Let cyclists run red lights..

[RootsBooster]

I wonder if this is true ?

 

Anotherher YouTube user, claiming to be the cyclist in the clip, posted a comment a few days later:

 

“It was me. Thought I'd just get the lights, hence the speed. Realised it wasn't happening, squeezed the front brake. Cable snapped. Not enough time to lose speed on back wheel in the wet. Not fun.”

 

I've heard this before but I'm inclined to believe it's a hoax claim, from the point where he goes through the red light to the point where he hits the bus he makes no attempt at swerving, changing course or any other means of avoiding the accident.

[Eater Sundae]

I've heard this before but I'm inclined to believe it's a hoax claim, from the point where he goes through the red light to the point where he hits the bus he makes no attempt at swerving, changing course or any other means of avoiding the accident.

 

I don't know what lack of swerving indicates? Does it mean that he never saw the big, bus shaped object directly in front of him?

[Penistone999]

Cyclists constantly run red lights already ,so this wont make any difference.

[JFKvsNixon]

Cyclists constantly run red lights already ,so this wont make any difference.

 

Didn't you recently run a red light?

[buck]

It's worthwhile pointing out that proposal only allows going though red in limited circumstances:

 

i.e. Where the cyclist can hug the kerb and the way is clear.

 

It's similar to the right turn on red rules that they have in the US for all vehicles.

It is not always allowed to turn right on red in the US. It depends on the clear view to the left at the light. If the view is obstructed by a building or vegetation, a sign will be posted saying 'No turn on red'. It also includes bicycles, though seldom enforced here. Most drivers prefer the bikes get on their way sooner than clutter up the light. Edited August 15, 2015 by buck

[altus]

It is not always allowed to turn right on red in the US. It depends on the clear view to the left at the light. If the view is obstructed by a building or vegetation, a sign will be posted saying 'No turn on red'

 

That's why I said "It's similar to the right turn on red rules that they have in the US for all vehicles." rather than "You're allowed to turn right on red in the US."

 

I didn't say it was allowed under all circumstances.

[donotremove]

Could be an interesting debate unless the haters kill the thread with the old VED & insurance chestnut

 

I'm sure this make sense to you and maybe to other people too but it just appears to be complete gibberish to me.

 

What on Earth are you trying to say here?

[Guest]

This bears no relationship with the proposals in the OP.

 

The proposals of the OP are likely to lead to more of that bus incident though. The term "certain circumstances" will be totally lost on many. As soon as there is a suggestion that you can go through a red light in "certain circumstances" then that's it, EVERY circumstance will be the right circumstance.

 

Best to avoid confusion and stick to no red light running under any circumstances.

[alchemist]

Letting cyclists move out of the way of danger if the road is clear. Sensible policy and I ride and drive.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/it-should-be-made-legal-for-cyclists-to-run-red-lights-says-green-party-10455418.html

 

Damn stupid idea. Besides they already jump the lights anyway

 

---------- Post added 15-08-2015 at 21:26 ----------

 

I haven't had chance to read the article yet but if it were made legal for a cyclist to go through a red light, who would be held accountable if a car (going through green) hits them and seriously injures them?

 

The car obviously as its always the car drivers fault and cyclists are always in the right

[Penistone999]

Didn't you recently run a red light?

 

Yep ,and i copped a tonne fine and 3 points, where as the two wheeled lunatics do it knowing full well there is no punishment for them.