Motorists - What annoys you most about cyclists

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

I'm guessing that more cyclists are ticketed for red light offences than motorists, but that's probably because many more actually do it.

On my observations, certainly many more do it but I've never seen anyone ticketed for it. I have seen traffic police more than once waiting at a key spot and ticketing a series of motor vehicles who were turning left on a straight-on filter to bypass a queue. Not to mention the fact that a motor vehicle with a number plate can be caught on camera and sent a ticket in the post but a cyclist can't be so easily identified.

You probably know better than me but the offence doesn't distinguish when the line was crossed, does it? I think there's a difference between "jumping" lights - starting off a few seconds before the green to get up to speed and "running" lights - heading through an already red light at cruising speed. The former is understandable in many cases and usually doesn't cause any problems. I say usually becuase there is a) the danger of an amber gambler coming across the other way and b) some crossings have an all-red phase with pedestrian crossings. In a) the alert cyclist will be double-checking for those; In b) I hope the alert cyclist will also be checking - but there's one very near me and I frequently see cyclists who both "jump" or "run" the red light and then dodge between pedestrians. As said above - I consider that careless cycling. If a pedestrian is actually hit - maybe it goes up to dangerous cycling.

derrick

brat wrote: »

I have to describe it the way it is, I'm afraid. One of the hats I wear is a forensic collision investigator, and if asked the question in court about jumping a red light, I would say, yes it's an offence, and additionally, if done so without due care, it could be careless, perhaps even dangerous.
If I said that going through red lights was careless without giving any consideration to the thought processes of the cyclist and the actual scenario, then a barrister from either side could simply be able to say, "where was the carelessness" or "so are you saying that every time you drive through a red light it's careless?"

And just to clarify for the nth time, I'm not condoning red light jumping - because it's illegal.

If however there was a move to allow cyclists to use stop lines at certain red lights as a give way, I'd probably be in favour of that, because it's been seen to work in the continent, and it could offer cycllsts an opportunity to escape from the inherent risks of moving off from such junctions with motorists.

Re the first 3 highlights from above, I would like to impart part of a conversation I had with a traffic constable a few weeks ago when I reported 2 motorists going through red lights well after they had gone red,.
When debating where the amber had come on I said,"amber means stop", his retort to this was, (and I quote word for word), "amber means slow down and be prepared to stop, red means stop if it is safe to do so".

Well as going through a red light is an offence, it is no wonder when we have that sort of constable on traffic duty and your self, that people do it

Re the last highlight, if you think it so marvelous, emigrate, this is not the continent.

.

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

On my observations, certainly many more do it but I've never seen anyone ticketed for it. I have seen traffic police more than once waiting at a key spot and ticketing a series of motor vehicles who were turning left on a straight-on filter to bypass a queue. Not to mention the fact that a motor vehicle with a number plate can be caught on camera and sent a ticket in the post but a cyclist can't be so easily identified.

Police take targeted action against red light jumping cyclists in many cities and large towns. This is usually as a consequence of actual or perceived heightened risk, or complaints from the public. I'm pretty sure that these targeted actions would mean that cyclists are more likely to get an 'actively enforced' ticket. As you say motorists can be targeted using red light cameras, so that may redress the balance.

You probably know better than me but the offence doesn't distinguish when the line was crossed, does it? I think there's a difference between "jumping" lights - starting off a few seconds before the green to get up to speed and "running" lights - heading through an already red light at cruising speed. The former is understandable in many cases and usually doesn't cause any problems. I say usually becuase there is a) the danger of an amber gambler coming across the other way and b) some crossings have an all-red phase with pedestrian crossings.

Traffic light legislation is very precise in terms of what you should and shouldn't do. You mustn't 'proceed beyond the stop line' when a red or amber light is showing unless you have got so close to the stop line that you cannot stop safely on amber. The traffic light offence is committed irrespective of degrees of carelessness or dangerousness.
The amber gambler flying through on amber/red would most likely a be considered to be careless, although cps would just run with the red light offence unless something more serious happened. I'd argue that this was a careless manoeuvre and should be prosecuted along with the red light offence. A person carefully picking his way through on a bike would probably not be deemed to be careless.
Someone 'blindly' sailing through when the lights are in the middle of the red phase is cycling or driving dangerously - no question. But if cyclists were to do that as often as is suggested, they would be dying like lemmings. The answer to this paradox is that they look like they are blindly cycling through, but they will be watching around them. they will probably be very aware of the traffic light cycle and the particular phase they are going through on. I see cyclists pass me in town at red lights while I'm waiting, I and they know that they will be safe because of the phase the lights are on.

Again, please don't read this as condoning the offence; I'm trying to provide an understanding as to why red light jumping mostly happens with no crashes or dramas.

In a) the alert cyclist will be double-checking for those; In b) I hope the alert cyclist will also be checking - but there's one very near me and I frequently see cyclists who both "jump" or "run" the red light and then dodge between pedestrians. As said above - I consider that careless cycling. If a pedestrian is actually hit - maybe it goes up to dangerous cycling.

I agree that 'dodging' between pedestrians is careless cycling, particularly if the manoeuvre is not one that a pedestrian should expect. The difference between careless and dangerous (in a theoretical capacity) is not whether injury is sustained or person hit, it is a standard of driving or riding which, in the case of careless, falls below that of a careful and competent driver. In the case of dangerous driving the standard has to fall far below that of a careful and competent driver. Additionally for dangerous, it would have to be obvious to that C&C driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

brat

derrick wrote: »

Re the last highlight, if you think it so marvelous, emigrate, this is not the continent.

.

Hi Derrick, thanks for showing an interest, and the thoughtful suggestion. :beer:

I'm considering a move to the continent when I retire. I fancy Bavaria or Baden Wurttemberg, for 5 to 10 years but it's expensive and difficult to buy in the places I would like to live. A lowly police officer's pension is not what it used to be...

I'll keep you posted.

NBLondon

brat wrote: »

I agree that 'dodging' between pedestrians is careless cycling, particularly if the manoeuvre is not one that a pedestrian should expect.

Yeah - that's the point I've been trying to make and the form that I see 2 or 3 times a week. A cyclist who runs (my above definition of run as opposed to jump) a red light judging it to be "safe" as in "there are no motor vehicles close enough to endanger me" but considers pedestrians as merely moving bollards to be slalomed around. That's why there aren't more cyclist deaths - they are not usually dodging something big enough to injure them. And startling pedestrians or making them jump back isn't something that gets reported. I'm glad to hear your small force targets careless cyclists occasionally; maybe I should complain and see if the Met can be convinced to try it. If they also targeted drivers on mobiles at the same time - that might be a win-win.

custardy

NBLondon wrote: »

Yeah - that's the point I've been trying to make and the form that I see 2 or 3 times a week. A cyclist who runs (my above definition of run as opposed to jump) a red light judging it to be "safe" as in "there are no motor vehicles close enough to endanger me" but considers pedestrians as merely moving bollards to be slalomed around. That's why there aren't more cyclist deaths - they are not usually dodging something big enough to injure them. And startling pedestrians or making them jump back isn't something that gets reported. I'm glad to hear your small force targets careless cyclists occasionally; maybe I should complain and see if the Met can be convinced to try it. If they also targeted drivers on mobiles at the same time - that might be a win-win.

heres one to throw in
how many drivers are failing to stop at their stop line

derrick

custardy wrote: »

heres one to throw in
how many drivers are failing to stop at their stop line

Well it is a police vehicle, and we all know they are above the law

.

brat

custardy wrote: »

heres one to throw in
how many drivers are failing to stop at their stop line

Doesn't look good, I admit, but you need to see how he got there before an offence can be shown.

custardy

brat wrote: »

Doesn't look good, I admit, but you need to see how he got there before an offence can be shown.

doesnt really matter.
you can drive/cycle/walk round Edinburgh any day,and see drivers driving into the ASL

brat

NBLondon wrote: »

Yeah - that's the point I've been trying to make and the form that I see 2 or 3 times a week. A cyclist who runs (my above definition of run as opposed to jump) a red light judging it to be "safe" as in "there are no motor vehicles close enough to endanger me" but considers pedestrians as merely moving bollards to be slalomed around. That's why there aren't more cyclist deaths - they are not usually dodging something big enough to injure them. And startling pedestrians or making them jump back isn't something that gets reported.

I presume what you're trying to establish is, at what point does the offence of red light jumping become careless or dangerous. Clearly it's not by definition careless, otherwise emergency vehicles wouldn't be able to do it. But the facts of each case will vary, so it's not possible to be prescriptive.

I startle the odd pedestrian on my bike while going through the ped zone daily, yet I cycle at a slow pace, constantly monitoring their movements and keep a distance from them. I've occasionally had them shout at me because I've passed them. Despite the signage, they obviously don't think or agree that I should be there.

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm glad to hear your small force targets careless cyclists occasionally; maybe I should complain and see if the Met can be convinced to try it. If they also targeted drivers on mobiles at the same time - that might be a win-win.

Most of the complaints we get about the driving/cycling mix in our town are from cyclists, complaining about being cut up, or not seen, or motorists being unjustifiably aggressive towards them. We don't ever get complaints about cyclists red light jumping, and hardly ever get complaints about cyclists on the footpath.
I guess the reason for this is that the consequences for cyclists can be so much more serious, and they therefore take the matter more seriously.