Red light jumping

[gillan]

yup....but are we are vehicles on the road that can dismount and walk across the junction...indeed some even have green bikes as well as men

seems silly not to stay on the bike doesn't it?

 

[Moonlight]

They are allowed to wreck the environment with thier petrol fumes, we are allowed to jump reds. Fair is fair. When they stop polluting, I'll stop jumping.
I also think electric cars should be able to use bus lanes and have priorities and such.

 

[simon l& and a half]

(good grief)

 

[domd1979]

Eh? What does pollution have to do with RLJing?

Why should electric cars have access to bus lanes then? Electric cars are still private transport, and an inefficient use of road space. Bus lanes are there to prioritise public transport, not cars.

They are allowed to wreck the environment with thier petrol fumes, we are allowed to jump reds. Fair is fair. When they stop polluting, I'll stop jumping.
I also think electric cars should be able to use bus lanes and have priorities and such.

 

[byegad]

I want the bike one of the BBC's interviewees complained about.
Quote. 'Whizzing past cars in a queue at 1000mph.' Oh! Yes!!!!

 

[dondare]

I'd rather see the law enforced than changed.
I'd also like to see a speed camera on every lamp-post and other cameras to identify every driver who uses a mobile. You can be certain before long there'd be more bikes on the roads than cars if all this came to pass.

 

[bb1]

There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.

What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.

A cyclist decided not to stop at their red light, and obviously thinking the pedestrian would get out their way, ran the blind man over, killing him.

To make an awful sitation even more abhorrent, the cyclist fled the scene and police are still trying to identify the cyclist responsible.

On my morning cycle to work I often experience packs of cyclists racing past me at a red light. It's plain illegal and dangerous. If you need just one reason NOT to fly through a red light, let the poor blind man's last moments be it.

 

[tdr1nka]

This filtering works really well in California and I had thought why it hadn't been considered in the UK.

FWIW, it's not the act of legalised cycle filtering at left hand turns on red(which I believe is what has been proposed?)which is the problem, but of successfully educating every single person, ped, cyclist and moton in the country and convincing them to accept the idea in practice.

Lets face it ASL's are to be observed by law but how many drivers know and/or accept this.

RLJ'ing is just arrogant and needless, the voice of cyclists will always be dismissed while this practice continues.

 

[Fab Foodie]

.

RLJ'ing is just arrogant and needless, the voice of cyclists will always be dismissed while this practice continues.

How true. Don't bleat about drivers on phones or in ASL's if you can't follow the rules of the road yourself. Our biggest battle in winning greater acceptance and public support is within ourselves.

 

[JamesAC]

There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.

What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.

A cyclist decided not to stop at their red light, and obviously thinking the pedestrian would get out their way, ran the blind man over, killing him.

To make an awful sitation even more abhorrent, the cyclist fled the scene and police are still trying to identify the cyclist responsible.

On my morning cycle to work I often experience packs of cyclists racing past me at a red light. It's plain illegal and dangerous. If you need just one reason NOT to fly through a red light, let the poor blind man's last moments be it.

I quite agree. By all means agitate to have the light sequence changed, or a "cycle only" phase - like existing left filter, but just for cyclists. But to have fuzzy rules is a recipe for disaster. To my mind, red (and amber) mean stop. green means proceed, if it is clear and safe to do so. Once you allow people to make their own minds up about what red means, then carnage will follow.

James

 

[jonesy]

I quite agree. By all means agitate to have the light sequence changed, or a "cycle only" phase - like existing left filter, but just for cyclists. But to have fuzzy rules is a recipe for disaster. To my mind, red (and amber) mean stop. green means proceed, if it is clear and safe to do so. Once you allow people to make their own minds up about what red means, then carnage will follow.

James

Or find non-signalised alternatives to the junction.

 

[Sh4rkyBloke]

The dozy ones that just don't look or the ones that just militantly stride out because they've "got the right to" are the ones you have to watch out for.

That'll be me, then. If the vehicle approaching has time to stop (I'm judging by my own experience of being both a car driver and a cyclist) I am perfectly within my rights to step onto the crossing... in fact they are not legaly obliged to stop until I put a foot onto the crossing to indicate my intent.

