Why must cyclists wait for the green light to proceed through empty pedestrain crossings
The short answer is because it is the law and we must obey the law. But why is this the law? So pedestrians can safely cross the road. But if there are no pedestrians crossing because they have already passed or for some other reason, then we are sitting around waiting just because it is the law even though the reason for the law has passed and there is no safety benefit if there are no pedestrians crossing the road. It would seem to me that providing you come to a stop to ensure that there are no pedestrians left to cross the road, it would be safe to proceed even if the light was still red, but we can't because of the law. Therefore maybe the law which is providing no benefit, only hinderence, should be changed to allow bicycles to proceed after they have stopped for a red light at a pedestrian crossing if there are no pedestrians crossing (ie treat it like a zebra crossing). Admittedly drivers of motor vehicles could argue similarly and may well have a case, but while it might be possible a driver may not see a pedestrian in poor visibility, a cyclist would be unlikely to miss them and a bicycle taking off from stationary would be unlikely to result in any harm. Indeed such a system could improve safety by allowing cyclists to get ahead of a wave of traffic where they can be seen.
Perhaps a cycling friendly council such as Adelaide could trial such a system with signs on the lights advising drivers and cyclists of the rule.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Bowler on -
That's why there would need to be signs to make it clear that the cyclists were not breaking the law. Also the motorist would not be worse off, they may even benefit if the cyclist has moved on out of their way. A few self centered motorists who get jealous is not a reason not to introduce pro cycling laws.
-
Permalink Reply by Kane on -
I see cyclists run reds all the time in the city and really for what? maybe a minute quicker. I am with Heather I hate seeing it because I know that everytime it happens it increases the size of the target on our back. Having a sign saying "hey mr cyclist you can go but you in the car will just have to wait" will probably make motorist even more angry. They will feel like we are getting special treatment, which we should for not contributing to all the problems that cars cause. But unfortunately motorists will not see it that way. Thats just my opinion on it
-
Permalink Reply by David Bowler on
-
It is not so much about the time saving as trying to encourage cycling by sending a message that if you do the right thing by the environment help reduce congestion by riding a bike rather than driving, you can be rewarded with preferential treatment. Lets make no apologies, the community as a whole benefits if more people cycle and so their is nothing wrong with giving cyclists special treatment and it should in fact be encouraged. If motorists don't like it, they have the same right to ride a bike as anyone else.
-
Permalink Reply by Kane on
-
Completely agree, but I don't think it would have a difference in that way. Might sway the minority that were thinking about it anyway but the others I think would just be annoyed by it. The more people cycling the better, if for no other reason that motorists will start to "expect" cyclists instead of continually being surprised when they almost run into us :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Bonnie Dowling on -
well said David!
-
Permalink Reply by VeloAvenger on
-
Why must any traffic give way to ghost vehicles that aren't there?
In the US after 10 pm many stop lights go to Main road flash yellow and side road flash red mode
-
Permalink Reply by Patrick O'Kane on -
Why must we wait at any red light when there are no vehicles coming. It happens all the time (bike or car), especially red 'no right turn" arrows at intersections. The reason is if it's not a black and white rule there are those who will try and sneak across inappropriately. At least if it no go on Red there's no room for interpretation.
What;s a few seconds at a light cost anyway, good time to have a drink and a stretch.
-
Permalink Reply by Kane on
-
Could not agree more, you open up the scope of when people can go and you start to bring in more room for error of judgement and interpretation, making it more dangerous on the road
-
Permalink Reply by David Bowler on
-
Such a rule could be quite clear. Cyclists must come to a complete stop and can then must give way to pedestrians on the crossing before proceeding. As clear many other road rules and little room for interpretation. Not like some some rules such as slowing down around schools when a child is present (what is a child and when are they present and did you see they were present).
-
Permalink Reply by Bonnie Dowling on
-
bike symbolled traffic lights are quite specific i'd say. i recall several intersections in melbourne where cyclists had a green light at pedestrian crossings. it is understood that cyclists must give way to pedestrians first and formost but are also given the freedom to get going before other road users. getting a head start infront of busy traffic improves visability and safety for cyclists. it's not just about getting 'there' a few seconds quicker.
-
Permalink Reply by heather on -
Bonnie, I did not know that lights for cyclists had been approved in Australia. A good safety feature.
How about posting on Adelaide BUG that you would like this in our CBD? The ACC is seeking feedback from cyclists for its Bicycle Action Plan until 19-Mar-2011. The ACC is reading the Adelaide BUG posts.
© 2013 Created by Gus K.
