Cyclists ignoring traffic lights

[pwa]

I arrived at some temporary lights yesterday. Car coming towards me, my lights on red. I stopped and waited.

.................. and waited and waited .................

No traffic in either direction, so I went through on red.

As I left the other side, there was a lady and gent walking their dog. They said, "The lights don't work!"
I replied, "Just worked that out! "

We've all encountered stuck road works lights. The question is always "how long do I wait before I can assume it is stuck?"

[londoncommuter0000]

I arrived at some temporary lights yesterday. Car coming towards me, my lights on red. I stopped and waited.

.................. and waited and waited .................

No traffic in either direction, so I went through on red.

As I left the other side, there was a lady and gent walking their dog. They said, "The lights don't work!"
I replied, "Just worked that out! "

We've all encountered stuck road works lights. The question is always "how long do I wait before I can assume it is stuck?"

When I'm 'stuck' at traffic lights that are either borked, or else where an induction loop is not being triggered because I'm on a carbon bike, I just dismount and walk.

Simple. And entirely legal.

[pwa]

I arrived at some temporary lights yesterday. Car coming towards me, my lights on red. I stopped and waited.

.................. and waited and waited .................

No traffic in either direction, so I went through on red.

As I left the other side, there was a lady and gent walking their dog. They said, "The lights don't work!"
I replied, "Just worked that out! "

We've all encountered stuck road works lights. The question is always "how long do I wait before I can assume it is stuck?"

When I'm 'stuck' at traffic lights that are either borked, or else where an induction loop is not being triggered because I'm on a carbon bike, I just dismount and walk.

Simple. And entirely legal.

True. Not so practical if you are in a car though.

[kwackers]

When I'm 'stuck' at traffic lights that are either borked, or else where an induction loop is not being triggered because I'm on a carbon bike, I just dismount and walk.

Simple. And entirely legal.

Hope you're carrying it!

There's a whole thread dealing with the legality of crossing a stop line on a bike even when you're not riding it...

[londoncommuter0000]

When I'm 'stuck' at traffic lights that are either borked, or else where an induction loop is not being triggered because I'm on a carbon bike, I just dismount and walk.

Simple. And entirely legal.

Hope you're carrying it!

There's a whole thread dealing with the legality of crossing a stop line on a bike even when you're not riding it...

Diddums.

No, I'm not carrying it. Nor do I need to.

[kwackers]

Diddums.

No, I'm not carrying it. Nor do I need to.

IIRC the conclusion of the thread was that technically you're breaking the law if you roll your bike across the stop line (and hoiking it up onto the pavement doesn't help).

Not sure what your "Diddums" comment is meant to say - if you think I give a monkeys you'd be mistaken. Simply pointing out you're probably wrong about your assertion you're not breaking the law.

[Mick F]

Basically, if the lights are stuck, you may proceed but be careful.

Highway Code has info on this, but I can't seem to find it online.

[londoncommuter0000]

Diddums.

No, I'm not carrying it. Nor do I need to.

IIRC the conclusion of the thread was that technically you're breaking the law if you roll your bike across the stop line (and hoiking it up onto the pavement doesn't help).

Not sure what your "Diddums" comment is meant to say - if you think I give a monkeys you'd be mistaken. Simply pointing out you're probably wrong about your assertion you're not breaking the law.

I don't really care what the 'conclusion' of the thread was. I don't know how many of those contributing had any knowledge of the law, but am willing to bet that the number is pretty low. I'm a practicing solicitor. I just read the case notes on Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441. I just wandered down the corridor to ask a senior partner for her opinion. We both concur: a cyclist who dismounts is no longer a cyclist. As such, he or she is not bound to stop for red lights, just the same as a 'normal' pedestrian is not bound to stop for red lights.

Of course, should someone get his collar felt on this, and it went to appeal, that would dispel any ambiguity.

[kwackers]

Basically, if the lights are stuck, you may proceed but be careful.

Highway Code has info on this, but I can't seem to find it online.

