of course they are among the tiny minority that read on-line forums.


 
It is not nonsense, as there is a training program in place to make HGV drivers aware of cyclists. They have to pass a test to go on the road. Whether or not they follow that training once on the road is up to the individual, but that is not relevant to your argument - the training IS there. Cyclists on the other hand are perfectly free to go out on the road without any sort of training.

If you want a wee sticker for your back, I'm sure you can get one made up. The Road Haulage Association had to do that to get the ones you refer to on HGVs, they didn't just magically appear.


----------



## Francesca (12 May 2012)

1845277 said:


> For breakfast?


 oh yes.
how are you?


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

Moodyman said:


> Let's see if we can stretch it to 8


 
You must be REALLY impressed now!


----------



## Francesca (12 May 2012)

1845511 said:


> Bracing myself for some shopping.


 you make it sound like its a bad thing...food shopping or something for yourself may I ask?


----------



## Francesca (12 May 2012)

1845519 said:


> The list is:
> Laundry baskets, ironing board cover, cat bowls, chopping board (I broke the old one knocking new bearings into a hub), serrated knife to replace the missing one, sheets.......................................... I could go on. So bad thing but necessary


I agree, bad but necessary. You out on your bike(s) this weekend? enjoy the shop


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2012)

RLJers are who Airzounds were made for.


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845516 said:


> In order to transfer responsibility for the outcomes of their members' actions to the potential victims.


 
Or perhaps just offering some sound advice?
Talking from experience here; I have had the odd cyclist and car driver trying to squeeze up my left side while I am actually turning left! Now that is just plain crazy. Not talking traffic lights here, just a normal left turn. Indicators on. Problem being that an artic has to swing out to the right first if the corner is in any way tight, in order to get the trailer wheels round the corner without demolishing the street furniture. At that point your eyes have to be everywhere - checking ahead, to both sides and behind. It is also when the blind spots develop, because your tractor unit is at an angle to the trailer. Therefore the nearside mirror is pointing directly at the left side of the trailer; nothing else. If there is a cyclist down your left side at that point, you CANNOT see it. Blind-spot mirrors can help but they are not 100% reliable, especially in the rain.


----------



## Brandane (12 May 2012)

1845459 said:


> Oh sorry, I thought you were speaking on their behalf


 
Full stop at the end of sentences.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1845505, member: 45"]Until you stop posting nonsense like that (which you wouldn't have to if you had understood my posts on here) you'll struggle to gain any credibility.

Reconsider your intentional or ignorant choice of language.

You're biggest problem is your process of want>google>try to justify want , while discussing the issue with people who have beend researching this and objectively learning for a long time.[/quote]

As someone who has "beend researching this and objectively learning for a long time" you will of course be able to break you long time tradition and actually provide some evidence for your case.

And lets just look at the "nonsense" you highlighted in what I posted:

*RLJing is not by any measure dangerous*

2 deaths in London over five years from RLJing cf 89 deaths total over that period and cycling is, as has been discussed already ad nauseam, a safe activity and one comparable with walking. So RLJing is at least ten time safer than that.

*no-one is suggesting they pull away from a lorry into the path of another vehicle as you speculate*

[QUOTE 1845455, member: 45"]I'll repeat -you're suggesting that those who cannot manage junctions safely within the current expected and accepted boundaries would be safer *ignoring reds and placing themselves in the path of other vehicles.* [/quote]

So who exactly is talking nonsense here? Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what you wrote.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> Are you a Politician or what? Well versed in evading the point in any case. This is what you said was nonsense....
> 
> 
> It is not nonsense, as there is a training program in place to make HGV drivers aware of cyclists. They have to pass a test to go on the road. Whether or not they follow that training once on the road is up to the individual, but that is not relevant to your argument - the training IS there. Cyclists on the other hand are perfectly free to go out on the road without any sort of training.


 
Car drivers also have to do hazard awareness tests including the presence of cyclists as part of their training and licensing. Yet it is those "trained" drivers who are adjudged at fault in the overwhelming majority of cyclist accidents, not the "untrained" cyclists. Training of drivers is a red herring and is demonstrably ineffective.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> RLJers are who Airzounds were made for.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapons


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Brandane said:


> Or perhaps just offering some sound advice?
> Talking from experience here; I have had the odd cyclist and car driver trying to squeeze up my left side while I am actually turning left! Now that is just plain crazy. Not talking traffic lights here, just a normal left turn. Indicators on. Problem being that an artic has to swing out to the right first if the corner is in any way tight, in order to get the trailer wheels round the corner without demolishing the street furniture. At that point your eyes have to be everywhere - checking ahead, to both sides and behind. It is also when the blind spots develop, because your tractor unit is at an angle to the trailer. Therefore the nearside mirror is pointing directly at the left side of the trailer; nothing else. If there is a cyclist down your left side at that point, you CANNOT see it. Blind-spot mirrors can help but they are not 100% reliable, especially in the rain.


 
I can share lots of war stories of HGV drivers doing stupid and dangerous things too. Like overtaking and pulling back in once the cab is past the cyclist, like diving from the outside lane into a parking bay despite a cyclist being between it and them or overtaking when the road narrows up ahead and there is no chance of them being able to complete the overtake. Other large vehicles have nowhere near the accident and killing rate with cyclists that lorries do (and I am not just talking articulated HGVs but construction and delivery vehicles too)


----------



## ianrauk (12 May 2012)

You know what's worse then a rlj'r?
A rlj'r wearing Hi-Viz.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

ianrauk said:


> You know what's worse then a rlj'r?
> A rlj'r wearing Hi-Viz.


