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

biondino

Last night I was waiting at some lights behind a cyclist and a motorcyclist and the motorcyclist was having a go at the cyclist for jumping red lights and not having a functioning rear light (he did, but it was so low on power it was no better than a reflector. Slightly to my surprise they had a civil conversation, no raised voices or abuse, and I thought "excellent, the cyclist is now aware of other people's opinions about his law-breaking".

Of course, within 200 yards the cyclist has ridden on the pavement - for 30 secs plus at 20mph - and then got back on the road just in time to RLJ. There's no teaching some people.

cee

I was in Frankfurt recently (Germany for the geographically challenged ) and there you can also turn right on a red...they have flashing red to indicate this at junctions where it is permitted.

Felt weird doing it...but people behind tooted!

Thing is...I agree that to be treated like traffic is to behave like traffic. Problem is....most traffic behaves appallingly...rolling stops at stop signs, amber gambling, setting off on flashing green men whilst pedestrians are still on the road, not to mention speeding and the various inconsiderate stuff.

I don't think anyone is completley innnocent of having NEVER done something even slightly bending the rules....

It just seems that the perception of cyclists is so much worse than that of other vehicles.

Rich158

cee wrote:

Thing is...I agree that to be treated like traffic is to behave like traffic. Problem is....most traffic behaves appallingly...rolling stops at stop signs, amber gambling, setting off on flashing green men whilst pedestrians are still on the road, not to mention speeding and the various inconsiderate stuff.

I don't think anyone is completley innnocent of having NEVER done something even slightly bending the rules....

It just seems that the perception of cyclists is so much worse than that of other vehicles.

The issue is surely that all road users have a duty of care to other vehicles and the general public at large. Yes some people break the rules, lets face it if everyone drove considerately in London you'd never get out of any side turning unless it was signal controlled. The only way to get anywhere by car/van etc is to drive assertively, unfortunately most road users confuse being agressive with being assertive.

It is however unfair that cyclists get branded as a liability when the evidence clearly shows that it is inconsiderate car drivers who are the problem. The trouble is other car drivers don't think badly about other cars when they creep out of a side road, stopping all traffic in both directions, pull out in front of them etc because at the end of the day they'll do exactly the same at the next junction. The reason for this is simple, their insurance will be there to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong.

A quick straw poll amongst my non riding friends shows that the general feeling is that cyclists are a menace simply because they're not insured, and therefore act with impunity, evidently we do whatever we like because there is no comeback, and have complete disregard for other road users because of this :shock: :shock: :shock: They don't seem to understand that not being killed is normally ample incentive for most cyclists to act responsibly.

ansbaradigeidfran

Yes, I admit that I bend rules sometimes: I'll leave a shared-use path over the pedestrian side in order to join the road in order to turn, when I'm going to Colwyn Bay station. (Only done when there are no pedestrians, which there never are, and when there's a large gap in traffic)

Could the general perception of cyclists on the road be vaguely similar to tractors? Both are slower than most vehicles, it's just that passing a tractor is harder and light-jumping/kerb hopping is easier on a bike...

moconnor01

To my simple mind ... whilst it might slow us down for a few seconds - the answer is simple, red means stop - and should do, whether you're a cyclist, pedestrian, driver, biker etc, etc To me, it is all about what others expect you to do - if they expect you'll stop at a red light, they are less likely to be looking out for you as they go through green and you go through red

cee

Rich158
Agreed.

nickthetrick

Ok thanks Forum friends,,,
I lost the link to my own post,, otherwise i'd have written earlier!

Interesting that most people are siding with the law. Well I guess that's the way it should be. I still don't feel morally wrong though!

Ok here's a couple of points to make:

1) if every road had a dedicated cycle lane then there'd be no interference with motorised vehicles at any junction. All the cyclist would have to watch out for would be other cyclists (a la the original post). So why is this not the case? It is in some countries (e.g. holland). So why are we settling for less?

