The USA has a right on a light law for all traffic in most States and Paris is to allow cyclists to go ahead or turn right on a red light. Pilot trials in Nantes, Strasbourg and Bordeaux showed no rise in the number of accidents. Scandanavia, Belgium and Germany already have it in place. So contrary to your view that it is stupid and suicidal, it actually works well, improves traffic flow and does not cause any more accidents.
Safer to jump red lights? - Times article
- Thread starter Paul_L
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The USA has a right on a light law for all traffic in most States and Paris is to allow cyclists to go ahead or turn right on a red light. Pilot trials in Nantes, Strasbourg and Bordeaux showed no rise in the number of accidents. Scandanavia, Belgium and Germany already have it in place. So contrary to your view that it is stupid and suicidal, it actually works well, improves traffic flow and does not cause any more accidents.
400bhp
Guru
I CBA to read the article as I think I get the gist of what the auhor says from the responses.
If we forget about the black and white law for a minute and step back. What Red Light is saying makes sense. It might be safer to allow the scenario stated and I think it boils down to making people engage in their surroundings more.
There is also an argument to remove some traffic lights in some situations for cars too.
There is a significant difference between the UK and the cases you mention: Other road users will be expecting it to happen.
As things stand, UK traffic signals, junctions and layouts are designed for use within a system which prohibits the passing of traffic lights on red. Other road users will not be expecting people to hop lights.
That's a major difference. I've driven a lot (but never cycled) in the US and am entirely at home turning right at a red signal in a car. I would never think of turning left at a red in the UK when driving.
I believe the post you responded to was made with reference to the UK, as described in the OP article. Where the law prohibits it, the poster you corrected was closer to the truth than you were.
I write this as a reformed serial RLJ-er and occasional lapsed former RLJ-er. It is stupid and can be suicidal. Worse than that, it can harm other road users too.
Even in the UK, despite the claims of mass red light jumping by cyclists, red light jumping is the cause of only 2% of cyclist deaths in London. Being hit by a red light jumping motor vehicle represents 3% of cyclist deaths. So given how many people are claimed to do it, it clearly is not that dangerous.
And please don't read that as my condoning it.
It may work well in the countries that have this arrangement in place, but the other road users would be aware of this arrangement, so I agree that it may be safer. I also agree with kishan's argument as other road users in this country would see the "jump" as risky at best and downright provocative at worse.
Ethan
Active Member
got one of them on my commute.
Pain in the bloody arse. First time I sat there for a good 5 minutes, as I was reluctant to go
There is no alternative to jumping that red for me, luckily I can see well in advanced if a car is coming. Doesn't stop a few nasty taxi driver types in the other lane (I turn right, then continue forwards) giving me hassle for jumping it, its a tough job explaining that I have too!
Its jumping it which is in my opinion safe to do so, or getting off and walking a good 100/150m which Im not bloody doing
In all other situations, I never jump lights. I dont see any excuse to do so!
What? Yes... Hello... Ummmm...
I'm not sure anyone would read that as a sign that you condone it.
I was just drawing what I thought a significant distiction between places where crossing reds in some circumstances is permitted and those where it is not.
And on the matter of your first sentence, are cyclists really claiming mass red-light jumping? I thought all the kerfuffle was being made by other road users. I may have misunderstood something...
Which is curious as a) its clearly not dangerous with only 2% of cyclist deaths in London versus around 18% jumping red lights and b) cyclists are no more prone to jumping red lights than other road users. The difference is that motorist tend to carry on crossing at speed well after the lights have gone red in an attempt to get across before the cross traffic starts. Cyclists tend to go cautiously after the cross traffic has finished and before the light goes green. So why do you consider that the cyclists are being downright provocative but motorists aren't?
Yes there is. You could report it to the Council Highways Authority as a non-working traffic light and get them to fix it. Then you won't have to keep jumping it and explaining yourself.
I didn't say that motorists are not provocative. Indeed I find that a lot of the time they are. But as a motorcyclist, cyclist and in my profession as a paramedic I have found that soft tissue and bones tend to be more vulnerable than metal and rubber and because of these facts it is in our interest to take the initiative to be more aware of the risks we take.
Am I being terribly thick?
I saw no suggestion, implication or nuance in anything Lopther wrote to say that "cyclists are being provocative but motorists are not"
Red Light, did you accidentally quote the wrong post or am I being my usual not-very-bright self?
It singles out cyclists as provoking other road users, not road users provoking other road users.
Was that tongue in cheek, or are you really saying that people who don't wear helmets are complete tools?
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
aaah yes, I had that the other day with a tipper truck. I went through the light on red as I was pretty sure they wouldn't stop, low and behold, they didn't.
wheres_my_beard
Über Member
- Location
- Norwich
Not all of them. Some more than others though.
