# legal advice for running a so called red light



## dhrubo (19 Oct 2013)

Hi, I wanted some advice on a court summons I received from the police for running a so called red light last march. I have typed up the witness statement from the police. Their version seems is a bit dramatised from how I remembered it happening. 

Police statement 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vTdY2p24zm-cu-Mg95rqsiqztkTDJBYo3pAMyh5RM2w/edit?usp=sharing

From what I remembered. I was amongst several cyclists who went through heavy traffic. I recall being in a convoy of 8 cycles approaching the junction of Shaftesbury avenue. The statement highlighted only two cyclists. Me and another cyclists only stopped to let the police pass as we heard a siren not thinking we did anything wrong. Other cyclists behind and ahead of us continued to cycling. 

The police officer in question had an aggressive tone towards me and vented his frustrations of cyclists in general. There is no way he braked abruptly just based on what I did. 

I have been commuting in London for almost 10 years now. My route home in the evening has been the same for almost 3 years. I am not a careless cyclists. I stop at lights am aware of whats around me. This incident seems totally unfair. 
I wanted some advice on what I should do next. Is it just a case of, the two officers statement against mine. Who would the court believe? Is it worth of fighting or just taking the easy route of accepting the charge.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2013)

First question, has the copper got all the street names correct?

I once got off a red light allegation in central London because the police officer claimed I had crossed at two roads which do not meet.

Assuming he has, it goes a little in your favour that your denial was immediate, you were polite with the police and able to produce identification.

The magistrates will know law breakers rarely tick all those boxes.

On t'other hand, assuming the other officer would back up his colleague if required, the chances are the magistrates will prefer the account of two policemen against one cyclist.

A final point on hook-wriggling, charges against a friend of mine for another minor motoring matter were eventually dropped because the officer failed to turn up at court a couple of times to give evidence.


----------



## ohnovino (19 Oct 2013)

What's a "so called red light", and how does it differ from a normal red light?


----------



## dhrubo (19 Oct 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> First question, has the copper got all the street names correct?
> 
> I once got off a red light allegation in central London because the police officer claimed I had crossed at two roads which do not meet.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the advice, the road names are correct.


----------



## Booyaa (19 Oct 2013)

Did you go through the light before it changed?


----------



## dhrubo (19 Oct 2013)

ohnovino said:


> What's a "so called red light", and how does it differ from a normal red light?


Just my terminology. .From what I recall. I went through an amber. They are saying I went though a red.


----------



## dhrubo (19 Oct 2013)

Booyaa said:


> Did you go through the light before it changed?


I think so...I had cyclists behind me too. But they said I went through a red.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

ohnovino said:


> What's a "so called red light", and how does it differ from a normal red light?


The different between not running it and running it.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Oct 2013)

Drivers behave like this when issued with a sumons. The cycling community is sometimes harsh about their evasive wriggling and denial of guilt.

I've had lots of speeding tickets and have paid them all on demand. One summons; I attended, pleaded guilty and was banned.

Nobody ever did what they are charged with.

I hop red lights all the time in cities when cycling, but I consider myself an experienced and fairly safe cyclist. I've tried to stop doing it, but it tickles me so I continue. I've hopped lights in the vicinity of police cars and pedestrian police officers and never been chased or stopped.

I'd pay this one, moderate your riding style if you don't want any more and just take it on the chin. Perhaps you should accept, in the unlikely event that you are innocent, that you are just paying one of the many fines I was never hit with. Karma will shortly bite my arse, so natural justice will be restored.

It's interesting to imagine how the OP would be read by some members here if it were a motorist writing it.


----------



## Lanzecki (19 Oct 2013)

If you RLJ'd you RLJ'd. that's an offence, that is fine-able. Your issue is that they other cyclists didn't get caught. 

You have my sympathy though. Don't ya love Police statments. You think they are supposed to mirror what actually happened. 

You got stopped by an officer Police Counter Terrorism Support Unit. Shouldn't they be doing other things? Or have the caught all the terrorists?

You Driving licence doesn't apply to cycling since you don't need a licence. You provided you driving licence as the easiest means of identification. 

They kept you there for more then an hour because of technical details? What were they doing in the mean time? I wonder why they felt the need to verify details. Is this the norm these days?

The Moral of the story? Don't ride like a prat and jump red lights in front of police. Heck just don't do it ever.


----------



## PeteXXX (19 Oct 2013)

Amber means the same as Red, IE.. Stop


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (19 Oct 2013)

dhrubo said:


> *I think so..*.I had cyclists behind me too. But they said I went through a red.


(my bold)

This bit is the difficulty. You can't trust your word against the police so it's difficult to see how anyone else could. And I am saying this from the viewpoint of someone with enough experience to know that being police does not automatically make one's word more trustworthy....

But you can't say with certainty that you didn't jump the red....

Unless there is video evidence to prove it.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

PeteXXX said:


> Amber means the same as Red, IE.. Stop


 unless it appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2013)

The OP doesn't have to prove anything, all he does have to do is establish a reasonable doubt he ran the red light.

Commonly known in legal circles as muddying the waters.

There were a lot of cyclists about in a street scene which is always busy, so could the officer have identified the wrong cyclist?

In his statement, he makes much of the OP's distinctive clothing in a bid to head off the 'wrong man' defence.

But was the clothing so distinctive, amongst eight other cyclists?

This is the sort of stuff the OP - or his legal representative - will need to put to the police officer at trial.

If the magistrates think the police officer even just might have been mistaken, they must find the OP not guilty.


----------



## martint235 (19 Oct 2013)

So you're aware of what's around you and you stop at lights. So your side is that this PC was upset you'd pulled in front of him and actually pulled you for going through on green? You also seem to rely on the "they do it, why can't I?" attitude. To me it doesn't matter what the other cyclists did or didn't do, did you cycle through red? From what you've said and the police statement, I'd say that you did.


----------



## buggi (19 Oct 2013)

pale rider is correct you only have to prove reasonable doubt for a not guilty verdict.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

Reading the statements I reckon you jumped the lights. You can't say that you didn't jump the lights and the officers pulled two of you over for jumping the lights. Sounds like you were an amber gambler and it didn't pay off.
The driver was able to get what you were wearing rather well so that makes me think he watched you until you past the lights.
You say you are an aware cyclist but you cant say if it was red or not. This screams amber gambler to me.


----------



## ComedyPilot (19 Oct 2013)

Is taking responsibility for your actions such a bad thing for people to do nowadays?


----------



## Profpointy (19 Oct 2013)

Whilst it's probably a lot less hassle to 'fess up and pay the fine, especially if they've actually got you"bang to rights guv," and to be honest, also if you're innocent .


..... but one angle, if pc plod had to brake because you cut in, surely he was also running a red light as well, or intending to. And as one of London's finest wouldn't do that their story could be unpicked and you might get off - but your brief's fees are likely to far exceed any fine.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

Profpointy said:


> Whilst it's probably a lot less hassle to 'fess up and pay the fine, especially if they've actually got you"bang to rights guv," and to be honest, also if you're innocent .
> 
> 
> .....* but one angle, if pc plod had to brake because you cut in, surely he was also running a red light as well, or intending to. And as one of London's finest wouldn't do that their story could be unpicked and you might get off - but your brief's fees are likely to far exceed any fine*.


That's rather wild. The PC says he wasn't going more than 10mph so its more than possible he was rolling to the bumper of the car in front. Of which the OP seen as a gap to filter through, he cut it too close and the PC grabbed the brake. There were 2 cars in front of them also so the likely hood is the PC driving would have to expect the two in front to pass on red for him to pass on red which is illogical.


