Cyclists ignoring traffic lights

[robing]

I'm a practicing solicitor.

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

Class.

And can't spell. It's practising.

[londoncommuter0000]

I'm a practicing solicitor.

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

Class.

And can't spell. It's practising.

Hmm, yeah. I get this quite a lot as well.

Curiously, OED has both spellings, with the spelling in 's' noted as far back as the eighteenth century.

Funny that, isn't it?

[mjr]

But it's an excuse. We can no more stop all cyclists riding past red than all motorists, so we should neutralise this bad PR instead of fanning the flames by joining in the condemnation.

I don't know what it is like where you are, but around here, at major junctions, RLJing by motorists is almost always within a second of the lights going red. If it happens after that it is a cyclist. And it does promote the view of cyclists as rogue road users. People actually notice when a cyclist waits at a red light.

Nothing like that here. Motorists drive through on red in a failing-to-stop sort of manner until three or four seconds after the lights have gone red (so forget about anyone in this area stopping on amber) and then after that, there are mainly two sorts: first there are the ones who look like they get bored waiting and drive through cautiously; and then there's the sort who accelerate into the junction aggressively because they think they've seen a big enough gap to get through!

Of course, practically, only the front motorist in each lane can do this (unlike cyclists) and they seem far more likely to do it when there are fewer road users around, which I guess is why it doesn't create as widespread a picture in the minds of those who suffer it.

Almost no cyclists jump mandatory red lights here. They don't need to because usually the lights are bypassed by a cycleway. It stinks that that's still not common practice nationwide. I've seen it here and in a few places in London

Yet despite that, you'll still find plenty of motorists here offering reasons not to provide any space for cycling. At a consultation about three new cycleways last week, I heard some saying we shouldn't spent a tiny slither of the transport budget on cycling because the money should be spent on children's centres instead - never mind that cycleways would be good ways to get children to them! Naysayers will always find some reason why cycling should get nothing and strangely it won't apply to the multi-million pound road-building follies.

[Mick F]

............. a cyclist who dismounts is no longer a cyclist ................. dispel any ambiguity.

Just a little thought for you to consider.

I am a cyclist.
People know me as a cyclist.
I'm a cyclist, even though I'm sitting in my armchair typing this.
I'm a cyclist through and through.

What you meant to say, was that a cyclist who dismounts, is no longer riding a bicycle. He could still be described as a cyclist or a golfer or a fisherman or even a solicitor.

Also, if you are pushing a bike you are pushing a vehicle. What would you say about someone pushing a car through a red light?
Is he allowed to do that now he's no longer driving the car?

[thirdcrank]

londoncommuter0000

I've posted on another thread that your professional help would be of practical use next time somebody is prosecuted for this

viewtopic.php?p=1322114#p1322114

[londoncommuter0000]

londoncommuter0000

I've posted on another thread that your professional help would be of practical use next time somebody is prosecuted for this

viewtopic.php?p=1322114#p1322114

IIRC, I already posted on that thread.

[[XAP]Bob]

............. a cyclist who dismounts is no longer a cyclist ................. dispel any ambiguity.

Just a little thought for you to consider.

I am a cyclist.
People know me as a cyclist.
I'm a cyclist, even though I'm sitting in my armchair typing this.
I'm a cyclist through and through.

What you meant to say, was that a cyclist who dismounts, is no longer riding a bicycle. He could still be described as a cyclist or a golfer or a fisherman or even a solicitor.

Also, if you are pushing a bike you are pushing a vehicle. What would you say about someone pushing a car through a red light?
Is he allowed to do that now he's no longer driving the car?

It's clear cut in only one case. Pushing a cycle across a zebra crossing from one footway to the other, without scooting.
Surely one of the best named court cases of all time.

Pushing a cycle along a road you would still be pushing a vehicle - though that suggests that if a light fails then you can't push yourself to the next shop, which is clearly daft (so entirely possible).

