Can we start a loser campaign for people going through red lights?

Of course, amber gamblers are endemic. I was just saying that it doesn't stand scrutiny to suggest that lack of opportunity is the only thing holding people back from ignoring red lights. There is always someone who decides to stop at red, and they must be in the majority, otherwise we'd see constant streams of cars sailing through on long-established red (seem to recall a video on here of this happening in London somewhere around a cycle superhighway, and it's actually very strange to watch), rather than a small number of people at every junction chancing it just after the lights have changed.

Markieteeee's suggestion is a little more mischievous - can't fault that technically (damn you), other than by defining my own terms and saying I've always thought of RLJing as actually proceeding through the junction, rather than just overstepping the line.    

I wish I could say the same - I'm afraid at peak commuter time riding Peckham-Chelsea and vice versa there are at least five sets of lights where I can absolutely guarantee four or five cyclists will pass me as I sit at the red, and it's getting worse. I'm totally pro-cycling and anti-car but I do find it really embarrassing, I used to be able to say "Bollocks, that's a tiny minority" when faced with the red light whataboutery, but I can't honestly say that any more. 

Not a defence, and I don't do it ever, but a fair bit of it is simply anticipating lights, but there are a significant number of people (many of them, like me, MAMILS on pricey kit) who seem to think it's OK even to slalom through the pedestrians crossing on a pelican - nearly had a fight recently with a guy I chased and remonstrated with for this at the crossing outside King's College Hospital on Denmark Hill, fifteen-odd people crossing, guy ploughed through not even changing his line, his excuse was "I wasn't going fast, was I?"

I don't know the solution but I do know it's doing us no favours.

Yeah, I'm not condoning the behaviour, it's just that I don't often see it and usually, although I'm certainly not saying that's the case here,  it's flagged up by people with another agenda. 

It's possible that it's not my experience because I cycle against the flow, rather towards central London; or that as I originally said, it's on certain routes at certain times. On my short 15 minute cycle to and from work, I see several cars jumping reds everyday and if you include going completely over the advanced stop line into the advanced stop zone, which is also red light jumping, then it's rare that I don't see it at the very first lights I encounter.  So my own experience is that it's very common among motor vehicles and pretty rare among cyclists. 

I also don't buy that people with a hatred of cyclists have been provoked into it by (a perceived) law-breaking among cyclists.  It's used as an excuse to justify their already nasty behaviour; just like people justify their prejudices against any minority or out-group by attributing some negative behaviour to all of 'them'.

I'm surprised you've got any breath left to shout at cyclists if you're shouting at every single motorist that you see speeding

Are you suggesting we shouldn't care about cyclists' offences unless and until we have eradicated motoring offences? I fully understand that cyclists pose a much lower risk to other road users, relative to drivers. But the risk of harm is not zero, as illustrated by my example above. Why can't we try to make both drivers and cyclists better at the same time? 

quiff wrote:

Are you suggesting we shouldn't care about cyclists' offences unless and until we have eradicated motoring offences? I fully understand that cyclists pose a much lower risk to other road users, relative to drivers. But the risk of harm is not zero, as illustrated by my example above. Why can't we try to make both drivers and cyclists better at the same time? 

I do think that offences should be dealt with according to the amount of danger caused to others and society. Currently, cycle offences seem to be extremely harshly penalised compared to motoring offences and additionally, there is a large amount of abuse given to cyclists both on the roads and in popular discourse. I don't think we need to increase the amount of abuse that cyclists are subjected to even if some of them are cycling recklessly.

Currently we're in the situation where the car is king and even when cycle lanes are grudgingly put in place by councils, they seem to be ripped out even quicker. This is while there's increasing indication that climate change has reached or about to reach the tipping point of no return (i.e. large areas of the world are likely to become unlivable and there will be large numbers of people having their homes destroyed by "freak" weather events) and we also seem to have an epidemic of obesity and poor health brought about by people's lack of exercise.

What we should be focussing on is encouraging as many people as possible to take up active travel (maybe just swapping a journey here or there with walking/cycling/scootering) and what we don't need to be doing is creating a climate of abuse and dissent amongst us. There's also the tribal problem of assuming that all cyclists are a group and as such need to be policing each other (c.f. war crimes of group responsibility).

