Is it worth it anymore..... ?

Leroy42

So there are no stats in regard to the effects of the RLJ, then what is the hysteria based on?

I can certainly see the carnage that a motorised vehicle at 50kph going through a red light can cause, but I have never heard of a cyclist causing a car to flip over or kill a driver.

People also mention pedestrians, but again, apart from a few anecdotal examples, there seems to be very little in the way of actual evidence of the negative outcome of RLJ's. This certainly happens, but cars also hit pedestrians and without knowing the nature of the injuries etc it is hard to tell whether this really is the problem it is made out to be.

That is not to say that RLJ is warranted, or safe, or good or anything else. Only that it appears that its relevance is overstated and seems to be little more than an annoyance to others rather than an actual problem.

It seems that motorist want it both ways. They want cyclists to obey all the rules that they have to (how many times have we heard call for road tax) yet still want to treat cyclists are second class users - stick to a cycle lane etc.

Chips Lovell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I can certainly see the carnage that a motorised vehicle at 50kph going through a red light can cause, but I have never heard of a cyclist causing a car to flip over or kill a driver.

If a motorist kills someone who's broken a red light, they're going to have to live with that for the rest of their life. Even if the accident was no fault of their own, nobody's going to forget that.

OleRodrigo

No

I think its fair to say that there is a growing gap between the point where you first start riding around/ commuting...and the point where it becomes a safe and enjoyable activity (which it is ).

If it gets to wide its possible not enough people will start cycling - not enough to impact on the volume of car drivers.

The practical solution is enforcement of speeding, wacky maneuvers ( like changing a lane at the last second to swing into an exit road ) , texting, breaking red lights, navigating a roundabout correctly, doing makeup, etc.etc.

Obviously enforcement applies to cyclists too, but they aren't dangerous when breaking the ROTR. They are just irritating.

ED E

Worth what?

Undercover cycle cops could solve this, but doubt we'll see AGS do that.

07Lapierre

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I pretty much agree with everything you mention regarding RLJ, however the conclusion that obeying the law is safer than breaking the law is predicated on the behaviour of other road users. There are unfortunately drivers who become pretty frustrated and enraged when cyclists enter the advanced stop zone ahead of traffic - you could potentially argue that avoiding these drivers by jumping the red lights is safer than waiting for the lights to go green.

Incidentally, what is the accepted etiquette around anticipatory RLJ? i.e. taking off as the lights are about to turn green based on knowledge of the junctions light pattern?

Have to admit that I do this on my commute. I do it for my convenience and I'm fully aware that it's illegal. I'm not going to defend it. it's certainly not safer than waiting for the light to actually turn green...but i get home quicker!

Leroy42

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If a motorist kills someone who's broken a red light, they're going to have to live with that for the rest of their life. Even if the accident was no fault of their own, nobody's going to forget that.

Yeah, well my sympathies would be more with the victim and families to be honest.

But even so, there seems to be a big issue over RLJ yet I have yet to hear any actual evidence that cyclists doing it actual cause much harm. Annoyance, yes, panic in some pedestrians, absolutely, some instances of broken bones, no doubt. But a major problem?

I doubt it. Yet it is one of the 1st charges put to all cyclists by motorists. Anytime it is brought up to me I ask for the backup and the most I ever get is that they saw a cyclist break a red light on the way home. Nothing happened. Or they heard of a guy who knocked down a group of people, on the footpath, probably with no lights. Just have no particular details.

Leroy42

ED E wrote: »

Undercover cycle cops could solve this, but doubt we'll see AGS do that.

Could solve what? What problem needs to be solved?

07Lapierre

No

Maybe we should be pushing for a change to Traffic light sequence? Maybe we need UK type lights that go Amber, then Green instead of our..straight from Red to Green? This would, in effect, legalise those of us who predict the light sequence and move before the light is actually green?

Chips Lovell

If you're standard of evidence is "sure how many people get killed because of X", a lot of bad behaviour on the roads could easily be justified by the perpetrators.

Leroy42

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If you're standard of evidence is "sure how many people get killed because of X", a lot of bad behaviour on the roads could easily be justified by the perpetrators.

That is not my standard of evidence, but I would like some sort of evidence. But funnily enough, it doe seem to be the exact type of evidence that the motoring lobby want before any extra laws. Look at the continuing argument regarding drink/driving as a case in point. it shouldn't even be a discussion.

