Red Light Jumping

[apollo179]

forgive me ive just joined the thread, do you think cyclists should or should not have to stop at red lights?

Its a gimme that cyclists should stop at red lights.
The purpose of the topic was to try and explore the issue beyond just the "its against the law therefore its wrong" perspective.
Once we get beyond this we can see that there are circumstances and situations where it is possible to proceed safely at junctions unrestricted by traffic lights and when you acknowledge this then it raises the subject of doing something about it. Like turning lights of when they are not appropriate like at night etc.
MrPaul seems to be on some kind of personal crusade to paint me as a rljer and put me in the wrong

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526303"]
I've told you several times. At the time you were both exhibiting Jedward behaviour. Raa has since stopped.

If you think that all cyclists should stop at red then why don't you?
[/quote]

But that dosnt explain why you think 2 people with opinions different from yours have to be the same person.
Why suggest this?

 

[Wankelschrauben]

How does the jedward behaviour justify you saying that me and raa are the same person ?
Why do you interpret 2 people holding a diferent view from you as they must be the same person?
Is this just indicative of someone so narrow minded that the only explanation that they can conceive of their being 2 people with differnt view from them is that those 2 people must in fact be the same person.
Please answer.

An easy answer to this one.

We just can not believe that there is another person who totally disregards the laws of the road and defends his or her actions whilst knowing full well it is illegal in such a blatantly moronic manner as you do.

 

[apollo179]

forgive me ive just joined the thread, do you think cyclists should or should not have to stop at red lights?

Hi again.
Not sure if i was sufficiently clear before.
Yes i think cyclists should stop at red lights.
Some more narrow minded members are determiined to attack me for merely raising the topic much in the same way that some more unenlightened people automatically shout rascist at the mention of multiculturism.

 

[apollo179]

An easy answer to this one.

We just can not believe that there is another person who totally disregards the laws of the road and defends his or her actions whilst knowing full well it is illegal in such a blatantly moronic manner as you do.

According to a recent poll about 30% of forum members who voted rlj .
It seems you yourself prove that there is at least one blatantly moronic narrow minded member on the forum.

 

[Raa]

[QUOTE 1526303"]
I've told you several times. At the time you were both exhibiting Jedward behaviour. Raa has since stopped.

If you think that all cyclists should stop at red then why don't you?
[/quote]


What is 'Jedward behavior'?

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 1526305"]
Because for the roads to work properly we should at least be able to have some expectation of the actions of other road users. And that is that vehicles obey traffic lights. And that pedestrians are not restricted to crossings.
[/quote]
But the other road users would be just as predictable if the law were vice versa and everyone adhered to it: that car drivers could treat red lights as advisory and pedestrians were bound by them. So what's the reason for having it this way around? I would postulate that it is mostly an accident of history, but why is it desirable? Is it desirable? (I think it's desirable, mostly because it imposes the greater burden on the party that brings the greater danger: I would be more interested at this point in a discussion of the best traffic law than a continual reiteration of the point that it's-the-law-so-you-must-obey-it, but I'm only skimming your ouroborous exchange with apollo which apparently requires it)

Predictability is IMO the best (and probably the only valid) argument for obeying red lights in scenarios where one might otherwise be able to safely courteously and non-scarily jump them, just as it is the best argument for driving on the left hand side of the road in this country and the right hand side when in Belgium, but even then, it doesn't stack up when nobody is present who would need to predict your decisions in order to make their own.

 

[Raa]

[QUOTE 1526302"]
Pedestrians are not legally bound by red lights.
[/quote]
In many countries they have the ridiculous "jaywalking' law, whereby humans are only allowed to cross the road at certain points, so as not to disrupt the flow of machinery. Not really relevant to this discussion, but I reckon if we had that law here, there would be plenty of healthy disobedience!

 

[Dan B]

[QUOTE 1526317"]
Lights are set to maximise traffic flow, so they're essential. If they're not enforced then flow suffers.

At 3am it's a different scenario, but we're not really talking about 3am.
[/quote]
Who's not talking about 3am? I'm talking about 3am. I thought the whole thread was supposed to be about scenarios where nobody else is affected by a decision to RLJ, and the times when nobody else is even present would seem to me to be most of those occasions

 

[Raa]

[QUOTE 1526317"]
Lights are set to maximise traffic flow, so they're essential. If they're not enforced then flow suffers.

At 3am it's a different scenario, but we're not really talking about 3am.
[/quote]
Suppose you were of the opinion that urban areas should not be full of vehicles. Maybe you wouldn't feel too obliged to be constrained by lights which are there 'to maximise traffic flow', whilst riding a bicycle?

 

[Dan B]

Steady there. "Maximising traffic flow" was advanced by Mr Paul as a reason that lights should be enforced for car drivers.

He may feel that the same reason applies to enforcing lights for cyclists, but he wasn't asked the question and given that most light-controlled junctions are a long way from suffering cycle congestion (i.e. would probably be served perfectly well with mini-roundabouts or ordinary Stop signs), it would be unwise to assume

 

[Raa]

Good point...

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I think - rljers (where they are aware that rljing is against the law) will accept that by the definition of the law it is wrong to rlj but that in practice when done with approproiate care and responsibility it does no harm.
Irresponsible unsafe cycling is deplorable in any circumstances.
Cycling safely with due care and attention should be advocated in all cicumstances and all times - wether the junctions has lights or not.

If they are not aware of the law how can it be a factor in their considerations?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit,or was until you posted.

 

[PK99]

No different from a cyclist rljing except that their vehicle still takes up much more space on the road, so cannot avail themselves of any opportunities to filter into a gap without disrupting other traffic that a cyclist could. But at 3am when the road is deserted? Yes, legality aside, what actually is wrong with a car driver RLJing in that circumstance? It's no different than if a pedestrian were to cross the road with the red light against him

3 in the afternoon in Wimbledon town centre where cyclists regularly go over pedestrian crossings with or without people present. I'm often stopped in the car with no cars or pedestrians to interfere with if i slowly move on through. Cyclist regularly do. is it ok for me as a car driver?