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]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

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.

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: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

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.
- inkubus-sukkubus.co.ukinkubus-sukkubus.co.ukOpen ↗ <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- littlematchgirl.co.uklittlematchgirl.co.ukOpen ↗ <-- Electronic Metal!
- revival.stormshadow.comrevival.stormshadow.comOpen ↗ <-- The Gothic
Revival.

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 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: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

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

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 - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

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

David Hansen said:

York is a relatively small city in my view.

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

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

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