Traffic Lights

chris_bass

I was just wondering what people do at lights.

if they are red but there is clearly nothing coming do you carry on?
at pedestrian crossings, if the lights are red but the people crossing have gone passed and there is no one else going to cross is it ok to carry on?
do you jump the lights? when the other direction has changed but your direction hasnt yet

i only ask because i went through a pedestrian crossing today that was on red but there was no one near me so it wasnt dangerous, the only person was a cyclist who had already gone through and was safely across, he shout that it was on red, so i shouted back he was cycling on the footpath and carried on. but it got me thinking.

I know in the eyes of the law you shoud stop but in practise what do people do?

The Rookie

Ye gods not another red light thread, we had one only yesterday.

To continue past a red light has 2 downsides
1/ It is a criminal offence, making you a criminal liable to prosecution
2/ Motorists see it and figure all cyclists have no concern for their own safety so why should they bother either and then nearly mow us down every time they pass.

You may have guessed that I stop for reds, no ifs, nobuts, no maybe's.

Simon

jamesco

Chris Bass wrote:

I know in the eyes of the forum you shoud stop starting red-light-jumping threads but in practise what do people do?

They start these threads... Please, no, not another.

esspeebee

If it's a set of temporary traffic lights at roadworks, on a straight section of road where I can see half a mile in both directions, there are no junctions in sight, no cars, no people, and it's past 11pm, then I might consider riding through.

cougie

Why are people using the roads if they dont know what to do at traffic lights ??

Are there motoring forums somewhere full of drivers asking questions like :

'Roundabouts - WTF ??'

'Indicators - what are they for ?'

'Fog lights - arent they cool ?'

chilling

^^^^ What he said.

To be honest I've the feeling that a lot of people who I see riding on the road don't drive so have never read a copy of the Highway code.

Having to pass your theory test before you were allowed to ride on the road would be a good thing in my opinion. Yes it may put some people off cycling, but do we honestly want people who can't be bothered to know the rules using the road?

The Rookie

cougie wrote:

'Fog lights - arent they cool ?'

Dodgy ground, I'm sure you'll find just such a thread on a Citroen Chavxo forum.....

Simon

woodford2barbican

Must resist - can I troll two threads in two days?

richVSrich

This thread has to be a joke after what happened on Chat right?

Koncordski

Dear god!! :roll:


Mods please close this thread!!

Original poster please go here if you must......

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12789238

chris_bass

I agree, please close this, unfortunately i didnt see the other post before posting this! i really wish i had!

Just to try and qualify my opening post:

1) i know red lights mean stop

2) there are parts of my route where you can see for half a mile in all directions and can easily see if something is coming

3) there are parts where the change between lights is very slow

4) i start my commute before 7 in the morning so often people press the button and are able to cross long before they change and their arent many (if any) other people around and so it is eay to see if anyone else is going to cross

i only ever cross red lights in places such as in point 2, if there are cars about or its places i cant see i always stop, and i do mean always. for crossings where people are about even if they dont look like crossing i always stop.

I am sorry for this thread, please close and delete if possible.

Sorry again, please dont judge me on this post alone

Chris

Klarion

cougie wrote:

Why are people using the roads if they dont know what to do at traffic lights ??

Are there motoring forums somewhere full of drivers asking questions like :

'Roundabouts - WTF ??'

'Indicators - what are they for ?'

'Fog lights - arent they cool ?'

Well, it would be a bit more relevant if you asked if, on motoring forums, there were threads on whether to break the speed limit, and stop over the ASL at traffic lights- ie, things that the vast majority of car & van drivers usually do, and are sometimes dangerous & usually inconvenient to cyclists.

But irrespective, & putting aside that many cyclist are also motorists & vice versa. Of course motorists don't endlessly debate such things.

They just get on with breaking these rules of the road, whenever they think it doesn't matter that much & when they presume they can get away with it.

And also, you'll find that car or van drivers never shout at each other for stopping over the ASL or going 35 mph in town.

Which is quite understandable.

What is a bit more difficult to comprehend is why some cyclists (especially on this forum) believe that the way to impress or placate motorists is to make a big show of stopping at every red light.

Jason82

chilling wrote:

^^^^ What he said.

To be honest I've the feeling that a lot of people who I see riding on the road don't drive so have never read a copy of the Highway code.

Having to pass your theory test before you were allowed to ride on the road would be a good thing in my opinion. Yes it may put some people off cycling, but do we honestly want people who can't be bothered to know the rules using the road?

You will be amazed at how many people who drive that don't know the highway code. Ask your friends what a single yellow line means, most think you can park on one after 18:30 which is wrong. Also what is the speed limit for a ford transit van on a country lane 60mph is wrong.

I had to pass a cycling proficency test at school when I was young do they still do these? They taught us what to do at the traffic lights and I was only 10.

Headhuunter

Jason82 wrote:

chilling wrote:

^^^^ What he said.

To be honest I've the feeling that a lot of people who I see riding on the road don't drive so have never read a copy of the Highway code.

Having to pass your theory test before you were allowed to ride on the road would be a good thing in my opinion. Yes it may put some people off cycling, but do we honestly want people who can't be bothered to know the rules using the road?

You will be amazed at how many people who drive that don't know the highway code. Ask your friends what a single yellow line means, most think you can park on one after 18:30 which is wrong. Also what is the speed limit for a ford transit van on a country lane 60mph is wrong.

I had to pass a cycling proficency test at school when I was young do they still do these? They taught us what to do at the traffic lights and I was only 10.

I don't think cycling proficiency was ever mandatory, I did it at about 10 yrs old but not everyone did...

nation

For what it's worth, I've seen lengthy and bitter disputes on motoring forums about whether someone rigidly doing 70mph in the outside lane of a motorway is doing anything wrong, so yes, motorists do have these kinds of arguments.

spen666

nation wrote:

For what it's worth, I've seen lengthy and bitter disputes on motoring forums about whether someone rigidly doing 70mph in the outside lane of a motorway is doing anything wrong, so yes, motorists do have these kinds of arguments.

They are clearly doing something wrong as all but the 1st lanse on the motorway are only overtaking lanes, so unless driverdoing 70mph is actually overtaking he is driving without due care and attention ( or one of its other limbs)

mossychops

What is the speed limit for a Ford Transit on a country lane? (I assume you mean a national speed limit road when everyone else can do 60).

I don't have a transit but I am thinking of getting one and converting it to pedal power (no VED and no congestion charging, fit a shower in the back etc) but I if cant do 60 in it I don't think I'll bother.

Edit: It's 50. You can keep your vans. Learn something new every day.

The Rookie

Cycling profficiency tests still happen (My wife works at a primary school) but have never been a requirement although I know of one school that wouldn't allow a pupil to bring a bike on site (presuming you'd ridden) unless you'd done it.

Simon

rhext

Red lights only apply to motorists and should be jumped at every opportunity......

rhext

rhext wrote:

Red lights only apply to motorists and should be jumped at every opportunity......

....you blithering idiot. You give us all a bad name, and should be hung from the nearest lamp post. Jumping red lights is breaking the law and laws should never be broken under any circumstances ever.

rhext

rhext wrote:

rhext wrote:

Red lights only apply to motorists and should be jumped at every opportunity......

....you blithering idiot. You give us all a bad name, and should be hung from the nearest lamp post. Jumping red lights is breaking the law and laws should never be broken under any circumstances ever.

Repeat for next 10 pages!

nation

spen666 wrote:

nation wrote:

For what it's worth, I've seen lengthy and bitter disputes on motoring forums about whether someone rigidly doing 70mph in the outside lane of a motorway is doing anything wrong, so yes, motorists do have these kinds of arguments.

They are clearly doing something wrong as all but the 1st lanse on the motorway are only overtaking lanes, so unless driverdoing 70mph is actually overtaking he is driving without due care and attention ( or one of its other limbs)

I agree entirely, just like I'd say that cyclists shouldn't jump red lights.

It doesn't stop people getting into arguments over it with religious intensity.

darpots

Never agreed with cyclists jumping red lights. They are there for everyone's safety. It used to wind me up seeing a cyclist jump the lights while I was in my car. It winds me up much more when I am sat waiting at the lights on my bike only to have another cyclist whizz by going stright through. :evil:

mossychops

rhext wrote:

....you blithering idiot....

Anyone else laugh out loud at that?

Klarion

darpots wrote:

It used to wind me up seeing a cyclist jump the lights while I was in my car. It winds me up much more when I am sat waiting at the lights on my bike only to have another cyclist whizz by going stright through.

Isn't that rather irrational? When a cyclist goes thru a red light, it doesn't make that red light stay on any longer for the vehicle drivers & the cyclists who opt to wait for green.

Now, if a cyclist recklessly 'RLJ's, thus scaring / endangering pedestrians or causing motorists to have to brake, that's obviously very bad & stupid. But why on earth should you get all 'wound up' when a cyclist carefully goes through a red light?

chilling

Why would you get wound up when a criminal 'carefullly' pick's your pocket?

Obviously 99% of the time the repercussions aren't the same, but someone somewhere will end up under the wheels of a vehicle causing the driver the trauma of killing someone.

That' s why we have rules.

Klarion

chilling wrote:

Why would you get wound up when a criminal 'carefullly' pick's your pocket?

OK. When a criminal picks your pocket, you lose some of your cash, or jewelry, etc.

But what exactly is it that you imagine is stolen from you when you decide to wait at the lights, while another cyclist opts to go through?

Hardly the Crown Jewels.

Klarion

chilling wrote:

someone somewhere will end up under the wheels of a vehicle causing the driver the trauma of killing someone.

What utter & ridiculous drivel. How many people, per year, are killed by cyclists going through red lights?

spen666

Klarion wrote:

chilling wrote:

someone somewhere will end up under the wheels of a vehicle causing the driver the trauma of killing someone.

What utter & ridiculous drivel. How many people, per year, are killed by cyclists going through red lights?

What utter & ridiculous drivel

Its not a competition as to which action causes more death

nation

Klarion wrote:

darpots wrote:

But why on earth should you get all 'wound up' when a cyclist carefully goes through a red light?

Because people behaving unpredictably on the roads inconveniences everyone (in general terms, that isn't to say that someone is inconvenienced every time a red light is jumped).

Also because it's generally extremely irritating when people disregard the rules that are there to keep things working smoothly. For example, many people will quietly seethe when the person ahead of them in the "ten items or less" queue at the supermarket clearly has more than ten items.

Just because the harm is minimal and/or abstract doesn't make the lack of consideration any less annoying.

The Rookie

Klarion wrote:

chilling wrote:

someone somewhere will end up under the wheels of a vehicle causing the driver the trauma of killing someone.

What utter & ridiculous drivel. How many people, per year, are killed by cyclists going through red lights?

Not recorded data, so no one can tell you. But it's not the point at all.

Simon