Traffic lights shouldn't apply to cyclists

[M Wicks]

I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s). I believe
that the current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who
jump red lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out
catching lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
Leaving it up to cyclists whether to observe red lights or not is
something which I think would do more good than harm. It stands to
reason that rigidly enforcing unnecessary laws against cyclists (or
whatever) discourages cycling (or whatever) in general, so increased
takeup of cycling would be one of the many benefits to the change I am
proposing.

But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:09:52 +0000, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>red lights

*Grabs popcorn, settles in to warm hands at the fire*

Cheers - Jaimie
--
>So, what do *you* do for a living?
I sit in a chair pressing small plastic rectangles with my fingers
while peering at many tiny, colored dots. -- Peter Manders

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-01-17, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
> in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?

You are confusing two separate issues:
(1) Should the law be changed?
(2) Should people obey the law?

Personally, I support blitzes - I'd like to see many more of
them, except of course in the one place where a few metres of
pavement saves me 800m of detour;-)

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Scion]

M Wicks spake thus:

> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at red
> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).

What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
with the green man.

> I believe that the
> current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who jump red
> lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
> disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out catching
> lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.

By the same argument, police should leave motorists alone and concentrate
on murderers and rapists instead.

> Leaving it up
> to cyclists whether to observe red lights or not is something which I
> think would do more good than harm.

If all cyclists could be trusted not to abuse such responsibility then I
would agree with you. Unfortunately there will always be a proportion who
will only think of themselves.

> It stands to reason that rigidly
> enforcing unnecessary laws against cyclists (or whatever) discourages
> cycling (or whatever) in general, so increased takeup of cycling would
> be one of the many benefits to the change I am proposing.

I doubt that fining cyclists for RLJing will show any measurable decrease
in cycling activity.

> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes in
> Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?

I suspect that the blitzes in Brighton are only being carried out because
there _is_ a problem with the cyclists' behaviour.

[Eleanor Blair]

M Wicks wrote:
>I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
>harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s). I believe
>that the current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who
>jump red lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out
>catching lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.

The vast majority of red light jumping cyclists at traffic light
controlled junctions are taking little risk with their own lives, and
causing little inconvenience to others - so I don't support the blitzes
as I believe this effort could indeed be spent better. However
cyclists jumping pedestrian lights can be, and often are, a menace.

I don't think removing the requirement to stop at red would be a good
thing though I'd probably support adding green lights for cycles to some
junctions. I still think we should stop at red, and until such time
there is any exception to the rules I will continue to do so.

Despite deploring the crackdowns I have as little sympathy for anyone
who jumps lights and happens to be caught and I do for drivers caught
speeding.

--
ele...@the-blairs.co.uk http://lnr.livejournal.com/

[Dr Zoidberg]

"M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:efba298a-129d-4c12...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).

Cyclists going through red lights are also very likely to cause crashes
between vehicles that weren't expecting it and then took evasive action, or
with pedestrians who are likely to be hurt.
This seems like a bad idea to me.

> I believe
> that the current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who
> jump red lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
> disproportionate and unnecessary,

Heaven forbid the police should attempt to enforce the law.

> and the police should be out
> catching lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.

They are? How is this clear?
Does this mean that they should also stop catching motorists instead of
burglars?
Stop catching burglars in favour of murderers?

> Leaving it up to cyclists whether to observe red lights or not is
> something which I think would do more good than harm. It stands to
> reason that rigidly enforcing unnecessary laws against cyclists (or
> whatever) discourages cycling (or whatever) in general, so increased
> takeup of cycling would be one of the many benefits to the change I am
> proposing.

Good job they aren't rigidly enforcing an unnecessary law then, isn't it.

> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
> in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?

Where some people see conspiracy and oppression by the police at every
opportunity, I tend to see that they are having a crackdown on a particular
offence because there's a fair amount of it happening that the general
public would prefer was stopped. That's all.
--
Alex

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-01-17, Dr Zoidberg wrote:

>
> "M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:efba298a-129d-4c12...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
>> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>
> Cyclists going through red lights are also very likely to cause crashes
> between vehicles that weren't expecting it and then took evasive action, or
> with pedestrians who are likely to be hurt.
> This seems like a bad idea to me.

I agree.

>> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
>> in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?
>
> Where some people see conspiracy and oppression by the police at every
> opportunity, I tend to see that they are having a crackdown on a particular
> offence because there's a fair amount of it happening that the general
> public would prefer was stopped. That's all.

As I've said before, I'm happy to see the police out there enforcing
traffic laws against *all* wheeled road users.

[Simon Mason]

On Jan 17, 12:55�pm, Eleanor Blair <elea...@the-blairs.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Despite deploring the crackdowns I have as little sympathy for anyone
> who jumps lights and happens to be caught and I do for drivers caught
> speeding.

Judging by our "in the courts" column in the local rag using a mobile
phone whilst driving seems to be the offence of choice for many
drivers these days. In my advanced driving course recently I pointed
out to the examiner that with the advent of smart phones drivers have
switched from yakking on the phone whilst looking at the road ahead to
cradling a phone between both hands and staring at a device six inches
from their nose end thus throwing all of the far distance completely
out of focus which is scary stuff. He also said that it has given rise
to a new phenomenon of the "nodding dog syndrome" where a driver will
look down at their lap every few seconds or so. Luckily, they are
being caught and prosecuted in hefty numbers. The odd pavement cyclist
might pop up every two weeks or so which puts things into perspective.

--
Simon Mason

[- .. -- Tim .-.]

I think I am correct in saying that a cyclist who gets off their bike
and puts it on their shoulder is then a pedestrian. I have actually
done this occasionally, when stuck at red lights that refuse to change
when there's no traffic around. I think that happens with some lights
because they rely on detecting the presence of vehicles, and fail to
detect a bicycle. So hop off, pick up the bike and run across! (I
think that wheeling the bike means technically you are still supposed to
obey traffic signals.)

Tim.

[Andy Leighton]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:00:12 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-01-17, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>
>>
>> "M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:efba298a-129d-4c12...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>>> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
>>> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>>
>> Cyclists going through red lights are also very likely to cause crashes
>> between vehicles that weren't expecting it and then took evasive action, or
>> with pedestrians who are likely to be hurt.
>> This seems like a bad idea to me.
>
> I agree.

