# left turn on red - Johnson is an arse



## dellzeqq (18 Apr 2009)

a long time ago the distinguished cycling campaigner, Mr. Nuttycyclist, told me that ASLs would get people killed. He pointed to the little green bits on the left of the road leading in to ASLs.

I couldn't see it. Now I can. Another two women have been crushed by left turning lorries, and that follows a desperate year in London, in which all but one of cycling deaths were caused by lorries, and most of those turning left.

It's as plain as plain can be that going on the left side of lorries is dangerous. And yet, the egregious Johnson is proposing a change to the law which will allow cyclists to turn left on red lights. Nothing like encouraging people, particularly the least experienced cyclists, to do the very thing that is most likely to get them killed in London.

The CTC has dismissed this as a gimmick. I think it's worse than that. It's going to get people killed. 

Can I suggest that, if you live in London, you e-mail your MP and implore him or her not to support this?

The majority of lorries running over cyclists are construction lorries. If you do e-mail your MP you might also mention that while the HSE swans about building sites acting the arse when somebody picks up a 20k block, they don't give a monkeys about the safety of construction activity off site. They must take on this responsibility. Construction companies only react to regulation - they don't give a flying **** otherwise. 

CML, the bunch of halfwits who wrote the transport plan for the Olympics were asked to make fresnel mirrors on the off side compulsory for all construction traffic serving the Olympic site - they refused point blank. Had those mirrors been fitted to the vehicle that turned left at Goswell Road the driver would have seen the cyclist. The LCC, having pressed the case for fresnel mirrors are meeting the DfT to make the case again. One can only wish them well.


----------



## Flying Dodo (18 Apr 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Had those mirrors been fitted to the vehicle that turned left at Goswell Road the driver would have seen the cyclist. The LCC, having pressed the case for fresnel mirrors are meeting the DfT to make the case again. One can only wish them well.



They'd only help *if* the driver bothers to look in their mirrors anyway. Better driver education to be more aware of smaller road users would be a better thing. However, I'd agree that making the installation of fresnel mirrors compulsory would be a start.

O/T slightly, I remember about 15 years ago out here in the sticks, buses started having them in their back windows. I've suddenly realised none of the current buses have them now.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Apr 2009)

indeed. There is absolutely point in pretending that cyclists don't do daft things. Absolutely none. I've twice seen cyclists undertake bendybuses on left turns - and survive only by the grace granted the bus drivers by many years experience. 

We have to look at what happens and ask ourselves - in this imperfect world, what is for the best? And good sense suggests that inviting cyclists to undertake is just plain dumb.


----------



## Flying Dodo (18 Apr 2009)

Of course I've always been a fan of the American system of being able to turn right (in their case) on red. But that of course is another argument.


----------



## byegad (18 Apr 2009)

Boris is on another planet yet again. For an allegedly clever fellow he does a good impersonation of being thick!


----------



## TimP (19 Apr 2009)

You could do it by putting a bypass of the junction for cyclists as this ought to take them out of the way of everything. A bit like this junction here: Consider the left turn from travelling south to travelling south east.

But without junction modification I don't think this will be a safe plan. The transition process is going to be dangerous.

Though I have a nagging feeling that the people who will undertake and get caght on the left hand side of vehicles are the same goup as those who currently do so. Hence not much change in behaviour may result to start with.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Apr 2009)

bypass junctions are really iffy
1. The re-joining point is effectively a stop sign
2. They collect grot and debris
3. They're horrible for pedestrians


----------



## gavintc (19 Apr 2009)

Well, personally I support this idea. I have no issue with ASLs and use them all the time. A left on red works in many other countries quite successfully and would I suggest also work well for cars as well as bikes. I know that we have numpties who go up the inside of buses and trucks, but that is an education issue.


----------



## TimP (19 Apr 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> bypass junctions are really iffy
> 1. The re-joining point is effectively a stop sign
> 2. They collect grot and debris
> 3. They're horrible for pedestrians



1. Give way, which is no worse than the proposed left at red, but very clearly defined.
2. Yup, like all cycle provision or just close into the edge of the road, only use if you have robust tyres.
3. I don't think they are any worse than a traffic light controlled junction which has islands.

They can work in certain circumstances, and where these would not work there is certainy no place for a cyclist to be turning eft at a red light.


----------



## bonj2 (19 Apr 2009)

let me guess, you thought it was already the law and you did it and got pulled for it , only to find out it wasn't


----------



## bonj2 (19 Apr 2009)

Seriously though, maybe a distinction should be drawn between turning left on red when you're already at the front, and undertaking in order to get to the front so you can turn left.
It's all about education. Maybe it could be used to get cyclists to understand that they absolutely mustn't undertake lorries - as in, "look, we're giving you this, but in return you've got to promise NOT to undertake!"
Would that work at all?, or is allowing cyclists to turn left on red just going to provide more incentive to undertake no matter whether/how much education you provide alongside?