 
Nah, nobody notices you if you are wearing urban camouflage


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Car drivers also have to do hazard awareness tests including the presence of cyclists as part of their training and licensing. Yet it is those "trained" drivers who are adjudged at fault in the overwhelming majority of cyclist accidents, not the "untrained" cyclists. Training of drivers is a red herring and is demonstrably ineffective.


 
LoL. Are you for real?


----------



## 400bhp (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Training of drivers is a red herring and is demonstrably ineffective.


 
Quoted for posterity.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

eh?


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2012)

Forget motor vehicles, I think RLJing cyclists pose a major danger to OTHER cyclists and pedestrians. I don't care if they get squished by a truck, bus, car or van. Sad for the their families but their own silly fault. Feck 'em. Traffic signs and signals are in place for everyone's safety. You simply can't choose which ones to obey and which to break for your own selfish convenience.

Recently I have had several almost take me out as I legitmately cross the road at a junction. On friday a volley of abuse was hurled back at me by one charming RLJEr. The best way to teach them is an umbrella through their spokes, a cheap umbrella mind.


----------



## PK99 (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Car drivers also have to do hazard awareness tests including the presence of cyclists as part of their training and licensing. Yet it is those "trained" drivers who are adjudged at fault in the overwhelming majority of cyclist accidents, not the "untrained" cyclists. T*raining of drivers is a red herring and is demonstrably ineffective.*


 
... and it is therefore a good idea to advise cyclists to be assertively defensive and to avoid putting themselves along side hgvs or jumping red lights.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

Oh I entirely agree, having nearly been taken out by them on my commute quite regularly - it is f*cking aggravating. I have though seen (with pleasure) other cyclists that have proceeded through the red light and then you pass them as they are chatting to plod. They have been doing this regularly on the Embankment.

I think we should consider the semantics of RLJ and also the fact that we could call it 'early traffic lights' for cyclists on some of the most dangerous junctions. Something which I gather they are trying to implement at the Bow roundabout.

Sorry Mikey, I should have known to have been more specific  , as you are going eastbound along Grosvenor Road and then turning right onto Vauxhall Bridge which is going southbound.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> LoL. Are you for real?


 
So how do you explain the fact that after all their training and testing it is drivers who are at sole fault in the overwhelming majority of cyclist injuries and deaths, not the untrained cyclists. Or how when the Australians researched it with video monitoring they found that the cyclist was cycling legally and safely in 89% of the near misses and collisions and in many of those cases the drivers were not even aware of what they had done? If training of drivers on the safety of cyclists were effective, those would not be the outcomes.

OTOH you do sound like the type of person who would stick their umbrella in cyclists spokes and give them punishment passes in a car just because you can.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Nah, nobody notices you if you are wearing urban camouflage


 
I have been thinking about this on my commute and the most blatant RLJ-ing are by people who look as if they have been cycling for years, with some f*ck off good looking bikes and all the gear as in they have a well set up bike there. I would also say it is about 90% male. I hate to be mean on your sex but there it is. And it depresses me as they look respectable and like somebody who you could go on a cycle ride with.


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> So how do you explain the fact that after all their training and testing it is drivers who are at sole fault in the overwhelming majority of cyclist injuries and deaths, not the untrained cyclists. Or how when the Australians researched it with video monitoring they found that the cyclist was cycling legally and safely in 89% of the near misses and collisions and in many of those cases the drivers were not even aware of what they had done? If training of drivers on the safety of cyclists were effective, those would not be the outcomes.
> 
> OTOH you do sound like the type of person who would stick their umbrella in cyclists spokes and give them punishment passes in a car just because you can.


 
Where did I write this???? Your over active imagination perhaps or since you mention it maybe something you have done which would be totally irresponsible.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Forget motor vehicles, I think RLJing cyclists pose a major danger to OTHER cyclists and pedestrians. I don't care if they get squished by a truck, bus, car or van. Sad for the their families but their own silly fault. Feck 'em. Traffic signs and signals are in place for everyone's safety. You simply can't choose which ones to obey and which to break for your own selfish convenience.


 
Of course the evidence is against you. About two or three pedestrians a year are killed on the roads total by cyclists. And many of them will have stepped off the pavement into the path of the cyclist without looking. There are about 40 pedestrians a year killed by motor vehicles on pedestrian crossings alone and some 400 on the roadway in total. About one in five pedestrian deaths in urban areas is on a crossing and by a motor vehicle. Cyclists pose a miniscule danger to pedestrians in comparison.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Where did I write this???? Your over active imagination perhaps or since you mention it maybe something you have done which would be totally irresponsible.


 
Well talking of doing things totally irresponsible you did write:



Crankarm said:


> The best way to teach them is an umbrella through their spokes, a cheap umbrella mind.


 
And that is in the same class as doing a punishment pass - an action with a high probability of causing injury to get back at a cyclist. So don't try the innocent act.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

TBH Crankarm, it is an incitement to harm cyclists. Not good form to spout putting an umbrella into spokes and then playing the innocent card.


----------



## Crankarm (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well talking of doing things totally irresponsible you did write:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is in the same class as doing a punishment pass - an action with a high probability of causing injury to get back at a cyclist. So don't try the innocent act.


 
LMAO. You are the one who is suggesting to close pass cyclists in a motor vehicle, not me. Perhaps you suggested this as you knew you have LOST the argument on this thread or maybe you have done it yourself, I don't know what turns the Redlight on. Anyway it is a feeble diversion tictac to the main issue of RLjing that you lost.

