Life for cyclists without lights?

nitrogen

This article is about the possibility of cities being safer without traffic lights.

What do you think? I'd be half tempted to go the other way, and regulate drivers more and even introduce devices to cap speeds in cars. A human being can become far too stupid in a metal box being alienated from their surroundings. Although I do tend to agree that people can become more stupid relying on more technology – I'm talking about you, annoying GPS devices.

seamus

My concern about removing traffic lights is that most Irish drivers will see cyclists as second-class road users and refuse to yield when the cyclist has right-of-way - or get annoyed when the cyclist takes his right-of-way.

Captain Havoc

Couple of lights have gone out in Kilkenny at various times (including one busy junction at the moment) and not a single fatality, infact no accidents at all. I'm all for getting rid of most lights.

Lumen

Life is probably a bit harsh. 10 years with TOFGB ought to be enough.

Idleater

seamus wrote: »

My concern about removing traffic lights is that most Irish drivers will see cyclists as second-class road users and refuse to yield when the cyclist has right-of-way - or get annoyed when the cyclist takes his right-of-way.

Not 100% sure, but I thought that in the Danish town where they did this the point was there was NO right of way, so effectively you have to yield to everyone all the time regardless. The fear of pulling out in front of a cyclist is offset against the equal chance of it being a similar motorist or larger vehicle.

I mean, the same logic applies to roundabouts. Roundabouts are interesting where in the majority of cases vehicles slow when approaching them as opposed to signal controlled junctions where they speed up on late green/orange/dark orange to get through with no regard for the merging roads. Even if they are coming from a minor to major road.

ED E

seamus wrote: »

My concern about removing traffic lights is that most Irish drivers do see cyclists as second-class road users and they always refuse to yield when the cyclist has right-of-way - or get annoyed when the cyclist takes his right-of-way.

Fixed.


*Not all, but the bloody majority of them

Morgan

I thought this thread was going to be suggesting extremely harsh prison sentences for non-illuminated riders after dark.

rp

seamus wrote: »

My concern about removing traffic lights is that most Irish drivers will see cyclists as second-class road users and refuse to yield when the cyclist has right-of-way - or get annoyed when the cyclist takes his right-of-way.

Such measures in places like Scandinavia and the Netherlands, are accompanied by 'strict liability' legislation, whereby motorists have a duty of care not to hit vulnerable road users. Puts manners on them, apparently.

seamus

nereid wrote: »

Not 100% sure, but I thought that in the Danish town where they did this the point was there was NO right of way, so effectively you have to yield to everyone all the time regardless. The fear of pulling out in front of a cyclist is offset against the equal chance of it being a similar motorist or larger vehicle.

Absolutely. My fear though would be that a car would get to the junction have a look, no-one there except a fecking cyclist - "Well he can stop for me". Previously this conflict wouldn't have occured because the car or the bike would should have stopped at the lights.

I mean, the same logic applies to roundabouts. Roundabouts are interesting where in the majority of cases vehicles slow when approaching them as opposed to signal controlled junctions where they speed up on late green/orange/dark orange to get through with no regard for the merging roads. Even if they are coming from a minor to major road.

I'm actually basing my opinion on car behaviour on roundabouts. Many drivers deliberately do not yield to cyclists on roundabouts, expecting the cyclist to stop or slow down for them.

poochiem

they turn off the traffic lights in italy at midnight (in a number of places that i'm aware of); obviously youre not going to have too many cyclists at that time but i wonder are there studies on the effects? very different country though as the 2-wheeled culture is almost predominant in some places (bikes & vespas).

Blowfish

Quote from the article:

Drivers are more cautious when they are in close proximity to vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

Yeah, this really happens....

RobbieTheRobber

This is flawed because as far as Im aware scandanavian (Definetly in some Finland being one) drivers are better educated in how to drive from a younger age rather than the stupid provisonal license method we have here for teaching people how to drive.

As for the drivers being more considerate without road markings and lights i really cant see this in dublin, I know that for many parts of my route into the city i have to dominate the road in order to stop cars from trying dangerous, stupid and bloody pointless overtaking attempts (as in speeding past me only to stop at a line of traffic not 10 yards ahead).

Beasty

Blowfish wrote: »

Quote from the article:Yeah, this really happens....

In my experience, the vast majority of time it does. It's only a small minority of road users that do not take other road users into consideration (and some of those are cyclists as well as motorists)

Idleater

seamus wrote: »

I'm actually basing my opinion on car behaviour on roundabouts. Many drivers deliberately do not yield to cyclists on roundabouts, expecting the cyclist to stop or slow down for them.

Sorry, I should have specified that, I am in total agreement with you regarding attitudes to cyclists at roundabouts. My reasoning about the same logic being applied to roundabouts is there because motorists approach roundabouts differently to Signal Controlled Junctions purely from a potential "hit by something bigger" standpoint. Hence why I likened it to red meaning 4 more cars through ...

Cyclists and pedestrians will always be in danger on the road, signs or no signs, from the general mentality as described, but the potential effect of possibly being hit by some other random punter appears to make them slow down. Thus the net effect on cyclists is a slower motorist in that area.

tomasrojo

I think it's worth trying out in a few pilot schemes. It does seem to have a good track record. I heard Ben Hamilton-Ballie talking on the radio and he said that everywhere he goes the locals explain to him how drivers in their country are worse than drivers anywhere else or how some other national idiosyncracy means that shared space is uniquely unsuitable to that country.

I also heard him on the Pat Kenny radio show, and there was a quite amusing bit -- amusing if you were following Kenny's eyes-a-popping reaction to the 30km/h zone earlier in the year -- where Ben Hamilton-Ballie was extolling the virtues of vehicles travelling at 30km/h.

snubbleste

Traffic lights aren't there just to regulate traffic but also to provide a safe area for pedestrians to cross a thoroughfare.

tomasrojo

snubbleste wrote: »

Traffic lights aren't there just to regulate traffic but also to provide a safe area for pedestrians to cross a thoroughfare.

Pedestrians don't get a fair share of the green time in Dublin though. Especially considering that they're the largest single transport mode in Dublin.

Bunnyhopper

Similar article from the Irish Times yesterday:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/motors/2010/0922/1224279422669.html

Includes this from Hamilton-Baillie:

In every country we’ve worked, the authorities and planners claim that their drivers are the exception, averse to rules and need to be policed by road signs and strict traffic light controls. Yet in the cities where we’ve put these shared space principles into practice, the results have been a reduction in both speeds and serious injuries.

SerialComplaint

The 'shared space' idea is not new, and has been around on the continent for years. The feedback from people with vision impairments and guide dog users is generally very negative. The dogs are trained to used paths/kerbs, so they can't be retrained for different areas of the city.

Cabaal

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Couple of lights have gone out in Kilkenny at various times (including one busy junction at the moment) and not a single fatality, infact no accidents at all. I'm all for getting rid of most lights.

I noticed that the other night, I'd say its lots of fun at rush hour tbh

Thing is, for cyclist motorists are less likely to give way

2 Wheels Good

In Austria (Innsbruck at least) they turn off the lights after 6 or 7, they go to flashing amber or red depending on priority, seems to work well. Wouldn't be the busiest city but for city centres i think it'd work.

BostonB

Some junctions seem to work better without lights. Others need them.

tomasrojo

I think the concern about motorists not giving way to cyclists is probably misplaced. Shared space, as I understand it, is intended for town centres and villages, not high-velocity or medium-velocity thoroughfares. Basically, motorists wouldn't be able to get up to any real speed anyway, because there are pedestrians using the road as well. They just have to adopt a very moderate speed and keep an eye out.

I'm no expert on the subject, but from what I've read, Shared Space really works surprisingly well in villages and city centres.

The concern about visually impaired pedestrians is probably very real. I don't know if there is any way to fix that. Mind you, the same group is also understandably against cycle facilities placed on sidewalks, and it doesn't stop local authorities creating the wretched things.