Definitely newsworthy.
I wonder why The Guardian hasn't updated it's front page, I can't see it anywhere on there.
Fair enough, caught bang to rights.
I may be in a minority here - but I have little sympathy with people who ride bikes jumping red rights.
I may be in a minority here – but I have little sympathy with people who ride bikes jumping red rights.
Nor me but not sure why a few people getting a £50 fine is newsworthy or why the Police needed to post in on Social Media.
not sure why a few people getting a £50 fine is newsworthy or why the Police needed to post in on Social Media
Some Drivers need to see that justice is being done (fairly) and that 'them pesky cyclists' aren't getting away with bad behaviour.
It's nice to see something being enforced by the police.
Now how about enforcing around the parking on double lines (red locally to me in Edinburgh means park here please apparently), blocking drives and pavement parking, driving about with iced up windows around schools, close passes and abuse towards kids cycling to school etc...
why the Police needed to post in on Social Media
They do similar for driving offences if it'll get a few likes
your nicked what?
Police post all sorts on social media, usually from unmarked cars or lorries watching people on their phones, jumping red lights, lane hogging, no tax..... you name it. https://twitter.com/SurreyRS
Mainly to point out they can't be everywhere, but they might be, so don't break the rules assuming you aren't being seen.
All for it. As a cyclist other cyclists RLJ'ing, whatever, frustrates the hell out of me because it 'justifies' motorists claims that we're all at it. And we aren't.
I cycle daily in London and see this at literally every single red light, it's the vast majority of riders. Earlier this week I saw pedestrians with a green man forced to stay on the pavement as bikes ploughed through. There are a bunch of videos on YouTube about 6 - 10 years old of police stopping rlj's, but one major problem is all the stopped cyclist has to do is give a false name and address, so I guess just the honest minority were receiving fines. Seems the police have given up in C London at least.
Good, that seems a total disregard for the red light, so absolutely get them fined. I say the same about motor vehicles doing the same...
Wonder if that was a Drop Ride they were on...(although still no excuse for it).
Riding like that causes all of us problems, that wasn't just a little sneaky one it was blatant.
4 seconds in...
Flippin roadies. really not a fan of those guys
Do they know they are the reason everyone hates cyclists?
never go full roadie.
“it’s the vast majority of riders”
No it’s not.
I guess I'm alone in thinking there are more pressing problems than people on bikes RLJing.
Like people in cars RLJing. Plus the multitude of other reasons people in cars end up killing their occupants, killing the occupants of other cars, killing people on bikes, and killing people on foot.
I also think people getting your/you're wrong is a more pressing issue.
Traffic lights only really exist because car drivers can't be trusted to make good choices.
When there's only cyclists involved, you don't need lights, traffic flows more freely, and you have less precious space being handed over for transport rather than something actually useful (e.g. housing).
Red lights should really be a "give way" for cyclists, IMO.
I nearly ran a cyclist over last night. I was first car at a red light indicating a left turn. He was in the cycle lane next to me which has its own “cyclist” set of traffic lights. <br /><br />
As my light when green, he jumped his red light into the path of my car turning left. <br /><br />
i know the junction well and use the cycle lane myself as it’s as the end of my road, it’s impossible to “ not see” the red amber and green lit “cycle symbols” at eye level. Cock.
I guess I’m alone in thinking there are more pressing problems than people on bikes RLJing
If the cops behind them film it, they're probs duty bound to do something about it, or get into trouble themselves. If this was just one cyclist stealing straight on as the lights change...I'd agree with you, but 4 grown adults? like that, just riding through as if it doesn't apply to them, on what's clearly a leisure ride, I'd nick them as well; just for being pricks.
OMG, it's worse that I thought. Did they show that bit on the video too??
I nearly ran a cyclist over last night. I was first car at a red light indicating a left turn. He was in the cycle lane next to me which has its own “cyclist” set of traffic lights.
As my light when green, he jumped his red light into the path of my car turning left.
Yeah, that sounds like a shit infrastructure problem. I thought those lights were only supposed to give priority to people on bikes at junctions, not to give priority to cars? ie, the cyclist traffic light can be green while the main one is red but the main one can't be green while the cyclist one is red?
Sounds like it was designed to create the situation you found yourself in.