Crossing a road at a controlled junction when the red light is against the traffic ie ALL vehicles have to stop INCLUDING cyclists. The terror once you are crossing a junction having to jump for your life when faced by a yob on a bike riding at 20 mph with no regard for pedestrains or other cyclists is palpable. They deserve eveything they get for the contempt they show for road safety, other road users and pedestrians. As group cyclists need to get their house in order and start confronting these morons.

Obviously you need a day where it was raining ;@).


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

I think that we do confront them, I have to every day. Last week this included my next door neighbour who thought it was acceptable to go through three sets of red lights in New Cross. When I challenged her about it she said 'but if you are a pedestrian and there is nothing coming, then you cross don't you?' Not a good attitude. So I spoke to her landlord who is a good pal and is a cycling trainer. Then this woman with her 4 year old on her bike was routinely RLJ-ing, she was doing this for months. So I spoke to her school (the one which her child attends) about this and it has stopped. She was extremely abusive and threatening towards me, even though she was doing this in front of her own child which I found really upsetting. They deserve to be reprimanded and punished but we should not condone violence. I have come close to it, but I have to remind myself that I have to be a decent human being.


----------



## Hawk (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Of course the evidence is against you. About two or three pedestrians a year are killed on the roads total by cyclists. And many of them will have stepped off the pavement into the path of the cyclist without looking. There are about 40 pedestrians a year killed by motor vehicles on pedestrian crossings alone and some 400 on the roadway in total. About one in five pedestrian deaths in urban areas is on a crossing and by a motor vehicle. Cyclists pose a miniscule danger to pedestrians in comparison.


 
The assertion that "many will have stepped off the pavement in to the path of the cyclist without looking" isn't necessarily helpful in comparing the numbers to vehicular injuries as a similar proportion would have stepped in front of cars (unless there is quantifiable evidence to suggest otherwise).

In any case, we can work out how safe cycling is to peds on a per-mile basis.

According to Admiral, about 267 billion miles were driven on UK roads in a year.

According to the CTC, about 3 billion miles were cycled in 2009 in the UK.

If we had about 400 pedestrian fatalities due to vehicles, this corresponds 1.5 deaths per billion miles.

If there were about two-three pedestrians killed by cyclists, we have 0.7-1.0 deaths per billion miles.

Cycling is about 1.5-2x as safe as driving but we definitely can't claim we pose a "miniscule" danger in my personal opinion


----------



## Fab Foodie (12 May 2012)

1845277 said:


> For breakfast?


 I reckon she's still up from the night before ....


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> LMAO. You are the one who is suggesting to close pass cyclists in a motor vehicle, not me. Perhaps you suggested this as you knew you have LOST the argument on this thread or maybe you have done it yourself, I don't know what turns the Redlight on. Anyway it is a feeble diversion tictac to the main issue of RLjing that you lost.
> 
> Crossing a road at a controlled junction when the red light is against the traffic ie ALL vehicles have to stop INCLUDING cyclists. The terror once you are crossing a junction having to jump for your life when faced by a yob on a bike riding at 20 mph with no regard for pedestrains or other cyclists is palpable. They deserve eveything they get for the contempt they show for road safety, other road users and pedestrians. As group cyclists need to get their house in order and start confronting these morons.
> 
> Obviously you need a day where it was raining ;@).


 
I can see where the Crank-y bit comes from


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

PK99 said:


> the essential thing is to educate ALL cyclist not to stop alongside a lorry nor to stop hard against the kerb allowing a lorry to stop alongside them - and that does not mean jumping red lights


 
bikeability does teach that. so those who have kids that have done this in school have the next generation of cyclists prepared at least.
the comment from my 10yr old daughter as we are discussing this is-" its common sense to not go up the side of lorries anyway, best to stay behind them till they have moved "


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Perhaps the road planners who place cycle lanes and ASL feeder lanes down the inside need to be educated first. TRL PPR240 found more cyclists went up the inside if there was an ASL feeder lane there.


 
this is one thing i do agree on as do most cyclists is the stupidity of the law in how to access ASLs, however not all traffic lights have ASL so there must be some other reason cyclists feel the ned to go up the inside of HGVs when they are stopped at junctions

the last review of TSRGD 2002 is changing the guidance on feeder lanes. I did have a pdf of the report but i think its on the work PC.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> bikeability does teach that. so those who have kids that have done this in school have the next generation of cyclists prepared at least.
> the comment from my 10yr old daughter as we are discussing this is-" its common sense to not go up the side of lorries anyway, best to stay behind them till they have moved "


 
Very very cool and bloody good common sense from your diamond daughter.


----------



## stowie (12 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> LMAO. You are the one who is suggesting to close pass cyclists in a motor vehicle, not me. Perhaps you suggested this as you knew you have LOST the argument on this thread or maybe you have done it yourself, I don't know what turns the Redlight on. Anyway it is a feeble diversion tictac to the main issue of RLjing that you lost.
> 
> Crossing a road at a controlled junction when the red light is against the traffic ie ALL vehicles have to stop INCLUDING cyclists. The terror once you are crossing a junction having to jump for your life when faced by a yob on a bike riding at 20 mph with no regard for pedestrains or other cyclists is palpable. They deserve eveything they get for the contempt they show for road safety, other road users and pedestrians.* As group cyclists need to get their house in order and start confronting these morons.*
> 
> Obviously you need a day where it was raining ;@).


 
I had absolutely no idea that, when I decided to use a cycle instead of the car for some trips, that I was also signing up to police all other cyclists.


