Drivers ask “Where do we park now?” as new bollards installed on bike lane always blocked by cars; Police fine cyclist for “flagrantly” jumping two red lights, but some say move “should be legal”; Olympic team pursuit drama for GB + more on the live blog

75 thoughts on “Drivers ask “Where do we park now?” as new bollards installed on bike lane always blocked by cars; Police fine cyclist for “flagrantly” jumping two red lights, but some say move “should be legal”; Olympic team pursuit drama for GB + more on the live blog”

1. Well good on them I say!

   Well good on them I say!

   I’m sick and tired of my “fellow cyclists” riding right past me and through the red light that I am waiting at.  I often shout that there’s a red light but they either shout abuse back or ignore me.  How can you expect drivers to respect cycle lanes, cycle boxes, or us if we fail to obey the rules too? 

   I think the so-called safety argument of “enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic” is very weak indeed.

   I think we need more patrolling like this and maybe more police officers trained to ride motorcycles to help catch the low-lives that frequent our roads on illegal e-bikes or stolen mopeds and motorbikes.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • “I think the so-called safety

     “I think the so-called safety argument of “enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic” is very weak indeed.”

     Would you remove ASLs and advanced cyclist traffic lights as they are all designed to help cyclists not mingle with accelerating traffic.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • But ASLs and advanced cyclist

       But ASLs and advanced cyclist traffic lights are built into a system – they provide some safety from traffic behind, whilst also protecting you from traffic in other directions, which is held at red. This cyclist (who does not appear to be the one actually raising the safety issue) appears to be proceeding into a three lane system where traffic could be approaching from other directions, and doesn’t seem to be checking particularly carefully. The safety argument may have some merit, but I don’t think this example illustrates it well, and often I think “it’s safer” is a justification people use when really they are just prioritising their own convenience. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • quiff wrote:

         The safety argument may have some merit, but I don’t think this example illustrates it well, and often I think “it’s safer” is a justification people use when really they are just prioritising their own convenience. 

         — quiff

         As a sometime RLJer, I’d agree that most of the time going through a red is more about convenience and conserving momentum/energy. However, there’s some junctions where safety is my motivation for RLJing, so it depends on the nature of the junction and traffic.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I can definitely conceive of

           I can definitely conceive of situations where I might. And when I was regularly London commuting, I would definitely be a “green anticipator” at some junctions – ready to go on amber before the Mad Max mobiles behind me. It’s really just those going through red and a green man who get my ire.    

     • ASLs and advanced lights are

       ASLs and advanced lights are designed to enhance cyclists’ safety (and convenience) in ways that are understandable and predictable to other road users. 

       Riding through a red light is neither understandable nor predictable. This is particularly acute at pedestrian crossings where pedestrians will often rush across to catch the green man, and may not be expecting a cyclist and his fucking cat to be riding blithely through because he’s decided the rules don’t apply to him. None of us have perfect vision or foresight, so we have rules in place to mitigate that. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Brauchsel wrote:

         ASLs and advanced lights are designed to enhance cyclists’ safety (and convenience) in ways that are understandable and predictable to other road users. 

         Riding through a red light is neither understandable nor predictable. This is particularly acute at pedestrian crossings where pedestrians will often rush across to catch the green man, and may not be expecting a cyclist and his fucking cat to be riding blithely through because he’s decided the rules don’t apply to him. None of us have perfect vision or foresight, so we have rules in place to mitigate that. 

         — Brauchsel

         In all fairness, in the video clip shown, the cyclist and his fucking cat stopped at the red light.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • That’s what I thought – but I

           That’s what I thought – but I think Brauchsel was referring to the text where Travis uses that incident as justification for having now gone “full California”.

         • brooksby wrote:

           may not be expecting a cyclist and his fucking cat to be riding blithely through because he’s decided the rules don’t apply to him.

           — brooksby

           In all fairness, in the video clip shown, the cyclist and his fucking cat stopped at the red light.

           — Brauchsel

           In all fairness, I’m fairly sure the cat wasn’t doing that at all – as far as I could tell it was just sitting there.

         • mdavidford wrote:

           In all fairness, I’m fairly sure the cat wasn’t doing that at all – as far as I could tell it was just sitting there.

           — mdavidford

           Cats are never *just* sitting there – they’re always judging

         • And if they’re not judging,

           And if they’re not judging, they’re plotting.

