red lights

ashley7

still to many cyclists going through red lights,come on guys not all of us but its giving us a bad name

Headhuunter

ashley7 wrote:

still to many cyclists going through red lights,come on guys not all of us but its giving us a bad name

There are millions of threads about this on the commuting forum, have a look there...

Berk Bonebonce

Well, if there are poor systems of law enforcement, laws will get broken.

It is high time in the UK that we take some matters of law enforcement away from the police and give it to people who can do a more cost effective job of enforcement. I mean, why on earth do you need a Police Officer on 30 grand to give a ticket for a cyclist (or driver) for jumping a red light? Absolute waste of taxpayers money.

sirmy

I've posed a question about red lights on CTC forum and wonder if anyone here (I can think of one who probably will) comment on this from the 1988 road traffic act - just what does the wording imply?

36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs. E+W+S

(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 M1Road 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.

(my emphasis)

Are cyclists drivers?

Edit 12/1/11 and any thoughts on what the ordinary meaning of driver would be today?

spen666

Highway code is not the law!

sirmy

spen666 wrote:

Highway code is not the law!

But the Highways Act is

spen666

sirmy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Highway code is not the law!

But the Highways Act is

Whoops - the perils of posting when in a rush :oops:

downfader

sirmy wrote:

I've posed a question about red lights on CTC forum and wonder if anyone here (I can think of one who probably will) comment on this from the 1988 road traffic act - just what does the wording imply?

36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs. E+W+S

(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 M1Road 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.

(my emphasis)

Are cyclists drivers?

Edit 12/1/11 and any thoughts on what the ordinary meaning of driver would be today?

I think there is another section of law that covers it, in the same way cycling drunk isnt in the same bit that driving drunk is. :? Could google through OPSI, might take you a while though as I've struggled in the past to find specific info myself.

T-Rekster

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.

simple really we have to and should stop, the key point being driving or propelling a vehicle, my cycle is a vehicle and I propel it forward therefore this section of the highway code specifically applies to me....and any others whom propel their vehicle....

Now if you were to get off and walk your cycle through the red light that could quite possibly be another matter altogether..

Mike Healey

sirmy wrote:

36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs. E+W+S

(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 M1Road 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.

Are cyclists drivers? quote]

Don't you propel your vehicle?

Pross

sirmy wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Highway code is not the law!

But the Highways Act is

But you won't find much about jumping red lights in the Highways Act - try the Road Traffic Act or Road Traffic Regulations Act maybe

Pross

You could add this as well

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/7

It's a pretty good cover-all for RLJ or 'pavement' cycling.[/quote]

captain_tiara

Mmm, by the original poster's logic cars should stop speeding because they give other drivers a bad reputation.

There's a time for getting over the junction & getting out of everyone's way, done calmly & gracefully, upsetting no-one except those determined to be upset. Most accidents happen at junctions. And they're bottlenecks for cars, so generally they're happy if you're not in the way.

Riding to the front of a que of cars & then getting in the way is one of the things that pisses car drivers off.

shouldbeinbed

Captain Tiara wrote:

Mmm, by the original poster's logic cars should stop speeding because they give other drivers a bad reputation.

There's a time for getting over the junction & getting out of everyone's way, done calmly & gracefully, upsetting no-one except those determined to be upset. Most accidents happen at junctions. And they're bottlenecks for cars, so generally they're happy if you're not in the way.

Riding to the front of a que of cars & then getting in the way is one of the things that pisses car drivers off.

Not seeing your point here, they do. Repmobile has a certain pejorative implication regardless of fact, there is a certain connotation to White Van Man, there must be some that don't conform to the stereotype.

you can't pretend that there isn't a generally held negative feeling that all motorists speed just to prop up your argument that RLJing can be ok, and I think by the amount of mentions RLJ gets from the driving lobby, cars are very definitely not happy to see cyclists doing it at junctions however calm and graceful it may be. They just see an ignorant two wheeled prick breaking the law.

on the road

I see just as many motorists go through red lights, I even saw a bus sail through a red light.

spen666

on the road wrote:

I see just as many motorists go through red lights, I even saw a bus sail through a red light.

The fact that others break the law does not act as a defence to us

DF33

In America if your turning right (ie following the curb) on a red light situation you can.

= in UK if you approach a red light and are turning left (following the curb) you could.

Nothing wrong with it. Probably safer because you don't go blindly through a green light but treat it as a T junction so look.

iIlegal here. Because every thing is regulated to the hilt and your not allowed to think for yourself.

On the main road into my city centre when I started driving 20 years ago there were 2 sets of traffic lights on the 4 mile route. 10 years ago there were about 6 to 8. Now there are TWENTY FIVE! You can't get out of 3rd in the car and constantly stop start. Worse when on the bike. Most are totally uneccessary and cause driver fustration.

No wonder red light running is so popular now.

MattC59

Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

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’.

spen666

MattC59 wrote:

Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

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’.

not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

Xommul

Its not a question of law and penalising but a question of people considering others safety and not being selfish and single minded. If people gave a toss about each other then you wouldnt risk others safety by driving/riding through reds, using mobiles whilst driving, illegal u turns etc etc



There are few offences relating to cycling, you can be drunk in charge of a cycle, it only comes with a monetary fine however, and poss a night at the inn.

MattC59

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

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’.

not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

which is why it says OR, not AND

spen666

MattC59 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

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’.

not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

which is why it says OR, not AND

There is no OR if you are a cyclist. There is no option to give penalty points

MattC59

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Tust to add my tupenneth:

Quoting the Highways Code, specifically the section that relates to cyclists:

69
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]

71
You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)]

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’.

not if you commit the offence as a cyclist you can't be given points on your licence

which is why it says OR, not AND

There is no OR if you are a cyclist. There is no option to give penalty points

That's why there's also a comma. The option for a cyclist is to be fined.

spen666

The comma is irrelevant the simple fact is that cyclists cannot be given penalty points for cycling offences.

You can add whatever punctuation you like, it doesn't change the legal position.

Oh and in certain circumstances, a cyclist can be disqualified from driving as well as fined

MattC59

^^ But a cyclist can be fined, as stated.

spen666

MattC59 wrote:

^^ But a cyclist can be fined, as stated.

no ne is disputing that are they?

mouth

A prosecution can be bought about on the basis of the Highway Code though can't it? If for instance you sailed through a red light and collided with a pedestrian causing serious injury or even death (I reckon its possible) then judge and jury would find some way of prosecuting you and making it stick, using the HC.

Headhuunter

I agree with the earlier poster, jumping reds is fine and often safer as far as I'm concerned. The road network including traffic lit junctions, roundabouts etc are laid out with motor traffic in mind and are often highly dangerous for other road users.

I'm not advocating blasting through every red light, knocking peds flying etc, I'm saying that slowing to walking pace, looking both ways (just as you would as a pedestrian) and crossing carefully gets you away from traffic turning, accelerating and otherwise jostling for space at traffic lights and puts you in a safer position. Pedestrians are perfectly capable of crossing a road when the red man is showing, why when on my bike am I suddenly unable to look both ways and see clearly? In many continental European cities in which cycling is more common, cyclists crossing junctions on reds is seen in the same light as peds walking across when the red man is showing - both are accepted.

It's very different in a car as you are effectively sealed off from outside sounds and clear vision is vastly more inhibited than that of peds and cyclists. Motorists need traffic lights.

As far as I'm concerned I will continue to put myself in what I consider to be a safe position on the road, the law if, as they say, often an ass. I don't really care what drivers think, as far as I'm concerned they need to get their own house in order before judging others.

I had a police officer tell me once that if I jumped red lights, he could add points to my driving licence... What utter b0ll0x....

tarquin_foxglove

Headhuunter wrote:

I had a police officer tell me once that if I jumped red lights, he could add points to my driving licence... What utter b0ll0x....

You're correct, you couldn't get say a FPN & 3 penalty points on your driving licence for jumping a red on your bike; but I believe you could lose your driving licence for any offence, including offences committed on a bicycle. (Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.146(1))

But it seems an unlikely punishment, as you could jump a red, knock down a ped, get arrested for Wanton & Furious, go to court and you lose your driving licence. The next day, you're back on your bike jumping reds again.

Headhuunter

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I had a police officer tell me once that if I jumped red lights, he could add points to my driving licence... What utter b0ll0x....

You're correct, you couldn't get say a FPN & 3 penalty points on your driving licence for jumping a red on your bike; but I believe you could lose your driving licence for any offence, including offences committed on a bicycle. (Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.146(1))

But it seems an unlikely punishment, as you could jump a red, knock down a ped, get arrested for Wanton & Furious, go to court and you lose your driving licence. The next day, you're back on your bike jumping reds again.

Exactly, I've got a licence but I haven't driven a car since 1996 and I have never owned a car in my life. Taking my licence would be a minor inconvenience in filling in paperwork to get it back at some point...

Jim Will Fixie It

Headhuunter wrote:

Taking my licence would be a minor inconvenience in filling in paperwork to get it back at some point...

You'd has have to do a bit more than fill out some paperwork. If you lose your licence you have to repass your theory and do an extended practical driving test...

Surely in 99.9% of situations, RLJing should not, under any circumstances, be practiced. However, there are going to be situations that, 0.01% of the time, warrant it - although this would be in extreme circumstances; circumstances that no-one has planned for.

Ultimately, it's against the law for both cars and bikes. Saying that, in Leicester I see more cars jump reds than cyclists!