A circular argument about red lights

[Groomyd]

The whole pedestrian light issue is IMO problematic

Pedestrians don't wait for the green man to cross - they weigh up the risk and cross she it's safe

A good cyclist will do the same at a red light

Cyclists are essentially trading them as zebra crossings are dealt with by cars

I certainly don't think it's the biggest issue

[blahblah]

Pedestrians don't wait for the green man to cross - they weigh up the risk and cross she it's safe

A good cyclist will do the same at a red light

Cyclists are essentially trading them as zebra crossings are dealt with by cars

I don't: I consider myself a vehicle on the road, like a motorbike without a motor. So why shouldn't motorbikes go through red lights when "safe"?

[murf]

I don't get that logic either - why can't cars go when it is safe??? They are faster than bikes and can accelerate better to get across quicker if they make a bad call.



(not saying cars should, just saying bikes shouldn't - and I don't when using either mode of transport)

[blahblah]

I was going to extend the question up to cars, and vans Obviously artics are too long to be able to do it?


I guess that the (flawed) logic is that a cyclist is a person on the road, rather than a vehicle, so should be able to act as a pedestrian when desired.

[unc.si.]

FWIW, I believe that, whatever the views regarding safety etc, that when on the road a bike should act within the laws of the road, ie wait at red lights, including pedestrian lights. If we want to be taken seriously as 'equal rights' road users then we should stick to the rules of the road. I only ever go through red lights when there's no-one around (there's a junction near me where the lights only go green for right turners when an induction loop is triggered, which doesn't happen for a bike. If it's nighttime and no cars come along it'll just stay red all night, so obviously I just turn right on the red).

There is more and more momentum behind 'cyclist only' advance green lights, and I'm sure we'll get to the point where bikes can turn left on red. However, the biggest issue for cyclists at the moment is trying to get to a point where we get more respect on the road, and the biggest part of that is behaving like equal road users. Until there's more acceptance that cyclists have a right to use the roads then change is less likely to happen.

It may get to the point where any change could only be triggered by mass action (ie mass organised protest action), but we're not there yet. Individual riders jumping lights doesn't IMO do anything to help change the way that motorists and pedestrians think about cyclists and make it less likely that the road rules will change to accommodate cyclists rather than more likely.

In respect of the OP - Biscuitman - sounds like you've had some negative experiences with cyclists. If so - sorry to hear that. There are idiot cyclists just as much as idiot drivers, although generally the idiot cyclists tend not to do as much damage.

[Groomyd]

Unc

I agree there is real momentum behind cyclists being allowed to go through red lights - but I believe strongly a big part of the momentum has come from cyclists obeying their own logic but disobeying the law - especially turning left at reds.

Lorries constitute only 5% of London traffic yet kill a large percentage of cyclists - and a great many of those are while turning left crushing a cyclist who is on their inside.

You admit to going through a red light on your bike when you see fit yourself.

The reason why I think cyclists shouldn't have to stop at pedestrian crossings and treat them like cars treat zebra crossings is that they don't kill people if the do hit someone and are far less likely to do so and are are far more manoeuvrable than a car.

The same things a pedestrian calculates when crossing at a red man crossing between the traffic

[unc.si.]

I know we disagree and probably are unlikely to agree. For the reasons above I don't agree that cyclists should go through red lights. I don't really think that me going through a red light that will never turn green at night when there is no traffic and no pedestrians is really the point being debated. 99% of the time I stop at red lights.

The underlying problem about bikes going up the left of lorries isn't generally to do with being able to turn left on red. It's simply cyclists not understanding trucks in terms of blind spots and how they turn. If you get to the lights you're out of danger, it's when the truck goes while you're moving up the left that's an issue (I never pass trucks on the left. In general I hardly ever pass any vehicles on the inside. Far better to overtake on the right where you can be seen and have more options). Most regular cyclists do the same, although it's a bit of a dilemma when you have a cycle lane, but crap cycle lanes is a whole other issue.

