If you want to RLJ then move to Paris
petemadoc
Posts: 2,331
Comments
-
Where's the popcorn.PeteMadoc wrote:
I quite like this actually.
It's a dangerous precedent though to trust common sense. Health and safety gone sane I tells you.0 -
Makes complete sense.
Reversing the directions (obv we drive on the left) the new (test) ruling means that you could turn left on a red at a crossroads and go straight ahead on red at a T junction where the T is off to your right.
Similar thing applies for all vehicles in many US city centres.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
I'm all for allowing red light jumping if wearing a helmet is made compulsory.0
-
Apparently there may be problems getting it to work if cyclists, drivers and pedestrians don't respect each other. This is Paris we are talking about, a city where insurance companies don't pay out for accidents that occur on certain junctions and roundabouts.Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
Somehow I can't picture a French policeman arresting a suited guy on a little sit-up & beg bike for being on the phone...0
-
Paris is an extremely safe city to cycle in. There is a lot of traffic but drivers are respectful of cyclists, unlike in the UK. There were no cyclists killed there last year.0
-
Sounds very sensible to me. Treating a cycle and car in the same way is nonsense.
Cyclists have much more in common with pedestrians and they're allowed to be wherever they want.
0 -
Wow, what is The Times playing at? That article read like it was written through gritted teeth.0
-
I guess the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. However if it is true that there were no deaths in Paris last year than it would seem there is something fundamentally different between cycling in Paris and cycling in London.0
-
Makes perfect sense. Providing cyclists give way to peds if they have right of way to cross. For all concerned it has to be a better system, less cyclists bunching up at busy junctions, which should lessen the chance of incidents with impatient drivers when the lights turn green. Only problem might be with lots of cyclists who intend going straight on, taking up all the space on the left and preventing left turners from doing so, which could lead to a few losing their rag.
Edit: Oh, straight on too. Ignore the bit about cyclists in the way of each other then.0 -
I hope it works.0
-
owenlars wrote:However if it is true that there were no deaths in Paris last year than it would seem there is something fundamentally different between cycling in Paris and cycling in London.
There certainly is.
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2012/02/last-year-not-single-person-was-killed.html0 -
pete54 wrote:owenlars wrote:However if it is true that there were no deaths in Paris last year than it would seem there is something fundamentally different between cycling in Paris and cycling in London.
There certainly is.
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.com/2012/02/last-year-not-single-person-was-killed.html
Where,in the name of left-handed Greek buggery, has the £400m gone? Consultants?0 -
The Times wrote:A new sign featuring a yellow bicycle will indicate that cyclists can ignore a traffic light and move forward if the road is clear. They do not have priority and will be held responsible in the event of an accident.
In essence: If you want to RLJ, go ahead, but put your money where your mouth is.0 -
Allowed? Really?TheStone wrote:Sounds very sensible to me. Treating a cycle and car in the same way is nonsense.
Cyclists have much more in common with pedestrians and they're allowed to be wherever they want.
Pedestrians in the middle of the road?
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets?
Cyclists RLJ?
It happens. It doesen't mean it is allowed.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
PeteMadoc wrote:
Or to Belgium. I already did.0 -
Greg66 wrote:The Times wrote:A new sign featuring a yellow bicycle will indicate that cyclists can ignore a traffic light and move forward if the road is clear. They do not have priority and will be held responsible in the event of an accident.
In essence: If you want to RLJ, go ahead, but put your money where your mouth is.
Only in instances with the 'amber bike light'.
So not at all junctions.0 -
daviesee wrote:
Allowed? Really?TheStone wrote:Sounds very sensible to me. Treating a cycle and car in the same way is nonsense.
Cyclists have much more in common with pedestrians and they're allowed to be wherever they want.
Pedestrians in the middle of the road?
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets?
Cyclists RLJ?
It happens. It doesen't mean it is allowed.
Yes. My understanding is that pedestrians are allowed to be wherever they want. There's no criminal offence (with the exception of motoways) although they can still be liable. Cycling should be similar.0 -
Cycloslalomeur wrote:PeteMadoc wrote:
Or to Belgium. I already did.
Nice one, Belgium rocks! Beautiful country, great beer, safe cycling . . . a tad boring though, no hills
The amount spent in London is staggering, very difficult to see where it's all gone. We all know that the real problem is attitudes and education. Although those Paris cycle lanes look pretty smart.0 -
PeteMadoc wrote:The amount spent in London is staggering, very difficult to see where it's all gone.
Simples, in this country it takes three guys to do any road job. One to dig and the other two need to stand and watch.0 -
No deaths but 500+ injuries, and according to the police they were mostly the cyclist's fault :-(pete54 wrote:Paris is an extremely safe city to cycle in. There is a lot of traffic but drivers are respectful of cyclists, unlike in the UK. There were no cyclists killed there last year.0 -
bompington wrote:
No deaths but 500+ injuries, and according to the police they were mostly the cyclist's fault :-(pete54 wrote:Paris is an extremely safe city to cycle in. There is a lot of traffic but drivers are respectful of cyclists, unlike in the UK. There were no cyclists killed there last year.
Damn "Reckless" cyclists, should be banned from the roads
/troll0 -
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.TheStone wrote:[Yes. My understanding is that pedestrians are allowed to be wherever they want. There's no criminal offence (with the exception of motoways) although they can still be liable. Cycling should be similar.
As a cyclist I would rather be considered part of the traffic than as a pedestrian.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Well, cyclists do have more freedom on the roads by virtue of just being smaller and more manoeuvrable than cars and motorbikes. I must have filtered past about 3 miles of traffic this morning, so I wouldn't strictly define myself as being part of that traffic. I think thats what people are getting at when they compare us more with pedestrians than cars. The authorities must have recognition of this too as there are probably* more miles of "Shared use" cycle/foot paths than cycle paths. When I'm in pootle mode in civvies my speed is closer to that of a pedestrian than a car.daviesee wrote:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.TheStone wrote:[Yes. My understanding is that pedestrians are allowed to be wherever they want. There's no criminal offence (with the exception of motoways) although they can still be liable. Cycling should be similar.
As a cyclist I would rather be considered part of the traffic than as a pedestrian.
*might be bullsh1t0 -
Theres quite a few one-way streets in the City of London that are two-way for cyclists.daviesee wrote:
Allowed? Really?TheStone wrote:Sounds very sensible to me. Treating a cycle and car in the same way is nonsense.
Cyclists have much more in common with pedestrians and they're allowed to be wherever they want.
Pedestrians in the middle of the road?
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets?
Cyclists RLJ?
It happens. It doesen't mean it is allowed.0 -
I am not so sure on the motorbike part.notsoblue wrote:Well, cyclists do have more freedom on the roads by virtue of just being smaller and more manoeuvrable than cars and motorbikes.
That depends on the size and/or type of bike and competency of the rider for both motorbike and bicycle.
Some cyclists that I have seen need to be given as much room as a bus None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Well, I know that I cause less noise and disruption rocking up to Waitrose on my hybrid in civvies, quickly locking it up on the pavement and heading in to do some shopping than I would if I was riding a 125. Similarly, there weren't many motorbikes following me as I was filtering through the traffic.daviesee wrote:
I am not so sure on the motorbike part.notsoblue wrote:Well, cyclists do have more freedom on the roads by virtue of just being smaller and more manoeuvrable than cars and motorbikes.
That depends on the size and/or type of bike and competency of the rider for both motorbike and bicycle.
Some cyclists that I have seen need to be given as much room as a bus
Anyway, the manoeuvrability of motorbikes wasn't really my main point there. Cyclists are closer to pedestrians than motor vehicles when it comes to speed, noise, and general impact on their surroundings. Theres a good reason why bikes are allowed on canal towpaths but motorbikes aren't.0 -
My point is that this is an acknowledgement of the fact that cyclists are more like pedestrians than cars when it comes to road use.daviesee wrote:
I knew that was coming.notsoblue wrote:Theres quite a few one-way streets in the City of London that are two-way for cyclists.
In these cases the cyclist is not going the wrong way0
