Cycling standards in London

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

.... OK it's the law to stop at reds but both roads and road law are largely designed for people in cars.

house design and the law on burglary are largely designed for house owners and the law abiding, so presumably you will have no issues if you get burgled by someone who is neither law abiding nor a house owner.

The law on shoplifting is designed to suit shop - so presumably its ok to shop lift




Well that is the logic you appear to be using

How is the law on burglary designed for those who own houses?! If I rented I'd be pretty p!ssed off to be burgled too!

What I'm saying is that RLJ-ing can be a victimless crime that affects no one and indeed makes the roads safer for cyclists. Burglary and shoplifting always have victims.

bigmat

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

.... OK it's the law to stop at reds but both roads and road law are largely designed for people in cars.

house design and the law on burglary are largely designed for house owners and the law abiding, so presumably you will have no issues if you get burgled by someone who is neither law abiding nor a house owner.

The law on shoplifting is designed to suit shop - so presumably its ok to shop lift




Well that is the logic you appear to be using

Why don't you come up with a witty analogy of a "victimless" crime and it might be a bit more pertinent. How about "the law on downloading music without paying is designed to suit multinational corporations - so presumably is it OK to download music without paying?". Not saying it is OK, but there are similar grey areas. Plenty of other examples.

simonaspinall

To avoid going to far off on whether it's right to RLJ...

What really worries me is that London cycling standards are what is portrayed a lot in the media, as most journos and TV media are London based and so are Politicians as well as a hefty whack of motorists and mass of people - skewing the debate about how cycling should be approached in the transport network.

To be more specific, my worry is that the anti-social cyling (or perception of) in London will be the basis of future legislation surrounding cycling, particularly with our enlightened Transport Minister and confessed petrol head (and Surrey MP...home of the oversized 4x4) at the helm.

rick_chasey

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

deptfordmarmoset

Headhuunter wrote:

Superkenners wrote:

The concept of stopping at red lights in London is seriously flawed, I must pass 30 each way on my 20 mile round trip, many of which involve an empty ped crossing as ped hit button and crosses leaving traffic to wait. Others where turning left of going straight on you cross no traffic and more often than not stay in the cylce lane. Work out the time, it adds 10 mins at least each way.

More importantly though often its safer to use a window in the traffic when lights are red (if you know your route well) than hang around to get carved up by mopeds, motor bikes, buses, white vans etc at the lights.

Worth remembering that red lights are not designed for cycle users, my safety comes ahead of that any day.

At the risk of turning this into another one of "those" threads, I entirely agree. Most of the road network including many traffic lit junctions are designed with bulky, heavy, relatively unmaneuverable motor traffic in mind. Just as peds are able to easily nip between gridlocked motor traffic, so can bikes, entirely safely, as you explain, to avoid getting cut up my people accelerating away from the lights... OK it's the law to stop at reds but both roads and road law are largely designed for people in cars.

I'm not going to advocate RLJing but I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view. Many if not all of the irritating and sometimes dangerous-for-cyclists traffic calming measures (speed bumps, traffic islands, etc) are only there because motorised traffic has consistently failed to safely share the road. And cyclists are caught up within the definition of road traffic.

As for traffic lights and why they're there, I've posed this question before and I've never had an answer - can anybody name any traffic lights in the UK that have been installed in response to cyclists presenting a danger to either themselves or other road users? Once you've asked this question you can begin to understand the temptation for cyclists to adopt a ''pragmatic'' approach to road laws. (And I certainly don't count those lights on cycle paths where you have to press a button simply to get the lane re-integrated into the light phase - this is a case of the default position being one of exclusion).

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

Exactly, this is what I've been saying, the government and councils tend to wast time and money on "box ticking" cycle lanes AKA bits of green paint in the gutter which come and go here and there, or as in the superhighways, blue paint which cars and buses are still allowed to drive in so essentially are a waste of time. ASLs are equally an utter waste of time and money - completely unenforced.

What is needed is more expensive but effective solutions at junctions whereby there are separate lights for cycles (as there are for pedestrians) allowing bikes to get away before motor traffic and safely turn and move across junctions without fear.

There was talk a short time ago of allowing cyclists in the UK to turn left on red (as they do in many countries like the Netherlands), which in my view would be a very effective way to get cyclists away from dangerous junctions as quickly as possible.

At the moment the only solution seems to be "you must stop at the red light, even if it is more dangerous because it's the law", well as far as I'm concerned, in this case the law needs changing and better solutions need to be worked out. Rather than penalising/using the stick to force cyclists into the motorist mould, lets be more inventive, if the authorities want to encourage more cycling in cities like London then there need to be better road facilities.

volvicspar

Headhunter has a point in my opinion. Everything is completely biased towards cars. Take his empty ped crossing, why do peds have to wait 30 -60 seconds ? Why can't the lights change in 2 seconds ?

hells

to give the drivers lights time to go through the sequence to red so that the drivers doing 30mph in a ton of steel are able to stop at the stop line of the crossing in time without squashing the pedestrian who wants to cross? If it changed within 2 seconds and the motorist doing 30mph is close to the crossing when the button is pressed they wont be able to stop in time and the pedestrian may be crossing the road and get hit.

Headhuunter

hells wrote:

to give the drivers lights time to go through the sequence to red so that the drivers doing 30mph in a ton of steel are able to stop at the stop line of the crossing in time without squashing the pedestrian who wants to cross? If it changed within 2 seconds and the motorist doing 30mph is close to the crossing when the button is pressed they wont be able to stop in time and the pedestrian may be crossing the road and get hit.

That's what the amber light is for. Point is that when a ped pushes the crossing button, why does it take minutes not seconds, for the lights to change when they could flick to amber immediately allowing traffic travelling at 30mph to continue through and then to red, allowing the ped to cross?

It makes no difference to traffic whether the lights change 2 seconds or 2 minutes after the button is pressed, it still means that cars have to brake and stop. How many times have you been out on the bike or driving and had to sit waiting at an empty ped crossing? It's simply because ped crossings take so long to actually stop traffic as to be largely useless and a waste of money and by the time they do change, the peds waiting have already crossed. As far as I can work out there is no reason not to make ped crossings go to red immediately...

pottssteve

I wouldn't want to cycle in London.

Mind you, I wouldn't want to live in, visit, or have anything at all to do with the place unless I really had to...

Here in the Netherlands you would have thought things were different, and they are. Roads are narrow and cycle lanes wide. Cars give way to cycles on roundabouts (cyclists ride on the outside of the roundabout and cars exiting must give way if you cross their path). Over 25% of journeys are made by bike. If a cyclist is hit by a car the courts, I am told, invariably blame the driver.

Now the down side. Mopeds are legally entitled to use bike lanes, as are electric wheelchairs. Many mopeds are ridden by young idiots doing 50kph in the cycle lane. Many cyclists hand responsibility for their health and safety over to other road users - they fail to look or signal and ride poorly. Many ride without lights or any hi-vis clothing during the hours of darkness. As someone who drives and cycles, it's scary to drive!

Steve

Pross

volvicspar wrote:

Headhunter has a point in my opinion. Everything is completely biased towards cars. Take his empty ped crossing, why do peds have to wait 30 -60 seconds ? Why can't the lights change in 2 seconds ?

The primary reason for traffic signals is to aid traffic flow (although it often doesn't seem to be the case) although they are sometimes used because of restricted visibility. As a byproduct they can be set up to also assist in providing a safe place to cross for pedestrians. You could programme the controller so that everytime there was a demand the signals cycled to the ped phase as quickly as (safely) possible but it would just increase delay to traffic (including cycles) and therefore do away with the point of providing signals in the first place. Can you imagine the chaos it would cause in central London if the lights went red everytime the ped button was pushed? Also, pedestrians have no legal obligation to wait for a green signal so they are free to cross in any gap they deem safe.

