RLJ 'er

[vickster]

Not just Cocks but magenta Cocks

@Fnaar and his purple helmet!

 

[Absinthe Minded]

Not just Cocks but magenta Cocks

Sorry, you've lost me.

 

[ozboz]

Highway code Rules for Cyclists ,
Rule 69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

 

[Markymark]

Cyclist who jump lights are massive idiots. Drivers have an obligation to be careful not to kill anyone including massive idiots.

 

[Markymark]

Sorry, you've lost me.

Think he's referring to your irritating habit of a pale font. It's harder to read when scanning quickly as the contrast is reduced so I usually ignore your posts.

 

[martint235]

Oh, a cyclist going through a red light is a dangerous idiot. A driver going across a junction without slowing slightly and being prepared to stop whilst checking it is clear is a more dangerous idiot.

Oh, a driver does have a legal obligation to only proceed through a junction if the way is clear.

RLJing cyclists are dangerous, they aren't just some benign form of stupidity. Being hit by a 200lb cyclist going at 15mph won't hurt as much as being hit by a car but it'll still hurt and could do real damage.

There is a tendency when discussing RLJing to almost excuse cyclists doing it because it's not as bad as a car doing it.

 

[Markymark]

RLJing cyclists are dangerous, they aren't just some benign form of stupidity. Being hit by a 200lb cyclist going at 15mph won't hurt as much as being hit by a car but it'll still hurt and could do real damage.

There is a tendency when discussing RLJing to almost excuse cyclists doing it because it's not as bad as a car doing it.

I am not disputing that. A cyclist is a dangerous idiot who does it.

However when driving a car you also have a responsibility not to hit and kill dangerous idiots. You often find them around junctions (pedestrians, cyclists and other cars). Therefore when driving and approaching a junction you should slow a little and only proceed if it is clear of dangerous idiots.

As an individual I am much more fearful of dangerous idiots in cars at junctions as they are bigger, faster and heavier. The stats of who is injured shows this as correct. Cars kill and injure far more than cyclists. That's why they face greater restrictions.

 

[nickyboy]

Nope. At a junction, slow a little and be prepared to stop.

I'd like to clarify this a bit with you if you don't mind?

So I am driving my car in a 30 zone and approach a crossroads with a set of traffic lights. The way ahead is clear and the lights are on green. They remain on green and I pass through the lights.

In those circumstances I'd probably slow down a bit approaching the lights in case they change to red. Let's say 20-25mph. But I wouldn't go any slower than that. I would definitely not go so slowly that, in the event of some vehicle jumping the red light, I'd be able to stop. I wouldn't see that vehicle until a few seconds before so I guess I'd have to pass through the junction at, say, 10mph

So, in a 30 zone what sort of speed are you advocating a driver proceed through a green light? I appreciate it depends on circumstances but perhaps a range may help me to understand your thinking

 

[Racing roadkill]

I'd like to clarify this a bit with you if you don't mind?

So I am driving my car in a 30 zone and approach a crossroads with a set of traffic lights. The way ahead is clear and the lights are on green. They remain on green and I pass through the lights.

In those circumstances I'd probably slow down a bit approaching the lights in case they change to red. Let's say 20-25mph. But I wouldn't go any slower than that. I would definitely not go so slowly that, in the event of some vehicle jumping the red light, I'd be able to stop. I wouldn't see that vehicle until a few seconds before so I guess I'd have to pass through the junction at, say, 10mph

So, in a 30 zone what sort of speed are you advocating a driver proceed through a green light? I appreciate it depends on circumstances but perhaps a range may help me to understand your thinking

20 is plenty, ( so I'm told ).

 

[martint235]

My driving instructor years ago used to say, 'What's the only thing that can change about a green light?' You should approach them bearing in mind that the lights could suddenly change to red, in other words be prepared to stop. Whatever speed would allow you to do that safely in the space between you and the lights, that's the speed you should be doing.

I heard similar from an advanced driving instructor years ago. He said the only colour light where you shouldn't be preparing to stop is red when you should be stopped already.

 

[Markymark]

I'd like to clarify this a bit with you if you don't mind?

So I am driving my car in a 30 zone and approach a crossroads with a set of traffic lights. The way ahead is clear and the lights are on green. They remain on green and I pass through the lights.

In those circumstances I'd probably slow down a bit approaching the lights in case they change to red. Let's say 20-25mph. But I wouldn't go any slower than that. I would definitely not go so slowly that, in the event of some vehicle jumping the red light, I'd be able to stop. I wouldn't see that vehicle until a few seconds before so I guess I'd have to pass through the junction at, say, 10mph

So, in a 30 zone what sort of speed are you advocating a driver proceed through a green light? I appreciate it depends on circumstances but perhaps a range may help me to understand your thinking

It would depend on how hazardous the junction is. If it seems clear all around, then yes, a very little. If it;s busy and other vehicles are making it harder to see, then more. If there's lots of pedestrians around, again, a bit more. There's no fixed amount to slow but the more hazardous it is (reduced visibility and increase of the vulnerable) the more you should slow.

At a speed of 20mph (9 m/s) the braking distance is12m (inlcuding thinking time). This translates to 2.5s to stop (if my sums are correct). In reality, paying atatention and better brakes these days, it's probably less than 2s

 

[rugby bloke]

Sorry, I'm struggling here ... why are we debating the intricacies of what the OP was doing when the issue is red light jumping ?

 

[nickyboy]

It would depend on how hazardous the junction is. If it seems clear all around, then yes, a very little. If it;s busy and other vehicles are making it harder to see, then more. If there's lots of pedestrians around, again, a bit more. There's no fixed amount to slow but the more hazardous it is (reduced visibility and increase of the vulnerable) the more you should slow.

At a speed of 20mph (9 m/s) the braking distance is12m (inlcuding thinking time). This translates to 2.5s to stop (if my sums are correct). In reality, paying atatention and better brakes these days, it's probably less than 2s

Agree that busy traffic lights with pedestrians etc, you slow down more. But a bog standard crossroads, if I go through at 20, I'm going to struggle to stop in the event I see a RLJ out of the corner of my eye. I suspect for that to actually work you have to be slower still. I wonder, at a practical level, what proportion of drivers slow to that extent? I bet it's tiny...I certainly don't

Your calcs are close, it's 2 2/3 seconds. I; assume your error is down to being a Londoner where everything seems faster than here in the provinces

 

[nickyboy]

You're right, unfortunately. Most people are rushing to get through the lights before they change and hold them up for a moment or two on their seriously important journeys. Which is exactly the opposite of what people should be doing to ensure the safety of all of us, idiots or not.

I think it's down to the perceived risk of a RLJ. I'm my gazillion years of driving I've never experienced someone RLJ as I pass through on green (be it a vehicle or a bicycle). As such it isn't a risk I even think about and so I don't slow down appreciably.

Pedestrians looking like they're going to make a dash for it, that's quite a different matter. Plenty of lemmings around here

 

[rugby bloke]

Because the OP said that if he hadn't been going slowly he would have hit the cyclist. Which implies that the cyclist was lucky, because normally the OP wouldn't have been going so slowly. HTH.

Not sure it implies that at all. The speed that the OP may or may not normally drive through the lights is completely irrelevant. The point is that due to the traffic conditions the cyclist was lucky this time. If there is an implication to be made it is that sooner or later that luck is going to run out. There will be a body in a hospital bed or worse still on a slab and some poor sod living with the trauma of knocking the cyclist off his bike.