Road Law

fnegroni

IMHO, an experienced and careful cyclist knows that although the law says something, and the roads are supposed to be designed in a certain way, reality is sometimes in disagreement, and it is best to do what is felt to be safest.

I generally stop at red lights, and I would not recommend or advocate jumping lights.
But I have been and will continue jumping some lights where I deem that to be safer than the alternatives.

I actually am more weary of cyclists which only ever see one way or the other: they either follow the law to the letter, and get killed by those who don't.
And those that believe the law never applies to them, and get killed or worse kill others.

Being on a bike and being sensible allows a degree of freedom which inexperienced cyclists, IMHO, do not grasp.

I always feel safer on a bike. And I make damn sure I do.

All IMHO.

tomb353

I find myself jumping far more lights when driving my car than i do riding a bike. If you sit at any junction you will normally see at least one car or bus go through on yellow or red as the lights change against them, if not several. Watching a cyclist run a red mid way through its cycle (been red for a while, will stay red for a while) seems more "wrong" to the observer as it is such a blatent contravention of the rule, however given size / weight / speed the motor vehicles jumping on yellow are counterintuitively a much bigger problem. RJLJ, perhaps you would be better off asking questions on a motorist's forum?

I last ran several red lights while cycling through Sunderland City Centre as part of a group of men in lycra at 3:15am. To have stopped would have invited a lynching by the drunken mob; the police seemed otherwise engaged at the time

neiltb

good to see that yellow means speed up and the first 2 sec of red are no mans land in th UK now too. We have had the same prob here in Canada for a while.

Have often wondered if it might be better to save the dough and just remove all the road markings and turn off the lights. The idiots that got their liscence on the back of a corn flake packet don't pay any attention to the principles anyway.

fnegroni

neiltb wrote:

good to see that yellow means speed up and the first 2 sec of red are no mans land in th UK now too. We have had the same prob here in Canada for a while.

Have often wondered if it might be better to save the dough and just remove all the road markings and turn off the lights. The idiots that got their liscence on the back of a corn flake packet don't pay any attention to the principles anyway.

You do realise that has been tried and tested in a few places (including UK) and was found to work quite well in some areas? Exactly the same areas a cyclist with some common sense would benefit from jumping lights.
Incidentally, in Italy traffic lights start blinking yellow from 10pm till 6am (roughly) exactly for that reason.

asquithea

tomb353 wrote:

I find myself jumping far more lights when driving my car than i do riding a bike. If you sit at any junction you will normally see at least one car or bus go through on yellow or red as the lights change against them, if not several.

HIGHLY dangerous, in my opinion (as both driver and cyclist). Nipping through on an early yellow to avoid heavy braking is one thing, but accelerating late through the lights could take a cyclist or pedestrian out at speed -- these users will often anticipate a change and start moving as soon as the lights are in their favour.

I hope you're exaggerating about doing this yourself -- otherwise you deserve to get the book thrown at you IMHO.

(FWIW, I don't RLJ on a bike, either.)

asprilla

I've never known a situation where stopping at the lights is more dangerous (treating 'amber gambling' with a truck behind you as different to RLJing).

I have, however, scared the living shite out of an RLJer when I nearly cleaned him up at 40mph. He was so scared that he forgot all about his brakes and decided rubbing his face on the tarmac was a much better way to stop.

rjsterry

I do recall causing a (presumably non-attentive) bus driver to almost send his passengers through the windscreen when I pulled up moderately sharply at a set of lights (although bearing in mind this was on 23Cs with rim brakes, it can't have been that sharply). A passing pedestrian, who saw it (I was looking where I was going unlike the bus driver) felt moved to comment on it to me.

Headhuunter

MatHammond wrote:

RJLJ wrote:

Some interesting responses. Interesting to note that none of the people who should know better, but still go through red lights have commented!

A question to the people who know better, but still go through red lights. When driving your car, do you do the same? If not, then why do you do it on a bike?

Because I can. If I was in a car I'd be worried about getting my plate taken by a camera. The sanctions are a lot worse (bigger fine, possible points on licence). Also, its generally more dangerous to jump a red light in a car. I still find myself wishing I could though, usually on routes that I cycle on where I know I'm being held up for no good reason. Red lights are a PITA, if I can safely cycle through one then generally I will do. Causes no harm to anybody else. Some of the comments on this thread (laying your bike on the floor at a junction to get a sensor to work - WTF?!) are just ridiculous. If the road system is that poorly set up for cyclists, doesn't that suggest that maybe you need to take a more common sense approach? BTW, that doesn't mean that I endorse pavement riding, weaving through pedestrians at crossings, blasting through crossroads against the lights. I just think that as intelligent beings we should be capable of forming views on what is right and wrong without having things dictated to us (I sometimes stop to let pedestrians cross even when its my right of way :shock: ). Hell, its a bit like religion isn't it - red lights are the new god?

Absolutely agree. I definitely find it safer to RLJ in some circumstances. Get off, walk across and get back on? Lie your bike on the road til the lights change? Jeeez, get over yourselves and just RLJ.

As long as no peds are crossing, no cars are travelling across in the other direction and absolutely no one is going anywhere, what's the harm? Use your inbuilt common sense and intelligence. If pedestrians can logically decide for themselves when to cross when the red man is showing then I'm damn sure I can do the same on my bike!

posh_pedaller

spen666 wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

I don't think it's legal for an emergency vehicle to go through a red light - however, they do with caution.

wrong, it is perfectly legal for them to go through red lightwhen answering emergency

Wrong, it is illegal but the CPS don't prosecute (last girlfriend was a law student).

Porgy

Asprilla wrote:

I've never known a situation where stopping at the lights is more dangerous (treating 'amber gambling' with a truck behind you as different to RLJing)..

I stopped at a red light in Leyton a few years ago and the car behind me clearly wasn;t going to and I nearly got rammed from behind by him, but then the car behind him wasn;t going to stop either and rammed him, and then he rather gently rammed me. I considerd myself lucky that the wheel only had a gentle buckle and I was unhurt.

After that I never stopped at that particular junction as cars coming off the M11 never seemed to want to stop at those lights - and the way they cut the corner just before the lights - and at high speed sometimes meant that there was no way i was going to stop if there was something coming up behind me.

It's the only placeI can think of though - junction doesn;t exist anymore since Olympic village started being beuilt.

bigmat

posh_pedaller wrote:

spen666 wrote:

marcusjb wrote:

I don't think it's legal for an emergency vehicle to go through a red light - however, they do with caution.

wrong, it is perfectly legal for them to go through red lightwhen answering emergency

Wrong, it is illegal but the CPS don't prosecute (last girlfriend was a law student).

Do they study that at law school now then?!

snailracer

neiltb wrote:

...
Have often wondered if it might be better to save the dough and just remove all the road markings and turn off the lights....

Roundabouts are pretty much what you are describing. No stopping unless you actually have to and clear allocation of fault if there is an accident (even if you are too dead to give your version of events).

plowmar

Re posh-pedaller's comment.

RLJ by emergency vehicles is allowed under the assumption that due care is taken - usually two tones and lights. If they had an accident and failed to do so and failed to take care they can and have been prosecuted for careless / dangerous driving.

schweiz

From the Highway Code.

Junctions controlled by traffic lights

175. You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of
the road unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may
go on only if you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it
that to stop might cause a collision.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36

176. You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red
light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if
there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up
a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the
situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great
care.

Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36

I can't find any reference to specific rules and/or laws relating to emergency vehicles and red lights but always held the same belief as Plowmar. I seem to remember a case a few years back about an National Blood Service car that was transporting organs for transplant. They have blue lights (and maybe sirens) but they triggered a speed camera/traffic light camera. The CPS were successful with the prosecution of the driver. I also believe that if a emergency vehicle gets a speeding/red light ticket they have to prove they were responding to an emergency before the ticket is cancelled.

rolf_f

Worth bearing in mind that if you are waiting at a red light, and an ambulance or fire engine approaches from behind, that you should definitely not move across the white line to make way for them. People have, apparently, been done for this.

prj45

schweiz wrote:

From the Highway Code.

The highway code's not the law, this is:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36

(a) subject to sub-paragraph (b) and, where the red signal is shown at the same time as the green arrow signal, to sub-paragraphs (f) and (g), the red signal shall convey the prohibition that vehicular traffic shall not proceed beyond the stop line;

(b) when a vehicle is being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes and the observance of the prohibition conveyed by the red signal in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) would be likely to hinder the use of that vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used, then sub-paragraph (a) shall not apply to the vehicle, and the red signal shall convey the prohibition that that vehicle shall not proceed beyond the stop line in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of any vehicle proceeding in accordance with the indications of light signals operating in association with the signals displaying the red signal to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident;

prj45

Rolf F wrote:

Worth bearing in mind that if you are waiting at a red light, and an ambulance or fire engine approaches from behind, that you should definitely not move across the white line to make way for them. People have, apparently, been done for this.

They have, but only people that clearly took advantage of the situation and carried on across the junction.

I always move out of the way, carefully, even if it involves crossing the line.

schweiz

prj45 wrote:

schweiz wrote:

From the Highway Code.

The highway code's not the law, this is:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36

Agreed the Highway Code is not the law, but it does make reference use to the law with the use of MUST and MUST NOT

Highway Code wrote:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may
be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from
driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules
are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition,
the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which
creates the offence.

Both of the sections of the Highway code that I originally quoted contain MUST or MUST NOT and therefore are legal requirements.

snailracer

schweiz wrote:

prj45 wrote:

schweiz wrote:

From the Highway Code.

The highway code's not the law, this is:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#36

Agreed the Highway Code is not the law, but it does make reference use to the law with the use of MUST and MUST NOT

Highway Code wrote:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you
disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may
be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from
driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules
are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition,
the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which
creates the offence.

Both of the sections of the Highway code that I originally quoted contain MUST or MUST NOT and therefore are legal requirements.

The actual law specifically says that certain vehicles are exempt when on certain business. So the HC is misleading, oversimplified, etc. and does not even refer correctly to the law. Which is understandable, as it is meant to be used merely as a guide.