Cyclists ignoring traffic lights

[kwackers]

Any cyclist who does not follow the law designed to increase the health and safety of everyone on the road IS a half wit.

OK, I'll bite.

Traffic lights increase the health and safety of cyclists how exactly?

You know they exist to control traffic flow and prevent jams, not for safety right?
You also know that light controlled junctions are a hot spot for collisions too right?

Without traffic lights it's just a junction, can you ride across junctions safely?

When riding across a junction would you say it's safer to ride across when you think it's safe to do so or when some device claims its safe?

Over the years I've had to deal with some corking behaviour by motards that simply wouldn't have happened had it been a normal junction - including folk trying to force me over to the side, folk trying to get in front when the lights change to turn left (or right), folk deliberately driving and stopping ahead of me when the lights are on red even when I've been at the ASL! I even on one occasion had a motorist pull up alongside me completely blocking the oncoming lane just because they wanted to get ahead of the bicycle - much to the chagrin of the bus driver who tried to turn right (from my left) only to find their route blocked (that was amusing though particularly as I was the only vehicle that could move when the lights changed).

Indeed the only time I've even been knocked off at a set of lights was whilst queuing behind stationary traffic but then as the driver pointed out; what where they supposed to do when I'm in the middle of the road?

No sorry, you can claim a lot of things for traffic lights but they're simply junctions which reduce the options you have for getting across safely because those cars behind you only see the green light and when those lights change everyone behind you is concerned with getting ahead, getting in the right lane and a bicycle is right down in their list of important things.

[Retour64]

Motorists approach a set of lights expecting a set of rules to be followed so that the flow is controlled and everyone gets through a junction faster. When the lights break down the drivers are more hesitant and observant and probably safer but the traffic flow is slowed. When a road user is attempting to cross a junction using the rules they should not have to brake hard to stop killing someone who has no regard for the rules.

You seem to think I am some kind of troll but the rules are there to speed traffic flow AND prevent injury. You were unfortunate when you were hit waiting in the traffic, however, I take the centre of the lane as well and I have not suffered the same. Asking someone to follow the rules is not being a troll so you don't have to take the 'bite'.

[kwackers]

Motorists approach a set of lights expecting a set of rules to be followed so that the flow is controlled and everyone gets through a junction faster. When the lights break down the drivers are more hesitant and observant and probably safer but the traffic flow is slowed. When a road user is attempting to cross a junction using the rules they should not have to brake hard to stop killing someone who has no regard for the rules.

You seem to think I am some kind of troll but the rules are there to speed traffic flow AND prevent injury. You were unfortunate when you were hit waiting in the traffic, however, I take the centre of the lane as well and I have not suffered the same. Asking someone to follow the rules is not being a troll so you don't have to take the 'bite'.

You say "motorists have to", the problem is they don't. I commute 40 miles a day and use a multitude of light controlled junctions (which I stop at) but claiming that they are in some way contributing to my safe passage is laughable.

If those lights weren't there I could choose when and how I cross those junctions and do so more safely. Having to dodge motorists who RLJ, motorists who try to get in front of me before the lane narrows on the other side, motorists who want to use my lane to undertake a motorist to their right, motorists that want to overtake and turn left, motorists trying to force me into the pavement because they don't think I should be in the middle of the lane - it's an endless list and lights make the issues far worse because the 'green' light changes how motorists see things.
Green is supposed to be provisional on "if your way is clear" yet I've seen motorists pull off from lights, hand on horn because the junction hasn't yet cleared and suddenly discover that they've simply panicked those on the junction resulting in poor decisions and a multiple car collision.

Traffic lights exist for one reason, to make sure all the motards approaching the junction take turns getting on their way. The only exception to that rule are pedestrian crossings whose job is to ensure that pedestrians also get a chance.

Traffic lights are more dangerous than non traffic controlled junctions and the fact that according to TRL stats typically only one cyclist a year takes themselves out by jumping red lights suggests that your fears are unfounded.
If traffic lights were safe there wouldn't be so much discussion about how to make them safer for bicycles with ASL's, separate green lights for bikes or even (my favoured thing) bypass lanes.

