Caught running red light

unichall

To answer an earlier question:

If the guard suspects you are/have given false details they then have the power to seize your bike and you can collect it at the garda station when you produce a valid form of id so its a big risk, especially if you did give false information because that is another issue when you provide your real id

RayCun

Laker04 wrote: »

I wouldn't think so. The junction between Terenure and Rathfarnham at the Dodder has a green man with a bike that comes on with the green pedestrian lights that come on simultaneously over the four roads at the junction. The question is why aren't more junctions laid out like this? e.g. the one further up the road at Kenilworth.

Because that's connecting cycle paths on either side of the road. If you're on a bike at the junction going east/west, you have a choice
- use the off-road cycle lane, and cross with the pedestrian lights
- cycle on the road, and obey the same lights as the cars

You shouldn't be on the road and crossing with the pedestrian lights, or on the path and crossing with the main traffic lights (though I do the latter all the time)

Green&Red

buffalo wrote: »

What about other cyclists? What about car traffic that wants to enter a destination on the left? Like a parking spot, or the hospice?

From looking at the junction (presuming it's the Y-fork here: http://goo.gl/maps/0b3my), the bus lane is absent on the far side of the junction, so any traffic would be entitled to be in that space, and would probably not be watching for someone breaking a traffic light.

Of course, were you to commute through that junction regularly from the Terenure direction, you'd regularly encounter idiots who believe they are breaking the light 'safely' and are unaware of the manoeuvres other road users are performing in order not to hit them. Or at least, that's my experience.

I suppose it comes down to your definition of safely, presonally I treat it as a yield sign and keep a good eye on traffic from terenure. That would mean not out in the middle of the road obstructing others.

And yes I'm fully aware I'm breaking the rules of the road

I'd be more concerned with the craziness that goes on further down that road from the law abiding drivers and cyclists

logically

beauf wrote: »

If its utter madness, what's your thoughts on it being legal in other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/sep/27/new-law-lets-cyclists-go-through-stalled-red-light/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9067129/Paris-cyclists-given-right-to-break-traffic-laws.html
http://road.cc/content/news/52423-paris-gives-green-light-trial-scheme-allow-red-light-jumping-cyclists

Breaking red lights isn't a black and white issue. If was extremely dangerous, because there are so many who do it, it would be carnage on the streets. But there isn't. So this isn't about danger (at least not all of the time) its about following the rules/laws. They changed the law about cyclist staying in the cycling lane. Rather than have mindless enforcement one week a year. Perhaps it should be re looked at the cause and effect of it.

What on earth are you citing other laws for? I don't care about the law in other countries.

The plain simple fact is, I am a cyclist and I am obliged to follow the rules of the road like any other road user. I will not break a red light. I will not put myself or other road users in danger. Ignoring the rules of the road is just dickhead behaviour as far as I'm concerned. Breaking red lights simply tarnishes all cyclists - law abiding ones or non.

Laker04

RayCun wrote: »

Because that's connecting cycle paths on either side of the road. If you're on a bike at the junction going east/west, you have a choice
- use the off-road cycle lane, and cross with the pedestrian lights
- cycle on the road, and obey the same lights as the cars

You shouldn't be on the road and crossing with the pedestrian lights, or on the path and crossing with the main traffic lights (though I do the latter all the time)

Mmmm, will have to give that junction a closer look at next time I go through it.

I'd be more concerned with the craziness that goes on further down that road from the law abiding drivers and cyclists

Cars in the right hand lane cutting back into the left hand lane at the lights?

BrianHenryIE

logically wrote: »

What on earth are you citing other laws for? I don't care about the law in other countries.

The plain simple fact is, I am a cyclist and I am obliged to follow the rules of the road like any other road user. I will not break a red light. I will not put myself or other road users in danger. Ignoring the rules of the road is just dickhead behaviour as far as I'm concerned. Breaking red lights simply tarnishes all cyclists - law abiding ones or non.

So how do you feel about people who didn't strictly use bike lanes before the law was changed last year? "Dickhead behaviour"?

Zyzz

There are some people that sign up JUST to post in threads like this..sad sad sad

Hmmzis

brian.henry wrote: »

So how do you feel about people who didn't strictly use bike lanes before the law was changed last year? "Dickhead behaviour"?

