Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights?

[steve50]

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.

i beg to differ on the point highlighted in bold, under the influence of a few beers we as cyclists have the potential to be the cause of a very serious incident involving other road users.
A hypothetical scenario, ride out toa nice pub out in the sticks, have a few beers, set off to ride back home, the beer kicks in , you get a bit wobbly, a vehicle approaching from behind you has to swerve to avoid colliding with you.........................the vehicle swerves into the path of an oncoming, car, bike, motorbike, family out walking, any number of potential hazards. The outcome in any of those scenarios could well be a fatality or serious injury , meantime you sit on your bike unscathed looking a bit bemused and wondering what caused the incident to happen.
Alcohol even moderate amounts can and will effect your judgement to control a car or bike or whatever your chosen form of transport, I am no saint, I have had a few beers and ridden my bike along the canal tow path in the past, I'm glad I didn't venture onto the road because I knew in myself the alcohol was having an effect on me.

 

[Dan B]

i beg to differ on the point highlighted in bold, under the influence of a few beers we as cyclists have the potential to be the cause of a very serious incident involving other road users.
A hypothetical scenario, ride out toa nice pub out in the sticks, have a few beers, set off to ride back home, the beer kicks in , you get a bit wobbly, a vehicle approaching from behind you has to swerve to avoid colliding with you.........................the vehicle swerves into the path of an oncoming, car, bike, motorbike, family out walking, any number of potential hazards. The outcome in any of those scenarios could well be a fatality or serious injury , meantime you sit on your bike unscathed looking a bit bemused and wondering what caused the incident to happen.

You could imagine an equivalent hypothetical scenario involving a drunk pedestrian stumbling while crossing the road. Similar consequences, probably happens about as often In Real Life, should drunk pedestrians not be allowed to walk home?

 

[steve50]

You could imagine an equivalent hypothetical scenario involving a drunk pedestrian stumbling while crossing the road. Similar consequences, probably happens about as often In Real Life, should drunk pedestrians not be allowed to walk home?

Absolutely and they should be held accountable if they are the cause of an accident. the drunk will quite often manage to negotiate the footpath unless they are totally steaming, a cyclist will more often than not already be in the road with the potential under the influence of alcohol to wobble further out into the road therefore becoming more of a hazard than a pedestrian (even a drunk ped).
Edit; a drunk pedestrian crossing the road should already have been seen from a distance by an alert driver who(hopefully) will have adjusted his / her speed accordingly until the drunk has reached safety. A cyclist presents different hazards to the drunk, the driver has to negotiate around a cyclist and has to react quickly should the need arise (cyclist wobbles out into the road) that is where I see the potential for an incident is greatly increased, cyclist wobbles, motorist takes rapid evasive action resulting in collision with obstacle / vehicle coming other way.

 

[Dan B]

Standard failure to allow sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist.

Or, indeed, to drive at a speed such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

 

[steve50]

Standard failure to allow sufficient space when overtaking a cyclist.

Or, indeed, to drive at a speed such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.

put yourself in this scenario, you are driving your car along a country road, light traffic, good visibility, you see a cyclist ahead of you and take note. You start to pass the cyclist who suddenly wobbles toward your car , you swerve to avoid contact with the cyclist, and clip a car coming from the opposite direction. The outcome might be you exchange details for damage to a car mirror or the outcome could be a hell of a lot worse just because a cyclist had a few drinks too many.

 

[Dan B]

put yourself in this scenario, you are driving your car along a country road, light traffic, good visibility, you see a cyclist ahead of you and take note. You start to pass the cyclist who suddenly wobbles toward your car , you swerve to avoid contact with the cyclist, and clip a car coming from the opposite direction. The outcome might be you exchange details for damage to a car mirror or the outcome could be a hell of a lot worse just because a cyclist had a few drinks too many.

