Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights?

[Glow worm]

Yes.
There's two junctions on my commute where cyclists can now proceed while motor traffic is at red, and the world didn't end as far as I can tell.

 

[JoshM]

I'm quite positive about the proposal I saw being discussed on BBC news this morning which would allow cyclists to skip a red light to turn left when it's safe to so.

My question though, is if cyclists are to be responsible for ensuring it is safe before skipping the light, they then (rightly) become responsible for the damage to the car that hits them. Surely this is going to increase the number of cyclists being held responsible for accidents? And if so, given how expensive cars are, should this mean cyclists should be legally required to have insurance?

 

[steve50]

should this mean cyclists should be legally required to have insurance?

Yes, we are road users, accidents / incidents happen, if we make an error of judgement and damage someones car as a result we should be legally required to give our details including the name of our insurers as per other road users.
I do believe many of us have liability cover with our home insurance but you would have to check the small print of your policy to verify that.

 

[Big Dave laaa]

I sometimes go through temporary traffic lights on red to allow the cars more time to get through. I go on the wrong side of the cones if i can.

 

[Brandane]

Yes. I already do it anyway, where it isn't going to lead to any conflict with other road users. Fair enough for you big city dwellers; it might not be a good idea to run through a red light into the path of a big red bus at Trafalgar Square. However for those of us who cycle in the more civilised parts of the country, sitting at a red light when there is not another vehicle or pedestrian to be seen smacks of stupidity and a lack of ability to make common sense decisions. If I want to be treated like all the other traffic, then I will use the car.
Being able to be somewhat flexible in your interpretation of the rules is one of the big attractions of cycling, IMHO.. Or do all you halo wearers want to be insured, licensed, pass a roadworthiness test every year, and not be allowed to have a few beers during your bike ride?

 

[bozmandb9]

Pelican crossings are useless devices, designed to stop people who wish to cross the road from holding up the traffic. The fact that on so many occasions the lights change long after the pedestrian has crossed and is out of sight is testament to that uselessness.

I must confess, on my bike, I don't stop for reds at a pedestrian crossing if I ca clearly see there's no pedestrian.

At other lights I stop of course, but start in advance of the change in colour, so as to be clipped in and moving before the traffic starts. On bridges for example it's easy to judge when I see the flow of oncoming vehicles stop. I haven't got it wrong so far. On one bridge in question, I'm pretty sure the lights should not apply to cyclists, since some slower cyclists can sometimes not get across before they change anyway.

 

[Origamist]

Yes, for left turns.

We should also be looking at syncing green phases based on cycling speeds (not motoring speeds) in towns and cites.

 

[Markymark]

But Lahndahn pedestrians should be exempt from assault charges if, whilst crossing the road on a green man, they feel compelled to punch a left turning tragic hipster cockwomble who attempts to ride through them.

FTFY

 

[Dogtrousers]

If you're in a real hurry you can always jump off your bike, wheel it round the left corner on the pavement, put it back on the road and restart all before the light changes.

 

[glenn forger]

My question though, is if cyclists are to be responsible for ensuring it is safe before skipping the light, they then (rightly) become responsible for the damage to the car that hits them. Surely this is going to increase the number of cyclists being held responsible for accidents?

It hasn't anywhere it's been trialed.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

If presumed liability is likely to go ahead, then running red lights is a no in my opinion.

The ability to run red light against other traffic, plus presumed liability doesn't go hand in hand for me.

 

[glenn forger]

There will be no red light running. Read the article.

 

[glenn forger]

In at least two fatalities it was obeying the red that placed the cyclist in danger, had the riders been allowed to progress the lorry drivers wouldn't have killed them.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

FTFY

Don't have a problem with that

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Is it?

I don't know. That's why I started with "If". Did you miss that bit?