2) if we wish to encourage cycle use on the roads then we should give every possible incentive. One of these is of course saving time. Saving the planet doesn't work for most people. I already know that i'll save time because I won't be stuck in traffic queues (unless of course the traffic queues completely block the road because there's no dedicated cycle lane - of course motorised traffic is pretty much oblivious to this fact), but i'd like to speed this up further by skipping lights which are clearly only necessary because of the build up of motorised traffic.

3) back to holland... you never get animosity towards cyclists there. Why? Because everyone has cycled at some point in their life. In the UK it's different. I believe thats the only reason why car drivers here are 'enraged' by cyclists doing this or that.

nick

do it! http://www.travelblog.org/bloggers/nickthetrick

Headhuunter

Gotta say, Nick the Trick, I have sympathy for RLJers. Often at busy junctions, I feel safer running the red light than getting caught in the melee/whackty races of motorists, mopeds and motorbikes accelerating away from the green light as soon as it changes. If the road crossing is clear, I always go through red to avoid being caught up in accelerating traffic jostling for position.

IMO it makes sense to have traffic lights which allow cyclists to move off before motorised traffic, especially in London now that there are so many cyclists. I think ASL boxes were supposed to facilitate this, however most motorists and especially motorcyclists/moped riders completely ignore these, and the police never enforce them, so they are a complete waste of time.

As Nick says, as cycling becomes more popular, better facilities need to be implemented as in other countries

DonDaddyD

I think that as the number of cyclists in England increases the laws that apply to the road/traffic need to be changed.

I don't think however we should break the current laws to suit our own personal need. That's just stupid. If all the 90+% of new cyclists suddenly started riding on the pavement, it would be carnage for pedsestrians. Just like if all those new cyclists started RLJing there would be a marked increase in accidents.

What we need is for the law to be changed, made clear and understood by all road users as well as pedestrians.

The laws aren't wrong they might be becoming outdated by not meeting todays demands, needs, requirements of vehicles (including cyclists) on the road. This doesn't mean that we should all start breaking the law to suit our purpose. That is what leads to accidents. At the same time we shouldn't settle for the laws as they are.

biondino

nickthetrick wrote:

1) if every road had a dedicated cycle lane then there'd be no interference with motorised vehicles at any junction. All the cyclist would have to watch out for would be other cyclists (a la the original post). So why is this not the case? It is in some countries (e.g. holland). So why are we settling for less?

I applaud the intention behind this but it's a hopelessly naive question - let me explain why:

if every road had a dedicated cycle lane then there'd be no interference with motorised vehicles at any junction

How do the bike lanes cross side roads?

All the cyclist would have to watch out for would be other cyclists

And road debris, manhole covers, potholes - and pedestrians. This is a big deal - they're dangerous enough on the roads but many seem to treat existing cycling lanes as an extension of the pavement, or at least somewhere they can walk along or step out onto without needing to check what's coming. Also, any vehicles that need or choose to pull over to the side of the road if the cycle lane isn't literally bollarded/kerbed off.

So why is this not the case?

Well, even if none of the above were true, the logistics in terms of money, resources, expense and most of all space make it a nigh on impossible task on a huge number of roads. Any space set aside for cycle lanes means road or pedestrian traffic loses that space.

chromehoof

heres a question for people who are in favour of traffic laws being followed to their letter. In the situation where you have a cycle lane to the extreme left of a road, up ahead of you theres a left turn thats common for oncoming traffic to turn right into - so much so that theres a yellow-box to facilitate turning of these oncoming vehicles in heavy traffic.

In that situation, you're a cyclist cycling along the left of a line of static traffic. You approach the junction with the yellow box. A oncoming car is about to turn. Chances are they can't or haven't seen you.

What do you do?
What as per the law should/could you do? (ie: who has right of way).

My point is I think it works both ways. In the above case the cyclist clearly has the right of way, but will rarely exercise it in the situation described. To do otherwise would be lunacy. Exercise your rights to the letter of the law, you'll end up in a heap on the ground (what I believe to be the most common cause of bicycle-related accidents in Dublin right now).

CiB

I vote Yay simply because on the bike, to me a red light is a give way. It's nothing to do with line of sight, running peds down on zebra crossings round a blind bend or giving fuel to the ire of some car drivers, it's a matter of personal judgment that I'm more than capable of making in a sensible and safe manner, that if it's safe to go then I will, like any other junction. Maybe life's easier out here in the sticks.

spen666

Rich158 wrote:

....

A quick straw poll amongst my non riding friends shows that the general feeling is that cyclists are a menace simply because they're not insured, and therefore act with impunity, evidently we do whatever we like because there is no comeback, and have complete disregard for other road users because of this :shock: :shock: :shock: They don't seem to understand that not being killed is normally ample incentive for most cyclists to act responsibly.

That may well be the feeling, but it is simply wrong.

the converse can be said.

Namely it is those who are insured that are more likely to act with impunity.

If you are insured whether in car or on bike, you know that insurance company will pick up the tab for the damage you cause ( subject to your excess)

Whereas if you are not insured, cause damage and are sued, it is you the individual who is liable to pay up.


The issue of insurance is not the thing that causes the behaviour your friends refer to, it is the untraceability so to speak of the cyclist - ie no licence plates etc - this is different from insurance

alfablue

chromehoof wrote:

heres a question for people who are in favour of traffic laws being followed to their letter. In the situation where you have a cycle lane to the extreme left of a road, up ahead of you theres a left turn thats common for oncoming traffic to turn right into - so much so that theres a yellow-box to facilitate turning of these oncoming vehicles in heavy traffic.

In that situation, you're a cyclist cycling along the left of a line of static traffic. You approach the junction with the yellow box. A oncoming car is about to turn. Chances are they can't or haven't seen you.

What do you do?
What as per the law should/could you do? (ie: who has right of way).

My point is I think it works both ways. In the above case the cyclist clearly has the right of way, but will rarely exercise it in the situation described. To do otherwise would be lunacy. Exercise your rights to the letter of the law, you'll end up in a heap on the ground (what I believe to be the most common cause of bicycle-related accidents in Dublin right now).

Not a helpful analogy, just the issue of only proceeding when safe to do so, nothing new there. A green light doesn't give any road user absolute rights, that's just a dumb way to proceed.

alfablue

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I vote Yay simply because on the bike, to me a red light is a give way. It's nothing to do with line of sight, running peds down on zebra crossings round a blind bend or giving fuel to the ire of some car drivers, it's a matter of personal judgment that I'm more than capable of making in a sensible and safe manner, that if it's safe to go then I will, like any other junction. Maybe life's easier out here in the sticks.

Hmmm, just pretend you make the rules, then. Seems very convenient!

cee

alfablue wrote:

A green light doesn't give any road user absolute rights, that's just a dumb way to proceed.

Indeed....You know those speaking pedestrian crossings? They say 'Traffic coming from astreetname has been signalled to stop...'

So not has definately stopped...just asked to stop. It might not have.

ansbaradigeidfran

chromehoof, the highway code would suggest the following:

118
In an emergency. Brake immediately. Try to avoid braking so harshly that you lock your wheels. Locked wheels can lead to loss of control.

and in general:

151
In slow-moving traffic. You should

* reduce the distance between you and the vehicle ahead to maintain traffic flow * never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely * leave enough space to be able to manoeuvre if the vehicle in front breaks down or an emergency vehicle needs to get past * not change lanes to the left to overtake * allow access into and from side roads, as blocking these will add to congestion * be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side

Rich158

spen666 wrote:

Rich158 wrote:

....

A quick straw poll amongst my non riding friends shows that the general feeling is that cyclists are a menace simply because they're not insured, and therefore act with impunity, evidently we do whatever we like because there is no comeback, and have complete disregard for other road users because of this :shock: :shock: :shock: They don't seem to understand that not being killed is normally ample incentive for most cyclists to act responsibly.

That may well be the feeling, but it is simply wrong.

the converse can be said.

Namely it is those who are insured that are more likely to act with impunity.

