I put forward an argument I've used before on this subject.

It seems to me that cyclists and drivers tend to RLJ in different ways: drivers mostly go thro' immediately after it has changed because they're amber gambling, whereas riders tend to check if it's "safe" to ignore the red, i.e. it doesn't matter what part of the red phase is at, only that there is a big enough gap in the traffic to get thro' safely.

This means that cyclists RLJ more obviously than drivers. Their law-breaking is therefore more visible and is therefore more easily noticed by other road users, from drivers to pedestrians. Drivers, on the other hand will, I suspect, tend to justify their RLJing on the grounds that they just misjudged their closeness to the line when it changed to amber. How many of us, when driving, have done the same thing? I'll put my hand up (even do it on the bike occasionally) - will you?

Now I know that in London, which is probalby the UK capital for RLJers, the number of collisions between RLJing cyclists and other traffic is very, very small, simply because no rider in his/her right mind will take a deliberate risk in order to get across the junction.

I'll even accept that a sizeable proportion of cycling RLJers are being honest when they say that they find it safer to do so - note: being honest, not correct. Many, however, do break the law for the same reason that drivers do, i.e. they don't want to stop/be held up. We are, after all, subject to the same weaknesses as other road users, even tho' we are probably somewhat more alert (self-defence).

I'll even agree that even if we all abided by the law in this respect, many drivers would still find other reasons to object to our presence on the road - this seems more prevalent in countries with a more anglo-saxon culture, for some reason. However, removing one of the most frequently quoted law-breaking characteristics would reduce the number of grounds that they would be able to quote for disliking us.

The OP would then have not needed to address this particular issue in his rather civilised discussion with the driver, but would have been able to concentrate on his right to be where he was. I know that, as a campaigner (ret'd), I would have been able to spend more time on the real issues about safety and facilities when meeting with councillors and officials, rather than dealing with the same red herrings about traffic lights and pavement (sidewalk) riding.

It is the sheer frequency and obviousness of RLJing that creates the problems we have in this respect. If it was as rare as drivers doing the same thing - i.e. not amber gambling, but doing it at any time during the red phase - it would remove one of the most (if not the most) common criticisms of our behaviour.

It would only take a relatively small change in our riding in these areas to begin a change in the prevailing driving culture, since the most frequent criticisms would largely disappear.

You would still have the apparently large no. of US drivers who think that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, but you would have more time to address our real safety isssues, namely, that of driver behaviour.

Under that heading, you would also need to campaign long and hard to improve driver education and knowledge and the standard required to pass your driving tests. Not to mention introducing cyle training as part of the school curriculum, as, I believe, driver ed. often is.