Possible solution to the lorry and cyclist problem at the lights

[Jezston]

You won't get flamed. Not by me anyway.

I pass a queue of cars up the inside. If there's any left turn indicators, I stop.

I go right up and well past the stop line ( and the waiting vehicles ) to get a good view of the transverse lights. When their lamps change to amber, I check all is clear ( because I have a pair of eyes and a brain ), check over my shoulder and move off. By the time I'm well across the junction, the vehicles behind me have got their green light.

More times than not, I'm half way across the junction when the traffic behind start moving. Left hook? They will have to take the long way round to get within a car's length of me.

In the trade, we call it a 'Hole shot'.

You will get flamed, and so will you Jimbo.

You wont get left hooked if you sit in primary at the lights. You also won't be responsible for perpetuating the stereotype of cyclists being red light jumpers. You also won't get flamed on this forum. In fact, there really is no advantage to doing it at all.

If you are so afraid that any car behind you that thinks you are slightly inconveniencing them is likely to attempt to kill you, then get off the road.

 

[shunter]

I noticed in Dublin that some pedestrian crossings have a numerical countdown so that you know when you will be able to cross again. I think this sort of display would be useful on road junctions as well as it at least would alert you to the fact that you would have no time to filter safely to the head of the queue.

 

[dellzeqq]

It's an interesting idea, and in an ideal world would work. However, (and I am placing my grumpy old man hat on for this one), I can see a couple of problems.

Having early lights for cyclists will actuall encourage cyclists to filter to the front. This isn't always the best option, especially if there is an HGV to filter past. Ask yourself this, have you ever been at a set of lights where there is another set, either slightly further on, or to the side, where the other set changed and you found yourself reacting to the wrong lights? I know I have. Now imagine that there is a second green (or advanced amber) within the same set of lights. Folk will often set off at the wrong time, accidentally or intentionally! I just wonder if it is something that could lead to more conflict?

Taking my grumpy hat off....it is good to investigate ideas like this, and good to hear that someone actually is.

Personally I'd prefer changing the ASL to a zone a few cars back from the front that is reserved for cyclists....but that is for another day!

Absolutely. Johnson has been proposing turning left on red for cyclists and it's going to get people killed. It's like Jezston says. Stick with the primary position.

Before we start devising schemes to avoid lefthooking it's worth looking at the deaths themselves. They're not all 'standard' left hooks. A couple have come as a result of trucks going left from the right hand lane, the deaths on Pentonville Road and Blackfriars Bridge were down to lousy highways design (the former still not fixed). Having said that the basic rule is - if you're on the left of a truck at a traffic junction, you're in the shoot.

 

[BentMikey]

I strongly feel the solution lies elsewhere:

• Much much more traffic policing. Zero tolerance of dodgy driving and other offences.
• Particular focus on the safety standards of lorries. IIRC 100% of lorries investigated by that London HGV unit had serious safety defects. Instead of trebling the size of this unit, what did Boris try to do? Abolish it. Idiot.
• Make illegal any practice of paying drivers/companies by the load, as this strongly encourages needlessly reckless driving, and likely overage on driving hours too.

 

[Jezston]

I strongly feel the solution lies elsewhere:

• Much much more traffic policing. Zero tolerance of dodgy driving and other offences.
• Particular focus on the safety standards of lorries. IIRC 100% of lorries investigated by that London HGV unit had serious safety defects. Instead of trebling the size of this unit, what did Boris try to do? Abolish it. Idiot.
• Make illegal any practice of paying drivers/companies by the load, as this strongly encourages needlessly reckless driving, and likely overage on driving hours too.

All this.

Giving any 'special' provision to cyclists at the lights is likely to create more conflict than it solves. Most cyclists have no idea of what they are allowed and not allowed to do on the roads, what's safe and what isn't - and much the same applies to drivers, too.

It'll also create more resentment of cyclists and the supposed special treatment we don't actually get. Then drivers will want to be able to turn left on red, and from my experience as a pedestrian in the US, it's something I do NOT want to see being brought over here.

 

[jonny jeez]

It's an interesting idea, and in an ideal world would work. However, (and I am placing my grumpy old man hat on for this one), I can see a couple of problems.

Having early lights for cyclists will actuall encourage cyclists to filter to the front. This isn't always the best option, especially if there is an HGV to filter past. Ask yourself this, have you ever been at a set of lights where there is another set, either slightly further on, or to the side, where the other set changed and you found yourself reacting to the wrong lights? I know I have. Now imagine that there is a second green (or advanced amber) within the same set of lights. Folk will often set off at the wrong time, accidentally or intentionally! I just wonder if it is something that could lead to more conflict?

Taking my grumpy hat off....it is good to investigate ideas like this, and good to hear that someone actually is.

Personally I'd prefer changing the ASL to a zone a few cars back from the front that is reserved for cyclists....but that is for another day!

I cant get the multi quote to work so sorry for not including the OP in this,

Its good that you (and the DOT) and people like you are thinking about this...

As far as Mags idea or earlier ASZ's, can you imagine the effect this will have on drivers, segregated from their competitors in front of the row of cyclists and who can all get away from the lights at "light" speed, (in preparation for the next set 200yrds up the road). It would cause risk to cyclists trapped in the middle as the "held up cars" jostle to keep up with the advantaged few in front.

