Boris wants to legalise RLJ for left turning cyclists.



J

JNugent

Guest
Martin Dann wrote:

> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...t+cyclists+turn+left+at+red+lights/article.do


> Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal for
> left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.


> Personally I think this idea is a bit silly, and won't get implemented
> as it would have to go through Parliament.


It would have to go through Parliament, but local government Acts
(changing the law only in a particular locale) are quite common. Whether
the DoT would allow that particular change is a moot point.

> He also says that he will try and improve the flow of traffic around
> London.


That would be easy.
 
P

Pete Biggs

Guest
Martin Dann wrote:
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...t+cyclists+turn+left+at+red+lights/article.do
>
>
> Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal
> for left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.
>
> Personally I think this idea is a bit silly, and won't get implemented
> as it would have to go through Parliament.
>
> He also says that he will try and improve the flow of traffic around
> London.


I like the idea.

It wouldn't have to be universal. Junctions could have signs to allow or
prohibit it. This is what they do in BC, Canada (for all vehicles, turning
right) and it works there.

It could work well here for cycles at a lot of junctions. Many roads have
an ample amount of spare width for cyclists not to cause danger or
inconvenience to anyone when turning left.

~PB
 
D

David Martin

Guest
On Mar 12, 4:36 pm, "Pete Biggs"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Martin Dann wrote:
> >http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23452806-details...

>
> > Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal
> > for left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.

>
> > Personally I think this idea is a bit silly, and won't get implemented
> > as it would have to go through Parliament.

>
> > He also says that he will try and improve the flow of traffic around
> > London.

>
> I like the idea.
>
> It wouldn't have to be universal. Junctions could have signs to allow or
> prohibit it. This is what they do in BC, Canada (for all vehicles, turning
> right) and it works there.
>
> It could work well here for cycles at a lot of junctions. Many roads have
> an ample amount of spare width for cyclists not to cause danger or
> inconvenience to anyone when turning left.
>
> ~PB


It could work. The only requirement should be that cyclists treat red
as a stop sign so do actually come to a halt before proceeding
through.

...d
 
S

Shaun

Guest
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:13 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...t+cyclists+turn+left+at+red+lights/article.do
>
>
>Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal for
>left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.
>
>Personally I think this idea is a bit silly, and won't get implemented
>as it would have to go through Parliament.
>
>He also says that he will try and improve the flow of traffic around
>London.


Turning right (left) ,if it is clear, on a red light is legal in the
US for all vehicles.
 
T

Tom Crispin

Guest
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:43:13 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...t+cyclists+turn+left+at+red+lights/article.do
>
>
>Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal for
>left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.
>
>Personally I think this idea is a bit silly, and won't get implemented
>as it would have to go through Parliament.


I've often felt that a flashing amber cycle symbol for left turning
cyclists and for cyclists going ahead on a main road with a T junction
to the right would be a good idea. The flashing amber signal would
simply mean, "cyclists - proceed with caution if your way is clear",
or something like that.
 
M

Mike the unimaginative

Guest
Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23452806-

details/B
> oris%3A+I%27ll+let+cyclists+turn+left+at+red+lights/article.do
>
>
> Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal
> for left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.
>
> Personally I think this idea is a bit silly, and won't get implemented
> as it would have to go through Parliament.
>
> He also says that he will try and improve the flow of traffic around
> London.


I'm not keen on this - from the perspective of the pedestrian. It might
work in Leftpondia, but over there there is no hierarchy of road users -
the car is god, and as a ped you have no rights (hence the jay-walking
laws). If we have to have this then the rule must be similar to zebra
crossings - give way to pedestians, along with give way to anything from
your right. We* can't obey the rules already in existence (* = road
users in general)
 
On Mar 12, 7:19 pm, Mike the unimaginative <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote innews:[email protected]:
> > Boris claims if he wins the mayoral election, he will make it legal
> > for left turning cyclist to jump red traffic lights.

>
> I'm not keen on this - from the perspective of the pedestrian. It might
> work in Leftpondia, but over there there is no hierarchy of road users -
> the car is god, and as a ped you have no rights (hence the jay-walking
> laws).


Don't think that's generally true, laws are different in each state.
In Massachusetts, I saw peds just walking in to the road without
looking and drivers taking great care round them. I was told that was
because "it was illegal to run people over".

In New York City, my experience is drivers are aggressive if you cross
against the lights when they are going straight on, but wait for
crossing peds before starting their turns, again I assume a local
law.

Right on red used to be state specific, then the federal government
bought in a law saying it had to apply everywhere, because it saved
fuel, but specific junctions could be exempted. NY, which didn't have
a right on red law, went round putting signs at every junction saying
it didn't apply at that junction, then bought in the law.

(It's a while since I used to go there regularly, so this may be out
of date.)

Rob
 
Mike the unimaginative wrote:
> I'm not keen on this - from the perspective of the pedestrian. It might
> work in Leftpondia, but over there there is no hierarchy of road users -
> the car is god, and as a ped you have no rights (hence the jay-walking
> laws). If we have to have this then the rule must be similar to zebra
> crossings - give way to pedestians, along with give way to anything from
> your right.


