Interesting sub text...?

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

is it time
that parliament debated the rules surrounding red ats signals for
cyclists with a view to changing them in favour of allowing cyclists to
move ahead if safe to do so?

I am assuming you mean that cyclists would be allowed to treat red
lights as Stop signs...

My reaction is a strong "no". I see no reason to differentiate between
bicycles and other vehicles for such a purpose; it would create yet
more bad will and inevitably cause accidents. Looked at
dispassionately, a car can generally accelerate faster than a bicycle,
so it would make more sense to give cars the right to treat red lights
as Stop signs (and I trust no-one here thinks that is a good idea).

The change I would like to see is a "turn left on red" rule. In many
parts of the USA, a red light can be treated as a Stop sign by vehicles
turning right (known as "right on red"😉. In my experience (5.5 years
driving and cycling in California), this seems to work very well to
improve traffic flow. Of course, as in the UK, pedestrians have ROW
over drivers making any kind of turn except where the crossing has
pedestrian lights.

--
Peter Headland

Peter Headland said:

I am assuming you mean that cyclists would be allowed to treat red
lights as Stop signs...

My reaction is a strong "no". I see no reason to differentiate between
bicycles and other vehicles for such a purpose;

here's a reason: the lights are there to regulate flow of big tin boxes.
Ever seen a cycle lane that needed light control?

I hear a lot of bad will about light jumping (dont do it myself), but
never any evidence of attendant accident rates. Surely if its as
prevalent as the offended claim there must be loads of incidents, so why
am I only hearing the "stick to the rules" huffing?

Quoted message said:

a car can generally accelerate faster than a bicycle

not IME, unless its a fast car screaming its nuts off. The average car
pulls away at the speed of an average cyclist. While summer cyclist is
slower, Im usually faster than a line of traffic up to 18mph.

Phil

"Peter Headland" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

I am assuming you mean that cyclists would be allowed to treat red
lights as Stop signs...

Quoted message said:

My reaction is a strong "no". I see no reason to differentiate between
bicycles and other vehicles for such a purpose; it would create yet
more bad will and inevitably cause accidents.

I agree with this.

Quoted message said:

Looked at
dispassionately, a car can generally accelerate faster than a bicycle,

I don't think that's quite right.
A bicycle can usually out-accelerate cars but not motorcycles, from 0-12mph.
Cars accelerate better at higher speeds, but bikes move faster for the
first few yards.

Quoted message said:

so it would make more sense to give cars the right to treat red lights
as Stop signs (and I trust no-one here thinks that is a good idea).

Quoted message said:

The change I would like to see is a "turn left on red" rule. In many
parts of the USA, a red light can be treated as a Stop sign by vehicles
turning right (known as "right on red"😉. In my experience (5.5 years
driving and cycling in California), this seems to work very well to
improve traffic flow. Of course, as in the UK, pedestrians have ROW
over drivers making any kind of turn except where the crossing has
pedestrian lights.

That ROW is seldom granted or used by pedestrians here. As a ped, I
would be terrified of, and oppose, any suggestion that turning left on
red be permitted.

I also think it could potentially 'left hook' gutter cyclists.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

On 15 Jun 2006 19:00:15 -0700 someone who may be "Peter Headland"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Of course, as in the UK, pedestrians have ROW
over drivers making any kind of turn except

That is the case in the UK at the moment for ordinary road
junctions. However, many motorists (and cyclists) have either never
heard of the rule or ignore it. Mr Vulcan would do better to
campaign for enforcement of this rule, but I doubt if he has ever
raised it in the Westminster Parliament.

--
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

Peter Headland said:

The change I would like to see is a "turn left on red" rule. In many
parts of the USA, a red light can be treated as a Stop sign by vehicles
turning right (known as "right on red"😉. In my experience (5.5 years
driving and cycling in California), this seems to work very well to
improve traffic flow.

I agree plus overtaking on the inside on motorways to get round the
numpties who think the outside lanes are fast lanes rather than
overtaking lanes.