But, being the person in charge of 1.5 tones of metal, it's to be expected that you have a greater level of responsibility for those around about you.
Looking at the highway code, it's unclear:
73Junctions. Some junctions, particularly those with traffic lights, have special cycle facilities, including small cycle traffic lights at eye-level height, which may allow you to move or cross separately from or ahead of other traffic. Use these facilities where they make your journey safer and easier.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/rules-for-cyclists-road-junctions.html
So, if I don't want to use the special cyclist lights I don't have to?
Like I said, sounds like shit infrastructure. Of which there is a lot.
On my commute I take one of 2 options - ride through the (empty) shopping precinct (ILLEGAL!), or take the bus only route, where the light is always red... I invariably ride through the red light. Should I hand myself in to the fuzz?
Yep, you can't even claim to have checked everything was safe before ignoring the lights if you've missed the panda car behind you 🤣.
The argument that bikes just don't need traffic lights is I think correct, they're only useful for stopping car drivers who would rather crash than slow down for a junction and give way. But only where there's not a more vulnerable road user. Don't forget pedestrians stereotypically hate cyclists just as much as we stereotypically hate drivers.
I nearly ran a cyclist over last night. I was first car at a red light indicating a left turn. He was in the cycle lane next to me which has its own “cyclist” set of traffic lights.
As my light when green, he jumped his red light into the path of my car turning left.
There's two sets near me that the cycle/bus lane just doesn't work (in one direction it only senses busses, in the other even busses used the "road").
So the only* option is to either wait forever for a gap, or preemptively jump the car lights from the bike lane and get into the junction before they set off.
*Or get off and push, or subject yourself to the "why aren't you in the cycle lane" assholes.
Red lights should really be a “give way” for cyclists, IMO.
Agree but as we know the roads are designed for car divers so we as cyclist have to do the same as they do.
Yeah, that sounds like a shit infrastructure problem. I thought those lights were only supposed to give priority to people on bikes at junctions, not to give priority to cars? ie, the cyclist traffic light can be green while the main one is red but the main one can’t be green while the cyclist one is red?
Theres one on my commute in to London, it’s designed for when the cyclists / cycle path are going straight across a busy left turn only lane for cars. It’s not so much for priority but keeping the two traffic streams sepearted. When the bike’s light is green the cars are on red and vice versa.
“it’s the vast majority of riders
No it’s not.
Yes it is. I'll pop my camera on and upload it when the days are a bit lighter if you want. Do you ride in the City? At literally every red light, I'm often the only rider that stops. A couple of junctions get a few stoppers but they're the exception.I'll count stoppers vs non stoppers at each light on the way home tonight
Nor me but not sure why a few people getting a £50 fine is newsworthy or why the Police needed to post in on Social Media.
Because it is nice to provide fuel to the furious Daily Mail readers every now and again.
That they put themselves in danger is actually a blatant lie. There were no vehicles putting them in any danger or they would've stopped. Unless it was a 4 man suicide pact, I suppose.
I'm usually one to ardently obey red lights, but there's one on my commute which doesn't recognise waiting bicycles at all. The pressure sensor isn't sensitive enough to pick up a bicycle and there's not currently enough car traffic (road closure) to have another vehicle trigger it. I got beeped at for jumping it despite the fact that the beeping car had already passed through the junction and I'd been waiting several minutes. Sometime the infrastructure doesn't help.
Pretty much a non-story, cyclists caught and fined, if anything it's probably good for cycling to see this, stops the 'they just do what they want' stuff.
Reality is, this happens hundreds of times a day in the UK, same as drivers speeding or going through red lights, just a handful are caught due to not seeing a police car behind them videoing!
“it’s the vast majority of riders”
No it’s not.
Ooooh yes it is!
Around here, anyway. I cycle, drive and/or walk every day locally and see quite a few cyclists of all sorts. It's unbelievably rare to see anyone stop at a red light! Even when they do stop, it's usually 6' the other side of the line with a foot on the kerb instead of waiting in the empty cycle zone. One for the disproportionate anger thread 😡
Wasn't there some discussion a few years ago about making red lights mean "give way" for cyclists? At least when turning left or something? Or was that in Australia? Anyway, yes, good idea IMO.
I’d nick them as well; just for being pricks.
That should absolutely be an offence. Vote for nickc!
yup, send em daaaarrrnnn
I used to cycle in London a lot. Daily commute for a number of years, in all weather.
I wouldn't have said the vast majority, but a significant number, sure.
The thing is though, it's not just cyclists who jump the lights; I saw cars, vans, motorbikes, all of the taxis and private hire cars jump lights on a regular basis, but no-one seems to make out that that's a problem. The focus on cyclists is just bias.
but there’s one on my commute which doesn’t recognise waiting bicycles at all.
Dismount, walk across the red light, remount. If there's anyone around, of course.
Unlucky roadies getting caught, as in it's very common in cities to see that, but to have an unmarked police car behind is unfortunate. I'm not condoning it (I wait), but I'd be interested to see the rest of the incidents they fined motorists for that day; there's no equivalence in terms of a cyclist running a red to a vehicle running them, incidentally. Only saw the one arctic this morning ignoring the lights, but they pay road tax, innit.
So are the bbc going to report on every traffic offence posted to social media from now on ?
Even when they do stop, it’s usually 6′ the other side of the line with a foot on the kerb instead of waiting in the empty cycle zone.
There's never an empty cycle zone. There's always a motorist in them. Even when I've gotten to the lights first and I'm stopped in it, a motorist thinks they can fit in too. I've had motorcyclists and car drivers nudge me out of it by crashing into my back wheel.
There’s never an empty cycle zone. There’s always a motorist in them. Even when I’ve gotten to the lights first and I’m stopped in it, a motorist thinks they can fit in too. I’ve had motorcyclists and car drivers nudge me out of it by crashing into my back wheel.
Everyone agrees that motorists also jump lights and do plenty of other stuff they shouldn't, and that it's more dangerous and much more of an issue than cyclists doing it.
Yes the police and media should focus more on that, however this thread's about cyclists and I think those saying "oh but cars do it more" are kinda missing the point.
Anyway, back to my personal experience, most drivers are actually not bad about leaving the zone clear around here. Try as I might to avoid confirmation bias, it always seems to be the same drivers who use it:
Trade vans
Taxis
Buses
BMWs
Motorbikes
The amount of times I am stopped in the zone (on a bike...) and another rider sails past and stops just after the line is ridiculous. I mean, what on earth is the point! Either stop at the line or go ahead through you stupid grrr graaar grumble.....
Only saw the one arctic this morning ignoring the lights,
Fox? Monkey? Tern? What?
To be fair, they might need another box for cyclists in front of the existing ones; every box I'm in or pull up to gets filled up with food delivery scooters and mopeds, if it hasn't already got a car rolling into it already.
Ha! That genuinely is an autocorrect because I messaged that it was 'arctic' out to someone earlier. Knew I should've said Baltic instead.
TBF everything on the road this morning was pretty arctic.
ossify
The amount of times I am stopped in the zone (on a bike…) and another rider sails past and stops just after the line is ridiculous. I mean, what on earth is the point! Either stop at the line or go ahead through you stupid grrr graaar grumble…..
I always pull in front of the line of cars into the space available before the crossing traffic lane and wait for the lights - if that's a cycle box, great if not have I actually jumped the lights? I've crossed the line but not the junction. Am I bad? I do it because I can and cycling gives me the opportunity to not get stuck in traffic.
I always pull in front of the line of cars into the space available before the crossing traffic lane and wait for the lights – if that’s a cycle box, great if not have I actually jumped the lights? I’ve crossed the line but not the junction. Am I bad? I do it because I can and cycling gives me the opportunity to not get stuck in traffic.
Legally yes, the white line is the "stop" line, and the police enforce that when doing crackdowns in London. Ditto in a car you'll get a FPN for doing just that to get out the way of a police car/ambulance if there's a camera.
Morally / Practically, it's what I do too. Safest/easiest way over a junction seems to be to wait in the gap between the stop line and the markings for the pedestrian crossing or the no-mans land at junction itself.
Dismount, walk across the red light, remount. If there’s anyone around, of course.
Or just follow the highway code which says proceed with extreme caution if the light is nonfunctioning.
The cyclists in the story are nobs and its good they got the fine although I am struggling to see why it is worthy of a story.
