# Red Lights



## 007fair (27 Sep 2009)

I (purposely)went through a red light yesteday 
I usually stop but in this case the junction was not a cross road and the lights were red to let cars from a road on the right to join the road i was on. So for me to keep cycling did put me or anyone else in any danger nor stop or hamper any of the cars coming onto the raod from the right - ie no affect at all. Plus I was on a cycle lane to the road is quite wide.

Anyhow some guy in a Learner car (Diving instructor I suppose) was really annoyed by this and beeped his horn and gestured etc (which I returned in kind...) 

Does anyone else ride through red lights depending on circumstance or is it always a no no?


----------



## magnatom (27 Sep 2009)

IMO, if you want respect on the roads, you need to respect the laws of the road (i.e. highway code).

How much time did you save?


----------



## BentMikey (27 Sep 2009)

Dumbass. You're part of the reason that cyclists are so berated by everyone else.


----------



## 007fair (27 Sep 2009)

of course only a few minutes And I agree with you I suppose in regards to respect ... BUT sometimes it seems so pointless sitting there for no reason and you could go without affecting anyone.

Traffic lights are by definition there to organise _traffic_ - otherwise there would be chaos 
In many cases whether a bike is there or not would not make any difference


----------



## theboytaylor (27 Sep 2009)

OK, I'm going to take the bait.

Would you have done it in a car? Doubt it. If so, why do it why using another vehicle on the road (I use vehicle loosely - it's too early to think of the appropriate word)?

I'd say it's always a no-no. You say that "for me to keep cycling did [not?] put me or anyone else in any danger", which is something that gets trotted out again and again. The point is, it's not about whether you or for that matter anyone thinks there is no harm likely to come. The traffic lights are there so you don't have to use your own risk assessment skills at every junction. So, it's about what is expected at that point on the road. The road users at the other part of the junction who see a green light could quite rightly assume that they are able to proceed without anything coming from a different direction. If someone appears in their way then I'm not surprised they'd be a bit pissed off.

Yes, drivers claim that a disproportionate amount of cyclists run red lights, go on the pavements, etc, etc. Cyclists are on the whole better behaved than they are given credit for. But another driver has just been given another example he can cite when whingeing to their mates about cyclists. Well done.


----------



## theboytaylor (27 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> Traffic lights are by definition there to organise _traffic_ - otherwise there would be chaos
> In many cases whether a bike is there or not would not make any difference



Took so long putting my other piece together I only just saw this. The first bit that I've quoted above is precisely the point. Whether you like it or not, on your bike, on the road you are part of the traffic. 

This is something that really annoys me because I think it's a crucial part of why some cyclists behave as they do - because they seem to regard themselves as part of some sort of "not-traffic" grouping who uses the roads but aren't beholden to the parts of the codes they don't like or find useful.

If you're part of the traffic, behave as part of the traffic and respect the traffic signals.


----------



## GrasB (27 Sep 2009)

F**king twat! May the pu**ture fairy visit you on many occasions over the rest of the year & so you use up all your spare tubs on at least one ride a week. 

It's not about danger it's about the law. If you don't respect that then there's no hope for other road users to become more tolerant.


----------



## Grendel (27 Sep 2009)

What of the policy of getting off, walking on the pavement, and then remounting at the other side of the junction?

As far as I can remember, the Highway Code promotes this as a safe way to negotiate busy roundabouts/ junctions, but I believe it does get on some motorists nerves, as much as red light jumpers.


----------



## magnatom (27 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> of course only a few minutes And I agree with you I suppose in regards to respect ... BUT sometimes it seems so pointless sitting there for no reason and you could go without affecting anyone.



Interesting that you think waiting was pointless. You pointed out that you annoyed a car driver by what you did, therefore, you just confirmed to one driver that the stereotype image of cyclists running reds, being lawless and being a menace, is correct.

Therefore, I think you will agree, there is a good reason for waiting at the lights...


----------



## magnatom (27 Sep 2009)

Guys,

Can I just ask that we be tolerant of the OP. He has at least had the decency of posting on here and asking what we think.


----------



## Perfect Virgo (27 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> ... Anyhow some guy in a Learner car (*Diving instructor* I suppose) was really annoyed by this and beeped his horn and gestured etc (which I returned in kind...)



Perhaps he was out of his depth?? Anyway, excellent powers of perception.


----------



## fossyant (27 Sep 2009)

Jumping red lights is one of the main reasons cyclists are 'hated'. No need. Think of it as extra training, and a chance for a quick drink.

Had you come into contact with another road user, you would have been at fault - accident's happen, mitigate your losses by not being the fool.


----------



## stowie (27 Sep 2009)

I generally do not jump lights - although I do frequently go past the stop line if a lorry or bus pulls behind - I think it makes me more visible. But I do agree that many lights for cycles are a bit pointless, mostly on T junctions where the council could easily implement a cycle bypass for the light, but don't bother presumably because it costs slightly more than just painting a white line.

I saw today a cyclist with a child on back waiting at pedestrian lights with a total wnaker edging his car forward past them. As soon as the lights changed he shot off leaving so little room that the cyclist t had to pull in and wait for him to pass. Both got stopped at the next red lights 30 yards down the road... In this case, I wouldn't be able to berate the cyclist if they jumped the light to get away from the idiot - I certainly would.

I don't like RLJing - I think it is actually more dangerous than those who do it think, and RLJing across pedestrian crossings is just rude. But I think local councils need to actually get off their backsides and make sure that cyclists are not hampered unnessarily and are safe at junctions.

BTW - at the moment, there is one set of lights I regularly jump, they are temporary lights at a junction and if I didn't, I would be mown down by traffic - the junction has a special cycle turn right light and lane, which doesn't work with the temporary lights. The pedestrian phase doesn't work either leaving most to run the guantlet of traffic. It has been like this for over a month. My local council is supposed to be one of the more "cycle friendly" ones. I can't begin to imagine how bad the others are...


----------



## downfader (27 Sep 2009)

Grendel said:


> What of the policy of getting off, walking on the pavement, and then remounting at the other side of the junction?
> 
> As far as I can remember, the Highway Code promotes this as a safe way to negotiate busy roundabouts/ junctions, but I believe it does get on some motorists nerves, as much as red light jumpers.



I have done it at busy junctions where I know the priority changes. To some it is seen as "cheating" but its safe and legal if you take the traffic into proper consideration.


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (27 Sep 2009)

downfader said:


> I have done it at busy junctions where I know the priority changes. To some it is seen as "cheating" but its safe and legal if you take the traffic into proper consideration.




Also; some lights are on ferro-magnetic sensors that do not detect cycles - so you would be sat there all day until a large steel object i.e. a car pulls up.


----------



## 007fair (27 Sep 2009)

So I don't have any supporters! I'm not surprised but there must be other bikers who do this but don't admit to it 

Anyway ..I'll humbly take on board your collective advice although I don't think I can retract my V sign to the driving instructor 

Strangely enough this incident was after a day on the roads when there was a number of good encounters with motorists - ie patient waiting or a friendly wave etc 
I suppose I must keep up the cyclists side of this good will


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

I don't really see the point in RLJing *unless* there is a safety aspect.

The only time I have jumped a set of lights was a return commute in Leyton about two in the morning with about ten pisshead peds approaching me.

I thought my safety may be in question.

I don't do it 99+% of time.


----------



## merlin321 (27 Sep 2009)

007fair, I wouldn`t say supporter, but I`ve done similar. I leave home for work at about 4.30am five days a week and cycle in every day regardless of the weather. The 10 mile route I use is lit all the way and the last 3 miles is on a main road coming in to a city. 
I have lost count of the times that I have approached a set of lights on red, and after having had a bloody good look round, carried on if I am convinced that their is no other vehicular traffic coming. Any sign of headlights in any direction and I`ll stop.
I will be farcked if I am waiting for minutes at a time, in the rain and wind at silly o`clock in the morning for a light to change colour or a car to roll up.
While we are at it I also admit to riding at over 30mph on a road limited to 30.
I`m not advocating that rljing is right but as previous posts have inferred, with considered choices.
All those cyclists who have NEVER commited any road traffic violations, stand up now.
Not much scraping of chairs I imagine.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

*All those cyclists who have NEVER commited any road traffic violations, stand up now.
Not much scraping of chairs I imagine.*

Now that hurts.

Seriously saying that I try to stick to the regulations as much of the % of the time.

Being here in Bangkok for the month and seeing how it all works makes me believ that the British Road layout and traffic system sucks.