[londoncommuter0000]

............. a cyclist who dismounts is no longer a cyclist ................. dispel any ambiguity.

Just a little thought for you to consider.

I am a cyclist.
People know me as a cyclist.
I'm a cyclist, even though I'm sitting in my armchair typing this.
I'm a cyclist through and through.

What you meant to say, was that a cyclist who dismounts, is no longer riding a bicycle. He could still be described as a cyclist or a golfer or a fisherman or even a solicitor.

Also, if you are pushing a bike you are pushing a vehicle. What would you say about someone pushing a car through a red light?
Is he allowed to do that now he's no longer driving the car?

There is precedent in one case, but not the other. There's your answer.

[Airsporter1st]

............. a cyclist who dismounts is no longer a cyclist ................. dispel any ambiguity.

Just a little thought for you to consider.

I am a cyclist.
People know me as a cyclist.
I'm a cyclist, even though I'm sitting in my armchair typing this.
I'm a cyclist through and through.

What you meant to say, was that a cyclist who dismounts, is no longer riding a bicycle. He could still be described as a cyclist or a golfer or a fisherman or even a solicitor.

Also, if you are pushing a bike you are pushing a vehicle. What would you say about someone pushing a car through a red light?
Is he allowed to do that now he's no longer driving the car?

Of course he is: https://youtu.be/zHtCNhABlLw

[thirdcrank]

londoncommuter0000

I've posted on another thread that your professional help would be of practical use next time somebody is prosecuted for this

viewtopic.php?p=1322114#p1322114

IIRC, I already posted on that thread.

Indeed you have but only to say - and I paraphrase - that nobody who had already posted knows what they are talking about, which may well be the case, but if somebody is faced with prosecution they need much more than that if they are to defend themselves successfully.

[Mick F]

There is precedent in one case, but not the other. There's your answer.

The only precedent is for a person to push a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing, not pushing a vehicle along the road through a red light or junction ........... notwithstanding Mr Bean of course.

[The utility cyclist]

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.

As others have said, we've had the discussion on here before re propelling your vehicle and some saying unless it is off the floor blah blah blah, a few scenarios have cropped up where plod have stuck their oar in accusing cyclists of running the lights because they were pushing their bikes.
I've got off on occasion to push the bike around the corner when I know there's a long phase and I'm first up or it might benefit me to get ahead if there's other issues I can see, if plod want to argue the toss I'm simply going to ignore them until they do something else in which case they can demand name etc all they like, they won't get squat from me.
there's allsorts of various out of date/pointless legislation that needs tidying up but it's far easier for governments to focus on how they can punish people on bikes more than anything actually useful/non discriminatory.

Temporary lights/lights with induction loops can be a bane though, usually the amount of time to get through on longer sections of temporary lights is my biggest problem, non responsive lights I only have one near me and I slightly change my route when on the carbon bike to avoid it.

[drossall]

No, we don't. We will never get all road users to obey laws voluntarily and so it's an unreasonable condition to put on compliance. What we have to do is push for more enforcement and that it be proportionate.

Everybody waiting for everybody else to obey the law before they will? You'll never get there. My point was about not encouraging everyone else to make things worse for us.

Although I do find RLJ complaints to be somewhat ironic. The problem is ALJing, and if you don't know that you don't know the law. So why even mention RLJing?

[pwa]

As far as I am concerned, if I am walking I am a pedestrian. Even if I am pushing a bike. I'd take no bull on that. I'd take it as far as I could if necessary, but nobody has ever challenged me on that.

[drossall]

As far as I am concerned, if I am walking I am a pedestrian. Even if I am pushing a bike. I'd take no bull on that. I'd take it as far as I could if necessary, but nobody has ever challenged me on that.

Interesting, but a court's opinion can be difficult to reject quite so easily. Happily for all of us, the last time we discussed this, there was limited evidence of relevant cases going to court, with the balance being that someone pushing a bike is probably a pedestrian. Unhappily for you, you seem to be volunteering yourself to be the one in court testing this