Well I agree it is a bad idea. I disagree with the "very likely".
ery likely means to me 85-100% chance of it happening (some bodies
like the IPCC use 90-100% for very likely). I was say that a cycle
going through a red light causing crashes between other unsuspecting
vehicles is exceptionally unlikely (< 1% probability on the IPCC
standard terms).

>>> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
>>> in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?
>>
>> Where some people see conspiracy and oppression by the police at every
>> opportunity, I tend to see that they are having a crackdown on a particular
>> offence because there's a fair amount of it happening that the general
>> public would prefer was stopped. That's all.
>
> As I've said before, I'm happy to see the police out there enforcing
> traffic laws against *all* wheeled road users.

I agree with Adam here. We all know that there are plenty of offences
which are not being policed adequately (by whoever is supposed to
police them - which isn't always the police). Whilst sometimes
annoying, bikes going through reds usually doesn't cause enough serious
problems that it requires a special crackdown IMO and should be dealt
with as part of everyday policing.

Locally it is cars that are going through red lights (and has recently
been reported on by the local paper with pictures). The local Casualty
Reduction Officer seemed a bit blase saying it was no worse locally than
other cities.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Toom Tabard]

The law should be left as it is, and enforced where RLJ is a problem.
Allowing discretion to proceed though red, if it seems reasonable and
safe to do so, is a recipe for anarchy, given the individual views in
what is considered reasonable, as well as the issue of those
who have little or no consideration of others (whose behaviour
and attitudes already cause problems).

That's one reason why there is no discretion for other users,
eg for vehicles to proceed through red at an otherwise deserted junction
at night: individuals will misjudge things or push the boundaries:
the simple legal requirements applying to all at all times is safest.

There is also the issue of pedestrian lights and pedestrian phases
at junctions, where pedestrians would both feel and actually be at risk.

If there is a safety issue for cyclists at lights then that should be
addressed in other ways, as has largely been done by ASL boxes becoming
standard.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <kd8o9p$9p2$1...@dont-email.me>, Scion wrote:
>M Wicks spake thus:
>
>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at red
>> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
>> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>
>What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
>want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
>with the green man.

If such a change were to happen, I assume it would be more like the USA
law which (depending on local laws) can allow a right turn through a red
light, but means the red light must be treated like a "Give way" sign,
so the rights of way would not be equal.

That subset of cyclists who already ignore red lights at pedestrian
crossings would no doubt continue to do so, but if they weren't giving
way to pedestrians, they'd still be breaking the law. It would legalize
bikes crossing pedestrian crossings against a red light when there
weren't any pedestrians, and that might lead to slightly more conflict.

I think a "turn on left for bikes" would be more plausible than a blanket
"bikes can ignore red". And maybe only if signed at specific lights.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Insanity. You're more likely to fall over when doing that. Stay on the bike, safer and faster.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:55:00 -0000, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> M Wicks spake thus:
>
>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at red
>> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
>> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>
> What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
> want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
> with the green man.

But pedestrians often cross before it goes red, as there is light traffic, then you've got traffic waiting for nobody. Or they cross quicker than the maximum time it gives you. A re3d light at a crossing should mean "look out for pedestrians". There is no point in waiting for a person who is not there.

>> I believe that the
>> current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who jump red
>> lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>> disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out catching
>> lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
>
> By the same argument, police should leave motorists alone and concentrate
> on murderers and rapists instead.

They certainly should. Catching people who have actually done harm is a much better way to spend the money than catching people who look as though they might.

>> Leaving it up
>> to cyclists whether to observe red lights or not is something which I
>> think would do more good than harm.
>
> If all cyclists could be trusted not to abuse such responsibility then I
> would agree with you. Unfortunately there will always be a proportion who
> will only think of themselves.

Those people will already be running the red lights. Changing the law will not make them any worse.

>> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes in
>> Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?
>
> I suspect that the blitzes in Brighton are only being carried out because
> there _is_ a problem with the cyclists' behaviour.

Or the police are bored. Or this is the easiest "crime" for them to catch.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:26:49 -0000, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:efba298a-129d-4c12...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
>> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>
> Cyclists going through red lights are also very likely to cause crashes
> between vehicles that weren't expecting it and then took evasive action, or
> with pedestrians who are likely to be hurt.
> This seems like a bad idea to me.

If I'm driving along and someone cycles or runs in front of me, I'm not going to swerve into a different vehicle. I'll put the brakes on to avoid them sure, but I'd rather crash into the person who caused the problem than someone else.

>> I believe
>> that the current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who
>> jump red lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>> disproportionate and unnecessary,
>
> Heaven forbid the police should attempt to enforce the law.

It's a petty law. It would be like the police hiding in bushes and doing anyone they find uttering expletives in a public place.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:51:18 -0000, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 2013-01-17, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
>> in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?
>
> You are confusing two separate issues:
> (1) Should the law be changed?
> (2) Should people obey the law?

They are the same thing. If the law is wrong it should be disobeyed.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.wq2ckhf6ytk5n5@i7-940...

No. If the law is wrong it should be changed.


--
Alex

[Clive George]

In the general case, yes, a law should be changed if it is wrong, but
disobeying it can be good evidence that it needs to be.

But this doesn't apply to the laws being discussed here.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:09:52 +0000, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>red lights

... I'm gonna go make some more popcorn.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Never sleep with anyone crazier than you are.

[Simon Mason]

On Jan 17, 6:20�pm, "- .. -- Tim .-." <timrea...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>
> I think I am correct in saying that a cyclist who gets off their bike
> and puts it on their shoulder is then a pedestrian. �I have actually
> done this occasionally, when stuck at red lights that refuse to change
> when there's no traffic around. �I think that happens with some lights
> because they rely on detecting the presence of vehicles, and fail to
> detect a bicycle. �So hop off, pick up the bike and run across! �(I
> think that wheeling the bike means technically you are still supposed to
> obey traffic signals.)

I have a few lights on my commute which do not detect my carbon bike
and so would stay at red.
I always stop at the detector grid on the road and lay my bike across
it thus exposing it to my cranks and wheels.
This always trips the lights and sets them to green.

I have become a pedestrian on several occasions though when I am
waiting to emerge from a side road and wish to go straight on but two
way traffic is too heavy and nobody is letting me out. In this case
there is a zebra crossing handy nearby so I will dismount and carry my
bike across it.


