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.