Red Light Jumping

[martint235]

On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant


Now, despite that I argue on the internet a lot about theoretical RLJ, when I'm actually cycling I do stop at them almost all the time (3am deserted junctions, anticipation of the red+amber, and scooting across the line to get a head start being my major failings here), so I will thank you not to make some stupid remark about "just get up ten minutes earlier, problem solved"[sup]1[/sup] - heck, you might as well just say "get up twenty minutes earlier and you could walk that distance" - and, some days, I do. But if you have no concept that someone else's experience of inconvenience may be different to your own, you are unlikely ever to understand the the motivations behind their actions and if you don't understand where they're coming from how do you expect to change their mind?[sup]2[/sup]

[sup]1[/sup]I didn't.

[sup]2[/sup]And that's why I asked the question.

 

[twobiker]

On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant


Now, despite that I argue on the internet a lot about theoretical RLJ, when I'm actually cycling I do stop at them almost all the time (3am deserted junctions, anticipation of the red+amber, and scooting across the line to get a head start being my major failings here), so I will thank you not to make some stupid remark about "just get up ten minutes earlier, problem solved" - heck, you might as well just say "get up twenty minutes earlier and you could walk that distance" - and, some days, I do. But if you have no concept that someone else's experience of inconvenience may be different to your own, you are unlikely ever to understand the the motivations behind their actions and if you don't understand where they're coming from how do you expect to change their mind?

I can understand it may be an inconvenience, but as the saying goes "thats just tough" no one should break the law just because it is an inconvenience, if it was a matter of life and death then you could go through like an ambulance etc, but even then you could be prosecuted if you hit someone, to choose to risk innocent lives just because it is inconvenient for you to stop is frankly astounding.

 

[Norm]

There is no reason needed beyond it being illegal. I've driven / ridden in the US where you can turn right on a red. I've lived where lights turn off when they aren't needed. Riding or driving carefully, people go through reds without dying.

However, it is illegal. Anyone that sees us doing it sees us as being a problem, boorish and irresponsible, worth less as humans because we jump queues and don't wait our turn. That, IMO, is the whole problem.

 

[Dan B]

[sup]1[/sup]I didn't.

[sup]2[/sup]And that's why I asked the question.

1 - No, but others have before, and others have since.

2 - I misread it as a rhetorical question, then. My apologies

 

[Dan B]

to choose to risk innocent lives just because it is inconvenient for you to stop is frankly astounding.

I agree completely, but seeing as nobody here has made that choice you can remain unastounded.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Just because its safe to do something doesn't mean it should be made legal to do it.

Let me give you an easy one you'll actually disagree with. I'm a trained police driver, so when called to an emergency call I can utilise my blue lights and emergency sirens. There is of course an element of increased risk with this (as with RLJing) but as long as I stick to my training and drive to the system, this risk can be reduced and I can have a safe blue light run.

So, do you think the law should be changed to allow me to drive on lights and sirens all the time, whenever I want to, emergency call or not? Of course not.

The other thing you have to remember is cyclists can jump on a bike and go, having taken no 'driving test' of any sort. Loosen regulations like this and you'd actually encourage RLJing in situations where it isn't safe. Greater chance of accidents = greater chance of injury.

It isn't going to happen, and I don't think it should.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Just because its safe to do something doesn't mean it should be made legal to do it.

Let me give you an easy one you'll actually disagree with. I'm a trained police driver, so when called to an emergency call I can utilise my blue lights and emergency sirens. There is of course an element of increased risk with this (as with RLJing) but as long as I stick to my training and drive to the system, this risk can be reduced and I can have a safe blue light run.

So, do you think the law should be changed to allow me to drive on lights and sirens all the time, whenever I want to, emergency call or not? Of course not.

The other thing you have to remember is cyclists can jump on a bike and go, having taken no 'driving test' of any sort. Loosen regulations like this and you'd actually encourage RLJing in situations where it isn't safe. Greater chance of accidents = greater chance of injury.

It isn't going to happen, and I don't think it should.

 

[Dan B]

Just because its safe to do something doesn't mean it should be made legal to do it.

I take it from this that you agree it can be done safely, and that "you're choosing to risk innocent lives" is therefore not an argument against. I wasn't proposing "it can be safe therefore it should be legal" as an argument for, so I think we're square on that count

The other thing you have to remember is cyclists can jump on a bike and go, having taken no 'driving test' of any sort. Loosen regulations like this and you'd actually encourage RLJing in situations where it isn't safe. Greater chance of accidents = greater chance of injury.

Would you, though? I'd suggest that the majority of cyclists have a self-preservation instinct at least equal to that of the majority of pedestrians, who can legally cross the road wherever and however they like and mostly get by without jumping out straight into the path of cars - and those that don't, well, if RLJ is illegal because you can't trust them to give way and need to protect them from themselves, what are they going to do when they reach a junction that only has a "give way" sign? As Norm points out, left-turn-on-red and other such allowances work perfectly well in other places, are UK cyclists so much more stupid?

Sorry, I don't buy it. The "it's unpredictable" and "it's rude/discourteous/scary" arguments are IMO good ones; the "we should respect the law because it's the law" argument is a moderate one (as you note yourself on the legal lights thread, some laws are more important than others), the "why not cars as well in that case?" argument is predicated on bad assumptions, the "we should take our turn" argument cannot honestly be proposed by anyone who filters past traffic queues, and the "drivers will respect us" argument is a complete non-starter because we all know they're more than happy to find some other reason not to.

 

[gaz]

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.

If we are seen to be a form of transport who does not stop for red lights. Then when we are faced with a light changing in front of us then drivers behind will expecting us to stop and will then follow us through. What happens when you decide to stop in this situation?

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gISWXq13ig[/media]

 

[gaz]

On the approx 3.5 mile stretch from my home to my office there are approximately 30-40 traffic-light controlled junctions (I haven't counted, I'm just looking on google maps). If it's 30 seconds per light, that's 10-15 minutes on a journey time which was only 20-30 minutes in the first place. You might consider that 10 minutes is not a very long time, but in the context of the overall journey time I'd say it was significant

I looked at the stats of my commutes for a several week period, and on average I spent about 15% of my time waiting at traffic lights for a 17 mile trip at just over an hour.

 

[apollo179]

How does rljing in a harmless situation offend anyone? A harmless situation is one that does not involve the presence of other people or making them change their behaviour to accommodate you breaking the law. As User has pointed out, there is a huge difference between a deserted junction at 2am (although if seen by a police officer, I don't think you'd have a right to complain against a ticket) and any junction that isn't deserted. I think you're struggling to justify rljing even to yourself, let alone anyone else.

Making it legal won't stop it offending people, as you've said you offend car drivers by performing the completely legal move of cycling down a country lane. As it's legal to do that, it puts the problem firmly in the court of the person feeling aggrieved. If you want to change the law (or if the motorist wants to change the law regarding country lanes) then work towards it. Don't just ignore laws for your benefit unless you're happy for others to operate in the same manner.

I accept all what youve said.
But for the purposes of debate we are dealing with the "safe" rlj not the indefensible rlj.
I agree that ignoring the law is wrong and rlj is wrong full stop.
My question sought to question beyond this rigid legally designated mindset and ask the question what is actually wrong with rljing in certain circumstances.
Should the situation be reviewed - maybe the law changed or the lighting system altered.
And based on what i myself could conclude which was that in some conceivable circumstances the only thing wrong with rljing is that it is against the law then woudnt the sensible thing to do be to rethink this situation so that things are improved for all cyclists and those cyclists who do rlj at present are no longer criminalised.
This may upset car drivers but they can argue their own case.
The obeying the lights for the greater good arguement is a valid arguement but in the circumstances that i am talking about the greater good is served by catering for cyclists (all cyclists) so that they no longer are needlessly held up by traffic lights.
IE ; if there is no reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then review the current lights/ law setup.
if there is good reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then it is entirely valid to just leave things as they are.
Just think it would benefit everyone to question things and improve things where possible.

 

[CopperCyclist]

I take it from this that you agree it can be done safely, and that "you're choosing to risk innocent lives" is therefore not an argument against. I wasn't proposing "it can be safe therefore it should be legal" as an argument for, so I think we're square on that count

Yes, you're correct I do agree it can be done safely. I also agree with the US law of right turning on a red light (left turn equivalent for us) and would love to see us bring this in.

However, the simple fact is that most of the cyclists I see DON'T do it safely, and I'd therefore hate to encourage their types of actions. If every RLJumper I saw did it safely, I'd be on your bandwagon asking for the law change too! Problem is, the majority don't.

For the record, I wait at red lights.

 

[Norm]

The issue with Apollo's suggestion for me is that you are separating cyclists from traffic. I consider that I am part of the traffic and that there is no reason to make an exception.

Therefore, make it so that the red lights don't always apply to everyone (allow turning left on red, for instance) or don't needlessly inconvenience anyone (turn the bloody things off).

There is enough animosity and confusion anyway, don't make it worse.

IMO

 

[martint235]

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.

If you want to change the law (or if the motorist wants to change the law regarding country lanes) then work towards it. Don't just ignore laws for your benefit unless you're happy for others to operate in the same manner.

I accept all what youve said.
But for the purposes of debate we are dealing with the "safe" rlj not the indefensible rlj.
I agree that ignoring the law is wrong and rlj is wrong full stop.
My question sought to question beyond this rigid legally designated mindset and ask the question what is actually wrong with rljing in certain circumstances.
Should the situation be reviewed - maybe the law changed or the lighting system altered.
And based on what i myself could conclude which was that in some conceivable circumstances the only thing wrong with rljing is that it is against the law then woudnt the sensible thing to do be to rethink this situation so that things are improved for all cyclists and those cyclists who do rlj at present are no longer criminalised.
This may upset car drivers but they can argue their own case.
The obeying the lights for the greater good arguement is a valid arguement but in the circumstances that i am talking about the greater good is served by catering for cyclists (all cyclists) so that they no longer are needlessly held up by traffic lights.
IE ; if there is no reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then review the current lights/ law setup.
if there is good reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then it is entirely valid to just leave things as they are.
Just think it would benefit everyone to question things and improve things where possible.

All the above plus as I've said before I've got nothing against the law being changed but until it is changed, cyclists should stop at red lights. Whether or not changing the law will make things better or not depends on the law change. If it's cyclists can turn left on a red, we'll still have nutters going straight through reds. I think a law change should be held off until we can convince the rljers to pay attention to the law as it stands

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The issue with Apollo's suggestion for me is that you are separating cyclists from traffic. I consider that I am part of the traffic and that there is no reason to make an exception.

Therefore, make it so that the red lights don't always apply to everyone (allow turning left on red, for instance) or don't needlessly inconvenience anyone (turn the bloody things off).

There is enough animosity and confusion anyway, don't make it worse.

IMO

Hence my questioning as to why only cycles? Why not cars and motorbikes?