"Running" a Toucan crossing

unclejimbo1983

I was wondering if any legal bods on here could set me straight on something - Is it an offence to cross a Toucan when the red man is showing (i.e the green man/bike is not on)?

The reason I ask is that I got a ticket this morning for doing just that at the toucan where the Queen Street shared use path intersects Cannon Street in central London.

My route to work takes me up to this Toucan where I cross the street and merge right into the road. Normally I position myself as far right as I can (so I don't cut up any peds on the crossing) and wait for the lights to turn green (for peds and bikes) then cross and join the road. Basically a standard right turn manoeuvre but from a shared use path into a road. Recently half the road has been fenced off for roadworks and the road is one way, but my route is with the flow of traffic.

This morning when I got to the lights the road was clear (due to the roadworks discouraging drivers) and there were no peds nearby so I just slowed down and turned right into the road. I didn't even check the lights as I was unaware that it was even technically possible to run them! Obviously, I checked for other road users.

50 metres down the road I got pulled over by a motorcycle cop who explained to me that I had run the Toucan. I asked if he meant I had run the traffic lights (as I didn't know whether they were red or green when I crossed) and he said no, it was the Toucan that I had run, as he could see the traffic lights themselves were green when I crossed.

I didn't argue with him on the spot, and just took my £30 ticket, but did a bit of Googling when I got to work and I can't find anything in the Highway code that says Toucans can't be crossed on red. I had always thought that they were advisory, just like a Pelican crossing is for peds, but I may be wrong.

Can anyone enlighten me on this?

P.s. Apologies for the lengthy first post. I'm a long time lurker on BR, so it's about time I got more involved.

bails87

So the red man/bike was showing when you crossed the road?

And he gave you a ticket for it?! :shock:

(I am not a lawyer, but...) That's not right.

TommyEss

My gut says that's not right - it's tantamount to jay-walking in a country where that's not illegal. I thought they were supposed to be able to tell you what law you had contravened, not just "you didn't cross with the green man". What does the ticket say?

Sounds like you may well be able to appeal on the grounds of "charged with a fictitious offence"!

trooperk

Not looking good for you if the light were red,google "The Highway Code, Rule 81"

TommyEss

Rule 81 applies to "Cycle Only" crossings - he was at a Toucan, so Rule 80. No comments on "running a red" on a toucan.

nameinuse

As I understand it the thing that's significant to all light-controlled crossings is the Big White Line (BWL). It's an offence for any vehicle (bikes, cars, even horses) to cross the BWL when the light is red, or to move over it if they're already on it when the light changes. The only exception to this is pedestrians, who can walk where they like at any time (and also have priority once they've started to cross *even if they cross against their light*).

If you've gone across a toucan crossing from the footpath (which doesn't have a BWL on the pavement), then your ticket could well be bogus as you've not crossed a controlled line. However, there are a small number of cycle-only light-controlled crossings, which have their own white lines, and crossing those on red would be an offence. These aren't shared with ped crossings, they're just small traffic lights.

It would also be an offence to cross the BWL of a toucan crossing in the direction of the road if the lights were against you, but that doesn't sound like what's happened here.

jejv

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002 ... on/49/made

See (4)

Seems like the red light is advisory.

keyser__soze

http://ukcyclerules.com/2010/12/07/cycle-lane-lights/ suggests it's advisory too

In fact, the site has a post about challenging FPNs, and gives one issued for running a toucan as an example, surely worth a read?

http://ukcyclerules.com/2012/01/04/chal ... ty-notice/

The Rookie

nameinuse wrote:

As I understand it the thing that's significant to all light-controlled crossings is the Big White Line (BWL). It's an offence for any vehicle (bikes, cars, even horses) to cross the BWL when the light is red, or to move over it if they're already on it when the light changes. The only exception to this is pedestrians, who can walk where they like at any time (and also have priority once they've started to cross *even if they cross against their light*).

If you've gone across a toucan crossing from the footpath (which doesn't have a BWL on the pavement), then your ticket could well be bogus as you've not crossed a controlled line. However, there are a small number of cycle-only light-controlled crossings, which have their own white lines, and crossing those on red would be an offence. These aren't shared with ped crossings, they're just small traffic lights.

It would also be an offence to cross the BWL of a toucan crossing in the direction of the road if the lights were against you, but that doesn't sound like what's happened here.

