Increased Police Vigilance

[Cyclone]

No one here is talking about cyclists running pedestrian crossing lights. That's out of order, as the danger to a pedestrian being hit by a fast moving cyclist is akin to the danger of a cyclist being hit by a car.

 

The red lights being discussed here are the ones well away from pedestrian crossings, that hold back large packs of, often impatient/annoyed, motorists, who can present a real danger to any cyclists as they all set off together when the lights change.

 

So much so, that some experienced cyclists, if it's obvious that the way ahead is clear (as it often is), will, if they feel under threat, go through the red, so they are well out of the way of the accelerating pack of frustrated/aggressive motorists as the lights change.

 

I think you mean incompetent cyclists.

 

Traffic passing me slowly, with ample time to see me as it sets of from lights is rarely dangerous. And going through the light early would achieve nothing except for the same traffic to be passing me a few seconds later, at a higher speed.

 

---------- Post added 25-12-2014 at 21:16 ----------

 

Thats the point!!!!. for cyclists this is an everyday occurrence.

This is a blatant lie.

For cyclists this hardly ever happens. Despite you being desperate to use it as an excuse.

 

---------- Post added 25-12-2014 at 21:18 ----------

 

We clearly disagree entirely with you.

Yet you are in a minority, but still refuse to reconsider your behaviour.

If you want to go through life disregarding perfectly coherent and logical reasons why many experienced cyclists go through reds for the sake of their own safety, and, believe, instead, that it's always about convenience/laziness, then so be it.

It is. It's quite obvious to see. It makes me angry as a cyclists, so for you to claim it doesn't make motorists angry is also clearly wrong.

But you're wrong buddy.

Yeah, me and the majority of cyclists who don't feel the need to run lights.

 

As you'd quickly come to realise if you actually tried to engage with the arguments, rather than just insisting that all such cyclists are deluded/lying.

You are, one or the other.

Edited December 25, 2014 by Cyclone

[Squiggs]

Thats the point!!!!. for cyclists this is an everyday occurrence. I will say it again PLEASE READ PROPERLY. cyclists don't have the mass in either metal/weight to trigger the senses of traffic lights. SO unless there is another bigger vehicle around you can be stuck there waiting for ages.

Or as been already suggested you can hop off and walk across the junction(like yea that's going to happen) Or take the other alternative and ride on the pavement which is against the law, don't you know! But that wont bother some people on here. if its suits them they will gladly break the law of the land. (me included)

 

I don't need to read it again, three times or twenty three and a half times.

 

I cycle every day to work and back. Through plenty of traffic lights, and the scenario that you suggest, happens rarely. It does happen, but not every day. I know exactly the issue and it is IN NO WAY as big a problem as you suggest in an excuse to wriggle out of it.

 

The fact that you are still blathering about such rare circumstances (I think I can cite 4 occasions of lights failing to change for me after repeated phases since I returned to cycling in 2008 after recovering from the common case of car-overdependancy) when the topic is your getting pulled for REPEATEDLY running red lights, shows that you have no real argument.

 

It also happens to cars, the lights at Brook Hill roundabout got stuck a couple of weeks ago in the afternoon. I suppose that means that ALL traffic can now ignore any red light because they OCCASIONALLY fail?

 

If a light does not work for cyclists (and unfair as it is, sometimes cycle/bus gates do have less bites of the cherry) then use your common sense as to the safest way to proceed, and do so in a way that doesn't transfer the hazard to another road user.

 

If a light doesn't change as often as you think it ought, then stop putting the cause back by giving the impression that cyclists are all devil-may-care mavericks who think that red lights are for wimps and Amsterdam streets, and raise the issue of any problem junctions.

 

Or alternatively you might think it's too much bother and take another route

Edited December 26, 2014 by Squiggs

[monkey69]

Maybe they had a police emergency. you never know it might have been an accident where a cyclist was involved.

You should always obey the law, never mind if they break it themselves, they are the police after all. your just a berk on a bike!

