Stop Lines at Traffic Lights

[Pseudo]

When a traffic light is red, you stop at the solid stop line.

At this location:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4...riW_BRlINhpg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

the stop line is broken for cyclists. The traffic lights are a pedestrian crossing, but the presence of the broken line implies that cyclists can ignore the traffic signals (or maybe treat them as a give way sign). So, where do cyclists stand legally if the pass the signals at red?

And here's another location:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5...Q_6EURfrbLaQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

cyclists have their own infrastructure, with their own signal head, but no stop line. So, do we have to obey the traffic signal, and if we do, where are we supposed to stop?

 

[Globalti]

What are these stop lines and red lights people keep mentioning on here? Never see 'em where we cycle:

 

[winjim]

In the first case, the line is broken to enable cyclists to mount the dropped kerb of the toucan crossing onto the pavement on the left which is shared use. In the second case, legally I don't know, but if it looked like I was about to hit a pedestrian, I'd probably think about stopping.

It's just more stupid overcomplicated supposedly helpful but actually really confusing infrastructure.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Aren't the short broken lines simply the demarcation lines for the pedestrian crossing?

 

[vickster]

Red means stop for cyclists as well as cars regardless of the paint on the road. Seems simple enough to me

 

[winjim]

Red means stop for cyclists as well as cars regardless of the paint on the road. Seems simple enough to me

I think maybe given a good lawyer and a sympathetic magistrate you might be able to argue the point.

 

[summerdays]

I think maybe given a good lawyer and a sympathetic magistrate you might be able to argue the point.

Yes I think that would be the case. I must admit when they took about 3 weeks to reinstate the stop lines after resurfacing I did wonder if there was an accident whether the council would have been held liable. And I did see more cars fail to stop at the red light without the line there. If people can get off parking fines due to incorrect line markings then the same might be true of red lights without the Stop Line.

I wonder what the legislation is for temporary traffic lights as they don't have stop lines?

 

[vickster]

I think maybe given a good lawyer and a sympathetic magistrate you might be able to argue the point.

Well if there's a risk that I might be squashed by a truck or I might mow down a ped, I'm going to stop at a red light regardless. The light is the bit I look at, not the lines on the road
Ymmv

 

[shouldbeinbed]

markings then the same might be true of red lights without the Stop Line.

I wonder what the legislation is for temporary traffic lights as they don't have stop lines?

IANAL but IDHCS

I think the difference between a missing parking line with no quite so blatantly visible additional instruction(*) and a missing line from work ongoing or recently completed, directly in front of working traffic lights would be a stretch even for Nick Freeman to defend.

(*l Unless of course you park slap bang under a no/parking/restriction sign.

I would sugest that for temporary traffic lights, it is unreasonable to expect a line to be painted and the colour of the light determines what you do. Also the temporary lights I encounter all have that helpful red board that says when red light shows, wait here pretty much where a white line would be.

 

[PeteXXX]

In the second link, I'd be too busy navigating the road surface to notice much else..

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I believe that for the second one the road has a stop line for vehicular traffic further back and the cycle lane feeds off just before that line. So stop if you're on the road, proceed according to the usual peds have priority principle if using the cycle lane.

 

[winjim]

I believe that for the second one the road has a stop line for vehicular traffic further back and the cycle lane feeds off just before that line. So stop if you're on the road, proceed according to the usual peds have priority principle if using the cycle lane.

What if the light's red? Where do you stop?

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

What if the light's red? Where do you stop?

Somewhere where you're not going to hit anybody and, preferably, where you can see the lights change - I'm still astonished by the number of cyclists who advance so far over the stop line that they can't see when it changes to green.

 

[Dan B]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/43/made

(3) Where no stop line has been provided in conjunction with light signals or the stop line is not visible, references in relation to those signals to the “stop line” are—

(a)in a case where the sign shown in diagram 7011, 7011.1 or 7027 is placed in conjunction with the light signals, to be treated as references to that sign; and

(b)in any other case, to be treated as references to the post or other structure on which the primary signals are mounted.

So, if no line, stop before the sign: if no sign, stop before the signal itself. Seems pretty clear

 

[sidevalve]

Red = stop simples. Temp lights must have a 'wait here' board in it's place. Why are we still apparently trying to find excuses for ignoring basic traffic rules ?