Red Light Jumping

[twobiker]

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.

Or is it the the slow breakdown of our Policeing due to the cutbacks .

 

[PK99]

Or is it the the slow breakdown of our Policeing due to the cutbacks .

What facile nonsense!

 

[Vikeonabike]

I really can't believe this thread has gone on so long. Yes it is against the law to RLJ! No argument about that. Should you be punished for every infringement of every law going, road traffic or anything else. Lets just leave that down to a bit of common sense, dictated by the situation it takes place in.

Dealing with it can be left to several different methods..

The maximum penalty for RLJing is DEATH....yes you heard me, you do it, you get it wrong you're dead. I don't have the power to hand out that kind of justice, (Only Odin does) however thats the penalty.


Secondly we could be looking at dangerous cycling..stand by for a very hefty fine or prison sentence if someone is killed or seriously hurt because you RLJ'd. You could actually get seriously hurt and still face prison if somebody is killed or seriously hurt. Double Whammy!

Cycling without due care doesn't count, red lights, you chose to ignore them, I won't believe you didn't see them. If you didn't, you shouldn't have been on the road (the CPS may disagree).

Next level is a £30 fine....fair play you got caught, Section 13 of the Un effing lucky act 1971. Or section 1 (1) of the I should have been paying more attention act 1842, or Section 21(2) of the My attitued stinks officer, I would rather pay the fine than be civil about this and listen to the words of advice you are giving me act of 2010.

Sometimes you may get caught but because you didn't fall foul of the above act (Sect 21(2)) you may get away with words of advice.

You may be lucky and RLJ for months on end without any of the above happening.

Then one day your luck will run out!


Your choice, your decision.....

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I really can't believe this thread has gone on so long. Yes it is against the law to RLJ! No argument about that. Should you be punished for every infringement of every law going, road traffic or anything else. Lets just leave that down to a bit of common sense, dictated by the situation it takes place in.

Dealing with it can be left to several different methods..

The maximum penalty for RLJing is DEATH....yes you heard me, you do it, you get it wrong you're dead. I don't have the power to hand out that kind of justice, (Only Odin does) however thats the penalty.


Secondly we could be looking at dangerous cycling..stand by for a very hefty fine or prison sentence if someone is killed or seriously hurt because you RLJ'd. You could actually get seriously hurt and still face prison if somebody is killed or seriously hurt. Double Whammy!

Cycling without due care doesn't count, red lights, you chose to ignore them, I won't believe you didn't see them. If you didn't, you shouldn't have been on the road (the CPS may disagree).

Next level is a £30 fine....fair play you got caught, Section 13 of the Un effing lucky act 1971. Or section 1 (1) of the I should have been paying more attention act 1842, or Section 21(2) of the My attitued stinks officer, I would rather pay the fine than be civil about this and listen to the words of advice you are giving me act of 2010.

Sometimes you may get caught but because you didn't fall foul of the above act (Sect 21(2)) you may get away with words of advice.

You may be lucky and RLJ for months on end without any of the above happening.

Then one day your luck will run out!


Your choice, your decision.....

Mods - Can we have this as a sticky please

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1526133"]
Kind of, but it's more because they can't stop all of the second group than they don't see the need to. There's no guidance on discretion as there is with pavement cycling. They're very different.
[/quote]

I think Vikes post summed it up perfectly!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

[QUOTE 1526135"]
It does, but Apollo is trying to downplay the practice.

There is guidance for the police to allow discretion because they see acceptable reasons for people to ride on the pavement. They don't for red light jumping.

The focus in these discussions is always on why people should not jump lights. In my view it should be as much about reasons why cyclists should jump lights.
[/quote]

I agree with you completely. As I have said before the only reasons I would do so would be to save my life and to allow and emergency vehicle access (I know I would potentially have to argue both in court).

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526135"]
It does, but Apollo is trying to downplay the practice.

There is guidance for the police to allow discretion because they see acceptable reasons for people to ride on the pavement. They don't for red light jumping.

The focus in these discussions is always on why people should not jump lights. In my view it should be as much about reasons why cyclists should jump lights.
[/quote]


How does me applauding the police for their sensible common sense way of dealing with rljing equate (in your head) to downplaying the practice ?

You state that "There's no guidance on discretion as there is with pavement cycling." by which you presumably mean the rlj law should technically be enforced.
You further say whether the police stop a light jumper is determined by : "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."
And "Let's not pretend it's anything to do with discretion."

I suggest that you are being 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 notice and be very bothered and take action, even if they were near the end of their shift or had been given other priorities, other focus etc. I would expect the police to take action and i am of the beleif that most would.

I suggest that your appraisal of what determines wether the police take action is very unfair and very wrong.
How the police act is imho based on an intelligent considered common sense appraisal of the individual rlj incident. Not if they can be bothered.

You have a history of irresponsible use of language and attacking me personally which you have now compounded with some questionable comments about the police. I see that you have now edited your post above but your personal agenda against me is still evident in angelfishsolos reply. Why ?

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526138"]
This is the third time you've made that claim, and again I'm going to have to remind you that this isn't an attack on the police. It's the realistic position. It's not unfair, or wrong, but the way it is.

It's about resources. The police aren't able to stop every red light jumper that they see because they don't have the resources. It's not because they've been given guidance to ignore RLJers, its because they can't physically deal with them all. And the same with speeding. And if you need any proof of that all you have to do is read these forums. There are plenty of examples of where poor resourcing has resulted in a disappointing police response.

And I think you know that. But instead you claim that it's an approach which backs up your view of RLJing.

You have no idea how closely I work with the police, so you're not in a position to state my opinion of them, especially since all you have to base this on is your (perhaps chosen) misunderstanding of what's being said.

And I edited your name out because I knew you'd try to distract from the debate by moaning about personalisation. Whether I put your name in or not makes no difference to what's going on here.

I don't have a personal agenda against you. I just know your method. You have an agenda which you're trying to conceal by ignoring some posts and trying to divert with others (as above). At least Raa is honest about where he stands. Refusal to answer basic questions I ask you while still responding to my posts when you want to just shows this more. It's disappointing that you're not able to hold a debate in an honest and open manner. Don't see it as an attack on you but rather a robust counter to your argument, complicated by the fact that you're intentionally withholding aspects of your argument which would put you on sandy ground should they be shared.

Another question for you (and anyone else for that matter)- what are the benefits of RLJing? An essential question, because benefits needs to be weighed up against counter-benefits. As I said before, all that this discussion is at the moment is reasons not to RLJ put against claims as to why those reasons aren't reasons not to RLJ. And fortunately that's not how policy making works.
[/quote]

"Whether they can be bothered" is not about resources its a slight on their professionalism.
And i dont agree with it.
Its got nothing to do with my view on rljing.
You say you dont have a personal agenda against me so why do you insist on trying to personalise the debate to me despite me repeatedly asking you not to.
How does having a "debate in an honest and open manner" depend on me giving you loads of personal information about myself.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526053"]
Raa and Apollo -have they ever been seen in the same room together?



Have Jedward managed to smuggle an iPad in with them?
[/quote]
How infantile.
The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person only serves to illustrate just how narrow minded you are.
There are likely many people who hold opinions different from you - about 30% of forum members rlj according to a recent poll.
As twobiker said in this topic "if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter."
I suspect that for a quiet life thats precisely what many do do.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

How infantile.
The fact that 2 people holding opinions different from yours leads you to suggest that they are the same person only serves to illustrate just how narrow minded you are.
There are likely many people who hold opinions different from you - about 30% of forum members who bothered to vote rlj according to a recent poll.
As twobiker said in this topic "if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter."
I suspect that for a quiet life thats precisely what many do do.

 

[twobiker]

What facile nonsense!

UP yours

 

[twobiker]

UP yours

It is not nonsense I have two relations in the force and they are very clear on the fact that the cutbacks will result in less Policing, and the things that have to give are the incidents which take up time for a relatively minor offence, Grow up and smell the roses.

 

[apollo179]

"who bothered to vote"

yes but we can only go on the information we have.
About 30% on this forum.
When you consider that this forums members are (imho) probably above normal in terms of intelligence , social responsibility and law abidingness then in the wider cycling world the % will be much higher.
Anyway thats kinda beside the point that i was trying to make which was that for User to suggest that just because there are 2 members who hold different opinions from him on an issue is grounds for saying they are the same person is the most puerile of comment and reflects an unhealthy lack of willingness to consider other opinions.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526144"]
Funny, I gave several reasons why, with no indication of proportions. Yet you chose one in an attempt to discredit me. It doesn't work.

The police force is full of people. And some people can be lazy sometimes.


That's ok.

I didn't say it did.

I've explained the position. You've got a view on RLJing. You're withholding some information, which shows that you're not being open and that you have an agenda which you're reluctant to share. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of this view of yours. It's not an attack on you, but a drilling into your opinion. Exposure of all information would show a different picture to that which you're trying to paint.

Raa is clear that he/she jumps red lights, and why. While I don't agree with him, I respect his opinion and his honesty.


I'm not asking you that, and you know it. There are questions which you refuse to answer. I'll repeat two (though you'll either claim that you've answered them or refuse to on some daft grounds that you gave yesterday.

You referred to the fact that you used to jump red lights before you realised that not stopping at a red stop light was illegal. I asked you if your behaviour had changed and why since you realised that RLJing is illegal. You said that you weren't going to answer the question.

I've asked you what you think the benefits of RLJing are. You've refused to answer.


See -two questions, neither of which is asking for loads of personal information, but truthful answers to them will I suspect put you in an awkward position.

The questions remain open...



[/quote]


Why do you want to put me in an awkward position.
The topic is about rljing.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526148"]
I don't.

You have a view on RLJing. If you answered the questions you're ignoring it would give a fuller picture to your position. But then you'd be in an awkward position.

For example, you have said that you think all cyclists would stop at red lights. You refuse to answer when I ask if you still jump red lights.


[/quote]

Where have i said i think "all cyclists would stop at red lights."
What context.