This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Interesting article here:
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-thr...
Essentially argues that cyclists shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign and should be able to go through a red light once they have come to a stop.
In reply to Removed User:
One thing Stateside in favour of that proposal is that drivers may turn right at a red signal, not something that's legal in the UK. There's already enough road laws, rules and regulations that are ignored or not understood that introducing another is not going to make things easier.
The main problem (as I see it) is lack of respect for other road users. Too many are impatient and inconsiderate. I'm not saying we should all drive/cycle at 10MPH and doff our caps or wave a cheery hello to all and sundry but a lot of "problems" would disappear if we all eased back a bit.
A case in point: On Wednesday I was biking in to work, there's a new cycle path on the edge of Keighley that lets cyclists avoid several very busy roundabouts which joins on to the end of a road running through one of the industrial estates. As I get to the end of the cycle path there's an articulated lorry reversing in to the road. He's trying to get in to a yard but there's a truck blocking his way so he's backing out to let the truck out. I stop as I realise that the artic driver hasn't seen me. Coming the other way is a white van who also stops to let the lorry out. The van happens to stop on a junction and a car pulls up and starts sounding his horn and gesticulating at the van driver to get out of the way.
Once all the palaver with the lorries has finished the van moves on and the car can also move. That car driver had no need to get irate, he wasn't an emergency service, 30 seconds or a minute on his journey has no real effect. He'll get to his destination wound up, stressed, any further "incidents" will simply further wind him up, of course everything will be someone else's fault.
One thing Stateside in favour of that proposal is that drivers may turn right at a red signal, not something that's legal in the UK. There's already enough road laws, rules and regulations that are ignored or not understood that introducing another is not going to make things easier.
The main problem (as I see it) is lack of respect for other road users. Too many are impatient and inconsiderate. I'm not saying we should all drive/cycle at 10MPH and doff our caps or wave a cheery hello to all and sundry but a lot of "problems" would disappear if we all eased back a bit.
A case in point: On Wednesday I was biking in to work, there's a new cycle path on the edge of Keighley that lets cyclists avoid several very busy roundabouts which joins on to the end of a road running through one of the industrial estates. As I get to the end of the cycle path there's an articulated lorry reversing in to the road. He's trying to get in to a yard but there's a truck blocking his way so he's backing out to let the truck out. I stop as I realise that the artic driver hasn't seen me. Coming the other way is a white van who also stops to let the lorry out. The van happens to stop on a junction and a car pulls up and starts sounding his horn and gesticulating at the van driver to get out of the way.
Once all the palaver with the lorries has finished the van moves on and the car can also move. That car driver had no need to get irate, he wasn't an emergency service, 30 seconds or a minute on his journey has no real effect. He'll get to his destination wound up, stressed, any further "incidents" will simply further wind him up, of course everything will be someone else's fault.
In reply to Removed User:
Thre has long been an argument that it is safer for cyclest to make a left hand turn at junctions with traffic lights when the light is red before the cars move off (especialy before the stop box was introduced) and is legal in some european countries. The downside is that some urban cyclist now do this as a matter of course which then winds car drivers up (#bloody cyclists) which then keeps up the combative nature of the debate.
Thre has long been an argument that it is safer for cyclest to make a left hand turn at junctions with traffic lights when the light is red before the cars move off (especialy before the stop box was introduced) and is legal in some european countries. The downside is that some urban cyclist now do this as a matter of course which then winds car drivers up (#bloody cyclists) which then keeps up the combative nature of the debate.
In reply to jethro kiernan:
It's the car driver's problem for getting wound up. They'd get wound up too if the cyclist waited and then held them up when moving off when the lights turn green.
I've nearly been rammed off my bike while stopping at red lights by drivers behind who had no intention of doing so, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I still always stop, but for that reason I think cyclists should be allowed to continue unhindered, depending of course on the nature of the junction and whether there are pedestrians actively crossing.
> Thre has long been an argument that it is safer for cyclest to make a left hand turn at junctions with traffic lights when the light is red before the cars move off (especialy before the stop box was introduced) and is legal in some european countries. The downside is that some urban cyclist now do this as a matter of course which then winds car drivers up (#bloody cyclists) which then keeps up the combative nature of the debate.
It's the car driver's problem for getting wound up. They'd get wound up too if the cyclist waited and then held them up when moving off when the lights turn green.
I've nearly been rammed off my bike while stopping at red lights by drivers behind who had no intention of doing so, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I still always stop, but for that reason I think cyclists should be allowed to continue unhindered, depending of course on the nature of the junction and whether there are pedestrians actively crossing.
In reply to Trevers:
yes driver frustration is one of the main causes of friction between cyclysts and car drivers unfortunatly a frustrated car drivers are dangerous people, haveing been called a F£$%ing Tosser the otherday by a van driver for using the stop box (and waiting for the light to change like a law abiding chap), Some people just loose their sense of humanity behind the wheel.
http://road.cc/content/news/119538-video-road-safety-film-norway-asks-drive...
yes driver frustration is one of the main causes of friction between cyclysts and car drivers unfortunatly a frustrated car drivers are dangerous people, haveing been called a F£$%ing Tosser the otherday by a van driver for using the stop box (and waiting for the light to change like a law abiding chap), Some people just loose their sense of humanity behind the wheel.
http://road.cc/content/news/119538-video-road-safety-film-norway-asks-drive...
