red lights

wobbles said:

I don't know whether it's just a London thing but so many of the cyclists I see run
red lights. It sometimes makes me wonder whether I'm in a minority.

I think it's more of an urban thing. Certainly in Bristol I've noticed
that the closer I get to the city centre, the lower the standard of
cycling becomes, with more people riding on pavements and going through
red lights.

Having said that, I think London is quite exceptional. I've ridden
there I think about 4 times, and found it to be very different to
anywhere else I've ridden. In particular, the red traffic lights every
100 yards are great for interval training but a little frustrating as
far as practical transport is concerned. Although I wouldn't do it
myself, I can almost understand why regular London cyclists succumb to
the temptation to just sail on through.

London's also supposed to have serious problems with pavement lemmings,
but anyone who's used to riding in Bath will wonder what the Londoners
are moaning about. (There was a thread recently about the Brighton
promenade, although I haven't ridden along there I imagine the coast
road through Brighton might be even worse than the centre of Bath for
pavement lemmings).

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Simonb said:

He might have a point here. A few weeks ago the lights went out for 5 days
at junction behind where I live:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

There were no more delays than usual, I crossed it several times by car and
bike.

There's a set of lights that I ride through every morning. On the few
occasions when the lights have been out, it's been remarkable just how
much faster and more smoothly the traffic flows. Most mornings there
are long queues in all directions, but I've never seen a queue when the
lights have been out.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer said:

London's also supposed to have serious problems with pavement
lemmings, but anyone who's used to riding in Bath will wonder what
the Londoners are moaning about. (There was a thread recently about
the Brighton promenade, although I haven't ridden along there I
imagine the coast road through Brighton might be even worse than the
centre of Bath for pavement lemmings).

Huh! You should come to Southampton, where pavement POBs are the norm.

Pyromancer said:

When a pedestrian crossing's lights are red to the road they are
generally green to the pedestrians

What pedestrians?! I'm only talking about when there are clearly NO
pedestrians crossing, waiting to cross or anywhere to be seen.

~PB

[re: jumping reds]
While cycling back from Darth Ben's last saturday, my friend and I were
stopped a red waiting to join the A82. A brace of motorbikes pulled up
behind us. One of them remarked to me: "Why are you stopped? Push bikes
can just go through them." I explained that a red was a red, then cycled
off as they changed to green.

Jon

"wobbles" <.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi Everyone,

I cycle with friends, sometimes with one, sometimes with more. They all

have a

Quoted message said:

tendency to ride through red lights which I feel uncomfortable doing.
How do you manage this problem, or do some of you ride through red lights?

Obviously some lights are safer than others, depending on where they are

and the

Quoted message said:

traffic conditions.
Not stopping also leads a bad example and probably helps give people like

Clarkson

Quoted message said:

more ammunition.

I'm mainly a mountainbiker and find the streets of London quite

intimidating at the

Quoted message said:

best of times.

Thanks W

I don't ignore red lights, if I rode with friends who did this it wouldn't
be for long. Not stopping at red lights is dangerous, irresponsible and
illegal. DON'T DO IT KIDS.

Daniel Barlow said:

Is a horse rider driving a vehicle? If a pedestrian is walking and
leading a horse, what about then?

Don't think so; the "vehicle" definition (within which a bicycle falls)
was originally a "carriage" (I think that the bicycle was granted this
status under a Road Carriages Act in the 1880s). A horse is rather
specifically distinct from a carriage in any definition I can think of.
The Highway Code refers only to "horseriders", and says nothing about
leading a horse.

Riding or leading, one is however "in charge of" a horse, and I think
thus required to use the carriageway and stay off any footway or
cyclepath under HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129(5) (it says here), and
in general the instructions given to riders are similar to those given
to cyclists (except for hanging over to the left when waiting to turn
right off a major road, presumably to minimise the chances of the animal
getting spooked and dancing into oncoming traffic), including a
requirement to obey traffic lights.

Cheers

Roger

Daniel Barlow said:

Roger Hughes said:

Learn the light sequences on your normal routes, sprint and cruise as
appropriate to match them. Learn to trackstand and ride at a
controlled speed (riding fixed wheel helps there). Worked fine for me
doing 40-50 miles a day in central London. Jumping red lights was just
unnecessary and undesirable.

