open topic, for anything cycling related.
At the risk of posting a massive strawman argument, the russian dashcam videos on youtube are, in my opinion, a pretty good example of what could happen when a large portion of road-users ignore traffic signals and proceed when it's "safe".
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... ompilation
2011 Cervelo S2 | 2013 Specialized Langster | 2014 Cervelo P2 | 2014 Apollo Giro Disc
A symptom of the breakdown of social mores in Russia post-USSR*, rather than any failing in a 'left turn on red if safe' rule. I have not heard of any such rash of incidents in the various states in the US and elsewhere that have similar rules.
* Probably worsened by the Russian predilection for vodka to assist their driving
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
That seems to be very intelligent behaviour which I have no objection to. In fact 95% of the time that is what I do.
I think we can all agree on this. Even those crazy NY rat race riders still look somewhat for traffic before running the red. (Not that traffic cause them to stop, it just causes them to evade. )
There is minimal risk of risk towards others when you are riding a bike. As opposed to a car.... (People are surprisingly better decision makers when their well-being is directly and acutely impacted. Hence cyclists causing far fewer incidents on the roads than motorists.
The reasons you list are excellent reasons why red light running should be discouraged. Some people who THINK they know what they are doing, don't. That is why I have no qualms with red light running being illegal. I have no qualms with it being enforced.
I do have an issue with people objecting to the fact that it can be performed safely. And I have issue with people claiming that those doing so are committing a terrible moral sin. I rockclimb regularly and I take complete novices out on 100m cliffs hanging by a single rope and held only the grip of my palm and fingers. I am an engineer. I design structures that if they fail will mean deaths. I am used to having other people's lives in my hands. Literally & directly.
If somebody tells me that I can't cross a road safely because the little red man says I can't then I scoff at that.
As a pedestrian I crossed a road when the red man said I shouldn't. I walked 30m down the street and crossed there.
Was it any safer?? Did it make me a citizen of higher moral standard??
Agreed. The moral ambiguity is clear. The legality is not in dispute. If somebody suggests that a cyclist going through a red light is not conducive to good PR, then I can't disagree. If somebody takes a position of never going through a red light then I can't fault them. However the extreme position of saying that it is always dangerous and/or morally reprehensible is not one that I believe is defensible.
I am happy to play the devils advocate on many issues, this is merely one of them. A discussion group that merely reinforces the majority beliefs is a dangerous beast!
Sounds about right.
It annoys me to watch the lemmings redman without the slightest glance up from Faceache only slightly less than the prawns who march up to a quiet PATS crossing, hammer the button then stroll across without waiting for a green. Guaranteed I'll be approaching and have to stop for an empty crossing
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
Who is online