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> Very very cool and bloody good common sense from your diamond daughter.


 
she is looking forward to bikeability level 3 whn she is old enough ( 13 i think).


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Training of drivers is a red herring and is demonstrably ineffective.


 
WTF? This is wrong, assuming you include punishment in that training. Said punishment might include fines, points, compulsory course attendance, strict liability, and insurance premium increases.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> I think that we do confront them, I have to every day. Last week this included my next door neighbour who thought it was acceptable to go through three sets of red lights in New Cross. When I challenged her about it she said 'but if you are a pedestrian and there is nothing coming, then you cross don't you?' Not a good attitude. So I spoke to her landlord who is a good pal and is a cycling trainer. Then this woman with her 4 year old on her bike was routinely RLJ-ing, she was doing this for months. So I spoke to her school (the one which her child attends) about this and it has stopped. She was extremely abusive and threatening towards me, even though she was doing this in front of her own child which I found really upsetting. They deserve to be reprimanded and punished but we should not condone violence. I have come close to it, but I have to remind myself that I have to be a decent human being.


 
TBH I don't think I would be very civil towards you either if you went round sticking your nose into my affairs in that way. Do you take it on yourself to go and remonstrate with and shop all the mums driving and parking badly when dropping their precious bundles off at school too?


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

1845755 said:


> If you were to factor out the motorway miles and look at it again, the ratio would shift.


 
Yes, otherwise Hawk would be comparing apples and oranges. Still, I think his point stands that cyclists are somewhat dangerous to pedestrians and other cyclists, but only by a very small amount.


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

stowie said:


> I had absolutely no idea that, when I decided to use a cycle instead of the car for some trips, that I was also signing up to *police all other cyclists*.


 
I don't , but a shake of the head can convey a lot to the driver behind you showing that you as a cyclist think that the other cyclist was a nobber for doing what they did.

theres one plum in Leytonstone who RLJs out of Cathall road and straight onto the pavement the other side and through the war memorial green. he tried a bunnyhop off the pavement the other side and popped his tyre, yes tyre not tube and i did laugh loudly and comment as i rode past less than 30 seconds later.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> WTF? This is wrong, assuming you include punishment in that training. Said punishment might include fines, points, compulsory course attendance, strict liability, and insurance premium increases.


 
Might being the operative word here. When a cyclist's life is worth 3 points and a bit of community service at best its not much of a deterrent.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> I don't , but a shake of the head can convey a lot to the driver behind you showing that you as a cyclist think that the other cyclist was a nobber for doing what they did.


 
I doubt the driver even notices you are there let alone spots your subtle head movements of reprobation. Perhaps you could wag your finger and tut-tut for him instead.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

If we had actual traffic enforcement with a real chance of misdeeds being caught and punished, then there would be far less of a problem. I'm glad you agree that driver education does work, after all.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I'm glad you agree that driver education does work, after all.


 
Did I?


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> TBH I don't think I would be very civil towards you either if you went round sticking your nose into my affairs in that way. Do you take it on yourself to go and remonstrate with and shop all the mums driving and parking badly when dropping their precious bundles off at school too?


 
have a google for Injury free environment, a culture of care and concern for the wellbeing of all.
doing what she does is a perfect example.


and yes i have told a fair few parents what i think of their attitude to safety of not just their children but mine when they park on the yellow zigzags outside the school. or is that another case of choosing which laws you think apply to you??


----------



## stowie (12 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> I don't , but a shake of the head can convey a lot to the driver behind you showing that you as a cyclist think that the other cyclist was a nobber for doing what they did.
> 
> theres one plum in Leytonstone who RLJs out of Cathall road and straight onto the pavement the other side and through the war memorial green. he tried a bunnyhop off the pavement the other side and popped his tyre, yes tyre not tube and i did laugh loudly and comment as i rode past less than 30 seconds later.


 
That is a fairly nasty junction to RLJ as the sight lines are poor. And as you say, RLJ rarely gets you further down the road.

I guess my point is that my obligation to police idiots on cycles is the same as my obligation to police idiots speeding in cars. I rarely hear the argument that other motorists should get their house in order and confront moron drivers who flout the law.


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> *I doubt the driver even notices you are there* let alone spots your subtle head movements of reprobation. Perhaps you could wag your finger and tut-tut for him instead.


 
no maybe not, but one of the 1st posts i put on this forum was me putting the wing mirror on a vehicle back into position after a cyclist had clonked it out of position in his hurry to get through a red light. I told the driver we aren't all peanuts who jump red lights and he responded with a yeah i can see that cheers mate. small things can make a huge ripple.


----------



## her_welshness (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> TBH I don't think I would be very civil towards you either if you went round sticking your nose into my affairs in that way. Do you take it on yourself to go and remonstrate with and shop all the mums driving and parking badly when dropping their precious bundles off at school too?


 
This is a woman that has been placing her child into danger on a regular basis, on a number of occasions going into the path of oncoming traffic, in the Oval area where it is particularly bad. The occasion which was particularly upsetting was when she undertook me on the Embankment, it was so dangerous and I just could not comprehend it. I work for Family & Childrens Services dept in the same borough so I do believe that I reported her for valid reasons. The school was very concerned too. And no, I don't go around and rat on everyone and remonstrate with them, the number of children cycling with parents into school in that area is just awesome. I champion cycling and as you know I campaign in our local area too.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

subaqua said:


> no maybe not, but one of the 1st posts i put on this forum was me putting the wing mirror on a vehicle back into position after a cyclist had clonked it out of position in his hurry to get through a red light. I told the driver we aren't all peanuts who jump red lights and he responded with a yeah i can see that cheers mate. small things can make a huge ripple.


