Red means STOP

iainment

ransos wrote:

iainment wrote:

ransos wrote:

iainment wrote:

spen666 wrote:

iainment wrote:

They're not really comparable though are they?
BTW I think youi need to calm down a bit - it's not that big a deal really that other people jump the occasional red light.

:twisted:

No,- they are not comparable are they - you are right

I mean one is acriminal offence that has an impact on others.


Whereas the others are criminal offences that have an impact on others.


Clearly no comparison there then

Blimey you are a little ball of ire aren't you. If you can't see the difference and only see things as black or white you will never reach happiness and will always be frustrated that not everyone can reach your standards of perfection.

I know it's childish but people like you make me want to break the rules just to see you get angry.

Even though you are right to say that RLJ is illegal, even though I know I might get pulled by the police and even if my actions mean that cyclists are denigrated by motorists (although I think this is debatable) your attitude would never persuade me to change my mind over my actions. You come across as a little control freak using these forums (fora?) to get some sort of self esteem.

:twisted:


Chill out my friend,

Let's be honest, there's no prospect of you changing your mind on this one because it's clear that selfishness is your only priority. A shame then that you use such pathetic reasoning to justify your actions.

I don't agree that my actions are selfish, but I will jump a red if the way is clear and there is no danger to me or other road users.
I certailnly don't agree that if all cyclists obeyed all road rules/laws that motorists would have any higher opinion of cyclists.
On my commute I daily see all types of vehicles RLJing, and committing a variety of other traffic offences, why is cyclists RLJing picked out by other cyclists as the most important issue? Why is it that when people post on here about causing criminal damage to vehicles or assaulting (or fantasizing) about assaulting motorists there is so little reaction.

You're starting to sound like one of those drivers who thinks it's ok to speed, because they can judge when it's safe to do so.

Your actions are entirely selfish - there is no evidence that RLJing reduces risk to cyclists, and so the only possible reason you can have is to save a few precious seconds on your commute.

If cyclists were to better comply with traffic law, then we would be in a much stronger position to challenge motorists' perceptions of us.

I saw two cars jump the lights on my way to work this morning. In what way does their behaviour excuse your actions?

They don't. I have never said they do. I believe there are other more important issues for cyclists than rlj, that's all.

Whatever you guys may think the only way it will stop is if there is a realistic, regular risk of being pulled by old bill and fined. Otherwise cyclists rlj'ing will be a constant feature of London - at least - cycling.

:twisted:

spen666

iainment wrote:

... I believe there are other more important issues for cyclists than rlj, that's all.

Whatever you guys may think the only way it will stop is if there is a realistic, regular risk of being pulled by old bill and fined. Otherwise cyclists rlj'ing will be a constant feature of London - at least - cycling.

:twisted:

The only way it will stiop is when criminals like you stop your criminal activity

ransos

iainment wrote:

They don't. I have never said they do. I believe there are other more important issues for cyclists than rlj, that's all.

Whatever you guys may think the only way it will stop is if there is a realistic, regular risk of being pulled by old bill and fined. Otherwise cyclists rlj'ing will be a constant feature of London - at least - cycling.

:twisted:

I also believe that there are issues more important than RLJing. In what way does this excuse your criminal activity?

The only way it will stop is if selfish people like you start to take some responsibility for their actions.

iainment

ransos wrote:

iainment wrote:

They don't. I have never said they do. I believe there are other more important issues for cyclists than rlj, that's all.

Whatever you guys may think the only way it will stop is if there is a realistic, regular risk of being pulled by old bill and fined. Otherwise cyclists rlj'ing will be a constant feature of London - at least - cycling.

:twisted:

I also believe that there are issues more important than RLJing. In what way does this excuse your criminal activity?

The only way it will stop is if selfish people like you start to take some responsibility for their actions.

So you're in for a deal of disappointment then aren't you.

:twisted:

Shadowduck

Very fond of that :twisted: smiley aren't we, iainment?

Back under your bridge now, no billy goats gruff here today.

(ransos, spen et al - iainment is a single-issue troll, have a look at his past posting history... You won't get any sense out of him and he's enjoying getting a rise out of you.)

iainment

Shadowduck wrote:

Very fond of that :twisted: smiley aren't we, iainment?

Back under your bridge now, no billy goats gruff here today.

(ransos, spen et al - iainment is a single-issue troll, have a look at his past posting history... You won't get any sense out of him and he's enjoying getting a rise out of you.)

Not sure if I am a troll or not but yes this issue is the one I respond to most as it is the one that I feel strongest about. I do not see that RLJ is as heinous a crime as others do, that's all. If you look further I respond to posts about this, I do not initiate the debates.

