Friendly warning. Ashley Neal's gone full on troll

That's some fine MS Paint skills there!  Have a digital crayon!

It's still an awful mess that way but improving the visibility and having an actual signal would seem to help.  Having said that, is it still "too many things - adding more things won't make it clearer?"

I can't remember whether this was in one of Spokes' (repeated) responses to the Council here.  As before it's even more difficult dealing with the issues for "tram - we said we'd be back" now because (a) tram is still an arms-length company and (b) minority council

With the planter and clutter in place and ignoring "jumped or didn't jump" * - is there some lethal combination of "fixed bearing, decreasing range" here where the parties remain hidden from each other?  In practice I think that the curve and turn could have this effect, particularly if a car was approaching faster.

In this particular incident I don't think that is technically the case.  Most obviously from the video you can see the cyclist's front light clearly for a second or two at one point.  However you need to be watching for it as Ashley says.  And both parties are likely focussed in a different direction.  I think Ashely's quite right about the driver's perspective here.  I also think the cyclist would be: (a) concentrating on crossing the tramlines (b) the right-to-left manoever - since this apparently puts you across the width of a lane I suspect they might be looking behind and to their left in case a car was coming through and going straight on.

Anyway, luckily "red light jumpers" so we can all move on...  If only they'd not had a light or a helmet though.

* Ashley is obviously going for "scofflaw" here - "left it very late".  However in favour of the "missed" interpretation is that the cyclist appears to be completely surprised to see the car there.  They seem to be pootling along rather than on a mission or looking out for vehicles to ensure they "get away with it". Of course you could argue that they saw the pedestrians crossing the road as they committed, assumed the coast was clear and thought no further...

This light sequence and arrangement has taken a bit of time to get my head around.  As stated by others already - I think AN has totally failed to incorprate this analysis of the lights into that incident.

I think the cyclist has jumped the lights either a) on amber to get the head start without realising what the arrangement is or has been induced to by the (technically correct - I've asked a traffic signals designer) signals.  The dedicated left turn does need a secondary signal.  But, Lane 2 straight ahead is controlled by the left hand signals on the primary and the lane 3 turn right is controlled by the right hand set of signals.  On the secondary set in the middle of the road, lane 2 straight head is then controlled by the right hand set of signals.  The secondary for lane 3 is only a couple of metres behind the primary to the right of about where the white car is, you wouldn't really associate that with the secondaries in the middle of the road to realise the right hand set controls lane 2 and not lane 3.  That is most likely misleading and imo is the probable cause, as in the ASL you don't look at the primary with the straight ahead arrow, you look at the secondary right in front of you.   The left turn in the tram track avoidance marking sort of makes it look associated to the secondary left turn arrow.  And all the signals are hooed to prevent see through, which makes the primaries harder to see from the ASL.

What my colleague did say is you would expect the right hand secondaries to be a dual head so you would have 3 sets of signal heads together that would mirror the primary heads.  That, I think, would remove the confusion.

If this incident was reported it;ll be included in the stage 3 road safety audit on completion of the works and possibly bring about a change to the design that way (and also trigger a stage 4 to check up on it a year later).

I don't think a dual-head will help, as you would still get an amber next to the ahead lane 2, when it's only a signal for left turning traffic.

I think the best option would be to change the lights on the left to be the same as in this recent NMotD, so that no amber is shown when the left filter becomes active.

https://road.cc/content/news/driver-rams-cyclist-after-traffic-light-fil...

You're right, I was nearby yesterday so went to have a look. Looking at the phasing - at least for the few cycles I was there - I don't think you can get "caught out" so it would seem the cyclist would have had to go through a red light. However because the position of the straight-on control signal (you're actually physically moving right to left, even in a car although especially as a cyclist following the "guide lane" markings on road) switches from the left light set on the first head to the right set on the far head (e.g. within 10 metres...) I suspect confusion was likely. In many positions you wouldn't see other light which could help correct a mistake.

The planter luckily doesn't hide a cyclist coming straight towards a car on the S-bend but as Ashley pointed out drivers are not likely to be looking there. Plus there's plenty other visual distraction. And waiting pedestrians can block the view also. So it's really important this junction is made properly safe while still being rebuilt.

