People who say 'Can I get?' instead of 'Can I have?'.
my pet hate too
I run the odd red light on my way to work on earlies. at 5.15 in the morning though there aren't many other road users about. do I deserve to be shot too?
Bike Forum
[closed]
Red Light Jumpers - ignore them or get involved?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
People who use the word 'out' after the word 'swap'.
People who say 'Can I get?' instead of 'Can I have?'.Both quite legitimate linguistic evolutions. The habit of some people to sporadically extend nouns with "ster", however; that's pretty indefensible
Posted 2 years ago # -
Both quite legitimate linguistic evolutions.
Evolution maybe, but and linguistically unnecessary and offensive.
Hopefully an evolutionary dead-end, just like the people who use them.
'Knobster', well, it always makes me laugh!
Defined in the Urban Dictionary as a 'Demented internet tail wagging imbicile'.
How can you not love that?Posted 2 years ago # -
new traffic island here is programmed for all lights to be on red until traffic sensors show vehicles approaching - ie stays red if there are no cars on the road - but sensors aren't tweaked for bicycles
Posted 2 years ago # -
Timely post just this morning on another (car-oriented) forum I frequent...
"Alternating black and white rectangle markings on the road and flashing orange lights mean it's a zebra crossing and if anyone is on it when you are some way away it means you should stop, [Censored] wit, not aim yourself at the person using it, you lycra-clad [Censored] resembling the unused condom in John Merrick's wallet. That's right, you don't look like you've broken away from the peloton, although you're probably on similar chemicals.
Perhaps next time instead of calling you a [Censored] to your ear I'll take defensive action and kick you into the road, only you'll probably live because unlike your eco-mentalist mates (and if we're trading carbon, making a bike takes up a shit-load more than it does for a pedestrian, shit for brains), drivers tend to read a book containing all the rules (reading, there's a tough gig, eh Thunder [Censored] ?) and will be stopping before they hit you, more's the pity."
Proving the rule that there are two sides to every argument.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That is class.
Posted 2 years ago # -
why be a servant to the law when you can be its master! jumping a red light! wow wee! its peadophiles and traffic wardens that really **** rile me! get into the real **** world coffeeker you sad daft bastard! you've obviously lived your life modecodled and blind to the REAL world, thats the f#*king trouble with this country, people like you! lets act on REAL crime thats happening not somebody jumping a **** red light!!!!
Oh dear, that would be an answer to my question then. You are in fact a kid off school. Not sure why I bothered to bite with such a troll.
Incidentally I was witness to a cyclist RLJ accident this morning in Glasgow city centre, a cyclist cruised up to a ped crossing red light and decided that he had no reason to stop as there was no-one making a move toward the crossing. Unfortunately a pedestrian couple spotted the green man and decided to make a dash for it while they had the right of way and traffic (me) was stopped. Cyclist meets pedestrian, fortunately only the one, bloke was very scraped and not a happy chap. Well done idiot cyclist, worth saving those extra few seconds for, good job it wasn't the guys pregnant partner who was a fraction of a second behind him. Cyclist and man exchanged words, and I nearly laughed out loud when the cyclist said "sorry mate, I didn't see you".
new traffic island here is programmed for all lights to be on red until traffic sensors show vehicles approaching - ie stays red if there are no cars on the road - but sensors aren't tweaked for bicycles
Inform the council, they should be sufficienty sensitive if you ride in the right location.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Some really arrogant, mis-guided and downright selfish views being expressed on this thread.
And the aggressive personal attacks on those that don't agree with jumping lights really does confirm what we think of you all...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tsk. I think some people are missing something here...
RLJing at busy times, with lots of other traffic around, pedestrians etc, is stupid and potentially dangerous. At quieter times, or when there's no other traffic around/risk to others, then it's down to a bit of sensible discretion, surely?