The problem that I have with RLJ's is the subtle associations formed between cyclists and rule breaking / being different every time you break a traffic law. Personally I want respect as a road user and don't want to be seen as part of a group that has less right to use the road because they can't abide by its rules. As Derren Brown knows, repeated subtle associations are powerful things.

Agree completely that cyclists should be able to turn left on red. Couldn't really care less about the pedestrian crossing point personally beyond the point above about associating cyclists with jumping lights, although may have more of an opinion if I lived in London where it's probably more of an issue. I don't however believe that change will come from individual cyclists turning left at lights. It's rare that change comes from individual actions. It needs a co-ordinated effort or a high profile catalyst, not just some guy on the commute turning left on red to save a few seconds or because he's been daft enough to find himself stopped next to a truck. At the moment, I believe that lobbying is the right approach, not mass action. If that doesn't work then maybe a mass red light left turn campaign might be the way forward, but people that use that argument as justification for RLJing are IMO just making excuses.

[Groomyd]

Personally I want respect as a road user and don't want to be seen as part of a group that has less right to use the road because they can't abide by its rules. .

All fair comment - I just have little interest in doing something I don't believe in just to be respected - due to what I see as misplaced perception of danger at best a simple prejudice at worst.

I think that by cycling safely and sensibly I will do that - off course I stop at pedestrian crossings if there is anyone there - if the light is red, as I approach I slow down, assess the situation and then stop or go just as I would at any junction or zebra - unless there is a clear line of sight which is unusual in any traffic then by the time I go through I'm probably coasting at a low speed nearly all the time.

If someone can convince me that that is in any way dangerous then I wouldn't do it - I'm not being reckless or foolish and I am absolutely considering everyone's safety - I just firmly believe it's as silly to make bikes stop at pedestrian crossings as it is to force pedestrians to wait until there is a green man.

[unc.si.]

Just to be clear, it's respect for cyclists as a group that I'm talking about, not personal respect. I believe that acceptance and respect as valid road users is the one thing that will change driver behaviour. Far more so than rules and laws. It's a lot easier riding in Belgium, N France and Holland because cyclists are seen as normal. I appreciate that it may be a utopian view, but I say it so that people understand why I stop at lights and would prefer others to do the same. Traffic lights are good interval training as well

Viewed in isolation, if you do as you suggest at pedestrian lights then of course there's no safety issue. However, my viewpoint (which may not be understood by everyone) is that in the eyes of motorists, it's just another cyclist going through another red light, and it erodes the acceptance of cyclists as valid road users. I doubt if many think about it that way though. Tbh I don't come across many pedestrian lights though, and if I do and they're red it's usually because there's someone using it, otherwise why would they be red?

I do have more of an issue with RLJing at junctions. I have seen the argument that sometimes it's safer to go through a red light than wait. That is probably true in some circumstances. However, if you do find yourself in that situation then you've messed up somewhere. Safety on a bike is about giving yourself options. If the best option you've left yourself is to jump a red at a busy junction, then you've made a bad choice somewhere along the line. Often it's better at a snarled up multi lane junction to stop a few cars back in the centre of the lane. You'll still get through the lights but you've kept yourself in a safe position and left yourself plenty of options.

[Groomyd]

Traffic lights are good interval training as well

In London your "interval" would be around a quarter of a mile - every quarter of a mile!

They are red because there is enough time for several people to cross and yet there is often just one or two.

I still see it exactly the same as a pedestrian crossing on a red man


I don't agree that by playing the drivers game is the way to go - but I believe more in disruptive innovation as a way to achieve things

I also believe we should all obey and disobey the law as we see fit - which I accept most wouldn't agree with!

[blahblah]

Sorry, but you are so wrong.

