Cycling: red lights

Rover_Driver

The offfence is the same for cyclists or motorists - failing to comply with a traffic sign and the penalty is the same - £60 FPN or a level 3 fine. The only difference is that a motorist gets points on their licence, a cyclist doesn't.

GolfBravo

Aretnap

Notmyrealname wrote: »

You should have waited because the red light applies to all vehicles. Had a police officer seen you you'd have got a £60FPN and if you had a driving licence, possibly 3 points as well for contravention of a red light.

No points for jumping a red light on a bicycle - that only applies if it's "committed in respect of a motor vehicle". And as it's a non-endorsable offence on a bike the fixed penalty is £30, not £60. Still a theoretical maximum fine of £1000 if taken to court though.

Keith

thelawnet wrote: »

Should I have waited? If so, why?

no, I bet the car drivers who hate cyclists will either speed, park against the rules, show poor consideration for others, have no lane discipline, etc.

If it is safe to cross on foot, it is safe for a cyclist.

in_the_Cotswolds

thelawnet wrote: »

Should I have waited? If so, why?

Of course not!!! You're a cyclist you're above the law. You also don't have to have lights on your bike at night!!

At the top of my road is a set of traffic lights if they are on green as I'm driving up I can drive straight through. I've nearly hit 2 cyclists pedaling through red lights and then I get the look as if it's my fault.

As I say 3rd time lucky however it will probably be my fault for driving through a green light.

Strider590

For as stupid as it feels, stopping for a pointless red light when your cycling, you should still obey the law.

Road_Hog

thelawnet wrote: »

I was riding my bike today, on a three-lane road, congested. I filtered between lanes 1 and 2, and up ahead was a pelican crossing with the traffic light red. I could see pedestrians crossing, so I slowed down, so by the time I reached the light, the road was clear, and I continued past the stop line with the light still red.

A car driver, waiting at the light, expressed his irritation by beeping his horn at me (at least I think he was, I can't be sure; lots of car drivers seemed to be beeping their horns today - it was school run time, and everybody is full of rage).

Should I have waited? If so, why?

Because it's the law and you are a menace to pedestrians and other vehicles.

The sooner they start testing cyclists (proficiency test, which has a mandatory section on obeying traffic laws and courtesy to pedestrians and other roads users, such as not riding several abreast) and making them pay road tax (like they used to do in the Channel Is), plus have insurance for when they scratch parked cars, the better.

So, no going through red lights, no going down one way roads (the wrong way), no cycling on the pavement and generally just not having an attitude problem.

Back in the '70s and '80s, cyclists used to be decent people, then something happened in the '90s and they became nobby lycra clad urban warriors, who felt it was their god given right to cycle into pedestrians on pavements and tell them it was their fault for not jumping out of the way and felt that they didn't have to obey any traffic laws.

mikey72

mechanic wrote: »

Of course not!!! You're a cyclist you're above the law. You also don't have to have lights on your bike at night!!

At the top of my road is a set of traffic lights if they are on green as I'm driving up I can drive straight through. I've nearly hit 2 cyclists pedaling through red lights and then I get the look as if it's my fault.

As I say 3rd time lucky however it will probably be my fault for driving through a green light.

Cyclists without lights, and cyclist who run red lights are collateral damage.
If they have insurance, I'll put in a claim for my stress and trauma if I hit one.

thelawnet

Road_Hog wrote: »

Because it's the law and you are a menace to pedestrians and other vehicles.

The sooner they start testing cyclists (proficiency test, which has a mandatory section on obeying traffic laws and courtesy to pedestrians and other roads users, such as not riding several abreast) and making them pay road tax (like they used to do in the Channel Is), plus have insurance for when they scratch parked cars, the better.

So, no going through red lights, no going down one way roads (the wrong way), no cycling on the pavement and generally just not having an attitude problem.

Back in the '70s and '80s, cyclists used to be decent people, then something happened in the '90s and they became nobby lycra clad urban warriors, who felt it was their god given right to cycle into pedestrians on pavements and tell them it was their fault for not jumping out of the way and felt that they didn't have to obey any traffic laws.

I think you are bit confused, and seem to be conflating every person on a bicycle who ever annoyed you into one amorphous mass.

The lycra types are called 'road cyclists'. They ride expensive bikes made from exotic materials, at higher speeds. This means that they ride on the roads. Some of them go through red lights (which is not legal), and they may ride two or more abreast (which is).

The people you see on pavements are called 'chavs'. They are riding on the pavement because their crappy 'bike-shaped objects' really aren't suitable for the roads.

These are not the same people, any more than the stereotypical BMW driver is the stereotypical OAP driver.

Also there is no 'proficiency test', it is called Bikeability, and it doesn't cover not riding two abreast either....

I don't really see why you think it would stop people running red lights - motorists have to take a test, and you would certainly fail if you went through a red light, and yet I see motorists running red lights every time I go out. For some reason they think it's better to run a light that's recently changed, risking crashing into vehicles heading off from the other directions, rather than simply going through the a red light that's clear.

I don't think this is rational behaviour and I'm not really getting closer to understanding it. I know there are lots of people on here who advocate speeding, and breaking other laws, but while there has yet to be any need found for traffic lights where there are no motor vehicles present, and while it would have been perfectly legal to dismount, push the bike across the stop line, and then continue, I'm apparently a terribly 'lycra lout' for continuing as I did.

Queries

In my case, two years ago - ( I was and am still self-employed (just), on a very low income, even more now., due to the recession) - also I am a qualified motorcyclist (30 years), car driver (20 years+) and a Light Goods Vehicle, driver (even though my LGV is Suzuki Carry, with an engine capacity of 1288cc - a lot smaller (engine wise tham most small cars the road tax is £220 a year ). Anyway this ambulance chaser, 'cyclist', came off a staggered crossroads in front of me (from the pavement onto the road). There was no damage done to him or his 'bike. I got a call two weeks later, that he had a receipt for repairs to the tune of £170. I, of course, said no. Then. I got a letter from - Autonet Insurance - who are lazy -b

---

s.saying that I had to pay them an additonal £180 . There was a delay in Allianz contacting them when the claim was rejected in October 2010. I eventually got my full refund back 6 months later. I am now 49 years old, I have never, ever, had an accident whole life, I have been driving since I was 17 years old. It is about time that cyclists - like car drivers - have to take tests. Last weekend, a cyclist did not even bother looking right and rode in front of me. Luckily, I swerved past him and also, luckily, there was no vehicle on the other side of the road - otherwise, courtesy of the pratt on a push-bike, their would have been a serious accident. It is about time that bicycles had number-plates, are insured and were fined for riding on the pavements. I know there is at least one person been killed by a cyclist