I just legally RLJed :)

[thomas]

Okay, the start of the clip is the roundabout from that Kett's Hill "brown shorts" topic I posted the other week. It was a lot easier getting around the roundabout when there wasn't any other traffic there trying to force there was around too

Anyway....back to the topic...after the roundabout there was a ped waiting at the crossing. A little annoying as I had a good bit of momentum and didn't want to loose it.

Thankfully there was a really pointless cycle path on the footpath, so I nipped onto that, past the red lights and then back onto the road


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQGxDK04NLw


I wasn't going to as there was someone walking on the pavement, but they turned off before I got nearer so I was happy using it. I'd normally just wait at the lights, I was just taking advantage of the crappy facility

 

[BentMikey]

Hahahahaha! I think that's called having your cake and eating it.

 

[gaz]

num num num cake *drools*
that truly is classic.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

I hope you weren't doing over 18mph though!!!

Actually, I'm glad you posted this because I was pondering other legal "RLJ's" (that aren't actually RLJs) today while out and about and the perception (albeit incorrect) from motorists of the manoevre.

Not saying that doing that is wrong, and neither am I arguing for arbitrary RLJ'ing. I use a similar path which starts just before a stop line at a traffic light controlled junction, goes around the corner on the pavement, and back onto the road immediately after the corner, therefore allowing a left turn without stopping at red.

I'm conscious though that many motorists will see this and put it down to "bloody cyclists, hopping onto the pavement and ignoring road junctions, think the law doesn't apply to them, rant rant, rave, rave".

Even though they are incorrect in their assesment of the situation, using the argument that RLJ'ing leads to motorists treating cyclists badly, could a legal, but misunderstood, move like this not also cause worsening relations between mtorists and cycles?

 

[potsy]

Nowt wrong with that Thomas,I have a similar one in the centre of Stockport-50 yards of cycle path that takes you right round the corner near some almost permanently on red lights,might as well take advantage when you can

 

[thomas]

I hope you weren't doing over 18mph though!!!

Actually, I'm glad you posted this because I was pondering other legal "RLJ's" (that aren't actually RLJs) today while out and about and the perception (albeit incorrect) from motorists of the manoevre.

Not saying that doing that is wrong, and neither am I arguing for arbitrary RLJ'ing. I use a similar path which starts just before a stop line at a traffic light controlled junction, goes around the corner on the pavement, and back onto the road immediately after the corner, therefore allowing a left turn without stopping at red.

I'm conscious though that many motorists will see this and put it down to "bloody cyclists, hopping onto the pavement and ignoring road junctions, think the law doesn't apply to them, rant rant, rave, rave".

Even though they are incorrect in their assesment of the situation, using the argument that RLJ'ing leads to motorists treating cyclists badly, could a legal, but misunderstood, move like this not also cause worsening relations between mtorists and cycles?

You can probably tell from my laugh that I know I'm being a little bit cheeky.

I wouldn't normally have bothered, but the path was clear so I thought I would. The paint on the ground is pretty obvious, so less risk of the manoeuvre being misunderstood....probably a few people a little bit jealous, but if they can't break a smile at my bit of fore planning then they need to lighten up a bit. If any motorist did think I was breaking the law, I would suggest instantly taking their licence of them as they probably have no observation skills.

I'd just carry on cycling legally, taking advantage of anything you can and not worry about the few morons who may have a problem with it.

There would probably have been a toot if someone had a problem

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

....they probably have no observation skills.

That covers about 90% then

As above, nothing wrong with it at all, just theorising really

 

[thomas]

That covers about 90% then

As above, nothing wrong with it at all, just theorising really

Your points are part of the reason why I probably wouldn't normally have done it. It was only because it was completely clear. It looked like there was going to be one ped as well as the one crossing. Had the 'one ped' not gone down a side path I wouldn't have done it.

Like you say though, nothing wrong with it

 

[automatic_jon]

I have one of these opportunities on my way in but I can count the number of times I've used it on the fingers on one quadruple amputee. Despite being a cycle path and footpath separated by a solid white line with the appropriate signage the cycle way is always covered in pedestrians. Quite apart from motorists thinking cyclists are not playing by the rules it seems that pedestrians are the ones who can't abide by the street layout and cyclists seem constantly to get squeezed between to two other camps.

 

[thomas]

I have one of these opportunities on my way in but I can count the number of times I've used it on the fingers on one quadruple amputee. Despite being a cycle path and footpath separated by a solid white line with the appropriate signage the cycle way is always covered in pedestrians. Quite apart from motorists thinking cyclists are not playing by the rules it seems that pedestrians are the ones who can't abide by the street layout and cyclists seem constantly to get squeezed between to two other camps.

Pedestrians can walk in either section. It's only cyclists who cannot. Just show a little patience around them.

 

[marinyork]

Pedestrians can walk in either section. It's only cyclists who cannot. Just show a little patience around them.

This is a common myth but in theory a cycle path could exist where pedestrians are banned from one side or all of it. There's just no point in building such a facility, so nobody has and no way of enforcing it.

 

[marinyork]

As for Thomas doing this, I doubt it will lead to much impact. Motorists will think whatever they want, after all they constantly go on about RLJing when we all know that it's very rare for cyclists to do it outside of London and a few other places. Many of the motorists ranting have probably never seen a cyclist RLJ.

 

[fossyant]

Nowt wrong with that Thomas,I have a similar one in the centre of Stockport-50 yards of cycle path that takes you right round the corner near some almost permanently on red lights,might as well take advantage when you can

The one on Brinksway, that goes past the lights near the Audi Garage.....its quite handy sometimes

 

[automatic_jon]

Pedestrians can walk in either section. It's only cyclists who cannot. Just show a little patience around them.

I did not realise that, I had assumed that the sign with a solid white line, a cycle on one side and a ped on the other meant what it showed. Given the volume of pedestrian traffic (if that's the right word) outside the university it does render this particular path somewhat pointless.
Gripe (mostly) retracted.

 

[thomas]

I did not realise that, I had assumed that the sign with a solid white line, a cycle on one side and a ped on the other meant what it showed. Given the volume of pedestrian traffic (if that's the right word) outside the university it does render this particular path somewhat pointless.
Gripe (mostly) retracted.

I just think it pays to be a bit more patient around peds, whatever the case.

Outside UNI is always going to be a busy place for ped traffic. Most people who walk together like to be next to each other so they can chat....makes more sense to do a few 'excuse mes' and just go past slowly (or just give up using the faciltity)