Boris bids for RLJing to be legal

lost_in_thought

... well semi-legal.

It's quite an interesting article, I for one have heard the bit about women being more likely to be hurt than men as they are more timid once before... Don't know if there is any truth in it though.

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Satell ... Controller

Big Red S

Oooh, Boris has gone upmarket. Didn't he ride a Ridgeback or somesuch before?

lost_in_thought

Yeah, think so. I just love how much of a kid he looks...


Ahh Boris, you make me smile.

biondino

There is a theoretical logic to cyclists being allowed to go through reds in very specific circumstances but I'm not sure the logistics of defining and then imposing those circumstances is possible.

Having said that, 99% of cyclists who RLJ do so to avoid losing momentum or time rather than for direct safety reasons, so even Boris's arguments wouldn't apply to them.

biondino

God I would love it if Boris falls off his bike RLJing and hurts his head sufficiently for the smug dullard to wear a helmet in future.

prj45

He said women were particularly vulnerable because they waited at junctions longer and were in more danger of a collision.

Wasn't that disproven, or rather wasn't the link just created the the Evening Standard's reporting of the findings of the report?

prj45

Tory leader David Cameron was snapped running a red light while on his way to work in March - forcing him into a public apology.

That's crap too, he didn't run a red light, he crossed the white line to get in front of some cars whilst the light was red, technically breaking the law, but still...

switchback18

Helmets aren't a bad idea by any means, and I wear one off road, as the odds of coming off are quite high, but I rarely wear one on the road. Why would you fall off on the road? I don't get the obsession with them ...it's way, way more important to stay alert, look where you're going & look at what other road users are doing, even down to their expressions. I've not hit my head in 17 years and I'm generally seen by mates as fast. I come off a bit off road, it's normal.
If you get run over a helmet means almost nothing anyway.
...so wear one, but don't think badly of others for not.
Last time I went snowboarding, about 5 years ago, NO-ONE wore helmets where I was, and no-one got hurt the whole week, but it would be easy to instil fear & make people imagine huge risk. OK I wasn't watching everyone, but you hear about accidents when they do happen.
...and I see the highway code as way less important on a bike than keeping your wits about you, in fact sometimes it gets you in trouble when motorists take advantage.
...enough from me, everyone make their own minds up!

fairweatherbiker

Any law change would need some serious work. Obviously you can't allow RLJing at pedestrian red lights - so the proposal would be just too confusing, as a minority would not understand (or choose not to understand) - and would use it as an excuse to ignore all red lights.

UnworthyPapaLazaru

Boris looks cool in that photo! I like the messenger bag...

fairweatherbiker

Oh - and no helmet laws please

laughingboy

What he is proposing seems perfectly sensible. They have a general rule like this in California, for example. If you are turning right, you are allowed to run the red light if it is safe to do so.

So, I say it should also apply to cars/lorries/motorbikes as well. And the law should be phrased in such a way that if there is no left turn, then running a red light to go straight ahead is OK too. 8)

Gavin Gilbert

biondino wrote:

God I would love it if Boris falls off his bike RLJing and hurts his head sufficiently for the smug dullard to wear a helmet in future.

He has started wearing a helmet. He was wearing it when I saw him in King William Street last week, filtering up the inside of the traffic and past a white van that was obviously indicating an (illegal) left turn into St Clements :?

what's the betting FatBoyBilly logs on to chide me with some guff about filtering on the inside being fine on King William Street?

don_don

What he appears to be saying is that he wants it to be legal for cyclists to turn left at a red light - ie. treat it as a give way, in common with many other countries.

I know in Canada, at least, you can do that in a car as well (although its a right turn there obviously).

This seems totally and eminently sensible and easy to define in law. We should have done this years ago IMO. Obviously, it would put the onus entirely on the cyclist to watch out. And if you didn't feel confident to do it you wouldn't have to.

don_don

like wot laughing boy said

laughingboy

I like what the Germans do : they have a sign on all junctions where it is permitted. Wikipedia says. It must be true... :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red

spen666

biondino wrote:

God I would love it if Boris falls off his bike RLJing and hurts his head sufficiently for the smug dullard to wear a helmet in future.

That posting says a lot about you.


Whether he is smug or not, or even whether he is/isnt wearing a helmet is no reason to wish someone hurts themselves.


Do you really want to wish injury upon people ?