In my case above, had I stopped at every single red light, my journey would have been much longer. There was simply no need to stop at every one. Most of them were pedestrian crossings; it was gone midnight and there was hardly anyone about. There was absolutely no risk to anyone, so I just rode on through.
Coffeeboy; when you've stopped being so sanctimonious; have you never driven over the NSL?
Come on, use a bit of common sense ffs...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Sit at red lights, ignore other cyclists or drivers who go through.
Run on paving and jump back on the other side if late.Posted 2 years ago # -
Why do those people who object to RLJing perpetuate the fantasy image of a cyclist riding straight through a red light without slowing down or looking when it's obvious that is not what is really happening ?
Treat a red light like a Give Way sign and it is no more dangerous than a regular Give Way junction.
Going back to the original post in this thread, it was about a cyclist who rode through two red lights, not about a cyclist who caused an accident. What's the problem ?Posted 2 years ago # -
Some really arrogant, mis-guided and downright selfish views being expressed on this thread.
And the aggressive personal attacks on those that don't agree with jumping lights really does confirm what we think of you all...
only from one person, from what i can see. and the law-abiding citizens have already complained in this thread about being tarnished by the actions of others, yet that's exactly what you're doing there and what several others have done previously - unable to distinguish between those who are capable of deciding for themselves when it's safe to ignore a red and those who insist on fixie-skidding into crowds of scattering pedestrians.
i would point out again the arbitrary nature of global law, citing american red light turning and the jay-walking ban in many countries.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why do those people who object to RLJing perpetuate the fantasy image of a cyclist riding straight through a red light without slowing down or looking when it's obvious that is not what is really happening ?
I see it happening regularly. Usually by the crusty Glasgow courier mob who also like to blast down one way streets in the wrong direction
Posted 2 years ago # -
I used to do that at Uni when drunk/returning home.. Close my eyes and blast through reds.
Sometimes I'd wake up in bed covered in thorns/bramble or road rash etc etc
Posted 2 years ago # -
theflatboy - the "law abiding" contingent, to use your words, might have complained about other cyclists jumping lights, but they have not used the level of personal attack that was directed at karinofnine and coffeeking.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't run reds as a rule, and I'd much rather other people didn't. But for the good of my blood pressure, sense of proportion and general happiness I limit myself to setting a good example.
Posted 2 years ago # -
exactly, rkk. so the actions of one lone maverick fuelling the phrase "what we think of you all" is a bit unfair, don't you think?
Posted 2 years ago # -
To answer the OP, I would ignore them.
Concentrate on your own saftey, rather than get into what is likely to be a meanless conversation.
Safe commuting everyone
Posted 2 years ago # -
I see it happening regularly.
Doesn't the fact that they are doing it "regularly" suggest that it is not really all that dangerous ?Posted 2 years ago # -
The issue isn't danger, it's a question of legality.
A section of cyclists think the rules don't have to apply to them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
i think there's a division about that, bob. some people in here cite danger as the problem, others suggest it's about public perception/image and you seem to suggest it's a question of strict obedience of the law.
Posted 2 years ago # -
>just shrug and accept some people are just morons
yup.
+1 - quite annoying on a long run as you end up overtaking the same bods 3,4 and 5 times...you stop oat each set of lights, they sail through then catch them up - repeat - though they make nice target to catch up though - annyoing but rules is rules
Posted 2 years ago # -
If it's about danger and the RLJers are not causing accidents, while motorists are killing about 350 cyclists and pedestrians a year, or...
If it's about obedience of the law while there are about 2 million uninsured cars on the road, or...
If it's about public perception when car drivers are just looking for an excuse to get cyclists off the road that they "have paid car tax" to use...
I can't see what the problem is.Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm surprised at the level of emotion here. People clearly feel very passionate on all sides.
Whilst I prefer to use 'common sense' as my own general guide in life and therefore can see the point of those arguing they use their discretion (2am in the morning no-one else around for e.g.), the fact is that red lights are not a situation at which we are being asked to use our discretion, we are being asked, for the safety of ourselves and all other road users, to stop.
