red lights

David Hansen said:

York is a relatively small city in my view.

That's because it's so far away from Edinburgh ;-)

Roger Hughes said:

Learn the light sequences on your normal routes, sprint and cruise as
appropriate to match them.

I find that's impossible nowdays with the sheer number of lights and cars.
It's too stressful to even try. I prefer just to cycle on at my usual
speed and either relax at the red light (yes I do stop for most of them!)
or *carefully* go through.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

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

Cyclists going through a Toucan crossing have twice almost Tboned me as
I crossed the road on my bike so to me they are enough of a problem that
the law should be enforced.

Allan

Ian G Batten said:

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

Please see my other reply ("...& speed cameras"😉

I think there is scope to raise some limts, but also some should be
lowered (if not scrapping limits altogether and coming up with an
alternative). Limits would mean more if they were more appropriate to the
particular roads.

[Note: I'm altering the subject titles because this thread is going to
become massive and diverse!]

~PB

Roger Hughes said:

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.

I'm guessing you weren't doing all of those 40-50 miles in rush hour
traffic: when there's a queue of vehicles backed up far enough that it
takes two phases to get to the front, there's not a lot you can to to
regulate your own speed that doesn't involve riding over the car
roofs. And I'm just guessing here, but I expect all you killjoys will
complain that also gives a poor impression of cyclists ;-)

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Pete Biggs said:

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).

A slippery slope, as you need to be able to draw objective lines and
limits to be able to carry off this argument. How wide is too wide?
Should a trike be allowed, or a Brox? How does one define quality of
view? Can we be sure a cyclist has looked around properly where a
motorist hasn't? And so on. People get killed on roads. If people
follow the rules and accept a bit of inconvenience then fewer will,
simple as that.
The "I can use my brain to assess the risks" would be very well if it
scaled to the whole road using population, but you know as well as I do
that it doesn't. And not only that it doesn't, but a very large number
of those for whom it doesn't think it does, at least where /they/ are
concerned.

If the argument doesn't scale across the whole system it's dangerously
dopey.

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/

Ian G Batten said:

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

I take it you're an advocate of using a filament light for rearward
illumination, a front light with a battery life in excess of ten
hours, and have orange pedal reflectors (even on a recumbent)

No, actually I don't, but the leap of pseudologic necessary to arrive
at that conclusion is similar in scope and character to the process
you must have used to arrive at your conclusion regarding Pete's
viewpoints.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

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).

A slippery slope, as you need to be able to draw objective lines and
limits to be able to carry off this argument. How wide is too wide?
Should a trike be allowed, or a Brox?

It would be straightforward enough to make exceptions for bicycles and
that's desparately needed. I'm not sure about trikes, etc.

Quoted message said:

How does one define quality of
view? Can we be sure a cyclist has looked around properly where a
motorist hasn't? And so on. People get killed on roads. If people
follow the rules and accept a bit of inconvenience then fewer will,
simple as that.

That's not the only way. Society is more sophisticated than that, and
should become more sophistcated still, in my view.

Quoted message said:

The "I can use my brain to assess the risks" would be very well if it
scaled to the whole road using population, but you know as well as I
do that it doesn't. And not only that it doesn't, but a very large
number of those for whom it doesn't think it does, at least where
/they/ are concerned.

If the argument doesn't scale across the whole system it's dangerously
dopey.

I can't agree because there are such big and obvious differences between
the vast majority of bicycles and other traffic. It could work well, I
think.

~PB

Pyromancer said:

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

This is a requirement in the UK, too, in some cases. A pedestrian
crossing a side road has right of way over a vehicle which wants to
turn into it (Highway Code rule 182). There doesn't even need to be a
"crosswalk".

Admittedly, in the UK this only applies (as far as I can tell) if the
ped is already in the roadway.

Quoted message said:

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.

That's pretty normal throughout the US, or at leats the bits I've
seen. It takes a bit of adjustment when you're used to driving in the
UK, granted

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Allan' 'amv.2f said:

Cyclists going through a Toucan crossing have twice almost Tboned me
as
I crossed the road on my bike so to me they are enough of a problem
that the law should be enforced.