         • KDee wrote:

           And if they’re not judging, they’re plotting.

           — KDee

           Quite often both

       • Brauchsel wrote:

         ASLs and advanced lights are designed to enhance cyclists’ safety (and convenience) in ways that are understandable and predictable to other road users. 

         Riding through a red light is neither understandable nor predictable. This is particularly acute at pedestrian crossings where pedestrians will often rush across to catch the green man, and may not be expecting a cyclist and his fucking cat to be riding blithely through because he’s decided the rules don’t apply to him. None of us have perfect vision or foresight, so we have rules in place to mitigate that. 

         — Brauchsel

         Thank you for your post.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Sorry – late post on this. 

         Sorry – late post on this.  Agree with your drift but an edit regarding ASLs:

         ASLs and advanced lights are designed said to enhance cyclists’ safety (and convenience) in ways that are understandable and predictable to other road users but in practice are conveniently ignored (especially ASLs where the paint quickly wears off) – with advanced cycle release lights possibly causing greater danger when drivers get confused and think “green! go go go!”.  Mostly they deliver “look we have done something for cycling” without needing to do things which trouble drivers or that cost as much as actually making a junction which genuinely improves cyclists’ safety and convenience.  (Alternative solutions are also available).

         — Brauchsel

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • DeelitedManchester wrote:

     Well good on them I say!

     I’m sick and tired of my “fellow cyclists” riding right past me and through the red light that I am waiting at.  I often shout that there’s a red light but they either shout abuse back or ignore me.  How can you expect drivers to respect cycle lanes, cycle boxes, or us if we fail to obey the rules too? 

     I think the so-called safety argument of “enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic” is very weak indeed.

     I think we need more patrolling like this and maybe more police officers trained to ride motorcycles to help catch the low-lives that frequent our roads on illegal e-bikes or stolen mopeds and motorbikes.

     — DeelitedManchester

     Do you really think that if suddenly ALL cyclists obeyed every possible law, then motorists would also start obeying laws such as speeding? Also note that when motorists break the law, it’s usually extremely dangerous for other people, but when cyclists break the law, it usually only changes their own safety (either improves or reduces their safety depending on the conditions).

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Speeding routinely, cutting

       Speeding routinely, cutting corners coming in and out of roads, dangerous overtakes, red light jumping, ignoring road markings, dangerous overtakes, not indicating, using their phones while driving. 

       Seriously. If I got paid £1 for every rule that I saw a car breaking on a 45 minute drive I would probably have well over £1000. Its constant. Its constant and its normalised and its completely accepted despite it being dangerous. Cyclist jumps a red light though and they lose their minds. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • No they wouldn’t, but there’s
       No they wouldn’t, but there’s rarely a valid excuse not to obey those red light rules and treating it as just something minor does cyclists as a collective, no favours at all, because it does makes crossing the road in parts of London alot riskier than it should.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • stonojnr wrote:

         No they wouldn’t, but there’s rarely a valid excuse not to obey those red light rules and treating it as just something minor does cyclists as a collective, no favours at all, because it does makes crossing the road in parts of London alot riskier than it should.

         — stonojnr

         Cyclists don’t exist as a collective, except in the minds of apopleptic drivers and the mainstream media.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       Well good on them I say!

       I’m sick and tired of my “fellow cyclists” riding right past me and through the red light that I am waiting at.  I often shout that there’s a red light but they either shout abuse back or ignore me.  How can you expect drivers to respect cycle lanes, cycle boxes, or us if we fail to obey the rules too? 

       I think the so-called safety argument of “enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic” is very weak indeed.

       I think we need more patrolling like this and maybe more police officers trained to ride motorcycles to help catch the low-lives that frequent our roads on illegal e-bikes or stolen mopeds and motorbikes.

       — hawkinspeter

       Do you really think that if suddenly ALL cyclists obeyed every possible law, then motorists would also start obeying laws such as speeding? Also note that when motorists break the law, it’s usually extremely dangerous for other people, but when cyclists break the law, it usually only changes their own safety (either improves or reduces their safety depending on the conditions).

       — DeelitedManchester

       https://www.lifegate.com/san-francisco-cyclists-protest-against-rules

       In San Francisco, the police decided to enforce the law by fining cyclists who broke the rules. This instigated cyclists’ protests so much so they wanted to show the city what would have happened if they had strictly abided by the rules.

       So, each of them stopped at the crossroads one behind the other, waiting for the road to be free. This made car drivers waste their time so that they began to complain and sound the horns to the cyclists who protested following the rules.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • DeelitedManchester wrote:

     I’m sick and tired of my “fellow cyclists” riding right past me and through the red light that I am waiting at. 

     — DeelitedManchester

     I honestly couldn’t care less what the Other Cyclists do.

     If they have decided it’s safe for them, even if it is breaking the law, it doesn’t affect me and then it’s really no skin off my nose – I’m the one patiently and visibly waiting at the line.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yup. Sick, sore and tired of

     Yup. Sick, sore and tired of seeing “people riding a bike” breaking reds, mounting pavements etc while cyclists waiting at a junction. It does nothing for our cause in the road wars. We have to be as far as is possible beyond reproach. That means obeying the HC. Just no need for RLJing. None. More of this policing please.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • davehartin wrote:

       Yup. Sick, sore and tired of seeing “people riding a bike” breaking reds, mounting pavements etc while cyclists waiting at a junction. It does nothing for our cause in the road wars. We have to be as far as is possible beyond reproach. That means obeying the HC. Just no need for RLJing. None. More of this policing please.

       — davehartin

       How about we get drivers to stop killing cyclists first, and then we can move on to things such as stopping red light jumping?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Part of the problem with

         Part of the problem with going through red lights is that it puts you in the path of oncoming traffic who had every reason to think they had a clear path.

         If someone wants to get away from the lights without being squeezed by passing motors then they need to be in primary, not in the gutter.

         And yes, pretty much all lights should have ASLs, and they should be camera enforced, but right now jumping a red light is something that you’ll sometimes get away with, but it’s rarely actually safe.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • The_Ewan wrote:

           Part of the problem with going through red lights is that it puts you in the path of oncoming traffic who had every reason to think they had a clear path.

           If someone wants to get away from the lights without being squeezed by passing motors then they need to be in primary, not in the gutter.

           And yes, pretty much all lights should have ASLs, and they should be camera enforced, but right now jumping a red light is something that you’ll sometimes get away with, but it’s rarely actually safe.

           — The_Ewan

           It depends on the nature of the junction, but I don’t really follow what kind of junction would have oncoming traffic using the same lane – maybe for roadworks where there is just the single lane (most roadworks that I encounter use cones that make it easy for cyclists to go through a red and just go the other side of the cones if necessary).

           If a cyclist is turning left, then the chances are that they can easily go close to the gutter and not be in any danger from the other traffic.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           I don’t really follow what kind of junction would have oncoming traffic using the same lane

           — hawkinspeter

           Junctions have turns though. Imagine a simple straight road with a turn to (your) left, all light controlled and with pedestrian crossings. When you’ve got a red then oncoming traffic has a green to turn to (their) right, you jump the red, you’re dead in the path they expected to be clear and they hit you. And when they’ve got a red and the pedestrians have a green then even you turning left is going to put you into the side of pedestrians who had every right to expect a clear run.

           The junctions where cyclists really should be able to go on when other traffic is held should have cycle filters, and not all of them do. But jumping a red at a lot of layouts is going to put you in what someone else expected to be clear road, a danger to either yourself or to them. And it’s not always obvious when you’re at one light just who has a green and where they might be coming from.

           I’ve watched enough people think they were safe to jump a light and then realise uncomfortably too late why they weren’t to really fancy it myself in most circumstances.

         • The_Ewan wrote:

           Junctions have turns though. Imagine a simple straight road with a turn to (your) left, all light controlled and with pedestrian crossings. When you’ve got a red then oncoming traffic has a green to turn to (their) right, you jump the red, you’re dead in the path they expected to be clear and they hit you. And when they’ve got a red and the pedestrians have a green then even you turning left is going to put you into the side of pedestrians who had every right to expect a clear run.

           The junctions where cyclists really should be able to go on when other traffic is held should have cycle filters, and not all of them do. But jumping a red at a lot of layouts is going to put you in what someone else expected to be clear road, a danger to either yourself or to them. And it’s not always obvious when you’re at one light just who has a green and where they might be coming from.

           I’ve watched enough people think they were safe to jump a light and then realise uncomfortably too late why they weren’t to really fancy it myself in most circumstances.

           — The_Ewan

           I don’t think we’ve got the same understanding of “oncoming”, but that’s mainly irrelevant to the points covered.

           Your example of a cyclist going through red to get across a left turn that has green, is a good example of when it’s best to not RLJ unless the traffic is sporadic. Most of the time, pedestrians would be very easy to spot when cycling, so there doesn’t need to be conflict as there’s usually plenty of room for pedestrians and cyclists to use the same road (busy city junctions excepted – best to wait at those).

           The junctions that I would consider RLJing through have good sightlines – if you can’t see what’s there, then speed reduction is always a good idea, whether or not traffic lights are involved.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Your example of a cyclist going through red to get across a left turn that has green, is a good example of when it’s best to not RLJ unless the traffic is sporadic.

           — hawkinspeter

           To my mind, this is the problem – RLJing requires judgement. Sometimes it may be relatively safe, or arguably even safer than waiting to go at the same time as motor traffic. But sometimes it’s not, and I have seen plenty of people exercising poor judgment or failing to exercise it at all. Having a red light green light system removes that judgement and minimises the risk of errors of judgement.   

         • quiff wrote:

           To my mind, this is the problem – RLJing requires judgement. Sometimes it may be relatively safe, or arguably even safer than waiting to go at the same time as motor traffic. But sometimes it’s not, and I have seen plenty of people exercising poor judgment or failing to exercise it at all. Having a red light green light system removes that judgement and minimises the risk of errors of judgement.   

           — quiff

           Yes, it does take judgement and experience, but then cycling in traffic requires that too (e.g. turning right on a busy road).

           It’s simple enough though – if you’re not sure or have limited visibility, then just wait at the red. Generally, it’s fairly obvious that trying to go across the paths of loud and dangerously fast moving lumps of metal is not a good idea.

         • But for argument’s sake, why

           But for argument’s sake, why not extend it more widely? Why not also allow drivers who have made a self-assessment that they have the requisite judgement and experience also to jump red lights, at junctions where they deem it appropriate, and provided of course that they cede to pedestrians and cyclists? They might pose a greater impact risk, but the risk of incidence would be low because they have assessed that they have suitable judgement…      

         • quiff wrote:

           But for argument’s sake, why not extend it more widely? Why not also allow drivers who have made a self-assessment that they have the requisite judgement and experience also to jump red lights, at junctions where they deem it appropriate, and provided of course that they cede to pedestrians and cyclists? They might pose a greater impact risk, but the risk of incidence would be low because they have assessed that they have suitable judgement…      

           — quiff

           Well, over in the USA, they do allow drivers to turn right on red and unfortunately it leads to more casualties as drivers aren’t good at assessing safety of other people. At least with cyclists, we have skin in the game and so we tend to have much better assessment of the risks and dangers

         • Every reason to think they

           Every reason to think they had a clear path? I’m pretty sure when I learned to drive a green light meant “proceed with caution”. If you expect a clear path, you might as well drive with your eyes closed (or firmly fixed on your phone).

   • DeelitedManchester wrote:

     How can you expect drivers to respect cycle lanes, cycle boxes, or us if we fail to obey the rules too?

     — DeelitedManchester

     No problems with nicking people breaking the law (that doesn’t mean I may not ask about priorities / addressing the most dangerous first etc…)

     On the one hand, lots of people’s brains (most? all?) work like this.  (Another reason BTW why “share the road” is never going to work – you’re “in the way” and “cheating by overtaking on the inside” etc.  We just have to accept that people will see cyclists as “something else” and work with that.)

     On the other hand one person’s obeying the laws for their group should not be contingent on all people in another group obeying the laws for them.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • In a lot cases the safety

     In a lot cases the safety argument holds water. There’s a junction on my old commute that if you arrive at the lights first you need to be in a strong primary and then as soon as the pedestrian phase has finished you need to move off before the filter lights up. Due to a combination of the sweeping bend, vehicles abandoned within the control period and crappy surface as the road starts to climb you really need to be well ahead and up to speed. You also have another junction with a stop line that is ignored and I’ve never seen a motorist obey it in 20 years.

     I’ve been forced off the road in the past and nearly t-boned along this section due to obeying the signals and have resorted to moving early and getting up to 20mph on this stretch for my own preservation. Even if caught further back in traffic I put myself in the outer third of the lane and use other vehicles to draft. 