----------



## 007fair (27 Sep 2009)

cheers marlin I feel a bit better now
My RLJ was probably a throw back to my schools days when I cycled alot purely for transport and red light jumping was probably the least offence Didn't think twice about it then 
Now 25 years later and a new bike I suppose I have to cycle like a grown up !


----------



## 007fair (27 Sep 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Being here in Bangkok for the month and seeing how it all works makes me believ that the British Road layout and traffic system sucks.



Intertesed in why is bangkok so much better ?


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Sep 2009)

The problem is not whether you feel it is safe or not, but the inconvenient and therfore frequently ignored matter of Trust.

As a road user we (like any other) have a contract with everyone else on the road, and that is to behave in a rational, sensible and predictable manner. 

When I come to a junction with a Give Way I am trusting that the approaching vehicle will stop at the junction and allow me to progress along the road. I trust the driver behind me not to run into the back of me, overtake and "Left Hook".

A classic example is that our neighbour's 6 year old knows not to cross our local road if she can see a car. Now that is excellent and has an excellent safety margin until she nearly got taken out by an idiot coming round the bend at over twice the limit. The rule only applies if the drivers are driving at the correct speed.

It is when the numpties refuse to obey these simple rules that the problems start.

The biggest single step in increasing road safety in this country would be for drivers to drive in accordance with the simple rules.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

I never rl-jumped when I was a kid.It was unheard of.When I first started cycling though was in the mid 1970's.

I suppose because of this I have stuck with it even though other people blatently do.



007fair said:


> Intertesed in why is bangkok so much better ?




I don't know whether I really meant that it is so much better I think the main thing out here is there is more respect for each other.I have seen some mad driving.I was blocking a car because I didn't notice the arrows on the traffic signal meaning the signal only applied to traffic going forwards and as I wanted to turn left I was entitled to go.The motorist behind me didn't lose his rag but patiently went past me and with this I realised he had made a correct legal left turn move.


----------



## dubman (27 Sep 2009)

I will jump red lights if the coast is clear , or if i think its safe ! I also will hop onto the pavement if the way is blocked  I also drive a car and it doesnt bother me in the slightest if i see other cyclists doing the same.


----------



## Grendel (27 Sep 2009)

If a tree falls down in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

If a cyclist goes through a red light at four in the morning and no one sees, does it matter?


Obviously if the road is deserted and it's stupid o'clock in the morning, and you aren't going to be caught/annoy other road users, then why not.

If there is one thing that bugs me it's stopping at lights, only to watch another cyclist shooting through.


----------



## magnatom (27 Sep 2009)

dubman said:


> I will jump red lights if the coast is clear , or if i think its safe ! I also will hop onto the pavement if the way is blocked  I also drive a car and it doesnt bother me in the slightest if i see other cyclists doing the same.




But it does bother a lot of drivers. I had a colleague the other day moaning about bl**dy cyclists RLJing etc. Yes he was generalising and I pointed that out to him, but he does have a point. 

Of course I also asked him what percentage of drivers break the speed limit....


----------



## magnatom (27 Sep 2009)

Grendel said:


> If a tree falls down in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
> 
> If a cyclist goes through a red light at four in the morning and no one sees, does it matter?
> 
> ...



What if you are driving a car? Would you drive through it at silly o'clock? I'm not getting at you, just genuinely interested.

I should add, I have on one occasion run a red light. It was a light that had a sensor that didn't seem to be detecting me. I'm not saying that there aren't circumstances where jumping a red light isn't ok, or even the only way to advance, however, in general, I can't understand why, even during the middle of the night, what the rush is, and why waiting for a couple of minutes is so difficult.


----------



## simongrant (27 Sep 2009)

andrew-the-tortoise said:


> Also; some lights are on ferro-magnetic sensors that do not detect cycles - so you would be sat there all day until a large steel object i.e. a car pulls up.



Great point,i have one of these at a crossroads near my place of work and doing a 2-10 shift on the way home there is very little if any traffic behind me,hence in the past i have waited 5-10 mins or so for a car to come along before the lights change,now i tend to wait a couple of mins before edging out looking left and right and ahead before taking the right turn.The road that crosses in front of me is dead straight for ages so no chance of vehicles coming at speed around a bend etc and me not seeing it.I wonder if there are any devices that can be attached to a bike to change the lights?????
ps,i did phone the council about this and they said in this situation treat the lights as if they are out of action because to all intent and purpose they are for you.
Simon


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2009)

Jumping red lights is not clever and not necessary, either by cyclists or motorists. In my neck of the woods I see more RLJ by motorists than cyclists.


----------



## simongrant (27 Sep 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Jumping red lights is not clever and not necessary, either by cyclists or motorists. In my neck of the woods I see more RLJ by motorists than cyclists.



Wafflycat,please read my post and explain how its not necessary given my situation,or are you saying its safer for me to walk across the same junction(in cleats)or carefully go to the edge look both ways and ahead before progressing,BTW this is the only occasion where i do go through a red light and its not everytime,sometimes they are on green for me if the last vehicle through was on the same approach as me,and will remain on green until traffic comes in anther direction i presume.

ps,i always stop regardless and then having waited make a decision on what to do If i see lights in the distance behind me i will wait everytime.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

Poor attitude lee.


----------



## Downward (27 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> So I don't have any supporters! I'm not surprised but there must be other bikers who do this but don't admit to it
> 
> Anyway ..I'll humbly take on board your collective advice although I don't think I can retract my V sign to the driving instructor
> 
> ...



I jump one set of light all the time. It's one of those Supermarkets and it isn't open till 8am. The lights will change to green if your approaching in a car but don't pick up the bike.
Also Pedestrian lights too - Once they are the pavement I am off.


----------



## Downward (27 Sep 2009)

hackbike 666 said:


> Poor attitude lee.



But true - You can't change the world you can just do what is right. You will never get people not to jump them car drivers or bikes.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2009)

simongrant said:


> Wafflycat,please read my post and explain how its not necessary given my situation,or are you saying its safer for me to walk across the same junction(in cleats)or carefully go to the edge look both ways and ahead before progressing,BTW this is the only occasion where i do go through a red light and its not everytime,sometimes they are on green for me if the last vehicle through was on the same approach as me,and will remain on green until traffic comes in anther direction i presume.
> 
> ps,i always stop regardless and then having waited make a decision on what to do If i see lights in the distance behind me i will wait everytime.




It's not necessary: period. If for some reason you can't wait, dismount and walk. That way you stay legal & don't wind-up other road users. Cleats? Use cleat covers - they aren't expensive. Even without cleat covers it's not impossible or even that difficult to walk. I've not yet come across one red light where I've felt it's necessary to cycle through. I have, however, got off the bike & walked. It's not exactly difficult.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

Downward said:


> But true - You can't change the world you can just do what is right. You will never get people not to jump them car drivers or bikes.



Im not trying to change the world.

Car drivers don't stop their car then suddenly drive through....rarely but yes I have seen that happen.Cyclists just cycle through willy nilly.


----------



## Downward (27 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> So, pull up to the 'STOP' line, get off and walk over said stop line with bike. Then get back on bike and carry on pedaling?



Could you scoot ??!


----------



## GrasB (27 Sep 2009)

Downward said:


> But true - You can't change the world you can just do what is right. You will never get people not to jump them car drivers or bikes.


No but if everyone stops RLJing then it'll be one less reason for the flow of animosity between cyclists & motorists. Every interaction we have with motorists leaves an impression & a cyclist RLJing is a negative interaction to most motorists who see it.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

I can see why motorists hate us.

That's all I get at work is about rljing and even though I plead my innocence I might as well be talking to a brick wall.It really pisses me off.

But that's life.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> So, pull up to the 'STOP' line, get off and walk over said stop line with bike. Then get back on bike and carry on pedaling?



Is the legal approach if you can't be arsed to wait for a green light.


----------



## GrasB (27 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> Tis' a very small piece of the pie you are talking about there though imo.
> 
> If it's not RLJing, then it's you don't pay no 'road rax', you shouldn't be allowed on the road - ride on the pavement.......


But how much of that 'road tax' chestnut is just a reactionary because people are getting pissed off with cyclists flouting the law. From experience & observation quite a lot, it's true that you're not going to turn every w**ker into a saint, but that's not what you're trying to do. If you increase general motorist tolerance of cyclists the people who are aggressive & dangerous to cyclists become less socially acceptable & find they have the backlash against them.


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> What?! So if I am coming upto a red light and stop on the road before the line, get off and walk over the line with my bike and then get back on and carry on through the junction this is not against the law?