--
Simon Mason

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <6YKdnUHakP17uGXN...@bt.com>,

- .. -- Tim .-. <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I think I am correct in saying that a cyclist who gets off their bike
>and puts it on their shoulder is then a pedestrian. I have actually
>done this occasionally, when stuck at red lights that refuse to change
>when there's no traffic around. I think that happens with some lights
>because they rely on detecting the presence of vehicles, and fail to
>detect a bicycle. So hop off, pick up the bike and run across! (I
>think that wheeling the bike means technically you are still supposed to
>obey traffic signals.)

That is what the law seems to say, yes. If you have a foot on a pedal
or a bum on a saddle, you are riding a bicycle (perhaps like a hobby
horse or scooter). If you are wheeling one, you are a pedestrian in
charge of a non-motorised vehicle (like a wheelbarrow or baby buggy).
If you are carrying it, it is just luggage. But, as far as I know,
the last has not got any binding precedent to support it.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-01-17, - .. -- Tim .-. <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> think that wheeling the bike means technically you are still supposed to
> obey traffic signals.)

Crank v Brooks established that somebody wheeling a bicycle across a
pedestrian crossing is a "foot passenger", the judge commenting that
the opposite finding was "unarguable".
It would be astonishing if a court found that in other contexts
somebody wheeling a bicycle was not a pedestrian.

[Owen Dunn]

M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> writes:

> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).

I think this premise is false. Other road users include pedestrians,
the elderly in mobility scooters, and indeed other cyclists,
particularly those who do not have as much confidence, experience, or
balance.

(S)

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <slrnkfi4v...@home.stevens-bradfield.com>,

Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 2013-01-17, - .. -- Tim .-. <timr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> think that wheeling the bike means technically you are still supposed to
>> obey traffic signals.)
>
>Crank v Brooks established that somebody wheeling a bicycle across a
>pedestrian crossing is a "foot passenger", the judge commenting that
>the opposite finding was "unarguable".
>It would be astonishing if a court found that in other contexts
>somebody wheeling a bicycle was not a pedestrian.

Yes.

But, despite some people's belief, it did NOT make a ruling on the
status of the bicycle. My understanding of that ruling and some
others is that a wheeled bicycle has the same status as a baby buggy
or wheelbarrow.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Tony Dragon]

On 17/01/2013 18:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:55:00 -0000, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> M Wicks spake thus:
>>
>>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at red
>>> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
>>> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>>
>> What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
>> want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
>> with the green man.
>
> But pedestrians often cross before it goes red, as there is light
> traffic, then you've got traffic waiting for nobody. Or they cross
> quicker than the maximum time it gives you. A re3d light at a crossing
> should mean "look out for pedestrians". There is no point in waiting
> for a person who is not there.
>

If the pedestrian sees the 'green man' then he should expect that he is
able to cross without encountering traffic on the road.

>>> I believe that the
>>> current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who jump red
>>> lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>>> disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out catching
>>> lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
>>
>> By the same argument, police should leave motorists alone and concentrate
>> on murderers and rapists instead.
>
> They certainly should. Catching people who have actually done harm is a
> much better way to spend the money than catching people who look as
> though they might.
>

Surely the idea is to stop harm being caused.

>>> Leaving it up
>>> to cyclists whether to observe red lights or not is something which I
>>> think would do more good than harm.
>>
>> If all cyclists could be trusted not to abuse such responsibility then I
>> would agree with you. Unfortunately there will always be a proportion who
>> will only think of themselves.
>
> Those people will already be running the red lights. Changing the law
> will not make them any worse.
>

See above.

[Peter Keller]

I don't agree. Sure a bicyclist should take responsibility or his/her
own safety, but consider the driver proceeding on the green light. Even
if he/she is technically in the right, no human person wants to be
involved in something resulting in direct injury to others.
My solution for red lights when bicycling is --
STOP!.
Then if it is safe to do so (no moving vehicles in the vicinity),
proceed with caution, even if the light is still red.

[Tony Dragon]

On 17/01/2013 11:09, M Wicks wrote:
> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s). I believe
> that the current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who
> jump red lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
> disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out
> catching lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
> Leaving it up to cyclists whether to observe red lights or not is
> something which I think would do more good than harm. It stands to
> reason that rigidly enforcing unnecessary laws against cyclists (or
> whatever) discourages cycling (or whatever) in general, so increased
> takeup of cycling would be one of the many benefits to the change I am
> proposing.
>
> But what do others think? Is it "anti-cycling" to support the blitzes
> in Brighton etc, or should the law be left as it is?
>

Does anybody consider the pedestrians who might be crossing these lights
during the 'green man' phase.
They expect (quite rightly) to be able to cross without having to dodge
cyclists ignoring the red lights, this is especially important for those
pedestrians who have mobility problems.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk>:
>"M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>I believe
>>that the current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who
>>jump red lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>>disproportionate and unnecessary,
>Heaven forbid the police should attempt to enforce the law.

They're willing enough to decide not to enforce 20mph speed limits!

>>and the police should be out
>>catching lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
>They are? How is this clear?

Motorists kill thousands of people each year and maim tens of thousands -
as you know.

>Does this mean that they should also stop catching motorists instead of
>burglars?

No, because burglary in and of itself, while unpleasant, is not dangerous
for the victims.

>Stop catching burglars in favour of murderers?

Well - yes. If it turns out that significant numbers of murderers are
escaping the law because of a shortage of coppers, we'd better reallocate
some effort from some more trivial crime.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Monday, January.
Tomorrow will be Tuesday, January.

[Tony Dragon]

The problem with that is that many junction have a 'green man' phase, if
the cyclist is allowed to ignore the red light & turn left he could
still be crossing while the 'green man' phase is active.

[Sara]

In article <3MB*Kp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,

David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>
> >Does this mean that they should also stop catching motorists instead of
> >burglars?
>
> No, because burglary in and of itself, while unpleasant, is not dangerous
> for the victims.

Interesting point: whilst reporting a crime a year or two ago, I asked
the police sergeant who was taking our statement what the difference
between various terms (theft, stealing, burglary) were. She told me that
an act of burglary is an offence committed within someone's home,
including physical attacks on people, and that until recently rape in
the home was considered an act of burglary.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[Toom Tabard]

A crackdoown is dual purpose: it can deal with a problem in a local
area and also get wider publicity for the issue in the hope of
discouraging other offenders.
The phone/smartphone/tablet problem is major and worsening. If people
are being caught and prosecuted in hefty numbers then that indicates
the penalty is inadequate as a deterrent. Fines of several hundred pounds
and loss of licence for even a short period would remove the major
part of the problem immediately.
However, it's not an 'either/or' but an 'also' when dealing with other
offences. Given we've legislated against these, then RLJ and pavement
cycling should also be dealt with. Again publicity of crackdowns and
fines sufficient as a deterrent would largely make them non-issues.
We'd save a lot of police time and public concern if when we decide what
is not allowed we ensure enforcement and penalties at a level which
actually deters.

