Safe Speed Forums

I was told that a cyclist approaching a T-junction (cyclist on the major route with the minor road on the right) can legally break a red light provide the light is not also a pedestrian light. It makes sense as the lights are for right turning vehicles and vehicles coming from the minor road but I'm also sceptical that you can legally break a red light. Anyone know for sure?

Highway Code 69 under "Rules for Cyclists". You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals. Law RTA 1988 sections, 24,26,28,29,30 as amended by RTA 1991. Well worth the investment is the Highway Code. Much better than listening to your mates in the pub.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Sounds right.

You HAVE to obey all traffic laws

Moves are afooot to allow left filters for cyclists. Until then . obey the ruiddy lights/highway code laws // else you will "get done for whatever you did"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Legal unless your caught

I think this is a bad idea.

Far too tempting to filter left and uturn immediately.

That is a bit strange that one considering that in general speed limit signs apply to motorised vehicles only and not pedal cycles.

I suppose though that a no motor vehicles sign could fall into the same category of signs that people on pushbikes can "ignore".

Ideally, speed limits, and traffic lights, would be set up such that no road user would feel unnecessarily put out by them (when considering the overall benefit to traffic); we know this isn't the case for either road user group.
Perhaps the attitudes of cyclists and motorists aren't so different: safe, considerate and well-meaning even if not entirely law abiding.

If cyclist pressure groups can campaign for outright transgression of legal rules (and even 'strict liability' but let's not go there), why can't motorist pressure groups call for fair speed limits or at least discretion when/where limits aren't reasonable? Rejection of this is surely nothing short of hypocrisy?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Bicycles are exempt from from speed limits for three reasons. When the RTA was first formulated speedometers for bicycles were not practical. Few cyclists are capable of exceeding the speed limit for other than short periods. Cyclist exceeding the speed limit do not present the same hazard as a motor vehicle doing so. Thhis is one case where the law is not an ass.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Nowadays, speedometers for bicycles are practical (and common for competitive riders) and many cyclists are capable of exceeding many of today's lowered residential speed limits (duration of an offence is irrelevant, just like for a motor vehicle). The only sticking point is licensing (for traceability) but even that's not a barrier in today’s world where fines can be applied "on-the-spot".

As for hazards: I've had many pedestrians walk out in front of me when I'm on my bike who forced me to take evasive manoeuvres. I've been successful in evading all but 1 where idiot stepped out right in front of me without looking and I had literally no time to react (his glasses flew a loooonnng way down the road); conversely, I've never had a person step out of me when driving a vehicle. The exhaust noise, or lack thereof, might be the key.
Before making hazard comparisons, one should first account for relative exposure.

PS, I'm not in favour in applying speed limits to cyclists, unfortunately I can't think of a reason why they couldn't be applied today. Indeed a cycling speed limit of 10mph has been applied within some pedestrian areas.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You're leaving off the third group of roads users, pedestrians, we have to cross roads.



Well quite, I don't think people on cycles think any different from people in cars on average, go to any cycling forum and you'll find people who delight in scaring pedestrians with their "air zounds", just as you'll find people who delight in scaring cyclists with their car horns etc...



Well, with regards to "fair" speed limits (I think you mean higher), we're supposed to be reducing the death and injury rate on our roads, not increasing it.

Stricter liability for vehicles is a winner all round, more careful driving, less speed/haste, less incidents, european attitudes to cycling clearly demonstrate this.

Many peds use their ears and not their eyes when crossing the road. A ting on a bell goes a long way, as does slowing down if the ped looks like they might step out, or jsut going slower full stop.

When we have electric vehicles people who've not been exposed to piloting an almost silent vehicle in and around pedestrains are going to have to learn to drive all over again.



I am, some people who cycle are utter loons in areas where there are pedestrians, Hyde Park is a classic example of where we need some enforcement. and the cops in Richmond Park use speed guns on cyclists and give them FPNs.

Nope! I did say "unnecessarily ... (when considering the overall benefit to traffic)"


Idiots all of them. Speed cameras replacing traffic police will stop them....


