Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights?

[GrumpyGregry]

Excellent. Are you going to fetch it along on Sunday?

I won't have collected it by Sunday. Got to pop down to Worthing one day next week and ride it back. (must remember to take pedals.)

 

[Milkfloat]

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.

Even our American cousins can cope with it - if they can manage why can we not?

 

[glenn forger]

The cheese-eaters do it, so do the squareheads.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

FTFY

Every traffic light post should have one...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Oh well, another time.

We live in hope.

 

[jonny jeez]

I think that there is a good argument for traffic Junctions, especially those which allow traffic to join from the right. These leave a safe left hand "kerb" for cyclists to just continue along without any issue.Or, if the vehicle jumping the lights is the most vulnerable and therefore ...hopefully...the most diligent in that situation.

But a definite NO for crossings. Anything that integrates more vulnerable road users. Its a mistake to allow less vulnerable user to decide whether they should stop for others that can be injured as a direct action of that choice.

I an enraged when I cross the road and have to stop or even jump out the way of cyclists who just push through, I cannot believe their attitude/stupidity and would not want these types to be given the privilege of choice over others (my) safety.

 

[Origamist]

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.

Shared space is different though and I am now ambivalent about its appropriateness (after initially being keen). If you wanted to accord primacy to pedestrians in shared space areas, it would fundamentally change the concept of shared space to the extent that it would not longer be shared space as the aspect of negotiation is removed. Is that what you are suggesting, or have I misunderstood?

I like the Surly Big Dummy - more practical than our Hyundai!

 

[Milkfloat]

But a definite NO for crossings. Anything that integrates more vulnerable road users. Its a mistake to allow less vulnerable user to decide whether they should stop for others that can be injured as a direct action of that choice.

I an enraged when I cross the road and have to stop or even jump out the way of cyclists who just push through, I cannot believe their attitude/stupidity and would not want these types to be given the privilege of choice over others (my) safety.

So because a few cyclists disobey the law and RLJ and do not yield to pedestrians, we should prevent all cyclists from having the opportunity to progress safely?

I think we are in a mixed state already - there is already tolerance to RLJ'ing because in a large number of cases RLJ'ing makes sense - so IMO we should either make it official and penalise those who do not do it correctly or we should clamp down on it at all times. This middle ground does nobody any favours.

 

[martint235]

So because a few cyclists disobey the law and RLJ and do not yield to pedestrians, we should prevent all cyclists from having the opportunity to progress safely?

I think we are in a mixed state already - there is already tolerance to RLJ'ing because in a large number of cases RLJ'ing makes sense - so IMO we should either make it official and penalise those who do not do it correctly or we should clamp down on it at all times. This middle ground does nobody any favours.

Tolerance from whom? I've yet to meet a pedestrian who has said "Yes it makes sense for cyclists to ignore a red light". What you mean is it is tolerated by the people that do it.

Are we also proposing to allow motor vehicles to do it? Or just us special cases?

 

[glenn forger]

What about if you asked peds "Should riders obey signs?"

All in the question innit.

 

[Milkfloat]

Tolerance from whom? I've yet to meet a pedestrian who has said "Yes it makes sense for cyclists to ignore a red light". What you mean is it is tolerated by the people that do it.

Are we also proposing to allow motor vehicles to do it? Or just us special cases?

Tolerance by the police for a start - there are plenty of threads which include people being told to cross on red at 2am because they are not being picked up by sensors.

Regarding different types of vehicles - I believe that for left turns all vehicles should be allows to treat them as give ways. I also think for T junctions that the straight through on the side without the junction should be treated as a give way for cyclists. As noted before we already have many different rules that apply to subsets of vehicles - they do not seem to cause too many problems.

I see treating cyclists differently in some cases, a combination of safety but also health. it is provides to be safe and fast to travel by bicycle it may increase the take up, improving life for cyclists and non cyclists alike.

 

[jonny jeez]

So because a few cyclists disobey the law and RLJ and do not yield to pedestrians, we should prevent all cyclists from having the opportunity to progress safely?

I think we are in a mixed state already - there is already tolerance to RLJ'ing because in a large number of cases RLJ'ing makes sense - so IMO we should either make it official and penalise those who do not do it correctly or we should clamp down on it at all times. This middle ground does nobody any favours.

No, I think you have missed the point of my reply.

It's not a punishment, it's an acceptance that less vulnerable road users should not have the ability to make choices that may not harm them ...but could cause harm to others who are more vulnerable.

Hence the distinction between junctions and crossings

 

[Milkfloat]

That is different. That is negotiating a broken crossing with the appropriate level of caution.

But why should that be different from negotiating a working crossing with the appropriate level of caution? The traffic light is in place to try and create traffic flow from the minor road, if conditions dictate (no / low traffic) then why not just treat it as a give way? Every time some drives or rides they manage to negotiate a give way at a junction without traffic lights - it is not difficult to do.

 

[Brandane]

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/

You're quite right, cycling while "blotto" is illegal and not a good idea as, like the law states, you are not capable of having proper control. However that is completely different to having a few beers and still able to control a bike, but well over the DD limit (especially the limit in Scotland). Again, it is one of the remaining freedoms of riding a bike which we should defend vigorously. After all, the reason we aren't legislated like other traffic is with good reason. We don't weigh much, don't go fast, and therefore can't do much damage to anyone other than ourselves. I certainly have no desire to be treated like other traffic.

 

[martint235]

On that basis, just do away with traffic lights altogether.

I think we should. But let's not actually remove them because after a couple of weeks we'll probably start remembering why we needed them