Toom

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-01-18, nm...@cam.ac.uk <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> But, despite some people's belief, it did NOT make a ruling on the
> status of the bicycle. My understanding of that ruling and some
> others is that a wheeled bicycle has the same status as a baby buggy
> or wheelbarrow.

That status being?

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-01-18, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Interesting point: whilst reporting a crime a year or two ago, I asked
> the police sergeant who was taking our statement what the difference
> between various terms (theft, stealing, burglary) were. She told me that
> an act of burglary is an offence committed within someone's home,
> including physical attacks on people, and that until recently rape in
> the home was considered an act of burglary.

Slightly garbled, but the question is interesting.
Burglary in England and Wales (it doesn't exist in Scotland) is:

(1) A person is guilty of burglary if—

(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser
and with intent to commit any such offence as is mentioned in
subsection (2) below; or

(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a
trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the
building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict
on any person therein any grievous bodily harm.

(2) The offences referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are offences
of stealing anything in the building or part of a building in
question, of inflicting on any person therein any grievous bodily
harm F1... therein, and of doing unlawful damage to the building
or anything therein.


The text at F1... used to say "or raping any person", but this was
removed by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, because the latter creates a
more general offence of "trespass with intent to commit a sexual
offence".

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <slrnkfia8...@coffee.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> But, despite some people's belief, it did NOT make a ruling on the
>> status of the bicycle. My understanding of that ruling and some
>> others is that a wheeled bicycle has the same status as a baby buggy
>> or wheelbarrow.
>
>That status being?

A non-motorised vehicle (with no special restrictions) controlled by
a pedestrian.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Alex]

The problem I would have with riding (however cautiously) through a
red light, though, is that if anything did go amiss with either
another vehicle or pedestrian (and even if that occurred through no
direct fault of my own) I would be held at least partly responsible,
whatever. Isn't it a bit like a motorist caught up in an accident and
subsequently found to be over the drink-drive limit - maybe they
didn't cause the accident but they will still be blamed?

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:56:09 -0000, Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <kd8o9p$9p2$1...@dont-email.me>, Scion wrote:
>> M Wicks spake thus:
>>
>>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at red
>>> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
>>> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>>
>> What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
>> want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
>> with the green man.
>
> If such a change were to happen, I assume it would be more like the USA
> law which (depending on local laws) can allow a right turn through a red
> light, but means the red light must be treated like a "Give way" sign,
> so the rights of way would not be equal.

That's just laziness on the part of the light designers. There could be a green filter for right.

[Lieutenant Scott]

That is considerably more difficult than just disobeying it.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <slrnkfga75...@azaal.plus.com>, Andy Leighton wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:00:12 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> On 2013-01-17, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:efba298a-129d-4c12...@w18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

>>>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>>>> red lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to
>>>> harm the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>>>

>>> Cyclists going through red lights are also very likely to cause crashes
>>> between vehicles that weren't expecting it and then took evasive action, or
>>> with pedestrians who are likely to be hurt.
>>> This seems like a bad idea to me.
>>

>> I agree.
>
>Well I agree it is a bad idea. I disagree with the "very likely".
>ery likely means to me 85-100% chance of it happening (some bodies
>like the IPCC use 90-100% for very likely). I was say that a cycle
>going through a red light causing crashes between other unsuspecting
>vehicles is exceptionally unlikely (< 1% probability on the IPCC
>standard terms).

The frequency of complaints about cyclists already jumping red lights
compared with the small[1] number of reports of damage or injuries caused
by vehicles evading them supports that. (As indeed does the number of
cyclists I've seen jumping red lights without causing crashes.)

Similarly over the years I've seen thousands of motorists jumping
red lights without causing crashes.

However, if the suggestion is that lots more cyclists routinely going
through red lights is _collectively_ very likely to cause some crashes
sooner or later, that's more plausible.

[1] Possibly zero. I have once seen a report of damage to a van which
swerved to avoid hitting a cyclist and hit another motor vehicle instead.
However, I think that was because the cyclist didn't have lights, not
because they were red light jumping. But obviously there could be many
incidents I haven't heard of - the number will still be tiny compared
with complaints about red light jumping though.

[Toom Tabard]

I think the emphasis of responsibility is totally different. The right turn on
red is an option that you can choose to proceed subject to your own checks - you
will normally have to check and wait for gaps in traffic coming from your left,
or oncoming traffic turning left which have green lights and have priority.
A green filter light is an expectation that you can and should proceed if the way seems clear. The expectation is that there is no traffic flow with
greater priority than you. The levels of expectation and responsibility are different. If it's specifically a right turn lane, then the light
will go from red to a green filter when the priorities change.

Toom

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>I have a few lights on my commute which do not detect my carbon bike
>and so would stay at red.
>I always stop at the detector grid on the road and lay my bike across
>it thus exposing it to my cranks and wheels.
>This always trips the lights and sets them to green.

Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Tuesday, January.
Tomorrow will be Wednesday, January.

[Simon Mason]

On Jan 18, 2:26�pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
wrote:

> Quoting �Simon Mason �<swldx...@gmail.com>:
>
> >I have a few lights on my commute which do not detect my carbon bike
> >and so would stay at red.
> >I always stop at the detector grid on the road and lay my bike across
> >it thus exposing it to my cranks and wheels.
> >This always trips the lights and sets them to green.
>
> Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
> All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.
> --

> David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies

> Today is Tuesday, January.
> Tomorrow will be Wednesday, January.

I have a couple of neodymium magnets in my Sennheiser IE8 earpieces
but they do not seem to do the job :-)

--
Simon Mason

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <dcf68a8c-7e1e-495e...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 18, 2:26�pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>wrote:

>> >I have a few lights on my commute which do not detect my carbon bike
>> >and so would stay at red.
>> >I always stop at the detector grid on the road and lay my bike across
>> >it thus exposing it to my cranks and wheels.
>> >This always trips the lights and sets them to green.
>>
>> Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
>> All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.
>

>I have a couple of neodymium magnets in my Sennheiser IE8 earpieces
>but they do not seem to do the job :-)

I want to see a picture of you cycling with your ears on your bottom
bracket!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>On Jan 18, 2:26�pm, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

>>Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
>>All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.

