# £50 fine :(



## lazy (29 Jan 2014)

I am not proud to say this but i got a ticket from traffic police (on motorbike) on mile end road for jumping Amber light.
i tried to convince the officer that the light turned amber while i was crossing and as soon as i realized instead of crossing the road i stopped on side of the road and waited for signal to get clear and than crossed the road however officer had made up him mind and insisted even if i stopped i still jumped the light, also he was very rude and aggressive so i stop trying to convince him and he issued me a ticket. he even said i don't have front light on which i told him look at my helmet (i have a light attached to my helmet like miners, some people think its a camera lol)

I am in two minds,
1. i should pay, this will save my time and energy,
2. i think its not fair, i am a law abiding citizen and i should prove my point, however i was told that if i goto court i might paying more.

it was my first ticket, please assist.

Thanks

Lazy

*UPDATE:*
*i have paid the fine and learned my lesson my bike has a front light ATTACHED and i am using Extra light on my helmet.*
*its a clean slate again*


----------



## Roadrider48 (29 Jan 2014)

Courts always believe the police. It's like they never lie.
If they were rude to you then push it on that basis.


----------



## lazy (29 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> On your pedal bike? Gosh.
> 
> Just rip it up and lob it in the road*
> 
> * You did give him false details right?



No i did not. i don't know the loopholes


----------



## Freds Dad (29 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> On your pedal bike? Gosh.
> 
> Just rip it up and lob it in the road*
> 
> * You did give him false details right?



How do they confirm your details when you are on a bike?


----------



## snorri (29 Jan 2014)

i am pretended to myself I was a law abiding citizen


----------



## lazy (29 Jan 2014)

snorri said:


> i am pretended to myself I was a law abiding citizen



thank you for that, you very helpful keep it up


----------



## snorri (29 Jan 2014)

lazy said:


> thank you for that, you very helpful keep it up


 It was never a good idea to tell a policeman to look at your helmet.
All you can do is pay up and put it down to experience, the more you fret over it now the longer it will upset you.


----------



## musa (29 Jan 2014)

Just pay it don't bother wasting your time


----------



## derrick (29 Jan 2014)

No sympathy here.


----------



## Cuchilo (29 Jan 2014)

As far as I am aware ( this is not fact ) An amber light is for driver / rider discretion . So going through on amber is not against the law .


----------



## clockman (29 Jan 2014)

Roadrider48 said:


> Courts always believe the police. It's like they never lie.
> If they were rude to you then push it on that basis.



There are always two sides to a story. If you go to court, the beak will almost certainly take plods version and you could well end up with a larger fine AND possibly costs!
An ex copper friend of mine, jokingly, (I think!) says that you should never let the truth get in the way of good story!

On a serious note though, an amber traffic light means STOP at the stop line. You can only pass an amber light if you have already crossed the white line when it changes. If you say the light was amber after you crossed the line, you will have to prove it. And as you say you did stop at the side of the road and wait, plod has witnessed you stopping over the white line. Something else to consider, is that if the light was green for a time as you approached it, surely, you must have been expecting the lights to change!

If you started to argue with plod (however reasonable you think you where trying to be) you may well have just made things worse for yourself. Considering all the high profile fatalities towards the end of the year and plods increased presence at certain junctions, it is altogether possible that plod was trying to make a point.


----------



## clockman (29 Jan 2014)

Cuchilo said:


> As far as I am aware ( this is not fact ) An amber light is for driver / rider discretion . So going through on amber is not against the law .


Wrong, very, very wrong!


----------



## Cuchilo (29 Jan 2014)

clockman said:


> Wrong, very, very wrong!


Proof ?


----------



## lazy (29 Jan 2014)

well i guess i should pay... here goes my budget for a decent jacket ,


----------



## derrick (29 Jan 2014)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consu.../@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_070561.pdf


----------



## clockman (29 Jan 2014)

Cuchilo said:


> Proof ?


Read the Highway Code! You only pass through an amber traffic light IF you have already crossed the white line.
It is not discretionary to stop at an amber traffic light.


----------



## Cuchilo (29 Jan 2014)

clockman said:


> Read the Highway Code! You only pass through an amber traffic light IF you have already crossed the white line.
> It is not discretionary to stop at an amber traffic light.


