[Closed] Turning left on red, about to become legal?

Agree with it, just hope they/we look first before we take/make the turn.

it will be chaos to start with ....the brits dont like or understand change on the whole.....

but the crazy americans manage to make it work 😀

I did it this morning, gasp shock horror. I know the lights well and I looked and it was 6.15 am so not exactly many cars around.

It's a great idea and doesn't seem to cause any real problems in North America (only they turn right, obviously)

[quote=bikebouy ]Agree with it, just hope they/we look first before we take/make the turn.

If you read the article, the suggestion is that you would still have to give way to other traffic, which is the sensible way to treat a red light on a bicycle. The point is that if it was only bicycles on the road there would be no need for traffic lights, as they're capable of interacting without them (see "all green" phase for bicycles used at some traffic lights in Holland). Traffic lights are only needed to control the flow of cars through junctions - not to avoid accidents, but to manage traffic flow.

The only reason for cyclists to obey traffic lights on a strict basis is to avoid the "cyclists don't obey the rules" image, but then that makes little difference to drivers' attitudes anyway.

All it would do is formalise something which happens so regularly anyway it's barely worth worrying about. Bikes can flow and merge with traffic without any problems at all. Same as pedestrians - they seem to get around on pavements quite happily!

I'd be more in favour of fixing traffic lights so that while they can operate to a set sequence during the day, at times of little/no traffic they just turn to flashing amber.

The number of times I drive at night, get to some little village and have to sit there for 3 minutes while the lights go through their pre-set green for this way, green for that way, pedestrian phases... It's incredibly frustrating.

All the research show that if you hand back some of the decision making to drivers, speeds decrease (ie, it's safer) but traffic flows increase and you still get to your destination quicker.

[quote=crazy-legs ]All it would do is formalise something which happens so regularly anyway it's barely worth worrying about.

It would improve things for those of us who want to obey the rules.

If you listen carefully you can hear journalists already backing the outrage bus out of the garage

Traffic controlled pedestrian crossings highlight how depersonalizing car transport is. Drivers wait at a crossing with a red light showing when there is no one to cross, yet drive through on green when someone is waiting to cross. Its deeply strange - it's the sort of things they do to train torturers so they have less empathy with their victims

In Wolverhampton the red lights are purely advisory

If you listen carefully you can hear journalists already backing the outrage bus out of the garage

The Daily Wail offices will spontaneously combust pretty soon, that ticks nearly every box!

just about the only rule US have right. I'd be worried about lorry and cyclist interactions to start with, but think that the rule is sensible.

[quote=TiRed ]just about the only rule US have right. I'd be worried about lorry and cyclist interactions to start with, but think that the rule is sensible.

I reckon there's an argument to be made that it might decrease the number of women crushed by lorries.

I find the only problem it causes, is that if there are two lanes of traffic...both are able to go straight on, but both are able also to go left or right respectively...it means anyone trying to go straight on 'blocks' the left hand lane on red. This is particularly shit though if the right turn is a short feeder light.

Wonder if there'll be a blip increase of left hook incidents while we adjust. More cyclists inclined to go up the left of a vehicle when they are planning to turn left on red...and the lights change as they are undertaking.

Or do we think those incidents will be overshadowed by the reduced number of cyclists being at the head of the queue when the lights change?

I do think it's progress tho.

<edit>Joe won't cyclists (the only people allowed to turn left on red) be able to get around anyone "blocking" the LH lane?

Traffic controlled pedestrian crossings highlight how depersonalizing car transport is. Drivers wait at a crossing with a red light showing when there is no one to cross, yet drive through on green when someone is waiting to cross. Its deeply strange - it's the sort of things they do to train torturers so they have less empathy with their victims

That's a local authority problem, though. Arla has given so much money in backhanders to Aylesbury that every set of pedestrian crossings has been rewired to encourage people to drive.

- Turn up at crossing.
- Push button.
- Wait 90 seconds while the radar looks for a gap in the traffic.
- You see the same gap and cross the road.
- Lights turn red with no one there.
- Cars get angry.

And don't get me started on the junctions where the button doesn't do anything. Or the fact that mini-cab drivers in Aylesbury have clearly never done the "what does a red light mean?" bit of the driving test. Or roundabouts where it is physically impossible to cross at busy times because there are no lights or zebra crossing. The response from the council when I took this up with them was to suggest that I walk a quarter of a mile down the road to a crossing, then back up again to the roundabout.

At one junctions last week the lights turned to green when I was still half way across. Instead of letting me get across the road, the car at the red light just drove at me. To be fair, they now has a new foot-sized dent in the bumper. 😈

More cyclists inclined to go up the left of a vehicle when they are planning to turn left on red...and the lights change as they are undertaking.

That's my worry.

At the moment if I get to the lights and they are on red, and there isn't a big queue, I won't bother filtering at all. I'll get through on the next green phase anyway so I just sit at the back of the queue. If I know that it's legal for me to turn left while the other traffic waits I suspect that I'd be more inclined to filter up to the front.

And yes, I know the risks and would hope that I'd restrain myself if there was a lorry or something at the front, but I can see how it would potentially increase the risk to me. (If I habitually filtered anyway and waited at the front it would potentially decrease it, admittedly).

I think you'd have a steady stream of cyclists turning left against the red light. So by the time the lights went green, all the cyclists would have gone.

And if there were so many cyclists that there were still some left, then no lorry driver could possibly miss them (I'd like to think anyway).

So it's actually our civic duty to jump red lights and save lives!

Shielded turn on red - perfectly sensible.

However there has to be an aligned rule of "pedestrians have right of way over all turning traffic". I nearly got run over a few times when I first came here assuming that was the rule ! But no, car is king.

- Turn up at crossing.
- Push button.
- Wait 90 seconds while the radar looks for a gap in the traffic.
- You see the same gap and cross the road.
- Lights turn red with no one there.
- Cars get angry.

However there has to be an aligned rule of "pedestrians have right of way over all turning traffic".

it will be chaos to start with ....the brits dont like or understand change on the whole.....

This x100, the culture shock and complaints when you tweak the rules for "experienced drivers" almost makes it not worth the bother...

Done it all my life.

Why obey stupid laws blindly? 😕

Thanks for the reminder - have just contacted the helpful chap at the council again about re-instating the changes he made to the local ped crossing which did make it work a lot more sensibly (obviously the cars still have priority, but we got rid of needlessly waiting for a green light when the cars were on a red phase anyway - sadly it's now reverted to stupid behaviour).

This x100, the culture shock and complaints when you tweak the rules for "experienced drivers" almost makes it not worth the bother...

Yes, you should have seen the amount of vitriol and predictions of chaos and disaster poured at the Poynton Shared Space scheme!

Now that it's been in place for a while...

http://www.macclesfield-express.co.uk/news/local-news/traders-share-success-poynton-shared-2526261

It's not perfect but it's a lot better than what was there and has gone some way towards realigning the "car is king" mentality.

hels - Member

However there has to be an aligned rule of "pedestrians have right of way over all turning traffic". I nearly got run over a few times when I first came here assuming that was the rule !

It almost is the rule (HWC170, watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way)

but also

But no, car is king.

so is this.

It's a great idea and doesn't seem to cause any real problems in North America

Even in the US, with their wide open spacious junctions and buildings far back from the road, there are many 'no right turn on red' signs even for the cars, because it's not appropriate given the junction.

You'd have to assess every significant junction to make sure it was sensible, and disallow it where it's not.

That Guardian article mentions, [s]but doesn't link to,[/s] the "ride to rule" protest in San Francisco that looked like an excellent idea:

[url] http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/07/30/this-is-what-happened-when-bicyclists-obeyed-traffic-laws-along-the-wiggle-yesterday [/url]

[img] ?cb=1438279590[/img]

Edit: They do, just further down, oops...

My oh my the Guardian website comments make some depressing reading. Britain's car drivers are so biblically unaware of their imperfections and the transgressions of their peers - was it Jung who said "the loudest voices in our head are the lies we tell ourselves". 😥

I thought the Guardian was the champion of tolerance? Apparently some of its readership is far less so.

I would be in favour of the change BUT I don't see it happening. Sadly the "Car" voice is too vocal and the authorities not sufficiently forward thinking or invested in improving things. Central and local government see it as a vote loser so there's no motivation.

If the evidence from other countries shows it works then I vote for a trial.
This is true, however...

it will be chaos to start with ....the brits dont like or understand change on the whole.....

there'll be all kinds of teeth gnashing - LTDA will be straight up with a legal challenge for one...

We'll also need clear communications to the 'great' British driving public just to make sure they understand the reasons for it, or we'll just see a massive increase in their expert confirmation bias that 'I see even more cyclists running red lights than I used to' therefore it's my right to harass as many of them as I can get away with'

Northwind - if only people knew about that one. I had a taxi speed up towards me last week when he sped round the corner and I had the audacity to already be on the road, walking, next to a kids park, behind a junior school. As he skimmed my jeans he turned the next corner whilst glowering at me through his side window, not where he was going which was towards the school. He then stopped 40m down the road for his pick up. Tool.

