Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits

Or just this?

mdavidford wrote:

Or just this?

We've got some traffic lights here in Bristol that have a special cycle green light that lets cyclists go earlier.

It seems expensive to alter all existing traffic lights, so I'd be in favour of a law change so that traffic lights are treated as "Give Way" for cyclists.

hawkinspeter wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Or just this?

We've got some traffic lights here in Bristol that have a special cycle green light that lets cyclists go earlier.

It seems expensive to alter all existing traffic lights, so I'd be in favour of a law change so that traffic lights are treated as "Give Way" for cyclists.

AFAICS it lets DeliverUberFoodWhoosh drivers on motorbikes to go earlier, too.  Just like the ASL boxes are apparently for them, too 

brooksby wrote:

AFAICS it lets DeliverUberFoodWhoosh drivers on motorbikes to go earlier, too.  Just like the ASL boxes are apparently for them, too 

You've got ASL boxes where the paint hasn't worn off, or that aren't already full of cars and vans??

hawkinspeter wrote:

It seems expensive to alter all existing traffic lights, so I'd be in favour of a law change so that traffic lights are treated as "Give Way" for cyclists.

You could just apply a template over the existing green light masking it so it just showed a cycle.  Red, orange, green for cycles only.  In fact that would improve things a lot...

w jones wrote:

No we should obey the highway code, keep the red but why not have a purple light for bikes to go just after the red and just before the amber green for vehicles..??

or let cyclists go on red and amber?

But if the question is shoudl the highway code be changed to allow cyclists to proceed with care on red lights (stop, look and go if clear), then simply saying "obey the highway code is ignoring the question"

Benefits - cyclists starting ahead of traffic is safer. Remove risk of cyclists killed by left turning HGVs. I'm sure the number of cyclist KSIs caused by setting off and then being squashed by an HGV far exceed the number of KSIs caused by cyclists jumping reds. All those sensor controlled lights to not need to be fixed to detect bicycles.

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

Yes let them ride right through but only when Theres a bus or articulated lorry coming this would reduce the numbers of crazies on bikes and make the roads safer

Mods (if any): we are all accustomed to there being a fairly, ahem, tolerant approach to trolls around this neck of the woods, but even by the usual relaxed standards prevailing here someone calling for, and apparently relishing the idea of, cyclists being killed, even if it is in jest, must be a bit too much to be allowed to stand? You report too often on tragic real life cases of cyclists being killed to regard this sort of thing as acceptable, surely?

Mods (if any): we are all accustomed to there being a fairly, ahem, tolerant approach to trolls around this neck of the woods

Agreed- the fantasist nutter in question is indeed advocating policies designed to result in increased numbers of cyclist KSIs. He ought to be banished.

I must admit in my more cynical moments to have doubted whether you are a wheelchair user. But then I brush the idea clean out of my mind and realise you would have to be one really sick individual to come on here pretending to be disabled. Shame on me.

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

Yes let them ride right through but only when Theres a bus or articulated lorry coming this would reduce the numbers of crazies on bikes and make the roads safer

Rod Liddle - is that you?

(Noting this whole new conversation seems to be due to thread resurrection by a bot / revenant - appropriate...)

Clearly you believe in the "safety in numbers" hypothesis and are trying to boost the number of wheelchair users, yes?

Agreed, especially when they have the nerve to then look offended and sometimes even remonstrate ("Did I ask for your help mate?") if you call out, "It's green now" to encourage them to get moving.

jaymack wrote:

Jumping red lights whilst very temptingly is just daft. If it's a matter of cyclist versus motor vehicle there is only going to be one winner and it ain't going to be the person on the bicycle. Your family will be more thankful that you've come home safely than they would be that you're top of the leader board.

What a stupid thing to say.

The entire point of cyclists treating red lights as stop signs is that it leads to better safety. I don't know why you think that a cyclist v motor vehicle collision needs to be clarified when there's less chance of that happening if you allow cyclists to go through the junction when they choose rather than forcing them to go at the same time as those motor vehicles that you think are winners.

What's a leader board got to do with this discussion?