Apart from this I think you'd find we have much more in common than that which separates us.

If you like I'll change my smiley.

Pip pip.

:oops:

Shadowduck

iainment wrote:

Apart from this I think you'd find we have much more in common than that which separates us.

Undoubtedly. But that which separates us is the only subject on which you regularly share your thoughts.

Toodleoo.

:P

Jon G

"ransos wrote:

Your actions are entirely selfish - there is no evidence that RLJing reduces risk to cyclists, and so the only possible reason you can have is to save a few precious seconds on your commute.

It does not reduce risk and neither does it save even seconds (I virtually always end up overtaking the RLJers who pass me at lights, becasuse they are virtually always slower).

There main motives seem to be one or more of:
- infantile belief that they are demonstrating independence by not following rules.
- infantile pleasure in breaking rules without being caught.
- infantile pleasure in knowing they annoy others.
- adolescent belief that risky behaviour will be admired by onlookers.
- an attemp to assert disociation from traditional cycling subculture.
- believing the car-cult's view that bikes are not real vehicles.

iainment

Jon G wrote:

"ransos wrote:

Your actions are entirely selfish - there is no evidence that RLJing reduces risk to cyclists, and so the only possible reason you can have is to save a few precious seconds on your commute.

It does not reduce risk and neither does it save even seconds (I virtually always end up overtaking the RLJers who pass me at lights, becasuse they are virtually always slower).

There main motives seem to be one or more of:
- infantile belief that they are demonstrating independence by not following rules.
- infantile pleasure in breaking rules without being caught.
- infantile pleasure in knowing they annoy others.
- adolescent belief that risky behaviour will be admired by onlookers.
- an attemp to assert disociation from traditional cycling subculture.
- believing the car-cult's view that bikes are not real vehicles.

So it saves time for them then, if they stopped at every red they wouldn't be there to pass would they?

:oops:

ransos

iainment wrote:

Jon G wrote:

"ransos wrote:

Your actions are entirely selfish - there is no evidence that RLJing reduces risk to cyclists, and so the only possible reason you can have is to save a few precious seconds on your commute.

It does not reduce risk and neither does it save even seconds (I virtually always end up overtaking the RLJers who pass me at lights, becasuse they are virtually always slower).

There main motives seem to be one or more of:
- infantile belief that they are demonstrating independence by not following rules.
- infantile pleasure in breaking rules without being caught.
- infantile pleasure in knowing they annoy others.
- adolescent belief that risky behaviour will be admired by onlookers.
- an attemp to assert disociation from traditional cycling subculture.
- believing the car-cult's view that bikes are not real vehicles.

So it saves time for them then, if they stopped at every red they wouldn't be there to pass would they?

:oops:

Nope - if they stopped at the lights they'd be able to catch their breath and so ride faster.

I was very nearly taken out by an RLJer last night as I was crossing the road (on foot). Another load of pedestrians thus had their prejudices confirmed.

glassorange

In December 2006, II got 3 points on my licence and £60 fine for cycling through a red light(...well it was just about to change to green). Apparently contravened Road Traffic Acr 1988 section 36(1)..... Having read all this from various people am thinking it might be wrong. Maybe it should have been £30 fixed penalty instead

spen666

glassorange wrote:

In December 2006, II got 3 points on my licence and £60 fine for cycling through a red light(...well it was just about to change to green). Apparently contravened Road Traffic Acr 1988 section 36(1)..... Having read all this from various people am thinking it might be wrong. Maybe it should have been £30 fixed penalty instead

You cannot in law get points on your licence for a cycling offence.

If as you claim tyou got opoints, then prove the same- lets see a copy of your licence endorsed with the points. ( pm it to me, or contact me- via PM)


If it is as you say, then the penalty is invalid in law as the court had no power to impose an endorsement.

Seek legal advice

nwallace

That would be

Drivers to comply with traffic signs

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

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

(b) of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

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

The rest of section 36 seems to be qualifying "lawfully" placed.

Interstingly section 37

37 Directions to pedestrians

Where a constable in uniform is for the time being engaged in the regulation of vehicular traffic in a road, a person on foot who proceeds across or along the carriageway in contravention of a direction to stop given by the constable in the execution of his duty, either to persons on foot or to persons on foot and other traffic, is guilty of an offence.

