Red Lights

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Dan B

Disengaged member
magnatom said:
I know of quite a few people personally who I would say fall into the impressionable, i.e. if they saw more cyclists obeying the rules etc, they would form a different impression, so I think there are those who's attitudes could change.

Yes there are those that will hate us no matter what, but imagine if cyclists didn't red light jump, didn't pavement cycle etc... No fuel, no fire. Yes there would still be haters, but they would be more obviously, just haters. Without the crutch of red light jumping etc they would stand out as the idiots they are.
Imagine yourself to be a member of the public who does not cycle. While walking home early one morning you pass an otherwise deserted junction, then you see jimboalee approach. He slows down, checks for traffic in both directions, then rides across the still-empty junction without waiting for the green light.

Are you really going to whip yourself into a spittle-flecked indignant rage? My guess is that as a reasonable person, and as a non-cyclist (so not concerned with any issues of "he's letting the side down and his behaviour will impact on me") you will not think any the worse of him for his manoeuvre.
 
I must admit I am too biased to put myself in Joe Publics place! ;)

I guess in general Joe wouldn't care.

However, I think what might have an impact (as I illustrated above) is the opposite. Jim stops at the light and Joe is a little surprised at the cyclists stopping. Joe decides to make a daft comment

Joe: I thought you cyclists all jumped red lights!

Jim: No. There are growing numbers of us that do our best to stick to the rules of the road.

Joe: Thats great.

Joe heads off thinking that the next time he sees a cyclist when driving, he might give them the benefit of the doubt....
 
coruskate said:
How exactly am I doing that? Feel free to use short words
Well, lets say there are five laws only - the first is the most serious, and the fith is the least serious.

Now, if the fifth becomes acceptable because nobody sticks to it, it eventually gets ignored by all and sundry (including those that saw enforcement of it as a good idea in the first place).

Now number four is the least serious, so let's start ignoring that since it's last on the list...

...see where that's going?



The CD lying on the desk in front of me says on it "(P) & (C) 1999 VF2 Inc, under exclusive license to Cooking Vinyl". This means that they have the right to copy it, and that other people, including me, do not. You may be thinking of the clause in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 which permits backup copies of computer programs, but audio CDs are not computer programs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...aw-every-time-you-copy-a-CD-to-your-iPod.html

or more recently

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2009/apr/03/queen-ipod-copyright

Is Barack Obama threatening to debase the legal system? Answers on a really big postcard ...

Sorry, too lazy to look at the links and i have an idea what's behind them anyways. Thanks for clearing up the issue of copying CDs though - I'm glad I asked.

Now, if i can just ask you to think of your own font colour and point out that stealing mine is childish, that about finishes up this post.
;)
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
Absinthe Minded said:
Well, lets say there are five laws only - the first is the most serious, and the fith is the least serious.

Now, if the fifth becomes acceptable because nobody sticks to it, it eventually gets ignored by all and sundry (including those that saw enforcement of it as a good idea in the first place).

Now number four is the least serious, so let's start ignoring that since it's last on the list...

...see where that's going?
Yes, it's going somewhere stupid. If the fifth and least important law had any kind of moral or ethical basis, or appealed to a sense of moral justice, then it would not go unobserved by the majority of people. That it apparently doesn't is not going to pave the way for ignoring all the more important laws that do.

P/S Sorry about appropriating your purple. It was entirely unintentional: a bit of cut and paste and a bit of editing and the dratted stuff goes everywhere
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
Absinthe Minded said:
No, but you're still going to believe the sterotypical assumption that all cyclists jump red lights.
There's a name for the kind of person who believes stereotypes
 

classic33

Leg End Member
coruskate said:
Which law is it that mandates looking and indicating before changing lanes? I've never seen it, and I do remember that my driving instructor always used to say that there is no need to indicate unless someone will benefit from seeing the signal

Obviously I'm concerned that I might be breaking this law as it will only hasten my slide into sadonecrobestiality

See:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/Uksi_19891796_en_12.htm
 

jimboalee

New Member
Location
Solihull
Lighting Regulations</SPAN>Abbreviated to RVLR: the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989 (amended in 1994 and 2005) require pedal cycles to have various lights and reflectors fitted, clean and working properly, when being ridden on a public road between sunset and sunrise. Cyclists may also be required to light up in conditions of seriously reduced visibility during the day, but only if they have functional lights already fitted. Lights are not required when the cycle is stationary or being pushed along the roadside.
It has to be said that the fine details of RVLR are seldom enforced; and provided you show some kind of white light in front and red behind you are unlikely to be challenged. If you are involved in a night-time accident however, any slight illegality with respect to your lights or reflectors may be regarded as contributory negligence. The following items are the minimum required, on a bicycle or tricycle, in order to ride it legally at night:
Front Lamp

One is required, showing a white light, positioned centrally or offside, up to 1500mm from the ground, aligned towards and visible from the front. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS6102/3 or an equivalent EC standard. If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.
Rear Lamp

One is required, to show a red light, positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 1500mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind. If capable of emitting a steady light it must be marked as conforming to BS3648, or BS6102/3, or an equivalent EC standard. If capable of emitting only a flashing light, it must emit at least 4 candela.
Rear Reflector

One is required, coloured red, marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned centrally or offside, between 350mm and 900mm from the ground, at or near the rear, aligned towards and visible from behind.
Pedal Reflectors

Four are required, coloured amber and marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of each pedal.
Exceptions and explanations

Age brings privileges. To name but two: cycles manufactured before October 1990 can have any kind of white front lamp that is visible from a reasonable distance, and pre-October 1985 cycles don’t need pedal reflectors.
Cycle trailers need a rear lamp and reflector; sidecars also need a front lamp.
The Euro-friendly clause

Thanks to a European Directive of a few years ago, wherever a British Standard (BS) is referred to, equivalent standards from other EC countries must now also be recognised, but only if they provide an equivalent level of safety etc. It’s not exactly clear which do. However Germany has arguably the strictest cycle lighting laws in Europe so we consider it safe to use equipment that is marked accordingly, with a “K~number”.

It should also be noted that wherever a British Standard is referred to, that reference applies to a specific edition. In the case of BS6102/3, that is the 1986 edition, as amended on 15th April 1995 and again on 1st September 2003. These amendments removed the filament bulb design restrictions, so that lamps may now get their light from LEDs – or indeed anything else! Dynamos

Dynamo powered lights are legal even though they go out when you stop. That’s allowed so long as you stop on the left. Usually it’s much safer to stay where you are (e.g. in a stationary queue with left-turning traffic filtering up your inside), since most cars do stop for red traffic lights and those that don’t are unlikely to pay more heed to a bike lamp! Nevertheless: dynamos and lamps are now available with reliable back-up (standlight) features that either keep them on or light up a diode instead of the bulb.
Additional lamps and reflectors

Some cyclists like to fit extra lamps and reflectors, in addition to the approved ones, specified above. This is perfectly legal provided they are the correct colour and in an appropriate position. These optional lamps and reflectors do not have to comply with any standards, but it’s illegal to use some designs of lamp or reflector that have specific other uses. You must not, for instance, show a red light at the front, or a white light to the rear, or fit triangular-shaped rear reflectors on anything except a trailer.

The Pedal Cycles (Safety) Regulations (PCSR) ensure that every new bicycle is sold with several extra reflectors, not required by RVLR, but (strangely) does nothing at all to facilitate the fitment of front and rear lamps. These additional reflectors are found on the sides of the wheels, clear white or coloured yellow, and there's also a "white" reflector on the front of the bike. You are at liberty to remove the surplus side and front reflectors, which in any case are of dubious benefit, but be sure to fit the necessary front and rear lamps. Flashers


Thanks to the enactment of Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 2559: on 23rd October 2005, it finally became legal to have a flashing light on a pedal cycle. Even better: it became possible for a flashing light to be approved, meaning no other light would be needed in that position. And since BS6102/3 does not yet cater for flashing (but is likely to be amended to do so quite soon), approval is for the time being, granted simply on the basis of brightness. Because DfT very much prefer anything that possibly can be evaluated against a proper technical standard, so to be evaluated: any flashing lamp that is also capable of emitting a steady light is approved only if it conforms with BS6102/3 when switched to steady mode. Since most (probably all) flashing lights do also have a steady mode, and since none of their manufacturers can be bothered to test and mark them to the pernickety standards of one small country on the fringes of Europe, it's unlikely that any flashing light actually qualifies for approval. But since it became theoretically legal to ride a bike with only flashing lights on it, the Police are nowadays no more likely to quibble its legal status than one equipped with steady lights – unless they're rather dim or involved in an accident of course.
If you'd like to read the Department for Transport's explanation, see this page on their website. Chris Juden 2006-09-29



Sorry its so long lads, but you must read it all through before coming to your conclusions.

Please note ( I've highlighted it ) Chris' comments about motorist RLJers.

Anyway. No mention of direction indicator lamps on a bicycle.
They are available.
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
classic33 said:
Doesn't require indicator lights on cycles, and doesn't mandate their use even on vehicles which do require them. Try again.
 

purplepolly

New Member
Location
my house
coruskate said:
Yes, it's going somewhere stupid. If the fifth and least important law had any kind of moral or ethical basis, or appealed to a sense of moral justice, then it would not go unobserved by the majority of people.

How many people ignore a 30 speed limit in built up areas and near schools despite the fact that they know perfectly well this greatly reduces the chances of a pedestrian surviving an impact with said car? The speed limit clearly has a moral basis - it reduces the likelyhood of someone being killed or seriously injured - yet most drivers choose to ignore it.
 

Trevrev

Veteran
Location
Southampton
Since i've been a member on this forum, the amount of topics i've seen on the subject of red light jumping has amazed me. It's all been said before !!!
It's so boring........Some do it, some don't !!!
Can we just live with that.........PMSl !!! ;)
 

purplepolly

New Member
Location
my house
Quote:
Originally Posted by siadwell
Try these little snippets from the Highway Code:


coruskate said:
I am well acquainted with said volume. Try this little snippet from the front of it

Quote:
Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.
None of the bits you quoted said MUST or MUST NOT, so I ask again: which law requires a road user to look and signal before changing lane? Courtesy of the Hughes guide I have copies of most of the relevant traffic legislation, and would be happy to paste a couple of paras if you can quote the act's name and section numbers but are unable to track down the actual text (they're not all online, which is annoying).

You missed of the rest of that section, these bits do apply

"Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Knowing and applying the rules contained in The Highway Code could significantly reduce road casualties. Cutting the number of deaths and injuries that occur on our roads every day is a responsibility we all share. The Highway Code can help us discharge that responsibility"
 

classic33

Leg End Member
coruskate said:
Doesn't require indicator lights on cycles, and doesn't mandate their use even on vehicles which do require them. Try again.

Hold-up, you said your driving instructor said there was no need. Since you don't get cycling lessons from a driving instructor.

That bit said the link given was to a piece of law that sets out what lights are required for various types of vehicle. If there was no legal requirement for them to be used why would a law be passed that requires their fitting?

As for your driving instructor, I think your due a refund. An assumption on his part that there is no need to indicate/signal your intentions is a sign of a poor instructor. You may be well aware of what you intend to do, but you may not be aware that others are not mind readers.
 

BentMikey

Rider of Seolferwulf
Location
South London
Don't be so quick to berate and be so condescending towards Coruskate. This is well known advice, and it's taught as part of Bikeability cycling instructor courses too.
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
RLJing isn't done by the majority of people. It's done by a proportion of cyclists. You can't make a statement to suggest that the majority of the population are happy with RLJing when that's not the case.
I didn't. Read the post I was replying to (absintheminded, #130) and you will see that we are talking about a hypothetical country with only five laws. The nature of these laws is unstated but one of them is entirely unobserved
 
Top Bottom