Red Lights? What Do They Mean

[Boopop]

I'm not particulary fussed about cyclists jumping red lights

I assume the stats aren't much different between 2014 and 2024, it'd be interesting to see them. Cyclists are allowed to go through certain red lights in Paris.

I can walk past a red light on the carriageway with my bike and it's legal, yet if I cycle past it at walking pace it's illegal. The powers that be trust me to cycle on a single track country lane with tall hedges and blind corners, but don't trust me to judge for myself what junctions are safe to cross in a city centre at 2AM with good sightlines and empty roads. I don't think traffic lights would exist at all if motor vehicles didn't exist. I think traffic engineers and legislators in this country often have a habit of treating bicycles like motor vehicles without actually looking at the stats of how little harm they cause. Certainly a few specific politicians like to regularly make a big stink about "dangerous cyclists" while seemingly completely ignoring the harm caused by dangerous drivers.

Funny world we live in.

 

[classic33]

I agree. Green does not mean "go" but merely "the others are being told to stop but watch out". We need a ton of red light cameras to collect a new idiot tax to fix this.

It would also be a good idea to replace red man and red man+bike lights with amber ones that would accurately reflect their legal meaning and how road designers use them. Having red lights used for "give way" is needlessly muddying the waters.

What is this new legal meaning for an Amber traffic light. Everything I can find says it means the same as Red, STOP.

Green means you can go, but only if it is safe to do so. Amongst that you'll find you've not to block the junction either. So don't go unless you can clear the junction.

 

[mjr]

I can walk past a red light on the carriageway with my bike and it's legal,

Surprisingly not. The offence is to propel a vehicle past the stop line of a red light, not to ride/drive it. It was probably an effort to avoid leaving motorists loopholes of coasting or pushing past, but it does result in this quirk for cyclists. Pushing past on a footway is legal, though.

 

[mjr]

What is this new legal meaning for an Amber traffic light. Everything I can find says it means the same as Red, STOP.

OK, use brown then. I don't care. Just not red because red man+bike or red man alone is not a compulsory stop and use of red lights there is inconsistent.

 

[PK99]

I can walk past a red light on the carriageway with my bike and it's legal, y

That has never actually been tested in court.

The test case involved a pedestrian pushing a bicycle along a pavement, across a pedestrian crossing, and onto the far pavement.
The judge accepted the argument that he had been a pedestrian pushing a bike, not a cyclist.

What the judgment would be regarding a cyclist jumping off at a red light and walking/running their bike through the junction has never been tested in court.

 

[cyberknight]

Far too namby pamby wishy washy liberal.

We need laser guided missiles on all traffic lights to take out offenders and their vehicles. Then charge their estate the cost of the missile system as a priority debt so it ranks higher than all other debts of the estate

To comply with human rights laws, we will allow a post humous appeal by the deceased, but only if they appear in person at the hearing

Surely a black box linked to the traffic system so every time they jump a red light the system marks the car for crushing

 

[Brandane]

Surely a black box linked to the traffic system so every time they jump a red light the system marks the car for crushing

It's not the car's fault. Send the driver for crushing.

 

[Jenkins]

I give red light jumpers a look of grave disappointment aimed squarely at their backs. Can't say it's having an effect.

Try upping the intensity to a Paddington Bear like hard stare and see if that works.

 

[spen666]

Surely a black box linked to the traffic system so every time they jump a red light the system marks the car for crushing

No, you are a weak liberal wishy washy liberal. Unless you meant crushing the car with the driver and all their living relatives in the vehicle

 

[classic33]

OK, use brown then. I don't care. Just not red because red man+bike or red man alone is not a compulsory stop and use of red lights there is inconsistent.

Using your logic then they need to get rid of the green man + bike or green man alone, because that isn't a signal to cross either.

 

[Boopop]

Surprisingly not. The offence is to propel a vehicle past the stop line of a red light, not to ride/drive it. It was probably an effort to avoid leaving motorists loopholes of coasting or pushing past, but it does result in this quirk for cyclists. Pushing past on a footway is legal, though.

I've looked in to this, as it took me by surprise. Seemingly in Brookes vs Crank, 1980 (amusing names given the subject!) on appeal it was determined that when walking across a zebra crossing, someone pushing a bicycle is a pedestrian. As soon as they're on a piece of carriageway not designed for pedestrians, however, they're not and are in fact a vehicle. Baffling

Anyway, for me it only serves to prove that a lot of law regarding cyclists on the road is backwards and just doesn't get much attention on account of cyclists causing such little harm to other members of the public.

So, let's get this straight. A pedestrian pushing a bike past a red light is overall, a vehicle, presumably implying they're as much of a risk to everyone around them as a motor vehicle. OK, a strange take but lets go with it. Now, on a zebra or pelican crossing, if they're using a crossing, they're a pedestrian. Didn't we just determine that they're a vehicle though? Aren't vehicles dangerous to pedestrians? Why are they mixing with pedestrians? Is the pedestrian pushing the bicycle past a red light somehow more of a danger to other pedestrians than on the zebra crossing? My head is spinning.

I've long held the belief that just because something is a law, it doesn't mean it's ethical by default. I think this falls under that category as it's nonsense.

 

[cyberknight]

No, you are a weak liberal wishy washy liberal. Unless you meant crushing the car with the driver and all their living relatives in the vehicle

Nah , if you crush them they stop paying taxes to pay for the road upkeep.

 

[Dogtrousers]

As a general rule, a red light spells danger ...


View: https://youtu.be/dW66keO8Iew?si=jjRpZaGKl0o3d9SH

 

[spen666]

Nah , if you crush them they stop paying taxes to pay for the road upkeep.

I dealt with that in an earlier post- you seize their assets, their families' assets, their friends' assets and anyone who knows them's assets

 

[PK99]

So, let's get this straight. A pedestrian pushing a bike past a red light is overall, a vehicle, presumably implying they're as much of a risk to everyone around them as a motor vehicle. OK, a strange take but lets go with it. Now, on a zebra or pelican crossing, if they're using a crossing, they're a pedestrian. Didn't we just determine that they're a vehicle though? Aren't vehicles dangerous to pedestrians? Why are they mixing with pedestrians? Is the pedestrian pushing the bicycle past a red light somehow more of a danger to other pedestrians than on the zebra crossing? My head is spinning.

In essence, the Court finding (as I recall it) was:
Someone walking on the pavement pushing a bicycle is a pedestrian and remains a pedestrian if they cross the road using a pedestrian crossing pushing the bike, intending to continue walking on the far pavement. The bicycle is effectively luggage.

Applying a similar logic, a person cycling along the road is a cyclist. If they come to a Red light, jump off the bike and push it through the junction and then remount on the far side of the junction they remain a cyclist through process.
That has never been tested in court and is only likely to be if the presence of the person pushing the bike through the junction were to cause an accident when vehicles took evasive action.