But do you think an American four-way junction would work here? I can
foresee a pile up in the middle with everyone arguing that it was there
turn to go ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Phil Clarke said:

here's a reason: the lights are there to regulate flow of big tin boxes.
Ever seen a cycle lane that needed light control?

They are also there to allow soft pulpy humans to cross the road in
safety, including those who cannot see properly, hear properly, or avoid
light dodgers nimbly.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a car can generally accelerate faster than a bicycle

not IME, unless its a fast car screaming its nuts off. The average car
pulls away at the speed of an average cyclist. While summer cyclist is
slower, Im usually faster than a line of traffic up to 18mph.

Here's my experience in Glasgow.
Porsche Carrera at the front of the lights (I'd passed him a couple of
times in traffic) and I rolled up to the lights on the empty inside
lane nice and slow.

Lights change, earth shakes as Mr Porsche lays two very expensive black
lines (still there next day) on the road with all his 355 BHP (quite an
experience aurally and olfactorily (sp?) but I was STILL across the
junction first. Grand fun.

Robert

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I received the following reply from Mr Redwood which I think has an
interesting sub text on red lights, what do you think and is it time
that parliament debated the rules surrounding red ats signals for
cyclists with a view to changing them in favour of allowing cyclists to
move ahead if safe to do so?

The only subtext I see is that he's not got the message that pavement
cycle paths are a bad idea. "Dedicated" by a strip of white paint
doesn't work.

One of the beauties of the UK traffic control system is it's absolutes -
red means stop, always, everywhere, without exception. Anything that
tampers with that is a bad idea.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Pyromancer said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I received the following reply from Mr Redwood which I think has an
interesting sub text on red lights, what do you think and is it time
that parliament debated the rules surrounding red ats signals for
cyclists with a view to changing them in favour of allowing cyclists to
move ahead if safe to do so?

The only subtext I see is that he's not got the message that pavement
cycle paths are a bad idea. "Dedicated" by a strip of white paint
doesn't work.

Noticed them putting up a shared use sign on the pavement across the
road from the lab.. Personally I'd rather be on the road, especially
during the school rush.

...d

Tony Raven said:

But do you think an American four-way junction would work here? I can
foresee a pile up in the middle with everyone arguing that it was there
turn to go ;-)

We already have them. They're called mini roundabouts. If 4 people turn
up at once, it's more common for nobody to move than everyone IME.

TL

In article said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

is it time
that parliament debated the rules surrounding red ats signals for
cyclists with a view to changing them in favour of allowing cyclists to
move ahead if safe to do so?

I am assuming you mean that cyclists would be allowed to treat red
lights as Stop signs...

My reaction is a strong "no". I see no reason to differentiate between
bicycles and other vehicles for such a purpose

There are many junctions where a left turning cyclist, or a cyclist
going straight on where there is no left turn, can do so safely
without interfering with traffic coming from the right because
of their narrow width (especially where there are cycle lanes).

Quoted message said:

The change I would like to see is a "turn left on red" rule. In many
parts of the USA, a red light can be treated as a Stop sign by vehicles
turning right (known as "right on red"😉. In my experience (5.5 years
driving and cycling in California), this seems to work very well to
improve traffic flow.

Californian roads, at least the ones I've used in LA and the Bay area,
are generally _much_ wider than English ones, so might not be entirely
comparable.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Alan
Braggins <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

There are many junctions where a left turning cyclist, or a cyclist
going straight on where there is no left turn, can do so safely
without interfering with traffic coming from the right because
of their narrow width (especially where there are cycle lanes).

You're making the mistake of only thinking about wheeled traffic.
Pedestrians have rights too - including the one that says "when the road
lights are red, all wheeled traffic *must* stop".

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

In article said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Alan
Braggins <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

There are many junctions where a left turning cyclist, or a cyclist
going straight on where there is no left turn, can do so safely
without interfering with traffic coming from the right because
of their narrow width (especially where there are cycle lanes).

You're making the mistake of only thinking about wheeled traffic.
Pedestrians have rights too - including the one that says "when the road
lights are red, all wheeled traffic *must* stop".

The many junctions where a cyclist can continue safely don't include
those where predestrians are trying to cross at the time. That doesn't
change the relative width of cars and bikes.

Quoted message said:

A bicycle can usually out-accelerate cars but not motorcycles, from
0-12mph. Cars accelerate better at higher speeds, but bikes move
faster for the first few yards.

Yep, they usually pull away from me when they change up to third unless I'm
Going For It. A trundly would do less well thobut.

Quoted message said:

I received the following reply from Mr Redwood which I think has an
interesting sub text on red lights, what do you think and is it time
that parliament debated the rules surrounding red ats signals for
cyclists with a view to changing them in favour of allowing cyclists to
move ahead if safe to do so?

If it doesn't lead to more injuries or hamper traffic flow then it would be
a great idea, although I wouldn't like to see them go through on the
pedestrian phase.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Alan
Braggins <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

The many junctions where a cyclist can continue safely don't include
those where predestrians are trying to cross at the time. That doesn't
change the relative width of cars and bikes.

It doesn't matter if pedestrians are attempting to cross or not - the
point is that all wheeled traffic should stop at all red lights. Full
stop, no exceptions. It doesn't matter if is perhaps possible for an
individual vehicle user to get through "safely" at any given point, what
matters is for all vehicle users to respect and obey the law. Having
"permissive" reds is just a license for those who already fail to obey
the law some of the time to do so more frequently, which reduces safety
for everyone.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Pyromancer said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I received the following reply from Mr Redwood which I think has an
interesting sub text on red lights, what do you think and is it time
that parliament debated the rules surrounding red ats signals for
cyclists with a view to changing them in favour of allowing cyclists to
move ahead if safe to do so?

The only subtext I see is that he's not got the message that pavement
cycle paths are a bad idea. "Dedicated" by a strip of white paint
doesn't work.

One of the beauties of the UK traffic control system is it's absolutes -
red means stop, always, everywhere, without exception. Anything that
tampers with that is a bad idea.

I agree that he did not get the message that the paths were a bad idea,
a point I made to him at length but which he chose to ignore,

Quoted message said:

Dear Mr Redwood,

Surely the point is that shared use cycle paths are inherently
dangerous.
A short examination of the number of such facilities that have lamp
posts, bollards, and other permanent obstructions built into them should
be enough to persuade anyone they are a bad idea. Add to that the loss
of priority at junctions with minor roads and the increased conflict of
pedestrian/cycle traffic and the ambiguity of the messages being
delivered to the cycling, pedestrian and motorist and the farce becomes
complete.
The continued obsession of creating a separation between cyclists and
motorists has only the effect of disinsentivising people from cycling
and reinforcing the motorists conception that the cyclist should not be
allowed to use the roadway. Sustrans does nothing to address this point
by almost obsessively routing cycle paths away from roadways to the
detriment of logical routing.
Rather than continuing to waste money on pointless and dangerous
initiatives to further separate traffic there should be a positive
effort made to increase the awareness of motorists of their
responsibilities toward other road users and to encourage cyclists to
use the roads in the normal manner. Only by becoming part of the normal
road scene will integration and safety be brought about.
Statements such as Barnet council have cut accidents by 47% mean nothing
in my local area there is a sign proclaiming that accidents have been
cut by over 30% in two years at one point in the road. The fact is
there were only three incidents at that point in the prior two years.
Hence
1) there was not a problem which required addressing and
2) the claim that the measures increased safety are highly dubious.
As with all claims of a reduction in road incidents one cannot rely
purely on the statistics without knowing how the measures to improve
safety have impacted on the number of people travelling, the type of
transport which they were using and the alternative they are now using
and relating that to the raw figures.

The sub text I see is this,

Quoted message said:

...and cyclists crossing red lights when it is dangerous to
do so.

which suggests that where it is not dangerous for cyclists to cross a
red light Mr Redwood sees no reason why they should not be allowed to do
so. A standpoint with which I would agree in principal. If I am
mistaken in reading this sentence in this way why bother to use the
words > ...when it is dangerous to do so. and not just say 'cyclists
crossing red lights?

Sniper8052