 
Only another 20 million of them left to convert. Go, subaqua, go!


----------



## caimg (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I could be very confused, but I don't think I turn right onto Vauxhall Bridge? I usually turn left onto it in both directions.



I'm assuming from south of the river, the lights before the underpass leads to a right hander which takes you onto the bridge. That's the way I came back over today. Had no problem with the lights though, waited at em like all the others!


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Only another 20 million of them left to convert. Go, subaqua, go!


 

still gotta work on the peanut cyclists though . the ones too dumb to understand the reasons and consequences for/of doing/notdoing things.


----------



## CopperBrompton (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Perhaps you could wag your finger and tut-tut for him instead.


Steady on, old chap! An Englishman reserves tutting for the most serious offences, like getting marmalade on the butter.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

caimg said:


> I'm assuming from south of the river, the lights before the underpass leads to a right hander which takes you onto the bridge. That's the way I came back over today. Had no problem with the lights though, waited at em like all the others!


 
Oh, I tend not to go that way, I normally use the gyratory. I don't have a problem with any of the lights either - even if I go via the underpass. I wait just like you.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Did I?


 
And you've never felt that your cycling experience makes you a better driver?


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

BentMikey said:


> And you've never felt that your cycling experience makes you a better driver?


 
You are using "driver education" in a much wider sense than most people would expect. But if "driver education" just means what you learn from just driving around I don't think that generally works for motorists in respect of cyclists either. If it did we wouldn't be having the problems we have with HGVs Nor does cycling around do much judging by the close passes I get from cars with bikes on the back.


----------



## BentMikey (12 May 2012)

Well, some people learn more easily than others, for any number of different reasons. The point remains that driver education is the most important thing to change. Education doesn't come from just a driving test and a few lessons, it comes from all sorts of things, in life not just in driving.

The best effect on cyclist safety, safety in numbers, comes in part because drivers are used to cyclists and tend to be more likely to cycle themselves.


----------



## Cal44 (12 May 2012)

Wow -The whole RLJ thing causes quite a debate I see and brings up quite a few others since I last read this thread.....


----------



## Noodley (12 May 2012)

you do realise you are all nobbers, don't you?


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> you do realise you are all nobbers, don't you?


 
Really?


----------



## Noodley (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1846274, member: 45"]...what am I?[/quote]

a nobber


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1846279, member: 45"]In contradicting yourself here you've done what I asked and started using appropriate language. You've gone from saying that it's not dangerous to safer. You've added measure. Thanks and well done.[/quote]

Sigh. By your criteria sitting here at my laptop typing is dangerous. "Not dangerous" is referenced against cultural norms of things that are not considered dangerous. But I accept at the end of the day in your world me sitting here typing could be considered dangerous because you never know when a meteorite might crash through the roof and kill me. But lets put your pedantry to one side can we and go back to the world most people inhabit where by any objective measure cyclist RLJing is not dangerous.



> However, your following comment does not evidence that it's safer, any more than claiming that russian roulette is safer than walking to school because more people die from the latter.


 
Pity you are unable to assimilate information from the thread without being spoon-fed. If you bother to look back you will find both the accident numbers and the relative exposure numbers. You'll even find me saying that red light jumping is ten times not forty five times safer than cycling in general. Can you work out where that number comes from?



> You need to explain how allowing those who can't manage junctions safely in the current restrictions would be any safer being released across the path of oncoming traffic. It's a simple question, and a simple problem to understand.


 
No, please, no!!! You're back to claiming RLJers rush into the path of oncoming traffic. Having first said it then denied you said it you are now saying it again. And I repeat nobody is suggesting that but you. RLJers typically treat the junction in just the same way as pedestrians do, not rushing out in front of vehicles but waiting for a gap. A concept you seem to have difficulty grasping.


----------



## Red Light (12 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> you do realise you are all nobbers, don't you?


 
And you do realise you are an anagram of "de loony" don't you?


----------



## Red Light (13 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1846303, member: 45"][/quote]


Tell you what. When you have something evidenced to say rather than just another load of evidence free assertions come back and we can carry on. Until then its a waste of time responding.


----------



## Dan B (13 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1846332, member: 45"]Unless you can show that RLJing is safer than obeying traffic lights [/quote]
It's safer than obeying traffic lights when you're being pursued by a homicidal (but otherwise law-abiding) maniac who intends to run you over. There may be other similar situations. In the general case, not so much - but in the general case it's not significantly more dangerous either. We survive "give way" junctions, why should treating red lights as "give way"s be so much harder?


----------



## Gooner Mad Dog (13 May 2012)

General rules I follow are as below, I have had more near misses with pedestrians jay walking slow / stationary through traffic whilst texting/phoning and stepping in front of me blindly as you whiz up to traffic lights. 

Hard red lights - stop ( busy crossroads, busy roundabouts, traffic filtering lanes etc )
Soft red lights - proceed with caution ( resedential pedestrian crossing, quiet left turns etc )

Rules are followed by fools, but are used by wise men as guidlines!


----------



## subaqua (13 May 2012)

Gooner Mad Dog said:


> General rules I follow are as below, I have had more near misses with pedestrians jay walking slow / stationary through traffic whilst texting/phoning and stepping in front of me blindly as you whiz up to traffic lights.
> 
> Hard red lights - stop ( busy crossroads, busy roundabouts, traffic filtering lanes etc )
> Soft red lights - proceed with caution ( resedential pedestrian crossing, quiet left turns etc )
> ...


 
try that defence in court.


