running red lights (on a left turn)...

nickthetrick

Hi,

The other night I ran a red light doing a left turn on a 4 way junction, with green light for perpendicular direction. I do this with caution of course, especially if it's a green man on either my road or the left turn road. But basically I have no hesitation doing this - I do it most days on my commute at least somewhere on the route. I also run T junctions when I'm going straight ahead on the side of the carraige with no left turn. In other words I'll run a light if i'm not going to cross a lane of moving traffic in doing so.

Well the other night I'd noticed a cyclist coming up behind me from the road with the green light and as I was about to cut across and do an immediate right turn thought i'd better slow down and let him pass me by first so he'd have no cause for complaint.

How wrong I was... the guy mouths off at me as he passes about how 'everytime a car driver sees you running a red light it raises their level of dislike for cyclists and marginalises us even more'... or something along those lines. Rolling Eyes

Well I'd like to get people opinion here. For me this is just an excuse from a guy who likes to make excuses for the lack of pro-cycling improvements on our roads. If a car driver doesn't like a cyclist for crossing a red light he doesn't like them because he's never cycled and selfishly assumes that all roads should be 90% tarmac for traffic with little provision for pedestrians and none for cycles because that's what UK society dictates and therefore that all users should follow the rules which are only present to service the needs of vehicular drivers. When I see a cyclist running a light when i'm stuck in traffic i just think, wish i were on my bike.

So did I really marginalise cyclists with my behaviour? Might i remind this other cyclist and others like him that action speaks louder than words, and breaking a law isn't illegal if everyone does it... it's revolution!

Nick

Jamey

/gets popcorn.

lost_in_thought

It was probably someone off here who gave you a telling off... I voted nay...

*ensures she is sitting comfortably*

DavidTQ

Okay who's looking after the stocks at the moment? :twisted:

tarquin_foxglove

I believe everyone (inc cars) should be able to turn left on red but until people see sense and change the Law, then no.

TheKrikkitWars

I have, done, its at my own risk, and doesn't interfere with anyone else, can't see the problem.

dondare

'everytime a car driver sees you running a red light it raises their level of dislike for cyclists and marginalises us even more'...

Dead right, and not just car drivers.

DonDaddyD

I voted nay because there is a junction with a blind left turn on my commute. Immediate after there is a pedestrian crossing (forming part of the junction) that you simply cannot see from the oncoming angle.

There is no way of knowing its safe accept when the lights turn green.

gtvlusso

You can do this in the states!

jjojjas

gtvlusso wrote:

You can do this in the states!

But I'm not in the states.
I'm in the UK, where no one expects me to run a red, so I don't.

alfablue

gtvlusso wrote:

You can do this in the states!

Well, anything they do MUST be good :roll:

il_principe

gtvlusso wrote:

You can do this in the states!

You can own a handgun in the states - doesn't make it a good idea.

I voted nay. I'm not in that much of a hurry that I'm willing to risk my or someone else's health. Besides when you've been busy SCR'ing the odd red can come as a welcome break (for your victims).

singlespeedexplosif

breaking a law isn't illegal if everyone does it... it's revolution!

oh dear

gtvlusso

alfablue wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

You can do this in the states!

Well, anything they do MUST be good :roll:

I was just sayin' y'all.

lost_in_thought

gtvlusso wrote:

You can do this in the states!

You can also do it in some parts of Australia - the ACT for example.

However, in the UK it's breaking the law... and as the cyclist who berated the OP quite rightly says, it ain't good far any of us.

il_principe

* Oi Jamey, pass the popcorn fella.

Cheers.

biondino

It's probably safe by any reasonable decision 95% of the time but that still means it's unsafe far too often, so I have to say nay. In an ideal world where "safe" junctions could be differentiated from unsafe ones, and people could be guaranteed to respect the law, then maybe it would work.

Thing is, it's often "safe" for a car to jump a red light by exactly the same criteria that it's "safe" for a bike to do so (I'm not just talking about left turns here). And if there's no argument for cars to do so, then there's no argument for bikes to do so.

DavidTQ

Whats the difference between this driver actions ?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gcitvPfdRP8

And this cyclists?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gOUHGSh52bQ

They both made a potentially dangerous manouvre which could have been fatal to someoone else but turned out not to injure anyone they both gained nothing whatsoever in the long run from their actions NOT one second was saved by either of them! one contributed to the negative stereotyping of bmw drivers the other contributed to the negative stereotyping of cyclists.

The only difference between their actions? Their weapon of choice

If you need to get somewhere by a certain time leave earlier or pedal faster. If cycling facilities are poor or dangerous DONT USE them, we are under no obligation to do so:-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnu7HT43_5M

If you arent ignoring reds for your own convenience but because you are scared of traffic at junctions try reading cyclecraft and using primary position, Its more effective and its legal.

Rich158

This manouvre is considered safe in other countries, America for example. It doesn't make it right to do so over here as it is effectively breaking the law, but there are occasions when I'm sat at lights watching the traffic coming from left, wondering why there is no facility for me to make a left turn when it is perfectly safe to do so.

What's even more frustrating is that some lights have the facility for this manouvre as it is completely safe and keeps traffic moving, and some don't.

biondino

I used primary position last night cycling through Mayfair. A cab came up behind me and was trying to overtake, so I stuck relentlessly to primary and the fecker kept at it for the next half mile, eventually overtaking to a "why are you trying to run me off the f***ing road" from me as he gazed blankly at me.

Anyway, in short, by taking primary position I felt threatened and put myself in danger, when slinking over to the left and admitting defeat would actually have been safer and less aggravating. I am NOT saying it's not often wise and right to take primary, and that we have 100% the right to do so, but equally it's not a panacea that makes every cyclist safe.

chromehoof

biondino wrote:

Thing is, it's often "safe" for a car to jump a red light by exactly the same criteria that it's "safe" for a bike to do so (I'm not just talking about left turns here). And if there's no argument for cars to do so, then there's no argument for bikes to do so.

I disagree. Theres certainly no legal argument for a bike to do so, but its naive to suggest that the levels of danger between a bike and a car doing the same thing are in any way comparable. Theres a hierarchy out there. Its based mostly on how dangerous something would be in a certain situation (trucks, buses, etc at the top, then vans, cars, with bikes way behind). Cyclists are way down the pecking order. Not saying that because I perceive there to be less risk of something bad happening were a cyclist to RLJ, that makes it ok.

I don't believe road laws were made with cyclists in mind. Certainly here its evident that cyclists are very much an after-thought. A cop pulling in a cyclist for running a light would be the exception rather than the norm. Its up to the cyclist, if they choose to disobey the law, to ensure that it is safe to do so. I've made the point in another thread that I believe it safer to RLJ on parts of my commute than not to. I can elaborate on that if needs be.

DavidTQ

biondino wrote:

I used primary position last night cycling through Mayfair. A cab came up behind me and was trying to overtake, so I stuck relentlessly to primary and the fecker kept at it for the next half mile, eventually overtaking to a "why are you trying to run me off the f***ing road" from me as he gazed blankly at me.

Anyway, in short, by taking primary position I felt threatened and put myself in danger, when slinking over to the left and admitting defeat would actually have been safer and less aggravating. I am NOT saying it's not often wise and right to take primary, and that we have 100% the right to do so, but equally it's not a panacea that makes every cyclist safe.

Just like using brakes, its great I the right places at the right times. At the wrong time its plain dangerous.

I dont think Ive ever spent half a mile in primary, (I have however often spent more than half a mile on the right hand side overtaking long streams of cars) I use it at junctions a lot, at pinch points anywhere where I feel a need to control overtaking for my safety. If theres no dangers Im more than happy to take a secondary position and let traffic pass. Staying in Primary when theres no need to is just being an arse really, but I have no problems whatsoever holding people up if theres not room for them to over take safely. Coming up to traffic lights is an ideal place to take primary, the cars cant get anywhere faster anyway the lights are on red! by being in primary theres no driver who forgot to indicate suddenly driving over a cyclist he wasnt aware of! by time everyones got moving and the cars in front are pulling away from you you are well past the junction and if its safe to do so its a great time to pull to secondary and let cars overtake if they want to.

Primary position correctly used IS fantastic as a safety aid, and the only people you aggravate by using it are those who want to break the highway code and put your life in danger in order to get to the back of the next queue sooner! Taking primary doesnt stop people over taking it only forces them to leave as much space when passing as is recommended by the highway code!

Eau Rouge

nickthetrick wrote:

So did I really marginalise cyclists with my behaviour? Might i remind this other cyclist and others like him that action speaks louder than words, and breaking a law isn't illegal if everyone does it... it's revolution!

The BMW-driver YouTube video above clinches the deal for me....as a BMW driver.
We all know the BMW-driver stereotype, the whole country does, and every and any example of any BMW driver driving badly reinforces it, and effects every and all BMW drivers in the country, no matter how good or bad their driving, when we all know drivers off all makes of cars drive just as badly.

Does anyone still think the same attitude doesn't also afflict cyclists?

As a cyclist, I AM traffic and expect other traffic users to treat me as traffic. Mostly that means I expect them to give me my due as traffic (space when overtaking me, waiting at a junction for me to pass etc) but it also means I have to act like traffic too, such as at a red light. I can't have my cake and eat it too, either I'm traffic and wait at the lights, or I'm not and should be walking with the bike on the footpath.

The very real fact that a "left on red" law would be sensible and appropriate is irrelevant, "revolution" is not enough excuse for cars to turn left on red, it's not enough for bikes either.

W1

If you want to be treated like traffic, you have to act like traffic. Either everyone obeys the law, or no-one does. If you don't like the rules, walk, because - yes - you are creating a negative stereotype for cyclists which gives car drivers their usual ammunition on chat shows, forums and, in the worst case scenario, police statements.

ansbaradigeidfran

gtvlusso wrote:

You can do this in the states!

WTF? They turn left on a red light? Against oncoming traffic? :shock:

Okay, I guess you mean turning right on a red light. As I understand it, the law varies from state to state. Likewise, in Canada, you can turn right at a red if you're in Ontario, but cross over into Quebec and you can't.

