Have you been fined for running a red light on your bike?

[Richard A Thackeray]

Don't think I've ever seen a car go through a red light. Seen plenty of cyclists. I was behind one last weekend so I shouted at him as he went straight through the lights (I stopped). He looked at me somewhat nonplussed. Caught him up a couple of miles later and gave him the death stare when I passed him

Quite a few around here, go through reds, whatever mode of transport they're in/on
As for when passing through some areas of Bradford (centre.... not the outlying towns/villages that had 'BD' postcodes), it's like the Wild West!!!

I dont ride through red lights its not rocket science

Exactly!!!
Plus, with British Cycling 3rd party insurance, it seems a 'given' that you have to be legal & above board' (or that's how I see it)

You want to try driving through Bradford, they don't stop for anything

As above

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

Adjustable, up to a point. If you report faulty sensors, they sometimes get changed to make them detect bikes. Sometimes, they cannot be adjusted far enough, or so they say.

This bridge had the loops in the ground, sometimes I was there for a long time ; https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2935166
(it's a single-lane 'humpback' over the Aire & Calder Navigation Canal)
It's on my route to work
Now it's got motion sensors, & I can trigger it

Seen here, over the Canal, above the creamy colour British Waterways workshops (where the joiners shops are, & they make lock-gates)
The Grade 1 listed aquaduct, is the one to the left
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3095826


There's a bad one, at the bottom of KirkGate, in Wakefield
If you're heading into the city-centre, it's just past the old ABC Cinema, & is an induction loop(?) it's buses & Cyclists only
It's the only red-light I'll go through (slowly) as there's no way I can trigger ir

 

[mjr]

I really think that these lights in general give insufficient time for a cyclist to get through. I expect the drivers in the case above were fuming because the problem was caused by slow cyclists, which in a way it was. But the root cause was the timing of the lights.

Sometimes often I deal with these by hopping off and walking, or riding on the pavement if there's no-one about, especially unfamiliar ones. Just to stay sane.

Temporary lights that do not give riders of cycles or horses sufficient time to pass are defective - and I believe illegal, but good luck getting that enforced as I understand enforcement is by the same highways department that normally approved the temporary lights plan, so they'd have to admit a mistake, which isn't human nature.

Hopping off and pushing a bike past red is still technically illegal but I don't know of a simple case being prosecuted.

 

[nickyboy]

Maybe it's because spring is the best time for digging up roads, or maybe local authorities are on a use-it-or-lose-it binge with their road budgets but South East London seems to have a hell of a lot of temporary lights at the moment.

These can be particularly problematic because there can be a narrow coned-off lane with very little room in which a cyclist can be trapped and meet oncoming traffic if the lights at the other end change. You also need to take a strong primary to prevent any attempted overtakes in the narrow section. Last weekend I saw a small group of cyclists who failed to get through on time (coming the opposite way to me). What was worse there was a car behind them. The cyclists managed to squeeze past and slip away (as did I), leaving two cars facing each other. I have no idea whether the riders or the car jumped the lights on their way in. Me and "my" car entered on a new green.

I really think that these lights in general give insufficient time for a cyclist to get through. I expect the drivers in the case above were fuming because the problem was caused by slow cyclists, which in a way it was. But the root cause was the timing of the lights.

Sometimes often I deal with these by hopping off and walking, or riding on the pavement if there's no-one about, especially unfamiliar ones. Just to stay sane.

There was a set on the Snake Pass a few weeks ago which covered about 150m of 8% incline. Zero chance of a cyclist getting through before the lights allowed traffic from the opposite direction. My only strategy was to set off as soon as I saw the opposing traffic stop, rather than wait for the lights to change (yes I know). Duck into the coned area to allow cars behind me to pass (only bits of the 150m were actually dug up so there was opportunity to do so) and when cars started coming from opposite direction give them a good eye to eye contact and a wave to make sure that (a) they've seen me (b) it was a friendly interaction

Of course that isn't always possible. There is a permanent set near Lognor that is where a road narrows to single track and goes up about 200m @10%. You have no choice but to get off the bike and wait on the footpath (not even a real footpath so you can't cycle up it) until the cars coming down have passed

 

[mjr]

I thought that a cyclist pushing (not scooting) a cycle was effectively a pedestrian (Crank v Brooks) so I can hop off and push my bike along the pavement as a pedestrian, just as a strolling nursemaid and a perambulator may do, m'lud.

But I'm probably wrong.

No, you are correct, but the red light law is worded so that even pedestrians pushing a vehicle past red are offending (the offence is to propel it, not to drive). Else I expect you'd see smart-bottoms pushing small cars across the stop line, then getting back in and driving on.

As noted before, the law is a mess.

 

[PK99]

I thought that a cyclist pushing (not scooting) a cycle was effectively a pedestrian (Crank v Brooks) so I can hop off and push my bike along the pavement as a pedestrian, just as a strolling nursemaid and a perambulator may do, m'lud.

But I'm probably wrong.

I think you are wrong.

The situation you describe of getting off the bike and walking on the pavement obeying the rules of a pedestrian is indeed analogous to Crank v Brooks.

BUT it is not simply the pushing of the bike that Crank v Brooks addresses.

The judge in Crank v Brooks said:

My bold

"In my judgment a person who is walking across a pedestrian crossing pushing a bicycle, having started on the pavement on one side on her feet and not on the bicycle, and going across pushing the bicycle with both feet on the ground so to speak is clearly a 'foot passenger'. If for example she had been using it as a scooter by having one foot on the pedal and pushing herself along, she would not have been a 'foot passenger'. But the fact that she had the bicycle in her hand and was walking does not create any difference from a case where she is walking without a bicycle in her hand. I regard it as unarguable the finding that she was not a foot passenger"

The position of a cyclist, who at a red light, gets off and walks on the road across the junction is very different from Crank v Brooks - they are not "clearly a foot passenger"




"

 

[ChrisEyles]

I ran a red light once on my bike as a teenager, whizzed through at 25mph+ at the bottom of a steep hill (doesn't feel like that long ago in my head... but actually quite some time ago now).

I was pulled over by a police car several hundred yards on, must have seen me shoot the light from further behind. I was properly bricking it and the chap gave me a right bollocking. Fortunately I didn't yet have a driving licence and due to age and probably the very apparent level of terror on my face I didn't get a fine.

Never done it since!

 

[matticus]

No, you are correct, but the red light law is worded so that even pedestrians pushing a vehicle past red are offending (the offence is to propel it, not to drive). Else I expect you'd see smart-bottoms pushing small cars across the stop line, then getting back in and driving on.

After seeing a cyclist RLJ, Mr Bean did once do exactly this!

 

[T4tomo]

Back to running/ pushing a bike thru traffic lights....
When I used to commute in London, I'd often see the same guy, approaching a red light on a pedestrian crossing phase, jump off run (still on the road) weaving thru pedestrians crossing the road and jump back on again. Proper knobhead.

On a number of occasions the lights went green (for him and me and others) whilst he was still off the bike, and I (plus other cyclists) would ride past him, chuckling to myself.

 

[simongt]

Yup, same round here, cyclists stopping for a red light or pedestrians on any sort of crossing is a rarity.
Being a bad boy, I run red lights when there's no-one about to see me - !

 

[DaveReading]

Temporary lights that do not give riders of cycles or horses sufficient time to pass are defective - and I believe illegal, but good luck getting that enforced as I understand enforcement is by the same highways department that normally approved the temporary lights plan, so they'd have to admit a mistake, which isn't human nature.

This old chestnut comes up with monotonous regularity. The all-red time is specified in SOPs (can't recall exactly where off the top of my head) and is based on a notional traffic speed that's faster than the average cyclist, but whether that renders them illegal is a moot point.

The occasional driver who gets held up behind a slow cyclist should console him/herself that they are simply paying the price for something that lessens unnecessary delays for the majority of motorists who aren't stuck behind a bike.

 

[rockyroller]

I think NYC averages ~ 30 cycling deaths a year. based on the deaths I've read about in Boston, they can be quite gruesome. cops do what cops know, stop & fine

 

[PaulRoberts]

Running a red light and riding the wrong way up a one way street. This rider does not think the rules apply to him. They got fined. They cannot say they did not deserve it, because they did.

riding the wrong way up a one way street is allowed in some places.