Sat at the red pedestrian lights in my car this morning, as you do. No pedestrians. Cyclist went straight through, as they always do.
So; as virtually ALL cyclists (in Cambridge anyway) take zero notice of red lights, and virtually ALL drivers take full notice of red lights, does that mean no cyclists are also drivers? Or if they are, why do they behave differently when cycling as opposed to driving?
Ideas include:
No significant consequences if caught on a bike.
Genuine disbelief rules apply to cyclists.
Assumption a bike can zip alongside turning cars or whip around pedestrians safely.
Any others?
FWIW I cycle and drive, and am given odd looks when as a cyclist I always stop at red lights, follow one way roads the correct way, never ride on the pavement, etc etc.
|
FWIW I cycle and drive, and am given odd looks when as a cyclist I always stop at red lights, follow one way roads the correct way, never ride on the pavement, etc etc.
As a pedestrian in Putney, in London, I thought you had to do all these things on a bike. And, of course, you must never show proper lights at night. More than once I've nearly been mown don by a moron on a bike, going through a red light, with no lights.
|
|
|
Add to that ignorance of the Highway Code.
Your good self apart, something very odd happens to the brain chemistry of those who choose to ride a bike. What you report is consistent with what I observe every day and in an overwhelming majority of cases. Add to that riding on pedestrian pavements, which of course is against the law. It makes me want to drive my car on the pavement on the grounds that I can take my vehicle onto the pavement if they can.
Why does it happen? Apart from whatever is going on in the brain, there is no enforcement of law, just as there is no enforcement of law on the roads in general, apart from mechanistic and remunerative enforcement by way of speed cameras. It's only going to get worse.
My campaign to get the Highway Code given away free with VED licences is under way. I am now in correspondence with the minister for road safety (via my MP) and the Driving Standards Agency. Sadly, if it comes to anything, it still won't get through to cyclists. [Please write to your MP and the Driving Standards Agency if you agree that free distribution of the Highway Code is a good idea.]
|
Interestingly, I know someone who has just joined the police. I asked off the record whether in fact there is an official "blind eye" turned to cyclists, but much as I expected, was vociferously assured that was not the case. When they do see a blatant transgression they really really do stop the cyclist and fine/warn them as appropriate; it's just resources. There are simply not enough police on the street. Those few that are there are often going to a much higher priority specific incident and so are not available to just wander about keeping an eye on things.
To my mind it's the "broken window syndrome". Fix the little things like graffiti, litter and lunatic cyclists and the bigger things start coming under control too. Which is why I think the clampdown on motor tax/insurance/petrol thieves with new technologies can only be lauded.
I like the idea of the Highway Code going out free as well. Perhaps a petition on a website somewhere?
|
|
|
|
OK I'll take the challenge!!
I think the analogy here is with some motorists and speeding. Either the instruction to stop is inappropriate and unnecessary or they're willing to take the punishment if caught.
I drive about 20k miles a year and would not dream of shooting a red
I also cycle daily in Central London. Will treat to the odd red light as flashing amber, either at one point on my route where there is a hyperactive bus priority system or turning left along the curb. Won't dodge pedestrians, will cross behind without the green if it keeps my out of the grand prix start when the lights do change. Question of making progress, exploiting opportunity and keeping safe. If I get caught (and I've seen it happen, the Copper on a bike was pretty obvious though!!) I will plead guilty and pay my fine.
And for the record the bike is well maintained, lights front and rear, rider in fluorescent tabard.
|
Oh, now that's interesting Simon!
Without wanting to be at all contentious (I'm just interested in the thought processes) what is it that means that jumping a red on a bike means "keeping safe" and doing it in a car does not? Is it the "grand prix starts" you mention, and how are they more dangerous?
In fact, here's a thought; what one rule, if changed, would allow greater safety for cyclists? Pavement riding? Red light jumping? Enforced licencing?
If of course, no rules need changing, then why do they get broken...
|
|
And as if more evidence were needed . . . road between Harpenden and St Albans obstructed a couple of hours ago by cyclist who chose to ignore the cycle lane that runs for most of the route and to ride in a road with solid double white lines, thereby holding up traffic (not least conscientious learner drivers). Same cyclist passes me in a queue in the city centre, travelling down the middle of the road far too fast and missing an oncoming van by -- I kid you not -- several millimetres. Oy vey.
|
Not all cycle lanes are usable ones.
They are frequently full of debris (rocks, bits of car trim), and in the case of the St Albans area, are often pavement hoppers, incorperating sloping surfaces. As a rider of three wheels (impaired balance) I cannot use these owing to the severe effects on steering and balance. Additionally some of the width restrictions these can have are too narrow for me.
But if you find me using the road in these cases I am often going at least 20mph and keeping a proper look out for other road users. (So black mark the mobile traffic jam).
The Harpenden to St Albans road has an appalling safety record and is not one I'd use at all out of choice - car or bike. However I've not been along it for a year so I cannot remember what the latest configuaration is and could not say if any of this would apply here.
|
I've been using the A1081 Harpenden to St Albans road for 30 years, ever since it was the old A6. At the moment, I cannot recall personally seeing an accident, nor can I recall any newspaper reports of one in recent years. No doubt there have been some, and my memory may be failing me, but I'd like to see the stats, and the comment about its supposedly "appalling safety record" prompts me to check in the Herts County Council records; I will report back on this. For a wide road with few junctions, extensive solid double centre lines, sweeping curves and good visibility all the way, it's difficult to think of it as being inherently any more dangerous than most other A-roads, and I suggest it is a good deal safer than many.