Almost.

~PB

David Martin said:

On the grand scheme of things it takes very little time. FWIW I used to
commute 13 miles each way through London. Jumping red lights was not
something I did and I still made it to wherever I was going.
If you do time it, do so over a few weeks to get a reasonable distribution
of times.

I'm presently commuting about 10km to work each morning through
London. According to my cycle computer I spend about 22-24 minutes
moving. According to the time difference between when I set off and
when I arrive, it's more in the range of 30-35 minutes. Chop a couple
of minutes for carrying the bike upstairs when I arrive at work, if
you like.

I don't stop for fun: every wait is enforced either by traffic
conditions or by lights.

Quoted message 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?

Which part of an implicit social contract (and contract with whom) am
I breaking if I jump a red light at a junction where I can see the
route to be safe and not inconvenient to other road users?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

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

Quoted message said:

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.

You've hit the exact problem right there. Cyclists who deliberately
speed through pedestrian crossings on red, IMO, should have their bikes
confiscated on the spot and be subject to a very large fine, and also a
driving ban[1].

When a pedestrian crossing's lights are red to the road they are
generally green to the pedestrians, who are therefore justified in
thinking of the crossing as a temporary extension of the pavement and
thus "their space". If some idiot on a bike then comes up and crashes
the lights they are highly likely to do serious damage to a pedestrian.
Even more so if they're the kind of nutters I've seen on occasion who've
raced past a line of stopped cars and then shot across the crossing and
the junction beyond.

Red traffic lights are there to be stopped at. If you *really* can't
wait a few moments, get off and push the bike past them. But *don't* go
through them.

[1] I gather these can and have been imposed on people who don't hold
driving licences, so it's a valid penalty.

--
- 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.

"wobbles" <.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi Everyone,

Quoted message said:

Not stopping also leads a bad example and probably helps give people like

Clarkson

Quoted message said:

more ammunition.

Thanks W

Masses of cars don't stop when the lights change to amber.
Many don't stop when they've gone red.
Some cars are still going through the red when it's green for traffic from
the other direction.
I see far more motorists going through red lights than cyclists.

Perhaps we could wear signs on our back saying "Motorists are worse"?

Paul.

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Nearly all motorists continually break the speed limit.

"continually" for "nearly all" just isn't fair. It isn't even
/possible/ a lot of the time in urban traffic.

Most break the speed limit every few minutes, if not every few seconds.
That's close enough to "continual" for the sake of this argument.

It is easily possible for cars to accelerate up to 35+ mph between stops
in busy inner and central London, and they do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Motorists break
one law, cyclists break another. So we're even on that score.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think cyclists have to be more "right" than motorists. I just
don't accept that cyclists should have to "set an example". You may like
to (that's great) but I object to cyclists effectively being told they
must by other cyclists. It's a matter for the judgement and descretion of
both the individual and the authorities.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm already setting a good example just by being out on the
road on a bike.

I know that, you know that, but do /they/ know that?

Just the the presence of cyclists on the roads encourages others to cycle.
That's good enough, I reckon.

~PB

Pedestrians walk across in the direction of the traffic stopped at the red
light. Legal?
Pedestrians run across in the direction of the traffic stopped at the red
light. Legal?
Pedestrians run across whilst pushing a cycle in the direction of the
traffic stopped at the red light. Legal?
Pedestrians run across whilst pushing a cycle in the direction of the
traffic stopped at the red light and scoot on the pedal. Whoops illegal?

Paul

On 26/5/04 5:40 pm, in article [email hidden],

Paulmouk said:

Pedestrians walk across in the direction of the traffic stopped at the red
light. Legal?

Yes

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians run across in the direction of the traffic stopped at the red
light. Legal?

Yes

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians run across whilst pushing a cycle in the direction of the
traffic stopped at the red light. Legal?

Technically no if they had come from the direction of the traffic stopped at
the red light. They are failing to observe a traffic signal. However, if
they were carrying the bike it then becomes a parcel and they are a
pedestrian. AIUI it is also illegal to push a pschchair on the road past a
red light.

Quoted message said:

Pedestrians run across whilst pushing a cycle in the direction of the
traffic stopped at the red light and scoot on the pedal. Whoops illegal?

Also illegal

...d

wobbles said:

Not stopping also leads a bad example and probably helps give people like Clarkson
more ammunition.

That's why I don't do it, even if it's safe (e.g. when the roads are
quiet at night and nothing is coming the other way).

Although I know someone who jumps all of them at 2am when there isn't a
soul around.

"Pete Biggs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

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've recently started working in London again I have to admit where as I
stop at lights in Kent, I don't in London when it is safe. In fact very,
very few cyclist sdo stop when it is safe to go, and a lot don't stop even
when it isn't safe.

Personally I like the risky cyclists. The more car drivers think of cyclists
as irresponsible the more care they take avoiding all cyclists on the road.

Paulmouk said:

Pedestrians walk across in the direction of the traffic stopped at the red
light. Legal?
Pedestrians run across in the direction of the traffic stopped at the red
light. Legal?
Pedestrians run across whilst pushing a cycle in the direction of the
traffic stopped at the red light. Legal?
Pedestrians run across whilst pushing a cycle in the direction of the
traffic stopped at the red light and scoot on the pedal. Whoops illegal?

Depends if he's clipped in or not ;-)

What about skaters? Is a skater a pedestrian?

A competent skater (one day, I will be such) may easily be moving at
2-3 times the speed of an unwheeled pedestrian. I think it's in
general safer for such people to be on the road, not the pavement, but
otoh there are junctions I'd rather not attempt on eight small wheels.

What's the equivalent of "get off and push" for roller skaters?
Remove boots and walk across in socks?

Is a horse rider driving a vehicle? If a pedestrian is walking and
leading a horse, what about then?

There was an article on Salon recently about the findings of
Hamilton-Baillie, former Sustrans researcher, who maintains that
fewer rules and more judgment actually increases road safety:

Reversing decades of conventional wisdom on traffic engineering,
Hamilton-Baillie argues that the key to improving both safety and
vehicular capacity is to remove traffic lights and other controls,
such as stop signs and the white and yellow lines dividing streets
into lanes. Without any clear right-of-way, he says, motorists are
forced to slow down to safer speeds, make eye contact with
pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers, and decide among
themselves when it is safe to proceed.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index1.html

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Pyromancer said:

When a pedestrian crossing's lights are red to the road they are
generally green to the pedestrians, who are therefore justified in
thinking of the crossing as a temporary extension of the pavement and
thus "their space". If some idiot on a bike then comes up and crashes
the lights they are highly likely to do serious damage to a pedestrian.
Even more so if they're the kind of nutters I've seen on occasion who've
raced past a line of stopped cars and then shot across the crossing and
the junction beyond.

This is the kind of highly emotive argument that really adds little to
the debate. Nobody has suggested that it's safe, considerate or
reasonable for "idiots on bikes" to "crash lights", especially if
they're "nutters".

Quoted message said:

Red traffic lights are there to be stopped at. If you *really* can't
wait a few moments, get off and push the bike past them. But *don't* go
through them.

So if I push my bike past a red light it's OK, but if I ride past it at
walking pace, I automatically turn into an idiot with no regard for
the safety of others? I don't think that's true, and I don't think
you think it's true either.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Daniel Barlow said:

Reversing decades of conventional wisdom on traffic engineering,
Hamilton-Baillie argues that the key to improving both safety and
vehicular capacity is to remove traffic lights and other controls,
such as stop signs and the white and yellow lines dividing streets
into lanes. Without any clear right-of-way, he says, motorists are
forced to slow down to safer speeds, make eye contact with
pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers, and decide among
themselves when it is safe to proceed.

He might have a point here. A few weeks ago the lights went out for 5 days
at junction behind where I live:

<url:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=443160&y=114120&z=0&sv=443160,114120&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf >

There were no more delays than usual, I crossed it several times by car and
bike. There was a lot of cautious edging out to the junction. This is a
major junction as well (one road is a main East-West route across the city
and the other is a main road into the city from the M27).