# Stop at lights?



## stu9000 (29 Mar 2013)

So I took my shiny new triban 3 out for the second time today. I admit I'm not always keen to stop at lights, when its safe, and I'm not carving my way through pedestrians. Is this a no no? I know some care drivers don't like it but its never bothered me as long as it is considerate.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (29 Mar 2013)

Is breaking the law considerate?


----------



## ianrauk (29 Mar 2013)

It's a no no.
It's braking the law.
Just don't do it.


----------



## fossala (29 Mar 2013)

It gives a bad name to cyclists. "They" use it against us more than any other argument (well other than maybe road "tax".


----------



## AndyPeace (29 Mar 2013)

I think this has been done before ...
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/what-do-people-think-of-jumping-lights.108286/post-1996799

Personally I don't but then I don't cross that many traffic lights on my routes. I can see the argument that if it's safe and clear, why wait around...but I feel if I'm on the road, I'm following the rules of the road, least I should loose ground in an argument on cyclists rights or misjudge/have random catastrophe that I then would be clearly libale for!


----------



## musa (29 Mar 2013)

As said breaking the law. However if you must continue be prepared to have your wallet ready for your £60 fine.


----------



## Kies (29 Mar 2013)

In 2012 i would run certain red lights.
Proud to say in 2013 i have not run a single light, it has actually made my riding more enjoyable, allowing a quick sip of water or a chat with a felow cyclist.


----------



## Rob500 (29 Mar 2013)

If you ride your bike on the road then you must obey the rules of the road.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Mar 2013)

It's a very sensitive issue for cyclists. If everybody used the streets with consideration there would be no problems whatsoever - we wouldn't even need pavements. But we have a private car entitlement road culture and, almost without exception, traffic lights and one way systems exist to regulate the dangers presented (but simultaneously condoned) by this sense of entitlement. Somehow cyclists got caught up the road regulations as traffic despite not being part of the danger (yes, I know some cyclists cause accidents and there have been fatalities to pedestrians, usually on pavements and caused by ''entitlement'' cycling" - luckily, none this year as far as I know). Cyclists have a different degree of moral obligation to obey the rules of the road but it's a moral obligation all the same. How you deal with the ''us and them'' argument is one you'll regularly come up against. You may accept this argument or you may decide that the ''us and them'' approach preceded anything any living cyclist might do on today's roads.... Whatever, you'll still have to accept the sanctions of the law when they are applied.

Personally, I have no problem at all with considerate road use, even when it's at odds with car-centric legislation because that's how living streets work. Just don't expect any approval from cycling forums.


----------



## MickeyBlueEyes (29 Mar 2013)

Cyclists who jump red really, really, really grate me. If all drivers of vehicles went through on their own judgement because they thought it was 'safe' and 'considerate', imagine what would happen...... So you jump a red whilst cycling, and, at the same time, a car driver goes though on their red, because you both think it's safe..... bike in the skip, you in a box..... Not for me thank you very much, I'll obey the rules of the road.


----------



## Wobbly John (29 Mar 2013)

Stop at lights? Yes unless they're green.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Mar 2013)

Yesterday a car jumped a red light, if I had been 1/2's quicker, I wouldn't be typing this quite simple because the junction is blind from where I was, so there would be no time to react, no one should jump a light. As was mentioned a quick brake and a sip. it's what I do.


----------



## SpokeyDokey (29 Mar 2013)

It's stupid imho - you want other road users to treat you with respect so do the same.


----------



## Richard Ball (29 Mar 2013)

Always!


----------



## cyberknight (29 Mar 2013)

Need we say more ?
Its dumb ,dangerous and fuels the them and us attitude .


----------



## edindave (29 Mar 2013)

Wobbly John said:


> Stop at lights? Yes unless they're green.


 
... and it is clear to proceed.


----------



## simmi (29 Mar 2013)

In general I would never jump a red light but there are a few sets near me on very quiet roads that are triggered by pressure pads under the road. I have been sat a one set for over 5 minutes waiting for a car to come along and trigger it, so I have to say if the road is clear I will go on red at one of these junctions.


----------



## edindave (29 Mar 2013)

simmi said:


> In general I would never jump a red light but there are a few sets near me on very quiet roads that are triggered by pressure pads under the road. I have been sat a one set for over 5 minutes waiting for a car to come along and trigger it, so I have to say if the road is clear I will go on red at one of these junctions.


 
I'm pretty sure there is stipulation for this circumstance whereby you can go through a red light if it will not trigger.


----------



## doog (29 Mar 2013)

edindave said:


> I'm pretty sure there is stipulation for this circumstance whereby you can go through a red light if it will not trigger.


 
no defence in law but I dont think the law extends that far . I mean in the time you are sat there you have plenty of time for scan for rozzers as a last resort that is.


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (29 Mar 2013)

Just think of red lights as an excuse to catch your breath.


----------



## endoman (29 Mar 2013)

Never ever have I gone through a red light. My long rides do tend to have only one or two sets of lights though.


----------



## stu9000 (29 Mar 2013)

Jesus, I stumbled into that one. 
Gotta say, I don't see an equal parity between a car and bike. As a pedestrian, do you always wait for the light? I'm guessing not and might, if i was feeling cocky, argue that bikes fall some where in between. 

Look, tempting though it is to react, I'm not here to throw my weight around. 
Thanks for the posts and not biting my head off even though I sense some strongly felt views. I'll give it some thought.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Mar 2013)

Off topic a little, but I see cyclist's on the pavement (and not those just nipping to the local shop or kids), and apart from the legal aspect, I wonder how much extra hard work it is to stop at junctions cross as a pedestrian (be it on the bike or not) and then continue cycling, is it quicker, sure cant be easy.


----------



## sheffgirl (29 Mar 2013)

Nigelnaturist said:


> Off topic a little, but I see cyclist's on the pavement (and not those just nipping to the local shop or kids), and apart from the legal aspect, I wonder how much extra hard work it is to stop at junctions cross as a pedestrian (be it on the bike or not) and then continue cycling, is it quicker, sure cant be easy.


 
I've started riding my whole route to work on the road. There is a cycle/shared use path most of the way, but it is slower to use this because are quite a few junctions I have to prepare to potentially stop at. One of the junctions is particularly busy and somewhat of a blind corner, I can't see cars indicating until a short distance before they turn (thats if they *do* bother to indicate), so I sometimes jump off and push the bike, it feels safer and I can turn my head to look easier. On the road it is easier since I don't have to look over my shoulder as often, I can just follow the flow of the traffic.
I just tried to count, and I go through at least 10 sets of traffic lights on my way to work, and that's in a 3 miles journey, no wonder it takes so long in a car! It might be more than that, I lost count at ten.


----------



## Nigelnaturist (29 Mar 2013)

sheffgirl said:


> I've started riding my whole route to work on the road. There is a *cycle/shared use path most of the way, but it is slower to use* this because are quite a few junctions I have to prepare to potentially stop at. One of the junctions is particularly busy and somewhat of a blind corner, I can't see cars indicating until a short distance before they turn (thats if they *do* bother to indicate), so I sometimes jump off and push the bike, it feels safer and I can turn my head to look easier. On the road it is easier since I don't have to look over my shoulder as often, I can just follow the flow of the traffic.


I find this, those I have used, and generally full of nasty things the dont like tyres too much.


----------



## SWSteve (30 Mar 2013)

I think the only times I encounter red lights are at large light-controlled roundabouts or pedestrian crossings (aside from a railway bridge which demands you ride on the middle of it to avoid an incident) and I wouldn't run these as I like having legs/arms/lungs/teeth/toes/organs (delete as appropriate) that work


----------



## Duckehhh (30 Mar 2013)

only time i dont stop is when i finish work late night/early morning and the roads are empty. i dont particularly want to be waiting for the elongated lights on my own in hackney, east london. dont fancy getting jumped and stabbed. but i will slow down, and be cautious, i wont just shoot across and hope for the best.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (30 Mar 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's a very sensitive issue for cyclists. If everybody used the streets with consideration there would be no problems whatsoever - we wouldn't even need pavements. But we have a private car entitlement road culture and, almost without exception, traffic lights and one way systems exist to regulate the dangers presented (but simultaneously condoned) by this sense of entitlement. Somehow cyclists got caught up the road regulations as traffic despite not being part of the danger (yes, I know some cyclists cause accidents and there have been fatalities to pedestrians, usually on pavements and caused by ''entitlement'' cycling" - luckily, none this year as far as I know). Cyclists have a different degree of moral obligation to obey the rules of the road but it's a moral obligation all the same. How you deal with the ''us and them'' argument is one you'll regularly come up against. You may accept this argument or you may decide that the ''us and them'' approach preceded anything any living cyclist might do on today's roads.... Whatever, you'll still have to accept the sanctions of the law when they are applied.
> 
> Personally, I have no problem at all with considerate road use, even when it's at odds with car-centric legislation because that's how living streets work. Just don't expect any approval from cycling forums.



It's a PR disaster for cyclists 99.99% of the time it is pure selfish 'because I know I'll not get caught' not for any other reason and unfortunately it did go wrong last week. 

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ter-news/elderly-man-dies-after-being-1946103

Agree with DM, if you do choose to do it expect no sympathy from drivers or pedestrians and precious little from cyclists.

Stu9000 you may not see cars and bikes the same on the road, but the law does & bringing pedestrians in is disingenuous, as a legal entity you are a vehicle, you are also using the road in a whole different way to someone from a pavement barely interacting with it.

Some of us have been on the receiving end of abuse etc for RLJ when we don't, it grates and I doubt there's a person on here who hasn't come off worst from a momentary misjudgement from a driver at a turn etc, where the law & Highway Code is specific but they see it as a minor indiscretion that they do every day and are always careful and considerate about, right up to the one time it goes wrong and its some other poor sod that carries the consequences. 

Handy hint: tell people your definitive views on helmets, hi-viz, riding with headphones on & wether or not we should have Dutch infrastructure to segregate us from other traffic. Equally bland and non controversial topics.


----------



## RWright (30 Mar 2013)

I sometimes run the lights that are clear, and that for whatever reason, I don't trigger the green on approach. I did find this link on how to trigger green traffic lights. I might try it on my cycling shoes.

I just hope I don't get stuck to a manhole cover or steel storm drain covers if I have to walk over one.


----------



## vickster (30 Mar 2013)

Always stop and I am happy to abuse RLJ cyclists. There is no LAW that says pedestrians in the UK have to wait for the green man unlike in Germany and Austria (where pedestrians will be fined for jay walking).
However there is a law that says that cars and bicycles must wait for the green light / stop at red lights.

Why do you do it, because you're an impatient so and so presumably? You'll get no sympathy from me if you get squashed. But I would feel sorry for the motorist whose life you would have ruined through no fault of their own. 

Might feel a little sorry for your squashed now-not-so-shiny Triban too - especially as there are plenty of people out there struggling to buy one who might have appreciated it more


----------



## helston90 (30 Mar 2013)

I always stop- I don't have many around here so it's not really a problem- but I make a point of stopping just to prove a point to the following motorist who probably assumes I won't be!


----------



## jdtate101 (30 Mar 2013)

As shown on many headcam video's it doesn't really get you where you are going any faster and if anything will shorten your journey permanently.....for life. It's one of the things that really gets my blood up, and I frequently shout at RLJ'ers to stop. Most of them shrug as if to say "what you on about?", like they really don't think they are doing anything wrong. If they got to see the consequences of their stupidity (grieving families, orphaned children, the car/lorry driver traumatised after the accident) then maybe they would change their ways, but this won't happen ....as they will be DEAD.

JUST DON'T DO IT...EVER. It's just not worth it for the sake of a few seconds.


----------



## malcermie (30 Mar 2013)

I would rather extend my journey time by thirty seconds than shorten my life by thirty years!!!!! NEVER jump a light and that goes for railway crossings as well, a few months ago while waiting at on a 'real' cyclist in lycra and on a road bike overtook me and zigzaged across the crossing a driver on the other side hooted him and he gave the driver the finger!!! Not a great example of considerate cycling.


----------



## vickster (30 Mar 2013)

And what is it with the idiots who trackstand in the middle of busy junctions (also dual carriageways) waiting for the lights to change? Do they think it's cool or something?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Mar 2013)

Let's slightly rephrase that first post?

So I took my shiny BMW X3 out for the second time today. I admit I'm not always keen to stop at lights, when its safe, and I'm not carving my way through pedestrians. Is this a no no? I know some people don't like it but its never bothered me as long as it is considerate. 

In the simplest form the problem with interaction on the roads is that you place an implicit trust in complete strangers to behave in a certain rational way and observe / obey certain laws and conventions

You assume that they will stop at a junction, entering a roundabout, at lights. If they do then the interaction proceeds without a hitch and everyone is safe.

You weigh up the facts and "Know" that the car approaching the roundabout is going to stop and allow you to pass their entry safely. That is the decision you make when you proceed.

As soon as someone fails to comply with the rules their behaviour is erratic and unpredictable.That is when people get hurt and killed. The car does not stop...............

Of course this is simplistic and we all have much more complex decision making systems built on experience, personal skills and defensive riding techniques, but in a basic form the above is the key to a safe system.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Mar 2013)

edindave said:


> I'm pretty sure there is stipulation for this circumstance whereby you can go through a red light if it will not trigger.


 
You can cross a red light for many reasons if it is justifiable.

If you have waited a reasonable period of time and the light has not triggered, or has malfunctioned
If you need to cross the line to make way for an emergency vehicle

However the offence is still committed you are simply offering mitigation for that offence


----------



## stu9000 (30 Mar 2013)

OK. I asked the question and I got an answer. Thanks. For my own safety and the rep cyclists have I'll be stopping at red. 

Job done. 

But I'm a bit shocked at some of the puritans. I browsed the link to the other thread about reds, and drifted across the helmet debate. 

