Red Light Jumping

[martint235]

Yes - lets not personalise it to me - lets talk in general terms - thanks.
Hearing these reasons referred to repeatedly but never defined.
Can you please give your reason / reasons why beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.
Thanks in advance.

The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?

 

[apollo179]

The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?

I offend people by giving my opinion - should i not do it ?
Edit - ignore this as i dont want to personalise the dabate in any way - apologies.

 

[Boris Bike]

Beyond the mantra "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 offence to no-one.

Because I get tarred with the same brush as the RLJing people. RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.

 

[apollo179]

Because I get tarred with the same brush as the RLJing people. RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.

Bad rljers are indefensible.
Thats not what im reffering to.
We should all dissuade anyone from rljing where it is in anyway unsafe to anybody or might be anticipated that it might cause offence to a reasonable person. Indeed this is true in general.

 

[martint235]

But it seems to me that the only offence that it causes ( in the ok circumstances) is that it breaks the law which is if anything an arguement for reconsidering the rlj issue.

I offend people by giving my opinion - should i not do it ?
Edit - ignore this as i dont want to personalise the dabate in any way - apologies.

It was you who brought up the term "offence", I was just using your post as the starting point.

And as giving your opinion, on the whole, isn't illegal in this country then whether you cause offence or not, you are able to voice opinions.

 

[lukesdad]

Because I get tarred with the same brush as the RLJing people. RLJers will annoy some people in cars. Those drivers could think of other cyclists in the same way and possibly not think too much about their safety than they would have done.

And I get tarred with the same brush as the cyclecraft disciples. Not fair is it ? But we all have our cross to bear

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525810"]
And again, I've not mentioned the law. The importance of the above is that junctions are very rarely deserted during the day. If you really only run reds when there's no-one about then that's a different situation to the one you're arguing for. The reality is that you belong to a group who rlj not at deserted junctions but where you think you're not going to be hit. This includes junctions where there are pedestrians and other road users on conflicting paths. This scenario is what you need to be justifying, not the 2am situation. You focus on the 2am scenario because you know it's easier to justify, and you know that your justification for busy-time rljing is weak. Keep to the reality please. And for that you're going to have to change tack.
[/quote]

So can i interpret your response as you do not have any compelling argument why rljing is wrong in those circumstances.

 

[apollo179]

It was you who brought up the term "offence", I was just using your post as the starting point.

And as giving your opinion, on the whole, isn't illegal in this country then whether you cause offence or not, you are able to voice opinions.

Yes my point really was that in reply to your
"The only time it will cause offence to no-one, or at least that you can be sure it will cause offence to no-one, is at a completely deserted junction with no one else in sight. As soon as you bring other people into the equation, how can you be sure you're not offending anyone?"

Post
Sometimes one just will offend people.
I offend car drivers by cycling down narrow country roads.
The point re rljing is that the fact rljing in what seems to me harmless situations offends people is simply because it is illegal. Situations where there is no substantive harm - it is safe and deserted.
Make this legal and people will not have reason to get annoyed (be offended) .
yes - no ?

 

[Brandane]

I don't get this argument that RLJers cause offence to other road users. If done sensibly and safely, then it shouldn't cause offence. If it does, then that is the problem of the offended person and they clearly have issues that they need to deal with.

I am a RLJer in some circumstances. Not in a busy city environment where yes, it would be dangerous and possibly offensive to people trying to cross the road etc.. However, on a quiet road where a pedestrian has just crossed one of these modern crossings which has supposedly "intelligent sensors" that detect pedestrians on the crossings (yet they stay on red for about 30 seconds after the crossing is clear) then yes, I WILL RLJ! No I wouldn't do it in the car because I have a licence to lose and the law is quite clear about RLJ in a motorised vehicle. It is open to debate on a pedal cycle.

And that is my last word on this site. Wayyyy too heavy for me. Cycling is meant to be fun; not an endless debate on RLJing, helmet wearing and SPD pedals being the only way to go.

 

[MissTillyFlop]

Beyond the mantra "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 offence to no-one.

Because this is a matter of personal judgement - for example a guy this morning thought it was safe to go through a pelican crossing whilst there was a large crowd of people using it, weaving in and out of the pedestrians, which included small children.

Whilst I assume nobody here would be that idiotic, it is all down to the individual cyclists perception of what is safe and as we can't guarantee that each individual cyclist isn't going to endanger themselves or other road users, then the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of that (waiting at traffic lights).

You also can't guarantee that other road users aren't going to do something daft either (pedestrians dashing out on flashing amber, cars coming out from a crossroads as the lights change &c &c.

I wonder if anyone has ever considered the possibility of having a "head start light" for cyclists. (I know, too expensive and will never happen, this is in my evil, communist dictatorship in my head).

 

[apollo179]

I don't get this argument that RLJers cause offence to other road users. If done sensibly and safely, then it shouldn't cause offence. If it does, then that is the problem of the offended person and they clearly have issues that they need to deal with.

I am a RLJer in some circumstances. Not in a busy city environment where yes, it would be dangerous and possibly offensive to people trying to cross the road etc.. However, on a quiet road where a pedestrian has just crossed one of these modern crossings which has supposedly "intelligent sensors" that detect pedestrians on the crossings (yet they stay on red for about 30 seconds after the crossing is clear) then yes, I WILL RLJ! No I wouldn't do it in the car because I have a licence to lose and the law is quite clear about RLJ in a motorised vehicle. It is open to debate on a pedal cycle.

And that is my last word on this site. Wayyyy too heavy for me. Cycling is meant to be fun; not an endless debate on RLJing, helmet wearing and SPD pedals being the only way to go.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I stand by my view that the OP is spoiling for a fight with everyone who thinks he/she is wrong.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

! No I wouldn't do it in the car because I have a licence to lose and the law is quite clear about RLJ in a motorised vehicle. It is open to debate on a pedal cycle.

Not it is not.

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).

[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

 

[apollo179]

Because this is a matter of personal judgement - for example a guy this morning thought it was safe to go through a pelican crossing whilst there was a large crowd of people using it, weaving in and out of the pedestrians, which included small children.

Whilst I assume nobody here would be that idiotic, it is all down to the individual cyclists perception of what is safe and as we can't guarantee that each individual cyclist isn't going to endanger themselves or other road users, then the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of that (waiting at traffic lights).

You also can't guarantee that other road users aren't going to do something daft either (pedestrians dashing out on flashing amber, cars coming out from a crossroads as the lights change &c &c.

I wonder if anyone has ever considered the possibility of having a "head start light" for cyclists. (I know, too expensive and will never happen, this is in my evil, communist dictatorship in my head).

Yes valid points tilly.
I can kind of see the arguement that some might have to wait unnecessarily at red lights for the greater good.
That acknowledges that some waiting at red lights is unnecessary and it therefore follows that the situation might benefit from being reviewed.
Also it is kindof a legalistic arguement.
Apart from the reason that people are offended by cyclists breaking the law by rljing which would be negated by changing the law / traffic light system - i still havnt heard a reason why it is wrong in certain aforementioned circumstances.

 

[wiggydiggy]

Beyond the mantra "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 offence to no-one.

This again

'A compelling argument'

I can't be bothered to construct a argument that will persuade you otherwise and by the looks of it neither can a lot of other people, maybe just drop it?

Can I suggest all RLJ threads go in helmet debates from now on please