Boris wants to legalise RLJ for left turning cyclists.

[Peter Fox]

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.
Oh dear, it appears you haven't got a clue about the dynamics of traffic
and how road space gets used in real time.

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

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Peter Fox <[email protected]>:
>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/.

If it is sensible to ride through a 2-foot-wide gap on a cycle, then... ?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Gloucesterday, March.

 

[Peter Fox]

Mark T wrote:
> 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.
But it is a lot more dangerous than doing it properly.






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

 

[Mark T]

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.

> But it is a lot more dangerous than doing it properly.

IIRC it's not a lot more dangerous, at least out there in the real world.
This obviously depends on our definition of "a lot", which we probably
don't share.

 

[Paul Rudin]

Peter Fox <[email protected]> writes:


> Oh dear, it appears you haven't got a clue about the dynamics of
> traffic and how road space gets used in real time.

One dynamic of London traffic is that motor vehicles often aren't...

 

[Pete Biggs]

Peter Fox wrote:
> 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.
> Oh dear, it appears you haven't got a clue about the dynamics of
> traffic and how road space gets used in real time.

Oh dear, what cuckoo land are you on? Oh dear, oh dear.

I've had enough cycling experience to have got a clue as to what roads are
really like. I have got clue about when a bike really could turn left
safely and conveniently when a car could not.

I see how a big load of real road space DOESN'T get used in real time when
I'm waiting at the traffic lights for no reason other than to obey the law.

I'm particularly thinking of inside lanes that are a lot wider than normal.
Easily wide enough for a car and a bike side-by-side, yet not wide enough
for two cars.

~PB

 

[[email protected]]

David Hansen wrote:
> 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?

The laws in Leftpondia. "Jaywalking is an offence in most urban areas
in the United States - although enforcement varies between states - and
Canada, and in places such as Singapore, Spain, Poland, Slovenia and
Australia"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6251431.stm

AFAIK the US, Canada and Australia all have legal systems based on
common law, so it seems curious. Dunno about the other countries.


-dan

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 13/03/2008 07:53, 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/.

Traffic lights aren't about safety (apart from pedestrian crossings, and
IMO all light-controlled crossings should be replaced by zebras anyway).
They're about controlling traffic flow at congested junctions.

Bikes don't contribute significantly to the congestion caused by motor
vehicles. Cycle traffic flow doesn't need to be controlled in the same
way. In the last couple of years I've come to the conclusion that
cyclists should be allowed to treat red lights as "Give Way" signs
(although I would never condone doing so as long as it's illegal).

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[big_one]

On 13 Mar 2008 12:28:24 +0000 (GMT), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

> 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.

when did taxis stop being cars, & why do you want to encourage taxis
anyway ? they are **** ****

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 13 Mar, 09:55, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You've already got a mayor who is a laughing stock as well as being a
corrupt anti-semitic despot.So much so that the only opposition to him
comes from a foreign car company. Its a job that seems to attract ego
maniacs, at least Boris despite his bumbling ways is an honest man.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Fox wrote:
>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/.
>>
>> 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.
>Oh dear, it appears you haven't got a clue about the dynamics of traffic
>and how road space gets used in real time.

That's the bizarrest misspelling of "sorry, I wasn't thinking" I've seen
in a long time.

 

[Martin Dann]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Peter Fox wrote:
>> 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.
>> Oh dear, it appears you haven't got a clue about the dynamics of
>> traffic and how road space gets used in real time.
>
> Oh dear, what cuckoo land are you on? Oh dear, oh dear.
>
> I've had enough cycling experience to have got a clue as to what roads are
> really like. I have got clue about when a bike really could turn left
> safely and conveniently when a car could not.

I find one of the worst times for a car to pass is when I am going
around a tight corner, especially a left corner. For this reason, I
often don't signal left when turning left, car drivers often see a left
signal as an opportunity to take the corner as tightly as possible, with
me still on their left.

 

[JNugent]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Pete Biggs wrote:
>> Peter Fox wrote:
>>> 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.

>>> Oh dear, it appears you haven't got a clue about the dynamics of
>>> traffic and how road space gets used in real time.

>> Oh dear, what cuckoo land are you on? Oh dear, oh dear.

>> I've had enough cycling experience to have got a clue as to what roads
>> are really like. I have got clue about when a bike really could turn
>> left safely and conveniently when a car could not.

> I find one of the worst times for a car to pass is when I am going
> around a tight corner, especially a left corner. For this reason, I
> often don't signal left when turning left, car drivers often see a left
> signal as an opportunity to take the corner as tightly as possible, with
> me still on their left.

Good thinking - seriously. Signalling left too early (for the purposes)
in any situation can be a mistake. It can even invite oncoming traffic
to turn right across your bows at a crossroads or T junction.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:10:57 +0000 someone who may be [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?
>
>The laws in Leftpondia.

My mistake. I read "there" as "here".


--
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

 

[PK]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
>> I find one of the worst times for a car to pass is when I am going around
>> a tight corner, especially a left corner. For this reason, I often don't
>> signal left when turning left, car drivers often see a left signal as an
>> opportunity to take the corner as tightly as possible, with me still on
>> their left.
>
> Good thinking - seriously. Signalling left too early (for the purposes) in
> any situation can be a mistake. It can even invite oncoming traffic to
> turn right across your bows at a crossroads or T junction.


I do signal left as a courtesy for (eg) a car stopped at a t junction with
no on coming or following traffic in a position to cut me up, very often
receiving a nod of thanks.

BTW: The title of the thread is in fact a misnomer. Certainly in France,
some regions at least, allow right turning at some red lights (by all
traffic) by means of a flashing amber secondary light. This could work here
but any blanket ruling would not only set cyclists in conflict with crossing
pedestrians but tempt motorists to do the same.



pk

 

[Mark T]

big_one writtificated

> why do you want to encourage taxis anyway ? they are **** ****

Helping taxis to be quicker, cheaper and more convenient means peeps are
less likely to decide they need a car. This is doubly important in cities,
where parking space for private cars is relatively scarce and expensive.

 

[PoB]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:c4b8fb24-a0e5-4f57-8cff-

>You've already got a mayor who is a laughing stock as well as being a
>corrupt anti-semitic despot.So much so that the only opposition to him
>comes from a foreign car company. Its a job that seems to attract ego
>maniacs, at least Boris despite his bumbling ways is an honest man.

I don't consider a man who has had at least one affair, supplied the address
of a journalist to a crook so that he could be savagely beaten ("He will
probably have a couple of black eyes and a... cracked rib or something like
that" said Guppy, on the phone) - okay, the attack didn't happen, but Boris
did supply the address and didn't inform the police - and other questionable
actions, honest.

pOB

 

[Mark T]

PoB writtificated

> I don't consider a man who has [list of despicable acts] honest.

He's not honest 'cos he did them, he's honest because he /told us/ he did
them.

Nn the other hand he's stupid 'cos he did them, and he's doubly stupid
because he /told us/ he did them.

 

[dkahn400]

On Mar 12, 5:16 pm, [email protected] (Shaun) wrote:

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

In certain states.

--
Dave...

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Mark T wrote:
>big_one writtificated
>
>> why do you want to encourage taxis anyway ? they are **** ****
>
>Helping taxis to be quicker, cheaper and more convenient means peeps are
>less likely to decide they need a car.

Exactly. (I did wonder whether it needed spelling out, but decided it
was off topic for uk.rec.cycling (and anyway, it didn't matter to the
example why local authorities wanted to encourage taxis by letting them
in bus lanes together with cyclists, only that they did).)