Personally, I think we should have a change in the road laws regarding cyclists. Implement something like the Idaho Stop whereby red traffic lights can be treated as "Stop" signs (e.g. proceed with care only if your way is clear and give way to everything - that may be what you are seeing when cyclists go through established red lights) or at least allow turn-left-on-red with similar caveats (c.f. the U.S. turn right on red which also allows cars to do the same). I also think one way streets should allow two-way cycle traffic where there is room and it is safe to do so.

I think the problem is also exacerbated by the way roads are designed to prioritise motor traffic and there are often red lights that perform a meaningful function with large vehicles but are unnecessary for much smaller bicycles.

I agree with all of that, but I do think there's still a place for calling out bad behaviour - it doesn't need to amount to abuse (I wasn't actually endorsing the 'loser' proposal in the OP). I'd also probably support things like the Idaho Stop (haven't given it a lot of thought), but unless and until it is law here, I don't agree with just acting like it is. Sadly, it's not uncommon to see cyclists in London going through a pedestrian phase at speed, rather than with Idaho Stop levels of care.    

quiff wrote:

I agree with all of that, but I do think there's still a place for calling out bad behaviour - it doesn't need to amount to abuse (I wasn't actually endorsing the 'loser' proposal in the OP). I'd also probably support things like the Idaho Stop (haven't given it a lot of thought), but unless and until it is law here, I don't agree with just acting like it is. Sadly, it's not uncommon to see cyclists in London going through a pedestrian phase at speed, rather than with Idaho Stop levels of care.    

What I think is also an enabler of bad road behaviour is the lack of traffic policing. When it's common to see people routinely breaking the law, then it just becomes normal. One way to do that is to pick a random junction, and put a load of police there and stop and prosecute all RLJers, speeders, mobile phone users (whilst driving) etc.

You should probably just put up a public gallery of these.

"I would like to use Picture #6 to illustrate this point..."

You should probably just put up a public gallery of these

Ah!, but I haven't put up the picture of Lancashire County Council Highways Management going through a red light for ages! And how would your new restriction on me be easier for people than just scrolling past a picture they don't want to see? After all, I have to scroll past massive items consisting of quotes of other people quoting yet other people quoting.... I think the space I take up with the odd repeated photo is more than compensated for by the reduced space of my small italic selected quotations. I'm not sure if I've even used this one of PE70 RXP before...

You misunderstand me. I figure a link to a Dropbox full of pictures, a link to the 'box and then just say "look at number 7".

TBH, I was trying to take the mickey a little, and failed... 

Yup, the Lancs Lad missed it!

You need to cycle further out.

And I haven't seen that photo before.

AfterPeak wrote:

.. ignore the bike box and decide to stop right at the intersection instead.

because the bike box is full of cars?

wycombewheeler wrote:

AfterPeak wrote:

.. ignore the bike box and decide to stop right at the intersection instead.

because the bike box is full of cars?

I'm betting those drivers in the bike box, seeing the cyclist stopping ahead of them, will be tutting at the cyclists for having crossed the line at a red light, when in fact they have done precisely the same thing themselves.

I am absolutely not condoning it but I really don't see why the actions of someone else using the same mode of transport should have any impact on me. I regularly see drivers skip lights or play on their phones but I know that they don't all do that. 

You admit to seeing several drivers of multi-ton metal boxes go through red lights yet your ire is directed towards people on bikes which I find odd. How come you aren't suggesting a campaign to go chasing after those drivers shouting 'loser' at them? 

AfterPeak wrote:

On a given day I (personally) see maybe one or two cars skip the lights. I see probably 50+ bikes run red lights or ignore the bike box and decide to stop right at the intersection instead.

My observation is that motorists and cyclists run red lights very commonly, but in different ways.

I think you will find it is almost the rule that the lead car in the queue at a red light will pull away and cross the line as soon as the amber light illuminates, even though the red will still be lit at this point, and remains so until green lights up. In this way just about every red light is jumped by at least one motorist at every turn of the lights.

But it is overlooked, whereas a cyclist stopping over the line at a red light is seldom overlooked. Count again.

True.  Whether on a bike in primary, or in a car, if you are at the front of the queue at the lights see what happens if you wait until the lights are green before you start moving.

(Clue: it involves car horns).

Sriracha wrote:

a cyclist stopping over the line at a red light is seldom overlooked.

Interesting - hadn't occurred to me that drivers might characterise that as a form of RLJing - I've always assumed their beef is with sailing through solid red lights and continuing on your way.   

Not an offence to cross on a red man.

Happily, there's no law against pedestrians crossing on a red man in Britain.