If you are insured whether in car or on bike, you know that insurance company will pick up the tab for the damage you cause ( subject to your excess)

Whereas if you are not insured, cause damage and are sued, it is you the individual who is liable to pay up.


The issue of insurance is not the thing that causes the behaviour your friends refer to, it is the untraceability so to speak of the cyclist - ie no licence plates etc - this is different from insurance

I'm not saying their point of view is correct, and as you point out it works both ways. However it is a point of view that I hear with monotonous regularity. How we get arround it god only knows, and in fact no one I know has ever had their car damaged by a bike. All of them have had accidents with other motor vehicles, and many of them ride motorbikes on which they have had accidents, and yet they still save their vitriol for pushbikes.

It's the unfortunate thing about irrational behaviour, it's very difficult to counter, and any behaviour on our part that is perceived to break the law only serves to reinforce this irrational prejudice.

I think I have just talked myself out of RLJ ever again

CiB

alfablue wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I vote Yay simply because on the bike, to me a red light is a give way. It's nothing to do with line of sight, running peds down on zebra crossings round a blind bend or giving fuel to the ire of some car drivers, it's a matter of personal judgment that I'm more than capable of making in a sensible and safe manner, that if it's safe to go then I will, like any other junction. Maybe life's easier out here in the sticks.

Hmmm, just pretend you make the rules, then. Seems very convenient!

I've said it before on here and will repeat it. The only lights I see on my commute are over a railway bridge in the middle of nowhere. The road is wide enough to allow two cars to pass but in the modern world that can't be allowed so we have lights on this bridge. When I roll up to them as they turn red, if you think I'm going to sit & wait all on my own you're mistaken. I'll have a look, and be away. I do the same in the village where I used to llive. It was deemed that lights were necessary on a junction that gets a bit busy at peak times, but at 9:30 on a quiet Sunday morning, I'm not going to sit & wait if there's nothing coming. It's a give way. If safe, I'll proceed.

Eau Rouge

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I've said it before on here and will repeat it. The only lights I see on my commute are over a railway bridge in the middle of nowhere. The road is wide enough to allow two cars to pass but in the modern world that can't be allowed so we have lights on this bridge. When I roll up to them as they turn red, if you think I'm going to sit & wait all on my own you're mistaken. I'll have a look, and be away. I do the same in the village where I used to llive. It was deemed that lights were necessary on a junction that gets a bit busy at peak times, but at 9:30 on a quiet Sunday morning, I'm not going to sit & wait if there's nothing coming. It's a give way. If safe, I'll proceed.

How do you rationalise the bike as being different to the car? I presume you don't have the same casual approach to the lights when driving, do you? Also, your examples are hardly indicative of the vast majority of light-controlled junctions in the country, so why extrapolate from them?

chromehoof wrote:

heres a question for people who are in favour of traffic laws being followed to their letter.

Stopping at a red light is hardly the "letter of the law". It's that fact, that it's so elemental a part of the law not to jump a red light, that makes it the issue it is when cyclists do it.

dondare

nickthetrick wrote:

1) if every road had a dedicated cycle lane then there'd be no interference with motorised vehicles at any junction. All the cyclist would have to watch out for would be other cyclists (a la the original post). So why is this not the case? It is in some countries (e.g. holland). So why are we settling for less?

As I've said before, it's the attitude towards cyclists that makes cycling safer in Holland, not the segregation.
Cycle lanes increase the complexity of junctions and cause confusion about priorities and are the last thing that we need here. There are some near where I work (Bloomsbury) and they are every kind of crap.

spen666

ChrisInBicester wrote:

alfablue wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I vote Yay simply because on the bike, to me a red light is a give way. It's nothing to do with line of sight, running peds down on zebra crossings round a blind bend or giving fuel to the ire of some car drivers, it's a matter of personal judgment that I'm more than capable of making in a sensible and safe manner, that if it's safe to go then I will, like any other junction. Maybe life's easier out here in the sticks.

Hmmm, just pretend you make the rules, then. Seems very convenient!

