RLJ cyclist

[GrasB]

I don't RLJ but its not the risk you think it is. Very very few cyclists are actually killed or injured RLJing - more are killed on green by RLJing motor vehicles - and there have been serious suggestions that RLJing is safer than waiting at the lights.

This is personal opinion but some food for thought.

I'm not convinced of the RLJ is safer argument because from my observations women tend to stick to the left hand side of the road much more than men, even when they're presented with an empty ASL. Around people the centre or to the right of the lane in the ASL box at traffic lights are almost exclusively men where as women tend to hang to the left. In addition to this if the feeder lane isn't clear women tend to just queue up on the left of vehicles where as you'll find a noticeable proportion of men will filter through the cars into the ASL box. Both of these things will put women in more vulnerable positions & also put them deeper into HGV blind spots.

Then there's pulling away. Again from my observations men are typically crossing a junction from a stand still much more quickly when the lights turn green than women. This means that men are pulling out of an HGVs blind spots much more quickly than women, secondly it may give an impression to the HGV driver than the space in front of their vehicle has cleared when actually it hasn't.

 

[gaz]

I agree but I couldn't think of a better way of putting it. I was trying to imply no blame to the cyclist but also no blame to the driver.

They filter past the lorry which was at the lights first and they stop in the asl at the front, as they should.
That asl however is strangely the same shape as the blind spot of a hgv.

That puts the blame on the asl. Who campaigned for those?

 

[Davidc]

The only safe policy with large vehicles is not to try to go round them, beside them, or anywhere else the driver may fail to see you.

Yes - it means that even on a bike you get delayed by traffic. I'd rather put up with that than risk being squashed.

In London my last efffort on a Boris Bike was 3 weeks ago at around 5 pm, and I probably took an extra 10 minutes from near the O2 to near Paddington making sure I was out of harm's way. Overall I estimated that about 1/3 of cyclists I saw at red lights RLJd and most were of the warrior type. The numbers of busses and taxis running lights was probably higher, mainly carrying on during the 5 seconds or so after the red or starting off before their lights had changed from red to red/amber.

Everything I see in London reinforces my opinion that the best thing to do most of the time is to just stop with the other traffic.

I don't think cycling in traffic is any more or less dangerous than cycling anywhere else. Just different. It requires a different type of riding and awareness from cycling down an open road, and London is different from smaller cities. I learned to ride on roads in London which may help me.

I find London much better for cycling now than I used to in the past, and the period during which it was IMO most dangerous with the worst driver behaviour was during the mid 1970s to mid 1980s, however I unfortunately don't have any casualty statistics to back that up.

 

[Red Light]

They filter past the lorry which was at the lights first and they stop in the asl at the front, as they should.
That asl however is strangely the same shape as the blind spot of a hgv.

That puts the blame on the asl. Who campaigned for those?

Not only is the ASL the shape of the blind spot, you are also encouraged to cycle up the inside of waiting lorries by using the feeder lane as the only legal way into the ASL.

It is very noticeable though just how disproportionately dangerous lorries are in London. Other large vehicles - buses, coaches - don't seem to have the same problem as lorry drivers. Lorries are less than 5% of the vehicles on London's road but responsible for over half the cyclist deaths.

 

[gaz]

Not only is the ASL the shape of the blind spot, you are also encouraged to cycle up the inside of waiting lorries by using the feeder lane as the only legal way into the ASL.

It is very noticeable though just how disproportionately dangerous lorries are in London. Other large vehicles - buses, coaches - don't seem to have the same problem as lorry drivers. Lorries are less than 5% of the vehicles on London's road but responsible for over half the cyclist deaths.

A big factor is driver position.

 

[jefmcg]

But in the TfL study they were major junctions on major routes ...

This is the trick. Major junctions on major routes have lots of traffic. People are less likely to RLJ when there are cars bearing down on them. Most of the RLJ I see are on quieter intersections and at pedestrian crossings.

I'd say 16% through Holborn Circus would be about right. Other intersections, more like 80%.

 

[Furkz]

i dont RLJ but so what if someone did, is a vid really necessary

 

[Browser]

(1) And yet London is one of the safest cities to cycle in (providing you are respectful of HGVs) and has masses of cyclists these days. There are more cyclists crossing the bridges into Central London in peak hours now than cars and stopped at lights on Millbank the other day I did a count and there were twice as many bikes as cars waiting for the lights.

(2) I don't RLJ but its not the risk you think it is. Very very few cyclists are actually killed or injured RLJing - more are killed on green by RLJing motor vehicles - and there have been serious suggestions that RLJing is safer than waiting at the lights.

Why is it that people have this urge to massively inflate the dangers of cycling be it just cycling or RLJing or pavement cycling or ........

I wasn't inflating the dangers, just trying to point out that if you deliberately expose yourself to more potential harm than is strictly necessary it seems to defy logic.
ANyway, I'm just a country-bumpkin Fen boy, who's pleasure at whatever activity he is indulging himself in in Londinium is always tempered by a growing need to get the hell out of the place and back to the tranquility of the small village he lives in
I RLJ on occasion near work becasue the bloody inductive loops don't detect my bike, but it's always when the junction is deserted.

 

[Dan B]

Having driven into London yesterday (well, Brent/Wembley anyway, s'all the same innit? )

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.

 

[Riding in Circles]

RLJ'ers are a minority and in general get away with it both in terms of safety and in terms of legality, however what they do do is spoil it for the rest of us who get tarred with their brush.

 

[gaz]

Some say that if they didn't rlj then those that 'hate' us will just find something else to 'paint' us with.

 

[Red Light]

Some say that if they didn't rlj then those that 'hate' us will just find something else to 'paint' us with.

They've already found it. Several "its" actually. The clothing we wear, one way streets, pavements, being on the road, not paying road tax, not being insured..........most of which are impervious to the facts too.

 

[Red Light]

I wasn't inflating the dangers, just trying to point out that if you deliberately expose yourself to more potential harm than is strictly necessary it seems to defy logic.

Really?

[quote name = 'Browser]Anyone who RLJs in a big city is certifiable and needs to be locked up for their own good!
Not big, not clever, the pink squashy thing on the bike will always lose out to the pink squashy thing in a tonne-plus of metal, plastic and rubber![/quote]

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.

 

[GrasB]

Some say that if they didn't rlj then those that 'hate' us will just find something else to 'paint' us with.

True, however if the 'paint' they're using doesn't have a legal stand point it's harder to make a real case with.

 

[Jezston]

Some say that if they didn't rlj then those that 'hate' us will just find something else to 'paint' us with.

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.