There is something a bit “city” about RLJ in my experience. As an out of towner, and someone who actually enjoys driving (boo hiss) I take the red lights seriously - the exception being the junction which is is pressure sensitive and never has a car on it to help me out. But the very law abiding London based experienced cyclist that is my sister in law sails through most red lights as that is her daily MO.
I always pull in front of the line of cars into the space available before the crossing traffic lane and wait for the lights – if that’s a cycle box, great if not have I actually jumped the lights? I’ve crossed the line but not the junction. Am I bad? I do it because I can and cycling gives me the opportunity to not get stuck in traffic.
Yes 😁
"I do it because I can" 🙄
And yes what TINAS said - if your front wheel is over the line then technically you've jumped the lights.
I tend to take primary position when waiting at the lights if there's any doubt as to my safety. Especially if I'm first to the line and there's no cycle zone, you're just asking for trouble if you sit at the side. Block anyone from squeezing you out - then move over again as soon as possible after starting (when safe).
If there's already cars there when you come up to the lights? Depends: if there's space at the front, go there. Make eye contact with the driver at the front. If there's no space behind the line, wait 1 or 2 cars back, but make sure you're between cars not beside them (if not full primary, then at least slightly in front of a car and visibly part of the queue). You can readjust the road position once traffic starts moving, depending on what's happening.
It's not necessarily any safer to go all the way to the front and over the line. Just makes you look like a dick for no real advantage.
Just for ossify, despite being a cyclist I also drive a BMW. <br /><br />
Anyway
But, being the person in charge of 1.5 tones of metal, it’s to be expected that you have a greater level of responsibility for those around about you.
er well maybe. Being a cyclist myself I had awareness’s of the situation and proceeded cautiously in possible expectation followed by a loud blast of horn yet didn’t blindly run him over. Less awareness can be assumed about other drivers in the road so I’d suggest a cyclist jumping a cycle lane red light shouldn’t be an expectation but an anomaly based on the very premise of the Highway Code - to provide the sanctuary of protection if needed. He shouldn’t have proceeded, end of. However, if he’d have been to my left on the normal carriageway stopped behind the same traffic light I would have afforded him the same right of way as I had myself - if I’m in a car or on a bike - placed next to him.
Just for ossify, despite being a cyclist I also drive a BMW.
Sure, far and away most BMW drivers are fine and normal. That said I definitely find a much higher than average number of BMWs in the "drives like a ****" category. Yeah I'm aware of BMW's reputation (or stereotype) and confirmation bias etc... but even so... 🤷♂️
There is something a bit “city” about RLJ in my experience. As an out of towner, and someone who actually enjoys driving (boo hiss) I take the red lights seriously – the exception being the junction which is is pressure sensitive and never has a car on it to help me out. But the very law abiding London based experienced cyclist that is my sister in law sails through most red lights as that is her daily MO.
I'm an occasional commuter by bike into central London (during the lighter months) and my experience is that it's pretty much a free for all and you need to be constantly alert to hazards or all sorts (motorists, pedestrians, fellow cyclists). Certain junctions / lights are regularly run through (regular commuters know the light sequencing, timings, traffic flow, risk) whilst others you'd be taking a massive risk at any time (usually some daft lad on a lime bike more interested in his phone will plough on through). I must admit to RLJ myself on occasion (I started off being super law abiding, but it's hard to stay this way when you're the only one sat at a light whilst others stream past). Outside of commuting I am conscious of how poor road manners adds to the anti cyclist bias and am far more law abiding (I am aware of the hypocrisy here).
In the Esher area I can think of one junction which will not trigger for a right turn for a cyclist, you have to wait for a car to join you or jump it (not the one in the vid though).
He shouldn’t have proceeded, end of.
Then you should write to the Highway Code people and tell them that. Because from the wording it's not clear.
If I was in a car, just to be on the safe side, I would assume the cyclist traffic lights are optional instead of going into BMW driver mode and leaning on my horn if someone decided to ignore them and go with the main lights instead.
And by the way, from your description, you used your horn to voice your annoyance rather than to avoid an accident.
You know you can get fined for that, right?
And yes what TINAS said – if your front wheel is over the line then technically you’ve jumped the lights.
