Cycling UK Forum

Just something that came to mind whilst reading this - if you do RLJ or 'give way in a safe manner', a driver at the lights you've just departed might be less inclined to give you appropriate clearance when he passes you 30 seconds later. Just a thought.

As balanced people normally should, I can see both sides of this dispute; but self preservation should really be foremost in our minds, especially as we don't have four walls of metal around us like drivers do. So why invite drivers who might have given you respect and space, albeit grudgingly, try and intimidate you by passing too close or drive a few feet behind your rear wheel?

Even assuming we do go through red lights in a safe manner, there's no guarantee that other road users will recognise our reasoning and awareness - they will just think 'if they don't observe road safety why should I?' Then where will we be?

kwackers wrote:I for one will continue to ride in a manner I consider safe, according to the conditions at the time, based on judgements that have seen me survive 4 decades of motoring, cycling and motorcycling.

Oh kwackers you do talk such sense!

Nerazzurri wrote:Just something that came to mind whilst reading this - if you do RLJ or 'give way in a safe manner', a driver at the lights you've just departed might be less inclined to give you appropriate clearance when he passes you 30 seconds later. Just a thought.

As balanced people normally should, I can see both sides of this dispute; but self preservation should really be foremost in our minds, especially as we don't have four walls of metal around us like drivers do. So why invite drivers who might have given you respect and space, albeit grudgingly, try and intimidate you by passing too close or drive a few feet behind your rear wheel?

Even assuming we do go through red lights in a safe manner, there's no guarantee that other road users will recognise our reasoning and awareness - they will just think 'if they don't observe road safety why should I?' Then where will we be?

I see where you're coming from but really is that how it works? So you think car drivers go round thinking "if he can do it then so can I?" Why does this not therefore apply to the other drivers they see? On that basis I'd be a drunk driving, speed limit busting, uninsured, stolen car driving loony in a white van

david143 wrote:I never RLJ, and I think anyone who does should be fined on the spot.

The highway code is very clear about a red traffic light. It never means go, unless ordered to do so by an official.

The rules are there for all, not just some. Nobody can lay claim to understanding the knowledge of another road user, so nobody will know if you are fully aware of what you are doing,ie. RLJ'ing safely.

We must all abide by the rules of the road. If you feel a rule is no longer relevant, then have it changed, but no individual should be ignoring the rules or choosing which to follow.

David - Birching would be a better alternative surely especially if carried out on the spot by my attractive and polite policewoman.

Seriously, fine me for it - then I'd stop. On the basis of your own argument why not get the Law changed? Maybe we could take tests, and carry licenses and have compulsory 3rd party insurance, and have MoT tests for bikes. That will be a sure fire vote winner.

A lot of the bikes I see could use an MOT!

Nerazzurri wrote: So why invite drivers who might have given you respect and space, albeit grudgingly, try and intimidate you by passing too close or drive a few feet behind your rear wheel?

I don't think that works. Motorists who bully others will do it anyway. The law should deal with them - I know that it won't do that directly but it will catch up with people who drive like that in the long term.

There is no point in appeasement - it just doesn't work.

workhard wrote:I see where you're coming from but really is that how it works? So you think car drivers go round thinking "if he can do it then so can I?" Why does this not therefore apply to the other drivers they see? On that basis I'd be a drunk driving, speed limit busting, uninsured, stolen car driving loony in a white van

I know that's mostly tongue in cheek, mate; but just to elaborate a bit.

I don't think that's the way it works in the short term, but long term, yeah. I'm sure most people here have witnessed the general decline in driving standards, most related to selfishness, over the last couple of decades.

As road users see others doing 'I'm alright, **** you' things, as time goes by I think it's more likely they'll do the same things themselves, that's all.

And living in a city, I'll do what I can to avoid confrontation/road rage. Just IMO going through a red light is inviting someone to feel more aggressive towards me, or cyclists in general.

Tom Richardson wrote:I don't think that works. Motorists who bully others will do it anyway. The law should deal with them - I know that it won't do that directly but it will catch up with people who drive like that in the long term.

There is no point in appeasement - it just doesn't work.

I wouldn't say stopping at a red light is appeasement; it's just doing what is required of you.

You're spot on, a bully will always bully. I'm just being 'selfish' and thinking of my own safety - MAYBE if he wasn't going to bully ME, he MIGHT if i proceed through a red light while he is still sitting there.

And I'm sure in long term the law doesn't catch up with a lot of people, but I try to tell myself they do LOL to stop myself becoming aggressive. Let's face it, you don't want to get worked up and into a confrontation with someone; you just don't know who they are and what they have in their posession. To this person life may be cheap, they may have a weapon, if you do get away the may recognise you in the future whilst driving up behind you........

All I'm saying is why invite confrontation when it may not have been there in the first place.

IMHO.

workhard wrote:

david143 wrote:I never RLJ, and I think anyone who does should be fined on the spot.

The highway code is very clear about a red traffic light. It never means go, unless ordered to do so by an official.

The rules are there for all, not just some. Nobody can lay claim to understanding the knowledge of another road user, so nobody will know if you are fully aware of what you are doing,ie. RLJ'ing safely.

We must all abide by the rules of the road. If you feel a rule is no longer relevant, then have it changed, but no individual should be ignoring the rules or choosing which to follow.

David - Birching would be a better alternative surely especially if carried out on the spot by my attractive and polite policewoman.

Seriously, fine me for it - then I'd stop. On the basis of your own argument why not get the Law changed? Maybe we could take tests, and carry licenses and have compulsory 3rd party insurance, and have MoT tests for bikes. That will be a sure fire vote winner.

Not sure what a license, taking a test, 3rd party insurance all has with abiding with the law. None of those are required for cyclists, although I think it is disrespectful not to have liability insurance to cover damages you may be responsible for.

With the excuses given for RLJ'ing, they all seem self inflicted, ie ensuring you get to the front of the waiting traffic rather than fitting in with the flow.

On the spot fine, as I believe the Police can already enforce will do. We can not pick and choose which laws we want to follow on the bases that you think you know better. Adapt your riding to be law abiding.

charlieandjody wrote:If a car driver said to you "i can drive safely at 50mph in this 30mph zone" what would you say? Or how about a car driver that feels they can run red lights "if its clear"? Now replace 'car driver' with 'motorcyclist' - do your answers change?

They "say" it to me on the street outside my house EVERY SINGLE DAY. A better question would be "what would a police traffic officer or magistrate or high court judge say in response to their notions of safety. We have 100,000's of examples of their responses - it seems the same folk just don't see RLJ'ing on a bike as being of the same order of magnitude. Because the danger to others is so much less perhaps?

charlieandjody wrote:My point is this: we don't get to make those calls. Your decisions are based entirely on a cyclist's perspective and in acting based solely on that perspective you commit the crime that we accuse car drivers of ALL THE TIME.

In principal "we don't get to make those calls" is fine. But in practise we do we make those calls hundreds of times a minute every time we use the roads - we judge safety, often appallingly bady, from the only perspective we have - our own. All other road users do the same - why do you demand higher standards of performance from me just because I a cyclist?

btw I used to commit the crime of not having an incandescent filamant in my rear light. But I was safer as a result.

charlieandjody wrote:The biggest beef cyclists have with car drivers is that they drive like there's nothing else on the road other than cars. We ask them to be more considerate of other road users, namely us. How can we as a group ask this when we don't offer the same in return? Everyone on the road needs to be more considerate of everyone else rather than just looking at them as some obstacle that needs to be manoeuvred around.?

Actually my biggest beef is why UK's drivers are so technically poor at driving and why our standards mean you take a test once, in my case you are 17, and that's it. I don't have to ask car drivers to be (more) considerate of other road users - the law DEMANDS it of them because many of us are more vulnerable than them

charlieandjody wrote:(Just read this back and it sounds disgustingly preachy but, it’s early and I can't think of another way of saying it - sorry! )

no at all - just passionately putting forward a reasoned argument, nowt wrong wi'that.

david143 wrote:Not sure what a license, taking a test, 3rd party insurance all has with abiding with the law.

If all road users must abide by the law consistently because they all represent the same risk to each other why not make the laws that apply to them consistent? Indeed could we extend testing to pedestrains and ban them from using mobile phones when crossing the road?

None of those are required for cyclists, although I think it is disrespectful not to have liability insurance to cover damages you may be responsible for.

