Jumping red lights

[Angelfishsolo]

They can't, especially big bikes like Fireblades. The gaps are generally too narrow to get a motorbike through and they are too unmanoeuvrable to thread through the traffic (which is where small wheeled Bromptons are so good). You often see them though stopped at a gap they can't get through and blocking cyclists who can.

Should make little difference though as one jam leads to another (as you say).

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Do keep up at the back AFS - I gave it way back up there ^ in the thread.

I know, I was waiting for those figures to be rolled out yet again.

 

[Red Light]

How many of you are adequately insured so that in the (what seems to be likely) event that you do cause an accident by RLJing, you would be able to cover the injury claim from that paraplegic motorcyclist that came off and hit the lampost without paying for it for the rest of your days after he's sued you and won?

Most of us. The risk is so low that even those notoriously mean actuaries at the insurance companies allow it to be thrown in for free with all home insurance policies. Many more of us have duplicate insurance, again thrown in for free, as part of membership of cycling clubs like the CTC. In fact I suspect there may be fewer uninsured cyclists than drivers - 13% in London. Next?

 

[Red Light]

I know, I was waiting for those figures to be rolled out yet again.

Yeah, sure you were, which is why you said

Pulls up chair and waits for statistical proof that RLJing is safe on a bicycle.

You could be a little less blatant about it.

 

[Red Light]

Should make little difference though as one jam leads to another (as you say).

Not for cyclists, jams are pretty permeable to a cyclist.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Yeah, sure you were, which is why you said



You could be a little less blatant about it.

Why?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Not for cyclists, jams are pretty permeable to a cyclist.

As are red lights is seems!

 

[rowan 46]

Should make little difference though as one jam leads to another (as you say).

Youv'e been in london and you know what it's like in the rush hour are you really suggesting it's one steady FLOW of traffic. My experience didn't find it to be so.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Youv'e been in london and you know what it's like in the rush hour are you really suggesting it's one steady FLOW of traffic. My experience didn't find it to be so.

No I'm not. Red Light is.


Red Light Posted Today, 13:21:10

• 
• Senior Member

• 
• 

• Posts: 1,454
• Joined: 09-April 11

Dan B, on 13 August 2011 - 13:08:45, said:

This again is demonstrably untrue, at least in zone 1. Motorists in London - or at least those motorists without great big dents in their vehicles - expect to frequently and regularly encounter cyclists, pedestrians, buses, traffic queues, U-turning taxis and all classes of imbecile in the road. If you don't have the skills to ride safely and anticipate hazards in a complex environment, don't expect much sympathy for the excuse that you "shouldn't have to"


2. All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue.

 

[Red Light]

I would argue that whilst those doing 40 in a 30 are still alive their ability to calculate self preservation is very good. When it comes to risk involving others then we are not so good.

People used to justify their drunk driving like that and still justify their driving while on the phone like that. Its because they are one of the 86% of drivers who think their driving is better than average - its known as illusory superiority.

The problem is they may still be alive in their steel cocoons but the survival chances of anyone they do hit are far lower at 40mph than 30mph. Still as Strawman says, that's their lookout, not yours.

 

[rowan 46]

2. "All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue."
I understood that to mean that there is no point speeding as It will not improve your journey time

 

[Red Light]

No I'm not. Red Light is.


Dan B, on 13 August 2011 - 13:08:45, said:

This again is demonstrably untrue, at least in zone 1. Motorists in London - or at least those motorists without great big dents in their vehicles - expect to frequently and regularly encounter cyclists, pedestrians, buses, traffic queues, U-turning taxis and all classes of imbecile in the road. If you don't have the skills to ride safely and anticipate hazards in a complex environment, don't expect much sympathy for the excuse that you "shouldn't have to"


2. All that slowing down does is delays your getting to the back of the next traffic queue.

I've put a hint in there for the hard of understanding.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I've put a hint in there for the hard of understanding.

Motorists or not by saying one jam leads to another you are implying a steady flow of traffic.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

People used to justify their drunk driving like that and still justify their driving while on the phone like that. Its because they are one of the 86% of drivers who think their driving is better than average - its known as illusory superiority.

The problem is they may still be alive in their steel cocoons but the survival chances of anyone they do hit are far lower at 40mph than 30mph. Still as Strawman says, that's their lookout, not yours.

It is in no way a justification but as they are alive it does imply their risk assessment to be valid.

 

[rowan 46]

Motorists or not by saying one jam leads to another you are implying a steady flow of traffic.

It seems to me to be quite the contrary