I pondered that the other day waiting at the front of a queue of cars, is there a legal distinction between 'being in control/charge of a car', needing a license to do so, etc, and being a wheel over the line. And being a person on a bike. If my bike wheel (which doesn't require any sort of license or permission to be on the road) crosses the line but I'm stood behind it, am I breaking the law?
Compare that scenario to parking a car, the car is still the responsibility of the last person to drive it, you can't park on double yellows and say "I'm not the driver anymore", if it rolls down the hill into another car, or another car crashes into it then the insurers assume the "driver" to be the last person to drive it, IIRC there have been instances of insurance being void because an uninsured driver, or a driver driving someone else car on their own 3rd party insurance was the last one to park it.
So a car is the legal responsibility of the driver. But is a bike?
And what about a tandem? Is the stoker jointly culpable?
crosses the line but I’m stood behind it, am I breaking the law?
Probably. You still need to follow the HC, you're probably breaching Rule 69 (fnarr fnarr) - obey traffic signs and signals. and rule 71 which is stopping at a stop signal. Both of those are "You Must" IANAL etc etc.
If you want to quote the HC Bruce and argue that a bicycle traffic light illuminated in red could be misinterpreted to anything other than “stop”, then further down the page applicable to cyclists:
Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
In my case I was at a standstill with him on my left clearly visible He was aligned with my vehicle passenger door. My car has front and rear orange indicators which “wrap” around the corners and also a front and curved facing side door mirror indicator light. It’s very hard to argue that I wasn’t signalling with the intention of turning left, per the above para .
I’m not here to argue against cyclists I’m a cyclist myself as you know, but please don’t try to defend a cyclist who clearly disobeyed the Highway Code plus displayed a lack of sensibility that almost resulted in his injury.
but please don’t try to defend a cyclist who clearly disobeyed the Highway Code
Wouldn't dream of it. More just pointing out you have an added responsibility when you get in a car.
And that you've shown you are quite happy to disregard the HC when driving if it suits you (using the horn to show you are annoyed).
Like most people, you pick and choose which bits of the HC you are going to take seriously and get very upset at people who don't take the bits you take seriously seriously.
From the HWC:
Rule 178
Advanced stop lines. Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cyclists to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you should stop as soon as possible and MUST stop at the second white line. Allow cyclists, including any moving or waiting alongside you, enough time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
Drivers of large vehicles should stop sufficiently far behind the first white line so that they can see the whole area where cyclists may be waiting, allowing for any blind spot in front of the vehicle.
So I hold up my hand - I am breaking the law and could annoy motorists because of that but in my defence I don't cross into or over the carriageway until the lights go green. I simply position myself in no mans land the other side of the stop line and behind a pedestrian crossing if present, making every junction into a cycle priority box.
This image from Rule 174 shows there are many such areas at any junction. I'm just ahead of the road marking fairies.
I don't hold up drivers as from the moment the lights change, I invariably make it across the junction by the time the first driver in the queue has put it in gear. This puts me out of danger and stops me holding anyone up - a win/win so to speak.
I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm working to the spirit, if not the letter of, the law.
Bruce, your pedantic assumption based arguing isn’t helpful and I’m out after I address this, whilst I point out you weren’t there to witness the event unless you prove otherwise:
And that you’ve shown you are quite happy to disregard the HC when driving if it suits you (using the horn to show you are annoyed).
Like most people, you pick and choose which bits of the HC you are going to take seriously and get very upset at people who don’t take the bits you take seriously seriously.
a) I’m not upset
b) I used my horn in an attempt to further alert him to my presence as he approached the L/H side of my car and before he’d crossed in front of me, not after the fact in annoyance as you’ve assumed.
b) I used my horn in an attempt to further alert him to my presence as he approached the L/H side of my car and before he’d crossed in front of me, not after the fact in annoyance as you’ve assumed.
Nope, not buying it.
No, I wasn't there. But from your description the horn did nothing to avoid an accident. If you were already stopped then there was no point in using your horn. If you were already moving, exactly what speed did you manage to get up to going from stopped at the lights to going round the corner?
But anyway, to get back to my original point, if the junction is designed the way you described then it's not really in keeping with the idea behind these cyclist lights.
The main point is it's shit infrastructure. Your stereotypical BMW driver behavior is a minor aside to this point.
Probably. You still need to follow the HC, you’re probably breaching Rule 69 (fnarr fnarr) – obey traffic signs and signals. and rule 71 which is stopping at a stop signal. Both of those are “You Must” IANAL etc etc.
I agree entirely.
But the highway code refers to motorists and cyclists. Not cars and bikes.
The car though is the legal responsibility of the driver, that's written down in lots of places. If the car crosses the white line, the driver is at fault and unlikely to, but could be prosecuted/fined.
But bikes and cyclists are different. e.g you can't AFAIK be given a parking ticket for a bike for example (civil matters like "bikes must not be chained to these railings" are a different matter). Obviously if you bludgeon someone with it then it's your fault, or you fall off and the bike carries on down the hill on it's own into a convent of osteoporotic nuns, but it's not written into law that you as an individual are legally responsible for your bike like we are with cars?
So if the rule/law says "cyclists" must not cross the line, does that apply if you plonk yourself on the 2ft of tarmac in-front of the first car's bumper, front wheel over the line. The bikes crossed the line, but the cyclist hasn't.
So if the rule/law says “cyclists” must not cross the line, does that apply if you plonk yourself on the 2ft of tarmac in-front of the first car’s bumper, front wheel over the line. The bikes crossed the line, but the cyclist hasn’t.
So if the bonnet of a car crosses thevwhite line but the driver doesn, thats ok too?
Maybe if we all - cyclists and drivers - just followed Rule #1, we wouldn't waste bandwidth on obscure quasi legal points of order.
The bikes crossed the line, but the cyclist hasn’t.
I'd say that it depends on what happened. If you obstructed a ped crossing with your front wheel and some-one tripped over it and hurt themselves, I don't reckon that "It was my wheel, and not me, your Honour" is going to cut much mustard.
I’d say that it depends on what happened. If you obstructed a ped crossing with your front wheel and some-one tripped over it and hurt themselves, I don’t reckon that “It was my wheel, and not me, your Honour” is going to cut much mustard.
Ah, but that could be your fault in any scenario where your wheel is positioned where someone else is likely to be walking.
We're talking obscure quasi legal points of order here 😁 Say Officer Super-Pedant is walking along looking for someone to book on a technicality and sees you with one tyre knobble poking over the line, is he legally allowed to give you a ticket?
Like most people, you pick and choose which bits of the HC you are going to take seriously and get very upset at people who don’t take the bits you take seriously seriously.
Starting to wonder if my wife is masquerading as brucewee as she says this to me all the time.
Completely OT but I’m reading this on the train. Can I legally kill somebody for watching something on their phone without headphones? I’d like to know where I stand, legally speaking, before I go on a spree!
So if the bonnet of a car crosses thevwhite line but the driver doesn, thats ok too?
But if you read the question, that was my point. Yes, it's clear legally that the driver is legally responsible for the car. If your car wheels are over the line, you're over the line, whether your drivers seat is or not is irrelevant.
But then the HC talks about cyclists, which is the person, not the bike.
If you obstructed a ped crossing with your front wheel and some-one tripped over it and hurt themselves, I don’t reckon that “It was my wheel, and not me, your Honour” is going to cut much mustard.
In context, most pedestrian crossings have plenty of room between the stop line and the marked crossing. Ditto most junctions put a light controlled stop line a bit further back from where you'd naturally draw a give way line.
We’re talking obscure quasi legal points of order here 😁 Say Officer Super-Pedant is walking along looking for someone to book on a technicality and sees you with one tyre knobble poking over the line, is he legally allowed to give you a ticket?
Exactly.
For a car (and therefore driver) he is, but for a "cyclist"?
Can I legally kill somebody for watching something on their phone without headphones? I’d like to know where I stand, legally speaking, before I go on a spree!
Whilst sadly there is no specific clause saying it is okay I reckon any rational jury would find you innocent.
I’m an occasional commuter by bike into Central London (during the lighter months) and my experience is that it’s pretty much a free for all and you need to be constantly alert to hazards or all sorts (motorists, pedestrians, fellow cyclists).
Same and my priorities are 1. Survival 2. Being considerate to folks around me without prejudice to 1. And 3. Getting swiftly from A to B.
I understand that some people are upset by rule breaking regardless of logic which gets factored in a little bit. The highway code will probably make it somewhere onto the list, but a long way down.
Elsewhere on my own I avoid doing anything too blatant (to RLJ in front of anyone is blatant, and v much so in the vid. I'd not have done it. And If I had would have apologised profusely and paid happily. If you can't do the time don't do the crime). With a group it depends who I'm with but doesn't really come up these days on mtb where we ride.
When I rode wearing club kit then never never - that does make you an ambassador for the club. The rest of the time I don't accept that I'm an ambassador for anyone on a bike.
For a car (and therefore driver) he is, but for a “cyclist”?
This really is the worst sort of STW pedantry
Im sitting at the red light, front spot inside lane. car behind me and a van behind him. Car on the right and behind him a police van.
Cyclist filters up from behind me, squeezes past and on through the red light. I glance back at the police van with a smirk.
Sure as fate when they change to green off goes the police van, changes to the inside lane and I come across a bike sitting against the railings and just catch a glimpse of the rider speaking to plod through their window.
Traffic lights only really exist because car drivers can’t be trusted to make good choices.
Does that include cyclists who are also car drivers (apparently the majority are)?
Aount of times I am stopped in the zone (on a bike…) and another rider sails past and stops just after the line is ridiculous. I mean, what on earth is the point!
It's s good way to make a point to the motorist on the bicycle wait zone, "I'm still going in front of you!”
It’s s good way to make a point to the motorist on the bicycle wait zone, “I’m still going in front of you!”
Though presumably, since there was a bike "in the zone" ("Aount of times I am stopped in the zone (on a bike…)") there wasn't a motorist "in the zone".
We’re talking obscure quasi legal points of order here 😁 Say Officer Super-Pedant is walking along looking for someone to book on a technicality and sees you with one tyre knobble poking over the line, is he legally allowed to give you a ticket?
Is the line a line or a plane? In sporting terms, in football a ball crosses the line when it crosses the plane of the line, whether grounded or not. In rugby, it can cross the plane but still be in play if the player catching it remains on the field, or can catch and pass the ball back into the field as long as they aren't touching the ground outside while also touching the ball (similar to cricket)
In fact, having mentioned cricket, the line has a width, is the front or back of the line the actual important line or plane. As an ex-WK, in the matter of run outs or stumpings it's vitally important to know that 'the line's mine'. And crossing the plane isn't enough, you have to touch behind the back of the line.
I need these answered WRT a stop line, otherwise Kryton may bib me in annoyance / to alert me of his presence (delete as applicable depending how much you want to start a fight)
I certainly RLJ on the bike at lengthy bits of roadworks, typically dodging round the other side of the cones either in the pedestrian bit (where it exists) or sometimes where the work is nominally taking place. I think it's the sensible and safe option to avoid queues of cars trying to get past where it's too narrow. So sue me, I don't care.
"Nor me but not sure why a few people getting a £50 fine is newsworthy or why the Police needed to post in on "
A distraction instead of reporting on the corruption in the Tory party or why nobody from the Post Office management is in prison for purgury and had their immorally acrued pension taken back to pay the compensation to all those wronged ?
Though presumably, since there was a bike “in the zone” (“Aount of times I am stopped in the zone (on a bike…)”) there wasn’t a motorist “in the zone”.
Obviously not directly referring to that specific situation!
However, if vehicles in the bicycle zone do become a regular feature of your daily bicycle commutes then at some point you might very well think, "I might as well wait beyond the line anyway, it gives me a little bit more of a head start over cars which feels safer as I can get past that pinch point before they get too close behind me".
Same with what thecaptain says about roadworks, dodging round them and riding through the bit where the work is supposedly taking place.
Ride on pavements for example as a shortcut due to one way system. My commute doesn't involve cities or places busy with pedestrians, no heavy traffic, so minimal risk taking,
I don't actually do the full red light jumping thing though and never have, ie riding straight through when light is red as if it was green. I used to occasionally sneak through the lights early when I know the sequence but never feel comfortable doing it so prefer to avoid the lights completely by riding cheeky footpaths on the edge of town instead.
Break the rules, but do it responsibly!
This really is the worst sort of STW pedantry
I dunno , this thread has gone a long way with no comments on the grammar of the title. Sorry, I know, chat's that way >>>