Traffic lights

[John Hearns]

Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> Here's the junction and route.
>
> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/files/tb
>
> It's no right turn at the box junction, and only busses and cyclists
> may go straight ahead, so the green phase is particularly short.

Tom, I did not realise that, and stand corrected.

When I go that way on the bike, I take the bus lane then the first right
into Horsleydown (*) and turn left to get to a set of lights which is
opposite to the red track on your picture.
Cars must turn left at those lights, but cycles can cross the central
divider and take a right turn onto the bridge.
This is not feasible of course with a large number of cyclists.


(*) Horseleydown = horse lie down. The place where carters coming into
the City would feed and water their horses before coming over London Bridge.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:24:53 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> Here's the junction and route.
>>
>> www.johnballcycling.org.uk/files/tb
>>
>> It's no right turn at the box junction, and only busses and cyclists
>> may go straight ahead, so the green phase is particularly short.
>
>Tom, I did not realise that, and stand corrected.
>
>When I go that way on the bike, I take the bus lane then the first right
>into Horsleydown (*) and turn left to get to a set of lights which is
>opposite to the red track on your picture.
>Cars must turn left at those lights, but cycles can cross the central
>divider and take a right turn onto the bridge.
>This is not feasible of course with a large number of cyclists.

It's interesting to get your view on things. I was at the very front
of the group marshalling the children while you were, I think, at or
close to the rear of the group.

We may have been better off going down Druid Street then turning right
onto Tower Bridge Road, which has two lanes northbound and we could
have regrouped easily.

>(*) Horseleydown = horse lie down. The place where carters coming into
>the City would feed and water their horses before coming over London Bridge.

 

[Marz]

On Jul 22, 3:23 am, Tom Crispin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Should an organised group of cyclists, who have submitted a route plan
> to the relevent authorities a week in advance, be able to consider
> themselves as one vehicle and hold up motor traffic, at automatically
> controlled junctions, if all cyclists cannot get through lights on a
> single phase of green?
>
> Would the above be beneficial to overall traffic flow or detrimental?
>
> Should National Standard cycling instructors be allowed to hold up
> motor traffic at automatically controlled junctions if all trainees
> cannot pass safely on a single phase of green?

Back in Trinidad we rode with a police escort every Sunday morning.
There were usually about 30-60 riders and two motorcycle cops and we'd
blow through every light and junction, we'd not stop until a rest stop
at about 30-40 miles and half way. On the first couple of rides I
thought that motorists would be ****** at having to stop on green to
allow cyclists through, but then I realised that as a group we were
through every junction in under 30 seconds instead of what could be
minutes as we go through the lights in smaller groups. So, I would say
that cyclists riding as a group through junctions cause less
distrubtion overall to other road users as a broken group having to
stop for the lights.

Not much help to you in the UK and I don't think National Standard
cycling instructors should be allowed to stop traffic. If you're
organising a cycling event I'd have thought you could ask the police
to marshal junctions to allow for continuous riding. Another example I
can think of, and again not in the UK, is the MS150 in Texas. A
charity ride from Houston to Austin over two days where the police
control every junction on the route to allow the cyclists to carry on
without stopping. Ok it's 13000 cyclists, so the police need to be
there for safety reasons, but you can always ask if the local bobbies
would help.

 

[vernon]

"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:00:36 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Tom Crispin wrote:

> I do try to work with instructor trainee ratios not exceeding 2:12 or
> 3:15, where the third is a competent adult. The difficulty arises
> when the third adult is unwell.

Then send three learners home if their presence compromises safety.

Out of interest, what is the recommended instructorupil ratio for cycle
training?

You can't have it all ways Tom - demanding respect and safe beahaviour from
others while behaving in a manner which might antagonise other road users
and is dedefinitely in contempt of the Highway Code.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:25:55 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:00:36 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> I do try to work with instructor trainee ratios not exceeding 2:12 or
>> 3:15, where the third is a competent adult. The difficulty arises
>> when the third adult is unwell.
>
>Then send three learners home if their presence compromises safety.
>
>Out of interest, what is the recommended instructorupil ratio for cycle
>training?

Level 1 - 1:15
Level 2 - 1:6
Level 3 - 1:2
www.bikeability.org.uk/professionals/bikeability_course.php

>You can't have it all ways Tom - demanding respect and safe beahaviour from
>others while behaving in a manner which might antagonise other road users
>and is dedefinitely in contempt of the Highway Code.

I have absolutely no intention of intentionally doing anything I
shouldn't be doing unless I have the authority to do it. My point in
this argument is to explore the idea of lobbying for that authority.
Others have said that only the police have such powers, but that is
not true. Workmen, school crossing patrol officers and traffic
warderns all have that authority, and they don't usually antagonise
other road users. I don't see that holding up traffic at automatic
signals for a few seconds while young children cycle through as a
group is going to antagonise many people either.

The most powerful agrument against, in my opinion is John's when he
says, "The riders should be trained to respect traffic signals and
should always be encouraged to think for themselves and obey traffic
signals and signs as individuals."

 

[Roger Merriman]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 05:25:55 +0100, "vernon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:00:36 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Tom Crispin wrote:
> >
> >> I do try to work with instructor trainee ratios not exceeding 2:12 or
> >> 3:15, where the third is a competent adult. The difficulty arises
> >> when the third adult is unwell.
> >
> >Then send three learners home if their presence compromises safety.
> >
> >Out of interest, what is the recommended instructorupil ratio for cycle
> >training?
>
> Level 1 - 1:15
> Level 2 - 1:6
> Level 3 - 1:2
> www.bikeability.org.uk/professionals/bikeability_course.php
>
> >You can't have it all ways Tom - demanding respect and safe beahaviour from
> >others while behaving in a manner which might antagonise other road users
> >and is dedefinitely in contempt of the Highway Code.
>
> I have absolutely no intention of intentionally doing anything I
> shouldn't be doing unless I have the authority to do it. My point in
> this argument is to explore the idea of lobbying for that authority.
> Others have said that only the police have such powers, but that is
> not true. Workmen, school crossing patrol officers and traffic
> warderns all have that authority, and they don't usually antagonise
> other road users. I don't see that holding up traffic at automatic
> signals for a few seconds while young children cycle through as a
> group is going to antagonise many people either.
>

to pick out one, workmen can't do there job unless they have that right,
while a cycle instructer can, if they have too many kids then to safely
get across a junction then they need to take less kids or a differnate
route.

the essence is that a instructer doesn't need the right.

> The most powerful agrument against, in my opinion is John's when he
> says, "The riders should be trained to respect traffic signals and
> should always be encouraged to think for themselves and obey traffic
> signals and signs as individuals."

yes indeed, teaching kids the road by going though a red light even if
you had offical sanction doesn't send out the right message.

roger

--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Martin Dann]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Workmen, school crossing patrol officers and traffic
> warderns all have that authority, and they don't usually antagonise
> other road users. I don't see that holding up traffic at automatic
> signals for a few seconds while young children cycle through as a
> group is going to antagonise many people either.

Workmen have to apply for a permit that costs hundreds of
pounds, which the council have to approve. If they have to
override a set of permanent traffic lights, they have to
turn them off.
AIUI lolly pop people are not allowed to override traffic
lights at road junctions.

If you get the right to do this, then other people may
also demand the right.


> The most powerful agrument against, in my opinion is John's when he
> says, "The riders should be trained to respect traffic signals and
> should always be encouraged to think for themselves and obey traffic
> signals and signs as individuals."

I totally agree with John's argument.

I think a solution would be to get the junction adjusted
some way. The best way would be to either add a right
filter to the lights, or change the timing of the green
phase so that it extends beyond the green phase of the
opposing traffic.
With modern technology the timing could be adjusted just
for the times you need it.

Martin.

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> to pick out one, workmen can't do there job unless they have that right,
> while a cycle instructer can, if they have too many kids then to safely
> get across a junction then they need to take less kids or a differnate
> route.
>
> the essence is that a instructer doesn't need the right.

If we're talking about "need", nor does the workman - he could work only
at night and put a temporary covering on the hole at the end of shift so
that daytime traffic was not inconvenienced. It would be a massive
hassle, but it would be possible

It's not an absolute "can you possibly make do without it" issue, it's a
matter of what we as a society think is the most sensible use of the
road - I expect most people would say some temporary inconvenience in
order to fill a pothole or replace a water main is reasonable; should we
make a similar decision when the tradeoff is inconvenience vs the
education of road users?

>> The most powerful agrument against, in my opinion is John's when he
>> says, "The riders should be trained to respect traffic signals and
>> should always be encouraged to think for themselves and obey traffic
>> signals and signs as individuals."

Is true, but I think that even an eight year old is capable of drawing a
distinction between "we are going to the training site in convoy and
there are adults in hi-viz standing at each intersection" and "I am an
individual road user". After all, they start their training in the
playground and it (presumably) doesn't lead them all to believe that
they are entitled to ride there at break and lunchtimes when they are
not part of a lesson. Museums and other places they will have visited
on school trips are also likely to have different procedures for large
groups.


-dan

 

[Roger Merriman]

Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
> > to pick out one, workmen can't do there job unless they have that right,
> > while a cycle instructer can, if they have too many kids then to safely
> > get across a junction then they need to take less kids or a differnate
> > route.
> >
> > the essence is that a instructer doesn't need the right.
>
> If we're talking about "need", nor does the workman - he could work only
> at night and put a temporary covering on the hole at the end of shift so
> that daytime traffic was not inconvenienced. It would be a massive
> hassle, but it would be possible
>
for some yes, for some sites no. and he would still need lights even at
night if not even more so.

> It's not an absolute "can you possibly make do without it" issue, it's a
> matter of what we as a society think is the most sensible use of the
> road - I expect most people would say some temporary inconvenience in
> order to fill a pothole or replace a water main is reasonable; should we
> make a similar decision when the tradeoff is inconvenience vs the
> education of road users?

frankly no it sends out all the wrong mesages. and to be blunt if the
kids can't handle the junction then they shouldn't be put in that
situation.
>
> >> The most powerful agrument against, in my opinion is John's when he
> >> says, "The riders should be trained to respect traffic signals and
> >> should always be encouraged to think for themselves and obey traffic
> >> signals and signs as individuals."
>
> Is true, but I think that even an eight year old is capable of drawing a
> distinction between "we are going to the training site in convoy and
> there are adults in hi-viz standing at each intersection" and "I am an
> individual road user". After all, they start their training in the
> playground and it (presumably) doesn't lead them all to believe that
> they are entitled to ride there at break and lunchtimes when they are
> not part of a lesson. Museums and other places they will have visited
> on school trips are also likely to have different procedures for large
> groups.
>
um no the idea is to train them road skills, taking thme though
redlights doesn't seem prudent. if the kids aren't up to going though
then there needs to be more instrutors or they get off the bike and
cross on foot. what they shouldn't do is go though on red.

>
> -dan

roger

--
www.rogermerriman.com