>I have a couple of neodymium magnets in my Sennheiser IE8 earpieces
>but they do not seem to do the job :-)

Recumbent not enough for you? Get one of those upsidedowners, and get your
earpieces near the ground!
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies

[Alan Braggins]

In article <9382f1e5-8cd6-4905...@googlegroups.com>, Toom Tabard wrote:
>A green filter light is an expectation that you can and should proceed if the way seems clear. The expectation is that there is no traffic flow with
>greater priority than you.

The latter is usual, but there are lights where it isn't true, and a right
arrow is shown while oncoming traffic is still flowing.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-01-18, Tony Dragon wrote:

> Does anybody consider the pedestrians who might be crossing these lights
> during the 'green man' phase.
> They expect (quite rightly) to be able to cross without having to dodge
> cyclists ignoring the red lights, this is especially important for those
> pedestrians who have mobility problems.

Also blind pedestrians, who might not hear a cyclist coming.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <kdbobj$317$1...@needham.csi.cam.ac.uk>, <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:

>>> Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
>>> All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.
>>
>>I have a couple of neodymium magnets in my Sennheiser IE8 earpieces
>>but they do not seem to do the job :-)
>
>I want to see a picture of you cycling with your ears on your bottom
>bracket!

This is surely some kind of newfangled recumbent design.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Lieutenant Scott]

The problem is the police are simply cracking down on the "crimes" which are easy to catch, like speeding. Dangerous driving is too difficult to prove.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Perhaps, but too small a probability to be worried about. If I can see nobody with any chance of getting in my path, then I will cycle through a red light.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:23:08 -0000, Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/01/2013 18:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:55:00 -0000, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> M Wicks spake thus:
>>>
>>>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at red
>>>> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
>>>> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>>>
>>> What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
>>> want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
>>> with the green man.
>>
>> But pedestrians often cross before it goes red, as there is light
>> traffic, then you've got traffic waiting for nobody. Or they cross

>> quicker than the maximum time it gives you. A red light at a crossing

>> should mean "look out for pedestrians". There is no point in waiting
>> for a person who is not there.
>
> If the pedestrian sees the 'green man' then he should expect that he is
> able to cross without encountering traffic on the road.

And if I see a pedestrian about to cross, then I will stop my bicycle, simple.

>>>> I believe that the
>>>> current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who jump red
>>>> lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>>>> disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out catching
>>>> lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
>>>
>>> By the same argument, police should leave motorists alone and concentrate
>>> on murderers and rapists instead.
>>
>> They certainly should. Catching people who have actually done harm is a
>> much better way to spend the money than catching people who look as
>> though they might.
>
> Surely the idea is to stop harm being caused.

But they're also stopping people who weren't going to cause harm. You cannot predict the future.

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wq2l9r2dytk5n5@i7-940...

There are some laws that are arguably wrong that don't affect me directly as
I have no intention of doing the prohibited act, and I'm certainly not about
to start, just to prove a point.

--
Alex

[Scion]

Alan Braggins spake thus:

I'd be interested to see an example of that, as I'm of the same opinion as
Toom on that point.

[Julian Bradfield]

On 2013-01-18, nm...@cam.ac.uk <nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> A non-motorised vehicle (with no special restrictions) controlled by
> a pedestrian.

And what are the consequences of that status? What prohibitions apply to
such entities?

[Alex]

Well, I agree it would be a small probability that anything would go
amiss if you had correctly completed your risk assessment before
cautiously cycling through a red light. I suppose I must be further
hampered by my conscience in that I would need to be able to do so and
still feel free of any guilt and responsibility. That must be why I
would only readily cycle through a red light if there wasn't another
soul in sight.

[Tony Dragon]

On 18/01/2013 16:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:23:08 -0000, Tony Dragon
> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/01/2013 18:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:55:00 -0000, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> M Wicks spake thus:
>>>>
>>>>> I think that on balance, cyclists should not be required to stop at
>>>>> red
>>>>> lights, on the basis that any collision that occurs is likely to harm
>>>>> the cyclist a lot more than the other road user(s).
>>>>
>>>> What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
>>>> want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
>>>> with the green man.
>>>
>>> But pedestrians often cross before it goes red, as there is light
>>> traffic, then you've got traffic waiting for nobody. Or they cross
>>> quicker than the maximum time it gives you. A red light at a crossing
>>> should mean "look out for pedestrians". There is no point in waiting
>>> for a person who is not there.
>>
>> If the pedestrian sees the 'green man' then he should expect that he is
>> able to cross without encountering traffic on the road.
>
> And if I see a pedestrian about to cross, then I will stop my bicycle,
> simple.
>

Can you guarantee that all cyclists would do this?

>>>>> I believe that the
>>>>> current enforcement "blitzes" occurring against cyclists who jump red
>>>>> lights in places like Brighton and Cambridge are vindictive,
>>>>> disproportionate and unnecessary, and the police should be out
>>>>> catching
>>>>> lawbreaking motorists instead, who are clearly much worse.
>>>>
>>>> By the same argument, police should leave motorists alone and
>>>> concentrate
>>>> on murderers and rapists instead.
>>>
>>> They certainly should. Catching people who have actually done harm is a
>>> much better way to spend the money than catching people who look as
>>> though they might.
>>
>> Surely the idea is to stop harm being caused.
>
> But they're also stopping people who weren't going to cause harm. You
> cannot predict the future.

Indeed, so it is probably best to restrict the danger.

[Tony Dragon]

On 18/01/2013 16:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Can you guarantee that you are 100% certain, can you guarantee that
other road users will do as you expect?

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

That should never happen. Junctions that have a green light for all
forward traffic and an additional arrow light for people waiting to
turn right across the oppposing traffic are popular, but the original
green light is to proceed to wait in the junction, not to go and not
to give right of way when turning across traffic. The arrow light,
however, does.

If you have a junction that has a green arrow lit at the same time as
the opposing traffic is also green lit, that needs reporting to the
local council because it's broken.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
panic("Foooooooood fight!");
-- /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aha1542.c

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Ooh, it's like a little logic puzzle. Since other road users may
*also* think that passing through a red light is fine, there's no way
to supply that guarantee. Therefore...