One of the "In Scotland" sections essentially (shut the window without copying) says that
If a Motorist/Cyclist is considered in the view of a police officer to be driving/cycling Dangerously or Carelessly then they may without warrant arrest the motorist/cyclist unless.
a) The driver of a motor vehicle produces his licence to drive that class of vehicle or provides name and address.
b) The cyclist provides name and address

While seemingly a bit more power than available under English law it does seem a bit duff that having been seen to be driving/cycling in a manner incompatible with the law all i need to do is tell the officer where I live and off I can go.

richardast

You're misunderstanding it slightly.
It means that the officer can arrest you if you refuse to supply your name and address (or they think you're lying).
If you do supply your name and address then the officer can report you for the issue of a summons and they don't need to arrest you.

The same applies in England and Wales too, for every offence in criminal law.

Spen666
I can't remember exactly which section of which act but, prior to the amendments effected by (I think) the Road Safety Act 2006, one of them didn't specify against pedal cycles when describing a number of offences, and then went on to give penalty points as potential sanction. The act clearly intended that sanction for drivers but didn't specify it and, I believe, it has been used wrongly on several occasions by Magistrates.
Hence, it's blatantly the wrong penalty but it is a lawful one.

spen666

richardast wrote:

You're misunderstanding it slightly.
It means that the officer can arrest you if you refuse to supply your name and address (or they think you're lying).
If you do supply your name and address then the officer can report you for the issue of a summons and they don't need to arrest you.

The same applies in England and Wales too, for every offence in criminal law.

Spen666
I can't remember exactly which section of which act but, prior to the amendments effected by (I think) the Road Safety Act 2006, one of them didn't specify against pedal cycles when describing a number of offences, and then went on to give penalty points as potential sanction. The act clearly intended that sanction for drivers but didn't specify it and, I believe, it has been used wrongly on several occasions by Magistrates.
Hence, it's blatantly the wrong penalty but it is a lawful one.

It is NOT a lawful penalty

Clive Atton

Apologies if this features elsewhere in the thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ext102.xml

The driver deserves a decent jail sentence but I wonder what went through the idiot cyclists head (apart from a car bonnet and some tarmac) as he smugly jumped the light?

alfablue

Clive Atton wrote:

Apologies if this features elsewhere in the thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ext102.xml

The driver deserves a decent jail sentence but I wonder what went through the idiot cyclists head (apart from a car bonnet and some tarmac) as he smugly jumped the light?

Unfortunately, yet predictably, the cyclist's red light jump has been given prominence in some media

Clive Atton

'Unfortunately, yet predictably, the cyclist's red light jump has been given prominence in some media'

For Chrissakes how stupid are you Alfablue? If he'd obeyed the laws of the road he would be alive today. As for the media 'unfortunately' highlighting the fact he RLJ'd, it is an extremely relevant fact. I am not making excuses for the car driver, she deserves all she gets, which probably won't be enough.

alfablue

Clive Atton wrote:

For Chrissakes how stupid are you Alfablue?

Actually, not very stupid, and maybe not as much as you, I don't know!

If he'd obeyed the laws of the road he would be alive today. As for the media 'unfortunately' highlighting the fact he RLJ'd, it is an extremely relevant fact. I am not making excuses for the car driver, she deserves all she gets, which probably won't be enough.

Actually I agree it is a relevant fact, and the guy has done himself and the cause of cycling a huge disservice. The tone on some reports and discussions I heard was that the driver was virtually blameless because the guy RLJ'd - this is why I find it unfortunate because it has well and truly muddied the water, and permits those with the most desire to locate the entire blame on the cyclist and excuse their own phone use, to do so.

Now calm down!

Meredydd

To give this some context, the junction in question sees a busy two lane road join Southampton's main western arterial road out to Millbrook, Totton and the motorway junction as it leaves Southampton city centre. IMO you'd have to be incredibly rash to go through lights there at red, and it's a stretch of that road that I routinely avoid, despite using other portions of frequently.
That said, if you commute regularly out to the western side of Southampton and have come past the front below town then I think you'd probably have to include a fair detour to use alternative roads or a cyclepath, but I'd suspect that that's what the bulk of cyclists do.

ironmatt

Just told a fellow cyclist off this morning for running a red as it gives us a bad name. And if he got knocked down then no come back. Idiot.

Chris_Who

alfablue wrote:

Clive Atton wrote:

Apologies if this features elsewhere in the thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ext102.xml

The driver deserves a decent jail sentence but I wonder what went through the idiot cyclists head (apart from a car bonnet and some tarmac) as he smugly jumped the light?

Unfortunately, yet predictably, the cyclist's red light jump has been given prominence in some media

I think it is fair to say that's a pertinent point.

I'm surprised no-one took umbrage with the unneccessary detail of whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not

alfablue

Chris_Who wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Clive Atton wrote:

Apologies if this features elsewhere in the thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ext102.xml

The driver deserves a decent jail sentence but I wonder what went through the idiot cyclists head (apart from a car bonnet and some tarmac) as he smugly jumped the light?

Unfortunately, yet predictably, the cyclist's red light jump has been given prominence in some media

I think it is fair to say that's a pertinent point.

I'm surprised no-one took umbrage with the unneccessary detail of whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet or not

Yes it is a pertinant point, my real dissappointment was that in his final act this RLJ'er further cemented the poor image that cyclists have, and predictably in some media the focus was more on the RLJ than the driver's phone use - fair enough I guess.

proto

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

Sometimes I drive my motorcycle at more than twice the national speed limit

When cycling, I sometimes jump red lights. And sometimes I wear a crash helmet.

Sometimes I jaywalk

alfablue

proto wrote:

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

Sometimes I drive my motorcycle at more than twice the national speed limit

When cycling, I sometimes jump red lights. And sometimes I wear a crash helmet.

Sometimes I jaywalk

And you are so wise that you know with absolute certainty that your 120 or 140mph jaunts would never endanger another person...?

I'm sorry mate, but if that is wisdom, I'm a bottom bracket!!!!

(I have just had a horrible flashback to a fatality of a cyclist, a young mother leaving work, hit by a speeding motorcyclist. The back of her head was caved in, my resuss attempts were futile).

proto

alfablue wrote:

(I have just had a horrible flashback to a fatality of a cyclist, a young mother leaving work, hit by a speeding motorcyclist. The back of her head was caved in, my resuss attempts were futile).

Not to make too light of an obvious tragedy, but what was she doing on a deserted M6, near Kendal, at 5.30 in the morning ?

alfablue

Well this just illustrates the blind arrogance that goes with your "safespeed" - as you know,at 140mph things change very quickly, but of course you have absolute knowledge of what is up ahead,

ellieb

proto wrote:

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"

The problem is that it is unbelievable how often this saying is repeated by a fool.

& to return to RLJ: the very fact that we are discussing the topic means that there must have been someone else around to witness what you have just done. If we were talking about a cyclist ignoring a red light at 3:30 am on Christmas morning on a small road 75 miles North West of Inverness then there probably wouldn't be an issue with it.

Denny69

I've been known to jump the "odd" red light If I have clear view of the roads either side and nothing is coming, I know it's wrong so slap my wrist and it's not something I do on a daily basis, but and it's a BIG but when I do stop at red lights and there are cars or other vehicles at the line I tend to pull up so I am deliberately in view of the person at the front....if that means pulling up so I'm right in front of their car then so be it, that way they have to see me (that and the fact I'm 6'2" and a tad north of 20st). If they toot their horn at me at least I know they've seen me! As I pull away I'll move over to the left again..no harm done except an angry look from a car driver but if they thought about it they'd see the sense behind it.

Call it defensive riding, call it what you like I'll do everything in my power to get where I want to be in 1 piece without being a total git, if that means slowing a car/lorry or whatever for a second or two then so be it. I'll do what I have to do then get out of the way, I'm not advocating red light jumping in anyway just saying there are safer ways to get across junctions than RLJ'ing, if you get caught by the police or cause an accident then you deserve to have book flung at you the rules aren't just in the "Highway Code" I think you'll find that they're part of the Road Traffic Act to.

always_tyred

In this country we are getting perilously close to being compelled to use cycle "facilities", have bicycle registration platess and pay road tax for bicycles.

This is also the country where it is cheaper to drive than it is to take the train than it is to fly. Its barking.

However, a compelling reason for not running red lights (unless there is some extreme reason, such as not being able to trigger the f-ing magnetic thing on a deserted road) is that it annoys motorists and simply increases the possibility that this harmless form of transport is actually made illegal under some circumstances.

Its irrelevant to debate whether or not bending the rules under some circumstances is okay, because 99% of the rest of the population don't think so. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not.

You have to think like a discriminated minority. (Although, before anyone has an attack of vicarious political correctness, lets say for the record that I am drawing an analogy, not being literal). As such (and not withstanding that, unlike a car running a red light, the cyclist is doing nothing other than being irritating) the battle to be fought is to be free and safe to use the roads according to the rules of the road. If we were afforded this luxury by traffic, it would be a vast improvement on where we are and where we are going.

Unless we are beyond reproach, we aren't going to have any leverage against the majority of other road users who don't really want us there.

So, if like all of us you do bend the rules under some circumstances, do it discretely, not in front of a line of fuming motorists caught in rush hour traffic.