If you dismount - and push your bike across the junction then you are a pedestrian crossing the junction. Red lights are not legally binding on peds. Pushing your bike across the junction is no different to a pedestrian pushing a pram... wheelbarrow.. wheelchair.. If, on the other hand, you dismount, cross the stop line - get back on and cycle over you are taking the p*ss as well as being in cycling mode once more, hence the red light applying and you are RLJing. Discussed at length in ACF & URC over the years. Apparently if you 'scoot' the bike, you are still cycling and not a pedestrian.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (27 Sep 2009)

The ironic thing is that in cambridge there are so many RLJ's that if the police actually pulled them all up, they would never do anything else !

Anyway, I undertand what the guy is saying, but a red light is a red light. 

The clue is in the title as they say, and red means stop.

I have been through one, and only one at a ped crossing when they had pressed the button, but not waited and gone when there was a gap, but I vowed it would be the first and last time for me, and after 2000 miles this year, it still has been the first and last time.

I just think it gives us all a bad name.


----------



## dondare (27 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> I (purposely)went through a red light yesteday
> I usually stop but in this case the junction was not a cross road and the lights were red to let cars from a road on the right to join the road i was on. So for me to keep cycling did put me or anyone else in any danger nor stop or hamper any of the cars coming onto the raod from the right - ie no affect at all. Plus I was on a cycle lane to the road is quite wide.
> 
> *Anyhow some guy in a Learner car (Diving instructor I suppose) was really annoyed by this and beeped his horn and gestured etc (which I returned in kind...) *
> ...



That would be incorrect use of the horn, which is illegal.

And yes, there are plenty of others who would ride through a red light, but very few of them use cycling forum sites so they won't be the ones replying here. 
I wait at red for all the reasons already mentioned.


----------



## Downward (27 Sep 2009)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> The ironic thing is that in cambridge there are so many RLJ's that if the police actually pulled them all up, they would never do anything else !
> 
> Anyway, I undertand what the guy is saying, but a red light is a red light.
> 
> ...



If the police just concentrated on real crime maybe this country wouldn't have lost so much faith in them.

You know pretty much when you see them pulling cyclists they must feel so embarrassed justifying themselves.


----------



## simongrant (27 Sep 2009)

wafflycat said:


> It's not necessary: period. If for some reason you can't wait, dismount and walk. That way you stay legal & don't wind-up other road users.
> 
> Please try and read first,there are no other road users to wind up thats why the lights dont change.Please try to comprehend


----------



## purplepolly (27 Sep 2009)

simongrant said:


> Great point,i have one of these at a crossroads near my place of work and doing a 2-10 shift on the way home there is very little if any traffic behind me,hence in the past i have waited 5-10 mins or so for a car to come along before the lights change,now i tend to wait a couple of mins before edging out looking left and right and ahead before taking the right turn.The road that crosses in front of me is dead straight for ages so no chance of vehicles coming at speed around a bend etc and me not seeing it.I wonder if there are any devices that can be attached to a bike to change the lights?????
> ps,i did phone the council about this and they said in this situation treat the lights as if they are out of action because to all intent and purpose they are for you.
> Simon



I'm not sure that's the right solution - sensors must be able to detect all traffic, including bicycles, in order to meet the legal standards. If the sensors don't detect your bike then the lights are not lawful and the council should adjust the sensors so that they'll detect your bike. There are many traffic lights that can detect bikes so there's no excuse for councils to be installing sub-standard lights.


----------



## GrasB (27 Sep 2009)

Around cambridge you have to take up primary & they work fine, many cyclists complain they didn't trigger but I never have a problem as I take up primary coming to lights, I often trigger them for riders in the cycle lane though. From my understanding they were pressure sensitive not magnetic sensors though.


----------



## purplepolly (27 Sep 2009)

simongrant;919758][quote name= said:


> It's not necessary: period. If for some reason you can't wait, dismount and walk. That way you stay legal & don't wind-up other road users.



Please try and read first,there are no other road users to wind up thats why the lights dont change.Please try to comprehend[/quote]

In this case Simon, the highway code is actually on your side

rule 176
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care

As the lights don't detect you bike, as they legally must, they are not working.


----------



## classic33 (27 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> I'm not sure that's the right solution - sensors must be able to detect all traffic, including bicycles, in order to meet the legal standards. If the sensors don't detect your bike then the lights are not lawful and the council should adjust the sensors so that they'll detect your bike. There are many traffic lights that can detect bikes so there's no excuse for councils to be installing sub-standard lights.



IF the lights are not legal, due to faulty sensors, does that mean you are not jumping a red light. That being the case most of the lights round near me, not on a timing sequence must be illegal. Those in the town centre require something larger than a bike. Only one set having a MAD sensor under the road surface.

Ran a red light on the road into shipley & got pulled up by a police officer, made to cycle to the end of the railings up onto the pavement dismount and give a reason for ignoring the lights. My reason passed as he was talking. Ambulance on "blues & two's". I'd simply moved out of the way on hearing the siren.

Held up a lorry on the A58 around halve five on a Sunday morning, his being the only moving vehicle seen that morning, because the lights wouldn't change quick enough for the driver. He pulled over to the right hand side of the road before turning right. He then stopped and waited for me after he'd cleared the junction & the houses. Simply gave him a wide berth & took the name of the company of the lorry. Phoned them on the Tuesday.


----------



## jonny jeez (27 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> Guys,
> 
> Can I just ask that we be tolerant of the OP. He has at least had the decency of posting on here and asking what we think.




Well said 

When I first started riding, the temptation to jump pedestrian crossings that were vacant was immense.

But, I didn’t and today I notice that those that don’t stop at lights are generally less fitter than me (as I was then) and I catch and scalp them easily within minutes...even seconds.

I have to say that I enjoy being one of those that dont RLJ and I like being able to "align" myself with other road sharers on the issue (even shaking my head and rolling my eyes when I see it occur) 

I feel it does me a lot of favours on my route either that day...or the next, as I see the same road sharers almost each day at the same point.

One last point, I enjoy the break offered by stopping at the lights, not just a breather, but a break form the monotonous movement and position of riding (especially for a long ish distance each day) and it breaks the ride up from a hardcore thrash into something that allows me to stop and smell the roses.

Oh, and well done for standing up to a potential torrent of abuse and asking the question, I hope the replies have given you food for thought.


----------



## hackbike 666 (27 Sep 2009)

*If the police just concentrated on real crime maybe this country wouldn't have lost so much faith in them.

You know pretty much when you see them pulling cyclists they must feel so embarrassed justifying themselves. *

There is something that impresses me with Bangkok is the level of respect and dodgy driving but no,rare or very rare road rage and the fact the traffic cops have guns.There is still something here (like respect) which is lacking from the knuckle draggers in England.Obviously the cops in England are undermanned and are tied by red tape.

Im back there soon sadly,I didn't miss being in my homeland.


----------



## simongrant (27 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> In this case Simon, the highway code is actually on your side
> 
> rule 176
> You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care
> ...



Thankyou purplepolly,like i said in the post i always stop at the redlight first and have waited 15mins or so when i first used this root,reported to council who said as you quoted,treat them as not working,now if only wallycat could understand this


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> In this case Simon, the highway code is actually on your side
> 
> rule 176
> You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care
> ...



Indeed.


----------



## simongrant (27 Sep 2009)

It's not necessary: period?,have you changed your mind now?

I have just repoted the lights again via fixmystreet.com so will see if anything changes,hopefully the lights soon lol


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Sep 2009)

Grendel said:


> If a tree falls down in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
> 
> If a cyclist goes through a red light at four in the morning and no one sees, does it matter?
> 
> ...



Which is the same argument used for driving at 100 mph in a 30 mph zone as it "doesn't matter"


----------



## wafflycat (27 Sep 2009)

simongrant said:


> It's not necessary: period?,have you changed your mind now?
> 
> I have just repoted the lights again via fixmystreet.com so will see if anything changes,hopefully the lights soon lol



Red lights which are not working cannot be jumped as they are this: not working. There is no need to RLJ. Period.


----------



## Dan B (27 Sep 2009)

Blah


----------



## simongrant (27 Sep 2009)

Nice climb down wallycat,sorry wafflycat,but technically the light is still on red but knowing they arent gonna change for me i use common sense and proceed with caution.I will again await a response from the council and also get an opinion from the traffic bobby i see most everyday on my way in.


----------



## snorri (27 Sep 2009)

Downward said:


> If the police just concentrated on real crime maybe this country wouldn't have lost so much faith in them.




Time spent stopping people doing silly things which could result in them killing themselves is an important part of police work.