Unfortunately this seems unlikely. It was retained as a football-pitch-sized gyratory and the opportunity to rethink how we do transport here was rejected. It just had to have a tramline through. 2nd goal keep the motor vehicles. Still lots of buses here and a "route" (Edinburgh only has one tramline!). Everything else came last. For a cyclist there are inconvenient and conflict-creating design elements both on the junction and on most routes as they lead into here.

jaysa wrote:

the only thing I disagree with is Ash's comment that drop handlebars aren't suitable for city work, because the brakes are hard to reach (of course they're not).

I laughed out loud when he said that as I imagined the reaction of most Road.cc readers who aren't too impressed by Ashley at the best of times and feeling a little smug that i ride with riser bars. 

Personally I feel a lot more in control with them in traffic than when I used drops but that is nothing to do with the brakes and more to do with riding position and leverage.

As I age "heads-up" (on recumbent or upright) becomes more and more appealing.  Especially in traffic: but looking up and out at the world without flexing your neck is just more cheerful in general.

Seems quite a few millions agree - albeit they're mostly not "cyclists"...

Sadly I'm back to slightly heads-down through this area currently as I wouldn't take the recumbent there (it isn't very happy in heavy traffic nor on obstacle courses) and my nice new flat-bar hybrid was an early Christmas present to some thief last year...

My ego wouldn't let me add age to the reasons I now prefer risers.

Those Dutch videos always fill me with equal measures of joy and despair.

Well clearly despair, because you can see how it's lead to hell-on-earth for drivers and totally ruined it for the roadies (like this) - what with all those unskilled incompetent people wobbling about slowly on bikes...

Luckily I still prefer hills as there isn't enough time to replicate that in my remaining likely lifespan.  Even if we got cracking right now.  However the current standard is so low in the UK we can make things *much* better without the same level of effort.  Just as long as we start making some effort - or if we are then quite a bit more than currently!

I just think his plea to think of the nightmares your mangled cyclist body will give the driver who runs you over is a bit odd. Just the thought of a driver mangling my body is enough for me to cycle carefully.

I don't think this video is a good example of reckless red light jumping, as I really do think this was a confused cyclist who made an understandable mistake due to appalling junction design.

If anything it should have been a plea for this junction to be improved and a reminder that lower speeds result in less severe collisions. Plus a thought that whenever you get behind the wheel, your choice to drive a dangerous vehicle could end someones life, even if you are driving carefully. It's rare, but it can happen. It's a bit like the risk/benefit of flying abroad on holiday.

"BUT I had to drive! (which is totally legal, nay encouraged, and I have to pass the test, pay road tax, fuel is really expensive now etc.) AND then some idiot threw themselves under my car and (because I'm a decent human being) I've got PTSD".

I'm also not sure this is - on balance - a great one to illustrate his point.

On the general point - do people run red lights?  Yes.  Do drivers (or even cyclists!) hit others when it wasn't their fault?  Almost certainly.  He said he's had this happen with both family and pupils.  Powerful anecdata and also will definitely have engaged his emotion on the subject.  That says nothing about the right / wrong of the incidents of course (none of which we have the details of).  However I do think it's worth considering where some of the force of people's argument is coming from.  That means that if you disagree - e.g. about how important this is, about what to do about it - you may avoid a shouting match.  With someone who may feel they're talking on the basis of personal experience while you're talking out of your hat.

I think that's probably fair comment from Ashley, even though some here may feel it is making it about smeone else - there's been at least one account in AN's comments recently of a driver in an accident later killing themselves.

Important elements of a necessary conversation where all sides need to try to avoid getting too angry.

As a regular reader and commenter both over there and here, I think the headline on this article is unnecessarily confrontational.

It's not an article though it's a thread created by a forum member.

Forum - true.

Though I think my comments still apply.

theres unquestionably a video out there to make a valid point about red light jumping and its consequences, its just this wasnt that video.

mattw wrote:

I think that's probably fair comment from Ashley, even though some here may feel it is making it about smeone else - there's been at least one account in AN's comments recently of a driver in an accident later killing themselves.

Important elements of a necessary conversation where all sides need to try to avoid getting too angry.

As a regular reader and commenter both over there and here, I think the headline on this article is unnecessarily confrontational.

Obviously, we don't want drivers (or anyone) taking their own lives due to just trying to get around the public roads, but I don't think it's a useful point to bring up when there's pedestrians and cyclists being killed regularly by poor driving. Imploring cyclists to follow all the car-based rules on the roads by asking cyclists to think of the poor drivers is unlikely to be a successful gambit when it's clear to cyclists that they are themselves vulnerable and errors of judgement usually end up wiith a lot of pain.

mattw wrote:

I think that's probably fair comment from Ashley

I think it's unfair comment from Ashley, this cyclist was not some sort of scofflaw with no concern for their own safety or consideration of others. The choice to ride a bike with drop bars was irrelevant (and the bit I think the original poster thought as being trolling).

PTSD is a terrible thing, it could happen to anyone who does anything where their actions (or inaction) could result in harm to someone else through no fault of their own.

.

'not someone with no concern for their own safety' you say.

.

Yet riding at dusk / in the dark without lights or any high-viz.

.

Surely that's asking for trouble?

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Yet riding at dusk / in the dark without lights or any high-viz.

Poor effort, Boy.  Sadly you'd better give Ashley some more clicks and watch this video.  Actually - don't bother, see another still below.  Clearly has a (flashing) light.  It's not so obvious from the screen grab I posted, I know...  Oh, and a helmet.  And is carefully following the "guide lines" marked out by the council.  (There as an effort to cheaply mitigate their failure to design safe tram-track crossing points for cyclists which minimise the risk of fall.  Again - this has lead to a death - at another crossing point - and lots of compensation for injuries so it's not a "theoretical" issue.)

Hi-vis is not a requirement - although a good idea in poor visibility conditions.  Note "wearing a light-coloured top" though (as light coloured as the car!)

Finally having lights (which they had!) and hi-vis - in this particular case - would have had precisely zero effect on the collision.  I can't say for certain this was an innocent mistake caused by totally confusing light timing / junction design.   At the very least it's quite possible.  That's then compounded by the council's (?) decision to put a large obstacle - alongside the constructor's clutter of signs etc. - which can totally block a driver's vision at this junction.

Well, Ashley's (apparently) been to road.cc a few times so while I wouldn't say "trolling" he's aware of some cyclists' viewpoints.  Again - seems good on the requirements of motorists around cyclists but he's also presented some takes on cycling I'd consider really odd (or at least not knowledgeable).  When others have politely questioned them (here) he's doubled-down.

I think mass motoring really is a huge invisible cultural "elephant".  With driving and cycling (or even walking where people interact with vehicles) we end up holding fundamentally different activities to the standards of one (driving).

I can't really make an analogy because driving is exceptional*.  What else is potentially as dangerous to self and others, is technically a voluntary activity but yet ubiquitous and has been made a "requirement" or expectation?  What else has been so promoted (including building infra and subsidies both direct and concealed) for generations ... but where people practicing it aren't regularly trained / tested / held to safety standards / others protected from them?

And - relevant to "red light jumping" - designing for motoring is at the expense of everyone else - in terms of convenience (Traffic lights / pedestrian crossings ARE motoring infrastructure).  Knowing human nature we should take this into account in our designs.

So maybe - in the current environment - we should be up-front with drivers?  Perhaps we should all have a "horror show" and have to view some crash aftermath images?  Or like seeing the sanitised versions on the news does that just desensitise us / make us fatalists?

Maybe driving instructors should say / the vehicle's binnacle should read "before you start this vehicle beware this activity comes with a small but real risk you could kill or maim others any time you do it.  Could be strangers or your family and friends.  Whether or not it's your 'fault'.  Think - can you handle that?"

* Drinking maybe?  It's ubiquitous.  You can "pass" at 18 and take part (no further "tests"), it's taxed, there's social pressure to participate and even some institutional encouragement.  Yet we know that for a small proportion - but large number - this is a massive issue.  And not just for them but for their families.  And overall this leads to lots of unpleasantness including injury to innocent / uninvolved people and massive cost to the taxpayer.