"Why I skip red lights": Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds; Finish fisticuffs as Benoît Cosnefroy grabs British rider after sprinting incident; Jumbo-Visma pro tests positive + more on the live blog

You still got hit though, the law did not protect you. There are cyclists who will not give way to pedestrians (a very small minority) and those who will give way. Those who do not care about pedestrians will already be running lights. Those who respect red lights will certainly respect pedestrians. Why penalise this group of cyclists?

Yes, I have been too, and it hurt alot, i dont think people realise quite how much 80kgs of person + 12kg of bike travelling even at "slow" speed hurts when it impacts you. Also had two near misses too, one where the cyclist swore at me for getting in their way,seriously wtf, and one where only my hesitation about stepping in front of a bus on a green pedestrian light, saved me.

So no I don't think this would help at all, plus it creates another dividing wedge between cyclists and motorists about rules on the road.

Morgoth985 wrote:

What I would also consider though is to allow everyone, including motorists, to turn left on red if clear.  This is done in some US states and elsewhere (turn right there obv, but you get me) and I am not aware of any major problems from it.  Correct me if you know otherwise though.

Well... reviews are mixed.  (Personally I'm minded to say this is not only not a solution, it's not even a good stop-gap on the way to much better designs for junctions - now starting to be attempted in the UK also).

Back in the day the US NTSA concluded that "there weren't many serious crashes".

However Streetsblog (which can be a bit noisy - they are activists after all) says there's evidence that KSIs here disproportionately affect non-motorised traffic.  Makes logical sense - another "drivers are looking for other cars" situation.

Ok, fair enough 

I agree

Sriracha wrote:

Longer term I'd like to see separate lights for cyclists (like the little ones you see in France) that would go green ahead of the main lights, anywhere where there is a cycle box/ASL (which need to be the normal, not the exception).

We have quite a number of those in my neck of the woods (Peckham/Camberwell/ East Dulwich) and they work absolutely brilliantly, they should definitely become a standard feature.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

... separate lights for cyclists...

We have quite a number of those in my neck of the woods (Peckham/Camberwell/ East Dulwich) and they work absolutely brilliantly, they should definitely become a standard feature.

A few in Edinburgh but they give only about a second start, which doesn't seem long enough. Also is a bit of an early warning for the cars to start revving. I'm not yet convinced that they help much.

TheBillder wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

... separate lights for cyclists...

We have quite a number of those in my neck of the woods (Peckham/Camberwell/ East Dulwich) and they work absolutely brilliantly, they should definitely become a standard feature.

A few in Edinburgh but they give only about a second start, which doesn't seem long enough. Also is a bit of an early warning for the cars to start revving. I'm not yet convinced that they help much.

Yup, I've certainly had a few times where a driver on a hair-trigger driver sees green, any green and it's go!

I just thing these are a (hopefully) passing phase on the way to a much better solution (cyclists get their own completely separate set of lights - and because they're on separate infra half the time these aren't even needed...)

Sriracha wrote:

Longer term I'd like to see separate lights for cyclists (like the little ones you see in France) that would go green ahead of the main lights, anywhere where there is a cycle box/ASL (which need to be the norm, not the exception). As for going against a green pedestrian light, just no.

Agree to sorting out the pedestrian lights* and not having cyclists ploughing through.  Although with a cycle path people and cyclists can safely cross without need for any lights.

However ASL / "advanced cycle release" lights are pretty much still in the 3rd class category I'd say - not even sure Copehagen (2nd class) has them?  Meanwhile in 1st class road design land you avoid this issue by having (where needed) different space for each mode.  So everyone just has to deal with one type of traffic (motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians) at a time and there's a space for everyone.  [1] [2] [3] [4]

I know - "impossible" right?  "Costs too much..." - AKA "we chose to spend all the money and more on motor traffic".

* The totally unpopular and "impractical" (expensive) idea above might have the lights return to green for pedestrians and red all directions for vehicles if none are detected approaching.

lonpfrb wrote:

IMHO what we really need is a safety first culture not a might is right one.

Preach, brother!

What we have is a "maximise motor vehicle capacity" model - which has, remarkably, achieved a high level of safety BUT at cost of convenience (or sometimes possibility) for all other road users.  That is - it's only safe because most have been scared off the roads.

There were signs of tiny steps in the right direction a year back - the instigation of the Road Safety Investigation Branch (to mirror the Rail, Air and Marine ones, hopefully).  But this may have stalled?

Meanwhile there is a fully-functional "road-tested" system designed for moving people safely, quite nearby...[1] [2].  But ... not invented here!

This!

So many drivists are completely out of touch with the latest HC and laws, so it would simply add to the ire of those already angry at those 'errant' cyclists when suddenly they noticed a lot more riding through red lights.

I would agree that any change to the law is unlikely to lead to an improvement in the behaviour of those cyclists who currently ride with complete disregard for the law and the safety of those around them. But I don't see that as a reason not to make those changes, if they would make life safer and easier for sensible, law-abiding cyclists.