Could not agree more, one of the main benefits of CTC membership, and a tadge more than disrespectful if you flatten an old lady or small kid. So why does the legislature, who currently seem to set records for passing ill considered laws that infringe people's freedoms, not make it mandatory if we are such a hazard to others? A small plate fitted to the rear of my bike with some form of unique registration mark, perhaps a combination of letters and numbers, would make it easy for the little old lady or child to identify me to Inspector Knacker should I try to flee the scene

With the excuses given for RLJ'ing, they all seem self inflicted, ie ensuring you get to the front of the waiting traffic rather than fitting in with the flow.

Not a reason I gave for doing it, please see my comments earlier in the thread

On the spot fine, as I believe the Police can already enforce will do.

so why to the police so rarely enforce these, surely they regard such matters as having high priority on the basis of the risk such actions represent to other road users. For myself I'd like to see traffic light camera's installed at EVERY traffic light controlled junction/crossing that a cyclist has to use so all the car drivers who accelerate through amber can pay their dues as well. An a speed camera atop every speed limit sign would be neat as well.

We can not pick and choose which laws we want to follow on the bases that you think you know better.

"Oh yes we can" chorus the millions of otherwise generally law abiding subjects of these fair lands who choose to ignore various laws several times every day.

Adapt your riding to be law abiding.

Once I've polished my pedal reflectors I give it some more serious thought. Can you promise that all the car drivers who see my shining example will follow it? Including the c1000 that killed a cyclist or pedestrian last year? How many other cyclists or pedestrains have been killed by red light jumping cyclists over the same time frame?

Nerazzurri wrote:

workhard wrote:I see where you're coming from but really is that how it works? So you think car drivers go round thinking "if he can do it then so can I?" Why does this not therefore apply to the other drivers they see? On that basis I'd be a drunk driving, speed limit busting, uninsured, stolen car driving loony in a white van

I know that's mostly tongue in cheek, mate; but just to elaborate a bit.

I don't think that's the way it works in the short term, but long term, yeah. I'm sure most people here have witnessed the general decline in driving standards, most related to selfishness, over the last couple of decades.

As road users see others doing 'I'm alright, **** you' things, as time goes by I think it's more likely they'll do the same things themselves, that's all.

And living in a city, I'll do what I can to avoid confrontation/road rage. Just IMO going through a red light is inviting someone to feel more aggressive towards me, or cyclists in general.

The worse I see people drive when I'm driving the more resolute I become in maintaining my own driving standards.

The worse I see people drive when cycling the more resolute I become in protecting my own life and health as a result of feeling more vulnerable.

I'm very grateful I don't cycle in the city anymore and my riding context is very different to yours. But I'm not clear who exactly is being inconvenienced by my perceived selfishness in RFL'ing in the way I do - but I agree it is selfish but my bike runs on Muesli not fossil fuel so I won't loose much sleep over that.

Surely following the confrontation avoidance argument to its conclusion would see me staying completely out of the way of any and all drivers? I don't want to do my cycling on a turbo trainer so compulsory cycle lanes anyone? Sounds to me like you are making a judgement about your behaviour that involves balancing risks, just like a RLJ-er does.

Sares wrote:A lot of the bikes I see could use an MOT!

I like to see a well maintain bike but would you make it a mandatory annual test?

Sounds to me like you are making a judgement about your behaviour that involves balancing risks, just like a RLJ-er does

Agreed, I suppose I am.

workhard wrote:Surely following the confrontation avoidance argument to its conclusion would see me staying completely out of the way of any and all drivers? I don't want to do my cycling on a turbo trainer so compulsory cycle lanes anyone?

Depends what you choose to be the conclusion, without getting silly, really. I suppose it goes back to your comment above regarding balancing risk and making your own judgement, where your own conclusion lies.

Kwackers is absolutely correct; give way on red. It the lights are red for no reason, then the lights are not working correctly and I shall proceed if it is safe to do so.

I never go across roads on red (I might turn left on some junctions, but it depends if it is safe to do so or not.)

Hanging people who jump red lights is not the solution, for two reasons:
-There aren't enough police to catch dangerous motorists, let alone cyclists infringing a law ostensibly for their own safety.
-Since junctions - red lights and all - are the most dangerous places for cyclists, I can't blame some people for getting away from them before some idiot in a car drives through them) I don't do this myself, but I do make sure drivers have seen me etc.


We can pick and choose which laws we want to follow, that is exactly what every single one of us does on a daily basis. It is absolutely impossible to avoid breaking some law or other (most admittedly obscure).

Rosa Parks broke the law, was she wrong?