So much safer for cyclists to be allowed to go through red!

frisbeej

Retrogamer wrote: »

Right so as we're averting more blame to cyclists in red light running than motorists, i'm assuming how long the light has been red is a more important factor than how safe or clear it is?
You seem to advocate people should obey the laws however i'm a cyclist a pedestrian and a motorist and i see a lot more motorists go through red lights than cyclists.

Yep, I see more motorists running red lights as well. One of the benefits(?) of filtering to the front every day.

A bit of left filtering from cyclists but the blatant straight on and right turn against a red, pretty much always a motorist.


Oh now I've got to say: the low emissions cars don't even pay bloody road tax, and they get £5k from the government!

Cycrow

Altarf wrote: »

Apart from a cyclist trying to divert the blame elsewhere, motorists don't drive through red lights, two minutes after they were red. Lots of anti-social cyclists do.

oh yes they do, i've been hit by a car doing exactly that.

it was a pedestrian crossing, the green man was on before i arrived, as i crossed, the car just drove over the crossing, hitting me as i crossed.

The stupid thing was, they couldn't even get over the other side, because there was a line of stationary traffic just beyond the crossing.

They even stopped just before the crossing, but decided to just carry on anyway

maybe im lucky with cyclists, but when walking, i have never been hit by a cyclist, or even a near miss. I have however had plenty with motor vehicles

Norman_Castle

I've found recently amber gambling by car drivers is becoming, Its only been red for a bit so if I tailgate the car in front its ok gambling. One driver accelerated from 60 feet behind me and was outraged when I stopped for a red light. He then had a very theatrical arm waving rant which stopped when he realised I was watching him through the mirror. Another driver who had hoped to follow me through a red light took the opportunity to start a phone call while waiting.

brat

Kim_kim wrote: »

What about children using those crossings on the way to school?
Should they be responsible for their safety if they cross with the red stop sign on & the green man.
Who is liable if a cyclist ploughs into a child?

Road safety is shared by all, and must always be the primary consideration. If I walked out onto a road and got hit by a cyclist, I would consider myself to be a fool for walking into the path of a cyclist, no matter who has the right of way. Similarly if I drove my car through a green light and was clattered by another car coming through on red, I'd curse myself for failing to take sufficient care. Liability is a secondary issue.

If a cyclist has a right to treat a red light as if it were a give way line then liability is likely to mirror the liabilities of a give way line.

Altarf

Kim_kim wrote: »

What about children using those crossings on the way to school?
Should they be responsible for their safety if they cross with the red stop sign on & the green man.
Who is liable if a cyclist ploughs into a child?

brat wrote: »

Road safety is shared by all, and must always be the primary consideration. If I walked out onto a road and got hit by a cyclist, I would consider myself to be a fool for walking into the path of a cyclist, no matter who has the right of way. Similarly if I drove my car through a green light and was clattered by another car coming through on red, I'd curse myself for failing to take sufficient care. Liability is a secondary issue.

And here we have the true view of a cyclist.

A red light.
A child crossing with a green man
A cyclist plowing through the red light at speed.

Cyclist's view = The child is to blame.

And cyclists wonder why people dislike them.

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

And here we have the true view of a cyclist.

A red light.
A child crossing with a green man
A cyclist plowing through the red light at speed.

Cyclist's view = The child is to blame.

And cyclists wonder why people dislike them.

A child can never be deemed as negligent (at least in civil law) as they are unpredictable and aren't old deemed old enough to know better.. That's why insurance companies always pay out when a motorist hits a child.

I notice you've disregarded my earlier post. Usually people dislike cyclists through ignorance, and you're demonstrating that point very well.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

And here we have the true view of a cyclist.

A red light.
A child crossing with a green man
A cyclist plowing through the red light at speed.

Cyclist's view = The child is to blame.

And cyclists wonder why people dislike them.

You continually show that reasoned debate is beyond you Altarf. Firstly you need to understand what has been said before you respond. I'm not at all sure that you are capable of that. Secondly, you need to see beyond your prejudices, and argue from a factual rather than biased viewpoint.
Perhaps then you will understand that we all have similar interests at heart.

Bollotom

Another quite good question and the driver/cyclist battle begins again. I think you guys don't deserve to be on the road in anything except shoes. You're all so freakin perfect and never do anything that is your fault. I have a five year old with more common sense than most on here.:cool:

armyknife

Bollotom wrote: »

Another quite good question and the driver/cyclist battle begins again. I think you guys don't deserve to be on the road in anything except shoes. You're all so freakin perfect and never do anything that is your fault. I have a five year old with more common sense than most on here.:cool:

Sounds like you also got him to write the post content.

Bollotom

armyknife wrote: »

Sounds like you also got him to write the post content.

Not at all, Armyknife. Lots of good debatable questions about cyclists and motorists descend into a slanging match and don't help when people without agendas want to put a genuine point across. Just like you and your assumptions. If that's all you have to offer etcetra. :cool: