Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Cyclists: Stopping at Red Lights is Bad for Your Health

People crossing early to shortcut the corner onto the crossing. They're not supposed to be there. And they're really annoying if you're approaching a crossing and they just step out without looking.

So, yes, they're for herding stupid pedestrians for their own good :p
 
Buffalo Bill said:
This so-called 'news' item was just some spin of an old story, and was based on speculation. There is NO EVIDENCE that this is true, just opinions.

See here for more.

naughty old BBC. tch tch.
 
Iemanja said:
I thought they were there to protect pedestrians from any vehicles that might be out of control and mount the pavement. What other reason could there be for those barriers? I'm pretty sure they're not there to stop people from crossing the road...

They are there to make life easier for motorists and life harder for pedestrians, by forcing pedestrians only to cross the road at certain points, however inconvenient this may be. Often they are there because a road junction has been designed such that the pedestrian crossing is some way away from the junction itself. This allows cars to negotiate the junction at higher speeds but is highly irritating for pedestrians as each time you come to a junction, you have to walk halfway up the adjoining road to cross, then walk all the way back down the other side to resume your journey.

I object to this as it indicates an approach to designing the public realm which prioritises motorists over pedestrians.
 
teuchter said:
They are there to make life easier for motorists and life harder for pedestrians, by forcing pedestrians only to cross the road at certain points, however inconvenient this may be. Often they are there because a road junction has been designed such that the pedestrian crossing is some way away from the junction itself. This allows cars to negotiate the junction at higher speeds but is highly irritating for pedestrians as each time you come to a junction, you have to walk halfway up the adjoining road to cross, then walk all the way back down the other side to resume your journey.

I object to this as it indicates an approach to designing the public realm which prioritises motorists over pedestrians.

I always thought that crossings were positioned away from junctions in order to make them more visible and give motorists ample time to slow down / notice them when they aren't concentrating on turning left or right.
 
tommers said:
I always thought that crossings were positioned away from junctions in order to make them more visible and give motorists ample time to slow down / notice them when they aren't concentrating on turning left or right.


The ones I'm thinking of are still positioned at the traffic lights - ie. where the cars stop. As I understand it, it is to allow a wide-radius sweep through the junction. This allows traffic to flow through it more quickly due to the more gentle curve and the increased distance of visibilty.
 
If there is an HGV or a bus, I make sure I am either in front of it or way behind it. Luckily where I live they have boxes for cyclists ahead of the traffic.
 
floria_tosca said:
If there is an HGV or a bus, I make sure I am either in front of it or way behind it. Luckily where I live they have boxes for cyclists ahead of the traffic.
Which are always empty of cars, right? :)
 
Buffalo Bill said:
This so-called 'news' item was just some spin of an old story, and was based on speculation. There is NO EVIDENCE that this is true, just opinions.

See here for more.
Too right. The figure for the number of female cyclists killed in the survey is 21. This is far too few to form any kind of conclusion or do any statistical analysis on.
 
Yeah, kind of, but not really what I was getting at. The survey was actually a study of ALL London cyclist deaths that occured as a result of a collision with an HGV. The figure was 18/21 Jan 1999 - May 2004 female. As I recall, RLJ was not a factor in any of the 18.
 
i saw a cyclist today totally cut up by a car, they were well ahead of the car at the lights, going straight on through a junction, the car came squealing past them, then immediately turned left, the cyclist had to stop dead or they would have been dead
 
Crispy said:
People crossing early to shortcut the corner onto the crossing. They're not supposed to be there. And they're really annoying if you're approaching a crossing and they just step out without looking.

So, yes, they're for herding stupid pedestrians for their own good :p


Gosh!!! I thought that the roads belonged to everyone........
 
jusali said:
Wasn't me was it? Bristol?:eek:
I've had that happen 3 times this week :mad:

no it was london, it seems to happen an awful lot, i don't know why the car drivers do it? Unless of course they do just want to damage as many cyclists as possible.
 
Crispy said:
Cycles have a Right, motor vehicles have a License to use the road.
I've heard cyclists trot this one out before and I'm curious. In reality does it actually make any difference in how cycles and motor vehicles are treated in the eyes of the law ?
 
Radar said:
I've heard cyclists trot this one out before and I'm curious. In reality does it actually make any difference in how cycles and motor vehicles are treated in the eyes of the law ?
The major difference is that the license can be revoked.
 
I can kinda see the logic but as a pedestrian I have nearly been hit several times by bikes jumping red lights. I guess that hitting me would be less fatal than being hit by a car so not holding any grudges.....
 
Badgers said:
I can kinda see the logic but as a pedestrian I have nearly been hit several times by bikes jumping red lights. I guess that hitting me would be less fatal than being hit by a car so not holding any grudges.....

Oh please. You don't hold a grudge against the twats who speed through red lights when you might be crossing as a pedestrian? I do, and I wish them evil. Equal evil to those who speed along pavements then curse people who stop them or get in their way. I work on Albert Embankment where these types are a menace. I wouldn't fucking mind if they only went slowly, but oh no, there they are all done up in their helmets and safety gear going as fast as they can and woe betide you if you dare get in the way. The other day there was a police stopping thing going on, where they were told to dismount because it wasn't an official cycle path and the abuse coming out of them! I sat at my window and listened in disbelief as these people tried to defend their right to plough people down. In my opinion, if you can't handle riding on the roads then walk or take public transport like the rest of us.
 
harpo said:
I sat at my window and listened in disbelief as these people tried to defend their right to plough people down.
YouTube is your friend ... next time get that videophone out and share the experience ... ;)

Sounds like exactly the sort of thing referred to by generations of police officers as "the attitude test" ...

1. Commit offence.
2. Get caught committing offence.

and then either:

3(a). Admit the offence. Say sorry. Promise you'll never do it again. Apologise for wasting the officers time when they have no doubt got better things to do.

Or:

3(b). Get the arse. Deny the offence. Allege that the officer is lying and fitting them up (mention the Birmingham Six if the opportunity arises). Slag them off. Ask if they realise who is paying their wages. Suggest that the officers should be "catching proper criminals like rapists and paedo scum".


Now let's play match the outcome:

Outcome X - warning, words of advice, short delay, end of story.
Outcome Y - reported / arrested, Court, months of delay, conviction, fine.

Mmmmmm. Tricky ....
 
Back
Top Bottom