That would be a different matter entirely. There were court cases about that and basically the rulings invalidated the compulsory cycle lane clause long before the law was changed.

BrianHenryIE

Hmmzis wrote: »

That would be a different matter entirely. There were court cases about that and basically the rulings invalidated the compulsory cycle lane clause long before the law was changed.

So we're agreed that the rules of the road aren't always correct! And I think "I am obliged to follow the rules" is a pathetic attitude.

Now we can discuss the links posted by beauf, primarily: cars turning left (equivalent) through pedestrian crossings. If this is considered safe in other countries, it seems reasonable that we could adopt it. At least for cyclists.

buffalo

brian.henry wrote: »

And I think "I am obliged to follow the rules" is a pathetic attitude.

It's true, obeying red lights is the equivalent of the Nuremburg defence of "I was only following orders". Well done on standing up to the red light dictators!

ROK ON

This type of thread really gets up my nose.

Why do people take such huge offense as to what other people do?
Break the light/don't break the light - unless you endanger someone it is no one elses business.

Sometimes I stop at red lights and other cyclists don't - other times I break red lights and other cyclists don't. As long as I take responsibility for my actions I don't see why anyone else should care.

On this site we have seen an increase in posts by regulars that are ranting about the act that so random stranger passed them and continued thru the red lights FFS. Cop on. This country is fubar - there are huge issues if injustice at present. Get angry about something meaningful and not trivial.

Rant over.

BrianHenryIE

buffalo wrote: »

It's true, obeying red lights is the equivalent of the Nuremburg defence of "I was only following orders". Well done on standing up to the red light dictators!

It's a bit closer to "Computer says no".

tayto lover

AstraMonti wrote: »

I 've heard they 're thrown into a crocodile pit. That'll teach them :pac:

The fat lad eat three crocodiles before they could get him out.:D

gk5000

How did the guards catch them?

Surely the right idea would be to cycle on. What are they going to do - call out the helicopter?

(I'm an occasional cyclist and would not be over concerned about the actual status of the lights, just whether its safe to proceed or not. The roads/lighsts were not designed to accomodate cyclists so you have to adjust)

ROK ON

gk5000 wrote: »

How did the guards catch them?

Surely the right idea would be to cycle on. What are they going to do - call out the helicopter?

(I'm an occasional cyclist and would not be over concerned about the actual status of the lights, just whether its safe to proceed or not. The roads/lighsts were not designed to accomodate cyclists so you have to adjust)

I was caught a few years back because a garda on foot shouted at me to stop and I stupidly obeyed.

Dermot Illogical

gk5000 wrote: »

Surely the right idea would be to cycle on. What are they going to do - call out the helicopter?

Let's see... Either get into/onto their own mode of transport and catch up, or use their radio to get someone ahead to do it. That's how it normally works.
Then you miss your dinner.

jimd2

ROK ON wrote: »

This type of thread really gets up my nose.

Why do people take such huge offense as to what other people do?
Break the light/don't break the light - unless you endanger someone it is no one elses business.

Sometimes I stop at red lights and other cyclists don't - other times I break red lights and other cyclists don't. As long as I take responsibility for my actions I don't see why anyone else should care.

On this site we have seen an increase in posts by regulars that are ranting about the act that so random stranger passed them and continued thru the red lights FFS. Cop on. This country is fubar - there are huge issues if injustice at present. Get angry about something meaningful and not trivial.

Rant over.

So it's a trivial issue. Your comments sum up the attitude of the many cyclists that break red lights and put their and other lives and property in danger on a daily basis.

There are, of course, other injustices out there but carte blanche approach to the rules of the road is not something that should be swept under the carpet as you are suggesting. I commute in and out of Dublin and I would say that about a third of cyclists blatantly break every light where they can get away with it. About another third occasionally break lights and about another third don't break the lights.

gk5000

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Let's see... Either get into/onto their own mode of transport and catch up, or use their radio to get someone ahead to do it. That's how it normally works.
Then you miss your dinner.

Yes, maybe if they are on a bike also, but otherwise cant really see it.

And hope they realise there is lots more important things than chasing bikes.

ROK ON

I witness buses, cars, cyclists regularly breaking the rules.

I only care if I see that it puts someone in danger. Of course it is wrong - but if for example a bus breaks a light at an empty junction with absolutely no one around then yes they have broken the law but no one was put at risk.

It is entirely different if people are endangered. My point is that if I am stopped at a light and someone decides to break the light - that is their lookout. Not mine. If they die - tough. If they hurt someone or drive into the side of a car who had the right of way - then they courts should deal with them as harshly as the law allows.

It does not impact on me or you.

IRLConor

brian.henry wrote: »

cars turning left (equivalent) through pedestrian crossings. If this is considered safe in other countries, it seems reasonable that we could adopt it. At least for cyclists.

When we can trust the vast majority* of cyclists to yield to the pedestrians crossing then by all means, yes. My own experiences would suggest that we can't do something like that right now, it would only make a bad situation worse.

* I'd prefer all but hey, there are always assholes.

Laker04

gk5000 wrote: »

How did the guards catch them?

Surely the right idea would be to cycle on. What are they going to do - call out the helicopter?

(I'm an occasional cyclist and would not be over concerned about the actual status of the lights, just whether its safe to proceed or not. The roads/lighsts were not designed to accomodate cyclists so you have to adjust)

Guard just pulled in the 5 of them outside the Spar from what I was told. Noticed a guard (singular, no pushbike, motorbike or car and no one further up the road) on the other side of that junction a couple of months ago myself. I suppose you could chance it and then play the "sorry, I didn't see/hear you" if they call out the helicopter. :P

magicbastarder

ROK ON wrote: »

It does not impact on me or you.

pun intended?

Paddigol

ROK ON wrote: »

It does not impact on me or you.

It does if it affects how cyclists are perceived by other road users. It does if it leads to or reinforces a prevailing attitude of "f***ing cyclists - cut them off, shout at them, push them over to the kerb - they deserve it and everyone agrees".

And when I'm driving a car, I don't want to be the one who hits a cyclist due to their breaking lights, not indicating or swerving in and out of traffic at speed. I don't want that on my conscience thanks, and I don't think the attitude of each to their own helps.

I agree with you to a point though, in so far as I'd like to be able to adopt the attitude described by one of Morana's posts above - just ignore them and enjoy your cycle. But it does bug a lot of people and I don't think it's fair to chastise them for venting in a thread for that purpose in a cycling forum! Yes, there are bigger issues facing the country right now. If I feel aggrieved, I'll pop over to the appropriate forum and vent there too.

I would like to see the rules of the road overhauled in so far as they apply to cyclists - things like allowing cyclists to break certain red lights at certain times - as they seem to do in other countries. The issue isn't that red lights should NEVER be broken - it's that people should be able to safely assume, when they go through a green light, that they're not going to plow into someone breaking a red light from a different direction. Which is how things stand at present.

Santa Cruz

Stheno wrote: »

Merrion Square could benefit from this, it's madness in the morning

It's nothing like 'Nam. You weren't there Man, You weren't there

Macy0161

Deedsie wrote: »

Great to hear, any chance Gardaí would come out and police the Merrion Road, Rock Road. Traffic lights might as well not even be there by the behaviour of 90% of cyclists running straight through red lights. Head wrecking.

I've only been commuting on my bike a few weeks on that route, but in my experience most cyclists do stop for the lights at most lights on the Rock/ Merrion Road. You wouldn't have shoaling if people didn't stop for the lights.

On the general point - to me it's a bit ridiculous that, as things stand, a cyclist is looking at €200 plus (and court costs), whereas a motorist gets an €80 fixed penalty. If they can get enough, correct, details to issue a summons, they have enough details to issue a fixed penalty notice imo. iirc, cyclists giving false information is the excuse used for not moving to the proposed fixed penalties. Do the crime, pay the fine, but it's disproportionate at the moment.

Jawgap

Santa Cruz wrote: »

It's nothing like 'Nam. You weren't there Man, You weren't there

I love the smell of cycling madness in the morning. You know, one time we cycled for 12 hours and didn't stop for one red light.

When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' Garda. The smell, you know that burning rubber smell, the whole hill. Smelled like........victory.

Someday they're going to start giving out fixed penalty notices for that.......

galwaycyclist

ROK ON wrote: »

It does not impact on me or you.

