Paris to allow cyclists to run red lights in bid to cut accidents.

Run_to_da_hills

Cyclists will be allowed to turn right or go straight ahead, even when a traffic light is on red. But they will have to give way to pedestrians, and traffic coming from the left. They will be held responsible if there is an accident.

Would this work in Ireland?

There are plenty of cyclists over here that would do this anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097882/Its-make-motorists-rouge-Paris-allow-cyclists-run-red-lights-bid-cut-accidents.html

fat bloke

Yes it would work.

I cross sensibly and safely (to my mind) all the time both as a pedestrian and a cyclist using my deep rooted homo sapient sense of self-preservation. Ironically, it's when I'm foot down at a deserted junction red light that I feel my most Neanderthal(ic?). Man has always yearned to progress. Allez les bleus.

Tenzor07

It would work, but I doubt theres any political will in local councils etc to implement it... Sure don't they provide broken up "bicycle lanes" for us, thats enough! :rolleyes:

seve65

similarly, www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

seve65

seve65 wrote: »

similarly, www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

alternatively, how about a signal guru for garmin:
www.smartplanet.com/blog/transportation/never-stop-at-a-red-light-again/858

Beasty

Couple of points

Are there really that many accidents involving cyclists on Irish roads? Would such a change create more of a "them and us" culture between motorists and cyclists?

Compliance with red lights by cyclists in this country appears poor enough already. Would such a change encourage more cyclists to illegally break red lights in other circumstances, on the basis that it then becomes an even more commonplace activity.

I guess my real question boils down to what would cyclists hope to gain - increased safety (in which case fine) or simply more convenience (which would not justify a change in my view)

Mr. Presentable

Beasty wrote: »

I guess my real question boils down to what would cyclists hope to gain -

Justification of what they already do?

BostonB

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

..Would this work in Ireland?...

That assumes cyclists don't already do that anyway.

nomdeboardie

Daily Mail wrote:

Paris has a Velib bike hire scheme which means thousands of amateur cyclists regularly fill the street.

Thank God that only professional cyclists ride personal steeds over here :pac:

Chips Lovell

Agree with Beasty on this. Not sure what there is to gain from it other than antagonising other road users further.

BostonB

Considering half the battle is changing the mindset of drivers, its not going help that PR battle. Which I think was partly Beasty's point earlier.

galwaycyclist

Yep +1 on this. Something similar has been in place for years in the Netherlands allowing cyclists a free right turn on red. Cyclist.ie have been looking for a similar provision for Irish cyclists turning left.

Like two-way cycling on one way.streets- the fact that this isnt being provided here is a sign of official antagonism towards cyclists that we should be highlighting rather than something we should keep quiet about for the sake of peace.

Mycroft H

It would only make matters worse IMO. I can imagine too many people being misinformed of the law should something similar pass. Too many ignorant people

happyman81

I don't see what difference it would make here, given that cyclists are colour blind... or at least they seem to be.

fat bloke

What makes you think that? -All the pink??

clod71

common sense always works

happyman81

I know this will go down like a fart in an elevator in here, but, I think that adding licence plates to bikes (or some ID system for bikes) would mean a lot of cyclists wising up when it comes to breaking lights, cycling on footpaths and cycling the wrong way down one way streets, etc. As it stands, cyclists are virtually free from prosecution when it comes to traffic laws because they can't be identified easily.

Of course, the cost is the issue.

Lumen

happyman81 wrote: »

I know this will go down like a fart in an elevator in here, but, I think that adding licence plates to bikes (or some ID system for bikes) would mean a lot of cyclists wising up when it comes to breaking lights, cycling on footpaths and cycling the wrong way down one way streets, etc. As it stands, cyclists are virtually free from prosecution when it comes to traffic laws because they can't be identified easily.

Of course, the cost is the issue.

As has been discussed previously a number of times, it's a complete non-starter from a practical perspective and would cause an increase in premature deaths.

Ray Palmer

If it works out with out any increase in accidents then the answer is simple let it go forward. It is quite obvious that other road users don't see their own failures which are known to casue accidents and fatalities.
If cyclists going through red lights in this manner doesn't casue any issues then it comes down to what I have always though it about obeying the rule not a safety concern.
PR concerns are nonsense as most drivers think every cyclist breaks every light. You have the likes of George Hook saying that he has never seen a cyclist stop at a red light. National radio with a guy obviously exagerating.

It makes common sense that this won't make much increase in accidents as it is so common place already. Suggesting people will then break every light is a bit silly as it suggests people are that stupid when we know the people who break mayor junctions are already doing it and I don't think anybody is joining them.

Tenzor07

Paris city centre is an awful place to cycle, so not surprised they have brought in this new rule...the French tend to do what they like anyways

As for bringing up Holland as an example of how things should be done...well...thats a non starter.. Its like comparing Dr.Quirky's on O'Connell street to Las Vegas!

manwithaplan

It's not clear if they propose to allow cyclists go straight ahead at a red light at all junctions in the 30kph zone. I can see the sense of allowing cyclists go through a pedestrian light on a straight road (essentially treating it as a zebra crossing) or to go straight ahead on red at a T junction, giving way to traffic coming from the left (right in our case). I can also see the sense of allowing a cyclist go straight ahead at a junction between two one-way streets, again giving way to peds and traffic coming from the left. Allowing cyclists go straight ahead at junctions with traffic coming from both directions seems likely to cause antagonism at best and be dangerous at worst.

happyman81

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If it works out with out any increase in accidents then the answer is simple let it go forward. It is quite obvious that other road users don't see their own failures which are known to casue accidents and fatalities.
If cyclists going through red lights in this manner doesn't casue any issues then it comes down to what I have always though it about obeying the rule not a safety concern.
PR concerns are nonsense as most drivers think every cyclist breaks every light. You have the likes of George Hook saying that he has never seen a cyclist stop at a red light. National radio with a guy obviously exagerating.

It makes common sense that this won't make much increase in accidents as it is so common place already. Suggesting people will then break every light is a bit silly as it suggests people are that stupid when we know the people who break mayor junctions are already doing it and I don't think anybody is joining them.

I dunno, I am a pedestrian in Dublin and based on my experience, I would say most cyclists don't stop at red lights, I could name a few junctions which are notorious for psychopathic cyclists (or Psycholists, as I call them). Some do stop, but most don't. Hence when I cross at the green man, I look out for cyclists more than motorists.

seamus

I'm not entirely sure on whether this would aggravate the us -v- them divide.

Are drivers' frustrations borne out of the fact that cyclists are making better progress, or that they're breaking the law and not being punished? I suspect it's the latter.

After all, you don't hear widespread condemnation of pedestrians who cross the road at random points (when there's not ped crossing), but people do complain about pedestrians crossing when the little man is red. They're functionally the exact same action, but one is breaking the law and the other is not.

Likewise the other big complaints;
- Cyclists not riding in the cycle lane
- Cyclists riding two abreast

These aggravate motorists not because they're being held up, but because they believe that they're not legal. Most motorists believe that cyclists are required to ride single file.
So it's about entitlements IMO - people doing things that they're not allowed to do. If it's specifically made legal that a cyclist may break a red light, then motorists may display less frustration and annoyance because they know that cyclists are entitled to break the light, so there's nothing to get annoyed about.

Of course, it won't do anything to quell the notion that cyclists are headless hippies with a death wish as it will only serve to increase the amount of incidents between vehicles and bikes. Cyclists who would otherwise not break a light may now be inclined to give it a shot and make a bad error.

ciotog

happyman81 wrote: »

I know this will go down like a fart in an elevator in here, but, I think that adding licence plates to bikes (or some ID system for bikes) would mean a lot of cyclists wising up when it comes to breaking lights, cycling on footpaths and cycling the wrong way down one way streets, etc. As it stands, cyclists are virtually free from prosecution when it comes to traffic laws because they can't be identified easily.

Of course, the cost is the issue.

Cyclists are virtually free from prosecution because of a lack of enforcement not a lack of identification. I've watched Gardai stand by while cyclists cycled without lights at night, ran red light and cycled on the pavement. They witnessed it so no issue of identification but chose to do nothing. I've reported motorists, using their licence plates to identify them, for dangerous driving and no prosecution (or indeed contact with me) has taken place. So licence plates aren't the fabulous panacea that people seem to think they are.

check_six

seamus wrote: »

Of course, it won't do anything to quell the notion that cyclists are headless hippies with a death wish as it will only serve to increase the amount of incidents between vehicles and bikes. Cyclists who would otherwise not break a light may now be inclined to give it a shot and make a bad error.

