Police fining cyclist for breaking the law..

[apollo179]

Isnt there a distinction between the highway code which is like a guide book to recommended road practice and the rta which is the law and applies to "drivers".
I accept that apparently the law does apply to cyclists but tbh i dont really see how or why.

 

[Theseus]

1. The HC is a condensed summary of the law and advice.
2. Rule 69 is specifically for cyclists.
3. It says MUST and quotes the relevant legislation

It is, and always has been, the law that cyclists obey traffic lights.

The RTA's in various forms apply to ALL road users detailed in the legislation, this includes cars, lorries, bikes, horses, pedestrians, etc ...

 

[growingvegetables]

In the past lorry and bus drivers have been blamed for many cycling accidents, but as the issue has received more exposure recently it has become accepted that cyclists need to share the responsibility on the roads

What the hell are they trying to imply here?

Just that there's more than a few cyclists who try slipping down the left hand side of a truck or bus at lights?

 

[Melonfish]

Isnt there a distinction between the highway code which is like a guide book to recommended road practice and the rta which is the law and applies to "drivers".
I accept that apparently the law does apply to cyclists but tbh i dont really see how or why.

ah, see this was my point, it specifically says drivers in bold everywhere, imo it needs updating to include cyclists.

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.


[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

this sites RTA 88 sect 36.
yet that clearly states:

36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs.

i've always found the highway code exceptionally vague when it comes to cyclists, hence why we have that ridiculous vid of the so called law student and the cop.
i take it as gospel tho due to it being under the section labelled "rules for cyclists" but its still bloody vague.

1. The HC is a condensed summary of the law and advice.
2. Rule 69 is specifically for cyclists.
3. It says MUST and quotes the relevant legislation

It is, and always has been, the law that cyclists obey traffic lights.

The RTA's in various forms apply to ALL road users detailed in the legislation, this includes cars, lorries, bikes, horses, pedestrians, etc ...

Remember that bike means motorbike in the code, cycles need to be labelled as such or listed as carriages.

 

[gaz]

Good! Although I am not sure why they think the use of an ASL is breaking the law.

I think that is bad writing. I hope that is bad writing!!!

It's not poor writing but simply not put into context properly.
I spoke to Graham Horwood about this a few months ago. They are targeting all road users and this includes any road users that stop in the ASL when they shouldn't.

 

[gaz]

What the hell are they trying to imply here?
I do wish they'd put as much effort into fining motorists who routinely flout the law; using mobiles, jumping red lights, speeding. Almost always much more dangerous than the illegal things cyclists do (and I'm not condoning or excusing any of that).

My Silly Cyclists probably has something to do with that. I know that Graham watches it and has used various clips to show bus and lorry drivers what some cyclists might do.

 

[oldroadman]

Some of the comments on this thread leave me amazed. The rules of the road are for everyone. Like stopping at reds. How daft do you have to be to think that it only applies to some users?
What's more, because cyclists are still (sadly) a minority group, it's lousy PR and offers a hundred excuses for other users - who are often just as bad - to point fingers. There's no point in going off about "terrible car/taxi/van/bus/truck drivers and mad motos", unless you are playing by the rules. Only, and only then, do you have the moral high ground. The red light jumpers have a better chance of being in the ground, six feet down.

 

[Matthew_T]

It's not poor writing but simply not put into context properly.
I spoke to Graham Horwood about this a few months ago. They are targeting all road users and this includes any road users that stop in the ASL when they shouldn't.

Well I have certainly had a lot of people block the ASL when they could have clearly stopped

 

[gaz]

[QUOTE 1511730"]
Ignoring road craft for the sake of assumption, that people should look out for cyclists is one way trip to the morgue.
[/quote]

best post ever?

 

[apollo179]

ah, see this was my point, it specifically says drivers in bold everywhere, imo it needs updating to include cyclists.

Dont you mean exclude.
Im happy to credit the police with the common sense to apply the law as it should be although i acknowledge there is always the danger that this policy has the potential to turn round and bite you in the backside because assuming certain cycling practices are technically illegal, were are constantly relying on police discretion in applying the law sensibly rather than strictly and this is ultimately uncertain.

 

[Davidc]

Does it actually state that cyclists have to stop at red lights? i mean you'd be a damned idiot to go through one but has the highway code been updated to include cyclists as a requirement to stop at red?

No updating required.

Since 1868* when the first traffic signals were installed it has been a requirement for ALL VEHICLES to stop at them. Just looked at my 1961 HC (that I had for learning for the cycling proficiency test) and it has the must stop requirement in the cycling section.

Bicycles are vehicles under English, Scottish and international law (Vienna Convention on Road Traffic).

You have to stop even if you are pushing a hand cart, or going around in your horse drawn carriage! I'm not sure what a mounted horse rider's status is though.

*1927 for the first electric ones, but the legislation AFAIK was the same except that the lights replaced railway type semaphore style arms, and electric ones weren't manually operated. (That's according to a web site dedicated to the history of the motor car).

 

[Bman]

Fairly easy to get out of a fine for something which isn't illegal.

Not if you accept a FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice). If you accept it, it is an admission of guilt.

 

[Melonfish]

No updating required.

Since 1868 when the first traffic lights were installed it has been a requirement for ALL VEHICLES to stop at them.

Bicycles are vehicles under English, Scottish and international law (Vienna Convention on Road Traffic).

You have to stop even if you are pushing a hand cart, or going around in your horse drawn carriage! I'm not sure what a mounted horse rider's status is though.

actually the law states that cycles are "carriages" but yes you are right they need to stop too

 

[Cubist]

Not if you accept a FPN (Fixed Penalty Notice). If you accept it, it is an admission of guilt.

Wrong, sorry. Whether you get a ticket is down to the cop, not you. . You then have the option of electing a court appearance or paying the fine. Paying the fine is an admission of guilt.

 

[Cubist]

True but being stopped for doing things that arent illegal can get a bit tiresome after a while and does nothing to improve relations between cyclists and plod or safety.

No doubt you will have some real examples of this? Please share them. I am genuinely interested.