Seems pretty sensible to me, two or three spots on my commute where it could work easily.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Turn right on red - Paris
(67 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Not sure I fancy turning right on red in this country ;)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Bad enough going straight on, left or right on green in the UK!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Unnecessarily provocative headline - one gets the feeling that the beeb just doesn't really like cyclists/looks for sensationalism at every opportunity.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Cyclists turning left on red is already custom and practice at many Edinburgh junctions, such as the end of Gilmore Place, the junction of Chambers Street and the Bridges, etc. The pedestrian crossings are on red, in any case, and cyclists are turning into a bus lane in both cases. Cyclists give way but have no need to stop. It's a truly foolish law that tries to make them.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Chug I disagree. The headline is factually accurate but I can maybe see how one could find it provocative, but I thought the article was reasonably well-balanced, perhaps you are the one looking to be outraged at every opportunity :)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Sorry, but I disagree. We are, for the moment, traffic, so we have to obey traffic lights. If we start picking and choosing what rules we obey, why should we be able to complain when others (speeding drivers, close passers, road ragers) do the same? Unless you are an Olympic athlete, my experience is that time spent waiting at junctions is time you get a bit of breath back before setting off again. How often is it that on the bad cycling thread we see 'RLJ-er, caught them up seconds later' ?
But then it sounds like you must get in front and are too important to be held up by someone else using the roadway. (See what I did there?)
Posted 9 years ago # -
@mgj I'm with you on this.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@mgj
I'd say no road users consistently keep to the law. So that is a red herring. The horse has bolted. The genie can't be put back in the bottle. etc. etc.
The question is what behaviours are reasonable and lead to a reduction of risk, and what behaviours are not.
Incidentally, at no time did I say what I did, I only said what was custom and practice.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Charlethepar "The question is what behaviours are reasonable and lead to a reduction of risk ..." are you suggesting that a cyclist going through a light on red is a) reasonable and b) leads to a reduction of risk? I have trouble seeing how either of these could be true but I'm happy to have my mind changed
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm not a RLJer, never have been, but I completely see the sense and reasonableness of allowing cyclists to proceed either left at a junction, or straight on if there is no left turn available. Furthermore, I think that some serious accidents with lorries turning left at junctions might have been avoided if bikes had not had to wait for green and take their chances at the same time that heavy vehicles are setting off.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Since that junction is on my route to work, I can say that in my experience very few go through on red. Partly because there are normally delivery vans outside Richer Sounds at commute time, so getting to the ASL is tricky. On my commute (3.7 miles) there are two junctions where I could turn left on a red light to work and none on the way home. Possible saving of a minute or two, excluding breath getting back bonus. Not worth it. Your mileage may vary.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I have trouble seeing how either of these could be true but I'm happy to have my mind changed"
I don't RLJ, but there are definitely scenarios where it can be safer. As noted above, trucks turning left over people from standing starts is just a bit of a problem, so if the other lights have gone red, there's that gap before the cyclist light goes green, the cyclist jumps the red knowing the sequence before the truck gets the green, then they have reduced, possibly eliminated, all risk. If you want to take pedestrians out of the equation it's early morning / late night, and none about.
Yes, it's a bit specific, but it's definitely a situation when RLJing is reducing any risk (and arguably if you reduce risk (for everyone) something is automatically reasonable).
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm actually in Paris just now, and have done some cycling this week.
First thing to note is that turning right on red doesn't generally conflict with a pedestrian green after the turn, French traffic lights generally give simultaneous greens to right-turning traffic AND crossing peds, the turning traffic then has to give way to anyone crossing. Slightly bizarre and scary at first, but seems to work OK.
Will post some further thoughts on the Parisien cycling experience when I get the chance...
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'd go further and have bikes treated as pedestrians at green man phase of box junctions. Trial period. Look at the stats after.
You'd have to be pretty blithe not to be in fear of your life as you stand in the middle of a box junction with vehicles buzzing past a metre on either side. We don't weight what cars weigh, we aren't the same, there is room for different rules. No one else is commuting in fear of their lives. Trial period, give it a go, that gets my vote!
Posted 9 years ago # -
@wilmingtons cow ... But there's a massive assumption in your scenario regarding pedestrians. That there are "none about" due to early/lateness of the day is a bit hopeful. All it takes is a jogger, say, who sees a chance to cross as the lights are on red, and therefore does not *expect* vehicles to be going through the red light, so off they go. It's all about expected behaviour. It sounds like in Paris rlj *is* pretty much the expected behaviour, so peds react accordingly. That's very much not the case here. That's not to say laws can't or shouldn't be changed, but until they are ...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"That's not to say laws can't or shouldn't be changed, "
That's the point; the law should be changed, taking into account best practice (probably Netherlands), to allow other options at junctions, such as the left on red, or an advanced green phase for bikes before the green for motorised traffic, or a simultaneous green for bikes and pedestrians. There may be one preferred solution or different solutions at different junctions depending on the volume of traffic and pedestrians. I don't think anyone is suggesting allowing red light jumping without a corresponding change to the "rules".
Posted 9 years ago # -
"That there are "none about" due to early/lateness of the day is a bit hopeful."
Okay, to expand my extreme scenario. Clear sightlines for 100 yards in every single direction and perfect visibility, and no pedestrians about.
Actually, I'm pretty much of the 'go slowly and pay attention and even if there are pedestrians about a cyclist can be safe' mindset. After all, if bikes were inherently risky for pedestrians, just by their very nature, then there would be no shared use paths.
Indeed, agree on the expected behaviour (though if you read any mainstream media then cyclists RLJing is pretty much expected behaviour, and I definitely get the feeling, have seen it plenty, that when I roll up to a red with no traffic around, pedestrians hang back waiting to see if I will actually stop (and as I say, I always do).
I'm not actually sure there's a benefit, really, to allowing left turns on red. I just don't think it's in our cultural mindset (all the above notwithstanding). Have spent lots of time in France, including living there, and you get used to the right turn green light coinciding with the green man crossing for the street traffic is turning into - the right turn on red is almost an extension of that, and people on the roads know to look out for, and defer to, pedestrians.
Now advanced green for bikes, that is a good idea, and works incredibly well in other countries.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@W.Cow But to expand your extreme scenario further, if I'm aware enough (and experienced enough) to make the judgement that going through the red light is 100% not increasing risk for anyone else, then I'm probably also aware enough and experienced enough to not be in a position where I'm going to get run over by a blind-sighted left-turning truck, i.e. I'd be in front of it or behind it, thus no need to rlj in the first place.
I think you're right with respect to many pedestrians being wary of bikes at red lights, although TBH my heart sinks a little when I'm cycling and I see a pedestrian looking to see if I'm going to run a red and then them seeming grateful/surprised when I don't.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I'm probably also aware enough and experienced enough to not be in a position where I'm going to get run over by a blind-sighted left-turning truck, i.e. I'd be in front of it or behind it, thus no need to rlj in the first place"
What if you're already stopped in an ASL and then the truck pulls up alongside you placing you in the blind spot (and that's not extreme, a few of the London deaths are exactly this, cyclist already in position, truck arrives, in the intervening period truck drive forgets cyclist is there, truck driver turns left over them. Surely at that point awareness and experience would be telling you to remove yourself from the blind spot?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ih "I don't think anyone is suggesting allowing red light jumping without a corresponding change to the "rules"."
Good! But that's not how I read @CharleThePar's earlier sentiments "Cyclists give way but have no need to stop. It's a truly foolish law that tries to make them." Whether it's foolish or not, it's the law and perhaps more importantly, it's what people expect to happen.
