London mayor Boris Johnson wants legal left turn for cyclists at red lights

What think youse? Yay or nay? Pros and Cons? Tory V Labour? Will it encourage crime/terrorism/congestion? Is it all Thatcher’s fault?

‘Yah; is that Darius Guppy? Smash ‘is fahkin’ teef in!’

So he’s using his phone while riding.. 🙄

You might get a more sensible debate if the thread title was more honest.

It is through red when going left – massive difference.

Oh – in the pic he looks like he is stopped (brake full on, leg down)?

IMO most traffic could easily do a left on a red light without too much issue

I like this idea in principle, as it would help to speed up a lot of traffic flow for cyclists and get them out of danger from trucks/buses etc turning left on to them. The problem is that it has to work for both cyclists AND pedestrians, and I’m not sure how that could be achieved.

It is through red when going left – massive difference.

a massive difference would be dancing naked with scorpions. Going through red on left is a subset of going through red.

So he’s using his phone while riding

is that known to be illegal ?

works in the states for all traffic. why not. if it doesn’t work change it back.

BORIS FOR MAYOR…!

…….oh?

thomthumb – Member
works in the states for all traffic

No pedestrians there…! 😉

a massive difference would be dancing naked with scorpions.

LOL!

Seems to have provoked quite a lot of comment on here (don’t read if you’re easily annoyed!)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23675641-details/Cyclists+should+be+allowed+to+run+red+lights%2C+says+Boris/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

What tomthumb says. I don’t understand why we don’t allow left on red for all road users when it’s safe.

I’d want it legal to go straight on or turn right too if there’s nothing else around and it’s perfectly safe to do so.. common **** sense init?

having been given a £20 on the spot fine by traffic plod for trundling through an amber at a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians within 50yards. 😕

the two things that would massively improve saftey and congestion on my route would be left turn on red for any traffic and less jaywalking, to stop pedestrians trying to get me to run them over. for once i agree with the buffoon.

works in the states for all traffic

I’ve found that in the states it was easier to just sit at the lights waiting for them to change unless a bloke in a huge pickup truck with a rifle rack came up behind me and started revving his engine, that’s when you go.

>Oh – in the pic he looks like he is stopped (brake full on, leg down)?

Not the same pic but looks like it was around the same time.

I don’t understand why we don’t allow left on red for all road users when it’s safe.

Because drivers in the UK don’t understand the concept of ‘safe’ when it applies to other road users. Allow left turns, you’ll have cars driving over pedestrian crossing whether there are people on them or not.

Evidence in this post :

I’d want it legal to go straight on or turn right too if there’s nothing else around and it’s perfectly safe to do so.. common **** sense init?

having been given a £20 on the spot fine by traffic plod for trundling through an amber at a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians within 50yards.

You should be preparing to stop on an amber, not trundling through (especially with plod watching!) If you were looking carefully for pedestrians you would have seen the police?

GW – not sure how you could be done for that – you’re legally allowed to cross on amber (after the red) if there is no-one on or immediately approaching the crossing? If you were trundling through when it was going red then theres not really much excuse.

Personally I dont see the need for left on red – we have bad enough road skills as it is, let alone giving the mixed signals of it’s red green so your right of way but there might be some people coming through that have turned left… plus most UK roads do not have left-only lanes, they consist of left and straight on or right lanes, in this case only a couple of people could go anyway, then a straight-onner would stop play. You’d have to change all roads to lefts with right-and-straight-on.

Can’t see why left turn on a red isn’t legal for all traffic, like it is in several countries (albeit right turns if they drive on the right). Dunno what it would have to do with pedestrians.

Dunno what it would have to do with pedestrians.

they would just be collateral damage 🙁

they would just be collateral damage [:-(]

Don’t see why, no different from any other junction without lights.

I think its now generally agreed by those in charge that speeding up cars progress is a ‘bad thing’ as it will encourage more drivers, and we’ll eventually end up back in the state we were.

I can’t see it making much difference to cyclists, they do this anyway.

Maybe its Boris’s way of trying to get the cyclists vote, since his last two big changes (letting bikes in bus lanes, scrapping the congestion charge extension) weren’t well recieved.

