Would a rule change still be safe to allows cyclists to proceed on red? Pedestrians are allowed to do it, don’t forget!
Dash Camera Affiliate Links.
Car – Viofo – https://viofouk.co.uk/ashleyv10f01621897/?utm_source=Youtube&utm_medium=Embedded+URL&utm_campaign=Ashley+Neal
Motorcycle – Innov – https://innovv.co.uk/ashley1nn0v1370307/?utm_source=Youtube&utm_medium=Embedded+URL&utm_campaign=Ashley+Neal
Motorcycle, Bicycle and Equestrian – Techalogic – https://techalogic.co.uk/ashleyt3ck410gic14925467/?utm_source=Youtube&utm_medium=Embedded+URL&utm_campaign=Ashley+Neal
Social Media
https://www.instagram.com/ashleynealdrivinginstruction
ashleysanalysis@gmail.com
Amazon Links
Sony a6400 Camera – https://amzn.to/2xVCrn0
Sony A7C Camera – https://amzn.to/3JUvUIa
Tascam DR-10L Microphone – https://amzn.to/3M8P0fd
Sony FDR X3000 Action Camera – https://amzn.to/2YVoPDh
25 Comments
No. If you on road you stop to red, unless you are blue lights
Also cyclists should pass a theory test. Some of those fools have no idea what road signs, markings even mean.
If you have a rule that most people flout, it's worth thinking about whether it's the rule that is wrong, rather than most people.
I used to commute along Essex Road in Islington, London. The traffic lights along there are phased to artificially to give straight ahead traffic much less priority than it should normally get because the road leads to a traffic bottleneck at Angel and planners want to limit the flow of vehicles approaching the bottleneck. Most cyclists, however, turn off the Essex Road just before Angel to take the signposted quiet route along Colebrook Row, which runs parallel (which cars can't use).
Consequently if you observe the red lights, you spend far more time stopped than moving, even though there is no traffic coming from the side-roads, and it's purely done for the management of traffic congestion caused by cars. It's insane.
If you don't want a blanket exemption for bikes there should at least be signs at selected traffic lights allowing bicycles to treat that particular red light as a give way when the traffic lights have been put there to control the flow and volume of car traffic rather than for safety, and where visibility is good enough to allow bicycles to give way safely.
Regarding the comparison with right turn on red in the US:
(a) the accident rate is higher when right turn on red is allowed because of cars hitting pedestrians. It's got nothing to do with bikes
(b) the US is not one of the countries that allows cyclists to go through red lights
(c) the US is not an exemplar we should be following for anything to do with traffic rules.
Most of them already do it.
Enforcement against them is rare so you may as well change the rules it will make little difference.
They do anyway!
Ashley, you did a Right Turn On Red when you were in the US. How can you compair that to cycling through a red light without even stopping as seen here?
All road users should be following the same rules and face the same punishment and yes I do think bicycles should have to have insurance and pay road tax.
Just no
There are many cross junctions that don't but should have traffic lights, and visa versa. I don't agree with cyclists going through red yet I would cycle across if there were no lights. isn't this a contradiction?
Based on the fact that it is illegal for ALL road users to jump red lights, cyclists are also road users and should be equally held accountable for their actions. . Also if they are more at risk then jumping red lights is not in their own best interest and by doing so would be putting their own life at risk. How a driver would mentally feel after hitting a person or cyclist or other vehicle that jumps are light I cannot imaging. My answer is if they jump red lights they get the same penalty as any other road user.
It won't make any difference to cyclists, they go through anyway.
And also, why can't cars go through if its safe? By this logic why have lights at all?
No, no, no.
"Knowing the stats on what's it's like to right turn on red in the US. Where are they?
Compairing turning right on red after a complete stop and give way to all other vehicles and pedestrians to cycling straight through a dangerous junction is like comparing a car doing 71mph on a busy motorway to one doing over 100mph.
I think it’s a good idea. Very little difference between this and a pedestrian crossing on a red.
Like any road decision, it should be based on the data and introduced gradually.
I have only just seen this come up – apparently “All notifications” means “All main videos and YT might notify you about shorts a few days later”
Anyway, as much as I can see the argument for allowing cyclists to proceed through red lights if safe, the biggest issue I see is with those last two words…”if safe”
I don’t mean that solely from the cyclists being unsafe, I mean it from an everyone perspective. We still have close passes from drivers which is unsafe, we have cyclists riding too fast around pedestrians which is unsafe, we have unsafe pedestrians just stepping out into the road (these are a fraction of users within each group and I am in no way suggesting that everyone within each group is doing this, just highlighting bad actions from a minority in each group)
We have a good(ish) understanding of the rules, red means stop, red+amber means get ready to proceed and green means proceed if safe and clear. If we introduce a go of safe and clear on red then we are relying upon people to slow down for a red light and some people’s definition of “safe and clear” will be different to others. This I feel would lead to potentially more confusion, not to mention those that wouldn’t slow down
My final point on this would be the recent record of the Government and the DVSA on highlighting important changes to the rules. The January 2022 update still hasn’t reached everyone and even to those that do know about the changes there is a large group that are confused by the changes
In conclusion, it would be a bad idea in my opinion to make these changes based upon the reliance of humans to adhere to the rules which, as we have seen many times on dash cam compilations and also in person, is something we cannot rely upon to keep everyone safe
Doesnt matter, they do it anyway
Honestly it’s a blatant disregard for general road safety as cars are unpredictable, adding the fact that cyclists are the second most vulnerable road user it’s quite sad that some cyclists think the rules don’t or shouldn’t apply to them and that ignorance can make a situation very dangerous.
Yes, but for left turns only, this would make so much sense
Don’t know why you mentioned “the stats of turning right in the us”. It’s not like people don’t follow the rules, it’s literally been legalised as long as it’s clear and there’s places in the uk where it’s constantly a green light if you’re turning left.
Make sure your traffic lights are working properly. The light is red and no one is driving. better coordinate them so that traffic continues to move. Or turn off traffic lights if there is very little traffic.
They should have some form of number plate. It’s the only thing that’s going to stop them. There’s no way for them to get a ticket or anything so there’s no reason to stop
Make all the rules or laws you like, if people don't want to obey them, they won't. You'll never stop cyclists going through red lights, a lot of drivers even expect it. My other half got rear ended by a car when she stopped at a red light, the driver just didn't expect her to. Fortunately it was just a nudge, no falling off or damage, but it just goes to show how things can be.
Traffic lights are for cars. With no cars, we don’t need traffic lights.
NO, NEVER….
No, bad idea. Cyclists should follow the rules of the road like everyone else. It would be confusing and divisive to start having different rules for different road users.