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 ?

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.

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

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

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.

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. 🙂

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? 🙂

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 🙂

I see it happening regularly.

Doesn't the fact that they are doing it "regularly" suggest that it is not really all that dangerous ?

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.

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.

>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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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…

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.

No-one able to back up the claim that flouting the law is safer, then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

A braveheart red light jumper in action

Wrong side of the North Sea there, I think 🙂

There's quite a lot of wrong going on in that pic Hora.

I do hope it's not you…

Ah now you say that. Whose to say (historically) the Vikings didn't land and settle in Scotland.

Well I'm guessing they probably did. But my point is that when I watched Braveheart I didn't see Mel Gibson wearing horns. And that's a historical document, that is.

I bet in some parts of Scotland, Braveheart the movie was shown to school children.