Therefore it's an unnecessarily dangerous thing to do, because you
can't predict what the other players at your junction will do,
mirroring their inability to predict your surprising and illegal
behaviour. And seeing you RLJ encourages other people to do the same.
They may not have the godlike powers of observation that RLJ'ers
posting here naturally have (sarcasm mark), so I hope your conscience
is fine with anything that comes of that.

It also pisses off other road users. This is not a negligable effect,
and feeds into the low-level antipathy of car drivers to bikes in
general, raising it or even perhaps causing it in the first place.
Certainly it's what car drivers complain of most.

Plus you may not be able to see all the green lights in operation, as
much mentioned with regards to pedestrians, but also traffic filter
lanes that may start flowing outside the obvious rotation of signals.

And what in the end is gained? Maybe twenty seconds of travel per
event? Well, that makes it all worth while then, obviously.

Cheers - Jaimie (has a pretty clear opinion on this one)
--
"If you can't make fun of it, it's probably not worth taking seriously"
-- http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson494.html

[Paul Luton]

On 18/01/2013 16:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>

> The problem is the police are simply cracking down on the "crimes" which
> are easy to catch, like speeding. Dangerous driving is too difficult to
> prove.

I suspect this is because cyclists can be stopped by PCSOs and drivers
cannot. Why that is ?

[Toom Tabard]

And bear in mind we are talking about the right turn on red in US states which
allow it. You are not moving out to cross oncoming traffic. When your light is
at red there can be traffic coming from your left which has priority.
There no interaction with oncoming going straight ahead, only oncoming turning
to their left and coming from your left which also has priority. And when you
get a green you are just going round a corner, and nothing else should
have any priority over you. Think about it as a left turn on red and a green
left filter in UK terms.

Toom

[Lieutenant Scott]

Adding that complication is just asking for someone to make a mistake.

In fact I don't like the way they have some traffic lights that say you can proceed, but you can't if you're turning right.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I wouldn't call it a risk assessment as such, I just look both ways as if the junction had no traffic lights.

[nm...@cam.ac.uk]

In article <slrnkfj01...@home.stevens-bradfield.com>,

Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> A non-motorised vehicle (with no special restrictions) controlled by
>> a pedestrian.
>
>And what are the consequences of that status? What prohibitions apply to
>such entities?

I don't know. As far as I have been able to discover, there are
no national laws that restrict pedestrians using such vehicles
over and above those that restrict pedestrians. However, there
certainly are bylaws that do. Whether it is as simple as that,
I am not entirely sure.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:25:48 +0000
Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 18 January 2013 17:56:14 UTC, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:05:32 +0000, ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> > (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> > ><9382f1e5-8cd6-4905...@googlegroups.com>, Toom
> > >Tabard wrote:
> > >>A green filter light is an expectation that you can and should
> > >>proceed if the way seems clear. The expectation is that there is
> > >>no traffic flow with greater priority than you.
> > >
> > >The latter is usual, but there are lights where it isn't true, and
> > >a right arrow is shown while oncoming traffic is still flowing.
> >
> > That should never happen. Junctions that have a green light for all
> > forward traffic and an additional arrow light for people waiting to
> > turn right across the oppposing traffic are popular, but the
> > original green light is to proceed to wait in the junction, not to
> > go and not to give right of way when turning across traffic. The
> > arrow light, however, does.
> >
> > If you have a junction that has a green arrow lit at the same time
> > as the opposing traffic is also green lit, that needs reporting to
> > the local council because it's broken.
> >
> And bear in mind we are talking about the right turn on red in US
> states which allow it.

No, we are talking about right turn on green arrow in the UK.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I can work out perfectly well if it's possible for me to get from my current location to the exit of the junction before it's possible for someone else to cross my path.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:56:26 -0000, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wq2l9r2dytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:31:47 -0000, Dr Zoidberg
>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wq2ckhf6ytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:51:18 -0000, Julian Bradfield <j...@inf.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-01-17, M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> You are confusing two separate issues:
>>>>> (1) Should the law be changed?
>>>>> (2) Should people obey the law?
>>>>
>>>> They are the same thing. If the law is wrong it should be disobeyed.
>>>
>>> No. If the law is wrong it should be changed.
>>
>> That is considerably more difficult than just disobeying it.
>>
> There are some laws that are arguably wrong that don't affect me directly as
> I have no intention of doing the prohibited act, and I'm certainly not about
> to start, just to prove a point.

I wasn't suggesting you break laws to prove a point, just break them when following them causes you an inconvenience.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Yes, I treat the junction as though it didn't have any traffic lights.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 17:39:07 -0000, Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 18/01/2013 16:26, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:23:08 -0000, Tony Dragon
>> <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/01/2013 18:58, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:55:00 -0000, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What about red lights at pedestrian crossings? As a pedestrian I don't
>>>>> want cyclists thinking they've got equal right of way when I'm crossing
>>>>> with the green man.
>>>>
>>>> But pedestrians often cross before it goes red, as there is light
>>>> traffic, then you've got traffic waiting for nobody. Or they cross
>>>> quicker than the maximum time it gives you. A red light at a crossing
>>>> should mean "look out for pedestrians". There is no point in waiting
>>>> for a person who is not there.
>>>
>>> If the pedestrian sees the 'green man' then he should expect that he is
>>> able to cross without encountering traffic on the road.
>>
>> And if I see a pedestrian about to cross, then I will stop my bicycle,
>> simple.
>
> Can you guarantee that all cyclists would do this?

No, but a light won't stop them from doing so.

>>>>> By the same argument, police should leave motorists alone and
>>>>> concentrate
>>>>> on murderers and rapists instead.
>>>>
>>>> They certainly should. Catching people who have actually done harm is a
>>>> much better way to spend the money than catching people who look as
>>>> though they might.
>>>
>>> Surely the idea is to stop harm being caused.
>>
>> But they're also stopping people who weren't going to cause harm. You
>> cannot predict the future.
>
> Indeed, so it is probably best to restrict the danger.

No it isn't. Restricting the innocent to catch a small number of guilty people is inherently wrong.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I don't understand what you mean, or know what a PCSO is. I was comparing dangerous drivers and speeding drivers. Neither of these are cyclists.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Presumably the cyclist isn't blind, and can stop when they see the blind man crossing.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:26:46 -0000, David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>> I have a few lights on my commute which do not detect my carbon bike
>> and so would stay at red.
>> I always stop at the detector grid on the road and lay my bike across
>> it thus exposing it to my cranks and wheels.
>> This always trips the lights and sets them to green.

