Traffic Lights

rhext

nation wrote:

..... people disregard the rules that are there to keep things working smoothly.......

If you change the wording on this a little:

'.....disregard traffic lights, which are only required in the first place to keep motor vehicles from banging in to each other.....'

I still obey them, because I tend to take the view that it's better to campaign to change the law than it is to disobey it, but I really can't find it in myself to get either irritated or upset when other people don't take a similar view.

chilling

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?

Just one is enough to ruin someones life.


http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/s ... ies-23886/

Noting that Transport for London figures showed that in recent years around five percent of cyclists killed in the capital had been jumping a traffic signal at the time, he told the paper: "It's not a big factor, but it could be something. It is fair to say that particularly in London, riding behaviour has deteriorated in recent years."

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... 2f536&z=11

nation

A lot of the time, especially in urban areas, lights are there to keep traffic flowing. There are plenty of junctions where, in the absence of lights, there would be a constant stream of traffic in one direction at peak times, rendering the junction impossible to navigate from any other direction.

Some of that is down to road layouts that are poorly planned in the first place, but it is always going to be the case that lights will be required at least some of the time, on certain roads, unless there is some kind of ridiculous step-change in the way in which people make their journeys.

In some cities, outside of peak times they turn most of their traffic lights off, or to flashing yellow, and the rules therefore revert to "give way". That isn't practical everywhere, all the time, though. You can also turn this around and argue that the root problem is the volume of motor traffic, which may be true, but I'm a pragmatist that will accept a less-than-ideal arrangement that enables me to get places with the minimum of fuss over idealism. I'm simply not interested in turning my every journey into urban guerilla warfare for the sake of cycling advocacy.

spen666

nation wrote:

A lot of the time, especially in urban areas, lights are there to keep traffic flowing. There are plenty of junctions where, in the absence of lights, there would be a constant stream of traffic in one direction at peak times, rendering the junction impossible to navigate from any other direction.

Some of that is down to road layouts that are poorly planned in the first place, but it is always going to be the case that lights will be required at least some of the time, on certain roads, unless there is some kind of ridiculous step-change in the way in which people make their journeys.

In some cities, outside of peak times they turn most of their traffic lights off, or to flashing yellow, and the rules therefore revert to "give way". That isn't practical everywhere, all the time, though. You can also turn this around and argue that the root problem is the volume of motor traffic, which may be true, but I'm a pragmatist that will accept a less-than-ideal arrangement that enables me to get places with the minimum of fuss over idealism. I'm simply not interested in turning my every journey into urban guerilla warfare for the sake of cycling advocacy.

flashing yellow?
In the UK?

I know they do this in the USA

nation

Sorry, yeah, I meant internationally. I was actually thinking of Rome at the time.

I don't think there's anywhere in the UK that does it.

Klarion

nation wrote:

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.

You need to think this through a bit more. The person with eleven or more items who goes in the "ten items or less" queue at the supermarket actually does slow down those in the queue behind him/her- either by the amount of time taken to process the additional items, or by the entire amount of time he/she spends at the till, depending how you look at it. So the frustration of others in the queue is quite understandable.

But a 'RLJ'ing cyclist doesn't make the red light, for those cyclist who opt to obey it, stay on any longer. So there's not really a logical basis for you getting "wound up".

Klarion

@ chilling (Jul 15, 2011 11:20 am). I've looked at the survey referred to in the Bikeradar article you sourced, & it indicates that, in London, 3 cyclists were killed while riding through a junction against a red light, during a 5 year period. In comparison, there were 4 cyclists killed by being 'doored' by occupants of stationary vehilcles. The total cyclist death toll was 96.

The low absolute & percentage figure of cyclists killed while 'RLJ'ing actually tends to suggest that going through red lights, for cyclists, is not a particlularly dangerous activity.

Also, the survey says nothing about whether the three who very sadly died had taken the trouble to check if there was any traffic coming or likely to come (as one always should, and also at non-traffic signal junctions).