----------



## downfader (19 Oct 2013)

To dissect part of the Officer's statement:



> Fortunately, the vehicle behind mine was not travelling close: otherwise this sharp braking would have caused a road traffic collision



Er no. Had the vehicle behind been too close then THAT driver would have caused any collision with the rear of said police vehicle. Its an irrelevant statement imo.



> DO YOU HAVE A DRIVING LICENCE?” To which he replied “YES” and produced a full UK photocard driving license.



Are I thought they were more general than that and simply ask for ID?



> YOU WOULDN’T DO THIS IN A CAR WOULD YOU?


Curiously.. If setting the standard by the motorist then this question is pretty dismal. Its a bit like holding Saville up as a childrens' ambassador despite us all knowing the ugly truth.  Though that probably wont help you in court if you mentioned how many drivers bust through the lights - in the words of comedian Josh Widdecombe "...if I go at this fast enough it's essentially green.."

To get off this you would in reality need - an independent witness, or some video evidence (CCTV, helmet camera, police in-car video if there is any for that vehicle), or for a massive cock-up on the Police's part. If you're absolutely certain you did not run a red (or even amble-gamble) then you need to layout your case very carefully


----------



## ComedyPilot (19 Oct 2013)

Why would the OP be 'darting across the front' of a car in lane 2 - offside to nearside?

To me that indicates a filtering move which would mean the police car wasn't at the front of the queue?

And if that was the case, then the police car would more than likely be stopping anyway if the car(s) in that lane in front of them were stopping too? A convoy of bikes to me means 3+ moving in a uniformal straight line, and filtering like in the statement isn't something convoys do, it's something individuals do.

What was the OP's position?

Kerbside or between lane 1 + 2?

.


----------



## PeteXXX (19 Oct 2013)

By asking if you have a driving licence, are they intending to give you 3 points for a TS10?
If you accept a fixed penalty, it is £60 plus 3 points. If you take it to Court, and lose, it can be up to £1,000 plus 3 points.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2013)

2718887 said:


> Unless it is possible to demonstrate out and out lying in the statement



That is the last thing the OP should try - or needs - to do.

Calling coppers liars does not go down well with magistrates.

The OP accepts the statement is the officer's honestly held belief, but suggests he may be mistaken.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

Have you been summoned for dangerous cycling’ or the red light jump. From the sounds of the driver hes lining you up for dangerous cycling. However Im unsure as if someone needs to be seriously hurt or damage to propriety done for this charge to be made.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

PeteXXX said:


> By asking if you have a driving licence, are they intending to give you 3 points for a TS10?
> If you accept a fixed penalty, it is £60 plus 3 points. If you take it to Court, and lose, it can be up to £1,000 plus 3 points.


Cycling offences can not be applied to a driving license unless on a E bike or the charge is furious cycling of which they can disqualify you.


----------



## stowie (19 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> What have you been summoned for? The red light jump or reckless cycling?



I was wondering this. Isn't a RLJ a fixed penalty notice? Seems a lot of effort to go to court for something that can be resolved with a FPN.

Do LCC/CTC offer legal advise (I should know I belong to the LCC!)? They would be the first people I would call if I had this happen to me.

Careless cycling carries a fine of up to £1000 against a £30 FPN.

I know this doesn't help but when you get drivers admitting careless driving and killing cyclists getting a fine of a fraction of the above it seems completely vindictive to take this to court when the incident seemed to involve the police driver only having to brake a bit harder - he says he was travelling in slow moving traffic?


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Oct 2013)

The charge will be on the summons which the OP says he has.


----------



## Archie_tect (19 Oct 2013)

stowie said:


> I was wondering this. Isn't a RLJ a fixed penalty notice? Seems a lot of effort to go to court for something that can be resolved with a FPN.
> 
> Do LCC/CTC offer legal advise (I should know I belong to the LCC!)? They would be the first people I would call if I had this happen to me.
> 
> ...


The police driver states he was in slow moving traffic travelling at *10mph*... but had to brake sharply... sounds like both policemen had nothing better to do, so bad luck, you've been nicked by bored officers who have copied each others statements... and it sounds like you did what they said however aggravating that may be for you... but what a waste of money and resources this is. Multiply this by the number of other unnecessary court proceedings and you start to see why the real criminals manage to evade punishment.


----------



## downfader (19 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> The police driver states he was in slow moving traffic travelling at *10mph*... but had to brake sharply... sounds like both policemen had nothing better to do, so bad luck, you've been nicked by bored officers who have copied each others statements... and it sounds like you did what they said however aggravating that may be for you... but what a waste of money and resources this is. Multiply this by the number of other unnecessary court proceedings and you start to see why the real criminals manage to evade punishment.


I'm pretty sure you can still brake sharply at 10mph - it all depends upon proximity's of parties involved


----------



## Archie_tect (19 Oct 2013)

...and one's anticipation based on years of driving experience in a busy street with cyclists filtering past... not difficult is it. 
Mind you, no-one in their right mind would go out of their way to deliberately irritate two policemen in a high-vis police car, which leads me to think the OP didn't do very much to cause offence, the 2 policemen were bored with not enough to do... sad that they are so ineffectual at their jobs that they feel it's necessary to bring the might of the law down on such a miscreant- it's not even theft or assault... perhaps they are surplus to need and should be made redundant.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> The police driver states he was in slow moving traffic travelling at *10mph*... but had to brake sharply... sounds like both policemen had nothing better to do, so bad luck, you've been nicked by bored officers who have copied each others statements... and it sounds like you did what they said however aggravating that may be for you... but what a waste of money and resources this is. Multiply this by the number of other unnecessary court proceedings and you start to see why the real criminals manage to evade punishment.


 
It may sound like that. It may even be so.

But if we observe the driving and cycling around us on a daily basis, we see many actions that might be worth a ticket or a fine. The police must see just as many (or almost as many, since some will be intimidated by the presence of Old Bill).

Yet they stop relatively few motorists... and VERY few cyclists. A stop like this has no kudos for a police officer. Even if bored, why bother? Lots of paperwork and hassle. He has a specific task and this falls outside his current posting.

Bored coppers may do many things, but it's unlikely that they stop RLJ cyclists for that reason. More likely (but I wasn't there) that they saw some incautious, discourteous or dangerous road behaviour and thought it worth a word. I may be wrong.


----------



## Lanzecki (19 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> the charge is furious cycling of which they can disqualify you.



My own personal goal. That and the 40kph local Speed camera


----------



## stowie (19 Oct 2013)

If you want some impartial legal advise maybe the cyclists defence fund could help? http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/contact

I think they are part of CTC. At the least they may be able to provide guidance on typical fines for careless cycling.


----------



## Joey Shabadoo (19 Oct 2013)

Counter Terrorism officers eh?

Just be thankful you're not Brazilian.


----------



## Archie_tect (19 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Bored coppers may do many things, but it's unlikely that they stop RLJ cyclists for that reason. More likely (but I wasn't there) that they saw some incautious, discourteous or dangerous road behaviour and thought it worth a word. I may be wrong.



A quiet word was all it merited... not a full blown summons and court appearance... one wonders whether there was a motive behind singling out one person from many doing the same.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2013)

my take is harsh, but I think fair...

you filtered in front of plod, in a way said plod found unhelpful, and then ran a red light in front of same plod. I don't doubt you did all of those things and the tone of the OP convinced me of that before I read your 'court summons' document. Now you're protesting the unfairness of it all. You sound like, and have deployed all the arguments beloved of, a driver when plod catches them out.