That's a code , not the law . Im struggling to work out how its ok to go through amber if ive already gone through on green but it turns to amber when im past the white line . Amber is a warning and discretion is used .


----------



## Cuchilo (29 Jan 2014)

And at the point where you hit the line you should decide what to do ?


----------



## Kies (30 Jan 2014)

Pay up - move on


----------



## slowmotion (30 Jan 2014)

Just pay up soon and forget about it. You'll be doing yourself a favour.
In the scheme of things, it isn't a big deal.


----------



## clockman (30 Jan 2014)

I don't see the argument. If it's green, you go through. If you are straddling the white line as it changes to amber you go through. If it's amber you stop, period. Or are people saying that it is ok blithely ride/drive through an amber light. Nowhere does it specifically say that to stop at an amber light is discretionary. Now a motor vehicle may not be able to stop safely, but that would be because of poor planning, by the driver!
But a cyclist should be able to stop, unless the road conditions prevent it. In which case they are riding without due regard for those conditions!
The Highway Code is set of rules for the guidance of ALL road users. MANY, although not all of these rules are LEGAL REQUIREMENTS and must be adhered to to avoid fines. 
Now are people saying that as cyclists you only want to pick and choose how you follow these rules to suit yourselves!


----------



## TheDoctor (30 Jan 2014)

Jumped the lights and had no light on the bike?


----------



## potsy (30 Jan 2014)

Is Boris back again?


----------



## buggi (30 Jan 2014)

wtf? Go to court and appeal it. Its not like you ran a red light. You stopped. albeit after the line, while the light was still on amber.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (30 Jan 2014)

clockman said:


> Read the Highway Code! You only pass through an amber traffic light IF you have already crossed the white line.
> It is not discretionary to stop at an amber traffic light.


[QUOTE 2900382, member: 45"]That's incorrect. Read the link.[/quote]
Agreed. I read the PDF, and it clearly says that if you're behind the line when the light turns amber, but so close that you can't safely stop in time, then you carry on through.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (30 Jan 2014)

The Mile End road is rife with RLJers,the cop probably had the hump.


----------



## uclown2002 (30 Jan 2014)

Suck it up and put it down to experience; not worth time, stress and energy involved.

Oh, and life isn't fair so suck that up too!


----------



## morrisman (30 Jan 2014)

If you take it to court and lose, probable in my mind, you will be fined at least the original £50 but will also be stuck with £20 victim surcharge. 

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/victim-surcharge.htm


----------



## Venod (30 Jan 2014)

clockman said:


> I don't see the argument. If it's green, you go through. If you are straddling the white line as it changes to amber you go through. If it's amber you stop, period. Or are people saying that it is ok blithely ride/drive through an amber light. Nowhere does it specifically say that to stop at an amber light is discretionary. Now a motor vehicle may not be able to stop safely, but that would be because of poor planning, by the driver!
> But a cyclist should be able to stop, unless the road conditions prevent it. In which case they are riding without due regard for those conditions!
> The Highway Code is set of rules for the guidance of ALL road users. MANY, although not all of these rules are LEGAL REQUIREMENTS and must be adhered to to avoid fines.
> Now are people saying that as cyclists you only want to pick and choose how you follow these rules to suit yourselves!



Are you suggesting that if the light changes from green to amber while I am 3 foot from the line I should slam on my brakes with the possible consequences of the vehicle behind rear ending me, poor planning on approaching the lights is nonsense the amber light is a stop light if safe to do so, its a warning that the next light is red and has worked quite well for a lot of years.


----------



## Maylian (30 Jan 2014)

Afnug said:


> Are you suggesting that if the light changes from green to amber while I am 3 foot from the line I should slam on my brakes with the possible consequences of the vehicle behind rear ending me, poor planning on approaching the lights is nonsense the amber light is a stop light if safe to do so, its a warning that the next light is red and has worked quite well for a lot of years.



I think what they're suggesting is that you slow to 5mph at every set of lights just on the off chance they turn red? I've always worked on the premise that you stop if it is safe to do so on amber. There have been several occasions where it has not been safe for me to do so, either cars very close behind (you invariably then hear / see them whiz past you, undoubtedly running reds) or just the momentum you're carrying is too much to stop in time (that isn't always due to poor planning).


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2014)

lazy said:


> well i guess i should pay... here goes my budget for a decent jacket ,


 
And a set of lights and brake pads


----------



## GrasB (30 Jan 2014)

clockman said:


> I don't see the argument. If it's green, you go through. If you are straddling the white line as it changes to amber you go through. If it's amber you stop, period. Or are people saying that it is ok blithely ride/drive through an amber light. Nowhere does it specifically say that to stop at an amber light is discretionary. Now a motor vehicle may not be able to stop safely, but that would be because of poor planning, by the driver!
> But a cyclist should be able to stop, unless the road conditions prevent it. In which case they are riding without due regard for those conditions!
> The Highway Code is set of rules for the guidance of ALL road users. MANY, although not all of these rules are LEGAL REQUIREMENTS and must be adhered to to avoid fines.
> Now are people saying that as cyclists you only want to pick and choose how you follow these rules to suit yourselves!



As others have said, stopping on amber is preferred but discretionary, doing an emergency stop to avoid going through an amber light even if there is no one behind is generally frowned upon & unless you slow down to a virtual stop at every traffic light then you're going to go through an amber on a fairly regular basis. The whole point of amber is to give people a warning that something is about to happen & to give a little bit of leeway thus avoiding the need for emergency stop type braking. On a bike you also have to be aware that you've not got a break light, this means suddenly stopping very quickly is putting your self at risk. 

In fact it has been, successfully, argued that going through a red light is discretionary to a very, *very* limited degree in that if jumping red light will avoid a collision then it's acceptable. Less clear cut has been moving out of the way for an emergency vehicle, sometimes this has been accepted as a defence other times it hasn't


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2014)

The OP is on a cruising to a bruising though. He went through an amber (remember his opinion) but a police officer wasn't happy with the 'timing'. Upon being stopped he tried to 'convince' (argue with ?) the officer about the traffic lights, then it turns out he has no lights on his bike as well.

Don't forget this is the OP's view we get. Arguing with a police officer, and having no lights isn't the brightest thing to do. If he had apologised, and had lights on his bike, he may have been let off.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Jan 2014)

Cuchilo said:


> As far as I am aware ( this is not fact ) An amber light is for driver / rider discretion . So going through on amber is not against the law .


 


Cuchilo said:


> That's a code , not the law ..


 

You'd be wise to study your Highway Code a bit more then (and don't forget, it's more than a code; where it uses the term 'MUST' the applicable law(s) will appear as a footnote).

If failing to stop for an amber light isn't illegal, why do you think the cop issued the OP with a ticket?

GC


----------



## Dmcd33 (30 Jan 2014)

It's all the more frustrating that on my commute, the majority of cars do things such as;
- Not use indicators - at all
- Jumping RED lights (I see at least one a week of a car going through a solid red light that results in jumping pedestrians!)
- Using mobile phones whilst driving (I now think this is a majority problem and the reason for the above)
- Speed above 40mph in a 30mph zone

But the police seem to go for the easy target - Cyclists. I rarely, if ever, see cars pulled for major infringements of the highway code like these.

It does appear to me to be heavily weighted in favor of the car driver?

To be fair I would pay up. Police have the final say on minor matters and if you did go to court (unlikely) then you will probably be up against car driving magistrates?


----------



## cuberider (30 Jan 2014)

I don't think you have much choice other than to pay it, put it down to experience and move on.


----------



## Tim Hall (30 Jan 2014)

2900806 said:


> And yet people always only go on about the death and taxes.


Three things are certain: 
Death, taxes, and lost data. 
Guess which has occurred


----------



## Andrew_P (30 Jan 2014)

The question is would you have changed your mind and stopped if the copper hadn't been there? I am guessing he has assumed you only stopped when you were aware of him?


----------



## Frood42 (30 Jan 2014)

lazy said:


> I am not proud to say this but i got a ticket from traffic police (on motorbike) on mile end road for jumping Amber light.



What does the ticket specifically say was the offence?
What I mean is, did the officer actually ticket you for the light jumping or for no lights on the bike?

Whether the officer was rude or having a bad day is neither here or there, and if you were unhappy with their behaviour then you can raise a seperate complaint about it.

If it was for the Amber light, unless you can show that not stopping could have caused an accident then you will be paying:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made


> 36 (1) (e) the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;



Lights must be fixed to the bike, not the person, but if you want extra lights like a helmet light then great, but get lights on your bike.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations


Happy cycling by the way 
.


----------



## Maylian (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> In a city centre, in the midst of traffic, what's wrong with that? The lights changing to red is not an 'off chance', it's a certainty - there's only one thing that can happen when the lights are green.



I'm not suggesting riding like you've stolen the bike all of the time, but in a busy city centre this type of cycling would put you 1mph above the average walking speed. There have been many a time that I think a light will be red before I get to it so just cruise along, only to get to the lights and they're still green (in Southampton this happens more often to me than me running an amber). Personally I think the introduction of timers on lights would probably be more useful to safety so it takes any guess work out of lights.


----------



## Markymark (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> I meant slowing down when approaching traffic lights though, not riding at 5 mph all the time.


I always slow down going through lights on my London commute as I'm regularly dodging colour blind cyclists.


----------



## Frood42 (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> I understand what you're saying Maylian, but I still don't see what's wrong with everyone travelling about a bit more slowly overall, bikes as well as cars. I meant slowing down when approaching traffic lights though, not riding at 5 mph all the time.



When I learnt to drive I was told to not slow down approacing traffic lights, but to keep a safe steady speed (dependent on road conditions and traffic).
I was also taught to slow down applying steady pressure to the brakes and to keep both hands on the wheel (and was not taught to change down through the gears, or use engine braking).

"Gears are for going, brakes are for stopping"

Personally I prefer to use anticipation and planning, and to ease off the accelerator rather than using the brakes or changing down gears where possible (again dependent on road conditions and traffic).
It is a useful skill that more people could do with learning and applying on motorways. In fact just driving to the conditions and giving people space would be good.
.


----------



## SquareDaff (30 Jan 2014)

You went through an amber light when you probably had time to safely stop (the latter bit would be your only defence) and you failed to meet the legal lighting requirements on your bike. It's a fair cop I'm afraid. Pay up, learn from it and carry on cycling.


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Jan 2014)

Amber means stop unless you are so close to the stop-line that to do so would cause an accident. Since it was witnessed by a police officer, one assumes that wasn't the case. You commit the offence as soon as you cross the line, it doesn't make any difference whether you stop somewhere after that.

As others have said, pay up, learn the lesson and move on.


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

I got caught a couple of years ago having a 'brisk' spin on my motorbike before it went away for the winter. I had the choice, take a FPN or go to court...I chose to take the FPN. I pulled over as soon as I realised he was after me, listened to him, and gave honest answers (IE: Him...how fast were you going....Me....I was too busy watching where I was going to answer that honestly, but I appreciate I wasn't hanging around....I was going significantly quicker than the limit though)

You got caught bang to rights, I'd suggest you bend over and take it. Court costs will be much more than the fine. It isn't like you will get points on your license or get insurance loaded as a result.....cyclists get off very lightly when on the wrong side of the law...and know that it is very difficultto get caught with no registration. That is why you and many others are happy to jump the reds.


----------



## Frood42 (30 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> That is why you and many others are happy to jump the reds.



And there are also many who don't jump red lights.

There are also plenty with registration plates who do jump red lights, or who accelerate to get through amber...
.


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

Frood42 said:


> And there are also many who don't jump red lights.
> 
> There are also plenty with registration plates who do jump red lights, or who accelerate to get through amber...
> .



I thought we were discussing a cycling RLJ's ....the ones up for scrutiny are the ones who do it. If you don't, then you aren't and can get off that high horse...Okaaaayyy


----------



## martinclive (30 Jan 2014)

Lets see - if it's £50 a pop for running red, no lights on bike or riding on the pavement - @MisterStan and I could have trousered £300 from offenders last night within 5 minutes of leaving work in Cambridge


----------



## SquareDaff (30 Jan 2014)

martinclive said:


> Lets see - if it's £50 a pop for running red, no lights on bike or riding on the pavement - @MisterStan and I could have trousered £300 from offenders last night within 5 minutes of leaving work in Cambridge


Get one of those policebikes that someone mentioned on the forums yesterday. At that rate it will have paid for itself in 3 days unless you get done for impersonating a police officer!


----------



## Frood42 (30 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> I thought we were discussing a cycling RLJ's ....the ones up for scrutiny are the ones who do it. If you don't, then you aren't and can get off that high horse...Okaaaayyy



I'm not sure if I can get down from the horse, I'm not sure how I got up here, something to do with disliking generlisations maybe, not sure... 
.


