A circular argument about red lights

[Groomyd]

What about the left turns at red lights?

Crossings are only red for 9 secs ish, which is hardly worth going through anyway - surely.

Left turns are a given aren't they?

How about we let cyclists decide if it's worth it?

The very existence of zebra crossings shows that it is doesn't it?

[Surprised]

You don't really have a clue do you?

Surprised - you entered this thread by accusing me of only starting it to "get a reaction"

You were taken to task on this by Pouzar but you used your mod powers to delete what he said

Zim, a fellow mod, called you a "tit"

The thread now has become a good one which has seen some toughtful contributions from several posters

So now you're back to call me "clueless" in a final attempt to take the thread into your trollery

And yet incredibly you make calls on others behaviour as a mod

Tricky - I'm suggesting that bikes could go through pedestrian crossings IF it was safe to go - just as cars and bikes do now at zebra crossings - an example of how, in the uk, we are all able to make judgements to cross roads and keep traffic flowing without the need for traffic lights

Despite surprised attempts to derail the thread by calling me clueless etc there is a lot to be learned from the concepts used in other European countries by allowing bikes to go through red lights in a number of circumstances

I fell asleep reading that

[blahblah]

What about the left turns at red lights?

Crossings are only red for 9 secs ish, which is hardly worth going through anyway - surely.

Left turns are a given aren't they?

How about we let cyclists decide if it's worth it?

The very existence of zebra crossings shows that it is doesn't it?

Confused me there.

What is given about red lights and left turns?

Personally I think that you need to find some alternate routes for your commute where time rather than the joy of cycling is the point.

[unc.si.]

What about the left turns at red lights?

Crossings are only red for 9 secs ish, which is hardly worth going through anyway - surely.

Well yes, the pedestrian light issue is a bit of an irrelevance really in the scheme of things, although Groomy believes this to be a big issue for journey times in London, which I don't know as I've not cycled there, but have no reason not to take at face value.

Red lights in general are a slightly bigger issue, but only part of the safety debate. Not 100% clear whether allowing cyclists extra rights at lights improves or reduces cyclists safety in isolation tbh, but if you believe it does then it's still only a small part of the answer. Small but still potentially important, as a lot of accidents do take place at junctions. They're inherently more dangerous places, whether or not they have lights on them.

I can't see that pedestrian lights really have any bearing on safety of cyclists at all, as they're usually on normal, straight bits of road. They're not really high risk areas, so the issue of whether to go through on red or not is only really to do with journey time, not safety. Which is why I'm not bothered apart from the potential negative impact on image / rights to use the road, as before).

Anyway, this thread seems to have gone away from safety and on to the narrow point of pedestrian crossings, so I've lost interest a bit tbh

[Groomyd]

It's a given - meaning of course cyclists should be able to turn left at red lights - I don't think many would disagree with that

I'm not talking about my route it's not about me - I'm tailing about a change for everyone

[blahblah]

I think that is because someone thinks he can people on his side for pelican crossings, even though most cyclists on here have no interest in doing it preferring to go for the "we need the respect of motorists" line rather than more insults to be hurled at us.

[Groomyd]

destrian light issue is a bit of an irrelevance really in the scheme of things, although Groomy believes this to be a big issue for journey times in London, which I don't know as I've not cycled there, but have no reason not to take at face value.

Red lights in general are a slightly bigger issue, but only part of the safety debate.

I don't think it's a big issue - it's just an issue - and example of where a cyclist might go through a red light safely and as you say just one part of the overall red light debate.

At the core is that I do not regard a bike as a vehicle in the same way as a car is one.

[murf]

It's a given - meaning of course cyclists should be able to turn left at red lights - I don't think many would disagree with that

Of course it isn't 'a given' - what about pedestrians stepping out because the road is finally clear only to get hit by a left turning cyclist?

[Groomyd]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/10252518 ... ights.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://road.cc/content/news/31550-rac-s ... ght-trials" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's the detail isn't Murf? You design pedestrians and cyclists into it - it may be that pedestrians don't cross right there - couple of links worth a read

Left turns at lights in metropolitan areas will happen IMO - it's a given as I say

[Zimmerman]

You were taken to task on this by Pouzar but you used your mod powers to delete what he said
No, I deleted it (amongst other dross)

Zim, a fellow mod, called you a "tit"
I recall there were lots of hats available in a range of sizes.

[Groomyd]

Maybe others would like to make that decision for themselves

I don't think Pouzar has ever posted any "dross" that I've read

Can you justify that censorship?

[Tricky Tree]

Pouzar has posted plenty of dross, just like all of us.

[Groomyd]

An example would help me Tricky?