So it is quite conceivable that the number of cyclists killed while carefully going through a red light, having looked around & assessed the situation, was zero.

spen666

nation wrote:

Sorry, yeah, I meant internationally. I was actually thinking of Rome at the time.

I don't think there's anywhere in the UK that does it.

hame.

it works great in the USA, but then their mentality is different and tey do not seem to only think of themselves when driving

chilling

@Klarion

So it's fine that 3 people probably suffered post traumatic stress in totally avoidable circumstances due to other road users not being willing to observe the law. Nice moral compass you have there.

When in my car I can't be arsed to stick to the 20 limit on my road that they put in place because it has schools at either end, I'd maybe arrive at my destination a couple of minutes later if I did.

Sod the law, I'm with you brother......

I was being ironic about the speeding thing BTW

Klarion

chilling wrote:

So it's fine that 3 people probably suffered post traumatic stress in totally avoidable circumstances due to other road users not being willing to observe the law.

Actually, as I already said, there's no indication in the survey of whether these three very unfortunate cyclists took the basic care which one ought to do at junctions. So, this very small number of fatalities might well have no bearing at all on whether it is a risky practice for cyclists to proceed across red lights once they have carefully observed & considered the situation.

By the way, given that according to the stats, more cyclists are killed by being 'doored' by occupants of stationary cars & vans, perhaps the authorities should consider some public education on this issue.

Klarion

@ Chilling. As I already pointed out, the survey you cited contains no indication that any fatalities were caused by cyclists who observantly went through a red light, having looked around & assessed the situation.

Thus, as far as you or I know, the incidence of driver PTSD as a result of careful RLJs by cyclists might well be zero.

And so, you have no evidential basis whatsoever for your argumant.

chilling

Whatever.

You're perfect and are never distracted for even a second whilst you habitually jump red lights, I prefer not to take the chance and endeavour to be around for my kids and wider family for as long as possible.

I'd say in most cases I pass the RLJ's I see fairly shortly after the light has gone green anyway, it's not like most are actually going to get where they are heading significantly earlier.

I'm not that fussed either way to be honest. If you are happy to take the risk, so be it.

I'd be a bit pissed off if I was the only trained first aider on the scene and I'd be pressed into action trying to keep you alive whilst the professionals got there. But it's personal choice as to which laws you're willing to break/ignore.

As for your point about PTSD, pretty much every tube driver that kills someone suffers, no fault of theirs that someone decided to kill themselves that way. I'm sure if you ran someone over, however much it wan't your fault, it would still affect you. It's generally agreed that killing someone else is a negative thing to experience unless there is something wrong with you.

Klarion

chilling wrote:

You're perfect and are never distracted for even a second whilst you habitually jump red lights.

A worthy attempt at sarcasm on your part. Unfortunately & bizarrely, you then try to adduce a scenario about the supposed likelihood of your own death, & dreadful results thereof, in support of your supposedly legalistic/moralistic position.

I'm not putting any pressure on you to jump red lights. So far as I'm concerned, it's quite up to you.

Than you remark:

chilling wrote:

I'd be a bit pissed off if I was the only trained first aider on the scene and I'd be pressed into action trying to keep you alive whilst the professionals got there. But it's personal choice as to which laws you're willing to break/ignore.

More peculiar fantasy. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that cyclists going through red lights, after looking around & apprising the situation, is the cause of any significant injuries.

If you have stats to show otherwise, please post it.

Meanwhile. I would propose that cyclists, as a whole, should be judged on the same basis as motorised road users, so far as adherence to the letter of the law is concerned.

Is there any car, van or lorry driver who has ever, on any significant journey, failed to break the speed limit?

Of course not. All motorists go above 30 mph in town. As with other rules of the road, drivers obey them when convenient / enforced, & disregard otherwise.

So what is it with the 'letter of the law' brigade on this website? You think motorists would be impressed or conciliated by your holy opprobrium for cyclists who RLJ?

And as for your bringing in tube drivers, fxxx knows what you are on about. An utter red herring. You have produced no evidence that anyone, anywhere or at any time on this planet, has suffered PTSD as a result of a careful cyclist deciding to cross a red light.