A circular argument about red lights

[Groomyd]

Pedestrian crossings - when there is no one crossing or waiting to cross - and left turns

[Tricky Tree]

ok thanks, wasn't sure as the 1st post I copied suggests red lights and later it changes so wasn't sure.

So you wouldn't go straight on at a red light if other traffic was waiting at the red light (as law dictates)

Thanks for the response

[Zimmerman]

How about you all post about the subject and not the posters?

There's lots of tat in this thread and just as many tits.

[Achiles74]

Shamazing how this topic has gone off topic I have just read 4 pages of ahem.
trully shamazing, but back to the point what does 3 seconds actually cost you at red lights in the light cold of day?

[murf]

All solved. 8 different ways......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24998730" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


(or not)

[Groomyd]

So I'm in good company and far from suggesting anything radical


In May 2012, Paris began a trial in which cyclists would be allowed to carry straight on, or turn right at a small number of traffic lights in the city - even if they were red. The scheme extended what was already common practice in much of the Netherlands and Belgium, where cyclists can turn right (it would be left in the UK) at a red light as standard.

The Parisian authorities say the trial has been a success and that discussions about extending the scheme to the rest of the city are now under way.

Cyclists who jump red lights illegally in the UK already cause both drivers and pedestrians to seethe with anger, but could relaxing the law in certain cases make the roads any safer?

"As long as pedestrian safety was considered... we would give it a cautious welcome," says Cavenett, who stresses that sufficient evidence needs to be gathered before a similar trial is undertaken in London.

[Zimmerman]

Not sure what difference a law change would make? Do cyclists get arrested fr sneaking through lights?

Presumably if given the go ahead to go through red lights it'll be on the proviso that its clear? Isn't that the are now with the cyclists that illegally go through?

In the States you can turn right on red (if its clear).

[Groomyd]

Not sure what difference a law change would make? Do cyclists get arrested fr sneaking through lights?

Presumably if given the go ahead to go through red lights it'll be on the proviso that its clear? Isn't that the are now with the cyclists that illegally go through?

In the States you can turn right on red (if its clear).

Yes it's an offence - although in london it's not punished (except for the odd high profile week)

Of course you go through only if it's clear - just as a car does at a junction where there are no traffic lights

The debate - amongst the posters who didn't try to derail it - focussed on largely on whether the right thing to do to drive change was to challenge the law by going on through a red pedestrian crossing ( safely) or obey the laws to show you can use the road properly to the car users who think cyclists are second class road users.

I am in the camp which says do the right thing and let the law follow

[jpk]

Yes it's an offence - although in london it's not punished (except for the odd high profile week)

i cycle in London every day and see police giving (other) cyclists tickets all the time for running a red light, maybe 3 or 4 a week and I'm only on the road for about 20 minutes so I'm guessing there are probably hundreds given out each week.

Each ticket is a £30 fixed penalty

[Groomyd]

I have about a decade of commuting in London under my belt and stop at very few red lights - not been stopped once

But then I do check out my surroundings carefully - which includes police

Only seen it on their "let's have a clamp down" moments

[jpk]

pure luck

watch out from next week though, apparently (according to yesterdays evening standard) there will be cops waiting on every major junction catching naughty cyclists and motorists

[Groomyd]

pure luck

watch out from next week though, apparently (according to yesterdays evening standard) there will be cops waiting on every major junction catching naughty cyclists and motorists

10 years, about 2000 journeys - average of 6/7 miles

Not luck is it?

And yes - they are having one of their weeks - just grandstanding - then they go and do something more useful (I hope!)

[Tricky Tree]

I have about a decade of commuting in London under my belt and stop at very few red lights - not been stopped once

But then I do check out my surroundings carefully - which includes police

Only seen it on their "let's have a clamp down" moments

I thought you said you only jump red lights turning left

(Which I do believe if proven in other countries should be considered)

[Groomyd]

The discussion on this thread was about pedestrian crossings and left turns - yes

[jpk]

well I must be cycling on a criminal super highway

I like the protesting on behalf of us cyclists by rebelliously storming through red lights, but only doing it when you won't get caught

[Tricky Tree]

The discussion on this thread was about pedestrian crossings and left turns - yes

Ok, I'll stay out because there are mixed messages so can't really join in.

Thanks anyway for the response

[Groomyd]

I never storm through

[unc.si.]