The problem is that it does indirectly. There are people out there who volunteer time to lobby to improve the legal situation for cyclists, or improve infrastructure provision, or improve traffic management so that it benefits cyclists.

In many cases when they sit down with politicians one of the first thing they will get thrown in their faces will be that "cyclists are only a bunch of lawbreakers and why should anyone do anything for them?"

Its like trying to represent the travelling community, the behaviour of some members creates all kinds of baggage that really doesn't help efforts to improve things.

guttenberg

Macy0161 wrote: »

On the general point - to me it's a bit ridiculous that, as things stand, a cyclist is looking at €200 plus (and court costs), whereas a motorist gets an €80 fixed penalty. If they can get enough, correct, details to issue a summons, they have enough details to issue a fixed penalty notice imo. iirc, cyclists giving false information is the excuse used for not moving to the proposed fixed penalties. Do the crime, pay the fine, but it's disproportionate at the moment.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the cyclist wouldn't get penalty points for running the red like a motorist would. PP's could lead to the motorist penalised further in other ways - insurance hikes etc. Would you be in favour of cyclists getting similar treatment re. PP's and fines instead?

Grayditch

Sweet, delicious justice. Now they'll turn on each other. Muhahahahahaha.

Etc...

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

It does not impact on me or you.

It certainly does. The abuse we get from some motorists doesn't come from nowhere. So every idiot breaking the lights is, in their own small way, contributing to some innocent cyclist getting shouted at or swerved at.

But more importantly, seeing someone getting hit by a car would definitely impact on me. Nearly every week I see at least one person come close to an accident by breaking the lights. I'm fairly sure most haven't deliberately decided to endanger themselves and they thought what they were doing was safe.

the.red.baron

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The problem is that it does indirectly. There are people out there who volunteer time to lobby to improve the legal situation for cyclists, or improve infrastructure provision, or improve traffic management so that it benefits cyclists.

In many cases when they sit down with politicians one of the first thing they will get thrown in their faces will be that "cyclists are only a bunch of lawbreakers and why should anyone do anything for them?"

Its like trying to represent the travelling community, the behaviour of some members creates all kinds of baggage that really doesn't help efforts to improve things.

Do they claim that Motorists are a bunch of law breakers when people are lobbying for them? And the travelers do a bang up job lobbying despite the perceived issues. So maybe we should hire them, Open Pavee Point? Anyone?

the.red.baron

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

It certainly does. The abuse we get from some motorists doesn't come from nowhere. So every idiot breaking the lights is, in their own small way, contributing to some innocent cyclist getting shouted at or swerved at.

But more importantly, seeing someone getting hit by a car would definitely impact on me. Nearly every week I see at least one person come close to an accident by breaking the lights. I'm fairly sure most haven't deliberately decided to endanger themselves and they thought what they were doing was safe.

I've seen people hit at roundabouts at petrol stations at slips roads, it just makes me wary of these things, just like I am wary of red lights and will cross them when I decide it is safe to do so. Just as pedestrians and motorsists also do.

I must have broken lets see, between 30 and 40 thousand red lights at this stage and I have never ever come close to an accident.

T junctions, left turns on red and pedestrian lights are fair game and I'll take the odd dose of a abuse about not cycling in the cycle lane for it any day.

Chips Lovell

the.red.baron wrote: »

I must have broken lets see, between 30 and 40 thousand red lights at this stage and I have never ever come close to an accident.

As I said, in most cases they seem to have no idea they were even in danger, e.g. not even noticing that someone had to hit the brakes.

Oink

Yeah that's how laws work best alright. They are guidelines, which we can all be applied or not according to our best judgement, unless of course they are stupid in which case they are legally invalid.

Let me quote from the rules suggestions of the road: "It is best to stop at red lights unless of course you think it's safe to proceed in which case you're grand".

Kav0777

Oink wrote: »

Yeah that's how laws work best alright. They are guidelines, which we can all be applied or not according to our best judgement, unless of course they are stupid in which case they are legally invalid.

Let me quote from the rules suggestions of the road: "It is best to stop at red lights unless of course you think it's safe to proceed and not get caught in which case you're grand".