----------



## hackbike 666 (28 Sep 2009)

simongrant said:


> It's not necessary: period?,have you changed your mind now?
> 
> I have just repoted the lights again via fixmystreet.com so will see if anything changes,hopefully the lights soon lol



Good idea,there are a set at Stratford which are always a pain as they don't detect me I should complain about them.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Sep 2009)

simongrant said:


> Nice climb down wallycat,sorry wafflycat,but technically the light is still on red but knowing they arent gonna change for me i use common sense and proceed with caution.I will again await a response from the council and also get an opinion from the traffic bobby i see most everyday on my way in.



No climbdown at all. There is a world of difference bwetween a working red light and one that is not working. Both legally and practically.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Sep 2009)

simongrant said:


> Nice climb down wallycat,sorry wafflycat,but technically the light is still on red but knowing they arent gonna change for me i use common sense and proceed with caution.I will again await a response from the council and also get an opinion from the traffic bobby i see most everyday on my way in.



That's not a climbdown - that's nothing more than legally going through a red light. What's more, that's been wafflycat's stance for a number of years now. I'm guessing she didn't notice in your OP where you mention non-working traffic lights.


----------



## Downward (28 Sep 2009)

snorri said:


> Time spent stopping people doing silly things which could result in them killing themselves is an important part of police work.




They would be better off then teaching the green cross code.


----------



## gaz (28 Sep 2009)

I counted the lights i went through on the way to work, and counted just over 100. it's not so hard to not jump them.


----------



## simongrant (28 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> That's not a climbdown - that's nothing more than legally going through a red light. What's more, that's been wafflycat's stance for a number of years now. I'm guessing she didn't notice in your OP where you mention non-working traffic lights.



Which is why i said at least twice to read my post properly and still got the"not necessary ever stance"


----------



## 007fair (28 Sep 2009)

Not sure if there is a need but I thought I would update here as I opened the thread. 
I didn't realise there was such ongoing _real_ anamosity between cyclists and normal motorists. 

Honest opinion before thread .. 
I thought the guy that gestured to me was just a plonker (There are many out there!).
I thought that motorists who complain about cyclists are just the ones who think more of their cars than they should. IE They want to be king of the road with their 19 " alloys and twin turbos etc ... 
Cyclists evoke anger because they are outside the motorists road rules, physically (like fitting through small spaces if traffic jams etc) and phsycologically (cycling is environmentally clean and good for your health - an unpleasant reminder of what the motorist is not! - and they feel like they are being silently preached to by each bike)
Their ego is dented and hence the anger!
Akin to some young guys hanging around a street corner feeling they have to deride someone out running. 


...but it seems that there is a bigger picture in this case (see OP).
Maybe it was my eyes that needed to be opened a bit.

I fully take the point (made kindly and otherwise) that cyclists should not wind up motorists if there is no need. Respectful road behaviour promotes a general sense goodwill to all other road users including peds which is obviously worthwhile (especially considering we are the vulnerable ones!)
I was not a serial RLJ er but I will not now do it now unless the situation is unusual (lights not working etc as discussed). 
There you go - you converted me


Note - I am a motorist as well as a cyclist. I generally never get annoyed if a cyclist pushes his bike through the ped crossing or even RLJ's unless its danergous. Should I now get angry with guys that do this!?


----------



## BentMikey (28 Sep 2009)

In fairness to you, I come from exactly the same view, 007fair. I also used to RLJ, and ppl on a forum like this one converted me away from it too.

Must confess to getting particularly frustrated by hitting what seemed like almost every red light out of the 120 on my commute yesterday.


----------



## jonny jeez (28 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> In fairness to you, I come from exactly the same view, 007fair. I also used to RLJ, and ppl on a forum like this one converted me away from it too.
> 
> Must confess to getting particularly frustrated by hitting what seemed like almost every red light out of the 120 on my commute yesterday.




Ditto to that mikey, I have around 80+ and getting them *all* on the way in can put 20 minutes on my journey!!

However (and luckily) I generally only ever see the "main" crossroad lights at red and so this generally dosent hold me up too much (maybe a minute or so in the long run)


----------



## u9ge (28 Sep 2009)

The only time there is ever the excuse is in the tree falling in the forest rule, if no one, I mean no one 5am in the morning style could see you, you might choose to do this. This means motorists, pedestrians, cyclists.

If we can't put our own house in order, what hope is there ever for us.


----------



## Arch (28 Sep 2009)

Grendel said:


> What of the policy of getting off, walking on the pavement, and then remounting at the other side of the junction?
> 
> As far as I can remember, the Highway Code promotes this as a safe way to negotiate busy roundabouts/ junctions, but I believe it does get on some motorists nerves, as much as red light jumpers.



The difference being, it's not illegal. So it may get on their nerves, but that's their problem for being frustrated/stressed/stupid.

I've been using this tactic for a week or so to bypass a bit of closed road in York. I hop off, walk past the big gas works hole, and back on. 

If I rode up onto the pavement, that would be wrong, but walking, I'm just a pedestrian like any other.... And TBH, I would follow the diversion, if it didn't take me up a cobbled hill.


----------



## Dan B (28 Sep 2009)

Arch said:


> The difference being, it's not illegal


_Probably_ not illegal. 

In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in Crank v Brooks, Waller LJ stated:


Waller said:


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



Now I don't know all the facts of that case and haven't been able
to find the rest of the judgment on the 'net, but I would not be
surprised if "having started on the pavement on one side on her
feet and not on the bicycle" turned out to be a key part of it:
obviously someone walking along from A to B and pushing a bicycle
is engaged in a quite different form of travel from someone who
is cycling the same route and who only dismounts for the express
purpose of avoiding a restriction of some kind which is intended
to stop cyclists.


----------



## Dan B (28 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> Note - I am a motorist as well as a cyclist. I generally never get annoyed if a cyclist pushes his bike through the ped crossing or even RLJ's unless its danergous. Should I now get angry with guys that do this!?


No, why would that help anyone? Live and let live


----------



## Bman (28 Sep 2009)

There are very few sets of lights in my town, probably only about 5 or 6. I only occasionally use one of these sets. It is a set that allows traffic to flow (one way at a time) over a narrow single laned bridge. 

I posted about the last time I was patiently waiting at the lights, with my bike directly over the sensor. The lights only changed when I gave up the wait, dismounted and the car behind me edged forward over the sensor. 

I like the idea that I can in future treat these lights as "broken" but I wouldnt want to look like I am RLJ'ing to the average motorist. Also I wouldnt trust the oncoming traffic to drive safely enough to see me coming (when they dont expect any traffic to be coming towards me).

I would suggest trying to use your D-lock to activate the sensor. especially if you have aluminium rims/frame


----------



## purplepolly (28 Sep 2009)

Bongman said:


> The lights only changed when I gave up the wait, dismounted and the car behind me edged forward over the sensor.
> 
> I like the idea that I can in future treat these lights as "broken" but I wouldnt want to look like I am RLJ'ing to the average motorist. Also I wouldnt trust the oncoming traffic to drive safely enough to see me coming (when they dont expect any traffic to be coming towards me).



Probably best done only _after_ reporting the lights to the council and when there's no traffic about, that way it's on record that the lights are faulty.

Mind you , sometimes there's no choice but to go through even if there is traffic. I got caught the other week turning right off an A road. Normally there's a right turn sequence in the lights but this time I was on my own and my bike didn't trigger the lights so I was stuck in the middle of the junction in between 4 lanes of speeding traffic. The second time the oncoming traffic stopped I took my chances and cut across the traffic about to turn out of the side road.


----------



## stowie (28 Sep 2009)

It is telling that all us cyclists are expected to defend the actions of some, and that we actually feel the need to do it. I wonder if the average motorists feels the need to justify drivers against people speeding - which is just as illegal as RLJ and, IMO, much more prevalent amongst drivers than jumping lights is amongst cyclists.

As mentioned I rarely jump lights - I will moved forward from the stop line if I think it will get me ahead of a large vehicle when the lights change, but I don't want to risk the chance that I will get the light phasing wrong and be in serious trouble. It just isn't worth it.

I do wish that councils would look seriously at making lights cycle friendly. Many junctions could have a facility for cyclists easily implemented with some cycle lights and dedicated bypass lane.


----------



## Bman (28 Sep 2009)

sorry, had to post this : 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtCNhABlLw&fmt=16


----------



## wafflycat (28 Sep 2009)

Bongman said:


> sorry, had to post this :
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHtCNhABlLw&fmt=16


----------



## Absinthe Minded (28 Sep 2009)

007fair said:


> Traffic lights are by definition there to organise _traffic_


This might already have been said but I'm too lazy to read everything.

Cyclists ARE TRAFFIC.