The debate - amongst the posters who didn't try to derail it - focussed on largely on whether the right thing to do to drive change was to challenge the law by going on through a red pedestrian crossing ( safely) or obey the laws to show you can use the road properly to the car users who think cyclists are second class road users.

I am in the camp which says do the right thing and let the law follow

That's about it in a nutshell, apart from the (not so) subtle attempt to sow seeds that your view is doing the 'right thing'

As you said before, we'll have to agree to differ on a lot of it. It's fairly unlikely we'll ever agree. I think that basically we want different things because of our different environments and reasons for cycling.

Your prime motivation, because you commute in London and (I don't think) do a massive amount of other cycling miles, is to get to work efficiently (ie quickly, without unnecessary stops) and safely, irrespective of the law, as long as you're riding responsibly. The law changing to suit your needs would be a good thing for you as it legitimises what you already do. You're not overly bothered whether the law changes, but you want people to realise that running red lights doesn't have to be dangerous. It could even be safer (although I'd argue that if your best safety option is to run a light you've made a bad riding choice before you get to the junction). I understand the viewpoint and of course, I ride a bike a lot, so I know that you can ride through a red light safely in a lot of situations if you want to. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpret your general view.

My prime motivation is wanting acceptance that I have just as much of a right to use the roads as a car. I don't really care whether the rules on red lights change or not. I don't care if the journey to work takes me 5 minutes longer. I'm quite happy spending 2 hours longer riding to work than I need to if its a nice morning. The vast majority of my cycling miles are in rural or semi urban areas. I don't ride a lot in heavily urbanised areas with mega busy roads. Sometimes, but not often (ironically I actually feel safer in really heavy traffic than on some suburban roads as I'm more in control - spending most of my time in the middle of the lane and overtaking (not undertaking) cars, not being overtaken and having to ride towards the left of the road (3 feet from the kerb, obviously, not in the gutter) - going faster than the traffic so it cuts out left hookers and cars passing inches away from your shoulder, which you can't do a lot about, and which is exactly the sort of behaviour that may change if cyclists are viewed a bit more favourably).

We have different motivations, so have different 'wants' and different behaviours / solutions to what we want. My approach may be the right one for my motivation, yours may be the right one for yours. Are either of us right or wrong in absolute terms? Probably not (OK in legal terms mine is more compliant, but putting aside the law I don't think either are morally wrong as long as your riding with due consideration for yours and others safety).

Something does need to be done in London and other major urban areas though. Cyclists and drivers need to find a way to share the space, and there are situations where space does need to be segregated. Drivers and cyclists also need better education. I was down in London a couple of weeks ago and cringed at some of the people on Boris Bikes. London has to be about the worst place in the world where you'd want to put people on bikes who aren't used to riding in that environment.

Anyway, I'll enjoy my 11 mile commute tomorrow morning through the golf course, along the river Trent and along the Canal right into the city centre, via a nice steep hill with no cars and cobbles at the top. It's nearly 3 times longer than the direct route through the traffic jams and big junctions, but I enjoy it a lot more.

Not sure why I keep writing this stuff really, but tbh anything that gets people thinking about bikes and cyclists is good in my eyes, whatever their opinions

[unc.si.]

as an addendum it's probably worth pointing out that stopping at red lights is never going to be a 'bad thing'. Someone who stops at a light isn't suddenly a subservient Daily Mail reading imbecile who can't think for themselves, it's just someone who's behaving like a normal road user.

Or they might just be tired

Actually, they can be quite a relief. Like when you've gone past the guy in the full Sky gimp suit and the Dogma and realised that he's sped up and you can't shake him off and claim the points. Stopping at the next set of lights can be a way out without having to accept the trauma of being caught by him. Although it's far from easy then maintaining a casual demeanour at the lights whilst blowing out of your arse.

[jpk]

I will go through a red light now and again, normally when it's raining and I'm fed up (straight through, turning left or right, pedestrian crossing ) .

