Friendly warning. Ashley Neal's gone full on troll

No-one is saying the cyclist wasn't in the wrong by going through the red light.

However, from your commentary you make it clear you believe the cyclist did it deliberately - you actually say the cyclist "planned" the red light jump. Telling people to "curb their selfish behaviour" is no help when it wasn't "selfish" but a genuine mistake.

By completely ignoring the confusing road layout that led to the cyclist making this mistake, you fail to provide any opportunity for learning. 

Yep, that's the confusion. You have to drive past the red light because it's the light to the right with the green arrow that's supposed to indicate priority for going ahead. It's daft. Anyone sitting at those lights would expect the light that is red to apply to the lane going ahead. 

Pretty sure it won't meet the standards.

Some countries put filters on red lights. If you had a red arrow filter for ahead, then it might be clearer that it was still forbidden to go straight over. But in the UK we only put directional filters on the green signal, we rely on red lights on both sides of the road to signal a stop.

hirsute wrote:

Still can't get my head around why you would have a turn left arrow on the far ride right of a road where you can go more than one direction. How can that meet any basic design standard ?

Looking at Streetview it isn't actually on the far right side of the road. There is a third lane to the right of the traffic lights shown and the straight ahead lane crossing the junction, which peels off to turn right down York Place.

I really don't know what that left filter arrow relates to - perhaps the left turn onto York Place, but it is placed to the RHS of the straight ahead lane.

Probably covers it. The junction is confusing, under construction (so this area changes) and may yet finish up bad when done. So with further consideration I'd say the cyclist was likely as careful as Ashley is in his judgement of cycling in this vid. Spin that whichever way you like!

I've watched it again and I think what's happened here, is the cyclist is waiting in the cycle box at the red lights, then as the lights either side of them have turned amber, they've gone for it. I'm guilty of that sometimes, trying to get a head start over the baying drivers behind.

They probably didn't even see the green light to their right was a left-turn arrow, they were past it before it illuminated. It's a highly unusual arrangement and an illogical placement of a left-turn arrow. I can see this happening again if the junction signals are not improved. 

whats the point ? if he doesnt understand "dropped bar bikes" that much, I really cant be bothered to explain to him in how many ways he is wrong.

Here's the cyclist, dutifully following the lines...

Now - should they have spotted the earlier light was red?  Yes, yes they should.  Here's the view from further back.  The left-hand light on the right side (yes...) governs the "ahead" direction and that should have been red.  (Note the separate light right next to it on its right is for the separate right lane).

So they've gone through a red light.  That could have been deliberate, or maybe they missed it, or got confused in what is a real mess currently (we're not certain how well it'll get fixed either).

However once passed it you only see green lights covering the left two lanes (albeit an arrow pointing left... which those unfamiliar with this might see as the Broughton Street direction...)

Then you've the massive planter (presumably to protect pedestrians from the cyclists motor vehicles), all the road works clutter AND it's usually busy with lots of pedestrians (waiting to cross the roads).  So deffo "poor visibility".

Again - on the flip side there's one point where the cyclist appears to be pointing directly at the car - so should have seen them. Unfortunately at exactly that point they've just crossed the tram tracks and are being diverted by the white guide lines in an "S" curve so they're likely focussing on that.

To me he hasn't gone through a red light; he's followed a Green Filter arrow ahead next to the straight ahead lane, which he is in.

There is a red light for the turn right lane, and one on the left of the road for the turn left lane.

Excellent analysis, though I think you are too hard on the cyclist. The sequencing seems to mean that they got a "green - go across", follwoed by a "grren arrow - follow the cycle lane", where both are entirely misleading due to the positioning of the traffic lights.

When the cyclist "went through on red", he had a more suitably positioned traffic light showing green arrow ahead.

The blame is 90% on the murderous incompetence of Edinburgh Council.

I think the mistake that Ashley makes sometimes is to give insufficient weight to poor infrastructure. He's right about the cammer in his vid being 0% at fault, but wrong in asserting that all that is left - 100% - is down to the person on the bike. Too much faith in junction designers on this occasion.

I commented on that thread over on his Channel, so I'll put an update on now that I have been thinking about it.

He's just picked a bad example but I don't think he'd really worry. It seems the point is mostly "innocent drivers suffer psychologically when they kill people and it's not their fault" (he mentions examples other than just RLJ if I remember).

Hence my long ramble about is it fair? Trying to ask some questions. All those blameless drivers *chose* to drive - no driving, no death! How aware are we / should we be about rare but currently inevitable consequences? What if any responsibility do we as individuals have given legislators, street designers and vehicle manufacturers have built in conflict? And "society" / the current "environment" essentially "creates driving" - hence "I have to drive"?

That's too much for a comment anyway (or for my thinking capacity now).

chrisonatrike wrote:

Here's the junction with these highlighted.  Note you are guided from right, over tracks then swing to left to line you up to go down Broughton Street ahead.  Note also the lights - particularly the one on the right.  Is it crystal clear that those in the left two lanes should only turn left and not proceed straight at this point?

That junction/area is such a mess.  TBH I'd probably just dismount and use pedestrian crossings, if faced with that... 

(Hey, maybe that's the intention: "If we make it confusing and messy enough, none of those pesky cyclists will actually use it")

Who is?

Snap!

yep! Took you a bit longer to post doing all those fancy graphics

I think the traffic lights here will not conform to standards. It's a mess.

Right. I've used my rudimentary GIMP skills to add another set of traffic lamps in place of that massive planter. This is what I would expect it to look like: