left turn on red - Johnson is an arse

[Norm]

Zombie thread. I didn't realise how old the first few posts were until I saw that very-near had replied.

I can see that this provision would cause more conflict with other cyclists, as someone wanting to turn left will want to push to the front of cyclists who are going straight ahead so they can make their left turn before the lights change.

But, why is it likely to lead to increased fatalities? If the cyclist can turn left on red, then I would think that would reduce fatalities because they would be gone before the lights change and any other vehicles make the left turn. The cyclist turning left would be less likely to go under another vehicle because they would be less likely to have to stop there.

Can someone throw me a rope here, please. Why is this more likely to cause collisions with lorries?

 

[thomas]

Can someone throw me a rope here, please. Why is this more likely to cause collisions with lorries?

What Paul said, it may encourage some cyclists to go up the inside of lorries, when they're indicating left. If the lights changed they might be screwed.

 

[psmiffy]

Totally agree - Left turn for cyclists against the red coupled with the lane up the inside to the ASL encourages cyclists to gamble that vehicles are going to remain stationary - The lorry mirrors should be compulsory plus the sign on the back saying to cyclists do not be so stupid

It does have the advantage that if you can get to the front before being crushed that you can get clear of the traffic and therefore not be crushed - Again its too much of a gamble -It would be far better where there is room for a sufficient number of lanes that more provision is made for left turn filtering by all traffic where the traffic light sequence allows it.

 

[Norm]

So the problem is not perceived as being cyclists who are at the lights and waiting who get taken out by the construction vehicles, but people who are filtering up the inside when the lights change and the traffic starts moving?

I guess it would be easy, with access to the stats, to figure out whether those who were killed were turning left or going straight on, whether they were still moving up the inside or stationary at the lights etc.

I guess Boris' thinking is that allowing them to filter on red would get them out of that danger zone before the lights changed but the thinking here is that it could also encourage more cyclists into the danger zone.

 

[Origamist]

I guess it would be easy, with access to the stats, to figure out whether those who were killed were turning left or going straight on, whether they were still moving up the inside or stationary at the lights etc.

You would certainly think so, but it appears that it is often unclear what events lead-up to a fatal collision between a cyclist and HGV - most witnesses talk about the aftermath, not the circumstances that precede the incident...

This report has some detail, http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/...research_police-collision-files_2001-2006.pdf, (see page 42 in particular) but it does not directly address your question, Norm.

 

[Norm]

Thanks, Origamist.

I don't know what Boris is thinking. But the fact is that if you're correctly placed in an ASL and you've eyeballed the driver you're in a far better place than if you're in his blind spot to the left of him.

This is all true, and the next stage (that it would be better still not to be in the ASL because you have legally been able to turn left on a red) was the thinking behind my initial question.

Although, MrP, your post does raise an alternative solution which would not lead to increasing the potential for conflict with other road users, such as peds crossing a side road on a green light. Would it not be better to enforce the rules we have already and get cars, trucks and motorbikes out of the ASLs. That's preferable to making it legal to RLJ, isn't it.

 

[atbman]

Of course I've always been a fan of the American system of being able to turn right (in their case) on red. But that of course is another argument.

Which apparently results in pedestrians being hit while crossing the entrance to that road when the lights are green for them

 

[Flying Dodo]

Which apparently results in pedestrians being hit while crossing the entrance to that road when the lights are green for them

Is it a big problem?

In many of the US towns & cities I've driven in, especially just out of the actual centre, often there aren't pavements or if there are, the lights don't make any allowance for pedestrians crossing.

Certainly in the UK, I'd agree there will be more pedestrians getting hit by cyclists if they can turn left on red.

 

[2Loose]

I have noticed more and more lorries with a 'Cyclist's don't undertake me because I won't see you and you may be crushed' style sign on the rear left of the trailer over the last year, which is a good thing.

I think this left turn on red issue is very like the ASL one, education education education - If you aren't absolutely sure, don't risk it. I believe that the signs on lorries will help put that risk across to the clueless and then advantages will be reaped by the majority of cyclists and other traffic users.

 

[dellzeqq]

the trouble is that cyclists undertake all the time, and many without a care in the world - it's terrifying to watch