I was caught and so stopped doing it (for a bit)

[Groomyd]

when you've gone past the guy in the full Sky gimp suit

Now we can agree that that is most edifying

I'm a shorts and T shirt rider and my Trek hybrid is around 15 years old

I agree our perspectives are different because odour environments and reasons for cycling - I don't cycle except as a means of transport - and the great thing about a bike in London is that it's the fastest way to travel

There is also a hugely adversarial relationship between cars and bikes - and between pedestrians and cars, and between cars and pedestrians etc etc etc - it's a battle to get the last place in the train carriage, squeeze across the road after the light have changed, cars through a red while claiming its amber etc etc it's a frenetic war with road rules largely being ignored or at least pushed to the limited by everyone - and going through a pedestrian light with no one around needs to be seen in that context and environment.

[Moist von Lipwig]

Like when you've gone past the guy in the full Sky gimp suit and the Dogma

I got overtaken by Edvald Boassen Hagen last sunday, at least it must have been him given who else would be wearing a sky Norwegian national champions jersey with matching shorts. Who knew he spent his weekends in Whitley Bay. I thought about chasing him to remind him he got beaten by Thor this year anyway...

[Moist von Lipwig]

examples of how it is around the world

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... r-cyclists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Moist von Lipwig]

My prime motivation is wanting acceptance that I have just as much of a right to use the roads as a car.

Cyclists and drivers need to find a way to share the space, and there are situations where space does need to be segregated. Drivers and cyclists also need better education

no need to quote it all but great post, sums up my thoughts precisely and far more eloquently than I could.


Interesting in that guardian article, in Paris new drivers are taught to open the car door with their opposite hand, forcing them to turn and see behind them before opening it. Great thinking.

[Surprised]

My prime motivation is wanting acceptance that I have just as much of a right to use the roads as a car.

Cyclists and drivers need to find a way to share the space, and there are situations where space does need to be segregated. Drivers and cyclists also need better education

no need to quote it all but great post, sums up my thoughts precisely and far more eloquently than I could.


Interesting in that guardian article, in Paris new drivers are taught to open the car door with their opposite hand, forcing them to turn and see behind them before opening it. Great thinking.

It is a good article. (The drivers opening doors with the right hand is Amsterdam not Paris). I think the key difference is one of mentality. In place like Paris, Amsterdam, Berlin etc people are brought up with cycling as a normal activity and cyclists are treated as equals on the roads. In the UK they are seen as pests. Money is invested to ensure cities are safe for cyclists and drivers are fully aware of the dangers to cyclists. In parts of Netherlands they are experimenting with cycle paths heated by solar power to prevent ice as this is a huge danger to cyclists. It will also help to light the border between cycle path and road at night.

UK drivers seem to see the vehicle duty as conferring rights to use the road so show no respect for cyclists and cycle paths etc won't change this as a lot of drivers would not recognise cycle paths and would just use them as extra road space. It needs a wholesale mental change and this will take years..

Unc.si is on the right track as he wants to show drivers that cyclists are reliable and obey the laws of the road.

[Groomyd]

Unc.si is on the right track as he wants to show drivers that cyclists are reliable and obey the laws of the road.

Can you give us an example of where this approach brought change?

Not just in cycling

I think history provides numerous examples of where we need to break the law "as it is" to make it what we want it to be in the future - of course in this case if you think its unsafe to go through a pedestrian crossing safely then you'd not agree - but i think we have plenty of evidence that many believe that it is

[Moist von Lipwig]

Unc.si is on the right track as he wants to show drivers that cyclists are reliable and obey the laws of the road.

Can you give us an example of where this approach brought change?

the change you want here is the ability to go through pedestrian crossings against the lights when you deem it safe.

the change the people who are disagreeing with you on this thread want is the change in attitudes towards cyclists on the road. That will not come from breaking existing laws, creating 'us and them'.

different issues, different solutions.

[blahblah]

And to go straight on and turn lefts at lights?

[Groomyd]

MVL

That depends entirely on your perspectives on governance, the law, social justice and your understanding and approach to freedom, the emergence of ideas and of how change occurs.

Certainly history shows many examples of needing to break the law in order to change it

I think one could argue quite persuasively for example that the race riots in England and America were:

a)as a consequence of black people thinking that if they worked hard, obeyed the law and "played the game" they would gain respect and parity with white people that
b) they were wrong and that
c) change only came after rioting, law breaking and confrontation

(spoiler - no i am NOT comparing the race struggle to the cylcist struggle - purley illustrating a pattern of change)

[jimmy ching]

I'm looking forward to 'One Flew Over the Traffic Light'
I hope it comes together and gets us to think how we regulate our highways.