I've said it before on here and will repeat it. The only lights I see on my commute are over a railway bridge in the middle of nowhere. The road is wide enough to allow two cars to pass but in the modern world that can't be allowed so we have lights on this bridge.

Perhaps itsnothing to do with width, but to restrict weight on the bridge (ncreasing your wait at the same time)

When I roll up to them as they turn red, if you think I'm going to sit & wait all on my own you're mistaken. I'll have a look, and be away. I do the same in the village where I used to llive. It was deemed that lights were necessary on a junction that gets a bit busy at peak times, but at 9:30 on a quiet Sunday morning, I'm not going to sit & wait if there's nothing coming. It's a give way. If safe, I'll proceed.

It may be safe (in your view) but it is also illegal

Where would we be if everyone chooses the laws they want to ignore

dondare

Rich158 wrote:

A quick straw poll amongst my non riding friends shows that the general feeling is that cyclists are a menace simply because they're not insured, and therefore act with impunity, evidently we do whatever we like because there is no comeback, and have complete disregard for other road users because of this :shock: :shock: :shock: They don't seem to understand that not being killed is normally ample incentive for most cyclists to act responsibly.

Somethings to tell your friends.
Many cyclists are insured, through the CTC or whichever club they belong to; or will have personal liability insurance added to their household insurance that covers them when they are on the bike. Premiums are very low because cyclists rarely cause expensive accidents. All cyclists, whether insured or not, are entirely accountable for any accidents, injury or death that they cause.

Many motorists are not insured because the premiums are prohibitively expensive. They are expensive because motorists are forever causing expensive accidents. Motorists are also accountable for the death and damage that they cause but many don't stop; hit-and-runs are commonly reported in local papers and most motorists know that if they return to a parked car and find it damaged the perpetrator will have disappeared without trace.

dondare

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I vote Yay simply because on the bike, to me a red light is a give way. It's nothing to do with line of sight, running peds down on zebra crossings round a blind bend or giving fuel to the ire of some car drivers, it's a matter of personal judgment that I'm more than capable of making in a sensible and safe manner, that if it's safe to go then I will, like any other junction. Maybe life's easier out here in the sticks.

It is but you would rather believe otherwise.
It's also a matter of law vs. anarchy. Cyclists should respect the law because it gives us more protection than inconvenience.

Headhuunter

Eau Rouge wrote:

ChrisInBicester wrote:

I've said it before on here and will repeat it. The only lights I see on my commute are over a railway bridge in the middle of nowhere. The road is wide enough to allow two cars to pass but in the modern world that can't be allowed so we have lights on this bridge. When I roll up to them as they turn red, if you think I'm going to sit & wait all on my own you're mistaken. I'll have a look, and be away. I do the same in the village where I used to llive. It was deemed that lights were necessary on a junction that gets a bit busy at peak times, but at 9:30 on a quiet Sunday morning, I'm not going to sit & wait if there's nothing coming. It's a give way. If safe, I'll proceed.

How do you rationalise the bike as being different to the car? I presume you don't have the same casual approach to the lights when driving, do you? Also, your examples are hardly indicative of the vast majority of light-controlled junctions in the country, so why extrapolate from them?

chromehoof wrote:

heres a question for people who are in favour of traffic laws being followed to their letter.

Stopping at a red light is hardly the "letter of the law". It's that fact, that it's so elemental a part of the law not to jump a red light, that makes it the issue it is when cyclists do it.

But bikes are not cars. In fact we have more in common with pedestrians than motorised traffic. A motorist encapsulated in a metal/glass bubble with a stereo going is far less aware of what's going on on the road than a cyclist who is sat in a raised position, able to see right across the top of most traffic. Bikes are also far more maneuverable than motor vehicles. Despite this, admittedly it would be very problematic if all cyclists decided to proceed through red lights, it would probably lead to collisions between cyclists if nothing else

chromehoof

spen666 wrote:

It may be safe (in your view) but it is also illegal

Where would we be if everyone chooses the laws they want to ignore

its a fact of life though. Everyone does it to an extent. There are 2 kinds of laws in my view, when it comes to road traffic; Those that are there for regulating traffic and those that are there for safety reasons. The latter case would be, say, enforcing the speed limit, or checking for drunk driving. The former are moreso around behaviour at traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, yellow-boxes, etc.