Sorry load of baloney, no white line is required anywhere for starters, it may be what you understand, but that is not reflected by TSRGD or case law on the matter.

Simon

nameinuse

For "Big White Line" read "Stop Line" in Section 36 of the TSRGD, no?

unclejimbo1983

Thanks everybody for your help.

Keyser Soze - Your link made very interesting reading. On the one hand it does seem possible to challenge these things, but on the other I was a bit scared by the comments of "Steph" under the article, who challenged a FPN in court. Basically it seems the PCSO in her case was willing to lie to cover their back and she only won the case after producing photo evidence that the road/lane layout was not as described by the prosecution. If they hadn't made that error I'm doubtful she would have won TBH.

I'm also mindful that there seems to be form in the courts for prosecuting you for another offence that arises during proceedings. So, for example I might prove that crossing the Toucan on red wasn't illegal, but then it might turn out that my turning right move crossed some kind of give way line and was technically illegal and I'll just get done for that instead. Also, my FPN just says "Fail to comply red ATS" so if the copper got cornered he could just lie and say I ran the traffic lights and that's what he meant all along. I've got no evidence to contradict him. It's just my word against his.

What I didn't mention in my original post is that City Police operate a cycle safety option, whereby you go to a free class and get patronised for an hour and they downgrade your ticket to a caution. Given that my only other options are to pay up or go through the stress of a court date, I think I'll probably take the easy option, even though it means using up some precious holiday allowance at work.

Altogether the whole thing is incredibly frustrating. I’m left still completely unsure whether my daily cycle route is in fact illegal. I could be stopped tomorrow for the same thing and end up in court, completely unable to defend myself.

The technicalities of it are galling too. After all, if I got off my bike I’d be a pedestrian and could merrily wander around in the road to my heart’s content. In fact I assume I could walk to the opposite kerb and re-mount my bike and there would be no offence, as there is no law saying you can’t pull away from the side of the road (unless this is actually illegal too)!

Anyway, I’m going to blow off some steam by riding home – within the law of course!

Thanks again to you all for your help. I look forward to posting an anti-rant as soon as possible!

Rankles

From what I can tell from your experience a red light is a red light regardless and doing the equivalent in a car would be illegal.

However since when can you get ticketed for it in a bike?

I don't believe in ticketing for something where you don't need a license to ride it.

nwallace

Jay-Walking isn't illegal, but you were operating a vehicle rather than walking.
All depends on how the rules relating to a Toucan Crossing are defined in the various acts relating to roads.
Which includes the various Roads acts and TSRGD.

If a traffic feature is set up in contradiction to TSRGD then it's not enforceable, however there are other things you can be done for. Passing a red light on a toucan crossing could be demed to meet the requirements of inconsiderate, careless or dangerous cycling (as defined in the Roads Acts) for example.

There are various road features in TSRGD that carry offences that can take place on foot:



No pedestrians, traffic offence for walking past it.

unclejimbo1983

Rankles wrote:

From what I can tell from your experience a red light is a red light regardless and doing the equivalent in a car would be illegal.

However since when can you get ticketed for it in a bike?

I don't believe in ticketing for something where you don't need a license to ride it.

Just to be clear - I wasn't running the traffic lights, i.e. the ones facing the road that cars, motorbikes and, yes, cyclists are obliged to obey. I don't think there is any ambiguity that jumping a red light is illegal and if you get caught doing it then a fine is mot unreasonable IMHO.

I was using the Toucan itself, which I thought obliged me to act similarly to pedestrians - i.e. Use the lights as an indication of safety, but proceed with caution if safe to do so.

unclejimbo1983

nwallace wrote:

Jay-Walking isn't illegal, but you were operating a vehicle rather than walking.
All depends on how the rules relating to a Toucan Crossing are defined in the various acts relating to roads.
Which includes the various Roads acts and TSRGD.

If a traffic feature is set up in contradiction to TSRGD then it's not enforceable, however there are other things you can be done for. Passing a red light on a toucan crossing could be demed to meet the requirements of inconsiderate, careless or dangerous cycling (as defined in the Roads Acts) for example.

There are various road features in TSRGD that carry offences that can take place on foot:



No pedestrians, traffic offence for walking past it.

This is what's so frustrating about the whole thing though - There's nothing (that I can find) in the Highway code explicitly forbidding what I did. There may well be some law or combination of laws buried in statute or case law somewhere that deemed my actions to be unlawful, but I have no realistic means of finding these. This makes defending myself next to impossible, and even more annoyingly, suggests that every cyclist in the country has to read every page of traffic law ever written to be sure that they are not inadvertently breaking it. ASLs are another classic example of this - technically most of the ones on my route are illegal to enter. If I avoided every action of legal abiguity I'd end up walking to work!

jejv

unclejimbo1983 wrote:

but on the other I was a bit scared by the comments of "Steph" under the article, who challenged a FPN in court. Basically it seems the PCSO in her case was willing to lie to cover their back and she only won the case after producing photo evidence that the road/lane layout was not as described by the prosecution. If they hadn't made that error I'm doubtful she would have won TBH.
[...]
Also, my FPN just says "Fail to comply red ATS" so if the copper got cornered he could just lie and say I ran the traffic lights and that's what he meant all along. I've got no evidence to contradict him. It's just my word against his.

I did wonder what was written on your ticket.
The PCSO has written a standard form of words - which according to your version - has no relation to reality.
I can well believe you.
This - IME - is normal. When I've given witness statements to the Police, what they write down isn't what I've said, it seems to be a version of what I've said that makes sense in a Policeperson's world view. If I'm the complainant, do I say "Err no. I really didn't say that to you, and the words you've put in my mouth in the reported speech are words I would never use."

There are Police folk on this forum. Anyone about ?

unclejimbo1983 wrote:

What I didn't mention in my original post is that City Police operate a cycle safety option, whereby you go to a free class and get patronised for an hour and they downgrade your ticket to a caution. Given that my only other options are to pay up or go through the stress of a court date, I think I'll probably take the easy option, even though it means using up some precious holiday allowance at work.

Altogether the whole thing is incredibly frustrating. I’m left still completely unsure whether my daily cycle route is in fact illegal. I could be stopped tomorrow for the same thing and end up in court, completely unable to defend myself.

The technicalities of it are galling too. After all, if I got off my bike I’d be a pedestrian and could merrily wander around in the road to my heart’s content. In fact I assume I could walk to the opposite kerb and re-mount my bike and there would be no offence, as there is no law saying you can’t pull away from the side of the road (unless this is actually illegal too)!

Anyway, I’m going to blow off some steam by riding home – within the law of course!

I look forward to posting an anti-rant as soon as possible!

Probably best to pay up and move on, as you say.

PCSO you say. If you just ignore them, and cycle off, I'm not sure there's much they could do about it. I think they'd have to call the proper Police - who have better things to do than help PCSOs arrest cyclists for made up offences.
Were you also wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area ?

t4tomo

Were you also wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area ?

+1 He wasn't called PCSO Savage was he?

nameinuse

I think it's the right thing to do to accept that the ticket is wrong but that challenging it is more hassle than just paying it, frustrating though that may be. However, I'd be very tempted to do the safety course and ask the instructor about the specific situation and see what they say. It's perfectly reasonable to ask someone in that position for clarity if you don't understand it...

All of the laws around traffic lights relate to crossing the stop line (section 36 of the TSRGD), so if you've not crossed that line then I don't see that you can have committed an offence .

Origamist

Ped/cycle lights at a Toucan Crossing are advisory. However, if you want to challenge the FPN you'll have to go to a Magistrates' Court and fight your corner (could be time consuming and potentially costly).

My advice (if you're a member) would be to contact the LCC/CTC and ask for advice as they recently rescinded a host of FPNs that were erroneously dished out for "cycling on the pavement" when it was not appropropriate. This might be a better alternative than going to court.

Perosnally, I'd fight it in the Magistrates' Court- but I'm a stubborn ass and I have friends who are barristers...

beverick

It is not per se, an offence to enter the crossing area with the lights facing the footway (ie red man/cycle/horse symbol on red. However, the police officer may have interpreted you to have committed a different moving traffic offence.

Your FPN will show the code or category against which the offence was committed which you should be able to cross reference to the instrument against which the fine has been levied (either the specific law or a list of offences catalogued by the relevant local authority).

My suggestion is that, in your case, it will have been issueed for something along the lines of 'Failing to give precedence (or) give way to pedestrians (or) other vehicles' (nb as with the laws of obstructing the highway, there doesn't have had to have been other pedestrians vehicles present for the offence to have been committed) or, more likley, 'careless' or 'dangerous cycling'. nb, both above offences only require the officers judgement for a conviction.

