RLJ cyclist

[Bicycle]

I am not entirely guilt-free historically in the matter of RLJ-type activities, but I have improved recently...

I was riding in London at the weekend with three or four pals, most of whom were RLJ-ing a lot.

The massively negative response they were generating from pedestrians, drivers and other cyclists was striking.

At each red light, one heard muttered oaths and pejoratives (usually of an onanistic nature) from quite a few people. Cumulatively, this will not make the roads a happier place for cyclists.

I'm not 100% clean myself, but I do think some cyclists are quite unaware of the bad press that Johnny RLJ creates for himself and his two-wheeled peers.

I do think that in some ways a few cyclists generate much of the bad press that tars all cyclists.

Similarly, one of our party was a 'shouter'. Almost willing vehicles to turn across him so he could try out new insults. Bizarrely, the rest of us were not turned across as much as he was. When you're looking for bad blood and confrontation, it's there.

I see that in one or two (by no means all) of the posted footage from Messrs Helmet,Cam & Attitude.

Some Helmetcammery is quite excellent, but a minority of it is just a tame, lazy, middle-class version of starting a fight in a bar because you're bored.

 

[gaz]

Similarly, one of our party was a 'shouter'. Almost willing vehicles to turn across him so he could try out new insults. Bizarrely, the rest of us were not turned across as much as he was. When you're looking for bad blood and confrontation, it's there.

I see that in one or two (by no means all) of the posted footage from Messrs Helmet,Cam & Attitude.

Some Helmetcammery is quite excellent, but a minority of it is just a tame, lazy, middle-class version of starting a fight in a bar because you're bored.

so you are saying that some users of cameras purposefully let people drive dangerously around them so they can shout at them?

Show us some examples and name some names.

 

[Browser]

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.

Since I'm being panned for it so much, evidence please? I am aware that some myopic tailgate-addict drivers might run the risk of hitting you if you stop for traffic lights as they 'didn't realise ou were stopping' but I know you'll get much more sympathy from the great unwashed and from the forces of law and order if you are struck whilst stationary instead of struck whilst jumping a red light, which is an offence if I'm not mistaken?

 

[Browser]

There to indicate the owner is doing something stoopid but expecting to get away with it?

Not as far as I'm aware. All of the other forums I visit use smilies to indicate mood, so a statement/comment/reply which without smilies could cause offence has it's tone changed to one of sarcasm, jokey non-serious comment or other similar meanings.
I presume you to mean that you think the above statement quantifies what I was doing with my original post?

 

[Bicycle]

so you are saying that some users of cameras purposefully let people drive dangerously around them so they can about at them?

Show us some examples and name some names.

Errr... No, I'm not saying that. I don't even think I'm implying it.

I'm not even sure how a cyclist would be able to 'purposefully let people drive dangerously'.

Maybe Harry Potter and his fictional chums have a spell for that, but i doubt it.

I think many, many people know a cyclist who seems to get into more confrontational situations than his or her peers. I was reflecting on that.

I think also that many of us occasionally see a little Helmetcammery that appears to fit the description 'something out of nothing'.

I was highly complimentary elsewhere in my post about most Helmetcammery. I do not use a camera myself but I can see the good that can come out of it.

I appear to have caused offence. If so I apologise.

 

[Red Light]

Not as far as I'm aware. All of the other forums I visit use smilies to indicate mood, so a statement/comment/reply which without smilies could cause offence has it's tone changed to one of sarcasm, jokey non-serious comment or other similar meanings.
I presume you to mean that you think the above statement quantifies what I was doing with my original post?

Ah, I see. So everything you've said about RLJers being certifiable and putting themselves at risk was being sarcastic and what you actually meant was its a sensible low risk thing to do. In that case I think we can agree.

 

[Red Light]

Since I'm being panned for it so much, evidence please?

Ah, no. You can't demand evidence unless you have provided evidence yourself. And so far I've not seen any from you, just belief and personal opinion.

The evidence by the way you have asked for is the unpublished 2007 TfL report that has been much cited by the BBC, Time, Evening Standard etc. that concluded you are in greater danger waiting at the lights than crossing on a red. Plus the evidence that fifty percent more cyclists are killed by RLJing motor vehicles while crossing on a green as are killed RLJing themselves, the numbers in both cases being extremely low.

 

[Dan B]

Since I'm being panned for it so much, evidence please? I am aware that some myopic tailgate-addict drivers might run the risk of hitting you if you stop for traffic lights as they 'didn't realise ou were stopping' but I know you'll get much more sympathy from the great unwashed and from the forces of law and order if you are struck whilst stationary instead of struck whilst jumping a red light, which is an offence if I'm not mistaken?