I don't think it would necessarily increase incidents.
Put it like this, in your opinion, right now, what kind of cyclists break red lights? Answer: Bad Cyclists (boo hiss!)
What kind of cyclists obeys the rules and stops at all the red lights? Answer: Good Cyclists (hurrah!)

If the cyclists who are able to obey the regulations and are sensible are now decriminalised if they see that it is possible to sneak through a red light, I can't see any problem. The people who are already wobbling out into the middle of junctions without looking aren't causing an accident apocalypse now, so I can't see how the better cyclists will cause this in the future.

Ray Palmer

happyman81 wrote: »

I dunno, I am a pedestrian in Dublin and based on my experience, I would say most cyclists don't stop at red lights, I could name a few junctions which are notorious for psychopathic cyclists (or Psycholists, as I call them). Some do stop, but most don't. Hence when I cross at the green man, I look out for cyclists more than motorists.

A far cry from saying they don't stop at every red light. Pedestrian crossing are not ever traffic light. Next time you are at the lights see how many pedestrians follow the lights.
It isn't cyclists it everybody who ignores them to an extent. Amber gambling by cars (along with straight breaking lights) and pedestrians that cross betwen traffic and against lights. look at pedestrians going to Westmorlan Street from O'Connol Bridge and see how many ignore the lights there. Green only means go while it is safe not go regardless. Been a pedestrian in Dublin all my life and have never been nearly hit by a bike but have been walked out on by pedestrians a ton of times.

If cyclist didn't stop at any lights they would dead it really is that simple. If they did manage not to have accidents and ignored all lights then it isn't a safety concern it is about obeying a rule. I have seen many road accidents and most involve a pedestrian with cars, cars with cars and then motor bikes with cars and at the end it is cyclists and cars. On a very rare occasion I have seen a pedestrian and a cyclist and of those I have sen pedestrians walk out and be hit. From cycling pedestrians walking out ignoring cyclists a hell of a lot. I am no innocent and have made mistakes but generally I go for safety first. A lot of the complaints about cyclists breaking light is about the rule not safety from what I see. I can see why it bothers people but it is an annoyance rather than a danger make it legal and the annoyance might stop.

seamus

check_six wrote: »

What kind of cyclists obeys the rules and stops at all the red lights? Answer: Good Cyclists (hurrah!)

You see that's a little debateable. Those who obey lights would be a mixture of good conscientous cyclists and people who obey lights because they're there to be obeyed, but who otherwise have very little road sense. The prime example of this is that women cyclists are more likely to be killed than men, precisely because they tend to obey the law more.
The same effect would actually be true of cars - that when someone blindly obeys the law with very little road sense, they actually put themselves and others in danger.

My question here is whether it's safer to have these "no road sense" people sitting waiting at red lights, or allowing them to proceed?

Given that deaths often occur at red lights due to left-turning trucks, it may actually be the case that it's safer to let them proceed, we'll have to see how the Parisian experiment turns out.

happyman81

ciotog wrote: »

happyman81 wrote: »

I know this will go down like a fart in an elevator in here, but, I think that adding licence plates to bikes (or some ID system for bikes) would mean a lot of cyclists wising up when it comes to breaking lights, cycling on footpaths and cycling the wrong way down one way streets, etc. As it stands, cyclists are virtually free from prosecution when it comes to traffic laws because they can't be identified easily.

Of course, the cost is the issue.

Cyclists are virtually free from prosecution because of a lack of enforcement not a lack of identification. I've watched Gardai stand by while cyclists cycled without lights at night, ran red light and cycled on the pavement. They witnessed it so no issue of identification but chose to do nothing. I've reported motorists, using their licence plates to identify them, for dangerous driving and no prosecution (or indeed contact with me) has taken place. So licence plates aren't the fabulous panacea that people seem to think they are.

But the fact that people *think* they are is exactly my point, and is the very reason why it would work.

Think about it.

Idleater

seamus wrote: »

Given that deaths often occur at red lights due to left-turning trucks, it may actually be the case that it's safer to let them proceed, we'll have to see how the Parisian experiment turns out.

Unless they decide to continue "up the inside" because they "have right of way" when it is unsafe to do so.