- Turn up at crossing.
- Push button.

More cyclists inclined to go up the left of a vehicle when they are planning to turn left on red...and the lights change as they are undertaking.
That's my worry.

At the moment if I get to the lights and they are on red, and there isn't a big queue, I won't bother filtering at all. I'll get through on the next green phase anyway so I just sit at the back of the queue. If I know that it's legal for me to turn left while the other traffic waits I suspect that I'd be more inclined to filter up to the front.

And yes, I know the risks and would hope that I'd restrain myself if there was a lorry or something at the front, but I can see how it would potentially increase the risk to me. (If I habitually filtered anyway and waited at the front it would potentially decrease it, admittedly).

I tend to run red lights when the road is clear and I can see well enough to know it will remain so, but I won't filter if there isn't space. Don't really see this as making it happen more.

Because the button has removed the need to think

I'm sorry, let me bow to your intellectual superiority in the matters of how to use a pedestrian crossing and beg that you share the secret to crossing a road.

I'm sorry, let me bow to your intellectual superiority in the matters of how to use a pedestrian crossing and beg that you share the secret to crossing a road.

No, he's right.
Road users (be it peds, cyclists, drivers) are all conditioned from an early age. Green Cross Code, red lights and then ever more signage and infrastructure designed to keep us over here or following this line or that route.

It's just a society of sheep, unthinkingly obeying signage, unable to cope if there aren't signs and paint telling you what to do, where to go, how to behave.

There are situations where that is needed (at least in part) - areas that have evolved into busy thoroughfares with various different transport modes all competing for space.

Equally, you can reverse engineer it. Trams share pedestrianised areas in Manchester very successfully without any red lights or fences. People are quite capable of crossing roads without marked out pedestrian crossings (and even when there are marked out crossing zones, peds will regularly "jump red lights" and cross as and when it's safe to do so)
The proposed rule change around left turns on red lights isn't much different.

No, he's right.
Road users (be it peds, cyclists, drivers) are all conditioned from an early age. Green Cross Code, red lights and then ever more signage and infrastructure designed to keep us over here or following this line or that route.

It's just a society of sheep, unthinkingly obeying signage, unable to cope if there aren't signs and paint telling you what to do, where to go, how to behave.

+ 1

The Naked Road experiments in the Netherlands and also Exhibition Road in Kensington are all about removing all the signs and infrastructure so people have no idea where to go when driving, walking etc. This lack of clear guidance is expected to force people to look, assess and then make up their own mind how to act safely rather than blindly assuming it's ok because the signs and lights tell them it is.

It's about taking people away from unconscious incompetence and into conscious competence, which is classic learning methodology...

Look at all the stories of people with sat nav driving into bridges and harbours and all the pedestrians walking into the road with their eyes on their phones if you want to see how incompetent a lot of people have become at assessing risk on the roads because they're so used to it being done for them...

All for this.

Also agree that managed junctions aren't necessary 24/7, treat crossings outside of peak times as Zebras and junctions as free flowing. Every time I get to a junction with the lights out I wonder in amazement at how easily things flow when people are left to their own devices.

This sounds really sensible....and therefore will not happen...

It's just a society of sheep, unthinkingly obeying signage, unable to cope if there aren't signs and paint telling you what to do, where to go, how to behave.

That's a load of bollocks. Every other thread here is about how people AREN'T obeying the rules of the road, crossing wherever and on red men, and now you're saying we're all sheep doing as we're told. Anyone would think you are just looking for an argument to make rather than observing reality.

[quote=brooess ]The Naked Road experiments in the Netherlands and also Exhibition Road in Kensington are all about removing all the signs and infrastructure so people have no idea where to go when driving, walking etc. This lack of clear guidance is expected to force people to look, assess and then make up their own mind how to act safely rather than blindly assuming it's ok because the signs and lights tell them it is.

I thought they'd given up on that in the Netherlands, because they found the same as what I've seen about Exhibition road - that far from everybody being equal, it just results in the biggest and fastest having priority over everybody else, with pedestrians taking their lives in their hands. Because we don't have the culture of giving way to the weakest which is what is needed for this to work properly. This is of course where presumed liability would help a bit.

Every other thread here is about how people AREN'T obeying the rules of the road, crossing wherever and on red men,

This is my observation too. However I think the point about sheep is the mindlessness with which people are behaving.

I think the nuance is that people are breaking the rules without thinking about the consequences - it's mindless/unconscious incompetence rather than conscious assessing of the risks, understanding of possible outcomes and then taking action... This comes from having spent so long mindlessly obeying signs and lights - we generally lack the ability to think independently and critically when on the roads...

I found it interesting sitting in taxis in Kathmandhu when I did a climbing trip in Nepal in 2004 - the traffic was utter utter chaos - close to gridlock but there were very few collisions and none of the toddler-like tantrums we get here from drivers. In kathmandhu the chaos was evident and the drivers drove accordingly - very watchful and skillful IMO, they didn't expect anyone else to work it out for them...

That's a load of bollocks. Every other thread here is about how people AREN'T obeying the rules of the road, crossing wherever and on red men, and now you're saying we're all sheep doing as we're told. Anyone would think you are just looking for an argument to make rather than observing reality.

People generally will obey rules without really needing to be told otherwise. That's sort of a basic function of society. However within that, people get extremely upset if someone else is getting something and they're not (real or perceived).

The classic one is cycle lanes. You paint a cycle lane on the road and then cyclists don't use it (because it's dangerous, pointless, covered in glass, doesn't go where they want...) and drivers will hoot and shout and protest. The cyclist should be in [b]their[/b] bit of the road and they aren't and this is upsetting and confusing and frustrating.

Remove the cycle lane and let everyone just ride. Cyclists will (generally) obey the law and stay left, motorists will (generally) obey the law and pass safely.

The problem is when you start trying to specify too much what people should and shouldn't be doing and micro-managing them. The fact that so many cyclists jump red lights generally without incident shows that (for cyclists) they're largely insignificant - lights have been engineered to control traffic flow and get big heavy cars around the place; in many situations they're not really *needed* for bikes. So you may as well do away with the pointless extra rules that don't really apply and just let people get on with it safely.

I thought they'd given up on that in the Netherlands, because they found the same as what I've seen about Exhibition road

I didn't know that - got any links to it? be interesting to see the conclusions

Well the sheep description is usually for mindlessly following others. I think humans usually mindlessly do whatever they themselves want. Subtle difference 🙂

I disagree about mindlessly obeying signs though. People mindlessly DISobey them. The signs aren't there to help us when we don't know what to do, they are there so that we all behave in similar ways, which makes it much easier for everyone to operate/drive/walk because we all immediately know what to expect.

One reason motorways in France for example are so nice to drive on is that everyone's doing the same speed (ie obeying the rules), and you aren't having to overtake the lorries whilst trying to dodge the angry reps, like in Germany.

close to gridlock but there were very few collisions

Hard to hit someone when neither of you are moving. You've held up a broken traffic system as a good example. If people followed better rules then perhaps it wouldn't be gridlock.

[quote=brooess ]I didn't know that - got any links to it? be interesting to see the conclusions

Not quite as negative as I was being, but a similar tone:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/01/21/lessons-from-exhibition-road/

Turning right on rred in a car is legal in Texas in some cases. I didn't realise, until I found cars behind honking at me at junctions.

It's never going to happen, most junctions in this country with lights are pretty major, with crossings for pedestrians, we have roundabouts for most stuff

In that article someone is quoted as saying that most deaths are when the cyclist is waiting for the Green light and the Hgv squashes them. Is that true or a guess? I can see that being one cause, but is that single mode the most common cause?

Poly afaik most cyclist KSIs are at junctions and I believe HGVs are are involved in a disproportionally (considering the percentage of all traffic) high number. Don't think it's a majority tho. <edit> perhaps it is in london?

Waiting for green then getting mowed down by a HGV/Skip truck driver who sets off quick but hasn't seen you due to the vehicles ridiculously large and numerous blind spots is certainly a known/accepted issue on here and other forums, it's a pity a lot of the general public don't seem to know about it.

quite a few places were considering (or already have) made traffic lights compulsory for motorised vehicles, but become a give-way for bikes. seems sensible.

several places in EU, when doing right turn on GREEN, will also phase that pedestrian crossing (and cycle lane/path) as GREEN. so every time you turn right, regardless of lights, you have to give way. mention that in UK and the comment will be that's asking for carnage. I'd probably agree. It's not what you do but the change from what you do now to what you do in the future that is the issue.

maybe left turn on red for both bikes AND motorised vehicle is what is needed to change that mindset so that if you turn left, you have to check what's coming up the inside?

all probably helped by pedestrian and bike lights going green 2 seconds before the main traffic lights.

It will cause havoc with the controlled pedestrian crossing on the left of the junction you are approaching. It's no longer controlled. This puts vulnerable groups at risk and would fall foul of the discrimination act... (Please, just don't...I have to deal with this on most projects)

It will also require an update of various legal documents, for passing through the 'controlled zone' of a signal junction.

Nice idea, difficult to retrospectivley fit into our infrastructure.

maybe left turn on red for both bikes AND motorised vehicle is what is needed to change that mindset so that if you turn left, you have to check what's coming up the inside?

We have that exact scenario on green, so there's no reason anyone's mindset would be any different just because there's a different lightbulb on.

[quote=skids ]It's never going to happen, most junctions in this country with lights are pretty major, with crossings for pedestrians, we have roundabouts for most stuff

Been to London (or any other major city) much?

[quote=alexh ]It will cause havoc with the controlled pedestrian crossing on the left of the junction you are approaching. It's no longer controlled. This puts vulnerable groups at risk and would fall foul of the discrimination act...

Havoc? Bicycles interacting slowly with pedestrians with the bicycles required to give way to pedestrians crossing, havoc? How on earth do they manage it in other countries?

Nice idea, difficult to retrospectivley fit into our infrastructure.

But not impossible.

Going back to the lights produce sheep like responses thing, on a couple of junctions near me at busy commuter times you see drivers on green blithely drive into a junction they can't drive out of, so yeah green light = remove brain and blindly "Go". Chaos ensues when the lights change and for a full cycle no-one goes anywhere.

Then I remember those are box junctions with prominent yellow hatching, so the unconscionable pricks are obviously picking and choosing which rules they blindly follow. (and then staring straight ahead refusing to make eye contact with those people they have blocked)

Donk +1

Building a garden bridge is not impossible, it doesn't mean it should be done.

Havoc, possibly over selling it somewhat if we are just on about cyclists.

Cyclists give way to pedestrians crossing, what a noble thought. That's the biggest part of the change that worries me.

If we are talking cars and cycles turning left, then it's a lot more involved and havoc in terms of physical changes and legislation

Going back to the lights produce sheep like responses thing, on a couple of junctions near me at busy commuter times you see drivers on green blithely drive into a junction they can't drive out of, so yeah green light = remove brain and blindly "Go". Chaos ensues when the lights change and for a full cycle no-one goes anywhere.

Then I remember those are box junctions with prominent yellow hatching, so the unconscionable pricks are obviously picking and choosing which rules they blindly follow. (and then staring straight ahead refusing to make eye contact with those people they have blocked)

Or at the junction near me, they either try to pretend they haven't just nearly run over a few pedestrians walking across on the green man - or better have a strop when told to stop by pedestrians already on the crossing...

Going back to the lights produce sheep like responses thing, on a couple of junctions near me at busy commuter times you see drivers on green blithely drive into a junction they can't drive out of, so yeah green light = remove brain and blindly "Go". Chaos ensues when the lights change and for a full cycle no-one goes anywhere.

At one near my work there's a signal and the associated stop line at one side of the junction and a secondary signal at the far side. Drivers regularly stop at the secondary signal when it's on red even though there's no stop line. The traffic coming from the side road then blocks the whole thing up.

Another example of blind sheep behaviour: we live at the end of a lane which continues as a very steep and muddy green lane. This is marked on Sat-nav maps as a road (technically it is) so we regularly get cars turning round. The fact that there's a no through road sign at the top of the lane is irrelevant: the sat-nav says to go this way so I shall. One driver decided that the muddy bit must be temporary and promptly got stuck in the ford about 400 metres further on 😆

Cyclists give way to pedestrians crossing, what a noble thought.

I've no doubt there will be teething issues* as we get used to it but aslong as cyclists don't get all gung ho about it shouting "I can turn left on red" (and those who would are probably the ones who already cause trouble without a specific LH turn law) then we should rub along ok.

*[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.4703888,-2.2373002,3a,75y,140.51h,74.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6MrCyvgOh0dwl8knP1vgeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 ]case in point[/url] cyclists can turn left when lights are on green but none of the pedestrians expect it, they see grosvenor st lights go red and walk out infront of the cars (oblivious to cyclists from oxford rd) despite not having a "green man" - there is a green man cycle later on - with cyclists being hemmed in to the narrow segregated cycle lane you can't move away from the kerb if there's a walker looking likely to step into the road without looking, wider roads should be less of an issue.

sadly the thread title is misleading, the word 'about' seems slightly premature.

If cyclists were to behave, it could be quite good.