|
| 'All junctions are potential points of conflict, whatever the signals say' |
Always jump lights
Hackney GP, Dr Douglas Carnall
A
friend of a friend was killed on his bike at a junction on the Holloway
Road a few years ago. He had waited for a green light. A motorist ran
the red. The lesson: presume nothing, because presumption is the mother
of all fuck-ups. All junctions are potential points of conflict,
whatever the signals say. All movement through them should be cautious
and characterised by gentle acceleration or deceleration. The cyclist
has to have enough vigilance for everybody. More than a quarter of
cycle road deaths are caused by vehicles turning left across them. If
you make a presumption of momentum at all traffic signals, then
overtaking queues of motors on the right, dominating the central space
of junctions where everyone can see you, is more logical – even if the
drivers hate you. It’s the one that doesn’t see you that’ll kill
you.Why do we cycle through red lights?
Feature continues
First, the laws of
physics. The amount of kinetic energy lost in braking from 15kph to
0kph is the same as the amount of kinetic energy required to accelerate
from 0kph to 15kph. This is the same amount of energy lost to friction
by a cyclist travelling 70 metres at a constant speed of 15kph. Those
70-metre sprints add up. And waiting for green means this effort is in
close proximity to the exhaust pipes of motor vehicles. I’d be willing
to bet that cyclists who skip red lights receive lower doses of
particulate air pollution.
|
| Reflective clothing: also an option for paranoid pedestrians |
The history of road design (to
date) has been for the most part a process of making life easier for
the motorist. I enjoy putting myself in places that challenge that. The
designers of naked streets, such as Kensington’s Exhibition Road, agree
that eye-to-eye negotiation may be safer than blind obedience.
Many
signals on cycle routes have very short phases for onward travel across
the main road, which seem designed to habituate cyclists to
lawbreaking. For example, at the Angel, following the cycle route south
of the main junction means waiting for three signalled junctions 50
metres apart. If you wait for all the lights it takes seven minutes to
clear the junction. Ignoring the lights, it’ll usually take less than a
minute. Do pedestrians always wait for the green man?
Deliberate law-breaking is not to be indulged in lightly, but I’ve yet to get a ticket. To my fellow cyclists who have, I say, ‘If you’re not paying enough attention to spot the cops, you’re not paying enough attention to jump the light.’ And ALWAYS give way to pedestrians. ALWAYS.
|
|
|
|
19 comments
You've mis-attributed this article about red lights to Buffalo Bill, when in fact it was written by Douglas Carnall. I know because I read a draft before he sent it. You'll be wanting to correct this!
why does mister Gardiner imagine that law-abiding vermin will tend to be regarded more highly than that of the law-breaking variety?
Encouraging cyclists to break the law is not only irresponsible, but does not serve the interests of cyclists in the long term. Cyclists jumping lights only serve to further annoy the cyclophobic motorist. If we want the law to protect us from the worst excesses of white van drivers, Chelsea tractor owners and others that consider us no more than vermin, we should respect the law ourselves. Even if it does add a few minutes to the journey.
Dr Ward says that doctors have been fooled by research about helmet effectiveness. Then the BMA spokesperson gives an example of the outdated research that has been widely discredited.
I am really glad that the BMA have decided to review all the evidence in the future and not be misled by helmet promoters. I am sure that they will return to the view that cycling - with or without a helmet - provides health benefits 20 times greater than the risks.