Again, this highlights that there is no "right" answer to this as people will do silly things whether it is legal or not, and whether they know it is safe or not.

monument

Would it be just pandering to the people who are currently breaking the law?

Could the same point could be made about flashing lights up to the recent law change?

The newly announced review of speed limits which is likely to see speed limits increased on some road... is that just pandering to the people currently breaking the law?

What changing mandatory use of cycle lanes, is that too just pandering to the people who are currently breaking the law?

Is allowing cyclists to park on footpaths also pandering to cyclists when nobody else can legally park on a footpath?

manwithaplan wrote: »

It's not clear if they propose to allow cyclists go straight ahead at a red light at all junctions in the 30kph zone. I can see the sense of allowing cyclists go through a pedestrian light on a straight road (essentially treating it as a zebra crossing) or to go straight ahead on red at a T junction, giving way to traffic coming from the left (right in our case). I can also see the sense of allowing a cyclist go straight ahead at a junction between two one-way streets, again giving way to peds and traffic coming from the left. Allowing cyclists go straight ahead at junctions with traffic coming from both directions seems likely to cause antagonism at best and be dangerous at worst.

It's at certain, marked junctions only. Each junction could differ.

And it's not purely allowing cyclists to "run lights", it also involves giving cyclists an amber / orange filter turning light, rather than only a red one.

Rew

Its common sense and should be implemented. The and Us ****e is vocal minority who dont know the rules of the road them selfs to be beseeching them via their car horn and a change like this wont effect that either way.

manwithaplan

monument wrote: »

And it's not purely allowing cyclists to "run lights", it also involves giving cyclists an amber / orange filter turning light, rather than only a red one.

Thanks. This suggested otherwise but I imagine you have sources other than the Daily Mail.

The official justification for the new rule reads: ‘Experience shows that adding specific traffic lights for cyclists can create confusion for motorists.’

Tenzor07

Interesting video here.. though seems to be a lot of sensors on top of traffic lights which would be great fun altogether trying to line yourself up with it on a bike!

Peetrik

The law finally catching up with common sense.

Ninap

Peetrik wrote: »

The law finally catching up with common sense.

Yeah. I had a thread closed couple of weeks ago for daring to say that a cyclist can generally judge when it's safe to traverse a junction. Think of the lunacy of cars waiting at red lights at deserted junctions every night. The lights shd be flashing amber when there are few vehicles and people shd be encouraged to observe, and proceed safely.

Peetrik

Ninap wrote: »

Yeah. I had a thread closed couple of weeks ago for daring to say that a cyclist can generally judge when it's safe to traverse a junction. Think of the lunacy of cars waiting at red lights at deserted junctions every night. The lights shd be flashing amber when there are few vehicles and people shd be encouraged to observe, and proceed safely.

Oh don't get me wrong. Lights for cars are a good idea. Cyclists however have a much better field of vision, move much slower and present nowhere near the danger that a car does. While they should be legally responsible if they cause an accident (in exactly the same way as a pedestrian) I think they should be free to yield at their own discretion

monument

It is worth also making clear that currently if you have break a light (defined as passing the stop line or the first traffic light where there is no stop line) and then you get hit or you hit somebody you can be easily be found to be fully at fault or close to fully at fault.

seve65

its not really a cycling problem per se. traffic lights, signs etc actually cause more problems than they solve. So I wouldnt get hung up on the individual pros and cons of cyclist behaviour and think more in terms of all road users and how allowing individual responsibility and how embracing peoples natural wish not to get hurt is more effective than traffic systems which encourage abuse e.g trying to blast through before a light turns red thinking thats still safe driving because its legal.

www.crystal-claims.co.uk/road-accident-news/road-sign-removal-reduces-accidents.html

Sean02

Crazy idea. See Spain have allowed cycling on outside of cars in inner cities that have 30kph limits. also bikes and motorbikes allowed use hard shoulder. All good business for insurance companies and hospitals.

anthony_walsh

I am based close to Bordeaux where the scheme has also been rolled out. Have had no exposure to it yet but I'll post about how its going once I get a chance ie when snow clears.

http:www.coffeeandcrosswinds.blogspot.com

Stark

Shifting the emphasis back towards observation seems like a good idea imo. Things have been getting a bit crazy lately. A perfect example is a right turn into my work carpark. You have to sit at a red light and wait for a filter light while traffic going ahead has a green light despite there being very little traffic coming against you and often stretches of 3-4 minutes with not a single car coming against you. If motorists/cyclists supposedly can't be trusted to make such a simple right turn without the assistance of a filter light, how are they supposed to manage getting round in general?

tomasrojo

Sean02 wrote: »

Crazy idea. See Spain have allowed cycling on outside of cars in inner cities that have 30kph limits. also bikes and motorbikes allowed use hard shoulder. All good business for insurance companies and hospitals.

