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
