Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

hugheskevi

If cyclists moving away before other vehicles is safer, a delayed green light for motor vehicles is the obvious option (I'm not promoting this!). Legalising red light jumping for cyclists invites accidents through indifference and poor judgement.

In principle, I agree.

However, if police are not going to enforce red lights then you get the worst of all worlds, whereby the most dangerous cyclists proceed anyhow, whilst those who would pay attention and proceed safely are put in danger as they obey law and stop when it would be safer to proceed as that is the law.

Another option would be to have cyclists treat traffic light phases which are green for all pedestrians as zebra crossings (ie yield to pedestrians but can proceed if clear). Although there are parts of other phases where it is safe to proceed despite a red light (especially if turning left) it is generally the all-green phases where the safest times occur. Given the low number of serious accidents regarding cyclists and pedestrians, this is unlikely to lead to any significant increase in injuries (although I think trialling it first would be prudent).

There could also be a few pragmatic rule relaxations. For example, at one set of lights I am routinely forced to go through them on red. This occurs when cars occupy the advance stop zone, motorcyclists filter up the right-hand side of traffic - there is a keep left sign in the middle of the road so when I get there, there isn't anywhere to stop (unless I am willing to stop on the outside of traffic, on the white line separating the roads, amongst the motorbikes, which is a very dangerous start position). The safest option is to go around the keep left sign on the wrong side of the road (safely of course) and get back into position ahead of the traffic. That leaves me about 10 foot beyond the end of the ASZ and that is technically RLJ, but is the only sensible response to the road conditions and poor driving by others.

There are also other junctions where if vehicles, and especially large vehicles, have breached the ASZ then I prefer to go past the solid white line to ensure I start ahead of traffic and not alongside big vehicles, again RLJing but the only sensible response to poor driving.

That reminds me of an incident several years ago, before ASZs became commonplace. At a junction I proceeded past the solid white line to wait about 5-10 foot beyond it. The reason for this is that the road was uphill, a bus was at the front of the queue turning left whilst I was proceeding straight, and there was a long stretch of empty road beyond the solid white line for no particular reason where I could wait and not be in anyone's way. A PCSO told me to go back behind the line (ie alongside the bus) I declined, the PCSO insisted and then the bus driver got involved, agreeing with me that my positioning was far better than waiting alongside him. I thought that was a very poor example of policing and not exercising discretion when appropriate.

brat

To legislate in favour of different priorities for cyclists at red lights would be politically very difficult. It's almost impossible to stop them from taking the law into their own hands, other than by expensive, resource consuming police operations. The default police position is always going to be 'laissez faire', because statistical and research evidence indicates that enforcement intervention doesn't have any direct beneficial impact on casualty stats, and may indeed worsen the natural equilibrium.

• If, through legislation, we were to encourage more reticent cyclists to treat red lights as a give way line, it may place those cyclists in more danger, because they may feel compelled to cross against their better judgement if there was a momentary opportunity.
  
• If police or perhaps some electronic enforcement system were to force all cyclists to stop at red lights, it's likely that the city commute would become even more fretful, with motorists pushing frustratedly past pelotons of cyclists at every light system, or more cyclists setting off alongside left turn vehicles with the inevitable consequential impact on collision figures.

The main impact on cycle safety in the current equilibrium is the anger generated in motorists when they see cyclists jumping red lights. The motorist then compounds this by driving carelessly (too close) past the cyclists, some of whom have inflamed his ire.
If the law allowed cyclists to treat certain red lights as a give way line , but only if they felt confident enough, that there was no compulsion to cross the line, but if the cyclist did so, their safety was primarily their responsibility; that might change the attitude balance for the better, and would probably improve safety.

armyknife

brat wrote: »

I cycle through a pedestrian zone every day, against the normal flow of traffic, and hardly any pedestrians look out for me. I have no problem avoiding those pedestrians who cross the road or step out in front of me. They're predictable, and you can see them about to cross.

These pedestrian don't look to me for accord. They cross in the belief that the road is clear for them to cross. I do their thinking for them, and it works.

Legalising RLJing for cyclists at certain junctions would reduce the confrontational issue between cyclists and pedestrians, and cyclists and motorists. And it would probably make everyone a little safer.

What an arrogant attitude.

Norman_Castle

If the law allowed cyclists to treat certain red lights as a give way line , but only if they felt confident enough, that there was no compulsion to cross the line, but if the cyclist did so, their safety was primarily their responsibility; that might change the attitude balance for the better, and would probably improve safety.

Many motorists still believe they pay for the roads through "road tax". Red light exemption for cyclists would never be understood by many motorists or pedestrians. I expect it would also confuse many cyclists.

The main impact on cycle safety in the current equilibrium is the anger generated in motorists when they see cyclists jumping red lights.

The main impact on cycle safety in the current equilibrium is the anger generated in motorists when they see cyclists.

RichardD1970

brat wrote: »

I cycle through a pedestrian zone every day, against the normal flow of traffic, and hardly any pedestrians look out for me. I have no problem avoiding those pedestrians who cross the road or step out in front of me. They're predictable, and you can see them about to cross.

These pedestrian don't look to me for accord. They cross in the belief that the road is clear for them to cross. I do their thinking for them, and it works.

Legalising RLJing for cyclists at certain junctions would reduce the confrontational issue between cyclists and pedestrians, and cyclists and motorists. And it would probably make everyone a little safer.

Are you allowed to cycle through a pedestrian zone?


Agree with Norman above. Just because you make it legal won't stop the motorist getting p*ssed off and still causing problems, just like with filtering.

brat

armyknife wrote: »

What an arrogant attitude.

What a strange thing to say. :huh:

brat

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Are you allowed to cycle through a pedestrian zone?

Depends on the pedestrian zone. Most permit cycling. This particular one allows motorised vehicular access in one direction, but pedal cycles have unrestricted access. The default position is always that pedestrians have priority in these zones and you must drive or ride with that foremost in mind.

Agree with Norman above. Just because you make it legal won't stop the motorist getting p*ssed off

I don't fully agree with that. Legalising something does have an effect on how it's tolerated. In the case of cyclists it may be a gradual process, but the attitudes of the motorists wouldn't be any worse than they are now.

Altarf

hugheskevi wrote: »

For example, at one set of lights I am routinely forced to go through them on red. This occurs when cars occupy the advance stop zone, motorcyclists filter up the right-hand side of traffic - there is a keep left sign in the middle of the road so when I get there, there isn't anywhere to stop (unless I am willing to stop on the outside of traffic, on the white line separating the roads, amongst the motorbikes, which is a very dangerous start position). The safest option is to go around the keep left sign on the wrong side of the road (safely of course) and get back into position ahead of the traffic. That leaves me about 10 foot beyond the end of the ASZ and that is technically RLJ, but is the only sensible response to the road conditions and poor driving by others.

So you are "forced" to overtake the queue of stationary traffic that extends all the way to the traffic lights, when you can see that there will be nowhere to pull back in before you get to the keep left sign.

Question - How is someone "forcing" you to do this? A gun to your head, holding your children to ransom, blackmail?

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

So you are "forced" to overtake the queue of stationary traffic that extends all the way to the traffic lights, when you can see that there will be nowhere to pull back in before you get to the keep left sign.

Question - How is someone "forcing" you to do this? A gun to your head, holding your children to ransom, blackmail?

Isnt that what the ASL is for?

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

Isnt that what the ASL is for?

The only legal way for a cyclist to enter an ASL is from the left not the right.