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

Tilt

prowla wrote: »

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.

The problem in introducing this change (particularly with cyclists as most seem to think they already have this concession), is that UK road user mentality would have to change dramatically towards this very scenario. I have seen on many occasions cyclists ranting at a pedestrian for daring to cross the road in front of them in such circumstances.

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

I think you're being a bit negative. It works in the States and many countries around the world.

I drive in London - I see many, many idiots on a daily basis As prowla just demonstrated 2 out of 3 drivers ignore an existing rule....

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.

An amber arrow would be a better solution than turning against a red - it reminds the driver that there is a condition to making that turn. It also warns pedestrians...

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.

Really - where exactly is this rural paradise you help police again? And what's the fantastic salary?

alastairq

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

Had you been undergoing any UK driving test...at that point you would have received a 'serious fault'....[a 'fail'...]


What may seem a polite and considerate action on your part, has been risk-assessed, and deemed to have risky, or even dangerous consequences.

The pedestrian should be at a recognised pedestrian crossing point for such action to be deemed correct. [ie, zebra, pelican or whatever]

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

I drive in London - I see many, many idiots on a daily basis As prowla just demonstrated 2 out of 3 drivers ignore an existing rule....

I'm sure you do see many idiot drivers, as do I. But there's no correlation between a considered change in law - such as has already been approved in many countries - and anarchy on the road. Indeed, as with the socio-moral evolution of law as seen above, much road traffic legislative and constructive change takes significant account of what people do illegally, but safely. Things like flashing red lights on bikes, cyclepaths, extra brake lights, filtering etc.
I'm pretty confident that within 5 years there will be a relaxation of red light rules for left turns and for bikes at many junctions. It works elsewhere with time savings, congestion and emission reductions and no safety compromise.

NBLondon wrote: »

brat wrote:

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.

Really - where exactly is this rural paradise you help police again? And what's the fantastic salary?

I have good friends.

Tilt

alastairq wrote: »

Had you been undergoing any UK driving test...at that point you would have received a 'serious fault'....[a 'fail'...]

That depends on whether the pedestrians had already started to cross or not. If they hadn't (which seems to be the case), I would tend to agree.

alastairq wrote: »

What may seem a polite and considerate action on your part, has been risk-assessed, and deemed to have risky, or even dangerous consequences.

Quite correct which is why you should never signal to a pedestrian to cross.

alastairq wrote: »

The pedestrian should be at a recognised pedestrian crossing point for such action to be deemed correct. [ie, zebra, pelican or whatever]

Again I quite agree. BUT if a pedestrian is already crossing the road when you reach them, then they have right of way irrespective on whether they are on a crossing or not.

chubb3g114

Most traffic lights have an induction loop cut into the road which detect vehicles a few meters before the white line, if at 3am and no traffic around as the OP asked the light at red will change almost at once and will stay at green until a vehicle goes over the other induction loop where the lights are red.

chubb3g114

prowla

alastairq wrote: »

Had you been undergoing any UK driving test...at that point you would have received a 'serious fault'....[a 'fail'...]


What may seem a polite and considerate action on your part, has been risk-assessed, and deemed to have risky, or even dangerous consequences.

The pedestrian should be at a recognised pedestrian crossing point for such action to be deemed correct. [ie, zebra, pelican or whatever]

Rubbish - I can stop where I like; it would have been an error for me to wave them across (which I didn't).