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

[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.