I'm all for solidarity amongst cyclists, well some of the time I am, but in this case...

Man up, take it on the chin, and reflect on how you ride in the vicinity of marked police cars.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> A quiet word was all it merited... not a full blown summons and court appearance... one wonders whether there was a motive behind singling out one person from many doing the same.


Telling a police officer "I didn't do such-and-such" when s/he says they saw you doing it is a quick way to talk them out of being lenient.


----------



## Archie_tect (19 Oct 2013)

True.


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Oct 2013)

Trying to get my head around a summons, did you refuse or not pay a fixed penalty notice?


----------



## martint235 (19 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2719163, member: 30090"]legal advice for running a so called red light

You don't do it and when you do and get caught you pay a fine - simples.[/quote]
What took you so long?


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

Andrew_P said:


> Trying to get my head around a summons, did you refuse or not pay a fixed penalty notice?


Me too. Why on earth has this been brought to court?


----------



## steve52 (19 Oct 2013)

ya cooked be graceful in defeat


----------



## buggi (19 Oct 2013)

no fk it... Fight it all the way.. Like drivers do when they kill us!!!


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Cycling offences can not be applied to a driving license unless on a E bike or the charge is furious cycling of which they can disqualify you.


"Furious cycling"....LOL


----------



## marzjennings (19 Oct 2013)

You're hosed, typical vague write up by the plods, but it seems that the law was broken by a group of cyclists, you were part of the group and you were the cyclist they caught. Your description and conversation with plod have been interlaced with a general scripted version of events. But without other witnesses or video evidence to back you up, just pay the fine.


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Oct 2013)

Roadrider48 said:


> "Furious cycling"....LOL


Yes, it's an actual charge. However you normally have to kill or seriously injury someone. Plus it's hardly been used. About 3 times in its creation but I was answering his question so give a full answer.


----------



## Roadrider48 (19 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Yes, it's an actual charge. However you normally have to kill or seriously injury someone. Plus it's hardly been used. About 3 times in its creation but I was answering his question so give a full answer.


I just laughed to myself at the phrase. It was no reflection on you, I can assure you.


----------



## Hip Priest (19 Oct 2013)

Tell them you were in a hurry because you had diarrhea.

Worked for Alex Ferguson when he got pulled for driving right past a traffic jam on the hard shoulder.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

2719360 said:


> Why not? It is illegal and it is a police function to police. Plenty comment about RLJing cyclists getting all of us a bad name. Here is an example of the law addressing it. Good I say, in principle.


Why? In my experience the police generally pay very little attention to such crimes in a scenario where "no harm's done".
Something like this would usually be dealt with by having a word. I'm very surprised it's going to court, it seems a bit OTT and in my view not a very good use of public resources.


----------



## Profpointy (19 Oct 2013)

Probably the best thing is to just pay up. And if you are actually innocent, then they "owe" you a couple of RLJ's which you've now paid for. sorted !


----------



## gavintc (19 Oct 2013)

I have a pretty low regard of people who don't acknowledge their own failings. I see it at work all the time and it always reduces my respect for the person. Fess up, get on with it, and learn from the experience. Jumping a red light and then getting caught - not many options.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

2719393 said:


> Assuming that the officer's statement is correct, the cyclist overtook them in order to jump the light, which would be cocking a snoot at their authority.


Still no harm done, other than injured pride. I agree, it sounds like a fair cop, but I think that court is OTT and very unusual in these circumstances.


----------



## downfader (19 Oct 2013)

Just to point out there is no Furious Cycling charge, only Wanton and Furious Driving (which applies to cyclists, horse riders and motorists alike)

And yes, it might be tempting to challenge every little infraction "just because a driver would", but we should aim to be better than that. Eg, not amble gamble or jump red in the first place. I also disagree that cops would do something because they're "bored", I've never spoken to a cop with such an easy life.

EDIT:and I suspect that the summons is because of one or more or several possibilities:
- refusal to accept an FPN
- getting cocky/argumentative with the police
- being reckless for your or anyone else's regard
- doing something in a known "black spot"


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

2719420 said:


> It is foolish to dismiss it as wounded pride. We require our law process to have authority and the people to acknowledge that and preferably acknowledge it as fair etc.
> If nobody ever gets prosecuted for it, and it occurs, then the law is not being enforced.


Unfortunately, I've had numerous experiences that have demonstrated to me that police office are as likely, if not more, to be complete nobbers than any average person. I fear the police officers in this case are indeed nobbers who ought to have more pressing things to do with their time and our money.


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Oct 2013)

2719420 said:


> It is foolish to dismiss it as wounded pride. We require our law process to have authority and the people to acknowledge that and preferably acknowledge it as fair etc.
> If nobody ever gets prosecuted for it, and it occurs, then the law is not being enforced.


Fixed Penalty notices are being used for speeding, tailgating and even careless driving. The statement from the Police involved and the fact they were anti terrorist strikes me as they were either being vindictive for some reason, or were provoked by the OP. In London seems that when they have a crack down they just wave down blatant RLJ'ers and issue FPN with a lesson and or a rollicking.

Hopefully there is more to this than we have been told, if not I am pretty disappointed that a vehicle patrolling central London with the officers described as Anti Terrorist (one would assume their remit was anti terror) wasted so much time and effort at the time, plus the time and effort of the court case.


----------



## fossyant (19 Oct 2013)

Sorry, but if you have been done on a bike for jumping a light, then you have bloody well done it. Amber means stop.

Don't get this thread ? Fess up.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (19 Oct 2013)

I don't jump red lights and it annoys me people that do. So the OP gets no sympathy from me.


----------



## Mile195 (19 Oct 2013)

I'm no legal expert, but I can't see that you have any comeback at all, regardless of the circumstances.

If you went through a red light, you went through a red light. That's the end of it. There's no exceptions that make it legal and therefore they can prosecute. I'm very surprised they didn't just give you a £30 fine though.

I echo the other sentiments. Just pay the fine. There's no way you'll ever win unless you have an awful lot of money to pay a very slimey, but very good lawyer.


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Oct 2013)

> I began to lightly brake for the ATS when all of a sudden the cyclist darted across the front of my vehicle from the offside to the nearside, causing me to brake sharply to avoid contact.


So you were traveling under 10mph as well as braking lightly in preparation to stop, and yet you feel that the braking was sharp when the cyclist changed lanes infront of you? 
Doesnt quite make sense to me. 



> I had a clear unobstructed view of the stop line between two vehicles that were stationary in front of me.


This does not make sense. The view clearly was obstructed if there were vehicles in front of you. 



> I checked the driving license


The cyclist was operating a push bike, not a car. Driving license is irrelevant. 



> ...technical issues with our *force* verification...


FORCE is not an accepted term. 

The initial incident happened at about 1748 hrs, the interaction was over at 1903 hrs. That is one hell of a long traffic stop. 

I have also noticed that neither of the officers said whether or not the cyclists stopped after the white line. Yes, crossing it is technically breaking the law but there is no mention of whether or not they continued through the junction or stopped. The statement also is not as detailed as I would expect it to be. Even I have made more detailed statements to the police when reporting incidents. 
There are numerous mistakes throughout the statement and I wouldnt be surprised if these were brought up in a court of law. 

I see no real evidence against either of the cyclists as it is just one persons word against the other. Stand your ground and dont be bullied just because the officers are _of the law_. Equal rights whether or not they are officers. They need physical evidence to charge you with something, not just what they think they saw.


----------



## martint235 (19 Oct 2013)

2719651 said:


> Start picking and chosing which laws to enforce and the others may as well not exist.


Exactly.


----------



## fossyant (19 Oct 2013)

Simple, the OP jumped an amber gambler and was caught. Oh well.


----------



## gaz (19 Oct 2013)

fossyant said:


> Sorry, but if you have been done on a bike for jumping a light, then you have bloody well done it. *Amber means stop.*
> 
> Don't get this thread ? Fess up.


Unless it is not safe to stop


----------



## marzjennings (19 Oct 2013)

fossyant said:


> Sorry, but if you have been done on a bike for jumping a light, then you have bloody well done it. Amber means stop.
> .



No, it means stop if you can.

*AMBER means 
‘Stop’ at the stop 
line. You may go 
on only if the 
AMBER appears 
after you have 
crossed the stop 
line or are so 
close to it that 
to pull up might 
cause an accident *


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

2719651 said:


> Start picking and chosing which laws to enforce and the others may as well not exist.


They already do! So, given that thats the case, I'd prefer this situation to be dealt with by having a word, it's really not worth the expense of taking it to court.


----------



## fossyant (19 Oct 2013)

marzjennings said:


> No, it means stop if you can.
> 
> *AMBER means
> ‘Stop’ at the stop
> ...



Sorry, but on a cycle, he has been a bad boy.

They have his name and address already, he has been caught, SIMPLE.

You can quote this and that, but to be pulled by a copper on a pedal bike, you have been a really bad boy.


----------



## morrisman (19 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> So you were traveling under 10mph as well as braking lightly in preparation to stop, and yet you feel that the braking was sharp when the cyclist changed lanes infront of you?
> Doesnt quite make sense to me.



Why not, if someone rides in front of a car douing any speed and the driver has to step on the brakes it will cause a sharp stop.



> This does not make sense. The view clearly was obstructed if there were vehicles in front of you.



The stop line could be viewed down the side of the cars in front,



> The cyclist was operating a push bike, not a car. Driving license is irrelevant.



The officer asked for id and was shown a driving licence, should he have rejected it as the guy was ona bike?



> FORCE is not an accepted term.



By whom?



> The initial incident happened at about 1748 hrs, the interaction was over at 1903 hrs. That is one hell of a long traffic stop.
> 
> I have also noticed that neither of the officers said whether or not the cyclists stopped after the white line. Yes, crossing it is technically breaking the law but there is no mention of whether or not they continued through the junction or stopped.



As you say the offence is complete when the line is crossed so whether the cyclist stopped or not is irrelevant.



> I see no real evidence against either of the cyclists as it is just one persons word against the other.



I think it is one cyclist word against two policeman's word and you may wish to consider who the magistrates will believe.



> Stand your ground and dont be bullied just because the officers are _of the law_. Equal rights whether or not they are officers. They need physical evidence to charge you with something, not just what they think they saw.



No they don't.


----------



## downfader (19 Oct 2013)

marzjennings said:


> No, it means stop if you can.
> 
> *AMBER means
> ‘Stop’ at the stop
> ...



I think this is a good point to raise. Any number of us will have experience of riding towards a light that flicks to amber, but know full well that the vehicle behind wont be brought to a stop by the driver/rider.


----------



## marzjennings (19 Oct 2013)

fossyant said:


> Sorry, but on a cycle, he has been a bad boy.
> 
> They have his name and address already, he has been caught, SIMPLE.
> 
> You can quote this and that, but to be pulled by a copper on a pedal bike, you have been a really bad boy.



I wasn't talking about the OP, just your ascertain that amber just means stop, which it doesn't.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Oct 2013)

2719719 said:


> They already do what, exist or pick and choose?
> Anyhow, cut to the chase here, *RLJ good or bad*?


 
*RLJ bad*, although I do it myself on bicycles more frequently than I ought to. If stopped, I would have to pay. 

*Speeding bad,* although I do it myself in cars and used to do it to a wicked degree on motorcycles. My currently clean license has been empointed many times.


----------



## morrisman (19 Oct 2013)

marzjennings said:


> I wasn't talking about the OP, just your ascertain that amber just means stop, which it doesn't.


For clarity the law as stated in *Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002* is:

_Regulation 36(1)(e) states that the amber-alone signal shall convey the same prohibition as the red signal, namely that vehicular traffic (other than tramcars) shall not proceed beyond the stop line, except that, as respects any vehicle (other than a tramcar) which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line. In such circumstances, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it._


----------



## marzjennings (19 Oct 2013)

morrisman said:


> For clarity the law as stated in *Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002* is:
> 
> _Regulation 36(1)(e) states that the amber-alone signal shall convey the same prohibition as the red signal, namely that vehicular traffic (other than tramcars) shall not proceed beyond the stop line, except that, as respects any vehicle (other than a tramcar) which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line. In such circumstances, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it._



So and to summarize, stop if you can.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

2719719 said:


> They already do what, exist or pick and choose?
> Anyhow, cut to the chase here, RLJ good or bad?



1)They already pick and choose.

2) It depends. I've RLJ'd before when not to do so would have put me at risk,but never passed through a junction.
Usually when I've been in a cycle lane leading to lights, it's changed to red, not been able to get into primary, filtered to ASL, find a vehicle in ASL so crossed line to get in front to be in a sfer position.
There's also a another set of lights where I have to turn right. I've been under and over taken whilst turning there, really dangerous maneuvering by drivers. I've noticed there's an all red phase for the pedestrian crossings. It'd be much safer for me to turn in that phase and since I've always been the only cyclist and it's slightly uphill (so I'd be going slow) it wouldn't really pose any problems for peds either. I've considered it, but haven't tried it yet
As a rule RLJ = bad though, unless not red light jumping puts someone at risk.

It's not really clear in the OP why he jumped the read,


----------



## Lanzecki (19 Oct 2013)

downfader said:


> Just to point out there is no Furious Cycling charge, only Wanton and Furious Driving (which applies to cyclists, horse riders and motorists alike)



Noooo. Well there goes an item on my bucket list 

I shall have to add the Alp-d'Huez back on. That'll be less fun.


----------



## Linford (19 Oct 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> Is taking responsibility for your actions such a bad thing for people to do nowadays?



I took my PTW for a spin a couple of years ago...last time before putting it away for the winter. I rode up a big hill, chugging along..maybe 60, didn't realise that a patrol car had caught up, and sitting just outside the view of my mirrors, in the inside lane, got to a roundabout, went around it and then wound it on...a lot (last time out, conditions were good, ..topped it out in 3rd gear before slowing behind traffic, flicked the visor up, sat there for about 10 seconds in the flow minding my own business, and then heard sirens approaching behind me, thought...are they trying to get past, or are they after me (oops). Realised the latter was the case, and then pulled over in a side road for a chat about 1/4 mile up (this was on a trunk road)..immediately got the caution, and thought, he isn't playing, so was polite, respectful and listened to what he had to say. He then offered me the choice of 3 points and a fine for speeding (FPN) or a day in court...and he had it on cam...as well as another PC in the passenger seat, and guaranteed me that I'd be looking at a ban...which I accepted to be the case.
I took the FPN, and when all was done, got down on my knees and said a little prayer he didn't just go the other way.

If you are caught and banged to rights, then bend over, accept your punishment, and try and learn from it.

All IMO of course


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Oct 2013)

When I get a car, I will fit it with a dashcam. I will then show the people of the world how late you can safely brake for a red light (the environment will obviously depend on it but some people think that an amber means green). Countless times I see people running ambers just because they think it is a green. 
Even when cycling, and approaching a junction where I know I can safely go through on an amber, I will still stop when I can.


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Oct 2013)

2719833 said:


> Will the world be ready?


It had better. I plan to put this into action in July.


----------



## morrisman (19 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> When I get a car, I will fit it with a dashcam. I will then show the people of the world how late you can safely brake for a red light (the environment will obviously depend on it but some people think that an amber means green). .



The Sainted Mrs Morrisman tried to show a VW Touareg how safely you can brake for an amber only to have her Skoda shortened by about 6 inches.


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Oct 2013)

morrisman said:


> The Sainted Mrs Morrisman tried to show a VW Touareg how safely you can brake for an amber only to have her Skoda shortened by about 6 inches.


Thats what I mean about the environment. I will probably do it when traffic is quiet and there is noone around who might be affected by it (that is if I even remember by then). I probably wouldnt have the courage to mess about on the roads. Just turn the camera on, and get on with the drive.


----------



## classic33 (19 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> It had better. I plan to put this into action in July.


 What year?


----------



## martint235 (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> 1)They already pick and choose.
> 
> 2) It depends. I've RLJ'd before when not to do so would have put me at risk,but never passed through a junction.
> *Usually when I've been in a cycle lane leading to lights, it's changed to red, not been able to get into primary, filtered to ASL, find a vehicle in ASL so crossed line to get in front to be in a sfer position.*
> ...


Safer than just approaching the lights like a car? Taking your place in full primary in a line of traffic or are you justifying the driver mentality of "must get to the front"? I see no reason to get to the front of the queue and if you think about it, where's riskier? Two cars back where the car behind you isn't going to do an F1 start when the lights change or a couple of cars back where you have time to look at the driver, signal what you intend to do and then safely do it?

RLJing is done by impatient, selfish people who should be prosecuted. There should be a year of zero tolerance for all road offences.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> Safer than just approaching the lights like a car? Taking your place in full primary in a line of traffic or are you justifying the driver mentality of "must get to the front"? I see no reason to get to the front of the queue and if you think about it, where's riskier? Two cars back where the car behind you isn't going to do an F1 start when the lights change or a couple of cars back where you have time to look at the driver, signal what you intend to do and then safely do it?
> 
> RLJing is done by impatient, selfish people who should be prosecuted. There should be a year of zero tolerance for all road offences.


Yes, I'm thinking of one particular set of lights where there's a bike lane, traffic crawling on the right or traffic at a standstill, lights turn red, I keep filtering up the cycle lane - no room to move out into primary as traffic is already nose to tail get to front, find car in ASL safer and causing no harm whatsoever to get in front than sit on his left.
If I'm in moving traffic and the lights change I'll happily move to primary and wait, but that's not the situation I'm describing here.
I'm not impatient or selfish, but if I find myself in a situation where it's safer for me to go over the line that isn't going to harm or inconvenience anyone else then that's what I'll do. It would be stupid not to.


----------



## Matthew_T (19 Oct 2013)

classic33 said:


> What year?


Next year. (Doesnt leave much time for stocking the Anderson Shelter does it?)


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Why? In my experience the police generally pay very little attention to such crimes in a scenario where "no harm's done".
> Something like this would usually be dealt with by having a word. I'm very surprised it's going to court, it seems a bit OTT and in my view not a very good use of public resources.



So, you'd rather the police not bother with low level crime then?

What resources are they actually wasting? It must have taken them 10 minutes max to write up that statement, perhaps anothher hour arsing about with due process.

I would imagine that counter terrorism units have quite a bit of time on their hands because, no matter what the Daily Mail tell us, there's not an Abu Hamza on every street corner.

I the words of BB, I could be wrong on all of the above.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

and yeah, MTFU and accept the fine.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

2719420 said:


> It is foolish to dismiss it as wounded pride. We require our law process to have authority and the people to acknowledge that and preferably acknowledge it as fair etc.
> If nobody ever gets prosecuted for it, and it occurs, then the law is not being enforced.



^^THIS^^


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

This is a great thread.

Commuting community living together in har..mo..ee.

We bicker, bitch and argue, but when one of "our own" break the rules, you're on your own son.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> It had better. I plan to put this into action in July.



No


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> So, you'd rather the police not bother with low level crime then?
> 
> What resources are they actually wasting? It must have taken them 10 minutes max to write up that statement, perhaps anothher hour arsing about with due process.
> 
> ...


That case will cost thousands to bring to court. Given that no harm was done here and that hundreds of crimes where harm will have been done will have gone uninvestigated by the police, then yes, I would prefer this to have been dealt with by having a word.
I've friends who've been victims of crime that has real impact - mostly theft of property, vehicles, burglary and the police have shown no interest whatsoever. A friend had his moped stolen and wrecked, a passer by caught the thief called the police, thief was let go on a restorative justice programme ie let off. Moped owner hundreds of pounds out of pocket in lost excess.
I myself was victim of a hit and run, got the reg of vehicle, police only investigated after a lot of pressure from myself when I found out they'd taken no action at all two weeks later.
If the police officers haven't got anything better to do with their time than this then they ought to be redeployed.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

Re-read your post and think about what you are saying.

All the crimes mentioned are in essence low level.

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

And do you read the DM?


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Re-read your post and think about what you are saying.
> 
> All the crimes mentioned are in essence low level.
> 
> They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.


But my point is that they had real tangible impact on victims. The offence committed in the OP doesn't.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> But my point is that they had real tangible impact on victims. The offence committed in the OP doesn't.



Nope-try harder.

RLJ does have an effect, there just isn't an easily identifiable victim.


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Nope-try harder.
> 
> RLJ does have an effect, there just isn't an easily identifiable victim.


Where was the victim? There wasn't one. This would have been better dealt with by having a word or even an FPN. Taking this case to court is OTT and a waste of tax payers money.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

The victim is everyone.

I am not spelling it out-sorry, gave up that internet game a long time ago.


----------



## gaz (19 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> When I get a car, I will fit it with a dashcam. I will then show the people of the world how late you can safely brake for a red light (the environment will obviously depend on it but some people think that an amber means green). Countless times I see people running ambers just because they think it is a green.
> Even when cycling, and approaching a junction where I know I can safely go through on an amber, I will still stop when I can.


eh? It's fully dependent on your car and your reactions. Some drivers with some cars can not stop for things that you think you might be able to.

Matthew, When you get a car please just drive it, don't do dash cam and don't do stupid pointless stunts like you mentioned above. You are in a heavy vehicle which you don't know how to control properly (passing your test doesn't equate to knowing how to control your car like senna). There's a difference to stopping safely and stopping by heavy breaking that could see you loosing control.


----------



## gaz (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Where was the victim? There wasn't one. This would have been better dealt with by having a word or even an FPN. Taking this case to court is OTT and a waste of tax payers money.


Has the OP confirmed why this is going to court? I've not seen it so I can only suggest that he may have been given an FPN and he is choosing to challenge it in court.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Thats what I mean about the environment. I will probably do it when traffic is quiet and there is noone around who might be affected by it (that is if I even remember by then). I probably wouldnt have the courage to mess about on the roads. Just turn the camera on, and get on with the drive.


 
Sir, do not do this thing. Do not make that film.

Do not mess about on the roads, whether you think they are clear or not.

Messing about on the roads does not take courage. It takes stupidity and brazen selfishness. I know; I've done it.

The world does not want or need a film by a novice driver about how to brake for an ATS. Particularly a novice driver who picks and chooses which laws he will obey.

Sir, do not make that film.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> ... *loosing... *control.



Just sayin


----------



## Sara_H (19 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> The victim is everyone.
> 
> I am not spelling it out-sorry, gave up that internet game a long time ago.