DonDaddyD

In theory I agree that a cyclist should be allowed to turn left if it is safe to do so or continue straight if there is no left turn.

However, scenario:

I turn left, on the road I join nearly immediately there is another set of lights, pedestrian crossing - its a junction after all. The light are green for pedestrians as all the lights for vehicles are red. I'll have to stop again in arguably a more difficult spot if the left turn is blind.

A worse case could be that if I was careless saw the red light went through to turn left (as is supposed law) and didn't have enough time to stop I could plow through the pedestrians crossing the road I'm joining.

Second scenario:

No left turn, red light, I go straight. There is however, a road on the right joining the road I'm on. As my light is red the road on the right lights are green, a car/van/lorry/bus makes its turn, I'm in no mans land, crushed (seen a near miss like this many times) as I'm in the vehicles blind spot or he has turned too fast to control the back end or the main road I'm on and the vehicle is joining is narrow (like Norwood Road) and the motorist has missed judged this...

In theory I like the idea of going through a red, but the rest of the road, the rest of the rules just don't accommodate for it.

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Yeah, think so. I just love how much of a kid he looks...
Ahh Boris, you make me smile.

Ah, but its the ACTING like a child thats the problem.

The slight flaw in his argument is that (a) bikes not cars allowed to turn left on red
(b) women more vunerable than men
(c) because women don't push to the front

.... so women who are most vunerable aren't going to be able to take advantage of the new law, or am I missing something?

(Boris wears a helmet to keep his hair out of his eyes, by the way)

The Chingford Skinhead

Big Red S wrote:

Oooh, Boris has gone upmarket. Didn't he ride a Ridgeback or somesuch before?

Oi Yoi! Nothing wrong with Ridgebacks - I love my velocity dearly

ansbaradigeidfran

don_don wrote:

What he appears to be saying is that he wants it to be legal for cyclists to turn left at a red light - ie. treat it as a give way, in common with many other countries.

I know in Canada, at least, you can do that in a car as well (although its a right turn there obviously).

Only in some provinces. You can in Ontario, but not in Quebec, for example.

biondino

spen666 wrote:

biondino wrote:

God I would love it if Boris falls off his bike RLJing and hurts his head sufficiently for the smug dullard to wear a helmet in future.

That posting says a lot about you.


Whether he is smug or not, or even whether he is/isnt wearing a helmet is no reason to wish someone hurts themselves.


Do you really want to wish injury upon people ?

Yes, I would like Boris Johnson to injure himself (not badly) as a direct result of ignoring correct riding procedure, because I think such a thing would be for the greater good. I honestly don't give a flying one what an absolute tool like you thinks of me, though considering your rep on this board you perhaps should have a look at how you behave and post.

_Brun_

Always Tyred wrote:

The slight flaw in his argument is that (a) bikes not cars allowed to turn left on red
(b) women more vunerable than men
(c) because women don't push to the front

.... so women who are most vunerable aren't going to be able to take advantage of the new law, or am I missing something?

I'm guessing that the point was that women don't go infront of other vehicles at lights, particularly if it means crossing the stop line, Cameron style. Instead they'll wait politely on the inside, which if it's any sort of lorry/HGV would be directly under the nearside mirror and out of sight of the driver.

I like the suggestion, but expect it's implimentation would involve lots of confusion.

Gavin Gilbert

_Brun_ wrote:

I like the suggestion, but expect it's implimentation would involve lots of confusion.

it's implementation would pass with notice as it's already the default behaviour of 95% of London commuters.

Big Red S

Gavin Gilbert wrote:

it's implementation would pass with notice as it's already the default behaviour of 95% of London commuters.

From what I see, the proportion of cyclists who do go straight through red lights is an awful lot lower than that.

The amount that stop in front of the white line as they would for an ASL, or because the ASL is full of cars, is relatively high.

But the vast majority stop behind the white line.

dondare

prj45 wrote:

He said women were particularly vulnerable because they waited at junctions longer and were in more danger of a collision.

Wasn't that disproven, or rather wasn't the link just created the the Evening Standard's reporting of the findings of the report?

The suggestion that women cyclists are more likely to be killed at junctions because they are more likely to stop and wait at red lights was made in a TfL report after a spate of such accidents. I do not believe that it was ever anything more than a guess with no kind of research carried out to determine whether it might be true or not. My own empirical observation is that women are no more likely to wait at red lights than men are.

dondare

biondino wrote:

spen666 wrote:

biondino wrote:

God I would love it if Boris falls off his bike RLJing and hurts his head sufficiently for the smug dullard to wear a helmet in future.

