Cycling: red lights

samba

NBLondon wrote: »

Which could be because they were too close to stop safely. Which is a valid defence - though I'd guess plenty of them would have been able to stop safely if they'd tried. This is of course why there's an amber in there...

It's not a valid defence because it is an absolute offence - you either did it or you didn't, no excuses. The amber light gives you plenty of warning to slow down safely.

Obukit

NBLondon wrote: »

Which could be because they were too close to stop safely. Which is a valid defence - though I'd guess plenty of them would have been able to stop safely if they'd tried. This is of course why there's an amber in there...

There is no valid defence for anyone to drive through a red light. The defence only applies to an amber light if you are not able to stop safely in time.

If you aren't able to stop in time for a red you were going too fast in the first place, or have chocolate brakes!

Arg

I don't see what the problem is if a cyclist comes to stop at a pedestrian crossing and sees the way is clear and then slowly cross even if the light is red as there's little difference between that and walking the bike through it which is legal.
There's a big difference between some bad rider weaving all over the place and nearly running over pedestrians than my first scenario.

custardy

Arg wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is if a cyclist comes to stop at a pedestrian crossing and sees the way is clear and then slowly cross even if the light is red as there's little difference between that and walking the bike through it which is legal.
There's a big difference between some bad rider weaving all over the place and nearly running over pedestrians than my first scenario.

must admit,its a funny one
I stop at reds,except one on my morning commute
it won't change for a bike,only cars
I have reported it,so far no change. (mind its 0330,so theres nobody around at all)
the other day I saw a woman go through lights on a busy junction at the prestrian phase.
she had a kid on the back of the bike.
So is it better she gets ahead of the traffic(its a bad pinch point with cars and terrible road surface) or not?

thelawnet

NBLondon wrote: »

Which could be because they were too close to stop safely. Which is a valid defence - though I'd guess plenty of them would have been able to stop safely if they'd tried. This is of course why there's an amber in there...

Whereas you in your opening post clearly admit that the light had been red for some time and you chose not to stop in time but to ignore it because you couldn't see anyone in the path.

The fact that drivers are sometimes a***holes doesn't give you a moral right to be one too.

Look, I break a law or laws when I drive, sometimes, and likewise when I cycle. I try not to be an 'a***hole', however.

Just because 95% of people are motorists and only a small minority of them are cyclists, doesn't give them the moral high groud to say
'It's ok for us motorists to break the rules regarding giving way, overtaking, speeding, red lights, etc., but God forbid that any cyclist break any rules, why they are just a bunch of lycra louts, look here I am waiting patientily at the light (engine idling and belching out fumes), and that damn cyclist has just gone straight through. It's so unfair, this car costs me £3,000 per month to RUN, I pay all this bloody tax, and someone on a PUSHBIKE costing £300 to BUY has just breezed past me'

I won't accept any lectures about being law abiding from motorists who ignore laws they don't like, but then say 'because we studiously follow this particular law, you should too'.

Otherwise I could claim I was entitled to drive down an apparently empty pavement at night with no lights - just because some cyclists regularly do this and get away with it:D

I don't claim that I am entitled to go through an empty pelican crossing on red, any more than I claim that I am entitled to drive 80mph on the motorway. But I still do both things.

I don't think there's really any doubt as to which behaviour is more antisocial/dangerous - higher speeds are statistically more dangerous, yet entirely socially acceptable. Apparently the proposed 80mph motorway limit will result in an extra 25 deaths per annum. That's just from that one measure, oh well, nobody cares.

Road deaths as a consequence of motor vehicle usage are seen almost as an Act of God, something we cannot prevent or control, and somehow certain motorists, in an act of breathtaking chuzpah, try to paint bicycles as the menace to society. :rotfl:

johnnyreggae

As long as urban cyclists behave as lawless fascists they will not earn any respect and hence no sympathy

It does not matter how much they refuse to take the blame for any of their actions or try to shift any debate onto nasty pedestrians motorists etc or play the victim

This is an argument that will last indefinitely - it stretches from jumped red lights to locked bikes sprawled across pavements : put your own house in order first

custardy

johnnyreggae wrote: »

As long as urban cyclists behave as lawless fascists they will not earn any respect and hence no sympathy

It does not matter how much they refuse to take the blame for any of their actions or try to shift any debate onto nasty pedestrians motorists etc or play the victim

This is an argument that will last indefinitely - it stretches from jumped red lights to locked bikes sprawled across pavements : put your own house in order first

so will you stop drink/drug driving
speeding
parking illegally
stopping in the ASZ zones
killing pedestrians
killing cyclists
etc etc

thelawnet

custardy wrote: »

must admit,its a funny one
I stop at reds,except one on my morning commute
it won't change for a bike,only cars
I have reported it,so far no change. (mind its 0330,so theres nobody around at all)

Apparently the sensor in these things is at the back of the plate, so you need to be there, rather than at the front., otherwise it won't change.

custardy

thelawnet wrote: »

Apparently the sensor in these things is at the back of the plate, so you need to be there, rather than at the front., otherwise it won't change.

tried every variant,trackstand etc
Its just one set that wont play ball
I usually stop and wait for a bit(as its a big junction) to see if anything comes

thelawnet

johnnyreggae wrote: »

This is an argument that will last indefinitely - it stretches from jumped red lights to locked bikes sprawled across pavements : put your own house in order first

It's quite a simple matter to provide cycle parking, and very easy to satiate demand, unlike, say, parking for 4x4s immediately outside schools at 3pm. So yes I agree that the government should ensure that there is adequate provision of cycle stands nationally.