Waiting for Red lights in London.

[lazybloke]

If the lights are red, the traffic is gridlocked, then why shouldn't a cyclist go in red? Similarly, it no pedestrians are crossing, and you don't cause a nuisance to other drivers, why shouldn't you go?

If we can't push the boundaries, how will the Idaho stop ever make it to the UK?

I agree that UK law creates scenarios (as you've described) where we end up waiting for absolutely no purpose. It's frustrating.
A change in the law (eg some form of Idaho Stop) could be beneficial by aiding traffic flow and improving cyclist safety; I'm in full support.

But I suspect many RLJers do it only for reasons of impatience, and I feel very uneasy when people advocate breaking the law. It may well be effective (in the long term) in bringing about change, but it isn't the only way to do so.

 

[classic33]

The Idaho stop is the common name for a law that allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.
A Red light would still mean stop.

 

[mjr]

The Idaho stop is the common name for a law that allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.
A Red light would still mean stop.

Only until it's clear. Not until the light detects enough of King Car and bothers changing.

 

[Sharky]

Slightly off topic, but when I first joined cycling club (1966), I was helping a marshal on a left turn in a club time trial. The turn was from the East Lancs Road onto the Rainford bypass at Windle Island. Now in spite of the name, it was actually a traffic light. I think the TL's had been recently installed and the TT course was still being used. We were told that when we saw a rider approaching and the lights were red, we had to jump up and down on the rubber sensor strip to make the lights turn to green. I think the riders just ignored the lights and rode through. There was very little traffic on an early Sunday morning in those days.

 

[lazybloke]

The Idaho stop is the common name for a law that allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.
A Red light would still mean stop.

Yes, the name isn't helpful. I deliberately said "some form of Idaho stop" in recognition of the variations that have been implemented elsewhere. Eg Wikipedia mentions the Paris implementation, which allows cyclists to pass red traffic lights.

If introduced in the UK there would have to be a campaign of driver education first. Actually, most UK drivers need educating...

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Call me old-fashioned but I stop at red lights.

In fact, I'm probably one of the few people (in a car or on a bike) who comes to a stop at this type of sign too.
Most seem to treat it as optional.

 

[KnackeredBike]

But I suspect many RLJers do it only for reasons of impatience, and I feel very uneasy when people advocate breaking the law. It may well be effective (in the long term) in bringing about change, but it isn't the only way to do so.

See, I'm not sure that's quite true. I am more than happy taking a strong primary position but even so, especially through rural junctions, it can feel a bit like wacky races, with everyone jostling to get past you. I have been simultaneously overtaken and undertaken, in one lane, for a turning a few dozen metres away.

I can see, from a safety point of view, why taking your chance with things in front of you is more predictable than things behind you. Traffic lights are there for the benefit, control and safety of cars, not us. Cyclists alone do not need traffic light controlled junctions.

That said, it is indefensible to cycle through pedestrians to achieve that aim.

 

[jefmcg]

Why is this OK to do on a bike, but "get out and push" is not OK in a car?

Because that would be insane, even if it's legal.

 

[mustang1]

There is something about proceeding at caution in the case of a broken light.

Some people would describe all red lights as broken.

 

[mustang1]

whataboutery

read up thread.

are you the cockwomble who nearly took me out 10 mins ago while i was crossing with the boy ? becuse theres some scumbagggers who don't give a fark about anybody else

Wasn't me. I let all pedestrians cross, always. If there's a pedestrian even close to the lights , or even a little further down the road, I still will not go and I absolutely detest anyone who does so.

 

[classic33]

Only until it's clear. Not until the light detects enough of King Car and bothers changing.

Not quite as simple as made out and has been updated. Due to misuse.

 

[mjr]

In fact, I'm probably one of the few people (in a car or on a bike) who comes to a stop at this type of sign too.
Most seem to treat it as optional.

You don't need to stop at the sign. You need to stop before crossing the line. Not actually at the line. Just at some point before crossing it. Subtleties are the cyclists' friend.

If introduced in the UK there would have to be a campaign of driver education first. Actually, most UK drivers need educating...

Yeah, many still think flashing bike lights are illegal (legalised 2005) and that we mustn't cycle across zebras (legalised in general 2016 and occasionally beforehand). Some motorists even get a bit confused and shout that we aren't allowed to cycle across toucans, but that's always been legal AFAIK. There really should be at least a refresher/updates theory test before you can get a new driving licence photocard.

 

[mjr]

Not quite as simple as made out and has been updated. Due to misuse.
View attachment 364561

Anyone surprised that the law written out in full is not quite as simple as the basic idea? If so, have you tried reading the UK's Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions lately and comparing them to the simplifications in the Highway Code?

 

[Racing roadkill]

The Idaho stop is the common name for a law that allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.
A Red light would still mean stop.

Strictly speaking, amber means stop too.

 

[classic33]

View attachment 364565
Anyone surprised that the law written out in full is not quite as simple as the basic idea? If so, have you tried reading the UK's Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions lately and comparing them to the simplifications in the Highway Code?

Yes

That is the simple version. Which isn't in the Highway Code for one very obvious reason.