http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/i-have-trouble-crossing-the-road-now-says-top-city-lawyer-left-braindamaged-by-cyclist-who-ran-red-light-7908069.html

Personally I don’t see any reason that a red light should be jumped and this sort of thing is bound to occur. Happened on my daily route to the office too

Not defending RLJ – I do sometimes in my car and on the bike
but RLJing a pedestrian crossing at 26 mph is madness.

Not all RLJing is the same. Unless you are thick?

Two sides to every story and I imagine that if Mr Hyer had looked before stepping onto the crossing this might have been avoided. That said if[/b] all RLJers are going to cause accidents like this, they should be banned from riding, anywhere! (I’ve seen the conditional used successfully in another argument somewhere so it’s OK).

right so you imagine , if and might …so you are speculating widely then

Thanks, very helpful

Wonder how many times this happens with cars running red lights every year.

right so you imagine , if and might …so you are speculating widely then

I’ve seen it used before as a very effective way of presenting facts and positioning in an argument by a well respected pillock pillar of society this forum. Honest.

wonders if two wrongs make a right

DS on here , the bastion of well considered and moderate thought NEVER retract that lie.

piedi di formaggio – Member

Personally I don’t see any reason that a red light should be jumped and this sort of thing is bound to occur.

No, it isn’t. This is like saying “A driver exceeded the speed limit past a school and hit a child, therefore, all drivers who speed are potential child killers”. RLJing safely is safe, RLJing dangerously is dangerous. OR, riding safely is safe, riding dangerously is dangerously.

You’re not supposed to do reductio ad absurdum in your opening post, bad form.

I think you should look up non sequitor

Are you really claiming that if people ignore red lights it is not inevitable that this sort of thing [ which i assume means accidents] will happen?
In what sense is this an absurd statement ?

Junkyard – Member

Are you really claiming that if people ignore red lights it is not inevitable that this sort of thing [ which i assume means accidents] will happen?

No. Ignoring red lights is a terrible idea. But taking note of a red light among various other conditions and acting accordingly is not the same as ignoring it. Safe RLJing does not make accidents inevitable- beyond the point at which riding bikes makes accidents inevitable, anyway.

That is just the sort of anti-cyclist article I’d expect in the UK press. Obviously the hundreds and hundreds of people killed, maimed and injured by cars every year is an order of magnitude higher than those caused by cyclists, but it’s not new-worthy because we accept them as unfortunate “accidents”.

Really, it’s tragic, but perhaps we should concentrate our efforts as a society on the biggest road killers: motorists.

RLJing safely is safe

COMPLETE BOLLOCKS!

Either its right or it’s wrong; Red means stop, it doesn’t matter if the road is clear or if there is no traffic, it means stop.

As soon as you create grey areas where its permissible, people start creating excuses as to why accident happened.

As a 30000+ mile a year driver and a life long cyclist I never do it.

Call me puritanical but if cyclists want the slightest bit of respect on the roads, obeying the law and respecting everybody on the street is the first thing you start doing 👿

BenHouldsworth – Member

COMPLETE BOLLOCKS!

Either its right or it’s wrong; Red means stop, it doesn’t matter if the road is clear or if there is no traffic, it means stop.

I made no comment on right or wrong, only on safety.

RLJing is not inherently unsafe- do it safely, and it is safe. Do it unsafely and it is unsafe. You will never in a million miles hit a pedestrian that isn’t there.

Right and wrong (or legal vs illegal) aren’t the same as safe and not safe.

>rosenblatt
>top city

wait, this isn’t rollonfriday

its a tautology to tell me something safe is safe but what you need to do is explain to me why a minority of road users ignoring the agreed rules will not lead to more accidents….is it because everyone who drives outsides the rules is a great driver and doing so safely?
i will never in a million miles hit a pedestrian who is not there doing 90 whilst pissed on the wrong side of the road but that does not make it safe.

Obviously you can be safe or unsafe whilst rljing [ or for that matter drink driving or doing 90 on the wrong side of the road] but this does not mean that it is ever safer than stopping or adhering to the rules everyone expects you to do.

Cyclist Andrej Schipka, a German IT manager, was found guilty of careless cycling and fined £850 plus £930 costs and a £15 surcharge for the crash on July 5 last year

Pretty sure this is still less than the truck driver who crushed a cyclist recently.

why a minority of road users ignoring the agreed rules will not lead to more accidents….

Ahem. You do know that the vast majority of road users ignore the agreed rules every time they use their vehicle? Show me a motorist and I’ll show you someone who breaks the law.

If the law is to stop when the light is red and a choice is made to ignore that law then it is about right or wrong.

Do you choose to obey a law designed to protect others or do you choose to ignore it based on your own risk assessment.

You will never in a million miles hit a pedestrian that isn’t there.

Unfortunately some peoples assessment of what is safe is significantly different to others, hence it is better we all obey than make the assumption we know best.

I know there are plenty of situations where a red light could be crossed, I’ve also nearly been killed by a random pallet falling from a lorry; sometimes planets align and s**t happens.

Plenty of people will say “I’ve driven that route a thousand times and a children never ran out in front of me”, but one day they might.

And one day a salesman gunning his BMW to a late appointment might speed through a crossroads with a green light thinking its empty and you may make your risk assessment of this empty crossroad and get blindsided.

Your choice.

Ben, you are wrong.

It can be perfectly safe to jump a red light.

Do you choose to obey a law design to protect others or do you choose to ignore it based on your own risk assessment.

Would you break the 30mph limit to allow a Fire Engine/Police car/Ambulance to reach its destination with less of a delay?

