Hackney council and RLJ cyclists

[MontyVeda]

...which is that motorists cannot be trusted to negotiate and merge nicely, as they prove repeatedly. It is a great shame that cyclists are punished in at least two major ways for this failure of motoring: once by having red lights; and second by being fined if they dare ignore this motorist protection measure.

My favourite cycling crossroads video has been taken down, so here's a slightly quieter junction:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8

Perfectly organised chaos. And i mean that in the best possible way

don't want to derail the thread but... i ended up playing 'spot the polystyrene hat'

 

[swansonj]

For you guys who are correcting me and saying that a traffic light that fails to detect a cyclist and therefore stays red is a non-functioning traffic light and therefore it is legally OK to cycle through in accordance with the Highway Code paragraph 176: are you sure about that? It seems to me that TSRDG reg 36 para 1 says very clearly thou shalt not pass through a red light, with no exceptions (or not ones that apply here). I assume the Highway Code allowance for "proceeding with great care" if the traffic lights are "not working" applies when no light is showing at all. I can't see any legal get out for crossing a red light under any circumstances - am I missing something?

(Common sense is of course a different matter, this query is about the legal position.)

 

[Mr Celine]

For you guys who are correcting me and saying that a traffic light that fails to detect a cyclist and therefore stays red is a non-functioning traffic light and therefore it is legally OK to cycle through in accordance with the Highway Code paragraph 176: are you sure about that? It seems to me that TSRDG reg 36 para 1 says very clearly thou shalt not pass through a red light, with no exceptions (or not ones that apply here). I assume the Highway Code allowance for "proceeding with great care" if the traffic lights are "not working" applies when no light is showing at all. I can't see any legal get out for crossing a red light under any circumstances - am I missing something?

(Common sense is of course a different matter, this query is about the legal position.)

The TSRGD specifies the traffic light sequence (red, red + amber, green, amber). If the traffic light is not going through that sequence but is only displaying red it does not comply with the regulations.

If you're caught going through a red light and wish to use this defence you would have to be able to prove that the light was only showing red. Lights that don't detect bikes and change promptly for them usually do change eventually.

 

[slowmotion]

I'm continually amazed by the daft justifications that cyclists come up with for breaking the law at red lights. Do they expect to break other laws?

 

[newfhouse]

I'm continually amazed by the daft justifications that cyclists come up with for breaking the law at red lights. Do they expect to break other laws?

We all do just that, all the time, whether cyclists or not. I doubt it is possible to live a normal life without committing minor technical breaches of some law or another. Why single out mostly harmless RLJing for particular ire?

 

[slowmotion]

We all do just that, all the time, whether cyclists or not. I doubt it is possible to live a normal life without committing minor technical breaches of some law or another. Why single out mostly harmless RLJing for particular ire?

Is the "harmless RLJing" the same deal when somebody in a car smacks into a cyclist?

I'm continually amazed by the double standards that faintly militant cyclists keep trying to promote. You break the law. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

 

[newfhouse]

Is the "harmless RLJing" the same deal when somebody in a car smacks into a cyclist?

By definition it’s not harmless in that case.

You break the law. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

I rarely jump lights. I’m comfortable that when I do so it is for personal safety related reasons. Law breaking? Possibly. Oh well.

 

[presta]

Lights that don't detect bikes and change promptly for them usually do change eventually.

I sat waiting at these lights for 16 minutes once, just out of curiosity to see if they'd change. They didn't, but the adjacent pedestrian crossing changed every couple of minutes. The guy at the adjacent restaurant thought I was crackers.

 

[slowmotion]

By definition it’s not harmless in that case.


I rarely jump lights. I’m comfortable that when I do so it is for personal safety related reasons. Law breaking? Possibly. Oh well.

Can you extend that legal/moral flexability to a car driver at an empty junction?

 

[newfhouse]

Can you extend that legal/moral flexability to a car driver at an empty junction?

It’s not something I would do, but my reasons are more about risk management (causing injury or suffering legal sanction) than morality. The consequences of misjudging the emptiness of the junction are much greater if done by a car driver than a cyclist.

 

[slowmotion]

It’s not something I would do, but my reasons are more about risk management (causing injury or suffering legal sanction) than morality. The consequences of misjudging the emptiness of the junction are much greater if done by a car driver than a cyclist.

It's something to do with agreeing with the laws that society came up with. Obviously, we can all come up with our own if we feel arrogant enough.

 

[newfhouse]

It's something to do with agreeing with the laws that society came up with. Obviously, we can all come up with our own if we feel arrogant enough.

I acknowledge the value of a system of shared behaviours and proportionate sanction for breaches of regulations.

Consider a cyclist turning left at a red light when there is no other traffic or pedestrian activity. Can we agree that is a technical breach but that it has very little impact? Does it deserve punishment of any kind? Again, it’s not something I do but neither would I be particularly upset by seeing it happen. Why would I?

These are decisions we all make, all the time. Can you really say that you never ever bend or break any rules, arrogantly or otherwise?

 

[slowmotion]

I acknowledge the value of a system of shared behaviours and proportionate sanction for breaches of regulations.

Consider a cyclist turning left at a red light when there is no other traffic or pedestrian activity. Can we agree that is a technical breach but that it has very little impact? Does it deserve punishment of any kind? Again, it’s not something I do but neither would I be particularly upset by seeing it happen. Why would I?

These are decisions we all make, all the time. Can you really say that you never ever bend or break any rules, arrogantly or otherwise?

I have never been a big fan of flexible morality.

 

[newfhouse]

I have never been a big fan of flexible morality.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[slowmotion]

Is that a yes or a no?

I don't run red lights. It pisses off motorists if cyclists do. I can't really blame them for behaving badly towards cyclists if they habitually ponce about.