Is red light walking OK?

[Terminator]

Funny motorists complain about rljers but they seem to forget half the time they aren't concentrating but as they have a metal box traveling at speed which is less vulnerable than a bike rider they can seem to get away with it.

 

[trustysteed]

when i'm sat in my car at a temporary traffic light and i see a cyclist ride down the pavement or get off and push his bike past the lights and then get back on, i'm not spending time thinking either 'wish he'd not ride on the pavement' or 'wish i was him'. all i'm thinking is 'i wish these ****ing lights would change so i can get going again'.

i would suspect most other motorists are the same. i stand by my claim that it's only the militant anal cyclists twunts on here who have the problem with it.

be anal. be virtuous. be a knob.

 

[zimzum42]

fine, whatever

all for rlj then if it's safe yeah?

pretty much, but then I'm into alleycat, so most of the rules go out of the window.......

 

[BentMikey]

all drivers ever go on about is cyclists rljing and all peds ever go on about is pavement riding, but neither could care less about this?

blimey, the things you learn

Since it's neither pavement riding nor jumping the lights and is quite legal as well, it's a whole different situation. I don't think you can compare them, and I also don't think sarcasm and ridicule make for very convincing debate.

 

[domtyler]

Tynan, chill the f**k out, its' not worth it!

I find it very funny that when they want to turn, pull out or overtake they don't see us, but the moment we step over their self imposed line they seem to manage just fine.

 

[Tynan]

Since it's neither pavement riding nor jumping the lights and is quite legal as well, it's a whole different situation. I don't think you can compare them, and I also don't think sarcasm and ridicule make for very convincing debate.

I've backed my opinions with arguments that others have ignored, and been answered with simple opinions and nonsense, and been called anal and knob for my pains, but pick me up, way to go

 

[BentMikey]

Aye, I'm not impressed by those comments either.

 

[Cab]

Have to say, I'm an anal red light stopper.

Whould the scenario be different if a car driver switched off his ignition at red lights, got out of the vehicle, picked the car up, placed it on his shoulder, walked across the crossing, put the car down on the other side and then drove off before the lights changed?

Or pushed the vehicle across if he wasn't strong enough to pick it up? (Wimp)

If he can carry it above his head such that he doesn't harm or scare any pedestrians or wreck any buildings, signs etc. then fine. As such is clearly impossible, of course not. The principle is fine, the reality is different. Pushing across a red light at a junction is wrong, of course.

The difference between a motorist and a cyclist here is that we can safely and legally get off and push if we choose to do so. Not sure why this is in any way controversial.

 

[zimzum42]

because apparently we are alone on the road in being required to set an example for others as part of a political movement that we are all members of unawares

 

[trustysteed]

all those 'Cyclists Dismount' signs must be illegal.

 

[Terminator]

Yes but they are on pavements not traffic lights.

 

[Cab]

didn't say you did, but other most certainly do

hence starting off with 'thin edge of the wedge'

mikey, lots of things are legal, some of them aren't a very good idea if you want to stop motorist think (even more) that cyclists are some sort of sub class of road user than can chop and change to suit

this approach to lights seems much the same as hopping onto the pavement to suit

I do see your point here, I really do. I agree that we should ride in a more or less vehicular fashion, that means primary position wherever it is appropriate and it means obey the rules of the road. But you're extending things a bit further here, you're implying that where it is more convenient to get off and push (it does happen at some junctions, for some cyclists) you shouldn't do so because it gives the wrong impression to motorists. I'd argue the opposite; we should only do so where its of conveneince for us, to reinforce the impression that to do so is safe, legal and appropriate if we choose. I think that to start second guessing what doing something legal and convenient will do for motorists impressions of cyclists when there is a far higher endemic problem of rule breaking amongst all road users (including cyclists, e.g. rlj'ing) is asking cyclists to go above and beyond the call of duty.

 

[Cab]

because apparently we are alone on the road in being required to set an example for others as part of a political movement that we are all members of unawares

Heck, when it comes to RLJing, actually breaking the law for our own convenienve, I'd say that we really should be setting a good example by not doing so. It gives the wrong impression to motorists and other cyclists. But I won't extend that into not doing something that is safe, legal and convenient just in case it makes motorists think that I must act that way. Why would I?

 

[BentMikey]

To me, Tynan's approach seems a little bit like saying it's wrong to ride in the road when there's a cycle path alongside.

 

[Tynan]

perhaps because the man carrying his car safely across junctions encourages others to push theirs and perhaps even drive it eeeever so slowly as long as they don't hurt anyone

they wouldn't have junctions and lights if everyone could be trusted to deal with the junction safely and with consideration

said it right at the beginning, someone dismounting safely, pushing it considerately and then remounting and carrying on is fine, but the vast majority of people I see doing this at lights don't, they don't dismount, or they don't push it carefully, most plain and simple ride up onto the pavement and rejoin the road on the other side

it's safe enough and not against the law so fine, what could be wrong with that?