People who write that they would leave cyclists where they fell without sympathy are surely guilty of at least as great a crime. There are higher laws than what is just written in the book. And the net is a great place for throw away comments isn't it.

To be fair, I doubt they actually would walk on by. But it grates. Just because its the law doesn't make it right and ill make up my own mind thanks v much. Which is why I asked the question. 

Cyclists need the law to be safe . I get that. We share the road. But all this quoting makes me twitch. Maybe these people always stay below 70mph on the motorway but I doubt it. Maybe they agree with rules on gay marriage. Maybe they, if they are old enough, remember the criminal justice act and its rules on repetitive beats and groups of 5 people or more. Maybe they've never so much as had a late library book. Good for them. Err. Drifting massively off topic now so I'll stop there. We can start another thread in the social contract if anyone fancies it. :confused:

As I wrote earlier, I asked the question and got good answers. Loving this forum. Cheers. S


----------



## on the road (30 Mar 2013)

That's why I don't get into any of those red lights/helmet debates any more.


----------



## theloafer (30 Mar 2013)

Rob500 said:


> If you ride your bike on the road then you must obey the rules of the road.


 
simple,s..


----------



## Lanzecki (30 Mar 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> It's a PR disaster for cyclists 99.99% of the time it is pure selfish 'because I know I'll not get caught' not for any other reason and unfortunately it did go wrong last week.
> 
> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ter-news/elderly-man-dies-after-being-1946103


 
Where does it say the cyclist ran the lights? 

To the OP. Red lights are there for a reason. To stop you from doing something silly. Please don't do it for you sake, and the sake of other road users.


----------



## Alan57 (30 Mar 2013)

Just because there are a myriad of idiots out in society in cars ,walking ,cycling and whatever else who are doing things they shouldn`t and getting away with it doesn`t make it o.k. We ride on the road and should obey the laws of the road , it stops the cyclist hating motorist , of which there seem to be a lot, having the ammunition to berate us and justify their totally wrong view of cyclists. Stop on the red and keep yourself and others safe and maybe gain a bit more respect for cyclists as a responsible group. Too many motorists and pedestrians think we are idiots to be blocked in , knocked off and otherwise abused ,don`t give them reason to do and think it. Cheers


----------



## marzjennings (30 Mar 2013)

To the OP, it's not a big issue (ok maybe for some it is, not for me). I run 'em all the time if the road is clear and no police in sight. I don't care what other cyclists think, if they get all hot 'n' bothered about me jumping the odd light, that's their issue not mine. Likewise for peds and drivers, who cares what they think.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (30 Mar 2013)

marzjennings said:


> To the OP, it's not a big issue (ok maybe for some it is, not for me). I run 'em all the time if the road is clear and no police in sight. I don't care what other cyclists think, if they get all hot 'n' bothered about me jumping the odd light, that's their issue not mine. Likewise for peds and drivers, who cares what they think.


Well, if you want to get crucified you might as well choose the right time of year for it....


----------



## geo (30 Mar 2013)

Don't jump red lights in my car, so why would I do it on my bike ?
The likely loser to those that do is more often than not going to be the cyclist in the event of an accident.
Also spare a thought for any innocent motorist who mames or kills a light jumping cyclist. I know I wouldnt like to live with it be it the cyclists fault or not


----------



## Alan57 (30 Mar 2013)

marzjennings said:


> To the OP, it's not a big issue (ok maybe for some it is, not for me). I run 'em all the time if the road is clear and no police in sight. I don't care what other cyclists think, if they get all hot 'n' bothered about me jumping the odd light, that's their issue not mine. Likewise for peds and drivers, who cares what they think.


 
Yeah very impressive .


----------



## fossyant (30 Mar 2013)

It's good to stop. I've never met one RLJ'er that can outrun me even when jumping many sets. It's good interval training, you'll get fitter and keep passing the idiot that sails through. They are generally unfit.

Best being on the right side of the law, get squished jumping a red light, then there will be no compensation for a squished bike and possibly permanent injuries.


----------



## MickeyBlueEyes (30 Mar 2013)

marzjennings said:


> To the OP, it's not a big issue (ok maybe for some it is, not for me). I run 'em all the time if the road is clear and no police in sight. I don't care what other cyclists think, if they get all hot 'n' bothered about me jumping the odd light, that's their issue not mine. Likewise for peds and drivers, who cares what they think.


 
So, in a section of the forum called 'beginners', targeted at people just getting into cycling, and maybe for the first time in years they'll be cycling on busy roads........ I hope they have more common sense than to follow this lead.


----------



## deanE (30 Mar 2013)

I see that this was posted in the "beginners" section. I hope you live long enough to move up.


----------



## marzjennings (30 Mar 2013)

MickeyBlueEyes said:


> So, in a section of the forum called 'beginners', targeted at people just getting into cycling, and maybe for the first time in years they'll be cycling on busy roads........ I hope they have more common sense than to follow this lead.


 
Seems a great place to voice my opinion on the subject. From this thread a beginner will see that most folks see RLJ as a dangerous illegal activity that reflects badly not only on themselves, but on cyclists in general and that only an idiot or two thinks otherwise.

A beginner may wonder why some people jump red lights and from somebody who does, there is no good reason. On the ride today there were 10 sets of lights, I jumped 2. I wasn't in a rush, I had plenty of time to stop, I just couldn't be arsed to stop. There was no traffic, so chances of being squished were low, but I still ran the risk of a ticket from a cop unseen.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (30 Mar 2013)

A beginner will read the Highway Code and discover that jumping red lights is illegal.
The fact that an increasing amount of road users don't give a toss is shameful and sad.


----------



## themosquitoking (30 Mar 2013)

Instead of investing in speed cameras for the last 15 years the police should have been investing in camera's that detect RLJ's, i reckon more revenue would have been raised and more lives saved.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Mar 2013)

marzjennings said:


> Seems a great place to voice my opinion on the subject. From this thread a beginner will see that most folks see RLJ as a dangerous illegal activity that reflects badly not only on themselves, but on cyclists in general and that only an idiot or two thinks otherwise.
> 
> A beginner may wonder why some people jump red lights and from somebody who does, there is no good reason. On the ride today there were 10 sets of lights, I jumped 2. I wasn't in a rush, I had plenty of time to stop, I just couldn't be arsed to stop. There was no traffic, so chances of being squished were low, but I still ran the risk of a ticket from a cop unseen.


 
As a matter of interest what other lawas do you feel do not apply to you ?


----------



## youngoldbloke (31 Mar 2013)

The law should be obeyed. Full stop. I make sure the club runs I lead stop at road works lights in the lanes out in the country, even when it is obvious there is no other vehicle within miles - but I do get annoyed by pedestrian crossing lights changing to red when there is no pedestrian within 100 yards, for no apparent reason whatsoever.


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> As a matter of interest what other lawas do you feel do not apply to you ?


Can't speak for the parent poster, but my clipless pedals don't have reflectors on them. And I was using LED rear lights since long before it was legal to do so


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2013)

Oh yeah, and I've broken jaywalking laws in countries that have them... Anything else I should confess to?


----------



## outlash (31 Mar 2013)

TBH, I'm surprised this has even come up. You're on the road, you obey the laws of the road. I don't think it gets any simpler than that...


Tony.


----------



## Risex4 (31 Mar 2013)

I say fair play to those who do jump red lights.

I only wish I could get that high off the ground.


My opinion doesnt really need to be added apart from to say taht on top of absolutely everything else, to me it just smacks of breath-taking arrogance (and not the "good" kind).


----------



## Lanzecki (31 Mar 2013)

Short end of a long straw IMHO.


----------



## sheffgirl (31 Mar 2013)

sheffgirl said:


> I just tried to count, and I go through at least 10 sets of traffic lights on my way to work, and that's in a 3 miles journey, no wonder it takes so long in a car! It might be more than that, I lost count at ten.


 
I actually counted the number of traffic lights whilst on the bus yesterday, and there are 15 sets of traffic lights, 17 if I stay on the main road!


----------



## wilko (31 Mar 2013)

marzjennings said:


> To the OP, it's not a big issue (ok maybe for some it is, not for me). I run 'em all the time if the road is clear and no police in sight. I don't care what other cyclists think, if they get all hot 'n' bothered about me jumping the odd light, that's their issue not mine. Likewise for peds and drivers, who cares what they think.


 
I see you are in the US where I believe it's ok to turn right on a red provided it's clear and safe. I also think cyclists in the US have a different mindset to jumping a red light than most of us here in the UK.


----------



## paul04 (31 Mar 2013)

simmi said:


> In general I would never jump a red light but there are a few sets near me on very quiet roads that are triggered by pressure pads under the road. I have been sat a one set for over 5 minutes waiting for a car to come along and trigger it, so I have to say if the road is clear I will go on red at one of these junctions.


 
99.9% of the time I will not jump a red light, there is one set of lights on my way to work, which is a quiet side road, and no matter what I do I can not trigger the lights. so I go throught them nice and slow. If there is a car waiting at these lights, then I will wait.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (31 Mar 2013)

Lanzecki said:


> Where does it say the cyclist ran the lights?
> 
> To the OP. Red lights are there for a reason. To stop you from doing something silly. Please don't do it for you sake, and the sake of other road users.



Pelican crossing so I'm going for no lights but on the road so the onus was on the road users to at least not plough into him,, close enough in my book to taking liberties with red lights, maybe not everyone's tho.


----------



## Widge (31 Mar 2013)

I'm surprised that in the beginner forum, anyone would blatantly give the impression that it is 'sometimes' ok to disregard the law of the road. I am equally surprised that anyone would equally blatantly ask it if I am quite honest, but then.....(but only if no cops are looking) I DO quite often cycle the wrong way down motorways and haven't caused an accident yet at all....even with my hands off the bars and my wife on the crossbar!


Seriously though.........jumping red lights is not the correct thing to do. Just say no.


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2013)

Widge said:


> I'm surprised that in the beginner forum, anyone would blatantly give the impression that it is 'sometimes' ok to disregard the law of the road.


Sometimes it _is_ OK to disregard the law of the road:


> Home Office minister Paul Boateng wrote the following [ref pavement cycling]: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users.
> 
> "Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."



http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/motoring/comment/james-daley-the-cycling-column-400076.html


----------



## Widge (31 Mar 2013)

Ah...well found Dan! Thanks.

I see that the article in fact even goes so far as to suggest it IS officially ok to jump lights as long as it is done in a considerate and responsible way.

So now I'm just confused .............I would still feel uncomfortable doing it though - but that's just me  !!


----------



## vickster (31 Mar 2013)

Did the law actually get changed regarding RLJing or was it just guidance from a politician in 2007 who is no longer in office, or just the musings of a journalist? I am not sure what the article is actually saying - the guidance seems to be about pavement usage not jumping red lights - that appears to be a comment from the jouranlist not the HO


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2013)

Widge said:


> I see that the article in fact even goes so far as to suggest it IS officially ok to jump lights as long as it is done in a considerate and responsible way.


Not by my reading of it. It says it _should_ (in the author's opinion) be. Newspaper writers don't (yet) make the law in this country, though ...


----------



## Dan B (31 Mar 2013)

vickster said:


> Did the law actually get changed regarding RLJing or was it just guidance from a politician in 2007 who is no longer in office, or just the musings of a journalist? I am not sure what the article is actually saying - the guidance seems to be about pavement usage not jumping red lights - that appears to be a comment from the jouranlist not the HO


The guidance is indeed about pavement cycling. I mentioned it only as pavement cycling is also part of 'the law of the road', which is a much broader subject than simply RLJ


----------



## 400bhp (31 Mar 2013)

fossyant said:


> *It's good to stop. I've never met one RLJ'er that can outrun me even when jumping many sets. It's good interval training, you'll get fitter and keep passing the idiot that sails through. They are generally unfit.*
> 
> Best being on the right side of the law, get squished jumping a red light, then there will be no compensation for a squished bike and possibly permanent injuries.


 
+1.


----------



## Fab Foodie (31 Mar 2013)

stu9000 said:


> So I took my shiny new triban 3 out for the second time today. I admit I'm not always keen to stop at lights, when its safe, and I'm not carving my way through pedestrians. Is this a no no? I know some care drivers don't like it but its never bothered me as long as it is considerate.


 If you expect any modicum of respect on the road, obey the law. It's not difficult and it builds fitness.


----------



## marzjennings (1 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> As a matter of interest what other lawas do you feel do not apply to you ?


 
For me...drinking age (many many years ago), speeding, trespass, riding on pavement, riding on footpaths, swearing in public, spiting on the street (though the law may have changed on this one), riding wrong way up one way streets, having pedal reflectors, using a cell phone while driving, etc, etc..... really you want the whole list?


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Apr 2013)

Just puts thing


marzjennings said:


> For me...drinking age (many many years ago), speeding, trespass, riding on pavement, riding on footpaths, swearing in public, spiting on the street (though the law may have changed on this one), riding wrong way up one way streets, having pedal reflectors, using a cell phone while driving, etc, etc..... really you want the whole list?


 
Just puts things in perspective..... your answer suffices.

It appears that you both drive and cycle like a muppet!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Apr 2013)

The Boateng "criteria" depended on three things. Being "In fear" responsible and being safe

Simply put, a child or adult riding slowly along the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway would pass the criteria and noyt be eligible for an on the spot fine

Muppet on racing bike at 20 mph in a busy pedestrian precinct would fail


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Simply put, a child or adult riding slowly along the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway would pass the criteria and noyt be eligible for an on the spot fine


A child riding slowly on the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway would be perfectly eligible for a fine, criteria notwithstanding. That's still what the law says, the criteria merely form advice from the people who made it on when to pay attention to it


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2013)

marzjennings said:


> having pedal reflectors,


BURN HIM!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> A child riding slowly on the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway would be perfectly eligible for a fine, criteria notwithstanding. That's still what the law says, the criteria merely form advice from the people who made it on when to pay attention to it


 
Not be eligible under the Boateng criteria.........a bit like moving over a stop line to allow an emergency vehicle to pass or crossing the double white line to maneouvre around an obstruction


----------



## marzjennings (1 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Just puts thing
> 
> 
> Just puts things in perspective..... your answer suffices.
> ...


 
Likewise and worse have been said before.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Apr 2013)

marzjennings said:


> Likewise and worse have been said before.




Maybe you should take the hint ?

Anyone who speeds and / or uses mobile phones whilst driving endangers cyclists and other road users 

It should be unacceptable


----------



## Alan57 (1 Apr 2013)

marzjennings said:


> Likewise and worse have been said before.


 
You know what , you really are an arrogant ignorant knob. What do you do after your day of being a pillock , bully the nearest weakest person ? Idiot.


----------



## ianrauk (1 Apr 2013)

Yes ok people... calm it down please.
Less petty name calling and more debate.
Thanks.


----------



## vickster (1 Apr 2013)

I had a chat with a girl today who sailed past me at 2 red lights. Having caught her up, I did point out that red lights do actually apply to cyclists too. One was a set of pedestrian lights, the other a great big junction on the A24 between Tooting and Balham, not exactly a quiet road even at 1pm on a BH!

She said, 'well there was no one in front of me so I thought I'd carry on' - she looked utterly non plussed when I said red lights do mean stop even if you are on a bike and there are no cars coming. She was wearing a helment so obviously has some concern for her own well being, not that it'll help much if she gets hit by a vehicle doing 30+  I scalped her well and truly all the way, so her not stopping was not of great benefit! She was probably about half my age, bah students!


----------



## Alan57 (1 Apr 2013)

ianrauk said:


> Yes ok people... calm it down please.
> Less petty name calling and more debate.
> Thanks.


 
It`s not petty name calling , it`s about someone coming on here and giving a s**t look at me attitude. Don`t call me petty because that`s something i`m not, I don`t like bullies verbal or otherwise.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2013)

marzjennings said:


> Likewise and worse have been said before.





Alan57 said:


> You know what , you really are an arrogant ignorant knob. What do you do after your day of being a pillock , bully the nearest weakest person ? Idiot.



Maybe I'm having a Bank Holiday Day Of Denseness, but I really don't see how the above post from marz qualifies as bullying? Cunobelin called _him_ a muppet, not the other way around


----------



## Alan57 (1 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> Maybe I'm having a Bank Holiday Day Of Denseness, but I really don't see how the above post from marz qualifies as bullying? Cunobelin called _him_ a muppet, not the other way around


 
He is giving a deliberate confrontational and argumentative reply to the posts , it is designed to provoke a reaction , it is also designed to belittle people , it`s bullying and anti social , wake up .


----------



## Brandane (1 Apr 2013)

Five pages of debate, and so far only one or two contributors have been brave enough to put their head above the parapet and admitted to jumping red lights. So I will admit, I DO jump red lights, where I take the decision that it is perfectly safe to do so.

First off, there are red lights, and there are RED LIGHTS, whether all the holier than thou brigade like it or not. Yes I do know what the law says; I was a Police Officer for 20 years. That was when I learned that most Police Officers do have some common sense, which means that if you also use some common sense about traffic lights then you are most unlikely to incur the wrath of the law.
What I am getting at is this. If you go speeding through a red light in the centre of London during the rush hour, then you deserve all that is heading your way. If on the other hand, you are cycling past the entrance to my local Tesco at 3am and find the traffic lights at red, then what is the point in interrupting your rhythm? There is zero traffic around, and Tescos is closed at that time, so why are the stupid lights not switched off (they were only installed when the Tesco car park was built. Let's not forget the unnecessary CO2 being produced by having the lights on, and this for a company that claims to have an environmentally friendly policy).

Are you all seriously trying to tell me that if you come across a red light at a pedestrian crossing, on a quiet street with no traffic, where the pedestrians have quite clearly already made their way across, that you are going to stop and wait for the light to go to green? Funny how I see cyclists quite sensibly going through such red lights on a daily basis; yet the vast majority of contributors to this thread deny that they have ever done it, and consider it a hanging offence.

To summarise; use a slice of common sense when CAREFULLY negotiating through red lights and you will be safe. If there is ANY chance of coming into conflict with other road users then don't do it. Before anyone asks, yes I drive, and I wouldn't RLJ in a car. This is for 2 reasons: On a cycle you have a far better line of sight as to what is approaching from other directions; and you don't have an endorsable licence for riding a bike.


----------



## Dan B (1 Apr 2013)

Alan57 said:


> He is giving a deliberate confrontational and argumentative reply to the posts , it is designed to provoke a reaction , it is also designed to belittle people , it`s bullying and anti social , wake up .


It seems to me like he's only giving as good as he's getting. And maybe not even that, as he hasn't called anyone a "muppet", an "arrogant ignorant knob", a "pillock" or a "bully" despite having been called all of those things himself.

Still, opinions obviously differ on who it is OK to be rude to around here, so in accordance with the mods request I'm going to let the argument rest there. How do you feel about entering ASZs other than via the feeder lane?


----------



## vickster (1 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Are you all seriously trying to tell me that if you come across a red light at a pedestrian crossing, on a quiet street with no traffic, where the pedestrians have quite clearly already made their way across, that you are going to stop and wait for the light to go to green? Funny how I see cyclists quite sensibly going through red lights on a daily basis; yet the vast majority of contributors to this thread deny that they have ever done it, and consider it a hanging offence.


 
Yes, indeed I wait, as I would in a car. I do occasionally find myself going through a red light - as it is changing and it is not safe / possible for me to stop.


----------



## Brandane (1 Apr 2013)

vickster said:


> I do occasionally find myself going through a red light - as it is changing and it is not safe / possible for me to stop.


Ahhhhhh; so, by the letter of the law, you DO jump red lights. The phase of traffic lights is red - red and amber - green - amber - red. You should really have plenty of time to stop during the amber phase (which means stop unless it is not safe to do so), BEFORE the light turns to red. Just saying.....


----------



## Alan57 (1 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> It seems to me like he's only giving as good as he's getting. And maybe not even that, as he hasn't called anyone a "muppet", an "arrogant ignorant knob", a "pillock" or a "bully" despite having been called all of those things himself.
> 
> Still, opinions obviously differ on who it is OK to be rude to around here, so in accordance with the mods request I'm going to let the argument rest there. How do you feel about entering ASZs other than via the feeder lane?


 
You know what , all bullies and idiots have a sidekick that defends them, tiresome people all . Enjoy your cycling and hopefully staying within the laws of the land because that is what stops the thoughtless and irresponsible doing as they please.


----------



## vickster (1 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Ahhhhhh; so, by the letter of the law, you DO jump red lights. The phase of traffic lights is red - red and amber - green - amber - red. You should really have plenty of time to stop during the amber phase (which means stop unless it is not safe to do so), BEFORE the light turns to red. Just saying.....