Indeed. Increasing traffic speed on the fastest/safest roads would go a long way to displacing traffic from less safe roads, as well as greatly reducing the effect of fatigue for a given journey.


More resentment between road user groups, more running when hitting, more people left to die ... winners all of them!

How could, and why would, stricter liability make a careful driver (already being as careful as they can) more careful, or a careless driver more careful (they're found guilty anyway).

I guess some people are actually comfortable with the concept of 'guilty until proven innocent'



Not all pedestrians look as if they are about to step out just before they do.
You must be pinging your bell all the time in London, as well as cycling at walking pace!


Like today's "utter loon" cyclists?

If not: or, we could educate the other road users to look instead of just listen, instead of failing to look
Don't forget, most pedestrian casualties (76%) have their own error (such as 'failing to look') as a contributory factor.


Don't get me wrong. I am in favour of cycling limits in some cases, but not (yet - I'm open minded) in favour of applying the same vehicle limits to cyclists, such as the 20s in residential areas. What do you think of that?

I guess it's only a matter of time before Brake start campaigning for it.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Nowadays, speedometers for bicycles are practical (and common for competitive riders) [/quote}

But they are never fitted and calibrated by the manufacturer and so don't comply with the requirements which apply to speedometers on motor vehicles.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

...yet!

Regardless, bike speedometers are practical and very easy to install (and retro-install) - dial in tyre diameter, job done!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Don't see why speed cameras/more traf pol is a binary choice myself.



So might actually end up decreasing speed on said roads.

And it will increase the injury rate on those roads.



Doesn't happen on the continent.



Again, works well in Europe.



Wilfull spin on the concept.




nope, I get about quite smartish and I've never struck a pedestrian (although I did clip a guy with my handlbars once, blame myself for that though, should've been going slower, should've been more observant)).



Not all cyclists are loons, not all car drivers are loons.



I imagine if I recorded those stats most of those would go down to the person in/on the vehicle for going to fast in an urban environment.



Not practical, although I'd happily see cyclists who are clearly travelling too fast had a word with/fined.

Possibly, the point being increasing a relatively small number by a given amount and reducing a larger number by the same ratio leads to an overall reduction (the simple mathematical concept of 'weighting'). So yes the injury rate may indeed increase on the fast road (or not thanks to reduced fatigue and hence increased awareness), but the overall fall makes it worthwhile (the Montana paradox).


You've made various 'factual' claims in the recent past, all of which have been shown to be outright false when investigated, so I think I can be forgiven when I say I'm gonna need more than your word on that.


But that's exactly what it is, isn't it? If not then please explain how it isn't so.


You must have had many near misses though, do you blame yourself for all those too?


You miss my point. Should those who pilot a silent vehicle - a bike - in and around pedestrains be forced to have to 'learn to ride'?

Should we not complement that with educating pedestrians to look before they step out?


I have no doubt about that because you believe in "fairly strict liability". However, you would still be wrong to do so because:
1) we don't have such a policy
2) The point of an investigation is to ascertain the facts, not put "wilfull spin" on them.
You would very soon be sacked from such a job.


Why is it not practical?
We have the limits, we have speedos, speedos are easy to install, we have a system of on-the-spot fines, so what more do we need to make it practical?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I'm in favour of fitting quiet vehicles (e.g. electric cars) with some sort of tune-playing device, not dissimilar to an ice-cream van, but quieter, for safety reasons. My tune of choice for my own car would be the "Flash Harry" tune from the original St. Trinians movies.

I can see, or hear, it now, downloadable safety tunes for your car. Imagine the roads populated by vehicles playing the motorised equivalent of the crazy frog tune. Of course for those that just want to get from a to b there will be the Ford version of the Nokia ringtone.


AAAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Better make some recordings of the TVR[*] just in case

[*] Gratuitous mention of TVR ownership - sorry

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

You mean in case of the, not unlikely, event of every TVR falling apart

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown