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.

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:58:49 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

I think that you are wrong on both counts.

Reality check! Have a look at the posting attributes.

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.
--
Tony the Dragon

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

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

In article , (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.

"Advisory" is the word you were searching for. The signs by the side of
the road are different too.

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.

If they are an adequate width I don't see the objection myself.

There are some appallingly narrow examples in London though. The worst I
can think of is outside Battersea Dogs' Home which is ludicrously narrow
and has a sunken drain across nearly all of it as well, making it unusable.

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.

Or a divided box. There's a new example in Whitehall at the junction with
Parliament Square, though without turn left on red facilities.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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.

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

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 the 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.

We have red lights in Cambridge with a green light showing only a cycle
symbol attached so cyclists can always go at bus gates.

--
Colin Rosenstiel