That posting says a lot about you.


Whether he is smug or not, or even whether he is/isnt wearing a helmet is no reason to wish someone hurts themselves.


Do you really want to wish injury upon people ?

Yes, I would like Boris Johnson to injure himself (not badly) as a direct result of ignoring correct riding procedure, because I think such a thing would be for the greater good. I honestly don't give a flying one what an absolute tool like you thinks of me, though considering your rep on this board you perhaps should have a look at how you behave and post.

Since when is not wearing a helmet the same as ignoring correct riding proceedure?

bluesacs

I don't think boris should do it as it would take all the fun out of it.

always_tyred

ansbaradigeidfran wrote:

don_don wrote:

What he appears to be saying is that he wants it to be legal for cyclists to turn left at a red light - ie. treat it as a give way, in common with many other countries.

I know in Canada, at least, you can do that in a car as well (although its a right turn there obviously).

Only in some provinces. You can in Ontario, but not in Quebec, for example.

And BC, and Alberta. And Washington State, Oregon, California, Wyoming......blah... it is far more common than not, I think. It doesn't surprise me that Quebec is different. I'm surprised the don't drive on the other side of the road just to be difficult.

It actually works really well there, but would not work here, for several reasons:

- there, most junctions are 90degrees, wide and with excellent sight lines to pedestrian crossings. Here, junctions are far less regular.
- so, whereas there are certain junctions there where there is a sign telling you that, as an exception, there is no right turn on red, here there would have to be signs telling you is was okay. I think this would be yet another confusion to already confused roads.
- there, every junction notionally has a stop line. It is not unknown for it to be enforced. Cops really DO hide behind signs and leap out to write tickets! There is no such thing as a give way. So, the process is approach - stop - turn.
- here, the default is to proceed and jam on the brakes if there is anything coming. I think this would be a recipie for rta's with pedestrians.

Of course, people don't follow the rules rigorously there either, but driving is generally quite a lot slower and a hell of a lot easier. The very best we would be able to do would be to greatly increase the number of left filters, but they'd have to be operable to be red on a pedestrian part of the cycle.

Bassjunkieuk

DonDaddyD wrote:

In theory I agree that a cyclist should be allowed to turn left if it is safe to do so or continue straight if there is no left turn.

However, scenario:

I turn left, on the road I join nearly immediately there is another set of lights, pedestrian crossing - its a junction after all. The light are green for pedestrians as all the lights for vehicles are red. I'll have to stop again in arguably a more difficult spot if the left turn is blind.

A worse case could be that if I was careless saw the red light went through to turn left (as is supposed law) and didn't have enough time to stop I could plow through the pedestrians crossing the road I'm joining.

Second scenario:

No left turn, red light, I go straight. There is however, a road on the right joining the road I'm on. As my light is red the road on the right lights are green, a car/van/lorry/bus makes its turn, I'm in no mans land, crushed (seen a near miss like this many times) as I'm in the vehicles blind spot or he has turned too fast to control the back end or the main road I'm on and the vehicle is joining is narrow (like Norwood Road) and the motorist has missed judged this...

In theory I like the idea of going through a red, but the rest of the road, the rest of the rules just don't accommodate for it.

Both good examples. The first one I had already considered myself whilst listening to the discussion on LBC this morning. I have a similar problem when turning left from Camomile Street (near Liverpool Street station) to head down towards London Bridge. It's a legal turn but the pedestrians are usually crossing on a red man as they don't see any cars turning left.

Being able to turn left at a red for me wouldn't really effect me as there aren't many times where I'd need to. If your talking about a crossroad type junction with a typically tight corner if anything being able to jump the red would put you in greater danger in my opinion as you'd either need to take the corner extremely slowly to avoid swinging out into the traffic coming across or if you do misjudge it and take it to fast you'll end up going under something!

I'd much rather wait for the minute or so for the lights to go green and then set off, but then I feel like that about all traffic lights.

As for that pic of Boris he really could do with some clips as he's feet are in the wrong position and he'd be better off putting that chain round his waist or in that lovely bag.
Also I peg him at around FCN 8 or 9 for any SCR players, I think we should get bonus points for scalping MP's, just imagine what a nice scalp his blonde locks would make :-D