StuartG said:Does anybody here have a problem with that and why?

You sound like a wee Glasgow ned trying to start a fight in a pub.

StuartG said:Does anybody here have a problem with that and why?
StuartG said:I got tutted in another (non-cycling) forum for admitting I RLJ controlled pedestrian crossings at my own risk when there is no pedestrian in sight. Does anybody here have a problem with that and why?
Perhaps he obeys the rules of grammar. "He must of thought" indeed....magnatom said:....a willingness to flout rules when you can get away with it.
Rassendyll said:No.
I can see the argument that it encourages people to flout the law if they can get away with it, but if a pedestrian has activated the crossing and then crossed before the walk signal comes then they've already done exactly that so why shouldn't a cyclist.
automatic_jon said:On my way back from town (if I don't fancy the dual carriageway) there are a set of traffic lights which I can only assume are triggered by a car pulling up to the white line, I have sat there for what seems like an eternity waiting for them to change.
coruskate said:Well, not really. But seeing as we're freeloading on roads that their Road Tax paid for, it's only fair that we don't get to use the traffic lights put up for their benefit
purplepolly said:Now that's the best argument I've every heard for RLJing.![]()
automatic_jon said:On my way back from town (if I don't fancy the dual carriageway) there are a set of traffic lights which I can only assume are triggered by a car pulling up to the white line, I have sat there for what seems like an eternity waiting for them to change. If I jump the lights I'm liable to have an abrupt meeting with a HGV on his way to the ferry terminal but if nothing comes up behind me and triggers them I can end up stuck there for nearly as long as it takes to ride home from that point.
Sometimes the dual carriageway seems like a good option.