Pavement cycling/RLJ

[Funtboy]

I don't have any stats, nor am I aware of any. I have seen pedestrians struck by RLJing cyclists on a few occasions and I have heard of a woman being seriously injured in Bristol City centre, again by an RLJer. Based on my own experience (which is only anecdote) I would say that minor accidents and near misses due to RLJ are quite common, but serious accidents very rare.

As an aside, do you remember the case of the cyclist killed by a driver who was texting on her phone. Clearly the driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be alive had he not RLJ'd. Food for thought?

In my first weeks of cycling, I probably jumped a few reds I shouldn't have. I learnt fast not to do it again and am now a very safe cyclist. I almost want to take you out with me to show you what I mean.

I don't recall the incident with the texter but will search for it now.

 

[nickb]

I don't recall the incident with the texter but will search for it now.

I remember it was covered in much depth on Petrolheads.com. You can imagine which side they came out on.

 

[marinyork]

As an aside, do you remember the case of the cyclist killed by a driver who was texting on her phone. Clearly the driver's fault, but the cyclist would still be alive had he not RLJ'd. Food for thought?

It illustrates an important principle though. I think in many circumstances it takes 2 errors to cause an accident. You can't really factor in for other people but working on your own errors certainly does make it that bit less likely you'll be involved in an accident.

 

[Funtboy]

They were both in the wrong. He quite plainly shouldn't have jumped the light in that situation. I only condone safe RLJing.

 

[User482]

Yeah, but maybe if she had not been doing 45 in a 30 she would not of hit him?

Possibly, possibly not. What is certain is that she would not have hit him had he not RLJ'd.

 

[User482]

They were both in the wrong. He quite plainly shouldn't have jumped the light in that situation. I only condone safe RLJing.

Which brings us full circle. It's unlikely that you have the perfect knowledge necessary to make that judgement. It's why traffic laws were introduced in the first place.

 

[marinyork]

Which brings us full circle. It's unlikely that you have the perfect knowledge necessary to make that judgement. It's why traffic laws were introduced in the first place.

Which brings us very nicely to the theory of games aspect of it.

 

[Funtboy]

Which brings us full circle. It's unlikely that you have the perfect knowledge necessary to make that judgement. It's why traffic laws were introduced in the first place.

It certainly does and it brings us no closer together in viewpoint.

 

[just jim]

They were both in the wrong. He quite plainly shouldn't have jumped the light in that situation. I only condone safe RLJing.

But how was he to know at that point?

Here's "safe":

obey the law and stop at red.

 

[Funtboy]

Which brings us very nicely to the theory of games aspect of it.

Aye, go on then...

 

[swee'pea99]

Except that's not always safe, either with or without inverted commas. Most of the people who get crushed by left-turning HGVs had 'obeyed the law and stopped at red'.

Oh, and you don't need 'perfect knowledge', whatever that's supposed to mean. Just a good pair of eyes and a bit of native nous.

 

[Funtboy]

Here's "safe":

obey the law and stop at red.

Thanks mate. If only somebody had mentioned that earlier!

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

May *he* thought it was safe to jump the light.

It seems it wasn't.

Who'd have thought it, eh??

 

[User482]

You're conflating two separate issues, as did the Times article. The issue is that cyclists are putting themselves in danger by staying in a truck's blind spot, not because they have stopped at red. As an aside, cycling up the inside of a truck to jump a light is a pretty stupid thing to do, unless you're certain that the light isn't going to change before you get there, or that the truck isn't going to jump it.

"Perfect knowledge" means an absolute certainty that you are not going to cause an accident, near miss or similar unnecessary alarm by RLJing. It's unlikely that you are in a position to make that judgement.

 

[marinyork]

Well Chicken for a start. On a cruder level you aren't going to get perfect information or complete information (at least in some circumstances) and it does illustrate that from a crude point of view why one may well want to not RLJ. View these as similar things to what User482 is talking about.