There are two types of FPN, those issued in line with primary legislation (Road Traffic Act, appropriate traffic signs regulations etc), and generally issued by the police, and those enforeced 'by order' issued by the local authority.
These can be issued by a designated official such as a warden or PCSO. The fact that this notice was issued by a police officer suggests that it was almost certainly issued in line with the former category. Either category may be 'endorsable' (ie attract penalty points).

So, by reference to a locally defined (traffic) order it is possible (albeit unlikley as the ticket was issued by the police) that there is a specific traffic order in place covering whatever you did at the point you did it!

Depending on what the ticket was issued for you may choose to appeal. Details of how to go about this will be on the ticket.

BTW, you say that as a pedestrian you could "could merrily wander around in the road to my heart’s content". This is untrue. You may be guilty of obstruction or, more likley on a pedestrian crossing, misuse of said pedestrian crossing.

Bob

The Rookie

nameinuse wrote:

For "Big White Line" read "Stop Line" in Section 36 of the TSRGD, no?

Yes but no stop line is required either, if no line exists then it's deemed to be an imaginery line across the road at 90 degrees in line with the first ATS (Red light), so still baloney!

On topic, I can find nothing that suggests the red light on a Toucan (for people crossing, not those on the carriageway obviously) is anything but advisory.

Simon

graeme_s-2

On my old commute I used to use a Toucan crossing to make a right turn and rejoin the road as described here. I often wondered if doing so when the light was red for traffic and green for pedestrians/cyclists was technically running the red light, but would never have considered that doing so without the aid of the crossing lights if it was clear could be problematic.

Interestingly in many years of doing this I never once got any abuse from a driver which left me believing that they clearly considered it to be fair game even if it was technically illegal.

Origamist

beverick wrote:

My suggestion is that, in your case, it will have been issueed for something along the lines of 'Failing to give precedence (or) give way to pedestrians (or) other vehicles' (nb as with the laws of obstructing the highway, there doesn't have had to have been other pedestrians vehicles present for the offence to have been committed) or, more likley, 'careless' or 'dangerous cycling'. nb, both above offences only require the officers judgement for a conviction.There are two types of FPN, those issued in line with primary legislation (Road Traffic Act, appropriate traffic signs regulations etc), and generally issued by the police, and those enforeced 'by order' issued by the local authority.
These can be issued by a designated official such as a warden or PCSO. The fact that this notice was issued by a police officer suggests that it was almost certainly issued in line with the former category. Either category may be 'endorsable' (ie attract penalty points).

So, by reference to a locally defined (traffic) order it is possible (albeit unlikley as the ticket was issued by the police) that there is a specific traffic order in place covering whatever you did at the point you did it!

Depending on what the ticket was issued for you may choose to appeal. Details of how to go about this will be on the ticket.
Bob

The OP mentions the FPN stated: "Fail to comply red ATS" - this just seems that the police officer was wrong in this case if we go with the wording issued. It would be good to see a scan of the ticket to see what boxes were ticked.

However, it does give the police officer the opportunity to change his version of events i.e. the cyclist did not go against a red bike signal on a Toucan, but went through a red traffic signal, if the case went to appeal in the Magistrates' Court. On reflection, and for that reason, I'd probably end up sucking it up if I did not have camera evidence.

What do you think Bob?

Origamist

OP - did you get the officer's details?

unclejimbo1983

I do have the officer's lapel number and surname, although I won't be posting them on here, as that could probably be construed as some sort of harassment and I can't be doing with the hassle.

I've decided that I'll be taking the safety course as it is the easiest option TBH. You never know, I might learn something useful anyway. I'm going to satisfy my raging spleen by complaining to City Police (not as an appeal to overturn the FPN but regarding the apparent unfairness of the action). My hope is to get some sort of explanation of what law I broke, how I can avoid breaking it in the future and why they feel enforcing that law is such a pressing issue, given that the officer was camped out specifically to enforce it. If it turns out I'm right and the PC gets a bit of re-education, then all the better. If they decide to overturn the FPN I'll dance a little jig!

I'm now seriously considering buying a helmet cam, so I do at least have physical evidence if this sort of thing happens again. The sad thing is that I'd previously considered helmet cam users to be a bit on the pessimistic side, given that they expected to be getting loads of footage of bad drivers. Now I'm looking at one to protect me from the Police, which is about ten times more paranoid!