red lights

Pete Biggs said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Quoted message said:

They also don't think it's
necessary in some other countries where it's permitted to go through
in certain circumstances.

They think it necessary to put people to death for committing murder
in some other countries in certain circumstances. They probably pay
less for their fish too.

Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to turn
right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

They have/had a similar practice in Germany but that doesn't mean it works
well. (They don't have speed limits on a lot of their motorways - are you
suggesting this should be introduced in the UK?)

I'd like to see data comparing accident rates at junctions in the
respective countries before accepting that this practice is safe.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the
stork." - Mae West
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Pete Biggs said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Quoted message said:

They also don't think it's
necessary in some other countries where it's permitted to go through
in certain circumstances.

They think it necessary to put people to death for committing murder
in some other countries in certain circumstances. They probably pay
less for their fish too.

Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to turn
right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

The key difference being that in many cities of my experience in the US,
motorists doing this DO give way to pedestrians crossing the street
into which they are turning.

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

It's a matter for the judgement and descretion of
both the individual and the authorities.

My judgment as an individual is that poor behaviour by other cyclists
affects *me* when I'm cycling. I *greatly* resent that other people
being thoughtless rubs off on how I am treated.

Actually I feel the same way when I see cyclists dodging fast cars from
the side as they go straight on at crossroads through red lights. But I
don't think seeing cyclists go through an empty pedestrian crossing on red
generates quite the same bad feeling, just a bit of envy.

In any case, I doubt that any general bad feeling motorists have towards
cyclists actually causes them to be more dangerous when it comes to the
crunch. I just don't get that impression from the vast majority of
motorists whenever I am holding them up, for instance -- an ideal
opportunity for them to take out any aggression on me. Instead, they (the
vast majority) are perfectly reasonable and courteous towards me. So a
lot of this supposed negative feeling motorists have doesn't actually
exist when it matters.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just the the presence of cyclists on the roads encourages others to
cycle.

Only if they're seen in a positive light.

No, I think just the numbers on the roads does it. People see that
cycling a viable transport option. They don't *then* care if they break
the law if they will become one of them!

~PB

Richard said:

The key difference being that in many cities of my experience in the US,
motorists doing this DO give way to pedestrians crossing the street
into which they are turning.

Or in the broader sense the key is knowing how the game is generally
played by the people on the ground. And in UK traffic the game of
traffic lights is played by not going through red ones well after
they've changed in the general perception of the road using public.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard said:

Pete Biggs said:

Colin Blackburn said:

> They also don't think it's
> necessary in some other countries where it's permitted to go through
> in certain circumstances.

They think it necessary to put people to death for committing murder
in some other countries in certain circumstances. They probably pay
less for their fish too.

Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to turn
right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

The key difference being that in many cities of my experience in the US,
motorists doing this DO give way to pedestrians crossing the street
into which they are turning.

The turn-right-on-red requires you to come to a complete stop first,
which increases the chances of the motorist actually looking where they
are about to go.

Simonb said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to
turn right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

Only in some states. I drove from MD to NY once -- no can do in NY --
too difficult for peds in NYC to tell whether a car would turn the
corner or not, I suppose.

Wouldn't be bad for bikes to be allowed, because they're a minimal threat
to pedestrians and are very narrow so pose minimal obstruction to other
traffic.

I would like to see either relaxation of the rules or more sophisticated
traffic lights introduced with lights/phases/signs for cycles. Afterall,
when the law isn't working (the majority of London cyclists disobey it),
it is sensible to solve the root problems instead of enforcing law purely
for the sake of it.

~PB

On Wed, 26 May 2004 10:13:11 +0100, wobbles <.> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Hi Everyone,

I cycle with friends, sometimes with one, sometimes with more. They all have a
tendency to ride through red lights which I feel uncomfortable doing.
How do you manage this problem, or do some of you ride through red lights?

Obviously some lights are safer than others, depending on where they are and the
traffic conditions.
Not stopping also leads a bad example and probably helps give people like Clarkson
more ammunition.

I'm mainly a mountainbiker and find the streets of London quite intimidating at the
best of times.

I stop at red lights.

Occasionally, if there are long sequences when turning left, I'll get
off and push my bike along the pavement round the corner, then
remount.

Or again sometimes, if it's a weird junction, get off and push the
bike across with the green man, then remount.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Richard
<[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

The key difference being that in many cities of my experience in the
US, motorists doing this DO give way to pedestrians crossing the
street into which they are turning.

This is, IIRC, a requirement - pedestrians on a crosswalk have priority
over vehicular traffic. I spent a couple of weeks in Madison last year
and kept confusing the local drivers, as it's been ingrained into me
practically since birth that you stop at the kerb and wait till the road
is clear before crossing. Whenever I tried to do that there all the
cars would stop and wait for me to cross the road first!

They also have very strange pedestrian crossings, in that the "walk"
sign (green man) will come on when the road lights are set to allow
conflicting turns across the crossing. Again, the traffic is supposed
to stop for pedestrians, so it works.

I've no idea how it is in a major city though, Madison is a fairly small
(by UK city standards) and very polite place. It's also amazingly bike
friendly, with lots of proper cycle routes (several on abandoned
railways), and busses which have cycle-racks on the front.

The origin of the "permissive right turn through red lights" there was
that back in the 70s, when the oil crisis hit but most people were still
driving gas-guzzlers, someone worked out just how much fuel was wasted
by cars idling at traffic lights. I gather it was quite a lot!

