red lights

On Sat, 29 May 2004 15:50:46 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Daniel Barlow said:

but wouldn't it be just as effective simply to to _give
way_ to people on pedestrian crossings? In the the
scenario Pete desribed there was nobody on the crossing
and "a big area of unobstructed wide pavement around
[it]": if a cyclist crosses a pedestrian crossing and
there's nobody else to be affected by it, who's going to
be [censored]?

The "zero tolerance" argument is that we can't trust all
cyclists to make that decision because some of them are too
thick or reckless. Thing is, we trust them when the signal
is on flashing amber, and we trust them to make far more
dangerous manoeuvres without the assistance of traffic
lights at other junctions.

The other argument is that if we can trust cyclists, we can
trust motorists. Well, we already do with the flashing
amber. But, in any case, traffic lights are as much about
convenience* as safety. They are largely used because we
need to control the huge number of cars on the roads to
create gaps**. The number of cyclists is minute in
comparison, and don't totally clog up hundreds of yards of
road en mass, so why not give them some priorities to
assist them and promote this form of transport? Because it
would [censored] motorists, they say (by making them jealous
as they wait behind, I suppose). Yes, I also think that's
not a good enough reason.

...

The key question is, is having cyclists ignore red lights en
masse the best way to get the necessary majority of road-
users to support this change to the rules of the road?

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sun, 30 May 2004 01:47:08 +0100, Daniel Barlow
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less): ...

Quoted message said:

What you haven't done is given any credible evidence that
it is the actual act of _running a red light_ that
annoys/startles/scares them - as opposed to, for example,
cycling into them, or at high speed through bunches of them
causing them to have to leap for cover, or whatever other
inconsiderate behaviour the law also protects against. ...

Just like people aren't bothered by drunk-driving. They're
only bothered by being mowed down by drunk-drivers.

Or people aren't bothered by blatant speeders. They're only
bothered by being mown down by speeders.

Or people aren't bothered by people driving while on mobile
phones. they're only bothered by by drivers nearly driving
over them while attending to their phone call rather than
the road conditions...

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Pete Biggs said:

We don't need to keep on adding waiting time to junctions
to be ever "safer". There are other ways.

You seem to be wilfully missing the point I'm making,
which is deciding on the "other ways" apropos of you
happen to feel like that at the time pisses people off and
[censored] people are not the key to a safe riding
environment.

I don't think I'm missing your point, certainly not
wilfully. I just don't accept it. I do not accept that
people will be [censored] if cyclists are *legally*
permitted to turn left through certain red lights that have
a special sign (for example). I have taken the point about
"poor behaviour" pissing people off but I'm proposing isn't
"poor", IMO.

Quoted message said:

I'm all in favour of better rules for cyclists.

Good.

Quoted message said:

I don't see that breaking the existing ones and annoying
people in the process is a good way to get people on your
side with this.

I agree with that. Regarding breaking exsiting laws, I was
merely correcting the idea that is was always actually
dangerous each time it is done. I do understand your points
about "scaling" and making other road users angry. I don't
think the offecnce is quite as bad as you do but that's not
what I'm mainly arguing about. I'd much prefer the system
was improved instead.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's not just about the sheer amount of time saved
anyway. Not stopping so much also makes cycling more
enjoyable. Cycling isn't naturally good when the rythm is
broken as much as it is in inner & central London. As
well as the psychological effects, the muscles and body
can stiffen and cool too much, especially in winter.

Listen! Can you hear the sound of someone rationalising
away poor behaviour? I can!

Bollocks! Follow the context in which I wrote it. I want
cyclist to LEGALLY be allowed to stop less. The above are
genuinely good serious reasons, not some bolt-on [censored] I've
added to try and win an argument.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We accept that cars have to be "calmed", now let's
streamline cycling. Let's make it better! It is not
beyond the wit of man to improve the system we have now
to make that possible, safely.

I quite agree, but what you fail to address with this
paragraph is how that your deciding on the "other ways"
apropos of you happen to feel like that at the time will
actually achieve any such thing. Your "end" is a desirable
one, your "means" doesn't appear to be very well (if at
all) connected to it though. If you wish to "calm" cars
then stop pissing off their drivers is a good start, ISTM.

Unfortunately you missed my request in the reply I posted
yesterday about mixing up my two different arguments*. That
pisses me off. But I'm glad we've found some specks of
agreement at last.

I'm quite knackered! I think I've made my points as best as
I can for now. I'll try and do it better next time.

* 1. Improve the law.
* 2. Apart from possibly making others angry (when there
is anyone watching!), not all cyclists are doing any
actual harm on every single occasion they jump the
lights. Some people (not you Pete) don't seem to accept
this simple reality even if they have valid arguments
for enforcing the law.

Please note: That is two different things, albeit on the
same subject.

~PB

Peter Clinch said:

Pete Biggs said:

I don't accept that allowing cyclists more freedom at
carefully selected junctions will generate more pedestrian-
worring rogues on bikes.

But what is the criteria for "carefully selected" here? So
far it appears to consist of you being at them with the
lights against you and thinking it'll be okay.

The authorities can go round studying junctions and slap
signs on the ones where it would be deemed safe for cyclists
to turn left against the lights "with caution".

This would be particularly suitable for wide roads where
traffic isn't flowing from the right for much of the time.
There are so, so many of those.

It would be no more dangerous than turning left into a main
road from a side junction, in fact it would be safer because
there would be more gaps in the traffic. More traffic lights
aren't used at every junction with a side road just because
that would cause too much inconvenience to motorists.

You could argue that a similar thing could be done for cars
as well but that's for the motorists to campaign for.
However, I reckon the system would be more often suited to
bikes for the reasons I gave earlier.

Quoted message said:

That isn't my definition of "carefully selected", and
brings me back to the point of things needing to scale
reliably. If you can decide what's safe and "carefully
selected" on the grounds you think you're bright enough
to do the job then there's no reason for anyone else not
to think that, even if (or particularly because!) they
have the brains of a fence-post.

If the planning authorities want to carefully select sites
for traffic pilots in consultation with local cyclists
then three cheers, but letting anyone on a bike decide for
themselves when it's okay to bend or break the rules isn't
going to get you useful freedom in "carefully selected"
places, and you ought to stop pretending it will. It will
[censored] other road users, and that's not good for the
overall road environment.

Quoted message said:

the opposite will happen as more cyclists will use
the roads properly as they see the system is working
for them.

How's that, because they decide on their own rules as they
go? Do you /really/ think that has long term potential to
work on London's roads?

I won't accuse you of wilfully missing my point. It must be
accidental or my fault for not explaining better.

~PB

Pyromancer said:

If you really believe more people will cycle just because
it allows them to omit the odd traffic light, you're
deluding yourself.

I really don't think so. It's all part of the mix. Keep on
making small improvements like this and cycling will
gradually become significantly more popular.

Quoted message said:

Some people now wilfully disobey the law because it's not
enforced, not because they've all made a collective
decision to challenge / change it.

Of course the lack of enforcement enables them, but many
basically decent people disobey the law because it's too
unnatural for their mode of transport. Conscious
decisions to publicly challenge/protest is indeed nothing
to do with it.

Quoted message said:

Fine, by all means, start a campaign, garner support and
start lobbying parliament to change the road traffic acts
to permit cyclists to pass stop signals. But unless and
until such time as the law is changed, respect the
existing one and stop at red lights. Anything else just
marks you as a lawless lout.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to break this law but look how
many cyclists do already in London. It's the vast majority!
They're normal people who just happen to break this one law.
The word "lout" becomes meaningless if everyone is a lout.

~PB

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

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer 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?

No not always, that is why I said "CLEARLY".

Quoted message said:

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?