It makes little difference to the risk of being struck by a car whether or not you subsequently get sympathy or get prosecuted: you're just as struck either way. I don't have any evidence for the relative risks of doing it by bike or by foot, as I already said, but since your speed is approximately the same (maybe a bit higher on a bike?) and your visibility is approximately the same (maybe you're a bit bigger on a bike?) and your inherent stability is approximately the same (maybe a bit less on a bike?) I can't see why it would be so much riskier. Can you?

I don't really have an awful lot of sympathy for the "might get hit by tailgaters if you don't stop" argument: it's never happened to me yet, so I don't think it's common enough to be worth basing a road safety strategy around. I just don't see any obvious reason that RLJing should be intrinsically more dangerous than entering a "give way" junction, or getting off and wheeling the bike, or being a pedestrian in the first place and walking across the road. Which is not an argument for doing it - there are other considerations than safety which should be considered - it's just that "safety" seems to me to be a non-argument either way

 

[Browser]

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.

The increased risk, in my view, is the greater liklihood of the hazard, in this case a moving vehicle (most likely accellerating away from the traffic lights), hitting the cyclist who should not have been where he/she was as he/she should have stopped at the red light and waited.
Theoretically, the driver of said vehicle will most likely not be looking for joining traffic at a light-controlled junction and so may take a fraction longer to react than they would if ther wer, for instance, approaching a non-light-controlled junction where they would be (possibly) more aware of traffic joining from intersecting roads.

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.

But, as was so very correctly pointed out earlier by Dan B, Brent isn't London, just the same as Handsworth isn't Birmingham, Wallsend isn't Newcastle, Clifton isn't Bristol etc, so it can't be compared like for like. From what I saw, I'd estimate that traffic was, in the main, moving at the posted speed limit, and there was quite a high density of it too.
Besides which, 'you are generally safer cycling in London' is a rather sweeping statement. Per total number of cyclists in London each day vs total number of cyclists in the UK each day (using the roads) are there more or less cyclists injured/killed in London than elsewhere in the British Isles? Are the circumstances of each accident wildly different or very similar?

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?

No, because I seriously doubt that TFL in all of it's wisdom would advocate RLJ-ing, or are you implying that they do?
Debate the pros and cons all you like, but under the current rules & regs jumping a red light is an offence and should be strongly discouraged. As another poster has put, watch the reactions of peds & motorists if you do it. At the very least it gives the anti-cyclist brigade ammo, doesn't it?

You mean you base it on anecdote?

Which meaning?
an·ec·dote/ˈanikˌdōt/Noun1. A short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.2. An account regarded as unreliable or hearsay.

Genrally when I carry out a pre-work risk assessment I look (physically) at the location/task/work being assessed, make a list of hazards, assess their liklihood of occurring and identify control measures, e.g.
Work location - busbars charged to 3,300 volts.
Hazard - high-voltage electricity
Probability of harm - Very high.
Control Measure - isolate electrically before work commences.

Similarly on a bicycle;

Location - approaching a four-way traffic-light controlled junction, lights turning red for me, vehicles visible on both crossing lanes waiting for green.
Hazard - moving vehicle.
Probability of harm - Very high.
Control measure - stop and wait at red light until it goes out and green light is lit, then proceed.
If you are worried about being struck from behind, perform a shoulder check on your approach to said lights so the driver of any following vehicle is aware that you are aware they are there and can take whatever action you deem appropriate.

 

[gaz]

Errr... No, I'm not saying that. I don't even think I'm implying it.

I'm not even sure how a cyclist would be able to 'purposefully let people drive dangerously'.

Maybe Harry Potter and his fictional chums have a spell for that, but i doubt it.

I think many, many people know a cyclist who seems to get into more confrontational situations than his or her peers. I was reflecting on that.

I think also that many of us occasionally see a little Helmetcammery that appears to fit the description 'something out of nothing'.

I was highly complimentary elsewhere in my post about most Helmetcammery. I do not use a camera myself but I can see the good that can come out of it.

I appear to have caused offence. If so I apologise.

I thought you were linking what your mate did to your final statement, my mistake.

I agree about the something out of nothing. Sometimes it looks very different on camera to how it felt at the time. The little things can sometimes not worth posting as they are devalue your other contents.

 

[Browser]

Ah, I see. So everything you've said about RLJers being certifiable and putting themselves at risk was being sarcastic and what you actually meant was its a sensible low risk thing to do. In that case I think we can agree.

Nope, I meant that the use of the word 'certifiable' was sarcastic as that implies a properly-qualified medical professional would be able to diagnose you as clinically insane, which is an over-exagerration in this case. It doesn not, however, change my opinion which is what I originally expressed, that RLJ-ing is, by and large (and there are always exceptional circumstances, see one of my posts where I admit to occasionally doing it myself at a specific location) foolish given the evidence we were at the start i.e. the video of the cyclist.
I was, I will admit, expressing a certain amount of anti-Greater London bias in my statement as I would not want to cycle-commute in that or any other large city, preferring the quiet of the rual roads I am fortunate to be able to use.