"I'd say no road users consistently keep to the law. So that is a red herring." But RLJing is very different from say, a vehicle (and I include bicycles in this) breaking the law by speeding. A pedestrian is not going to just step into the road in front of a moving vehicle whether it's going 20, 30 or 40mph. But if they are expecting that vehicle to absolutely not go through a red light, and it then does, bad stuff happens.
Posted 9 years ago # -
There are cases of misjudging speed. So if you're in a 20 zone you look and see a car a distance away and assume it's going that speed, start to cross, then it turns out that car is doing 40 (Holyrood Park a prime example), the same sort of expectation could be in evidence (it works in the same way with bikes I find, in that people expect us to be going slower than we are).
But yeah, expectations definitely set more around red lights.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Absolutely.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Sorry WC, missed your earlier comment "Surely at that point awareness and experience would be telling you to remove yourself from the blind spot" - if I'm actually about to be run over by a truck I'd do whatever was necessary to prevent that, including running a red light, jumping to the pavement etc. However, I still don't think that (hopefully unlikely!) scenario justifies jumping red lights just in case it happens.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"still don't think that (hopefully unlikely!) scenario justifies jumping red lights just in case it happens"
The thing is, it happens regularly in London (perhaps less so here as there is less construction traffic thundering down every main road.
I still think a general rule that cyclists can - if there is a clear path turn left on red would be useful.
I would also say that this should be introduced alonside presumed liability (in order to defuse the "what if cyclists hit pedestrians/kids/grannies" mob).
I dont ask for much.................
Posted 9 years ago # -
@geordiefatbloke you sound like a confident cyclist. So am I, but many people aren't, and if we want to encourage more people to take up everyday cycling, we have to find a way to make it a bit less scary, and a bit more comfortable (not quite the right word).
When I'm sitting in lanes of traffic at lights (as I do), I know that as soon as they change, I've got to accelerate as quickly as possible and clear the junction before the vehicles around me can even think of doing anything stupid. Sometimes, I regard this as a challenge, but it's always stressful, and it is never going to attract less confident people to ditch the car.
A key necessary change is to ease cyclists' passage through junctions, and modification of the rules for them at lights is a good start. It wouldn't even require big infrastructure changes and could possibly be piloted easily.
Posted 9 years ago # -
If other countries can do this for cyclists without the cyclists falling over themselves with self-loathing then why can't we?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think if the law was actually changed then there wouldn't be the self-loathing (at least I'd hope not). My stance on cyclists breaking the law has softened over the years (after some interesting discussions on here about pavement cycling). I still don't think as a matter of course that people should break the law, but have more understanding now of why people do, and I'm not going to demonise them for doing so (as long as it's done safely and for good reason - which in itself may be safety).
Posted 9 years ago # -
First thing to note is that turning right on red doesn't generally conflict with a pedestrian green after the turn, French traffic lights generally give simultaneous greens to right-turning traffic AND crossing peds, the turning traffic then has to give way to anyone crossing. Slightly bizarre and scary at first, but seems to work OK.
Something like this was given as one of the reasons why the Pilrig St junction was given such a weak, mealy-mouthed layout for cyclists in the Leith Walk redesign. And anything that required drivers to observe and think just wouldn't work in this country, presumably because drivers are used to neither observing nor thinking...
A change in the law would be a simple solution and be a strong signal that govt wanted to encourage more cycling by making cycling (even) quicker than driving. If govt doesn't want to do that, then it's professed desire to get more people cycling can be (even more) strongly questioned.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@geordiefatbloke Generally, anything that gets cyclists ahead of other traffic, and so directly in their line of site and not pressed against the curb/ parked cars/ fences etc, without endangering pedestrians will reduce overall risk. In most cases this will also ease traffic flow.
The point is that many cyclists already turn left on red where it is safe to do so. You can't make this not true by waiving the law about. Unreasonable laws will be broken, and polis are never going to waste their time enforcing them when there are so many things going on in society/ on the roads that do lead to serious hazard to life and limb. Much more sensible to bring the law into line with safe custom and practice.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
