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

Thats pretty ridiculous, not that I'm saying its ok to RLJ but its a minor offence in comparison to using a mobile phone whilst driving, speeding or drink driving which are all too frequent in my area. I regularly see people on their mobile phones and have witnessed a driver on their phone fail to spot a red light and mow down a pedestrian. IAM really are just adding fuel to a fire, why can't they release the statistics of motorists RLJ at the same time and also highlight that 71% of pedestrian injures occur from Motorists RLJ and a mere 4% from cyclists. IAM give the impression of impartiality but they are just as ignorant as most people in this country at the moment.

it's a shame as IAM is an excellent organisation for the most part, members are pretty much all good guys when it comes to driving around us. Certainly the training is based around defensive driving techniques and hazard perception, for a regular cyclist who also drives I found it relatively easy to grasp and added my own input purely from a cycling POV.
Anyway, this seems a bit of a tardy and clearly misinformed 'poll' that will do far more damage than I bet the IAM envisaged.
It's quite shocking that the PR/Press rep didn't actually think to pull this before speaking to superiors (& if she did that is even more shocking!) given the misinformation and that the 'poll' was open to abuse in the first instance.

^ because there's no such thing as bad publicity, press release will increase website traffic & possibly result in a few new (cycle hating) members signing up, bringing in revenue & helping 1 or 2 depts meet their "targets" for the year and justify salary costs etc.

#cynical

They are covering this on BBC breakfast this morning, complete with the headline that over half of all cyclists admit to riding through red lights.

^ because there's no such thing as bad publicity, press release will increase website traffic & possibly result in a few new (cycle hating) members signing up, bringing in revenue & helping 1 or 2 depts meet their "targets" for the year and justify salary costs etc.

#cynical

Completely agree. With the Times campaign etc it's the perfect time to be sure you'll make the headlines with a survey like this. Yawn.

why doesn't the LCC or CTC do a similar survey raise the profile of bad car / motorbike drivers / riders

how many drivers were on their mobile phones while passing a certain point

why doesn't the LCC or CTC do a similar survey raise the profile of bad car / motorbike drivers / riders

how many drivers were on their mobile phones while passing a certain point

I count on monday morning and friday afternoons, one time I saw 7 people in the space of 3 miles. I think we should create a poll looking into speeding and mobile phone use at the wheel then send it over to IAM, see what they say then.

Then again I guess a cyclist that RLJ is a killer, I mean loads of people die everyday from cyclists that RLJ....... Oh wait no, they do die from car drivers that use phones, speed and jump lights.

*rant over, sorry this has really bugged me as I used to respect IAM as an organisation.

If we stopped defending cyclists who RLJ we might gain a bit of credibility.

At the moment we sound like motorists defending speeding.

If we stopped defending cyclists who RLJ we might gain a bit of credibility.

At the moment we sound like motorists defending speeding.

This.

If we stopped defending cyclists who RLJ we might gain a bit of credibility.

At the moment we sound like motorists defending speeding.
This is what we do in my group. In fact, we ran a campaign recently against inconsiderate cycling on Surrey Canal tow path in response to dozens of complaints from pedestrians/local residents.

Trouble is, then we are accused by some of spending too much energy focussing on these issues, the negative, rather than promoting or defending cycling and cyclists.

So we cannot win.

I believe that in order to promote cycling, gain respect and attract new cyclists, it is vital (certainly for campaign groups) to consider and sometimes take action to demonstrate that law breaking (even if we don't always agree with the law/Highway Code) is not OK.

The problem is that it's being highlighted out of context. Many of us RLJ, if only very occasionaly, but if IAM were to survey drivers who honestly admitted to speeding, you could expect a 100% result.

As much as I'm against RLJing, it's annoying that IAM members are hoping to take the higher ground over this matter.

Same people who drive also ride bikes.

Just look at the calling bad cyclists thread, inconsiderate cyclists are really common IMO.

If we stopped defending cyclists who RLJ we might gain a bit of credibility.

At the moment we sound like motorists defending speeding.

This would only make sense if morally speaking car speeding = cycle RLJing.

This isn't to defend RLJ, rather to point out speeding motorists kill and maim every single day, RLJ cyclists injure peds on a yearly frequency and never harm motorists. The two offences are not equivalent and hence efforts to defend one or the other are also not equivalent.