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> The monstrous and ridiculous cheek of someone who introduced a gratuitous anecdote about riding his motorbike illegally going on to accuse another poster of being on their high horse for mentioning something other than cyclists! Incredible really.


 
He doesn't cycle anymore !!!


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> The monstrous and ridiculous cheek of someone who introduced a gratuitous anecdote about riding his motorbike illegally going on to accuse another poster of being on their high horse for mentioning something other than cyclists! Incredible really.



Yup, I fought the law, and the law won....I knew what I was doing, chose to do it in a manner which didn't cause anyone else a problem (apart from the following patrol car  ), and as a result the officer had only evidence for me breaking the limit and nothing else.....Now I could have said 'yeabut, there are supercars out there which can go faster ' or some other tosh ..... but I didn't and that is why the charge was only sp
You seem to be happier with people breaking the law, but only when using a mode which you approve of....


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> All three of his hobbies in one sentence



You forgot the 4x4


----------



## benb (30 Jan 2014)

Cuchilo said:


> As far as I am aware ( this is not fact ) An amber light is for driver / rider discretion . So going through on amber is not against the law .



Incorrect. Amber means the same as red, and going through on amber has, in law, the same penalty. 3 points and £100 as a driver, or £50 as a cyclist.

There is a defence if you were so close to the line that to stop would be more dangerous than to continue.
There is no defence for going through on red.


----------



## benb (30 Jan 2014)

clockman said:


> Read the Highway Code! You only pass through an amber traffic light IF you have already crossed the white line.
> It is not discretionary to stop at an amber traffic light.



Or if you were so close to the line that you could not safely stop before the line.


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

fossyant said:


> He doesn't cycle anymore !!!




He doesn't want to cycle in crap weather on greasy roads...he doesn't want to motorcycle on them either...

Still tootling around the town on my roadie, but not done any proper rides for a few weeks now.. in the wettest January in over 100 years...funny that


----------



## benb (30 Jan 2014)

buggi said:


> wtf? Go to court and appeal it. Its not like you ran a red light. You stopped. albeit after the line, while the light was still on amber.



If any part of the vehicle crosses the line when the light is amber or red, the offence is complete. So the fact that he stopped after the line is irrelevant to the offence.


----------



## benb (30 Jan 2014)

GrasB said:


> As others have said, stopping on amber is *preferred but discretionary*, doing an emergency stop to avoid going through an amber light even if there is no one behind is generally frowned upon & unless you slow down to a virtual stop at every traffic light then you're going to go through an amber on a fairly regular basis. The whole point of amber is to give people a warning that something is about to happen & to give a little bit of leeway thus avoiding the need for emergency stop type braking. On a bike you also have to be aware that you've not got a break light, this means suddenly stopping very quickly is putting your self at risk.
> 
> In fact it has been, successfully, argued that going through a red light is discretionary to a very, *very* limited degree in that if jumping red light will avoid a collision then it's acceptable. Less clear cut has been moving out of the way for an emergency vehicle, sometimes this has been accepted as a defence other times it hasn't



I suggest you re-read the highway code, as that is absolutely not true.


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


>



Choosing not to is not the same as being unable too.....a bit like you and me getting around Donington Park

You 






Me


----------



## Frood42 (30 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> Choosing not to is not the same as being unable too.....a bit like you and me getting around Donington Park



The cat was funnier. 
.


----------



## jefmcg (30 Jan 2014)

I've noticed when I am driving, if the light turns amber as I am close to the line and I make split second decision on whether to proceed or not and I decide to go ahead, it's almost invariable that the car following me goes through and often the one behind that. And I'm not talking about cars that were so close that I was concerned about be rear ended. It's just that most drivers seem to regard an amber as "green with acceleration"

(this has made me wonder how many drivers would run red lights. I mean, if a cyclist gets to an intersection and there is another cyclist stopped, the second cyclist can still run the red. If a car reaches an intersection and the car in front is stopped, then the second car is stuck, no matter what the driver would do if they could)


----------



## jefmcg (30 Jan 2014)

OP: you entered the intersection on a green light, and then stopped somewhere past the stop line as it turned amber and then red? Being across the stop line when the light is red is definitely ticketable, but finishing a crossing on amber isn't. Why didn't you keep going?


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

Frood42 said:


> The cat was funnier.
> .



It was the first half a dozen times he used it...but it is a bit tired now


----------



## Frood42 (30 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> It was the first half a dozen times he used it...but it is a bit tired now



This is the Internet, the cats always win...
.


----------



## buggi (30 Jan 2014)

benb said:


> If any part of the vehicle crosses the line when the light is amber or red, the offence is complete. So the fact that he stopped after the line is irrelevant to the offence.


 you can cross a line on amber if you haven't got time to stop. Really he should have kept going but to be ticketed for stopping is just silly. Phone the CTC!!


----------



## Twelve Spokes (30 Jan 2014)

fossyant said:


> The OP is on a cruising to a bruising though. He went through an amber (remember his opinion) but a police officer wasn't happy with the 'timing'. Upon being stopped he tried to 'convince' (argue with ?) the officer about the traffic lights, then it turns out he has no lights on his bike as well.
> 
> Don't forget this is the OP's view we get. Arguing with a police officer, and having no lights isn't the brightest thing to do. If he had apologised, and had lights on his bike, he may have been let off.



That's right and unless this cop is "Dirty Harry" then he probably had a good reason for pulling the OP up.

I came up against a bad tempered cop at Holborn a few years ago but I was at fault.Went past a "Road Closed" sign and was pulled up by this policemen who asked me if I had seen the sign.I answered yes quite pathetically and was astounded when he let me off.I didn't expect that.


----------



## potsy (30 Jan 2014)

buggi said:


> Phone the CTC!!


And get them to explain the law on not having a front light fitted to your bike while you're on the phone


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2014)

potsy said:


> And get them to explain the law on not having a front light fitted to your bike while you're on the phone


 
Oh and about arguing with a copper - never ends well !


----------



## Twelve Spokes (30 Jan 2014)

potsy said:


> And get them to explain the law on not having a front light fitted to your bike while you're on the phone



Didn't he have a light on his helmet? @Fnarr Fnarr


----------



## Cuchilo (30 Jan 2014)

potsy said:


> And get them to explain the law on not having a front light fitted to your bike while you're on the phone


I don't think he was on the phone aswell as having no lights and going through an amber light .


----------



## Twelve Spokes (30 Jan 2014)

You guys are out of order.He's on two wheels he can't be in the wrong.


----------



## potsy (30 Jan 2014)

Cuchilo said:


> I don't think he was on the phone aswell as having no lights and going through an amber light .




Have we established if his rear lights were ok and if he had pedal reflectors?


----------



## fossyant (30 Jan 2014)

potsy said:


> Have we established if his rear lights were ok and if he had pedal reflectors?


 
Don't you start. I doubt the OP will be back now he's been well and truely ribbed. Thank goodness he didn't post on Bike Radar - would have been ripped to bits.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (30 Jan 2014)

So much for the new jacket,that's gone up the swanny.


----------



## CopperBrompton (30 Jan 2014)

Those who think it's an affront to civilisation that he was ticketed, and are advising him to fight it, I'm curious: would you be expressing the same outrage and sympathy if a car driver had done the same thing ... ?


----------



## clockman (30 Jan 2014)

Maylian said:


> I think what they're suggesting is that you slow to 5mph at every set of lights just on the off chance they turn red? I've always worked on the premise that you stop if it is safe to do so on amber. There have been several occasions where it has not been safe for me to do so, either cars very close behind (you invariably then hear / see them whiz past you, undoubtedly running reds) or just the momentum you're carrying is too much to stop in time (that isn't always due to poor planning).


The point is that as you approach a green light, if it has been green for some time, you should expect it to turn to amber & red and plan for the eventuality, slow down and be prepared to stop.
Are you all in such a damned rush, that you aren't prepared to slow down a bit for your own self preservation?


----------



## clockman (30 Jan 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You'd be wise to study your Highway Code a bit more then (and don't forget, it's more than a code; where it uses the term 'MUST' the applicable law(s) will appear as a footnote).
> 
> If failing to stop for an amber light isn't illegal, why do you think the cop issued the OP with a ticket?
> 
> GC


BINGO!!! 
I wish I was able to be so succinct.


----------



## green1 (30 Jan 2014)

fossyant said:


> Oh and about arguing with a copper - never ends well !


I once got pulled by a copper as his ANPR machine said I had no insurance (I did). When I pulled over he stopped in front of me, I mentioned that he had a brake light out, talk about a lead ballon, I was almost expecting him to get the rubber gloves out by the end.


----------



## clockman (30 Jan 2014)

benb said:


> I suggest you re-read the highway code, as that is absolutely not true.


It continues to amaze me, that a majority of cyclists only want the rules of the road to others and only use the parts that they think apply to them, ignoring the parts that they don't like.
The Highway Code is a set of rules for the guidance of all road users. That includes, pedestrians, cyclists, car, lorry, bus drivers and horse riders. There are some of the rules that are just for guidance, like as a pedestrian, look in both directions to make sure it is safe to cross the road. What idiot wouldn't? But, other rules MUST be adhered to. Like being aware and planning to be able to stop safely as you approach a green traffic light, if it should change to a stop light. As such, if you are caught breaking that rule, you stand the possibility of receiving a fine. Amber AND Red lights mean stop. An amber light does not mean stop, only if you can be bothered.


----------



## green1 (30 Jan 2014)

2901560 said:


> Frank Carson


What about him?


----------



## Linford (30 Jan 2014)

Trikeman said:


> Those who think it's an affront to civilisation that he was ticketed, and are advising him to fight it, I'm curious: would you be expressing the same outrage and sympathy if a car driver had done the same thing ... ?



Since when has a balanced argument ever been de-rigueur here ?


----------



## lazy (31 Jan 2014)

Fine paid learned my lesson. Happy days


----------



## lazy (31 Jan 2014)

Twelve Spokes said:


> That's right and unless this cop is "Dirty Harry" then he probably had a good reason for pulling the OP up.
> 
> I came up against a bad tempered cop at Holborn a few years ago but I was at fault.Went past a "Road Closed" sign and was pulled up by this policemen who asked me if I had seen the sign.I answered yes quite pathetically and was astounded when he let me off.I didn't expect that.



you must have a pretty face


----------



## slowmotion (31 Jan 2014)

Well done lazy. Now forget it.


----------



## GrasB (31 Jan 2014)

benb said:


> I suggest you re-read the highway code, as that is absolutely not true.


Actually I suggest YOU read the highway code because the scope of the discretion the driver has is clearly set out (_my emphasis_). 


> You *MUST* stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears _ you may go on_ only if you have_ already crossed the stop line_ or are so close to it that_ to stop might cause a collision_.
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36*


So your discretion is if you think you may cause a collision. It's worth noting that very hard braking & emergency stops can cause cars to slide out of control which is for all intents & purposes a collision


----------



## Frood42 (31 Jan 2014)

lazy said:


> Fine paid learned my lesson. Happy days



On the plus side, you managed to string the thread out to 6 pages 

.


----------



## benb (31 Jan 2014)

GrasB said:


> Actually I suggest YOU read the highway code because the scope of the discretion the driver has is clearly set out (_my emphasis_).
> 
> So your discretion is if you think you may cause a collision. It's worth noting that very hard braking & emergency stops can cause cars to slide out of control which is for all intents & purposes a collision



That's not what you said at all though, is it?
Amber means the same as red, unless you were so close to the line that it is unsafe to stop.
Hardly discretionary.


----------



## raleighnut (31 Jan 2014)

Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.


----------



## uclown2002 (31 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.


wtf


----------



## Supersuperleeds (31 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.



I thought that was an old wives tale?


----------



## potsy (31 Jan 2014)

Slightly related but there was a piece on one of the 'cop' programmes the other week where a driver was 'seen' on the phone by a lone copper, despite the officers certainty the guy was adamant he was on a 'hands-free' phone and took the court option, his case was either thrown out or he was found not guilty, i forget which.
This was a police operation where the officer would radio in anything he saw and other officers further up the road would dish out the tickets, why oh why weren't they filming?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.


 
I'm sure you're wrong.

My memory of the Road Traffic Act isn't what it used to be but I'm certain there is (was) an entry to the effect that for an offence of failing to obey a traffic sign or signal, the evidence of a single witness was sufficient.

I'm away to dig more..

GC


----------



## CopperBrompton (31 Jan 2014)

Supersuperleeds said:


> I thought that was an old wives tale?


It is.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Jan 2014)

Trikeman said:


> It is.


 
Can you point me in the direction of the relevant legislation? I can only find evidence of it applying in Scotland.

