running red lights

[martint235]

How about my example where the red light only has traffic filtering from the right, and stopping places the cyclist in more danger than carrying on through the red because:
a) it is on a hill with a right to left curve - anyone using clipless pedals and carrying heavy panniers knows that it is trickier to get going than otherwise. Therefore...
b)Trying to clip in whilst in secondary position can be dangerous with all the traffic attempting to get past pushing the cyclist into the kerb on a right to left corner...
c) Trying to clip in up a hill in a primary position puts additional pressure on the cyclist from the traffic behind.

They are inconveniences not mitigating evidence sorry. Again no judge would accept them. "I was carrying very heavy bags your honour and to put them down and pick them up would have been a pain so as the victim was in my way I headbutted him in the back of the head", doesn't work does it?

Another devil's advocate one. You go through a red light because it's inconveniencing you and making you slow down. By doing so you overtake me. I am naturally a faster cyclist and catch you up quickly. You are now inconveniencing me because you are slowing me down. I barge you out of my way. Let's now make two assumptions, no one was hurt by you crossing the red light although a pedestrian was shook up as they were about to cross. You are also not hurt but are obviously quite shaken. Would you consider my action defensible?

 

[Andy_R]

And what does that say about traffic lights exactly?

(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign—

(a)of the prescribed size, colour (red) and type (light), or

(b)of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the M1Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle (on bike, pedalling) who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.




Now you can try and weasle your way around this, but any argument about this would be spurious!

 

[SportMonkey]

Actually, I doubt that the CPS would prosecute unless they were out to make an example, so the point of judge and jury is moot.

 

[Andrew_P]

Anyway, lot and lots of road laws are broken daily. I think bikes are similar to people on foot and should be allowed to take similar risks. Defintely left turns at traffic lights should be treated as a give way for cyclists and even cars. The problem is only going to get worse more and more new cyclists.

In Germany I made the mistake of crossing a road whilst the the ped signal was still red, fine over here but I was looked at as if I had commited some heneous crime by the waiting masses either side.

95% or more of junctions I am perfectly happy to stop and wait, for my own safety.

Lot of things piss me off more than occasional RLJ's, having said that I think if I rode in London or other major city I would feel a lot stronger about it.

If I see a person press the button on a pedistrian crossing and carrying on walking and no one else around I am not going to stop and wait like some tit. I would in my car merely because it takes no effort to stop and start but mainly because it could cost me three points.

 

[SportMonkey]

I reckon an expensive solicitor could interpret that differently.

 

[lejogger]

Interesting. I think the response would be you shouldn't ride the bike that ladden in traffic if you know it will cause you that much of a problem.

I disagree. My initial response would be that a tourer would not necessarily know the road he was riding on, therefore make a judgement on whether it was safer to stop or continue purely based on what is in front of him. You can never control the conditions around you. Roads can get busy for any number of reasons.

Also, how is a cyclist ever supposed to improve his skill at riding (laden or not) and clipping into pedals without actually getting out there and doing it. A cyclist doesnt have to be carrying weight for clipping in on a steep hill to cause a problem - although the weight definitely increases the difficulty.

 

[martint235]

Actually, I doubt that the CPS would prosecute unless they were out to make an example, so the point of judge and jury is moot.

Anyway, lot and lots of road laws are broken daily. I think bikes are similar to people on foot and should be allowed to take similar risks. Defintely left turns at traffic lights should be treated as a give way for cyclists and even cars. The problem is only going to get worse more and more new cyclists.

It's not moot as I'm arguing from a point of law. I did edit a post a while back that may have been missed as i tried to give my actual point of view. If an RLJer passes me and I never see them again, I really don't care so long as they don't bleat if they get caught.

The law in this country has two distinct points: are you guilty or not guilty? That's very black and white, there is no middle ground. Juries are not asked to return a verdict of partially guilty. Then if you are guilty the judge (and this is one of the things he is paid to do) has to decide if you have presented any mitigating evidence that will help him/her when it comes to passing sentence. If you are found guilty and the judge decides that there are enough mitigating factors for you not to receive punishment you will walk from court. However you are still guilty of the crime and will still have a criminal record.

 

[martint235]

I disagree. My initial response would be that a tourer would not necessarily know the road he was riding on, therefore make a judgement on whether it was safer to stop or continue purely based on what is in front of him. You can never control the conditions around you. Roads can get busy for any number of reasons.

Also, how is a cyclist ever supposed to improve his skill at riding (laden or not) and clipping into pedals without actually getting out there and doing it. A cyclist doesnt have to be carrying weight for clipping in on a steep hill to cause a problem - although the weight definitely increases the difficulty.