In that they give us all a bad name? Well sufficicie


gaz said:


> Has the OP confirmed why this is going to court? I've not seen it so I can only suggest that he may have been given an FPN and he is choosing to challenge it in court.


I uspect you're right. Be very unusual otherwise.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> In that they give us all a bad name? Well sufficicie



No


----------



## Archie_tect (19 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Just sayin


Breaking?


----------



## gaz (19 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Just sayin





Archie_tect said:


> Breaking?


I saw the breaking and left it in just for 400bhp. Shocked he didn't get it, however I must hold my hand up to loosing.


----------



## Matthew_T (20 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> The world does not want or need a film by a novice driver about how to brake for an ATS. Particularly a novice driver who *picks and chooses which laws he will obey*.


Please explain?


----------



## Cycling Dan (20 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Please explain?


I suspect it's reference to your motorbike endeavor.


----------



## martint235 (20 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> Yes, I'm thinking of one particular set of lights where there's a bike lane, traffic crawling on the right or traffic at a standstill, lights turn red, I keep filtering up the cycle lane - no room to move out into primary as traffic is already nose to tail get to front, find car in ASL safer and causing no harm whatsoever to get in front than sit on his left.
> If I'm in moving traffic and the lights change I'll happily move to primary and wait, but that's not the situation I'm describing here.
> I'm not impatient or selfish, but if I find myself in a situation where it's safer for me to go over the line that isn't going to harm or inconvenience anyone else then that's what I'll do. It would be stupid not to.


So what does a car do in this nose to tail traffic if it wants to turn right? You DON'T have to be at the front and it isn't an excuse to break the law.


----------



## Matthew_T (20 Oct 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> I suspect it's reference to your motorbike endeavor.


Which I didnt know was illegal until I came on here. Maybe if people actually read what was said there would be no confusion.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Which I didnt know was illegal until I came on here. Maybe if people actually read what was said there would be no confusion.


 
We read it. I strongly suggest that you go back and read the whole thread again. including your bizarre comments about not worrying because you cannot be identified from the footage. It does not show you in a good light. 

You were unaware that it was illegal to ride an untaxed, uninsured 125cc motorcycle around a car park which is public land and to which the public (pedestrians) have access. You did this at speeds up to 45mph, although you say you_ slowed down_ near pedestrians (!).

Juxtapose that quite alarming ignorance with your 'take no prisoners' approach on your Youtube channel. It is a good thing that you have stopped posting your angry, shouty vigilante Judge Dredd stuff on CC. The world's blood pressure has dropped to safer levels. 

Trust me, if you did not know that this was illegal and you are a novice driver, you really should not be making driving films about how to brake for an ATS.


----------



## Sara_H (20 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> So what does a car do in this nose to tail traffic if it wants to turn right? You DON'T have to be at the front and it isn't an excuse to break the law.


So let me get this right. If I'm filtering past traffic that's at a standstill, if the light turns red you think I should stop, where ever I happens to be in that queue? Be that 10m back, 50m or a hundred? What's the point? The situation I'm describing is that I've just happened to reach the front if the queue whilst filtering. It makes no difference to anyone if I sit just in front of the line (except that it presents lower risk to me) than if I sit to the left of the queue.


----------



## martint235 (20 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> So let me get this right. If I'm filtering past traffic that's at a standstill, if the light turns red you think I should stop, where ever I happens to be in that queue? Be that 10m back, 50m or a hundred? What's the point? The situation I'm describing is that I've just happened to reach the front if the queue whilst filtering. It makes no difference to anyone if I sit just in front of the line (except that it presents lower risk to me) than if I sit to the left of the queue.


No I'm expecting you to think more about your road position before it becomes an issue. If you're turning right why are you filtering down the left handside of traffic to sit in front of a car that you know is going to be accelerating behind you as soon as red+amber shows. I can't understand how you think that is a safer thing to do? Depending how many cars there are , let's say 3, I'd probably wait my turn at the back. Let's say 10, I'd filter down the right hand side (assuming I've got space to do so) and then probably stop a couple of cars back from the front. If it's not safe to filter on the right then down the cycle lane to two cars back, look at the driver behind you, signal what you're going to do when the lights change and then do it. Simples as @User30090 would say.


----------



## Sara_H (20 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> No I'm expecting you to think more about your road position before it becomes an issue. If you're turning right why are you filtering down the left handside of traffic to sit in front of a car that you know is going to be accelerating behind you as soon as red+amber shows. I can't understand how you think that is a safer thing to do? Depending how many cars there are , let's say 3, I'd probably wait my turn at the back. Let's say 10, I'd filter down the right hand side (assuming I've got space to do so) and then probably stop a couple of cars back from the front. If it's not safe to filter on the right then down the cycle lane to two cars back, look at the driver behind you, signal what you're going to do when the lights change and then do it. Simples as @User30090 would say.


I'm not talking about two or ten cars. I'm talking about a mile long that is nose to tail from the junction I join it to where the traffic lights are. Without fail, I have to filter the whole way up to the lights. If it's green I carry on through on the left if its red I sit in the ASL in the way it's designed, but if there's a car there it's safer to go over the line and wait in front than to sit in the left potentially putting myself at risk of a left hook. It causes no harm to anyone else and reduces the risk to me, so whats the problem?
It's uphill so it takes a few minutes to get up. 
There isn't enough space to filter on the right due to oncoming traffic and the same problem of not being able to pull back in.
If your filtering along stop-start nose to tail traffic you don't always get an opportunity to get into primary before the ASL, and what would be the point if when the lights change you're still going be filtering once the lights have changed. If I wanted to sit in a queue of traffic I'd buy a car and do it in comfort.


----------



## martint235 (20 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> There's also a another set of lights where I have to turn right.,





Sara_H said:


> I'm not talking about two or ten cars. I'm talking about a mile long that is nose to tail from the junction I join it to where the traffic lights are. Without fail, I have to filter the whole way up to the lights. If it's green I carry on through on the left if its red I sit in the ASL in the way it's designed, but if there's a car there it's safer to go over the line and wait in front than to sit in the left potentially putting myself at risk of a left hook. It causes no harm to anyone else and reduces the risk to me, so whats the problem?



So if the light is green you carry on through on the left, how does that enable your right turn?
And the problem is you're breaking the law. I thought that had already been explained.

ASLs are for the most part poorly designed and a risk. This has been shown in various videos that show that most ASLs are equivalent to the area of the blind spot in front of a truck stopped at the line, and that's just one of the risks.


----------



## Sara_H (20 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> So if the light is green you carry on through on the left, how does that enable your right turn?
> And the problem is you're breaking the law. I thought that had already been explained.
> 
> ASLs are for the most part poorly designed and a risk. This has been shown in various videos that show that most ASLs are equivalent to the area of the blind spot in front of a truck stopped at the line, and that's just one of the risks.


Those are two different sets of lights. The first one, a right turn is on the way into work. The second set which I am describing to yo latterly is on my way home and I go straight on.
This isn't an area frequented by many trucks, and you're right, I wouldn't position myself there in front of a truck, I'm talking about positioning myself in front of cars, far less risk to be in front than to the left. The same can't be said for trucks, I'd hang back behind and wait for it to clear off in the same position, though if there was a truck on this particular street there wouldn't be enough room to filter anyway as the road is narrow and it would block the cycle lane anyway.
Clearly you don't get my drift as you're talking absolute nonsense. In these circumstances I'd rather be a live law breaker who has caused no one else any inconvenience, distress or risk than pointlessly put myself at risk for the sake of being a few inches over the line. 
This is the problem with the vehicularists, they want us to be treated like motorised vehicles and be punished as such as well, but cyclin presents a whole different set of risks on busy urban roads, our laws just don't reflect that in general and there are numerous situations where remaining within the law puts a cyclist needlessly at risk.


----------



## Sara_H (20 Oct 2013)

2720332 said:


> Our laws are pretty much OK. They way in which our courts act on them is what lets us down.


I disagree. Some road rules, don't take into account needs of cyclists and put them at risk.


----------



## Pale Rider (20 Oct 2013)

2720372 said:


> Such as?



The rule that says cyclists cannot run a red light.

Come on Adrian, try to keep up.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (20 Oct 2013)

If you did go through a Red Light then its your own fault and I wish they would stop everyone, cyclist or not, who does this. I also wish they would stop people who ride in the dark with no lights and ride on the pavement when they are not supposed to.


----------



## martint235 (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2720380, member: 30090"]Why stop two cars back? Why not one or three? And why stop in front of THAT car - MY CAR!. Driver mentality mate is a mofo, and TBH I would probably do what Sara has mentioned regarding a long line of traffic and a full ASL. I would jump the stop line so there's a good gap between me and the car behind and wait for the lights to go green. With your analogy you are relying on a car driver to let you move into their lane, because as you have described presumably (my bold) at the point when the lights are red you are splitting lanes?

I agree about there being three cars in the queue though, take your place in primary and wait for the lights to go green.[/quote]
Two cars lets the nutters out of the way ime. Car number 3 can't really jump on the accelerator as the lights change and so gives me time to move into their lane. So far, although driver mentality is strange at the best of times, I've only had one driver who was willing to get out of his car to discuss it with me.

Each to their own though. I dislike ASLs almost as much as I dislike RLJing cyclists.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2720380, memit is better in his words.er: 30090"]Why stop two cars back? Why not one or three? And why stop in front of THAT car - MY CAR!. Driver mentality mate is a mofo, and TBH I would probably do what Sara has mentioned regarding a long line of traffic and a full ASL. I would jump the stop line so there's a good gap between me and the car behind and wait for the lights to go green. With your analogy you are relying on a car driver to let you move into their lane, because as you have described presumably (my bold) at the point when the lights are red you are splitting lanes?

I agree about there being three cars in the queue though, take your place in primary and wait for the lights to go green.[/quote]
@gaz will explain.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Oct 2013)

I am on a tablet and its a pita to write more than a few sentences.


----------



## classic33 (20 Oct 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> Which I didnt know was illegal until I came on here. Maybe if people actually read what was said there would be no confusion.


 Ignorance is not a defence.


----------



## classic33 (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2720585, member: 30090"]Depends on what you're ignorant of...[/quote]
Ignorance of the law, in these cases.


----------



## gaz (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2720552, member: 30090"]Gaz will explain? That's like the pupil trying to teach the master...[/quote]
Are you saying i'm the pupil? :P

Anyway, Motorists at the front of the queue will often have a tendency to stare at the light, waiting for it to change like drag strip lights and then GO GO GO. Putting your self in front or just off side of them can result in some pre-frustation as they know they will be held up. More of an issue in my eyes is that as you set off there will be nothing in front of you and the motorist will see the open road ahead of you, the bliss that they want to travel at what ever speed that their right foot dictates. As such, they can often perform a dodgy overtake.
Where as, if you are a few cars back from the front and can kind of keep up with the car in front when the lights change. The motorist behind will only see the rear of another car in front of you and won't be as likely to do a dodgy overtake.

I pick and choose where I try to implement this. I mostly do it when there aren't many cyclists around. As I know other cyclists will filter to the front and then slow the cars down, in turn slowing me down.


----------



## J.Primus (20 Oct 2013)

fossyant said:


> Sorry, but on a cycle, he has been a bad boy.
> 
> They have his name and address already, he has been caught, SIMPLE.
> 
> You can quote this and that, but to be pulled by a copper on a pedal bike, you have been a really bad boy.



Or just being black or asian if you're being pulled over by the met.


----------



## Sara_H (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2720702, member: 45"]Only if you choose a particular riding style.[/quote]

Not necessarily.


----------



## Dan B (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2720779, member: 45"]If we're taking about ignoring red lights. What others [road tules that put cyclists at risk] do you think there are?[/quote]
The rule that prevents entry into an ASL when the light is red by any means other than the feeder lane. The HC advice (which I grant you is not itself a rule but which may nevertheless be used in support of the argument that someone's cycling is below standard) to "use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. The rules regarding zebra crossings that prohibit overtaking vehicles on the approach only if they are motor vehicles. The rule that makes it illegal (or used to, before they changed the road layout) to use teh southbound contraflow bus lane at Tottenham Hale gyratory. Those are off the top of my head, there may be others


----------



## Dan B (20 Oct 2013)

if you make your way down the outside of a queue of traffic and find that there is no way to legally enter it, I'd suggest you are at greater risk waiting alongside the first vehicle in the queue than you would be ahead of it. otherwise what's the point of it being there?


----------



## Sara_H (20 Oct 2013)

I'll tell you what fella's, I'm going to leave you to argue this one out among yourselves, it's like trying to argue with a group of toddlers. I'm sure some of you have missed a stage of development somewhere along the line. I'll leave you with these words a wise old woman once said to me:

"If the highway code told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?"


----------



## Licramite (20 Oct 2013)

I got done for running a red light, I didn't think I had time to stop safely so I went across.
still got done for it- as kelly said - such is life.
in the end if run the light your guilty. - for whatever reason - your still guilty. take it like a man.
after all they can't take your cycling license off you or give you points and it won't effect your insurance.


----------



## Licramite (20 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2721033, member: 45"]The HC isn't law.

RLJing is against the law. It's not necessary to keep us safe, and is not victimless. Victims include those encouraged to copy, those who recieve retribution from drivers and pedestrians who have experienced the negatives of the activity and those pedestrians who just want to get to the other side of the road.[/quote]
along with the chickens. - why do they do that?


----------



## gaz (20 Oct 2013)

Dan B said:


> The rule that prevents entry into an ASL when the light is red by any means other than the feeder lane. The HC advice (which I grant you is not itself a rule but which may nevertheless be used in support of the argument that someone's cycling is below standard) to "use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. The rules regarding zebra crossings that prohibit overtaking vehicles on the approach only if they are motor vehicles. The rule that makes it illegal (or used to, before they changed the road layout) to use teh southbound contraflow bus lane at Tottenham Hale gyratory. Those are off the top of my head, there may be others


The zebra crossing one is a weird one (it actually applies to all crossings with zig zag lines). As the rule has two sides.
1. when there are no people crossing. Motor vehicles are not allowed to overtake other motor vehicles in the area of the crossing.
2. when people are crossing, no vehicle shall overtake the lead vehicle which has stopped to let the pedestrians cross.


----------



## Arrowfoot (20 Oct 2013)

Principles, justice, fairness, equity etc are not necessary points of contention when one is dealing with a bike crossing on amber. It rapidly becomes one when it involves demerit points, disqualification or when one faces a serious charge. 

Best to pay the fine and get it off your list. I won't be surprised some of us do just that in order to fight the right battles. 

After what happened with 3 senior Police Officers and their respective chief constables, there is nothing to prove to anyone when it comes to their integrity and honesty let alone the 2 ordinary policemen.


----------



## spen666 (20 Oct 2013)

dhrubo said:


> Just my terminology. .From what I recall. I went through an amber. They are saying I went though a red.


Guilty as summonsed.