No. Traffic lights, particularly complex junctions are secondary only to traffic islands for the danger they present for bicycles and judging by the appalling mess they've made on the newly constructed Mersey gateway in Widnes where high speed left turns have been created whose mouths you're expected to cycle across with your fingers crossed it's not getting better any time soon.

[Cunobelin]

Loved this video

[Retour64]

Can someone explain why it is OK to describe drivers who may or may not be considerate 'motards' when I am censured for describing law breakers as half wits. What is the difference apart from double standards.
In my 45 years of cycling on the road I use the bike as a pleasant form of transport. The only time I have almost had an accident was when a cyclist overtook on the inside of me as I was approaching a junction and then turned right across me clipping my handlebars as I did so. As a result I do not think every cyclist is an idiot, only those who do stupid things.

For all the rest who are lining up to take a pot shot, I use a bike as 'a vehicle within the meaning of the law' not a political weapon to beat other road users with.

If your mantra is (apologies to Orwell) TWO WHEELS GOOD, FOUR WHEELS BAD then I suggest you develop an understanding from both sides and have some empathy for all the victims in an accident, the ones injured directly and their circle of family and friends.

As I said, I have 45 years of cycling on the road and have not hit the road because of another vehicle , only ice . I must be doing something right, so call me a stubborn old fool but you can quote as many studies as you like, I will carry on as I have always done with great regard for all other road users but unfortunately avoiding many of the cycle paths provided. Too many thorns, too much broken glass, too broken by tree roots and slimy with fallen leaves. Stop the apartheid caused by cycle paths and concentrate on improving the behaviour of all road users (Stricter tests for motor vehicles, Bike ability schemes for children,fitting punishnents for law breakers.) The place for vehicles is on the road and the bicycle is a vehicle.

Enough said, no more answers for the amateur politicians and their studies. My advice is do not be a Napoleon(Orwell's not France's).Goodbye.

[kwackers]

Enough said, no more answers for the amateur politicians and their studies. My advice is do not be a Napoleon(Orwell's not France's).Goodbye.

No "more" answers - did you provide any?

Your entire post(s) seem to be predicated on "you must do what the law says, if you don't you're an idiot" (or words to that effect) and little else.
Which begs the question; "why are they an idiot"?
Presumably given the lack of deaths due to RLJing you have to presume that folk who do it actually look first, so if they've looked and treated it as nothing more than a junction why are they an idiot?

[mjr]

Can someone explain why it is OK to describe drivers who may or may not be considerate 'motards' when I am censured for describing law breakers as half wits. What is the difference apart from double standards. [...]

I think you misunderstood something. "Motard" is French for motorbiker - see
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=94881&p=875902#p875902

As I said, I have 45 years of cycling on the road and have not hit the road because of another vehicle , only ice . I must be doing something right, so call me a stubborn old fool but you can quote as many studies as you like, I will carry on as I have always done with great regard for all other road users but unfortunately avoiding many of the cycle paths provided. Too many thorns, too much broken glass, too broken by tree roots and slimy with fallen leaves. Stop the apartheid caused by cycle paths and concentrate on improving the behaviour of all road users (Stricter tests for motor vehicles, Bike ability schemes for children,fitting punishnents for law breakers.) The place for vehicles is on the road and the bicycle is a vehicle.

Enough said, no more answers for the amateur politicians and their studies. My advice is do not be a Napoleon(Orwell's not France's).Goodbye.

Different vehicles have always had different laws and that's only fair.

FWIW, I've about the same length of experience, but I do use cycleways if they look decent and I think they go where I want to go. I grew up near Milton Keynes, where the difference between the used-to-be-good redways and the 70mph city roads was maybe larger than in many places. That said, I've hit the deck due to ice but also gravel (rubbish road resurfacing) and trying to reverse (trying to be helpful... Mistake!), plus the bike has hit the deck after I've ridden into a car, but I landed on my feet! I was also driven into (motorist turned right across/through me going straight ahead), but I stayed up. And all that despite being fairly cautious compared to one of my 80+ year old frequent riding companions! So if you've only crashed on ice, I do wonder if you ride far or wide.

[Lou]

Does anybody know why cyclists are oblivious to red traffic lights. They just saunter through with a total disregard for public safety. As a motorist i thought the highway code was for all road users. I didn't realise cyclists were exemp.

Some cyclists do it as do some drivers. I am wih you in my loathing of people who do not follow the highway code, whether on two or four wheels.
Cycles are also vehicles.
I wonder whether the lunatic fringe lycra louts, the ones who buy the whole kit, leave their brains at home and have their own version of road safety, realise how little they are thought of. Children do bikeability training, so why can't adults do it too?

[Cyril Haearn]

Adults may do training too

A bike may be a vehicle but a cyclist is a **person**, much more like a walker than a moton+vehicle

"moton" is standard vocab on here

[Retour64]

OK one last message. My commute is 20 miles a day, when I visit relatives it is 76 miles minimum. How many 200km audaxes have you completed? Tell me mjr as you pedal around your corner of Norfolk,what was your experience of completing a 400km Audax? What is it like riding all night? Tell me about your last tour up to Scotland. I see you ride a three speed, I used to ride a five speed which disintegrated 60 miles from home as I rode to York. Riding back on direct drive was painful but the out and back 120 miles was completed. Yes you goaded me into answering but don't judge me by your miserable standards. It is called EXPERIENCE which allows me to anticipate and avoid danger situations.
Goodbye again and enjoy Norfolk although it is not quite as flat as Noel Coward suggested.

[Vorpal]

Can someone explain why it is OK to describe drivers who may or may not be considerate 'motards' when I am censured for describing law breakers as half wits. What is the difference apart from double standards.

I hadn't spotted the 'motards', but now it's been discussed, I will leave it.

'half wit' is ableist language; it correlates knowledge with intelligence and makes an insult of the lack, all in one.

https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/the-tra ... d-you-care

I don't usually make a habit of moderating sexist or ableist language, but another user was offended and reported it.

[Lou]

Adults may do training too

A bike may be a vehicle but a cyclist is a **person**, much more like a walker than a moton+vehicle

"moton" is standard vocab on here

I am married to a passionate cyclist who does it right, I am a considerate driver where cyclists are concerned, so I guess I expect others to be as considerate on the road.
I will stick with driver. I don't care for moton. It suggests the mix of moron and motorist, having had to deal with foolish cyclists on my travels, I could just as eaily add a similar word for such cyclists but I won't.
I beg to differ, I am an ultramarathon walker, at 4 mph, my slow speed, I am still slower than a cyclist who could cycle nearer to half the speed of a car. Cycling is near to driving than walking.

[Bonefishblues]

Adults may do training too

A bike may be a vehicle but a cyclist is a **person**, much more like a walker than a moton+vehicle

"moton" is standard vocab on here

Moton is used on here by a limited number of people IME.

[Cunobelin]

Motorists approach a set of lights expecting a set of rules to be followed so that the flow is controlled and everyone gets through a junction faster. When the lights break down the drivers are more hesitant and observant and probably safer but the traffic flow is slowed. When a road user is attempting to cross a junction using the rules they should not have to brake hard to stop killing someone who has no regard for the rules.

You seem to think I am some kind of troll but the rules are there to speed traffic flow AND prevent injury. You were unfortunate when you were hit waiting in the traffic, however, I take the centre of the lane as well and I have not suffered the same. Asking someone to follow the rules is not being a troll so you don't have to take the 'bite'.

Interesting point...



Let's look at this innocuous junction. When you approach , you are relying on the fact that any vehicle approaching on the left WILL give way and stop.

This applies to EVERY junction, whether like this in the country or in the urban environment:




A thousand times a day you make decisions that are relying onto expectation that others will behave appropriately and correctly

When they do, it all works. It is only when people start to disobey these rules, behave in an unpredictable way and in doing so make things more difficult and dangerous that the accidents occur.

This applies to all road users. Behave, act in accordance with the rules and accidents are minimised

[kwackers]

Cycling is near to driving than walking.

Is it?

It's possible for a cyclist to hit over 30mph - I've done it, but most cyclists potter along at a fraction of that - I've even overtook some whilst out jogging.
Usain Bolt hits close to that on his 100m dash too!

But the important bit is weight, far more so than speed. A typical vehicle weighs around 1500kg, a cyclist a tiny fraction of that.

Total energy is speed x weight. A walker and cyclist are very similar, a car otoh is nowhere near.