     I shouldn’t have to do this. Unfortunately I need to for my own protection. Until the council implements a 20mph zone or installs a cycle priority signal I will continue this approach anytime I’m on this road in the future. 
      

     EDIT

     Here’s a pic of the junction I had to deal with. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. Glad the jerk got a ticket. I

   Glad the jerk got a ticket. I’m so sick of getting the ‘red-light’ jibe from motorists. Red means stop, its simple. If you want it changed, write to your MP and your council, stop making excuses for jerks like this that break the law. Cars still suck.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • alexuk wrote:

     I’m so sick of getting the ‘red-light’ jibe from motorists. 

     — alexuk

     The simple answer to this jibe (usually, IME, delivered while I am waiting at a red light) is – “have you seen me jump a red light”? Preferably followed up with an observation about their handheld mobile phone / lack of seatbelt / child not in a carseat / illegal 4D numberplate etc. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Its OK, if all cyclists stop

     Its OK, if all cyclists stop jumping red lights, all motorists will stop hating cyclists, putting our lives at risk and generally disregarding almost all of the road rules themselves.

     Spoiler, it won’t make the blindest bit of difference to their behaviour or their attitudes towards us. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • The jibe is nonsense

     The jibe is nonsense/hypocrisy, so I would ignore it if I were you. Here are some hard-working law-abiding motorists on one street local to me.

     The failure of logic here is that someone doing something wrong on a bike reflects badly on all cyclists, whereas a driver breaking the law has no impact on the reputation of other drivers.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • OK, so Beech Grove ain’t a

       OK, so Beech Grove ain’t a nice place to ride a bike, too narrow for one thing. Why not use Victoria Road instead? reasonable surface, lots wider and safer all round. (ex Harrogate courier speaking here.)

       Log In or Register to post comments

3. Did I miss the bit in that

   Did I miss the bit in that police video where they have intel that the cyclist is an imminent threat to the public or has a big stash of drugs on him to warrant that response?  Seems very much like the situation with the fixed penalty notice giving out in town centres where it’s the people who pose the least threat and are most considerate that are more likely to be issued with fines.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. I’m intrigued by the

   I’m intrigued by the implication that motorists leave ASLs clear, something I rarely see.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Kapelmuur wrote:

     I’m intrigued by the implication that motorists leave ASLs clear, something I rarely see.

     — Kapelmuur

     I was started to drum on the bonnet of a vehicle that had encroached the cycle box. Driver was furious. I dryly pointed out that the advance line was for me and not her and that she had pulled up a full 30 seconds after me. Added if she really continued to make an issue I has a camera running and I would stop of at the police station on the way and leave them the clip. She quickly backed down at that point. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • giff77 wrote:

       Added if she really continued to make an issue I has a camera running and I would stop of at the police station on the way and leave them the clip. She quickly backed down at that point. 

       — giff77

       You wouldn’t have any luck with the police in London I’m afraid, I was informed last year (directly by the Met) that they will only take action if the driver has completely filled the box both laterally and perpendicularly: if they have only driven halfway into the box, or the box covers two lanes and the driver is only filling one of them, NFA. So basically it’s okay to break the law as long as you only break it a little bit. I sent a rather facetious reply to that email asking if it would be okay for me to shoplift as long as I broke the chocolate bar in half and left half in the shop, for some reason they never replied…

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • So, so long as you only break

         So, so long as you only break the law in a very specific and limited fashion?

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • I knew that polis Scotland

         I knew that polis Scotland would never have progressed it. Was going for the mind games. Maybe she was sitting on 9 points or so and wasn’t risking more. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Added if she really continued

       Added if she really continued to make an issue I has a camera running and I would stop of at the police station on the way and leave them the clip

       The thought of this empty threat having any effect on a motorist in Lancashire has amused me no end. We don’t have many ASLs around here, because there aren’t many traffic lights, but where they exist they’re ignored routinely. The police don’t understand them anyway- although it’s only an academic point here, because the police ignore RLJs where the driver is 10s of yards away when the lights turn red, the police think that it’s legal to continue across the proper stop line if you have ‘crossed the ASL’ before the lights turn red

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • giff77 wrote:

       I was started to drum on the bonnet of a vehicle that had encroached the cycle box. Driver was furious. …

       — giff77

       Was it because you were doing Moby Dick?

       Log In or Register to post comments

5. It’s about time we gave

   It’s about time we gave serious consideration to concessions for cyclists such as left-with-caution on red or when parallel to pedestrian green lights (subject to hierarchy).

   But, for now, those rules don’t apply. And it annoys me when other people on bikes do go through on red.

   Some will say that it only reflects on them, not all cyclists; but those who say that have obviously never read the comments from anti-cycling people in positions of power or influence, or the swathes of people on SM building up antipathy that we all suffer from on the roads.

   And of course it annoys me more when drivers also go through on red/stop in ASLs (even when legal, it’s avoidable)/park on footways/block cycle lanes/pass too close/… but this isn’t about that. Just like when they do that, it’s not about cyclists going through on red.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • GMBasix wrote:

     Some will say that it only reflects on them, not all cyclists; but those who say that have obviously never read the comments from anti-cycling people in positions of power or influence, or the swathes of people on SM building up antipathy that we all suffer from on the roads.

     — GMBasix

     The anti-cycling comments are invariably full of made up bullshit and we should not be using the opinions of idiots to shape road design and safety culture.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I agree. But it’s not an

       I agree. But it’s not an excuse for breaking the same laws that drivers do.

       We can’t ‘win’ their argument by doing the right thing, we can only lose it by doing the wrnong thing.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • GMBasix wrote:

         I agree. But it’s not an excuse for breaking the same laws that drivers do.

         We can’t ‘win’ their argument by doing the right thing, we can only lose it by doing the wrnong thing.

         — GMBasix

         I don’t agree with framing road danger as an “argument” that can be won or lost.

         What we need is to focus on the most dangerous activities and prevent or provide strong incentives for people to not do those. Cyclists going through red lights is so far down the list of dangerous activities that it’s laughable that anyone would think it’s a priority to be focussed on.

         As I’ve pointed out before, there’s plenty of more enlightened places that recognise that traffic lights are very much designed for controlling motorised traffic and thus amend the red light laws for cyclists so that they can treat them as STOP/give way signs instead.

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • GMBasix wrote:

         We can’t ‘win’ their argument by doing the right thing, we can only lose it by doing the wrnong thing.

         — GMBasix

         …because it’s not an argument – it’s an irrational fury.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • People would quite literally

     People would quite literally explode with rage. Imagine the idea of cyclists, the most entitled and pandered to of all road users getting to ignore red lights. I can see the steam from here. Are shit cycle lanes covering tiny proportions of our roads not enough. Do we cyclists need more! The sheer fucking cheek!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • It’s almost as though several

       It’s almost as though several other countries don’t alreeady have similar rules.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • If you are saying “it’s a

         If you are saying “it’s a little irrational but motorists seeing cyclists do stuff they can’t do feeds the fury” – and you’re concerned about the “fury” part – then the answer is probably not “just legalise some stuff for cyclists which motorists can’t do”.

         But maybe if we wait awhile drivers will just get used to it and it’ll become a non-issue?  Maybe… But how long have there been cyclists, and yet some people are apparently mostly angry because cyclists?

         So I don’t think “waiting it out” really works, not unless we also do other things to bring about mass cycling (the only way to increase drivers’ empathy – because it really could be their kid, or partner, or parent … or even them, because they all cycle from time to time).

         Getting off topic but unlike some here I’m not a fan of legalising cyclists ignoring stop signals on some lights.  There are a few reasons for this (not quite the same but motorists being able to do so in US is a source of danger).

         I’m aware that in a few places this is legal and the world hasn’t ended – I just think it’s a hack which doesn’t really go in the best direction for improving everyone’s safety.  Do they do this / think they need it in NL?  Don’t think so…

         I’m much more in favour of making it so most lights (whatever colour) simply don’t apply to people cycling.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • chrisonabike wrote:

           If you are saying “it’s a little irrational but motorists seeing cyclists do stuff they can’t do feeds the fury” – and you’re concerned about the “fury” part – then the answer is probably not “just legalise some stuff for cyclists which motorists can’t do”

           — chrisonabike

           I’m not saying that. I’m saying motorists use the occasions they see a cyclist breaking the rules to justify their hatred/dismissal of cycling. So let’s not give them ammunition by breaking the rules.

           I’m more than fine with rules differing between cyclists and drivers, because that reflects the difference in the two vehicle types.

         • GMBasix wrote:

           If you are saying “it’s a little irrational but motorists seeing cyclists do stuff they can’t do feeds the fury” – and you’re concerned about the “fury” part – then the answer is probably not “just legalise some stuff for cyclists which motorists can’t do”

           — GMBasix

           I’m not saying that. I’m saying motorists use the occasions they see a cyclist breaking the rules to justify their hatred/dismissal of cycling. So let’s not give them ammunition by breaking the rules.

           I’m more than fine with rules differing between cyclists and drivers, because that reflects the difference in the two vehicle types.

           — chrisonabike

           They can justify it anyway.  I’m pretty sure that some folks behaving badly around cyclists (e.g. young ones) have never seen a cyclists doing bad things – unless it was themselves, recently.

           Unfortunately “rules differing reflecting the difference in vehicle types” is not going to fix stuff – I suspect the opposite.  Fundamentally I think the emotional reaction (which I’ve been on the end of, when cycling courteously and obeying the law) is at least in part due to some basic human psychology *.  It amounts to “if you’re in the same place doing the same thing (driving, riding) you should follow the same rules”.

           Hence “you don’t pay road tax” (no, and there isn’t a rule to say cyclists should).  And “cycling two abreast!” (no reason why we shoudn’t – in fact it’s in motorists’ interest that cyclists do so to help them pass safely).  And complaints about cyclists going too fast (not just around pedestrians) when in fact speed limits don’t apply.  (Not that it’s wrong to question some cyclists’ speeds – but I don’t think this often comes from thoughtful consideration…)

           * It’s “cheater detection”.  And we’re most sensitive to that when we think those with lower status / who should take more care (cyclists!) are trying it on (lots in the psychology literature about that)!  It doesn’t always apply – people sometimes seem to understand that horses won’t behave like cars, for example.  I believe it is possible to set up conditions where cyclists and motorists share space at some points without this always triggering people but it needs some specific conditions and social conventions in place (see NL and the few places with genuine mass cycling).

6. If you do less soshul meejah,

   If you do less soshul meejah, you will have more time to do more constructive things and your life will be happier. You will also save electricity, be a better cyclist and have more sex. I think it is safe to say that Twatter or whatever it is called is for losers.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • john_smith wrote:

     If you do less soshul meejah, . . . . . your life will be happier . . . . .

     — john_smith

     I don’t do social media (if you don’t count Road.cc) and I agree . . . . 

     You will also . . . . . . have more sex.

     — john_smith

     Sadly not.

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. A £30 FPN for cycling through

   A £30 FPN for cycling through a red light is the same penalty for cycling on a footway. I regularly do both where it improves my safety and doesn’t inconvenience anyone else.

   The risk of a fine is one I feel I have to take, as it’s far better than the risk of the alternative.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. Just curious – why has road

   Just curious – why has road.cc removed the numberplate from the pic of an Astra parked on a bike lane? It appears in the original pic. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

9. Where should motorists park
   Where should motorists park their cars now? That’s an easy one; not in the cycle lane, not on double yellows. How is this complicated? The bollards change nothing, except they do.

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. Good to see Edinburgh plod
    Good to see Edinburgh plod pulling and ticketing illegal electric mopeds on South Bridge today.

    It appeared to a Warning / FPN exercise as I didn’t see them impound any of the bikes.

    Not against people making a living, but do it legally.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • They should come to the North

      They should come to the North West – Granton, Pilton, Craigroyston, Muirhouse …!

      I’m going to sound like wheelywheely of this parish but a couple of days ago I watched a lad doing a wheelie while stood on the saddle of his, going down the main road (sorry no pics or strava).  And yes – obviously we are talking full illegal electric motorbike.  Even waved a leg as a salute at a passing police car (obviously police had better things to do that react).

      Passed a couple out tonight also.

      None of those (AFAIK) were food delivery ones though.  I can only speculate on whether they were working and if so what they might be delivering.

      I’m actually a bit surprised there was much for the police to do there as the ones I see in the town all seem to be being pedalled.  If the Zoomo ones count as illegal then most of the deliveries would be cancelled!

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • These weren’t Zoomo; these
        These weren’t Zoomo; these were your black things with knobly tyres that wouldn’t look outta place on a wheelbarrow and more black tape than frame.
        There was 4 plod … 2 each side of a junction so there was no escape.
        Couldn’t linger too much, but they were definitely taking names and making notes in their official notebooks.