I think its now generally agreed by those in charge that speeding up cars progress is a ‘bad thing’

It does seem that that has been policy in recent years (‘demand management’ they call it, odd since it is actually supply restriction).

However, it seems that there may be new thinking around:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7998182.stm

CTC playing the “its not our idea” card on the radio muttering about reducing traffic, less lorries and other unachievable stuff

they also want cyclists riding slowly on shared paths with pedestrians

In London last week two female cyclists were killed by HGVs, one in Old Street, near the Barbican, and the other at the notorious Elephant and Castle gyratory system in south London…..
…….Johnson had axed plans to redesign roundabouts at Elephant and Castle where one of the cyclists was killed.

i think it sounds like a plan to me but will be very unpopular with certain other road users, might it not also encourage people to undertake lorries on the left if they think they can get thru when the lights are red which is great unless they change before you get round the corner?
after destroying red kens planned cycle route expansions can we take this guy at face value?

For those of us that don’t live in London Village, can someone enlighten me as to why every minor bit of traffic or road engineering (new roundabout layout etc) is meant to be something to do with the mayor?

You don’t live in London, so this is of no concern to you. Good day. 🙂

Have to agree that the title of the thread is wrong and misleading but that’s insignificant.

In theory it’s a brilliant idea, along with turning all stop lights to flashing amber between midnight and 5am to allow vehicles to continue – so long as it’s clear / safe to do so.

But, and it’s a full bodied but, people just don’t have the consideration that is required for this to work. The vast majority of road users – cars, pedestrians, lorries, cyclists etc… – don’t pay enough attention or even aware as to what is going on around them on the road. They REACT to the situation they’re in rather then planning and allowing for it.

Until there is a shift in attitudes of the majority, aware from inattentiveness, then accidents will still occur and, unfortunately, this proposal will just add to the KSI stats.

I think driving should be made more and more difficult… get more cars off the roads and we’ll be a step towards being a more sustainable society.

Have to agree that the title of the thread is wrong and misleading

How? I put ‘Cyclists can go through red lights’, which is a shortened version of the original ‘Boris proposes that cyclists can go through red lights if turning left’.

So, not wrong at all, really.

It just sounded sexier than the full thing. All about marketing…

sq225917 – Member

So he’s using his phone while riding.. [:roll:]
He isn’t doing anything wrong, he’s multitasking.

What I would like to see is flashing amber lights at junctions late at night etc.. stating you can go through if it is safe. (with give way signs of course)

I kinda like this idea in a lot of ways.
However; there’s already a lot of animosity between pedestrians and cyclists in cities, with red lights being run often cited as a reason. I wonder how much, and in what ways this would affect that dynamic.

I wonder how much, and in what ways this would affect that dynamic.

think IEDs…

CTC playing the “its not our idea” card

Do you want them to lie or something? Too right it’s not their idea. CTC seem to have some brains behind them.

Don’t like it (left on red)

– you’re adding an extra choice, that will always slow reactions – try standing in a Kentucky Fried – small menu – can the rswipes make a decision, current system is simple green go – red stop, alrady evidence to show that beyond a certain level that the complexity of signage causes accidents
– if (as a car)you’re on green you’ll get past a car turning right by swerving to the lhs – or the side that the cyclist is swooping into after seeing a stationery car
– I think in quiet rural environment it would be ok, but a congested city with angry, impatient, children/gps/cd,coffee/drugs impaired driving — mmmm

Have to agree that the title of the thread is wrong and misleading

How? I put ‘Cyclists can go through red lights’, which is a shortened version of the original ‘Boris proposes that cyclists can go through red lights if turning left’.

So, not wrong at all, really.

It just sounded sexier than the full thing. All about marketing…

It’s inaccurate and done to mislead. Or you did it out of ignorance and now trying to big yourself up.

Another scenario:
mk1fan sees Rudeboy from being murdered by angry motorists.

Your version:
mk1fan murdered Rudeboy.

It’s a shortened version. There was a death, mk1fan was party as was Rudeboy. Less to print too.

Good grief…

Ok; sorry if I mislead anyone. I apologise if some people got an itchy ring over my evil act… 🙄

You’re not sorry at all and my itchy ring is nothing to do with this thread 😉