The cycle lane is used only by cyclists (not all, obviously) and joggers. It is well clear of the road. I can't see how it could be degraded, other than by its own users. Perhaps cyclists aren't legally obliged to use cycle lanes, but they are provided for the purpose at significant public expense and to reduce risk to the cyclist. So, in principle, I think the use of cycle lanes not only makes common sense but is also morally obligatory. I wonder if cyclists on cycle lanes do as I do on roads -- stop and clear any dangerous debris if I ever encounter it.
However, since so many cycle lanes are conspicuously unused, and given their apparent uselessness from the cyclists' point of view, perhaps we should view them as the complete waste of money that many thought they were when they were first introduced. Yet more evidence of widespread incompetence in the traffic-management and road-safety "professional" community, unduly influenced by pressure from vociferous minorities?
|
|
|
|
|
Cyclists are not obliged to use cycles lanes, indeed many of the frankly ridiculous cycle lane schemes dreamt up (esp concerning roundabouts) I would consider dangerous.
|
Roundabout cycle lanes certainly slow you down because the cyclist ends up at a little T junction where she/he may need to stop to wait for a gap in car traffic before regaining the road, but the plus side is being separated from traffic on the roundabout itself.
So IMHO they're safer. Hats off to the cycle lane designers, they're getting better, not up to Holland standards yet....
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, now that's interesting Simon! Without wanting to be at all contentious (I'm just interested in the thought processes) what is it that means that jumping a red on a bike means "keeping safe" and doing it in a car does not? Is it the "grand prix starts" you mention, and how are they more dangerous? In fact, here's a thought; what one rule, if changed, would allow greater safety for cyclists? Pavement riding? Red light jumping? Enforced licencing? If of course, no rules need changing, then why do they get broken...
The comment about keeping safe referred to my cycling philosophy. Sometimes it's safer to cross the stopline, for example because the green box for the cyclists is full of cars. Sometimes it's safe (as StevH42 says) to go left or across the top of a T. The danger of the grand prix start is being alongside the cars; out of sight and out of mind.
I assume your concern is for danger to others; the difference between the car, many times my weight and the bike at one fifth my weight is fairly obvious. I can also manouevre the bike in ways and fit it into spaces I can only dream of in the car.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to cycle to work (shifts) every day, rain or shine all year round and aways stop at red lights, follow one way roads the correct way, never ride on the pavement, etc etc. Part of my journey was along roads with no street lights and at night a lot of car drivers came towards me with full beam on therefore blinding me. I did have good lights on bike so that I could see and be seen. Since passing tests and getting car I still remember being blinded and always use dipped lights when I see a bike at night.
--
Davy S.
Oops, where did that screw go!!
|
|
|
Interestingly enough, I was just pondering the other day that for a lot of traffic lights it would be fairly easy to allow cyclists to carry on in certain circumstances against a red light. For example, crossing the 'top' of a T junction is perfectly safe as long as there are no pedestrian crossings and car drivers turning right out of the 'stem' know that cyclists may do this.
Similarly, left turns in almost all circumstances could be done safely as long as drivers know and pedestrians are taken in to account.
One way roads ditto - as long as they are wide enough to take a bike and say a van then I can't see the problem.
Why make things harder for cyclists than they are? Bikes are easier to manage safely as long as a bit of common sense is applied by the riders. Maybe we need to look at things we can do to make these things acceptable where safe rather than moaning that the cyclist is getting on with getting somewhere.
|
What a load of theroretical mumbo jumbo.
Bikes on the road!!!!!!!
That'll be the day ....
|
|
I must confess that when cycling (not often now) I tend to go on the path taking care of other people. Twice have I been rushed to hospital in the back of an ambulance due to the carelessness and thoughtlessness of drivers and it's not something I enjoy. I'm sorry but I just don't feel safe when cycling on the majority of roads.
|
If pragmatically it is safer to ignore or circumvent certain traffic regulations then perhaps some debate is due over the changing needs of cyclists with a view to altering those regulations. The idea of being allowed to turn left on a red seems worthy to me, for example; it's how cars drive in some places in the States as I understand it (well, they turn right but you know what I mean), never mind bikes.
Is there a pro cycling group that is having that debate with the department of transport? After all, the end result ought to be safer roads.
Ideally there ought to be a makeover of the whole system - crack down on stupidity like no lights, enforce insurance, maybe a licence - the quid pro quo being sensible regulations and the money raised being ringfenced for cycling facilities such as lockable guarded stores at park and ride sites or railway stations, for example.
I know it's a pipedream but if ideas are not even tabled nothing will ever happen and another few hundred people will lose their lives.
|
|
About ten years ago my brother was prosecuted for running a red light on a cycle at about 3.0am when there was no other traffic in sight. Its a pity the police can't be bothered to prosecute in the daytime when its busy.
|
|
Perhaps less for the police to do at 3am so they were there to see it?
|
|
|
|
There has been some progress in recent years, particularly with Advanced Stop Lines. Far too many dedicated lanes are dangerous for reasons cited above, created by Councils to use up budgets and tick the boxes for their cycling targets. Eighteen inches of green tarmac, up against the kerb and under double yellows is a death-trap not safety provision. As well as obstruction by debris and gravel dedicated lanes loose priority at all side roads. Drivers turning to their drives are not looking for a bike a 20mph plus either. I'd rather take my chances integrating with the rest of the traffic.
There are pressure groups, mainly the Cyclists Touring Club, advocating for cyclists with the DfT, but too much of their limited capacity is taken up fighting for basic rights without pressing for the kind of review dipstick advocates. I don’t think licensing would work, too much beaurocracy for the real gain. Insurance is a thorny issue but mostof us are probably covered either by the personal liability sections of our home policy or through membership of the CTC or like organisations.
|
|
|
|
|
