Safer to jump red lights? - Times article

[Bicycle]

Yes there [Petunia] is. You could report it to the [Syrian] Council Highways [Sausage] Authority as a non-working traffic [Banana] light and get them to fix [ferret] it. Then you won't have to keep [whistle] jumping it and explaining yourself.

I love the way you used square brackets and inserted words to show the true meaning of Loother's post.

I now see exactly what he meant.

I have used similar brackets and bold-type insertions to show what i think you really meant in an earlier post.

Sadly, I have no idea what you were trying to say and I fail to see why you single out Bananas and ferrets rather than all God's flora and fauna.

Thank you and good night.

 

[GrasB]

In the UK jumping a red light is illegal, so you don't do it. End of story. Now if the law was changed so that if you're turning left then it's okay to go through a red light then that's a different matter.

Bring out as many statistics about RTCs as you want but it won't be recorded in any statistics used to evaluate safety that I came to a stop less than 1ft from the side of the car crossing against the red light last week. We don't have near miss statistics so we don't know how many times someones jammed the brakes on to prevent a collision & without that information we have no clue as to how risky a red light jump actually is.

 

[400bhp]

Its all in TRL549. Plus the fact that motorists have killed many thousands of cyclists but its extremely rare for a cyclist to kill a motorist. That imbalance alone is good reason for the imbalance in sensitivity.

Can you please in future not use abbreviations unless the meaning is specifically clear.

 

[Mad at urage]

In the UK jumping a red light is illegal, so you don't do it. End of story. Now if the law was changed so that if you're turning left then it's okay to go through a red light then that's a different matter.

Bring out as many statistics about RTCs as you want but it won't be recorded in any statistics used to evaluate safety that I came to a stop less than 1ft from the side of the car crossing against the red light last week. We don't have near miss statistics so we don't know how many times someones jammed the brakes on to prevent a collision & without that information we have no clue as to how risky a red light jump actually is.

By the same logic, before 2005 it was illegal in the UK to use LED lights - of course then we shouldn't have used them but stuck with crappy EverReady BSwhatever crap that was legal?

 

[BentMikey]

Can you please in future not use abbreviations unless the meaning is specifically clear.

I understand your frustration, but it's very rare for me to see an abbreviation that I can't google, or even guess. If I can't, then I ask, otherwise there's no need to.

TRL549 is incredibly easy to discover:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TRL549

 

[CopperCyclist]

It's like Gaz said earlier really, and it's simple: there are other, legal ways to ensure your safety at lights that are just as, if not more, effective than a planned red light jump.

 

[Red Light]

In the UK jumping a red light is illegal, so you don't do it. End of story. Now if the law was changed so that if you're turning left then it's okay to go through a red light then that's a different matter.

In the UK its illegal to ride a bike without reflectors on the pedals visible from the front and rear. Which, using your rationale means you don't ride a recumbent and you don't use clipless pedals. I think quite a few people here would take issue with that instruction.

 

[Red Light]

Can you please in future not use abbreviations unless the meaning is specifically clear.

Its not an abbreviation, its a reference and one that, as BM says, is incredibly easy to find.

Author Basford, L,Reid, S,Lester, T,Thomson, J,Tolmie, A Pages 38
Date 01/01/2002 Reference TRL549
ISBN 1-84608-548-9 ISSN 0968-4107
Hard Copy Price £50.00 PDF Price £0.00

 

[benb]

In the UK its illegal to ride a bike without reflectors on the pedals visible from the front and rear. Which, using your rationale means you don't ride a recumbent and you don't use clipless pedals. I think quite a few people here would take issue with that instruction.

True, the illegality of RLJ is not the whole story (or, rather, not the only reason to condemn it). See also filtering into am ASZ.

 

[GrasB]

By the same logic, before 2005 it was illegal in the UK to use LED lights - of course then we shouldn't have used them but stuck with crappy EverReady BSwhatever crap that was legal?

Actually it wasn't illegal to use them, it was only illegal to use them as your only lights. Nothing stopped you from running an LED light in supports of your BS lights.

In the UK its illegal to ride a bike without reflectors on the pedals visible from the front and rear. Which, using your rationale means you don't ride a recumbent and you don't use clipless pedals. I think quite a few people here would take issue with that instruction.

I note you decide to chop out the the context of risk in which that statement was made. Fundamentally it's a law which if not followed has serious safety implications to not only your self but other road users.

 

[Red Light]

True, the illegality of RLJ is not the whole story (or, rather, not the only reason to condemn it). See also filtering into am ASZ.

So what objectively are the criteria for what laws we ignore or adhere to? Clearly not having pedal reflectors is illegal and it potentially has safety implications but many of us break that law routinely. Similarly as pointed out above many of us used LED lights long before they were legal because they were more reliable and visible. Most of us still use lights that are not legal on our bikes - for example sole use of any of the high brightness LED front lights. The evidence seems to be that RLJing is not a particularly dangerous thing to do as a cyclist - its more like a pedestrian crossing the junction than a motor vehicle - and the French trials have not found any increase in accidents from allowing it. So the issue clearly cannot be a legal imperative to comply (vide pedal reflectors and lights) and it cannot be a safety imperative. So on exactly what grounds should we not do it? The only thing seems to be it might annoy someone but then so does wearing lycra and not having a bell it would seem.

 

[Red Light]

I note you decide to chop out the the context of risk in which that statement was made. Fundamentally it's a law which if not followed has serious safety implications to not only your self but other road users.

I chopped it out because there seems to be no evidence that there is a serious safety implication as you suggest. I have already posted ^ the evidence for that statement. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your evidence that it does have serious safety implications.

 

[GrasB]

I chopped it out because there seems to be no evidence that there is a serious safety implication as you suggest. I have already posted ^ the evidence for that statement. Perhaps you could enlighten us with your evidence that it does have serious safety implications.

As I said we don't record near misses. We haven't recorded the fact 1 or 2 times a week the only reason I'm not wiped out by a cyclist or a motorist jumping a red light is because I've avoided them. I'm not the only person who has to regularly avoid people jumping red lights. The fact that no collisions occur has more to do with the fact that people are actually aware of what is going on around them them & can compensate for the actions of others than the safety of jumping a red light.

 

[400bhp]

Its not an abbreviation, its a reference and one that, as BM says, is incredibly easy to find.

Author Basford, L,Reid, S,Lester, T,Thomson, J,Tolmie, A Pages 38
Date 01/01/2002 Reference TRL549
ISBN 1-84608-548-9 ISSN 0968-4107
Hard Copy Price £50.00 PDF Price £0.00

is trl549 a word? No, therefore it is a reference. Furthermore, TRL stands for something.

 

[400bhp]

So what objectively are the criteria for what laws we ignore or adhere to?

Common sense.

Now, what you wrap up in common sense is the crux.

Put it another way, risk vs reward.