RLJ cyclist

[gaz]

I might speculate that most people don't have strong opinions either way about cyclists, but if they were to regularly witness cyclists jumping red lights, and perhaps if they were involved in an incident where they had to make an emergency stop because of a cyclist jumping the lights, and perhaps if the cyclist then gave them grief in return, they might develop a negative view of cyclists.

My comment is not in reference to most people, only those that seek a reason to hate us.

 

[Jezston]

Not saying it isn't, was just saying.

There are some who've commented in the past that jumping the red lights doesn't make people hate cyclists, those people hate cyclists anyway, and if everyone stopped RLJing they'd still hate us, so carry on. My thoughts are that perhaps if people didn't do it there wouldn't be as many people who do.

 

[Red Light]

I might speculate that most people don't have strong opinions either way about cyclists, but if they were to regularly witness cyclists jumping red lights, and perhaps if they were involved in an incident where they had to make an emergency stop because of a cyclist jumping the lights, and perhaps if the cyclist then gave them grief in return, they might develop a negative view of cyclists.

In regard of that other heinous cycling crime, cycling in pedestrianised areas, TRL583 found in a survey of pedestrians that cyclists were rarely mentioned as a problem until prompted by the researcher. So I suspect most people don't care period and what we see is the result of a small number of people with an agenda or deep seated personal problems. And those people are impervious to any reality. A few get really worked up about the dangers of cyclists in pedestrian areas and yet TRL583 found:

"Accidents between pedestrians and cyclists were very rarely generated in pedestrianised areas (only one pedestrian/cyclist accident in 15 site years) in the sites studied."

 

[Browser]

Well, no, it isn't the same really. The parts of London with lots of cyclists are by and large the centre, where congestion limits average vehicle speeds significantly. Cycling around zone 1 is a very very different experience from cycling around the North Circ.

Note to self, when you're being sarcastic and taking the mick out of the perceived attitude of Londoners towards the rest of the country (Pe'erbara'? Well 'ass 'aap Nawf innit) I really must make sure others know I'm doing it (I thought the smiley was the giveaway, sorry!)

 

[Tynan]

on my route I'd say something like 75% rlj

possibly more than that

 

[Browser]

Really?

Yes, really, I believe in common parlance what we have here is opposing (or at least sharply diverging) viewpoints. In my case it probably stems from my job which is steeped in Health & Safety, Permit for Work systems. Risk assessments etc and I'm afraid I tend to apply that thinking in most areas of my life.
Hazard = something with the potential to cause harm.
Risk = the liklihood of that harm occurring.
Here, the hazard is other traffic using the junction and the risk is that when the character in the vid RLJ'd he was increasing the liklihood of an accident, even if he could clearly see what was coming.

And anyway, by far the greatest potential harm comes from not cycling; the health benefits of cycling outweighing the risks by 20:1 with cyclist RLJing responsible for <2% of cyclist deaths in London. So according to your criteria not cycling in London defies logic yet you seem to be promoting not cycling as the sane option.

No,either I was not clear enough or you are deliberately mis-quoting me. RLJing in a big city is certifiable, due to the increased liklihood of harm occurring as a direct result of the greater volume of traffic and it's relatively higher speed when compared to, say, a busy day in the village I live in.
I don't see how I am promoting not cycling, please explain?

 

[Dan B]

. RLJing in a big city is certifiable, due to the increased liklihood of harm occurring as a direct result of the greater volume of traffic and it's relatively higher speed when compared to, say, a busy day in the village I live in.

Motor traffic in the parts of London I ride through regularly (zone 1) is averaging 10-12mph with peaks to 20. How did you manage to slow the cars in your village down so much further, men with red flags?

(This is what I meant about Brent not being London: it's not a geography thing, it's an environmental thing. Your observations of the provinces are correct, but if we're talking about the parts of London where cycling - and RLJing - are widespread/endemic, it's not at all the same and we should be careful about blanket statements like that)

 

[Red Light]

Yes, really, I believe in common parlance what we have here is opposing (or at least sharply diverging) viewpoints. In my case it probably stems from my job which is steeped in Health & Safety, Permit for Work systems. Risk assessments etc and I'm afraid I tend to apply that thinking in most areas of my life.
Hazard = something with the potential to cause harm.
Risk = the liklihood of that harm occurring.
Here, the hazard is other traffic using the junction and the risk is that when the character in the vid RLJ'd he was increasing the liklihood of an accident, even if he could clearly see what was coming.

So come on, what is the measured risk of RLJing? How much do they actually increase the likelihood of an accident if they RLJ? Or are you doing the classic Elfin Safety risk assessment based on an evidence free personal guess?

No,either I was not clear enough or you are deliberately mis-quoting me. RLJing in a big city is certifiable, due to the increased liklihood of harm occurring as a direct result of the greater volume of traffic and it's relatively higher speed when compared to, say, a busy day in the village I live in.
I don't see how I am promoting not cycling, please explain?

Again, evidence? Is everything that increases the likelihood of harm certifiable? If not, how much does the risk have to increase before it becomes certifiable in your opinion?

