# No wonder Cyclists are unpopular with motorists!



## metrorider (24 Mar 2011)

I was driving to Bath earlier today when I came across four way temporary traffic lights at a notorious accident blackspot. Whilst I was waiting at the lights a cyclist came through and blatantly jumped the red light. I sounded my horn to warn him but he was oblivious to this as he had an ipod playing in his ears!
I watched him nearly get mown down by other cars crossing the junction whos right of way it was - what an absolute idiot!

I cycle myself and seeing people do this really p*sses me off to be honest. No wonder we are seen as the enemy by other road users when morons like this give us such a bad name!


----------



## gaz (24 Mar 2011)

Lets be honest, 99%* of cyclists that 'jump' red lights do so in perfect safety and with no danger to others. Only a small minority put them selves and others in harms way.

*this is a handy number that i plucked out of the air but is based on personal experience of watching hundreds of cyclists per week partake in this activity in London.


----------



## subaqua (24 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Lets be honest, 99%* of cyclists that 'jump' red lights do so in perfect safety and with no danger to others. Only a small minority put them selves and others in harms way.
> 
> *this is a handy number that i plucked out of the air but is based on personal experience of watching hundreds of cyclists per week partake in this activity in London.




still breaking the law though. 

cyclists complain when drivers break the law. and no doubt when a cyclist gets hit and dies we will have the usual thread of how bad car drivers are . or complaints the press is biased when they report the cyclist went through a red light. 


wait for it, yup there it is the whine of " a cars 2 ton a cars bigger a car has 4 wheels"


----------



## JonnyBlade (24 Mar 2011)

A red light means STOP no matter what. In the States then fine, it's expected, but not here. No such thing as negotiating a red light with perfect safety. Ambulances and Police cars have to slow for red lights and should they cause an accident by piling on through they are held accountable and liable to prosecution.


----------



## format (25 Mar 2011)

I was cycling home last night around 10pm. I pulled up to a junction - the light goes red periodically to let traffic get off the motorway onto the bottom of Great Western Road (in Glasgow if any one knows where I mean, just before the motorway bridge). Anyway, as I was stopped I saw a cyclist fly past the red light without slowing. He had no lights on (front or back), no reflectors anywhere that I could see, and was wearing dark clothing.

I caught him up further down the road to say (in a friendly manner) that he should put some lights on because I could barely see him, even when I knew that he was there! He just gave me a look and said that he had lights in his bag but he just couldn't be bothered to put them on...


:|


----------



## Spinney (25 Mar 2011)

I jumped a red light the other day. 

Small country road, lights to control traffic going over a narrow hump backed bridge with no visibility over/round it. Stood there on my own for 3 minutes at red (I timed it), and then decided to (cautiously) go for it anyway. No motion sensors I could see on the lights, so I wondered if there was a pressure strip in the road that the bike wasn't heavy enough to set off. Not a car in sight...

I suppose to stay legal I should have got off the bike and walked over the bridge...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

An argument can be made that if the lights don't detect you then they are not working properly and therefore you can proceed on red with caution


----------



## GrasB (25 Mar 2011)

As for cyclists jumping red light... sod that, when cycling across cambridge at 5:30am & it seems that most motorists take a red light to be advisory at best.. at least once a week I end up having to stand the bike on the front wheel as someone charges through the lights against red without looking  


Spinney, if you've waited a 'reasonable amount of time' & the lights haven't changed then one assumes that lights are broken & so it's legal to proceed. I take a reasonable amount of time to be 3min 45 seconds (at which point my trip comp informs me it's 15s away from turning it's self off) before carefully navigating the junction.


----------



## style over speed (25 Mar 2011)

i saw at least six people driving cars blatantly jump red lights on my way home last night.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Lets be honest, 99%* of cyclists that 'jump' red lights do so in perfect safety and with no danger to others. Only a small minority put them selves and others in harms way.



As you point out, IN LONDON.

The percentage is smaller around my way.

I don't jump red lights, I don't think anyone else should either - an environment in which road users pick and choose which traffic laws they're going to obey may be the de facto situation for drivers in the uk (drink driving BAD, using a mobile, speeding or both at the same time A LITTLE BIT NAUGHTY) but it's not something I want to participate in, personally. 

Cyclists who do jump red lights are relying on the drivers whose paths they cross paying attention - this is a doubtful propostion at the best of times, in my experience.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

style over speed said:


> i saw at least six people driving cars blatantly jump red lights on my way home last night.



Tends to be following the car ahead - it's rare (although I have seen it) for drivers to jump a red that a car preceding them hasn't passed on amber, ime. Although the conga line of those going through on/after the red is often surprisingly long. A good reminder to you as the vulnerable party that green means "Go if it is clear" not "Go, it will probably be ok".

One happier thought (perhaps) is that usual commuter (the Surly Long Haul Trucker) seems to have no problem triggering traffic light sensors at all.

A final thought - banish the idea that red light jumping is why cyclists are unpopular. If every cyclists obeyed the Highway Code to the letter from tomorrow, not much would change in that respect.


----------



## GrasB (25 Mar 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> A final thought - banish the idea that red light jumping is why cyclists are unpopular. If every cyclists obeyed the Highway Code to the letter from tomorrow, not much would change in that respect.


+1 There's always something.. lights aren't bright enough, lights are to bright, going to slowly to be on the road, going to quickly (yes I've had this for doing 30mph in a 30 limit), you're not wearing high-viz/helmet.... I read this as "you've done something wrong because I had to think about what to do & I should be able to drive about oblivious to the rest of the world"


----------



## Bicycle (25 Mar 2011)

I've driven for many years and cycled for more. In between I've driven smaller HGVs and ridden a motorcycle.

There will always be some terrible cyclists, terrible drivers and terrible motorcyclists.

I like to think I'm safe and considerate, but I'm sure I've done things in the past that would upset other road users.

It's fun to have a rant every now and then, but few of us have completely clean records.

'Unusual' driving practise seems to be spread across all means of transport: cars, bicycles, buses, coaches, lorries, motorcycles.

Meanwhile, I try (when I remember and when I'm not in a huge rush) to acknowledge kindness, let people out and hang back from other vehicles.

I like to think that that way, some positive images of other road users are spread around.

Of course, if I'm in a terrible hurry or cross about something that all goes out of the window and it's up to everyone else to make allowances... which I'm sure they'll be good enough to do.


----------



## PK99 (25 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Lets be honest, 99%* of cyclists that 'jump' red lights do so in perfect safety and with no danger to others. Only a small minority put them selves and others in harms way.
> 
> *this is a handy number that i plucked out of the air but is based on personal experience of watching hundreds of cyclists per week partake in this activity in London.



Would you think it ok for a motorist to jump a red light if they thought it was safe to do so?


----------



## suecsi (25 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Lets be honest, 99%* of cyclists that 'jump' red lights do so in perfect safety and with no danger to others. Only a small minority put them selves and others in harms way.
> 
> *this is a handy number that i plucked out of the air but is based on personal experience of watching hundreds of cyclists per week partake in this activity in London.



Is this why I often get a very odd look from motorists who can't seem to believe I actually  stop for red lights and sit in the ASL legally. I am often under and overtaken by other cyclists who either go right through the red lights or, at the top of the road near work where it is a T junction, get over the ASL as well and get as far forward as they can before the lights change (you can see them the other side of the junction so it doesn't matter if you aren't in the ASL).


----------



## Clandy (25 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> but then again they also hate cyclists for wearing lycra and not paying road tax. I'm not particularly interested in their views.



There is no such thing as 'road tax'.


Jumping red lights is breaking the law. Anyone doing so, no matter whether they are a driver or cyclist, should be removed from the roads. As far as I am concerned 'cyclists' who jump red lights are not cyclists at all, they're just idiots on bicycles. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zdi4aIK3iRQ


----------



## fimm (25 Mar 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I like to think I'm safe and considerate, but I'm sure I've done things in the past that would upset other road users.
> It's fun to have a rant every now and then, but few of us have completely clean records.



+1
We should all aim for perfection, and accept that occassionally people will fail to achieve it.


----------



## brokenbetty (25 Mar 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> A final thought - banish the idea that red light jumping is why cyclists are unpopular. If every cyclists obeyed the Highway Code to the letter from tomorrow, not much would change in that respect.



Have you got any proof for that, or is it just a handy excuse to not even try?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

brokenbetty said:


> Have you got any proof for that, or is it just a handy excuse to not even try?



