We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
cyclist deaths & the law
Comments
-
Is it not the law though to stop at red lights when you are a road user? A car driver could say what's the point in stopping at a red light if they are using the roads in the early hours and they can see no other cars about. I use to work night shifts and would always stop at red lights even though I could see quite clearly that there wasn't another soul in sight! Following your own rules on the road is slightly worrying, are you a car driver, do you have your own set of rules when in your vehicle as well?
I am a car driver, yes (as you'd know if you actually *read the thread* hohum)...and as a car driver, I *always* stop at red lights, too, unless they're broken. But then, my chances of being crushed when moving away from the lights by people trying to get through before they change is somewhat less when in a car. Sad to report, however, that I do have my own set of rules while driving, too. I've been known to hit 73mph on the motorway, sometimes I drive over the centre of mini-roundabouts and I've even gone against one-way signs on a couple of occasions. I'm more or less the anti-christ, eh...^^ Just what I was thinking ^^ I wonder if he bothers with having lights on his bike as well...
Why wouldn't I bother with having lights? What's that got to do with anything? I've made it quite clear that the reason I go through these *two* red lights, is because it's safer for me to do so than to wait. My safety, and the safety of other road users, is my paramount concern at all times. This is exactly the kind of "us and them" attitude I just don't understand. Because I turn left on a couple of red lights, I suddenly lose my right to live and don't cycle with lights...amazing place, the internet.0 -
-
Idiophreak wrote: »I'm making perfect sense. You're just not bothering to read it.
At the junctions in question...if you set off on green, you and I will never meet. Ever.
I'd read it, it's just a meaningless rant from someone trying to justify himself to the rest of us.0 -
QED!Idiophreak wrote: »I go through red lights, if there's no good reason to stop...I'm sorry, a red light isn't, in itself, a good reason...
You've decided that your judgement is above the law. You've decided that red lights don't apply to you. You've decided that you know better than the people who designed the junction and phased the lights. (OK - that last one is quite possible...)
If you were to say you'd challenged the council and asked for a change which would make it safer for cyclists with no impact on other road users then I'd be right behind you - that's an obvious thing to do and I wouldn't be surprised if there were plenty of places where it could be improved.
Are there pedestrian signals on this junction? The red light might be for their benefit... Even if there aren't; what happens when someone looks at the lights and steps out not expecting you to be there? Or a kid runs across?
Even if you use all your expertise to only do this when you decide it's safe - you may be inadvertently encouraging others less capable to do the same.I need to think of something new here...0 -
I'd like to see all licenses issued for 2 years, with a mandatory retest in order to reapply.
I'd also like to see the CBT abolished and motorcyclists having to put in at least 20 hours of supervised road time before taking the full motorcycle test.
I know, I'm dreaming.Emergency savings: 4600
0% Credit card: 1965.000 -
You've decided that your judgement is above the law. You've decided that red lights don't apply to you.
I don't really know whether it's inside or outside the law, as I said originally, however, I consider it within the spirit of the law. Red lights are not as absolute as people are making out...There are instances in which you're required to cross a red light as a driver, for instance when an emergency vehicle is approaching, or more to the point when you would otherwise be endangered. I consider that waiting for the light to change puts me in greater danger, so I carry on.If you were to say you'd challenged the council and asked for a change which would make it safer for cyclists with no impact on other road users then I'd be right behind you - that's an obvious thing to do and I wouldn't be surprised if there were plenty of places where it could be improved.
I kind of have. I've asked them to turn the filter on to green for cars when there's no traffic coming, as it will greatly improve traffic flow through the junction. Strangely, though, this wouldn't particularly help me as a cyclist - because I'd still be setting off with a bunch of cars trying to squeeze past me as quickly as possible.Are there pedestrian signals on this junction? The red light might be for their benefit... Even if there aren't; what happens when someone looks at the lights and steps out not expecting you to be there? Or a kid runs across?
No, there are no pavements. You get people crossing, occasionally, but it's a wide open area, so you can see them from plenty of distance.Even if you use all your expertise to only do this when you decide it's safe - you may be inadvertently encouraging others less capable to do the same.
That's a good argument...and one I'd not given much thought to. I do think people, ultimately, are responsible for their own actions, so I'm not too worried...anyway, I stop, look both ways and go if it's safe to do so...I'm fairly sure most people will survive if they do the same.
In any case, let's cross our fingers that the government do the smart thing and follow the French:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16942781
Then cyclists won't need to choose between obeying the law and being safe...0 -
Sorry - wrong in both cases. You can cross a red light when instructed to do so by a police officer or when stopping would cause an accident. Your "spirit of the law" doesn't count.Idiophreak wrote: »There are instances in which you're required to cross a red light as a driver, for instance when an emergency vehicle is approaching, or more to the point when you would otherwise be endangered.
I'm really glad you said stop and look. Unfortunately I regularly see cyclists who do their looking at full speed (while overtaking the stopped traffic by riding on the wrong side of the road) and decide it's safe for them to dodge between the traffic and to hell with any pedestrians.Idiophreak wrote: »anyway, I stop, look both ways and go if it's safe to do so...I'm fairly sure most people will survive if they do the same.
Is there an ASL? I'd say combining that with a cyclists only light that goes green a second or two earlier would be a safer solution.Idiophreak wrote: »Strangely, though, this wouldn't particularly help me as a cyclist - because I'd still be setting off with a bunch of cars trying to squeeze past me as quickly as possible.I need to think of something new here...0 -
Sorry - wrong in both cases. You can cross a red light when instructed to do so by a police officer or when stopping would cause an accident. Your "spirit of the law" doesn't count.
Err, there's not really any "counting" about it. I consider the law to be designed to protect people on the road and keep them as safe as possible. What I'm doing accomplishes that, so *I* view my actions as being completely in the spirit of the law. Whether you (or the police for that matter) view things the same way isn't really my issue. I am only concerned with my own moral compass...
Naturally, I'd have to accept any penalties that come my way as a consequence of my moral compass not lining up with anyone else's interpretation of the law...but such is life. I'd rather take the chance of a slap on the wrist from Old Bill than a smack in the head from Mr White Van or Damien Busdriver.
Agreed, I see this often as a cyclist, as a driver and (most frighteningly) as a runner. It's ridiculously dangerous.I'm really glad you said stop and look. Unfortunately I regularly see cyclists who do their looking at full speed (while overtaking the stopped traffic by riding on the wrong side of the road) and decide it's safe for them to dodge between the traffic and to hell with any pedestrians.Is there an ASL? I'd say combining that with a cyclists only light that goes green a second or two earlier would be a safer solution.
No, the junctions in question are not on major cycle routes, so there's no chance of the council taking any particular interest in making them safer for cyclists...There's also no cycle lane getting to them and they're quite narrow with plenty of oncoming traffic...so unless you happen to be stopped at the front of the queue, there's not much chance of getting to an ASL if there were one.
That all said, to be fair, they're not actually especially dangerous junctions.
Yes, there are a lot of drivers trying to get through the lights in a short time, especially at rush hour. Yes, the filter lanes are narrow, especially between the islands with the lights on...Yes, I feel much safer setting off ahead of the traffic, but there are plenty of other, more dangerous, bits of road that require fixing before they move on to the likes of these.
As a tax payer, I'd actually view improving cycling provision at these junctions to be a bit of a misuse of money - particularly given that (whatever you all think), it's perfectly safe for cyclists to set off in good time from the lights ahead of the traffic if they so wish. Yes, I'd like this to be made official with a green light for cyclists, but it's not going to happen any time soon.0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-19473319
no insurance
failure to disclose "The company also had not been told of a six-month "totting" ban in 2009"
2 bald tyres
failure to stopMr Evans said: "There's no evidence to suggest the standard of the defendant's driving fell short of that required."
would think hitting the cyclist hinted at that?0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-19473319
no insurance
failure to disclose "The company also had not been told of a six-month "totting" ban in 2009"
2 bald tyres
failure to stop
would think hitting the cyclist hinted at that?
Maybe they couldn't prove she didn't swerve out in front of him.
Factors such as her clothing and back ground come into play. Can they prove she was there to be seen?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards