Stop at lights?

[Dan B]

The only thing illogical is the attempt to justify either speeding or mobile phone use.

This pathetic argument is that neither mobile phone use or speeding is dangerous because this type of driver only uses their phone in a three mile tailback, and only ever speeds on empty motorways in absolute contraindication of the evidence where most offences are committed whilst in motion and residential areas respectively.


If you could kindly engage with the argument and explain this slight discrepancy?

If you would read what I actually said instead of what you wish I'd said, you would find that there is no discrepancy.

 

[ufkacbln]

Excellent - so you now agree that using mobile phones whilst driving and speeding is unequivocally antisocial, dangerous and inconsiderate?

 

[Dan B]

No. You know the bit where I said "if you would read what I actually said instead of what you wish I'd said"? You're still trying to put words in my mouth and just because they're different words this time doesn't make it any more excusable.

 

[marzjennings]

no I did and there will be some posting here who know who it was meant for. ( not you BTW)

Hmm, I wonder who.

I love observing the flouncing that occurs when someone admits to transgressing the odd law or two. The immediate assumption that one by breaking the law one is also endangering lives is fantastic. I marvel at folks who are able to live by such absolutes of right and wrong and are able to cast that first stone.

Nobody I think is arguing that RLJing is right, just that not all RLJing (or other legal transgressions) is automatically dangerous to either the rider or others. On the flip side, not all legal activity is safe.

 

[subaqua]

one

Hmm, I wonder who.

I love observing the flouncing that occurs when someone admits to transgressing the odd law or two. The immediate assumption that one by breaking the law one is also endangering lives is fantastic. I marvel at folks who are able to live by such absolutes of right and wrong and are able to cast that first stone.

Nobody I think is arguing that RLJing is right, just that not all RLJing (or other legal transgressions) is automatically dangerous to either the rider or others. On the flip side, not all legal activity is safe.

could also argue that if the 30 seconds or so delay you "suffer" are more important than waiting then there are bigger issues to worry about in your life .

 

[Brandane]

This pathetic argument is that neither mobile phone use or speeding is dangerous because this type of driver only uses their phone in a three mile tailback, and only ever speeds on empty motorways in absolute contraindication of the evidence where most offences are committed whilst in motion and residential areas respectively.


If you could kindly engage with the argument and explain this slight discrepancy?

Just a thought, but ...... Perhaps this is down to the Police not taking too much notice of mobile phone use by drivers sitting in stationary traffic in 3 mile tail-backs; or turning a blind eye to someone speeding on an empty motorway. They quite rightly direct resources to where breaking the law causes danger to others; i.e. speeding in residential areas, or mobile phone use while moving. If the offence is not recorded then statistically it doesn't exist, conveniently. Why do you think the Police make it so difficult to report minor offences these days, then pat themselves on the back because crime figures are down?

 

[BrianEvesham]

Just because the lights don't change immediately just for you does NOT mean there is anything wrong, you may be on a sideroad and the main dual carriage way might just have a tad more priority [and this may change depending on the time of day], similarly there may be a ped crossing phase which WILL be served if requested, and as a vehicle you [like all those big bad car drivers must wait]. However to the OP.
To cut out all this "should you shouldn't you" guff just swap the words bicycle and car in the description of the offence ['cos sorry but that's what it is] and honestly state on this forum what would your reaction be if you saw a car simply ignoring a red light on a regular basis. If you can say " Oh well he probably can't be bothered waiting so it doesn't matter" then fair enough BUT if the reaction is " swine ! He should be arrested" [or similar] then the case is proved. If you don't want to follow the rules then don't ride on the road, using mobiles, speeding etc are all completely irrelevant. They are illegal acts, like mugging and theft and if caught the individual will be punished RLJ however "get away with it" in many cases simply because it is impossible to ID a bike [no reg no] and in busy traffic the police would be very lucky to stop it anyway.
If you really can't wait the few minutes that it takes then I suggest a large 4x4 or german made car and at least you can wait and rant in the appropriat vehicle for your temper.

If I'm in my car the lights will change. The traffic light sensors don't seem to recognise a bicycle.. It's a straight B road over a railway bridge out of Honeybourne. I have been waiting for another car to come along and trip the lights, but TBH it is wearing thin now.

I am happy to wait for the lights to change (TBH at my level I enjoy a breather), but they don't.
I won't be buying a 4x4 as my "temper" is non existent.

 

[snailracer]

No, sorry, but the law is clear, the police cannot issue FPNs to anyone under the age of 16.

That's one view, but according to http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/cycling-and-the-law/ it's not the view of the DfT

"...the fixed penalty ... cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."
"...The age of criminal responsibility is 10 so, technically, only children below this age can cycle on footways without fear of redress..."
So kids are still breaking the law, they can be taken to court if over 10, but cannot be issued an on-the-spot FPN unless over 16, see if you can get your head around that lot.

 

[simmi]

I am showing my ignorance here but I had always thought that traffic lights were triggered by pressure pads under the road, I now know through this thread and some research that the lines in the road hide a induction loop that is triggered by metal. As me and a few others have stated we only ever jump red lights when they will not change for us so after a bit of digging I found this video about neodymium (real earth) magnets.


Was wondering if anyone had tried these magnets.They come in all shapes and sizes so was thinking of buying a round countersunk one I could screw to a spare cleat thread in the bottom of my shoes so I could then unclip and place my foot directly onto the loop.

 

[marzjennings]

one

could also argue that if the 30 seconds or so delay you "suffer" are more important than waiting then there are bigger issues to worry about in your life .

Sorry, not in a rush or an impatient type of person, and according to my wife a very patient person. Cheers for the concern though.

 

[Dan B]

"...the fixed penalty ... cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."

A slightly less truncated version of that first quote:

However, there is a view that the FPN can only be issued to those over 16.

“The DfT view, from discussions with Home Office, is that the law applies to all

Googling other sources says that there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued, but different police authorities have different policies on the matter. So in practice it might be 16 after all, it depends where you are.

 

[snailracer]

A slightly less truncated version of that first quote.
...
Googling other sources says that there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued, but different police authorities have different policies on the matter. So in practice it might be 16 after all, it depends where you are.

You are equating the issuance of a FPN with breaking the law. The law is clear - cycling on pavements is against the law, even for kids, and nobody is disputing that. However, that does not change the fact that a FPN cannot be issued to a child under 16.

 

[Dan B]

You are equating the issuance of a FPN with breaking the law

No I'm not, and it's not a fact that FPNs cannot be issued to people under 16. See e.g. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/documents/juveniles.pdf

 

[snailracer]

No I'm not, and it's not a fact that FPNs cannot be issued to people under 16. See e.g. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/documents/juveniles.pdf

DEFRA's scope includes littering, dogs at large, etc. AFAIK, it does not include cycling on pavements - that is the DfT's turf, and their guidance from the Home Office is, "...the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements...the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."

You also said, "...there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued...", but I think it is well-established in law that no child under 10 can be legally sanctioned at all.

 

[ufkacbln]

DEFRA's scope includes littering, dogs at large, etc. AFAIK, it does not include cycling on pavements - that is the DfT's turf, and their guidance from the Home Office is, "...the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements...the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16."

You also said, "...there is in general no minimum age at which an FPN can be issued...", but I think it is well-established in law that no child under 10 can be legally sanctioned at all.

Bring back a good clip round the ear?