I can't put myself in that scenario because I wouldn't be overtaking a cyclist on a country road if I wasn't at least mostly on the other side of the road, and I wouldn't be on the other side of the road if there was a car coming from the other direction. Sorry, but there are all kinds of Real World reasons a cyclist might have to swerve suddenly (potholes, ice, diesel, gust of wind, front wheel puncture) before you start getting into the hypothetical scenarios.

Rule 212

When passing motorcyclists and cyclists, give them plenty of room (see Rules 162 to 167). If they look over their shoulder it could mean that they intend to pull out, turn right or change direction. Give them time and space to do so.

Rule 213

Motorcyclists and cyclists may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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!

Some of the shared spaces in cph, and the way the natives use them have fascinated me for months. A car enters (legally) the semi-pedestrianised area at less than walking pace. The tourists and visitors, like eyejits, instinctively stop and give way to the mighty motor. The locals carry on walking and through sheer weight of numbers* the motor must give way to them. They may even jostle the visitor into motion. The pedestrian is the native to this shared space whilst the motor is a not entirely welcome visitor, tolerated so long as it behaves itself. There is one rule that binds all others here "behave predictably".

*"off-peak" when hardly anyone is around, the drivers behave in the same way but might roll along at 6mph.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

put yourself in this scenario, you are driving your car along a country road, light traffic, good visibility, you see a cyclist ahead of you and take note. You start to pass the cyclist who suddenly wobbles toward your car , you swerve to avoid contact with the cyclist, and clip a car coming from the opposite direction. The outcome might be you exchange details for damage to a car mirror or the outcome could be a hell of a lot worse just because a cyclist had a few drinks too many.

Had 'you' given the cyclist sufficient space when overtaking, instead of driving like, well, frankly, a bit of a twunt, you would have probably died in the head-on collision with the oncoming car, as you'd would be almost entirely on the other side of the road when passing. This would allow a pretty big swerve on behalf of Mr Pishhead on his blotto bike.

So how come your judgement is so poor that you tried the overtake in the first place?

"Oh... it's only a cyclist..."

 

[TheJDog]

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.

If you've ever been at the zebra crossing near Carnaby street you'd pray for a pelican crossing as a driver...

 

[TheJDog]

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.

For those specific fatalities, yes. But there seems to me to be as much or more chance of cyclists being trapped on the inside of a left turning lorry if they are trying to get past to turn left, rather than admitting defeat and waiting for the light. Have left turn incidents increased with the advent of ASZs and cycle lanes?

 

[TheJDog]

I think all traffic should be allowed to turn left on red. It works all over the world.

The worst junction I encounter on my ride to work is a right turn off a main road. When I get stuck in the middle of the road with a lot of traffic on either side I hate it. So if I arrive at the right time, I always turn at the end of the green man. I think that cyclists should be allowed to go on the green man, but at walking pace, and giving priority to pedestrians. Heck, most cyclists do this anyway from what I can see. A bicycle is just a human with a slight metal frame under them. To class them the same as a 100kg moped, 300kg motorbile, or 1500kg car is not all that sensible. Traffic lights were invented for cars. When pedestrians, horses, and bikes shared the roads there was no need for them.

 

[Markymark]

put yourself in this scenario, you are driving your car along a country road, light traffic, good visibility, you see a cyclist ahead of you and take note. You start to pass the cyclist who suddenly wobbles toward your car , you swerve to avoid contact with the cyclist, and clip a car coming from the opposite direction. The outcome might be you exchange details for damage to a car mirror or the outcome could be a hell of a lot worse just because a cyclist had a few drinks too many.

Why are you overtaking when there's an oncoming car?

 

[Dan B]

Why are you overtaking when there's an oncoming car?

I'm guessing because he's an above-average driver

 

[glenn forger]

there seems to me to be as much or more chance of cyclists being trapped on the inside of a left turning lorry if they are trying to get past to turn left

Based on what? That's not usually how a fatality takes place, a full quarter of them involve being struck from behind. In others the rider was at the lights first, the lorry driver rolled up then turned left and killed the cyclist. If the lorry driver behind is playing with his phone then a cautious red light jump could save your life.

 

[gavgav]

No