Paris gives green light to trial scheme to allow red light jumping cyclists

Whenever I've heard people defend RLJing in the UK it's because they claim it's a necessary safety measure.

Yet Paris has shown that even without allowing RLJing a zero fatality rate is possible.

Surely this simply serves to disprove the British RLJers' claims?

The only justification for permissive RLJing would seem to be to prevent cyclists having to wait a bit - hence why the French are allowing it primarily for right-turns, where car/cycle flows do not mingle.

Let's not confuse this with Ken's suggestions, which are quite different in both motive and implementation: They're about safety and would apply not just to right turns.

Back to the previous point, then: This is apples and oranges; the addition of a "pre-phase" for cyclists is very different to permissive RLJing for the same-side turn. And since Paris proves that safety can be achieved without any of this, London must therefore be overlooking other solutions, such as shared space (aka "naked streets") and a culture of respect for cyclists, scooterists etc.

Footnote: As for Lambert's ideas that bicycles are not fast and that eyes and brain are the best safety features, I would invite her to spend a day using pedestrian crossings in central London. I frequently seem to have near misses on pelican crossings with idiots on bikes who treat it as some sort of challenge to dodge the pedestrians without having to touch the brakes.

0 fatalities in Paris sounds good. But I suspect that the Paris being described here is just Departement 75, inside the Periphique, which is a pretty small space, with few big lorries making deliveries, etc. What are the fatality numbers for the surrounding departements, 94, 95, etc, which would much more approximate to London.

Spain can be good god cyclists as well. Majorca tends to have bike signs at the top and bottom of even minor climbs to warn motorists that they might just meet cyclists on a cracking hill. An idea that could work here - after all there are enough of those 'Think Bike!' signs littering scenic roads now so that motorcyclists can roar past you on a Sunday morning.

I sometimes turn left on a red - it's a good idea from the USA. Can you imagine UK drivers handling the 4 way stop sign though? They'd be a fight every five minutes! : D

“Traffic lights are not a factor of security. They were installed so that car drivers would let pedestrians cross the road, to regulate the flow of traffic and to moderate the speed.

“But bicycles don’t go fast and don’t make any noise. It’s idiotic to stop for nothing. You waste energy and it slows you down. The best safety assets for cyclists are your eyes and your brain.

“Some people think that the rules of the road should be the same for everyone but that is wrong.”

The most intelligent thing I've heard in a long time.

To be honest if you turn left on red at traffic lights in Cambridge, even 99% of car drivers aren't bothered if you do it sensibly. Going across moving traffic, which I see some people doing, is another matter however and what really causes the problems. Most accidents occur, and this was clear when I looked at an accident map of Cambridge and is common sense, when people turn right.

To avoid pedestrians stepping in front of me I've even changed my route and avoid going to work through the centre of town and take a longer route through parks. This also avoids a lot of traffic lights. Naturally, I'm lucky to be cycling in the cycle capital of Britain. I've cycled in London a long time ago and that is a whole different ball game (to mix a metaphor).

The main problem in Britain is narrow roads and it was this difference that is also highlighted in the article. Any problems I've had with traffic in the past have come from a couple of busy narrow roads it was difficult to avoid. One of them had a cycle bridge built to deal with it. Problem is, it is very difficult to change the basic layout of a town or city.

However, we should remember that deaths on the road are much less here than France and Spain, which are keen on cycling as a sport, and even The Netherlands, who are more sensible drivers. I've cycled in Spain a bit and that felt more dangerous than here.

At risk of stirring things up, I think Christine Lambert has correctly summarised the key issues, and the French proposal shows a true understanding of the relative safety impact of cyclists and red lights.

Cyclists who jump lights are annoying, but in general they don't cause any accidents and they don't kill or hurt anyone. In terms of the overall impact on road safety, this issue is on a par with drivers throwing rubbish out of their car windows. It gets quoted because it rightly offends our sense of fairness and is seen as "breaking the rules" and "queue jumping." BUT it is NOT a big safety issue. It is a complete distraction from the real safety issue on the roads which is that MOTOR VEHICLES KILL. Any road safety initiatives or legal proposals that get hung up on issues like this will fail to improve safety.

Maybe it's just that on the continent, both drivers and cyclists have more respect for each other? Personally, I think in Blighty drivers' attitudes are way off beam compared to our Euro counterparts - but cyclists could also do better. To polarise it, you either get thick, ignorant drivers, or self centred cyclists.

There are days where I've run out of anglo-saxon vocabulary when I try to explain to a car driver just how I felt about their part in my near death experience. But ultimately I do myself no favours.

It doesn't matter what laws you put in place, what lights you can ignore - it has to start with car drivers understanding - with some real visceral examples - just how a mistake on either 'camp' will always result in a cyclist coming worse off.

The big difference being that France is very open to cycling and they embrace it. Where as London just sees it as a pain in the arse. I had the opportunity to ride from London to Paris last year, and as we rode around the Arc de Triomphe, cars stopped to let us go. There was only 10 of us, not a huge horde, but all the way from Dieppe to Paris, cars were tooting/waving/applauding. Ok, so it was the weekend of the Paris stage of the TDF, but I doubt even if Cav wins the green Jersey and Wiggo comes home with the yellow, we will never be able to take cycling into our arms and give it the hug it deserves. We as a city (can't speak for the rest of the UK), are not built for it. We are not Christania/Amsterdam/Paris or Berlin. A shame really.

I was in the car the other day, and remarked to a cyclist who had just rode through a red light that, although I was a avid cyclist, what he had done was breaking the law and it's quite possible that he could end up being another cycling 'death statistic'. His answer to this was that it was a 'free world' and that he could do 'whatever he wanted'. Well, with arseholes like him on the streets, how are we going to win the affection of the general public?

At the risk of sounding stupid.........

Wouldn't it be 'turn left' in the UK's case? Or am I missing something?

@ekynoxe your comment about pedestrians, it's no different from a pedestrian crossing elsewhere, if they don't look first then they are to blame. And in the US all traffic can turn right on a red so no reason it shouldn't work here.

Excellent stuff.

Cue all the Daily Mail comments that it'll never work, ALL cyclists jump the lights anyway and they don't even pay road tax so why should they get to ignore traffic lights.

And all you need is a pedestrian crossing at the same time, a cyclist knowingly going too fast as he "has the right to turn" and you'll get a properly legalised accident. Not anyones fault, but broken bones or worse.
Utter load of bollocks.

However: specific lights and cyclists only phases, yes please!!

Yes, cyclists are different than cars, and we have some specific needs, but let's not go the other way either and allow cyclists this sort of stuff, because we'll all suffer from legalising practices than only a few will abuse...