Police to crack down on red light jumping cyclists in Stoke

Bigfoz wrote:

When this was done recently in Edinburgh, at the end of a fortnight, motor vehicle fines outnumbered cyclists 4 to 1 for jumping the lights. It's visible. It irks people. But it's not as widespread as car drivers make out, and it's less practiced than by car drivers themselves.

and thats before you consider that only the first car that reaches a junction has the opportunity to jump the lights, while every cyclist could do it if inclined, because only bikes can filter past law abiding cars adn cyclists.

oldstrath wrote:

: "Although I have received a complaint regarding cyclists going through red lights"

 

Clelary the crucial thing - some real person (i.e. driver) moaned. So instead of tackling real dangers, such as texting motons, unlicensed cretins in cages and lorries with blind spots half the size of  Stoke, lets blame the victims.  Again.

Although the original complaint was really "I saw a bike go through a red light and it's not fair! (I wanted to, and couldn't)"

stumps wrote:

I still cannot beleive some of the comments. FFS its a red light and it means stop, not "go on give it a go if you think nothing is coming".  So what would you say if a car or lorry did it ?????

The number of people on here who condone dangerous driving and bad driving by motorists but complain bitterly if the police dont do anything to help yet some are willing to jump a red light to gain a couple of minutes.

A few seconds that will get you clear of a left turning lorry that you know can't see you? Or what about lights with sensors? Do we really have to be second class citizens who must be accompanied across junctions by motor vehicles.

Or at yhd roadworks where there is not enough room for cars to pass and you know if you start when the lights change you will have irate fan tailgating you until you get through.

Yes as a general rule stop. But rigidly following rules which put you in danger is foolish.

"A few seconds that will get you clear of a left turning lorry that you know can't see you? .....Yes as a general rule stop. But rigidly following rules which put you in danger is foolish"

I bet you run through red lights all the time, faux reasoning or not.

Why would you be in a danger from a left turning lorry? If your riding defensively you should be smack bang in the middle of your lane where he can see you. Or behind him, again in the middle of your lane.  Or have you filtered up the inside? 

HalfWheeler wrote:

 

"A few seconds that will get you clear of a left turning lorry that you know can't see you? .....Yes as a general rule stop. But rigidly following rules which put you in danger is foolish"

I bet you run through red lights all the time, faux reasoning or not.

Why would you be in a danger from a left turning lorry? If your riding defensively you should be smack bang in the middle of your lane where he can see you. Or behind him, again in the middle of your lane.  Or have you filtered up the inside? 

 

 

Whilst I do agree with your points, a lot of cyclists have been run down by lorises whilst they were in primary. The problem is that the blind spots on lorries mean that they really shouldn't be allowed out without a man with a flag.

HalfWheeler wrote:

 

"A few seconds that will get you clear of a left turning lorry that you know can't see you? .....Yes as a general rule stop. But rigidly following rules which put you in danger is foolish"

I bet you run through red lights all the time, faux reasoning or not.

Why would you be in a danger from a left turning lorry? If your riding defensively you should be smack bang in the middle of your lane where he can see you. Or behind him, again in the middle of your lane.  Or have you filtered up the inside? 

 

 

No I don't, mostly don't need to. except on those lights which will not change because they don't detect a cycle, I have no interest in waiting 10 minutes for a car to turn up.  I have seen more cars jump red lights than bikes (including me) in the last month. Obvious;ly the police need to crack down on drivers as they all jump red lights.

stumps wrote:

I still cannot beleive some of the comments. FFS its a red light and it means stop, not "go on give it a go if you think nothing is coming".  So what would you say if a car or lorry did it ?????

The number of people on here who condone dangerous driving and bad driving by motorists but complain bitterly if the police dont do anything to help yet some are willing to jump a red light to gain a couple of minutes.

Yes, a red light means stop and a 30mph speed limit means a maximum speed of 30mph. However, people have a way of not following a lot of these rules which is not ideal. To my mind, it is more forgiveable to not obey some of these rules when it would endanger yourself to follow them and not endanger other people when breaking those rules. When a car/lorry goes through a red light (which happens a lot of the time - I see cars do this at least once a day) it endangers other road users due to the higher speed and momentum of a tonne of metal. When I choose to go through a red light on my bike, I'm not endangering other people as it's very much in my interest to not collide with anything.

There's a world of difference between driving a car and riding a bike. There's a reason why a license and test is required to drive a car whereas children are encouraged to learn to ride a bike. Bikes are just not particularly dangerous to other people whereas people die every day from cars. (By the way, you used "condone" whereas I believe you meant "condemn").

stumps wrote:

I still cannot beleive some of the comments. FFS its a red light and it means stop, not "go on give it a go if you think nothing is coming".  So what would you say if a car or lorry did it ?????

You're not comparing like for like.  The kinetic energy invested in a moving cyclist is not the same as for moving motorised vehicles. 

In Paris they've allowed cyclists to treat a signed intersection on it's merits  and the world never ended.  

stumps wrote:

The number of people on here who condone dangerous driving and bad driving by motorists but complain bitterly if the police dont do anything to help yet some are willing to jump a red light to gain a couple of minutes.

