Red Light Jumping

[fsymon]

Bit of a novice to cycling commuting, am I allowed to jump the following

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.10912 ... 312!8i6656

when the red light is showing as it directly joins onto a cycle path?

Thanks in advance.

[TrevA]

I would say Yes you can. There's no stop line on the cycle path, so the lights don't apply to it.

[beardy]

From previous posts by Thirdcrank, the red light is still binding on the pavement, you cant dodge the red traffic light by going around the stop line.

However Councils are in the habit of making Advanced Stop Lines for cyclists with a white line right across the entrance to the box, making it just as illegal for a bike to enter the ASL on a red line as it is for motor traffic. So the letter of the law clearly contradicts the intent of those junction markings and directions.

In this case I would say the intent is that you should not be bound by the red light but you may still be breaking the letter of the law. Chances of any interaction with Police or conflict with other road users looks like being zero.

[reohn2]

If the cyclist is travelling from left to right in the street view link and using the pavement cyclepath,ie entering the ASL and exiting it left onto the pavement then IMHO the TL red doesn't apply.Though the cyclepath is a fine example of a poor farcility,where after 20m or so there's a pole smack in the middle of it and a pedestrian crossing
Usual ill thought out,shoehorned in,third rate stuff,we've come to expect in the UK

[Mick F]

From previous posts by Thirdcrank, the red light is still binding on the pavement, you cant dodge the red traffic light by going around the stop line.

I agree with TC on that. A red light is a red light and a red light means STOP.

Looking at the street view, it seems to rather ambiguous. I generally agree with R2 that it doesn't apply ................... Maybe it was that the designers didn't want it to apply, but as Beardy say's, the letter of the law still stands.

Tough one.

I reckon that if it were me, I'd stop on red ................... mind you, I wouldn't have been on the cycling farcility in the first place. I'd have been on the road with all the rest of the vehicles.

[Mick F]

Sorry.
Just noticed that it's your first post.

Welcome to the forum!

I'm well known on here for shunning the cycle tracks and paths. I don't use them but appreciate that folk feel safer when using them. As I said above, I would stop on red because I'd be on the road.

If I was using the path, I'd stop on red too because that's what the red light means. Stupid really, and I see why you've asked the question.
If you were to jump the light, I doubt anyone would notice .................. so jump it!

[gaz]

From previous posts by Thirdcrank, ...

A fairly comprehensive one here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=73323&p=638731&#p638759

If the cyclist is travelling from left to right in the street view link and using the pavement cyclepath,ie entering the ASL and exiting it left onto the pavement then IMHO the TL red doesn't apply. ...

+1 IMO

LTN 2/08 makes it clear that red lights do not apply to an adjacent off-carriageway cycletrack: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=71982&p=638494&#p638494

Usual ill thought out,shoehorned in,third rate stuff,we've come to expect in the UK

+1

[Mick F]

........... that red lights do not apply to an adjacent off-carriageway cycletrack ............

Agree, but this example is different. The off-carriageway track only starts at the traffic light. Had the off-carriageway track begun further back, I would agree with you.

[CREPELLO]

If I was using the path, I'd stop on red too because that's what the red light means. Stupid really, and I see why you've asked the question.
If you were to jump the light, I doubt anyone would notice .................. so jump it!

Doesn't it depend on the presence of a solid white line on your lane? The solid white quite clearly doesn't traverse the cycle path. If they'd wanted the red light to apply to the path, they could have easily have carried it over. In any case there is no conceivable reason to apply the red to the path as it effectively leaves the road before any traffic conflict of the junction.

On a related note, would someone remind me whether temporary traffic lights have legal status, or are just advisory? Although I would never normally drive through a temporary red in a car, I do sometimes ride them on my bike. (although I always judge the safety of such a move, ie, whether the closed lane may still be ridable).

[tatanab]

On a related note, would someone remind me whether temporary traffic lights have legal status, or are just advisory? Although I would never normally drive through a temporary red in a car, I do sometimes ride them on my bike. (although I always judge the safety of such a move, ie, whether the closed lane may still be ridable).

Highway Code rule 109.Traffic light signals and traffic signs. You MUST obey all traffic light signals (download ‘Light signals controlling traffic’ (PDF, 82KB)) and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs (download ‘Traffic signs’ (PDF, 486KB). Make sure you know, understand and act on all other traffic and information signs and road markings (download ‘Road markings’ (PDF, 731KB) and Vehicle markings’ (PDF, 537KB)) . Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 36, 38 & 40}

Note the "MUST" therefore it is law. It was sometime in the 1970s that the law changed form being permitted to pass if safe and so on. I imagine this was due to increasing traffic. Only 2 years ago I met a couple in their 60s who were adamant that temporary lights still do not apply to cyclists. This was when I caught them up and in polite conversation commented on their actions.

[RickH]

There's one near us that I think achieves its aim - of letting you keep cycling when the lights are red - slightly better (StreetView link). Mainly because the cycle lane/path leaves the road earlier and the, then shared use, cycle path goes past the other side of the traffic lights.

I think the OP's junction is a slightly tricky one to implement (without a wholesale junction redesign) as there is a "need" to facilitate things for cyclists turning right. The intention is probably to enable cyclists to carry straight on when the lights are red but would have been less ambiguous if the cycle path went to the left of the traffic light. But, from a safety point of view, it is better having the traffic light post the other side of the fence.

Personally I don't think it is reasonable (or intended) to expect you to stop at a traffic light when you are on an off road cycle path where there is no interruption of the path. Here is an(other) example (I've not cycled on it myself but I do see quite a few cyclists using it when I drive on this stretch of road). Would you stop for a red light if cycling on this path (& even I wouldn't recommend cycling on the road here)?

Rick.

[Mick F]

Good examples, Rick.

The OP example is far too ambiguous. It's a bad design.

[gaz]

Here's another ambiguous one: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.39374 ... 56!6m1!1e1

The feeder lane to the ASL is on the footway. The footway at the ASL is flush to the carriageway. The footway ahead of the ASL is unsegregated shared use.

The ambiguity has been resolved/increased by extending the unsegregated shared facility and removing the ASL. Whether the latter was done by design or simple wear and weathering over the passage of time I don't know.

[gaz]

Here's one without an ASL: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.39170 ... 312!8i6656

I'd stop at red.

Since redesigned to make the adjacent footway unsegregated shared use, I don't stop at red when using the shared path.

[Mick F]

Yep.
Me too.

It's quite similar to the OP one I think.