When it makes sense to jump red lights

[Quicken]

The highway code says cyclists must stop at red lights, and so I do.

The Highway Code
The Highway Code

However, there are cear situations where it makes no sense for a cyclist to stop at a red light, and the fact that this doesn't seem to be taken into account by the law is frustrating. The situations I encounter are these:

1) I am turning left at some lights. There is a cycle lane on my current road that continues onto the road to the left.
2) I am going straight on across the cross part of a T-junction. Again, there is a continuous cycle path along the road.

In neither of these situations do I need to leave a cycle lane. Thus, in neither situation can my route conflict with the legal flow of traffic. It simply does not matter whether cars are joining from the right, or coming from my current road. Thus, the lights are irrelevant, and should be ignored. Who agrees with this analysis? Is there any way to lobby for these situations being clarified in the law?

Cheers,
Q

 

[rsscott]

Left turns - I have seen cycle lanes which continue left at an intersection but the traffic light is actually on a middle island between the cycle lane and the main traffic lane. In this instance the planners obviously designed the cycle lane so that you can continue with your left turn without having to stop.

If the traffic light is to the left of the cycle lane but the lane marking is then broken until you've passed the apex of turn then my understanding is you should stop and wait until green before setting off.

 

[flecc]

I see situations where I might not have to stop, but in all situations I stop at red lights in order to give a good impression to the car drivers who wait there. There's a load of ill feeling between car drivers and cyclists, often ill founded on both sides, but I try to take any chance to give a good impression and it may be an example to other cyclists.

Drivers generally fail to see that the cyclist is best out of their way before it's their turn to set off, and just see cyclists crossing on red as advantage taking.

Stopping at red used to be irksome at times, especially when riding up a slope, but on an electric assist bike it's really not an imposition.
.

 

[Beeping-Sleauty]

I see situations where I might not have to stop, but in all situations I stop at red lights in order to give a good impression to the car drivers who wait there. There's a load of ill feeling between car drivers and cyclists, often ill founded on both sides, but I try to take any chance to give a good impression and it may be an example to other cyclists..

well said.....

more an aspect of cyclist PR, it is a standard comment from motorists about how cyclists ignore lights, zebra crossings, one streets, pavement traffic, et al. would prefer not to give them the opportunity & stop for lights just as they do.

beeps

 

[Mike Robinson]

Who agrees with this analysis?

You should be very wary of pedestrians who may be crossing believing that everything has stopped.

Also be very wary of any police on anywhere in sight. Here in London I believe they now have to fulfill quotas of arrests and I have seen them waiting at popular junctions and harvesting cycle riders who jump the reds.

That said I'm not so good as flecc and often only slow down to check for pedestrians/conflicting traffic/police before resuming normal pace (I do understand it might be a little dangerous). Out of curiosity, if you do get pulled on a bicycle for jumping a red, is it simply 3 points or is there some leeway.

Interestingly I went along to a local police talk and was amazed to hear that cycling on the pavements was one of their chief concerns! I was starting to wonder whether mug shots of my son and I were posted on police notice boards across the country when he explained that bag thefts were done by yoofs on bikes on the pavement.

Mike

 

[Ian]

You should be very wary of pedestrians who may be crossing believing that everything has stopped.

Out of curiosity, if you do get pulled on a bicycle for jumping a red, is it simply 3 points or is there some leeway.

Interestingly I went along to a local police talk and was amazed to hear that cycling on the pavements was one of their chief concerns! I was starting to wonder whether mug shots of my son and I were posted on police notice boards across the country when he explained that bag thefts were done by yoofs on bikes on the pavement.

Mike

I agree with your point about pedestrians, in fact a pedestrian may well have a green man symbol giving the ok to cross.

You can't get points on your licence (If you have one) for offences commited on a bicycle as it is not a motor vehicle (That includes legal electrics), if you could that would place licenced drivers at at a disadvantage as they would receive heavier penalties than those who don't hold a licence. You can however get fined and the police have the power to hand out on the spot £30 fines, which they are currently doing in Leicester to pavement riders, I understand that the concern here is of collisions with pedestrians rather than bag snatches though.

I have to admit I sometimes jump lights if nothings about, I equate it to crossing the road at a pelican crossing, very few people wait for the green man if the road is clear.

Ian.

 

[Beeping-Sleauty]

Pavements - Yea or Nay

... You can however get fined and the police have the power to hand out on the spot £30 fines, which they are currently doing in Leicester to pavement riders, I understand that the concern here is of collisions with pedestrians rather than bag snatches though.


Ian.

Pavements - Yea or Nay.

Touchy subject, and seems to depend on the perspective, pedestrians and motorists may have differing views.

often, when roads are bad or narrow, or chock with traffic, i will ride on the pavement, but only when there are no pedestrians, or the pavement is wide enough for safe passage, and if i meet pedstrians when on a pavement, i will give them right of way.

this is for safety, thin, unlit, winding country roads. often beset with boy-racers or large commercial vehicles exceeding the speed limits, puddled potholes to trap the unlucky & the unwary, or traffic tight up against parked cars, sometimes, if the conditions allow, the pavement is the best place to be.

But, It absolutely infuriates me to see the way some cyclists use pavements with no concern for others, it is this worst image with which all cyclists get branded.

rant over,
beeps

 

[Ian]

Absolutly right beeps, totally agree.

In fact Leicester police have stated that pavement riders showing consideration to pedestrians will only be warned and asked to dismount, the reckless ones will be fined. Seems a sensible policy to me.

Ian.

 

[ITSPETEINIT]

On the pavement? Jump red lights??

Whatever next !!!
I ride a bike (e or hp) like I drive a car. With consideration for other roads users and the law (even when it is an "ass").
It is difficult to do so (the consideration factor) when the law's goal posts have been moved, making it an offence to ride with consideration for oneself ON THE HIGHWAY. This is in respect of the cyclist who was summoned and fined (£330 I think it was) for not cycling on a cycle path that was provided notwithstanding that in the view of his defence it was dangerous for him to do so. Not only as regards the detritus that was left there but also perhaps the occassional car, juggernaut and builder's skip). There was concern that the junctions with other roads made no concession for the safety of cyclists and posed the greatest hazzards. I think that (error of) judgement was overturned on appeal. When the CTC sprang to his assistance (on appeal).
I recall the road from Richmond to Kew Gardens, which contains a red cycle path, was totally (from one end to the other) obstructed by cars (presumably of visitors to the gardens) and not a windscreen penalty ticket in sight.
What then one law for cyclists and another for motorists.
Why did I not make a telephone call to the local copshop?
I do not, as a matter of principle:................
Cut Red lights under any pretext.
Park on the pavement.
Ride on pavements dedicated to pedestrians only, no matter how free of folk.
Drive on other people's grass verges to save nano seconds waiting for the car (or bike) in front to turn right
Chuck litter out of car windows or from bikes.
Spit at cyclists or motorists or coppers!
Ignore cyclists at one way traffic calming street furniture when I am approaching from the red arrow direction.
Ignore cyclists already in the 'pinch' at one way traffic calming street furniture when I am approaching from the white arrow direction.
These are comon sense, common courtesy considerations enshrined in law, to a great extent ignored by ........nearly everybody it seems.
Hands up those who offend these rules!!!
Peter

 

[Ian]

Clearly a touchy subject

Whatever next !!!
This is in respect of the cyclist who was summoned and fined (£330 I think it was) for not cycling on a cycle path that was provided notwithstanding that in the view of his defence it was dangerous for him to do so.
Peter

words fail me... just had a look at the highway code, can't find anything that says cyclists must use cycle paths, obviously it says they should be used wherever possible or practical so it seems like the police make the the law up as they go along. The highway code also states that it is an offence to park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line which is interesting as many drivers round here seem to think the solid white line is to mark their personal parking space, Ive never seen a car ticketed for it though, which is strange as the parking attendants don't usually miss a revenue generating opportunity. They must be scared of offending people, after all they're only putting cyclists in danger.

 

[Mike Robinson]

Pete

I totally agree with the "With consideration for other roads users" (and I assume you're including pedestrians) but if the law is "being an ass" then I personally ignore it with the full understanding that I might get done by the law.

Out of curiosity do you obey all the traffic laws? Have you never broken the speed limit in a car on a deserted motorway?

If so: how do you decide which laws you can break and which you shouldn't? Presumably because it's safe and not bothering other people. Is that any different from a cyclist arriving at a pedestrian crossing where there is a good view and, if I see that people have already crossed, just slowing down (while covering your brakes) and simply proceeding.

Mike

PS I do believe they should bring back hanging for people who litter though.

 

[Ian]

Pete

PS I do believe they should bring back hanging for people who litter though.

Add drawing and quartering to that.

 

[HarryB]

I always stop at red lights and I used to take a hard line against those sail through them but my view is softening after reading this comment in The Independent James Daley: The Cycling Column - Independent Online Edition > Comment

Regardless of the safety angle I'll still stop at a red as I don't want a policeman taking an interest in my Torq. I always pull well forward even if there is no "cycling box" so technically I am breaking the law anyway by crossing the white line.

 

[Django]

As far as I am concerned there is only one law, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Or, more normatively, ' Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law'.

Unless it offends the above, I couldn't care less about red lights, pavements, speed limits, delimiting a torq, having a pint or two, etc, etc.

There are too many rules and it is our moral duty to break at least some of them at least some of the time!

Django

 

[ITSPETEINIT]

Aha! You hypocrites!!!

I have read the responses to my own views about breaking the laws of the road.
I do not consciously break the laws of the road: I have cruise control which I set to the prevailing speed limit or below (the 20 mph limit favoured in some places puts a strain on my car management systems) partly because then I do not inadvertently stray outside the limits but also because it is good economy.
We cyclists are all cyclists to motorists and tarred with the brush that I think should only be applied to those reckless ones (On the pavements, any speed, down one way streets the wrong way, even through red lights where you know there is no danger to yourself or others (or thought you did, and then surprise, surprise!!).
Legally is probably safest!!
Peter

 

[flecc]

As far as I am concerned there is only one law, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Or, more normatively, ' Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law'.

Unless it offends the above, I couldn't care less about red lights, pavements, speed limits, delimiting a torq, having a pint or two, etc, etc.

There are too many rules and it is our moral duty to break at least some of them at least some of the time!

Django

Despite my earlier post on my law abiding custom at red lights, I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentiment Django, and would expand it to "far too many rules". I break and have broken more laws than most, over a range that might shock many, but always where others are not affected by those actions, there being no after effect.

The shared circumstance of road usage means that if any other road user is present, they are affected, albeit sometimes only psychologically. The previously calm driver who gets angry at a cyclist or four jumping the lights can set off in a mood that might lead to a road rage incident or accident. Those cyclists would share the responsibility for causing that, and for the bad impression generally perceived of cyclists behaviour.
.