There are plenty of places and times where you CAN be 100%
sure -- where there is a big area of unobstructed wide
pavement around the crossing.

~PB

Bumped into, not literally, my local councillor, who is
slightly disabled and hence a pedestrian. We talked about
cycling, as per normal, and he pointed out that he had had
several very close shaves caused by cyclists ignoring the
red light on a pedestrian crossing. So close had two of
these shaves been, that he had had to take avoiding action.
Such "cyclists" may be on a bike, but they aren't proper
cyclists. They ride without consideration for others, ignore
the law and put themselves and other road users at risk of
injury, but most important from my point of view as a cycle
campaigner, they give other road users a stick to beat us
with. If you want cycling to be taken seriously, stop riding
through red lights, it pisses off pedestrians, drivers and
other cyclists. And I usually catch up with the w******rs
within a few hundred yards anyway.
--
cheers

Rich

On Fri, 28 May 2004 16:25:26 +0100, "Pete Biggs"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

The word "lout" becomes meaningless if everyone is a lout.

Hardly. If most cyclists are seen to be louts, all that
hgappens is we /all/ get labelled as louts.

And as we are /very/ far from being a majority of road
users, this is very dangerous. From the point of view: of
re-prioritising enforcement; amending legislation; &
altering other road-users' tolerance of us.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Pete Biggs said:

I don't think I'm missing your point, certainly not
wilfully. I just don't accept it. I do not accept that
people will be [censored] if cyclists are *legally*
permitted to turn left through certain red lights that
have a special sign (for example).

Perhaps we are arguing at cross purposes then. I am
objecting to you (or indeed anyone else) doing this
*illegally*, now, before any such laws are changed. Which
you appeared to me to be advocating nearer the start of
this thread if you could be reasonably sure it was safe in
that instance.

Quoted message said:

I have taken the point about "poor behaviour" pissing
people off but I'm proposing isn't "poor", IMO.

If it's legal, fine. We can already do things can't. I
routinely ignore the left turn sign at the end of Nethergate
in Dundee, for example, because there's a sign giving me a
specific exemption to it.

Quoted message said:

I agree with that. Regarding breaking exsiting laws, I was
merely correcting the idea that is was always actually
dangerous each time it is done.

In the individual, specific case, yes, but that's not where
my problem lies. That is in the general degrading of mood on
the roads where people see cyclists decide that laws don't
apply to them.

Quoted message said:

Bollocks! Follow the context in which I wrote it. I want
cyclist to LEGALLY be allowed to stop less.

But you started off in a thread about whether it was okay to
go through red lights *now* when it is very much illegal by
implying it was all right with a little forethought. *That*
is what I'm objecting very strenuously too. If you've
changed your mind about that or didn't think it in the first
place then (a) Hurrah! and (b) sorry I've been
misinterpreting the follow ups.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately you missed my request in the reply I posted
yesterday about mixing up my two different arguments

I've only ever been arguing about one thing here.

Quoted message said:

* 2. Apart from possibly making others angry (when there
is anyone watching!), not all cyclists are doing any
actual harm on every single occasion they jump the
lights.

But it's the "Apart from" which is 100% of what I have the
problem with, so I'm not too pleased about it being
marginalised by "apart from"! The "possibly" has been shown
to be "very, very, very probably" when research has been
conducted (read the summary a couple of "Cycle"s back).

Quoted message said:

Please note: That is two different things, albeit on the
same subject.

And it's breaking the law *now* that I have the bee in my
bonnet about. Changing the law, no particular problem if
it's done with appropriate Cluefullness.

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]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Pete Biggs said:

I wouldn't encourage anyone to break this law but look how
many cyclists do already in London. It's the vast
majority!

I have to contradict this statement. I have observed many
cyclists in various parts of London and I have to say that
the majority does not go through red lights. The majority of
couriers might disregard the law but they are not the
majority of cyclists.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite
of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Pete Biggs said:

I wouldn't encourage anyone to break this law but look how
many cyclists do already in London. It's the vast
majority! They're normal people who just happen to break
this one law. The word "lout" becomes meaningless if
everyone is a lout.

Ah, but it isn't everyone, is it? It's everyone on a bike,
which is still very much a minority of road users. The above
underlines just how this sort of behaviour encourages the
view that cyclist == lout.

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]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

burt said:

If you want cycling to be taken seriously, stop riding
through red lights, it pisses off pedestrians, drivers and
other cyclists.

I wonder how much it does, really. Do the cyclists who do it
carefully when there is clearly no-one about [censored] them off
all that much? They see it so often that they must be well
used to it by now.

In any case, you've got an awful lot of cyclists to change
the habits of: quite possibly the large majority in London*.
How are you going to do that? More enforcement? What kind of
enforcement? More education? Why would it work?

And these people are "cyclists", by the way -- respectable
men and women of all ages from all walks of life, not just
lycra wearers, not just youths.

* I mention London because it's where I am and what I know,
and where the "problem" seems to be centered.

~PB

Peter Clinch said:

Perhaps we are arguing at cross purposes then.

We have. With my first few posts at least, I didn't mean to
*start* any arguments. I was posting defensive replies to
various specific points, just trying to explain why London
cyclists do what they do and that I didn't think it was
quite as dangerous as is made out.

This then evolved into me proposing a new policy which would
be an alternative to the law breaking. I would have made it
clearer if I had planned it all in advance!

~PB

Michael MacClancy said:

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't encourage anyone to break this law but look
how many cyclists do already in London. It's the vast
majority!

I have to contradict this statement. I have observed many
cyclists in various parts of London and I have to say that
the majority does not go through red lights. The majority
of couriers might disregard the law but they are not the
majority of cyclists.

Well, I'm amazed. Do you mean the majority doesn't go
through any red lights on a typical journey? I really don't
think so. Of course that's not the same as the majority of
lights being jumped or the majority of cyclists stopping
sometimes or even most times.

The majority of cyclists I see in London go through some red
lights on each journey when they get the opportunity to do
so without being completely bonkers and get can to the front
of the queue. (Of course there are those in addition who are
completely bonkers).

Most may stop at crossroads (for some of the "red" time at
least) when going straight on or just when it's very busy,
but only the minority actually stay waiting at a pedestrian
crossing when at the front and it's red with no-one around
to cross, for example.

~PB

Michael MacClancy said:

I have observed many cyclists in various parts of London
and I have to say that the majority does not go through
red lights.

What methods have you used to observe them? I think a good
one would be to pick random individual cyclists and follow
them. That's dangerously close to stalking (!!) so best to
limit it to a few minutes (or to a certain distance). Count
them as a red light jumper if they go through any stop
light* then stop following and find another cyclist, and so
on. Count them as a law abider if they don't offend within
the time or distance limit.

I tried this late tonight around central London to try the
method. Hardly any cyclists about, but 4 of the 5 I did
follow jumped lights within five minutes (and none looked
like a "lout", by the way). I will do some more observation
around various parts of London at various times of week and
day over the coming weeks. I might not be able to do any
next week, will resume week after.

Any comments would be interesting... except any calling me a
sad git! ;-) Don't you think it's interesting?

* Give benefit of doubt for amber lights (even though they
legally count as "stop" too), and allow advancing the stop
line and waiting in front -- because otherwise the
percentage of offenders will be almost 100% as all
cyclists seem to do this often when they get the chance.

~PB

Pete Biggs said:

burt said:

If you want cycling to be taken seriously, stop riding
through red lights, it pisses off pedestrians, drivers
and other cyclists.

I wonder how much it does, really. Do the cyclists who do
it carefully when there is clearly no-one about [censored] them
off all that much? They see it so often that they must be
well used to it by now.

In any case, you've got an awful lot of cyclists to
change the habits of: quite possibly the large majority
in London*. How are you going to do that? More
enforcement? What kind of enforcement? More education?
Why would it work?

And these people are "cyclists", by the way -- respectable
men and women of all ages from all walks of life, not just
lycra wearers, not just youths.

Those arguements sound familiar. Let me think. Ah, I know,
its the arguement for speeding being acceptable.

Tony

Daniel Barlow said:

but wouldn't it be just as effective simply to to _give
way_ to people on pedestrian crossings? In the the
scenario Pete desribed there was nobody on the crossing
and "a big area of unobstructed wide pavement around
[it]": if a cyclist crosses a pedestrian crossing and
there's nobody else to be affected by it, who's going to
be [censored]?

If people followed that approach we could do away with all
the traffic light controlled crossing and go back to simple
black and while stripes painted on the road. However we went
away from those for a reason

Tony

Daniel Barlow said:

but wouldn't it be just as effective simply to to _give
way_ to people on pedestrian crossings? In the the
scenario Pete desribed there was nobody on the crossing
and "a big area of unobstructed wide pavement around
[it]": if a cyclist crosses a pedestrian crossing and
there's nobody else to be affected by it, who's going to
be [censored]?

The "zero tolerance" argument is that we can't trust all
cyclists to make that decision because some of them are too
thick or reckless. Thing is, we trust them when the signal
is on flashing amber, and we trust them to make far more
dangerous manoeuvres without the assistance of traffic
lights at other junctions.

The other argument is that if we can trust cyclists, we can
trust motorists. Well, we already do with the flashing
amber. But, in any case, traffic lights are as much about
convenience* as safety. They are largely used because we
need to control the huge number of cars on the roads to
create gaps**. The number of cyclists is minute in
comparison, and don't totally clog up hundreds of yards of
road en mass, so why not give them some priorities to assist
them and promote this form of transport? Because it would
[censored] motorists, they say (by making them jealous as they
wait behind, I suppose). Yes, I also think that's not a good
enough reason.

* I think this is a crucial and high relevant point which
many people seem to forget in all the arguments about
cyclists and traffic lights.

** Specifically on pedestrian crossings in middle of
straight road with no junction: If there were no lights,
just as some cyclists wouldn't stop for peds waiting to
cross, some cars wouldn't either. Point is that there are so
many cars that the ped may have to wait quite a while before
cars eventually stopped to give way to them. That particular
problem won't exist with bicycles unless we become like
China or India. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it!

~PB

Tony Raven said:

Those arguements sound familiar. Let me think. Ah, I know,
its the arguement for speeding being acceptable.

More than "arguing", I'm exposing the reality (because some
people don't seem to know what it is).

Speeding is acceptable to most people in this country
because they do it. (That's not to say that I don't want
something done about it).

Jumping red lights is acceptable to most cyclists in London
because they do it. But it's not acceptable to the majority
of posters on this newsgroup (providing their actions match
their words). People claim that pedestrians and other road
users regard it as unacceptable. I question the degree and
sincerity of this and the amount of harm the offence is
actually does, and what exactly should be done about it. I'm
not saying that nothing should be done just that "zero
tolerance" is unnecessary.

~PB

Tony Raven said:

If people followed that approach we could do away with all
the traffic light controlled crossing and go back to
simple black and while stripes painted on the road.
However we went away from those for a reason

How many more collisions caused by *cyclists* on zebras than
traffic light controlled crossings?

~PB

Tony Raven said:

If people followed that approach we could do away with all
the traffic light controlled crossing and go back to
simple black and while stripes painted on the road.

It's not the same. Without lights, there is no specific
guidance at all. The road user has to rely purely on
observation of pedestrians. With a signal, there is added
warning that a pedestrian might be crossing at that moment.
They can then slow right down and proceed only if safe. Of
course drivers shouldn't have to rely on traffic signals but
they do help in practice.

I would like to see more and longer use of the flashing
amber signal, at various sorts of crossings and junctions.

~PB