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

David Martin said:

Some people don't think it's necessary to give way to cyclists
because they don't pay road tax. Some don't feel it's necessary to
park where they are not obstructing other road users. Roads operate
successfully due to an implicit social contract. Why do you think you
can break that when you would be most put out if others did what they
wanted?

I am NOT put out when motorist breaks a law, carefully, without actually
potentially harming anyone (that last bit is crucial). I think we've all
long forgotton what law are for in this society. It is a device for
dealing with badness, not guide rails to blindly run on. Descretion on
both sides is vital. Call me an anarchist if you like!

~PB

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to
turn right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

They have/had a similar practice in Germany but that doesn't mean it
works well.

I feel sure something like that would work well for cyclists if it was
done properly.

~PB

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Waiting time on an 8 mile journey, for instance, adds up
considerably. I will time it sometime.

Pete, a cyclist using the argument that waiting at red lights cuases delay is
just as bad as a motorist using said excuse to jump red lights.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:02:21 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer said:

Quoted message said:

Most people outside London haven't got a clue what it's like to
cycle in a place where there is so, so many traffic lights (which
such long red waits now) so read their "advice" with that in mind.

I used to cycle to work in Glasgow, from Govanhill down Pollokshaws
Road to Shawlands. There are traffic lights every few yards through
Shawlands Cross, deliberately breaking up the road into lots of short
chunks, and changing very fast, as that was found to help the busses
pull out and also kept all the traffic moving.

Yes I did just say "most people", not all. However, having frequent
traffic lights in a relatively small city is one thing, having loads in an
area the size of London is another, at least when cycling more than a very
few miles.

'Relatively small' is a relative judgement then. Greater Glasgow's
diameter is about Greater London's radius.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Pete Biggs said:

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to
turn right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

They have/had a similar practice in Germany but that doesn't mean it
works well.

I feel sure something like that would work well for cyclists if it was
done properly.

I feel sure that the number of cyclist fatalities would increase. Only a
comparitive study of the data would persuade me otherwise.
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He had delusions of adequacy." - Walter Kerr
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Pete Biggs said:

Afterall, when the law isn't working (the majority of London
cyclists disobey it), it is sensible to solve the root problems
instead of enforcing law purely for the sake of it.

Isn't that what those pissroasts on uk.tosspot keep saying about sp++d
c+m+r+s?

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

I disagree. Waiting time on an 8 mile journey, for instance, adds up
considerably. I will time it sometime.

Pete, a cyclist using the argument that waiting at red lights cuases
delay is just as bad as a motorist using said excuse to jump red
lights.

I didn't actually explicitly use that argument (above was a reply to a
claim that there's little to be gained), but still......

Cyclists have many more opportunities to go through red lights safely
without causing inconvenience than motorists because they have better
vision of their surroundings and take up much less room (particularly
width-wise).

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

Yes I did just say "most people", not all. However, having frequent
traffic lights in a relatively small city is one thing, having loads in an
area the size of London is another, at least when cycling more than a very
few miles.

Learn the light sequences on your normal routes, sprint and cruise as
appropriate to match them. Learn to trackstand and ride at a controlled
speed (riding fixed wheel helps there). Worked fine for me doing 40-50
miles a day in central London. Jumping red lights was just unnecessary
and undesirable.

Roger

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pete Biggs said:

traffic lights introduced with lights/phases/signs for cycles. Afterall,
when the law isn't working (the majority of London cyclists disobey it),
it is sensible to solve the root problems instead of enforcing law purely

I take it you're an advocate of a substantial raising of speed limits,
both in urban and non-urban settings?

ian

On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:02:21 +0100 someone who may be "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Yes I did just say "most people", not all. However, having frequent
traffic lights in a relatively small city is one thing, having loads in an
area the size of London is another, at least when cycling more than a very
few miles.

Glasgow is not a relatively small city, though this is all
relative:-)

York is a relatively small city in my view.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Michael MacClancy said:

Pete Biggs said:

Michael MacClancy said:

> Apparently it works well in north America where you're allowed to
> turn right (like turning left here) if there's nothing coming.

They have/had a similar practice in Germany but that doesn't mean it
works well.

I feel sure something like that would work well for cyclists if it
was done properly.

I feel sure that the number of cyclist fatalities would increase.
Only a comparitive study of the data would persuade me otherwise.

There could actually be a decrease, if it was done well, because some of
the cyclists that get killed now by breaking the law would better respect
laws and signals if they were more appropriate to them.

~PB

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

Afterall, when the law isn't working (the majority of London
cyclists disobey it), it is sensible to solve the root problems
instead of enforcing law purely for the sake of it.

Isn't that what those pissroasts on uk.tosspot keep saying about sp++d
c+m+r+s?

That law isn't enforced just for the sake of it. It's because it needs
enforcing to reduce the collasal numbers road deaths we have. I don't
know if using speed cameras is the best way to do that but that's a
different matter. I'm not particularly interested in defending motorists'
arguments, but yes there is a similar principle going on there. Speed
laws obviously don't work so
ultimately there has to be a better solution than merely trying to enforce
them. Something more radical would be better.

Cyclists going through pedestrian crossings on red and the like does not
cause enough of a problem to justify rigorously enforcing the law every
time, IMO. I actually don't think speeding law needs enforcing every time
either but again that's a different matter.

~PB