RLJ'ers

[Borbus]

There is a crossroads near my house where sometimes 3-4 cars will RLJ. There have been many accidents on the crossroads and we have contacted the police to ask them what they are doing about it but so far have had no response.

I usually cycle back across the smaller of the two roads where there are as many RLJers, when my lights go green it's just to signal to me to think about going, I don't actually go until I see cars stopped at the lines.

Of course this crossroads like any have silly cyclists who jump the ASL and go right up to the edge of the main road to wait. I have even seen people trying to trackstand there and slowly creeping across the main road while its light is green. Very silly.

Something that pisses me off as much as RLJers is zebra crossing jumpers. As a cyclist I always slow down a bit and be very observant when approaching a zebra in case I need to stop and change down gears. So naturally I always stop if there actually is a pedestrian. But nearly every time 2-3 cars behind me will skip it after I have already stopped, and cars on the other side will keep going. Meaning that the pedestrian and I have to wait even longer. And the most annoying thing is there's absolutely nothing I can do, the police will laugh it off if I report it.

 

[Dan B]

Something that pisses me off as much as RLJers is zebra crossing jumpers. As a cyclist I always slow down a bit and be very observant when approaching a zebra in case I need to stop and change down gears. So naturally I always stop if there actually is a pedestrian. But nearly every time 2-3 cars behind me will skip it after I have already stopped, and cars on the other side will keep going. Meaning that the pedestrian and I have to wait even longer. And the most annoying thing is there's absolutely nothing I can do, the police will laugh it off if I report it.

Agree completely: legal or illegal or whatever, it's bloody rude. Especially on narrow roads or buildouts: the driver is not required to stop unless the pedestrian's in the carriageway, but the pedestrian with a reasonable self-preservation instinct is probably not going to step into the path of oncoming cars unless he can see they're stopping. So, car drivers can intimidate them by refusing to slow down

 

[pshore]

... I have conversations about cycling with people every day and 90% of the time it turns to RLJing by cyclists.

There is definitely a perception of cyclists problem and RLJ fuels that. (BTW I do not RLJ for this very reason). But you have to wonder why non-cyclists always think of you as a RLJer yet when talking about you as a driver they are not thinking of you speeding and driving around with your mobile stuck to your ear.

We are an 'out' group to most and they do not understand us. When you have those conversations you can educate them and show that not all cyclists break the law and perhaps explain why you think some do and what kinds of people do.

 

[martint235]

We are an 'out' group to most and they do not understand us. When you have those conversations you can educate them and show that not all cyclists break the law and perhaps explain why you think some do and what kinds of people do.

I try, I really, really try!!

There are also those occasions when I pull up at a red at a pedestrian and the ped stays put on the assumption that I will RLJ. I smile sweetly and point out that right of way is theirs!!

 

[pshore]

Ah, look, here's an example where it may even be legal -

It is probably worth pointing out at this point that it has been proposed a number of times that some RLJing should be legalised under the guise of "turn left on a red" for both motor vehicles and cyclists.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/5039326.stm (Conservatives)
http://road.cc/conte...turn-red-trials (RAC)
http://www.guardian....johnson-cycling (Boris)
http://news.bbc.co.u...ght/7187165.stm (Martin Cassini)

I don't know if any of these proposals are still active or have been shot down in flames. It does show that there is some support for it in higher places and perhaps the all RLJ's should be shot position is harsh.

 

[Beebo]

We are an 'out' group to most and they do not understand us. When you have those conversations you can educate them and show that not all cyclists break the law and perhaps explain why you think some do and what kinds of people do.

Does any one else feel this, I cant really explain it very well but here goes.

When I am on a bike and another cyclist RLJ's , I feel guilty by association and feel I have to defend myself by saying that not all cyclists RLJ.

Where as ,when I drive my car and another driver RLJ's I feel no guilt by association.

No one would seek to blame all drivers for the mistakes of a few, but with cylists we are all grouped together.

 

[subaqua]

Does any one else feel this, I cant really explain it very well but here goes.

When I am on a bike and another cyclist RLJ's , I feel guilty by association and feel I have to defend myself by saying that not all cyclists RLJ.

Where as ,when I drive my car and another driver RLJ's I feel no guilt by association.

No one would seek to blame all drivers for the mistakes of a few, but with cylists we are all grouped together.

yes. i understand the feelings. I shake my head often in despair at the lunatic illegal ( and sometimes perfectly legal ) actions of other cyclists.

 

[Jezston]

Does any one else feel this, I cant really explain it very well but here goes.

When I am on a bike and another cyclist RLJ's , I feel guilty by association and feel I have to defend myself by saying that not all cyclists RLJ.

Where as ,when I drive my car and another driver RLJ's I feel no guilt by association.

No one would seek to blame all drivers for the mistakes of a few, but with cylists we are all grouped together.

Having visited the states I would be VERY much AGAINST a "turn left on red" rule from the number of times I've almost been flattened by someone turning a corner onto me despite having a green light as a pedestrian.

