Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights?

[GrumpyGregry]

Yes, for left turns.

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

Nope. We should be giving primacy to pedestrians and synching all traffic lights to match their needs.

 

[MontyVeda]

I wouldn't have much problem with a general turn left on red rule for all classes of vehicle.

this... it works for cars in the USA (although it's right turn.. before the pedants jump on me)... so why not for cyclists? Something similar could be rolled out here, for both cars and bikes.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Not at all, it was swamped by the rest though.

The point I was trying to make was that, while I agree with "advisory" red lights for cycles, and I agree with presumed liability. But I don't believe they should both happen.

1 or the other happening would be nice, but since the context of the thread is about red lights. I am stating that IF presumed liability happens, then allowing cyclists to use reds as an advisory I disagree with.

Hope the added context clears my opinion up.

 

[glenn forger]

The fact that the collision rate remains unchanged everywhere it's been trialed doesn't persuade you that riders WON'T start hurling themselves under wheels if it happens here?

 

[Ian H]

The proposal/trial, as I understand it, is for left turns only and there's still a requirement to give way. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The fact that the collision rate remains unchanged everywhere it's been trialed doesn't persuade you that riders WON'T start hurling themselves under wheels if it happens here?

If that is aimed at me, I believe you misunderstand my point.

I do NOT think that it will increase collision rates, but if a cyclists chooses to ignore a red light, then they shall also be liable for whatever they hit, IF they hit something.

I am in favour of red lights being advisory,even in a car they are often useless, and seem to be there only to stop the idiots with no sense driving into junctions.

 

[glenn forger]

if a cyclists chooses to ignore a red light, then they shall also be liable .

What's that got to do with the thread? Nobody's ignoring anything.

 

[glenn forger]

Liability has nothing to do with it, the cyclist yields for peds, it's not an earth-shattering concept, it's been tried, it works.

 

[Origamist]

Nope. We should be giving primacy to pedestrians and synching all traffic lights to match their needs.

Tinkering with lights is not sufficient or radical enough for improving pedestrian mobility and numbers, Greg. You actually want more pedestrian zones and car-free developments - that will limit the need to cross motor traffic, breathe in fumes, less noise pollution etc and make the urban environment more conducive for walking.

 

[Dan B]

If that is aimed at me, I believe you misunderstand my point.

I do NOT think that it will increase collision rates, but if a cyclists chooses to ignore a red light, then they shall also be liable for whatever they hit, IF they hit something.

The key word here is "presumed". If the cyclist had ignored a red light then that would probably tend to overturn the presumption of liability.

 

[ianrauk]

This is what Paris uses to indicate cyclists can turn right on red.

What this indicates is that when the signal is red, cyclists can nonetheless - and with all due care and attention - jump the lights. They can, to use the lingo, "griller le feu".

"It required a rewriting of the Code de la Route [the laws governing road use], but what in effect we have done is turn the red light for cyclists into a give way sign," says Christophe Najdoski, deputy Paris mayor in charge of transport.

It is important to note that the change only affects right turns or going straight on at a T-junction - in other words where the cyclist can hug the pavement.

At a crossroads, even if there is no traffic, bikes will still have to wait for the green to go straight on.

 

[steve50]

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, , and not be allowed to have a few beers during your bike ride?

When we ride our bikes on a public road we become part of the traffic , our bikes are a mode of transport , half a dozen bikes in a pack take up as much road space as a car. I'm not a "halo wearer" by anyones stretch of the imagination but if I were to go for a ride and have a few beers along the way then become responsible for causing an incident due to be being (even mildly) intoxicated, I would expect to be held accountable to the courts and would also expect the injured party to make a claim against myself / my insurers. To suggest it is "ok" to go out and drink and then ride your bike is totally irresponsible in my opinion. Unless of course you mean to drink and then ride (for instance) along the canal towpath, then it is your own fault if you end up in the canal.

Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.

In Scotland a PC may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. There is no obligation for a cyclist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol test.

'Road' in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don't think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home 'off road' without risk.

And here's the rub. If you ride drunk you risk endangering yourself and possibly others by your actions. Would you ride home blindfolded? Beer-googles and bicycles do not mix. And, as stated above, cycling 'dangerously' can be fined by up to £2500.
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Tinkering with lights is not sufficient or radical enough for improving pedestrian mobility and numbers, Greg. You actually want more pedestrian zones and car-free developments - that will limit the need to cross motor traffic, breathe in fumes, suffer from noise pollution etc.

I agree it is not enough. But I think it is a worthwhile starting point as it would clearly indicate to vehicle operators who has primacy over them in shared spaces, in a way that ped zones, by excluding them, cannot.

I have recently bought a new car, it is called a Surly Big Dummy.

 

[glenn forger]

This is what Paris uses to indicate cyclists can turn right on red.

So cyclists are OBEYING signs, not ignoring them.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Liability has nothing to do with it, the cyclist yields for peds, it's not an earth-shattering concept, it's been tried, it works.

Works in tens of thousands of interactions everyday in cph. Traffic lights turn green at same time as red man turns green on road cyclist or driver wants to join. Cyclist or driver yields.