 
That may be so, however if I am going 15-20mph in rush hour traffic and have a lorry behind me and the light turns amber as I get to the line, no way can I safely stop, especially if the roads are wet! Me being squashed by the following lorry would hardly be fair on either me or him 

From the highway code...
AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stopline. 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

I apply the same logic driving


----------



## Brandane (1 Apr 2013)

vickster said:


> That may be so, however if I am going 15-20mph in rush hour traffic and have a lorry behind me and the light turns amber as I get to the line, no way can I safely stop, especially if the roads are wet! Me being squashed by the following lorry would hardly be fair on either me or him


 
That scenario is legal though, because you have gone over the line just as the light has changed to AMBER, not red, and it was clearly not safe to stop for the amber light.


----------



## vickster (1 Apr 2013)

Exactly, I do not cross the line if the light is red...


----------



## DooDah (1 Apr 2013)

Rob500 said:


> If you ride your bike on the road then you *must* obey the rules of the road.


 
I think everyone can choose what they MUST do.


----------



## Brandane (1 Apr 2013)

vickster said:


> Exactly, I do not cross the line if the light is red...


 
Yebbut; that's not what you said in post #87.........



vickster said:


> I do occasionally find myself going through a *red* light - as it is changing and it is not safe / possible for me to stop.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Five pages of debate, and so far only one or two contributors have been brave enough to put their head above the parapet and admitted to jumping red lights. So I will admit, I DO jump red lights, where I take the decision that it is perfectly safe to do so.
> 
> First off, there are red lights, and there are RED LIGHTS, whether all the holier than thou brigade like it or not. Yes I do know what the law says; I was a Police Officer for 20 years. That was when I learned that most Police Officers do have some common sense, which means that if you also use some common sense about traffic lights then you are most unlikely to incur the wrath of the law.
> What I am getting at is this. If you go speeding through a red light in the centre of London during the rush hour, then you deserve all that is heading your way. If on the other hand, you are cycling past the entrance to my local Tesco at 3am and find the traffic lights at red, then what is the point in interrupting your rhythm? There is zero traffic around, and Tescos is closed at that time, so why are the stupid lights not switched off (they were only installed when the Tesco car park was built. Let's not forget the unnecessary CO2 being produced by having the lights on, and this for a company that claims to have an environmentally friendly policy).
> ...


 
Indeed. Or a registration plate to be read by cameras that have been installed at certain traffic lights to catch RLJing motorists.


----------



## vickster (1 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Yebbut; that's not what you said in post #87.........


 
I am not that quick a cyclist, on a big dual carriageway junction if I cross at yellow, the light is invariably red by the time I reach the other side!


----------



## marzjennings (1 Apr 2013)

Alan57 said:


> You know what , you really are an arrogant ignorant knob. What do you do after your day of being a pillock , bully the nearest weakest person ? Idiot.


 

Never been accused of being a bully before, that's a new one for me. I'll have to add that one to the list, thanks.


----------



## marzjennings (1 Apr 2013)

Alan57 said:


> He is giving a deliberate confrontational and argumentative reply to the posts , it is designed to provoke a reaction , it is also designed to belittle people , it`s bullying and anti social , wake up .


 
I honestly was not attempting to belittle anyone. The question was, Stop at lights? I sometimes don't, fact. My reason, 'cos I don't feel I have too. 

If you feel bullied by my lack of social etiquette, oh well.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> Cunobelin called _him_ a muppet, not the other way around


Actually I didn't what I said was



Cunobelin said:


> It appears that you both drive and cycle like a muppet!


 

How do you describe someone who claims they speed, use the mobile phone whilst driving and deliberately endangers others?


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

marzjennings said:


> I honestly was not attempting to belittle anyone. The question was, Stop at lights? I sometimes don't, fact. My reason, 'cos I don't feel I have too.
> 
> If you feel bullied by my lack of social etiquette, oh well.


 
Lack of respect for the safety of other road users, this is not social etiquette, but a decision to drive and cycle in a manner that endangers the safety of others.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> How do you describe someone who claims they speed, use the mobile phone whilst driving and deliberately endangers others?


I didn't see anyone claiming that they deliberately endanger others. Let's be sensible here: the laws regarding speed limits and use of handheld mobile while driving were both created to address a real problem (in the latter case, address it rather badly given that hands-free is just as dangerous and not covered by the legislation) but it is still possible to drive faster than the speed limit (e.g. on a deserted motorway at 3am)/use a mobile phone (e.g. while stopped in a three mile tailback) without causing either of those problems and in a way which, were it not illegal, no reasonable person could possibly have a problem with. I'm not saying that either are bad laws or that they shouldn't be obeyed, but it still doesn't follow that breaking them is axiomatically dangerous.


----------



## subaqua (2 Apr 2013)

use the red lights for interval training . and practice the trackstanding at same time .


----------



## BrianEvesham (2 Apr 2013)

I have always stopped at red lights until my local bridge (Honeybourne railway) became traffic light controlled for the first time last year. I guess the default is both on red, I cannot trip the lights to green, I always stop and wait and listen for a minute then go. Even if I have a green/amber as I cross the opposing cars will come at me, but as there is plenty of room it's not an issue, in fact I am not sure why they put lights on this bridge at all as there is room for a Bus and car to pass.
I appreciate this is illegal but the only way is to wait till a car going your way trips the sensors.
Any thoughts?


----------



## tadpole (2 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> A child riding slowly on the pavement beside a busy dual carriageway would be perfectly eligible for a fine, criteria notwithstanding. That's still what the law says, the criteria merely form advice from the people who made it on when to pay attention to it


No, sorry, but the law is clear, the police cannot issue FPNs to anyone under the age of 16.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

tadpole said:


> No, sorry, but the law is clear, the police cannot issue FPNs to anyone under the age of 16.


That's one view, but according to http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ it's not the view of the DfT


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

BrianEvesham said:


> I appreciate this is illegal but the only way is to wait till a car going your way trips the sensors.
> Any thoughts?


There's a school of thought that says that if the lights are designed to change when traffic approaches but they don't, then they are defective, and you can proceed with caution just as if you would if they were more comprehensively broken. I don't know whether this is explicitly mentioned in legislation or has been tested in court.

You can also complain to the council who may be able to adjust the sensitivity. Though whether it _stays_ adjusted the next time work is done to the lights for any other reason is another matter ...


----------



## marzjennings (2 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Lack of respect for the safety of other road users, this is not social etiquette, but a decision to drive and cycle in a manner that endangers the safety of others.


 
In general my actions do not endanger others ('cept the group of hikers I spooked years ago at Corfe Castle when mtbing). I do endeavour to act safely, while not being overly concerned if my actions are legal.


----------



## User16625 (2 Apr 2013)

stu9000 said:


> So I took my shiny new triban 3 out for the second time today. I admit I'm not always keen to stop at lights, when its safe, and I'm not carving my way through pedestrians. Is this a no no? I know some care drivers don't like it but its never bothered me as long as it is considerate.