FYP

Macy0161

guttenberg wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong but the cyclist wouldn't get penalty points for running the red like a motorist would. PP's could lead to the motorist penalised further in other ways - insurance hikes etc. Would you be in favour of cyclists getting similar treatment re. PP's and fines instead?

2 points do not impact on insurance premiums negatively with most insurers. The danger to other road users is much greater if a motorised vehicle breaks a light than if a cyclist does, so it would be proportionate to have it a lesser penalty anyway in my opinion (and that's what's actually proposed - a €50 fixed penalty).

I'm a pedestrian, cyclist and motorist (like most people on here I'd imagine, and for me personally my mileage as car driver is higher than the former two) - if I was crossing a pedestrian crossing, obviously I'd rather no one broke the lights/ hit me, but if some vehicle was I'd rather take my chances with a bicycle than a motorbike or car thanks!

Macy0161

the.red.baron wrote: »

So maybe we should hire them, Open Pavee Point? Anyone?

Pavé Point?

buffalo

Oink wrote: »

Yeah that's how laws work best alright. They are guidelines, which we can all be applied or not according to our best judgement, unless of course they are stupid in which case they are legally invalid.

Let me quote from the rules suggestions of the road: "It is best to stop at red lights unless of course you think it's safe to proceed in which case you're grand".

That reminds me of a boring anecdote I want to recall. I was heading out a spin one morning a couple of weeks ago, about 6.15am at this junction: http://goo.gl/maps/AjJvu

I arrived to find about five vehicles in the straight-ahead lane, and none in the left-turn lane. Lights were red. A taxi pulled out from the line of traffic, into the left-turn lane and up to the lights. He then proceeded to drive through the red light and across the junction. All perfectly "safe", and therefore "fine".

At this point, everyone else decided the lights must be broken (including myself), and started driving through the junction as well. At which point two things happened - a Garda car on the other side of the junction started flashing the blue lights, and pulled over some poor sod who had broken the lights in the opposite direction, while the original taxi drove away scot-free. And the second thing was that the lights changed to green.

So. Given that nobody got hurt, and everything was fine and safe, should anyone have been sanctioned for this farce?

Deedsie

Personally I always stop when the lights are red. I'd like to see them introduce filter lights for cyclists maybe for example along the Merrion road/Nutley Lane junction heading southbound. No real reasons for cyclists to stop here.

At the various pedestrian crossings, if it is safe to proceed, do so with caution. However until they could be installed I will obey the rules of the road and not break red lights. I'd be pissed off if a car broke a red light. What gives some cyclists the perception they are somehow a special case that lights don't affect them? Wait your turn to continue with your journey. And when the light is green proceed. I love every story I hear of cyclists getting caught out for this! I know it won't affect me so €200 is a perfectly reasonable fine.

dave_o_brien

There have been trials in the UK regarding "Naked Streets", where traffic lights and signage is removed. Results suggest that drivers are far more cautious. I read a convincing article about the reasons for it in an urbanism journal a number of years ago, which I can't find, but here's some mainstream news regarding same:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072259

I would support the removal of a large number of traffic lights in urban environments. Road users tend to view a green light as "Go ahead now, it's your turn to accelerate to the speed limit". Remove these and you find a lot more caution being exercised.

NeedMoreGears

I think one of the "problems" with red lights is that, in theory if not in practice, they completely remove the road users "judgement" from the equation. It's not just that instruct the road user as to what to do (all road signs etc do that to a certain extent) ; they tell you to stop. Dont go, dont move - it doesn't matter if the road is clear, it's raining, you're late for work - just stop and wait. Now.

But - that is the basic idea. Remove the judgement element. There is no decision for the road user, simply an obligation to comply. In other walks of life people don't like being ordered about in such a manner

The tricky bit is the green light - although its a proceed if safe, most people are pre-disposed to assuming it's safe and proceed through the light. They are not generally looking out for those who might be breaking the red and coming across the junction. They should be perhaps, but that's not how it works in practice in my experience.

Hence, in my view, exercising "judgement" as to whether to break a red light is significantly more dangerous than say proceeding through a yield sign. As more and more road users begin to exercise judgement, the quality of such judgement inevitably deteriorates leading to more potentially dangerous interactions.

