Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Red light jumping cyclist in Edinburgh who crashed into car fined £150

“I went through on red but I was on the path,” said Jordan Gardiner

A cyclist in Edinburgh who crashed into a car after he rode through a red light has been fined £150 for dangerous cycling.

Jordan Gardiner, aged 25, admitted the charge this week when he appeared in Edinburgh Sheriff Court, reports the Daily Record.

The incident happened at the traffic light controlled junction of Slateford Road with Robertson Avenue and Hermand Crescent on 8 June last year, with Gardiner needing treatment at the scene from paramedics for unspecified injuries he received in the crash.

Police also attended the scene of the collision, in which the car that Gardiner crashed into was damaged.

Fiscal depute Klaudia Wasilewska, prosecuting, told the court that motorist Jannette Smith was heading through the junction after the traffic lights turned green when the cyclist crashed into her vehicle “at speed,” damaging it.

Representing himself, Gardiner, who is unemployed, told the court: “I went through on red but I was on the path. I shouldn’t have been on the path though. It’s a quirky one.”

It’s not the first time that Gardiner has been in the news. The Daily Record reports that in May last year, he appealed for people who had helped him to come forward after he was hit by the driver of a Range Rover on the Scottish capital’s Princes Street.

The cyclist said that after that collision, the driver got out of their car and shook his hand, while two women who were passing by helped him get back on his feet.

“I just did not think to get the driver’s details at the time which is silly but the incident just happened so fast,” he said after that incident.

“I’d love to get in touch with the two women who helped me and thank them personally,” added Gardiner, who was left with bruised ribs and legs in the collision, in which he also sustained a head injury.

While cyclists are regularly accused of jumping red lights, and there are regular calls from some elements of the press for bikes to have registaration plates so law-breaking cyclists can be held to account, a study from Denmark in 2019 found that it was motorists who were far more likely to ignore traffic laws than people on bikes.

> Cyclists far less likely to break traffic laws than motorists finds study

While not excusing Gardiner riding through the red light in the incident that led to Sheriff Thomas Welsh KC imposing a fine on him, the fact that police attended the scene of the crash while he remained at the scene for his injuries to be treated means he will have been identified by police, enabling the ensuing prosecution.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
saftlad | 8 months ago
3 likes

“I went through on red but I was on the path. I shouldn’t have been on the path though. It’s a quirky one.”

It's not quirky, it's very simple.  He should have been on the road and he should have obeyed the traffic lights.

Avatar
Fignon's ghost | 8 months ago
1 like

I'm getting the image here of a keen cyclist who peruses his City's streets on his grifter with a can of tenant's super strength in one hand while rolling a joint in the other. A bona fide alley cat. Ride strong, brother.

Or, I may be completely wrong.

Avatar
Dnnnnnn | 8 months ago
1 like

Not sure what happened here: the cyclist went through a red but was on the path... what red then? A pedestrian signal? It's no offence to 'jump' one of those - but it's certainly dangerous if it's into the path of traffic, so maybe that's it.

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to Dnnnnnn | 8 months ago
1 like

I've been trying to work that out too. He collided with a car afterwards - so perhaps he went through the red light by jumping up onto the path, then when he jumped down off the path just after the lights, hit the car?

or he was lying about being on the path

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Dnnnnnn | 8 months ago
9 likes

The offence he was charged with was dangerous cycling, which it was. The red light is an, erm, red herring. 

Edit: Although as car drivers seem to get away with careless driving when causing a collision at junctions and seen as a momentarily lapse, the "dangerous" could be questioned instead of careless cycling. 

Avatar
Bobby B replied to Dnnnnnn | 8 months ago
0 likes

I think he meant he was on the filter shown in the photo – Buses, bikes and taxis.

Avatar
AlsoSomniloquism replied to Bobby B | 8 months ago
0 likes

If he was in the dedicated lane, he wouldn't have stated 

Quote:

“I went through on red but I was on the path. I shouldn’t have been on the path though. It’s a quirky one.”

The picture is just for illustration and we actually do not have the knowledge of which vehicle traveled from which direction. The only thing we do know was he was travelling at speed so probably rules out the cyclist coming from Robertson Avenue as that would have been uphill for him. 

Avatar
Flâneur replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 8 months ago
3 likes

I live near here. Hermand Crescent is the street to the right of the green light in the pic at the top of the article. This junction is a crossroads, Hermand Cres only serves a small residential area so very little traffic emerges from it typically. I've seen vehicular near misses here with traffic coming from the busier road opposite as traffic there doesn't appreciate Hermand Cres has a simultaneous green light.

So Gardiner played two stupid games (pavement riding, you can see they're hella narrow in the pic, and red light running) and won a stupid prize. Given he's been in the local media before for having been knocked off and requiring treatment, he may want to rethink his riding style.

And yes, he does come across as a 'character'.

Avatar
boblo | 8 months ago
5 likes

Don't go through reds - simple. Doesn't matter if you're on foot, on a bike or driving 'something' - don't do it. At some point, it'll all end in tears (and possibly blood).

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to boblo | 8 months ago
11 likes
boblo wrote:

Don't go through reds - simple. Doesn't matter if you're on foot, on a bike or driving 'something' - don't do it. At some point, it'll all end in tears (and possibly blood).

I think I'm competent enough to asses whether it is safe to cross the road as a pedestrian regardless of the presence of a green/red man signal.

There is zero reason for a delay to be built into a beg button, other than a minimum time between green man phases. So I will not stand waiting looking at an empty road waiting for the signal to change. (as a pedestrian).

Onto bikes - where the traffic lights are sensor controlled and typically do not detect bicycles, how long do you think a cyclist should be obliged to wait for a driver to safely accompany them through the junction? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? half an hour?

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to wycombewheeler | 8 months ago
0 likes

I hadn't considered sensor controlled lights - an excellent point.

Does anyone know what the police would say/suggest in that scenario?
and what is the consensus amongst cyclists?

Get off and become a pedestrian/ proceed with caution on bike/ get off and push the pedestrian crossing light if there is one, to force the lights to change?

Avatar
tootsie323 replied to HoldingOn | 8 months ago
5 likes

This. I've sat at an empty junction and watched lights go through the sequence, seemingly ignoring my presence because, as you say, I probably haven't triggered the sensors.

I've simply stepped off the bike and walked across, as a pedestrian, if solely so that I don't contribute to the all-cyclists-jump-red-lights brigade, should somebody happen to show up (and, knowing Sod's Law, should I choose to cycle through, somebody would show up right at that very moment!).

Avatar
Solocle replied to HoldingOn | 8 months ago
1 like

Not all cyclists can dismount of course.

Legally I'd suggest that a traffic sign has to be lawfully placed, so may not be valid if they're broken.

And it feels safer riding across than walking across.

It's pretty small fry when compared to the utter disaster that was this. The sign wasn't retroreflective, so was utterly invsible. 3 left turnings in 300 metres, so easy to mix up. The result was me breaking Highway Code Rule 253. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Solocle | 8 months ago
0 likes
Solocle wrote:

It's pretty small fry when compared to the utter disaster that was this. The sign wasn't retroreflective, so was utterly invsible. 3 left turnings in 300 metres, so easy to mix up. The result was me breaking Highway Code Rule 253. 

I can't tell what I'm (supposed to be) looking at?

Avatar
Solocle replied to brooksby | 8 months ago
2 likes

That's kind of the point. It's an emergency access to the M40. I thought it was the A40 until I was well down it!

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Solocle | 8 months ago
1 like

That's a KOM you missed there...

Avatar
Solocle replied to chrisonabike | 8 months ago
1 like

Who said anything about missing it? smiley

By the time I realised, the lorry that passed and illuminated matters illuminated an exit sign. I judged it safer to carry on for the <1 mile to that exit than to freak people out by being an oncoming vehicle on their carriageway.

Although I still don't have the KOM for the M40 spur to the A40... guy must have walked down the steps from the adjacent farm track!

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Solocle | 8 months ago
0 likes
Solocle wrote:

Not all cyclists can dismount of course.

Legally I'd suggest that a traffic sign has to be lawfully placed, so may not be valid if they're broken.

And it feels safer riding across than walking across.

It's pretty small fry when compared to the utter disaster that was this. The sign wasn't retroreflective, so was utterly invsible. 3 left turnings in 300 metres, so easy to mix up. The result was me breaking Highway Code Rule 253. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7242858,-1.0586069,3a,42.8y,345.75h,85.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG6twxdJdAd_R9trev-US8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

That's not the turn you're looking for, move along

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7249075,-1.0567253,3a,75y,68.93h,79.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shiBcveuCxEyDBsg1RDIwIg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Avatar
Solocle replied to wycombewheeler | 8 months ago
1 like

Not visible at audax o'clock with the gate left propped open. Maybe the briefest illumination of the left no parking sign, but the right one is edge on as you approach from Little Milton.

The advance signs indicated a no entry on the left and then the A40. But I counted the intermediate farm entrance as the no entry, so thought the slip was the A40.

You can see just how dull the sign on the gate is here, and that's with it shut properly. TSRGD requires correctly positioned (angled!) and reflectivity. Forget that it's not actually a specified road sign...

Collision of several factors.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to HoldingOn | 8 months ago
2 likes
HoldingOn wrote:

I hadn't considered sensor controlled lights - an excellent point.

Does anyone know what the police would say/suggest in that scenario?
and what is the consensus amongst cyclists?

Get off and become a pedestrian/ proceed with caution on bike/ get off and push the pedestrian crossing light if there is one, to force the lights to change?

generally it's only a problem at Audax o'clock, most of the time roads are busy enough for it not to be an issue. At such times I treat it as a stop line, and then procede when clear. If no one sees a cyclist go through a red light it didn't happen. Although many years ago when sensors were worse I had an anecodte from a motorbike rider, that he was stopped at such a light and a police motorbike arrived beside him, and after a while of non changing they agreed not to see each other go through.

Avatar
jh2727 replied to boblo | 8 months ago
1 like
boblo wrote:

Don't go through reds - simple. Doesn't matter if you're on foot, on a bike or driving 'something' - don't do it. At some point, it'll all end in tears (and possibly blood).

Red lights... fine, red cycle/person... There a plenty of junctions where the green cycle is only shown for about 1/3 of the time that it is perfectly safe to continue (or at least, as safe as when the green cycle is shown).  I will continue to treat them as they are intended - as advisory (and poor advice at that).

Avatar
Oldfatgit | 8 months ago
4 likes

With reference to a different thread on here from a little while ago, it doesn't matter what side you pass the red on, unless you get off and push, a red means stop.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Oldfatgit | 8 months ago
0 likes

Yeah - the following is about the only "cycling past a red" which we should be encouraging. Otherwise we should be considering if said lights are needed at all (if they are, keep the rule really clear - red means stop).

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cycling-past-red-lights-it...

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 8 months ago
2 likes

Good.

Though sounds like a "character", possibly already known to the Polis?

Latest Comments