CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Turn right on red - Paris

(67 posts)
  • Started 9 years ago by Nelly
  • Latest reply from Murun Buchstansangur

No tags yet.


123

  1. paulmilne
    Member

    As someone who walks up and down a busy cycling corridor every day (East end of the Meadows) I'm admittedly surprised at how law-abiding cyclists are in general. I only see about 1 in 10 riding through a red light in any direction, even fewer on the pavements. And as others have noted, a lot of the red-light riding is after a stop, at a slow pace and looking around in all directions. In fact, I can confidently say I've never seen a cyclist "riding furiously" through a red light - here anyway.

    And why sit through a pedestrian phase when you can simply dismount and walk across, getting an even bigger jump on the following motor vehicles? I don't get it.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "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"

    The only thing I'd query on that is who actually decides what is an 'unreasonable' law? After all many (most?) drivers think that 20mph is unreasonable, so they drive above it, and the police don't waster their time enforcing it. A driver will say that as long as they are paying attention then driving at 30 is safe, in the same way a cyclist turning left on red will say as long as they are paying attention then it's perfectly safe.

    Now to you and I one seems perfectly reasonable, and the other not. But to other people the 30 in a 20 is perfectly reasonable, and cyclists RLJing to turn left isn't. Who decides? The lawmakers. It's up to us to convince them of the merits of our position, then hope they will put measures in place - which is the point of brining the law into line with safe custom and practice. But we should always remember one man's safe custom and practice is a 90 year old granny's cyclist whizzing round the corner in a near miss while she crossed the road.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. Charlethepar
    Member

    @WC

    Not a relevant comparison, as breaking the 20mph limit provably increases risk.

    A more relevant comparison would be the 70mph motorway limit, where driving at 85mph adds almost no risk at all, and the limit is almost universally not enforced.

    Incidentally, having seen your other thread, apologies for "line of site"....

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. fimm
    Member

    "...line of site..." you've got a stray i in "waiving" as well. (I'm sorry, I just notice these things.) I was horribly tempted to copy them both into W.C.'s grammar thread, but I was good and didn't...

    On topic, in St Petersburg there seemed to be a thing where the traffic turning across the road (left there, right here) would get a green at the same time as the pedestrians crossing the road would get a green man, and the turning traffic would have to wait. That didn't seem to work very well for the turning traffic with the volume of pedestrians there, but you could imagine that if you were the only pedestrian and there was lots of turning traffic it might be problematic as well.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Not a relevant comparison, as breaking the 20mph limit provably increases risk"

    Not if someone is doing something while paying closed attention, they will say. Cyclists RLJing probably increases risk (say others on the other side of the fence because they envisage, and only see, cyclists who don't do it safely and just whizz through crowds of people without a care for their safety).

    The point I was making wasn't that one increases risk and the other doesn't, but that there are radically different 'perceptions', each with any number of facts, both true and false, from the internet that can be used to justify why something should be changed or left as it is. And while our perception here is that RLJing is safe and speeding is not; perceptions of others will be different.

    I'm not really explaining myself terribly well at all, so rather than rabbiting I should leave it at that.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. geordiefatbloke
    Member

    I have nothing against changing the law, but until the law is changed I think going through red lights increases the risk overall (it maybe lowers the risk for the cyclist but I would argue it increases the risk for anyone else around them who isn't expecting a vehicle to be going through on red). And this:
    "But we should always remember one man's safe custom and practice is a 90 year old granny's cyclist whizzing round the corner in a near miss while she crossed the road."

    I have seen plenty of cyclists trundling through red lights not to avoid risk or for personal safety reasons, but because they just couldn't be arsed to stop. Momentum, you know. But thankfully they are the exception IMHO, as in all walks of life, the vast majority are pretty considerate folk.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. mgj
    Member

    @paulmilne; you may not have seen cyclists going through red's; I was nearly collected by one yesterday in Leith Street. I stopped for a red on the downhill stretch before John Lewis and a good 10 seconds later there was a whoosh on my inside as another bike went through, a little bit close for comfort too.

    Your point about dismounting is right; no need for a change in the law; if you are in that much of a hurry or don't fancy catching your breath/watching the world go by, gain the same effect by doing something legal.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. Charlethepar
    Member

    WC

    I am a bit worried about the safety of your hypothetical little old lady. We are talking about situations of controlled junctions, where cyclists are turning left (treating a red light stop line as a give way line) into a flow of traffic that is signalled at green. The pedestrians that they could potentially clash with are firmly signalled at red.