Obviously you can be safe or unsafe whilst rljing

Really? So you ignore a signal that is specifically there for everyone’s safety (they exist for no other reason that I can work out), but that can be ‘safe’ ?? How does that work then?

An example – you RLJ and get hit by something that you haven’t seen for some reason that was proceeding through a green light. Is that still safe because you perceived it to be so when you made the decision to RLJ? Good luck with that one.

Can anybody give a proper valid reason for RLJing that would stand up in a court of law?

fined £850 plus £930 costs and a £15 surcharge for the crash on July 5 last year.

wow, nowhere near enough if he was at fault, imho.
this isn’t even about bikes, it’s about one main ruining another’s life. sad.

Junkyard – Member

its a tautology to tell me something safe is safe but what you need to do is explain to me why a minority of road users ignoring the agreed rules will not lead to more accidents…

I haven’t said that. What I’ve said, is that people RLJing safely will not lead to more accidents. If a RLJ leads to an accident then inherently it was not safe. As you say, this is a tautology and frankly doesn’t need explaining.

Ignoring the agreed rules is likely to lead to an increase in risk, but being aware of them and choosing under certain conditions to disregard them is not the same as ignoring them.

So, define when it’s safe to RLJ

Can anybody give a proper valid reason for RLJing that would stand up in a court of law?

Safety of life and limb would be the only acceptable explanation, I believe.

However, to prove that you had to jump that light to for your own safety and well being would either mean that you were
A – Being chased by evil killer otters or something
B – Going too fast to be safe and in control in the first place, and therefore it wouldn’t stand up in court.

So, in essence, no. Of course some would say that they have a legitimate reason to do so because they have judged that it is OK. They are wrong.

Would you break the 30mph limit to allow a Fire Engine/Police car/Ambulance to reach its destination with less of a delay?

Different discussion; red lights are there because there is deemed to be a significant risk at that junction.

Speed limits are designed to allow you to react to potential situations based on the surroundings.

We will butt heads on this all night so I’m out of it; as a someone who drives up to a thousand miles a week at times there is a reasons why I choose to obey traffic laws and that is because people like those posting in this thread are on the roads.

Good night.

That’s what I thought CFH

Different discussion;

No it’s not, it’s a clear demonstration that
a) the law is not black and white.
b) you will make a decision and that decision might involve breaking the law for the greater good.
You can not bang on about the rigidity of laws that are, in fact, flexible.
See CFH’s killer otter for an example.

piedi di formaggio – Member

So, define when it’s safe to RLJ

Impossible to give some universal definition, as should be clear. But here are some specifics.

Pedestrian crossing. Someone presses button then crosses anyway as there is no traffic. Light changes to red after they’ve passed. There are no other pedestrians. This is exactly as safe as riding through a green light.

You approach a crossroads. You stop and observe in all directions, and there is no other traffic within a relevant distance. Therefore you pull away and turn left.

(incidentally, turning through red lights is a common feature in traffic law elsewhere. Is it your proposition that it must always be unsafe here because it’s illegal, but that it can be safe in Canada because it’s legal?)

you really are in a trolly mood DS
The weather is getting us all down 😥

incidentally, turning through red lights is a common feature in traffic law elsewhere. Is it your proposition that it must always be unsafe here because it’s illegal, but that it can be safe in Canada because it’s legal?are you suggesting that is it is safer if we all stick to the agreed rules I mean they drive on the right in Canada and that works ok as well, perhaps you should try that 😉

you will make a decision and that decision might involve breaking the law for the greater good.

Examples of when jumping a red light is for the greater good please.

The discussion is about jumping red lights.

So…ye sanctimonious of stw…

You are on your bike at a crossroads in the middle of the night. You can see clearly that there’s no traffic around but you face a RL.

You are saying it’s de facto unsafe to RLJ?

If the sensors don’t recognise you, it’s also unjustified?

You are saying it’s de facto unsafe to RLJ?

I think this is called the mariposa effect.
A baby robin in Indonesia dies everytime you jump a red light at 3am. Bastid!

Jumping a red light on a bike at 26mph is frankly ridiculous, especially somewhere like Holborn, so I’m not defending the cyclist at all. BUT, the cyclist was fined and the guy is still alive.

Remember the thread about this recently?

69 year old vicar dies after being ‘scuffed’ by a motorist trying to pass at a pinch point. Verdict? Accidental death.

BenHouldsworth – Member

Examples of when jumping a red light is for the greater good please.

Simple- fuel economy. This is the reason that it’s legal to turn right at red lights in most of the eastern US.

I think what people are saying , given he was hit by a RLJ , is that in general it is more dangerous to ignore RLJ’s that to adhere to them.

I think everyone can accept you can do it safely , as we could with drink driving, but in general it is safer to not do it.

I think everyone can accept you can do it safely , as we could with drink driving, but in general it is safer to not do it.

Don’t forget this is covered by quite the British culture and attitude of what might have happened. Remember the drunk driver in Malaga the police didn’t prosecute because they didn’t believe the readings after a 10km high speed, accident free chase (or whatever it was).
Here an accident happened and the book was thrown.
In a lot of cases nothing happens and one might ask, why prosecute?

Pedestrian crossing. Someone presses button then crosses anyway as there is no traffic. Light changes to red after they’ve passed. There are no other pedestrians. This is exactly as safe as riding through a green light.

So the pedestrian who runs out of a door to cross as he has the green man – you didn’t see him

The fact you believe it is safe doesn’t necessarily mean it is, you just perceive it to be so. You could be wrong. Anybody else proceeding on green would not expect you to be there