In reply to Bob:
I agree with you whole-heartedly Bob. But I suggest that you don't move to Spain, where getting irate and leaning on the horn is standard procedure if you are delayed for more than 5 seconds. It drives me crazy.
In fairness, Spanish drivers are quite respectful of cyclists out on the country roads, but less so in the city as you might expect. The other day a white van man slowed down to inform me that I should be using the bike lane (I was on the road). I politely informed him that it was full of broken glass, and that I was also in a hurry to get home from work, just like him, and I didn't like punctures. Perhaps he could do me a favour and write to the council to ask them to clean the glass up? He nodded and drove off.
My point is that drivers get aggressive with us cyclists but I think we should always try to rise above it - otherwise we are reinforcing the viewpoint that we are a "menace" etc.
> That car driver had no need to get irate, he wasn't an emergency service, 30 seconds or a minute on his journey has no real effect.
I agree with you whole-heartedly Bob. But I suggest that you don't move to Spain, where getting irate and leaning on the horn is standard procedure if you are delayed for more than 5 seconds. It drives me crazy.
In fairness, Spanish drivers are quite respectful of cyclists out on the country roads, but less so in the city as you might expect. The other day a white van man slowed down to inform me that I should be using the bike lane (I was on the road). I politely informed him that it was full of broken glass, and that I was also in a hurry to get home from work, just like him, and I didn't like punctures. Perhaps he could do me a favour and write to the council to ask them to clean the glass up? He nodded and drove off.
My point is that drivers get aggressive with us cyclists but I think we should always try to rise above it - otherwise we are reinforcing the viewpoint that we are a "menace" etc.
In reply to Removed User:
If it's safe then surely all classes of road users should be allowed to do it?
> Essentially argues that cyclists shouldn't have to stop at a stop sign and should be able to go through a red light once they have come to a stop.
If it's safe then surely all classes of road users should be allowed to do it?
In reply to Removed User:
I was pulled up at a junction next to a motorcyclist the other morning and got chatting (he was on a similar bike to mine and had the same leathers on) and he asked me why I'd stopped! I said, well, the light's red, he said he wouldn't have bothered.
I usually stop at red lights if there's other traffic around - however, there are a number of sets of lights around here that seem to be red for disproportionate amounts of time and you feel pretty stupid waiting at them with nothing else around. I'm sure that cyclists aren't heavy enough to trip the sensors in the road in some cases and I'd be there forever waiting for a car to come along.
I was pulled up at a junction next to a motorcyclist the other morning and got chatting (he was on a similar bike to mine and had the same leathers on) and he asked me why I'd stopped! I said, well, the light's red, he said he wouldn't have bothered.
I usually stop at red lights if there's other traffic around - however, there are a number of sets of lights around here that seem to be red for disproportionate amounts of time and you feel pretty stupid waiting at them with nothing else around. I'm sure that cyclists aren't heavy enough to trip the sensors in the road in some cases and I'd be there forever waiting for a car to come along.
In reply to timjones:
Just off to ride my bike down the motorway, then I think I'll take the car for a cruise down the pavement.
> If it's safe then surely all classes of road users should be allowed to do it?
Just off to ride my bike down the motorway, then I think I'll take the car for a cruise down the pavement.
In reply to The New NickB:
And there was I thinking we were talking about so signs and red lights!
Just off to take the car for a cruise down the river, I'll let you know how it goes
> Just off to ride my bike down the motorway, then I think I'll take the car for a cruise down the pavement.
And there was I thinking we were talking about so signs and red lights!
Just off to take the car for a cruise down the river, I'll let you know how it goes
In reply to timjones:
We were talking about roads and you suggesting safe practice is the same for all road users.
Not a road, so not relevant.
> And there was I thinking we were talking about so signs and red lights!
We were talking about roads and you suggesting safe practice is the same for all road users.
> Just off to take the car for a cruise down the river, I'll let you know how it goes
Not a road, so not relevant.
In reply to Removed User:
It's obviously a contentious issue. In my exp of cycling in central London there is a negligible advantage to be gained from running a red at most junctions - far safer to hop off & jog round / across with the bike if you're in a hurry.
However - there are a couple of junctions where moving slowly through the red is far far safer. These are usually where two lanes converge into one and trucks on the outside lane can try to overtake you as you move into the single lane.
It's obviously a contentious issue. In my exp of cycling in central London there is a negligible advantage to be gained from running a red at most junctions - far safer to hop off & jog round / across with the bike if you're in a hurry.
However - there are a couple of junctions where moving slowly through the red is far far safer. These are usually where two lanes converge into one and trucks on the outside lane can try to overtake you as you move into the single lane.
Post edited at 10:07
In reply to The New NickB:
It's nowhere near as simple as the author of the article implies. There will be a case for suggesting that at some junctions bikes will have better visibility than cars. But there will also be junctions where a Smart car will have better visibility than a long nosed limo or a HGV will have better visility than any car or bike.
