Red Light Jumping

[apollo179]

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.

 

[Moderators]

This thread will remain unlocked as long as posters can remain civil with each other. Debate the issue, but don't make it personal.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525783"]
We've done this, and the thread was closed because it got personal. You know the reasons some don't agree with you, so I don't understand why you're dragging it up again.
[/quote]

Because the previous topic started an interesting discussion concerning the rlj issue but unfortunately had to be closed.
That is not reason for you to forbid discussing the issue.
The previous thread offered no valid reason why the legality of rlj should not be reconsidered under appropriate circumstances.
Like the part time lights they have abroad for example.

 

[PK99]

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.

Because the highlighted argument leave it open for other road users to do the same?

 

[apollo179]

Because we know that bit to be unobtainable.

That is a valid point and that should be revised to any reasonable person.
It would be impossible to legislate to everyones preference so we have to to accomodate the perceived best option.

 

[apollo179]

Because the highlighted argument leave it open for other road users to do the same?

Technically not as its just for cyclists and it would not "leave it open for other road users to do the same" but i see your point that theoretically the thinking behind it could be applied to other road users and although i dont really want to get side tracked with other road users i would say that in certain circumstances it might be reasonable to reconsider the rlj / traffic lights issue for all traffic - eg - part time lights like on the continent.
I agree the principal can be applied and does apply to other traffic not just cyclists.
However fundamentally legally a cycle specific change in the law would allow cycles to act as per the ammended law , other traffic would have to act according to the law specific to them.

 

[apollo179]

The best perceived option is that we all stop at red.

Why ?
Or rather why not consider improving our lighting arrangements so that many cyclists are not criminalised unnecessarily ?

 

[Alun]

The best perceived option is that we all stop at red.

+1

 

[steve52]

beond the mentioned mantra, is a area that is jut fantasy and there can be little reasoned debate, other than why obay any law if breakinging it hurts no one causes no offence to any one ect ect, the next step could be well if i dont get caught it dosent count? we have rules and some breake them it seems to be what humans do

 

[martint235]

Why ?
Or rather why not consider improving our lighting arrangements so that many cyclists are not criminalised unnecessarily ?

They are not criminalised unnecessarily, they are criminalised because they have CHOSEN (and that's an important point) to break the law.



Sent while following my Garmin's instructions

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525794"]
Valid reasons were given which you ignored.

Part time lights do not involve rljing.
[/quote]
You gave the arguement that the reality is that nobody rljs at 2 in the morning on empty roads - that to say you only rlj in acceptable circumstances is disengenuous.
I to a degree agree with you but that does not preclude that some people do only rlj in circumstances where a reasonable judge would consider it safe and ok.
Does anyone have an arguement why rljing is wrong in these circumstances.

 

[apollo179]

Because the RLJing does cause offence, we know this to be a fact. It is pretty much the first observation made about cyclists in any given situation. The short term advantage which you can gain from the practice is outweighed by the greater dis-benefit.

I would suggest that you start a different thread if you want to discuss a different issue. The two things are not linked.

But it seems to me that the only offence that it causes ( in the ok circumstances) is that it breaks the law which is if anything an arguement for reconsidering the rlj issue.

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525797"]
Again, introducing part-time signals has nothing to do with red light jumping.

Would you like to change the thread title?
[/quote]

No because this topic is not part time signals it is about rlj - cyclists judging other cyclists.
Cyclists throwing all rljers in the same basket and judging them and condemning them.
Does anyone have a compelling reason why in circumstances mentioned rlj is wrong , why the issue should not be reviewed.

 

[martint235]

You gave the arguement that the reality is that nobody rljs at 2 in the morning on empty roads - that to say you only rlj in acceptable circumstances is disengenuous.
I to a degree agree with you but that does not preclude that some people do only rlj in circumstances where a reasonable judge would consider it safe and ok.
Does anyone have an arguement why rljing is wrong in these circumstances.

The whole reason for the legal system is that the judgement of individuals will always, at some point, run contrary to what is best for the population as a whole. Once again you're advocating that people should be allowed to, selfishly, choose which laws should apply to them.

Once again, as on other threads, if I walk down the street with a loaded shotgun, no one gets hurt do they? So if I promise not to discharge the shotgun that should be ok? It would make it more convenient for me to get to my shooting club/farm to be able to carry it down the street.

Now you could argue that seeing me walking down the street with a shotgun could alarm some people, cause them to re-evaluate the current risks to themselves. It could perhaps p*** off the owners of handguns who are not allowed to walk down the street with their weapon on show?

Now you could argue that seeing me rljing could alarm some people, cause them to re-evaluate the current risks to themselves. It could perhaps p*** off the car drivers who are not allowed to drive through red lights whatever the circumstances.....

 

[apollo179]

[QUOTE 1525800"]
No I didn't. I said that I didn't believe your claim that you only rlj at completely deserted junctions. Because that's not true.

Anyway, that's about your behaviour, not one of the several arguments against running red lights which you continue to ignore.
[/quote]
Yes - lets not personalise it to me - lets talk in general terms - thanks.
Hearing these reasons referred to repeatedly but never defined.
Can you please give your reason / reasons why beyond the mantra "its against the law therefore its wrong" why rljing is wrong in circumstances where it is safe to cyclist and others and causes offence to no-one.
Thanks in advance.