The alternative is we take out the signals altogether along with any priority at junctions and allow a free for all. This approach is becoming widely used on the continent and results suggests you end up with a safer junction and less traffic delay, arguments against are that "it will never work with British drivers" and that it will cause chaos but think about how drivers interact when there are queues of slow moving traffic - they are generally far more likely to allow people to exit side roads (can't speak for London on this though) and also some junctions run better when the lights fail as everyone is being cautious. The main thing if you go down this route is that you have to change the appearance of a road so that it doesn't look like it is the domain of the motor vehicle.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

.... OK it's the law to stop at reds but both roads and road law are largely designed for people in cars.

house design and the law on burglary are largely designed for house owners and the law abiding, so presumably you will have no issues if you get burgled by someone who is neither law abiding nor a house owner.

The law on shoplifting is designed to suit shop - so presumably its ok to shop lift




Well that is the logic you appear to be using

How is the law on burglary designed for those who own houses?! If I rented I'd be pretty p!ssed off to be burgled too!

Change word from house owner to householder then

What I'm saying is that RLJ-ing can be a victimless crime that affects no one and indeed makes the roads safer for cyclists. Burglary and shoplifting always have victims.

This comment is the nub of the issue

you ( mistakenly IMHO) see RLJ as a victimless crime. You do not see any impact your breaking the law has on others.

pottssteve

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

Pedestrian crossings often have buttons for pedestrians and bikes. Rick is right - right turning bikes (and mopeds) can turn right regardless of the lights. However, I'm assuming that they should give way to pedestrians crossing.

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

Eh?

What are you on about?

They don't even use the road. Pedistrains have nothing to do with this?

Pross

I assume he means if you are turning right don't you have to give way to peds as well as you say it is legal providing you don't cross the path of cars. Remember that many signal junctions in this country are designed so that peds cross when no traffic can use that leg - if you started to permit left turning on red lights then the pedestrian green phase potentially could not be used although a green man means 'cross with care' not necessarily that it is safe to cross. I would agree though that the law needs looking at and that a red light should be a give way for left turners (not just bikes) but that anyone hitting a pedestrian using the crossing point in carrying out the manoeuvre should be done for it. I would also say that more junctions should run on a part-time basis rather than operating 24/7.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

Eh?

What are you on about?

They don't even use the road. Pedistrains have nothing to do with this?

Oh Rick, What sort of strange world you live in - must be great to cycle in.

I mean, here in the real world, we find pedestrians cross the road, often at junctions. So turning cyclists would often be turning into pedestrians crossing the road.

But in your world, this doesn't happen and no consideration to pedestrians needs to be given

rick_chasey

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

Eh?

What are you on about?

They don't even use the road. Pedistrains have nothing to do with this?

Oh Rick, What sort of strange world you live in - must be great to cycle in.

I mean, here in the real world, we find pedestrians cross the road, often at junctions. So turning cyclists would often be turning into pedestrians crossing the road.

But in your world, this doesn't happen and no consideration to pedestrians needs to be given

How does a pedestrian normally cross the road at a T-junction which has no traffic lights? It's no different. Pedestrians use the pavement, not the road.

pottssteve

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

Eh?

What are you on about?

They don't even use the road. Pedistrains have nothing to do with this?

Oh Rick, What sort of strange world you live in - must be great to cycle in.

I mean, here in the real world, we find pedestrians cross the road, often at junctions. So turning cyclists would often be turning into pedestrians crossing the road.

But in your world, this doesn't happen and no consideration to pedestrians needs to be given

How does a pedestrian normally cross the road at a T-junction which has no traffic lights? It's no different. Pedestrians use the pavement, not the road.

You can't argue with the man's logic!

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

.... OK it's the law to stop at reds but both roads and road law are largely designed for people in cars.

house design and the law on burglary are largely designed for house owners and the law abiding, so presumably you will have no issues if you get burgled by someone who is neither law abiding nor a house owner.

The law on shoplifting is designed to suit shop - so presumably its ok to shop lift




Well that is the logic you appear to be using

How is the law on burglary designed for those who own houses?! If I rented I'd be pretty p!ssed off to be burgled too!

Change word from house owner to householder then

What I'm saying is that RLJ-ing can be a victimless crime that affects no one and indeed makes the roads safer for cyclists. Burglary and shoplifting always have victims.

This comment is the nub of the issue

you ( mistakenly IMHO) see RLJ as a victimless crime. You do not see any impact your breaking the law has on others.

Who's the victim if I RLJ at a ped crossing when there's no one around, not even a car or other motor vehicle? Entirely victimless.

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The law will ultimately have to change, since in its current form it is unenforcable, and clearly there is a need for more specific lights and rules for cyclists.

The netherlands for example: bicycles are allowed to turn right (i.e. english left) as long as they don't cross the path of a car, regardless of the lights (unless there's a specific bicycle light, of which there are many).

pedestrians don't come into this?

Eh?

What are you on about?

They don't even use the road. Pedistrains have nothing to do with this?

Oh Rick, What sort of strange world you live in - must be great to cycle in.

I mean, here in the real world, we find pedestrians cross the road, often at junctions. So turning cyclists would often be turning into pedestrians crossing the road.

But in your world, this doesn't happen and no consideration to pedestrians needs to be given

It would operate in exactly the same way as turning right on red for cars operates in New York, cars in NY give way to peds who are already crossing or if the way is clear, they are free to go. It's a very effective system used around the world.

spen666

Rick Chasey wrote:

....

How does a pedestrian normally cross the road at a T-junction which has no traffic lights? It's no different. Pedestrians use the pavement, not the road.

You are of course not comparing like with like.

Traffic lights tend to be placed at busier junctions

The junctions without traffic lights tend to be much quieter - both in terms of pedestriand and motorised traffic.


It is clear that in your brave new world - pedestrians are an irrelevance and are not expected to cross roads, let alone safely.

Your attitude is as self centred as the motorists who object to cyclists having any consideration in their use of the road.

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

....

How does a pedestrian normally cross the road at a T-junction which has no traffic lights? It's no different. Pedestrians use the pavement, not the road.

You are of course not comparing like with like.

Traffic lights tend to be placed at busier junctions

The junctions without traffic lights tend to be much quieter - both in terms of pedestriand and motorised traffic.


It is clear that in your brave new world - pedestrians are an irrelevance and are not expected to cross roads, let alone safely.

Your attitude is as self centred as the motorists who object to cyclists having any consideration in their use of the road.

What are still going on about this for? It has worked in the US for decades. Peds have ultimate right of way, but if the way is clear, cars out there can turn right (left over here) on red. Perfectly simple. Next....

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

....

How does a pedestrian normally cross the road at a T-junction which has no traffic lights? It's no different. Pedestrians use the pavement, not the road.

You are of course not comparing like with like.

Traffic lights tend to be placed at busier junctions

The junctions without traffic lights tend to be much quieter - both in terms of pedestriand and motorised traffic.


It is clear that in your brave new world - pedestrians are an irrelevance and are not expected to cross roads, let alone safely.

Your attitude is as self centred as the motorists who object to cyclists having any consideration in their use of the road.

What are still going on about this for? It has worked in the US for decades. Peds have ultimate right of way, but if the way is clear, cars out there can turn right (left over here) on red. Perfectly simple. Next....

Your position is very different from Rick's.

He has repeatedly said this has nothing to do with pedestrians. Consideration of them does not come into this because it is referring to the road not the pavement etc.

rick_chasey

*facepalm*

Cleat Eastwood

spen666 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

....

How does a pedestrian normally cross the road at a T-junction which has no traffic lights? It's no different. Pedestrians use the pavement, not the road.

You are of course not comparing like with like.

Traffic lights tend to be placed at busier junctions

The junctions without traffic lights tend to be much quieter - both in terms of pedestriand and motorised traffic.


It is clear that in your brave new world - pedestrians are an irrelevance and are not expected to cross roads, let alone safely.

Your attitude is as self centred as the motorists who object to cyclists having any consideration in their use of the road.