It makes little sense to change the rules for one class of wheeled road user across all stop signs and red lights IMO. It may make sense to have a cyclists proceed with caution option (lights or signage?) at some junctions or even to change the system for all raid users at other junctions. It's not about them and us it's about giving everyone the most efficient and safest journey possible.
Are you the sole arbiter of relevance
> We were talking about roads and you suggesting safe practice is the same for all road users.
It's nowhere near as simple as the author of the article implies. There will be a case for suggesting that at some junctions bikes will have better visibility than cars. But there will also be junctions where a Smart car will have better visibility than a long nosed limo or a HGV will have better visility than any car or bike.
It makes little sense to change the rules for one class of wheeled road user across all stop signs and red lights IMO. It may make sense to have a cyclists proceed with caution option (lights or signage?) at some junctions or even to change the system for all raid users at other junctions. It's not about them and us it's about giving everyone the most efficient and safest journey possible.
> Not a road, so not relevant.
Are you the sole arbiter of relevance
In reply to timjones:
So you acknowledge that not all road users are the same and that it is a useful discussion.
So you acknowledge that not all road users are the same and that it is a useful discussion.
In reply to timjones:
Pretty much spot on. The article is obviously focused on US/North America. Being stuck at lights on red when on a bike is frustrating - the sensors are usually induction loops so unless a car pulls up behind you, you can be there a while. Some semi-permanent lights have a button to press if you are a cyclist so you can trigger the change, the one on the side of Loch Lomond for example. Two problems with that: the cost of installation and misuse.
One solution might be to have another step in the lighting sequence that gives cyclists a few seconds' head start before the lights turn to green. However even this might not be so easy: the elderly are currently campaigning for the time allocated to pedestrians to cross the road at lights to be extended but the "needs" of vehicle drivers is being used to delay its introduction.
Every change made to the benefit of one group of road user will have consequences for other groups.
On my commute I'll pass cars in queues for traffic lights, etc but then they'll pass me on the open stretches - no problem, I'm taking advantage of the bike's capabilities in congestion and the car drivers are taking advantage of their car's capabilities on clear stretches. Quite why some, and I stress some, drivers think it's an affront for cyclists to do this, I've no idea, perhaps they are embarrassed that they are being overtaken whilst sat in their second mortgage.
Pretty much spot on. The article is obviously focused on US/North America. Being stuck at lights on red when on a bike is frustrating - the sensors are usually induction loops so unless a car pulls up behind you, you can be there a while. Some semi-permanent lights have a button to press if you are a cyclist so you can trigger the change, the one on the side of Loch Lomond for example. Two problems with that: the cost of installation and misuse.
One solution might be to have another step in the lighting sequence that gives cyclists a few seconds' head start before the lights turn to green. However even this might not be so easy: the elderly are currently campaigning for the time allocated to pedestrians to cross the road at lights to be extended but the "needs" of vehicle drivers is being used to delay its introduction.
Every change made to the benefit of one group of road user will have consequences for other groups.
On my commute I'll pass cars in queues for traffic lights, etc but then they'll pass me on the open stretches - no problem, I'm taking advantage of the bike's capabilities in congestion and the car drivers are taking advantage of their car's capabilities on clear stretches. Quite why some, and I stress some, drivers think it's an affront for cyclists to do this, I've no idea, perhaps they are embarrassed that they are being overtaken whilst sat in their second mortgage.
In reply to The New NickB:
I'm saying that it would probably be adopt changes on a junction by junction basis for all classes of road user rather than adopting a blanket change for just one class of road user.
The article is very much written from the perspective of the cyclist and some of the arguments used are pretty poor.
> So you acknowledge that not all road users are the same and that it is a useful discussion.
I'm saying that it would probably be adopt changes on a junction by junction basis for all classes of road user rather than adopting a blanket change for just one class of road user.
The article is very much written from the perspective of the cyclist and some of the arguments used are pretty poor.
In reply to timjones:
The article is American, so operating in a different legal framework. The discussion on this forum is it seems a little wider and a little more relevant to British roads.
The article is American, so operating in a different legal framework. The discussion on this forum is it seems a little wider and a little more relevant to British roads.
In reply to timjones:
I don't feel that strongly about the proposal in the original article since it's basically a convenience thing, but why would you insist without exception that because a rule makes sense for a 40 ton truck travelling at 60mph, it should also be applied to an 80kg bike rider travelling at 12mph?
> I'm saying that it would probably be adopt changes on a junction by junction basis for all classes of road user rather than adopting a blanket change for just one class of road user.
I don't feel that strongly about the proposal in the original article since it's basically a convenience thing, but why would you insist without exception that because a rule makes sense for a 40 ton truck travelling at 60mph, it should also be applied to an 80kg bike rider travelling at 12mph?
In reply to Bob:
The new cycle path is great, just a shame that the industrial estate cycle lane has so much sh1te in it. Requested a road sweeper via the council website so we'll see what happens.
