mattleonard Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 All I can day is you must be lucky on the roads you drive on because talking to other drivers it’s pretty much endemic (as it is in most cities) My hotspots. The junction of Archer Road and Abbeydale Road by Millhouses Park is the worst of the many places I witness this. Typically you'll see at least 2 or 3 cars go through after the lights change to red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Who'll be to blame if the red light running cyclist hits a vehicle going through the lights on green? If you were only allowed to make a left hand turn, how would you hit anything? The proposal is like how in the US you can turn right on a red light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 What a good idea !! I wonder how long I have been saying the exact same thing on here!. For sometime I think. Its really common sense, if its clear and you pose no danger to yourself or anyone else, where is the harm?? I will continue to practice the art of red light running. it just makes the journey a little bit safer for myself (AND OTHERS) The main problem with this barmy idea is that it relies on the cyclists idea of what is safe and responsible, and we all know how sound THAT is!!! ---------- Post added 25-08-2015 at 20:07 ---------- Who'll be to blame if the red light running cyclist hits a vehicle going through the lights on green? Of course it will be the driver, after all cyclists are never in the wrong are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 If you were only allowed to make a left hand turn, how would you hit anything? The proposal is like how in the US you can turn right on a red light. For instance lots of traffic light control junctions also incorporate pelican crossings..if the pedestrian is crossing on a "Green Man" would they necessarily be looking for a cyclist coming around on red? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 So you couldn't, as suggested, hit a car. You could hit a pedestrian. Just like in the US, where cars can turn right on red, and have to wait for pedestrians who have a green man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 So you couldn't, as suggested, hit a car. You could hit a pedestrian. Just like in the US, where cars can turn right on red, and have to wait for pedestrians who have a green man. My question was who's fault would it be? The article also said " The new rules for cyclists, allowing people to go straight ahead at T junctions "... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 My question was who's fault would it be? Well, like cyclone says, a cyclist ought not to be blamed for hitting a car when they've actually hit a pedestrian In terms of whose fault it would be, presumably it would be whoever it was who caused the accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 In terms of whose fault it would be, presumably it would be whoever it was who caused the accident. So,who would that be? The person going on green or the one going on red? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 So,who would that be? The person going on green or the one going on red? The person who failed to look before going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 My question was who's fault would it be? The article also said " The new rules for cyclists, allowing people to go straight ahead at T junctions "... Which is odd wording if ever I heard it. When I thought about going straight ahead upon reaching a T junction, I assumed I'd be cycling into a house or shop or field or something that was opposite the T. ---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 11:52 ---------- Who'll be to blame if the red light running cyclist hits a vehicle going through the lights on green? It was a vehicle that you asked about. If you're allowed to turn left over a red light, or continue straight ahead when there is no left turn (for example here) https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4015914,-1.49906,3a,75y,134.31h,79.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIm3807lsULCptRj4rXfldw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DIm3807lsULCptRj4rXfldw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D100%26h%3D80%26yaw%3D38.581573%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656 Then the risk of hitting a car is pretty low. The risk of hitting a pedestrian is higher. But like in the US, you'd be obliged to give way to pedestrians (and vehicles I suppose) who weren't using a red light as a give way... That's what the red light becomes for this situation, a give way, rather than a stop. Hasn't it been suggested before that all traffic lights, at night, become flashing amber and ALL act as a give way... Anyway, it's obvious who'd be responsible for a collision. The one who had the red light (give way) and not the one who had green (proceed). ---------- Post added 26-08-2015 at 11:53 ---------- So,who would that be? The person going on green or the one going on red? You know the answer to this though. It's self evident. 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