- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Do we challenge red light jumpers/green man means cyclist
I was on my usual commute home and I tend to be the type to track stand at every light, when a guy bombs up the inside and away. I caught up with ease (he was older than me) and gently reminded him that green man is for pedestrians. I got an earful along the lines of "...you gonna tell every cyclist..." I got to the top of a hill and more lights, eh whiz zed past on the path to the lines of "...take you to the road,...back to the school run"
Am I stupid putting myself out there, am I alone in wanting to maintain that roadies/commuters obey road laws.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 1 hour 30 min ago
No - you misread - they 'mange' it - presumably that entails contributing to it being in the manky state it currently is.
- Miller 1 hour 31 min ago
Go for it Pogi! I will be in the velodrome on 13th April and it would be fantastic to see him arrive.
- jaymack 1 hour 54 min ago
Indeed but he's a can't. Can't be arsed to tell the truth, can't be arsed to build new Hospitals and can't be arsed to do anything for anyone save...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 35 min ago
I agree, very little improvement indeed. From the first paragraph:...
- David9694 4 hours 47 min ago
I had to look this one up: https://savingplaces.org/stories/a-tale-of-two-planners-jane-jacobs-and-...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 59 min ago
What wokery is this? I thought those tech-bros were there to save us from the "mind virus"?
- hawkinspeter 17 hours 47 min ago
Opposition to controversial East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood ‘will filter away’ say council bosses...
- quiff 19 hours 39 min ago
I know it's not the same, but they are saying Quest will have free highlights.
- chrisonabike 21 hours 51 sec ago
Yeah but if you take away any chance of getting their licence back they'll turn into some kind of amoral road-bandit! * checks court records again ...
Add new comment
92 comments
...erm, no it won't be on my conscience.
You're right - you have misunderstood my point - probably my poor explanation. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that I believe most people with an anti-cycling bias have not formed this opinion because of witnessing RLJing (or because 'cyclists don't pay road tax'). They use these sound-bites (along with the other favourites: 'there was a f**kin cycle path at the side of the road' and 'he wasn't even wearing a helmet') to justify their views when arguing their case, but in reality their hatred is mainly fed from 2 sources:
1) Being inconvenienced by a cyclist who is preventing them from doing their rightful 40mph
2) The media
This won't change if there were suddenly no RLJers. It's a red herring. When cycling, it is best to do what is safest at the time, which is not necessarily following the law.
How is breaking the law by jumping a red light at 7.30am on a Sunday doing what's safest? This is the example you gave so I'm calling you on it. It seems that you're doing what's most convenient for you, not what's safest, let's just pick and choose the laws we follow eh?
It's a hard line to draw, jumping red when no one's around, when there are a few people around but no one crossing, when someone's crossing but you'll roll through slowly. The law is black and white, when the light is red you should stop, it's not for you to choose what you deem as safe, that's an issue we have with lots of motorists (speeding, overtaking closely, talking on their phones) thinking they know better.
And as I've said before, a lot of the negative points they have are baseless, but getting annoyed that people break the law is justified in my opinion, and the more people they see doing it, the more annoyed they'll get.
Is that hypocrisy I can smell?
So we don't want to be known as a collective and we can't be held responsible for the action of other cyclists but then constantly refer to motorists, HGV drivers, pedestrians, taring everyone with the same brush.
Equally we expect other road users to obey the rules of the road, but feel we can pick and choose when we obey them ourselves.
I thoroughly agree road users should use common sense, the problem is a lot of people (cyclists, car drivers, pedestrians) don't have any, hence why we have to have rules.
Nope, you can presumably just smell your own difficulty with thinking things through.
Who is this "we" who "constantly tar everyone with the same brush"?
You are assuming in your point the very existence of the 'collective' that is being denied! How can you start off an argument by assuming your conclusion?
I don't expect motorists or pedestrians to police each other - I haven't seen anyone here demand that, so you are mistaken.
Policing is the job of the police, and the only sense in which motorists have collective responsibility is at a political level, given that they are a powerful political lobby (in a way that cyclists certainly aren't) - but not every individual driver is responsibile for how that lobby operates either.
Red Light Jumping is not a big issue in the grand scheme of rule-breaking. I stop at most lights, and jump the odd one or two. I don't see forums harping on about drivers breaking speed limits!!
Or their appalling and illegal parking habits!
God, the ridiculous places they decide to deposit their cars! Road markings and basic safety sense mean nothing to them when set against their desperate need to avoid using their legs for more than a couple of yards at the end of their journey.
Putting aside the little problem of neither group being a centrally controlled entity, I'd be fine with doing a deal - no cyclists jump reds in return for no speeding or illegal parking by motorists. Otherwise they can STFU.
Yesterday morning, when I turned right off a very busy road just after the green man had finished, I got a sarky handclap off a girl on a bike stopped at the lights coming the other way. No way I'm hanging around in the middle of a pretty busy and fast junction when I can safely pootle through on red. I've done that before and it did nothing for my state of mind.
Well done to the girl on the bike!
There's a woman who I occasionally encounter on my short commute. Normal work clothes and no helmet, she has a complete disregard for any lights, normally 'hitting' the junctions at speed with some pretty hairy manoeuvres. I thought she couldn't get any more reckless but this morning (dark) she had no lights and nothing was off limits; wrong side of the road, gaps through moving cars, pedestrian crossings, the pavement. She even tackled one set of lights like this in front of a police car which did nothing (wouldn't have let it go in London). Makes me cross as it must really wind up motorists and pedestrians, but I just tell myself to forget it.
I shouted at a RLJ the other day and she turned round and blew me a kiss. Nice retort and my cheeks matched the colour of the ASL.
I can't be bothered to say anything. Mind you I do have an annoying bus/taxi gate system to get through, which takes ages if you wait for the lights. In the mornings, when it's quiet, I trundle slowly down the pavement and either wait or walk through later when they're more pedestrians around. So I'm not a 'saint' but think completely ignoring red lights just winds up the motorists.
I think you do bring a relevant point about foreign cultures being brought into our road system without being checked or corrected. Before the Racism/Zenophobia flag gets waved we are all mature here. It is a contributing factor that can be seen clearly in some parts not exclusively LDN.
Go look at some of the behaviour on Manor House high St. in North London if you want evidence to support that argument.
'Momentum' is an interesting word, it's the one HGV drivers use to justify tailgating.
That's like saying "love" is an interesting word because I could use it either as justification for buying my girlfriend flowers or for killing her in a fit of jealousy. My momentum as a cyclist isn't going to kill an innocent road user.
The problem is that there are rules, and if we expect people to abide by them and yet we don't then what point is there in having the rules at all....some people choose to mean that we should be 'lawless' because they don't like every single one of them. But you can't expect the law to then help you out when other road users don't abide by them. Not every road user breaks the rules, not every one follows them, but the more you encourage it the better we all are.
Fluffykitten makes some good responses about the ability to connect with cyclists over car drivers, which perhaps leads to a bias. But equally doesn't want us all labelled cyclists because it generalises to give a bad perception of all cyclists. Perhaps we should just talk about 'road users' who break the rules then. I find that road users generally appreciate other road users who also follow the rules because they do work, but there is a frustration where road users flout them because it is usually selfish and dangerous.
e.g. My gf was driving down the road the other day and a car pulled across her from a road on the left. He had no right of way and given that the roads were not so busy it was purely selfish behaviour to avoid waiting for a proper break in the traffic.
The issue as I see it is that if we do not stand up for the rules then we see road use standards drop (something like the carnage that you see in India). But if we believe and understand the tenants of road traffic then they should be safe for everyone. These things do have knock on effects as they become a 'culture'. Part of me feels that the rise in immigrant populations in London (from cultures where it is more normal to pull across on-coming traffic for example) is having an effect on the way people use the roads in the capital at least. But it is difficult to tell if the pressure on infrastructure to cope with our high density population is not also, in part to blame.
It is:
http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/12/cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law-...
If a cyclist does something that endangers me while riding then I will certainly have a go at them - hopefully in a calm rational way. I have been tempted to use my long-neglected 'hooking' skills on a few daft pricks, but that would be the red mist talking. If they are just being stupid then I might shake my head sadly, just to let the traffic know that I know that they are stupid. Like anyone is watching
If it was a kid or obvious newbie I would certainly feel compelled to give them some advice though.
Too many people on/in all forms of vehicles/mobility see the highway code as guidelines that they once read many moons ago. They rely on their experience in bending the guidelines even further to justifiy another tweak to be quicker/save a few second here and there. Until it all goes wrong and then they often blame common sense. It was a clear road/ junction. It was safer to.... The cyclist swerve unexpectedly and the classic SMDSY.
In answer to the OP, Yes we need to challange our own and others bad behaviour on the road. How that's done without being aggresive is another. I don't hide my displeasure at others.
Isn't there likely to be an inbuilt-bias involved in this though?
How do you challenge a motorist who can't hear you and is roaring off at 40mph?
In practice cyclists are a lot more challenge able than motorists, so you are likely to end up doing this in a one-sided manner.
I have the same dilemma about many such issues - I'm aware myself that its a lot easier to object to, say, an obvious fare-doger jumping (or ducking under) a barrier, if they are a woman or a weedy-looking speccy guy than if they are a hard-looking skinhead. I've often noticed that with respect to TfL staff themselves, in fact. They'll take a stronger line with someone who doesn't look dangerous and look the other way with anyone scary-looking.
So when I think about challenging someone my next thought is often unease that there's something discriminatory about my doing so.
(Of course, if you yourself are a hard-man, this may be less of a problem! But it still applies with respect to motorists vs cyclists - motorists are kind of untouchable, isolated in their metal box)
At another level you can argue that we have a moral duty to disobey laws that we believe are wrong.
As with some of the commenters above I take the view that the roads are the way they are because of cars and heavy vehicles, not bikes, and isn't fair or right that cyclists have to behave as if they are driving a lethal tonne of metal.
Granted, most of the people blowing dangerously through red lights and riding on the footpath are probably not operating on that level, and by all means tell them off. Not because they are breaking the law, but because they are not applying common sense.
On the other hand if a cyclist applies common sense and rolls slowly through a pedestrian-only crossing where there is clearly nobody there, then let them be. A while back as I was riding slowly along a footpath to reach a cycle path with my 11 year old daughter, where the only alternative was a busy road that takes a much longer indirect route, we got told off by a jogger and in turn I told him to **** off.
The trouble with rules is that they become a substitute for the application of sense.
I'm generally pretty opposed to RJLing but I have to confess I found myself doing it this morning.
It was on an empty pedestrian crossing and going on red ment that I was able to position myself (and the child trailer) safely where I needed to be for a rather awkward mini-roundaout junction. Waiting for green may have ment a tricky situation with a car that I wasn't keen to get into, especially as I was double-long and double-wide with the trailer on and less manouverable and quick than I would be without it. There's no excuse to be made, technically I crossed the line on red, but my assesment of the situation was that this was the best course of action to stay safe. As cyclists we are vunerable road users and as such I do think that allowances need to be made for us to remain safe. I'm not advocating blasting through every red that you come to but given the lack of cycle-friendly junction design in the UK I wouldn't call someone out for bending the rules in certain circumstances.
Looking back on it, I realise I do much the same thing when I see cyclists jump red lights right in front of me as when I see motorists do it (I see a lot more of the latter than the former, though that's partly just 'cos I see a lot more motorists in total than cyclists).
I sigh and mutter something and look cross and then forget about it. I might roll my eyes if feeling particularly irritated.
Its entirely up to you, no?
What I would strongly object to is the idea that just because you are on a bike its therefore your special duty to police other people who have bikes. That seems to be a completely bonkers idea to me. Really, it makes no sense at all.
But on a general level, as a citizen in this country, everyone has to make their own decision about how much they want to intervene to reproach/police people on the street for anti-social behaviour.
It surely in part (though not solely!) depends on how brave/good at fighting you are?
Jeremy Paxman apparently tells people off for littering in the street, for example. If he's not afraid of getting thumped in response, fair enough, good for him. But these sorts of things are not the special responsibility of any one group.
Except the police, maybe?
I grant you that one.
They seem to regard much of this low-level stuff as not worth their time, though.
if you ride on the highway, obey the rules of the road, really simple. keeps you safer, and from being blamed for causing an accident.
you can try to explain your RLJ and other actions by blaming other road users, but it just makes you something of a pathetic hypocrite
cyclists want to be treated fairly by other road users, but also want to choose when they obey the law, it does not work like that?
I've been walking to work and back all week, since being involved in a hit & run whilst on my road bike this time last week and ending up with one arm in plaster.
I walk 5km each way from NW1 to WC2 London and being on foot has given me a different perspective, compared to making this same journey on bike: i am crossing covent garden, euston and mornington crescent into camden.
Something that has become very evident during this walk is how few cyclists will stop at red lights, or will go up onto the pavement to go around the red lights
I will walk across an area watching the junctions out of interest with a cyclists perspective. who is stopping? who is jumping lights? who is on the pavement? who is riding up the one way street?
Today i encountered a very unpleasant cyclist riding fast at me on the pavement in covent garden because he did not want to ride on the cobbled road (riding a full suspension mountain bike!) Told me to f*ck off when i politely asked him to get off the pavement lest he collided with my plastered arm.
On the evening walk back home I see a large number of cyclists will either have:- no lights, or just one light (often the front?and no rear), a light with flat batteries, a light pointing at floor / sky, or hidden behind luggage and wearing black clothing, all merrily riding through red lights.
Interesting to see if this entrenched behaviour changes once the Police blitz starts in London on Monday.
When i was riding, i found measured sarcasm very effective with serial RLJ "traffic light gangsters" and pavement riders "pavement terrorists"
What?
Try the above sentence with "cyclists" replaced by "older people" or "pedestrians" or "white people" or "black people" or "men" or "women" and "road users" replaced with the appropriate wider group.
Are you seriously arguing that nobody can expect fair treatment in society till everyone else who has anything at all in common with them behaves totally perfectly at all times?
Where does this odd 'logic' come from? Its becuase people tend to think in this bigotted way that soceity is such a mess.
I've read and re-read this and have come to the conclusion that, actually, there are two arguments there:
In one, "cyclists", "women", "old people", whoever are quite within their rights to feel that they should be treated fairly by "road users", "society", "nursing home staff", etc.
In the other, people / cyclists / whomever cannot expect to be allowed to break the law without some sort of legal retribution.
I don't think it is bigotted, just two separate arguments.
Bigotted was too strong, I take that back. But _as worded_, the comment just seemed to display an attitude I don't agree with in general - that there is a 'collective' entity called 'cyclists' that has some sort of shared responsibility for every bad thing done by a cyclist.
It comes up with all sorts of groups, and I never agree with it. I don't think, for example, you can say that "Muslims" can't ask for respect or to not be discriminated against until there isn't a single Islamist terrorist anywhere in the world (and Muslims probably form a more coherent group than do 'people who use a bike'). Ditto black people as a group.
Pages