 

[Browser]

Something tells me that the (possibly) glib and facetious use of the word 'certifiable' in my original statement to illustrate the mental processes of the cyclist execusting the less-than-well-thought-out manouvre of RLJ-ing at what looked in the vid to be a well-trafficked junction has been taken entirely too seriously by one or two contributors to this thread.
So, please allow me to backtrack.
Anyone who RLJs could do with taking a long-hard look at their actions and asking themselves whether the tiny fraction of time and effort they save by not stopping at a red traffic light is worth the increased risk of them having an RTC after so doing.
In addition, having driven through Brent recently, which although part of Greater London is not part of the City Of London and therefore does not find itself burdened with the same volume of daily traffic and exact same set of road conditions, I was reminded that there are parts of the world which differ so radically from my own regular commute route that the thought of having to cycle through them rather than my own quiet rural roads fills me with utter dread.
Hopefully this will clarify my opinions on the original subject of this thread. Personal opinions expressed and joking comments about the mental state of big city commuters really shouldn't be taken as seriously as they have been here, that's why there was a smiley in my original post as they are used on internet forums to replace facial expressions and indicate the posters feelings.

Again, evidence? Is everything that increases the likelihood of harm certifiable? If not, how much does the risk have to increase before it becomes certifiable in your opinion?

As to this, RLJ-ing by it's very nature caries a measure of risk. Anyone who knowingly increases the liklihood of harm coming to their person through deliberate action on their part might possibly be securely accused of 'not being the full shilling'?


(hope I've put enough smileys in this time! )

p.s. I never risk assess based on an evidence-free personal guess as sadly, other people throughout all walks of life continue to provide all the evidence I need

 

[Red Light]

Anyone who RLJs could do with taking a long-hard look at their actions and asking themselves whether the tiny fraction of time and effort they save by not stopping at a red traffic light is worth the increased risk of them having an RTC after so doing.

What is the increased risk? Please make sure you quantify the net risk change when answering i.e the risk of RLJing netted off with the risk of waiting at the light. An internal TfL report in 2007 concluded that female cyclists were far more likely to be killed by lorries than men because they waited by the lorry rather than red light jumping, lorries being the major cause of cyclist deaths in London. I don't red light jump but I find no evidence that there is an increased risk and some that there is a decreased risk.

In addition, having driven through Brent recently, which although part of Greater London is not part of the City Of London and therefore does not find itself burdened with the same volume of daily traffic and exact same set of road conditions, I was reminded that there are parts of the world which differ so radically from my own regular commute route that the thought of having to cycle through them rather than my own quiet rural roads fills me with utter dread.

That's an issue of familiarity rather actual risk. As noted earlier, you are generally safer cycling in London because of the low traffic speeds and safety in numbers effect.

As to this, RLJ-ing by it's very nature caries a measure of risk. Anyone who knowingly increases the liklihood of harm coming to their person through deliberate action on their part might possibly be securely accused of 'not being the full shilling'?

So if the TfL report is right would you agree that anyone who does not RLJ is "not being the full shilling"? Would you like some smileys with that?

p.s. I never risk assess based on an evidence-free personal guess as sadly, other people throughout all walks of life continue to provide all the evidence I need

You mean you base it on anecdote?

 

[Mad at urage]

As to this, RLJ-ing by it's very nature caries a measure of risk. Anyone who knowingly increases the liklihood of harm coming to their person through deliberate action on their part might possibly be securely accused of 'not being the full shilling'?


(hope I've put enough smileys in this time! )

p.s. I never risk assess based on an evidence-free personal guess as sadly, other people throughout all walks of life continue to provide all the evidence I need

Stopping at red lights carries a measure of risk too - sometimes demonstrably more than RLJing (yes, I've been driven into at red lights and been told "I didn't think you were stopping") and so we are back to this: http://www.timesonli...icle1695668.ece .

Perhaps anyone stopping at a red light might similarly be accused of "not being the full shilling"?



Edit: RL got there first and more fully, but at least I added more smilies

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

I use CS3. There is one set of lights there that is button activated. The sequence is looonnnng. I'd say 10 cyclists go through on average while I wait for a green. Maybe one other cyclist waits.

Sometimes I walk across and remount on the other side.

I assume this is the one on Cable Street by the now closed Crown & Dolphin. The only annoying thing about this junction is that the cyclist light is missed out if the button isnt pressed and many cyclist just sit there without pressing the button.

I always slow down or quicken up so that I meet the lights at the perfect time.

 

[Red Light]

Edit: RL got there first and more fully, but at least I added more smilies

Not by the time I've edited my post to add smilies you won't have

Are smilies the forum equivalent of the hazard lights on a BMW? There to indicate the owner is doing something stoopid but expecting to get away with it?

 

[Dan B]

Anyone who RLJs could do with taking a long-hard look at their actions and asking themselves whether the tiny fraction of time and effort they save by not stopping at a red traffic light is worth the increased risk of them having an RTC after so doing.

But let's face it, the risk of an RTC when RLJing is no greater[*] than the risk to a pedestrian of crossing against the lights in the same situation, and while I don't know what the absolute statistics are, the general perception is that crossing the road when nothing's coming is, given basic training in the "green cross code" or similar, of negligible risk.

[*] add for the extra instability of being on two wheels instead of on feet, subtract for the reduced exposure time as cyclists will probably clear the junction faster than walkers. My guess is it comes out in the wash.

 

[Dan B]

hazard lights on a BMW

As I understand it, hazard lights on a BMW are included as a diagnostic function to check the bulbs still work, as the indicators are not required at any other time.