Cycling UK Forum

Excellent post, Pete. Sums up my views precisely.

The amber gambling is sometimes portrayed as the only thing that keeps traffic moving, missing the point that it's amber gambling and worse which leads to the long intergreens which are perceived as holding up traffic unnecessarily. I'm convinced that all road users would benefit from the strict enforcement of traffic lights which is now possible with modern camera technology. ie I believe delays would be reduced and safety increased if there was substantially better compliance with light signals.

Unfortunately, the widespread perception that cyclists ignore lights undermines the credibility of anybody suggesting this. The fairness or logic of this is irrelevant: it's how lobbying works, or rather doesn't.

thirdcrank wrote:I'm convinced that all road users would benefit from the strict enforcement of traffic lights which is now possible with modern camera technology. ie I believe delays would be reduced and safety increased if there was substantially better compliance with light signals.

It's my belief that lack of regulation of speed limits (see my thread on resurfacing), red-light infringement and errant motorists generally (including sentencing if going to court) is largely due to the "there by the grace of God go I" mentality. I.e. those responsible for enforcement are probably motorists who wouldn't want to fall foul of strictly applied regulations themselves.

I think we are getting round to a situation where quite a lot of drivers are becoming increasingly annoyed by the antics of bad drivers - although I suppose most would never see themselves in that category. eg I've posted a couple of times recently about a recent item from the AA or RAC where they were highlighting a growing belief that it's becoming easier to get away with drink driving because a lack of police patrols means nobody risks being stopped.

On the subject of police views, I remember an article in The Times newspaper a few years ago about congestion which approvingly quoted a real or imaginary traffic PC in the Met saying that amber gambling etc was all that kept traffic moving in London.

Specifically on traffic lights, some time ago now, perhaps around the Millennium, there was an area-wide experiment somewhere in London on the use of camera enforcement for speed limits and traffic lights. I can't find a link now but it was reported to have reduced casualties while improving traffic flow. Cameras are a red rag to the bull of many drivers so they face a lot of opposition from those who would like to rely on their own, self-interested judgment, and so we get all the garbage about cash cows etc.. Anyway, whenever I've referred to that experiment in any sort of public forum, I've been hooted down with comments that cyclists complying with traffic lights would be a good start. In circumstances like that, trying to portray cyclists as not being a problem is futile.

On the topic of long inter-green spells at traffic lights, whenever I drive on the continent (Germany and the Netherlands) I take note of the fact that the time that the lights spend on Amber is much, much shorter. Presumably because those drivers can be relied upon to actually STOP when the lights turn amber, as they are supposed to.

Inter-green stages are most certainly not to long - they are too short. And they are not there to provide an allowance for RLJs.

The formula for calculating the length of the all-red stage is based on the time it takes for a car to clear the junction from a standing start. (note: a car not a bicycle). This is not a problem for small junctions; we can get up to 10mph quicker than a car so will cross a small junction in time - however for large junctions (those with large triangular islands) cyclists do not have time to clear the junction before conflicting traffic is given green.
(Example here:https://www.fillthathole.org.uk/hazard/81154 - read the history to the the local authority response).

Of course if the all green phase is long enough for a car to accelerate through from a standing start there will inevitably be a significant margin for a car approaching at full speed.

Pete Owens wrote: - however for large junctions (those with large triangular islands) cyclists do not have time to clear the junction before conflicting traffic is given green.
(Example here:https://www.fillthathole.org.uk/hazard/81154 - read the history to the the local authority response).

Can also be an issue on steep hills when you can go through at green but at 5mph you are not through the junction by the time it's red.

Light sequences are generally set for maximum traffic flow
Tight times = danger are accepted in consequence
It would be much safer to add a few seconds

I drove to work this morning and saw two cyclists.
Cyclist 1 had lights and was covered in reflectives but undertook the lead car at the traffic lights and carried on through the red lights and box junction. Obviously he needed the reflectives to counter his stupidity.

Cyclist two rode in dark clothing with no lights and had removed all the reflectors the bike was sold with except, thankfully, the pedal reflectors which were probably built in to his pedals.

In both cases it was an hour before lighting up time ended.

It is due to half wits like these that proper, law-abiding cyclists like me suffer abuse from drivers who do not differentiate between good and bad cyclists.

It is due to half wits like these that proper, law-abiding cyclists like me suffer abuse from drivers who do not differentiate between good and bad cyclists.

Surely it is down to the half-wit drivers who do not differentiate between good and bad cyclists, rather than down to the bad cyclists.

I know several junctions where the sequence is too tight, the least unsafe thing to do is to ride off a moment before green

SpudULike wrote:For me it's those 'people on bikes', who have no intention of crossing the junction on red, but stop so far forward of the lights they can no longer see them change. They then have to wait for others to start passing them to know to go themselves.

Just can't see any reason to do it.

Oh motorists do that too. We're just far too used to repeater lights on the far sides of junctions in this country.

Retour64 wrote:In both cases it was an hour before lighting up time ended.

It is due to half wits like these that proper, law-abiding cyclists like me suffer abuse from drivers who do not differentiate between good and bad cyclists.

I blame nasty cyclists who use things like "half wits" as a misguided insult. Were you attracted here by the tolerance of saying someone who fell down a hole in a shop should be "sectioned"?

Also, "lighting up time" in the old sense has gone - it's no longer a half-hour off, but simply the hours of darkness aka dusk to dawn.

Cyril Haearn wrote:I know several junctions where the sequence is too tight, the least unsafe thing to do is to ride off a moment before green

Set off on green and make offensive hand signals at the motorists that will conflict with you. Somehow motorists always manage to see a misbehaving cyclist!

mjr wrote:..

Cyril Haearn wrote:I know several junctions where the sequence is too tight, the least unsafe thing to do is to ride off a moment before green

Set off on green and make offensive hand signals at the motorists that will conflict with you. Somehow motorists always manage to see a misbehaving cyclist!

Too *** scared to even try that, I am a live coward/lawbreaker

I rode through 3 red lights last Sunday at a roundabout in Rotherham.... i was the only vehicle on the roundabout and there where no vehicles on the feeder roads to the roundabout ... the induction loops simply do not pick up bicycles .... yes I've complained ... 3 times in the last year ....

And another 1 ... Bluebell Wood Hospice traffic lights .... i just get off and walk round the corner and over the rail bridge now as the induction loops are useless for cycles ....

Any cyclist who does not follow the law designed to increase the health and safety of everyone on the road IS a *****. Also the nit picking about lighting up time is designed to move the attention away from the law-breaking cyclists.
Those who disagree, can they give me the list of laws I am allowed to break and the situations when I can do so.
At least this post was not deleted as was my last one where I criticised a cyclist that I almost hit in York who decided the give way to traffic from the right rule did not apply to him on a roundabout.
I am a cyclist, I am a driver . I keep to the law doing both so that myself and others get to their destinations safely and that is what I care about. I do not wish to kill or injure anyone on the road as these law breakers have families and I would not wish on them the grief of losing a family member however cavalier the deceased was of their own safety.