what do people think of jumping lights???

[wiggydiggy]

Went through a green today and caused a cylist to nearly fall off as he braked to try and miss me, I shouted 'Its green for me thanks!' as I went by. Moron

 

[BrianEvesham]

Never jumped a red light, never will.
The End.

 

[400bhp]

I take a slightly more nuanced view, and would prefer to see red lights given the status of give way lines for bicycles.

I think in areas like this, we are closer to pedestrians than motorised traffic, and it's quite possible to go through a red safely, just as it's possible to go through a non lighted junction safely. Traffic lights are really only there to control motorised traffic.

To be clear, I don't think people should jump reds and break traffic laws right now: I think the traffic laws should be changed.

Agree, be that on a bicycle or in a vehicle.

Quite possible...also quite possible to go through junctions dangerously too.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I think curtsying to other road users is taking it too far. A nod and a smile perhaps, a raised forefinger from the bars, or a thumbs-up at the very outside...

Real cyclists don't curtsy, they get down on the drops!

 

[benb]

Agree, be that on a bicycle or in a vehicle.

Quite possible...also quite possible to go through junctions dangerously too.

I think it's a lot more difficult to do it safely in a car, and the ramifications if you get it wrong are more severe.

 

[david k]

why carnt any vehicle turn left at a red light?

 

[400bhp]

It was a bit of a devil's advocate response Ben.

I think it's a lot more difficult to do it safely in a car, and the ramifications if you get it wrong are more severe.

Are they more severe?

Car hits cyclist - cyclist dies. No difference whether the cyclist or the car RLJ.

Lots of assumptions about it being safe to RLJ.

How would you change the law to make it safe to RLJ?

 

[david k]

.... and that's when the lorry driver doing 55mph comes along and makes sure a poor copper has to pick you up with a sponge.

Still honestly, not worth jumping over the sake of "there's no cars about". That wouldn't stand in court either, somehow.

isnt the risk you suggest the same as anyone crossing any road? im not plugging RLJing but this isnt a suitable argument against IMO

 

[benb]

It was a bit of a devil's advocate response Ben.

Are they more severe?

Car hits cyclist - cyclist dies. No difference whether the cyclist or the car RLJ.

Lots of assumptions about it being safe to RLJ.

How would you change the law to make it safe to RLJ?

They can be more severe, but obviously not automatically.

I don't think it's always safe to go through a red, and there are probably some junctions where it's never safe. I do think though, that in the majority of cases, it would be possible to treat red as a give way line without it being particularly unsafe.

If it were up to me, I would make red lights the equivalent of a give way for cyclists. That is, it is entirely their responsibility to make sure it is safe before proceeding.

 

[400bhp]

isnt the risk you suggest the same as anyone crossing any road? im not plugging RLJing but this isnt a suitable argument against IMO

Lights are often at places where the road is dangerous. It's the primary reason they are there.

So, no, in general the risks aren't the same.

Perhaps not dissimilar to a pedestrian crossing the road at lights.

 

[benb]

Lights are often at places where the road is dangerous. It's the primary reason they are there.

Hmm. I would think the main reason they are there is to control the flow of motorised traffic to reduce jams.

 

[400bhp]

They can be more severe, but obviously not automatically.

I don't think it's always safe to go through a red, and there are probably some junctions where it's never safe. I do think though, that in the majority of cases, it would be possible to treat red as a give way line without it being particularly unsafe.

If it were up to me, I would make red lights the equivalent of a give way for cyclists. That is, it is entirely their responsibility to make sure it is safe before proceeding.

Hmmm, do you think that's wise? Responsibility is a big word-from a drivers perspective I would like the liability in case of an accident passed onto the cyclist, and also the cyclists insurance to pick up the tab of any body injury and property damage - which would lead us down the line of compulsory insurance for alll, and all the ramifications of that.

What about a sequence of lights which favours the cyclists? Perhaps pedestran AND cyclists crossing, with the onus of responsibility (as you alluded to) on the cyclist rather than the ped?

 

[400bhp]

Hmm. I would think the main reason they are there is to control the flow of motorised traffic to reduce jams.

I wouldn't.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

There are lights? I motor on, car or bike.

 

[david k]

Lights are often at places where the road is dangerous. It's the primary reason they are there.

So, no, in general the risks aren't the same.

Perhaps not dissimilar to a pedestrian crossing the road at lights.

i think lights are placed due to roads joining and not directly because of danger. there are dangerous straight roads that dont have red lights on them, nor would it be welcomed