Husband just been knocked off his bike

[Cyclone]

Given that as (in your words) he looked totally competent, it's probably the case that he judged going through the reds to be safer?

 

A lot of experienced cyclists will happily break the law if they judge that obeying it places them at greater risk than not doing so.

 

You see, if a cyclist and car collide, the cyclist will likely either die or sustain seriious injury- regardless of whether the cyclist or car driver is responsible.

 

Most cyclists who've been on the roads several years basically ride in fear- they know full well that however carefully and observantly ride, there's a real chance that they can be mown down by a less carfull/less observant motorist.

 

If you can get in that mindset, I'm sure you'll better appreciate that a cyclist may go through reds if, in their judgement, it is safer for them to do so.

 

Taking off at the front of a queue of cars when green goes, can be hazardous, as the cars tend to be very keen to get off and get up to speed- a cyclist prefers to be way off in front if possible, as they know the approaching cars will see them much better (as the road between is empty) and, have ceased to be accelerating.

 

It's not acceptable and from what I've seen it's also not the most common reason for ignoring the red light.

It's quite simply laziness, stopping and then starting again wastes energy. The minority of bad cyclists that run lights do it because they don't want to put the effort in.

[onewheeldave]

 

I've never really bought into that notion though, and I do understand the safety issues. There are indeed some junctions where in is unsafe for traffic to overtake after the lights, so in these instances I pull more in the centre of the road whist waiting for the lights to change to hold traffic up behind me until I reach a point where it is safe for traffic to over take, and then I'll take a more passive position on the road. I think that Manor Top coming from Mansfield road is an example of this.

That's also a good method, though clearly not as safe for the cyclist as them being well in good and highly visible.

 

Also something for drivers who dislike cyclists in the center of road position- at red lights, if the cyclist waits till they turn, inevitably, if they're competent and safety-focused, they will be in the center of the lane so cars can't attempt dangerous passing- whereas if the cyclist judges it safe to go through the red and does so, no cars are held up.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 12:04 ----------

 

It's not acceptable and from what I've seen it's also not the most common reason for ignoring the red light.

It's quite simply laziness, stopping and then starting again wastes energy. The minority of bad cyclists that run lights do it because they don't want to put the effort in.

 

No- some do it for safety reasons, as explained above.

[Cyclone]

I don't believe they do, I think that's probably just an excuse given.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 13:02 ----------

 

That's also a good method, though clearly not as safe for the cyclist as them being well in good and highly visible.

 

Also something for drivers who dislike cyclists in the center of road position- at red lights, if the cyclist waits till they turn, inevitably, if they're competent and safety-focused, they will be in the center of the lane so cars can't attempt dangerous passing- whereas if the cyclist judges it safe to go through the red and does so, no cars are held up.

 

Taking a positive road position is legal, running a red light is not.

[Squiggs]

So cycling down penistone road this lunchtime having just passed swfc. A guy on a mountain bike jumps the lights at the junction of parkside road and penistone road. When I caught up with him he was dressed in proper cycling gear and was riding a fairly decent bike. He clearly looked like he knew how to handle a bike and was 100% confident with riding on a very busy road. This wasn't some chav scroat on a bmx. He then jumped a further 2 sets of lights at red. He even jumped the lights at red at the junction of penistone road and hillfoot road / neepsend lane.

 

 

Well, to use this example, to understand the reasoning WITHOUT WISHING TO CONDONE RLJ'ing AT ALL, I usually have a word if I see another cyclist do so...

 

Perhaps the Hillfoot Bridge lights were at red but the crossing lights (including for cycles) were on green. Whilst illegal to proceed straight ahead unless on the cycle path, it's certainly not dangerous to do so (unless of course if turning left across the pedestrian/cyclist toucan crossing) - as the route is essentially identical to that taken if on the cycle path with a green light, with no additional traffic movement on the road route.

 

Perfectly safe - albeit illegal.

 

Moving further down Penistone Road, to the Rutland Road junction, let's say that the cyclist complied with the bleats of "use the cycle path", the cyclist would reach this junction. No matter how the cyclist crossed the junction, they would be crossing against traffic - if the light is red on Rutland Road, the light is green for left and right turning vehicles entering Rutland Road from Penistone Road. A notably high proportion of which do not use indicators and just turn. If the light is red on Penistone Road, the light is green for traffic coming from Rutland Road. Therefore in that situation, the cycle lane which some regard as the "safe" pace to ride, sends cyclists across what would effectively be a red light, across the path of traffic with a green light.

