Red light jumping. Ok or not ?

[Angelfishsolo]

I clicked sometimes and I'll tell you why: I rolled up to some lights at a t-Junction on Friday which were red so I stopped. Waited for a while, lights didn't change. Car pulled up behind me, lights still didn't change. So I rode cautiously out into the junction, waited for a gap and rode off. The car behind did likewise.

I reckon it is ok when the lights clearly have a fault.

Absolutely. If the lights are faulty then you are not RLJing in the eyes of the law.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'm talking about how you reach the conclusion that the roads are dead, this is much easier when on a bike and able to hear approaching traffic and get much closer to the junction before deciding.

Admittedly, say there was no doubt that the roads were dead and I were in a car, I wouldn't be arguing that RLJing in this situation was acceptable. Why not? Maybe the perceived consequences to me (lose licence) and others around (can cause much more harm with a car than a bike) are worse?

I disagree that it is easier. At night you can see on coming headlights and sound carries further (no idea why). Also a motorised vehicle can clear teh junction faster than a pedal powered machine.

As for the why nots. Your self preservation instincts are off. If under the same set of conditions you risk hurting someone my RLJing in a car, you risk hurting someone else and yourself on a bike.

 

[doogle84]

I disagree that it is easier. At night you can see on coming headlights and sound carries further (no idea why). Also a motorised vehicle can clear teh junction faster than a pedal powered machine.

As for the why nots. Your self preservation instincts are off. If under the same set of conditions you risk hurting someone my RLJing in a car, you risk hurting someone else and yourself on a bike.

I'm not convinced a car would be significantly quicker or have an equivalent ability to hear approaching traffic, particularly as the car would have to open its windows and come to a complete stop to overcome road/wind noise and would still have the engine ticking away. Whereas the bike wouldn't need to stop completely and obviously hasn't got an engine.

I phrased the consequences badly. I trust my decision making skills much more when my life is in danger. In a car you are much less exposed and the incentive to be completely risk averse is gone, so a stricter application of the rules is necessary. On a bike, I'm not a lemming so would never RLJ if there was any doubt to its safety, but I think peoples' decision making in a car might be compromised.

 

[apollo179]

I'm not convinced a car would be significantly quicker or have an equivalent ability to hear approaching traffic, particularly as the car would have to open its windows and come to a complete stop to overcome road/wind noise and would still have the engine ticking away. Whereas the bike wouldn't need to stop completely and obviously hasn't got an engine.

I phrased the consequences badly. I trust my decision making skills much more when my life is in danger. In a car you are much less exposed and the incentive tone compeltely risk averse is gone, so a stricter application of the rules is necessary. On a bike, I'm not a lemming so would never RLJ if there was any doubt to its safety, but I think peoples' decision making in a car might be compromised.

Agreed.
Look at the situation on non traffic light junctions.
How often do cyclists throw themselves into the path of oncoming traffic - never or at least very very rarely.
But motorists do it with alarming regularity.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I despair sometimes. Oh well each to their own. I had a few red lights on my ride today and enjoyed the recovery time they afforded me.

 

[apollo179]

Dont despair - i merely think that if we look at the empirical evidence it would tend to support doogles opinion that cyclists are in any circumstance likely to preceed with more caution than motorists due to their inate vulnerability.
This combined with superior sensory awareness of their surroundings and it could be argued that this makes them less likely to cycle unsafely or dangerously and more capable of cycling safely.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Dont despair - i merely think that if we look at the empirical evidence it would tend to support doogles opinion that cyclists are in any circumstance likely to preceed with more caution than motorists due to their inate vulnerability.
This combined with superior sensory awareness of their surroundings and it could be argued that this makes them less likely to cycle unsafely or dangerously and more capable of cycling safely.

One might also assume that they know the laws of the road but that has already been disproved. As for superior sensory awareness I am not so sure. A car driver has to assimilate as much information as a cyclist and do so at faster speeds. All things being equal the driver will be more aware. Think of coming of a motorway and onto a B road. Your reactions are still heightened and everything around you seems to move slowly.

Anyway you cut it if you want to allow RLJing for one you have to allow it for all.

 

[doogle84]

I despair sometimes. Oh well each to their own. I had a few red lights on my ride today and enjoyed the recovery time they afforded me.

I would have been waiting at the lights alongside you.

I certainly wouldn't want to see RLJing legalised because most of the time it is probably wrong, but the way I see it is that there will always be a few cyclists who do it.

I just think if we acknowledge that bikes are different to cars, try to justify why it is sometimes safe to behave differently and apply a bit of common sense, it might dampen some of the bad vibes we get from drivers. Or it might encourage more of us to do it....hopefully not!

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

Sensing this needs a forum like helmets.

+1

 

[ian turner]

Nooo not another forum. Just change the Helmet debate to Fightclub forum and list Helmet,RLJ and Headphones on bikes
as contents (plus possibly BSOs as references to them seem to cause uproar amongst the owners of Burberry racing caps )

 

[Becs]

I actively campaign for laws to be changed (animal experimentation for example)

I had a feeling you were one of them . . . . .

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I had a feeling you were one of them . . . . .

Meaning what exactly?

 

[Becs]

Meaning what exactly?

An anti-viv. Campaigning to change the law in this country will only ever send the research to other countries where the rules aren't as strict as they are in the UK, as it did for many of the companies using HLS. The animal welfare laws and the laws governing biomedical research in this country are the strictest in the world and animals in labs are very well looked after in the UK. The same cannot be said for other countries, even the USA. The UK is still one of the leading nations providing new treatments for many awful diseases, and none of this can be done without experiments using animal models. Stop wasting your time.

Anyway completely off topic . . . . . back to red light jumping!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

An anti-viv. Campaigning to change the law in this country will only ever send the research to other countries where the rules aren't as strict as they are in the UK, as it did for many of the companies using HLS. The animal welfare laws and the laws governing biomedical research in this country are the strictest in the world and animals in labs are very well looked after in the UK. The same cannot be said for other countries, even the USA. The UK is still one of the leading nations providing new treatments for many awful diseases, and none of this can be done without experiments using animal models. Stop wasting your time.

Anyway completely off topic . . . . . back to red light jumping!

Becs you are spouting crap. I was there when Hillgrove was closed down.

 

[Becs]

Becs you are spouting crap. I was there when Hillgrove was closed down.

As a vet and a scientist who has worked in both the UK and the USA I can assure you I know what I'm talking about.