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

brooksby wrote:

and I'm really trying not to get annoyed when one of those scooters undertakes me or jumps a red light only for me to be cycling faster than them so catching them up but having no easy way to overtake

replace you the cyclist with a motorist and the scooterist by a cyclist and I guess you see the motorists' perspective.

EddyBerckx wrote:

One final thing - as infrastructure has improved and a lot more people cycle, the proportion of jumpers has gone down considerably,

Who would have thought? Once cycling is safer and people who are more risk averse are prepared to try it, the people who are more risk, joining the ranks of cyclists are less likely to break traffic laws.

Personally I tend to stop at most traffic lights, but at quiet (late nights/early mornings) times I'm more likely not to because 

1) timings between consecutive sets of lights are set for the convenience of drivers, and so penalise (slower) cyclists, watching the third set in a row go to red just as you approach is frustrating

2) sensor controlled lights are problematic and I'm never sure whether the lights are going to change or will sit on red indefinately

3) less risk of conflict with other drivers - why stop and wait at a red light when no other road users are even visible?

4) no one to see.

In all cases though, I would treat the lights very much as a give way and ensure I was not about to come into conflict with another road user, driver, cyclist or pedestrian.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I do find it funny that the ones who claim anti-cyclist bingo for "Cyclists going through red lights" are also some of the ones justifying cycling through red lights. 

Anti cyclist bingo also includes "doesn't pay road tax". 

I indeed do not pay any road tax, and am quite willing to justify it.....

Not an equivalent comparison though.

hirsute wrote:

Not an equivalent comparison though.

Yes it is. 

How so?

quiff wrote:

How so?

Don't ask awkward questions...

PRSboy wrote:

I frequently ride through a red light which controls traffic over a narrow railway bridge down the road from me.  Its a stupid light with ideas above its station which deliberately turns red if there is no one coming the opposite way (and there is a clear view for over 200 yds), and it deserves to be ridden through.

That'll teach it. These traffic lights are often too big for their boots I find. They need taking down a peg or two.

Martin1857 wrote:

I cycle in London all the time (as I'm no fan of the tube), and I think I can safely say that I see someone jump a red light at least once on every trip. Not sure that name calling or remonstrating is effective, I tend to register my disapproval to waiting car drivers by throwing my hands up and looking aghast and hoping that goes some way to mitigating the effect their stupidity. 

On almost every journey, I see drivers speeding, drivers using phones, smell cannabis from cars and yes see drivers go through red lights. Do I look at all these people and think "they reflect badly on me as a driver" No of course not, so why should I think that about cyclists?

Dicklexic wrote:

So often when this subject crops up, people claim that it's a none issue, and/or the behaviour of other cyclists has no effect on them so why should they call it out. In my opinion that attitude is at best naive. It's not just about the risk posed by cyclists to pedestrians or other road users, but also the knock on effect of their actions.

Whether you like it or not, there are a number of drivers out there who knowingly and/or deliberately put cyclists as risk, simply BECAUSE they have witnessed cyclists riding through red lights. I never (* almost never) intentionally ride, or drive for that matter, through red lights. Yet still when I have challenged drivers in the past over a close pass they have inflicted on me, they have claimed that I don't deserve their respect because "you don't pay road tax, and all cyclists ignore red lights". Clearly they are completely wrong, yet the fact remains that because they saw some random cyclist who I have never met pass through a red, I myself am being put at risk. Explain to me how the two events are not linked?

Changing the attitude of all those drivers is no easy task, and sadly nor is changing the attitude of those cyclists that think it's okay for them to make up their own rules on red lights.

(* I can't claim to have never misjudged the amber light timing when driving, and there’s a red light on a quite road junction near me that does not detect cyclists, so you have to make a judgement and ride through. It will never change unless a car comes up behind you.)

Potentially, however as it has been demonstrated to be less prevalent behaviour than amongst car drivers, and comparatively vanishingly small issue in terms of outcome, why would I draw further attention to an irritation that is already massively overblown by the drivists and right-wing press?

(* PS. Amber means STOP.)

Edit: I am playing devils advocate a little. It irritates me too, and I have been known to shout out, if not loser, then perhaps something more badgerish and unrepeatable if someone sails past me when I'm waiting.

But trying to change gammons' point of view is a losing battle. You might win a few with reasoned argument ( I remember bringing round someone who was criticising RNLI for funding swimming lessons for girls in other countries, I think it was Afghan, Iraq, Yemen amongst others) but it takes a long time, patience, and someone who is in comfortable to engage. 

Captain Badger wrote:

( I remember bringing round someone who was criticising RNLI for funding swimming lessons for girls in other countries, I think it was Afghan, ..

quite understandable, no one has yet been swept out to sea in Afgahnistan and lost their life.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

( I remember bringing round someone who was criticising RNLI for funding swimming lessons for girls in other countries, I think it was Afghan, ..

quite understandable, no one has yet been swept out to sea in Afgahnistan and lost their life.

Well that sounds like they're doing an outstanding job

wycombewheeler wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

( I remember bringing round someone who was criticising RNLI for funding swimming lessons for girls in other countries, I think it was Afghan, ..

quite understandable, no one has yet been swept out to sea in Afgahnistan and lost their life.

They have rivers and lakes in Afghan I understand, and relatively very few swimmers, especially of the female variety. However you have motivated me to check my sources

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/16/rnli-donations-surge-tor...

This was a couple of years ago and the locations I gave were obvs false memories on my part - apols. RNLI was facing criticism of its fulfilment of its founder's vision -

“should extend our views [of drowning prevention] from our own immediate coasts, to the most remote quarters of the globe, and to every neighbouring state”.

Part of the work involved providing burkinis for young girls free of charge who would otherwise not be allowed to take part, which certainly allowed the Heil and Times to level their guns on a "political correctness gon maaaad" platform.

I have used this argument myself before, but I don't know if I really believe it. Sure, a lot of drivers find cyclists an annoyance and will come out with something like "as soon as you lot stop at red lights, I'll give you more space". But I question how many drivers actively choose to endanger a cyclist because of another cyclist's infraction. I suspect it's usually just a poor attempt at defending themselves after the event, in the heat of a confrontation. They seem perfectly capable of taking murderous offence at legal things that cyclists do too, so RLJing is only part of the problem.   

Whether it's a problem is a matter of opinion, but in my experience it is common. I haven't commuted in London for a while (covid, innit) but I used to see it a lot on my commute.  I have said before on here that I think the ire drivers reserve for RLJing cyclists is partly because of the way cyclists jump red lights. Yes, plenty of drivers (and some cyclists) are amber gamblers, who will sneak through on amber or red when they should have stopped. But what a lot of cyclists (but very few drivers) do, is arrive at an established red light and then carry on through it for their convenience.         

Agreed, that's been my experience also, I was down there briefly couple of months back and spent some time walking between places we were visiting,and not one cyclist out of more than a dozen I saw who could and should have stopped for a red light, did so, they all ignored it and rode through,some were tourists,some commuters,some deliveroo,but it just seemed the expected way to ride.

Now in fairness I saw several motorists on phones, and at least several vans,trucks,buses,cars all merrily sail through a light which had gone red,but none of them as you put it arrived at a red light and for their convenience just ignored it like the cyclists did.

Equally none of those motorists when seeing a red light blocking their left turn, took to the pavement to shortcut the corner and pretend the light or the pedestrians waiting to cross the road,werent there, as one cyclist did who most definitely got sworn at for that.

Plus I've nearly been hit by cyclists when crossing the road at a crossing with the green man showing to me, red light to all traffic in London few years ago now. They got sworn at too.

So it certainly happens, I'd certainly call out the worst offenders of it, though my general attitude is I will stop at a red light and through my example demonstrate to others who will perhaps see we dont all ride through red lights like that.

quiff wrote:

 But what a lot of cyclists (but very few drivers) do, is arrive at an established red light and then carry on through it for their convenience.         

Generally if a car arrives at an established red light, they are not the first in the queue and so don't have the same opportunity to go through on red.

Well yes, but... There is always a first driver at the lights. Presumably the first driver at any given set of lights did have the opportunity to ignore an amber or red, but chose not to. This is repeated time after time so that everyone will at some point be that first driver at the lights. If it was just lack of opportunity due to traffic, then you would expect to see more drivers proceed through solid red lights when they finally realise their chance of being the first driver in the queue. But IME it is exceedingly rare to see a driver arrive at established red lights and then proceed anyway - when you do see it it's quite shocking. 

Using a similar logic: because there is always a first driver at the lights, on my route to work the majority of drivers who have the opportunity do indeed jump red lights, because the majority of those at the front go over the ASLs. 

markieteeee wrote:

Using a similar logic: because there is always a first driver at the lights, on my route to work the majority of drivers who have the opportunity do indeed jump red lights, because the majority of those at the front go over the ASLs. 

Don't forget about the actual first drivers at lights - the ones that speed up when they see amber and then jump the red light.