>
> Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
> All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.

Isn't it easier to just ignore the lights? After all the fault is with the design of the lights, and nothing to do with you.

[Lieutenant Scott]

If there is a green circular light, it should mean you can go, anywhere. Then relying on you to check for traffic from a certain direction is ludicrous. If what they mean is ahead only, it should have an arrow pointing ahead.

[Lieutenant Scott]

The Americans drive on the other side, so their right turn is like our left turn....

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:25:43 +0000, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>

[Your line wraps are broken.]

The green circular light means "you may advance past the stop line".
It doesn't mean "carry on going for as long as you like, you have
right of way to Tokyo".

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"January 1, 2000 might well be the first day in over six years that
is _not_ in September 1993..." - M Grant in afp

But unfortunately, he was later found to be wrong.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:23:30 +0000, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>

Your godlike powers of omniscience, of course. Sorry, I should have
remembered.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Imagine how happy you might be if you spent less time
imagining how happy you might be.
-- j comeau, a softer world

[Rob Morley]

Correct but irrelevant, I think, unless you can find any mention of red
lights or Americans in the quoted text above Toom's contribution.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:25:43 +0000
"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> If there is a green circular light, it should mean you can go,
> anywhere. Then relying on you to check for traffic from a certain
> direction is ludicrous.

So if I have a round green light I don't need to look out for oncoming
traffic if I want to turn right?

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:54:29 +0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

I have previously asked "Scott" where he drives/rides, so I can be
sure to not go there... didn't get an answer, wasn't surprised.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
A Jesus of mass J travelling at a speed of 27 meters/second collides with a
stationary Moses of mass M. Assuming any elastic deformation is lossless and
perfectly reversible, calculate how long it will be until the next Passover.
-- Tanuki, asr

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:47:58 +0000
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

> A Jesus of mass J travelling at a speed of 27 meters/second collides
> with a stationary Moses of mass M. Assuming any elastic deformation
> is lossless and perfectly reversible, calculate how long it will be
> until the next Passover.

About 56 kg?

[Toom Tabard]

On Saturday, 19 January 2013 15:36:09 UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:25:48 +0000
>

> Toom Tabard wrote:
>
> > And bear in mind we are talking about the right turn on red in US
> > states which allow it.
>
> No, we are talking about right turn on green arrow in the UK.

We were talking about proceeding through red as per the right turn on red
in some US states, and the fact that it's a 'give way' situation not
equivalent to a right-turn green filter. Someone introduced
the concept of a right turn meaning you were turning in the face of
oncoming traffic, which isn't the case in the US. The equivalent UK
situation is a left turn on red.

Toom

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:47:58 -0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:54:29 +0000, Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:25:43 +0000
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If there is a green circular light, it should mean you can go,
>>> anywhere. Then relying on you to check for traffic from a certain
>>> direction is ludicrous.
>>
>> So if I have a round green light I don't need to look out for oncoming
>> traffic if I want to turn right?
>
> I have previously asked "Scott" where he drives/rides, so I can be
> sure to not go there... didn't get an answer, wasn't surprised.

I can be found anywhere in Scotland, England, Wales, or France.

I have a clean license....

[Lieutenant Scott]

That's the way it should be, to avoid mistakes. The whole point of traffic lights is to have people going when it's safe, instead of letting them decide for themselves. If you're going to have lights, they should be all or nothing. If the light intends you can only go one way, it should be arrow shaped.

[Tony Dragon]

Green allows you to proceed if it is safe to do so.
If cyclists are allowed to turn left through a red light then traffic
moving under green lights would have to do what you have just suggested
is ludicrous.
The green man could be considered to be the same as green circular light.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I was simply ironing out the confusion above - we've gone from right turns in America to right turns in the UK, which are obviously complete opposites.

[Lieutenant Scott]

No, the calculation made by anyone using a junction which has no traffic lights.

[Ace]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:23:54 +0000, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

>I wasn't suggesting you break laws to prove a point, just break them when following them causes you an inconvenience.

I think this statement says more about you than anything else you've
posted. So it's OK to disregard any law that I don't find convenient?

Why you're still allowed to post here I can't imagine.

<thinks>
This one won't get through the moderators, will it? Well, here's
hoping.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-01-21, Phil W Lee wrote:

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> considered Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:15:14

> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On 2013-01-18, Tony Dragon wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody consider the pedestrians who might be crossing these lights
>>> during the 'green man' phase.
>>> They expect (quite rightly) to be able to cross without having to dodge
>>> cyclists ignoring the red lights, this is especially important for those
>>> pedestrians who have mobility problems.
>>
>>Also blind pedestrians, who might not hear a cyclist coming.
>

> And deaf ones, who may not see a cyclist coming. . .

Hmm, that made more sense when I wrote it!

(Blind pedestrians obviously can't see a cyclist or a motor vehicle,
but they can generally hear the motor vehicle.)

[kimble]

On 21/01/13 09:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> considered Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:15:14

>> Also blind pedestrians, who might not hear a cyclist coming.
>
> And deaf ones, who may not see a cyclist coming. . .

In my experience, deaf people tend to be the ones who actually look
every time they cross the road.

Of course, some people are deafblind... Pedestrians have right of way
for good reason.


Kim.
--

[Dr Zoidberg]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message

news:op.wq4bofyxytk5n5@i7-940...

There are laws I find inconvenient at times that are nonetheless correct,
and laws that I think are wrong but don't cause me any inconvenience at all.

I'm now starting to get confused about which I should obey or not ;0)

--
Alex

[Alan Braggins]

In article <kdbuaq$h9n$1...@dont-email.me>, Scion wrote:
>Alan Braggins spake thus:

>
>> In article <9382f1e5-8cd6-4905...@googlegroups.com>, Toom
>> Tabard wrote:
>>>A green filter light is an expectation that you can and should proceed
>>>if the way seems clear. The expectation is that there is no traffic flow
>>>with greater priority than you.
>>
>> The latter is usual, but there are lights where it isn't true, and a
>> right arrow is shown while oncoming traffic is still flowing.
>

>I'd be interested to see an example of that, as I'm of the same opinion as
>Toom on that point.

It was a long time ago, and I've forgotten the details. It may have been
fixed since (in which case "are" may be the wrong tense), but it surprised
me at the time. (I did stop in time though.)
(It's also possible that the oncoming traffic I saw was jumping a red light,
in which case they didn't really have greater priority at the time.)

I thought I had a current example, but on checking it turns out to be a
junction where the right turn has both right filter arrows and round
greens, one of which applies only to the right-turning traffic.
http://goo.gl/maps/qbkLl
(I'm trying to remember what the lights do turning out of B&Q's carpark.
Street View has pictures of the middle of the car park, and of kids
waving at the car as it turns in, but not of the lights out.)

[Dave Larrington]

On 18/01/2013 14:26, David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>:
>> I have a few lights on my commute which do not detect my carbon bike
>> and so would stay at red.
>> I always stop at the detector grid on the road and lay my bike across
>> it thus exposing it to my cranks and wheels.
>> This always trips the lights and sets them to green.
>
> Instructables suggested fixing a rare-earth magnet to your bottom bracket.
> All my bikes are steel, so I haven't tried it myself.

Pat Hurt and I once encountered a set of lights which failed to notice a
pair of steel-framed recumbent trikes. After a few minutes we opted to
go through anyway - it was about on o'clock on a Sunday morning and
there wasn't much about.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Ernesto, give me that Kit-Kat, or I will kill you.

[Lieutenant Scott]

There were traffic lights in Kincardine. There was a round green, and a right arrow green.

http://goo.gl/maps/mvwox
The traffic light in question is next to the little A marker.

The round one went green first, at which point traffic coming from the opposite direction also started flowing, so you could not turn right, but some people tried to, as the arrow was round and not pointing ahead, so the assumption was you could go in any direction. Then the right arrow lit up a minute later, and you could turn right. They had it like that for a year or so then changed the round one to a straight ahead arrow to avoid confusion.

There used to be a roundabout there and things flowed so much smoother.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:40:38 -0000, Dr Zoidberg <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wq4bofyxytk5n5@i7-940...
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:56:26 -0000, Dr Zoidberg
>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.wq2l9r2dytk5n5@i7-940...
>>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:31:47 -0000, Dr Zoidberg
>>>> <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.wq2ckhf6ytk5n5@i7-940...

>>

>>>>>

>>>>> No. If the law is wrong it should be changed.
>>>>
>>>> That is considerably more difficult than just disobeying it.
>>>>
>>> There are some laws that are arguably wrong that don't affect me directly
>>> as
>>> I have no intention of doing the prohibited act, and I'm certainly not
>>> about
>>> to start, just to prove a point.
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting you break laws to prove a point, just break them when
>> following them causes you an inconvenience.
>>
> There are laws I find inconvenient at times that are nonetheless correct,
> and laws that I think are wrong but don't cause me any inconvenience at all.
>
> I'm now starting to get confused about which I should obey or not ;0)

As I said to Ace, as long as it's not inconveniencing others, then do it.

[Alistair Gunn]

Dave Larrington twisted the electrons to say:

> Pat Hurt and I once encountered a set of lights which failed to notice a
> pair of steel-framed recumbent trikes. After a few minutes we opted to
> go through anyway - it was about on o'clock on a Sunday morning and
> there wasn't much about.

When I was living & working in York there where, IIRC, 3 sets of traffic
lights which used to cause issues on the commute into work.

The first set had radar style sensors cunning aligned so that they
wouldn't pick up cyclists approaching in the cycle lane.

The second set had in-road sensors, but would seemingly only detect
cyclists during certain parts of the sequence. I forget exactly what the
problem was, but I think if you cycled over the sensors whilst the lights
where amber then you had a very long wait ahead of you!

The third set just failed to detect cyclists under all conditions.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[kimble]

On 22/01/13 11:49, Dave Larrington wrote:
> Pat Hurt and I once encountered a set of lights which failed to notice a
> pair of steel-framed recumbent trikes. After a few minutes we opted to
> go through anyway - it was about on o'clock on a Sunday morning and
> there wasn't much about.

On one of the FNRttC rides last year, we had about 20 cyclists crammed
into the induction loop area of a set of lights (and many more behind),
which went through a couple of cycles without responding.

As it was absolutely chucking it down with rain, there wasn't any other
traffic about, and we were starting to attract the attention of the
local drunks, we went through on red. This is, AIUI, perfectly legal
(as the lights were faulty in not detecting cyclists).


Kim.
--

[Toom Tabard]

On Tuesday, 22 January 2013 12:47:06 UTC, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>
> There were traffic lights in Kincardine. There was a round green, and a right arrow green.
>
>
>
> http://goo.gl/maps/mvwox
>
> The traffic light in question is next to the little A marker.
>
>
>
> The round one went green first, at which point traffic coming from the opposite direction also started flowing, so you could not turn right, but some people tried to, as the arrow was round and not pointing ahead, so the assumption was you could go in any direction. Then the right arrow lit up a minute later, and you could turn right. They had it like that for a year or so then changed the round one to a straight ahead arrow to avoid confusion.
>
> There used to be a roundabout there and things flowed so much smoother.
>

There may be specific circumstances of a junction where it causes confusion, but
it is perfectly standard to have lights where there is round green light and
an auxiliary right arrow beside it. The round green typically comes on first
allowing you to go straight ahead: there will be oncoming traffic and the
standard requirement is you can only turn right if there is a gap in
the oncoming traffic. Then, typically the right arrow comes on when oncoming
stuff is stopped and you have no conflicting traffic when turning right. It
allows the opportunity to turn right followed by a clear flow to turn right.
Traffic lights at the foot our street are like that, and don't seem a
problem or confusing.

Toom

[Simon Mason]

On Jan 21, 2:20 pm, kimble <k...@ductilebiscuit.net> wrote:
> On 21/01/13 09:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
>

> > Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> considered Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:15:14

> >> Also blind pedestrians, who might not hear a cyclist coming.
>
> > And deaf ones, who may not see a cyclist coming. . .
>
> In my experience, deaf people tend to be the ones who actually look
> every time they cross the road.
>

Exactly - that is one area that critics of cyclists wearing earpieces
get wrong.
They, myself included, look and look again very carefully before any
risky move due to the reduced ambient hearing.

--
Simon Mason

[Tom Gardner]

I'm unconvinced, based on personal experience. If the music is any
good then it grabs too much of my attention :(

People that are deaf may tend to look more. People that are merely
temporarily deaf to their environment may not even realise how much
they are missing.

Ever had a pedestrian with earbuds walk out in front of
you without looking? If not, try cycling/driving near a
uni/college in October :)