 
Stop at red lights. However I sometimes ride behind the cones at road works if its a lane closure and no workers are there, not always practical to do this.


----------



## GrasB (2 Apr 2013)

I'll accept that we all make mistakes, miss a sign, etc. but doing our best to not speed, jump red lights or use our phones when driving/riding would go a long way to solving a large number of problems we experience on the roads. If we all respect the road traffic laws, not just obey them but give them respect, in general then we'd lose a lot of the aggression that makes problems in the first place. Coming along & deciding that your judgement supersedes the law in setting the outer constraints shows a general lack of respect for the governance of the roads & in it's self _*IS*_ the problem.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> I didn't see anyone claiming that they deliberately endanger others. Let's be sensible here: the laws regarding speed limits and use of handheld mobile while driving were both created to address a real problem (in the latter case, address it rather badly given that hands-free is just as dangerous and not covered by the legislation) but it is still possible to drive faster than the speed limit (e.g. on a deserted motorway at 3am)/use a mobile phone (e.g. while stopped in a three mile tailback) without causing either of those problems and in a way which, were it not illegal, no reasonable person could possibly have a problem with. I'm not saying that either are bad laws or that they shouldn't be obeyed, but it still doesn't follow that breaking them is axiomatically dangerous.


 
You are the reincarnation of Paul Smith AICMFP!

The claim was "driving whilst using a mobile phone".......... the proof is that this is dangerous and endangers other road users.
Search the forum if you are truly unaware of the facts.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> I'm not saying that either are bad laws or that they shouldn't be obeyed, but it still doesn't follow that breaking them is axiomatically dangerous.





Cunobelin said:


> You are the reincarnation of Paul Smith AICMFP!
> 
> The claim was "driving whilst using a mobile phone".......... the proof is that this is dangerous and endangers other road users.
> Search the forum if you are truly unaware of the facts.


Again with the personal insults. Have I insulted you? No, so knock it off.

The law on "driving whilst using a mobile phone" also makes it illegal to use a mobile phone while stationary in a three mile tailback. I don't think that's very dangerous. Many laws are introduced to fix real problems but as a byproduct make it illegal to do things which are otherwise not problems. Some laws are better drafted than others.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

GrasB said:


> If we all respect the road traffic laws, not just obey them but give them respect, in general then we'd lose a lot of the aggression that makes problems in the first place.


I'm not sure this isn't confusing cause and effect, you know. If we could lose a lot of the aggression we wouldn't _need_ half as many of the laws. Why are there laws about stopping in yellow box junctions? Because drivers in queueing traffic are too impatient to let traffic out from side roads at any junctions that _don't_ have them painted


----------



## sidevalve (2 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> There's a school of thought that says that if the lights are designed to change when traffic approaches but they don't, then they are defective, and you can proceed with caution just as if you would if they were more comprehensively broken. I don't know whether this is explicitly mentioned in legislation or has been tested in court.
> 
> You can also complain to the council who may be able to adjust the sensitivity. Though whether it _stays_ adjusted the next time work is done to the lights for any other reason is another matter ...


 Just because the lights don't change immediately just for you does NOT mean there is anything wrong, you may be on a sideroad and the main dual carriage way might just have a tad more priority [and this may change depending on the time of day], similarly there may be a ped crossing phase which WILL be served if requested, and as a vehicle you [like all those big bad car drivers must wait]. However to the OP.
To cut out all this "should you shouldn't you" guff just swap the words bicycle and car in the description of the offence ['cos sorry but that's what it is] and honestly state on this forum what would your reaction be if you saw a car simply ignoring a red light on a regular basis. If you can say " Oh well he probably can't be bothered waiting so it doesn't matter" then fair enough BUT if the reaction is " swine ! He should be arrested" [or similar] then the case is proved. If you don't want to follow the rules then don't ride on the road, using mobiles, speeding etc are all completely irrelevant. They are illegal acts, like mugging and theft and if caught the individual will be punished RLJ however "get away with it" in many cases simply because it is impossible to ID a bike [no reg no] and in busy traffic the police would be very lucky to stop it anyway.
If you really can't wait the few minutes that it takes then I suggest a large 4x4 or german made car and at least you can wait and rant in the appropriat vehicle for your temper.


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

sidevalve said:


> Just because the lights don't change immediately just for you does NOT mean there is anything wrong, you may be on a sideroad and the main dual carriage way might just have a tad more priority


This is possible but seems unlikely from the description, which was about managing two way flow over a railway bridge. Would be an odd place to put a dual carriageway, don't you think?


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> Again with the personal insults. Have I insulted you? No, so knock it off.
> 
> The law on "driving whilst using a mobile phone" also makes it illegal to use a mobile phone while stationary in a three mile tailback. I don't think that's very dangerous. Many laws are introduced to fix real problems but as a byproduct make it illegal to do things which are otherwise not problems. Some laws are better drafted than others.


 
Your attempt to justify someone else's claim to bolster a lost argument.

The problem with laws is that they are brought in because there will always be a group too stupid or arrogant to behave in an appropriate manner.

They need to be forced into behaving appropriately by censure and penalties.


----------



## subaqua (2 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Your attempt to justify someone else's claim to bolster a lost argument.
> 
> The problem with laws is that they are brought in because there will always be *a group too stupid or arrogant to behave in an appropriate manner.*
> 
> They need to be forced into behaving appropriately by censure and penalties.


 like RLJers


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

subaqua said:


> like RLJers


 
I didn't say that....


----------



## subaqua (2 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I didn't say that....


 no I did  and there will be some posting here who know who it was meant for. ( not you BTW)


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Your attempt to justify someone else's claim to bolster a lost argument.


No, my attempt to provide an alternative explanation of someone else's claim to show that giving them personal abuse is not necessarily justified. Lost argument no, lost cause apparently so


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

The only thing illogical is the attempt to justify either speeding or mobile phone use.

This pathetic argument is that neither mobile phone use or speeding is dangerous because this type of driver only uses their phone in a three mile tailback, and only ever speeds on empty motorways in absolute contraindication of the evidence where most offences are committed whilst in motion and residential areas respectively.


If you could kindly engage with the argument and explain this slight discrepancy?


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The only thing illogical is the attempt to justify either speeding or mobile phone use.
> 
> This pathetic argument is that neither mobile phone use or speeding is dangerous because this type of driver only uses their phone in a three mile tailback, and only ever speeds on empty motorways in absolute contraindication of the evidence where most offences are committed whilst in motion and residential areas respectively.
> 
> ...


If you would read what I actually said instead of what you wish I'd said, you would find that there is no discrepancy.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Apr 2013)

Excellent - so you now agree that using mobile phones whilst driving and speeding is unequivocally antisocial, dangerous and inconsiderate?


----------



## Dan B (2 Apr 2013)

No. You know the bit where I said "if you would read what I actually said instead of what you wish I'd said"? You're still trying to put words in my mouth and just because they're different words this time doesn't make it any more excusable.


----------



## marzjennings (2 Apr 2013)

subaqua said:


> no I did  and there will be some posting here who know who it was meant for. ( not you BTW)


 
Hmm, I wonder who.

I love observing the flouncing that occurs when someone admits to transgressing the odd law or two. The immediate assumption that one by breaking the law one is also endangering lives is fantastic. I marvel at folks who are able to live by such absolutes of right and wrong and are able to cast that first stone.

Nobody I think is arguing that RLJing is right, just that not all RLJing (or other legal transgressions) is automatically dangerous to either the rider or others. On the flip side, not all legal activity is safe.


----------



## subaqua (3 Apr 2013)

one


marzjennings said:


> Hmm, I wonder who.
> 
> I love observing the flouncing that occurs when someone admits to transgressing the odd law or two. The immediate assumption that one by breaking the law one is also endangering lives is fantastic. I marvel at folks who are able to live by such absolutes of right and wrong and are able to cast that first stone.
> 
> Nobody I think is arguing that RLJing is right, just that not all RLJing (or other legal transgressions) is automatically dangerous to either the rider or others. On the flip side, not all legal activity is safe.


 could also argue that if the 30 seconds or so delay you "suffer" are more important than waiting then there are bigger issues to worry about in your life .


----------



## Brandane (3 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> This pathetic argument is that neither mobile phone use or speeding is dangerous because this type of driver only uses their phone in a three mile tailback, and only ever speeds on empty motorways in absolute contraindication of the evidence where most offences are committed whilst in motion and residential areas respectively.
> 
> 
> If you could kindly engage with the argument and explain this slight discrepancy?


 
Just a thought, but ...... Perhaps this is down to the Police not taking too much notice of mobile phone use by drivers sitting in stationary traffic in 3 mile tail-backs; or turning a blind eye to someone speeding on an empty motorway. They quite rightly direct resources to where breaking the law causes danger to others; i.e. speeding in residential areas, or mobile phone use while moving. If the offence is not recorded then statistically it doesn't exist, conveniently. Why do you think the Police make it so difficult to report minor offences these days, then pat themselves on the back because crime figures are down?


----------



## BrianEvesham (3 Apr 2013)

sidevalve said:


> Just because the lights don't change immediately just for you does NOT mean there is anything wrong, you may be on a sideroad and the main dual carriage way might just have a tad more priority [and this may change depending on the time of day], similarly there may be a ped crossing phase which WILL be served if requested, and as a vehicle you [like all those big bad car drivers must wait]. However to the OP.
> To cut out all this "should you shouldn't you" guff just swap the words bicycle and car in the description of the offence ['cos sorry but that's what it is] and honestly state on this forum what would your reaction be if you saw a car simply ignoring a red light on a regular basis. If you can say " Oh well he probably can't be bothered waiting so it doesn't matter" then fair enough BUT if the reaction is " swine ! He should be arrested" [or similar] then the case is proved. If you don't want to follow the rules then don't ride on the road, using mobiles, speeding etc are all completely irrelevant. They are illegal acts, like mugging and theft and if caught the individual will be punished RLJ however "get away with it" in many cases simply because it is impossible to ID a bike [no reg no] and in busy traffic the police would be very lucky to stop it anyway.
> If you really can't wait the few minutes that it takes then I suggest a large 4x4 or german made car and at least you can wait and rant in the appropriat vehicle for your temper.


If I'm in my car the lights will change. The traffic light sensors don't seem to recognise a bicycle.. It's a straight B road over a railway bridge out of Honeybourne. I have been waiting for another car to come along and trip the lights, but TBH it is wearing thin now.

I am happy to wait for the lights to change (TBH at my level I enjoy a breather), but they don't.
I won't be buying a 4x4 as my "temper" is non existent.


----------



## snailracer (3 Apr 2013)

tadpole said:


> No, sorry, but the law is clear, the police cannot issue FPNs to anyone under the age of 16.





Dan B said:


> That's one view, but according to http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ it's not the view of the DfT


_"...the fixed penalty ... cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."_
_"...The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on footways without fear of redress..."_
So kids are still breaking the law, they can be taken to court if over 10, but cannot be issued an on-the-spot FPN unless over 16_, _see if you can get your head around that lot.


----------



## simmi (3 Apr 2013)

I am showing my ignorance here but I had always thought that traffic lights were triggered by pressure pads under the road, I now know through this thread and some research that the lines in the road hide a induction loop that is triggered by metal. As me and a few others have stated we only ever jump red lights when they will not change for us so after a bit of digging I found this video about neodymium (real earth) magnets.


Was wondering if anyone had tried these magnets.They come in all shapes and sizes so was thinking of buying a round countersunk one I could screw to a spare cleat thread in the bottom of my shoes so I could then unclip and place my foot directly onto the loop.


----------



## marzjennings (3 Apr 2013)

subaqua said:


> one
> 
> could also argue that if the 30 seconds or so delay you "suffer" are more important than waiting then there are bigger issues to worry about in your life .


 
Sorry, not in a rush or an impatient type of person, and according to my wife a very patient person. Cheers for the concern though.


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2013)

snailracer said:


> _"...the fixed penalty ... cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."_


A slightly less truncated version of that first quote:


> However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.
> 
> “The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all


Googling other sources says that there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued, but different police authorities have different policies on the matter. So in practice it might be 16 after all, it depends where you are.


----------



## snailracer (3 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> A slightly less truncated version of that first quote.
> ...
> Googling other sources says that there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued, but different police authorities have different policies on the matter. So in practice it might be 16 after all, it depends where you are.


You are equating the issuance of a FPN with breaking the law. The law is clear - cycling on pavements is against the law, even for kids, and nobody is disputing that. However, that does not change the fact that a FPN cannot be issued to a child under 16.


----------



## Dan B (3 Apr 2013)

snailracer said:


> You are equating the issuance of a FPN with breaking the law


No I'm not, and it's not a fact that FPNs cannot be issued to people under 16. See e.g. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/documents/juveniles.pdf


----------



## snailracer (3 Apr 2013)

Dan B said:


> No I'm not, and it's not a fact that FPNs cannot be issued to people under 16. See e.g. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/documents/juveniles.pdf


DEFRA's scope includes littering, dogs at large, etc. AFAIK, it does not include cycling on pavements - that is the DfT's turf, and their guidance from the Home Office is, "..._the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements._.._the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."_

You also said, "_...there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued..._", but I think it is well-established in law that no child under 10 can be legally sanctioned at all.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Apr 2013)

snailracer said:


> DEFRA's scope includes littering, dogs at large, etc. AFAIK, it does not include cycling on pavements - that is the DfT's turf, and their guidance from the Home Office is, "..._the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements._.._the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."_
> 
> You also said, "_...there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued..._", but I think it is well-established in law that no child under 10 can be legally sanctioned at all.


 
Bring back a good clip round the ear?


----------



## snailracer (3 Apr 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Bring back a good clip round the ear?


I think that counts as a non-legal sanction


----------

