is it ok to jump a red when there are no cars or traffic around

smudger1946

Never jump reds, what is going on in this world, seems to be full of no nothing numpties!!

prowla

brat wrote: »

Thanks. The examples you have provided are good. IMO The most important laws that have been changed through social disobedience are those that have lingered as a consequence of an out of date, usually religious, moral code. Equality, homosexuality, blasphemy, discrimination would all fit that broad frame. The embracing of a secular society has allowed us to catch up with most of these anomalies now, I'm not sure there are so many left in the UK.

I was actually thinking more of the narrower parameter of road traffic law. One of the difficulties for the legislators is that the law needs to be fairly 'broad stroke' to cover all situations, but, clearly there will be situations where discretion can add value to the law.
The red light example is good. I would extend that for cyclists being allowed to go through reds at certain traffic lights. I'd also like to see more tolerance in law for cyclists to use quiet pavements. I'd also like to see the removal of fear from speed limits. I think that low speed enforcement margins has had a negative impact on the quality of driving, so I would prefer to see active discretion applied based on perception of risk, rather than a numerical percentage.

In general though, I think that most of our criminal law (including road traffic law) is pitched about right. The levels of punishment will always be a thorny issue, but that is another debate.

I agree that the law is there or thereabouts, and a heck of a lot better than in a lot of other places.

Our town has had a lot of the pavements marked as dual-purpose for cyclists and pedestrians.

The speed angle is an interesting one, because it is evidently based on the performance of the lowest common denominator car; however, it also defines what other road users can expect of you, which may be more important.

PsiDOC

Bloody hell. Talk about going off on a tangent!

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

You cannot LEGALLY run a red light. No matter wether fixed or temporary.

brat

PsiDOC wrote: »

Bloody hell. Talk about going off on a tangent!

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

You cannot LEGALLY run a red light. No matter wether fixed or temporary.

You can.



Just not in UK.

brat

If you had chosen to read the thread, you might have realised that the discussion had moved a little, as they often do. The point was made earlier about motorists in other countries being able to turn left/right on a red light. Cyclists can go through red lights legally in many European cities. Many road safety practitioners believe it's a safer option.

So keep up laddie...

... or walk on by if you don't know how to be civil.

dacouch

londonTiger wrote: »

Anyway, whats the law on this can you drive through a red if there's no traffic about? I remeber reading on another forum how you can drive through red if its safe to do so. There was a truck driver with dashcam footage of a car in front that drove through a red light. He sent the footage to the police and the police rejected it and said that there's nothing they can do.

Any ideas?

I think it comes under Darwin's Law

NBLondon

prowla wrote: »

In the case of red lights, I think the USA's turn on red rule is a good one; it is illegal here though.

I'm undecided on this one. I see the logic of the rule - that if you can make that turn safely without crossing the path of any road user then you should not be held up unnecessarily. It's the same logic that some cyclists use to justify their disregard of red lights.

However, I suspect that for every person who would do so safely - checking for pedestrians etc. there would be an idiot who decides they can go through every time and then extend the idea to "I can go through any red light if I can't see anyone in the way."

You could only make that change of accompanied by a lot of education as to when it is safe and legal to cross the red and and a lot of enforcement of those who get it wrong.

prowla

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm undecided on this one. I see the logic of the rule - that if you can make that turn safely without crossing the path of any road user then you should not be held up unnecessarily. It's the same logic that some cyclists use to justify their disregard of red lights.

However, I suspect that for every person who would do so safely - checking for pedestrians etc. there would be an idiot who decides they can go through every time and then extend the idea to "I can go through any red light if I can't see anyone in the way."

You could only make that change of accompanied by a lot of education as to when it is safe and legal to cross the red and and a lot of enforcement of those who get it wrong.

That's true, but it does work in the US, so it is possible.

And highway code rule 107 already covers the giving way part:

watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

OTOH, a few weeks back I was driving along my street approaching the roundabout at the end and a family was waiting to cross, so I stopped for them; however, two cars turning off the roundabout onto the street in the opposite direction did not and simply accelerated past them.

Herzlos

People are more likely to speed than run red lights because of the perception of risk; at a red light the other ways have been told it's safe (how many people check it's safe when on green?) and people do speed up to get through whilst it's still green.

Running red lights is a bad idea at any time, as you are relying on other drivers not doing anything stupid (and that's a big ask).

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm undecided on this one. I see the logic of the rule - that if you can make that turn safely without crossing the path of any road user then you should not be held up unnecessarily. It's the same logic that some cyclists use to justify their disregard of red lights.

However, I suspect that for every person who would do so safely - checking for pedestrians etc. there would be an idiot who decides they can go through every time and then extend the idea to "I can go through any red light if I can't see anyone in the way."

You could only make that change of accompanied by a lot of education as to when it is safe and legal to cross the red and and a lot of enforcement of those who get it wrong.

I think you're being a bit negative. It works in the States and many countries around the world.
The German model is interesting. East Germany had RTOR (Right Turn On Red) before unification, West Germany didn't. It was thought that the East German system would be sacrificed in favour of the West German method, but it didn't happen. Instead more and more West German junctions incorporated the RTOR concept, and there are now more than 5000 such junctions in Germany, half in what was West Germany.
The French system works well too. They have an amber arrow allowing right turn on red as long as you give way to traffic and pedestrians, ie as long as you treat it as a give way.
I don't see any of your concerns played out in either France or Germany, and I do 3,000 miles in these countries every year.