And whatever the ins and outs of what we do each time we see a red light and whatever decision we make, when non-cyclists see someone on a bike go through a red light, whatever the circumstances and whether or not it causes/contributes to an accident, it risks negative PR against cyclists. This comes at a time when the government, the NHS, councils, mental health charities, CTC et al are all trying very very hard to increase the appeal of cycling for the good of all.Posted 2 years ago # -
The issue isn't danger, it's a question of legality.
A section of cyclists think the rules don't have to apply to them.
Have you ever exceeded the NSL whilst driving on public roads?
Posted 2 years ago # -
some people in here cite danger as the problem, others suggest it's about public perception/image and you seem to suggest it's a question of strict obedience of the law
Well, it may be a surprise to some - but all three of those points apply.
A red light does not mean "Give Way" (as someone above alluded), or "warning - busy junction ahead". It is a command. It means STOP. It's not personnal, not meant to specifically inconvenience you, or offer you any choice or discretion.
For those that argue that jumping a light is a "judgement call" - you are correct. Most times, the only person in danger is the rider that takes the (calculated) risk of going through the light.
However,
As a driver, I've had to take avoiding action to miss a RLJer,As a cyclist, I've almost been wiped out by a bus after a RLJer forced traffic to change line through a turn right light controlled junction, and,
As a pedestrian, I have had to jump out of the way of an RLJer who came through irregardless of pedestrians using the crossing. The old lady walking alongside was not as well placed to evade and just "froze" in the middle of the junction.
Please tell me that such behaviour is not selfish?
In each case the "failure of judgement" was to go through on red without any thought for anyone but themselves.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I Have to agree with "rkk01" there…
I see the point proponents of RLJing make but it just doesn't sway me, you are using a vehicle on a road, there are rules and they do apply to you, not simply for the sake of it but for the well being of all...
Posted 2 years ago # -
It does mean 'Stop', but it is often totally car-centric. A set near me operate 'intelligently', sensing **cars** and turning green. On a bike I woould have to wait for a car to turn up before proceeding legally.
Posted 2 years ago # -
No-one able to back up the claim that flouting the law is safer, then?
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is when you're riding through a rough part of town late at night, and when stopping isn't perhaps a great idea...
So, to the sanctimoinous: In the scenario I've described, where 'jumping' the red light makes absolutely bugger all difference to anyone's safety, causes no problems whatsoever, what's the big deal? In such a scenario, why should I bloody stand about waiting for the poxy lights to change?
Sod that; there's something called Free Will. I'll choose to exercise it if you don't mind. You can stay waiting at the lights until they change. I won't be hanging around waiting for you though, so if someone jumps out and murders you, don't come crying to me.
Posted 2 years ago # -
No-one able to back up the claim that flouting the law is safer, then?
Who cares? Also, do you sit up at night studying Bylaws going backto the 1600's as well?
Its my life to decide when and where I end it. Have some of you never winged it?!
There are two extremes in life, those that are seriously bad and those that strive to be too good. Live in the little a middle.
Posted 2 years ago # -
It is when you're riding through a rough part of town late at night, and when stopping isn't perhaps a great idea...
Point taken, but someone was arguing that it's safer specifically when the traffic is particularly busy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Who cares? Also, do you sit up at night studying Bylaws going backto the 1600's as well? Its my life to decide when and where I end it.
I hadn't gone down the sanctimonious route so don't bother popping up overly-defensive non-sequiturs, it comes across as tracgically panicky. I'm quite capable of picking the occasional law that's worth ignoring as well.
The point is I'm curious as to how it's supposedly safer. I'm just asking a question - with a hint of ribbing perhaps, but if the answer makes sense then fair enough.
Don't assume everyone's out to spoil your little Braveheart party.
Posted 2 years ago # -
A braveheart red light jumper in action
Posted 2 years ago # -
Wrong side of the North Sea there, I think
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