Highway Code rule 206 (in the current online version)

Drive carefully and slowly when
* turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already
crossing the road into which you are turning

seems like it should cover this case already.


-dan
 
On Mar 12, 10:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Mike the unimaginative wrote:
> > I'm not keen on this - from the perspective of the pedestrian. It might
> > work in Leftpondia, but over there there is no hierarchy of road users -
> > the car is god, and as a ped you have no rights (hence the jay-walking
> > laws). If we have to have this then the rule must be similar to zebra
> > crossings - give way to pedestians, along with give way to anything from
> > your right.

>
> Highway Code rule 206 (in the current online version)
>
> Drive carefully and slowly when
> * turning at road junctions; give way to pedestrians who are already
> crossing the road into which you are turning
>
> seems like it should cover this case already.


I presume the the similarity with zebra crossing rules that the PP had
in mind was that the rule would need to be observed occasionally

best wishes
james
 
P

Peter Fox

Guest
Err why has nobody commented on the illogicality?
If it is 'sensible' [No it bloody well isn't it's UNSAFE' to let cycles
through on red then the /same logic must apply to cars/.

Bikes *are* traffic. If Boris (or the lurkers here who haven't popped up
to say otherwise) thinks a bike could safely 'sneak round a left corner'
where a car couldn't then he's mistaken. The danger is four-fold
(a) Encouraging random left filtering past waiting traffic.[1]
(b) Encouraging random right filtering past waiting traffic in order to
turn left. Extreme danger at head of queue when cyclist arrives as the
lights change.
(c) Most obviously, setting up the situation where a cyclist has just
turned left and is squeezed by motor traffic flowing from 'right' or
'ahead'. This could happen on plain road or when there's a need to move
out just after the corner.
(d) Conflict with pedestrians crossing the side road.

All-in-all a safety nightmare.


With regard to (c) above, here is a reminder for those that _turn right_ at
lights: Suppose you are perfectly positioned in the middle of the lane at
the front of the queue waiting at the lights. When the lights change you
_must not_ let the car behind you overtake until you are through the
junction and have established you don't need to move out in a hurry. So
keep a middle line through the junction *and avoid being squeezed on the
corner that appears on your left as you exit*. The same applies to going
ahead. The same applies to any turning right where you may be followed
immediately by a car. (The same applies to turning left actually.)




[1] OK if done with an objective of reaching some point in the queue in ASL
or level with a gap between vehicles so as to be clearly visible by the
driver 'behind'. But giving people a carrot to go past lorries *****-nilly
on the left is not.


--
Peter Fox
Beer, dancing, cycling and lots more at www.eminent.demon.co.uk
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Peter Fox <[email protected]> wrote:

> Err why has nobody commented on the illogicality?
> If it is 'sensible' [No it bloody well isn't it's UNSAFE' to let
> cycles through on red then the /same logic must apply to cars/.


No, that's not so.

Or at least, if it was, it would also give rise to the conclusions
that bicycles on the highway:

1: need insurance

2: need a operating test to be controlled

3: need an annual fitness examination

4: should be subject to speed limits

5: need an operator licence

etc. etc. etc.

Just because bicycles are traffic, it does not mean they are the same
sort of traffic as all other traffic.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
P

PoB

Guest
"Peter Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
| Err why has nobody commented on the illogicality?
| If it is 'sensible' [No it bloody well isn't it's UNSAFE' to let cycles
| through on red then the /same logic must apply to cars/.
|
| Bikes *are* traffic. If Boris (or the lurkers here who haven't popped up
| to say otherwise) thinks a bike could safely 'sneak round a left corner'
| where a car couldn't then he's mistaken. The danger is four-fold
| (a) Encouraging random left filtering past waiting traffic.[1]
| (b) Encouraging random right filtering past waiting traffic in order to
| turn left. Extreme danger at head of queue when cyclist arrives as the
| lights change.
| (c) Most obviously, setting up the situation where a cyclist has just
| turned left and is squeezed by motor traffic flowing from 'right' or
| 'ahead'. This could happen on plain road or when there's a need to move
| out just after the corner.
| (d) Conflict with pedestrians crossing the side road.

Can I also add in my qualm that it confuses the issue - a red light means
stop, in all circumstances. In my mind it's similar to painting a white
line down pavements to make "cycle paths", it blurs the boundary to what is
acceptable and what is not. I can understand the attraction of the idea,
but in all honesty, I don't think that sending mixed signals is a good plan.

pOB
 
D

David Hansen

Guest
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:19:46 -0000 someone who may be Mike the
unimaginative <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I'm not keen on this - from the perspective of the pedestrian. It might
>work in Leftpondia, but over there there is no hierarchy of road users -
>the car is god, and as a ped you have no rights (hence the jay-walking
>laws).


Which laws are these?



--
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
 
W

wafflycat

Guest

>
> Can I also add in my qualm that it confuses the issue - a red light means
> stop, in all circumstances. In my mind it's similar to painting a white
> line down pavements to make "cycle paths", it blurs the boundary to what
> is
> acceptable and what is not. I can understand the attraction of the idea,
> but in all honesty, I don't think that sending mixed signals is a good
> plan.
>
> pOB
>



My thoughts entirely. It'll also be just yet another thing that the
non-cycling motorist will use as a stick to beat cyclists with and add yet
more howls of protest about the poor, put-upon British motorist, being
screwed for 'road tax' and those scrounging cyclists who pay naught are now
being allowed to jump red lights legally... Persoanlly, I've never had the
need to jump a red light when cycling, or when driving. Red means stop.

Mind you, I'd never vote for Boris anyhow, as IMO he's a nasty bit of work
attempting to disguise himself as a friendly buffoon.
 
S

spindrift

Guest
On 13 Mar, 09:47, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> > Can I also add in my qualm that it confuses the issue - a red light means
> > stop, in all circumstances.  In my mind it's similar to painting a white
> > line down pavements to make "cycle paths", it blurs the boundary to what
> > is
> > acceptable and what is not.  I can understand the attraction of the idea,
> > but in all honesty, I don't think that sending mixed signals is a good
> > plan.

>
> > pOB

>
> My thoughts entirely. It'll also be just yet another thing that the
> non-cycling motorist will use as a stick to beat cyclists with and add yet
> more howls of protest about the poor, put-upon British motorist, being
> screwed for 'road tax' and those scrounging cyclists who pay naught are now
> being allowed to jump red lights legally... Persoanlly, I've never had the
> need to jump a red light when cycling, or when driving. Red means stop.
>
> Mind you, I'd never vote for Boris anyhow, as IMO he's a nasty bit of work
> attempting to disguise himself as a friendly buffoon.


Agree entirely, Boris would be a disaster for London.


I've seen what Ken's done. I've seen the lies and smears thrown at him
and the way he's responded, and I'm reasonably certain that Boris
would be an unmitigated disaster for the capital just as we are
entering a transformative stage in London's history. That's not
hyperbole, there are more changes taking place in London in the next
five years than at any time since the Victorians. We need someone in
charge with a track record of managing such projects and Boris simply
does not cut the mustard, he would fail and undo a lot of the good
work.

Take his transport proposals announced this week- Boris has cocked up
the funding plan for returning conductors and he issued a silly,
probably sexist remark about timid lady cyclists being squished by
drivers who don't see them creep up the nearside. This is utter
bollocks, lorrys overtake and then turn left, the cyclist has done
nothing wrong, Boris is hopelessly floundering in matters of life and
death!

It makes me furious that it's possible that Veronica Wadley , probably
the worst editor on Fleet Street, can muck about with the democratic
process the way she has. We could end up being lumbered with a mayor
who makes London a laughing stock and I'm very afraid.

Sorry for being sweary.
 
P

Pete Biggs

Guest
Peter Fox wrote:
> Err why has nobody commented on the illogicality?
> If it is 'sensible' [No it bloody well isn't it's UNSAFE' to let
> cycles through on red then the /same logic must apply to cars/.


Rubbish.

Bikes are so much narrower that there are many junctions on roads with wide
carriageways and wide lanes when a bike could safely and conveniently turn
left when a car could not.

~PB
 
M

Mark T

Guest
Peter Fox writtificated

> it's UNSAFE' to let cycles through on red


IIRC red light jumping by cyclists is a lot less dangerous than I thought.
Can't find that data thobut.
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Pete Biggs wrote:
>Peter Fox wrote:
>> Err why has nobody commented on the illogicality?
>> If it is 'sensible' [No it bloody well isn't it's UNSAFE' to let
>> cycles through on red then the /same logic must apply to cars/.

>
>Rubbish.
>
>Bikes are so much narrower that there are many junctions on roads with wide
>carriageways and wide lanes when a bike could safely and conveniently turn
>left when a car could not.


Yes, we could limit it to cars less than say, 1 metre wide...
Why pedal bikes should be allowed through but not motorbikes (at least
small ones) on those grounds is less clear. Personally I think "because
we want to encourage cycling" is a reasonable answer. Just as we generally
allow buses, bikes, and taxis in bus lanes not because they are all safer
there in some way than cars, but because we want to encourage their use.
 
On Mar 13, 9:08 am, "PoB" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Can I also add in my qualm that it confuses the issue - a red light means
> stop, in all circumstances.  


IIRC it means that in the US. You must stop at the line, but can then
proceed if it is safe to do so. IME experience motorists do this. It's
enforced to the extent that a cyclist got a ticket for doing a
trackstand - the policeman insisted he had to put a foot down. It's
also a requirement to give way to peds crossing the side street, which
again IME motorists do.

> In my mind it's similar to painting a white
> line down pavements to make "cycle paths", it blurs the boundary to what is
> acceptable and what is not.  I can understand the attraction of the idea,
> but in all honesty, I don't think that sending mixed signals is a good plan.


I'm ambivalent, and doubtful about making it only apply to cyclists.
If it works, it should work for all road users. But I fear with our
prevailing culture of many drivers thinking it's OK to do what ever
they can get away with, it's not OK to let cars do it, and best to
keep the rules the same for all road users.

Rob