 

Perfectly legal - albeit dangerous.

 

 

This is why I ignore the "use the cycle path" as it is much safer to cross this wide and busy junction taking primary position in the traffic queue, using the road, with the green light - and of course stopping at red regardless of interpretations of safety.

 

BUT - whilst ever nonsensical schemes like this exist, I can see how some riders consider evaluating the individual junctions and handling them accordingly

[onewheeldave]

I don't believe they do, I think that's probably just an excuse given.

 

---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 13:02 ----------

 

 

Taking a positive road position is legal, running a red light is not.

 

I know that very well- no need to repeat it.

 

Taking a positive road position is legal, running a red light is not

 

but-

 

Taking a positive road position is not always going to maximise the cyclists safety, running a red light sometimes will maximise the cyclists safety

 

i.e. breaking the law is, in some instances, safer than blindly obeying it.

 

As it's the cyclist who dies/gets maimed if they get hit by a car (whoever is at fault) I can understand why they go for the safer option, rather than the (less safe) legal one.

 

Much as many smoke cannabis, despite knowing full well it's illegal- to them the pros outweigh the negatives, to them the law is wrong (or stupid), so they happily disobey.

[adamf]

I know that very well- no need to repeat it.

 

Taking a positive road position is legal, running a red light is not

 

but-

 

Taking a positive road position is not always going to maximise the cyclists safety, running a red light sometimes will maximise the cyclists safety

 

i.e. breaking the law is, in some instances, safer than blindly obeying it.

 

Taking a positive road position usually (but not always) improves the cyclist's safety; running a red light usually (but not always) reduces safety for the cyclist and pedestrians.

[Klondike Kid]

Anyway what happened to the blind taxi driver?

[onewheeldave]

Taking a positive road position usually (but not always) improves the cyclist's safety; running a red light usually (but not always) reduces safety for the cyclist and pedestrians.

 

We weren't really talking about pedestrian crossings- personally, I think that cyclists who run pedestrian reds while pedestrians are using them, should be arrested.

 

I fully agree with you that running red lights can sometimes be safer for a cyclist, that's pretty much the point I've been making.

[gimp27]

Yes threads do develop, but adding something that has no bearing to the OP is not developing a thread. It's more akin to a cheap point scoring game. Do you really believe this to be appropriate behaviour where some is talking about a loved one being hurt?

 

As to your second point, maybe if cyclists killed well over 1 thousand people a year, I'd think that your argument would be worth considering.

 

Just a quickie JFK, and not to start a huge argument, but its not relevant to suggest that cyclists actually kill anyone, but the question that seriously bad and uneducated riding can put themselves in danger with motor vehicles, leaving the motorist to pick up the blame. Its really sad when a cyclist is injured, as this could be someone we love and care about, but if they are riding in a manner that could cause a collision, then surely there must be some weight in regulating cyclists before they begin their cycling career on the roads. Its easy to say how bad the driver was, but even harder to accept that the cyclist might, just might have been at fault in the first place, but his/her vulnerability and injuries cloud the truth.

[JFKvsNixon]

Just a quickie JFK, and not to start a huge argument, but its not relevant to suggest that cyclists actually kill anyone, but the question that seriously bad and uneducated riding can put themselves in danger with motor vehicles, leaving the motorist to pick up the blame. Its really sad when a cyclist is injured, as this could be someone we love and care about, but if they are riding in a manner that could cause a collision, then surely there must be some weight in regulating cyclists before they begin their cycling career on the roads. Its easy to say how bad the driver was, but even harder to accept that the cyclist might, just might have been at fault in the first place, but his/her vulnerability and injuries cloud the truth.

 

I don't think that anyone has claimed that cyclists are never at fault, they make bad judgement calls just as car drivers do, but my point was that controlling a car on the roads is a lot more difficult and dangerous than controlling a cycle, a skill that most people pick up by the time they leave junior school. It's this lack of difficulty that contributes to my opinion on compulsory testing, amongst the other reasons laid out on this thread.

 

I do think that the idea of offering voluntary training for cyclists is a great idea, however.