red lights

Serious discussion of cycling issues
User avatar
MattC59
Posts: 5591
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 09:13 am

Postby MattC59 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 13:15 pm

spen666 wrote:
MattC59 wrote:Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’.


not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

which is why it says OR, not AND
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Postby spen666 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 13:45 pm

MattC59 wrote:
spen666 wrote:
MattC59 wrote:Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’.


not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

which is why it says OR, not AND


There is no OR if you are a cyclist. There is no option to give penalty points
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

User avatar
MattC59
Posts: 5591
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 09:13 am

Postby MattC59 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 14:49 pm

spen666 wrote:
MattC59 wrote:
spen666 wrote:
MattC59 wrote:Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’.


not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

which is why it says OR, not AND


There is no OR if you are a cyclist. There is no option to give penalty points

That's why there's also a comma. The option for a cyclist is to be fined.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Postby spen666 » Fri Jul 15, 2011 17:09 pm

The comma is irrelevant the simple fact is that cyclists cannot be given penalty points for cycling offences.

You can add whatever punctuation you like, it doesn't change the legal position.

Oh and in certain circumstances, a cyclist can be disqualified from driving as well as fined
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

User avatar
MattC59
Posts: 5591
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 09:13 am

Postby MattC59 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 19:18 pm

^^ But a cyclist can be fined, as stated.
Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Postby spen666 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 19:40 pm

MattC59 wrote:^^ But a cyclist can be fined, as stated.


no ne is disputing that are they?
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

Mouth
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 23:08 pm

Postby Mouth » Thu Jul 21, 2011 22:56 pm

A prosecution can be bought about on the basis of the Highway Code though can't it? If for instance you sailed through a red light and collided with a pedestrian causing serious injury or even death (I reckon its possible) then judge and jury would find some way of prosecuting you and making it stick, using the HC.
The only disability in life is a poor attitude.

Headhuunter
Posts: 6334
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:16 am

Postby Headhuunter » Tue Jul 26, 2011 09:40 am

I agree with the earlier poster, jumping reds is fine and often safer as far as I'm concerned. The road network including traffic lit junctions, roundabouts etc are laid out with motor traffic in mind and are often highly dangerous for other road users.

I'm not advocating blasting through every red light, knocking peds flying etc, I'm saying that slowing to walking pace, looking both ways (just as you would as a pedestrian) and crossing carefully gets you away from traffic turning, accelerating and otherwise jostling for space at traffic lights and puts you in a safer position. Pedestrians are perfectly capable of crossing a road when the red man is showing, why when on my bike am I suddenly unable to look both ways and see clearly? In many continental European cities in which cycling is more common, cyclists crossing junctions on reds is seen in the same light as peds walking across when the red man is showing - both are accepted.

It's very different in a car as you are effectively sealed off from outside sounds and clear vision is vastly more inhibited than that of peds and cyclists. Motorists need traffic lights.

As far as I'm concerned I will continue to put myself in what I consider to be a safe position on the road, the law if, as they say, often an ass. I don't really care what drivers think, as far as I'm concerned they need to get their own house in order before judging others.

I had a police officer tell me once that if I jumped red lights, he could add points to my driving licence... What utter b0ll0x....
Do not write below this line. Office use only.

User avatar
tarquin_foxglove
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 13:30 pm

Postby tarquin_foxglove » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:17 am

Headhuunter wrote:I had a police officer tell me once that if I jumped red lights, he could add points to my driving licence... What utter b0ll0x....


You're correct, you couldn't get say a FPN & 3 penalty points on your driving licence for jumping a red on your bike; but I believe you could lose your driving licence for any offence, including offences committed on a bicycle. (Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.146(1))

But it seems an unlikely punishment, as you could jump a red, knock down a ped, get arrested for Wanton & Furious, go to court and you lose your driving licence. The next day, you're back on your bike jumping reds again.

Headhuunter
Posts: 6334
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:16 am

Postby Headhuunter » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:44 am

tarquin_foxglove wrote:
Headhuunter wrote:I had a police officer tell me once that if I jumped red lights, he could add points to my driving licence... What utter b0ll0x....