I think you've misunderstood our simian colleague who is as gracious and stylish a law-abiding cyclist as you could hope to ever meet.

People love bicycles but hate cyclists.

We are 'other' and that is all there is to it. I obey the highway code on my bike in all but life threatening situations (I once bunnyhopped onto the pavement to avoid being run down by a car being driven on the wrong side of the road for instance) yet I am still abused, spat at, have things throw at me from cars, am cut up, left hooked, too frequently for my liking. Oddly these things never happen when I am driving or riding a motorcycle or when I am a pedestrian.

Go figure.....


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

brokenbetty said:


> Have you got any proof for that, or is it just a handy excuse to not even try?



I get punishment passes and crappy behaviour from people who have watched me scrupulously obey traffic signals and traffic law generally (they could hardly miss it, as quite often these are the idiots that tailgate me, so anxious are they to reach the next queue of traffic ahead of me). 

Similarly, in discussion, offering the fact that I *do* obey traffic lights just moves the motorist on to the next item in their shopping list of reasons that they dislike/feel justified in threatening cyclists.

This is, of course, only one monkey's opinion. And it is by no means an excuse not to try; as I pointed out in the same post; 



> I don't jump red lights, I don't think anyone else should either - an environment in which road users pick and choose which traffic laws they're going to obey may be the de facto situation for drivers in the uk (drink driving BAD, using a mobile, speeding or both at the same time A LITTLE BIT NAUGHTY) but it's not something I want to participate in, personally.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

PK99 said:


> Would you think it ok for a motorist to jump a red light if they thought it was safe to do so?



I have no wish to be the victim of some drivers poor judgement of what is or isn't safe as they consistently, to the tune of several hundred dead each year, get this one wrong.

Observe driver behaviour at temporary traffic lights.

Some jump the lights following the conga line
Some simply drive through the red light because they can't be bothered to wait for the light to change and they are, I guess, very important people with very important places to get to to do their very important things
Others sit, glaring at the red light, straining at the bit, willing it to change, chomping at the bit, and woe betide the cyclist at the front of the queue.
Very few chillax.


----------



## BSRU (25 Mar 2011)

In Swindon, I very rarely see motorist's drive through red lights that has been red for a second or more, usually motorist's going through red lights are just failed amber gamblers. I see more cyclist's ride through red lights, irrespective of how long it has been red and with no regard for any pedestrian that happens to be crossing in front of them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Similarly, in discussion, offering the fact that I *do* obey traffic lights just moves the motorist on to the next item in their shopping list of reasons that they dislike/feel justified in threatening cyclists.



Make that two great apes......

"You don't pay road tax!" I do, on two cars
"You lot don't have lights!" I do, even in daylight, 3 of them
"You don't wear bright clothes" I do, even though I hate it, and reflectives.
"You don't stop at red lights" I do, it's the law
"You don't need to ride that far from the kerb!" I do, as otherwise I'll get wiped out or come a cropper on a drain cover.
"You don't ride on the cycle lane" I do if it makes sense
et cetera
et cetera
"You dress funny" I do, it is more comfortable.

My interactions with numpty shouty crap self justifying drivers gets more like that Abba song every day.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I have no wish to be the victim of some drivers poor judgement of what is or isn't safe as they consistently, to the tune of several hundred dead each year, get this one wrong.



One of the lights I really dislike is a layout that equates to roughly 2 lanes, reduced to 1 1/2 lane(ish) by a cyclepath. I go straight on here.

The problem at this junction is that a lot of traffic goes right - they queue, and take up one lane to the right of left turning and straight ahead traffic. This lot use the bike lane to pass to the left of the right turning cars, and will usually be gunning to cross ahead of the light change, very close to my rear wheel - I've had a number of close calls here, including an oafish overtake as I acknowledged, and began to slow for the amber light. I've taken to raising my hand in a "Stop" sign in the hope that these dickheads won't run into the back of me as they fixate on beating the light.

Not really relevant to the op, I suppose, but personally I worry far more about the misdeeds of motor traffic than I do about those of riders of pedal cycles and those of pedestrians.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

BSRU said:


> In Swindon, I very rarely see motorist's drive through red lights that has been red for a second or more, usually motorist's going through red lights are just failed amber gamblers.



Certanly rare, but I have seen it. Often it's a creep forward, then a hard acceleration out - there's a junction coming out of a car park I pass through in East Didsbury where it's pretty common - less so in queueing traffic, ime, although a single vehicle ahead of me (a mere cyclist) with no cars behind seems to make it more likely.



> I see more cyclist's ride through red lights, irrespective of how long it has been red and with no regard for any pedestrian that happens to be crossing in front of them.



Utter twattery. I don't do it, and others shouldn't.


----------



## BSRU (25 Mar 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> Utter twattery. I don't do it, and others shouldn't.



They are also miss out on some good exercise when getting going again and a breather while stopped.


----------



## HLaB (25 Mar 2011)

I think in Edinburgh I see more cars/ taxis RLJ than bikes and not just the failed amber gamblers but solo cars (not sheep) 5 seconds or more after red but I am probably more inclined to notice it  . The funniest one was the car which slowed up behind me then stopped (I was in an ASL); waited for 5 secs behind me then lost their patience, overtook and proceded to go straight through red (turning left) with plenty of traffic coming the other way.

As previous posts suggest though some folk just hate cyclist, and everybody knows only cyclists jump red lights. 
Actually I've been accused of it myself sometimes, at left turn green arrows where the numpty in front sits that far beyond the stop line they don't see it


----------



## HLaB (25 Mar 2011)

BSRU said:


> They are also miss out on some good exercise when getting going again and a breather while stopped.



Funnilly enough some days I see it as good sprint training


----------



## BSRU (25 Mar 2011)

HLaB said:


> The funniest one was the car which slowed up behind me then stopped (I was in an ASL); waited for 5 secs behind me then lost their patience, overtook and proceded to go straight through red (turning left) with plenty of traffic coming the other way.



I had the opposite yesterday, a driver sitting at the lights while they were on green, completely oblivious, he only started moving when he saw me go after my light had changed to green.


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> My interactions with numpty shouty crap self justifying drivers gets more like that Abba song every day.



You beat them with a tambourine? That's a superb idea, I should try that too


----------



## Clandy (25 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Make that two great apes......
> 
> "You don't pay road tax!" I do, on two cars.





No, you don't. You pay Vehicle Excise Duty, car tax. 'Road tax', or the 'road fund licence', was scrapped in 1936.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> No, you don't. You pay Vehicle Excise Duty, car tax. 'Road tax', or the 'road fund licence', was scrapped in 1936.



REALLY!?! Wow.

Perhaps that's why I wear a one of these in the summer. 

Seriously, arguing that point with car drivers during a row is a total and utter waste of time ime/imo only beaten by arguing the point with fellow cyclists in internet forums.


----------



## Clandy (25 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> I think we all know there is no such thing as 'Road Tax' my comments were aimed at what the "cyclist hating motorists" think of us, and not paying road tax is often very high on their agenda along with the wearing of lycra, riding two abreast, not wearing helmets, going too slow, filtering past etc etc, its a very long list! If cyclists never RLJ'ed these motorist who still hate us. Thankfully these morons are in the minority or we would all be dead.
> 
> I just don't think RLJing cyclists is a big deal. Concentrate your complaining on those who endager us, mobile phone use, texting, speeding, close passing etc, aim your efforts at making it safer for cyclists not trying to appease those who don't agree with our existence.



How can we criticise bad and dangerous driving if we turn a blind eye to the morons on bicycles who also ignore the rules of the road? I am not a believer in 'do as I say, not as I do'. Obeying traffic law is not 'appeasement', it is setting the example.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> How can we criticise bad and dangerous driving if we turn a blind eye to the morons on bicycles who also ignore the rules of the road? I am not a believer in 'do as I say, not as I do'. Obeying traffic law is not 'appeasement', it is setting the example.



Bad and dangerous driving is still that regardless of what other road users are doing. It is also a mistake to think that perfect behaviour by other road users has an effect on the behaviour of motorists (in my experience). This is not to say that poor behaviour by other road users should be encouraged, condoned, ignored; merely that correcting it would do relatively little to improve the safety (objectively and subjectively) of Britain's roads - the ability to do that lies largely in the hands of the heavier, faster, more numerous party.

Another cyclist has put me at risk precisely once in over three years of commuting into and from Manchester, and walking about the city centre. Motorists put me at risk every day, with stuff that is seriously worrying happenning around once a week. Whilst I dislike inattentive, inconsiderate law breaking cyclists, I'm not under the impression that they pose as great a risk as similar behaviours by the drivers of motor vehicles.


----------



## colinr (25 Mar 2011)

If we can get helmets into this thread it'll be perfect.
<duck and cover>


----------



## format (25 Mar 2011)

What are people's opinions on the following -

I stop for every red light I see.

 If it's a red like at a pedestrian crossing and after I've stopped I can clearly see that no one is around, I'll carry on cycling.
 If it's a junction, and there is a green man on either my left or my right (meaning no traffic will cut across my path) and there are no pedestrians, I'll carry on cycling.
In the above scenarios, I'm not endangering anyone. Is it alright for me to do it?


----------



## Clandy (25 Mar 2011)

format said:


> What are people's opinions on the following -
> 
> I stop for every red light I see.
> 
> ...





No.


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

format said:


> What are people's opinions on the following -
> 
> I stop for every red light I see.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't do it.

I'd suggest you don't either. I don't want to ride on roads where folk take a pick and mix attitude to traffic law (see posts passim).


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> How can we criticise bad and dangerous driving if we turn a blind eye to the morons on bicycles who also ignore the rules of the road?


I can criticise bad and dangerous driving on the grounds that it is bad and/or dangerous without reference to whether or not it is illegal. There is no law against using a hands-free mobile phone while driving, for example, yet this is often bad or dangerous.


----------



## Firestorm (25 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Lets be honest, 99%* of Motorists who speed do so in perfect safety and with no danger to others. Only a small minority put them selves and others in harms way.



Would this be a satisfactory argument in a speed camara thread ?


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

Firestorm said:


> Would this be a satisfactory argument in a speed camara thread ?



If I thought the number was even vaguely accurate then yes. But I doubt the "I only exceed the limit on deserted motorways" crowd make up anywhere near 99% of speeders.


----------



## format (25 Mar 2011)

Clandy said:


> No.






John the Monkey said:


> I wouldn't do it.
> 
> I'd suggest you don't either. I don't want to ride on roads where folk take a pick and mix attitude to traffic law (see posts passim).




If I dismount, walk my bike across, then get back on and cycle away, is it ok then?


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

format said:


> If I dismount, walk my bike across, then get back on and cycle away, is it ok then?




If you were in a car, would you consider getting out pushing across and then carrying on ?


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

format said:


> If I dismount, walk my bike across, then get back on and cycle away, is it ok then?



?

Why not just wait? Are you delivering transplant organs or something?


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> If you were in a car, would you consider getting out pushing across and then carrying on ?



No, for the same reason as if I were in a double decker bus I would not consider parking it in a multistorey, and if I saw an LGV driver go the wrong way round a roundabout I would be much more inclined to leniency than if he were in a Nissan micra. There are different tradeoffs involved in the use of different vehicles

Do you park your bike in a pay & display space?


----------



## Clandy (25 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> First of all as a cyclist I have very little experience of traffic lights, however I have a huge amount of experience of city driving in both cars, vans and lorries. Traffic light junctions do appear to me to be a very dangerous environment, people heading off in different directions, people in the wrong lane, the incompetent, the pushy, the bad tempered and mixed amongst that lot, drivers who believe they are at the start of a Grand Prix race.
> 
> Looking at the video that was posted earlier, LINK, and for one moment ignoring law breaking, which of the cyclists is most at risk. The RLJ'er has put his dangers where he can see them. The cyclist waiting has all his dangers behind, and when those lights turn to red orange he is going to be mixed up in the mad melee that I have described above.



I was the cyclist who stopped. Sixty or more drivers watched that moron ride through the red light. That's sixty or more stories of 'red light jumping cyclists' doing the rounds. The left lane is left turn only, I was perfectly safe where I was. The prat who went through the red light on the other hand created a hazard for drivers who were not expecting to see a moron on a bicycle sitting in the middle of the junction.


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> Do you park your bike in a pay & display space?



No, I do not park my bike in a car park.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

reiver said:


> The RLJ'er has put his dangers where he can see them. The cyclist waiting has all his dangers behind, and when those lights turn to red orange he is going to be mixed up in the mad melee that I have described above.



In the early noughties I used to cycle commute in S. London. Very little 'safety in numbers' in those days relative to today. I used to think like the above quote, influenced by being rammed from behind twice on my Brompton. SMIDSY. I no longer think that way. I quit RLJ'ing and am happier, and am a better cyclist for it.

The RLJ'ers does not have his dangers where he can see them and is likely to be taken out be a vehicle he hasn't seen side swiping him from left or right. As happen right before my very eyes in Clapham. Speeding WVM. RLJ'ing cyclist. Kaboom. Horrid.

If you are at the front at the lights, you only (generally) have to worry about one vehicle in your lane. The leading one, the ones behind won't drive through the vehicle in front, and you can generally steal a march on the leading car over 10m anyway if you are alert and in the right gear.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

format said:


> What are people's opinions on the following -
> 
> I stop for every red light I see.
> 
> ...



I would encourage you to desist. Though you have my empathy in the first example particularly; that can be frustrating.


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> No, I do not park my bike in a car park.



Then I hope you can see that "would a car driver do X?" is not in general a good argument for justifying whether or not a cyclist should


----------



## John the Monkey (25 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> Then I hope you can see that "would a car driver do X?" is not in general a good argument for justifying whether or not a cyclist should



AH! /Lee and Herring


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> Then I hope you can see that "would a car driver do X?" is not in general a good argument for justifying whether or not a cyclist should




I am a car driver and a cyclist. The question of is it be OK to dismount, walk across and reemount is a nonsense question whichever mode of transport you or on / in. 

A red light means stop.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

Let's face it. The sad, awful truth.

Cyclists are unpopular with other cyclists!


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Let's face it. The sad, awful truth.
> 
> Cyclists are unpopular with other cyclists!




I am no angel and have jumped ped crossings, lights previously but I know its not right, its not clever and I have only done it because I was an impatient fool.


----------



## colinr (25 Mar 2011)

> Cyclists are unpopular with other cyclists!




That's because they're doing it ALL WRONG


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> I am no angel and have jumped ped crossings, lights previously but I know its not right, its not clever and I have only done it because I was an *impatient* fool.



A fault we both share I fear  though I'm sure you are no fool.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Mar 2011)

+1. I believe that cyclists should obey the laws of the road and I practise this believe.



subaqua said:


> still breaking the law though.
> 
> cyclists complain when drivers break the law. and no doubt when a cyclist gets hit and dies we will have the usual thread of how bad car drivers are . or complaints the press is biased when they report the cyclist went through a red light.
> 
> ...


----------



## Angelfishsolo (25 Mar 2011)

+1


JonnyBlade said:


> A red light means STOP no matter what. In the States then fine, it's expected, but not here. No such thing as negotiating a red light with perfect safety. Ambulances and Police cars have to slow for red lights and should they cause an accident by piling on through they are held accountable and liable to prosecution.


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> I am a car driver and a cyclist. The question of is it be OK to dismount, walk across and reemount is a nonsense question whichever mode of transport you or on / in.
> 
> A red light means stop.



Not (legally) to pedestrians, it doesn't. If by dismounting your bike you become a pedestrian (the Crank vs Brooks case lends some support to this position), then it is perfectly legal to walk your bike across the road no matter what lights are showing. You might consider it a bad idea for other reasons but that doesn't alter the legal position.


Which is why (per my earlier comments) when I complain about bad or dangerous driving I complain on the basis that it is bad and/or dangerous, and largely without reference to whether it's legal or illegal or of unknown legality. The law can be and often is clarified and/or changed.


----------



## subaqua (25 Mar 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I think you've misunderstood our simian colleague who is as gracious and stylish a law-abiding cyclist as you could hope to ever meet.
> 
> People love bicycles but hate cyclists.
> 
> ...




were you wearing the headgear from your avatar


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

But this is not the case with regards to Crank V Brooks, the judgment there was:-

_"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."_ 

The question asked earlier I took to be dismounting whilst on the road, pushing across on the road and then remounting from the road.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2011)

subaqua said:


> were you wearing the headgear from your avatar



way to much drag from the ears. I've done the testing to prove it.


----------



## format (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> If you were in a car, would you consider getting out pushing across and then carrying on ?



No, because that's utterly ridiculous. Please try and maintain a reasonable level of debate.




John the Monkey said:


> ?
> 
> Why not just wait? Are you delivering transplant organs or something?



I wait, most of the time. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and if I can shave a minute off my journey when there is 100% no chance of anyone (myself, pedestrians or motorists) being injured by my actions, then I don't see why I shouldn't just roll over the crossing.




4F said:


> I am a car driver and a cyclist. The question of is it be OK to dismount, walk across and reemount is a nonsense question whichever mode of transport you or on / in.
> 
> A red light means stop.



If I want to dismount at a set of lights to go into a shop nearby, do I need to wait until the light goes green before I get off my bike?


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

format said:


> I wait, most of the time. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and if I can shave a minute off my journey when there is 100% no chance of anyone (myself, pedestrians or motorists) being injured by my actions, then I don't see why I shouldn't just roll over the crossing.



If a driver of a motorised vehicle was also in a hurry would it be OK for them to jump the lights as well as long as there was no chance of anyone else getting injured ?

Lets face it the only reason you sometimes jump them is because you are impatient and there is little chance of you getting caught.


----------



## Dan B (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> But this is not the case with regards to Crank V Brooks, the judgment there was:-
> 
> _"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand."_
> 
> The question asked earlier I took to be dismounting whilst on the road, pushing across on the road and then remounting from the road.



You're suggesting that whether there's a pedestrian crossing or not makes a difference to a pedestrian who is crossing? Or that being on the carriageway instead of the footway is important to whether an unmounted cyclist is considered a pedestrian? Or that dismount-then-remount would push a cyclist over the boundary from legal to illegal? You could argue it either way - as we are doing here. Without knowing exactly what was in Waller's mind when he said this we have no way of knowing which are the points he considered salient and which are irrelevances, and until there's another case or some new legislation that's how the law will stay: "grey area"

Which is, returning to my point, why there have to be better ways of deciding whether something is a bad idea or not than by appeal to the "letter of the law", because sometimes the law just isn't written down all that clearly


----------



## 4F (25 Mar 2011)

Dan B said:


> You're suggesting that whether there's a pedestrian crossing or not makes a difference to a pedestrian who is crossing? Or that being on the carriageway instead of the footway is important to whether an unmounted cyclist is considered a pedestrian? Or that dismount-then-remount would push a cyclist over the boundary from legal to illegal? You could argue it either way - as we are doing here. Without knowing exactly what was in Waller's mind when he said this we have no way of knowing which are the points he considered salient and which are irrelevances, and until there's another case or some new legislation that's how the law will stay: "grey area"
> 
> Which is, returning to my point, why there have to be better ways of deciding whether something is a bad idea or not than by appeal to the "letter of the law", because sometimes the law just isn't written down all that clearly



Yes I agree that it could be argued either way and in all reality it is a nonsense. If you are on foot then commonsense dictates that you are a pedestrian irrespective of where you start from.


----------



## Alien8 (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> If a driver of a motorised vehicle was also in a hurry would it be OK for them to jump the lights as well as long as there was no chance of anyone else getting injured ?



How do you feel about the concept of left-turns through a red if safe to proceed?


----------



## addictfreak (25 Mar 2011)

I find it hard to believe that some posters are actually suggesting it may be ok the RLJ (car or bike). Red means stop simple as that and it applies to all.


----------



## Norm (25 Mar 2011)

Alien8 said:


> How do you feel about the concept of left-turns through a red if safe to proceed?


The concept is fine if it is legal because then people will be expecting it, just as it is fine to have unlimited stretches of autobahn if everyone is expecting it.

However, if it is illegal, then other road users don't anticipate it happening, don't feature it into their plans and get pissed off when they see someone else do it.


----------



## Norm (25 Mar 2011)

Which would be valid if people in vehicles only stopped for red lights in places where there are cameras or coppers likely to be hidden.

But they don't, so let's move on.


----------



## Norm (25 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1346647"]
Eh? 

If you are in a car and you jump a red light then you can be reported regardless if there is Police or cameras nearby hidden or otherwise.

I've known people to be reported directly to the transport office with respect to RLJing in a truck where the company name is visible. Go figure how that come about because it was not off the back of a camera or copper - it was a member of the general public ringing up and reporting the number plate.
[/quote]I've known people who have died when riding a motorbike. I still ride one. 