----------



## 007fair (29 Sep 2009)

Absinthe Minded said:


> This might already have been said but I'm too lazy to read everything.
> 
> Cyclists ARE TRAFFIC.



Agreed.. my point originally was that they were designed specifically for cars not bikes. If only bikes were on the road they would in general be redundant But its a mute point I have seen the light and have vowed to be good from now on


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

Good for you.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

I've given this thread a while to expand before posting.

This morning I went through a red light again, like most mornings. 05:25 at the junction of B'ham Rd and Old Budbrooke Rd, NE of Warwick.
Again, there was no one else around, so what the......

Having not recieved a PM from any of you telling me I'm a naughty boy, or a summons from Warwick Constabulary for the last four years, I take it the police, other roadusers and none of you notice me RLJing nearly every morning.

Which is the point made by a few of you. If there is no risk to other traffic ( because there's none there to face risk ) why stop at a red lamp?


----------



## siadwell (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> If there is no risk to other traffic ( because there's none there to face risk ) why stop at a red lamp?



Glad you asked.

The answer's quite simple. I refer you to The Highway Code Rules for cyclists (59-82):*71*

You *MUST NOT* cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
*[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]*​And where would we be if we only obeyed those laws we felt like obeying?


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

siadwell said:


> Glad you asked.
> 
> The answer's quite simple. I refer you to The Highway Code Rules for cyclists (59-82):
> *71*
> ...



It's a long way from Surrey tomorrow morning for you to stop me.

And what are the police going to say when you phone them later this afternoon saying a cyclist on his own is going to ride across a red traffic signal?


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> It's a long way from Surrey tomorrow morning for you to stop me.
> 
> And what are the police going to say when you phone them later this afternoon saying a cyclist on his own is going to ride across a red traffic signal?




So it is ok to break the law so long as you don't get caught.....?


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> So it is ok to break the law so long as you don't get caught.....?


In general, yes. But that's a question better suited to P&L than Commuting, really.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> So it is ok to break the law so long as you don't get caught.....?



Ask yourself a question.

How far down the Police's list of serious crimes does "Lone cyclist riding across deserted traffic junction when signal is against him" stand?


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Ask yourself a question.
> 
> How far down the Police's list of serious crimes does "Lone cyclist riding across deserted traffic junction when signal is against him" stand?


Doesn't matter. If you kept on ignoring the lowest law down the list, you'd soon graduate to something more serious.


----------



## garrilla (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Ask yourself a question.
> 
> How far down the Police's list of serious crimes does "Lone cyclist riding across deserted traffic junction when signal is against him" stand?



I prefer it when you do poetry on this subject.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Doesn't matter. If you kept on ignoring the lowest law down the list, you'd soon graduate to something more serious.


Really? I've been copying my CDs to digital formats for personal use/backup, for as long as it's been technically possible to do so. When do I graduate to ABH and extreme pornography?

Also the other day I stopped after the stop line because it gave be a better view of the junction. Please can you let me know how many years I have before I kill someone in a drive-by shooting?


----------



## Trevrev (29 Sep 2009)

Bet you wish you'd never said anything now 007 !!! PMSL !!!! Just keep it to yourself in future mate !!!


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Really? I've been copying my CDs to digital formats for personal use/backup, for as long as it's been technically possible to do so. When do I graduate to ABH and extreme pornography?


Funny! Perhaps you should stop wasting your time here and consider a career on stage.

What I'm saying is that by ignoring the lower-on-the-list laws, you are threatening to debase the ones above.

And isn't it legal to copy your media for personal and backup purposes?

Back to you, for an outstandingly witty reply...


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

There is a large shade of grey when lonely road junctions are concerned. White is obeying the Highway Code to the letter of the law. Black is whizzing through the junction without even looking. Grey is approaching with care, checking for traffic and if there is no traffic, proceeding with caution.

Who? I ask you, who will care a shoot if I go across the red? There's no one there to argue the toss.

Mind you, killing a butterfly in the Brazilian forest causes a tornado in North Dakota, 

so I'd better stop at the red lamp in future.


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Ask yourself a question.
> 
> How far down the Police's list of serious crimes does "Lone cyclist riding across deserted traffic junction when signal is against him" stand?




Oh I agree it will be pretty low, and rightly so. However, your posts suggest that it is the ability to avoid getting caught that justifies it for you. Are there any other laws that you break as you know you can get away with it?

If I had a dime for every time a car driver/work colleague/bus driver/taxi driver/friend etc said to me that they see cyclists run red lights etc, so why should they get any respect... I'd be a millionaire (in dollars of course). 

Yes it is a weak argument, but they have a point. If you expect others to abide by the rules, we have to be abiding by the rules as well. Jumping red lights whilst demanding drivers follow the rules of the road is exhibiting double standards IMO.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> Oh I agree it will be pretty low, and rightly so. However, your posts suggest that it is the ability to avoid getting caught that justifies it for you. Are there any other laws that you break as you know you can get away with it?
> 
> If I had a dime for every time a car driver/work colleague/bus driver/taxi driver/friend etc said to me that they see cyclists run red lights etc, so why should they get any respect... I'd be a millionaire (in dollars of course).
> 
> Yes it is a weak argument, but they have a point. If you expect others to abide by the rules, we have to be abiding by the rules as well. Jumping red lights whilst demanding drivers follow the rules of the road is exhibiting double standards IMO.


Amen to that. Another question is why bother jumping them at all? What is to be gained?


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> Oh I agree it will be pretty low, and rightly so. However, your posts suggest that it is the ability to avoid getting caught that justifies it for you. Are there any other laws that you break as you know you can get away with it?
> 
> *If I had a dime* for every time a car driver/work colleague/bus driver/taxi driver/friend etc said to me that they see cyclists run red lights etc, so why should they get any respect... I'd be a millionaire (in dollars of course).
> 
> Yes it is a weak argument, but they have a point. If you expect others to abide by the rules, we have to be abiding by the rules as well. Jumping red lights whilst demanding drivers follow the rules of the road is exhibiting double standards IMO.



Yes, if I had a dime for every motorist who drives at 32 mph in a 30 limit, I wouldn't be anywhere near this chatboard. I'd be in Las Vegas.


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Yes, if I had a dime for every motorist who drives at 32 mph in a 30 limit, I wouldn't be anywhere near this chatboard. I'd be in Las Vegas.




Indeed. It certainly is the greater crime, and I have pointed this out to drivers on many occasions. However, the perception is (and it isn't correct, granted) that red light jumping is as serious an issue. And that is what i comes down to, perceptions. As cyclists we are perceived as renegades, troublemakers, law brakers. Thus we are treated as such (by some, certainly not all). Therefore, to gain respect we have to get our own house in order, show to others that their perceptions are wrong, i.e. that the majority of cyclists are law abiding and just going about their daily business.

Thus by RLJing others see you (and even late at night there are often others around) and your act will, just slightly, confirm their bias against us. So by just waiting the extra 1-2 minutes (does that really matter) and not jumping the light, instead of confirming a bias you become a cycling ambassador. 

To me, it's a no-brainer.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

Absinthe Minded said:


> What I'm saying is that by ignoring the lower-on-the-list laws, you are threatening to debase the ones above.


How exactly am I doing that? Feel free to use short words



Absinthe Minded said:


> And isn't it legal to copy your media for personal and backup purposes?


The CD lying on the desk in front of me says on it "(P) & (C) 1999 VF2 Inc, under exclusive license to Cooking Vinyl". This means that _they_ have the right to copy it, and that other people, including me, do not. You may be thinking of the clause in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which permits backup copies of computer programs, but audio CDs are not computer programs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...aw-every-time-you-copy-a-CD-to-your-iPod.html

or more recently

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/apr/03/queen-ipod-copyright

Is Barack Obama threatening to debase the legal system? Answers on a really big postcard ...


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

On my ride home tonight, the roads will be populated.

I will stop at signals.
I will keep to the left and let motorist pass safely.

I will be the model cyclist.


On my ride to work in the morning, the roads will be empty.

I will check junctions before I proceed.
I will keep in a position where my headlamp is illuminating the kerb.

I will be the phantom cyclist.


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> On my ride home tonight, the roads will be populated.
> 
> I will stop at signals.
> I will keep to the left and let motorist pass safely.
> ...




Fair enough, but don't you think I have a point about perceptions?


----------



## garrilla (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Who? I ask you, who will care a shoot if I go across the red? There's no one there to argue the toss.
> 
> Mind you, killing a butterfly in the Brazilian forest causes a tornado in North Dakota,



Importantly, the ONLY reason why a butterfly in the Brazilian forest *could* cause a tornado in Dakota is that both places are connected into a single meterological system. This is complexity.