I'm guessing you weren't doing all of those 40-50 miles in rush hour
traffic: when there's a queue of vehicles backed up far enough that it
takes two phases to get to the front, there's not a lot you can to to
regulate your own speed that doesn't involve riding over the car
roofs. And I'm just guessing here, but I expect all you killjoys will
complain that also gives a poor impression of cyclists ;-)

I was doing them in normal despatch-riding hours, but it was in the late
1980s, when of course London was still almost traffic-free...

Cheers

Roger

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:24:39 +0100, Richard <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

York is a relatively small city in my view.

That's because it's so far away from Edinburgh ;-)

Run that by me again would you Ted?

Tim

Tim Hall said:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:24:39 +0100, Richard <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

York is a relatively small city in my view.

That's because it's so far away from Edinburgh ;-)

Run that by me again would you Ted?

*in my view*

"wobbles" <.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi Everyone,

I cycle with friends, sometimes with one, sometimes with more. They all

have a

Quoted message said:

tendency to ride through red lights which I feel uncomfortable doing.

You'll feel extremely uncomfortable when hit by a car. Continue doing it and
the chances are, you will be.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

Pete Biggs said:

Allan' 'amv.2f said:

Cyclists going through a Toucan crossing have twice almost Tboned me
as
I crossed the road on my bike so to me they are enough of a problem
that the law should be enforced.

Almost.
~PB

Yes almost as I saw them and applyed the brakes they obviously had a
cagers SMIDSY moment as they ran the red light and over my path when I
had right of way. But then again they could not have a SMIDSY moment
because cyclists are more aware and have a better field of view than
cagers or so some people think.

Allan

Daniel Barlow said:

What about skaters? Is a skater a pedestrian?

Quoted message said:

What's the equivalent of "get off and push" for roller skaters?
Remove boots and walk across in socks?

Sheffield city council recently banned skating, bicycling,
skateboarding, etc, from their pedestrian precinct. Guess where their
bike parking is.

in message <[email hidden]>, Tim Hall

(') said:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:24:39 +0100, Richard <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David Hansen said:

York is a relatively small city in my view.

That's because it's so far away from Edinburgh ;-)

Run that by me again would you Ted?

Perspective. Objects further away subtend a smaller arc.

(Simon, who is listening to a program about astronomy as he types)

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

Pete Biggs said:

That's not the only way. Society is more sophisticated than that, and
should become more sophistcated still, in my view.

"Society" contains a very large number of individuals who consider
themselves equal. They are not equal, but our particular society
endorses the view that they should be considered so.
Some people are clearly not up to the task of making good, safe
decisions, so that leaves you with a lowest common denominator approach
in places like roads which are provided for mass utility of the general
population (c.f. the view that it's right for motorists to decide on a
safe speed to operate their vehicles). Until you can reconcile your
"sophistication" with being seen to treat everyone equally you're just
creating opportunities for morons to scare and injure people.

Quoted message said:

I can't agree because there are such big and obvious differences between
the vast majority of bicycles and other traffic.

Tell that to the people who think bikes are a dangerous menace, based on
the near misses they've had from eejits who think They Know Best. It's
about the rider, not the vehicle.

If it were not so, there would not be a public perception of "lycra
louts" terrorising pedestrians. Like most stereotypes it does contain
an element of truth. You cannot trust 100% of riders to use a "make up
your own mind" policy sensibly, so it doesn't work because it's dragged
down by people too stupid or selfish to let it work.
And it's those people that /do/ give a negative view of cyclists.
Research at Strathclyde Uni (discussed in an article one or two issues
of "Cycle" ago) strongly supports this, it's not just me assuming it is so.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Pete Biggs
<[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When a pedestrian crossing's lights are red to the road they are
generally green to the pedestrians

Quoted message said:

What pedestrians?! I'm only talking about when there are clearly NO
pedestrians crossing, waiting to cross or anywhere to be seen.

Your vision is always perfect and unobstructed? You can always be
absolutely and 100% sure that no-one's going to emerge from somewhere
you've not noticed at the last minute? No running kids going
hell-for-leather to beat the lights are suddenly going to shoot onto the
crossing?

Red traffic lights mean stop. Always.