If you could make it an example worth censoring and why we'd be getting somewhere

[Zimmerman]

Ive no beef with Pouzar and hopefully he isnt offended by being bundled in with all your dross and being tarnished with the same brush.

Thats the royal 'your' (can you have a royal your)?

moderation-of-the-forums-t69354.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
g) Moderators have a difficult (unpaid) job which they do in their own time. Please do not publicly criticise them on the forums. By all means send a PM to Karrde or one of the other Moderators (or Admin) if you want to highlight an issue. You can view which Moderators are currently online at the bottom of the Forum Index page, where there is also a link to a list of all Moderators.


forum-t-cs-t1545.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit.

[murf]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/10252518 ... ights.html

http://road.cc/content/news/31550-rac-s ... ght-trials" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's the detail isn't Murf? You design pedestrians and cyclists into it - it may be that pedestrians don't cross right there - couple of links worth a read

Left turns at lights in metropolitan areas will happen IMO - it's a given as I say

Please do me the decency of reading my posts before abusing them.

I was talking about left turns (as are most on this thread). That first link is only talking about pedestrian crossings, which for some reason you seem obsessed with focussing on whilst ignoring what everyone else is talking about.

[Groomyd]

Ive no beef with Pouzar and hopefully he isnt offended by being bundled in with all your dross and being tarnished with the same brush.

Thats the royal 'your' (can you have a royal your)?

moderation-of-the-forums-t69354.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
g) Moderators have a difficult (unpaid) job which they do in their own time. Please do not publicly criticise them on the forums. By all means send a PM to Karrde or one of the other Moderators (or Admin) if you want to highlight an issue. You can view which Moderators are currently online at the bottom of the Forum Index page, where there is also a link to a list of all Moderators.


forum-t-cs-t1545.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should they see fit.

There is an implicit integrity which involves justification

Especially given that mods are wholly unaccountable and lack transparency

[Zimmerman]

So I will repeat myself;

I deleted a load of dross… and if i had left his post, it would have looked forlorn and totally out of context.

Thats the trouble with tit-for-tat skirmishes; theres sometimes collateral damage.


And just because i havent slept for 40hrs, so cant be arsed with your tone;

There is an implicit integrity which involves justification

Indeed there is. But there's an implicit understanding that when you ACCEPT the terms and conditions; that you take it on the chin and accept it. If you dont like it, stop coming.

Now you might fancy your chances of being a renegade and getting the highway code amended by breaking the law; but stop wasting our time trying to force through a change to FISO's Ts and Cs.

Im off to bed now - so dont waste your time responding.

[Groomyd]

Please do me the decency of reading my posts before abusing them.

Abusing?

Perhaps you could outline how I have been "abusive" in any way?

The links I posted are just links about some of the debate and we're not directed at your specific points at all

Turning left at red lights will happen I'm us and I'd doubt many would oppose it with any coherent justification

[unc.si.]

destrian light issue is a bit of an irrelevance really in the scheme of things, although Groomy believes this to be a big issue for journey times in London, which I don't know as I've not cycled there, but have no reason not to take at face value.

Red lights in general are a slightly bigger issue, but only part of the safety debate.

I don't think it's a big issue - it's just an issue - and example of where a cyclist might go through a red light safely and as you say just one part of the overall red light debate.

At the core is that I do not regard a bike as a vehicle in the same way as a car is one.

And of course I went on to say that the red light debate was just one part of the overall debate on cyclist safety.

It's potentially a part of the solution, but any changes to laws / rules are only going to have a minimal impact on safety if attitudes to cyclists in general don't change.

You could argue that TfL, after making such sterling efforts to encourage cyclists to wait in HGV blind spots by putting some nice blue paint just where truck drivers can't see them, are almost duty bound to allow cyclists to get out of that situation by going through lights (assuming of course that they get to the lights before the truck turns left). Bike lanes are actually one of my pet hates. That bit of white paint at the side of the road makes things worse, not better in the vast majority of cases.

Or you could argue that London needs something a bit more radical than some blue paint. Parts of Highway 2 are actually segregated, but there's just not the room on London's roads to do that and outside London there's no need for segregation in the vast majority of places.

The laws on red lights will change. It's been debated for a while (hence the green 'bike go' lights at Bow), but I don't really believe that it will make it fundamentally any safer riding in London (or anywhere else, I mention London because you almost have to treat it as a special case).

None of that changes my opinion at all that the only way to make things safer is to learn to share the road, which means motorists respecting cyclists rights to actually be on the roads, and that illegally running red lights erodes the cyclists rights to be on the road, which is why I don't do it.

[Groomyd]

Bike lanes are actually one of my pet hates.

Agreed - they pursuade cyclists to ride on the left of traffic - most deaths happen for exactly that reason - ride out in the traffic, ride like a car, get visible

which means motorists respecting cyclists rights to actually be on the roads, and that illegally running red lights erodes the cyclists rights to be on the road, which is why I don't do it.

We'll not agree on that

[Groomyd]

Indeed there is. But there's an implicit understanding that when you ACCEPT the terms and conditions; that you take it on the chin and accept it. If you dont like it, stop coming.

.

I have no issue whatsoever with the T&Cs - I agree with them

The issue comes when mods can't interpret them, apply them equitably, hold grudges and say things like "I'm off to bed so don't bother responding"

Justify

[unc.si.]

Bike lanes are actually one of my pet hates.

Agreed - they pursuade cyclists to ride on the left of traffic - most deaths happen for exactly that reason - ride out in the traffic, ride like a car, get visible

Hmm. Never thought of that. Thanks for the advice. I'll bear it in mind...

[Moist von Lipwig]

this is still going

[Bunners]

this is still going

yeah I remember about 3 weeks ago I think it was ...remember how nice the forum was......ah those were the days

[stuboy]

There is nothing wrong with segregated bike lanes, as long as they are separated by a raised kerb from the road motor vehicles use. The issue again here is the mentality of cyclists. There are lots of example in NL when bike lanes are on the right of the traffic but they are two way bike lanes, so all bike traffic uses two lane single track bike lanes. this means no overtaking at times.

They have separate traffic lights From motor vehicles - however, as much as I'm aware of cyclists being able to turn right on red lights, it's illegal to go straight on at a red light.

One thing I would add about Amsterdam as a capital city, which I'm not sure London is ready for, is public transport gets right of way in Amsterdam. Lights for trams and buses in Amsterdam change to keep them running, to the detriment of cars and bicycles.

[blahblah]

There is nothing wrong with segregated bike lanes, as long as they are separated by a raised kerb from the road motor vehicles use. The issue again here is the mentality of cyclists. There are lots of example in NL when bike lanes are on the right of the traffic but they are two way bike lanes, so all bike traffic uses two lane single track bike lanes. this means no overtaking at times.

Sounds like a recipe for multiple bike pile-ups in London

[Groomyd]

Bike lanes are actually one of my pet hates.

Agreed - they pursuade cyclists to ride on the left of traffic - most deaths happen for exactly that reason - ride out in the traffic, ride like a car, get visible

Hmm. Never thought of that. Thanks for the advice. I'll bear it in mind...

Unc - why the condescension? - I'm not "advising" you - read it again - I'm making a statement of general truth

We both know - but many don't - that a lot of the deaths happen when cyclists do what their cycling proficiency tells them to do and that is ride in the curb - from their they have no where to go if a large vehicle turns left across them and they have railings or the like to their left

[blahblah]

Or just do not undertake?

I'm not sure sitting in the middle of the lane in a 40mph stretch is going to endear me to anyone.

You are extrapolating far too far from London's gridlock to the rest of the country, imho.

[Groomyd]

this is still going

yeah I remember about 3 weeks ago I think it was ...remember how nice the forum was......ah those were the days

This is a great thread

Some proper discussion in amongst people who come onto the thread not to debate the topic - which you have done here - not that I have any issue with you bunners - you are normally a very good poster - but the only people causing any "conflict" on here are those who come to post personal comments or off topic comments

You don't have to be convinced by one side or another - and FISO is a set of people with generally conservative, illiberal, unradical views - so hardly a breading ground for radical disruptive innovation - but I've enjoyed X mans and Unc's considered responses in amongst the snipes

(Blah - of course my comments are about metropolitan city centres - not roads with long runs before the next tail back, light, queue etc)

[Bunners]

this is still going

yeah I remember about 3 weeks ago I think it was ...remember how nice the forum was......ah those were the days

This is a great thread

Some proper discussion in amongst people who come onto the thread not to debate the topic - which you have done here - not that I have any issue with you bunners - you are normally a very good poster - but the only people causing any "conflict" on here are those who come to post personal comments or off topic comments

You don't have to be convinced by one side or another - and FISO is a set of people with generally conservative, illiberal, unradical views - so hardly a breading ground for radical disruptive innovation - but I've enjoyed X mans and Unc's considered responses in amongst the snipes

(Blah - of course my comments are about metropolitan city centres - not roads with long runs before the next tail back, light, queue etc)

my comment wasnt only directed at you and apologies if it came across that way. As you will know on some topics we agree and others we dont (this one we dont but I wont be holding it against you )

On another note, you say you dont see bikes as vehicles, how do you feel about cyclists using mobile phones, I only say this as I nearly knocked one off his this morning as he reached into his pocket to get his phone? I dont know if it is illegal to use a mobile whilst cycling?