Mr commuter has a point though.
What if you're on a carbon bike? You *know* the lights aren't going to change so why hang about in the hope they might?
Can you simply presume and proceed carefully?

I must admit there's a set on my commute that never detect the bike (and yes, I've complained) but I have excellent sight lines in every direction so if there's nobody around I ignore them.

[kwackers]

I'm a practicing solicitor.

And you use the word "Diddums" in your responses?

Class.

[londoncommuter0000]

I'm a practicing solicitor.

And you use the word "Diddums" in your responses?

Class.

Confused... I've noticed this trend. Whenever I identify as a solicitor, my interlocutor immediately latches onto the language I use.

So what? In my private life, I curse like a trooper. I'm Scottish - that's part of my DNA.

In court, it's a different matter. So why do you think I should write in a particular manner on an Internet forum?

[kwackers]

And you use the word "Diddums" in your responses?

Class.

Confused... I've noticed this trend. Whenever I identify as a solicitor, my interlocutor immediately latches onto the language I use.

It just seems a bit childish - perhaps I expect too much from 'solicitors'?

Why not contribute to the stop line crossing thread?
I only scanned it and imo its fairly obvious that in the real world nobody is going to give a monkeys about someone pushing a bike through a junction (I do it all the time) but some actual legal facts would be pretty handy instead of amateur assertions and presumptions.

[Mick F]

Basically, if the lights are stuck, you may proceed but be careful.

Highway Code has info on this, but I can't seem to find it online.

Mr commuter has a point though.
What if you're on a carbon bike? You *know* the lights aren't going to change so why hang about in the hope they might?
Can you simply presume and proceed carefully?

If the lights don't change for a lawful and legal vehicle waiting at the line, then the lights are defective or poorly designed. If they don't work, they don't work and as such you are legally allowed to pass .......... but using extreme care.

You should pre-assume nothing. Even if you've been through the (defective) lights a hundred times. Each time is a separate occasion and should be treated as such.

[londoncommuter0000]

And you use the word "Diddums" in your responses?

Class.

Confused... I've noticed this trend. Whenever I identify as a solicitor, my interlocutor immediately latches onto the language I use.

It just seems a bit childish - perhaps I expect too much from 'solicitors'?

Perhaps. We're just human. And as I mentioned, 'in real life', I have a foul tongue.

Why not contribute to the stop line crossing thread?
I only scanned it and imo its fairly obvious that in the real world nobody is going to give a monkeys about someone pushing a bike through a junction (I do it all the time) but some actual legal facts would be pretty handy instead of amateur assertions and presumptions.

As has been noted by those far more eloquent than I, one of the problems in today's society is that the intelligent are plagued by self-doubt, whereas the idiots are brimming with confidence.

In the past, when I have become involved in detailed legal discussions on other media concerning - to take but two examples from the past year - the right to photograph public buildings and the powers of the police to effect stop and search, the responses have been varied, but are generally of the type 'STFU, you don't know nuffink, I work at KwikFit so I should know'.

In one memorable exchange with a young lady over on dpreview.com who had been told by a private security guard in Manchester that she 'needed permission' to photograph his building, her response was 'they'd never have told me to stop if it wasn't illegal, would they?'. And when I revealed myself as a solicitor, she replied 'I'd ask for your money back on that law degree'.

I gather that she is a hairdresser. A noble profession, I'm sure. And one that evidently understands the law far better than I could hope to.

[londoncommuter0000]

The person who private messaged me with the torrent of abusive language.

I would suggest forwarding that to one of the moderators.

The only problem with that is that the 'abuse' probably didn't exist.

It's a standard tactic nowadays: post something idiotic or do something publicly dangerous, and then go on to claim that you've been subject to 'abuse' or that you and your family have 'received death threats'.

It's a blatant lie, of course. They generally haven't been subject to 'abuse', and there have been no 'death threats'. But the tactic usually works: instead of being considered as the odious, selfish filth that they are, the sympathy switches sides, and they get to portray themselves as 'victims'.

Read up on Emma Way and you'll see what I mean.