running red lights

[jim55]

I'm an occassional RLJer. Never on a busy junction or pedestrian crossing... and I would never try to persuade anyone to do it, or judge someone who did or didn't unless they were endangering themselves or others.
...But sometimes I do here: http://maps.google.c...ps?hl=en&tab=wl

Approaching the lights you have a clear view on anything approaching from the right, and there will only ever be cars approaching from the right if on red.

It's a slight climb, so not stopping allows you to keep momentum (obviously while still slowing to check that it's clear) and hold primary so as not to get squeezed at the top around the bend. I wouldn't go up here in secondary.

If I stop at the red I've been honked for being slow clipping in when in my cycle zone by the car behind, and for holding up cars getting up the small climb in primary from a standing start.
I've also been honked for doing a RLJ by a car annoyed that he'd had to wait and I didn't.

If safe to do so, I'd rather get up the climb without a white van up my arse tbh. I'm not going to risk my body and bike in a collision with a vehicle. I know what the result would be. I'm not going to pull a manouvre like that if I'm not 100% certain that it's safe to do so. Lots of traffic lights are nothing to do with safety, they're to manage congestion and give traffic an even chance at getting out at junctions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in America, certain states allow left turns at red lights if safe. Makes sense to me.


my feelings exactly!!
there is two sets of lights on my
way into work and one is an acess route into tesco ,,theres good visibility all round and if theres nobody around then il just keep going ,,BUT ,,,if theres a car /bike /whatever in the vicinity i wont (bearing in mind its about 550 am and its gen very quiet ),,in pretty much every other situ i would stop and just take my place in the q ,,,but im afraid at those aforementioned lights im guilty as charged ,,its very much a judgement call there ,,but thats not always the case
iv seen a few blatant rlj through the yrs and just wondered what the general opinion is

 

[VamP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure in America, certain states allow left right turns at red lights if safe. Makes sense to me.

There, fixed that for you. And apart from the obvious you're right.

 

[lejogger]

There, fixed that for you. And apart from the obvious you're right.

Of course... thanks

 

[jack the lad]

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!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

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.

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!

 

[SportMonkey]

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.

You're assuming laws need changing. There is the ability within the British legal system to allow that laws aren't fixed, you can break them and sometimes the reason doesn't even have to be good, just appropriate.

People even break the law to protest against the law, there are also some horrendous bits of UK law. You do realise that under the Computers Misuse Act you can be commiting a law break quite easily, even reading a friends phone, changing their Facebook status as a joke. To state how bad the law is, a hacker can solicit passwords from a search box and be legally searching the site (a wonderful grey area) whilst if the CycleChat forum owner put a message on each page asking you not to post you'd be commiting a clear offence if you did.

 

[jack the lad]

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.

It would be good if that were always the case, but sometimes these things are only taken seriously once there has been a bit of law breaking to make people sit up and take notice.

If we take your position to its' ultimate conclusion then we would have an anarchic society.

I don't think that would necessarily be a problem. The important point is there is reasonableness in the law breaking and unreasonableness in the law that is being broken. Most laws, in most situations, are complied with through mutual consent and mutual self interest, not as a result of enforcement or threat of sanction and they have to have legitimacy for that to happen. If that was not the case you would have a chaotic society and it is why illegitimate states have to rely on force and oppression to keep order. An anarchic society can be very ordered, but I think that is idealistic and we have to have enforcement and sanctions to recognise that there are some people who choose to behave anti-socially. Not all illegal behaviour is anti-social and there is plenty of lawful behaviour that is!

 

[martint235]

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!

I think there's quite a big difference between breaking a law because it is bad ie it doesn't operate for the majority of the society it applies to and picking and choosing which laws apply to you.

I don't think you can say that the laws regarding red lights are bad. They work for the majority of people they affect although I assume at one point or another every user gets frustrated at being held at a red. Similarly the rules regarding shotgun ownership in this country work for the majority of people they affect although again there are users (clay pigeon shooters, hunters, bank robbers etc) who may be frustrated by them occasionally. Would you want people to be able to pick or choose whether to obey that law? And before you say "Oh but that's different, people get hurt by shotguns" see it from a hunters' perspective. He/she will say no one will get hurt by them not putting their gun in a locked cupboard or by them not holding a valid license and I'm sure some people find it frustrating to have to jump through these hoops.

I would hope that any policeman seeing any road user going through a red will book them for it.

