One for the RLJers amongst us!

[mjr]

[QUOTE 5519967, member: 9609"]This is what does my nut in with traffic lights - from todays ride, as you can see I was a good boy waited until they where green, but its a bit up hill and I wasn't given enough time to get through. the driver was fine, she stopped and waited, but I have situations where they have just driven at me flapping their hands in disbelief and anger, even had abuse shouted at me.
The driver will have presumed I jumped the light, but I hadn't.[/QUOTE]
I've a set like that near me, except these are permanent lights, not temporary ones. If you're more than three cars back, cross traffic is released before you can get clear. There's no ASL either, else I'd overtake the farkers every time.

 

[DaveReading]

[QUOTE 5519967, member: 9609"]This is what does my nut in with traffic lights - from todays ride, as you can see I was a good boy waited until they where green, but its a bit up hill and I wasn't given enough time to get through. the driver was fine, she stopped and waited, but I have situations where they have just driven at me flapping their hands in disbelief and anger, even had abuse shouted at me.
The driver will have presumed I jumped the light, but I hadn't.[/QUOTE]

The length of the all-red phase for temporary traffic lights is always a bit of a compromise between maintaining traffic flow and allowing for slow-moving traffic such as cycles.

For that reason, automatic signals should not be used if the overall length of the single-line traffic segment is more than 300 metres

 

[mjr]

The length of the all-red phase for temporary traffic lights is always a bit of a compromise between maintaining traffic flow and allowing for slow-moving traffic such as cycles.

For that reason, automatic signals should not be used if the overall length of the single-line traffic segment is more than 300 metres

Some people think self-driving cars will recognise and adapt to cyclists when we still don't have temporary traffic lights that do!

 

[beany_bot]

Couple of RLJ'ers this morning on the way in. I was sure to let them know what I thought of their behaviour. Maybe one of them was you @glasgowcyclist ?

 

[beany_bot]

[QUOTE 5521741, member: 9609"]
I did try and deal with this
I wrote to the local council, who took 12 weeks to tell me the rules were set by Holyrood and to write to them.
Holyrood told me it had nothing to do with them and try Westminster.
Westminster informed me that roads were a devolved thing and suggested Holyrood
Holyrood then suggested I contact my local council as they can over ride the rules
(by this time over a year has passed)
Local council then tell me (after another 12 weeks) to contact westminster.[/QUOTE]

 

[mjr]

I'm no techno utopian, but I do think you're being a tad unfair comparing a set of bog standard temporary lights, that have all the technological complexity of a Meccano set, with the latest whizzbang AI tech.

Most temp lights I see are the result of one lane being coned off containing at most a bloke smoking a fag, typically less. Solution? Just ride down the coned off lane.

Yeah and then when you crash into the works, not only do you get no sympathy, you risk £1000 fine for disobeying the traffic order restricting the road to a single alternating lane.

It's clearly possible to use even basic IR sensors to check if the section is clear before releasing traffic but instead we have the cheap Meccano. Why? Because government and contractors don't care enough about people cycling to take consistent actual practical action to implement the warm words of vague encouragement in policy documents.

 

[DaveReading]

[QUOTE 5521741, member: 9609"]The set guidelines that are followed are based on 50 intervals and timed at 10 metres per second from the amber light showing at one end to the green showing at the other end.

So for instance if the lights are between 250 & 300 metres the dime delay will be 30 seconds
So in the case when the cyclist passes the lights the moment before it turns to amber
if the distance is 299 metres the cyclist will needs to average 22.5 mph
if the distance is 250 metres then they will need to average 18.75 mph[/QUOTE]

As you say, those are only guidelines.

The Pink Book, from which they come, also contains a useful idiot's guide for contractors in the form of a Troubleshooting section:

Problem: Vehicles still in shuttle lane at start of next green
Possible cause: All-red too short
Remedy: Increase setting

Plus a note that "If the site is on a steep gradient, you may need to increase the indicated All-Red value for the uphill direction incrementally until vehicles clear safely."

Alternatively, drivers could try to remember that a green light means only proceed if it's clear.

 

[icowden]

Pedestrians aside, has anyone got any stats re deaths of cyclists as a result of jumping red lights?

My usual thought when watching the idiots jump the lights at Blackfriars bridge is "Please don't make me have to write a witness statement."...

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Couple of RLJ'ers this morning on the way in. I was sure to let them know what I thought of their behaviour. Maybe one of them was you @glasgowcyclist ?

Ha, not a chance!

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Pedestrians aside, has anyone got any stats re deaths of cyclists as a result of jumping red lights?

My usual thought when watching the idiots jump the lights at Blackfriars bridge is "Please don't make me have to write a witness statement."...

Yes it is zero for 2010-2017. Meanwhile it is 54 for car drivers jumping red lights. Saw it in the Times a few weeks back.

 

[beany_bot]

Yes it is zero for 2010-2017. Meanwhile it is 54 for car drivers jumping red lights. Saw it in the Times a few weeks back.

What about stats for injuries, collisions and damage to property etc? got them?
Anyway, it's all academic really, it's illegal and that's that.

 

[Brandane]

What about stats for injuries, collisions and damage to property etc? got them?
Anyway, it's all academic really, it's illegal and that's that.

Yes, lets all be sanctimonious nobbers and blindly follow the law, because it's always right; isn't it?

 

[beany_bot]

Yes, lets all be sanctimonious nobbers and blindly follow the law, because it's always right; isn't it?

Nothing to do with being sanctimonious.

And yes. yes you absolutely should follow the law! even if you don't think it's right!
That is the way of our country. We are a nation of laws.

If you don't agree with a law then petition to get it changed. Alas, meanwhile. Follow it!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

What about stats for injuries, collisions and damage to property etc? got them?
Anyway, it's all academic really, it's illegal and that's that.

You've given this thread the red light twice yet you're still jumping in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well I can see form the attitude on this forum two very obvious points.

1. This forum isn't for me.

This is just absurd now. Im out this place

 

[beany_bot]

You've given this thread the red light twice yet you're still jumping in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not...illegal is it?