RLJ (Red Light Jumping). (The definitive bikeradar thread)

So you too chose which laws you obey, and I believe it's based on wether you believe the particular action will hurt someone else or not.

I do actually see where you are coming from really but you surely see what dangerous ground this is. You are a relatively sane (cough) person who is making this decision, others may not be so.

I think it was sexist

I think your avatar in pigonist.

I think your avatar in pigonist.

Try telling that to my cat :)

Yes I would drive at 60 in that case as the law would only be changed to 60 if it made sense to do so.

So using DJ's example - racism was all fine and dandy in the past since the law had not been changed to make it illegal therefore there was no sense in racism being illegal?
Your argument presupposes that those in charge of legislation will always make a decision that is correct and makes sense. While this is often true (most laws actually do make sense) it is not true all of the time. If you use the letter of the law as your moral compass (as you seem to advocate) then you WILL find yourself in a situation where the law permits action which is neither sensible nor 'morally correct' (I use this term loosely - moral correctness is very much subjective). If you want to follow the letter of the law simply because it is the letter of the law - that is fine. However, don't be surprised that some people follow the law because it falls in line with their moral values - and that they will break it when it does not.

Of course the law decides what actions are good or bad as it goes hand in hand with the punishment/penalty. You only punish for doing something which is seen as bad don't you so the fact it is bad has already been decided.

Two situations. In the first, a cyclist arrives at a pedestrian crossing signalled by traffic lights. The lights are red but apart from the cyclist, both the roads and pavements are completely deserted. After looking around to check, the cyclist jumps the red light. This is illegal - therefore what the cyclist has done is bad.

In the second, a car speedily approaches a busy crossroads and pedestrian intersection. The lights turn amber for the car, and pedestrians start to cross before the man turns green. The car is rather close to the intersection, so rather than slow down and stop for the amber he speeds up in hopes of making it across, beeping and tooting his horn to get people crossing out of the way - and narrowly misses hitting them. This is not illegal (as far as I am aware? please correct)

• therefore what the motorist has done is good.
  
  

I don't condone breaking the law - mostly it is there for good reason. However, if you read the above two situations and don't think there is anything wrong with them, then you are clearly rather screwed up. Whatever you may say, you cannot classify someone's actions as bad or good just because the law says those actions are permitted or not. Just because DJ jumps red lights does not mean he is any less 'good' than the truck driving granny who has stopped at every single red light she encountered for the past 80 years.

Excuse me Ruben, there shall be no reasonable and thought out arguments in this thread. Just cunts and not cunts.

interesting PDF on ASL and RLJ from TFL (if they can be beleived)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/behavour-at-advanced-stop-lines-summary.pdf

I do actually see where you are coming from really but you surely see what dangerous ground this is. You are a relatively sane (cough) person who is making this decision, others may not be so.

cheers kerley

i think we may chose to disagree

there are many areas where the law removes peoples right to self determine (self intoxication etc) i for one see this as an area of political choice for the individual

either side can be dangerous ground - eg drivers choosing to run red lights or just accepting racism because the law dictates its ok

pros and cons, its not a black and white area, the bipolar distinction of right and wrong is actually not helpful at all

In the second, a car speedily approaches a busy crossroads and pedestrian intersection. The lights turn amber for the car, and pedestrians start to cross before the man turns green. The car is rather close to the intersection, so rather than slow down and stop for the amber he speeds up in hopes of making it across, beeping and tooting his horn to get people crossing out of the way - and narrowly misses hitting them. This is not illegal (as far as I am aware? please correct)

• therefore what the motorist has done is good.
  
  
  
  

No, the motorist has not done good and should not have sped up on amber, want to try another example!

I see where you are coming from though but to me it is safer for people to abide by the laws set by the many rather than abide by their own moral compass. Some people's moral compasses don't see anything wrong with killing/harming someone because of their sexuality, race etc, etc,. remember.

Excuse me Ruben, there shall be no reasonable and thought out arguments in this thread. Just cunts and not cunts.

Oh ok. In that case:

*Not everyone who RLJ's is a cunt.
Not everyone who is a cunt RLJ's.
*

nope James - I directly answered you question

"Have you RLJ'ed?"

you then proceeded to load my reply as a barometer of my legal and social mores - which is a juvenile and ham-fisted way of arguing that may have worked in your 6th form common room when you were trying to impress Binky of the upper house but looks distinctly feeble and self-serving when you're conversing in an adult arena

soft cunt :^]

Oh ok. In that case:

Not everyone who RLJ's or not is or isnt a cunt.
Not everyone who is or isnt a cunt RLJ's or dosent.

Thats pretty much it.

