Red Light Jumping

[Norm]

Then you have moved the goalposts radically. If lights are turned off then on one can run them.

I think that Apollo recognised that the goal posts should be moved several pages ago.

He has since been making reference to changing the laws or changing the way they are implemented and changing the way that lights are used.

 

[rowan 46]

Good reason .
I agree a red light should represent a uniform and predictable command that everyone obeys.
However the high rate of rljing reflects that this is sadly not true on the ground.
If we tweaked the road traffic control a bit to accomodate circumstances that justify modification we would end up with an overall better traffic control situation and increased overall obeyance / respect of lights.
To cite an extreme example for the purpose of illustration - Unnecessary traffic lights could be turned off on deserted streets late at night. Thereby erradicating rlj and the associated disrepute to traffic light obeyance.
Respect for lights does appear to have been slightly eroded and this might in some way be retreived by re-thinking our overall traffic control strategy and specifically the utilisation and application of traffic lights in varying situations.

Unfortunately there is an assumption that most rlj'ers do it for a good reason. I doubt that is the case. as somebody who has on occasion run through an empty pelican crossing on red My only defense has been that I followed traffic. It's not a good defense because the truth is that I couldn't be bothered to slow down for a light that was telling me to stop for no reason, It is ultimately a selfish act. There are conceivably situations where there is a safety element to a decision but that would have to be argued at court. I don't think changing the law because some people are selfish is a good idea. I don't believe in following something because "it's the law" is a good argument but generally, stopping at a red light I believe to be a wise law. I may on occasion go through an empty pelican on red in future ( never say never) but It's not general practice for me and I always stop at traffic control lights.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

OK, here's one for you:

Opposite my work is a cycle path across a junction - the lights are phased so that any cyclists going straight ahaid parallel to the main road will be crossing when

(1) Traffic from the (busy) side road is on a green light - cyclist rides agross the flow of traffic when s/he feels it safe to do so

(2) Traffic along the main road is at green, with a fairly constant stream of traffic turning left across the side road or traffic turning right from the opposite direction. Either way the cyclist has to cross the path of motorised traffic on a green light

There is the sanctuary of an island in the middle


Negotiating that junction by the cycle path is no different to going through a red light carefully - crossing the flow of traffic when a safe gap presents itself. In fact, I would argue that a SAFER method of crossing the junction would be to use the road and jump the red light, allowing crossing of the first half of the junction with zero chance of being left hooked or turned into from the opposite direction, and wait at the island for a safe gap in the same way one would if using the cycle path. It would actually be safer (assuming no pedestrians crossing) than using the road, not taking primary at the light, and leaving the door open for a left hook as the lights change to green)

So if careful red-light-jumping is so bad, why is it effectively designed into a cycle "facility"? (apart from the "farcility" being atrocious of course)


Other point to note this morning - as always at one particular junction a line of about 8 cars went through a clear no-entry sign

In my whole trip 2 cyclists jumped a red

Bloody cyclists, if they had number plates they would get prosecuted like car drivers do(n't)

 

[Norm]

I don't think anyone wants the law to change because some people are selfish.

Changing the way that lights work at night will have safety and environmental benefits which far outweigh those arising from reducing frustration levels in the selfish.

Allowing left turns on red could reduce congestion and stop cyclists passing up the left side of lorries (possibly, not sure, just thought of that one).

The point is that other countries do have different ways of dealing with red lights already, and some allow passing a red light. This is why 'if it is allowed and safe, then is rljing a problem' deserves a considered response, IMO.

 

[Mad at urage]

So if careful red-light-jumping is so bad, why is it effectively designed into a cycle "facility"? (apart from the "farcility" being atrocious of course)


Other point to note this morning - as always at one particular junction a line of about 8 cars went through a clear no-entry sign

In my whole trip 2 cyclists jumped a red

Bloody cyclists, if they had number plates they would get prosecuted like car drivers do(n't)

For the same reason this was designed. Oh, you've excluded the obvious and probable answer .

RLJing cars: I'm still waiting (5 weeks and counting) for a reply from Newport buses about an RLJing bus I reported to them !

 

[Raa]

A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:

In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?

 

[Mad at urage]

A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:

In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?

Who's that then? Or are you simply ignoring all the other valid reasons for not rlj-ing that have already been posted in this thread?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:

In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?

Yes.

 

[Raa]

Yes.

Seriously?

 

[twobiker]

A question for all those who would never RLJ simply because its against the law:

In some places it is illegal to filter through traffic on a bicycle. if that were law in this country, would you be arguing that every cyclist should obey?

Rlj is against the law, so is Murder, I would'nt kill someone, even if I thought I could get away with it just because its simply against the law but because its wrong,the people who stole stuff in the riots knew it was simply against the law but thought they would'nt be identified and would get away with it, we cannot choose to ignore laws which we don't like just because we don't agree with them.

 

[Wankelschrauben]

Yeah, why wouldn't you?

The law is the law, not everyone will agree with the law but it doesn't mean they will actively break it.

RLJ'ing is a seriously dangerous offence, many believe it is a victimless crime. Other victimless crimes include speeding, and sexually assaulting the unconcious. Often these are not victimless crimes, the victims of such crimes often paying in many ways for the selfish actions of another.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Seriously?

If it were made illegal then yes.

 

[Raa]

Who's that then? Or are you simply ignoring all the other valid reasons for not rlj-ing that have already been posted in this thread?

You can read about the car-centric anti bike laws here (can't believe anyone would advocate obedience to this sort of fascism!)

As for ignoring your 'valid' reasons; obviously I don't regard them as being all that valid.

 

[Raa]

If it were made illegal then yes.

That's very worrying indeed.

 

[apollo179]

Unfortunately there is an assumption that most rlj'ers do it for a good reason. I doubt that is the case. as somebody who has on occasion run through an empty pelican crossing on red My only defense has been that I followed traffic. It's not a good defense because the truth is that I couldn't be bothered to slow down for a light that was telling me to stop for no reason, It is ultimately a selfish act. There are conceivably situations where there is a safety element to a decision but that would have to be argued at court. I don't think changing the law because some people are selfish is a good idea. I don't believe in following something because "it's the law" is a good argument but generally, stopping at a red light I believe to be a wise law. I may on occasion go through an empty pelican on red in future ( never say never) but It's not general practice for me and I always stop at traffic control lights.

As Norm has pointed out nobody has argued that the law should be changed because some people are selfish.
It has been suggested that traffic control strategy might be reviewed where appropriate for the common good.
I would reiterate that the rights and wrongs of stopping at red lights is not the issue . It is universally agreed that stopping at red lights is right and correct.
The question is (slightly edited) - Beyond the simple legal fact "its against the law therefore its wrong" does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes no apparent harm."
The sub plot being that in circumstances where there is not harm it raises the question - "is there scope for review of traffic control measures for the common good.
We have had some interesting reasons and i suspect everyone is chewing them over as i am.