running red lights

[jonny jeez]

I did when I first started riding,(for about 3 weeks) but then got interested in improving my cycleskills and learnt how dodgy it was...so stopped.

never jumped one since, not even tempted...thats nearly 3 years ago..blimey time flies

 

[skudupnorth]

No and never will !

 

[martint235]

As a one-time smoker I can safely say the ban followed years of increasing marginalisation (first aeroplanes, next trains, eventually workplaces etc) and decades of increasing social unacceptability, both driven by good evidence on health.

This kind of drip, drip, drip accumulation would perhaps be the way to sneak a universal jaywalking law under our noses but it would take years and then only if there was compelling evidence in favour. I doubt whether health benefit arguments could be made compelling as we are waking up from our 'car is king' mindset and it could more easily be argued cars should be banned from city streets rather than pedestrians banned from city roads.

But leaving that aside, are RLJers another sign of human adaptability? What of my question about whether they could in fact be inadvertant angels beating a desire line towards more sensible traffic light laws eg cyclists allowed to turn left on reds if clear?

I'll bow to your knowledge on the smoking thing. I've never smoked but also never really noticed other people smoking. It was about 3 months after the ban that I woke up one Saturday morning and thought "That's weird, I was in the pub all night and don't smell of smoke"

Our adaptation isn't quick by any means but it would be good if it led to banning cars by the drip drip method. However there are more voters that own a car than don't I think and therefore the car will be king for a while yet.

If RLJers consisted solely of people turning left carefully and with due consideratio on reds or going through empty pedestrian crossings at 5mph at 2am, I'd be tempted to agree with you. However, along with all cyclists, these RLJers will forever be associated with the nutters who go screaming through packed pedestrian crossings scaring the beejeezus out of everyone.

 

[psmiffy]

Again you're quoting textbook riding that doesn't always translate. In the real world, you can get caught last minute at lights in secondary with a car immediately to your right and too far forward to allow you to more to primary. Even if it's an error, it's easy to get caught in a poor position that you need to get out of. Maybe there's a filter left as well, and waiting for traffic to pass on your right is leaving you a sitting duck?

I perfectly understand and respect your views and opinion. In the above scenario, I might try to give myself a 2 second start in order to recover road position and move safely out the way of filtering left turners.

Ive never read a textbook on cycling -before I came here I didnt realise that the middle of the lane was called primary - my method - if you want to call it that - is culled from cycling for many years , in many countries for many thousands of kilometres - in the real world - In my world I never cycle in any less than what you might call "strong secondary" - you control the traffic you dont let it control you - I dont give traffic the chance to turn left across me - they can either wait or I move right to an even stronger position to let them filter behind me

 

[Dan B]

What of my question about whether they could in fact be inadvertant angels beating a desire line towards more sensible traffic light laws eg cyclists allowed to turn left on reds if clear?

I'm sure that anybody lobbying for such sensible laws is happy to use RLJers as evidence that there is a desire for that change, yes.

 

[Dan B]

if you know the lights then you know your turn is next, and you've checked for certain that no cars are going to RLJ, do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.

Yes, I do that. But I'm a forum heretic anyway, because I also go forward of the stop line in order to position myself ahead of vehicles (if there's no ASL or the ASL is full) and enter ASLs other than via the feeder lane - both of which other practices are also still RLJs

And I most often stop and wait for red lights when I am on skates instead of on the bike, when by law I am a pedestrian and they therefore don't apply to me. This is probably illegal in that I am potentially obstructing any following pedestrians who have a similar legal freedom to ignore traffic signals that apply only to vehicle operators.

 

[summerdays]

Ok... slight change of tack...

What is the forum's view on getting a jump on the lights... eg. you're waiting at the red, but forward enough to see when the signals for the other traffic change. Obviously if you know the lights then you know your turn is next, and you've checked for certain that no cars are going to RLJ, do you push off a second or two before the green, and before the cars behind to get out ahead, maybe to ensure you get primary for approaching parked cars? Technically still an RLJ.

I watch the lights but wait for the lights to actually start changing on the set of lights on my side - all except one junction - there I do anticipate the light change if I can because it is much safer. It is on a Puffin crossing where I'm joining the main road - the only thing you can do as the other side of the road it isn't legal to cycle on the pavement, but the council in their infinite wisdom have decided that cars can turn right (not left as pedestrians are crossing), and either go down the main road or cross it and in doing so cross my path at the same time. The car drivers have no signage to except cyclists to be crossing their path so it is a race to cross the junction before they do. That is the only junction I anticipate the green light.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think this came after the smoking ban and is a sign of our adaptability.

Is it permissiible to RLJ whilst smoking then?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Only is you are using a handsfree device

Is it permissiible to RLJ whilst smoking then?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

You're legally allowed to go through it.

It is also legal in most states over here on this side of the pond. In some states one has to wait at least two full cycles before proceeding through the intersection.

I have an intersection not too far from my home that is controlled by an induction loop sensor. If I position myself in the center of it I'll never trip it, however if I position myself to the left or the right I can usually trip it. Also this is a single not a double loop sensor. Double loop sensor's are easier to work as one can position themselves in the middle of the loop and trip it.

Sadly, the other day while I was at this intersection sitting on the left side of the loop I had a woman in a big black SUV, yakking on her mobile pull up right along side of me on my right. At first I thought that she was going to make a right hand turn, but it became clear that she was going straight. As soon as the light changed and she pulled away. I called out a nice loud "Thank you," and flipped her off.

There is another intersection that is much further away from where I live that is also controlled by an induction loop sensor. As I rolled up on it, the light turned red. And a pickup truck pulled up in the left turn lane. The left turn arrow lit up and traffic from both sides of the intersection made their turns, but the through lane never got a green. Another vehicle pulled up in the left hand turn lane, again I waited to see what would happen. Again only the left turning arrow lit up. This time there wasn't any turning or crossing traffic coming from the other side of the intersection. So I proceeded through the intersection.

The sad/ironic thing is that not only are there induction loop sensors but other sensors that are capable of detecting bicycles, and they don't cost any more than the induction loop sensors that are currently being used.

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

No they don't. They really don't.

Green means "Go if it is clear". It does not mean "plough through whatever is ahead of you".

I don't jump red lights. I don't like that other people do. They don't deserve to die though, and there's no granted right to run into them - if traffic on green can stop safely, it should, must.

Over here on this side of the pond we have what is known as the doctrine of the last clear change. Basically what it means is that say you have a person who is running a red light. Even though their actions are illegal, if the person who is going through the green light has the ability to stop and avoid the crash that they have to.

 

[psmiffy]

The traffic lights closest to where I live are vehicle controlled on the leg from the south and frequently do not detect me and have a very short green cycle - luckily for about 500m on the approach there are always cars parked - by adopting a primary position in the right hand lane I nearly always collect a car which I am able to let pass about 50m from the lights - by the time I get there the car has triggered the lights

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

I don't fully understand the blanket 'No, it's against the law' position. Just because something is 'the law' doesn't mean it is right. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. Then there's a possibility that the law gets changed. OK so poor traffic management systems are not in the same league as colonial exploitation, apartheid or oppressive dictatorships, as justifying civil disobedience, but the principle is the same.

Many, if not most traffic lights are entirely sensible and well-designed systems for controlling traffic. There is no justification for failure to observe them even if it causes a minor inconvenience from time to time. This is a compromise that preserves the safety and convenience of all road users.

Sometimes there are lights whose design and operation causes significant inconvenience or even danger to one or more groups of road users because they prioritise the interests of one group over others or, more commonly in my experience, they have simply not taken into account the interests of all road users. In such instances I feel morally entitled, or even obliged, to break the law. This is Jim Callaghan's "contingent right to break a bad law". You should not inconvenience or endanger any other road user and you have to be aware that you are breaking the law and be prepared to accept the sanctions. However most law enforcement agencies recognise that some laws are bad laws and exercise their discretion not to enforce them. If you are a sensible RLJer, exercising your discretion responsibly, the police are quite likely to agree with you!

Are there a lot of bad and/or unenforceable laws on the books? Yes, there are. Does that mean that we can/should break those laws? I don't know. What I like to see happen is this: starting at the local level and working up review ALL of the laws that are on the books. And any that are no longer enforceable either repeal them or amend them so that they are enforceable. Next again starting at the local level working up is to review all the laws that are on the books and if there are any laws that are duplicated at the next higher level then repeal the lower law and repeat working up to the highest level law.

An example of I guess one could call it/them bad lights. Are the lights that are close to my home. I have contacted the engineering office about getting them timed so that pedestrians and cyclists trying to cross the street could do so. I was told that in order to time the lights so that pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross the street would cause an "unacceptable" delay to motorists. How is that for a kick in the teeth? Pedestrian/cyclist safety isn't as important as the convenience of motorists.

I could be mistaken, but shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[Digital_Cowboy]

Surely the way to get laws changes is to operate within the law and use the structures in place that allow for that. Campaigning, pestering MP's, petitions, public awareness campaigns. All legal, all will possably bring about changes in the law. Breaking a law because you do not agree with it or feel it is wrong is no justification at all. I will admit to driving above the speed limit on roads when I feel it is safe to do so but if I am caught I would take full responsability for my actions and not make a fuss as the "law is wrong". If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.

+1,000

 

[Angelfishsolo]

+1,000