GC


----------



## Frood42 (31 Jan 2014)

I cannot find any specific legislation, but it seems from what I have read that the officers statement should be sufficient and that the specific legislation linked above is for Scotland due to a requirement of corroboration. Of course I could be talking complete tosh as I may not have read correct what I found...

The only thing I could find needing more than one witness, was the offence of speeding:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/89
.


----------



## Freds Dad (31 Jan 2014)

potsy said:


> Slightly related but there was a piece on one of the 'cop' programmes the other week where a driver was 'seen' on the phone by a lone copper, despite the officers certainty the guy was adamant he was on a 'hands-free' phone and took the court option, his case was either thrown out or he was found not guilty, i forget which.
> This was a police operation where the officer would radio in anything he saw and other officers further up the road would dish out the tickets, why oh why weren't they filming?



I was stopped about 2 years ago at a roadside check as the coppers mate round the corner had radioed ahead to say I was using a mobile while driving.

When I explained that the only phone in the car was in my golf bag in the boot and his mate must have been mistake he got quire arsey and threatened me with a ticket or a court appearance. When I chose the court option he was quite taken aback and didn't know what to do. 

I got the phone out of the golf bag and showed him the last call made or received was over 6 hours earlier he still wasn't having any. The intervention of a more sensible officer on site meant that I was allowed to go "on this occasion"

After a bit of asking around locally several other people had been stopped in the same manner.


----------



## benb (31 Jan 2014)

raleighnut said:


> Cyclists be aware that you cannot be convicted on the "uncorroborated" evidence of a single police officer, that's why they have cameras or a mate with them, a simple "no comment" usually suffices in this situation and the CPS are aware of this. They generally rely on us laying down & wiggling our legs in the air "the dying fly" to secure a conviction.



Only true in Scotland. How do you think people were convicted of anything before they invented video evidence?


----------



## Twelve Spokes (31 Jan 2014)

lazy said:


> you must have a pretty face



No,just charm.


----------



## Frood42 (31 Jan 2014)

2903975 said:


> That is one witness relying on their opinion. One officer with a speedgun would be a different matter



Yes, yes it would (in regards to the speeding).
.


----------



## GrasB (31 Jan 2014)

benb said:


> Hardly discretionary.


The decision of if it's dangerous or not to stop at the light turns to amber is my discretion. If it wasn't then there would need to be a document covering every possible situation for going through or not going through an amber light.


----------



## raleighnut (31 Jan 2014)

2903975 said:


> That is one witness relying on their opinion. One officer with a speedgun would be a different matter


That is corroboration!


----------



## swansonj (31 Jan 2014)

"The testimony of one eye is as naught - he may lie. But when it is corroborated by the other, that is good evidence that none may gain say. Here they both are in court , ready to swear."


----------



## glasgowcyclist (31 Jan 2014)

benb said:


> Only true in Scotland. How do you think people were convicted of anything before they invented video evidence?



That's not right, in relation to the traffic offence at hand and several others, no corroboration is required in Scotland. See my link in post 117.


GC


----------



## benb (31 Jan 2014)

GrasB said:


> The decision of if it's dangerous or not to stop at the light turns to amber is my discretion. If it wasn't then there would need to be a document covering every possible situation for going through or not going through an amber light.



No it's not. If a police officer sees you, and in their opinion you could have safely stopped, you could be prosecuted.


----------



## benb (31 Jan 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's not right, in relation to the traffic offence at hand and several others, no corroboration is required in Scotland. See my link in post 117.
> 
> 
> GC


Thanks, I was unaware of that.


----------



## clockman (1 Feb 2014)

GrasB said:


> Actually I suggest YOU read the highway code because the scope of the discretion the driver has is clearly set out (_my emphasis_).
> 
> So your discretion is if you think you may cause a collision. It's worth noting that very hard braking & emergency stops can cause cars to slide out of control which is for all intents & purposes a collision



A collision is when two or more moving bodies exert forces on each other within a short space of time! A skid or loss of control is not of itself a collision. You have to hit something. In which case if you skid due to an event you are travelling too fast and have not anticipated or planned for that event.
If you want to use your discretion to ignore an amber light, please do so. I will post my condolences with an RIP when you are broadsided by a vehicle moving off quickly from the other set of lights!!!


----------