    Take the example of the end of Chambers Street. The traffic on the Bridges will be signalled on green both ways. If your hypothetical little old lady decides that is the moment to cross the road against a "red man", the fact that a cyclist may decide to turn left from Chambers Street through a red light will be the least of her problems.

    I doubt that a single little old lady has been hit by a bike for years, simply because if it happened just once the Scotsman would go on about it for months.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Sigh.

    Perceptions.

    Not specific junctions.

    Not specific little old ladies.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. Charlethepar
    Member

    @WC

    If we were slaves to other people's perceptions, we would not cycle at all in town - there is such a vibrant mythology about the evil deeds done by cyclists.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I give up.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. geordiefatbloke
    Member

    @Charlethepar But what if the little old lady has looked up and down the street where the lights are green, sees no traffic, then they are perfectly entitled to cross on a red man. But then out pops a cyclist going through a red light, which they weren't expecting (and why should they, vehicles aren't allowed to go through a red light). This is the point, just because you (as in a rlj-cyclist, not you personally Charle, I know you have not stated whether or not you do this) perceive what you are doing to be risk-free or risk-reducing, it is demonstrably not for everyone else, unless the laws change.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. Charlethepar
    Member

    @geordiefatbloke

    Ah, but if the hypothetical little old lady is that savvy (and that willing to take risks on her own judgment), she will no doubt have observed that cyclists turning left in these circumstances is a common practice, and will have weighed it into her decision making.

    If anyone walks around town expecting vehicles to always keep to the law, there is no way they will live long enough to be a little old lady, hypothetical or otherwise. And it won't be a cycle that takes them out.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. geordiefatbloke
    Member

    @Charlethepar I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, I don't believe that what you describe as "common practice" actually is ...

    "And it won't be a cycle that takes them out." ... because they are, of course, infallible.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. Charlethepar
    Member

    @geordie

    Not infallible, but the great statistical likelihood is that a pedestrian gets taken out by a motor vehicle. The CTC reports that "Between 1998 and 2007 in London, where cycle and pedestrian flows are high and signalled junctions ubiquitous, just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles."

    I doubt this fact is anywhere near the 'perceptions' that Wilmington's Cow is so worried about.

    Perhaps I should have said that, if 100 hypothetical little old ladies crossed controlled junctions assuming that all vehicles keep the law, 96 of them would be taken out by motor vehicles (and would be much more likely to be killed than the 4 unlucky enough to be hit by a cycle).

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. ih
    Member

    "Perhaps I should have said that, if 100 hypothetical little old ladies crossed controlled junctions assuming that all vehicles keep the law, 96 of them would be taken out by motor vehicles (and would be much more likely to be killed than the 4 unlucky enough to be hit by a cycle)."

    If 100 hypothetical little old ladies etc.... I would expect the vast majority to get safely to the other side making the number hit by cycles vanishingly small.

    Does anyone else feel there is a problem with the phrase 'little old lady'?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. mgj
    Member

    Number of LOL's hit by RL left turners - small/miniscule.

    Number of LOL's hit by those waiting at red light - nil.

    Number of LOL's unnecessarily frightened by moving vehicle around them while crossing at a green man - the real issue.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. paulmilne
    Member

    @mgj, oh well, Leith Street, very different class of cyclists there :D

    I've seen people biking through red lights, just not furiously. And my point is the vast majority *that I've seen* don't.

    Someone else also said they didn't push their bikes through lights because they weren't in a hurry. I don't do it necessarily because I'm in a hurry, but because it puts me just that little bit further ahead of the motor vehicles and gives me a few more seconds of relaxed cycling.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "I doubt this fact is anywhere near the 'perceptions' that Wilmington's Cow is so worried about"

    OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

    Seriously, not what I meant in the slightest, not the point I was making, merely reflecting that there 'are' perceptions, and whether based on fact or myth they do exist, they will continue to exist, and it's against that mindset that any changes or suggestions have to be pitched. So while 'we' have a perception that RLJing is safe (in the main, gfb and others excepted), the little old lady (no, no problem with that) may/will have a different perception. Will cyclists continuing to RLJ change that perception? No. Will the facts mean that shell change her perception? Doubtful. Will her perception be taken into account by those who are actually looking at changing the law and asking their constituents what they think about it despite her perception not being based in fact? More than likely.

    Perceptions may be incorrect, but perceptions carry weight. Anyone who has read the comments on the EEN, or who has been told they don't pay road tax, or has been told ALL cyclists run reds and cycle on the pavement, will know this. And it's been said and levelled at us for years without going away. And those perceptions get mentioned in debates in parliament, or in responses to consultations suggesting improvements to the cyclists' lot, and on the basis of that we often get no, or compromised, provision.

    So yes, the perception is wrong. But the perception exists, and the perception carries weight, therefore to ignore it, or to simply say 'aye but that's wrong' is frankly naïve and blinkered.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. ih
    Member

    @Wilmington I agree, it's perceptions, right or wrong, that matter. But perceptions can differ significantly. Anecdote, I accept not statistical. I cycle on a network in SE London, a bit like the NEPN. Amongst others, I pass parents with young kids enjoying the walk. There is never the panic that I see from Edinburgh parents shouting "mind the bike", scaring the bejeezus out of the kids, clutching them to their knees as though I'm actually going to aim for the children.

    How can we change perceptions to bring them more in line with the facts?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. paulmilne
    Member

    Interesting that in Paris the powers that be worked took the attitude that RLJ could be safe at certain intersections under certain conditions and simply changed the law to make it legal. I doubt motorists in Paris have a better attitude towards cyclists than in Edinburgh, but it took political will to make it happen. The question is, does that will exist here? I think some at Edinburgh Council level want to do the right thing but are afraid to.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "How can we change perceptions to bring them more in line with the facts?"

    That is the million dollar question.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "I think some at Edinburgh Council level want to do the right thing but are afraid to."

    Yes

    BUT

    Unlike many parts of the world, cities in Scotland/UK can't do that sort of thing.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. geordiefatbloke
    Member

    @Charlethepar " just 4% of pedestrian injuries due to red light jumping involved cycles; the other 96% involved motor vehicles." So that makes it ok then? I'm sure the 4% hit by a bike would disagree (not to mention those hit/frightened by bike but not injured enough to report it, because as you rightly say if you're hit by a car serious injury is more likely). Here's a crazy idea. How about not rlj'ing, then that stat would be "100% involved motor vehicles".

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. geordiefatbloke
    Member

    And also, in 2012, of 25.9 million trips per day in London, 14 million were by car/bus/taxi, 0.5 million were by bike (source: [url=http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/policy/Key%20statistics/Key-London-Statistics-Data-Sheet-V1-13-06-2014.pdf]Sustrans data), which would suggest that the number of cyclists injuring pedestrians by rlj-ing is proportionally very similar to that of motor vehicles. Given the comments about the difference in likelihood of serious injury from being hit by a car as compared to a bike, I would suggest that people actually being hit by rlj-ing bikes is proportionally much higher than that by cars.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. acsimpson
    Member

    http://gizmodo.com/paris-will-ban-cars-for-one-day-1727332295

    Also available via the grauniad.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. paulmilne
    Member

    Good, I was looking for a "going through red lights" thread to post this link to a blog post by "As Easy As Riding A Bike":

    Traffic lights have to make sense
    https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/traffic-lights-have-to-make-sense/

    One junction that comes to mind is West Preston Street and Causewayside, a t-junction where north-bound cyclists could easily continue on because there's no street on the left (Sciennes Place doesn't come through any more). Having said that, in my observation most cyclists are law-abiding and stop even when it doesn't make sense.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. Chug
    Member

    ...but Sciennes Place is a great cut-through for cyclists heading from West Preston Street into Sciennes/Marchmont. The "straight on" route is still open for cycles, even if closed for cars.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. mmaohara
    Member

    If you are cycling on the road then you are part of the traffic, you need to obey the lights.

    Interestingly I was just reading another thread about drivers being penalised for going over 70 on the motorway and the general just is - well don't break the law, bit biased on the forum perhaps? :-)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. Nelly
    Member

    "If you are cycling on the road then you are part of the traffic, you need to obey the lights......... bit biased on the forum perhaps"

    Not really.

    When I started this thread it was because a story was on the BBC about Paris considering allowing cyclists to turn right on Red (our equivalent of turn left on Red).

    There has already been healthy debate about this, and in general nobody is advocating breaking the law - rather debating if an easement/change for cyclists would be useful.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin