Oh dear, car drivers won’t like this! Options

[Richy320]

Motorists naughtier than cyclists? Surely not!

Danish study

[Advertisement]

[ManxRed]

I'm Norravinthat.

Come to Brighton, and do your study there!

[southpaw82]

In Denmark.

[Tancred]

In Denmark.

And the UK as well:

https://youtu.be/DBP2LTQxqZ8?t=97

Not that it will in any way stop the usual anti-cycling nonsense about everything being the fault of cyclists because they don't respect the rules of the road.

This post has been edited by Tancred: Thu, 16 May 2019 - 11:59

[Fredd]

In Denmark.

And the UK as well:

https://youtu.be/DBP2LTQxqZ8?t=97

Not that it will in any way stop the usual anti-cycling nonsense about everything being the fault of cyclists because they don't respect the rules of the road.

Cyclists can be a nuisance, running red lights, riding on the pavement ... but are they dangerous, and if not, is it a problem if they break the law? Peter Wallker, Guardian journalist and author of Bike Nation: How Cycling Can Save the World, explores our fixation on cycling behaviour

So you're using a video from a clearly partisan Guardian journalist, that acknowledges that UK cyclists frequently break the law, as evidence that UK cyclists are as law-abiding as Danish ones, on the basis that they don't kill many people?

[southpaw82]

In Denmark.

And the UK as well:

https://youtu.be/DBP2LTQxqZ8?t=97

Not that it will in any way stop the usual anti-cycling nonsense about everything being the fault of cyclists because they don't respect the rules of the road.

I’m sure A_F has a phrase for this...

[Guest_Charlie1010_*]

In my experience many cyclists believe red lights are optional.
I cycle and it’s embarrassing to see. Cities are the worst.
In my town there is a cyclist who does it regularly and has a helmet cam.
The pc who says it’s not dangerous hasn’t had a near miss.

[andy_foster]

The copper was spouting the usual patronising and self-serving bollox - the offences that are easiest to detect/prove are apparently also the ones that cause most of the KSIs, rather than general bad driving.

Obviously cyclists flouting the law (and I have no idea how they managed to find a junction where only 16% of cyclists jumped the lights) poses less of a danger to other road users than similar offences committed by drivers of vehicles with far more momentum/kinetic energy, but since when have motoring offences been prosecuted on the basis of real danger caused on that occasion?

[seank]

Where's notmeatloaf?
He always has a comment about cyclists.
Andy has had a few comments, too.
Usually very amusing, about reading the thread before posting, so as to not look completely stupid.
Shows me that Andy is first class and NML isn't.

[The Rookie]

Im a cyclist and I don’t jump lights, lots of us don’t. I don’t ride on pavements either.
I hate red light jumping cyclists as much as any driver (also a driver of course) as we all get tarred with the same brush.

[Richy320]

There’s always this fascination with red lights as though, some how, they are sacrosanct. They’re not. In America they manage quite successfully to turn right on red, using them as more of a give way sign. Yes, I know the law, red means stop etc, etc, but sometimes, in the real world, it’s safer all round to treat them more as a give way.

Temporary traffic lights!

If I’m at the front of the queue and I wait until green, I end up with a very impatient queue of car drivers almost pushing me through the roadworks, often trying to squeeze past in a very dangerous manner. If I’m in the middle, the car drivers almost always try and squeeze by as they can’t possibly wait to the end of the restriction and create a gap to the car in front, they might get to where they’re going 5 seconds later and that would never do! If I’m at the end of the queue, by the time I get the the other end of the roadworks, the lights at the other end have gone green and I’m now faced with oncoming traffic accusing me of going through on red, I must have, because their light is green, which means go right, even though I am still clearly coming the other way! No, the road is not clear!

Cyclists are generally far more aware of their surroundings and away from cities it is often far safer to treat some red lights as caution areas, rather than stop signs. If car drivers were a little more considerate then maybe that wouldn’t be necessary but they’re not and it is!

And no, none of that in any way justifies the reckless disregard of red lights and pedestrians we’ve all seen in various YouTube videos!

This post has been edited by Richy320: Fri, 17 May 2019 - 08:04

[seank]

There’s always this fascination with red lights as though, some how, they are sacrosanct. They’re not. In America they manage quite successfully to turn right on red, using them as more of a give way sign. Yes, I know the law, red means stop etc, etc, but sometimes, in the real world, it’s safer all round to treat them more as a give way.

Temporary traffic lights!

If I’m at the front of the queue and I wait until green, I end up with a very impatient queue of car drivers almost pushing me through the roadworks, often trying to squeeze past in a very dangerous manner. If I’m in the middle, the car drivers almost always try and squeeze by as they can’t possibly wait to the end of the restriction and create a gap to the car in front, they might get to where they’re going 5 seconds later and that would never do! If I’m at the end of the queue, by the time I get the the other end of the roadworks, the lights at the other end have gone green and I’m now faced with oncoming traffic accusing me of going through on red, I must have, because their light is green, which means go right, even though I am still clearly coming the other way! No, the road is not clear!

Cyclists are generally far more aware of their surroundings and away from cities it is often far safer to treat some red lights as caution areas, rather than stop signs. If car drivers were a little more considerate then maybe that wouldn’t be necessary but they’re not and it is!

And no, none of that in any way justifies the reckless disregard of red lights and pedestrians we’ve all seen in various YouTube videos!

I think you could do with some education. For a Pound or two, you could buy a Highway Code.
In America, the vast majority of red traffic lights mean stop, just like here. In exceptional cases, there's normally a sign saying it's OK to turn on red. In the UK we are clear:
1. An amber light and a red light mean stop. There is some leeway for amber.
2. Footpaths are for pedestrians.
3. One way streets are to travel only in the direction of the arrow.
4. No entry signs mean just that.
5. It's your choice to cycle and pay no road tax, no insurance, carry no number plates and benefit from advanced stop lines at junctions, but you have to obey the law.
6. If you take something from a shop, you have to pay for it. It's called adherence to the law.
7. If you go through a red light, you might meet someone like me coming through against you. I have a high tensile steel cage, seatbelts, airbags and crumple zones in a 2-tonne vehicle. You have Lycra. Do you imagine I won't squash you?

[Guest_Charlie1010_*]

The near miss was me crossing the road green man red lights etc and Larry Lycra shaved my rh sideburn.

This post has been edited by Charlie1010: Fri, 17 May 2019 - 08:51

[The Rookie]

2. Well except for those which are changed to shared use (Presuming you actually mean footways?)


As for your rant, Richy wasn't advocating any of those, so why insult our intelligence by stating it as if he was?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Fri, 17 May 2019 - 09:07

[seank]

I mean footpaths, as I'm sure you very well know.
There was no rant from me, just a statement of facts.
I took exception to his first paragraph.

There’s always this fascination with red lights as though, some how, they are sacrosanct. They’re not.
Yes, I know the law, red means stop etc, etc, but sometimes, in the real world....

There is no real world, virtual world, imaginary world or any other. If a cyclist chooses to ignore the law and travels in front of me, I think I've made my position clear.

There is too much nonsense now. People seem to be innumerate, illiterate and generally know little. The UK is rated 36th place in the international Pisa comparison tables for student ability, yet I can't ever remember a completely useless teacher being sacked.
In my opinion (and everyone has one) I prefer the German system where people obey the rules and don't try to bend them to suit themselves.

This post has been edited by seank: Fri, 17 May 2019 - 09:04

[The Rookie]

Cyclists are allowed on footpaths with the landowners permission.......

[seank]

The footpaths are public property. The council are public servants, who work for me. I am the landowner.
Have a look at the Youtube "auditors" who stand on the public sidewalk and can photograph anything they like. They go into libraries, Plod shops and council offices, in the public areas.
I think we have a lot to learn in the UK and we generally follow the US after a decade or two.

I don't walk much but, if I did and some Lycra lout was pedalling into my space I think trouble might result. Just like those who deliberately ignore traffic signs.
If I ask them why they're not on the road, in the few cycle lanes, I'm told it's for safety. Their safety. They don't give a flying proverbial about mine.

[The Rookie]

So you do mean footways not footpaths.

The bit next to a road is a footway.

I don't walk much but, if I did and some Lycra lout was pedalling into my space I think trouble might result. Just like those who deliberately ignore traffic signs.
If I ask them why they're not on the road, in the few cycle lanes, I'm told it's for safety. Their safety. They don't give a flying proverbial about mine.

Who on here has suggested its OK to ride on a footway that isn't shared use?
Ironically I don't use delineated shared use as pedestrians are always wandering around in them.

[Richy320]

Wow, you've got some issues!

There’s always this fascination with red lights as though, some how, they are sacrosanct. They’re not. In America they manage quite successfully to turn right on red, using them as more of a give way sign. Yes, I know the law, red means stop etc, etc, but sometimes, in the real world, it’s safer all round to treat them more as a give way.

Temporary traffic lights!

If I’m at the front of the queue and I wait until green, I end up with a very impatient queue of car drivers almost pushing me through the roadworks, often trying to squeeze past in a very dangerous manner. If I’m in the middle, the car drivers almost always try and squeeze by as they can’t possibly wait to the end of the restriction and create a gap to the car in front, they might get to where they’re going 5 seconds later and that would never do! If I’m at the end of the queue, by the time I get the the other end of the roadworks, the lights at the other end have gone green and I’m now faced with oncoming traffic accusing me of going through on red, I must have, because their light is green, which means go right, even though I am still clearly coming the other way! No, the road is not clear!

Cyclists are generally far more aware of their surroundings and away from cities it is often far safer to treat some red lights as caution areas, rather than stop signs. If car drivers were a little more considerate then maybe that wouldn’t be necessary but they’re not and it is!

And no, none of that in any way justifies the reckless disregard of red lights and pedestrians we’ve all seen in various YouTube videos!

I think you could do with some education. For a Pound or two, you could buy a Highway Code.
In America, the vast majority of red traffic lights mean stop, just like here. In exceptional cases, there's normally a sign saying it's OK to turn on red. In the UK we are clear: Wrong, turning right on red is allowed unless there is a sign prohibiting that
1. An amber light and a red light mean stop. There is some leeway for amber. As I described, not always the safest manoeuvre due to impatient cars trying to push past
2. Footpaths are for pedestrians. Unless they're not, see above
3. One way streets are to travel only in the direction of the arrow. no argument there
4. No entry signs mean just that. unless it says except cycles. A lot do in London
5. It's your choice to cycle and pay no road tax, neither do you - it was abolished in 1937 no insurance, not required by law carry no number plates again, not required by law. It's the same reason that you don't have a rotating orange beacon on your car because you're not a tractor! and benefit from advanced stop lines at junctions, not sure of your point herebut you have to obey the law.
6. If you take something from a shop, you have to pay for it. It's called adherence to the law. quite a jump equating cyclists with shoplifters
7. If you go through a red light, or a green light you might meet someone like me coming through against you. I have a high tensile steel cage, seatbelts, airbags and crumple zones in a 2-tonne vehicle. You have Lycra. Do you imagine I won't squash you? and that, dear reader, is what we are up against!

[Redivi]

Technically Turn Right on Red is a Stop sign not Give Way

You have to come to a halt, however brief