----------



## Noodley (13 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1846305, member: 45"]...what am I?[/quote]

a nobber.

*I would also like to nominate our exchange as the most well balanced of this thread.


----------



## Red Light (13 May 2012)

Noodley said:


> a nobber.
> 
> *I would also like to nominate our exchange as the most well balanced of this thread.


 
Chip on both shoulders you mean?


----------



## dodgy (13 May 2012)

I went on a bike ride this morning, was in the saddle by 05:45. Didn't see my first car until about 06:30. I went through probably 3 or 4 red lights in that time, perhaps more.


----------



## mackar (13 May 2012)

This is how traffic often looks in Sweden
The car in the begining is in a commuter lane where only buses and bicycles are allowed, that's why the light look a little strange but the meaning of the lights are as usual, top = red, bottom = green

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gowyiwPo6U&hd=1


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 May 2012)

When I, subjectively, think it is safe to do so may I drive my chariot on the right? Or on the pavement, Or backwards all the time? May I ignore the blandishments of the nightwatchmen with impunity?


RLJ'ing across a junction is simply uncivilised. Justified only when the signals are defective. Alternatively let's just toss the HC out the window and allow each to use their subjective judgement as to what to do. What could go wrong?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ... allow each to use their subjective judgement as to what to do. What could go wrong?


Ah, like this you mean?


----------



## CopperBrompton (13 May 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Ah, like this you mean?


You don't see a difference between an uncontrolled junction, where everyone knows they have to cooperate, and a controlled junction where one person decides they are a special case?


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ... allow each to use their subjective judgement as to what to do. What could go wrong?





Trikeman said:


> You don't see a difference between an uncontrolled junction, where everyone knows they have to cooperate, and a controlled junction where one person decides they are a special case?


Of course. But you don't see a difference between "*allow* each to use their subjective judgement", and "don't allow each to use their subjective judgement, but have some people doing that anyway"?


----------



## CopperBrompton (13 May 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> But you don't see a difference between "*allow* each to use their subjective judgement", and "don't allow each to use their subjective judgement, but have some people doing that anyway"?


Eh? It's precisely because those _are_ different that RLJing is dangerous.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (13 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> Eh? It's precisely because those _are_ different that RLJing is dangerous.


And where exactly did I say that it wasn't?


----------



## subaqua (13 May 2012)

without going into detailed traffic management, there are lots of junctions that have a "natural flow" but are signal controlled due to proximity to other junctions that don't have a natural flow and would clog without lights.

GC has it bang on the money again though.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 May 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Ah, like this you mean?



splendid film. Do explain how it would work if we took all the traffic lights out of our cities.


----------



## Red Light (13 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> splendid film. Do explain how it would work if we took all the traffic lights out of our cities.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html


----------



## Pauluk (13 May 2012)

Well, I started this thread last Thursday, mainly because I was a bit miffed at the cyclists I'd seen that day maneuvering their way through red lights across a dual carriageway (and not doing it for any safety reason argued here. No vehicles signalling left, no lorries, vacant ASL. Just a fast dual carriage way across their path).

I didn't think it would cause so much discussion not to mention the banter. I did enjoy the sarcastic and humorous remarks.

I'm glad I did it though because I've learned a lot of important things that hopefully may keep me safe in the future. Apologies if my education is at the expense of those who have been bored or wound up by this thread.

I'll continue to stop at red lights, whether on my bike or in my car and hope others do the same.

Here's an interesting thought: May be all cyclists should take a cycling proficiency course and as part of the driving test all motorist should take one as well.


----------



## Dan B (13 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1846683, member: 45"]...because one of the reasons that the HC and rules of the road are there is so that we all know at least how we should expect others to behave on the road, [/quote]
This is perfectly true, but has very little to do with how dangerous rlj is or isn't. Many activities are rude but safe, many others are civilized but dangerous


----------



## Dan B (13 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> You don't see a difference between an uncontrolled junction, where everyone knows they have to cooperate, and a controlled junction where one person decides they are a special case?


In terms of not hitting people, given the almost certain presence of pedestrians who are not bound by the controls and scofflaw cyclists who believe they are not bound by the controls, I find it doesn't really make much difference in practice


----------



## Red Light (13 May 2012)

Pauluk said:


> Here's an interesting thought: May be all cyclists should take a cycling proficiency course and as part of the driving test all motorist should take one as well.


 
London taxi drivers spend months on mopeds gaining the knowledge but once they are in a cab, they show no mercy to mopeds or cyclists.


----------



## subaqua (14 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> London taxi drivers spend months on mopeds gaining the knowledge but once they are in a cab, they most show no mercy to mopeds or cyclists.


 
FTFY otherwise its the same as saying that as a fair few people with HIV are gay all gay people have HIV which is patently untrue. Not even all addison lee drivers are complete twunts , which does seem hard to beleive sometimes. Oh and yes i did see the smiley


----------



## CopperBrompton (14 May 2012)

User said:


> I have yet to meet a competent and non-psychotic Addison Lee driver...


I assume Subaqua meant it as a theoretical concept rather than something likely to actually be found in the universe.


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

Trikeman said:


> I assume Subaqua meant it as a theoretical concept rather than something likely to actually be found in the universe.


 
SA is right. They are not all complete twunts. Some are twunts in training.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533248/Is-this-the-end-of-the-road-for-traffic-lights.html
splendid question posed by the 2006 telegrahph article headline. so it hasn't happened yet. Any evidence that is it going to?


Red Light said:


>






splendid film. Do explain how it would work if we took all the traffic lights out of our cities. (with our liability and traffic laws, our law enforcement, our road user behaviour, etc., etc.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1847258, member: 45"]Unsurety brings added risk, but the social nature of RLJing is another consideration the issue.[/quote]
This is my stand on RLJ.
Whilst I don't believe it's dangerous, it is hugely antisocial with the effect that cyclists in general get pilloried out of all proportion low due to the actions of a few.
Whilst evidence of the safeness or dangers of RLJ would be usefull, evidence is often worthless in any kind of bigger debate with other road users and the wider public anyhow.


----------



## 400bhp (14 May 2012)

I agree, but If there's no-one around is it OK to do it?

I couldn't help myself this morning.

{edit] Let me just caveat this, I wasn't wearing hi-vis therefore if there was someone around that I hadn't seen they couldn't see me.


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

400bhp said:


> I agree, but If there's no-one around is it OK to do it?


 
Makes a change to have Sorry Mate I Did See You. But for RLJing cyclists are otherwise near invisible.


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> This is my stand on RLJ.
> Whilst I don't believe it's dangerous, it is hugely antisocial with the effect that cyclists in general get pilloried out of all proportion low due to the actions of a few.


 
Are they in general or is it just a small vocal minority that seem to have nothing better to do than comment to that effect in the letters pages and in web comments? I was on a CTC ride yesterday and rather than wait behind while the group went through a series of central islands, a driver shot down the other side of the islands to get past. Did I think B****y Drivers or did I think Numpty Driver? All road users have subsets of them that break the law regularly and some do incredibly stupid things but I don't tar the whole group with the actions of the few and I doubt most drivers actually tar cyclists in that way - just the drivers with high blood pressure.


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

1847395 said:


> I have to confess that I have a real problem with pelican crossings when used by pavement cyclists. I find it very hard to bring myself to stop for them.


 
Is that even when there is a red light against you? There is of course nothing illegal about cyclists using pelican crossings and even on zebra crossings its not illegal. Its just that they don't have the same legal priority over vehicles on the road that pedestrians do.


----------



## MrHappyCyclist (14 May 2012)

GregCollins said:


> splendid film. Do explain how it would work if we took all the traffic lights out of our cities. (with our liability and traffic laws, our law enforcement, our road user behaviour, etc., etc.


Treat people like children and they will learn to behave like children, so you have to treat them like children, and so on. It is indeed a fine pickle we have got ourselves into in this country with our increasingly asocial way of life, and the laws and practices that reflect and reinforce that way of life. But we really ought to try to break the vicious circle somehow.


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

1847413 said:


> Yes I'm afraid so, hence confession. I have on occasion told a pavement cyclist to **** off and wait in such circumstance.


 
On what basis. Its perfectly legal for them to cross the road at a crossing when you are stopped at a red light and its illegal for you to drive on.


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

MrHappyCyclist said:


> Treat people like children and they will learn to behave like children, so you have to treat them like children, and so on. It is indeed a fine pickle we have got ourselves into in this country with our increasingly asocial way of life, and the laws and practices that reflect and reinforce that way of life. But we really ought to try to break the vicious circle somehow.


 
I have to say Exhibition Road seems to be working quite well from my last experience of it (as a pedestrian) and the absence of traffic lights at the junction with Prince Consort Rd not a problem.


----------



## benb (14 May 2012)

Crankarm said:


> ... They deserve eveything they get for the contempt they show for road safety, other road users and pedestrians. *As group cyclists need to get their house in order and start confronting these morons*. ...


 
Er, no. I am not responsible for the actions of other cyclists, good or bad. I don't expect drivers to assume collective responsibility for the ones that driver dangerously.


----------



## benb (14 May 2012)

her_welshness said:


> Quite, preventative measures are good. But, I do not blame the HGV drivers. I don't think that anyone is. As the HGV driver told me when I stepped up into his cab, they have a multitude of mirrors to look into and a very big blind spot. Rebecca (the girl that died on the corner of St John Street and Old Street) was in that blind spot. The HGV didn't see her. That wasn't his fault. It wasn't her fault too as she was in the ASL, she was doing what she was supposed to be doing. Can we do something about this? Yes, we bloody well can.


 
Hang on. She was in the ASL, and the HGV was behind her, but ran her down? How was it not the driver's fault?


----------



## dellzeqq (14 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> I have to say Exhibition Road seems to be working quite well from my last experience of it (as a pedestrian) and the absence of traffic lights at the junction with Prince Consort Rd not a problem.


I can only agree. A lot of CGBeebies can't stand Exhibition Road, but the peds have got in to the habit of fronting us and the taxicabs out - which is all to the good.

My private theory, untested by any method more scientific than longstanding observation, is that RLJ-ing is quite local. Only a small minority RLG on CS7. The great majority RLJ at Essex Road/Upper Street. How one effects a change of culture I've no idea.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Are they in general or is it just a small vocal minority that seem to have nothing better to do than comment to that effect in the letters pages and in web comments? I was on a CTC ride yesterday and rather than wait behind while the group went through a series of central islands, a driver shot down the other side of the islands to get past. Did I think B****y Drivers or did I think Numpty Driver? All road users have subsets of them that break the law regularly and some do incredibly stupid things but I don't tar the whole group with the actions of the few and I doubt most drivers actually tar cyclists in that way - just the drivers with high blood pressure.


 My anecdata would suggest it's a pretty general irritation amongst other users not just confined to keyboard warriors.


