Red Light Jumping

[reohn2]

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.

That's my train of thought too.
RLJing there leaves the cyclist wide open to a side swipe from a vehicle coming through a green light in their favout from the road on the right.Whereas a the OP is on the shared use cyclepath.

[fsymon]

Thanks for the friendly welcome and solid advice.

I think for the foreseen future I'll keep jumping the lights as it does not effect the traffic on green as the cycle path is on the pavement - unless the police are over my shoulder of course!

My only concern would be on the rare occasion pedestrians stood at the crossing, but I'll cross that bridge when it comes to it.

Thanks once again.

Fraser.

[CREPELLO]

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.

Thanks for that Tatanab. I must have been relying on very very out of date info - I think it was my dad who told me about the supposed 'advisory' nature of the temporary lights.

I must say that a lot of temporary traffic lights for road works can be very awkward for us cyclists, especially when the works are a long distance and the remaining open lane is not wide enough to let other traffic pass without getting out of the way. It must be quite common for a slower cyclist to come up against traffic coming the other way which has received the green light. I think it's quite sensible in some circumstances to assess the extent of the works and use the closed section if it is clear and safe enough to do so, thereby avoiding unnecessary traffic conflict.

[Mick F]

Yep.
Using the roads is a team effort.
We need to use a bit of common sense to keep the traffic flowing.

However, when going through (uphill) traffic lights and the far-end can plainly see you, they still come through at you and EXPECT you to give way to them. The green light means GO only when the way is clear. They MUST give way to oncoming traffic still coming through.

Sometimes, I admit, that I have stood my ground and forced them to let me past ................. usually with abuse.

[[XAP]Bob]

Yep.
Using the roads is a team effort.
We need to use a bit of common sense to keep the traffic flowing.

However, when going through (uphill) traffic lights and the far-end can plainly see you, they still come through at you and EXPECT you to give way to them. The green light means GO only when the way is clear. They MUST give way to oncoming traffic still coming through.

Sometimes, I admit, that I have stood my ground and forced them to let me past ................. usually with abuse.

I always stand my ground in said circumstances - at least until they have stopped...

[Bicycler]

I think for the foreseen future I'll keep jumping the lights as it does not effect the traffic on green as the cycle path is on the pavement - unless the police are over my shoulder of course!

I'd do it regardless of whether there were police around. There's nothing wrong with doing so. Probably best not to call it "jumping the lights" if anybody ever does challenge you about it though. You're not ignoring the lights, they just don't apply to the cycle path.

My only concern would be on the rare occasion pedestrians stood at the crossing, but I'll cross that bridge when it comes to it

The problem wouldn't have anything to do with the red light though, just the fact that some numpty has run a cycle path through the waiting area of a pedestrian crossing. there could just as easily be a pedestrian waiting there if the light was green.

[MikeF]

It's good to hear from novice cyclists because that means more people are taking up cycling. And more can question the antics of the tin can only brigade.

Yet another opinion. In the OP example I would stop if I were going to continue cycling along road, but not if I were proceeding to the cycle path as stopping does not benefit any traffic.

Edit to add:- scanning streetview further it looks as though that cycle path leads straight to the next ASL box allowing cyclists to easily bypass a queue of cars for Morrisons. If so that must be a plus for using it at busy times.

However scanning around this junction using Streetview I am utterly confused, by the whole junction both for motor traffic and cyclists; the markings seem absolutely bizarre. Do those who painted the road markings have any idea how to interpret them?

What's this and this?

I am also confused by the large ASL boxes; how are they meant to be used? If you want to turn right do you cycle on the left and then cut to the right in the box. However these are not unique in this respect though.

Another oddity is that traffic from Duke Street to the A5097 seems to need to turn right against a direction arrow. The markings all seem to be new as well as one Streetview shot showed faded markings, so a new lot of money has been spent.

I would think whether to cycle past the red light into cycle lane is a minor issue here.

[RickH]

What's this and this?

First one is a gap top allow cyclists to turn into Ramsden St, which is otherwise not possible when turning from the A5087. The second is, I presume, indicating that cyclists can carry straight on from the otherwise left turn lane.

I am also confused by the large ASL boxes; how are they meant to be used? If you want to turn right do you cycle on the left and then cut to the right in the box. However these are not unique in this respect though.

My understanding is that the plan is, once amendments to road markings are finalised, to officially allow entry to the ASL at any point (I must confess that is how I treat them already) rather than any official entry point. I think I have only done the go up the left & cut right once - when the volume of traffic & a slight uphill gradient, plus I was pretty sure I had time on the phasing of the lights, prevented me from safely getting into the right hand lane in advance.

Rick.

[MikeF]

First one is a gap top allow cyclists to turn into Ramsden St, which is otherwise not possible when turning from the A5087.

Crikey I don't think I would want to turn right at that narrow gap. What if there's more than one cyclist? Also there's no indicating to motorists that cyclists would do this; it's not indicated as a junction.

The second is, I presume, indicating that cyclists can carry straight on from the otherwise left turn lane.

I hope every motorist presumes that as well. And the red markings are?

ASLs are fine if you want to cycle straight ahead or left, but not good for turning right. I wouldn't cycle on the left and cut across, but on a two way road it's not always possible to reach the ASL on the right if there is queuing traffic.

I think that junction illustrates just how much more needs to be done for cyclists - some of the markings are pointless.

[wjhall]

The regulations quoted appear to say that the traffic lights apply to the line joining the physical lights together only if a stop line has not been provided, or is not visible. Since a stop line has been provided and clearly does not apply to the cycle lane then the designer's intention to create a lane to which the traffic lights do not apply appears to be legally successful. So there are in fact, no red lights to jump (sorry if that disappoints any inveterate red light jumpers).

There is a somewhat similar situation on the Down's cycle track in Bristol at the Savile Road junction, where the two way cycle track, which is on the wrong side of the road northbound, exits into the space between the stop lines. I assume this means that the lights do not apply and you can leave at any phase. Obviously attention to vehicles and the light phases is advisable, it is probably best to exit during the pedestrian phase. The situation is rather similar to places where there is an uncontrolled minor crossroads close to a controlled cross roads on a main road. They can be very useful places to cycle across the main road, but you need to pay attention to the phases of the nearby lights.

It is also somewhat analogous to places where, for example a left turn lane passes to the left of an island to the left of the left most traffic light on the main road, the red light does not apply to the left turn lane, presumably because there is no light on its left side. This does not mean that you do not have to observe the give way line in the left turn lane.

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

[mjr]

I agree with everyone (the junction is a botched design and I think they probably meant to allow cyclists to continue but it's ambiguous) except I disagree with this:

A red light is a red light and a red light means STOP.

...except when you're on a cycle track and it's a red bike+man or red man symbol at a Puffin or Toucan crossing, then it means GIVE WAY.

I know that sucks and they should be flashing amber lights but that's how it is.

[SA_SA_SA]

A red light is a red light and a red light means STOP.

...except when you're on a cycle track and it's a red bike+man or red man symbol at a Puffin or Toucan crossing, then it means GIVE WAY.
I know that sucks and they should be flashing amber lights but that's how it is.

I think the original farside Toucans' simpler solution of no red cycle just a red figure is simpler than flashing amber (and avoids flashing) and is easier to 'fit' retroactively: just turn off/blank over the offending red cycle symbol on Puffin nearside panels.

Another option would a lit red give way triangle but I suspect the Dft wouldn't like that.