[foxinthebox2001]

The problem I see everyday is the cyclists that go through red lights either swerving to avoid pedestrians or weaving through.
The lights at the top of Holloway Rd at the Archway end where I cross maybe 6 times a day are rarely observed by cyclists.
Its a popular route for bikes, all downhill from Highgate, the spot where I refer to starts to level off but its still a fair gradient, cyclists build up a good speed and are reluctant to slow down.
Talking of turning left at lights, I remember driving a mini van around Florida a couple of years ago, many junctions with traffic signals allow you to turn right on a red if its safe (equivalent to our turning left).
The problem with cycling through a red pedestrian light as Groomyd often does is its up to your judgement, what if its tight but you think its ok but the pedestrian suddenly breaks into a jog? or drops something and spins back around?
It may be safe 99% of the time but chances are at least once you will come unstuck.

[murf]

I think that by cycling safely and sensibly I will do that - off course I stop at pedestrian crossings if there is anyone there - if the light is red, as I approach I slow down, assess the situation and then stop or go just as I would at any junction or zebra - unless there is a clear line of sight which is unusual in any traffic then by the time I go through I'm probably coasting at a low speed nearly all the time.

If someone can convince me that that is in any way dangerous then I wouldn't do it - I'm not being reckless or foolish and I am absolutely considering everyone's safety - I just firmly believe it's as silly to make bikes stop at pedestrian crossings as it is to force pedestrians to wait until there is a green man.

Can you explain why any of that would be any different if you were in a car?

[Groomyd]

Sorry, but you are so wrong.

Could you tell me why going through a pedestrian crossing on a bike at low speed is any different to a pedestrian crossing when the man is red?

What if the pedestrian gets it wrong and a car swerves onto the pavement etc?

All the same things apply - it's just we accept the latter as acceptable risk through the fact is we all do it and think it's ok

But if you think about it it's just individual judgement with potential risk in both cases - and in both cases we disobey traffic robots

[Bunners]

Traffic lights are good interval training as well

In London your "interval" would be around a quarter of a mile - every quarter of a mile!

They are red because there is enough time for several people to cross and yet there is often just one or two.

I still see it exactly the same as a pedestrian crossing on a red man


I don't agree that by playing the drivers game is the way to go - but I believe more in disruptive innovation as a way to achieve things

I also believe we should all obey and disobey the law as we see fit - which I accept most wouldn't agree with!

Id imagine your employer wouldnt agree

[Groomyd]

[
Id imagine your employer wouldnt agree

Why?

[Bunners]

[
Id imagine your employer wouldnt agree

Why?

well I have ethical standards to adhere to and im pretty sure you do in your job, that was the reason I posted wht I did....if you dont then fair enough

[blahblah]

Sorry, but you are so wrong.

Could you tell me why going through a pedestrian crossing on a bike at low speed is any different to a pedestrian crossing when the man is red?

What if the pedestrian gets it wrong and a car swerves onto the pavement etc?

All the same things apply - it's just we accept the latter as acceptable risk through the fact is we all do it and think it's ok

But if you think about it it's just individual judgement with potential risk in both cases - and in both cases we disobey traffic robots

Because you are on a vehicle, which are obliged to stop at a red light. Not stopping\waiting just pisses people off and gives cyclists a bad name\reputation, even if you think it is safe.

A pedestrian risking crossing on red is risking their life, not someone they may hit. (Any driver that swerves onto a pavement deserves all that they get.)

I do not think it is individual judgement: as a pedestrian sees the Green Man and just walks into the road for you to hit. If the person is old and frail, congrats on killing someone if they do not recover from the broken hip\leg... Failing that you could swerve to miss them and get mowed down by an artic.

[kizkiz]

So, to summarise, groomy would cycle through a red light, others would not. Sorted
Now, does anyone have any opinions on the questions that were actually asked by the op?
I'll split the rest in to it's own topic if one or two of you want to continue debating a different issue, not a problem

[Groomyd]

[
Id imagine your employer wouldnt agree

Why?

well I have ethical standards to adhere to and im pretty sure you do in your job, that was the reason I posted wht I did....if you dont then fair enough

Yes - and we adhere to them because of ethics - not because they are the law

If we didn't break the law when circumstances made it right we'd all still be serfs

[Groomyd]

Because you are on a vehicle, which are obliged to stop at a red light. Not stopping\waiting just pisses people off and gives cyclists a bad name\reputation, even if you think it is safe.

