Red Light Jumping

[dellzeqq]

this is a good observation, i would add that some red lights would be more dangerous to jump than others based on view etc

could they not turn off some safer red lights late at night like they do with the roundabout ones after peak times?

San Salvador! Where, if memory serves, the traffic lights were turned off after sunset and the streets reverted to two ways from one-way. Fabulous stuff!

 

[twobiker]

Two choices , 1, you are waiting at a set of tempoary lights, they are at red, you can see the other set of lights , they are at green ,the set of lights is 20yds apart on a straight section of road, do you go through?. 2, you are at a set of temporary lights, they are at red, the other set of lights is round a bend, out of sight, do you go through ? .

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526497"]
If accurate, it's a negative consequence of the activity, and so a bad thing. You're only relating the activity to risk, and as you've been shown several times it's not just about risk.
[/quote]

I agree that it is a negative consequence of the action but that does not necessarily equate to it being a bad thing on that basis.
Rljing is wrong but not on the basis that it encourages others.
The encouragement factor is a byproduct of the action - it does not define why it is essentially wrong in the first place.
Anyway lets not get fixated on arguing a silly point.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Two choices , 1, you are waiting at a set of tempoary lights, they are at red, you can see the other set of lights , they are at green ,the set of lights is 20yds apart on a straight section of road, do you go through?. 2, you are at a set of temporary lights, they are at red, the other set of lights is round a bend, out of sight, do you go through ? .

I wait at both.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526499"]
Interesting that you claim only legal criteria and in the same post acknowledge that there's also a risk factor. So that's two. Any more reasons you accept?
[/quote]
Yes - correction - not just legal criteria.
"does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others"
But by compelling arguement i dont mean cos it upsets mr angry.
In questioning the issue beyond "its against the law therefore its wrong" we can examine any arguement but to be compelling for me it needs to convince in a number of ways - legal and social etc etc.
I am considering other reasons.

 

[dellzeqq]

I agree that it is a negative consequence of the action but that does not necessarily equate to it being a bad thing on that basis.
Rljing is wrong but not on the basis that it encourages others.
The encouragement factor is a byproduct of the action - it does not define why it is essentially wrong in the first place.
Anyway lets not get fixated on arguing a silly point.

oh, come on..................

 

[apollo179]

Think of it as a cultural thing. The comparison with speeding might help. It is most definitely normal behavior for drivers to exceed speed limits. A policing regime with a tolerance of x%+y over the limit before anything is done serves to encourage it.
Similarly with RLJING, a widespread tolerance of it breeds a culture IG RLJing. Once the proportion of cyclists ignoring the lights reaches a significant number it becomes the norm. It isn't individuals encouraging others to do it in a literal sense but has the same effect.

Yes.
Its the tolerance that serves to encourage.
Should society choose to tolerate law breaking that undermines the rule of law or should it legislate to its capacity to enforce ?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes - correction - not just legal criteria.
"does anyone have a compelling arguement why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others"
But by compelling arguement i dont mean cos it upsets mr angry.
In questioning the issue beyond "its against the law therefore its wrong" we can examine any arguement but to be compelling for me it needs to convince in a number of ways - legal and social etc etc.
I am considering other reasons.

I would treat a Red Light like a Gun in that it is always loaded even when you know it isn't.

Compelling argument. Have you ever had a chain snap, have you ever had a puncture. These things can happen at any time and usually not at opportune times. Get halfway across the red light and snap a chain. Splat no thinking time left.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1526504"]
That kind of nonsensical, dismissive reasoning is why you can't be taken seriously.
[/quote]

Oh dear - i had hoped i was making some progress with you but you seem to have relapsed in jedward behaviour.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Oh dear - i had hoped i was making some progress with you but you seem to have relapsed in jedward behaviour.

Who is Mr Paul mimicking?

 

[Dan B]

Claiming that RLJ is bad because it encourages other people to RLJ is like claiming that eating meat is good because it encourages other people to eat meat. Except, no, wait, maybe it's the other way around. Er.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Claiming that RLJ is bad because it encourages other people to RLJ is like claiming that eating meat is good because it encourages other people to eat meat. Except, no, wait, maybe it's the other way around. Er.

Not at all. If people like Apollo (who claimed to have no idea of Road Traffic Law) see the activity they may believe it is acceptable or even legal.

 

[apollo179]

Exactly Dan B - its a nonsensical arguement.

I am receptive to valid arguements but the "something is bad because it encourages" arguement is just plain senseless.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Exactly Dan B - its a nonsensical arguement.

I am receptive to valid arguements but the "something is bad because it encourages" arguement is just plain senseless.

You now know it is illegal so are you saying encouraging illegal activity it good?

 

[400bhp]

Is there a point to this thread