 

Berk on a bike, :love:It. i might change my user name to that!. No they were not in rush, they didn't have the blues and twos going hell for leather. They made a right turn without any indication at all, and what was worse is that the car coming across had very little time to anticipate that they were coming around the roundabout. I saw that one of the women in the front had hurt her shoulder when the driver had to brake sharply,but as they were police this is of course none of their fault. the car should have driven up to the roundabout with the possibility of a car/van.cycle/ pedestrian suddenly jumping into their right of way.

[denlin]

It is not legal in this country no matter whether you are in a car, motorcycle or on a pushbike to run a red light. Nor is it, as used to see on a regular basis at the end of Ecclesfield Road, for a cyclist when their proceeding light is on red to mount the pavement, go on inside of traffic light because they don't think the highway code applies to them. Of course if someone in a car came though green light from right or left and knocked them off the car driver would be to blame for not driving with due care and attention

[monkey69]

Who said anything about it being legal?. I am arguing that in certain circumstances its the commonsense thing to do. that's a whole different view. Its like assisted suicide, that is not legal but who in their right mind would object to a person helping another end their suffering?.

[ANGELFIRE1]

I have not read all the posts but in reply to the OP, a red light means stop, not go ahead if it's clear. I thought this rule applied to all road users.

 

Angel1.

[onewheeldave]

Who said anything about it being legal?. I am arguing that in certain circumstances its the commonsense thing to do. that's a whole different view. Its like assisted suicide, that is not legal but who in their right mind would object to a person helping another end their suffering?.

 

Actually, plenty of people would, and do, object to assisted suicide. Sadly, we live in a world where people like that are listened to and, laws put in place so they can have their 'viewpoints' inflicted on others.

 

The problem you're having in this thread is that a lot of people that if it's a rule, or a law, it must be followed, even if it's an absurd one, or, one that in some circumstances, is absurd.

 

As an aspergic, I've come to the conclusion that this mindset of putting rules at a higher priority than logic/reason, is one of the hindrences of the neurotypical mentality.

 

Certainly, when looked at purely rationally, it's clear that our road system is a joke, as is the way our society lets cyclists be treated, in that all cyclists are at risk of being mown down by motorists, often due to their ineptitude, fact that they're on a mobile, and, a host of other reasons. And, when a cyclist is killed by a motorists ineptitude, chances are they will get away with it.

 

The fact that car drivers will rage about being slowed by a cyclist, when logic shows that the delays are actually due to a gross excess of cars on the road, not cycles is another example of the absolute lack of rationality on this issue.

 

And when cyclists who find tactics to lower the risk to them, such as, in some circumstances, passing through a red light when the way ahead is blatantly clear and safe, and, to remain in front of a pack of irate, tense and rushed drivers in their protective metal boxes (at least a percentage of whom are demonstrably not safe to be anywhere near a cyclist), is clearly putting said cyclist at risk: doesn't matter, cos a rules a rule, a laws a law, and must be obeyed.

 

So, respect to you for vocalising and arguing your point- I know for a fact there's far more cyclists out there who routinely in some circumstances go through reds on the grounds of safety, than is apparent in threads like this.

 

I suspect this is due mainly to them feeling outnumbered by the 'rule-bounds' and fearing being verbally attacked on these threads.

 

I'd suggest they, instead, take the opportunity to speak out here, and we'd probably find the true proportions aren't so much in the favour of the 'rulebounds' as they like to think.

 

And, the thing about 'rule-bounds', is that if it starts to look like they're not in a big majority, they tend to be a lot less vocal.

Edited December 26, 2014 by onewheeldave

[Starlc]

You should get fined if you run a red light simple , cyclists are a pain in the arse especially in London and on many occasions I've had words

[RonJeremy]

There do seem to be a lot of blind sheep on this thread that take a holier than thou attitude to running a red light. Get a life. If it's safe to proceed and a cyclist is prepared to take the risk of prosecution then I personally have no problem with it.

[Starlc]

There do seem to be a lot of blind sheep on this thread that take a holier than thou attitude to running a red light. Get a life. If it's safe to proceed and a cyclist is prepared to take the risk of prosecution then I personally have no problem with it.

 

The problem is that the op seems to think he can run red lights in front of the police and not get stopped. He also seems to think it's perfectly ok to do so but doesn't want the fine that he should get ?

 

Ban cycles from roads I say.