Red Light Jumping

[PK99]

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]

the car in your clip did exactly what some here judge ok for a cyclist to do: he saw no one was on the crossing or waiting to cross and ignored the red light

 

[PK99]

IE ; if there is no reason why cyclists should not proceed where safe to do so then review the current lights/ law setup.

Your logic and argument applies to ALL road users

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Your logic and argument applies to ALL road users

This is my argument. Apollo fails to see that point.

 

[Scilly Suffolk]

Er... anyone fancy a pint?

 

[apollo179]

Your logic and argument applies to ALL road users

Correct.
But were cyclists and this is a cycling forum so im restricting myself to discussing the situation re cyclists.
But yes you are correct.

 

[apollo179]

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

Yes - good points norm.
Where the no harm concept applies across the board to all traffic then there would be an arguement for the greater good being served by re-evaluating the lighting policy for all traffic.
I agree there is good reason that cyclists should not separate ourselves from traffic. I was not trying to do this i was just for simplicity restricting myself to discussing the cyclist situation.

 

[apollo179]

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

Cyclists should stop at red lights - thats an indisputable fact.
I was trying to examine the problem beyond this.

Using Martins shotgun example is useful.
If a man walks down the road with a concealed weapon it is conceivable that he might do no harm.
However despite no harm being done it is still right that the pactice is (in absolute terms) wrong and against the law.
This is because the carrying of firearms by ordinary people in public is in absolute terms wrong.
Regarding rljing ,road junctions and traffic lights i do not think this is the same.
Their is conceivable circumstances where a cyclist may rlj and do no apparent harm
However just because it does no harm does not mean it is ok as has been established above.
Looking beyond the wrong of simply rljing - the harmless rlj is differnt from the gun crime insofar as negotiating junctions by individual care and attention is not wrong in absolute terms - indeed at many junctions it is the correct way.
Traffic lights were brought in for a purpose - in circumstances where they do not serve a useful purpose and to rlj would be safe and reasonable the greater good would be in such circumstances to re-evaluate the rlj law/lights policy.
Where there is no compelling arguement that rljing is wrong and causes no harm (aside from the default "it is wrong to rlj") then it seems to me reasonable to review the situation.
Obviously where there is a compelling arguement then clearly the status quo is ok.

 

[apollo179]

I was also hoping to throw another perspective on the subject that might influence those inclined to rigidly condemn people who rlj , regardless of circumstances.
I have read rljers described in a multitude of unflattering and even abusive terms.
Selfish , self centered - maybe.
Law breakers - i spose so yes.
Stupid. - some may be but others are not.
Some do rlj in as socially responsible way and as safe way as possible.
Obviously this is breaking the law and (in legal terms) wrong. I have stuck my head above the parapet to be shot at to try to put another perspective / opinion.
I thank all those who have debated in a nice polite and courteous way.

 

[apollo179]

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.

Intersting and reasonable opinions.
Surely cyclists who rlj unsafely should be punished.
Unnacceptable rljing should be discouraged and safe responsible cycling (aka rljing) be encouraged (legitimised) - changing the law or the lights etc etc.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yes - good points norm.
Where the no harm concept applies across the board to all traffic then there would be an arguement for the greater good being served by re-evaluating the lighting policy for all traffic.
I agree there is good reason that cyclists should not separate ourselves from traffic. I was not trying to do this i was just for simplicity restricting myself to discussing the cyclist situation.

So you actually believe that all vehicles should be allowed to run red lights if they deem it safe.

 

[PK99]

Correct.
But were cyclists and this is a cycling forum so im restricting myself to discussing the situation re cyclists.
But yes you are correct.

In that case your whole argument is Special Pleading nonsense and not worth anyone wasting time on.

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

 

[PK99]

Cyclists should stop at red lights - thats an indisputable fact.
I was trying to examine the problem beyond this.

Nonsense, your OP was:

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.

That was not considering a change in the law it was seeking to justify cyclists breaking the law - you are now shifting you ground

 

[twobiker]

Perhaps the rljers are after absolution from the Law abiding cyclists for their actions, after all if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter,like throwing snails from your garden into your neighbours, if he does'nt see you, so what !. The only people the rljers have to convince is themselves, we should agree to disagree.

 

[apollo179]

Perhaps the rljers are after absolution from the Law abiding cyclists for their actions, after all if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter,like throwing snails from your garden into your neighbours, if he does'nt see you, so what !. The only people the rljers have to convince is themselves, we should agree to disagree.

Maybe.
Just trying to put another perspective on the issue.

 

[Garnerboy]

Perhaps the rljers are after absolution from the Law abiding cyclists for their actions, after all if they just did it and said nothing what would it matter,like throwing snails from your garden into your neighbours, if he does'nt see you, so what !. The only people the rljers have to convince is themselves, we should agree to disagree.

And on that note, this thread is over