Cyclists may be allowed to jump red lights on a left turn

kyoukoku

interesting news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm

AndyOgy

Are we not already alowed to?

(joking)

AndyManc

Won't cyclists just get hit from oncoming vehicles turning right .......... :?

Hmmmm, there's many, many variables in this proposal, the implementation may only be viable at a few locations, and will cyclists treat all junctions the same, p***ing off motorists.

Not sure this is a good idea.





.

nwallace

See the Green Wave post as well.

Being able to turn Left on red is not much different from filter lanes to the left at lights with a give way line. As long as you give way to the right it's no more dangerous than a standard give way junction, and considerably safer than going across a junction or turning right on red.

prj45

This may well encourage cyclists to go up the inside of vehicles they shouldn't.

Law of unintended consequences and all that...

airborne_warrior

Already do it anyway.

Common sense dictates i don't need a red light to tell me when the coast is clear....... If that makes sense! :?

Dropzone-dog__

Airborne Warrior wrote:

Already do it anyway.

Common sense dictates i don't need a red light to tell me when the coast is clear....... If that makes sense! :?

Common sense can be a dangerous thing if you do something that other road users aren't expecting.

Good idea in theory but, I can sadly forsee a bunch of newly discovered/ new born ( last rode my bike 40 years ago ) filtering up the left side of an HGV just as it starts to turn when the lights change. :?

Dropzone-dog__

This is the sort of thing that scares me.

I am in a non mandatory cycle lane but, I will attempt to overtake the clearly indicating bus in anyway.

Add a bit of I am entitled to jump the lights into the mix as well & I do not think a helmet or fluro jacket or flashy light is going to save him somehow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=03GGcZ8dA8c

prj45

Dropzone-dog__ wrote:

This is the sort of thing that scares me.

Ha ha, what an uber knob!

Jay dubbleU

Tired of Life ? :roll:

prj45

Jay dubbleU wrote:

Tired of Life ? :roll:

Ex bad car driver I reckon, probably lost his license for driving his car as badly as he rides his bike.

DonDaddyD

Makes no sense. At a junction I could travel through the red turn left and get hit by a oncoming car travelling straight (coming from my right) through the lights.

But the problem is going cyclist traveling straight through junctions and cars turning left and clattering the cyclists IMHO.

nwallace

There is also the flaw of pedestrian crossings, the possibility of people going up the inside of trucks is another flaw, cycle only lanes could sort that though but would probably need to take away pavement space.

DDD

The concept of Giving Way requires the emerging driver to check there is nothing approaching from the right, in this case the emerging driver is the cyclist.

Also an oncoming vehicle will have a head on collision with you not a side swipe/rear end. If you come into a conflicting path with a vehicle then you have failed to give way to them.

Below is a diagram, I got a bit carried away with showing the conflicting paths.


Note that this would apply to all left turning traffic not just cycles, and has no light control pedestrian crossings.

I have only marked the bottom entrance to the junction with a give way for left turning traffic for ease.
With it being a give way junction on the turn left lane the onus is on any traffic using that entrance to the junction to Give Way to the right which is what Give way means.
As long as the rules of the road is followed it should be as safe as a give way junction with the advantage of control over traffic movements that conflict in the centre of the junction.

It could also be done with a stop line rather than a give way, which requires the driver of the vehicle approaching the junction to stop and give way (rather than just checking it's clear and driving straight through)

Below are examples of this sort of junction that already exist.



Roundabouts with filter lane taking left turning traffic without a giveway
This is very common, though don't know how common with lights on movements to exits clockwise from 2


Similar set up using a T-Junction, these commonly exist with with lights on both directional movements, you often find yourself sitting in the left direction lane with a red light where a give way would have allowed you straight through because no one is making a conflicting movement.

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s ... 3&t=h&z=19
Perfect example of where a Give Way could be an improvement over lights, while the right turning vehicles movement is blocked by traffic travelling East, any East travelling traffic turning Left could give way rather than sit in front of a clear junction.


http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s ... 3&t=h&z=19
The left filter lane for going south from east has been changed from a give way to a light, prior to the Marketgait being rebuilt there was no pedestrian crossing (it was a subway)

The change in delay here can be described as follows
When it was a give way, if I got off the bus from Work at the bus stop on Nethergate and my bus home was jsut leaving the stop I would have no chance of catching it at the stop on the Marketgait South. Now I can wait to see if the lights go Red on the bus, if they do I stroll* down to the stop.

*stroll may be exaggerating my slowness, but I don't exactly run fast, and recently have taken to just walking it.

Dropzone-dog__

The really shocking thing is, he had all the gear and no idea.