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Daniel
Barlow <[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When a pedestrian crossing's lights are red to the road they are
generally green to the pedestrians, who are therefore justified in
thinking of the crossing as a temporary extension of the pavement and
thus "their space". If some idiot on a bike then comes up and crashes
the lights they are highly likely to do serious damage to a pedestrian.
Even more so if they're the kind of nutters I've seen on occasion who've
raced past a line of stopped cars and then shot across the crossing and
the junction beyond.

Quoted message said:

This is the kind of highly emotive argument that really adds little to
the debate. Nobody has suggested that it's safe, considerate or
reasonable for "idiots on bikes" to "crash lights", especially if
they're "nutters".

If one "safe", "considerate", "reasonable" cyclist does so, you can be
sure there'll be half a dozen nutters to copy them. And if you've never
seen someone ride past a line of stopped cars and then straight over a
crossing while the lights were still red, you've been lucky, as I've
seen it on many occasions, including one where the cyclist didn't see
the pedestrian, who had to jump back out of the way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Red traffic lights are there to be stopped at. If you *really* can't
wait a few moments, get off and push the bike past them. But *don't* go
through them.

Quoted message said:

So if I push my bike past a red light it's OK, but if I ride past it at
walking pace, I automatically turn into an idiot with no regard for
the safety of others? I don't think that's true, and I don't think
you think it's true either.

In the former case you're demonstrating a knowledge of, and respect for,
the law. In the latter you're demonstrating a lack of one or the other
(or possibly both). Society is built on respect for each other and the
laws enacted to maintain it.

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Daniel
Barlow <[email hidden]> breathed:

Quoted message said:

I'm guessing you weren't doing all of those 40-50 miles in rush hour
traffic: when there's a queue of vehicles backed up far enough that it
takes two phases to get to the front, there's not a lot you can to to
regulate your own speed that doesn't involve riding over the car
roofs. And I'm just guessing here, but I expect all you killjoys will
complain that also gives a poor impression of cyclists ;-)

Why did you have to wait in line? Unless the vehicle ahead is a bus
pulled right over against the kerb in a narrow lane[1], it's normal
anywhere I've cycled for cyclists to ride slowly up the inside to the
front of the line and then wait at the lights. Isn't this part of what
ASLs are for? The net[2] result is usually that the bikes get one full
set of lights per phase, while cars may take two or three phases between
each set, thus the bike is much quicker.

[1] And then you can usually go round the outside.

[2] <spelling pedant> should that be nett? </sp>

--
- Pyromancer.
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
- http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal!
- http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The Gothic Revival.

Pete Biggs said:

David Martin said:

Some people don't think it's necessary to give way to cyclists
because they don't pay road tax. Some don't feel it's necessary to
park where they are not obstructing other road users. Roads operate
successfully due to an implicit social contract. Why do you think you
can break that when you would be most put out if others did what they
wanted?

I am NOT put out when motorist breaks a law, carefully, without actually
potentially harming anyone (that last bit is crucial). I think we've all
long forgotton what law are for in this society. It is a device for
dealing with badness, not guide rails to blindly run on. Descretion on
both sides is vital. Call me an anarchist if you like!

Yes, but the trouble is that people don't agree on what constitutes
"badness". The law involves compromises. You don't necessarily agree
with each law, yet nevertheless you can agree to comply with the
laws. If everyone gets to pick and choose just which laws they feel
they need to comply with there's not much point in having them in the
first place.

Peter Clinch said:

"Society" contains a very large number of individuals who consider
themselves equal. They are not equal, but our particular society
endorses the view that they should be considered so.
Some people are clearly not up to the task of making good, safe
decisions, so that leaves you with a lowest common denominator
approach in places like roads which are provided for mass utility of
the general population

Which is all fair enough, but for the point that this society (at
least in the UK) considers pedestrians to be sufficiently up to the
task of making good safe decisions about crossing junctions without
being mandated by traffic signals.

If I push (or perhaps, carry; not sure of the exact legal rule here)
my bike while walking across the road, society is happy for me to make
the same decision as a pedestrian, but if I ride across the road at
walking pace, apparently this is no longer the case. And it can't be
a wheels vs feet thing, unless wheelchair users are also treated as
cyclists ...

Suppose that the meaning in law of a red traffic light was "You do not
have right of way. You may proceed cautiously at walking pace, and
providing you do not impede the progress of other road users who /do/
have the right of way". How would that change matters?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"