----------



## tdr1nka (19 Apr 2009)

After spending a lot of time in the USA I used to wonder why we didn't do the same here.
If it is only cyclist who get to do this then all well and good but I'm of the mind that there needs to be a lot of educating drivers and cyclists for this to be workable.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (19 Apr 2009)

It'll be just another way to foster resentment between cyclists and car drivers. Odds on many car drivers understanding the legality of cyclists going through red lights, anyone?


----------



## bonj2 (19 Apr 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> After spending a lot of time in the USA I used to wonder why we didn't do the same here.
> If it is only cyclist who get to do this then all well and good but I'm of the mind that there needs to be a lot of educating drivers and cyclists for this to be workable.



possibly because turning left in the USA means going against the flow of traffic 


igmc


----------



## jonesy (19 Apr 2009)

Rhythm Thief said:


> It'll be just another way to foster resentment between cyclists and car drivers. Odds on many car drivers understanding the legality of cyclists going through red lights, anyone?



I agree; for that reason it would be very difficult to grant a general left turn exemption just for cyclists; and if it were allowed for motor vehicles as well as cyclists it would greatly add to the dangers faced by pedestrians and further reduce the already inadequate crossing provision on many busy roads, even where a pedestrian phase is included in the junction signals. It would permit vehicles to turn across pedestrian crossings when the pedestrians have the 'green man', which would require a radical change in attitudes amongst drivers. I know this does happen in parts of Europe, but that is associated with an acceptance of the need to give way to pedestrians crossing side roads that doesn't exist in this country.

It may be worth exploring exemptions at individual junctions on a case by case basis, e.g. with special signs and road markings, but that is a different thing from a general change in rules at traffic lights.


----------



## Danny (19 Apr 2009)

tdr1nka said:


> After spending a lot of time in the USA I used to wonder why we didn't do the same here.
> If it is only cyclist who get to do this then all well and good but I'm of the mind that there needs to be a lot of educating drivers and cyclists for this to be workable.


I agree, the turn right on red policy does work well in the US, but I suspect this is party because there are broader streets and pavements in most cities which give better sight lines for drivers and pedestrians. 

American drivers are also, on the whole, much more law-abiding - partly because the police actually enforce the traffic laws - and do give way to pedestrians much more than their London counterparts ever do.


----------



## Danny (19 Apr 2009)

jonesy said:


> It may be worth exploring exemptions at individual junctions on a case by case basis, e.g. with special signs and road markings, but that is a different thing from a general change in rules at traffic lights.


Agreed. There is a junction in York where the Council has put in a left turn lane which by-passes the red light and this works very well.


----------



## very-near (19 Apr 2009)

URGGGGGGGHHHH...............ALIEN HAND SYNDROMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.....................MMMMMUSTTT RESISTTTTTT URGE TTTTOO AGREE WITH DELLLBOYYY

Aiiieeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## Fab Foodie (19 Apr 2009)

Absolutely agree with dellzeqq on this one.


----------



## tdr1nka (20 Apr 2009)

bonj said:


> possibly because turning left in the USA means going against the flow of traffic
> 
> 
> igmc


----------



## Origamist (22 May 2009)

Looks like Hoon dog is giving the proposal the benefit of his wisdom:

*Oral Answers to Questions*

*Transport*

*The Secretary of State was asked—*


*Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con):* As a heavy-goods driver and a cyclist, I understand all too well the hazard caused to cyclists from the rear wheels of large vehicles, particularly at junctions. Does the Secretary of State think that the proposal from our brilliant Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to allow cyclists to turn left on red and thus get out of the way before the lights change might improve matters?

*Mr. Hoon:* I am grateful for that suggestion from the multi-talented Front Bencher. I shall certainly carefully consider the proposal, although there are some concerns about the safety implications of such a relaxation. As one who has lived and worked in the United States, where turning on red lights is routine for motor vehicles, I know that the idea has been considered for motor vehicles generally in the UK. What is important is that we put the safety criteria first—we have to assess whether it can be done safely. If it can, I would certainly take a positive view of it.

http://www.publications.parliament....m090514/debtext/90514-0001.htm#09051460000021


----------



## dodgy (22 May 2009)

Oh god, not TCH, nothing will ever happen, he'll just go on about 'assessing' but nothing will get done or assessed.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 May 2009)

I read Geoff (Property Magnate) Hoon's answer as a vindication of Johnson's strategy. Johnson has promised left turn on red to motorists. Now consider how many cyclists and pedestrians that's going to take out.


----------



## theboytaylor (30 May 2009)

I wrote to Mr Johnson's office about this as I also think it is completely ar5e-headed. The response I received from a "Customer Services Assistant" from a Tfl Dept which is called London Streets (I think) was as follows:

"This is just an idea at the moment and is with the DfT to confirm if it is even possible. It can take years for the DfT to give us their view. If it were possible (and it would require a change in legislation and technical guidance) then Transport for London (TfL) would first look at a trial. 