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Oldfatgit wrote:

          These weren’t Zoomo; these were your black things with knobly tyres that wouldn’t look outta place on a wheelbarrow and more black tape than frame. There was 4 plod … 2 each side of a junction so there was no escape. Couldn’t linger too much, but they were definitely taking names and making notes in their official notebooks.

          — Oldfatgit

          Interesting…!  Well and good.  If it actually amounts to something – I suspect some of those folks don’t really worry about anything less that the bike getting confiscated.

          Log In or Register to post comments

          • Isn’t vehicle confiscation
            Isn’t vehicle confiscation used for no insurance?
            These guys are riding uninsured, no MOT, VED or registration plate mopeds … so the should be confiscated.

          • These guys are riding

            These guys are riding uninsured, no MOT, VED or registration plate mopeds … so they should be confiscated

            I understand that ScotRozzer has a crack team intent on wresting the crown of ‘Worst Force in the UK’ from LancsFilth, so I can’t see them losing points by confiscating illegal electric motorbikes while Lancashire is forging ahead refusing to take action over IKZ 177 seen 2 days ago outside Garstang High School

11. Vanguard Road Safety Team

    Vanguard Road Safety Team officers write: Reminder: red lights mean stop for all road users

    Unless they’re Panzer drivers in Lancashire. I can state with absolute certainty that no action will be taken against the driver of Range Rover FH16 VFA who was speeding hard as he came past me and charged up the blind humpbacked bridge where the right side of the road was blocked by the roadworks, so the oncoming traffic on green would be on [my] left side of the road

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • wtjs wrote:

      Vanguard Road Safety Team officers write: Reminder: red lights mean stop for all road users

      — wtjs

      Re: ignoring temporary lights

      Riding through Bo’ness the other week, I came across temporary lights (early evening, so no work in progress), and could see a queue of cars at the opposite lights. Mine turned green as I approached and so I continued onwards. I was about a third of the way through when the lead motorist (middle aged, for the record) drove towards me, window helpfully lowered. The others remained stationary.

      I called out, “My light is green!” to which his reply was…

      “Mine was red” ? No arrogance, no satire, just a simple statement of fact on his part! ? He genuinely gave the impression that he had been doing the right thing by heading towards me on red.

      As there was nobody behind me, I told the now lead driver at the other lights (still very much red) what he’d said, and she was as astonished as me.

      How much is it to get someone to take a driving test for you? ?

      Log In or Register to post comments

    • I thought I would revive this

      I thought I would revive this topic as a means of showing the video of the 3 most recent blatant RLJs performed for me by drivers in Lancashire, fully reported with video and, of course, completely ignored by LancasFilth under their ‘Oh, but everybody does that!’ Motorists Excuse Policy- that is the reason there are so many such offences here

      https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/

      https://upride.cc/incident/ma08opb_crv_redlightpass/

      https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/

      Log In or Register to post comments

12. “Please do tell us where

    “Please do tell us where drivers are to park now?” community activist Stephen McNamara asked.

    I wonder which community Stephen thinks he’s representing?  Certainly not the local pedestrians, shoppers or cyclists, so that only leaves the drivers.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Just stop in the road. If

      Just stop in the road. If what you need to stop for is that important I’m sure the other motorists will understand, up until now you’ve forced cyclists and pedestrians to see your point.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Yup!

        Yup!

        In NL this happens and apparently people are genuinely OK with waiting for a minute or so because e.g. someone’s doing a drop off.  And they’ve *actually* made designs where it so the street is too narrow for one car to overtake another, while there is still useable space for walking and cycling.

        Well – perhaps not “OK” but presumably this doesn’t lead to fighting in the streets / cars rammed into houses?

        Of course the UK solution would be “damn the planters!   Walkers and cyclists can look out!  I have to drive past!”

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • Based on what we have seen

        Based on what we have seen recently, people manage to blame cyclists for cars crashing so I don’t think its a stretch to suggest the thought won’t even enter their heads that its not cyclists fault that their fellow motorist has blocked the road. 

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • ktache wrote:

        Just stop in the road. If what you need to stop for is that important I’m sure the other motorists will understand, up until now you’ve forced cyclists and pedestrians to see your point.

        — ktache

        Funny how that almost never happens.  So many motorists will park on the footway/cycle path rather than stop in the road so they don’t “hold up the traffic / block the road”.

        Log In or Register to post comments