Agree with the sentiments in your post but we are lucky in being able to cycle commute. When doing a 25 mile commute daily I used to get a bit aggravated at holdups when all I wanted to do was get home. Since cycling more regularly, where I am usually the limiting factor in how long it takes, I'm much more chilled out
The new cycle path is great, just a shame that the industrial estate cycle lane has so much sh1te in it. Requested a road sweeper via the council website so we'll see what happens.
Agree with the sentiments in your post but we are lucky in being able to cycle commute. When doing a 25 mile commute daily I used to get a bit aggravated at holdups when all I wanted to do was get home. Since cycling more regularly, where I am usually the limiting factor in how long it takes, I'm much more chilled out
In reply to thedatastream:
Wednesday morning there was a fallow deer next to the path, jumped away but stopped about five metres in to the trees and stood watching me. The road through the industrial estate is a minefield regardless of whether you are in the cycle lane or not.
Some of the pedestrian crossings in Keighley have been modified recently as well - they seem to have a filter lane for cyclists going up on to the pavement and round the lights - the one by Greenhead school is like this.
As for chilling out: if I push it (cycling) then getting home takes 50 minutes, if I take it steady then it takes 55 to 60. Sometimes I do one, sometimes the other, sometimes I intend to do one but end up doing the other.
Wednesday morning there was a fallow deer next to the path, jumped away but stopped about five metres in to the trees and stood watching me. The road through the industrial estate is a minefield regardless of whether you are in the cycle lane or not.
Some of the pedestrian crossings in Keighley have been modified recently as well - they seem to have a filter lane for cyclists going up on to the pavement and round the lights - the one by Greenhead school is like this.
As for chilling out: if I push it (cycling) then getting home takes 50 minutes, if I take it steady then it takes 55 to 60. Sometimes I do one, sometimes the other, sometimes I intend to do one but end up doing the other.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
he's anti cyclist or just a trollin'?
> but why would you insist without exception that because a rule makes sense for a 40 ton truck travelling at 60mph, it should also be applied to an 80kg bike rider travelling at 12mph?
he's anti cyclist or just a trollin'?
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Because the 40tonne truck wouldn't be rolling through a stop line or red light at 60mph?
On reflection the cycle probably wouldn't be doing it at 12mph either.
> I don't feel that strongly about the proposal in the original article since it's basically a convenience thing, but why would you insist without exception that because a rule makes sense for a 40 ton truck travelling at 60mph, it should also be applied to an 80kg bike rider travelling at 12mph?
Because the 40tonne truck wouldn't be rolling through a stop line or red light at 60mph?
On reflection the cycle probably wouldn't be doing it at 12mph either.
In reply to woolsack:
You're exhibiting a "you're either for us or against us" altitude there.
Have you ever considered the possibility that civil debate might help everyone see the bigger picture?
> he's anti cyclist or just a trollin'?
You're exhibiting a "you're either for us or against us" altitude there.
Have you ever considered the possibility that civil debate might help everyone see the bigger picture?
In reply to The New NickB:
I was thinking about the stuff about conserving energy/momentum and average speeds.
I'm no physicist but I'm fairly certain that the basic laws of physics are the same on both sides of the Atlantic I also believe that both points are just as applicable to motor vehicles as they are to bikes.
I thought his point about cyclists habitually scanning side roads etc was poor as well. Some cyclists will and some won't, pretty much the same as drivers really.
> The article is American, so operating in a different legal framework. The discussion on this forum is it seems a little wider and a little more relevant to British roads.
I was thinking about the stuff about conserving energy/momentum and average speeds.
I'm no physicist but I'm fairly certain that the basic laws of physics are the same on both sides of the Atlantic I also believe that both points are just as applicable to motor vehicles as they are to bikes.
I thought his point about cyclists habitually scanning side roads etc was poor as well. Some cyclists will and some won't, pretty much the same as drivers really.
In reply to JMGLondon:
This is where the cyclist's discretion should come into it- it's their responsibility to be aware of the road layout and conditions and what other road users may be planning to do.
> However - there are a couple of junctions where moving slowly through the red is far far safer. These are usually where two lanes converge into one and trucks on the outside lane can try to overtake you as you move into the single lane.
This is where the cyclist's discretion should come into it- it's their responsibility to be aware of the road layout and conditions and what other road users may be planning to do.
In reply to timjones:
I guess I would wonder why you are arguing against a change in the law for cyclists on the basis that it isn't applied to others. Is it an envy thing?
Why would you care?
I guess I would wonder why you are arguing against a change in the law for cyclists on the basis that it isn't applied to others. Is it an envy thing?
Why would you care?
Post edited at 14:44
In reply to Removed User:
My first post to the thread was
"If it's safe then surely all classes of road users should be allowed to do it?"
Is that an argument against changing the law for cyclists or a suggestion that maybe if its safe for cyclists it's probably safe for others?
In simple terms why complicate the law on stop signs and red lights?
There may be occasions when cyclists can safely roll through a stop line but that doesn't mean it's sensible to change the law for all cycles at all stop lines.
There may be occasions when drivers can safely roll through a stop line but that doesn't mean it's sensible to change the law for all cars at all stop lines.
If it is safe to roll through a stop line it's probably better to consider changing that stop line to a give way for all road users IMO.
