Breaking the law
8.10.08 by Buffalo Bill
RLJ, for those of you that don’t know, is short for ‘red light jumping’, something that certain sections of the cycling community believe causes the public to discount cyclists as unworthy of respect and protection on the roads. I don’t want to rehearse all the arguments here, but I am willing to post this pic, from the Bike Show blog, as part of an ‘ad hominem’1 scatter-gun attack on the whole edifice of road ‘safety’ and its enforcement, or lack of.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?’ [which] roughly translates as ‘Who watches the watchmen?’, asks Jack.
In a seperate email to me Jack says:
talking about cycle lanes and ASLs… the reason ASLs have a feeder lane on the left is that this is REQUIRED by UK traffic law, to give the cyclist ‘the right’ to come past other vehicles and enter the ASL. The unintended consequence of this is that cyclists undertake vehicles (following the green paint) which as we know is less safe in relation to left-turning HGVs, especially if the light turns green before the cyclist has entered the box.
If there is no feeder lane, it is actually ILLEGAL for a cyclist to enter an ASL by passing traffic on the left or right. Chapter and verse at wikipedia.
This just seems so fucked up I can’t quite get my head around it. So I thought, problem shared, problem halved… or something.
Jack is referring to the problem with cycle-lanes in general, and Advanced Stop Line feeder lanes in particular, that MT has high-lighted again and again. As they encourage cyclists to undertake stationary traffic at junctions, and pull up on the left, and in front of vehicles, they put cyclists in a most vulnerable position, should the lead vehicle in the queue happen to be a HGV.
1 An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.