RLJ'ers

[Dan B]

In all honesty I think you're being a bit binary about this. No, laws are not repealed simply because lots of people break them. Conversely, though, they are unlikely to be repealed if nobody has a problem with them - what would be the point of all that expense legalising something that nobody wants to do anyway? Bringing about a change in the law requires (among other things) the ability to demonstrate that the change would have popular public support: campaigns are part of this, and being able to point to people who are already ignoring it is another part. And the experience of other countries and so on, etc etc. You can't simply say it's A or B or C: there are 600-odd people voting for or against the change and they each have their own reasons which are probably some combination of the above in varying proportions

 

[Raa]

And the people campaigning for the change with well reasoned arguments.

If a law was changed just because it was often flouted, then mobile phone useage while driving and speeding would already be fine in law.
My point is that it takes a campaign to do this, not just ignoring the law because it doesn't suit you.

Hmm, I think flouted 'without harm' is the point, I don't think you could argue speeding and texting at the wheel are without harm in the same way you could, for example riding contra on one way streets, or treating red lights as give ways.

I don't think a campaign would do anything if you couldn't demonstrate that the law in question was unnecessary.

 

[SquareDaff]

Hmm, I think flouted 'without harm' is the point

Most of the time! I really wouldn't want to be the driver that hit a cyclist RLJ'ing because they had an error in judgement. The fact that they'd been breaking the law as it stands today would be no comfort to me at all!

 

[2Loose]

Defying the courts over gagging orders ?

LoL, this may well be the one!

 

[Mad at urage]

Red light means STOP. What it cannot mean is "STOP (or Give Way, if you want to - because you are special")" and (as it would need to do) add "OH, but not at THIS junction because what you can't see as you approach is ... (oh sh1t)" .

There may be (all right there is) a case for arguing that at many junctions it should not be necessary to always stop; that "Give Way" would work (often better). I've heard of this being demonstrated in several locations where traffic lights have been removed and Give Way signs installed (miraculously cutting congestion). For that however, we already have Give Way signs. Campaigners would do better* to concentrate on getting unnecessary traffic lights replaced by Give Way signs, rather than trying to alter (or ignore) the existing STOP signal.


*Always assuming of course that they are trying to improve the overall environment, rather than campaigning for 'special privileges for us saintly cyclists'

 

[BentMikey]

You're describing situations here where people are looking for "dangers" (for want of a better word). If I'm going through a set of green lights in my car then I'm not going to be looking for a cyclist wandering into my path (maybe due to an error in judgement about how far away I am/speed I'm travelling - any other reason - we've all made mistakes for various reasons) when he/she should have been stopped at a red light!

I've been stopped at enough lights where nothing has come through from the other junction to be able to appreciate your point of view. However I don't agree that choosing to ignore a law just because you don't happen to agree with it is the way forward. The laws are there as much for our protection as they are for the protection of other road users!

Well, green light only means go if it is safe to do so, so you should be looking for cyclists and other vehicles despite you having a green light. I'm sure like most people on here you probably do this, but it's not coming across that way in the above post.

I'm worried enough about being hit by some James Blunt jumping the lights that I usually look both ways for traffic despite having a green light. There are a couple of intersections on my way home where the risk of a car coming through at speed is higher than usual, these I check with extra care.

 

[BentMikey]

Quite right, you are not he/she. The person I refer to is exceedingly confrontational and seems to spend the majority of their time while cycling looking for fault and criticising the actions of other road users while they proclaim to the world how excellent, skillful and reasonable they are as a road user. I am just glad I am not such a capable cyclist because if I had that many near misses and incidents while cycling I don't think I would get on a cycle again.

Peace and love, peace and love.

Edit: speeling!

Looking in the mirror old chap? The bolded bit bit couldn't be further from the truth about me, and the rest doesn't match at all well either.

 

[Dan B]

Red light means STOP. What it cannot mean is "STOP (or Give Way, if you want to - because you are special")" and (as it would need to do) add "OH, but not at THIS junction because what you can't see as you approach is ... (oh sh1t)" .

That's actually a pretty good description of what the red man means for pedestrians, and most pedestrians treat it as such (wait if there's something coming or they have a poor view; cross the road if it's empty or if traffic is stopped). I suggest there are probably circumstances in which it might work just as well for some other classes of road user and that there should be a way of managing the change such that it doesn't turn into the free-for-all that some posters obviously assume would result

The problem with replacing traffic lights with Give Ways is that then you need to designate a minor road (which gives way) and a major road (which doesn't), and if the major road is busy traffic on the minor road could wait for ages. Traffic lights (or roundabouts) give everyone a fair chance. Perhaps we need some new class of signal-controlled Give Way signs

 

[SquareDaff]

Well, green light only means go if it is safe to do so, so you should be looking for cyclists and other vehicles despite you having a green light. I'm sure like most people on here you probably do this, but it's not coming across that way in the above post.

I do - but I'm also in the minority that ride a bike regularly as well as drive. Like you, knowing my vulnerability on a bike, I tend to look everywhere and 2nd guess everyone and that transfers across when I drive the car. My statement was a sweeping generalisation which, unfortunately, is probably the opinion held by the vast majority of drivers.

Sad I know but the driving lessons instruction "be prepared to stop at every junction" is probably forgotten by most drivers at the same time they forget "don't cross your hands on the steering wheel" (i.e. as soon as you pass). I know I must have been guilty of it to some extent as my observation in the car has improved no end now I've started cycling again!!

 

[Mad at urage]

That's actually a pretty good description of what the red man means for pedestrians, and most pedestrians treat it as such (wait if there's something coming or they have a poor view; cross the road if it's empty or if traffic is stopped). I suggest there are probably circumstances in which it might work just as well for some other classes of road user and that there should be a way of managing the change such that it doesn't turn into the free-for-all that some posters obviously assume would result

As has been said before:[QUOTE 1399788"]
That's different. The red man is advisory, and I believe there's nothing to stop a pedestrian crossing whenever he or she wants to.

Pedestrian crossings were created to force traffic to stop, not to limit when a pedestrian can cross.
[/quote]
Roads belong to Pedestrians; they were smooth-surfaced for vehicles (such as bicycles) which don't like cobbles; motor vehicles use them by licence.

The problem with replacing traffic lights with Give Ways is that then you need to designate a minor road (which gives way) and a major road (which doesn't), and if the major road is busy traffic on the minor road could wait for ages. Traffic lights (or roundabouts) give everyone a fair chance. Perhaps we need some new class of signal-controlled Give Way signs

Sure, that's what mini-roundabouts (with Give Way signs) are for - if only everyone understood how they change the topography and who gives way to whom!. Signal-controlled Give Ways have recently been talked: Changing the meaning of flashing amber to 'Proceed with caution'. However that is the meaning of traffic lights that are switched off anyway!