Pavement cycling/RLJ

[domtyler]

User482, you have been spared the two aspects that you know will demolish your argument, firstly a junction is no more or less dangerous to traverse because someone has stuck a set of lights on it. If a person can negotiate a non-automated junction competently then he can do the same at an automated one where the lights are ignored.

Secondly, the issue of prejudice. You know only too well, although you were never going to let on unless forced to, that a cyclist can obey all the laws that you could care to dream up and still be seen as a second/third rate road user with no right to be on the road.

 

[domtyler]

But how was he to know at that point?

Here's "safe":

obey the law and stop at red.

'fraid not Jim, a large number of cyclist fatalities occur in London where the cyclist has stopped at a red light.

 

[just jim]

No bother mate.

Do I get any Cool Points for that?

 

[swee'pea99]

No, I'm not conflating anything. All I'm saying is that stopping at red may be obeying the law, but it does not guarantee safety.

Oh, and if that's what you mean by 'perfect knowledge', then you're simply wrong: I'm in a perfectly good position to make that judgement. I do it every day, many times.

 

[User482]

User482, you have been spared the two aspects that you know will demolish your argument, firstly a junction is no more or less dangerous to traverse because someone has stuck a set of lights on it. If a person can negotiate a non-automated junction competently then he can do the same at an automated one where the lights are ignored.

Secondly, the issue of prejudice. You know only too well, although you were never going to let on unless forced to, that a cyclist can obey all the laws that you could care to dream up and still be seen as a second/third rate road user with no right to be on the road.

If that's the best you can do, then my argument is still well and truly intact.

1. If a junction has lights, then people using that junction have an expectation that other road users will not jump them, and so act accordingly. Therefore RLJing increases risk, both for the cyclist and for other road users.

2. I have never, at any point, said that simply obeying the law is enough to make you a good cyclist. Surely my views on the Times article should have taught you that much.

 

[User482]

Oh, and if that's what you mean by 'perfect knowledge', then you're simply wrong: I'm in a perfectly good position to make that judgement. I do it every day, many times.

In your view. The cyclist who was run over by the woman texter probably made the same call.

 

[just jim]

Dom, this tiny hamlet is of no interest to me.

 

[Funtboy]

No bother mate.

Do I get any Cool Points for that?

Consider yourself sub-zero.

 

[just jim]

Ayyy!

 

[swee'pea99]

Who's saying that it does?

Just Jim:

Here's "safe":

obey the law and stop at red.


In your view. The cyclist who was run over by the woman texter probably made the same call.

Don't know - maybe, maybe not, who can say? Whether (s)he did or not makes no difference to the point at issue. Am I in a good position to possess 'perfect knowledge', as defined by you? Yes, absolutely. Many times a day.

 

[User482]

I think that Just Jim was referring to a specific point rather than stating that stopping at red automatically makes you safe.

Presumably everyone who RLJs thinks that they are not going to knock anyone over, or be knocked over themselves. Clearly, the facts tell us otherwise. It's a bit like the point that most people consider themselves to be a better than average driver.

 

[swee'pea99]

Well, that's quite a presumption, User482. Judging by some of what I see every day, quite a lot of people who RLJ do so with far too little thought of any description. That doesn't make it inherently dangerous. Just means that like many things in life, it can be done well or badly, and if badly, can be dangerous.

 

[User482]

[quote name='swee'pea99']Well, that's quite a presumption, User482. Judging by some of what I see every day, quite a lot of people who RLJ do so with far too little thought of any description. That doesn't make it inherently dangerous. Just means that like many things in life, it can be done well or badly, and if badly, can be dangerous.[/QUOTE]

We've come back full circle again. I'm sure there are plenty of people who *think* it's safe to RLJ when in fact it isn't. Or it's safe for them, but not other road users. Of course the whole situation can be avoided by simply waiting at the lights for a few seconds.

 

[just jim]

Hey, it's nice to know that the RLJ'er that's just shot past me stopped at red has given it proper thought. Cos if it was little thought that would be wrong wouldn't it?

 

[Radius]

User482 not looking to cause argument, although that seems rather fruitless given the current circumstances, but how is it then *your* place to say when it's safe if it's not theirs...