Usually it's the other way round

[bellinghman]

Cyclists often rightly complain that other road users don't always see them. This is a problem - a number of collisions occur when vehicles pull out or cut across in front of them.

But this case is different: Cyclist doesn't see stationary van.

nil nisi bonum and all that, but <cynical>I can only think that, the van being stopped at a pedestrian crossing, the cyclist was too intent on running the red light and knocking over a pedestrian or two ...</cynical>

Comments

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Yes, quite. When cars do it, they are doing it at a point when the cross traffic is about to change state - it's a leap of faith in a heavy vehicle moving at high speed. When cyclists do it the state of the junction is not about to change, there's a much better opportunity to exercise judgement; and if they do get it wrong their vehicles are much less dangerous. So one wonders why the cyclists get the public opprobium?

It's obviously not plain suicidal, since London couriers do it all the time and, while their KSI rates are high, most of them get away with it all career. In particular a turn left on red is (I gather, I don't do it myself) not really dangerous at all, presumably why (in a rare episode of lucidity) Boris would like to legalise them.

[xnamkrad.livejournal.com]

Well in the last year alone
I've been hit by a cyclist barging thru a red light
My daughter was hit by a cyclist barging thru a red light
Witnessed a mother and child boarding a bus being hit by a cyclist who was between the bus and the footpath
Witnessed a cyclist almost go under a bus turning left at a junction which the cyclist tried to cross (while on the footpath)

In my experience many (not all) cyclists do not obey the rules of the road. It's very common place to see them going thru red lights at any time.
And yes there also many bad drivers as well.

One last word - I was driving thru Phoenix Park in Dublin one day, and on the radio was a talk about cyclist bad road behaviour. On each side of the main road there is a dedicated cycle lane - seperated from the road by about 12 ft, with a seperate foot path between. All with a large grass margin. I passed 7 cyclists on the road - not one was using the cycle paths.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

I don't know about the Republic of Ireland, but in the UK cyclists are perfectly free to use the road if they choose and it is in no sense bad behaviour to do so.

"there also many bad drivers as well" and one of these groups of people kills thousands of people annually and injures tens of thousands in the UK alone. One does not. So why is the former group an afterthought here in your comment, I wonder?

[xnamkrad.livejournal.com]

Cyclists are obliged to use the cycle path is one is there so it is illegal for them to use the road in those circumstances.

It was not an afterthought, merely a comment that not all dangerous behaviour on the roads is down to cyclists, and yes I agree more people are killed by cars.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Mmm. I'm not surprised that people are unwilling to be shuffled onto what are invariably inferior and more dangerous facilities, of course - just gently appalled when the motoring lobby manages to pass such a self-serving law.

Certainly when the choice here has been between legal and safe I know what I've done - as, until recently, when only filament bulb rear lamps were permissible, never mind the enormously superior reliability of LEDs.

[mkillingworth.livejournal.com]

I think the reason that cyclists who cross against the light or do other things that risk their lives get so much schtik is because the automobile drivers know that they would never be able to live with themselves if they killed someone with their car, even if it *was* the victim's own fault.

As for turning left on red - it's legal in most states in the US to turn right on red after stopping, which is the same thing as turning left here. It does help traffic flow.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

I certainly wouldn't want to live with myself after killing someone driving (although that is basically trivial next to the victim's lot) - not least because it would always partly be my fault because I would have chosen to drive - and I can think of only one means to be sure of not doing so; it's one reason I don't drive.

I know about right-on-red in the USA (IME it varies from "harmless" to "watch out, peds!" by state) but Boris' proposal for left-on-red is bicycles only, which might be a _bit_ less alarming...

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

In particular a turn left on red is (I gather, I don't do it myself) not really dangerous at all,

To cars, not really, but it's a very hostile thing to pedestrians. The US has almost universal right-on-red (since we drive on the right side) and what I've seen.

1) Nobody actually stops to make a right on red, as required. Indeed, they glance to see if a car is coming, then whip into the turn, occasionally hitting a pedestrian or cyclist who was finishing a green crossing.

2) The most ignored traffic control sign in the US is "Speed Limit XX." The second most is "No Right on Red." So, you now have people turning into protected crossings.

3) In dense traffic environments, you end up double feeding a section of road -- all the traffic on the green during turning right *and* all the traffic turning right on red. If the next section of road can't handle the extra flow, you get grid lock.

It might work, if drivers paid attention and followed the rules. In the US, these are two staggeringly bad assumptions.

Right-on-red really didn't buy us much in terms of safety or traffic flow.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

Again - I'm talking about _bicycles_, which are also what Boris proposes to legalise right on left for. Not motor cars doing it.

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

Well, as a cyclist, I'm against it, because I know many cyclist's regard for traffic law. There will be places where a no-left-on-red will be validly post it, and they'll ignore it.

Of course, they ignore it now, but the answer there is simple enforcement. You are a wheeled vehicle, act like one. We'll all get along better if we all follow the same rules.

One problem here in the US is there is a large minority of drivers who are very hostile to cyclists. This, of course, leads to a large minority of cyclists being very hostile to drivers -- see things like Critical Mass.

I don't have a good answer here.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Cycles don't mix well with motor vehicles. Nor do pedestrians.

And pedestrians don't mix all that wonderfully with cyclists.

Pedestrians have specific places where motor vehicles don't go (well, excepting backstreets of Japanese cities when you get a white painted line rather than a kerb). Separate paths for cyclists and noone else would be the answer, if there's enough space to put them.

There rarely is.

Absent that, no, I don't see a good answer either.

[damerell.livejournal.com]

"You are a wheeled vehicle, act like one."

Now that's a very curious thing to say, not that I haven't heard it before. Why should wheels be the determining factor, not mass and speed? Should skateboarders also behave like motor cars? Children with those stupid rolly things in their shoes? A horse moving at a gallop - no wheels, so I guess it should charge down the pavement?

There are already many cases here - like contraflow cycle lanes, or the mere fact that it is legal to cycle on a path not adjacent to a road where not explicitly forbidden - which treat bicycles and motor cars differently; a different rule for turning left would not be in any way unprecedented.

I certainly cannot understand why "the same people who now turn left on red everywhere will keep turning left where not permitted" is an argument for not permitting it in some places (it's not like we're making things _worse_ where it continues to be prohibited) - nor do I believe, with the current danger posed by driving, that traffic police should spend more time on cycling offences.

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

It's a shorthand, and not that clear, so in that, it fails. Bikes move much more like cars -- they take time to brake and to reach full speed, turning radii and rates drop as speeds increase, etc, and inertia vs. drag is very high -- so a bike or a car will coast a long time with no power or brakes applied.

Pedestrians are very different. They can stop very quickly, reach full speed in very short order, and can basically turn in any direction at any time (see a runner in American Football or Rugby for how dramatically a runner at full speed can change direction.)

So, the statement "You're a wheeled vehicle, act like one" means "You move like a car, not a person. Act like your driving a car, not walking on the sidewalk. And *don't* ride on the sidewalk"

The problem with going from no-left-on red anywhere to yes-left-on-red generally is that the public as a whole changes the default from no-left-on-red to yes-left-on-red, and thus, they're primed to make the turn, even when explicitly barred. It doesn't change those who make the turn regardless, but it will cause many more people to make the turn in the cases where they are explicitly barred.

The right answer to left-on-red in the occasional case is an explicit signal that tells you to go left on red. The problem in the US is the several states. In some states, an explicit right arrow automatically negates right on red, in others, it doesn't unless a sign is posted.