Red Light Jumping

[twobiker]

[QUOTE 1526093"]
As to the rest, you're trolling. There's been plenty of reasonable discussion on this thread. It started to get reasonable again yesterday when we were talking about flashing amber. You ignored that part of the discussion. If you continue to choose to ignore such, then that's your loss only.
[/quote]
I mentioned on page 9 about changing the lights, try to keep up,

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526106"]
Well no, it hasn't. Which is why I'm asking you the reasonable question.

Again, you're ignoring stuff. That's your call, but it only strips away any credibility you're trying to gain.

The question will remain open as long as this thread does.
[/quote]

To be clear.
Given your apparent sole determination of attacking me personally please be advised that i will not be answering any questions from you.
I bestowed upon you the decency to appreciate this - clearly i over estimated your decency.
Your above reply shows precisely what your agenda is.

 

[Cyclopathic]

Does it count as rljing if when one gets to a red light one mounts the pavement and whilst stil mounted cross the road with either the green man for pedestrians or where there is no green/red man just crossing the road when there is no traffic as one would on foot. When safely over the road then scooting off the kirb again and back on to the road.

Does this lessen the offense to riding on the pavement as one would have essentialy crossed the lights in the same way as if one had ridden there all the way on the pavement, basicaly acting like a pedestrian but on a bike (excuse the contradiction in terms)

I have used this tactic occasionaly at very busy multilaned trafic islands when I just havent felt like I had enough fighting spirit to really motor my way around the thing maintaining enough speed and road position not to get honked at or swerved for. When the will and the flesh have been weak I've just thought sod it and used the crossings to get around but have not dismounted. At the time it didn't feel like I was commiting much of an offense and as I had used the crossings (albeit on my bike) I didn't consider it to be jumping the lights.

I now look to this thread to try and ascertain the seriousness of my crime as judged by other cyclists and throw myself on its mercy regarding the verdict. M'lud.

 

[apollo179]

Does it count as rljing if when one gets to a red light one mounts the pavement and whilst stil mounted cross the road with either the green man for pedestrians or where there is no green/red man just crossing the road when there is no traffic as one would on foot. When safely over the road then scooting off the kirb again and back on to the road.

Does this lessen the offense to riding on the pavement as one would have essentialy crossed the lights in the same way as if one had ridden there all the way on the pavement, basicaly acting like a pedestrian but on a bike (excuse the contradiction in terms)

I have used this tactic occasionaly at very busy multilaned trafic islands when I just havent felt like I had enough fighting spirit to really motor my way around the thing maintaining enough speed and road position not to get honked at or swerved for. When the will and the flesh have been weak I've just thought sod it and used the crossings to get around but have not dismounted. At the time it didn't feel like I was commiting much of an offense and as I had used the crossings (albeit on my bike) I didn't consider it to be jumping the lights.

I now look to this thread to try and ascertain the seriousness of my crime as judged by other cyclists and throw myself on its mercy regarding the verdict. M'lud.

I would be inclined to let you off so long as you havnt killed any pedestrians although i am probably err towards the more telerant end of the spectrum.
Another "its against the law therefore its wrong" judge might look on it differntly.
I woudnt call it rljing. Im not sure but presumably your going on the pavement is wrong and also presumably its also wrong to cycle over the crossing - i will have to check with my highway code.
Anyway depends what judge you get.
Good luck with the verdict.

 

[Raa]

Perhaps the reason that the law is not enforced is because the rljer has a checklist, 1,no traffic,2,no pedestrians, 3, no body who looks like he might get to angry, 4, no cops, ok, safe to go.

Well i'd ignore number 3, but other than that I think you've summed it up quite nicely, congratulations, the quality of your posting just improved

 

[twobiker]

Well i'd ignore number 3, but other than that I think you've summed it up quite nicely, congratulations, the quality of your posting just improved
Still illegal.

 

[apollo179]

Well i'd ignore number 3, but other than that I think you've summed it up quite nicely, congratulations, the quality of your posting just improved

I would also largely dismiss number 4 on twobikers checklist.
In my experience dating back to before i joined this forum when i didnt realise that rljing was illegal for bikes i have rljed in view of police many times and never had a problem. I think the emphasis on twobikers checklist should be on the safety concerns.
Still illegal but in my experience the police do a good job in differentiating between careless dangerous cycling and safe carefull cycling. for the police.

 

[oldroadman]

[QUOTE 1526119"]
So, back to flashing amber. Can anyone see a problem with this as an option? Or are there others?

Similar, but relating to speeding, in Portugal I've driven into villages which have a flashing amber where the road joins the village. There's a speed sensor, and if you're over the limit the light turns to read to force you to stop, before allowing you on your way. It's a great idea IMO.
[/quote]

Having experienced the average driving standard in parts of Portugal, it would be safer if they were all permanently stopped!

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526117"]
And the real answer is that they don't have the resources to pull up every RLJer they see, or every speeding car. They address it with campaigns as I said before.

Let's not pretend it's anything to do with discretion, because it's not. Any bobby will tell you that.
[/quote]

I think you are not giving the police the credit due to them.
I agree the police do not pull up every rljer they see - so in your opinion what determines wether they pull up one rljer and not another ?

 

[pepecat]

Indeed.

Also, if some think it's OK to choose which laws to follow and which can be broken because you are on a bike and can get away with it, there's a continuum from riding without pedal reflectors to crossing red lights to cycling in pedestrianised areas to cycling the wrong way up a one way street to cycling on the wrong side of the road to cycling on the wrong side of the road at night without lights to cycling on the hard shoulder of a motorway to... etc. Most people would, I guess, consider some of those to be ok and others to be beyond the line, where we draw the line will be different.

I'm all for working to get the laws changed but, as they stand currently, I obey them. (except pedal reflectors, but I have reflectors on my shoes and wear reflectives on my ankles instead ).

Ditto. Including pedal reflectors, but that's cos they came with the bike! I wouldn't drive in a pedestrian area, or up a one way street the wrong way or on the wrong side of the road, so I don't see why it's ok to do those things on a bike, just cos it's smaller, and (i guess in most people's heads) less dangerous to others than a car.

Maybe that's the difference - we all know cars are dangerous and kill people, but most people don't perceive bikes in the same way. Including me.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I had a bit of a revelation on my ride today. None of this stuff really matters at all. We will do what we do and if others see what we do they may or may not adjust their behaviour. The rest is just ephemera.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jr9hPbYmBo&feature=related

 

[Angelfishsolo]

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

 

[twobiker]

Perhaps the reason that the law is not enforced is because the rljer has a checklist, 1,no traffic,2,no pedestrians, 3, no body who looks like he might get to angry, 4, no cops, ok, safe to go.

The number 3 is the motorist who overtakes you after the lights and cuts you up for no "apparent" reason.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526123"]
It's not discrediting the police to accept that they have to prioritise their focus.

What determines whether they stop a light jumper? Whether they can be bothered, what they're doing at the time, whether they even noticed, what priorities they've been given, what they've been told to focus on, which part of their shift they're at. And many more.

This isn't the olden days - it's rare that police are able to just patrol these days.
[/quote]

I think it your are being slight unfair to the police.
If the police see a cyclist rljing dangerously without care and attention causing danger to pedestrians and motorists i would hope and expect them to take action (obviously)
If the police see a cyclist rljing carefully and carefully i would understand in view of the other considerations you have pointed out if they did not take action.
Isnt this differentiation (you call it discretion) just a good common sense approach given that "this isn't the olden days".
for the police.