Womans Hour Discussion

[MSeries]

There is a rational debate to be had about this [...]

Yes I agree there is rational debate to be had, but No, no, no, no, no, it is not possible to cross a red light safely if it is witnessed by anyone.

Because  every time anyone witnesses an RLJer, it's another grain of sand on the pile that says cyclists don't belong on the road like 'normal' cars. It means a small part of driver attention at traffic lights is diverted from where they should be looking to where RLJing riders might appear. It means I have to be wary of being rear-ended by another cyclist or vehicle as I approach a red pedestrian crossing with no-one crossing it when I should be concentrating on the road. And it means that any debate about cycling gets dominated by the same tired arguments about cyclists refusing to follow the highway code.

All these things make cycling more dangerous including for those who cross red lights 'carefully' as you describe in your example.

Very well said JWO and as long as it is illegal I don't think we should do it. However, that doesn't stop us from campaigning to change the traffic laws so that where it is safe to do so it is made permissible for cyclists to pass through red lights.

Why would we want to cross red lights ? Because we are impatient ?

[Regulator]

There is a rational debate to be had about this [...]

Yes I agree there is rational debate to be had, but No, no, no, no, no, it is not possible to cross a red light safely if it is witnessed by anyone.

Because  every time anyone witnesses an RLJer, it's another grain of sand on the pile that says cyclists don't belong on the road like 'normal' cars. It means a small part of driver attention at traffic lights is diverted from where they should be looking to where RLJing riders might appear. It means I have to be wary of being rear-ended by another cyclist or vehicle as I approach a red pedestrian crossing with no-one crossing it when I should be concentrating on the road. And it means that any debate about cycling gets dominated by the same tired arguments about cyclists refusing to follow the highway code.

All these things make cycling more dangerous including for those who cross red lights 'carefully' as you describe in your example.

Very well said JWO and as long as it is illegal I don't think we should do it. However, that doesn't stop us from campaigning to change the traffic laws so that where it is safe to do so it is made permissible for cyclists to pass through red lights.

+1.

I can imagine the fury on this forum if it were suggested by motorists that they should continue to use hand-held mobile phones as "there was a rational debate to be had about it"...

[alan]

There is a rational debate to be had about this [...]

Yes I agree there is rational debate to be had, but No, no, no, no, no, it is not possible to cross a red light safely if it is witnessed by anyone.

Because  every time anyone witnesses an RLJer, it's another grain of sand on the pile that says cyclists don't belong on the road like 'normal' cars. It means a small part of driver attention at traffic lights is diverted from where they should be looking to where RLJing riders might appear. It means I have to be wary of being rear-ended by another cyclist or vehicle as I approach a red pedestrian crossing with no-one crossing it when I should be concentrating on the road. And it means that any debate about cycling gets dominated by the same tired arguments about cyclists refusing to follow the highway code.

All these things make cycling more dangerous including for those who cross red lights 'carefully' as you describe in your example.

JWO has my vote

[toekneep]

I don't think it is about being impatient. Not for me at anyway. It is more about flow of traffic in very particular situations where cyclist turning left would not interfere with traffic travelling right to left but free up the junction for the cars that are waiting. I may be wrong but don't they already do it in one or more countries on the continent?

[Wowbagger]

I can imagine the fury on this forum if it were suggested by motorists that they should continue to use hand-held mobile phones as "there was a rational debate to be had about it"...

Absolutely not. It comes down to the huge difference that the cyclist is in charge of something small which is unlikely to do serious damage and the motorist is in charge of a ton of metal which has, as I've said, poorer visibility, less manoeuvrability etc etc. and kills about 10 people every day in this country.

And in answer to Mr Charly's point about who is to judge what's dangerous, every road user does that every time they use the road and if they are not capable, they shouldn't be on the road.

JWO, you will never have a rational debate with the Clarkson-inspired motoring lobby. A small number of people are simply prejudiced against cyclists. Not to do something because of the prejudice of people of that sort means nothing will change - you can't argue with prejudice so you have to rise above it. And whereas I follow the logic you are trying to build with the final sentence, I disagree with it. If cyclists are (for example) allowed to go through a red light in order to turn left, then there's a strong chance that immediately afterwards they will have a few hundred yards' car-free cycling which will be considerably safer than having vehicles whizz past your elbow at every point. I don't see how it will make the slightest difference to your being rear-ended: that happens with inattention and you can get that at any time.

[Regulator]

I can imagine the fury on this forum if it were suggested by motorists that they should continue to use hand-held mobile phones as "there was a rational debate to be had about it"...

Absolutely not. It comes down to the huge difference that the cyclist is in charge of something small which is unlikely to do serious damage and the motorist is in charge of a ton of metal which has, as I've said, poorer visibility, less manoeuvrability etc etc. and kills about 10 people every day in this country.

And in answer to Mr Charly's point about who is to judge what's dangerous, every road user does that every time they use the road and if they are not capable, they shouldn't be on the road.

JWO, you will never have a rational debate with the Clarkson-inspired motoring lobby. A small number of people are simply prejudiced against cyclists. Not to do something because of the prejudice of people of that sort means nothing will change - you can't argue with prejudice so you have to rise above it. And whereas I follow the logic you are trying to build with the final sentence, I disagree with it. If cyclists are (for example) allowed to go through a red light in order to turn left, then there's a strong chance that immediately afterwards they will have a few hundred yards' car-free cycling which will be considerably safer than having vehicles whizz past your elbow at every point. I don't see how it will make the slightest difference to your being rear-ended: that happens with inattention and you can get that at any time.

Both acts are illegal.  Illegal is illegal - there isn't a gray area.  Theft isn't 'OK' because it was only £10 and not £1 million.

[Wowbagger]

Both acts are illegal.  Illegal is illegal - there isn't a gray area.  Theft isn't 'OK' because it was only £10 and not £1 million.

Sorry, Reg, that's a silly comparison. Theft has a victim. Judicious jumping of a red light (as I believe we did together one night on the way to Southend - the light sensor was not sensitive enough to pick up a couple of dozen cyclists, even though two of them were our girth) has no victim.

[red marley]

JWO, you will never have a rational debate with the Clarkson-inspired motoring lobby. A small number of people are simply prejudiced against cyclists.

But thankfully, we can have rational debate on this forum. And there will be a much larger group of people who aren't part of some 'Clarkson-inspired motoring lobby' who will be influenced by the behaviour the see on the road.

If cyclists are (for example) allowed to go through a red light in order to turn left, then there's a strong chance that immediately afterwards they will have a few hundred yards' car-free cycling which will be considerably safer than having vehicles whizz past your elbow at every point.

I think that would depend in the circumstances, but more importantly, cyclists are currently not allowed to do this so there is an extra negative cost in doing so.

I don't see how it will make the slightest difference to your being rear-ended: that happens with inattention and you can get that at any time.

It makes a very real difference. This is not about inattention, but expectation. The greater the number of cyclists who go though red, but empty pedestrian crossings, the more 'unpredictable' stopping at those lights becomes. I've had several near-misses from cyclists and even a bus behind me who just assumed I was going to RLJ.

[MSeries]

I'm still with jwo.

[Oaky]

I didn't get around to listening to this but I have just heard some of the responses. Very depressing stuff. A keen cyclist and campaigner who want a cycle path alongside every main road and two comments along the lines of "cyclists don't wear bright clothing and have poor lights and can't be seen" and "cyclists ignore red lights including pedestrian crossings and ignore the Highway Code bringing it all on themselves".

That will be 100% of cyclists presumably. 

yup saddening.  of course no drivers ever ignore red lights, pedestrian crossings, or any part of the highway code (esp. rule 163)

[nuttycyclist]

JWO has my vote too.

I don't think it is about being impatient. Not for me at anyway. It is more about flow of traffic in very particular situations where cyclist turning left would not interfere with traffic travelling right to left but free up the junction for the cars that are waiting. I may be wrong but don't they already do it in one or more countries on the continent?

A cyclist turning left through red into a stream of traffic flowing from right to left WILL interfere with that traffic flow.

[toekneep]

JWO has my vote too.

I don't think it is about being impatient. Not for me at anyway. It is more about flow of traffic in very particular situations where cyclist turning left would not interfere with traffic travelling right to left but free up the junction for the cars that are waiting. I may be wrong but don't they already do it in one or more countries on the continent?

A cyclist turning left through red into a stream of traffic flowing from right to left WILL interfere with that traffic flow.

The very particular situation I was thinking of would be, for example, where there was a cycle lane on both the approach road and the road you were joining. Of course that doesn't allow for motorists driving in the cycle lane, I would be aware of that danger though.

[Wowbagger]

I accept that everything depends upon circumstances. The example I gave above about my particular set of lights is the exception, I'd agree. There are plenty of sets of lights where I'd say that it would be hard to see any set of circumstances in which it would be safe for a cyclist to proceed through red.

A cyclist turning left through red into a stream of traffic flowing from right to left WILL interfere with that traffic flow.

Exactly, Nutty. Not all sets of lights have a constantly moving stream of traffic even when they are green, though. A cyclist turning left at a red light who has already ascertained that there is no immediately adjacent traffic coming from the right would make no difference to anyone apart from the vehicles he's leaving behind, who would then have an easier departure from the lights when they change.

[Panoramix]

Jwo has my vote also as I would really want things to be more predictable.

[alan]

Any qualification  of the Stop Rule to allow left-at Red will serve only to add more confusion which creates more bullets to fire against cyclists.
Red= stop: Easy to understand & un-ambiguous.
Just bloody stop!

[Wowbagger]

Any qualification  of the Stop Rule to allow left-at Red will serve only to add more confusion which creates more bullets to fire against cyclists.
Red= stop: Easy to understand & un-ambiguous.
Just bloody stop!

In the example I used this morning, Alan, I'd be surprised if any cyclist familiar with those lights would stop at that junction. You'd be waiting for nothing - crossing the white line and immediately turning left onto a cycle lane, which is my invariable mode of procedure at that junction, never brings the cyclist into contact with motorised vehicles.

[teethgrinder]

In the example I used this morning, Alan, I'd be surprised if any cyclist familiar with those lights would stop at that junction. You'd be waiting for nothing - crossing the white line and immediately turning left onto a cycle lane, which is my invariable mode of procedure at that junction, never brings the cyclist into contact with motorised vehicles.

If you'd have dismounted and carried your bike over the white line then you'd have been legal. Or perhaps ridden onto the cylepath on yoiur left before you reached the traffic lights, if that was possible.
Perhaps a re-design of those types of junction to legally permit what you did wold be better than changing the law to something more complicated. No reason why the road can't have a cyclists filter into the cycle path.

Right turns on red lights work perfectly OK in America. American roads are rather wide though.

[PloddinPedro]

I have to say I'm with Wowbagger on this one. When I commuted across London early in the mornings I would use Oxford Street and at each traffic light I'd pause, check the crossing roads were clear of traffic and if so, proceed. In so doing I was (a) doing exactly what a pedestrian going my way would do; and (b) facilitating to smooth progress of the buses/taxis sharing the bus lane with me. There was no danger to anyone and I was keeping myself further from harm's way, bus/taxi-wise. It's a question of common sense. I've stopped at a lot of green lights when inattentive pedestrians have wandered out in front of me. People who get steamed up about cyclists jumping the lights are often focussing on the rules for rules sake argument and losing sight of whether the action is or is not dangerous. And as a final point (from me): I'll obey the rules strictly when the motorised fraternity do likewise and stop driving as if they're out to kill me!

[Jaded]

I often speed at over 100mph in urban areas when there aren't any people about.

There's no danger.

[Regulator]

I often speed at over 100mph in urban areas when there aren't any people about.

There's no danger.

100 metres per hour?!?!?

You're doing well, old boy!   

[teethgrinder]

I'll obey the rules strictly when the motorised fraternity do likewise

That's funny, they ay the same about us  
It's not just rule for the sake ofrules though. I want pedestrians to know that they are totally safe to cross the road on a crossing. f it mens that I have to stop at a red light when nobody seems to be there, then that's fine by me. Besides, how do I know that nobody is running very fast to cross the road with the reen man in their favour? Just because I can't see them, doesn't mean they're not running down an alleyway out of view of the road.
If we all start jumping lights at pdestrian crossings, the pedestrians will sto using them and try and cross the road and maybe get it wrong, especially if they are blind, very young or whatever.
I prefer to encourage them to use the crossings in total safety and reduce the amount of watching pedestrians that I have to do. If people see you jumping lights, even whenit's safe, then they will learn to expect it. I like it how it is. Red light=stop. Nice and simple.

[gordon taylor]

Yes Yes Yes.
Thank you Mr Teethgrinder.
That's what I was trying to say too...

[sas]

If we all start jumping lights at pdestrian crossings, the pedestrians will sto using them and try and cross the road and maybe get it wrong, especially if they are blind, very young or whatever.
I prefer to encourage them to use the crossings in total safety and reduce the amount of watching pedestrians that I have to do. If people see you jumping lights, even whenit's safe, then they will learn to expect it. I like it how it is. Red light=stop. Nice and simple.

I guess you're not a fan of shared space then?

[rogerzilla]

I heard the intro to the programme (I was driving at the time) and switched off.  Jenni "I haven't exercised in the last 20 years any more than walking to the fridge" Murray's views on cyclists are well-known.

[Manotea]

I'll obey the rules strictly when the motorised fraternity do likewise

That's funny, they ay the same about us  
It's not just rule for the sake ofrules though. I want pedestrians to know that they are totally safe to cross the road on a crossing. f it mens that I have to stop at a red light when nobody seems to be there, then that's fine by me. Besides, how do I know that nobody is running very fast to cross the road with the reen man in their favour? Just because I can't see them, doesn't mean they're not running down an alleyway out of view of the road.
If we all start jumping lights at pdestrian crossings, the pedestrians will sto using them and try and cross the road and maybe get it wrong, especially if they are blind, very young or whatever.
I prefer to encourage them to use the crossings in total safety and reduce the amount of watching pedestrians that I have to do. If people see you jumping lights, even whenit's safe, then they will learn to expect it. I like it how it is. Red light=stop. Nice and simple.

Y'know, riding through a red light simply never occurred to me before I found out from cycling forums that it was apparently recognised as something cyclists do. It simply never crossed my mind. And for the most part it still doesn't.

On the other hand I regularly ride/drive through on amber. Something for RLJers to consider.