Maybe I'm naive in making a distinction like this but the reason for it is in the manner both are enforced, (I'm in Ireland but I think theres little difference between our road traffic laws and those in the UK). There is a concerted effort to enforce the latter category, whereas you really need to be very unlucky to be done for the former. The former just aren't actively policed.

I'm sure most of us on here are motorists at times also and have an informed perspective on that side of life also. What happens typically when approaching a light that goes from green, to yellow, to red. During that sequence you'll typically see 4/5 more cars squeezing through a junction. A green light for traffic coming the other way is moreso an indication to check that the junction is clear, then proceed. Yes, thats not the letter of the law, but its how it is.

As regards selectively choosing which laws to obey or not, well I think that holds true for pretty m uch everyone in many different aspects of life. The laws we're talking about here though are victimless and are sufficiently petty that even the police wouldn't really care to follow-up with. I take the same route to work and home pretty much every day. I know it well. I know every light sequence at every junction. I've been doing the same route for the last 5 years (since I've been in the job I'm in). I've been commuting by bike since I left school (16 years), which possibly qualifies me as an 'experienced cyclist'. I think theres a difference in this case in someones judgement when they deem it safe to RLJ. This morning I broke several red lights. This evening I'll probably do the same. But each one is a calculated risk based, the calculation being quite informed. Yes, legally I'm wrong, but I won't accept an argument that its not safe. As I've mentioned before on here, I'd argue that in many cases its much safer to RLJ than not to.

chromehoof

Headhuunter wrote:

But bikes are not cars. In fact we have more in common with pedestrians than motorised traffic.

agree 100%. I think its quite easy to rationalise cyclists as being different from motorized traffic.

chromehoof

alfablue wrote:

Not a helpful analogy, just the issue of only proceeding when safe to do so, nothing new there. A green light doesn't give any road user absolute rights, that's just a dumb way to proceed.

I'm not sure. If I was in my car and was involved in an accident where I went through a green light, and the other party a red, regardless of the situation I think the law would be in my favour.

I think what you're referring to is common sense, and an edge-case that shows the lack of flexibility in the letter of the law. There will always be extenuating circumstances but it will be in court before you get a chance to present these.

dondare

Headhuunter wrote:

But bikes are not cars. In fact we have more in common with pedestrians than motorised traffic. A motorist encapsulated in a metal/glass bubble with a stereo going is far less aware of what's going on on the road than a cyclist who is sat in a raised position, able to see right across the top of most traffic. Bikes are also far more maneuverable than motor vehicles. Despite this, admittedly it would be very problematic if all cyclists decided to proceed through red lights, it would probably lead to collisions between cyclists if nothing else

A bike is a carriage within the meaning of the Highway Act.
The dynamiics of a bike are very similar to those of a motor vehicle and quite different to those of a pedestrian.

DavidTQ

chromehoof wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Not a helpful analogy, just the issue of only proceeding when safe to do so, nothing new there. A green light doesn't give any road user absolute rights, that's just a dumb way to proceed.

I'm not sure. If I was in my car and was involved in an accident where I went through a green light, and the other party a red, regardless of the situation I think the law would be in my favour.

I think what you're referring to is common sense, and an edge-case that shows the lack of flexibility in the letter of the law. There will always be extenuating circumstances but it will be in court before you get a chance to present these.

Actually not necesarily the case, there was a case a few months back where a cyclist went through on red a driver hit them whilst using their mobile phone, although the driver went through on green and the cyclist on red the driver was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 222690.stm

A Green light isnt a license to run anything else of the road, hitting anything even a car coming through on red is dangerous driving, when driving you have to keep your eyes open at all times, you cant say its green its safe. The green light is a sign that its legal to proceed, Not that its safe to proceed, not that you can proceed, not that you are temporarily relieved of you duties of safe driving with due care and attention! A green light merely means its not illegal to drive on!