So you think we should do it just because it's against the law and pisses people off? It doesn't piss off a lot of people who cycle and walk and indeed drive in London - they see it for what it is - people making sense of the situation and making their way. Just because it pisses some people off doesn't make it wrong - I am yet to hear any logical explanation as to why it's different to a pedestrian crossing at a red man.


A pedestrian risking crossing on red is risking their life, not someone they may hit. (Any driver that swerves onto a pavement deserves all that they get.)

Surely you can see that that doesn't bear even the slightest scrutiny? A car swerves as an instinct - could go into the other lane and hit a car coming the other way etc etc fact is a pedestrian in the way of a car can cause an accident and that accident may well not be just the person who crosses - that's what accidents are about

I do not think it is individual judgement: as a pedestrian sees the Green Man and just walks into the road for you to hit. If the person is old and frail, congrats on killing someone if they do not recover from the broken hip\leg... Failing that you could swerve to miss them and get mowed down by an artic.

Why on earth would you hit someone? Let alone kill someone? I slow down, I look, I go. Same as a pedestrian crossing at the red man.

[murf]

Still waiting on an answer:

I think that by cycling safely and sensibly I will do that - off course I stop at pedestrian crossings if there is anyone there - if the light is red, as I approach I slow down, assess the situation and then stop or go just as I would at any junction or zebra - unless there is a clear line of sight which is unusual in any traffic then by the time I go through I'm probably coasting at a low speed nearly all the time.

If someone can convince me that that is in any way dangerous then I wouldn't do it - I'm not being reckless or foolish and I am absolutely considering everyone's safety - I just firmly believe it's as silly to make bikes stop at pedestrian crossings as it is to force pedestrians to wait until there is a green man.

Can you explain why any of that would be any different if you were in a car?

[blahblah]

I genuinely give up at your lack of decency, and lack of concern for your own and others safety.

Some cyclists give the majority a bad reputation, and you seem to be one of them.

[Groomyd]

Blah

I've asked you a simple question

Why is it different from walking at a red man?

I've spelt out why

If you walk in front of a car, especially one not expecting you to step out, then the potential for an accident, involving not just you but a whole number of others, is clear.

Yet we all do it - we trust ourselves to ignore the lights and make our own calls and judgements

But we don't seem to be able to apply the same risk parameters to cyclists

[blahblah]

Because the pedestrian is going across the traffic, and risks no-ones health\limbs but their own.

A ped can see green man and crosses, and you may hit them.

(unc's example is lights stuck on red as they do not "see" a car to turn green, or so I believe.)

[kizkiz]

Blah

I've asked you a simple question

Why is it different from walking at a red man?

It's illegal top cycle through a red light
It's not illegal to cross the road
A very simple answer really, but then you already know that

[Groomyd]

Kiz

Just because something is illegal does not make it right or wrong - even policemen must realise that?

Try to think outside of something laid down for you by someone else

For example in Germany they go the other way and even with nothing coming at 2 in the morning they all stop and wait for the green man

Do you agree with that? (Or will you just say "that's the law there" )

Why do you think crossing at a red man is different to a cyclist going through a pedestrian crossing in red?

[Groomyd]

Because the pedestrian is going across the traffic, and risks no-ones health\limbs but their own.

No, no it doesn't. Obviously it could easily result in a pile up, a swerve into pedestrians or into traffic coming the other way - all sorts of permutations

[jimmy ching]

Could this solve the problem? Equality Streets are a great concept that has been proved to work. Listen to the Guru.

[jimmy ching]

The Poynton experiment.