Stop at lights?

[Dan B]

I appreciate this is illegal but the only way is to wait till a car going your way trips the sensors.
Any thoughts?

There's a school of thought that says that if the lights are designed to change when traffic approaches but they don't, then they are defective, and you can proceed with caution just as if you would if they were more comprehensively broken. I don't know whether this is explicitly mentioned in legislation or has been tested in court.

You can also complain to the council who may be able to adjust the sensitivity. Though whether it stays adjusted the next time work is done to the lights for any other reason is another matter ...

 

[marzjennings]

Lack of respect for the safety of other road users, this is not social etiquette, but a decision to drive and cycle in a manner that endangers the safety of others.

In general my actions do not endanger others ('cept the group of hikers I spooked years ago at Corfe Castle when mtbing). I do endeavour to act safely, while not being overly concerned if my actions are legal.

 

[User16625]

So I took my shiny new triban 3 out for the second time today. I admit I'm not always keen to stop at lights, when its safe, and I'm not carving my way through pedestrians. Is this a no no? I know some care drivers don't like it but its never bothered me as long as it is considerate.

Stop at red lights. However I sometimes ride behind the cones at road works if its a lane closure and no workers are there, not always practical to do this.

 

[GrasB]

I'll accept that we all make mistakes, miss a sign, etc. but doing our best to not speed, jump red lights or use our phones when driving/riding would go a long way to solving a large number of problems we experience on the roads. If we all respect the road traffic laws, not just obey them but give them respect, in general then we'd lose a lot of the aggression that makes problems in the first place. Coming along & deciding that your judgement supersedes the law in setting the outer constraints shows a general lack of respect for the governance of the roads & in it's self IS the problem.

 

[ufkacbln]

I didn't see anyone claiming that they deliberately endanger others. Let's be sensible here: the laws regarding speed limits and use of handheld mobile while driving were both created to address a real problem (in the latter case, address it rather badly given that hands-free is just as dangerous and not covered by the legislation) but it is still possible to drive faster than the speed limit (e.g. on a deserted motorway at 3am)/use a mobile phone (e.g. while stopped in a three mile tailback) without causing either of those problems and in a way which, were it not illegal, no reasonable person could possibly have a problem with. I'm not saying that either are bad laws or that they shouldn't be obeyed, but it still doesn't follow that breaking them is axiomatically dangerous.

You are the reincarnation of Paul Smith AICMFP!

The claim was "driving whilst using a mobile phone".......... the proof is that this is dangerous and endangers other road users.
Search the forum if you are truly unaware of the facts.

 

[Dan B]

I'm not saying that either are bad laws or that they shouldn't be obeyed, but it still doesn't follow that breaking them is axiomatically dangerous.

You are the reincarnation of Paul Smith AICMFP!

The claim was "driving whilst using a mobile phone".......... the proof is that this is dangerous and endangers other road users.
Search the forum if you are truly unaware of the facts.

Again with the personal insults. Have I insulted you? No, so knock it off.

The law on "driving whilst using a mobile phone" also makes it illegal to use a mobile phone while stationary in a three mile tailback. I don't think that's very dangerous. Many laws are introduced to fix real problems but as a byproduct make it illegal to do things which are otherwise not problems. Some laws are better drafted than others.

 

[Dan B]

If we all respect the road traffic laws, not just obey them but give them respect, in general then we'd lose a lot of the aggression that makes problems in the first place.

I'm not sure this isn't confusing cause and effect, you know. If we could lose a lot of the aggression we wouldn't need half as many of the laws. Why are there laws about stopping in yellow box junctions? Because drivers in queueing traffic are too impatient to let traffic out from side roads at any junctions that don't have them painted

 

[sidevalve]

There's a school of thought that says that if the lights are designed to change when traffic approaches but they don't, then they are defective, and you can proceed with caution just as if you would if they were more comprehensively broken. I don't know whether this is explicitly mentioned in legislation or has been tested in court.

You can also complain to the council who may be able to adjust the sensitivity. Though whether it stays adjusted the next time work is done to the lights for any other reason is another matter ...

Just because the lights don't change immediately just for you does NOT mean there is anything wrong, you may be on a sideroad and the main dual carriage way might just have a tad more priority [and this may change depending on the time of day], similarly there may be a ped crossing phase which WILL be served if requested, and as a vehicle you [like all those big bad car drivers must wait]. However to the OP.
To cut out all this "should you shouldn't you" guff just swap the words bicycle and car in the description of the offence ['cos sorry but that's what it is] and honestly state on this forum what would your reaction be if you saw a car simply ignoring a red light on a regular basis. If you can say " Oh well he probably can't be bothered waiting so it doesn't matter" then fair enough BUT if the reaction is " swine ! He should be arrested" [or similar] then the case is proved. If you don't want to follow the rules then don't ride on the road, using mobiles, speeding etc are all completely irrelevant. They are illegal acts, like mugging and theft and if caught the individual will be punished RLJ however "get away with it" in many cases simply because it is impossible to ID a bike [no reg no] and in busy traffic the police would be very lucky to stop it anyway.
If you really can't wait the few minutes that it takes then I suggest a large 4x4 or german made car and at least you can wait and rant in the appropriat vehicle for your temper.

 

[Dan B]

Just because the lights don't change immediately just for you does NOT mean there is anything wrong, you may be on a sideroad and the main dual carriage way might just have a tad more priority

This is possible but seems unlikely from the description, which was about managing two way flow over a railway bridge. Would be an odd place to put a dual carriageway, don't you think?

 

[ufkacbln]

Again with the personal insults. Have I insulted you? No, so knock it off.

The law on "driving whilst using a mobile phone" also makes it illegal to use a mobile phone while stationary in a three mile tailback. I don't think that's very dangerous. Many laws are introduced to fix real problems but as a byproduct make it illegal to do things which are otherwise not problems. Some laws are better drafted than others.

Your attempt to justify someone else's claim to bolster a lost argument.

The problem with laws is that they are brought in because there will always be a group too stupid or arrogant to behave in an appropriate manner.

They need to be forced into behaving appropriately by censure and penalties.

 

[subaqua]

Your attempt to justify someone else's claim to bolster a lost argument.

The problem with laws is that they are brought in because there will always be a group too stupid or arrogant to behave in an appropriate manner.

They need to be forced into behaving appropriately by censure and penalties.

like RLJers

 

[ufkacbln]

like RLJers

I didn't say that....

 

[subaqua]

I didn't say that....

no I did and there will be some posting here who know who it was meant for. ( not you BTW)

 

[Dan B]

Your attempt to justify someone else's claim to bolster a lost argument.

No, my attempt to provide an alternative explanation of someone else's claim to show that giving them personal abuse is not necessarily justified. Lost argument no, lost cause apparently so

 

[ufkacbln]

The only thing illogical is the attempt to justify either speeding or mobile phone use.

This pathetic argument is that neither mobile phone use or speeding is dangerous because this type of driver only uses their phone in a three mile tailback, and only ever speeds on empty motorways in absolute contraindication of the evidence where most offences are committed whilst in motion and residential areas respectively.


If you could kindly engage with the argument and explain this slight discrepancy?