The question therefore is, should legislation exist to protect the terminally stupid or, facilitate safe road usage for all?

jamesco

Had this when living in New Jersey in the US ('cept there it was a free right turn) and it was bloody brilliant. Wasn't riding a bike of course (no one there does) but it's definitely worth a trial.

alfablue

NO! NO! NO! Terrible idea.

Enough cyclists die already from filtering to the left of large vehicles that then turn left. This policy will undoubtedly cause more deaths - inevitable. We need to discourage this behaviour not encourage it!

I have written to the mayor to express my concerns. mayor@london.gov.uk

I suggest yo all do the same (well, all of you that can see the problem that I can see!).



There are many other problems, but the above is the single biggest one. Other problems are that cyclists will "generalise" the legal RLJ'ing to all other situations; cyclists who don't want to RLJ will be harangued by those behind that do; pedestrians will be at greater risk; it will be tacit permission for cyclists to bend or break all the other road rules.

roger_merriman

alfablue wrote:

NO! NO! NO! Terrible idea.

Enough cyclists die already from filtering to the left of large vehicles that then turn left. This policy will undoubtedly cause more deaths - inevitable. We need to discourage this behaviour not encourage it!

I have written to the mayor to express my concerns. mayor@london.gov.uk

I suggest yo all do the same (well, all of you that can see the problem that I can see!).



There are many other problems, but the above is the single biggest one. Other problems are that cyclists will "generalise" the legal RLJ'ing to all other situations; cyclists who don't want to RLJ will be harangued by those behind that do; pedestrians will be at greater risk; it will be tacit permission for cyclists to bend or break all the other road rules.

indeed as it is there are loads of cutter hugging nervy filtering up the left hand side. this would just encourage it. also countries like america have new big wide roads not old narrow roads.

Hey Jax

the article says...

Its plan would enable cyclists to turn left through a red light before other vehicles can move.

so wouldn't you be safely out of the way of any vehicles then turning left?
seems a good idea to me. I hate the tussling that often goes on at traffic lights, even with an ASL , between cyclist and impatient drivers

DonDaddyD

nwallace wrote:

There is also the flaw of pedestrian crossings, the possibility of people going up the inside of trucks is another flaw, cycle only lanes could sort that though but would probably need to take away pavement space.

DDD

The concept of Giving Way requires the emerging driver to check there is nothing approaching from the right, in this case the emerging driver is the cyclist.

+1

My concern however, is with those who - like RLJers that don't at least slow down at the crossing - fly straight through the junction and turn left without checking what is coming from the right. I.e. The classic roundabout accident = not checking what is coming from the right...

I feel that part of the answer is to teach cyclists not to push to the front of the ASL all the time. 'If you can't get there, don't. Stay between two vehicles that can see you'. I see it all the time a person tries to get to the ASL on the inside left, can't do so in time and then proceeds to move with the big vehicle they're in the middle of.

I also think cyclists should be more concious of giving way to large vehicles. When commuting if there is a large vehicle to my right I tend to slow down and let it go ahead of me, this way I can see its intentions. if I can overtake I'll do it on the outside, if I can't then there is no need to be anywhere but behind it where I can see if it wants to turn or not.

This doesn't suggest that I'm resting the blame or sole resposibility with cyclists. I think that a large vehicles need to shoulder the responsibility as well. I also think HGV's shouldn't be allowed in the capital during rush hour.

alfablue

Hey Jax wrote:

the article says...

Its plan would enable cyclists to turn left through a red light before other vehicles can move.

so wouldn't you be safely out of the way of any vehicles then turning left?

Well, some would, but what about those that start the turn just as the lights change - splat!

The flow of cyclists is not just going to end just because the light change is imminent (I mean, how would they know???).

Sewinman

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

Hey Jax

Sewinman wrote:

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

exactly!! thats what is being proposed. if a cyclsist then sets off as the lights start to change, they are in the same situation as we are now, and should proceed with caution as you would when turning at traffic lights anyway

alfablue

Sewinman wrote:

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

That would apply only when there was one batch of cyclists that moved off and no others appeared during the red light phase. In reality there will be a steady stream of cyclists (in the rush hour, anyway) so some will get to the corner close to the change of the lights to green, and they will be put straight into conflict with left turning vehicles.

Also, add into the mix, the idiots that take permission to turn left as a general permission to jump the lights in all directions. And what about those intending to go straight on, that wait at the lights, blocking the way for left turners, many of whom will be sufficiently single-minded, selfish or brainless that they will take umbrage at having to wait. After all, waiting in traffic is one of the worst things any road user has to do - it is so bad for them that some just can't do it!!!!

alfablue

Hey Jax wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

exactly!! thats what is being proposed. if a cyclsist then sets off as the lights start to change, they are in the same situation as we are now, and should proceed with caution as you would when turning at traffic lights anyway

This is expecting an uncommon degree of sense, and also reverse logic - so cyclists will learn to proceed when the lights are red, yet slam on the anchors and possibly wait when they turn to green???? It ain't gonna happen that way! Wishful thinking that will lead to more carnage.

Dropzone-dog__

Sewinman wrote:

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

The concern is that a cyclist could be pootling along by left filtering.
Finding yourself in a blind spot with no escape route when the lights change & the lorry moves off is not a good place to be in.

Some less experienced cyclists could think that some magical force field exists around them due to wearing a helmet & fluro jacket.
" I am entitled to narrow squeeze filter & turn left therefore I shall " is sadly seen to much already.

Is the price of letting Darwin sort everything out worth paying?

Paulie W

DonDaddyD wrote:

[
I feel that part of the answer is to teach cyclists not to push to the front of the ASL all the time. 'If you can't get there, don't. Stay between two vehicles that can see you'. I see it all the time a person tries to get to the ASL on the inside left, can't do so in time and then proceeds to move with the big vehicle they're in the middle of.

Absolutely agree. So many cyclists see it as their 'duty' to get to the front of a line of traffic by whatever means possible. At lights there is a lot to be said for sitting a couple of vehicles back from the first car in a primary position.

Hey Jax

alfablue wrote:

Hey Jax wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

exactly!! thats what is being proposed. if a cyclsist then sets off as the lights start to change, they are in the same situation as we are now, and should proceed with caution as you would when turning at traffic lights anyway

This is expecting an uncommon degree of sense, and also reverse logic - so cyclists will learn to proceed when the lights are red, yet slam on the anchors and possibly wait when they turn to green???? It ain't gonna happen that way! Wishful thinking that will lead to more carnage.

if they don't have road sense, logic, then they shouldnt be cycling... and we know there are types like this, and no laws will change how they ride anyway. Americans can negotiate when they can and cannot turn on a red light (and wow! even we managed to do this too when driving on holiday there!.. it really is NOT so difficult)

Sewinman

alfablue wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Would there not be less 'left hooked by lorry accidents at junctions' due to cyclists being able to jump the light and get away from lorries?

That would apply only when there was one batch of cyclists that moved off and no others appeared during the red light phase. In reality there will be a steady stream of cyclists (in the rush hour, anyway) so some will get to the corner close to the change of the lights to green, and they will be put straight into conflict with left turning vehicles.

Also, add into the mix, the idiots that take permission to turn left as a general permission to jump the lights in all directions. And what about those intending to go straight on, that wait at the lights, blocking the way for left turners, many of whom will be sufficiently single-minded, selfish or brainless that they will take umbrage at having to wait. After all, waiting in traffic is one of the worst things any road user has to do - it is so bad for them that some just can't do it!!!!

Your first scenario is true today. People are constantly filtering in red lights to get to ASLs, without this law change.

Legislation should not be discounted because some people will choose to break the law.

Re - those who want to go straight on can move over a bit.

alfablue

I am afraid all the above relates to an ideal world where people learn to obey the rules exactly as they are written, do not place them selves in danger due to stupidity, and where good sensible behaviour can be learned by everyone on a bike.

In the real world, it looks to me that there are far more "stupid" cyclists on a commute than sensible ones. It is all very well saying "why should the good cyclists suffer because of the intellectually challenged ones" but the reality will be many more accidents and deaths. It will give me no satisfaction to say "well it was their own fault - tough!", though it may be good enough for you. We need laws that will keep the majority of people safe, even if that majority should, but do not, know better. Education is never going to do it, I mean our education system has struggled for decades to achieve 100% literacy but we only get to 95% - what is this magic education that is going to change stupid cyclists, motorists, pedestrians in to good careful ones - ain't gonna happen I'm afraid. The only education that is likely to happen is that more people learn that cycling to work is a lethal enterprise not to be entertained!

phil_ss1

Simples really....

1 - Don't RLJ under ANY circumstance - obey the law - You are not clever

2 - In America no-one rides bike so this is a non-issue over there

3 - If you turn right (our left) in USA and there's any incident you are TOTALLY to blame

4 - Will mean more people killed/injured

5 - How many Chav's and Reps will take proper care to turn left? Pity the numbers of motorcyclists alone they will kill. :evil:

Completely bored now with RLJ'rs justifying their lawbreaking, anti-social approach to road use....

P

Nick6891

i think it would make more sense to put a cycle box at the front of every set of lights, then cyclist will be a the front of all the traffic, and most cyclist can set off faster than a HGV and any normal drive isnt going to try and overtake you on a corner if your already infront,

also are the cyclist hit at left turns in general or is it only at lights??