BDW, you joined in as the argument went into the terrain of morality, so I just used you as an example

the law is not the arbiter of morality or correctness for me, and from knowing you I am clear this is not the case for you either

your comments made it clear that you are uncomfortable with someone campaigning for change (hence your mocking of the suffragettes and their methodology)

i see this as faintly hypocritical, you will break the law behind closed doors but clearly don't see that publicly discussing this is a viable way to debate, and instead just came in and mocked me

thats all

Two situations. In the first, a cyclist arrives at a pedestrian crossing signalled by traffic lights. The lights are red but apart from the cyclist, both the roads and pavements are completely deserted. After looking around to check, the cyclist jumps the red light. This is illegal - therefore what the cyclist has done is bad.

In the second, a car speedily approaches a busy crossroads and pedestrian intersection. The lights turn amber for the car, and pedestrians start to cross before the man turns green. The car is rather close to the intersection, so rather than slow down and stop for the amber he speeds up in hopes of making it across, beeping and tooting his horn to get people crossing out of the way - and narrowly misses hitting them. This is not illegal (as far as I am aware? please correct)

• therefore what the motorist has done is good.
  
  

As most crossings are in 30mph zones, if you see Amber and have time to start tooting your horn to warn potential crossers of your aproach.. a) you're too far away to attempt to beat the light (and yes driving without due care and atention) b) you were driving too fast in the first place.

My point being if you can toot your horn, you can apply the brake (although stopping takes longer, you naturally brake in times of danger)

What if the Light is green for the motorist and an OAP was still on the crossing, is the motorist allowed to mow them down?

Is the OAP breaking the law? as the little green man is now a little red man?

yep, kill them, its what the driver who only determines their actions based on the law would do

however the person who observes and makes informed decisions would probably not clatter into the old bird

So using DJ's example - racism was all fine and dandy in the past since the law had not been changed to make it illegal therefore there was no sense in racism being illegal?

Interesting. You appear to believe in a moral standard that exisits for all time. A very Christian viewpoint but one which is not supported evidentially, even if one looks at Christian history. Morals are subjective. Legislation objective. In cases such as racism, legislation has helped to change popular morality.

yep, kill them, its what the driver who only determines their actions based on the law would do

however the person who observes and makes informed decisions would probably not clatter into the old bird

Im this case you you probably hit her then quote the law. Or at least call her a cunt at the top of your voice.

James you live in DJ's world with DJ's laws.

You complain non stop about other road users, yet admit to RLJ, using headphones and so on.

It really is one law for you, and one law for others.

Im this case you you probably hit her then quite the law. Or at least call her a cunt at the top of your voice.

ok i just lol'ed and let out a lil bit of pee pee

BDW, you joined in as the argument went into the terrain of morality, so I just used you as an example

the law is not the arbiter of morality or correctness for me, and from knowing you I am clear this is not the case for you either

your comments made it clear that you are uncomfortable with someone campaigning for change (hence your mocking of the suffragettes and their methodology)

i see this as faintly hypocritical, you will break the law behind closed doors but clearly don't see that publicly discussing this is a viable way to debate, and instead just came in and mocked me

thats all

you are making an awful lot of assumptions there James and as always seem to be skewing any comment made as an assault on your seemingly impervious ivory tower

• I was merely chuckling at your irony of your portrayal of yourself as Red Light Jumping warrior being on a par with people who have laid down their lives in the fight against racism or for Womens rights
  
  

at no point have I commented on the legal/social/moral implications of any form of law breaking

doesn't stop you being a self righteous ass hat tho does it ya gurt big blouse

:^]

cars jumping red lights have huge potential to hurt others, cyclists will tend to mainly hurt themselves if they fuck this up (though of course they may scratch/dent a car and also traumatise the driver)

Unless the RLJing cyclist causes a car with right of way to swerve and hit a pedestrian/cyclist/kitten/etc...

Not that I want to feed this classic C+, though kerley I'd like to know your view on the RLJ loophole that is crank vs brooks.

ok i just lol'ed and let out a lil bit of pee pee

Haha, just another one of many spelling fails from me.

how does the law ever get changed?

clearly the suffragettes were wrong and bad

You are, of course, taking the piss with your tongue firmly planed in you cheek, Jimbo. Because you would never suggest your RLJing was a part of a crusade for achieving basic equality and human rights for all people, would you?

If you are, though, can I join you. I RLJ, but thought it was because I was impatient, a bit selfish, in a hurry and frequently running late. I'm relieved I can get some moral kudos from it too...

So us RLJers, that are proud and out the closet, are we helping to save the planet while we are at it?

Nope, I think we're saving the blacks and women...James will confirm