What are still going on about this for? It has worked in the US for decades. Peds have ultimate right of way, but if the way is clear, cars out there can turn right (left over here) on red. Perfectly simple. Next....

Your position is very different from Rick's.

He has repeatedly said this has nothing to do with pedestrians. Consideration of them does not come into this because it is referring to the road not the pavement etc.

Le Commentateur

Come on, fair's fair -- you should now waste an afternoon obseving how many pedestrians cross the road on a red light... ...because that's where the problem is coming from. People take up cycling and bring their bad habits with them. Some people just don't think of themselves as being in charge of a road vehicle when they ride a bike. In their minds they are still that opportunistic pedestrian nipping across the road because, what the hell, there's nothing coming. Like someone suggested, there are probably many novice cyclists commuting into town nowadays compared with say, ten years ago, and they haven't yet been weaned by experience off bad habits (RLJing, bad positioning in lanes, etc) and are perhaps aggressive or pavement-riding because of an element of fear, which is another factor influencing how they behave.




For example:

More importantly though often its safer to use a window in the traffic when lights are red (if you know your route well) than hang around to get carved up by mopeds, motor bikes, buses, white vans etc at the lights. […] Worth remembering that red lights are not designed for cycle users, my safety comes ahead of that any day.

cookiemonster

Headhuunter wrote:

Who's the victim if I RLJ at a ped crossing when there's no one around, not even a car or other motor vehicle? Entirely victimless.

You are absolutely correct. In the same way that if I sink 6 pints of stella and drive 10 miles and dont crash, or if you drive up my narrow residential road in your car at 100mph and dont hit anyone, these will be entirely victimless.

Do you need a victim for there to be a crime? Health and safety legislation assumes not.

The point then comes to, do you strictly obey the law, even when your judgement says that it is safe not to. Or do we all get to exercise our own judgement as to whether the law should be obeyed at that precise moment in time, accepting that what I judge as safe will different to yourself?

jon

Headhuunter

cookiemonster wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Who's the victim if I RLJ at a ped crossing when there's no one around, not even a car or other motor vehicle? Entirely victimless.

You are absolutely correct. In the same way that if I sink 6 pints of stella and drive 10 miles and dont crash, or if you drive up my narrow residential road in your car at 100mph and dont hit anyone, these will be entirely victimless.

Do you need a victim for there to be a crime? Health and safety legislation assumes not.

The point then comes to, do you strictly obey the law, even when your judgement says that it is safe not to. Or do we all get to exercise our own judgement as to whether the law should be obeyed at that precise moment in time, accepting that what I judge as safe will different to yourself?

jon

Yes, both crimes are victimless however I should think that the risk of there being a victim if you drank 6 pints of Stella and drove home is very high, however the risk of me hitting someone crossing a ped crossing (possibly 2 metres wide) on red when there's no one as far as the eye can see is absolutely zilch, unless the invisible man suddenly pops up. What's more I really can't believe that 100% of the holier than thou people who claim to always stop at red lights would really do so in that situation.

Pross

But surely the point being made is that everyone's perception of risk (and right or wrong)is different so where does it stop? Surely that is the whole point in any law? Obviously there is no issue with someone going through a clear pedestrian crossing but then someone will argue that if they go through when peds are crossing but weave between them then they are also not causing a problem, the next stage is the argument that it's up to the peds to make sure they don't get hit and so on. Many people argue that they shouldn't be prosecuted for speeding in the middle of the night when 'there's no-one about' which overlooks the obvious fact that they are out and about so why don't they expect anyone else to be? We all have laws that we think shouldn't apply to us or should be more varied but if we all chose to ignore those we didn't like there would be anarchy. I'm not saying that turning left on a red is necessarily dangerous, in fact I would support it for all vehicles not just bikes, but until the law is changed to reflect that (with the back up that if you hit anyone using a pedestrian crossing you are prosecuted for dangerous driving) then the law is the law so it has to be followed. It's not a holier than thou attitude but if anyone chooses to willingly break the law as it stands then they shouldn't complain in the event they get fined / prosecuted.