Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..

[lukesdad]

+1
The cycling boffins on this forum are not representative of the majority of cyclists out there in the real world.

This is true! but you have to have 2 sides to any arguement (oops sorry debate)

On the subject of pavement cycling Dyfed Powys have stated they will not prosecute any cyclist for riding on one where riding on the carriageway could be deemed dangerous

A question to all the cycling safety Boffins. How many ride in clipless pedals without reflectors ?

 

[martint235]

Yes they are the ones I was talking about, but lets just say you ignored them and were injured, what do you think the defendants insurers would suggest, negligence perhaps?

Sorry I don't get your point. If I ignore advice and then get injured I wouldn't exactly be pressing my case. I'd be feeling a bit stupid for not following advice.

 

[Dan B]

I wonder if its trying to say that , if you go down the cycle lane, then dont count the second line as the first one just because you've only actually gone past one ?

If the junction has been painted correctly (not always the case), the first white line stops short of the cycle lane so you are not actually crossing it.

 

[Parrot of Doom]

question, do you get fined for going through a red light that has been red for over 6 mins long???

I ask this as theres a red light near me in some industry estate which i believe the red lights are either broken or just very long due to on the late nights all the HGVs all come out so they try longer lights to stop mass traffic build ups....

sadly during the rest of the day ie 12 hours its deserted so these 6+min lights seems retarded waiting for considering its a wide open space.

essex road industry one....p.s i have seen a community support car go through it more than once

Look at the road surface before the stop line, normally there's a few sensor lines you can cross to trigger the lights. I usually cross them at a slight angle as they often don't "see" bicycles that well.

 

[apollo179]

This is true! but you have to have 2 sides to any arguement (oops sorry debate)

On the subject of pavement cycling Dyfed Powys have stated they will not prosecute any cyclist for riding on one where riding on the carriageway could be deemed dangerous

A question to all the cycling safety Boffins. How many ride in clipless pedals without reflectors ?

Agreed there are 2 sides to an arguement .
And the prevailing arguement expressed on the forum is that of the cycling intelligensia not the average real world cyclist.
Sometimes it needs to be expressed that these opinions are extreme and are a minority viewpoint , because otherwise in this fish bowl of a forum some might actually start beleiving that they do represent the majority and are correct.

 

[martint235]

Agreed there are 2 sides to an arguement .
And the prevailing arguement expressed on the forum is that of the cycling intelligensia not the average real world cyclist.
Sometimes it needs to be expressed that these opinions are extreme and are a minority viewpoint , because otherwise in this fish bowl of a forum some might actually start beleiving that they do represent the majority and are correct.

Errm, just being in the majority doesn't actually make you correct. I think there are enough historical instances to prove that.

As to being a real world cyclist, I'm just coming up to 600 miles for the month, a mix of commuting into central London and various other rides out there in the real world.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Agreed there are 2 sides to an arguement .
And the prevailing arguement expressed on the forum is that of the cycling intelligensia not the average real world cyclist.
Sometimes it needs to be expressed that these opinions are extreme and are a minority viewpoint , because otherwise in this fish bowl of a forum some might actually start beleiving that they do represent the majority and are correct.

At the risk of becoming a parrot, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The example of SPD's without reflectors given by Luksdad is a great one. Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used. It could well be that the Police do not prosecute for this as long as the bike is well lit (or they are ignorant of the law themselves).

This is however a little different to failing to stop at a red light. The fact that Red means stop (be it a man or a light) is instilled in children from a very young age and even absorbed knowledge gained from seeing the actions of traffic will give you a clue. Anyone who used the excuse "If didn't know I had to stop" would be laughed at in court.

 

[apollo179]

Errm, just being in the majority doesn't actually make you correct. I think there are enough historical instances to prove that.

If you look up you might just see the tailend of the point going over your head.
I was not saying any viewpoint is by defauly correct. I was cautioning against taking a minority viewpoint as correct just because it is in the ascendancy on a forum.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If you look up you might just see the tailend of the point going over your head.
I was not saying any viewpoint is by defauly correct. I was cautioning against taking a minority viewpoint as correct just because it is in the ascendancy on a forum.

Please define correct.

 

[apollo179]

At the risk of becoming a parrot, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The example of SPD's without reflectors given by Luksdad is a great one. Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used. It could well be that the Police do not prosecute for this as long as the bike is well lit (or they are ignorant of the law themselves).

This is however a little different to failing to stop at a red light. The fact that Red means stop (be it a man or a light) is instilled in children from a very young age and even absorbed knowledge gained from seeing the actions of traffic will give you a clue. Anyone who used the excuse "If didn't know I had to stop" would be laughed at in court.

Agreed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
But as you point there are some areas of uncertainty where the lack of enforcement only serves to enforce the grey area. You could say that lack of enforcement in some way causes the grey area.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Agreed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it.
But as you point there are some areas of uncertainty where the lack of enforcement only serves to enforce the grey area. You could say that lack of enforcement in some way causes the grey area.

Indeed. Running a Red Light is not however a grey area.

 

[apollo179]

Please define correct.

Online dictionary says -
1. Free from error or fault; true or accurate.2. Conforming to standards; proper:

 

[gaz]

At the risk of becoming a parrot, Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The example of SPD's without reflectors given by Luksdad is a great one. Most (all?) of these come with plastic clipins but they are hardly ever used. It could well be that the Police do not prosecute for this as long as the bike is well lit (or they are ignorant of the law themselves).

Hardly any clip in style pedals come with reflectors.

It would be very unlikely that a cyclist would get prosecuted for this, even if they didn't have lights. It's not in the publics intrest (money wise) to prosecute someone over that.

 

[rich p]

It's a red light area though.

 

[apollo179]

Indeed. Running a Red Light is not however a grey area.

Assuming over 51% of cyclists dont even realise that rljing on a bike is wrong isnt it a grey area.