onewheeldave Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 The guy who hit me could have easily been killed though, the cyclist who went through a red. And it would have been his fault. Going through a red when there's cars coming through way means he was either stupid or extremely unobservant. The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when there's no traffic coming through the other way, and, to do so is safer than launching on green with a pack of hasty, unobservant motor vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No, there is NO time to go through a red. And you are massively exaggerating the danger of setting off from a red light along with the rest of the traffic. ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 13:26 ---------- Red light jumping is just a red herring that lazy drivers like to use as an excuse to carry on driving lazily. Yes it is, but that doesn't excuse it. "Cyclists jump red lights" is not an excuse to endanger them by overtaking carelessly, or by driving badly. But why give them that excuse at all, just don't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is the argument in the nutshell. People get very wound up about cyclists running red lights, but truthfully it causes very, very few accidents.no one can categorically answer this, but is it because other road users are compensating for them? Motorists turning left without looking is more dangrous by an order of magnitude.and here we have the crux of what constitutes and 'experienced' cyclist. Most of the squeezed cyclists are so because they went on the inside of a slower moving lorry to be then surprised when the trailer cuts the corner between the axles. Are we saying it is this sort of cyclist with this experience who is able to make a judgement call of going through a red? Red light jumping is just a red herring that lazy drivers like to use as an excuse to carry on driving lazily.What do you mean lazy driving and driving lazily? Driving in itself is not energetic. If a cyclist leaves his bike at home to take the car, is he suddenly lazy. Serious question.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richkent Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when there's no traffic coming through the other way, and, to do so is safer than launching on green with a pack of hasty, unobservant motor vehicles. The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when he not on his bike and is driving a police car, ambulance or fire engine. There is no other time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No, it's often because it is safer. The arguments for that POV are well known and I've posted them elsewhere. One reason it can seem that most cyclists don't ever go through reds, is that they tend to be really vocal and shout insistently that "no, no, no...there's never any justification for going through reds and any cyclist who just is just lazy, arrogant, evil etc, etc". The vast majority of cyclist who die under cars, weren't running reds, they were killed by an ++shole in a metal box, and though drivers like that are in a minority, there are plenty out there. If I can be 100 yards out of their way when they rev off in the impatient pack, then that's where I'll be, cos my safety is my priority when out riding Being 100 yards further forward makes it more dangerous when they pass you, as they do so at higher speed and with a chip on their shoulder about your terrible road behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutlandFlyer Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Most of the squeezed cyclists are so because they went on the inside of a slower moving lorry to be then surprised when the trailer cuts the corner between the axles. This is not true, actually. Most examples of 'left hooking' occur when ordinary cars turn left across a cyclist they either haven't seen or assumed was turning left, too. The ones with lorries are more likely to be fatal, but an awful lot of people get knocked down by car drivers driving badly. What do you mean lazy driving and driving lazily? Driving in itself is not energetic. If a cyclist leaves his bike at home to take the car, is he suddenly lazy. Serious question.. Quite simply, driving lazily means being too lazy to observe the road properly and spot cyclists, too lazy to think about where they are, where they might be going and how they might need to approach the situation, too lazy to wait for a safe spot to overtake so just try to squeeze past etc, etc. Driving properly, especially in an urban environment, requires a lot of awareness and thought, and most anti-cyclist drivers seem to resent having to make the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 And it would have been his fault. Going through a red when there's cars coming through way means he was either stupid or extremely unobservant. He told me it was clear when he decided to continue through, which it was. The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when there's no traffic coming through the other way, and, to do so is safer than launching on green with a pack of hasty, unobservant motor vehicles. a) I think the highway code would disagree with you on that b) How will a cyclist know if the car(s) behind him/her are hasty and unobservant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is not true, actually. Most examples of 'left hooking' occur when ordinary cars turn left across a cyclist they either haven't seen or assumed was turning left, too. You are absolutely right that this kind of driving is irresponsible and dangerous. I reckon I probably experience this when I'm cycling 3-4 times per week. But having said that, in nearly 10 years of cycling every single one of these occurrences has failed to result in an impact, either due to the driver just about being "clever" enough to avoid me or by me taking evasive action. So given your logic about cycling through red lights... People get very wound up about cyclists running red lights, but truthfully it causes very, very few accidents. ...it is presumably completely fair enough for drivers to behave in the way you've described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey69 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Yeah, this is complete nonsense. As Cyclone's pointed out, there are excuses that cyclists might make for doing this, but safety holds no water at all. One of the more likely reasons why you might want to go through a red light would be impatience so it seems rather hypocritical to judge motorists who actually bother to stop at red lights for impatience. Added to this you seem to be speculating that you will face more antagonism from "impatient" drivers who have to pass you when the lights change to green than you will do from the same drivers who pass you a few seconds/minutes later having just watched you ignore the Highway Code and go through a red light. You only need to spend about 2 minutes reading any cycling thread on here to realise how deluded that is. that is total crap. there are many occasion when as a cyclist at a red light, it has been SAFER to go through a red light WHEN you have eighteen wheel trucks, buses, AND aggressive drivers behind OR at the side of you. Not to mention that the supposedly cyclist only red boxes are filled up with cars buses, ect. i cannot keep stressesing this enough. You only go through a set of lights at red, WHEN there is NO OTHER TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, going through on their green light. ITS SAFER FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) that is total crap. there are many occasion when as a cyclist at a red light, it has been SAFER to go through a red light WHEN you have eighteen wheel trucks, buses, AND aggressive drivers behind OR at the side of you. Not to mention that the supposedly cyclist only red boxes are filled up with cars buses, ect. i cannot keep stressesing this enough. You only go through a set of lights at red, WHEN there is NO OTHER TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS, going through on their green light. ITS SAFER FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED. Does the same apply if you're at the front of that queue in a smart car then? ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 14:16 ---------- that is total crap. there are many occasion when as a cyclist at a red light, it has been SAFER to go through a red light WHEN you have eighteen wheel trucks, buses, AND aggressive drivers behind OR at the side of you. Maybe you ought to be asking yourself why all the drivers seem so aggressive towards you? ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 14:18 ---------- And you know what? If you're really so worried about all these aggressive horrible truck, bus and car drivers who have it in for you, what you should be doing is getting off your bike and using the crossing to walk across the junction. Edited October 2, 2014 by mattleonard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now