When RLJing messes up.

[Spikey]

... Cyclist was at fault as it looked like he had jumped a red previously...

Conflict is often a result of misunderstanding. Just because someone appears to be at fault dosn't necesarily mean they are!

For example I recently had an agument with a motorist who thought I had jumped a red light. The lights (pedestrian crossing) changed yellow just ahead of me. I started to brake and then realised that a) I would have to brake very hard possibly skid and still might not stop in time, b) sudden braking of this nature would put me at risk from car behind, c) there wasn't any pedestrian. Conclusion it would be dangerous to stop and safer to coast trough on yellow. Lights changed red just after I had passed the crossing. Oncomming car driver waiting to turn right (accross my path) before the pedestrian crossing, starts to turn and then sees me cycling away from a red light. Driver drives at me with horn blaring. I was so insensed, I stopped in his path to demand an explanation for such aggressive intimidating driving. The incident finished with me making my escape before things could turn nasty.

PS. Note, I am not defending or condoning RLJ, but merely illustrating how misunderstanding and assumption can cause conflict.

[LEE]

Taking a right turn by veering into oncoming traffic and going along the gutter on the wrong side of the road, a full 100 yards before the actual turn, is popular here too.

That is standard road practice in countries with huge cycling numbers. Perhaps the technique is being imported?

In Vietnam, for example, you would wait for eternity to turn across the tide of oncoming traffic, so you just meander across against the flow and then nip into the junction.
 
It looks bonkers, but nobody seems to mind that only about 90% of the traffic is on the right side of the road.

We can choose to go the Vietnamese way (Brownian motion every man for himself) or the more orderly Dutch way.

In the long run it's more efficient to control traffic, of any type, with various queueing mechanisms, than to allow a random flow.

As I said previously, RLJing allows a few to benefit from the generosity of the many.  Once the many start doing it the system goes tits-up.

Of course you need someone in London to figure out an effective queueing system.

Maybe a Green Light for cyclists (5 seconds in advance of main green light) would encourage more cycling and help prevent being side-swiped

[Wendy]

In the long run it's more efficient to control traffic, of any type, with various queueing mechanisms, than to allow a random flow.

Is it really, or is this just assumption based on "common sense"?

[gordon taylor]

I think the movement of cyclists in high density (Asian) situations imitates the movement of (Western) pedestrians in crowded walkways. The road/lane/control system that we've developed over the last 100 years is needed for the movement of large and cumbersome vehicles.. and it suits the anglo-saxon cultural mindset.

The control and movement of road users in other countries is very different.

e.g. Riding against the traffic is common (tho' illegal) in much of the USA

e.g turning left (or right, usually) on red is standard practice all over the place

e.g. Stopping, en mass, across the whole width of two carriageways at a level crossing in Vietnam, then "mingling" through the crowd ahead when the barriers go up.

e.g. blanket cycle lane priority (over vehicles) through Scandinavia and the Netherlands

All of which would create apoplexy in the UK!


PS. I never, ever RLJ... but I do ponder that a "fresh start" to our UK traffic laws might produce something very different to our current highway code.

[LEE]

In the long run it's more efficient to control traffic, of any type, with various queueing mechanisms, than to allow a random flow.

Is it really, or is this just assumption based on "common sense"?

It is really. I used to work in BT Traffic Planning (it wasn't as buttock-clenchingly exciting as it sounds).  The movement of anything benefits from management, especially as you get closer and closer to capacity.

Plenty of good examples around:

1) Post Office "Cashier Number 7" queueing is beautiful to behold for any Brit.
2) M25 variable speed limits
3) Congestion charging

I'm sure that London Traffic is already managed/queued in a sophisticated way.  You can't have something that close to capacity manage itself.  Hence, if a cyclist RLJs and gets stuck under a truck in Hammersmith (thereby fecking up the system), 2 million people are late home for their dinner.

RLJing works because only the minority do it.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Taking a right turn by veering into oncoming traffic and going along the gutter on the wrong side of the road, a full 100 yards before the actual turn, is popular here too.

That is standard road practice in countries with huge cycling numbers. Perhaps the technique is being imported?

In Vietnam, for example, you would wait for eternity to turn across the tide of oncoming traffic, so you just meander across against the flow and then nip into the junction.
 
It looks bonkers, but nobody seems to mind that only about 90% of the traffic is on the right side of the road.

I think the movement of cyclists in high density (Asian) situations imitates the movement of (Western) pedestrians in crowded walkways. The road/lane/control system that we've developed over the last 100 years is needed for the movement of large and cumbersome vehicles.. and it suits the anglo-saxon cultural mindset.

The control and movement of road users in other countries is very different.

e.g. Riding against the traffic is common (tho' illegal) in much of the USA

e.g turning left (or right, usually) on red is standard practice all over the place

e.g. Stopping, en mass, across the whole width of two carriageways at a level crossing in Vietnam, then "mingling" through the crowd ahead when the barriers go up.

e.g. blanket cycle lane priority (over vehicles) through Scandinavia and the Netherlands

All of which would create apoplexy in the UK!


PS. I never, ever RLJ... but I do ponder that a "fresh start" to our UK traffic laws might produce something very different to our current highway code.

In the long run it's more efficient to control traffic, of any type, with various queueing mechanisms, than to allow a random flow.

Is it really, or is this just assumption based on "common sense"?

It is really. I used to work in BT Traffic Planning....

As someone who regularly does the "drift to the wrong side of the road" thing, I agree with all of the above.

Traffic is cultural.