The reason it is safe for you to go across a red when there is no other traffic around is you are in that system alone. This is simiplicity.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

The first set of traffic lights on my trip home are in Warwick. Castle Hill and Jury Street. Only a madman ( on a bike ) would RLJ these.
Only a madman ( also on a bike ) would proceed across them without checking the counter direction traffic has stopped at their red light signal.

I stand there and visually check the motorists have STOPPED at their red before riding across my green lamp.

Yes it is perceptions, and while I'm visually checking my own safety, the idiot in the car behind toots to say "They've changed to green. Get on with it!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## siadwell (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> It's a long way from Surrey tomorrow morning for you to stop me.
> 
> And what are the police going to say when you phone them later this afternoon saying a cyclist on his own is going to ride across a red traffic signal?



What on earth are you blathering about man?

I didn't say I was going to stop you. Or phone the police.

The reaons you should stop at a red light is the same reason why any other road user should follow all the rules and laws of the road, such as giving cyclists sufficient room when overtaking, or looking and indicating before changing lanes, or not parking on blind bends, or driving on the correct site of the road, or obeying the speed limit. If road users routinely feel they can pick and choose which rules they feel apply to them, the roads will be anarchic.


----------



## siadwell (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Mind you, killing a butterfly in the Brazilian forest causes a tornado in North Dakota,
> 
> so I'd better stop at the red lamp in future.



One of the reasons I started posting here is it seems a friendly place where there can be some good banter.

But I'm going to get personal. You have quite clearly run out of anything sensible to say and are now showing yourself to be a babbling fool.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

Which law is it that mandates looking and indicating before changing lanes? I've never seen it, and I do remember that my driving instructor always used to say that there is no need to indicate unless someone will benefit from seeing the signal

Obviously I'm concerned that I might be breaking this law as it will only hasten my slide into sadonecrobestiality


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I stand there and visually check the motorists have STOPPED at their red before riding across my green lamp.
> 
> Yes it is perceptions, and while I'm visually checking my own safety, the idiot in the car behind toots to say "They've changed to green. Get on with it!"
> 
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.



Yes but he couldn't accuse you of breaking any laws, just bimbling a bit .

Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.

So if you agree that perception matters, and that the one or two minutes saved by running red lights isn't that important really (get up 1 or 2 minutes earlier) then I can't see any justification for running red lights.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

garrilla said:


> Importantly, the ONLY reason why a butterfly in the Brazilian forest *could* cause a tornado in Dakota is that both places are connected into a single meterological system. This is complexity.
> 
> The reason it is safe for you to go across a red when there is no other traffic around is you are in that system alone. This is simiplicity.



Well spotted garrilla.

This was the 'outstandingly witty reply' Absinthe Minded was demanding.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> Yes but he couldn't accuse you of breaking any laws, just bimbling a bit .
> 
> Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.
> 
> So if you agree that perception matters, and that the one or two minutes saved by running red lights isn't that important really (get up 1 or 2 minutes earlier) then I can't see any justification for running red lights.



I could post tomorrow saying I STOPPED at the red lamps.

The problem is...

There would be no witnesses to vouch for my statement.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

siadwell said:


> One of the reasons I started posting here is it seems a friendly place where there can be some good banter.
> 
> But I'm going to get personal. You have quite clearly run out of anything sensible to say and are now showing yourself to be a babbling fool.



Up to now on this thread, I haven't seen any BAD banter.

BTW, the Forum is called 'CycleChat', not 'CycleInsult'.

I shall go against my doctrine now by saying "There are worse 'Babbling fools' on here than I".


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> I could post tomorrow saying I STOPPED at the red lamps.
> 
> The problem is...
> 
> There would be no witnesses to vouch for my statement.




No witnesses from here, correct. However, we (mostly) are the converted...


----------



## siadwell (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Which law is it that mandates looking and indicating before changing lanes? I've never seen it, and I do remember that my driving instructor always used to say that there is no need to indicate unless someone will benefit from seeing the signal



Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:*163*

Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should


*use your mirrors*, *signal* when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways *glance* if necessary into the blind spot area and then start to move out
*179*

Well before you turn right you should


*use your mirrors* to make sure you know the position and movement of traffic behind you
*give a right-turn signal*
*182*

*Use your mirrors* and give a *left-turn signal* well before you turn left.​Tell you what, rather than me tell you how to use the road, why don't you go here are read it for yourself: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/index.htm

If you can tear yourself away from sadonecrobestiality, that is.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> Yes but he couldn't accuse you of breaking any laws, just *bimbling *a bit .
> 
> Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.
> 
> So if you agree that perception matters, and that the one or two minutes saved by running red lights isn't that important really (get up 1 or 2 minutes earlier) then I can't see any justification for running red lights.



Now I'm a Bimbling, babbling fool....


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

garrilla said:


> Importantly, the ONLY reason why a butterfly in the Brazilian forest *could* cause a tornado in Dakota is that both places are connected into a single meterological system. This is complexity.
> 
> The reason it is safe for you to go across a red when there is no other traffic around is you are in that system alone. This is simiplicity.




In fact, when there is no other traffic around, from the point of view of perception, I think this is the most important time to stop at a red. Imagine someone looking out of their window or walking along the path seeing a cyclist stopping at a red light, when they have previously seen cyclists running it. This would be something that these people would stop and take note of...

Fred: you won't believe what I just saw!

Mrs Fred: What dear?

Fred: I saw a cyclist stop at a red light when they could have probably jumped it safely.

Mrs Fred: Hmmm. Maybe you've seen a cyclist who doesn't ever jump red lights....actually keeps within the law!

Fred: Well I never, you might be right! Maybe all cyclists aren't bankers after all....

A daft hypothesised story, but I bet conversations like this happen!


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Now I'm a Bimbling, babbling fool....




Ah but there was a smiley!


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

siadwell said:


> Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:
> *163*
> 
> Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
> ...



These rule haven't got the RTA sections in squared brackets.

Rule 175 has.

The advantages of being a cyclist are many fold.

One advantage is that a cyclist can dismount and run with his bike across the road.
Motorists can't.

Faced with a red light, a cyclist can dismount and run with his bike across the ped crossing if there is no traffic approaching in the counter direction.
Motorists can't.

Running with a bicycle is not illegal, is it?
So if there's nowt other traffic, what earthy difference does it make?


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

jimboalee said:


> Running with a bicycle is not illegal, is it?
> So if there's nowt other traffic, what earthy difference does it make?



Can I hazard a guess....perception?


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

Serious hat back on, then:


magnatom said:


> Seriously though, perception matters. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be interested to know their logic behind it.


I partly agree with it. The reason I don't actually think it matters _much_ whether cyclists behave according to the letter of the law at all times is that the kind of motorist who really cares about finding fault in others will always manage to find perceived fault even if the cyclist is behaving impeccably, and there is no margin in trying to convert them until they're ready to be converted. If it's not RLJ it's road tax, if it's not road tax it's riding two abreast or using primary position, if it's not primary position it's locking bikes to railings, if it's not locking bikes to railings it's riding on the footway/pavement/pedestrianised area/shared use path and if it's none of those things then it's failure to use the cycle lane/wear a helmet/wear a hivis. Or perhaps they feel that my wearing lycra should be a crime even though it isn't. Or ... you get the idea.

Contrary to the impression I usually end up giving in these threads, I am a considerate, safe, and mostly legal cyclist (at least by London standards) and I hope that any reasonable road user who subscribes to the principle of "live and let live" would see that I am not taking risks or causing inconvenience to anyone as I bike around. But if they're the type who insist on pointing out the mote in my eye when the plank in theirs is still a menace to public safety every time they turn around, honest to god I couldn't care less what they think of me and all I really hope is that they're not controlling a tonne of metal when their spleen finally does explode.

Long story short: perception matters, but some people are going to take offence no matter what you do and it really isn't worth wasting the time on them.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Sep 2009)

Yeah, maybe, but you skater scum are always going through red lights. Yeah, that's you, Coruskate.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

siadwell said:


> Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:


I am well acquainted with said volume. Try this little snippet from the front of it


> Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words *‘MUST/MUST NOT’*. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.


None of the bits you quoted said MUST or MUST NOT, so I ask again: which law requires a road user to look and signal before changing lane? Courtesy of the Hughes guide I have copies of most of the relevant traffic legislation, and would be happy to paste a couple of paras if you can quote the act's name and section numbers but are unable to track down the actual text (they're not all online, which is annoying).


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

I know of quite a few people personally who I would say fall into the impressionable, i.e. if they saw more cyclists obeying the rules etc, they would form a different impression, so I think there are those who's attitudes could change.

Yes there are those that will hate us no matter what, but imagine if cyclists didn't red light jump, didn't pavement cycle etc... No fuel, no fire. Yes there would still be haters, but they would be more obviously, just haters. Without the crutch of red light jumping etc they would stand out as the idiots they are.

Cyclists obeying the laws isn't the whole answer, but it is IMO part of the answer. get our own house in order and morally we have a very strong case.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

BentMikey said:


> Yeah, maybe, but you skater scum are always going through red lights. Yeah, that's you, Coruskate.


Yes, and what about all those pedestrians who don't wait for the green man. Utter scofflaws


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

magnatom said:


> I know of quite a few people personally who I would say fall into the impressionable, i.e. if they saw more cyclists obeying the rules etc, they would form a different impression, so I think there are those who's attitudes could change.
> 
> Yes there are those that will hate us no matter what, but imagine if cyclists didn't red light jump, didn't pavement cycle etc... No fuel, no fire. Yes there would still be haters, but they would be more obviously, just haters. Without the crutch of red light jumping etc they would stand out as the idiots they are.


Imagine yourself to be a member of the public who does not cycle. While walking home early one morning you pass an otherwise deserted junction, then you see jimboalee approach. He slows down, checks for traffic in both directions, then rides across the still-empty junction without waiting for the green light.

Are you _really_ going to whip yourself into a spittle-flecked indignant rage? My guess is that as a reasonable person, and as a non-cyclist (so not concerned with any issues of "he's letting the side down and his behaviour will impact on me") you will not think any the worse of him for his manoeuvre.


----------



## magnatom (29 Sep 2009)

I must admit I am too biased to put myself in Joe Publics place! 

I guess in general Joe wouldn't care.

However, I think what might have an impact (as I illustrated above) is the opposite. Jim stops at the light and Joe is a little surprised at the cyclists stopping. Joe decides to make a daft comment

Joe: I thought you cyclists all jumped red lights!

Jim: No. There are growing numbers of us that do our best to stick to the rules of the road.

Joe: Thats great. 

Joe heads off thinking that the next time he sees a cyclist when driving, he might give them the benefit of the doubt....


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> How exactly am I doing that? Feel free to use short words


Well, lets say there are five laws only - the first is the most serious, and the fith is the least serious.

Now, if the fifth becomes acceptable because nobody sticks to it, it eventually gets ignored by all and sundry (including those that saw enforcement of it as a good idea in the first place).

Now number four is the least serious, so let's start ignoring that since it's last on the list...

...see where that's going?




> The CD lying on the desk in front of me says on it "(P) & (C) 1999 VF2 Inc, under exclusive license to Cooking Vinyl". This means that _they_ have the right to copy it, and that other people, including me, do not. You may be thinking of the clause in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which permits backup copies of computer programs, but audio CDs are not computer programs.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...aw-every-time-you-copy-a-CD-to-your-iPod.html
> 
> ...


Sorry, too lazy to look at the links and i have an idea what's behind them anyways. Thanks for clearing up the issue of copying CDs though - I'm glad I asked.

Now, if i can just ask you to think of your own font colour and point out that stealing mine is childish, that about finishes up this post.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Are you _really_ going to whip yourself into a spittle-flecked indignant rage?


No, but you're still going to believe the sterotypical assumption that all cyclists jump red lights.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Well, lets say there are five laws only - the first is the most serious, and the fith is the least serious.
> 
> Now, if the fifth becomes acceptable because nobody sticks to it, it eventually gets ignored by all and sundry (including those that saw enforcement of it as a good idea in the first place).
> 
> ...


Yes, it's going somewhere stupid. If the fifth and least important law had any kind of moral or ethical basis, or appealed to a sense of moral justice, then it would not go unobserved by the majority of people. That it apparently doesn't is not going to pave the way for ignoring all the more important laws that do.

P/S Sorry about appropriating your purple. It was entirely unintentional: a bit of cut and paste and a bit of editing and the dratted stuff goes everywhere


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

Absinthe Minded said:


> No, but you're still going to believe the sterotypical assumption that all cyclists jump red lights.


There's a name for the kind of person who believes stereotypes


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Which law is it that mandates looking and indicating before changing lanes? I've never seen it, and I do remember that my driving instructor always used to say that there is no need to indicate unless someone will benefit from seeing the signal
> 
> Obviously I'm concerned that I might be breaking this law as it will only hasten my slide into sadonecrobestiality



See:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_12.htm


----------



## jimboalee (29 Sep 2009)

Lighting Regulations</SPAN>Abbreviated to RVLR: the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended in 1994 and 2005) require pedal cycles to have various lights and reflectors fitted, clean and working properly, when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise. Cyclists may also be required to light up in conditions of seriously reduced visibility during the day, but only if they have functional lights already fitted. Lights are not required when the cycle is stationary or being pushed along the roadside.
It has to be said that the fine details of RVLR are seldom enforced; and provided you show some kind of white light in front and red behind you are unlikely to be challenged. If you are involved in a night-time accident however, any slight illegality with respect to your lights or reflectors may be regarded as contributory negligence. The following items are the minimum required, on a bicycle or tricycle, in order to ride it legally at night:
*Front Lamp*

One is required, showing a white light, positioned centrally or offside, up to 1500mm from the ground, aligned towards and visible from the front. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard. If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.
*Rear Lamp*

One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard. If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.
*Rear Reflector*

One is required, coloured red, marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 900mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind.
*Pedal Reflectors*

Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.
*Exceptions and explanations*

Age brings privileges. To name but two: cycles manufactured before October 1990 can have any kind of white front lamp that is visible from a reasonable distance, and pre-October 1985 cycles don’t need pedal reflectors. 
Cycle trailers need a rear lamp and reflector; sidecars also need a front lamp. 
*The Euro-friendly clause*

Thanks to a European Directive of a few years ago, wherever a British Standard (BS) is referred to, equivalent standards from other EC countries must now also be recognised, but only if they provide an equivalent level of safety etc. It’s not exactly clear which do. However Germany has arguably the strictest cycle lighting laws in Europe so we consider it safe to use equipment that is marked accordingly, with a “K~number”. 

It should also be noted that wherever a British Standard is referred to, that reference applies to a specific edition. In the case of BS6102/3, that is the 1986 edition, as amended on 15th April 1995 and again on 1st September 2003. These amendments removed the filament bulb design restrictions, so that lamps may now get their light from LEDs – or indeed anything else! *Dynamos*

Dynamo powered lights are legal even though they go out when you stop. That’s allowed so long as you stop on the left. Usually it’s much safer to stay where you are (e.g. in a stationary queue with left-turning traffic filtering up your inside), *since most cars do stop for red traffic lights and those that don’t are unlikely to pay more heed to a bike lamp!* Nevertheless: dynamos and lamps are now available with reliable back-up (standlight) features that either keep them on or light up a diode instead of the bulb.
*Additional lamps and reflectors*

Some cyclists like to fit extra lamps and reflectors, in addition to the *approved* ones, specified above. This is perfectly legal provided they are the correct colour and in an appropriate position. These *optional* lamps and reflectors do not have to comply with any standards, but it’s illegal to use some designs of lamp or reflector that have specific other uses. You must not, for instance, show a red light at the front, or a white light to the rear, or fit triangular-shaped rear reflectors on anything except a trailer.

The Pedal Cycles (Safety) Regulations (PCSR) ensure that every new bicycle is sold with several extra reflectors, not required by RVLR, but (strangely) does nothing at all to facilitate the fitment of front and rear lamps. These additional reflectors are found on the sides of the wheels, clear white or coloured yellow, and there's also a "white" reflector on the front of the bike. You are at liberty to remove the surplus side and front reflectors, which in any case are of dubious benefit, but be sure to fit the necessary front and rear lamps. *Flashers*


Thanks to the enactment of Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2559: on 23rd October 2005, it finally became legal to have a flashing light on a pedal cycle. Even better: it became possible for a flashing light to be *approved*, meaning no other light would be needed in that position. And since BS6102/3 does not yet cater for flashing (but is likely to be amended to do so quite soon), approval is for the time being, granted simply on the basis of brightness. Because DfT very much prefer anything that possibly can be evaluated against a proper technical standard, so to be evaluated: any flashing lamp that is also capable of emitting a steady light is approved only if it conforms with BS6102/3 when switched to steady mode. Since most (probably all) flashing lights do also have a steady mode, and since none of their manufacturers can be bothered to test and mark them to the pernickety standards of one small country on the fringes of Europe, it's unlikely that any flashing light actually qualifies for approval. But since it became _theoretically_ legal to ride a bike with only flashing lights on it, the Police are nowadays no more likely to quibble its legal status than one equipped with steady lights – unless they're rather dim or involved in an accident of course. 
If you'd like to read the Department for Transport's explanation, see this page on their website. *Chris Juden 2006-09-29*



Sorry its so long lads, but you must read it all through before coming to your conclusions.

