Hackney council and RLJ cyclists

[simongt]

But to make it fair they also have to be doing it to motorists at the same time using traffic cars, etc. Otherwise they're picking on one group rather than the rest.

Check the second para of my original post.

 

[icowden]

Check the second para of my original post.

Sorry to nitpick, but your original post was only one paragraph?

 

[simongt]

I'm getting into the 'modern custom' of not indenting paragraphs as 'wot I was tort' to do as a lad many years ago, so it's the sentence that begins 'However, the issue here...'

 

[the snail]

Refreshingly free of double standards.

You don't have to have double standards. The law doesn't prevent you jumping a red light, it just lays down the penalty for doing so. If someone really thinks that jumping a red light will stop them getting getting seriously injured, then they'd be daft not to imo. But they can't really complain if they get a FPN. I can think of one or two situations where it is probably safer to anticipate a green light, but really most of the time it's just impatience.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I'm getting into the 'modern custom' of not indenting paragraphs as 'wot I was tort' to do as a lad many years ago, so it's the sentence that begins 'However, the issue here...'

The custom is still to have an empty line between paragraphs though.

 

[mustang1]

From what I read on road.cc the Police were on foot and said that only the traffic officers could stop the motorists, so god knows how many people were on their phone, rolling a spliff and jumping lights. However, I have no problem with the Police catching red light jumping cyclists especially ones who do it dangerously. I would prefer that cyclists are allowed to treat Red lights as a give way, or even allow a red turn on red. As for broken lights that don't detect cyclists - as far as I am concerned they are fair game.

I used to think turning left on red was a good idea but always wondered about pedestrians crossing the road. I came across an urban-planning related video on youtube and they talked about this; now I think it's perhaps not a good idea for left-turn-on-red.

I know what most on here are saying "what about the motorists" but I guess the police think campaigning against certain type of law breakers at a time will yield good results. I suppose it's a bit like an advertising campaign: they will say "don't drink and drive" but they won't say "don't drink and drive, or rob banks, or rlj, or drive with your mobile phone, or...." I think they need to target it better and so they run these specific campaigns. I think overall it does a good job with the available resources (sure, resources is a separate topic).

 

[Milkfloat]

I used to think turning left on red was a good idea but always wondered about pedestrians crossing the road.

It may blow your mind to know that many countries will have a green light for a turning car and a green light for the pedestrian to be crossing in front of them at the same time. If even America with it car centric systems can make this work, then I am sure we can manage with the concept of giving way and not mowing down pedestrians.

 

[Badger_Boom]

It may blow your mind to know that many countries will have a green light for a turning car and a green light for the pedestrian to be crossing in front of them at the same time. If even America with it car centric systems can make this work, then I am sure we can manage with the concept of giving way and not mowing down pedestrians.

I doubt it. Just look at all the "if a cyclsit does [insert minor trangression of the letter of the law of your choice] can I run him over without a second thought?" whataboutery that's been all over social media since the THC update. It worries me that some people actually think in those terms.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I doubt it. Just look at all the "if a cyclsit does [insert minor trangression of the letter of the law of your choice] can I run him over without a second thought?" whataboutery that's been all over social media since the THC update. It worries me that some people actually think in those terms.

Many years ago I joined the IAM to do their advanced driving test. I went to a few meetings and one of them included a talk by some traffic cops

They told a story where they had to clear a bit of discarded tyre from the middle lane of the motorway
the procedure is/was for the cop car to park on the hard shoulder near it with every possible light on - including the blue flashing ones

then one cop stays by the car and keeps watch and the other waits for a gap and runs out to get the obstruction.
Anyway - on this occaision one of them runs out but just as he got to the tyre debris a car appeared up the road - in the same lane as the obstruction - and now the cop as well
In that situation the cop is supposed to stand still and wave his arms so be as visible as possible - if he runs either way the driver of the car could go the same way
SO there they were - car approaching at motorway speeds - cop standing in the middle lane in hi-vis waving his arms like crazy
the car stays in the middle lane heading right for the cop - and the debris
the cop finally leaps sideways and the car misses him and goes over the tyre debris and just carries on - never moving from the middle lane

As you can imagine the cops jumped into the Police car and shot off after the car and pulled him over

His excuse
"well you shouldn;t have been there"

they finished their talk by saying
"when you are driving - remember - that guy is still on the roads"

he probably would run over a cyclist if he though they were in the wrong part of the road! (OK that was a long time ago - but you know what I mean)