Going by Ontario's standards (as that's what I know), turning right at a red light is fairly safe. You have to come to a stop at the red light, then yield to any pedestrians. Then you can turn right through the red if there isn't any other traffic coming (which would have right of way).

But the reason this works is that the grid layout of roads means visibility is good at almost all intersections. The few intersections where it isn't safe to turn right are signed accordingly. But in the UK, with our 'heritage road network', I doubt that many traffic lights would be safe enough to let everyone turn left. Permitting cyclists to turn left, with motor vehicles left behind, iwouldn't be popular either, and would be seen as counter-intuitive given that many are concerned with the number of cyclist injuries/deaths.

laughingboy

Like the OP, I used to get frustrated that - like the OP - because the road traffic laws were really for cars. I knew it was stupid to RLJ at a crossroads, but if it was safe to pass a red light on a left hander, I sometimes did. Now I don't. Ever.

I changed slowly (regularly driving a car helped change my perspective), and I would never do it now for these reasons:

- It is against the law
- It is bloody stupid. The argument that 'it is only putting me at risk' completely ignores the poor driver who knocks you down when you misjudge the risk. If he happens to kill you, put you in a wheelchair, or even smash you up, then that is a dirty load to lay on someone's mind. (Not to mention knackering their car, without the insurance to cover any damage).
- Stereotypes of cyclists need to change. That means we need to behave like traffic, not like free agents on the highways.
- If we want the law changed, we need to get the law changed. Go to bikeradar's 'Campaign' forum and post there.

I'm all for a 'left on red' rule at designated junctions, but it would have to be for all traffic, not just for cyclists.

lost_in_thought

W1 wrote:

If you want to be treated like traffic, you have to act like traffic. Either everyone obeys the law, or no-one does. If you don't like the rules, walk, because - yes - you are creating a negative stereotype for cyclists which gives car drivers their usual ammunition on chat shows, forums and, in the worst case scenario, police statements.

Well said that man

dondare

nickthetrick wrote:

Hi,
Might i remind this other cyclist and others like him that action speaks louder than words, and breaking a law isn't illegal if everyone does it... it's revolution!

Nick

All motorists speed. That doesn't make it legal or safe, it just means that there are more bad accidents. I'd rather see all the laws enforced for both cyclists and motorists than some laws being ignored.

chromehoof

dondare wrote:

nickthetrick wrote:

Hi,
Might i remind this other cyclist and others like him that action speaks louder than words, and breaking a law isn't illegal if everyone does it... it's revolution!

Nick

All motorists speed. That doesn't make it legal or safe, it just means that there are more bad accidents. I'd rather see all the laws enforced for both cyclists and motorists than some laws being ignored.

exactly. Traffic laws aren't laws per se, in the general attitudes towards them. They're moreso a set of guidelines. Unless they're going to be enforce people will continue to try and get away with whatever they can. In this regard cyclists are no worse than any other form of road-user. As regards helping fuel the negative stereotype, well I'd have to disagree. That stereotype exists moreso because of fools who cycle at night with no lights, with their head in the air, with headphones on, etc. Its not the savvy cyclist who knows full well what the hell they're at, whose every risk is highly-calculated, and who rarely (if ever) gets into, or causes an accident.

rb1956

nickthetrick wrote:

How wrong I was... the guy mouths off at me as he passes about how 'everytime a car driver sees you running a red light it raises their level of dislike for cyclists and marginalises us even more'... or something along those lines. Rolling Eyes Well I'd like to get people opinion here. For me this is just an excuse from a guy who likes to make excuses for the lack of pro-cycling improvements on our roads.

Well, I think the bloke who mouthed off was a bit of a dick, but it's the first time I've heard anyone argue that suggesting cyclists should obey the rules of the road is "just an excuse for the lack of pro-cycling improvements on our roads". Maybe it'll start to make sense if I skull enough beer...

W1 wrote:

If you want to be treated like traffic, you have to act like traffic. Either everyone obeys the law, or no-one does. If you don't like the rules, walk, because - yes - you are creating a negative stereotype for cyclists which gives car drivers their usual ammunition on chat shows, forums and, in the worst case scenario, police statements.

I couldn't put it better myself, so I won't try.

Here in New South Wales (that's in Australia for the geographically challenged, where we drive on the left like the UK), many traffic-light controlled junctions are labelled "Left turn on red permitted after stopping". IMHO it's a very bad idea, because it breaks the simple rule that a red light means STOP and wait for green, and many road-users (bikes as well as cars) perform what is euphemistically known as a "rolling stop" where they slow down to varying degrees, but never actually come to a halt. As a result, riding through the junction on the green-light road, you always have to be on the watch for someone pulling out in front of you. Basically, the rule means you just can't trust the lights.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

If you want to be treated like traffic, you have to act like traffic. Either everyone obeys the law, or no-one does. If you don't like the rules, walk, because - yes - you are creating a negative stereotype for cyclists which gives car drivers their usual ammunition on chat shows, forums and, in the worst case scenario, police statements.

+1