If the muppets decide to continue in front of me whilst I am on the crossing they can expect a bang on the top of the roof or some verbal from me (to cyclists) or even (assuming they haven't sped up too much) a well aimed kick at the side of the car.

Is it criminal damage? Perhaps. Are they acting within the law? Definitely not.

Maybe I'm just a grumpy b*stard who can't stand idiots.

 

[Arch]

That'll be me, then. If the vehicle approaching has time to stop (I'm judging by my own experience of being both a car driver and a cyclist) I am perfectly within my rights to step onto the crossing... in fact they are not legaly obliged to stop until I put a foot onto the crossing to indicate my intent.

Aren't you thinking of Zebras? Whereas the question is really about Pelican crossings and other red light situations... In those cases, road users are legally obliged to stop at a red (or amber) whether you have a foot out, or indeed, whether you are standing there or not...

I'm firmly in the 'stop at red lights and don't see an reason to change rules for cyclists' camp. Since so many people (cyclists and drivers) seem to have trouble coping with understanding the rules as it is, introducing tiered levels of law is only going to confuse them more...

 

[Sapper]

IMO, it's clear and simple for road-users to understand red lights mean stop. No if's, no buts, no special rules for other road users (Emergency services accepted). Why introduce different rules for different vehicles? It certainly wont stop motorists bitching, their problem is not cyclists, it's themselves. However, we would get even more flak from Pedestrians at junctions.

I agree that if we want to be treated as legitimate road users we should act like ones. It's pretty simple not to RLJ. Take the high ground and set a good example.

and

There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.

What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.

A cyclist decided not to stop at their red light, and obviously thinking the pedestrian would get out their way, ran the blind man over, killing him.

To make an awful sitation even more abhorrent, the cyclist fled the scene and police are still trying to identify the cyclist responsible.

On my morning cycle to work I often experience packs of cyclists racing past me at a red light. It's plain illegal and dangerous. If you need just one reason NOT to fly through a red light, let the poor blind man's last moments be it.

These are the best arguments that go against these suggestions for changing the law about RLJ

Most laws of the road are there for safety and or fair usage. By changing the law for some groups of vehicles make the who issue more dangerous IMHO.

The high way code is there to ensure 'fairness' for all users of the road, ranging from pedestrians to HGVs.

A few yesrs ago, I met up with some city friends in London for a lunchtime drink. The law on afternoon opening had just changed and we were meeting to 'enjoy the new legislation'.

We were all in the TA at the time. As we crossed a crowded pelican pedestrian crossing under the guard of the gree man, a cyclist courier shouted "make way" or simialar.

The crossing was too crowded for people to hurry out, esp a mother in her wheel chair and her children.

I faced him, hands held out and i was fortunate to time it correctly and caught his handlebars. He ended up on the deck...

He was also rather irate.

But if I had not stood froun, the list of injured other than him and myself almost certainly would have been worse. Fortunately as he approached me, my TA colleagues closed up on me in their business suits.

He looked at us, swore for Blightly and cycled off...

We had right of way and he should have stopped.

Saying that, I am not totally clean. I cycle up Barnet hill, a steep hill in North London. Half way up is a pedestrian crossing

If the red light is displayed and there are pedestrians, then I stop and lose all my momentum. If it is free of pedestrians, I have cycled through it !!

I have not jumped knowing on my bike any other red lights.

If the RLJ law was enforced, then I would always stop. No problem

Adrian

 

[spindrift]

There is a big yellow sign at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Guildford Street Bloomsbury requesting witnesses to a fatal collision that occurred at that spot last week.

What the big yellow sign doesn't say is that at the time, a blind person was crossing the road having heard the beeps of the pedestrian green light.

A cyclist decided not to stop at their red light, and obviously thinking the pedestrian would get out their way, ran the blind man over, killing him.

To make an awful sitation even more abhorrent, the cyclist fled the scene and police are still trying to identify the cyclist responsible.

On my morning cycle to work I often experience packs of cyclists racing past me at a red light. It's plain illegal and dangerous. If you need just one reason NOT to fly through a red light, let the poor blind man's last moments be it.

No press or media have any details of this and The Met police version is rather different, what's your source please?