red lights

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

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

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]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

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

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

"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

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.
- 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.

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.

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

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"

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"

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"

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"

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.

archive.salon.comtraffic deOpen ↗
sign/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: streetmap.co.uknewmap.srfOpen ↗
120&z=0&sv=443160,114120&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=news-
earch.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).

wobbles said:

I don't know whether it's just a London thing but so many
of the cyclists I see run red lights. It sometimes makes
me wonder whether I'm in a minority.

I think it's more of an urban thing. Certainly in Bristol
I've noticed that the closer I get to the city centre, the
lower the standard of cycling becomes, with more people
riding on pavements and going through red lights.

Having said that, I think London is quite exceptional. I've
ridden there I think about 4 times, and found it to be very
different to anywhere else I've ridden. In particular, the
red traffic lights every 100 yards are great for interval
training but a little frustrating as far as practical
transport is concerned. Although I wouldn't do it myself, I
can almost understand why regular London cyclists succumb to
the temptation to just sail on through.

London's also supposed to have serious problems with
pavement lemmings, but anyone who's used to riding in Bath
will wonder what the Londoners are moaning about. (There was
a thread recently about the Brighton promenade, although I
haven't ridden along there I imagine the coast road through
Brighton might be even worse than the centre of Bath for
pavement lemmings).

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Simonb said:

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

<snip>

Quoted message said:

There were no more delays than usual, I crossed it several
times by car and bike.

There's a set of lights that I ride through every morning.
On the few occasions when the lights have been out, it's
been remarkable just how much faster and more smoothly the
traffic flows. Most mornings there are long queues in all
directions, but I've never seen a queue when the lights
have been out.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> "He who
dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine