Cycling standards in London

Headhuunter

Pross wrote:

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.

I see your point but seriously, comparing crossing a ped crossing on red at night when there's nothing but tumbleweed around to driving home on 6 pints of Stella or even speeding "when there's no one about" is just silly...

cookiemonster

I agee that the perceived level of risk is lower, so perhaps a better comparison would doing 80mph on the motorway. Regardless, the point is that we can either choose that our own judgement of risk trumps the law, or that the law trumps our judgement.

Can you explain why you think this is silly?

kieranb

what time were you doing your 'survey'? Given the location I would guess you saw a lot of courier or wanna-be-couriers copying their behaviour. I commute into Central London and would guess a majority stop at the lights at cross roads; T-junctions, it depends on which bit of the T you are on. I do see some idiots including one regular prize one at Herne HIll junction who speeds through the red light ringing a bell and shouting and cuts up the cars which have right of way.

spen666

Headhunter - you are seemingly missing one important factor in your stance.

The fact that people drive after 6 oints at 3 am in the morning or that people ignore traffic laws they don't like (when no one is around). In both cases the argument you say is that they are victimless crimes, ignores the fact that people will avoid walking across those roads/ driving in them etc because of the risk / fear of the law breakers.

Thus the crimes are not victimless because you now have people who avoid that area because of fear.

Its a bit like saying that a gang of yobs hanging round a shopping centre drinking and carrying weapons are committing a victimless crime. The victims are those people who no longer go there.

Were football hooligans in the 70s/ 80s committing victimless crimes inside the football ground because only hooligans went to games. The fact that families and non whites didn't go through fear does not make it a victimless crime.


I should say that I am not against any of the law changes proposed by you and others- what needs to be borne in mind in considering the effect of the changes is how it will affect others- not simply to ignore the effect on others ( as Rick seems to propose).

All law changes will have a detrimental effect on some group. That in itself is not a bar or reason on its own to not change the law.

Headhuunter

spen666 wrote:

Headhunter - you are seemingly missing one important factor in your stance.

The fact that people drive after 6 oints at 3 am in the morning or that people ignore traffic laws they don't like (when no one is around). In both cases the argument you say is that they are victimless crimes, ignores the fact that people will avoid walking across those roads/ driving in them etc because of the risk / fear of the law breakers.

Thus the crimes are not victimless because you now have people who avoid that area because of fear.

Its a bit like saying that a gang of yobs hanging round a shopping centre drinking and carrying weapons are committing a victimless crime. The victims are those people who no longer go there.

Were football hooligans in the 70s/ 80s committing victimless crimes inside the football ground because only hooligans went to games. The fact that families and non whites didn't go through fear does not make it a victimless crime.


I should say that I am not against any of the law changes proposed by you and others- what needs to be borne in mind in considering the effect of the changes is how it will affect others- not simply to ignore the effect on others ( as Rick seems to propose).

All law changes will have a detrimental effect on some group. That in itself is not a bar or reason on its own to not change the law.

Yes I geddit, a lot of crime is victimless until someone gets hurt etc etc. If crossing a junction on red, personally I take waaaay more care than I would if going through a junction on green. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, in situations where traffic lights are completely removed, traffic tends to slow right down and drivers are way more aware of what's going on around them. I often notice that when traffic lights pack up working at major junctions.

I have had one fairly bad accident since cycling to work and that was going through a green light. I was traveling through the junction at 20mph+ paying less attention as I had right of way and some idiot driver, not paying attention at all it seems, turned across my path. What I'm saying is that if I ever have another accident it is highly, highly unlikely to be when I'm RLJ-ing.

Having said all this I understand that others may not be as careful as me but what I'm also saying is that the entire road system is set up with motorists in mind with very little concession to cycling. The government seems keen to raise the profile of cycling in cities without making investments in the infrastructre for increased number of cyclists.

I can see that your black and white view is logical - red means stop and green means go, but personally I find that I am often in a much safer situation if I carefully RLJ and get away from traffic at junctions and personally, I am more focused on keeping myself alive than I am on the letter of the law, but then that's just me.

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

...

I can see that your black and white view is logical - red means stop and green means go, ....

Black, white, red, green???????????


I thought traffic lights were red, amber and green - I'm confused :oops: :oops: :oops:


My position is not quite as you outline.

My position is that the law should be obeyed and it is not for us to ignore laws that we decide we do not want to observe

I am not saying the law is correct. the laws may be better if changed, but until they are changed we should obey them.

Camapign for law change rather than break laws is my position

Pross

To be pedantic red means stop, amber means stop, green means proceed with caution and red and amber means remain stopped although 99% of people interpret them as red = stop if 4 other vehicles have previously gone through, amber means accelerate hard to make sure you get through, green means speed up a bit so that you don't get caught out by the light changing and red and amber means see if you can perform a formula 1 style quick start

MattC59

kieranb wrote:

what time were you doing your 'survey'? Given the location I would guess you saw a lot of courier or wanna-be-couriers copying their behaviour. I commute into Central London and would guess a majority stop at the lights at cross roads; T-junctions, it depends on which bit of the T you are on. I do see some idiots including one regular prize one at Herne HIll junction who speeds through the red light ringing a bell and shouting and cuts up the cars which have right of way.

It was about 10:30am

Headhuunter

Pross wrote:

To be pedantic red means stop, amber means stop, green means proceed with caution and red and amber means remain stopped although 99% of people interpret them as red = stop if 4 other vehicles have previously gone through, amber means accelerate hard to make sure you get through, green means speed up a bit so that you don't get caught out by the light changing and red and amber means see if you can perform a formula 1 style quick start

In London, green means go, amber means go and red means "oh go on just another few cars" to most drivers...

pintoo

Pross wrote:

To be pedantic red means stop, amber means stop, green means proceed with caution and red and amber means remain stopped although 99% of people interpret them as red = stop if 4 other vehicles have previously gone through, amber means accelerate hard to make sure you get through, green means speed up a bit so that you don't get caught out by the light changing and red and amber means see if you can perform a formula 1 style quick start

Totally right. To be fair, all new drivers are taught this. I learned it 8 years ago when I took my motorcycle test. It's one of those lessons everyone seems to forget once they have their license. When I did my driving test in 1989, I'm certain I was taught:
Red: Stop
Amber: Get ready to stop / go
Green: Go

And I'm sure that was wrong.

unCivilServant

Well, maybe this is an unusual position for a cyclist, but as a cyclist on busy roads I actually like traffic lights. Because the principle of them is fairness: their intention is to turn a situation from free-for-all/survival of the biggest or most aggressive, to everyone taking their turn. (Note intention: I'm certainly not saying that some traffic lighted junctions aren't in practice dangerous for cyclists or that lights are the best thing everywhere.)

Living in an un-genteel bit of Sarf London, from experience I don't believe that without traffic controls the roads round here would become spontaneously well-organised and polite. What tends to happen when a set of lights go down (or the everyday situation on the non-light controlled bits of the Elephant & Castle pre-new layout) is that every interaction becomes a competition of heaviest vehicle (can't hope to win on a bike), aggression/confidence and who can get there fastest. Eventually it can descend into a microcosm of what you see pictured in Indian, Nigerian etc cities: yes everyone is slowed down, but if you think this is good, the delays caused make the time spent waiting at lights pale in comparison.

The other levelling effect of clear traffic signals--and that fans of 'bare streets' miss out--is for people with different physical or mental wherewithal. If you can't see very well, walk slowly, can't 'read' people to gauge their intentions (I have this issue)--for these and others, having *your turn* gives you a better chance than having to 'negotiate' at every interface.