Amber light means stop


----------



## gaz (20 Oct 2013)

spen666 said:


> Guilty as summonsed.
> 
> Amber light means stop


Nah, it means stop unless it's not safe to stop.


----------



## 400bhp (20 Oct 2013)

Sara_H said:


> I'll tell you what fella's, I'm going to leave you to *argue* this one out among yourselves, it's like trying to *argue* with a group of toddlers. I'm sure some of you have missed a stage of development somewhere along the line. I'll leave you with these words a wise old woman once said to me:
> 
> "If the highway code told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?"



You clearly don't know how to *debate*.


----------



## martint235 (20 Oct 2013)

2721086 said:


> So, at the risk of appearing ever so slightly rude here, which laws?


I wouldn't bother Adrian. We're all toddlers apparently but then she throws her toys out of the pram.


----------



## spen666 (20 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> Nah, it means stop unless it's not safe to stop.


Correct, but it is up to defence to raise this and in the statement I replied to he has not raised this and as such on the account I replied to he is guilty as summonsed


----------



## gaz (20 Oct 2013)

spen666 said:


> Correct, but it is up to defence to raise this and in the statement I replied to he has not raised this and as such on the account I replied to he is guilty as summonsed


In the right circumstances, you can argue that going through the red light is the safest thing to do. Although in the OP's case I think that is out of the question. But for example:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKec2BH8uGI


----------



## classic33 (20 Oct 2013)

Isn't it a case of

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBeT4ptY9sY


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Oct 2013)

When I learnt to drive 20 years ago, amber meant 'you're gonna have to stop'. It's only when I moved to London that I realised the law is different here, amber means 'put your foot down!' 

I'm glad the Police have actually caught an RLJer to be honest, most of the time they ignore them.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Oct 2013)

Amber means "gun it" across the whole of SE England. Unfortunately.


----------



## Davidsw8 (21 Oct 2013)

I had to get the bus in this morning and as I sat there for a good 10 mins while the bus tried to move the 50 yards across Trafalgar Square I was thinking, I wonder how much better the traffic would flow if people stopped at lights and didn't crawl through on amber and red, blocking access to the traffic on green?

Maybe if everyone was less selfish, we'd all get where we wanted to much quicker? I don't know for sure that it'd be that way, but it must be worth a go cos this certainly aint working.


----------



## Frood42 (21 Oct 2013)

If you ran Amber and it was safe to stop, then you should have stopped (group think is not an acceptable excuse).
If it was Red, you should have stopped (group think is not an acceptable excuse).

I cannot read the statement, but the only reason I would cross a stop line while the light was red would be to move out of the way safely for an emergency vehicle with its blues and twos on, but only if it was safe to do so.

Oh, and if this was not an unmarked car, why, oh why would you do such a thing as run a red light..?


----------



## Lockring (21 Oct 2013)

Does bicycle have to stop for red light? For me it is easy to cross at redlights and at orange lights. I think this guy who will go to court rides to slow. If he is faster he doesn't go to court. He will pay because he is slow. He must ride faster. In London, if I stop for red light, maybe two stop also with me. Many bicycles do not. It is dangerose but all do it. This guy must ride fastr.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (21 Oct 2013)

You RLJ'd and got caught. No sympathy here I'm afraid. Pay the fine, say your sorry and modify your antisocial lawbreaking behaviour...


----------



## Frood42 (21 Oct 2013)

Lockring said:


> Does bicycle have to stop for red light? For me it is easy to cross at redlights and at orange lights. I think this guy who will go to court rides to slow. If he is faster he doesn't go to court. He will pay because he is slow. He must ride faster. In London, if I stop for red light, maybe two stop also with me. Many bicycles do not. It is dangerose but all do it. This guy must ride fastr.


 
Amber means stop if safe to do so.
Red means stop.

Speed has nothing to do with it.

I cycle 50-60 miles a day through London and while you do get a few idiots running red lights, most are sensible and wait.

I stop at all red lights, DO NOT bunch me in with a minority subset of cyclists who like a subset of car drivers are too impatient to stop and wait.

While a cyclist jumping a red light is not a good thing, and they can injure both the pedstrian and the cyclist, motor vehicles bring much, much more danger to the situation, due to increased size, weight and speed (and the material the vehicle is made from).

Get a grip, get some perspective, and stop running red lights if you are doing so.


----------



## winjim (21 Oct 2013)

Licramite said:


> I got done for running a red light, I didn't think I had time to stop safely so I went across.


 Isn't that what the amber light's for? To give you time to stop safely before the red.


----------



## martint235 (21 Oct 2013)

I've figured it out on my way home tonight. RLJing is to cyclists what buying a big car is to small willied blokes, a compensation factor. If you can't go quick on a bike, you RLJ to compensate!! Doh! To the RLJer on the Trek on the way home, yes a guy on a singlespeed did pass you twice after you'd jumped red lights.


----------



## ianrauk (21 Oct 2013)

martint235 said:


> I've figured it out on my way home tonight. RLJing is to cyclists what buying a big car is to small willied blokes, a compensation factor. If you can't go quick on a bike, you RLJ to compensate!! Doh! To the RLJer on the Trek on the way home, yes a guy on a singlespeed did pass you twice after you'd jumped red lights.




Go get 'em matey!


----------



## Crankarm (22 Oct 2013)

IANAL but my advice would be to plead guilty, pay the fine and move on. Just remember to stop at red lights in future. In fact you should be stopping when traffic lights turn from green to amber. If you do this you won't ever jump a red light ever again.


----------



## Poacher (22 Oct 2013)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the police are pursuing this relatively minor case, yet aren't bothering to investigate the hit and run which could so easily have resulted in @Crankarm being with us no more?

Actually, I don't find it particularly ironic, more like infuriating.


----------



## martint235 (22 Oct 2013)

Poacher said:


> Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the police are pursuing this relatively minor case, yet aren't bothering to investigate the hit and run which could so easily have resulted in @Crankarm being with us no more?
> 
> Actually, I don't find it particularly ironic, more like infuriating.


 


2723701 said:


> Yes and no. The logical conclusion of your thinking is that, at any given moment, we identify our one greatest problem and put all our resources into addressing it.


 
Yep I don't see the two issues as mutually exclusive. I'd quite welcome zero tolerance on all traffic offences for a while.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Oct 2013)

Poacher said:


> Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the police are pursuing this relatively minor case, yet aren't bothering to investigate the hit and run which could so easily have resulted in @Crankarm being with us no more?
> 
> Actually, I don't find it particularly ironic, more like infuriating.


 
I don't. The police who recommended that charges be brought against the alleged RLJ merchant in this thread were on the scene, allegedly saw the deed and acted.

The police who tried to deal with the @Crankarm collision were not present and had little to go on.

The hit and run sounds awful and I'm sad that no further action is deemed practical by the authorities, but in my experience they usually do what they can in H&R cases.

As to the alleged RLJ... if a bicycle swooped in front of a police car in traffic and caused the driver to brake heavily (any driver will know this is possible even from 10mph) and then crossed an ATS at red, I would want the officers concerned to pursue, stop and speak to the cyclist. They did.

I am one of the lucky ones whose incidents (bicycle, car and motorcycle) have always been professionally dealt with by police and amulance crews. I understand that some CC members have had different experiences, but I see no irony in the different outcomes between these two threads.

Isn't that ironic? #alanismorrisette


----------



## Tim Hall (23 Oct 2013)

winjim said:


> Isn't that what the amber light's for? To give you time to stop safely before the red.


Add to that the fact that lights don't go red "suddenly" or "by surprise". A green light can only do one thing, go red (via amber). So if it's green be ready for it to go red.


----------

