[XAP]Bob wrote:Note I'm not advocating RLJ or other law breaking, but to let that become the debate is silly - the debate is why we let motorists kill thousands each year, not why a minority of cyclists do the same as a majority of motorists (RLJ)
Majority of motorists RLJ?
Utter rubbish.
See how many don't stop when the lights change to amber and proceed to carry on for a few seconds afterwards. Of course that is just "amber gambling" or being a bit cheeky, not law breaking like those ruddy cyclists do
[XAP]Bob wrote:Note I'm not advocating RLJ or other law breaking, but to let that become the debate is silly - the debate is why we let motorists kill thousands each year, not why a minority of cyclists do the same as a majority of motorists (RLJ)
Majority of motorists RLJ?
Utter rubbish.
Nope, you find a junction where cars don't continue to cross the line well after it's gone amber (and often red), or one where they wait for it to go green before proceeding.
The reason more don't jump the lights more often is thay it is harder to move round other vehicles in a car.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Bicycler wrote:See how many don't stop when the lights change to amber and proceed to carry on for a few seconds afterwards. Of course that is just "amber gambling" or being a bit cheeky, not law breaking like those ruddy cyclists do
Most amber gamblers don't consider themselves to be RLJ'ing.
Of course the majority of car drivers don't RLJ simply because they arrive at the red light far too late. I suspect though that most would RLJ if they arrive a bit late - certainly there aren't many junctions where at least one or two cars will go through on 'early' red.
What's interesting is comparing this behaviour to cyclists. RLJ'ing cyclists will usually RLJ on red at any point simply because they'll treat the red light as a give way. Motorists on the other hand will cross their fingers and frequently either not slow down or even accelerate through an early red.
Not hard to see which of the two behaviours is the most dangerous.
Mr Ortho has noticed that far more drivers are jumping red lights at junctions in Stafford at the moment; sometimes two or three after the lights go red, not just the odd one 'chancer'. For vehicles waiting on a junction (correctly, i.e. no diamonds as they aren't necessary of people obey the lights) to turn right, that can mean that no traffic at all gets through one a complete sequence, and can cause the junction to become blocked. I hardly need point out how dangerous RLJ-ing in cars can be for pedestrians and cyclists. It hasn't been much of a problem in recent years, but it has got very much worse in the last six months.
I can only think it is because there have been a lot of delays due to badly planned conflicts with road works. But that's no excuse whatsoever, of course. Local motorists have been saying that we need cameras to catch the offenders, who, I'm 100% sure, are locals who know exactly what they're doing.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Note I'm not advocating RLJ or other law breaking, but to let that become the debate is silly - the debate is why we let motorists kill thousands each year, not why a minority of cyclists do the same as a majority of motorists (RLJ)
Majority of motorists RLJ?
Utter rubbish.
Nope, you find a junction where cars don't continue to cross the line well after it's gone amber (and often red), or one where they wait for it to go green before proceeding.
The reason more don't jump the lights more often is thay it is harder to move round other vehicles in a car.
I don't question the fact that many motorists jump lights, but it's just not true to say that the majority do it. Just watch any junction, you MAY see jumpers, they WILL be a minority.
I would expect that more than 50% of motorists have gone through a light on red.
However, most people do not do so habitually, so at any given time, or junction, only a minority are doing it.
I don't have any data on this for the UK, but in other countries, as many as 80% of drivers have admitted to driving through a red light, though this typically includes losing on amber gambling.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Of course this is all playing with statistics again. At any one junction, most motorists will arrive at the green phase, and go on, or at the full red phase, and (usually) stop. It's at the relatively short amber phase that some stop, but some go on (as they are permitted to do, if they have "already crossed the line, or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident"). The problem is the way that this get-out is interpreted. When an approaching driver has plenty of time to see the amber, and plenty of space to stop in a controlled, non-emergency manner without endangering anyone, and yet they still drive on, they are jumping the lights and breaking the law. I see that happening routinely at virtually every set of traffic lights that I am waiting at, every time.
Of course, like, I hope, nearly all other cyclists, I'm wise to this sort of behaviour so I watch out for it: if I see a vehicle approaching to cross my path, on amber, I wait just in case. No sense in being in the right - and dead.
So in a sense, yes, almost all motorists will have broken the law at traffic lights at some time in their driving career - and many do repeatedly. I regret to confess I have done so. As I've got older, I like to think I take fewer risks than I used to...
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity. Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments... --- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
Actually, this year, it seems rare that I arrive at traffic lights and no motorist either drives blatantly through red, or stops well over the line, often so as to obstruct any pedestrian or toucan cruising. I'd probably agree that the only thing stopping most drivers from RLJing seems to be the vehicle in front, rather than their own morals.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
bensonboo wrote:I don't question the fact that many motorists jump lights, but it's just not true to say that the majority do it. Just watch any junction, you MAY see jumpers, they WILL be a minority.
Not really, on any given sequence noone behind the first "non jumper" is given the choice, so 1RLJ is 50%, 2 is 66%, 3 is 75%
On every junction I see at least one or two taking the mick...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
"Figures can't lie - but liars can figure" (also Mark Twain iirc)
"In God we trust. All others must bring data" as it used to say on the wall next to my professor's office door.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
What about traffic lights when you cross the line on green, but by the time you get to the other end of the junction, the OTHER end is on green and the traffic coming towards you?
Can we please add motorists unneccessarily passing ASLs to our estimates of RLJing drivers please
Mick F wrote:What about traffic lights when you cross the line on green, but by the time you get to the other end of the junction, the OTHER end is on green and the traffic coming towards you?
Who is in the wrong?
Like you often get when cycling through long stretches of roadworks with temporary signals? If the oncoming traffic can see that the way ahead isn't yet clear before they pass the light then they should remain at it until it is. The green light is a "you may proceed if clear" signal rather than a "GO ahead regardless" signal. If they cannot see anything ahead (say the roadworks turn a corner) then I don't think anyone is in the wrong.
The one who's done something wrong is whoever set the temporary traffic lights to try to kill cyclists, isn't it?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Not just temporary lights, some fixed systems are problematical, especially ours.
I've complained to Cornwall Council regarding the lights in our village, but I was informed that to extend the green phase would create and issue and there would be more red light jumpers than there are already. (or words to that effect) TBH is see what they're getting at, so I turn off first left rather than going all the way through.
I feel sorry for the JOGLE'ers on their way up Gunnislake Hill. Bad enough with the gradient, but terrible during rush hour.
