RLJ-ing: A Minority Pastime?

[benb]

If you are going to grade them then I would offer that driving after 3 pints carries the same risk as bike RLJ and car RLJ. I'm sure all perpetrators will say they've done it carefully, no one will get hurt etc etc.

What the perpetrators say is irrelevant. What are the actual consequences?
You would be wrong. Drink drivers and car RLJs kill and seriously injure many times more people than cyclist RLJs. A cyclist RLJ is very unlikely to KSI anyone, including themselves.

I'm not defending drink driving in any way I'm just saying that at 3 pints it's criminal as is entering the ASZ illegally (and I still maintain the ASZ is of no practical use and should be done away with) and RLJing. Your view of whether or not the law regarding ASZ is stupid and dangerous (I don't see how it is dangerous as you're not compelled to use the ASZ) is irrelevant. It's the law and as discussed we shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which ones we obey.

I would disagree, and say that if a law is more dangerous to comply with than to obey, we have every right to disregard it. You are not compelled to use the ASZ, but if you want to, and want to comply with the law, you are forced to cycle in a dangerous manner. Therefore the law is stupid and dangerous and we should ignore it.

Just to put the cat among the pigeons I would also offer that our justice system has a degree of how sorry the person is for the crime they've committed and I'd say most people who drive after 3 pints are more contrite than your average bike RLJer who will maintain he/she has a god given right to do so.

I doubt that, but even if true, what has remorse got to do with anything? I am far more likely to be injured by a drink driver than a RLJing cyclist, so I really couldn't care less whether the former was more remorseful.

 

[benb]

Then the law needs to be changed. I have never said I'm against changing the road laws regarding cycling, I just feel that while they are there they should be obeyed. I would like the law changed regarding me being allowed to slash the tyres of cars parked across my drive. However I fully accept that I'm probably in a slight minority with this one and therefore it's unlikely to be changed.

And I agree, to an extent. I don't think all laws should be unquestioningly obeyed though. We wouldn't have the rights we have now if people weren't willing to break the law occasionally, so I simply don't accept that something being illegal automatically makes it wrong. I am not in favour of RLJing, as I have said many times. However I do think it is blown up out of all proportion to its seriousness, which I don't like.

I personally would be in favour of making red lights the equivalent of give way for cyclists, but until that happens I do think cyclists should stop at red.

 

[martint235]

If you drive after 3 points and get caught, I assume you'd get banned from driving?
If you jump a red light and get caught, you'd get told 'Don't do that'

I've jumped a red light in full view of a police car. No action taken.
I don't rate my chances of being ignored if I'm supping a can of special brew next to the fuzz...

You can say it's AS criminal. Which is true, they are both 100% criminal offences. Yet you understand the fact that all crime isn't created equal?

It is created equal. Unfortunately we live in a world of finite police resources. Ideally I would expect them all to prosecuted AND for the penalties to be sufficient to discourage repeat offending. I'm waiting for the Met to launch the zero tolerance they keep going on about.

 

[martint235]

I would disagree, and say that if a law is more dangerous to comply with than to obey, we have every right to disregard it. You are not compelled to use the ASZ, but if you want to, and want to comply with the law, you are forced to cycle in a dangerous manner. Therefore the law is stupid and dangerous and we should ignore it.


I doubt that, but even if true, what has remorse got to do with anything? I am far more likely to be injured by a drink driver than a RLJing cyclist, so I really couldn't care less whether the former was more remorseful.

You are not forced to cycle in a dangerous manner because you are not forced to use the ASZ.

Like it or not, remorse is a key part of our legal system. Parole for example is incredibly unlikely until remorse is shown.

 

[martint235]

And I agree, to an extent. I don't think all laws should be unquestioningly obeyed though. We wouldn't have the rights we have now if people weren't willing to break the law occasionally, so I simply don't accept that something being illegal automatically makes it wrong. I am not in favour of RLJing, as I have said many times. However I do think it is blown up out of all proportion to its seriousness, which I don't like.

I personally would be in favour of making red lights the equivalent of give way for cyclists, but until that happens I do think cyclists should stop at red.

See we do agree on stuff!!!

 

[benb]

You are not forced to cycle in a dangerous manner because you are not forced to use the ASZ.

Like it or not, remorse is a key part of our legal system. Parole for example is incredibly unlikely until remorse is shown.

I said that if you want to use the ASZ, and want to enter it legally, you are forced to cycle dangerously.

 

[J.Primus]

Did anyone who says breaking the law under any circumstances is wrong use flashing lights on their bike before 2005?

The only reason that got changed was because it was so clearly wrong and so widely ignored by both cyclist and law enforcement that it had to be altered to end the farce. This doesn't mean I'm ardently pro-RLJing but I just think the argument that it's illegal therefore it's wrong is a flawed one.

 

[Jezston]

I rode from South Kensington to Homerton last night and there were two oiks I encountered around Hyde Park corner on mountain bikes jumping every single red they came across. I seemed to stay with them until Angel where the traffic was too tight for them to get through and they stopped behind me. Suggested jumping the lights all the time wasn't really getting them anywhere any quicker. They just looked at me blankly.

 

[benb]

See we do agree on stuff!!!

Probably more than it would appear. I simply don't think RLJ by cyclists is as serious as RLJ by motorists, and I don't like the way it is blown out of proportion.

 

[martint235]

I said that if you want to use the ASZ, and want to enter it legally, you are forced to cycle dangerously.

All the more reason to abolish ASZs.

 

[Buddfox]

Did anyone who says breaking the law under any circumstances is wrong use flashing lights on their bike before 2005?

The only reason that got changed was because it was so clearly wrong and so widely ignored by both cyclist and law enforcement that it had to be altered to end the farce. This doesn't mean I'm ardently pro-RLJing but I just think the argument that it's illegal therefore it's wrong is a flawed one.

It's only a matter of time before the triumvirate of pointless laws that always get rolled out in the typical RLJ thread is raised - that of not having reflectors on the back of clipless pedals. Also illegal, and a law broken day in day out. It's almost the same as drink driving, but not quite.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I might have misunderstood your point, so sorry if I have, but I think it's right for cyclists to be lumped in with motor vehicles, we're asking for the same consideration when we're amongst motor vehicles aren't we?

If cyclists had been given appropriate consideration, they would never have been lumped in with the motor vehicles in the first place. And cycle lanes that disappear when the road gets narrower or busier, light phases on ''cycle superhighways'' that actually write bikes out of the phase until you've stopped and pressed a button, traffic calming build ins that narrow the road, speed bumps to slow down vehicles (vehicles with suspension, unlike most bikes which don't have suspension) oh...I could go on...; these are all indications of that same contemptuous lack of consideration.

We don't get equal consideration, and we're never going to get anything like it, while the laws are as they stand.

 

[benb]

All the more reason to abolish ASZs.

Or all the more reason to ignore the stupid and dangerous law.

 

[benb]

We don't get equal consideration, and we're never going to get anything like it, while the laws are as they stand.

I don't want equal consideration, I want more consideration. Why? Because cyclists are vulnerable road users.

 

[400bhp]

I don't know how tongue in cheek that was, (lots I guess) but no. I wouldn't have the energy for that, though I will happily release this ground breaking data when finished.

If the 'results' are anything like interesting, even if they render me uber wrong, I'll upload them all to a Strava profile. If I created two 15ish Mile segments to serve as the test, it would be a simple process to see if there was a correlation between days of crime and days of good citizenship.

Partially - but it wouldn't take a moment to post "Monday, cycled x miles in y minutes ignoring z lights". x shouldn't change & you can change the other words accordingly.