You may never been hit by one of our fellow cyclist jumping a red light desperately trying to get a good segment time. I have and it really, really hurt, the cyclist was bashed up badly too, a bag caught in his front wheel really did have the effect my O'level physics suggested it would. I've also been in the position of trying to comfort a dying motorcyclist that really all was well, not to move and await an ambulance 'cos he'd taken the chance of nipping through a light that had just changed. It's not really an experience that leaves you. I'd love to say that it's always 'two wheels good', but trying to gain those few moments aren't worth the risk be they simply to get to work, to the station or home. If another cyclist wishes to take the risk then it's up to them but it may be more than their life that is changed

jaymack wrote:

You may never been hit by one of our fellow cyclist jumping a red light desperately trying to get a good segment time. I have and it really, really hurt, the cyclist was bashed up badly too, a bag caught in his front wheel really did have the effect my O'level physics suggested it would. I've also been in the position of trying to comfort a dying motorcyclist that really all was well, not to move and await an ambulance 'cos he'd taken the chance of nipping through a light that had just changed. It's not really an experience that leaves you. I'd love to say that it's always 'two wheels good', but trying to gain those few moments aren't worth the risk be they simply to get to work, to the station or home. If another cyclist wishes to take the risk then it's up to them but it may be more than their life that is changed

There's also plenty of times that cyclists have been killed by vehicles as they both move off from the green light together. The entire point of trying to amend road rules is to improve safety and initiatives like the Idaho Stop have improved safety for cyclists over in the U.S. so it seems perfectly logical and desirable to see whether we can take advantage of the same rule changes.

Just because you've seem some idiots on the road doesn't mean that road laws are perfect and nothing needs to be done - what we want to do is move towards Vision Zero to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. I don't understand why you seek to oppose that.

hawkinspeter wrote:

jaymack wrote:

You may never been hit by one of our fellow cyclist jumping a red light desperately trying to get a good segment time. I have and it really, really hurt, the cyclist was bashed up badly too, a bag caught in his front wheel really did have the effect my O'level physics suggested it would. I've also been in the position of trying to comfort a dying motorcyclist that really all was well, not to move and await an ambulance 'cos he'd taken the chance of nipping through a light that had just changed. It's not really an experience that leaves you. I'd love to say that it's always 'two wheels good', but trying to gain those few moments aren't worth the risk be they simply to get to work, to the station or home. If another cyclist wishes to take the risk then it's up to them but it may be more than their life that is changed

There's also plenty of times that cyclists have been killed by vehicles as they both move off from the green light together. The entire point of trying to amend road rules is to improve safety and initiatives like the Idaho Stop have improved safety for cyclists over in the U.S. so it seems perfectly logical and desirable to see whether we can take advantage of the same rule changes.

Just because you've seem some idiots on the road doesn't mean that road laws are perfect and nothing needs to be done - what we want to do is move towards Vision Zero to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. I don't understand why you seek to oppose that.

Had a muppet nearly do me in this morning doing exactly that. I'm in front at the red light, muppet stayed on my back wheel through the junction... on crappy road surface and despite the right turn we were heading into being chocka... the arsehole had no where to go but decided to drive like a dick for shits and giggles. It would have been safer for me to ahead before the light turned but I don't jump red lights*

*actually I have jumped that red light a couple of times, 4:30am, no other soul around and the sensor doesn't pick up my bike so doesn't turn green for me.

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's also plenty of times that cyclists have been killed by vehicles as they both move off from the green light together.

Indeed there have been, but I do think that's a better argument for early release lights for cyclists that allow them across a junction whilst all other traffic is held (we have quite a few in my neighbourhood and they work brilliantly) rather than allowing cyclists through a red light and across an active lane.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Indeed there have been, but I do think that's a better argument for early release lights for cyclists that allow them across a junction whilst all other traffic is held (we have quite a few in my neighbourhood and they work brilliantly) rather than allowing cyclists through a red light and across an active lane.

We've got some early release lights here in Bristol and they do seem a good idea although I don't know if they delay motor traffic by a small amount or whether they use the gap in timing between the different directions. They're better than nothing, but I think the decriminalisation of cyclist RLJing would achieve the same or better results with a zero cost outlay (depending on whether it's just decriminalisation or changing all the junctions).

The junction at The Triangle (Clifton, Bristol) has just one lane of merging/active traffic, so going straight ahead can almost always be performed safely (note the early release light): https://goo.gl/maps/BECd1irX3yR6n97u5

I can see how the Idaho stop can work on basic crossroads or T-junctions, I would have less faith in it at highly complex junctions. Below is one of my local junctions (Camberwell Green) that I cross three or four times a day from various directions: as you can see, there are up to six lanes of traffic from each direction, further complicated by special rules for buses etc, it's not an environment into which it's safe in any way for a cyclist to go through on red, indeed I've seen several cycllists hit or be hit by cars there doing just that. Since they introduced early release lights for cyclists, 95% obey them (I think people don't mind waiting a little if they know they'll get a safe release in return) and there are virtually no incidents except those caused by the local hoppers whipping through on 30mph scooters.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I can see how the Idaho stop can work on basic crossroads or T-junctions, I would have less faith in it at highly complex junctions. Below is one of my local junctions (Camberwell Green) that I cross three or four times a day from various directions: as you can see, there are up to six lanes of traffic from each direction, further complicated by special rules for buses etc, it's not an environment into which it's safe in any way for a cyclist to go through on red, indeed I've seen several cycllists hit or be hit by cars there doing just that. Since they introduced early release lights for cyclists, 95% obey them (I think people don't mind waiting a little if they know they'll get a safe release in return) and there are virtually no incidents except those caused by the local hoppers whipping through on 30mph scooters.