You're making an assumption that those defending the practice jump lights, do it. That's not necessarily true. I don't jump lights and I can prove it because I record my journeys. That doesn't mean I think there's no safety merits in jumping lights.

ron611087 wrote:

You're making an assumption that those defending the practice jump lights, do it. That's not necessarily true. I don't jump lights and I can prove it because I record my journeys. That doesn't mean I think there's no safety merits in jumping lights.

Lol, just come back on and read some remarks. "i dont jump lights and i can prove it because i record my journeys" yeah right and my dad is bigger than yours

Also just to clear it up for you i was referring to the offence of "RLJ" is the same regardless of the mode of transport, yes the outcome could be a lot worse but you assumed thats what i was talking about and clearly wanted to be critical.

ron611087 wrote:

Quote:

A number of junctions will be monitored by officers who say those who ignore the rules of the road are putting their lives in danger

If they make that statement they must support it with evidence.

Unfortunately not so sir.  The police have always been able to act on a mere whiff of evidence and quite rightly so.  The copper in question has observed, analysed and reached his conclusion, which is exactly what he is paid to do.  Of course he won't always be right, but who amongst us never wrong?

mike the bike wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Quote:

A number of junctions will be monitored by officers who say those who ignore the rules of the road are putting their lives in danger

If they make that statement they must support it with evidence.

 

Unfortunately not so sir.  The police have always been able to act on a mere whiff of evidence and quite rightly so.  The copper in question has observed, analysed and reached his conclusion, which is exactly what he is paid to do.  Of course he won't always be right, but who amongst us never wrong?

And of course the copper's prejudice  against  cyclists and in favour  of motorists will never enter into it. 

ron611087 wrote:

Quote:

A number of junctions will be monitored by officers who say those who ignore the rules of the road are putting their lives in danger

Let's separate the legal from the safely aspect from the cyclists actions. Jumping lights is illegal, but there's no evidence that it's any less safe than crossing on green.

What an unbelievably stupid comment. So running a red light when "2 tonnes of metal" to quote some users is coming towards you is just as safe as crossing on a green light.

I'm surprised, if you cycle like you think / quote, that you haven't been seriously injured by now.

stumps wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Quote:

A number of junctions will be monitored by officers who say those who ignore the rules of the road are putting their lives in danger

Let's separate the legal from the safely aspect from the cyclists actions. Jumping lights is illegal, but there's no evidence that it's any less safe than crossing on green.

 

What an unbelievably stupid comment. So running a red light when "2 tonnes of metal" to quote some users is coming towards you is just as safe as crossing on a green light.

I'm surprised, if you cycle like you think / quote, that you haven't been seriously injured by now.

 

Bit of a daft comment from you actually. I imagine that people who RLJ don't just close their eyes and keep on going. They probably assess whether they think they can get across safely and then go. On that basis it's not a foregone conclusion that it's more dangerous. It also cuts out the problem of left hooks, especially from lorries. 

stumps wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Quote:

A number of junctions will be monitored by officers who say those who ignore the rules of the road are putting their lives in danger

Let's separate the legal from the safely aspect from the cyclists actions. Jumping lights is illegal, but there's no evidence that it's any less safe than crossing on green.

 

What an unbelievably stupid comment. So running a red light when "2 tonnes of metal" to quote some users is coming towards you is just as safe as crossing on a green light.

I'm surprised, if you cycle like you think / quote, that you haven't been seriously injured by now.

 

I tend to treat red lights as "stop" signs and go through them when I think it's safe to do so (on my bike) and so far haven't had an incident because of it. If you've got good visibility then it can be safer to go across a junction when there's no vehicles going the same way as you, but just going through without looking/thinking is not recommended. It helps if you know the junction and can anticipate the light timings correctly.

stumps wrote:

What an unbelievably stupid comment. So running a red light when "2 tonnes of metal" to quote some users is coming towards you is just as safe as crossing on a green light.

I'm surprised, if you cycle like you think / quote, that you haven't been seriously injured by now.

 

Anyone who enters a junction with 2 tonnes of metal is coming towards them is nuts. The state of the lights makes no difference to that. 

If you have evidence that jumping lights is more dangerous then present it.  Note, anecdotal evidence is not evidence, and a collection of anecdotes does not make data, for all sorts of well documented reasons.

http://ralphsmyth.me.uk/citycyclists/policeclampdown.html

Housecathst wrote:

"I ride my bike in the same way I drive" ... WTAF!

Laura Port ...

Honestly.... What a bellend!

 

You know, I'm not sure that calling a female a "bellend " is the most appropriate insult, assuming that you really must insult anyone.

Housecathst wrote:

"I ride my bike in the same way I drive" ... WTAF!

Laura Port what a dreadful thought. Given that motorists every time they turn the key in the ignition contribute to the premature death of 40,000 plus people a year and how about the 5 people a day that are killed by motorists, in a good year. oh and the 60 serious injuries a day too. 

Let hope your the only person that cycles the same way you drive other wise there would be even more carnage out on the road. 

Honestly.... What a bellend!

 

You're assuming she's a bad driver.  

hawkinspeter wrote:

Although I live in Bristol (and thus not particularly relevant to Stoke), I see more cars than bikes jumping red lights.

But that's different because they couldn't stop in time, or their journey was really important, or red lights are part of the war in the motorist, or something...