Safer to jump red lights? - Times article

[Red Light]

We clearly have two camps represented on this forum; the 'strictly no RLJs ever' brigade, and the 'I'll RLJ when I believe it's safe to do so' society. Fortunately we don't appear to have too much representation from the 'No lights can tell me what to do, I'll ignore them whatever the cost' group.

I don't fit in either of those groups. I don't RLJ but I do object to people making up reasons which are demonstrably untrue as to why others should not do it. Most of us cannot object on a legal basis because our bikes are illegal (clipless pedals) and its demonstrably not dangerous. If someone can come up with a good clear consistent case against I'm waiting to hear it.

IMHO the simple truth is that there's a clear moral and legal argument for never RLJing. It's the law

So there is also in your opinion a clear moral and legal argument for not using clipless pedals or riding a recumbent or having decent lights on your bike?

 

[Jezston]

"or riding a recumbent or having decent lights on your bike?"

Wait where do those ones come from?

 

[lejogger]

So there is also in your opinion a clear moral and legal argument for not using clipless pedals or riding a recumbent or having decent lights on your bike?

Well clearly there is a legal argument for not using clipless pedals as they don't satisfy legal requirements. If you cause a driver to swerve and crash because you're not reflective or well lit enough to be seen properly then what grounds do you have to stand on if you've got 'illegal' pedals and your lights are ineffective.
Morally, I use clipless pedals on all three of my bikes but I have very effective lights and reflective shoes and overshoes as well as elsewhere on my clothing and panniers etc... essentially the pedal issue is countered by effective reflection elsewhere, and sits in a very different argument than the RLJ one.

You should really read my previous post properly. While I do acknowledge and accept the legal aspect of an RLJ argument I do go on to support numerous instances where a RLJ or jump on the lights is (in my opinion) perfectly justified, essentially supporting the general argument you've been making in your posts.

 

[Red Light]

Well clearly there is a legal argument for not using clipless pedals as they don't satisfy legal requirements. If you cause a driver to swerve and crash because you're not reflective or well lit enough to be seen properly then what grounds do you have to stand on if you've got 'illegal' pedals and your lights are ineffective.

The problem is the legal lights are mostly ineffective. Most of the effective lights are illegal unless you have a legal ineffective light fitted as well.

 

[400bhp]

Red Light - you have gone up in my estimation. Very sensible posts indeed.

 

[400bhp]

Well clearly there is a legal argument for not using clipless pedals as they don't satisfy legal requirements. If you cause a driver to swerve and crash because you're not reflective or well lit enough to be seen properly then what grounds do you have to stand on if you've got 'illegal' pedals and your lights are ineffective.
Morally, I use clipless pedals on all three of my bikes but I have very effective lights and reflective shoes and overshoes as well as elsewhere on my clothing and panniers etc... essentially the pedal issue is countered by effective reflection elsewhere, and sits in a very different argument than the RLJ one.

You should really read my previous post properly. While I do acknowledge and accept the legal aspect of an RLJ argument I do go on to support numerous instances where a RLJ or jump on the lights is (in my opinion) perfectly justified, essentially supporting the general argument you've been making in your posts.

In your opinion, ie you have made a judgement call that you are being as safe by not abiding by the law, than abiding by it and having pedal reflectors.

Materiality plays a big part in our choices to abide by the laws of the land or not I guess.

 

[lejogger]

In your opinion, ie you have made a judgement call that you are being as safe by not abiding by the law, than abiding by it and having pedal reflectors.

Materiality plays a big part in our choices to abide by the laws of the land or not I guess.

Oh yes, it's totally in my own opinion, and at my own risk. I'm aware that I'm illegal by using racing pedals, but I'm also aware that I wouldn't ever be stopped by the police on that issue if I was visible enough in other ways. I'd be a lot more annoyed if I were stopped for non-reflecting pedals than if I were stopped for an RLJ! (not that I'm a serial offender) I just don't think that these two cycling-related laws are really comparable with each other.

 

[400bhp]

Well, they are really, insomuch that we could assume the rlj has made a conscious decision to ignore the law because they feel the increased risk of doing so is immaterial.

BTW, I don't really know what my position is on those that rlj...

 

[Jezston]

What exactly is the law on bicycle light brightness?

And IIRC correctly the law was 'clarified' about ten years ago to implicity allow flashing lights. Why were other archaic hangovers like the pedal reflectors thing not similarly sorted out at the time?

 

[gaz]

What exactly is the law on bicycle light brightness?

And IIRC correctly the law was 'clarified' about ten years ago to implicity allow flashing lights. Why were other archaic hangovers like the pedal reflectors thing not similarly sorted out at the time?

There is nothing per say in the law about brightness.
They have to conform to the BS or EU standards of something or other. Which may well state something about brightness.

 

[girovago]

Not once have I ever found myself in a situation that made me feel it was somehow safer to ignore a red light than obey it. And of all the RLJ cyclists I see every day, not one of them has had justifiable reasons of safety for doing so.

Those who claim, as the Times journalist does, "Vehicles are faster than my bike, drivers don’t always see me, so if we set off at the same time I am in danger.", need to learn better riding. Or take the bus.

 

[lejogger]

Well, they are really, insomuch that we could assume the rlj has made a conscious decision to ignore the law because they feel the risk of doing so is immaterial.

I agree with that aspect, but in terms of severity, the RLJ carries more weight IMO. You're probably as likely to be stopped for having non-reflective pedals as a london taxi is for not carrying a bale of hay (before 1976), whereas you're as likely to be stopped for an RLJ on a bike as you are in a london taxi (or any other vehicle for that matter)

 

[400bhp]

I agree with that aspect, but in terms of severity, the RLJ carries more weight IMO. You're probably as likely to be stopped for having non-reflective pedals as a london taxi is for not carrying a bale of hay (before 1976), whereas you're as likely to be stopped for an RLJ on a bike as you are in a london taxi (or any other vehicle for that matter)

Yes, but severity is one part of risk (and a potential fine is one aspect of severity, the main other one is of course injury or death). Risk is frequency x severity. The frequency is very low and hence it could be argued the overall risk of rlj is low enough for people to make a conscious decision to ignore the law.

I'm not saying that their risk calculation is right (neither morally or mathematically), I'm more interested in why people choose to do it.

 

[Ethan]

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

Didn't even occur to me! Dont know why but because tts one of them ones that only changes when a car is near it, I didn't even think about reporting it! makes sense though. I'll get it done - Thanks!

 

[Red Light]

Red Light - you have gone up in my estimation. Very sensible posts indeed.

I must have explained it badly then Normal service will be resumed shortly.