Is it wrong to SORT OF jump red lights?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Will1985

Über Member
Location
South Norfolk
Just had 2 female roadies RLJ across me as I had a green light coming out of campus. They flew past in front and behind - you would think there would be respect for one of their own (the roadie part, not the gender!).
 
Forum newbie's view:
Anticipate - Yes.
Jump - no.
I always try to think 'what if the bloke coming the other way had just caught a bloke shagging his wife and said person escaped on a bicycle and he's now out looking for him!', that usually tempers any thoughts of jumping lights.;)
 

4F

Active member of Helmets Are Sh*t Lobby
Location
Suffolk.
numbnuts said:
If cyclists was to be treated seriously we must obey the rules of the road or we will get tarred with the same brush, jump red lights, rides on pavements and have no lights

If motorists want to be treated seriously they really must obey the rules of the road or will get tarred with the same brush. Using a mobile whilst driving, speeding, eating whilst driving, applying makeup etc etc
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
4F said:
If motorists want to be treated seriously they really must obey the rules of the road or will get tarred with the same brush. Using a mobile whilst driving, speeding, eating whilst driving, applying makeup etc etc

Quite right, but none of that makes it right for cyclists to break the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that...

If I'm approaching a red light I think might be about to turn amber, I'll try and slow down to pace it so that I don't actually have to stop - sometimes it works, sometimes I have to stop anyway. If I am stopped, I watch the alternative lights, or the pedestrian phase light, so that I know when to be ready to go. Stop a little back from the line and push off on amber and you're rolling through the green as it changes.

And green doesn't actually mean go. It means go, if it's safe to do so. As my Dad drummed into me when I was little, the red light doesn't actually stop traffic physically - so always keep looking as you go.
 

D4VOW

Well-Known Member
Location
Nottingham
I've only done this once and the car at the side of me automatically moved off because I had before realising the lights hadn't changed yet and slammed on his brakes. I haven't done it since.
 

4F

Active member of Helmets Are Sh*t Lobby
Location
Suffolk.
Arch said:
Quite right, but none of that makes it right for cyclists to break the rules. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that...

If I'm approaching a red light I think might be about to turn amber, I'll try and slow down to pace it so that I don't actually have to stop - sometimes it works, sometimes I have to stop anyway. If I am stopped, I watch the alternative lights, or the pedestrian phase light, so that I know when to be ready to go. Stop a little back from the line and push off on amber and you're rolling through the green as it changes.

And green doesn't actually mean go. It means go, if it's safe to do so. As my Dad drummed into me when I was little, the red light doesn't actually stop traffic physically - so always keep looking as you go.

Arch that was not my point. I just don't buy this idea that to be taken seriously as a road user we have to be whiter than white whilst if you are a motorist then you can do whatever you like. For the record I don't jump lights either.
 

Arch

Married to Night Train
Location
Salford, UK
4F said:
Arch that was not my point. I just don't buy this idea that to be taken seriously as a road user we have to be whiter than white whilst if you are a motorist then you can do whatever you like. For the record I don't jump lights either.

I don't stop at reds in order to be taken seriously, I do it because it's right.

But some people do take the view that cyclists don't belong on the roads (or anywhere outside Centre Parcs), and acting like a tit isn't going to help that.
 

summerdays

Cycling in the sun
Location
Bristol
Arch said:
I don't stop at reds in order to be taken seriously, I do it because it's right.

I think that large numbers of people choose to ignore various laws in this country - and that leads to further breaking of the rules. Cars parking just a wheel on the pavement encourages some to park half the car or more on the pavement. We seem to have a belief that breaking a minor rule doesn't matter but it causes someone else to take it a bit further.

I think we ought to stop the slippage in the rules/law and start enforcing them more rigorously. Even if it means fining cyclists going through red lights but it should equally apply to cars too.
 

HJ

Cycling in Scotland
Location
Auld Reekie
numbnuts said:
If cyclists was to be treated seriously we must obey the rules of the road or we will get tarred with the same brush, jump red lights, rides on pavements and have no lights

+1

The question most people fail to ask, is why the rules are there in the first place. The rules only work to protect everybody if they are respected, think about it and take responsibility for your actions...
 

zimzum42

Legendary Member
Y'all should try living in a place with laws that cover everything and are strictly enforced. There's no life! No edge. No creativity. It's dull as hell...
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
I find this discussion of law interesting. See, I'm not really a cyclist at all: I'm really an inline skater who just uses a bike for cross-training, and to get around the place when conditions/surfaces/luggage requirements are not suitable for skating.

And the law relating to skating on our roads is ... well, nobody knows. There is no statute law and no relevant case law (at least, none known to me and apparently none known to the DfT either) which defines whether a skater is a vehicle, or his pair of skates comprise a vehicle, or he is wearing a vehicle on each leg. If he is, then that raises some challenges which are even more slightly absurd than the "where do recumbent riders put their pedal reflectors to be visible fore and aft" example, and if he isn't then, well, 98% of traffic law does not apply to him: legally he can skate wherever he wants and ignore pretty much all road signs and signals, subject only to the "wilful obstruction" clause in (I think) the Highways Act 1980, and the one about following the instructions of a uniformed police officer (RTA 1988? maybe)

So should he? Of course not. I expect that all here (and indeed, most skaters of my acquaintance) would agree that just because it's legal doesn't make it right, and the best way to avoid being squished is to act considerately, predictably, and sensibly. And we don't need a raft of tightly-woven and enforced-to-the-letter-even-when-it-makes-no-difference legislation to tell us that, so I'm slightly at a loss to see why cyclists in general should be any less permeable to common sense. Getting a "head start" on red+amber and getting hit by an amber gambler crossing you: bad idea. Getting a "head start" on a clear road when there is nothing else approaching; if as HJ says we need to ask "why the rules are there in the first place" we kind of have to conclude that this one is not relevant int he circumstances
 
Top Bottom