Please note ( I've highlighted it ) Chris' comments about motorist RLJers.

Anyway. No mention of direction indicator lamps on a bicycle.
They are available.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

classic33 said:


> See:
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_12.htm


Doesn't require indicator lights on cycles, and doesn't mandate their _use_ even on vehicles which do require them. Try again.


----------



## purplepolly (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Yes, it's going somewhere stupid. If the fifth and least important law had any kind of moral or ethical basis, or appealed to a sense of moral justice, then it would not go unobserved by the majority of people.



How many people ignore a 30 speed limit in built up areas and near schools despite the fact that they know perfectly well this greatly reduces the chances of a pedestrian surviving an impact with said car? The speed limit clearly has a moral basis - it reduces the likelyhood of someone being killed or seriously injured - yet most drivers choose to ignore it.


----------



## Trevrev (29 Sep 2009)

Since i've been a member on this forum, the amount of topics i've seen on the subject of red light jumping has amazed me. It's all been said before !!!
It's so boring........Some do it, some don't !!!
Can we just live with that.........PMSl !!!


----------



## purplepolly (29 Sep 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *siadwell* 

 
_Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:_




coruskate said:


> I am well acquainted with said volume. Try this little snippet from the front of it
> 
> Quote:
> Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words *‘MUST/MUST NOT’*. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
> None of the bits you quoted said MUST or MUST NOT, so I ask again: which law requires a road user to look and signal before changing lane? Courtesy of the Hughes guide I have copies of most of the relevant traffic legislation, and would be happy to paste a couple of paras if you can quote the act's name and section numbers but are unable to track down the actual text (they're not all online, which is annoying).



You missed of the rest of that section, these bits do apply

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility"


----------



## classic33 (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Doesn't require indicator lights on cycles, and doesn't mandate their _use_ even on vehicles which do require them. Try again.



Hold-up, you said your driving instructor said there was no need. Since you don't get cycling lessons from a driving instructor.

That bit said the link given was to a piece of law that sets out what lights are required for various types of vehicle. If there was no legal requirement for them to be used why would a law be passed that requires their fitting?

As for your driving instructor, I think your due a refund. An assumption on his part that there is no need to indicate/signal your intentions is a sign of a poor instructor. You may be well aware of what you intend to do, but you may not be aware that others are not mind readers.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Sep 2009)

Don't be so quick to berate and be so condescending towards Coruskate. This is well known advice, and it's taught as part of Bikeability cycling instructor courses too.


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

> RLJing isn't done by the majority of people. It's done by a proportion of cyclists. You can't make a statement to suggest that the majority of the population are happy with RLJing when that's not the case.


I didn't. Read the post I was replying to (absintheminded, #130) and you will see that we are talking about a hypothetical country with only five laws. The nature of these laws is unstated but one of them is entirely unobserved


----------



## Dan B (29 Sep 2009)

purplepolly said:


> "Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.


You are correct that this would be very relevant in the case of any court proceedings where liability hinged on whether a road user on an empty road indicated before changing lane, when there is nobody around who would benefit from the signal.

I'm relying on you to think of such a scenario, though, because I can't.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

coruskate said:


> Yes, it's going somewhere stupid.


Ha ha ha, now how could I not see the funny side of that.

What you say is right, I can't deny it.

Let me try to put it another way:

I think what I'm trying to say is that if we're all going to live by the law of the land, then I believe that should mean every law - otherwise you kind of undermine the whole framework.

I also just don't get why people jump lights, there's no doubt that it gives the pro motoring lobby ammunition - so why do it?


----------



## Downward (29 Sep 2009)

Looks like I am in trouble, I jump a Red light, have no rear or front reflectors or pedal reflectors.

I'll be expecting a visit from the local PC anytime soon.


----------



## thomas (29 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> I think you may of misunderstood Coruskates post. He, or rather his instructor said there is no need to give a signal if it does not benefit anyone (and they are right)




+1...there's no point in doing it if you're paying attention and can see there is no one there ... however, people who don't signal off roundabouts when there are people there waiting to go !


----------



## Trevrev (29 Sep 2009)

Downward said:


> Looks like I am in trouble, I jump a Red light, have no rear or front reflectors or pedal reflectors.
> 
> I'll be expecting a visit from the local PC anytime soon.



OMG !!! You're in big big trouble on here now !!!
You shouldn't have said anything.........


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

User3143 said:


> Haven't we been down this road before?


Maybe, but why not go down it again?


----------



## Downward (29 Sep 2009)

Absinthe Minded said:


> Maybe, but why not go down it again?



Bit like my commute !


----------



## Absinthe Minded (29 Sep 2009)

Downward said:


> Bit like my commute !


Oh, I hear you!


----------



## hackbike 666 (30 Sep 2009)

....and mine.


----------



## simongrant (1 Oct 2009)

*Pedal Reflectors*

Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.

Damn,i had better stop using my M520's at night


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2009)

simongrant said:


> *Pedal Reflectors*
> 
> Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.
> 
> Damn,i had better stop using my M520's at night


... and anyone with a recumbent where the pedals are vertical not horizontal had better do likewise. Ditto users of front and/or rear panniers

Still, the law is the law. We have to obey all of it, we can't just pick and choose


----------



## simongrant (1 Oct 2009)

damn,i have rear panniers too,but they do have reflective strips/piping on them lol as do my overshoes

Simon


----------



## jimboalee (1 Oct 2009)

coruskate said:


> ... and anyone with a recumbent where the pedals are vertical not horizontal had better do likewise. Ditto users of front and/or rear panniers
> 
> Still, the law is the law. We have to obey all of it, we can't just pick and choose



My winter commute bike is 1982 vintage. I don't need pedal reflectors...
Yeehoo.


----------



## simongrant (1 Oct 2009)

Lucky you jimboalee,im just waiting for the holier than thou cyclist to post how im letting the entire cycling community down....


----------



## garrilla (1 Oct 2009)

Imagine if MrsFred saw you with your fancy pants pedals without reflectors, you can imagine the conversation

MrsFred: I say Fred, there's a cyclist down there with pedals that have been borrowed from a kitchen whisk

Fred: Oh, do they have amber refelectors back and front?

MrsFred: Nope, shocking these cyclists, they'll be the death of us all. Wait till Mary hears about this.

Cyclist: MrsFred, Its 5 am in the morning do you ever sleep?


----------



## Dan B (1 Oct 2009)

simongrant said:


> damn,i have rear panniers too,but they do have reflective strips/piping on them lol as do my overshoes


I guess that should be fine, as long as it's BS6102/2 marked reflective strips


----------



## simongrant (1 Oct 2009)

This is why i visit cyclechat everyday,better than Beau Peep at times

Just checking the BS number as we speak,tell me again what BS means???


----------



## hackbike 666 (2 Oct 2009)

British Standard.


----------



## simongrant (2 Oct 2009)

thanks


----------



## Trevrev (2 Oct 2009)

I haven't got any reflectors on my pedals !!!! 
I don't want to go to prison.......LOL.


----------



## Origamist (2 Oct 2009)

I heard interweb rumours that this TFL report examining the proportion of RLJing by men and women was initially suppressed (as it might be used to support the contention that women were deemed more likely to be killed by HGVs whilst obeying red lights). Whether the conspiracy theory is true, I don't know - but the report is available now: 

Some of the conclusions: 


"The following general conclusions can be made based on the evidence described above:​

• The majority of cyclists (84%) obey red traffic lights.
• Violation is not endemic, but 1 in 6 (16%) of cyclists do jump a red light, and at this level may encourage more to do so in the future.
• A much greater number of men cycle during the morning and evening peaks. When a comparison is made of the behaviour of male and female cyclists it can be concluded that men are slightly more likely to violate red lights (17% compared to 13%).
• In general cyclists who ride through red lights are more likely to do so whilst travelling straight ahead at a junction. They are least likely to do so when turning right.
• Red light violations are most common by cyclists travelling towards central London in the morning, and away from central London in the evening."​

Full report here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf​


----------



## jonny jeez (2 Oct 2009)

Origamist said:


> men are slightly more likely to violate red lights ​




I tell ya, with so many on my route I could happily "Violate" a fair few of 'em.​


----------

