[Closed] £30 fine for crossing traffic lights on bike

What colour were the lights?

Was it a pedestrian crossing or a shared ped/bike crossing?

Do you mean jumping the lights or crossing the crossing?

Was he shouting at his own reflection in shop windows?

If it's just a pedestrian crossing, you should be off and pushing.

Highway Code, Rules for Cyclists 79 Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

If it's a 'toucan' crossing, you can ride across. In these, the green man will be a green man and green bike signal.

[img] [/img]

Not sure I'd get into an argument in the middle of the street if you were heading across at walking speed and being considerate. But strictly speaking he's right.

I was not arguing, genuinely bemused. I guess it was a pelican crossing (no green bike light) but is very wide and only him and me crossing.

Yep so as a rule you were in the wrong and could be fined.
If that matters or not is another matter.

What puzzles me is, why do people think it's okay to comments to cyclists? Would they stick their oar in if it was a pedestrian or car driver? Something about cycling seems to attract uninvited comment.

We held up traffic for a bit while he stood in front of me.

What is the thinking behind this? I take up less room on the bike then off.

Also he quoted a minimum width , I think 3m

Rule number 1 - Don't be a dick. Assuming you were following rule number 1 then he wasn't.

Ignore, move on.

Don't be a Dick rule applies in the absence of anyone with the ability to fine you. I think your pedestrian may fall foul of that.

EDIT: Snap!

And you can bet that if he was in a car behind you as you fought across three lanes of traffic to turn right, he would be frothing about that, too.

Look at is as riding across a pedestrian crossing being the same as riding along a (pedestrian) pavement

Either way right or wrong ..I think if anyone was having a go at me in the middle of a crossing I would tell him to get in touch with himself ..the arrogant arsehole

[img] [/img]

Your only crime is letting him live

The Highway Code is not the law, so the only thing they could do you for is dangerous cycling.

Tell him to write a stern letter to the editor of the Daily Mail.

My son was told off for crossing a dual carriageway on his bike using the pedestrian crossing. Going to school, in his uniform. On a bike. Across a busy dual carriageway. On his bike. Going to school.
I definitely would have killed the person who did this if I'd known who it was. Killed them dead. Death would actually be too good for them. A few years of torture first maybe.

The greater crime here is using 'then' when you mean 'than'.

It works both ways guys, if as a group 'we' want to be taken seriously and not just seen as road tax avoiding, congestion causing menaces (i believe that's the common misconception among anti cycling mouth breathers)...then we have to ride to a decent standard, jumping red lights is a no no despite what people think...just because you think it only affects you if it goes wrong is irrelevant, I used to ride my motorbike like a ****, if I got it wrong nobody but me paid the price but that's not how the public and the law see it.

Good news if traffic wardens and coppers start dishing out fines to nob'ead cyclists.

this has nothing to do with jumping red lights.

Still time to edit, deviant. 😆

jumping red lights is a no no despite what people think.

Which is why no car driver ever in the entire history of this country has ever done so....

this has nothing to do with jumping red lights.

Which is why no car driver ever in the entire history of this country has ever done so....

In this case however I agree the pedestrian was more in the wrong 😛

It works both ways guys, if as a group 'we' want to be taken seriously and not just seen as road tax avoiding, congestion causing menaces (i believe that's the common misconception among anti cycling mouth breathers)...then we have to ride to a decent standard, jumping red lights is a no no despite what people think..

Oh DO **** off with that collective responsibility bollocks.

I could write a letter to every household owning a bicycle asking them all if they'd mind awfully not jumping any lights and it would make ****-all difference. I could stop, dismount and doff my cap to every driver passing me and that too would make ****-all difference.

I'll ride based on my safety and convenience, the safety and convenience of other road users and then the law.
If it's safer for me to cross a road or to duck around / through a junction to get away from traffic (which by the way also helps the "traffic" as I get out of the way) then I'll do it.

There is no collective repsonsibility so PLEASE stop propogating that bullshit.

[i]There is no collective repsonsibility so PLEASE stop propogating that bullshit.[/i]

+1

+ 1 Well said

Zombies dont need a reason to hate, they just hate.

If it's just a pedestrian crossing, you should be off and pushing.

If there is a shared use path either side of the crossing, it's not illegal to cycle on a zebra crossing.

To the best of my knowledge you can't get a fine for riding across the carriageway. Pedal cycles are freely allowed on it.

You can, however, be fined for cycling on a footway, so the legal issue with riding across a crossing is dependent on what's either side of it: if it's footway, it's illegal to ride on, but if it's a shared foot-/cyclepath then it's legal.

The Highway Code is not law: you can't be fined for contravening its rules. So this…

Yep so as a rule you were in the wrong and could be fined.

…is wrong. The crossing is not a footway, it is part of the carriageway.

The "don't be a dick" rule applies in up to three ways here, depending on the actual context:

1. Don't be a dick by cycling in a way which poses risk to others.
2. Don't be a dick by making up things about £30 fines to have a go at people who aren't posing a risk to others.
3. Most importantly of all, don't be a dick by creating crap infrastructure where people on bikes face few pragmatic choices other than to use pedestrian routes (or to never bother taking a bike out of the house) or where small gaps in fragmented cycling infrastructure cause inevitable conflicts such as this.

As for this…

if as a group 'we' want to be taken seriously and…

…fetch me these:

[img] [/img]

Anyway, the OP's pedestrian was also breaking the law.

Pedestrians not to delay on crossings

19. No pedestrian shall remain on the carriageway within the limits of a crossing longer than is necessary for that pedestrian to pass over the crossing with reasonable despatch.

The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997

There's no "also" about it. There is actually a law (that really * one that can * off) about dawdling on a crossing, but there isn't one about riding a pedal cycle on a crossing.

Ironically, if you remember the viral video of the pedestrian walking backwards into a cyclist on a zebra crossing, the pedestrian was potentially breaking two laws (the above plus assault) and the cyclist was breaking none (though, like the pedestrian, was still being a dick). But, y'know… where's the headline in that, eh?

Yeah, I think Onzadog got it right about 6 posts in.

Shared use one side, I was crossing to get on road as cycle lane had run out.

Love the law that he was breaking.

Then your problems here are:

a) people who think they know the law but don't, and
b) people who think they can design infrastructure but can't.

Crack on, you're fine; just being a bit cheeky with no harm done, like crossing at a toucan when there's a red man and nothing coming: entirely legal, perfectly harmless in the right context, just disadvised by the Highway Code.

If people want to start imagining laws that don't exist, there's not much you can do about it.

If people want to start imagining laws that don't exist, there's not much you can do about it.

There certainly is something you can do about it. You can citizens arrest them for breaking the law on making up laws

Riding across a crossing is pretty good evidence that you had just, and were just about to, ride on the pavement. Although you could have ridden along the road, stopped in the gutter at one end of the crossing etc.

Riding across a crossing is pretty good evidence that you had just, and were just about to, ride on the pavement.

The OP says that it's a shared path up to the crossing; in which case, probably not.

(Streetview link?)

I'll ride based on my safety and convenience, the safety and convenience of other road users and then the law.

Good luck with that....the law comes first and it can be an inflexible bastard, it rarely gives two hoots about your convenience.

While we're on this, and it's been something I've wondered for a while (but not worth a thread) - am I right to assume this is perfectly legal? -

Riding on road: arrive at pedestrian crossing with lights on red (so traffic STOP, foot people GO). Stop at line. Dismount bike. Walk, with bike, the two or three metres across the crossing. Remount bike the other side, proceed as normal on road.

Also, this at junctions as well as crossings? (assuming no prohibitions on pedestrians are in force).

FWIW on the OP's situation I'd concur with the consensus of "don't be a dick" - there are a couple of crossings on my commute I usually ride across, but if there are loads of pedestrians, or young kids, I'll dismount and walk it.

Riding on road: arrive at pedestrian crossing with lights on red (so traffic STOP, foot people GO). Stop at line. Dismount bike. Walk, with bike, the two or three metres across the crossing. Remount bike the other side, proceed as normal on road.

I'd cover that with the 'don't be a dick rule'

@simon

I should have added, I wouldn't do this if it involved barging across a crowd of pedestrians who were trying to cross the road. More the scenario where someone's pushed the button, then crossed in a natural gap in traffic, leaving the crossing to subsequently activate even though no one's waiting to cross.

Fair point though, cheers.

Good luck with that....the law comes first and it can be an inflexible bastard, it rarely gives two hoots about your convenience.

Some examples of non-plural hoot-giving inflexbile bastardry:

- many specialist lawyers claim up to 95% success rates in avoiding bans for clients with 12 or more points
- ACPO guidelines allow for 10%+2mph over the speed limit before ticketing or a course, and 15-26mph over the limit before prosecution (eg you won't normally be prosecuted for doing 49mph in a 30 limit)
- a number of police forces refuse to prosecute based on video evidence or refuse to even look at it
- Home Office guidance includes leniency regarding careful pavement cycling

I mean, that's just some really basic stuff, it's not going to the point of fishing around in specific cases at the excuses made for manifestly crap driving and suchlike. The law is remarkably flexible; the only real question is where the two hoots are directed through use of it.

Riding on road: arrive at pedestrian crossing with lights on red (so traffic STOP, foot people GO). Stop at line. Dismount bike. Walk, with bike, the two or three metres across the crossing. Remount bike the other side, proceed as normal on road.

Probably a slightly grey area but I suspect it's strictly illegal since you are moving your vehicle over a solid white line with a red signal showing.

Personally I'd suggest either stopping and waiting or, if you feel the urge to violate the red light, not going through the daft charade of walking to try and dodge the letter of the law when it's really no different to riding. And in anything but highly exceptional scenarios I'd suggest the former 😉