I agree - complex junctions can have vehicles moving from unexpected directions so it can be safer to wait for a green light. It does however raise the question of why the junction needs to be so complicated and whether it could be redesigned, but that's a much tougher problem than making ordinary junctions safer for cyclists.

I hate cycling thru that junction tho I often do on the way to Peckham BMX track.

It's a horrible junction from pretty much any direction. 

Just out of shot, 100m or so up the road coming in from the left, is a lights-controlled pedestrian crossing which illustrates why cyclists and red lights are such a hot-button topic and why I'm not convinced leaving red lights to cyclists' judgement is currently wise. It's heavily used, and is right outside the leisure centre so is often used by small children and their parents. A majority, and usually a large majority, of cyclists will breeze through it on red regardless of whether people are crossing. The lights are clearly visible from both directions, and it's not people sneaking through a light that isn't yet "established".

It's one I cross several times a week, often with a small child, and it drives me fucking mental to see cyclists endangering people with that selfishness. For what it's worth, I think I've seen a motor vehicle run those lights perhaps three times in ten years: I went very vocally fucking mental at them because it is of course even more dangerous. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Indeed there have been, but I do think that's a better argument for early release lights for cyclists that allow them across a junction whilst all other traffic is held (we have quite a few in my neighbourhood and they work brilliantly) rather than allowing cyclists through a red light and across an active lane.

We've got some early release lights here in Bristol and they do seem a good idea although I don't know if they delay motor traffic by a small amount or whether they use the gap in timing between the different directions. They're better than nothing, but I think the decriminalisation of cyclist RLJing would achieve the same or better results with a zero cost outlay (depending on whether it's just decriminalisation or changing all the junctions).

The junction at The Triangle (Clifton, Bristol) has just one lane of merging/active traffic, so going straight ahead can almost always be performed safely (note the early release light): https://goo.gl/maps/BECd1irX3yR6n97u5

Ah, I remember when there were all those wands there to mark out extra footway and a cycle lane... 

The early release lights are, IMO, generally a good idea - they give cyclists an opportunity to start moving and establish themselves in the lane before the motorists look up from their phones and put their foot to the floor.

Only downsides are (1) food delivery motorcyclists/scooterists, who think a bicycle ASL is for them, and (2) the rare attentive motorist who sees a green light and their hindbrain tells them to hit the accelerator before the rest of their brain realises that its the bicycle early release light...

Wonder what happened to those wands, brooksby?

I really don't think this is a big issue - a more useful one would be that junctions are not convenient for anyone except motor vehicles and many don't even feel safe. (Here's how to fix that - different routes, no juction at all, not stopping at junctions and roundabouts [Dutch-style, UK style] ).

I'd slightly favour "early release" / "advanced cycle release" lights over "cyclists treat red as a stop sign"  Again I think this in the "marginal gains" category and certainly won't encourage more cycling.  Having seen how late and how fast motor vehicles can come through junctions* I'd probably stick to the lights anyway.  I suspect it won't decrease the amount of casual abuse directed at people cycling either.

I suppose the counter-argument is that such a change clearly says to cyclists "fix light issues (e.g. not being detected) yourself - but it's on you to look out for yourself and it's strictly 'proceed with caution' at all junctions".

If fiddling with lights a more convenient solution for cycling might be to add a "cycle scramble" / all-ways green phase.

* And that's absolutely fine of course because it was not safe to stop, the speed they were going, or the red was not "established"...

Rendel Harris wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's also plenty of times that cyclists have been killed by vehicles as they both move off from the green light together.

Indeed there have been, but I do think that's a better argument for early release lights for cyclists that allow them across a junction whilst all other traffic is held (we have quite a few in my neighbourhood and they work brilliantly) rather than allowing cyclists through a red light and across an active lane.

But that would delay motorists by many thousands of milliseconds, no amount of road safety is worth that!

Rendel Harris wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's also plenty of times that cyclists have been killed by vehicles as they both move off from the green light together.

Indeed there have been, but I do think that's a better argument for early release lights for cyclists that allow them across a junction whilst all other traffic is held (we have quite a few in my neighbourhood and they work brilliantly) rather than allowing cyclists through a red light and across an active lane.

As long as the red ligt is treated as a stop (and give way) rather than just ignored there should be no issue crossing an active lane.

This law would save addressing all the junctions controlled by sensors which simply do not detect cyclists, which can be an issue outside of peak times.