Cycling: red lights

Johnmcl7

Aside from the concept of cyclists taking tests not even being remotely feasible, why would it change anything? As correctly pointed out above, car drivers have to take a test yet they're caught regularly going through red lights and many other offences that would fail if ever done on part of a test. The other week when driving up a road I just missed a head on collision because a driver never checked where they were going followed by a near miss on a side impact because some idiot didn't check at all before pulling out at a junction. The problem isn't that some of these cyclists don't know what they're supposed to be doing, it's that they don't care and a test doesn't change that.

At the end of the day there are idiot car drivers, idiot motorcyclists and idiot cyclists but the reverse isn't true so it isn't fair to brand all cyclists as idiots because of one incident you have had. As a careful driver, motorcyclist and cyclist it irritates being branded the same as others who are not as careful as me. Particularly as when I'm on a bike if there's an accident I'm probably going to come off worse so that's a good incentive to make sure I'm seen and cycle legally.

John

bob_a_builder

Rd Lights :

Aren't they something that should be used on the back of all bikes at night

If only !

interstellaflyer

I personally have no problem with cyclists going through red pedestrian crossing lights, providing they do it safely ie slowly inch their way through, it's the lycra clad morons that slow down for nothing or nobody that annoy me, they seem to have the attitude that everyone should look out for and get out of their way, the others that annoy me are the silver lycra lad morons, 2 or three a breast doing 10-15mph and they absolutly refuse to go single flie so you can over take the safely, I've had single and 2 finger salutes for daring to give a gentle toot on the horn to let them know I wish to get past 'Safely' with attitudes like that is it any wonder that you get conflicts between motorists and cyclists.

mazza111

Why is this question even asked. It doesn't matter whether your on a bike, in a car or in a spaceship. Red lights mean stop. End of.

If you're asking this question, would it not also be fair to say, oh there were no pedestrians so I drove through it in my car? Sorry, cyclist should obey the rules of the road the same as everyone else does. And as for saying, but motorist speed etc. That's no valid excuse for driving/cycling through a red light.

interstellaflyer

Could the problem people have with this be that after working hard to get past the cyclist, only to see the cyclist come past them on the inside and through the crossing and they then have to try and get passed the cyclist again.

rev_henry

mazza111 wrote: »

Why is this question even asked. It doesn't matter whether your on a bike, in a car or in a spaceship. Red lights mean stop. End of.

If you're asking this question, would it not also be fair to say, oh there were no pedestrians so I drove through it in my car? Sorry, cyclist should obey the rules of the road the same as everyone else does. And as for saying, but motorist speed etc. That's no valid excuse for driving/cycling through a red light.

Absolutely. End of story.

thelawnet

mazza111 wrote: »

Why is this question even asked. It doesn't matter whether your on a bike, in a car or in a spaceship. Red lights mean stop. End of.

If you're asking this question, would it not also be fair to say, oh there were no pedestrians so I drove through it in my car? Sorry, cyclist should obey the rules of the road the same as everyone else does.

I don't agree.

Motorists drive through red lights all the time, but 'when they've just changed' (which is far more dangerous, frankly).

And as for saying, but motorist speed etc. That's no valid excuse for driving/cycling through a red light.

Well you could turn that the other way round, I suppose. The fact that cyclists go through red lights is no excuse for motorists to speed either. But they do, and it's entirely socially acceptable for instance to drive down a 30mph road at 40-45mph, you won't hear anyone beeping their horn at you or whatever.

I don't see that motorists (and I count myself as one here) have any right to be pious about the way cyclists cycle. Just because motorists generally wait at red lights they are getting all high and mighty about cyclists not doing the same. 'Because I have to wait, those damn cyclists should do the same.'

As a cyclist I really don't have a problem with the huge number of law violations I see motorists committing, as long as they don't put me or someone else in direct danger, yet someone stuck in a queue is getting wound up because I'm going through an empty crossing?

thelawnet

interstellaflyer wrote: »

Could the problem people have with this be that after working hard to get past the cyclist, only to see the cyclist come past them on the inside and through the crossing and they then have to try and get passed the cyclist again.

Lol, the traffic was stationary/queueing, nobody was going to catch me up....

interstellaflyer

thelawnet wrote: »

Lol, the traffic was stationary/queueing, nobody was going to catch me up....

That's exactly my point, a cyclist going through a red light on an empty pedestrian is just an excuse, the real issue is a physological one, the motorist is annoyed that the cyclist can make more ground than they can, especialy in heavy trafic.

NBLondon

thelawnet wrote: »

I don't agree.

Motorists drive through red lights all the time, but 'when they've just changed' (which is far more dangerous, frankly).

Which could be because they were too close to stop safely. Which is a valid defence - though I'd guess plenty of them would have been able to stop safely if they'd tried. This is of course why there's an amber in there...

Whereas you in your opening post clearly admit that the light had been red for some time and you chose not to stop in time but to ignore it because you couldn't see anyone in the path.

The fact that drivers are sometimes a***holes doesn't give you a moral right to be one too.

Otherwise I could claim I was entitled to drive down an apparently empty pavement at night with no lights - just because some cyclists regularly do this and get away with it:D