Currently, RLJ is being used to vilify cyclists, and in many cases to give motorist an excuse for dangerous behaviour.

All I am asking for is the backup to this position. I have never heard it actually backup up. It's not about killing people. Causing traffic issues is enough, but even then I have heard/seen nothing.

Chips Lovell

Can you not see the irony of you yourself finding excuses for dangerous behaviour while giving out about motorists doing the same?

Leroy42

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Can you not see the irony of you yourself finding excuses for dangerous behaviour while giving out about motorists doing the same?

But that is my exact point. How dangerous is it? I have not tried to excuse it

But even so, there seems to be a big issue over RLJ yet I have yet to hear any actual evidence that cyclists doing it actual cause much harm. Annoyance, yes, panic in some pedestrians, absolutely, some instances of broken bones, no doubt. But a major problem?

I just don't agree that it is the problem that it is made out to be. Is it any worse than jaywalking? Or people with headphones walking without looking? Or course we should not do these, and other, things but they are not a major issue.

IMO, it all stems for motorist being p1ssed that cyclists can do and they can't. They feel trapped and think that cyclists should have to suffer the same rules as otherwise they have to admit that cycling is actually the better option in some cases. So rather than deal with the problems facing themselves, gridlock, costs etc, it is easier to have a common enemy on which to place the blame.

Slutmonkey57b

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It is in no way "effectively" a motorway. That stretch of road goes through two different residential areas, with a short stretch in between where the speed limit goes up to 80. As someone who lives in that area and regularly crosses that road with young kids

You're telling me you walk though undergrowth and trees, then climb over a safety barrier, then walk across 3 lanes of traffic to a traffic island, climb over some more barriers and thick hedges, cross another 3 lanes of traffic, then over another safety barrier, to climb through more undergrowth, to get to where you're going? With young kids?

Don't be disingenuous.

queldy

.

The Bishop Basher

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems that motorist want it both ways. They want cyclists to obey all the rules that they have to (how many times have we heard call for road tax) yet still want to treat cyclists are second class users - stick to a cycle lane etc.

So why is it ok for you to pick and choose the laws you follow but not ok for motorists ?

If you have an issue with an existing law, lobby to change it. Laws are there for the safety of everyone, not just you.

That said, you are of course free to break as many laws as you wish but your finger wagging at motorists then becomes nothing more than rank hypocrisy and it's impossible to take your point seriously.

Annie get your Run

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is not my standard of evidence, but I would like some sort of evidence. But funnily enough, it doe seem to be the exact type of evidence that the motoring lobby want before any extra laws. Look at the continuing argument regarding drink/driving as a case in point. it shouldn't even be a discussion.

Currently, RLJ is being used to vilify cyclists, and in many cases to give motorist an excuse for dangerous behaviour.

All I am asking for is the backup to this position. I have never heard it actually backup up. It's not about killing people. Causing traffic issues is enough, but even then I have heard/seen nothing.

It's about obeying the law, all the law(s), it really is that simple. You can't choose which ones you want to obey. It's extremely frustrating as a cyclist to be sitting at a red light and seeing other cyclists cruise through, sometimes having close calls with oncoming traffic and causing others to have to brake suddenly or change their course.

If that car had hit you the other day the witnesses would have (correctly) told the police that you had jumped a red light. You'd probably be dead so couldn't explain to them how safe it was you thought it was when you were doing it.

I am baffled by your attitude to be honest.

mh_cork

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that is my exact point. How dangerous is it? I have not tried to excuse it



I just don't agree that it is the problem that it is made out to be. Is it any worse than jaywalking? Or people with headphones walking without looking? Or course we should not do these, and other, things but they are not a major issue.

IMO, it all stems for motorist being p1ssed that cyclists can do and they can't. They feel trapped and think that cyclists should have to suffer the same rules as otherwise they have to admit that cycling is actually the better option in some cases. So rather than deal with the problems facing themselves, gridlock, costs etc, it is easier to have a common enemy on which to place the blame.

Exactly. No different to other small items that are technically illegal, and have little potential consequences for others. As another posters asked, the actual consequences to others from cyclists RLJ'ing is practically zero. In a ranking of road safety issues, where would it be?