Inappropriate speed is the issue.

This would only make sense if morally speaking car speeding = cycle RLJing.

This isn't to defend RLJ, rather to point out speeding motorists kill and maim every single day, RLJ cyclists injure peds on a yearly frequency and never harm motorists. The two offences are not equivalent and hence efforts to defend one or the other are also not equivalent.

It looks very much like it's defending RLJ.

But that aside- have a look at what you've just written, and then look at motivations for people breaking the law.

"It harms no-one, I've never hit anyone, everyone does it, I'm not sorry that I do it I just want to get where I'm going a bit faster"

Is that a cyclist talking about RLJ, or a motorist talking about speeding?

It's the same trite bollocks that's wheeled out by all and sundry when you want to see your circulation / web hits boosted.

The IAM is standing on the sidelines, throwing stones at an easy target, knowing full well that it will stir up emotive reactions, about an issue that has no fundamental impact on anyone.

Which they then disingenuously misrepresent the shit out of.

Cynic.

It's a cheap shot from IAM for easy headlines from a 'survey' not worthy of the name. I am a member and will be letting them know what I think, for what it's worth, probably vey little!

Journalists recycling surveys as 'news' are more to blame than organisations seeking to exploit those crappy reporting standards.

"It harms no-one, I've never hit anyone, everyone does it, I'm not sorry that I do it I just want to get where I'm going a bit faster"

Is that a cyclist talking about RLJ, or a motorist talking about speeding?
Going to assume motorist since the excuse from cyclists is more often "because it's safer to get ahead of the traffic".

Rep for you though, completely agree.

It looks very much like it's defending RLJ.

But that aside- have a look at what you've just written, and then look at motivations for people breaking the law.

"It harms no-one, I've never hit anyone, everyone does it, I'm not sorry that I do it I just want to get where I'm going a bit faster"

Is that a cyclist talking about RLJ, or a motorist talking about speeding?

Its your point, you justify it. Defending people who break petty laws is not the same as defending people who break more grave laws. Where you put speeding/RLJ in there is up to you, but they are not in the same place.

Its your point, you justify it. Defending people who break petty laws is not the same as defending people who break more grave laws. Where you put speeding/RLJ in there is up to you, but they are not in the same place.

You are (deliberately?) missing the point.

Both camps put "their" offence into the "petty" box and the other groups offence into the "grave" box.

Until we, as a group, realise that we are in denial about this we are never going to escape being labelled a bunch of hipocrites.

Your own assertions on what is serious and what is not is irrelevant, unless you are just being an apologist for those that RLJ.

EDIT kind of what Tiswas said- until we admit we have a problem, and therefore lose the "us and them", we are going nowhere.

It's be nice if motorists admitted they have a problem, also.

For accuracy's sake, can we please change the thread title to 'Institute of Advanced Motorists does not find most cyclists jump red lights' or 'Institute of Advanced Motorists dishonestly claims most cyclists jump red lights'.

Cycling causes red light jumping?

It looks very much like it's defending RLJ.

But that aside- have a look at what you've just written, and then look at motivations for people breaking the law.

"It harms no-one, I've never hit anyone, everyone does it, I'm not sorry that I do it I just want to get where I'm going a bit faster"

Is that a cyclist talking about RLJ, or a motorist talking about speeding?

Journalists recycling surveys as 'news' are more to blame than organisations seeking to exploit those crappy reporting standards.

It's moral equivalence, which almost presumes that there are different sides. Which is, to some extent, what we need to avoid.

all this
thread ends

You are (deliberately?) missing the point.

Both camps put "their" offence into the "petty" box and the other groups offence into the "grave" box.

Until we, as a group, realise that we are in denial about this we are never going to escape being labelled a bunch of hipocrites.

Your own assertions on what is serious and what is not is irrelevant, unless you are just being an apologist for those that RLJ.

EDIT kind of what Tiswas said- until we admit we have a problem, and therefore lose the "us and them", we are going nowhere.

It's be nice if motorists admitted they have a problem, also.

I'm not missing the point I'm denying it. You have failed to counter my argument by at any point trying to show how different defences for different actions can be treated differently. ie You can defend RLJ by cyclists without having to worry about justifying those who defend speeding by motorists.