You're correct, you couldn't get say a FPN & 3 penalty points on your driving licence for jumping a red on your bike; but I believe you could lose your driving licence for any offence, including offences committed on a bicycle. (Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.146(1))

But it seems an unlikely punishment, as you could jump a red, knock down a ped, get arrested for Wanton & Furious, go to court and you lose your driving licence. The next day, you're back on your bike jumping reds again.


Exactly, I've got a licence but I haven't driven a car since 1996 and I have never owned a car in my life. Taking my licence would be a minor inconvenience in filling in paperwork to get it back at some point...
Do not write below this line. Office use only.

Jim Will Fixie It
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 16:25 pm

Postby Jim Will Fixie It » Wed Aug 10, 2011 09:35 am

Headhuunter wrote:Taking my licence would be a minor inconvenience in filling in paperwork to get it back at some point...


You'd has have to do a bit more than fill out some paperwork. If you lose your licence you have to repass your theory and do an extended practical driving test...

Surely in 99.9% of situations, RLJing should not, under any circumstances, be practiced. However, there are going to be situations that, 0.01% of the time, warrant it - although this would be in extreme circumstances; circumstances that no-one has planned for.

Ultimately, it's against the law for both cars and bikes. Saying that, in Leicester I see more cars jump reds than cyclists!

Headhuunter
Posts: 6334
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:16 am

Postby Headhuunter » Wed Aug 10, 2011 15:25 pm

Jim Will Fixie It wrote:
Headhuunter wrote:Taking my licence would be a minor inconvenience in filling in paperwork to get it back at some point...


You'd has have to do a bit more than fill out some paperwork. If you lose your licence you have to repass your theory and do an extended practical driving test...

Surely in 99.9% of situations, RLJing should not, under any circumstances, be practiced. However, there are going to be situations that, 0.01% of the time, warrant it - although this would be in extreme circumstances; circumstances that no-one has planned for.

Ultimately, it's against the law for both cars and bikes. Saying that, in Leicester I see more cars jump reds than cyclists!


Oh well in that case I can live without my drivers licence, as I said I haven't sat behind the wheel since 1996 and have never owned a car in my life. No great loss. As you say though, cars are always jumping reds, see it all the time in London...
Do not write below this line. Office use only.

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Postby spen666 » Sat Aug 13, 2011 00:04 am

Jim Will Fixie It wrote:
Headhuunter wrote:Taking my licence would be a minor inconvenience in filling in paperwork to get it back at some point...


You'd has have to do a bit more than fill out some paperwork. If you lose your licence you have to repass your theory and do an extended practical driving test...

Surely in 99.9% of situations, RLJing should not, under any circumstances, be practiced. However, there are going to be situations that, 0.01% of the time, warrant it - although this would be in extreme circumstances; circumstances that no-one has planned for.

Ultimately, it's against the law for both cars and bikes. Saying that, in Leicester I see more cars jump reds than cyclists!


Only if your are ordered by a court to sit an extended test
for most disqualifications, it is simply a case of applying i=on relevant form for return of your licence after disquakification is up.

99.9% of driving bans do not require banned driver to sit any test before getting their licence back
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

Jim Will Fixie It
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 16:25 pm

Postby Jim Will Fixie It » Sun Aug 14, 2011 09:39 am

Oh right, my mistake. Still, it's not worth skipping reds, be it on a car or a bike.

Frag75
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 23:23 pm

Postby Frag75 » Sun Aug 14, 2011 10:06 am

Even when I'm at a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians in sight I always stop at red lights. I expect to be treated as a valid road user when on my bike, so I obey the rules and add a few extra seconds to my journey. I wouldn't go through a red light if I thought it was safe in a car, so why would I on a bike!

As for RLJing being safer, I just don't believe it. I drive and cycle around London and I frequently see people sailing through red lights and nearly getting knocked off. What really surprises me is the number of black cabs RLJing!

Headhuunter
Posts: 6334
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:16 am

Postby Headhuunter » Mon Aug 15, 2011 08:22 am

Frag75 wrote:Even when I'm at a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians in sight I always stop at red lights. I expect to be treated as a valid road user when on my bike, so I obey the rules and add a few extra seconds to my journey. I wouldn't go through a red light if I thought it was safe in a car, so why would I on a bike!

As for RLJing being safer, I just don't believe it. I drive and cycle around London and I frequently see people sailing through red lights and nearly getting knocked off. What really surprises me is the number of black cabs RLJing!


But I'm not talking about "sailing" through red lights, I'm talking about crossing as though you're a pedestrian, looking both ways and proceeding with caution... AFAIC it's no different to when I cross a traffic lit junc on foot when the red man is showing, if it's clear I go (after looking carefully), if it's not clear I wait... It really isn't rocket science...
Do not write below this line. Office use only.

User avatar
Teddy Westside
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:19 am

Postby Teddy Westside » Sun Aug 21, 2011 13:03 pm

Frag75 wrote:Even when I'm at a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians in sight I always stop at red lights. I expect to be treated as a valid road user when on my bike, so I obey the rules and add a few extra seconds to my journey. I wouldn't go through a red light if I thought it was safe in a car, so why would I on a bike! /quote]


+1

What really surprises me is the number of black cabs RLJing!
It surprises you that cab drivers disregard the rules of the road? :shock:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Focus Cayo Expert (road)
Giant ATX 970 (full susp)
Trek Alpha 4300 (hardtail)
Peugeot 525 Comp (road - turbo trainer duties)

Frag75
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 23:23 pm

Postby Frag75 » Sun Aug 21, 2011 22:45 pm

Headhuunter wrote:
But I'm not talking about "sailing" through red lights, I'm talking about crossing as though you're a pedestrian, looking both ways and proceeding with caution... AFAIC it's no different to when I cross a traffic lit junc on foot when the red man is showing, if it's clear I go (after looking carefully), if it's not clear I wait... It really isn't rocket science...


If we're getting down to basics, how about: "If the light's green; go. If it's red; stop." Now that "really isn't rocket science".
FCN 4/12

User avatar
weadmire
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 14:50 pm
Contact:

Postby weadmire » Tue Aug 23, 2011 17:47 pm

Frag 75, the OP and most of the other contributors to this thread: your comments ooze with sanctimony. It has been well established that it is safer to look for traffic rather than lights. Go to this link http://weadmire.net/tshirt/traffic-lights-t-shirt/ and you will be able to download two pdfs: a report from the road transport laboratory concerning women being massively over represented among cycling fatalities in London. Currently circa 80% of fatalities are women though they only represent circa 30% of the cycling population. The conclusion speculated they were over represented because they were more likely to obey traffic lights than men. And a pdf concerning the frequency with which cyclists in south London jump lights at a number of junctions on and around the A23. They were filmed for extended periods and the sites were carefully selected to be representative. From memory the best junction had 76% of cyclists jumping. In sum the anti jumping set are wrong and in the minority. So best to shut up. I don't know whether Spen's firm gets much in the way of PI work among cyclists as part of his never ending contribution to these forums, but for sure he knows these arguments.

Frag75
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 23:23 pm

Postby Frag75 » Tue Aug 23, 2011 19:08 pm

weadmire wrote: In sum the anti jumping set are wrong and in the minority. So best to shut up.


A rather unnecessarily rude end to a well made point.

I've had a quick look through the PDF you recommended and one point in particular stood out for me. It is mentioned that the majority of accidents occur when both the cyclist and HGV have been stationary at a junction. Personally I don't ride along the curb and up to the front of a traffic que unless there's space for bikes to get slightly ahead of the cars (and so be clearly seen) and I certainly would not pull up next to a stationary HGV, as seems to be suggested in the PDF.

I'm well aware that many people run all red lights, not just at dangerous junctions, and wont see that that there's anything wrong with that, so there's very little point in arguing about it. I shall, however, continue to be annoyed by fellow cyclists who nearly hit me when I'm crossing pedestrian crossings and I shall continue to catch up with people who have jumped a light I was stopped at, just to make my commute a little more interesting.
FCN 4/12


Return to “Campaign”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest