Red light jumping

[domtyler]

As there is about as much chance of stopping all cyclists from jumping red lights as there is of, say, stopping politicians telling lies why not change the law in order to recognise the fact that it is a fairly innocuous activity and provide training and advice for cyclists on how to do it safely?

One of the main points of attack from the motoring lobby would evaporate into thin air in an instant. And it would make cycling even more quick and efficient.

 

[Cab]

A reasonable position.

Won't happen because 'they' hate cyclists...(remainder unstated because you know what I was about to say about non-cyclists, perceived outlier groups, etc.)

 

[domtyler]

A reasonable position.

Won't happen because 'they' hate cyclists...(remainder unstated because you know what I was about to say about non-cyclists, perceived outlier groups, etc.)

They have done it for one way streets so why not now address the "Biggy"?

 

[CopperBrompton]

I think the idea of allowing cyclists to treat a red light as a give-way sign is an issue worth exploring.

The two main issues I can see are (a) RLJing would be very dangerous to pedestrians in some cases (eg. cyclist in lane 1, bus or lorry stopped at red light in lane 2, blocking pedestrians from view) and ( complex junctions (eg. 5-way ones) where a cyclist might think it is safe to cross when it isn't.

Ben

 

[TWBNK]

It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

To be honest if you were to treat a red light as a give way would you need to wait for the junction to be clear rather than slipping between peds? It would be difficult to police as different cyclists would make different judgement calls.

But then again saying that we have a stretch of road up here with pedestrian lights every 100 yards for half a mile or so and pedestrians still insist on crossing the road between the safe crossings. Making the issue of waiting at a clear crossing on red an annoyance beyond words.

I red light jump on a daily basis in my work. I really don't like doing it as there are often far too many surprises. When I am on my way home I am glad for the quick pauses at the lights.

 

[domtyler]

It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

To be honest if you were to treat a red light as a give way would you need to wait for the junction to be clear rather than slipping between peds? It would be difficult to police as different cyclists would make different judgement calls.

But then again saying that we have a stretch of road up here with pedestrian lights every 100 yards for half a mile or so and pedestrians still insist on crossing the road between the safe crossings. Making the issue of waiting at a clear crossing on red an annoyance beyond words.

I red light jump on a daily basis in my work. I really don't like doing it as there are often far too many surprises. When I am on my way home I am glad for the quick pauses at the lights.

Why would it be a recipe for disaster? As is pointed out on this forum on a daily basis thousands upon thousands of cyclists across the country are routinely treating red lights as give way signs already. I am just saying it needs to be legitimised.

A change in law and a nationwide information campaign would focus cyclists minds on the activity and make them think about how to do it safely. In essence it is perfectly safe to just give way at junctions, to both other vehicles and pedestrians. What is not safe is cyclists not giving way as often happens at the moment.

 

[Absinthe Minded]

Yeah, I think it could be done if peds crossing were given right of way and that we had to give way to them when crossing the red.

I never RLJ, but there are plenty of times that I feel I'm just wasting my time by stopping.

 

[Cab]

They have done it for one way streets so why not now address the "Biggy"?

Because its the 'biggy', making nationwide acceptance of such a thing unlikely.

 

[TWBNK]

But what about the peds crossing that you don't expect? The kids running ahead of their parents as they see the the 'green man'? The cyclist coming through on red the other way?

But you have a point, it is done anyway and would education make it better. There are a lot of people to educate...

The only people in real fear of RLJing are the car drivers who have licences to lose. Pedestrians seem to cross wherever and whenever they like.

I really don't know. We aren't one thing or the other really. If you gave cyclist the option of RLJing how would it be policed and what would be the consequences if you got it wrong?

You cross through a red light, misjudge the approaching speed of a car approaching on a green light and cause the car to alter speed or direction. You should have given way to that car but didn't. A near or not so near miss occurs, the car driver grumbles to the police but nothing can be done. No one is accountable.

 

[John the Monkey]

I have no trouble obeying the reds on my commute, and don't really see the need for the option to do otherwise, tbh. The fact that a number of other people don't obey them isn't really a basis for changing the law (lots of drivers ignore speed limits routinely, for example, I'd be against treating those as advisory).

Given the British motorist's level of interest in keeping their knowledge of the highway code and motoring law up to date, "recipe for disaster" is probably an accurate description of the consequences, certainly at junctions where cars and bikes come into conflict.

 

[domtyler]

I have no trouble obeying the reds on my commute, and don't really see the need for the option to do otherwise, tbh. The fact that a number of other people don't obey them isn't really a basis for changing the law (lots of drivers ignore speed limits routinely, for example, I'd be against treating those as advisory).

Given the British motorist's level of interest in keeping their knowledge of the highway code and motoring law up to date, "recipe for disaster" is probably an accurate description of the consequences, certainly at junctions where cars and bikes come into conflict.

1) The main grumble from the motoring lobby would be eliminated

2) It would make cycling a lot faster and more efficient, meaning that more people may be attracted to cycling leading to a growth in numbers of people cycling, leading to even safer conditions and better facilities.

3) The new number one grumble would be pavement cycling, the police would then be able to focus on this activity which is much more dangerous and anti social.

4) It could be the catalyst for a huge safety campaign directed at cyclists.

 

[bonj2]

As there is about as much chance of stopping all cyclists from jumping red lights as there is of, say, stopping politicians telling lies why not change the law in order to recognise the fact that it is a fairly innocuous activity and provide training and advice for cyclists on how to do it safely?

One of the main points of attack from the motoring lobby would evaporate into thin air in an instant. And it would make cycling even more quick and efficient.

.... or as of, say, stopping people taking drugs or being prostitutes in holland.

 

[bonj2]

It would certainly take a very big arrow out of motorists' armour, and would probably spur a lot of them into the 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality.

 

[domtyler]

It would certainly take a very big arrow out of motorists' armour, and would probably spur a lot of them into the 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' mentality.

Hopefully they will also remember to swap from car to bike first!

 

[John the Monkey]

1) The main grumble from the motoring lobby would be eliminated

Again, I don't see that as a compelling reason to change the law - I subscribe to Cab's view on the grumblings of motorists (they're largely sublimations of their frustration at being stuck in a car).

2) It would make cycling a lot faster and more efficient, meaning that more people may be attracted to cycling leading to a growth in numbers of people cycling, leading to even safer conditions and better facilities.

Possibly - cycling is quite fast and efficient if you do it within the law though. I think the downside of changing this particular law is the probability of an increase in conflict at junctions, which may adversely affect the perceived safety of cycling.

3) The new number one grumble would be pavement cycling, the police would then be able to focus on this activity which is much more dangerous and anti social.

Until someone notices that a large number of cyclists do it anyway, and campaigns for a change in the law

4) It could be the catalyst for a huge safety campaign directed at cyclists.

There'd certainly need to be a large campaign informing everyone of the change, possibly resigning or redesigning junctions etc. Is it the best way to spend that amount of money? (As opposed to improving the status quo by spending it on driver education etc).

I'm not entirely unconvinced by the arguments, just not sure that there'd be much of a benefit to it. There's possibly a certain instinctive resistance to yet another weakening of the idea of one taking ones turn at things, rather than rushing through ahead of others too...