Just because we know someone who knows someone who said they knew someone who fell victim to the risks that we face every day, it doesn't mean we change our own actions.

The reason I don't RLJ (car or bike or motorbike) has nothing to do with the remote possibility that I'll be seen, and everything to do with it being against the law. I don't generally decide which laws to obey and which can be ignored.


----------



## Norm (25 Mar 2011)

Really? It seems to follow quite well to me but let me cut out some of the crap in the middle then, see if that helps...

[QUOTE 1346645"]Let's face it, you would only wait because your car has number plates and therefore could be tracked and reported. The only way going forward is for bikes to have registered number plates which allow cyclists who routinely break the law to be caught and bought to book. [/quote]



Norm said:


> The reason I don't RLJ (car or bike or motorbike) has nothing to do with the remote possibility that I'll be seen, and everything to do with it being against the law. I don't generally decide which laws to obey and which can be ignored.


----------



## Clandy (25 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1346645"]
The only way going forward is for bikes to have registered number plates which allow cyclists who routinely break the law to be caught and bought to book.


[/quote]

Something which has been an expensive failure everywhere it has been tried.


----------



## Norm (25 Mar 2011)

[QUOTE 1346651"] Whatever it is I'm bored already. [/quote]I'm not surprised, taking all that time to re-write a history that you had already discounted.


----------



## ramses (25 Mar 2011)

metrorider said:


> he had an ipod playing in his ears!



I cycle to music, I find it makes me more visually aware of my surroundings as I don't rely on my ears.

It's like the helmet issue, it's a personal choice. After all would you stop a deaf person from cycling?


----------



## format (25 Mar 2011)

4F said:


> If a driver of a motorised vehicle was also in a hurry would it be OK for them to jump the lights as well as long as there was no chance of anyone else getting injured ?
> 
> Lets face it the only reason you sometimes jump them is because you are impatient and there is little chance of you getting caught.



The 'if you were a motorist' argument can only be taken so far. In this case it's invalid, mainly because of the amount of cars on the road and the precedent it would set to other motorists.
This is a case where the law is (IMO) clearly wrong. I choose to break it, in the same way that I choose to break the law by smoking a joint now and then. I accept there is a risk of getting caught and punished, but I also accept that that chance is very low, and that by breaking the law I am not harming anyone. The same way that motorists know that in stopping in the ASZ there is very little chance of being caught/punished for it


----------



## gaz (25 Mar 2011)

John the Monkey said:


> A final thought - banish the idea that red light jumping is why cyclists are unpopular. If every cyclists obeyed the Highway Code to the letter from tomorrow, not much would change in that respect.



Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it.

Removing an image of us being law breakers would make it a lot easier for us to be accepted on the road by those road users that don't respect us.


----------



## format (25 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it.
> 
> Removing an image of us being law breakers would make it a lot easier for us to be accepted on the road by those road users that don't respect us.



I've talked to a few motorists about it. Whilst a few did say they were bothered by it, most said they didn't mind because it stopped them having to worry about cyclists when the light went green. This is the sort of RLJ'ing I was referring to earlier, ie when there is no risk of collision with traffic or peds.

Diclaimer: The above is merely anecdotal and does not constitute real admissible evidence in any manner or form.


----------



## slowmotion (26 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Removing an image of us being law breakers would make it a lot easier for us to be accepted on the road by those road users that don't respect us.



I completely agree. Thanks for that post. The problem is that a few of our more militant and selfish number feel that they alone decide how to behave. They are above the law in their unique position of righteousness.


----------



## GrasB (26 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Removing an image of us being law breakers would make it a lot easier for us to be accepted on the road by those road users that don't respect us.


Think about this; using a non-handsfree mobile phone in the car is still seen as acceptable by the motoring public (at a population level rather than individual) but the same group say for a cyclists it's a real problem to be banned. So the unfortunate impression I get is this image of lawlessness from cyclists is an effect of motorists not wanting to deal with cyclists on the road rather than a true effect of cyclists behaviour.


----------



## John the Monkey (26 Mar 2011)

gaz said:


> Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should continue to do it.


Or start to do it, in my case. I don't RLJ, I don't think others should.


> Removing an image of us being law breakers would make it a lot easier for us to be accepted on the road by those road users that don't respect us.


Eh, it's one off a seemingly endless shopping list. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------

