RLJ - Taxi Drivers' video

[buggi]

I'm a bit in 2 minds about RLJ.

I have been known to shout at the blatant nobber ones (e.g crossing a busy A road) but can't say I'm binary myself when it comes to red lights.

I think it's (well we perceive it is) at the forefront of driver's minds because it's often done blatantly, i.e. stopped traffic and the first few car drivers at each intersection can see a RLJer (as they are naturally looking at the intersection). Put this against RLJ cars and it's not as obvious (a secont or 2 after red).

On the other hand, is RLJing any worse than other low level stuff on the roads, e.g. pavement parking & u turns.

Are we a bit uptight in this country? We like people to queue and tow the line - we deem it impolite if not.

OTOH I'm not really fussed what other people (outside my family and circle of friends/work colleagues) think of me, based on some generalist and incorrect view of cyclists.

is RLJing low level ???

 

[400bhp]

is RLJing low level ???

Yes, relatively speaking in the grand misdemeanour of traffic offences.

 

[buggi]

Yes, relatively speaking in the grand misdemeanour of traffic offences.

what you mean is only if you're on a bike? So its ok to be horrified if a car does it but ok if a cyclist does. One rule for them, another for us. I like your way of thinking

 

[buggi]

Much the same as the decision whether or not to obey a speed limit is taken by nearly every driver, ourselves included, then? I don't see anyone offering not to take them seriously until they put their house in order.

i understand your point totally but we cant get all high and mighty if we don't put ours in order, otherwise its tit for tat or pot calling kettle black.

 

[buggi]

It isn't tit for tat though. The other side of the coin just doesn't exist. If you go up to a random driver and suggest to them that any of the many bits of poor behavior exhibited on our roads reflect badly on them as a group, you would just get blank incomprehension. They wouldn't recognise a house to put in order because it just doesn't exist. I don't see any reason why we should beat ourselves up over this.

that might be so but they will still lump you all as a group nonetheless, bcoz so many do it. So until they stop your voices won't be heard. Interestingly we don't all get painted as RLJers outside of London, but then RLJing is of the minority outside of London.
at the end of the day, its up to you what you do, but it will only succeed in alienating drivers and putting a bigger and bigger gap between you, giving the motons another justification as to why they shouldn't modify their behaviour. And ok, don't beat yourself up about it, but in the same respect don't act like you're the poor hard done by cyclist when you knowingly break the law. Cuz if we're really honest, very few cyclists do it for safety reasons, they do it coz they want to get on their way and they can currently get away with it.

 

[400bhp]

what you mean is only if you're on a bike? So its ok to be horrified if a car does it but ok if a cyclist does. One rule for them, another for us. I like your way of thinking

Yes, RLJ is low level if done on a bike and high level if done in a car.

Generally speaking.

And don't try and be ironic and patronising otherwise I won't converse.

I don't classify myself in a group of road user. That's just silly.

 

[ufkacbln]

It isn't tit for tat though. The other side of the coin just doesn't exist. If you go up to a random driver and suggest to them that any of the many bits of poor behavior exhibited on our roads reflect badly on them as a group, you would just get blank incomprehension. They wouldn't recognise a house to put in order because it just doesn't exist. I don't see any reason why we should beat ourselves up over this.

My reply to this was from "Cycling Today" in the 80's (IIRC from an article by Patrick Field)

The Yorkshire Ripper wore black lace-up shoes - when all the people who wear black lace-up shoes take responsibility for his actions, then I will take responsibility for the actions of other cyclists

 

[buggi]

Yes, RLJ is low level if done on a bike and high level if done in a car.

Generally speaking.

And don't try and be ironic and patronising otherwise I won't converse.

It's not patronising to suggest that if the lights are on green for the other parties then by running a red light it is not low level. You want to be accepted as vehicles on the road in equal right but you don't want to obey the same law or be held accountable

 

[400bhp]

So, all misdemeanours are equal are they?

And you misunderstood what was patronising: writing One rule for them, another for us. I like your way of thinking with the smiley on the end is patronising.

I posted my view, I don't expected to be insulted for having a different viewpoint.

 

[Beebo]

Are we a bit uptight in this country? We like people to queue and tow the line - we deem it impolite if not.
.

I have never thought about it, but that does make sense, us brits are very proper when it comes to queuing. Couple that with the car owners sense of entitlement and you they view RLJ as very bad.

 

[buggi]

Hypothetically, is this just at the point of knowingly breaking the law or does the taint endure?

it endures bcoz they keep doing it. if a driver sees a cyclist break the law here, generally its just a "nutter on a bike" but put that driver in london and all cyclists are bad. simply bcoz so many do it and do it so often that they forget the ones that dont. then, when a cyclist gets killed its automatically presumed its the cyclists fault bcoz "they" RLJ. You're handing it to them on a plate.

 

[400bhp]

it endures bcoz they keep doing it. if a driver sees a cyclist break the law here, generally its just a "nutter on a bike" but put that driver in london and all cyclists are bad. simply bcoz so many do it and do it so often that they forget the ones that dont. then, when a cyclist gets killed its automatically presumed its the cyclists fault bcoz "they" RLJ. You're handing it to them on a plate.

I don't really see your point?

What exactly are we handing to them?

And who are them?

 

[buggi]

So, all misdemeanours are equal are they?

And you misunderstood what was patronising: writing One rule for them, another for us. I like your way of thinking with the smiley on the end is patronising.

I posted my view, I don't expected to be insulted for having a different viewpoint.

i was actually trying to lighten it up, but its true. by jumping a red light you are saying one rule for them, another for us. Whether you agree with red light jumping or not... It is the same road traffic offence for both parties equally. .

 

[400bhp]

i was actually trying to lighten it up, but its true. by jumping a red light you are saying one rule for them, another for us. Whether you agree with red light jumping or not... It is the same road traffic offence for both parties equally. .

Who are them and who are us?

And you haven't answered my point whether all traffic misdemeanours are equal, because that started your quoting of my posts.

And the particular traffic offence isn't deemed the same in the eyes of the law too.

 

[buggi]

I don't really see your point?

What exactly are we handing to them?

And who are them?

they are the drivers and your handing them an excuse to behave badly towards us. If i RLJ and then say to a driver "i saw you speeding" he's gonna say, i saw you jump a red light! But if i haven't jumped the red light, whats he gonna say? Sod all. He's got no come back.