I recall John Snow trying to argue that as a defence after the D*ily M*il caught him riding like a total penis despite being head of the CTC.

 

[BentMikey]

I agree totally my standards have gone through the floor,posting in commuting whatever next ?

But reflect on this for a moment, it matters not that something maybe right, if it is perceived by the majority to be wrong.

The majority here being unfortunately motorists, and it ain t going to change soon !

Your strategy relies on people of the majority understanding the rules of the minority and playing by them. They dont!

The " They shall not pass at all costs" stance is antagonistic and promotes the reaction " I shall pass at all costs"

I appreciate that you're clearly a good enough and experienced rider to minimise the disadvantages of riding sub-optimally, but that doesn't make you a not-selfish rider. Other parts of your riding will make you not-selfish and a good rider, sure, but riding too far to the left isn't one of them. In the same way, taking the lane when I should doesn't make me a selfish rider either. Making it easy for motorists to pass is good riding, and it's generous of me to wait and allow others past as I regularly do, even when I don't need to.

Most motorists are quite understanding of taking the lane through pinch points, and although YouTube video channels don't often give that impression, it's usual to get at least 10 instances of grateful motorists for every impatient one. It's fairly obvious from the hazard flashes and waves of thanks when pulling left after the pedestrian refuge.

The italic bit - I think that perhaps this is either a straw man, or your understanding of Cyclecraft and good riding is significantly flawed. This is the general order of importance of good and sharing road use:

My safety
Your safety
My convenience
Your convenience

I imagine you must be a RLJer yourself, yes? Otherwise I'm not sure why you would try to defend RLJing as acceptable selfishness.

 

[BentMikey]

Oh, bad assumption

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFTk_EDKReM

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here? Are you trying to differentiate between illegal, immoral, dangerous to others, and regularly enforced, such as full-on RLJing, and technically illegal, moral and never ever enforced [1] and never even understood by anyone other than uber-cycling-traffic-geeks on cycling forums?

[1] Can anyone point to any example of a cyclist being fined for crossing the stop line into an ASL? What about a car driver for being fined in the ASL. I suspect that there may have been one or two of the latter, but doubt a single cyclist has ever been fined for going into the green box.

 

[Dan B]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here? Are you trying to differentiate between illegal, immoral, dangerous to others, and regularly enforced, such as full-on RLJing, and technically illegal, moral and never ever enforced [1] and never even understood by anyone other than uber-cycling-traffic-geeks on cycling forums?

Yes! Any act of illegal red-line-crossing may be assessed for its danger, immorality and likelihood of being enforced, and I welcome sensible discussion on all three of those topics (although I don't think the enforcement angle is an especially interesting one, given the lack of enforcement of, say, mobile-phone-use - is that an argument that there's nothing wrong with it?). But you can't simply assert that it's always dangerous because it's illegal or that it's immoral because it's illegal, because crossing the line into an ASL is illegal too and I think we can both agree that's not dangerous or immoral. So where do you draw the line? Many people stop ahead of the white line when there's no ASL - is that OK? Some people cross the junction completely when they've waited a while and the lights won't change for them - how about that? Some people cross without stopping when it's 3am and there is good visibility and nobody to see them - what about that? You conceded that it's a matter of degree and circumstance when you used the weasel words "technically illegal", so how about a grown-up discussion of what is and isn't appropriate and when?

 

[Dan B]

I try, I really, really try!!

There are also those occasions when I pull up at a red at a pedestrian and the ped stays put on the assumption that I will RLJ. I smile sweetly and point out that right of way is theirs!!

Haha yes, I've done that. But I'm never quite sure afterwards whether I'm actually being nice to them or merely messing with their heads

 

[BentMikey]

OK, how about that entering an ASL is only technically illegal because there was no easy way to make the laws work properly without the silly work-around which we are discussing? And it is silly, I think most people will agree, given that now there are so many ASL junctions that have no feeder lane. I'm not sure your enforcement point is valid, given that mobile phone use is enforced a lot, despite not being nearly enough to deal with it, and this particular ASL "infringement" was unintentional law and has to my knowledge never been enforced. Ever.

The point remains that most people obey the law about stopping at red lights, both motorists and cyclists.

 

[Dan B]

If removing two occurences of the phrase "proceeding in the cycle lane" from TSRGD 2002 s43 before publishing it is not "easy", I hesitate to imagine what would be. This law was clearly written with ASLs in mind, surely if they'd wanted to permit entering the box at any point they could have done

 

[BentMikey]

If removing two occurences of the phrase "proceeding in the cycle lane" from TSRGD 2002 s43 before publishing it is not "easy", I hesitate to imagine what would be.

Well, IANAL but from what I recall it has to do with crossing stop lines - if there's no feeder lane, then no vehicle can enter the ASL, not even a bicycle, because you'd have to cross the first of the two stop lines. Apparently amending the law so that bicycles but no other vehicle can cross the first line would have been quite a bit more difficult, enough that they wouldn't have bothered with the whole ASL idea otherwise.