----------



## Scruffmonster (14 May 2012)

How can people be bothered? Really... This is how people choose to spend a life? In front of a computer trying to force their views on someone else.(*) Anyone that’s trying to do so needs to go grab a breath of fresh air and take a slow count to ten. Even if you are chained to a desk, there’s a big old internet out there hiding lots of cool things that you don’t know about, all in plain sight.

Believe what you like. Keep it to yourself, none of this squabbling is furthering yourself as a human being. Stop wrapping up opinions as absolute answers.

I don’t mean to sound preacherish. I’m just a normal person.
This is what I believe. I don’t expect anyone else to believe me as you don’t live in my head. It can resonate with you or fall flat. It’s not that I don’t care; I just have enough about me to respect others, and then try to do my own thing to make sure I stay happy and don’t get prematurely dead.
- Going up the inside of big heavy vehicles is silly. It could save me 5 minutes (Very generous guess) over an hour’s journey, but could cost me my life. That’s how I see it. (I also believe that all cyclists should sit in an HGV sometimes. It’s an eye opener)

- Red Lights should be treated as people.
The first time you meet them, treat them with respect. A handshake, then find out what they’re about by staying quiet and paying attention.
If you ever find a group of them, it’s probably best to listen to all of them until you know where the conversation is headed before you do something inappropriate. 
You may befriend a couple, and like all friends, sometimes they’ll tell you a story that you’ve already heard so just smile and wave and go about your business.
You may also find some that are so out of step with reality, maybe they’re crazy, maybe they are a throwback to different times and just don’t fit in anymore. You can ignore these without causing any harm whatsoever.
My final, unendorsed view, is that most drivers really don’t care about bikes ignoring those last two types. They really don’t. Ask em if you don’t believe me. What they generally don’t like is cyclists filtering through tiny spaces between wing mirrors to get to the ASL, not what they do when they get there. I know it makes them seem silly, but they like their cars as much as we love our bikes. So when you do this, if it’s tight, turn, put your hand up and give a friendly nod. Let em know you know what you’re doing. It sounds a bit ‘right on’, but they like it. Lots. In fact, smile and signal thanks all the time. It will make you feel better, and take the sting out of any potential situation. This is even more important when you get it wrong. If you mess up, fess up. A big exaggerated ‘S-O-R-R-Y’ and a wave and all is right with the world again.

That’s all I’ve got. I know that by replying I kind of make it sound like I think my words have more value, but they really don’t.
Play nice people

* = This is only a comment on debates that descend into name calling. This forum is wholeheartedly excellent as a source of advice on 99% of issues. Such as whether or not to wear a helmet and such. (Kidding)


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

1847485 said:


> Cycle, not drive.



Still legal for them and not for you.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Makes a change to have Sorry Mate I Did See You. But for RLJing cyclists are otherwise near invisible.


 
Which is exactly why I wear Hi-Viz..... Oh Bugger! Wrong thread. I'll get my coat. So sorry....


----------



## Red Light (14 May 2012)

1847768 said:


> Which I recognize, hence the word confession.



Yes, I know it's a confession but I still don't know why you felt moved to shout at them and break the law by crossing a red light by their legally crossing the road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 May 2012)

Pedestrian crossing points and the associated cages that are so often built to herd people towards them are, frankly, barbaric. A failure of civilisation. So _not_ urbane.


----------



## bumpajumpa (14 May 2012)

RLJing seems like a risky business to me. I try to avoid red light districts.
On my commute I stop at red lights, even the one that needs a car to trip it because it's on a sensor and a side road crossing a main road. In this case the motorist is inadvertently helping out a cyclist.


----------



## PK99 (14 May 2012)

Red Light said:


> Is that even when there is a red light against you? There is of course *nothing illegal about cyclists using pelican crossings and even on zebra crossings its not illegal*. Its just that they don't have the same legal priority over vehicles on the road that pedestrians do.


 
if there is a cycle path shared or other wise it would be legal, if there is not they would be riding illegally on the pavement either side of the crossing


----------



## SportMonkey (14 May 2012)

I've not found a sensor on my commute in to Manc that doesn't trip on my weight. As for RLJ'ing, A56, A6 or A34 you'd have to be a loon to jump some of the lights I've seen people do, especially when they jump opposing filters.


----------



## Red Light (15 May 2012)

Some new information from the CTC occasioned by the recent IAM press release:

_Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does._​


----------



## PK99 (15 May 2012)

[QUOTE 1849854, member: 45"]Is 4% acceptable then? Is it more acceptable because someone else is worserer, or is that just juvenile bickering?


What percentage of pedestrians are made to feel at risk by RLJing cyclists?

.[/quote]

In the centre of Wimbledon, as a pedestrian, I cannot ever remember having to avoid a car jumping a red light after the traffic has stopped and i have a green man - i have frequently had to avoid cyclists who choose to ignore their red light and passing cars stopped at the light. I've never been injured as the relative speeds make it easy to avoid a collision, but I do always have to check for cyclists and should not have to.


----------



## Matthew_T (15 May 2012)

I keep seeing cyclist jumping red lights in my area. I dont normally see a lot of them on my travels, but recently I have seen one jump a red light and going the wrong way on a one way system, and another jump the lights whilst I was waiting for the bus.
It is terrible really as it is giving everyone else (especially me who goes out the most) a bad name.


----------



## Dan B (15 May 2012)

As a cyclist and a driver, 0% of pedestrian collisions caused by red light jumping have involved me. Please tell me, dear Interwebs, am I supposed to feel vicariously guilty about the 4% or the 71% or both?


----------