I fully accept it's a problem and I agree that without practice you'll never get the hang of it. I don't accept it could be used as a mitigating factor though.

 

[lejogger]

No, I don't believe it's that black and white.
If you assault a person on the street then you are committing assault.
If you assault a burglar on your property then whilst also committing assault, you are protecting your home, yourself and your family. The same crime, presumably differing outcomes.

In my example, jumping the light is a measured decision to protect my safety, not a time saving exercise so I would hope that the law would protect me in that instance.

 

[martint235]

No, I don't believe it's that black and white.
If you assault a person on the street then you are committing assault.
If you assault a burglar on your property then whilst also committing assault, you are protecting your home, yourself and your family. The same crime, presumably differing outcomes.

In my example, jumping the light is a measured decision to protect my safety, not a time saving exercise so I would hope that the law would protect me in that instance.

No you are still guilty of assault, I'm afraid that doesn't change. The judge may be lenient enough to feel that as you were defending your home you shouldn't receive punishment and thereby receive very little sentence. The bit that applies is "the same crime". You have committed a crime, you have a criminal record but in crime A you will possibly go to jail, in crime B I would expect a suspended sentence.

Mitigating evidence usually but not always applies to spur of the moment decisions, for example attacking a burglar. In the case of the tourer you have begun your journey knowing you may have a problem, your personal risk assessment should have accounted for those problems and borne in mind your requirement to obey the law. A mitigating factor at a red light would be one that meant the situation in front of you did not affect your action eg you were in such fear of being hit from behind that you would jump the light regardless of whether there was someone in front of you or not

 

[lejogger]

They are inconveniences not mitigating evidence sorry. Again no judge would accept them. "I was carrying very heavy bags your honour and to put them down and pick them up would have been a pain so as the victim was in my way I headbutted him in the back of the head", doesn't work does it?

Another devil's advocate one. You go through a red light because it's inconveniencing you and making you slow down. By doing so you overtake me. I am naturally a faster cyclist and catch you up quickly. You are now inconveniencing me because you are slowing me down. I barge you out of my way. Let's now make two assumptions, no one was hurt by you crossing the red light although a pedestrian was shook up as they were about to cross. You are also not hurt but are obviously quite shaken. Would you consider my action defensible?

I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about inconvenience. That should never be a reason for an RLJ. Im talking about protecting my personal safety.

 

[lejogger]

No you are still guilty of assault, I'm afraid that doesn't change. The judge may be lenient enough to feel that as you were defending your home you shouldn't receive punishment and thereby receive very little sentence. The bit that applies is "the same crime". You have committed a crime, you have a criminal record but in crime A you will possibly go to jail, in crime B I would expect a suspended sentence.

Mitigating evidence usually but not always applies to spur of the moment decisions, for example attacking a burglar. In the case of the tourer you have begun your journey knowing you may have a problem, your personal risk assessment should have accounted for those problems and borne in mind your requirement to obey the law. A mitigating factor at a red light would be one that meant the situation in front of you did not affect your action eg you were in such fear of being hit from behind that you would jump the light regardless of whether there was someone in front of you or not

I am aware that an RLJ is a crime in any circumstance - as is defending yourself from a burglar. The point is that a punishment would likely be reduced or removed due to the nature of these particular circumstances. Hence an understanding from a legal perspective that there are times when it is more appropriate than others.

 

[SportMonkey]

Martin, wheat does the sent while following directions mean?

 

[martint235]

I am aware that an RLJ is a crime in any circumstance - as is defending yourself from a burglar. The point is that a punishment would likely be reduced or removed due to the nature of these particular circumstances. Hence an understanding from a legal perspective that there are times when it is more appropriate than others.

This is where there is a difference between RLJing and other crimes. There are very rare situations where it is safety issue to go through a red light. To RLJ cos no one is around is not a safety issue. To RLJ because you have heavy panniers is also not a safety issue. The law works like this:

1. Are you guilty or not guilty? This is your opportunity to provide evidence that you didn't do the crime. It is also the prosecutions opportunity and obligation to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did do the crime. In an RLJ case I would expect to see CCTV evidence.
2. Now we've ascertained that you are guilty, you now get an opportunity to provide evidence that you had a mitigating factor in your decision to break the law. This is where I believe there is a huge difference between "there was a stranger in my house and I was protecting my family" and "my panniers are heavy, I would have held up the traffic behind me and been beeped at if I'd stopped"

 

[martint235]

Martin, wheat does the sent while following directions mean?

Oh it's my signature when I'm replying from my mobile phone. It's kind of an in joke cos my GPS system is sh**e and forever sending me in the wrong direction!