If the law in Spain is at all similar to here, then you can cycle on the outside of any vehicle you like, provided you can go fast enough, or they're going slowly enough.

The use of hard shoulders by bicycles here is a legally grey area, but cyclists generally use them where available, and I understand that the introduction of hard shoulders led to a drop in cyclist deaths on inter-urban roads, so they're far from a death trap.

galwaycyclist

Sean02 wrote: »

Crazy idea. See Spain have allowed cycling on outside of cars in inner cities that have 30kph limits. also bikes and motorbikes allowed use hard shoulder. All good business for insurance companies and hospitals.

Yes you're right. In Ireland the use of hard shoulders in the 1970s was reported as being associated with a 50% reduction in cycling accidents so that should save the inurance companies and the hospitals a good bit of money.

Next thing you know Ireland will make legal for cyclists to cycle on the inside of cars.

enas

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Like two-way cycling on one way.streets- the fact that this isnt being provided here is a sign of official antagonism towards cyclists that we should be highlighting rather than something we should keep quiet about for the sake of peace.

Exactly this. Well said.

On the subject, the next step would be to allow cars too to run at red, or, more simply to switch traffic lights off. There was a nice video on YouTube (can't find the link), giving real arguments in favour of doing this. It tends to be more and more accepted (sorry, no time for links) that traffic lights don't help as much as common sense would dictate (of course traffic light free junctions need to be designed differently).

doozerie

seamus wrote: »

The prime example of this is that women cyclists are more likely to be killed than men, precisely because they tend to obey the law more

This gets bandied about as a fact quite often despite the fact that it is really no more than questionable speculation. The following quote from that article is about as informative as the article gets on the justification for that supposed conclusion:

The study states: ‘Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.’

...there are a number of "conclusions" that could be drawn from the fact that a greater proportion of women were killed by a lorry, one of which is that the women died because they obeyed the lights, another is that they died because they were not aware of the blind spot, another is that the lorries drivers simply don't look, etc., but none of these conclusions stand up to any kind of scrutiny. The idea that the women died because they obeyed the lights is simply a theory, no more, yet bizarrely it is widely presented as a definitive fact.

Whatever about that dubious "result" of the study though, there is a more recent study which presents some interesting statistics (real data, which is largely absent from the articles I've seen about the older study). The older study referred to above spans the period 1999 to 2004, the newer one spans the period 1986 to 2010. Here are some relevant snippets (for info, P/C = Pedal Cycle):

Figure 2 shows P/C casualties by gender in Greater London from 1986 to 2010. The greatest proportion of P/C casualties was male, with an average of 79% per year over this period. The male-female split has remained fairly constant throughout this time.

The most common conflict in collisions which resulted in serious injury to a cyclist involved the other vehicle turning right across the path of the oncoming cyclist. This accounted for 52 out of 456 (11%) of the serious collisions.

The second most common conflicts both had 48 collisions (11%) and involved the cyclist and other vehicle travelling alongside each other and the door of the other vehicle being opened into the path of the P/C and the cyclist either hitting it or being injured when swerving to avoid it. A further 41 collisions (9%) involved the other vehicle turning left across the path of the pedal cyclist.

A total of 67 collisions (15%) involved the other vehicle disobeying the junction control and either going straight across the path of the cyclist (6%), turning right into the path of the cyclist (5%), or turning left into the cyclist’s path (4%).

In just over two thirds (67%) of serious P/C collisions the main conflict was between the cyclist and a car. Goods vehicles were involved in 13% of collisions resulting in serious injury to a P/C.

Cars were by far the most common vehicle involved in collisions where a cyclist was injured, representing 74% of the other vehicles involved. This was the case for all severities and for male and female casualties.

After cars, goods vehicles, buses/coaches and taxis were the most common vehicles involved in P/C collisions.

And here is another relevant quote from another Transport for London report:

4.8.4 Research whether different genders behave differently around HGV vehicles.

In November 2010, TfL undertook marketing research as part of the „undertaking lorries at junctions can be fatal‟ campaign. The research indicated that there was no difference between men's and women's propensity to always or regularly hang back behind lorries at
junctions (41per cent and 40 per cent respectively). However, men were almost twice as likely as women (20 per cent as opposed to 11per cent) to cycle up the inside of lorries at traffic lights but female cyclists are generally less likely to take deliberate risks on the road. Frequent cyclists of either gender were more likely than infrequent cyclists to take risks with HGVs.

There is nothing definitive in those reports either, but there is certainly enough there to raise some serious questions about that the validity of that supposed conclusion from the earlier report.

Edit: I put in the wrong link for the newer report above, I've now corrected it. That'll teach me to post in the small hours of the morning! The link I had posted was to a different TfL report that might interest people though, so here is that link again.

DirkVoodoo

seve65 wrote: »

its not really a cycling problem per se. traffic lights, signs etc actually cause more problems than they solve. So I wouldnt get hung up on the individual pros and cons of cyclist behaviour and think more in terms of all road users and how allowing individual responsibility and how embracing peoples natural wish not to get hurt is more effective than traffic systems which encourage abuse e.g trying to blast through before a light turns red thinking thats still safe driving because its legal.

www.crystal-claims.co.uk/road-accident-news/road-sign-removal-reduces-accidents.html

True. Cycling around Sydney has been a real eye opener in terms of poor infrastructure. I've had more near misses here than I ever had in Dublin, it's really not a nice city to cycle in.

I head up/down Kent street most days, it's an alternating one-way to two-way street with a two way, segregated bike lane. Great, you might think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dnWjyySxQs

Nearly every day I have one of the above run ins with a pedestrian, unless I get off and walk all I can do is keep my eyes peeled and shout. Most people are looking at traffic and not at the lane, it's just another sidewalk really.

Anyway, on topic, there are cycling specific lights at all the intersections. Some give you a little headstart ahead of traffic, others are just blocked by trees and or/signage. It's actually a lot safer just to use you own judgement and cross without the lights as you are moving with traffic. Pedestrians tend to ignore the cycling only traffic filter, I had someone scream "it's a red light, fa**ot" at me the other day (don't worry, I got him back with an equally inaccurate retort) as I slowed down and passed around a girl who decided to casually cross in front of me as I had a green light.

I can't see why motorists would be irate, if the law changes and you go through a red light, you are no longer breaking the law. they might be shocked at some of the judgement-calls, but that is at the cyclist's own risk.

To be honest, I can only see it making things better, if people are legally allowed to "pass through" a red light, maybe they will take extra care doing so . Doesn't hurt to try it I suppose, the idiots will get mashed regardless.

Yes, my red light breaking has increased while I have moved over here, the only incidents I have are on supposed "cycling friendly facilities", where I am at the mercy of ipod wearing office workers and left turning traffic into off-street garages.

ciotog

doozerie wrote: »

And here is another relevant quote from another Transport for London report:

That's an excellent document, would love (+1) to see an equivalent document produced over here. The contributory factor sections makes for very interesting reading.

rich.d.berry

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Interesting video here.. though seems to be a lot of sensors on top of traffic lights which would be great fun altogether trying to line yourself up with it on a bike!

Nice tip, I never thought they'd be sensitive enough to pick up a bike. Will try this as there's a light near my home that works this way. It won't help with a carbon frame and rims though.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Nearly every day I have one of the above run ins with a pedestrian

Do you have a bell?

Tenzor07

rich.d.berry wrote: »

It won't help with a carbon frame and rims though.

Just lay your bike flat along the edge of the side of the traffic light loop, it will pick up the metal in the handlebars or the spokes!

Doctor Bob

anthony_walsh wrote: »

I am based close to Bordeaux where the scheme has also been rolled out. Have had no exposure to it yet but I'll post about how its going once I get a chance ie when snow clears.

In the meantime, here are a few photos from Nantes, taken a couple of weeks before christmas 2011:

~50 metres before a junction:


At the junction:


Just around the corner from the junction (and relating to the set of lights in the middle distance):


Though this is for 'right on red' only, not straight ahead on red. I didn't see any signs permitting the straight ahead movement on red.