Maybe better to have a phased red that holds cyclists back untill the cars have gone then allows them time to get moving after the intial jostle (plus it would remove the motivation to slip to the front)...thats a joke by the way

 

[jonny jeez]

I strongly feel the solution lies elsewhere:

• Much much more traffic policing. Zero tolerance of dodgy driving and other offences.
• Particular focus on the safety standards of lorries. IIRC 100% of lorries investigated by that London HGV unit had serious safety defects. Instead of trebling the size of this unit, what did Boris try to do? Abolish it. Idiot.
• Make illegal any practice of paying drivers/companies by the load, as this strongly encourages needlessly reckless driving, and likely overage on driving hours too.

+1.

I really think areas like the ASZ would actually work really well if motorised vehicles (and pedal ones) used them properly.

Tougher penalties and more traffic policing could accomplish this.

 

[Origamist]

The Dutch altready have a mixture of cyclist segregation and separate light phasings at junctions. Have a look here to see how it works in various road layouts:

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67zoLM7l9os&feature=related[/media]

 

[jonny jeez]

The Dutch altready have a mixture of cyclist segregation and separate light phasings at junctions. Have a look here to see how it works in various road layouts:

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67zoLM7l9os&feature=related[/media]

the roads in these clips are designed (or have space) to accomodate this types of system. Interestingly the female rider in clip 1 ignores the second red and the unkown rider in clip 2 seems to ignore thefirst...or am I missing asomething?

also these seem mainly for crossing junctions at right angles, not with the flow of traffic (we have those too ...toucans)

couldnt watch the whole thing tho, so I may be corrected

 

[Origamist]

the roads in these clips are designed (or have space) to accomodate this types of system. Interestingly the female rider in clip 1 ignores the second red and the unkown rider in clip 2 seems to ignore thefirst...or am I missing asomething?

also these seem mainly for crossing junctions at right angles, not with the flow of traffic (we have those too ...toucans)

couldnt watch the whole thing tho, so I may be corrected

Road design and layout is considered holisticaly (i.e the needs of cars, ptws, pedestrians, cyclists are taken into account, but not necessarily in that order in terms of priority). However, it is often the case that cycle friendly infrastructure is retro-fitted into towns and cities at the expense of the motorist (some Dutch cities are old and have narrow streets too!).

Lots of Dutch cyclists jump the lights JJ - not wanting to lose momentum is not a UK only phenomenon!

Check out the guys other vids - the one I linked to is based on bigger junctions.

 

[jonny jeez]

Lots of Dutch cyclists jump the lights JJ - not wanting to lose momentum is not a UK only phenomenon!

that's no excuse, whats the point in investing so heavily if cyclist still ignore the lights?...seems like a bit of a shame to me.

nice system though and i take your point about small twistry roads.

 

[Dan B]

Tougher penalties and more traffic policing could accomplish this.

Any "solution" that relies for its efficacy on more traffic policing is not going to be effective. If you want to prevent cars from stopping in an ASZ, put cameras up and turn enforcement over to civil authorities as is done for box junctions.

 

[Dan B]

More generally, I think the fundamental problem is that cars and bikes are different, just as cars and HGVs are different, bikes and pedestrians are different, and hovercrafts and rollerskaters are different, and we would all do a lot better at sharing the road if we recognised these facts instead of trying to shoehorn every possible road user into one of the categories "passenger car or something that must at all times pretend to imitate it" or "pedestrian or something that must pretend to imitate one".


Does that make any sense to anyone else, or am I barking? HGVs in London are by and large there to do a job which needs doing, they're not trying to kill cyclists for their own amusement - I'll gladly hang back behind a maneouvring lorry if it makes their task easier, and am not about to bellyache about their going round the wrong side of the roundabout or turning left from the right lane. Conversely, if I am trying to get from A to B and the only obstacle to a particular sneaky bit of left-turn-on-red or headstart-on-amber is that car drivers will get upset that my vehicle can do that safely and theirs can't, tough titty. If they want to overtake me somewhere two hundred yards up the road when the oncoming lane is clear and there aren't streams of traffic from three other directions to pay attention to as well, I'm happy for them to do so. They are free and welcome to exercise their vehicle's capability to hare off at speed, and I won't tut at them just because my vehicle can't do that. Bit of give and take, bit of empathy with the other guy, the only people losing out are the intolerant who are not getting pandered to - surely that's the way forward?

 

[BentMikey]

Any "solution" that relies for its efficacy on more traffic policing is not going to be effective. If you want to prevent cars from stopping in an ASZ, put cameras up and turn enforcement over to civil authorities as is done for box junctions.

Cameras are not traffic policing? I think the above is naive at best. If this were true, then why not dispense with a police force altogether in society?

 

[Dan B]

Couple of issues here:
1) Cameras are not traffic policing of a kind that can enforce "zero-tolerance against dodgy driving", which I believe is what you were advocating. They can enforce box junctions, or ASZs, or speed limits: they can't, in general, issue automated tickets for "driving like a tit" - which is what I think we'd actually like to see banned - because they don't have the judgement capabilities of a human traffic cop.


2) more rigorous enforcement of traffic regulations - by whatever means, and whether we're talking about technical offences or the more general and infinitely worse careless/rude/dangerous driving offences - is in any case not going to help without a shift in social attitudes so that drivers no longer want to drive dodgily. Otherwise, come the next budget cuts when the police get reassigned to other duties or made redundant, they'll be back at it.


It's not naive, just cynical.