It could be argued that filtering left on red is relatively safe and that may well be the case - but only when it becomes normal accepted practice and those who have the green light are conditioned to be aware that someone may filter from the left; i.e when the appropriate regulation is in place to permit such a manoeuvre and when road users have been made aware of such a regulation change.

I'm seeing more bikes coming through red lights several seconds after the lights turn red and just about making it before the traffic in the other direction begins to enter the junction. I rarely see motor vehicles stop on amber (which is an instruction to stop unless it is unsafe to do so) and increasingly see motor vehicles moving through reds. Same with pedestrians. There seems be an on-going erosion of the safety margins built in to the sequencing of traffic lights which suggests we are potentially heading for increased injury rates - we are already at the annoying/near miss stage. I am unaware of the statistics related to accidents at traffic lights so I can't prove the above but it woudl be my sense (maybe I'm just getting old)

Paddigol

The above two posts sum things up nicely for me - they would be my views and experience also. Nothing sensational, just a problem that needs addressing rather than ignoring. Bike filters, or permitting cyclists and pedestrians to move through red lights in clearly described and restricted circumstances could well be part of the solution. As could removing a number of traffic lights from junctions where they are clearly (to me anyway) not needed.

CramCycle

Just to point out the obvious but the people pulled over for running the red, were clearly not paying enough attention to even be considered as having proceeded safely. They missed a Garda, waiting for them, proves the point that they were not breaking the red safely/with due care and attention.

dave_o_brien

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to point out the obvious but the people pulled over for running the red, were clearly not paying enough attention to even be considered as having proceeded safely. They missed a Garda, waiting for them, proves the point that they were not breaking the red safely/with due care and attention.

This. I think that trying to excuse red light jumping by saying "the streets would operate better without them" is pretty arrogant. While they are there, they should be respected, while exercising the judgement Need More Gears talks about.

Paddigol

Without wanting to become a Pedantic Pat; it doesn't really prove the point if the Garda was observing them from behind in a car - marked or unmarked. And a Garda on foot ahead of the lights can easily be missed if the cyclist is in fact taking due care and attention by paying more attention to any cars or pedestrians that may cross his/ her path.

Oink

Huh. So apparently you can't trust every single driver to user proper judgement when picking which rules of the road to respect. Who would have thunk.

jameshayes

From a daily motorcyclist, occasional cyclist and common car driver:

I, at all times, but my safety at the forefront of all my movements, which includes breaking some red lights when cycling - if I'm turning right and there are no cars immediately behind me I'm a sitting duck with the chance of a car coming up and rolling me over - so in this circumstance I'd break the light. Or if there is a green pedestrian light and no pedestrians in the near vicinity I'll slow down and roll through..

Just yesterday I stopped at a pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian was approaching and I was nearly wiped out by the cyclist behind who was planning to sail through

monument

dave_o_brien wrote: »

There have been trials in the UK regarding "Naked Streets", where traffic lights and signage is removed. Results suggest that drivers are far more cautious. I read a convincing article about the reasons for it in an urbanism journal a number of years ago, which I can't find, but here's some mainstream news regarding same:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072259

I would support the removal of a large number of traffic lights in urban environments. Road users tend to view a green light as "Go ahead now, it's your turn to accelerate to the speed limit". Remove these and you find a lot more caution being exercised.

And one of the prime examples, Exhibition Road, isn't working out too well:

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

RayCun

My guess is that 'naked streets' would be okay when there is a lot of pedestrian or cycle traffic in different directions. Then car drivers know they have to slow down. But if most of the traffic is travelling along one axis, then they will develop their own 'lanes' for pedestrians, bikes, and cars, and you're back to a regular street.
Like if you opened Grafton street to cars (and bikes) during the day, one-way only, but otherwise a naked street. At the start, cars would travel at walking speed because everyone would be in their way. But the more cars use the road, the more pedestrians would avoid the centre of the street, so the cars would go faster, so more cars would use it....
Maybe if you put down cobblestones or speed bumps every 5m so cars could never go more than 10kph?

dave_o_brien

monument wrote: »

And one of the prime examples, Exhibition Road, isn't working out too well:

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

The idea of naked streets is fine. They have been operated successfully in many locations. There are a few things wrong with that example, mainly to do with street width, selective videoing and providing bollards.