See the above
> I guess I would wonder why you are arguing against a change in the law for cyclists and not for others. Is it an envy thing?
My first post to the thread was
"If it's safe then surely all classes of road users should be allowed to do it?"
Is that an argument against changing the law for cyclists or a suggestion that maybe if its safe for cyclists it's probably safe for others?
In simple terms why complicate the law on stop signs and red lights?
There may be occasions when cyclists can safely roll through a stop line but that doesn't mean it's sensible to change the law for all cycles at all stop lines.
There may be occasions when drivers can safely roll through a stop line but that doesn't mean it's sensible to change the law for all cars at all stop lines.
If it is safe to roll through a stop line it's probably better to consider changing that stop line to a give way for all road users IMO.
> Why would you care?
See the above
Post edited at 14:53
In reply to timjones:
It still feels like you are arguing against a change in the law simply because it won't be applied to every road user. Its the "if I can't do it why should they be able to" mentality which seems a little weak.
It still feels like you are arguing against a change in the law simply because it won't be applied to every road user. Its the "if I can't do it why should they be able to" mentality which seems a little weak.
In reply to timjones:
We already have different laws for different classes of road users. For example a pedestrian/cyclist/horse rider/moped can't go on a motorway and a car can't drive along a mixed pedestrian/cycle path. Do you suggest we change all that?
Because the US studies suggest it might be safer and speed up journeys for cyclists.
> "If it's safe then surely all classes of road users should be allowed to do it?"
We already have different laws for different classes of road users. For example a pedestrian/cyclist/horse rider/moped can't go on a motorway and a car can't drive along a mixed pedestrian/cycle path. Do you suggest we change all that?
> In simple terms why complicate the law on stop signs and red lights?
Because the US studies suggest it might be safer and speed up journeys for cyclists.
In reply to Removed User:
I you want to believe that I'm uneasy about it for that reason then I'm happy in the knowledge that you are wrong
What on earth leads you assume that you are capable of reliably judging other peoples "mentality"?
Try looking at it from a different angle, if it's safe for one class of road user why isn't it safe for others?
If cyclists are capable of making the judgement on when it is or isn't necessary to stop why aren't other road users capable of making the same judgement?
Why not aspire to simple safe laws?
> It still feels like you are arguing against a change in the law simply because it won't be applied to every road user. Its the "if I can't do it why should they be able to" mentality which seems a little weak.
I you want to believe that I'm uneasy about it for that reason then I'm happy in the knowledge that you are wrong
What on earth leads you assume that you are capable of reliably judging other peoples "mentality"?
Try looking at it from a different angle, if it's safe for one class of road user why isn't it safe for others?
If cyclists are capable of making the judgement on when it is or isn't necessary to stop why aren't other road users capable of making the same judgement?
Why not aspire to simple safe laws?
In reply to elsewhere:
Have you seen me suggesting that?
I wouldn't want to drive on the pavement any more than I'd want to cycle on the motorway. Do you want to do either
It would speed up journeys for all road users if it was applied universally. Why are cyclists especially worthy of having their journey times shortened?
> We already have different laws for different classes of road users. For example a pedestrian/cyclist/horse rider/moped can't go on a motorway and a car can't drive along a mixed pedestrian/cycle path. Do you suggest we change all that?
Have you seen me suggesting that?
I wouldn't want to drive on the pavement any more than I'd want to cycle on the motorway. Do you want to do either
> Because the US studies suggest it might be safer and speed up journeys for cyclists.
It would speed up journeys for all road users if it was applied universally. Why are cyclists especially worthy of having their journey times shortened?
In reply to timjones:
Because some classes of road users are much bigger, heavier and faster than others, and hence have a lot more potential to cause serious injury to others.
If cyclists are capable of riding on the road without any formal training or examination, why aren't HGV drivers?
It's because if a cyclist makes the judgement and gets it wrong, it's relatively much harder for them to seriously hurt anyone, and particularly to seriously hurt anyone other than themselves.
> Try looking at it from a different angle, if it's safe for one class of road user why isn't it safe for others?
Because some classes of road users are much bigger, heavier and faster than others, and hence have a lot more potential to cause serious injury to others.
> If cyclists are capable of making the judgement on when it is or isn't necessary to stop why aren't other road users capable of making the same judgement?
If cyclists are capable of riding on the road without any formal training or examination, why aren't HGV drivers?
It's because if a cyclist makes the judgement and gets it wrong, it's relatively much harder for them to seriously hurt anyone, and particularly to seriously hurt anyone other than themselves.
In reply to timjones:
Let's step back a moment.
A small (some would say it's large) minority of cyclists run red lights.
The question is (or should be) why?
One reason might be that they are high risk takers, adrenaline addicts if you like, that get a thrill out of it. I think this is unlikely for the majority.
The most likely reason is that there isn't enough time for a cyclist to safely get through the lights and junction from a standing start. This obviously depends both on the cyclist and the particular junction but for the purposes of this argument we'll assume a typical UK style crossroads with lights rather than the US style dual carriageway crossroads.
