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

There are a number of reasons why light timings get changed, but obviously not 'to increase congestion'. The aim is usually the opposite, much as that is usually in vain.

I don't know specifically what has happened at the Nag's Head (do you mean the Bricklayer's Arms?), but if it's subject to the Mayor's 'smoothing the flow' policy, they may have done some research on existing motor traffic flows and tried to change the timings to be more favourable to the higher flows. That may have had the effect you describe.

Tibbs will know more.

Or you might just be getting slower with advancing age. :)

Blame tibbs!

There are a number of reasons why light timings get changed, but obviously not 'to increase congestion'. The aim is usually the opposite, much as that is usually in vain.

I don't know specifically what has happened at the Nag's Head (do you mean the Bricklayer's Arms?), but if it's subject to the Mayor's 'smoothing the flow' policy, they may have done some research on existing motor traffic flows and tried to change the timings to be more favourable to the higher flows. That may have had the effect you describe.

Tibbs will know more.

Or you might just be getting slower with advancing age. :)

How dare you- I'm getting faster and faster, my hair is growing in more thickly, and I no longer get hangovers.

Anyway, it's annoying in some ways, but in others it's quite nice- the timing now almost always catches all the motor traffic out, so whilst it truly fucks the traffic flow off the OKR, it stops cars from riding on my wheel as I take a wide line through to Great Dover street. A classic case of "I'm ok Jack".

And it might be the bricklayers

Now however you have to be trackstanding on the line, and go on the green like a greyhound out of a trap, and still you get through on yellow at the next lights.

Not quite the case, but it has definitely got tighter. I quite enjoy the new phasing for the reason you mention above, far fewer cars pushing you from behind. It is the Bricklayers arms, also :)

Would a cyclists-only light sequence help, I wonder? If there's a green bike light that comes on before the main green light surely there'd be no excuse about it being safer to jump it? Would give the wobblers time to get back to the left as well without cars trying to past them.

NB I don't actually RLJ myself so I have no stake in this concept other than "what if"

As I've said before on this thread and others, the main reason why cyclist RLJing has become so visible is because of the proliferation of 'All Green Pedestrian Phase' junctions. Cyclists should be given an advantage there; i.e., except for the busiest locations, it would be perfectly safe for cyclists to be able to cross the junction as pedestrians are crossing. The time isn't ripe for such a change, however, and it would take a good number of legal changes to road markings before this could be possible.

I thought the main reason it has become so visible is because so many bloody cyclists do it. Why do we keep trying to kid ourselves and others that it is only a small minority? Every junction I stop at on every journey someone will jump a red or try to. Which is not an argument about whether or not it is safe or why they do it. But RLJing is visible because it is so common. Just like spam.

I thought the main reason it has become so visible is because so many bloody cyclists do it. Why do we keep trying to kid ourselves and others that it is only a small minority? Every junction I stop at on every journey someone will jump a red or try to. Which is not an argument about whether or not it is safe or why they do it. But RLJing is visible because it is so common. Just like spam.

Of course, but the main reason why so many people do it now is because it has become so easy at the aforementioned type of junction. (There are also a number of less important reasons.)

The main reasons people do it are:

It's quicker
It's safer
It's more fun
Polis don't touch you for it

Given that I have recently seen a few cyclists collide with pedestrians after running red lights I am not convinced by the safety argument.

I have also seen some very near misses when clueless idiots run red lights as if its their god given right.

Of course, but the main reason why so many people do it now is because it has become so easy at the aforementioned type of junction. (There are also a number of less important reasons.)

I don't agree; there are more cyclists and there is a lot of monkey-see-monkey do. Same reason cyclists think going up the left of vehicles at junctions and always trying to get to the front is what they are meant to do, or can get away with. You watch a bunch of cyclists stopped at a light; as soon as one decides to jump it others follow. It becomes a habit, it's easy to get away with (which may account for the sense of unfairness cyclists express when they do get caught) and the perceived benefits (which I think are actually usually retro-fitted to the behaviour) are rarely scrutinised. There's nothing odd about it, people generally get away with whatever they can get away with as long as they can find some 'convincing' reason why it is ok for them to do it.

I thought the main reason it has become so visible is because so many bloody cyclists do it. Why do we keep trying to kid ourselves and others that it is only a small minority? Every junction I stop at on every journey someone will jump a red or try to. Which is not an argument about whether or not it is safe or why they do it. But RLJing is visible because it is so common. Just like spam.

I dont think RLJing has become more common. It has become more visible because there are more cyclists about and so if someone wants to vilify cyclists they will lazily select the most obvious cycling misbehaviours of a small minority.

It's the majority of cyclists, not the minority though. It's pretty easy to vilify a group when 90% of them brake the rules every day.

If "cyclists" as a group stopped jumping reds it would remove a massive "but you lot all break the law" automatic reaction from non-cyclists.

I don't agree; there are more cyclists and there is a lot of monkey-see-monkey do..

There are cyclists that see monkey and follow monkey. Don't they wonder why the rest of the cyclists are stopped at the red ?

Well, there are more cyclists so even if the proportion of them RLJing stays the same the number will be greater. I don't think it is a minority, I think it is a fairly large majority. What they see, and then do, is someone getting away with what appears to be useful - not having to stop at the lights. It's much harder to 'see' what I believe are the actual benefits of not RLJing. One of which, as Dammit says, is that we don't look like a bunch of selfish hypocrites. The point is the more visible it gets, even if proportionally it stays the same, the worse cyclists as a group look.

"break"!

ffs

It's the majority of cyclists, not the minority though. It's pretty easy to vilify a group when 90% of them brake the rules every day.

If "cyclists" as a group stopped doing jumping reds it would remove a massive "but you lot all brake the law" automatic reaction from non-cyclists.

I don't think its 90% Neil.
But what ever percentage it is makes me consider what sort of detachment from their immediate suroundings this percentage has.

Well, there are more cyclists so even if the proportion of them RLJing stays the same the number will be greater. I don't think it is a minority, I think it is a fairly large majority. What they see, and then do, is someone getting away with what appears to be useful - not having to stop at the lights. It's much harder to 'see' what I believe are the actual benefits of not RLJing. One of which, as Dammit says, is that we don't look like a bunch of selfish hypocrites. The point is the more visible it gets, even if proportionally it stays the same, the worse cyclists as a group look.

The popular perception of cyclists as 'rule breakers' will not change if only .005 % RLJ.
Its what the haters want to see.

o-d-f-o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct3YaeRkcRE

This gave me a real boost on a Monday morning !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087312/How-cyclist-got-away-jumping-red-light-tongue-tied-policeman-failed-arrest-grab-head-camera-filming-row.html

The video is worth watching.

He could have reasonably been arrested though.

IDCOPPLAN is sufficient for arrest.

I should explain, IDCOPPLAN is a mnemonic to remember the basis of reasons that you can arrest someone. Covers things like risk to children (C), obstruction to public highway (O)... but more importantly the A and N are for address and name.

The cyclist is a suspect, in the observed offence of jumping a red light, as a suspect he can be reasonably arrested under IDCOPPLAN for failing to provide such details when requested.

The copper was winning against an arsehole cyclist, who only made a getaway when the copper got frustrated and went for the camera.

The copper should've just stayed calm.

Isn't this video ancient? Or am I going mad?

The mnemonic ID COP PLAN summarises the above
points. A police officer can only arrest if one of the
following conditions applies:

**Investigation **- the investigation of the offence (or
conduct of the person) needs to be prompt and
effective.

Disappearance - the disappearance of the person
(if not arrested) will hinder the prosecution.

Child - to protect a child or other vulnerable person
from the person in question.

Obstruction - to prevent the person causing an
unlawful obstruction of the highway.

Physical harm - to prevent physical harm being
caused to any person.

**Public **decency - to prevent the person committing
an offence against public decency, (but only if
members if the public cannot be reasonably be
expected to avoid that person).

Loss or damage - to prevent the person from
causing loss or damage to property.

Address - the address of the person has not been
provided or cannot be ascertained or there are
reasonable grounds to doubt the address given.

**Name **- the name of the person has not been
provided or cannot be ascertained or there are
reasonable grounds to doubt the name given.