 

[jack the lad]

I think there's quite a big difference between breaking a law because it is bad ie it doesn't operate for the majority of the society it applies to and picking and choosing which laws apply to you.

A law can be bad because it operates for the majority of society and oppresses a minority. The majority/minority point is irrelevant. It is a bad law if it disproportionately affects one person. That is not the same as picking and choosing.

In the case of some traffic lights they disproportionately affect cyclists (and pedestrians too quite often) because, for example, they don't include simple measures like cycle filters or light timings that take into account average cycling speed that would enable cycle traffic to flow at some junctions as freely as the car traffic flows which have been taken as the sole design parameter.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

That sounds like the type of rant that gives the cycling community a bad name. I drive and cycle and have never noticed that I am discriminated against when I am on the bike.

A law can be bad because it operates for the majority of society and oppresses a minority. The majority/minority point is irrelevant. It is a bad law if it disproportionately affects one person. That is not the same as picking and choosing.

In the case of some traffic lights they disproportionately affect cyclists (and pedestrians too quite often) because, for example, they don't include simple measures like cycle filters or light timings that take into account average cycling speed that would enable cycle traffic to flow at some junctions as freely as the car traffic flows which have been taken as the sole design parameter.

 

[martint235]

A law can be bad because it operates for the majority of society and oppresses a minority. The majority/minority point is irrelevant. It is a bad law if it disproportionately affects one person. That is not the same as picking and choosing.

In the case of some traffic lights they disproportionately affect cyclists (and pedestrians too quite often) because, for example, they don't include simple measures like cycle filters or light timings that take into account average cycling speed that would enable cycle traffic to flow at some junctions as freely as the car traffic flows which have been taken as the sole design parameter.

And a bad law isn't one that disproportionately affects one person, it can't be. The laws governing paedophilia and murder disproportionately affected Ian Huntley but I don't think anyone would want them changed. It prevented him doing what he wanted to because it would affect others. The law on red light jumping, while not in anyway as serious, does exactly the same thing. Every time you jump a red light, anyone else present has to re-evaluate the risk to themselves based on your actions. That re-evaluation may come up with "no change" but it still needs to be done.

Laws in a society have to have consensus. If a law is found to be truly bad, for example the poll tax laws, the Govt will either change them or lose the election or both.

 

[SportMonkey]

And a bad law isn't one that disproportionately affects one person, it can't be. The laws governing paedophilia and murder disproportionately affected Ian Huntley but I don't think anyone would want them changed. It prevented him doing what he wanted to because it would affect others. The law on red light jumping, while not in anyway as serious, does exactly the same thing. Every time you jump a red light, anyone else present has to re-evaluate the risk to themselves based on your actions. That re-evaluation may come up with "no change" but it still needs to be done.

Laws in a society have to have consensus. If a law is found to be truly bad, for example the poll tax laws, the Govt will either change them or lose the election or both.

You keep missing the point. You can't argue with shotgun versus a bike, the same way as you can't argue murder versus jumping a red light. They are not the same thing, and to argue so is frankly ridiculous. Poll tax wasn't a law. Laws don't have to be a consensus. Laws are there to protect and help govern a state, they do not have to be right, righteous or fair, they do not have to be a consensus, or work for the majority.

Tell me, is it right to hold someone without evidence or proof for several weeks, like Hungarians did during their Soviet occupation? That was law.

Also, can you show me the law that explicitly prohibits jumping a red light.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I've just read your signature. I understand now.

You keep missing the point. You can't argue with shotgun versus a bike, the same way as you can't argue muder versus jumping a red light. They are not the same thing, and to argue so is frankly ridiculous. Poll tax wasn't a law. Laws don't have to be a consensus. Laws are there to protect and help govern a state, they do not have to be right, righteous or fair, they do not have to be a consensus, or work for the majority.

Tell me, is it right to hold someone without evidence or proof for several weeks, like Hungarians did during their Soviet occupation? That was law.

Also, can you show me the law that explicitly prohibits jumping a red light.

 

[SportMonkey]

I've just read your signature. I understand now.

What are you referring to? If you can't argue a point don't just abuse someone.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I am refering to the fact that your argument makes no sense. You are advocating being able to choose which laws to break which to me is the thinking of either an anarchist or an idiot. As your sig proclaims you the latter......

What are you referring to? If you can't argue a point don't just abuse someone.