I know that crossing well, and have seen the same happen many times. Being as kind as I can to the wanton cyclists, I wonder if a warning sign further up the hill might help? If the traffic lights and bus gate are in your favour, you can pick up a lot of speed coming down (it's about 12% I think) and it's possible that some riders are caught out and can't stop safely in time. 

But then, I got sworn at yesterday by a woman cycling through a red light at a crossing on Camberwell Church Street. She was coming up the inside of a bus which had stopped at the light, and seemed aggrieved that a pedestrian was crossing at the pedestrian crossing. 

Brauchsel wrote:

I know that crossing well, and have seen the same happen many times. Being as kind as I can to the wanton cyclists, I wonder if a warning sign further up the hill might help? If the traffic lights and bus gate are in your favour, you can pick up a lot of speed coming down (it's about 12% I think) and it's possible that some riders are caught out and can't stop safely in time.

To be honest most of them at that time of day are commuters who must know the lights are there. However, I entirely agree it needs more warning and I suggested exactly that to the council, the railway bridge would be a perfect place for a sign. There are certainly a lot more drivers running the light coming from Dog Kennel Hill than in the opposite direction, as you say, once people (especially if they don't know the area) are through the bus gate light they are not expecting to face another light 50 metres on.

The Camberwell Church Street pelican may as well not exist as far as cyclists are concerned, I often feel like Billy no mates in the morning as I stop and watch everyone else ride round me…

(Apologies for being somewhat parochial!)

mitsky wrote:

"... before the vehicle behind gets the same idea..."
"... THE VEHICLE BEHIND GETS THE SAME IDEA..." ???
Are self driving vehicles available now?

Or should the writer read http://rc-rg.com

I had presumed that the writer was referring to the common motoring technique of "They went, so I can".

Which can explain why two cars will be driven through temporary traffic lights after they've gone red, why one motorist will nip out of a junction in front of you with just enough room but then then the one behind will follow forcing you to emergency stop, &c &c.

brooksby wrote:

I had presumed that the writer was referring to the common motoring technique of "They went, so I can".

It's like drafting but for motor vehicles...

So standard I can only assume if someone was pulled up on it they'd get loud and start saying "IT'S IN THE HIGHWAY CODE!" (I think for most people this is always a Spacecorps Directives moment).

chrisonatrike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I had presumed that the writer was referring to the common motoring technique of "They went, so I can".

It's like drafting but for motor vehicles...

So standard I can only assume if someone was pulled up on it they'd get loud and start saying "IT'S IN THE HIGHWAY CODE!" (I think for most people this is always a Spacecorps Directives moment).

Kudos for the Red Dwarf reference 

brooksby wrote:

mitsky wrote:

"... before the vehicle behind gets the same idea..."
"... THE VEHICLE BEHIND GETS THE SAME IDEA..." ???
Are self driving vehicles available now?

Or should the writer read http://rc-rg.com

I had presumed that the writer was referring to the common motoring technique of "They went, so I can".

Which can explain why two cars will be driven through temporary traffic lights after they've gone red, why one motorist will nip out of a junction in front of you with just enough room but then then the one behind will follow forcing you to emergency stop, &c &c.

A lethal combination of confirmation bias and failing to observe the Highway Code minimum separation of 2 second gap assuming a small vehicle in front (much more required for SUV, Van or HGV which block the field of view much more).

Failure to observe, plan and execute safely results..

Sorry if my original comment wasn't clear.

I was picking up on the bad writing, implying the vehicle was thinking for itself rather than being controlled by the driver's inputs.

"As I always give pedestrians right of way, the only life I risk by jumping a red is my own."

As someone who's been knocked off his bike by a fellow cyclist sailing blithely through a red light at a crossroads with poor visibility, and who has had plenty of near misses in the same situation, that's not true. 

Brauchsel wrote:

"As I always give pedestrians right of way, the only life I risk by jumping a red is my own."

As someone who's been knocked off his bike by a fellow cyclist sailing blithely through a red light at a crossroads with poor visibility, and who has had plenty of near misses in the same situation, that's not true. 

That statement always annoys me, people always give pedestrians right-of-way until there is the one they don't see or the one whose speed or trajectory they misjudge. Additionally, of course someone jumping a red light is not only risking their own life, firstly there is the collateral damage that may arise from other cyclists, drivers and pedestrians trying to avoid the cyclist who is "only risking their own life" and inadvertently colliding with others, and then, if the cyclist does lose their own life there is the emotional impact on the innocent third-party who is involved who has to live with the trauma for the rest of their lives, even if they are completely innocent.

jkirkcaldy wrote:

Breaking the law whilst on the road is only an issue if youre on a bicycle. There is no where near the same level of outcry about people in vehicles breaking the same laws. Or other even more dangerous laws such as speeding, using a phone whilst driving etc etc. 

The result of media confirmation bias and widespread failure to take responsibility for compliance with the law.

Related to the failure of road traffic policing that is supposedly a democratic process (Police Commissioner) i.e. that a majority can't be bothered to protect vulnerable road users.