|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
... Adrian writes: I'd prefer there weren't any. Still, at least there's nice easy ways to identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three seconds of red, because "everyone does that" It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber because this is not actually an offence. The whole point of having an amber phase before red is that it gives adequate warning so vehicles can stop before the red light. The HC says that you should *try* not to go through an amber light if there is sufficient time to stop for it and doing so would not cause an accident, but does not say that it is an offence (sorry, I can't quite chapter and verse for this). Consider a car that is travelling towards a green light at (for example) 20 mph. When the car is 3 yards from the lights, they change to amber. Should that driver be expected to stop in the remaining distance? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
Adrian wrote: Let's hope that the person who does get in your way is not a little old lady, but a large healtyh fit bloke who's doing so deliberately - because you're going to hit the ground VERY hard indeed. Some Lycra loon tried to run down somebody I know who works in the City a few years ago. The Lycra loon came off worst in the encounter, despite thinking at the time that he was big enough and hard enough to intimidate a man in a suit. I think it's about time that pedestrians claimed our space back from these louts. I had one of them shouting at me on Sunday as he tried to ride me down on the pavement in Camden. He got very ****ed off when I weaved to block his path but ended up having to get off the pavement and into the road where he belonged. even as a lycra lout my self, i do find the fact that if walking, one allways has to take the longest route, lights that you could die of old age before the change etc, as as you say some cyclist when they are the big fast traffic are far from considerate. We did however have to do through the phases of "tinkle tinkle", "Oy Get Out Of My Way!" and "**** OFF OUT OF THE ****ING WAY" before the penny dropped that I didn't give a toss about how loud he shouted. How do the ******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down regardless? roger -- www.rogermerriman.com Capital to Coast www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Graculus wrote:
Boris's latest mad-cap idea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998687.stm and other sources. So, the idea is that this allows cyclists to move off before lorries and thus not get trapped/killed when they move off and turn left. And it is cited that 13 deaths occurred because of this. What they fail to say is how many cyclists would be killed when they see the red light as a proverbial "green light" to run the red without paying any attention to what's approaching from their right and get subsequently hit by some other vehicle crossing the junction on green. I'm sure they would be meant to give way, blah blah blah, but would that happen in reality? Quite barmy! would i fear encourage more of the nervy to filter left, into the danger zone of HGV's as it is cycle lanes try to do their best to encourage bikes into the danger points.... roger -- www.rogermerriman.com Capital to Coast www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Steve Firth wrote:
Phil Bradshaw ke wrote: Steve Firth wrote: How do the ******* cope with the deaf, do they just ride them down regardless? Yes holds up hearing aids and points to last week's bruises Ah, OK. *******s. I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about *their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their interaction with pedestrians. Last week's bozo was one of those. Apparently it was my fault for being on the pavement with my back to him. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
Adrian writes: I'd prefer there weren't any. Still, at least there's nice easy ways to identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three seconds of red, because "everyone does that" And even then, the cameras only get RLJ and speeding. The more general offences of "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit", "driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and almost entirely unprosecuted. Assuming the goal is to improve standards of road use (rather than e.g. to appease the Daily Mail reader) I really can't see that registration plates on bikes is really going to have that much effect. -dan I do agree about "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit","driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and almost entirely prosecuted. I am sure that you meant this comment to apply to all road users. -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Mortimer" writes:
It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber because this is not actually an offence. The whole point of having an TSRGD 2002 para 36 (a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line; [...] (e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it; Seems pretty clear cut to me. Unless the vehicle is too close to be stopped safely, it's the same offence as going through on red. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36 -dan |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Tony Dragon writes:
I do agree about "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit","driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and almost entirely prosecuted. I am sure that you meant this comment to apply to all road users. Indeed. Largely irrespective of whether their vehicles have registration markings, too. -dan |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: I do agree about "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit","driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and almost entirely prosecuted. I am sure that you meant this comment to apply to all road users. Indeed. Largely irrespective of whether their vehicles have registration markings, too. Largely, but not entirely. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
Tony Dragon writes: Cyclist, mandatory cycle lane, do the two things go together? A mandatory cycle lane is a lane in which other types of vehicle are not allowed, and is marked by a solid white line at its edge. As distinct from the other kind ("discretionary?" "optional?" can't remember the word) which has a dashed line and in which you are allowed to drive if you feel like it. I'm not particularly wild about the idea as they will inevitably be painted in the gutter and so encourage gutter cycling. I do wonder, though, if the planned law changes for ASLs (to make it legal for cycles to enter the reservoir without using the suicide lane) could also be used to permit left-turn-on-red for cyclists. But yes you are probably correct, but there should still be a stop line, other cycles could be using the road. A "give way" marking would suffice for that. -dan Exactly my point, but you would have to educate all road users about the new rules, putting up signs at each junction where this is allowed would just add to the clutter of signs, any ideas? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/...06_228x283.jpg -- Tony the Dragon |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
In article , Marc says...
Conor wrote: In article d0b9dc37-37a6-441e-8bf7- , MIG says... Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe bet that they would be paying attention. Is that why the other day, a cyclist yet again decided to cycle up the inside of an artic turning left at a roundabout with railings, even though the lorry had been in front of her, resulting in her being crushed? Was that part of your witness statement? No, just that of everyone who saw the incident. The woman deliberately placed herself in danger. The lorry was already part way through the manouvre when the braindead bitch decided she couldn't be arsed to wait and went up the inside of the lorry. -- Conor I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:14:31PM +0100, Conor wrote:
In article d0b9dc37-37a6-441e-8bf7- , MIG says... Cyclists are used to looking out for people who are trying to kill them, given that that seems to be just about everybody, so it's a safe bet that they would be paying attention. Is that why the other day, a cyclist yet again decided to cycle up the inside of an artic turning left at a roundabout with railings, even though the lorry had been in front of her, resulting in her being crushed? This no doubt also explains the cyclist who tried to kill me as I was getting off a bus a coupla weeks ago. They spend so much time looking for people who are *trying* to kill them (of whom there are approximately zero) that they don't bother to look out for people who might accidentally kill them (most drivers), people who might kill them because the cyclist did something stupid (the driver of that artic), or people who they might kill (me). -- David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" You may now start misinterpreting what I just wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 08:53:24PM +0100, Marc wrote:
16 stone, 20 mph.... Sounds like a nice game of rugby. Would the 23 stone fella step in front of a car doing 5mph? Absolutely. At 5mph a car can stop pretty much dead. I do it frequently when crossing roads that are just crawling along. -- David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often. Purely for purposes of prevention, of course. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 06:20:52PM -0700, Marz wrote:
But there's a double standard going on, it seems if a car jumps a red light, there's a general gnashing of teeth, but no bugger makes a note of the number plate. Whereas if a cyclist jumps a light a lynch mob is formed in seconds. Is it because most folks are drivers and not cyclists and therefore able to empathise with one road user than the other? No, it's because very few car drivers jump red lights, fewer do it deliberately, and fewer still do it regularly. Which is really rather different from cyclists, at least in London. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence Sobol's Law of Telecom Utilities: Telcos are malicious; cablecos are simply clueless. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 09:06:21PM +0100, David Hansen wrote:
I take it that you would also allow cyclists to fit short lances to their bikes to deal with pedestrians and motorists who fail to obey the law? Certainly. You need to bear in mind, though, that except under very limited circumstances, pedestrians are allowed to cross the road wherever and whenever they please. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information The Law of Daves: in any gathering of technical people, the number of Daves will be greater than the number of women. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 06:27:09PM -0500, wrote:
Lorries that have warning signs against cycles passing them on the inside are admitting that they are not safe to be allowed on the roads. Does this apply to all warning signs, or just to those possessed by people who you don't like? -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic Anyone willing to give up a little fun for tolerance deserves neither |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On 15 Apr 2009 09:39:32 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:- That's because somebody decided it'd be a REALLY good idea to get rid of TrafPol in favour of cameras. Really. That will be why the Edinburgh Evening news had this article http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Police-target-vehicles-unfit-for.4884038.jp -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:44:42 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:- Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three seconds of red, because "everyone does that" It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber because this is not actually an offence. I note that you were unable or unwilling to deal with the "first three seconds of red" bit of the posting. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: That's because somebody decided it'd be a REALLY good idea to get rid of TrafPol in favour of cameras. Really. That will be why the Edinburgh Evening news had this article http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/ed...rget-vehicles- unfit-for.4884038.jp You'll note I didn't say rid of _all_ TrafPol. Just the vast majority. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:04:47 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:- There seems to be a small minority of cyclists who are so arrogant that they think that they do not need to stop for anything, ever. They give the vast majority of safe, courteous cyclists a bad name. One could say the same thing about any other group of road users. However, it is usually cyclists who are lumped together by those with no better arguments. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"David Hansen" wrote in message
... On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:44:42 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer" wrote this:- Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three seconds of red, because "everyone does that" It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber because this is not actually an offence. I note that you were unable or unwilling to deal with the "first three seconds of red" bit of the posting. I didn't mention it because I was taking it as read that going through a red light, even in the first three seconds, is an offence - I wasn't diasgreeing with you in that. What I was disagreeing with was your implication that *all* cases of going through amber lights were offences: you didn't distinguish between the case where a car has plenty of time to stop at the amber light and the case where a car is too close to the lights to stop. By the way, what's the situation with lights which are only for a pedestrian crossing (ie not for a road junction)? I thought that these always had a flashing amber phase between red and green, during which it was legal for cars to set off or drive across providing the crossing was clear of pedestrians. I was surprised the other day to find a pedestrian-only crossing where the lights went to solid amber instead of flashing amber. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Mortimer" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying: I note that you were unable or unwilling to deal with the "first three seconds of red" bit of the posting. I didn't mention it because I was taking it as read that going through a red light, even in the first three seconds, is an offence Same as doing 71mph on the motorway is an offence - but not one that'll be prosecuted. Zero tolerance doesn't work as a blanket policy. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: There seems to be a small minority of cyclists who are so arrogant that they think that they do not need to stop for anything, ever. They give the vast majority of safe, courteous cyclists a bad name. One could say the same thing about any other group of road users. However, it is usually cyclists who are lumped together by those with no better arguments. Odd. I thought it was usually those in cars lumped together by many of the denizens of uk.rec.cycling and some of the cycling denizens of uk.transport. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On 15 Apr 2009 11:10:27 GMT someone who may be Adrian
wrote this:- You'll note I didn't say rid of _all_ TrafPol. Just the vast majority. That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Bod wrote:
David Hansen wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:19:54 GMT someone who may be "neverwas" wrote this:- It's bad enough having getting scratched, bruise and punched now when daring to use a pedestrian crossing or controlled crossing in a manner which might require a cyclist to extend his (or very rarely her) journey by 5 seconds. Every time (at least so far) that I have nearly been struck on pedestrian crossings the criminal has ben a motorist. Are you sure it isn't your attitude? I've been driving cars/ riding bicycles and m/bikes for over 40 yrs and only ever encountered 'one' stroppy motorist,who seemed to have a srew loose. I've been a pedestrian for even longer than that and can recall exactly one stroppy driver who didn't want to accord precedence to my wife and myself when we were using a (zebra) crossing. He was foreign, and I now know they don't do things our way in his country. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Every time (at least so far) that I have nearly been struck on pedestrian crossings the criminal has ben a motorist. That's odd. For me it's been almost 100% cyclists. Yes - pretty close to 100% for me too (and getting closer to 100% every day). |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Roger Thorpe wrote:
Steve Firth wrote: I do find it mildly amusing that cyclists whine on (and on and on) about *their* safety but are such aggressive ****s when it comes to their interaction with pedestrians. Your error here is to group all cyclists as a homogeneous group. The cyclists trying to improve safety are not the same as the aggressive pedestrian intimidating ones. Roger Thorpe That's not quite true, is it? Some who post here boast of their prowess at terrorising pedestrians on footways. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Tony Dragon wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote: On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:58:49 +0100, JNugent wrote: "Cyclists may legally be able to go through red traffic lights under plans being considered in London. "More than a third of fatal cycling accidents in London involve cyclists being hit by heavy vehicles turning left, Transport for London (TfL) said." Two things: (a) Boris isn't TaL, and (b) it doesn't stand a chance of being enacted by Parliament, as it would mean that there were two completely different rules in force in thee UK. I think that you are wrong on both counts. (a) About the only thing Boris does have executive control over is TfL. (b) In a year or a little over a year Parliament could be filled with Boris' pals. Besides, it may not require Parliament approval - a little white paint on the road defining a mandatory cycle lane without a stop line for left turning cyclists is all that should be required. Junctions like that already exist in the UK, albeit with the cycle lane bumping up onto the pavement past the lights. Cyclist, mandatory cycle lane, do the two things go together? But yes you are probably correct, but there should still be a stop line, other cycles could be using the road. In the "solution" proposed above by TC, the route would not be through a red light, and as a system, it could only be put into place at enormous cost for the works necessary (and would probably never be extended to all lights for that reason). The reports speak of "going through red lights", not "being provided with an alternative route not subject to lights". That's a different matter altogether. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
Adrian writes: I'd prefer there weren't any. Still, at least there's nice easy ways to identity and legally deal with the ones driving cars. But that's why you Yeah, which work *so* well that surveys of red light jumping don't even bother to count anyone going through on amber or in the first three seconds of red, because "everyone does that" And even then, the cameras only get RLJ and speeding. The more general offences of "driving like a wazzock", "driving like a complete tit", "driving like an utterly selfish *******" go largely unremarked and almost entirely unprosecuted ....along with cycling along footways, cycling the wrong way (whether on the footway or not) in a one-way street and cycling through red traffic lights at any and every stage of the phase (whatever is encountered, as it comes), you mean? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Daniel Barlow wrote:
"Mortimer" writes: It's quite right that they don't count vehicles going through on amber because this is not actually an offence. The whole point of having an TSRGD 2002 para 36 (a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line; [...] (e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it; Seems pretty clear cut to me. Unless the vehicle is too close to be stopped safely, it's the same offence as going through on red. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36 In any given case, whose job is it to judge the acceptable value for "too close to be stopped safely"? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:18:01 +0100 someone who may be "Mortimer"
wrote this:- What I was disagreeing with was your implication that *all* cases of going through amber lights were offences: you didn't distinguish between the case where a car has plenty of time to stop at the amber light and the case where a car is too close to the lights to stop. You were not disagreeing with me on that point, but with someone else. By the way, what's the situation with lights which are only for a pedestrian crossing (ie not for a road junction)? I thought that these always had a flashing amber phase between red and green, during which it was legal for cars to set off or drive across providing the crossing was clear of pedestrians. I was surprised the other day to find a pedestrian-only crossing where the lights went to solid amber instead of flashing amber. Could be a crossing also for (mounted) horse riders or also for (mounted) cyclists, which don't have a flashing amber period. Could also be one of the "improved" pedestrian only crossings which also don't have this feature. The "improvements" are not designed to make things easier for pedestrians BTW. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: You'll note I didn't say rid of _all_ TrafPol. Just the vast majority. That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
David Hansen gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: You'll note I didn't say rid of _all_ TrafPol. Just the vast majority. That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
Adrian wrote:
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. They are, but Sotland and England are different countries. The clue is in the the fact that they have different names and different legal structures. |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
"Brimstone" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: That may or may not be the case down south. However, in this country the figures I have seen indicated that this was not the case. Umm, you're in the same country I am - and by "down south", I presume you're meaning the portion of that country which houses somewhere more than 90% of the population of the country? Errrr, not if he's in Edinburgh. That's in a different country to where you say you live (somewhere on the outer reaches of the (sadly truncated) Metropolitan Railway IIRC). Funny. I thought both were definitely in the United Kingdom. They are, but Sotland and England are different countries. The clue is in the the fact that they have different names and different legal structures. Ah, right. So California and Florida are different countries, too? |
Cyclists allowed to run red lights?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk