Cycling UK Forum

Jonty wrote:

snibgo wrote:Few of us have bothered much about the red light. But now you mention it ...

The difference, of course, is that the cyclist endangered no one, but the lorry driver did.

The cyclist endangered himself. He also endangered the future well-being of the lorry driver. No normal person wants to live the rest of his or her life knowing that they killed another road user.
But as stated by many above, the main responsibility rests with poor highway design.
jonty

Followed by the lorry driver. It was his responsibilty to check his mirrors before changing course and encroaching on the cycle lane. On a wider lane the few inches he used wouldn't have mattered. On this sub standard lane it was a near miss.

MPorter now questions whether he ashould have posted this video due to the criticism of the actions of the cyclist has attracted. I don't think any criticism re the red light is justified.

IMO if the cyclist crossed the stop line on red before trackstanding a couple of yards ahead then OK it's a technical RLJ. I'd compare it to driving at 31mph in a 30. Trivial. I would think nothing of doing it myself if, for example I got to the front of a queue and felt an HGV driver at the stop line might not see me if I stopped at the line. If there is anyone who hasn't committed technical offences like that I've not met them. Let's not forget the cyclist had just had to avoid getting squashed by the lorry a few seconds before. Let's cut a bit of slack.

As for the criticism of the undertake? It's fair comment. No worse than I've said to myself though when I've realised after the fact that I could have handled a situation better. Drivers and riders all get better through experience. I think keeping an open mind and discussing incidents like these helps to gain experience faster.

OK that didn't work but look at 0:26/0:29. But look fast, I did not have the permission of the cyclist to put his actions up to such scrutiny and frankly I now regret it.[/quote]

Perhaps on reflection you should have agreed it with him first. Having said that I think putting these things in the public domain can serve a useful awareness and educative function and IMHO that is certainly true in this case.
We all make mistakes and errors of judgement all the time when driving and cycling and most accidents or near accidents seem to be due to a combination of factors. None of us particularly like having our "misjudgements" pointed out to us, but it's better "to learn from experience rather than needing the experience to learn".
Most people who have commented seem to have identified the highway design as the main "culprit" followed by the lorry driver and cyclist.
I for one have been impressed by the objectivity of the comments.
jonty

mporter
First, let me make it clear that I had no intention of questioning your integrity. I was merely suggesting the tactics which might be used to undermine the footage's evidential value in a criminal trial. It's self-evident that a headcam moves with the head. When I read your post I rushed back to check mine and I feel it makes clear what I intended.

My own feeling, expressed often on here and generally at some length, is that cyclists would gain a considerable benefit from robust enforcement of the road traffic area of the criminal law. One constant obstacle is a lack of evidence, usually in the form of independent witnesses. It seems to me that suitable headcam evidence is one way of filling that hole and I have urged other forum members to report serious cases, rather than just display them on youtube. I also feel that if cyclists are to campaign successfully for greater enforcement, then they have greater credibility if they do not equivocate. I'd liked to think that this does not represent an obsession on my part but, rather, a principled approach.

I'm sure many on here and on other cycling forums will take comfort from your comments about technical breaches of the law, and the likelihood of an absolute discharge. My own experience is not recent. I would, however, point to the cyclist seen in the BBC TV programme (discussed at some length on here recently) who refused to accept fixed-penalty notices for three summary offences (footway cycling, no lights, failing to comply with a traffic signal IIRC.) The film showed him passing the signal at red but it had changed to green before he reached the deserted junction and some on here felt his offence was technical. I appreciate part of his penalty probably reflected a poor score in the attitude test but his total fine was over £700 which, when divided out, comes in at approaching £250-00 for the RLJ.

As to whether it's OK to pass a red signal for safety reasons, I can only offer this. With the introduction of camera enforcement of traffic signals, there have been prosecutions of drivers who have passed a red signal to give an emergency vehicle a clear run. After some protests, the Highway Code was amended, apparently to make it clear that drivers should not do it:

219
Emergency and Incident Support vehicles.
You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue ... lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. ... . (My emphasis)

If the HC advises against enabling a fire engine or emergency ambulance to pass freely, it may be that a tribunal of non-cyclists would not be impressed by a cyclist's argument about being more visible to traffic.

thirdcrank wrote: As to whether it's OK to pass a red signal for safety reasons, I can only offer this. With the introduction of camera enforcement of traffic signals, there have been prosecutions of drivers who have passed a red signal to give an emergency vehicle a clear run.

The lunatics have taken over the asylum if drivers who (carefully) cross a stop line to let a fire/policeambulance vehicle through are prosecuted. What happened to the test of prosecutions being in the public interest?

irc wrote: ... The lunatics have taken over the asylum ...

I wouldn't argue. When I construct an argument, I try to support it with evidence (which is part of the reason they tend to drag on. )
==========================================
Stop press:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=43982&p=355408#p355408

Especially this which is in a link from his link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 245422.stm

About 80 cyclists have been given £30 fines for jumping red traffic lights in Oxford in just two hours.

Steve Higa has been encouraged to stick to the annual crusade against not having any lights, though occasionally his enthusiasm gets the better of him.

Richard

Thirdcrank,
It absolutely was not your post that prompted me to take down the video and I did not perceive any attack on my integrity. I did think though on reflection that I was responsible for a unjustified invasion of another's privacy. I have no such qualms about people who are responsible for endangering others. I have no objection whatever to drawing safety lessons from what happened when the cyclist got into that position either. Similar has happened to me before and I always hope to learn from it.