Some motorists have an unnatural hatred of cyclists and will desperately cling to anything to rationalise it to themselves. Its a well known psychological issue where you over emphasize bad behaviour in one group while turning a blind eye to indiscretions from people you associate yourself with.

To me, it is crazy that some cyclists think that if all cyclists obey the ROTR, then some type of harmony will develop with motorists. You will never get respect from these small group of motorists because nothing you do or dont do makes a difference. Their hatred is ingrained and irrational.

AndrewJRenko

No

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

If you're standard of evidence is "sure how many people get killed because of X", a lot of bad behaviour on the roads could easily be justified by the perpetrators.

It's a key question. If motorists would actually stop doing the things that actually kill people - speeding, drink driving, phoning/texting - our road safety record would be transformed.

Swanner wrote: »

So why is it ok for you to pick and choose the laws you follow but not ok for motorists ?

If you have an issue with an existing law, lobby to change it. Laws are there for the safety of everyone, not just you.

That said, you are of course free to break as many laws as you wish but your finger wagging at motorists then becomes nothing more than rank hypocrisy and it's impossible to take your point seriously.

Everyone picks and chooses the laws they follow. Do you really, really stick to the speed limit every time you drive?

PaulieC wrote: »

100% this. Cyclists breaking the red lights tars all cyclists with the same brush in motorist's eyes.

PaulieC wrote: »

People who complain about cyclists complain because they see cyclists breaking red lights. It doesn't matter if only 10% cyclists do it, all cyclists are seen to be RLJs.

What the person in the car did to you was a dick move, but if you hadn't broken a red light, you wouldn't have been in the situation in the first place. The rules of the road apply to all road users at all times.

People who complain about cyclists breaking red lights will always find something to complain about. The red lights is an excuse for complaining, not a cause for complaining. If all cyclists magically obeyed every red light from tomorrow, the complaints would move on to road tax and lycra and five abreast and all that nonsense.

Stand up to this bullying, don't roll with it.

CatFromHue

Breaking a red light is not just confined to straight road with traffic lights on it, or cyclists going through a red light at a junction where all the green men are showing.

I think people are forgetting that it happens when you're driving through a junction when a cyclists breaks the red light on a side road and swings in in front of you. An example of something like I'm saying is in this clip below, you can skip to the 30 second mark.

No one gets hurt, there's no contact but it's bloody annoying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhGDAKMiis

Yes there are no lights here to break but if you drive in the city this does happen lights or no lights

magicbastarder

i have been known to break red lights when there are no cars around. not very often, mind.
i hold cyclists to a greater standard of behaviour than pedestrians, motorists to a greater standard than cyclists, HGV drivers to a greater standard than motorists, and airline pilots to a greater standard than HGV drivers.
this is not hypocritical. it's a reflection of risk.

magicbastarder

CatFromHue wrote: »

I think people are forgetting that it happens when you're driving through a junction when a cyclists breaks the red light on a side road and swings in in front of you.

this is not what people would in any way excuse though. i think in general, people who are arguing for the 'turn left on red' would be arguing for what i understand is legal in other countries - treat a red light like a stop sign if turning left, treat a stop sign like a yield sign. the example above just shows an idiot.

DanDublin1982

No

Imagine cycling so recklessly with your kid on the bike with you. Jesus.

The Bishop Basher

No

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Everyone picks and chooses the laws they follow. Do you really, really stick to the speed limit every time you drive?

I'm not sure I get your point ? I'm not perfect. I try not to break laws but being human I do slip up from time to time and when I do I genuinely try and learn from it.

However that's a million miles away from proudly announcing that I willingly break laws just because I can while ranting about every other road user who dares to step out of line.

One is being human. The other is being a hypocrite.

07Lapierre

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

So there are no stats in regard to the effects of the RLJ, then what is the hysteria based on?

I can certainly see the carnage that a motorised vehicle at 50kph going through a red light can cause, but I have never heard of a cyclist causing a car to flip over or kill a driver.

People also mention pedestrians, but again, apart from a few anecdotal examples, there seems to be very little in the way of actual evidence of the negative outcome of RLJ's. This certainly happens, but cars also hit pedestrians and without knowing the nature of the injuries etc it is hard to tell whether this really is the problem it is made out to be.

That is not to say that RLJ is warranted, or safe, or good or anything else. Only that it appears that its relevance is overstated and seems to be little more than an annoyance to others rather than an actual problem.

It seems that motorist want it both ways. They want cyclists to obey all the rules that they have to (how many times have we heard call for road tax) yet still want to treat cyclists are second class users - stick to a cycle lane etc.

Q6 has some stats (from the UK)

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/file_available-everyone-log-required/1611cyclinguk10-common-questionsrv.pdf

CramCycle

I still think it is worth it. I think we should add a poll. The truth of the matter is that if I stopped commuting by bike, my weight would sky rocket, my health would plummet, return of the comically named "mild" depression. All of the bad experiences and close calls I have experienced, are no different than the stupidity I witness in the car.

My work is better and more productive the days I commute in, my attitude is friendlier which must be beneficial to my co workers. I arrive in earlier or can leave later. I set a good example for my kids. I take up less space than single occupancy cars, meaning as bad as their commutes are, they are slightly shorter due to my choices I will live longer, less likely to die of cancer or heart disease. According to studies, I am a better lover, which I hope is a bonus for my partner.

Sometimes cycling is sh1t, and this year, it has been ****tier than usual for alot of people.

I honestly believe it would be negligent for me to stop cycling when I look at the overall picture.

The Bishop Basher

No

CramCycle wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that if I stopped commuting by bike, my weight would sky rocket, my health would plummet, return of the comically named "mild" depression...

What makes you think this is exclusive to cycling ? I run 4 times a week before work and get all the same benefits you do with none of the risk involved in cycling.

There are numerous ways to stay fit and healthy. Cycling to work is only one of them.

cython

No

Swanner wrote: »

What makes you think this is exclusive to cycling ? I run 4 times a week before work and get all the same benefits you do with none of the risk involved in cycling.

There are numerous ways to stay fit and healthy. Cycling to work is only one of them.

At no point did he suggest that it was exclusive to cycling, but if you read it a bit more carefully he's referring to a scenario if he "stopped commuting by bike". i.e. if he simply swapped his cycle commute for a sedentary commute, and the rest of his day to day life remained the same, i.e. no more added physical activity.

Obviously there are many ways and means of keeping fit, but unless you're either into serious distance running, or live very close to where you work, what is somewhat unique is that it can be integrated with commuting so effectively, and for some people (myself included), that means a lot more value is gotten out of that commute than sitting on a bus or train, or in a car. If you turn the commute into idle time, and then have to find all your exercise somewhere else, then something has to give somewhere else to accommodate that, which in reality does not happen for a lot of people.

The Bishop Basher

No

cython wrote: »

A if he simply swapped his cycle commute for a sedentary commute, and the rest of his day to day life remained the same, i.e. no more added physical activity.

Fair enough. He didn't say that though..

It's often mentioned on here about car drivers being overweight, unfit, unhealthy and destined for an early grave.. Truth is these are just general judgements and no better then those flung the other way..

Some people are fit and healthy, some aren't. Their method of daily commute needn't have any bearing on that whatsoever.

schemingbohemia

Swanner wrote: »

What makes you think this is exclusive to cycling ? I run 4 times a week before work and get all the same benefits you do with none of the risk involved in cycling.

There are numerous ways to stay fit and healthy. Cycling to work is only one of them.

You do realise that more pedestrians are killed every year than cyclists, as a runner you are classed as a pedestrian, so your running is actually potentially more risky than cycling.

Swanner wrote: »

Fair enough. He didn't say that though..

It's often mentioned on here about car drivers being overweight, unfit, unhealthy and destined for an early grave.. Truth is these are just general judgements and no better then those flung the other way..

Some people are fit and healthy, some aren't. Their method of daily commute needn't have any bearing on that whatsoever.

A massive study recently in the UK showed that those cycling to work were 50% less likely to die prematurely than those who drove, the benefits were significantly less for those that walked to work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/19/cycling-work-could-help-live-longer-greatly-reduces-chance-developing/

greenspurs

Back on topic....

Still no other replies from my 10 emails to Td's and Councillors , about if they are going to do anything about cyclist safety on the public roads.

I replied to Bobby Alywards response (i have posted it a few pages back in the thread). I also suggested some things that could be implemented.