Telegraph news item

We've got stuff like the London example in Edinburgh on Leith Walk - but if anything less convenient for cyclists.  Cyclists do have their own lights - but in places these seem to hold you for even longer than the motor traffic or it seems pedestrians (presumably to prevent left hooks - because in the UK motor traffic passing green can always turn left, and UK drivers don't consider a cycle path a separate lane).

Dutch version - even where it's very busy with pedestrians there tend to be zebras but no lights on cycle paths.  (See pic for an example - pedestrians can simply cross the cycle path, then wait in the buffer zone then deal with the main road.  I don't know if there is a "beg button" on the near side of the cycle path).  I suspect the difference here is the Dutch would try to avoid mixing the volume / speed of motor traffic there is in London with such volumes of crossing pedestrians.

London may have some particular difficulties (macro level) - not just because "UK" and "history" but its sheer size.

Yes this is 80-90% standard dishonest shitstirring hate bollocks from the Telegrunt.

They are rolling the pitch for Lord Hogan-Howe's early September attack-cycling debate in the Lords; he'll be demanding number plates and insurance, like he was demanding compulsory insurance in May, and is such a prat that he hadn't bothered to find out that nearly all of us have it already.

I don't believe their numbers.

Lots of stuff about "cycling on the pavement" and "cycling across the pavement".

They don't seem to have noticed that it's a stonking great Toucan crossing with a separate symbol for the cyclist in the video, so you can cycle on or across the pavement at each end of the crossing, and that there are a couple of drops kerbs for said purpose with the main cycling flow *. There is even at least one "cycle on the pavement sign".

* This is NCN4 that turns from Westminster Bridge Road into Belvedere Road, and the TFL cycling network which does the same and also continues across Westminster Bridge.

There are also a number of cyclists shown who don't cross on red, or for whom the light turns to red after they have passed the first green.

As for conflict, there mainly isn't any since even in their condensed down video from 4hrs of footage they don't seem to be able to find anyone going at digy speeds. 

The only real issues are the pedicabs and the wheeling youths, and a couple of cyclists from their 1000+, and the few cyclists at the start who cross in front of peds who wait. And a couple who stop safely because the vast majority are going slowly.

The people going through the red when the crossing is deserted are an indicator that the intersection needs a redesign. That is happening now, but the loboto-journos at the Telegrunt don't seem to have found that out either.

Full article text:
https://archive.ph/Koorc

It's an indicator that the interchange is currently a mess, which is why it is currently being redesigned to reduce conflict.

We should also note that much of the stuff in the video and article is simply wrong. For example the wibble about pavement cycling; it's a bloody great Toucan crossing so it is allowed at each end, and there are even a couple of drop kerbs provided for the purpose.

But this is the Telegrunt, which has the status of toilet paper, and if used for such makes the poop stinkier than it was already because the thing is so putrid.

Breaking the law is I think more subtle than that; if the legal requirement is going to make it dangerous for someone, who might be me, I may well choose to ignore the letter of the law if I judge it appropriate. Part of that deal is that I take responsibility for my actions.

Generally clarity and simplicity are best, for the most important rules. Hence I'm generally for "keep red as 'stop'."

It's maybe worth examining the idea of "relying on someone else doing what they're supposed to" for safety. Seems to feature often in UK road discussions.
But it clearly doesn't always work well eg. between motorised and vulnerable road users*.

Safe systems tend to either a) eliminate the need to rely on others or b) identify where it's safe enough for parties potentially in conflict to manage this themselves - but ensure the design facilitates vulnerable road users to do that. **

Only if we can't reasonably do a) or b) should we reach for systems where you have to rely on others following rules.

A rabbit hole may appear when considering those with disabilities or visual impairments (which unfortunately most of us - and the meeja - rarely do, except for eg. when they can be co-opted in the service of the status quo for motoring).

* Traffic lights are an example - indeed "amber gambling" (how motorists tend to jump lights) is particularly dangerous if you expect to cross(out just proceed) when you've got green.

** Example of a - an underpass. Reduces chance of being driven into to essentially zero. Example of b) - a little less well known for UK folks but the Dutch rural roundabout design. Cyclists don't have priority *but* they're put in the best possible position / at suitable speed to assess what any approaching driver is doing - AND they are not *expecting* drivers to stop for them (should reduce the likelihood of "but I could see them looking straight at me - can't understand why they didn't stop" SMIDSY) https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2018/04/safe-roundabouts-revisited...

JLasTSR wrote:

With respect this is rubbish. It is a segregated lane with red lights for a pedestrian crossing and if the light is red you stop. Even if nobody is on the crossing. We all know that is the case. You can argue the timings are wrong or that the rule should be different, that is fine. To break the rule of law and say it is OK is just plain wrong, hideously conceited , and just bloody ridiculous. How cannot it not incense everyone. And I hate having to stop if I don't have to for precisely the reasons you mention but flagrantly breaking the law is not something I would ever consider.

If following a law puts me at greater risk of injury than not following it, then I put my safety first. However, lots of RLJing is done out of convenience and to save energy - that happens because traffic laws are seldom respected by other traffic (e.g. speeding, phone use etc) and so it seems pointless to obey traffic lights that don't take cyclists into account.

Ultimately, if you don't want people to break the law, then we need greater traffic policing so that people think that there's a good chance that they'll be caught sooner or later. I would happily wait at traffic lights if I knew that other traffic was taking care and not endangering me. (e.g. On a holiday in Copenhagen, it was surprising to see almost total compliance with traffic lights by pedestrians, cyclists and e-scooterists.)

Hmm... my inclination is to look pretty critically at "road safety" ideas coming from the US.  Some things there (aside from the motornormativity levels) really are a bit different from the UK / much of Europe.

Generally I'd say "check the gold standard - usually NL".  There, this is much less of an issue because of several factors:

a) separate cycle infra - in particular where there is a need for traffic lights in the first place there generally seems to be separate cycle infra * and cyclists have their own lights - and may not have to stop at all.
b) ... "smarter lights" - more flexible light cycles, with detection of both motorists and cyclists in advance of the junction, not just at it.
c) Actually separating out motor vehicle networks and cycling networks, so cyclists may not even know that motor traffic needs a junction with lights.

HOWEVER - the equivalent of "right on red" does in fact exist in NL!  The difference is that it is only where this is specifically signed ("rechtsaf voor fietsers vrij" at the lights). See here.  There is ongoing discussion about where this can and should be done (e.g. here).  The Dutch Cyclists Union (Fietsersbond) apparently feel this should be universal.

* The opposite of UK where at precisely the most dangerous points (busy junctions), we remove any cycle infra there was!