So how do we reduce cyclists jumping red lights? Preferably stop though I don't think you could get it to zero in the same way that you are unlikely to reduce speeding by motorists to zero. Some options:
1. Police crackdown, prosecuting all cyclists who jump red lights.
2. Change the law to allow cyclists to "roll through on red" - the Idaho roll mentioned in the article.
3. Change the light sequence in some manner that gives cyclists a few seconds grace to get across the junction before motorised vehicles get the go-ahead.
#1 solves the symptom but not the cause. It needs at least one policeman on every junction all the time. Not really viable.
#2 semi-legalises red light jumping. Personally I'm not too keen on the "turn left on red" idea either, this would encourage the creeping up on the inside of large vehicles that leads to so many of the cyclist deaths.
#3 Is perhaps the "least worst option" when all road users are considered. It's reasonably easy to implement as it is mainly a software change in the lighting controller. Perhaps the main danger is drivers taking the new sequence as go rather than waiting.
Let's step back a moment.
A small (some would say it's large) minority of cyclists run red lights.
The question is (or should be) why?
One reason might be that they are high risk takers, adrenaline addicts if you like, that get a thrill out of it. I think this is unlikely for the majority.
The most likely reason is that there isn't enough time for a cyclist to safely get through the lights and junction from a standing start. This obviously depends both on the cyclist and the particular junction but for the purposes of this argument we'll assume a typical UK style crossroads with lights rather than the US style dual carriageway crossroads.
So how do we reduce cyclists jumping red lights? Preferably stop though I don't think you could get it to zero in the same way that you are unlikely to reduce speeding by motorists to zero. Some options:
1. Police crackdown, prosecuting all cyclists who jump red lights.
2. Change the law to allow cyclists to "roll through on red" - the Idaho roll mentioned in the article.
3. Change the light sequence in some manner that gives cyclists a few seconds grace to get across the junction before motorised vehicles get the go-ahead.
#1 solves the symptom but not the cause. It needs at least one policeman on every junction all the time. Not really viable.
#2 semi-legalises red light jumping. Personally I'm not too keen on the "turn left on red" idea either, this would encourage the creeping up on the inside of large vehicles that leads to so many of the cyclist deaths.
#3 Is perhaps the "least worst option" when all road users are considered. It's reasonably easy to implement as it is mainly a software change in the lighting controller. Perhaps the main danger is drivers taking the new sequence as go rather than waiting.
In reply to timjones:
I thought you believed the rules should be uniform.
It doesn't matter what type of road user it is, if the rules can be improved to reduce journey times without other adverse effects then that would be a good thing.
> Have you seen me suggesting that?
I thought you believed the rules should be uniform.
> It would speed up journeys for all road users if it was applied universally. Why are cyclists especially worthy of having their journey times shortened?
It doesn't matter what type of road user it is, if the rules can be improved to reduce journey times without other adverse effects then that would be a good thing.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
As someone who has exoperiuenced a pedestrian making a poor judgement and walking straight into the road in front of me I can assure that you are talking utter crap. Don't assume that injury or trauma is only about the physical. No-one has the right to say I'm the one who will get hurt so I have a lower burden of responsibility or should be less rigorously regulated!
Everyone has an equal right to complete their journey free from physical or mental trauma.
> It's because if a cyclist makes the judgement and gets it wrong, it's relatively much harder for them to seriously hurt anyone, and particularly to seriously hurt anyone other than themselves.
As someone who has exoperiuenced a pedestrian making a poor judgement and walking straight into the road in front of me I can assure that you are talking utter crap. Don't assume that injury or trauma is only about the physical. No-one has the right to say I'm the one who will get hurt so I have a lower burden of responsibility or should be less rigorously regulated!
Everyone has an equal right to complete their journey free from physical or mental trauma.
In reply to elsewhere:
I said they should be simple! That may mean uniform in some cases but not others.
So where the design of a junction allows people to make an informed judgement lets give all road users the freedom to make the judgement.
> I thought you believed the rules should be uniform.
I said they should be simple! That may mean uniform in some cases but not others.
> It doesn't matter what type of road user it is, if the rules can be improved to reduce journey times without other adverse effects then that would be a good thing.
So where the design of a junction allows people to make an informed judgement lets give all road users the freedom to make the judgement.
In reply to timjones:
You're entitled to your opinion but I don't think pedestrians should need a "walking test", licence, insurance, road tax or MoT. Pedestrians should defintely be less rigourously regulated than a HGV for example.
> As someone who has exoperiuenced a pedestrian making a poor judgement and walking straight into the road in front of me I can assure that you are talking utter crap. Don't assume that injury or trauma is only about the physical. No-one has the right to say I'm the one who will get hurt so I have a lower burden of responsibility or should be less rigorously regulated!
You're entitled to your opinion but I don't think pedestrians should need a "walking test", licence, insurance, road tax or MoT. Pedestrians should defintely be less rigourously regulated than a HGV for example.
In reply to Bob:
Disagree. The most likely reason is that it's quicker, easier and more convenient than stopping and waiting for the light to change.
I see plenty of people jumping red lights at pedestrian crossings on wide straight roads with big cycle lanes - probably a lot more than at junctions. There's no conceivable safety reason to do it, they're just doing it because it's more convenient and (assuming that they've waited until there's no-one crossing or about to cross) it doesn't put anyone at risk, and that matters more to them than following the letter of the law at all times.
> Let's step back a moment.
> A small (some would say it's large) minority of cyclists run red lights.
> The question is (or should be) why?
> One reason might be that they are high risk takers, adrenaline addicts if you like, that get a thrill out of it. I think this is unlikely for the majority.
> The most likely reason is that there isn't enough time for a cyclist to safely get through the lights and junction from a standing start.
Disagree. The most likely reason is that it's quicker, easier and more convenient than stopping and waiting for the light to change.
I see plenty of people jumping red lights at pedestrian crossings on wide straight roads with big cycle lanes - probably a lot more than at junctions. There's no conceivable safety reason to do it, they're just doing it because it's more convenient and (assuming that they've waited until there's no-one crossing or about to cross) it doesn't put anyone at risk, and that matters more to them than following the letter of the law at all times.
In reply to Bob:
Come on! If people do it for convenience in one location, that is going to be a pretty big reason elsewhere too. The safety argument is pretty weak, that said your sequencing arrangement probably has merit at some locations. I would suggest moving the "main" light back to be level with the beginning of bike boxes would discourage drivers from entering them, giving cyclists more space and time. This might require smaller "bike" traffic lights in addition.
> I'm talking about red lights at junctions - don't change the subject!
Come on! If people do it for convenience in one location, that is going to be a pretty big reason elsewhere too. The safety argument is pretty weak, that said your sequencing arrangement probably has merit at some locations. I would suggest moving the "main" light back to be level with the beginning of bike boxes would discourage drivers from entering them, giving cyclists more space and time. This might require smaller "bike" traffic lights in addition.
Post edited at 16:03
In reply to timjones:
That freedom to use judgement within the rules applies to each and every existing road junction including those that use the "Idaho roll".
> So where the design of a junction allows people to make an informed judgement lets give all road users the freedom to make the judgement.
That freedom to use judgement within the rules applies to each and every existing road junction including those that use the "Idaho roll".
In reply to MG:
Remember that if something is going to cost money then it becomes a reason/excuse for councils/highway authorities not to do it. Moving the main lights and adding bike specific ones may well be a good solution but the cost of doing it would be pretty high.
I get the impression that the incidence of RLJ is highly variable throughout the country. Round here (Skipton down to Saltaire) I have only seen two incidences in the past six years. Obviously I'm not at every set of lights all the time but commute by bike regularly so I would have thought I'd seen it fairly often if it was as common as is claimed. The two instances weren't MAMILs but fat, middle aged blokes in normal clothes on mountain bikes.
Remember that if something is going to cost money then it becomes a reason/excuse for councils/highway authorities not to do it. Moving the main lights and adding bike specific ones may well be a good solution but the cost of doing it would be pretty high.
I get the impression that the incidence of RLJ is highly variable throughout the country. Round here (Skipton down to Saltaire) I have only seen two incidences in the past six years. Obviously I'm not at every set of lights all the time but commute by bike regularly so I would have thought I'd seen it fairly often if it was as common as is claimed. The two instances weren't MAMILs but fat, middle aged blokes in normal clothes on mountain bikes.
In reply to elsewhere:
That is a somewhat bizarre and absurd extrapolation from what I wrote!
Pedestrians should check for traffic before crossing the road. Cyclists and drivers should halt at stop lines. IMO it is short sighted to claim that cyclists should be exempted from anything merely because they will cause less physical damage if their actions cause an accident.
> You're entitled to your opinion but I don't think pedestrians should need a "walking test", licence, insurance, road tax or MoT. Pedestrians should defintely be less rigourously regulated than a HGV for example.
That is a somewhat bizarre and absurd extrapolation from what I wrote!
Pedestrians should check for traffic before crossing the road. Cyclists and drivers should halt at stop lines. IMO it is short sighted to claim that cyclists should be exempted from anything merely because they will cause less physical damage if their actions cause an accident.
In reply to Bob:
Apologies I think I missed it because I was typing another rteply when it appeared and I failed to spot it because it was above my most recent post.
You give a good summary of the possible options, I'd suggest a combination of junction redesign and enforcement. Junction redesign may not always need new lights.
> Care to comment on my previous post?
Apologies I think I missed it because I was typing another rteply when it appeared and I failed to spot it because it was above my most recent post.
You give a good summary of the possible options, I'd suggest a combination of junction redesign and enforcement. Junction redesign may not always need new lights.
In reply to elsewhere:
Of course it does and we're all accountable for the judgements we make.
My concern would be that something like the "idaho roll" with a catchy feelgood name would encourage some of the chancers to push their luck just a little further. You may argue that they are the ones that will get hurt BUT hitting a pedestrian or cyclist is a deeply unpleasant and traumatic experience even when all the evidence and witnesses say it wasn't your fault.
> That freedom to use judgement within the rules applies to each and every existing road junction including those that use the "Idaho roll".
Of course it does and we're all accountable for the judgements we make.