TfL has proposed to operate a trial at carefully selected sites in London to allow cyclists to turn left through a red traffic signal whilst general traffic remains stationary. The purpose of providing such a facility at traffic signals is to reduce the potential for instances where left turning cyclists are struck by other vehicles also turning left. The publicity necessary to accompany such an initiative would also promote motorists' understanding of the vulnerability of cyclists and therefore the need for them to be afforded sufficient space and respect, encouraging responsible behaviour by both drivers and cyclists.

For cyclists to proceed through a traffic signal, whilst general traffic remains stationary, current regulations require cyclists to be separately signalled from other vehicles. This would require separate traffic signals and an associated splitter island which would reduce capacity on the network substantially and introduce significant costs.

The French government has recently authorised trials of cyclists turning right on red at traffic signals in Strasbourg and Bordeaux. TfL acknowledges concerns as to the safety of vulnerable pedestrians, particularly the visually impaired, who would be crossing the road under a green man pedestrian signal potentially in conflict with cyclists turning left on red.

However, TfL is following the trials of these arrangements in France and, dependent on the results of these, would wish to explore with the DfT the potential for trials at appropriate sites in London. Similar practices are standard in other countries: in Germany, where traffic travels on the right, right turns on red are permitted for all vehicles when a specific sign is present. 

The Mayor is committed to developing cycling in London and making London's streets safer and feel safer for everyone and not just for cyclists. TfL is working with the police and the boroughs to raise awareness of the dangers of selfish and unlawful driving and riding and to use the enforcement system to complement strategic (such as Share the Road) and locally focused campaigns. There are now around 2000 police and emergency services personnel using bicycles as part of their everyday operations - they set a good example to cyclists and motorists, provide public reassurance as well as being very effective in catching wrongdoers of all kinds."

It's all a bit confused, isn't it? If it's just an idea that Tfl are floating, why's Boris shouting about it. As I think I've read elsewhere on CC Boris is quite happy to float these crappy ideas, knowing that a Central Govt Dept will kick it into the long grass or just reject it completely. At least he looks good saying it, eh? Still, he's such a character, isn't he?


----------



## Canrider (6 Jun 2009)

It's unfortunate that I grew up in one of the few the only(?) North American jurisdiction where 'right on red' wasn't permitted. It still feels all tingly and illicit when I do it while visiting my parents who now live in such a permissive locality..

Anyways..
1) It's apparently only for cyclists. So yes, another round of 'road tax' style aggro, to wit: You go through red lights (yes, I was turning left)!
2) It encourages people to filter unsafely. Again, this is perhaps something for education, on the level of 'don't take my knowledge and experience and use this as a springboard for doing something spectacularly stupid' (as coined by Sam Tracy).
3) Boris Johnson is a dick. This is tautological, and yet even a dick can do or say something wise or useful.
4) My local MP has claimed to be a cyclist. This will be investigated.
4a) He's on the front bench?!?


----------



## Origamist (23 Jan 2010)

Government green light for Boris' turn left on red scheme

http://road.cc/content/news/13128-government-green-light-red-light-cycle-plan


----------



## mistral (23 Jan 2010)

This is an ill thought out proposal that does not take into account how people actually behave. 

London is different to many other towns & cities both here in the UK and overseas. Many of the London junctions are extremely busy, cyclists turning left on red would often be confronted with pedestrians crossing, buses, HGV’s and other traffic bearing down on them from the right.
London drivers can be very aggressive and pushy. Couriers, delivery drivers and HGV’s are often on tight schedules, increasing the propensity for them to disregard other road users. In my experience all London road users (inc. some cyclists) are willing to take more risks than road users in other areas.
If this proposal is adopted cyclists will mistakenly believe they have safe passage to the stop line and will put inexperienced or naive riders in even more danger.


----------



## srw (23 Jan 2010)

theboytaylor said:


> "This is just an idea at the moment and is with the DfT to confirm if it is even possible. It can take years for the DfT to give us their view. If it were possible (and it would require a change in legislation and technical guidance) then Transport for London (TfL) would first look at a trial.



Let me translate that for you:

"That dunderhead Boris has spouted his mouth off yet again without thinking. There's no way in law by which he can change the traffic regulations for London, and no way on earth we'll let him get any further with this damn-fool idea without looking very hard indeed at the pros and cons, and instituting a trial.


----------



## kettle (23 Jan 2010)

In Australia cars and cyclists can often turn left on red light 'when safe to do so' as the sign tell us.
The point is that all can turn left and that there is no need for a cyclist to undertake to get to the front to do so.
I all circumstances cyclists should take up their rightful space on the road. This means that they do not undertake. We know that if you reduce the space you take up other road users will reduce this further.


----------



## thomas (23 Jan 2010)

I'm kind of for it in principle. I reckon I could use the system without injuring myself, causing peds to jump out my way to any other 'nasties'. It does seem to make sense that if it's clear, why not go. As for only cyclists using it, whatever the reasons, it seems to make more sense as we can pull away quicker than cars as well as having a better view at junctions.


----------



## Norm (23 Jan 2010)

Zombie thread. I didn't realise how old the first few posts were until I saw that very-near had replied.

I can see that this provision would cause more conflict with other cyclists, as someone wanting to turn left will want to push to the front of cyclists who are going straight ahead so they can make their left turn before the lights change.

But, why is it likely to lead to increased fatalities? If the cyclist can turn left on red, then I would think that would reduce fatalities because they would be gone before the lights change and any other vehicles make the left turn. The cyclist turning left would be less likely to go under another vehicle because they would be less likely to have to stop there.

Can someone throw me a rope here, please. Why is this more likely to cause collisions with lorries?


----------



## thomas (23 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> Can someone throw me a rope here, please. Why is this more likely to cause collisions with lorries?




What Paul said, it may encourage some cyclists to go up the inside of lorries, when they're indicating left. If the lights changed they might be screwed.


----------



## psmiffy (23 Jan 2010)

Totally agree - Left turn for cyclists against the red coupled with the lane up the inside to the ASL encourages cyclists to gamble that vehicles are going to remain stationary - The lorry mirrors should be compulsory plus the sign on the back saying to cyclists do not be so stupid

It does have the advantage that if you can get to the front before being crushed that you can get clear of the traffic and therefore not be crushed - Again its too much of a gamble -It would be far better where there is room for a sufficient number of lanes that more provision is made for left turn filtering by *all* traffic where the traffic light sequence allows it.


----------



## Norm (23 Jan 2010)

So the problem is not perceived as being cyclists who are at the lights and waiting who get taken out by the construction vehicles, but people who are filtering up the inside when the lights change and the traffic starts moving? 

I guess it would be easy, with access to the stats, to figure out whether those who were killed were turning left or going straight on, whether they were still moving up the inside or stationary at the lights etc.

I guess Boris' thinking is that allowing them to filter on red would get them out of that danger zone before the lights changed but the thinking here is that it could also encourage more cyclists into the danger zone.


----------



## Origamist (23 Jan 2010)

Norm said:


> I guess it would be easy, with access to the stats, to figure out whether those who were killed were turning left or going straight on, whether they were still moving up the inside or stationary at the lights etc.



You would certainly think so, but it appears that it is often unclear what events lead-up to a fatal collision between a cyclist and HGV - most witnesses talk about the aftermath, not the circumstances that precede the incident...

This report has some detail, http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/...research_police-collision-files_2001-2006.pdf, (see page 42 in particular) but it does not directly address your question, Norm.


----------



## Norm (23 Jan 2010)

Thanks, Origamist.


> I don't know what Boris is thinking. But the fact is that if you're correctly placed in an ASL and you've eyeballed the driver you're in a far better place than if you're in his blind spot to the left of him.


This is all true, and the next stage (that it would be better still not to be in the ASL because you have legally been able to turn left on a red) was the thinking behind my initial question.

Although, MrP, your post does raise an alternative solution which would not lead to increasing the potential for conflict with other road users, such as peds crossing a side road on a green light. Would it not be better to enforce the rules we have already and get cars, trucks and motorbikes out of the ASLs. That's preferable to making it legal to RLJ, isn't it.


----------



## atbman (24 Jan 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> Of course I've always been a fan of the American system of being able to turn right (in their case) on red. But that of course is another argument.



Which apparently results in pedestrians being hit while crossing the entrance to that road when the lights are green for them


----------



## Flying Dodo (24 Jan 2010)

atbman said:


> Which apparently results in pedestrians being hit while crossing the entrance to that road when the lights are green for them



Is it a big problem?

In many of the US towns & cities I've driven in, especially just out of the actual centre, often there aren't pavements or if there are, the lights don't make any allowance for pedestrians crossing. 

Certainly in the UK, I'd agree there will be more pedestrians getting hit by cyclists if they can turn left on red.


----------



## 2Loose (24 Jan 2010)

I have noticed more and more lorries with a 'Cyclist's don't undertake me because I won't see you and you may be crushed' style sign on the rear left of the trailer over the last year, which is a good thing.

I think this left turn on red issue is very like the ASL one, education education education - If you aren't absolutely sure, don't risk it. I believe that the signs on lorries will help put that risk across to the clueless and then advantages will be reaped by the majority of cyclists and other traffic users.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Jan 2010)

the trouble is that cyclists undertake all the time, and many without a care in the world - it's terrifying to watch


----------

