Red means STOP! or How I began to hate cyclists.

[Oldjohnw]

I really do not know why we have to use the word hate in relation to people who are different to ourselves.

[Tangled Metal]

One for Kwackers.

My local junction, the one I posted about / whinged about earlier, can easily beat your record for time on red hat a car jumped the lights by.

One classic case was when I read at the side, on demand part of that staggered, two light sets junction. I was on the first light. My direction light when green, a sixth sense told me to wait and not proceed. I did that and watched a classic MG sports car drive through red at about 30 seconds doing about 10mph over the speed limit of 30mph by my estimation.

So glad I didn't have an MG in my drivers side of the car. I was about to proceed at 45s in red and had to brake when a second MG sped through. A third went through and I had to back into the road to wait for the next green light cycle.

Anyone know how long lights stay on red? I think at that time it was in excess of 2 minutes. The last car went through on red the it changed to red on my side. I think that's a real record.

Its true as well. If you doubt it you're welcome to experience this junction. They've changed the lights sequence at least 4 times trying to make it safer. It's a lot safer than original sequence but that's not the issue. The issue is the supermarket side of the junction is not in a safe position. Two sets of lights for motorists to look at on a downhill. Not a bright idea. IMHO the supermarket entrance should be made from another road.

I don't blame motorists. I blame road designers, supermarket designers, council planning department and councillors who passed the application without a safe junction.

[Mike Sales]

The people who set the lights sequence have to allow a longer inter-green phase so that vehicles beginning to cross when their light turns green are not at risk from those still crossing after their light has turned red.
The more drivers find that they can get away with pushing their luck, the more they will do it and the longer the inter-green phase is set.
This makes for longer waits and frustrates drivers (they are always in a hurry), so that they are even more inclined to cross late.

[basingstoke123]

There's an on demand light junction near me and it doesn't always detect my bike. I get off my bike and walk out round the junction to carry on. Nobody else on a bike seems to do that as far as I've seen. It's just that I do it because of the principle. I can't criticise others if I don't do what I say is the right thing. I ask the OP do you really always do the right thing on a bike and in a car (if you drive that is)? I'm sure you do, like the rest of us.

I fully agree that RED means STOP. Whether cycling or driving.

However, if the lights have failed to detect me, then they are faulty, and I will then treat the junction as a give-way and proceed when safe. Going through a red light is not acceptable. But I also have zero tolerance for lights that fail to detect me.

Coincidentally, the one set of traffic lights on my commute failed to detect me Tuesday evening, and so omitted my phase to turn right. It wasn't a long wait before the lights went through another cycle, and again omitted my phase, which confirmed I hadn't been detected. So, when safe, I went through on red.

What if there had been any cars waiting behind me? Unfortunately, there were not any. Otherwise, I would have waited longer to prove the point, and it would not have been very long for any drivers behind me to realise that as long as I stayed stopped at these red lights, then they would never turn green! At this particular junction, only the final loop triggers demand. So, if it fails to detect a cyclist who stops on the final loop, then it will not be corrected by any following cars. Can be fun!

Then, later that night, another set of lights failed to detect me. Have never had a problem here before, and unusually, there was no other motor traffic behind me. After realising that my side was on red longer than normal, and noticing the opposite side and got green for a second time, and still no green for me, I proceeded through on red.

So, last night, I though I would test out these lights again. After waiting until I could see no approaching (motor) vehicles, I cycled up to the red lights (default state). Just after stopping, some car came up behind me from nowhere (must have been speeding). Just as I was thinking - 'that spoils my experiment', the car, after slowing, continued through the red lights. This was no 'amber gambling'. The lights had been red for as long as the driver could have seen them. Paramedic ambulance on blues!

Has anyone here been charged for cycling through red lights? (and willing to admit it). Or knows someone else who's been charged?

Or know of anyone who's been charged despite them claiming that the lights had failed to detect them (thus, faulty)?

[Tangled Metal]

These on demand lights don't always detect me when on my bike. I never jump the lights. I get off my bike and walk it around then start to cycle after the lights in my direction of travel.

You might argue that it's pointless but that action is strictly the right course of action. Either RLJing is wrong or it's not. Can't qualify it according to defects in the lights system.

[Cyril Haearn]

I really do not know why we have to use the word hate in relation to people who are different to ourselves.

Because they break the law and endanger me
Please to suggest an alternative word

Perhaps there are not many cyclists where you live, then you are lucky. There are many places with Too Many Cyclists, as mentioned on these fora: Surrey, New Forest. London of course, doubtless Kobnhaven too

Cyclists doing different speeds is a big problem

[Oldjohnw]

I really do not know why we have to use the word hate in relation to people who are different to ourselves.

Because they break the law and endanger me
Please to suggest an alternative word

Perhaps there are not many cyclists where you live, then you are lucky. There are many places with Too Many Cyclists, as mentioned on these fora: Surrey, New Forest. London of course, doubtless Kobnhaven too

Cyclists doing different speeds is a big problem

Disagree with, hate what people do, but do not hate people. I fear your attitude at being a cyclist and a car driver but hating other who are the same is a bit like being an immigrant and trying to ban immigrants. Our choice of words matter.

I profoundly disagree with you but I do not hate you.

[mjr]

These on demand lights don't always detect me when on my bike. I never jump the lights. I get off my bike and walk it around then start to cycle after the lights in my direction of travel.

You might argue that it's pointless but that action is strictly the right course of action. Either RLJing is wrong or it's not. Can't qualify it according to defects in the lights system.

As discussed at great length in previous topics, it's an offence whether you ride or push past red lights, but a broken red light is not a lawful traffic sign so no offence is committed by riding past.

[Tangled Metal]

It is not illegal to walk with your bike on a public footway. It is not illegal to get off your bike, lift it over the kerb and wheel it round the corner as a pedestrian pushing a bike then lifting it safely down to the road and cycling off like you're setting off at the beginning of your ride.

How is that illegal?

A red light with a sensor to change it that does not detect a cyclist is not defective it's just been designed without taking into account all potential road users. It's a failure of planning, design or installation. If it's working as designed can you still go through on red or is it better to walk with your bike round the corner as outlined above?

[mjr]

It is not illegal to walk with your bike on a public footway.

No footway was mentioned.

A red light with a sensor to change it that does not detect a cyclist is not defective it's just been designed without taking into account all potential road users. It's a failure of planning, design or installation. If it's working as designed can you still go through on red or is it better to walk with your bike round the corner as outlined above?

It is defective, in that it does not comply with the regulations. No light is designed to ignore cycles completely. It's an installation failure. If they are reported, they are fixed, eventually. Sometimes traffic lights are designed so the timings are unhelpful for cycling (a "red wave" for example) but never to totally ignore.

[Tangled Metal]

I posted about walking it around, what do you think that meant? Do you walk on the road?

[mjr]

I posted about walking it around, what do you think that meant? Do you walk on the road?

Yes. We don't all have footways, townie.

[Tangled Metal]

I am semi rural area but I've only seen one or two on demand light locations that didn't have footways. Those were not sensor based lighting on side roads but at road constrictions such as narrow bridges. A different beast altogether and one that my approach cannot get around.

I would wager that the majority of sensor based demand lights are side roads, probably with footways in town or village locations.

[661-Pete]

Red means STOP! or How I began to hate cyclists.

Not the best way, in your very first post, to earn the goodwill of other forum members, I'm afraid...

[mjr]

I am semi rural area but I've only seen one or two on demand light locations that didn't have footways. Those were not sensor based lighting on side roads but at road constrictions such as narrow bridges. A different beast altogether and one that my approach cannot get around.

I would wager that the majority of sensor based demand lights are side roads, probably with footways in town or village locations.

Maybe, but your earlier post didn't mention using them. Also, when I see people wheel past red lights, few bother to lift up over the kerb. I don't feel my interpretation of what was posted was unreasonable.