My concern would be that something like the "idaho roll" with a catchy feelgood name would encourage some of the chancers to push their luck just a little further. You may argue that they are the ones that will get hurt BUT hitting a pedestrian or cyclist is a deeply unpleasant and traumatic experience even when all the evidence and witnesses say it wasn't your fault.
In reply to timjones:
So why so uptight about pedestrians and cyclists? You're far more likely to encounter something traumatic caused by something heavier and faster.
So why so uptight about pedestrians and cyclists? You're far more likely to encounter something traumatic caused by something heavier and faster.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
There are a number of red lights I jump for safety in Edinburgh. Another reason is to get a bit of space ahead of an aggressive driver. If I am in an established road position they are more likely to pass reasonably safely, vs them trying a dangerous overtake in the intersection.
Other times I run red lights are sensor lights that don't read cyclists and occasionally for convenience.
And of course there are the majority of situations where I am happy to wait for a brief interval at a red and then move off on green.
There are a number of red lights I jump for safety in Edinburgh. Another reason is to get a bit of space ahead of an aggressive driver. If I am in an established road position they are more likely to pass reasonably safely, vs them trying a dangerous overtake in the intersection.
Other times I run red lights are sensor lights that don't read cyclists and occasionally for convenience.
And of course there are the majority of situations where I am happy to wait for a brief interval at a red and then move off on green.
In reply to timjones:
Pedestrians and other non-motorised traffic is already exempt from most regulation precisely because they cause less physical damage. As a short sighted approach it has lasted well since it must predate the invertion of the internal combustion engine.
> Pedestrians should check for traffic before crossing the road. Cyclists and drivers should halt at stop lines. IMO it is short sighted to claim that cyclists should be exempted from anything merely because they will cause less physical damage if their actions cause an accident.
Pedestrians and other non-motorised traffic is already exempt from most regulation precisely because they cause less physical damage. As a short sighted approach it has lasted well since it must predate the invertion of the internal combustion engine.
In reply to elsewhere:
I'd say it's pretty level pegging IME. It's rare to have an issue with a HGV when travelling by car. Other cars and pedestrians/cyclists are about even Stephens but motor cyclists on a sunny weekend are by far the worst.
> So why so uptight about pedestrians and cyclists? You're far more likely to encounter something traumatic caused by something heavier and faster.
I'd say it's pretty level pegging IME. It's rare to have an issue with a HGV when travelling by car. Other cars and pedestrians/cyclists are about even Stephens but motor cyclists on a sunny weekend are by far the worst.
In reply to Bob:
re #3, since drivers routinely ignore the bike box (in fact I can't recall ever seeing a driver stopping before it unless it was already full of bike!) I can't imagine they would pay any more attention to a bike-only go signal.
Honestly I think police in Edinburgh at least are fairly pragmatic about bikes rolling red lights. They seem to understand that there are places where moving off ahead of the green is the safe thing to do.
re #3, since drivers routinely ignore the bike box (in fact I can't recall ever seeing a driver stopping before it unless it was already full of bike!) I can't imagine they would pay any more attention to a bike-only go signal.
Honestly I think police in Edinburgh at least are fairly pragmatic about bikes rolling red lights. They seem to understand that there are places where moving off ahead of the green is the safe thing to do.
In reply to elsewhere:
You really aren't catching onto the fact that damage goes beyond the physical are you
I'm not asking for extra regulation of anyone. I'm merely suggesting that formally sanctioning this Idaho roll thing would not be a good idea IMO. By all means do it where it's safe to do so but why expect a "get out of jail free card"?
> Pedestrians and other non-motorised traffic is already exempt from most regulation precisely because they cause less physical damage. As a short sighted approach it has lasted well since it must predate the invertion of the internal combustion engine.
You really aren't catching onto the fact that damage goes beyond the physical are you
I'm not asking for extra regulation of anyone. I'm merely suggesting that formally sanctioning this Idaho roll thing would not be a good idea IMO. By all means do it where it's safe to do so but why expect a "get out of jail free card"?
Post edited at 18:14
In reply to timjones:
I guessed you've experienced that trauma and you have my condolences or sympathy if that is so.
I think the legalities and degree of regulation we have is based on the idea that numbers & causes of casuslties are mostly motorised.
I guessed you've experienced that trauma and you have my condolences or sympathy if that is so.
I think the legalities and degree of regulation we have is based on the idea that numbers & causes of casuslties are mostly motorised.
In reply to timjones:
With cyclists often being nearly as narrow as a pedestrian, it's easier for cyclists to continue through a red and not disrupt the traffic flow of the road they're joining onto.
Looking at the practicalities, even a small car takes up rather more space than a cyclist does, so while desirable it may not be possible to allow all road users, but possible to allow cyclists, who are the most vulnerable and could benefit the most.
> I said they should be simple! That may mean uniform in some cases but not others.
> So where the design of a junction allows people to make an informed judgement lets give all road users the freedom to make the judgement.
With cyclists often being nearly as narrow as a pedestrian, it's easier for cyclists to continue through a red and not disrupt the traffic flow of the road they're joining onto.
Looking at the practicalities, even a small car takes up rather more space than a cyclist does, so while desirable it may not be possible to allow all road users, but possible to allow cyclists, who are the most vulnerable and could benefit the most.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...