“But cyclists!”: Count the red light jumpers in this clip; Adam Tranter addresses “nonsense” talked about Highway Code changes; Second Ineos rider hospitalised in Colombia; Pro Jake Stewart offers old kit to young riders + more on the live blog

103 thoughts on ““But cyclists!”: Count the red light jumpers in this clip; Adam Tranter addresses “nonsense” talked about Highway Code changes; Second Ineos rider hospitalised in Colombia; Pro Jake Stewart offers old kit to young riders + more on the live blog”

1. If only there was some way of

   If only there was some way of determining who those drivers were…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • This old chestnut again! The

     This old chestnut again! The costs of admin of such a registration system would far outweigh any benefits. This is because drivers are so poor they are already unable to pay for the full costs of their motoring and the government recognises this and gives them subsidies.  For example they don’t cover pollution, crashes causing damage to infrastructure and health, health consequences of our motoring culture related to inactivity, suppression of independent mobility for children and others who can’t drive (all roads with barriers / full of dangerous motor vehicles)…

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • chrisonatrike wrote:

       For example they don’t cover pollution, crashes causing damage to infrastructure

       — chrisonatrike

       I never thought of this – so when barriers, street furniture, walls, bridge parapets etc are repaired after collisions in which fault is determined, the costs are not recovered from the party at fault or their insurer?

       So I, the hard-pressed, hard-working taxpayer ((c) Daily Express) foot the bill yet again, when I could be paying for Liz Truss to take a private jet to Australia instead… Oh.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • TheBillder wrote:

         For example they don’t cover pollution, crashes causing damage to infrastructure

         — TheBillder I never thought of this – so when barriers, street furniture, walls, bridge parapets etc are repaired after collisions in which fault is determined, the costs are not recovered from the party at fault or their insurer? So I, the hard-pressed, hard-working taxpayer ((c) Daily Express) foot the bill yet again, when I could be paying for Liz Truss to take a private jet to Australia instead… Oh.— chrisonatrike

         Quite right – let’s be rigorous and you’re correct – there is legal provision for this:

         Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 gives the Highways Authority the power to clean the road and recover its expenses from the person causing the obstruction or nuisance. Charges should be related to reinstatement costs.
         The Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges) Regulations 2008 lays down charges ranging from £150 to £6000 depending on the type of vehicle and the nature of the incident.

         Damage to third party property, including highway infrastructure, must be reported otherwise it is in itself an offence attracting severe penalties. The Highway Authority can also recover the cost of damage from the driver.

         — The AA

         Not sure that always comes into effect and they key is “when fault is determined” as we know lots won’t hang around to say “it was me” and / or are not insured and good luck getting the cash.

         Don’t know who pays for e.g. road crash compensation (Scotland) but suspect general taxation.

         I believe some pollution costs are in the VED though that’s limited to a theoretical CO2 calculation. Exceptions and as mentioned you can happily pollute off-road if you’ve SORN.  I think health (emissions including particulates especially from brake / tyres) and other health (toll on others via crashes, effect of all that sitting around – with high blood pressure!) appear nowhere.

         But “cash cow”…

         Log In or Register to post comments

2. Anyone seen this one?

   Anyone seen this one?

   https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/28/man-driving-for-more-than-70-years-tells-notts-police-ive-never-had-a-licence

   A man stopped by police told officers he had been driving without a licence or insurance for more than 70 years.

   Officers on a routine patrol in Nottingham said they were stunned when they pulled over the driver in his 80s in a supermarket car park.

   The man, born in 1938, told them he had not had a driving licence or insurance since he was 12 years old – and had avoided being stopped by police ever since.

   Nottinghamshire police officers said they just happened to pull over the man driving a three-door Mini One in a Tesco Extra car park in the market town of Bulwell on Wednesday.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Someone linked to the story

     Someone linked to the story on the BBC on a different thread (can’t remember which one)

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     Anyone seen this one?

     https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/28/man-driving-for-more-than-70-years-tells-notts-police-ive-never-had-a-licence

     A man stopped by police told officers he had been driving without a licence or insurance for more than 70 years.

     Officers on a routine patrol in Nottingham said they were stunned when they pulled over the driver in his 80s in a supermarket car park.

     The man, born in 1938, told them he had not had a driving licence or insurance since he was 12 years old – and had avoided being stopped by police ever since.

     Nottinghamshire police officers said they just happened to pull over the man driving a three-door Mini One in a Tesco Extra car park in the market town of Bulwell on Wednesday.

     — brooksby

     so how did he pay his “road tax”?

     Surely a driver wasn’t using a car on the road without paying tax?

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     The man, born in 1938, told them he had not had a driving licence or insurance since he was 12 years old – and had avoided being stopped by police ever since.

     — brooksby

     This implies he was insured and had a licence until he was 12??

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • If only the vehicles had some

     If only the vehicles had some sort of ID number so that the owner could be traced and registered, and maybe a database of which ones were insured, we could then get cameras to read the numbers and check which ones are allowed out.

     Ah but cyclists …..

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • In a similar vein is that
     In a similar vein is that story of a driver who was caught twice in the same day (and same car) driving without a license. And also being driven to pick up the car by someone who was disqualified from driving.
     https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/learner-drivers-car-seized-twice-6557434

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. I wonder if the story of

   I wonder if the story of Imogen Cotter is going to show on the live blog today? Irish National road champ 2021, who has been seriously injured in a head-on crash by a driver overtaking someone else on the opposite side of the road. It was horrifying, man – so many people might see themselves in that story.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • https://www.irishtimes.com

     https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/road-race-champion-imogen-cotter-lucky-to-be-alive-after-being-struck-by-car-1.4787393

     “Yesterday while out riding, I was hit by a car,” the 28 year old stated via social media on Thursday. “The car was overtaking a cyclist on the other side of the road and drove head-on straight into me at high speed.

     “I feel so lucky to be alive. I was taken by ambulance to hospital, where it appears I fractured my patella and broke my radius, as well as needing quite a few stitches. I had surgery late last night. I’m just so grateful to still be here to write this. It could have been so much worse.”

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Thanks for the link – bashed

       Thanks for the link – bashed this together in a rush.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • I really don’t like it when

       I really don’t like it when those injured by drivers say such things as ‘I fractured my patella’ and ‘I broke my radius’ (or when anyone else referring to the incident does similarly.)  She did not break these things – someone else did it for her.  There’s not even any mention of a driver in this.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • SaveTheWail wrote:

         I really don’t like it when those injured by drivers say such things as ‘I fractured my patella’ and ‘I broke my radius’ (or when anyone else referring to the incident does similarly.)  She did not break these things – someone else did it for her.  There’s not even any mention of a driver in this.

         — SaveTheWail

         While I agree that this would be something that news editorial standards should correct in their articles, this was someone who’d literally just survived a life-changing crash and is quoted verbatim from an instagram post showing her in extreme discomfort. So maybe cut her some slack?

         Log In or Register to post comments

4. Ah, the old ‘red light

   Ah, the old ‘red light jumpers’ bingo. My theory is the cyclists that do this, probably do the same when they’re driving…..They’re just idiots full stop.

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. Worth bearing in mind that

   Worth bearing in mind that all that’s needed to stop a car running a red light is for the car in front to be stationary, whereas a bad cyclist can filter to the front of any queue and jump the light if they choose. One wonders if cars could do similar how many more drivers would ignore reds.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Dam Cam UK videos will tell

     Dam Cam UK videos will tell you otherwise !

     I see tritaxman has alrady given examples

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hirsute wrote:

       Dam Cam UK videos will tell you otherwise !

       I see tritaxman has alrady given examples

       https://youtu.be/WhhxErABoa0?t=93

       — hirsute

       Do you think Nigel will be a man of his word?

       Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I’ll eat my hat. 

       — Garage at Large

       I’m waiting for him to say that he really meant that we have to provide evidence of motorists consistently jumping one set of permanent, unbroken traffic lights……

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • 2 of my few successes with

         2 of my few successes with Essex Police have been red light jumpers. They certainly didn’t go along with gambling or error of judgement.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • But over the course of time,

     But over the course of time, everyone will be the first driver at the lights at some point. So if the only thing stopping the majority of drivers from ignoring reds was lack of opportunity, surely we would surely already see far more RLJing.    

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • quiff wrote:

       But over the course of time, everyone will be the first driver at the lights at some point. So if the only thing stopping the majority of drivers from ignoring reds was lack of opportunity, surely we would surely already see far more RLJing.    

       — quiff

       In terms of numbers of drivers who have jumped a red light, yes; in terms of instances of red light jumping, no.

       I think when stewcelliot said ‘how many more drivers’ they probably just meant ‘how much more red light jumping’.

       Log In or Register to post comments

6. Just wait… Nige will be

   Just wait… Nige will be along soon to absolve the drivers for running red lights because they were frightened of the psychotic cyclist ….. because they hit the door of the porsche that was obstructing their way……

   And nice touch by Dan – “If you watch to the end of the clip you’ll find it hard to argue, as we’ve heard before, ‘oh, the lights must have been faulty’ it’s not against the Highway Code to proceed with care if that happens.” – Ahead of the Troll game already 

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. More unphased, broken,
   More unphased, broken, irrelevant temporary traffic lights – for all we know, there might even have been a “traffic lights not in use” sign just before the video started.

   Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I’ll eat my hat.

   But generally – for balance – I think motorists driving through a newly established red light (i.e. gambling on timings) should have stricter sanctions, as that is a frequent occurrence.

   Separately it’s good to hear transport bureaucrat Adam Tranter talk about courtesy on the roads – I think this kind of message sent out to cyclists and motorists alike will help to unite us, rather than preserve the current tribal attitudes we sadly see across much of society.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Garage at Large wrote:

     More unphased, broken, irrelevant temporary traffic lights – for all we know, there might even have been a “traffic lights not in use” sign just before the video started. Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I’ll eat my hat. But generally – for balance – I think motorists driving through a newly established red light (i.e. gambling on timings) should have stricter sanctions, as that is a frequent occurrence.

     — Garage at Large

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhhxErABoa0

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwwHU6cf6U

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaPbZiyrXog

     There are a quick few videos I’ve found….. all permanent unbroken traffic lights.

     Now we wait to find you are not a man of your word and wont eat your hat…..

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Er no, because they are
       Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

       What I’m talking about is hoardes of motorists driving maniacally at people like this: https://youtu.be/jzQRexswK4w

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Garage at Large wrote:

         Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

         — Garage at Large

         Seriously?

         The first car in the first clip was gambling when the lights have just changed?  The lights went to red at 4 seconds…. the car crossed the ASL at the 6 seconds mark.

         So you consider someone crossing the line after the lights have been at red for 2 seconds…… gambling when the lights have just changed?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • No, I’m not saying that no

           No, I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I’m saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           However, if I cross a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing and a cyclist is approaching, there’s a good chance they’ll ignore it – like this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           No, I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I’m saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           — Garage at Large

           No Nigel what you said was this…..

           Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I’ll eat my hat.

           — Garage at Large

           You have been shown that mulitple instances of exactly what you asked for yet you continue to say you haven’t

           You are flip flopping like a dying fish like you did yesterday…. you can’t make up your mind what you are objecting to and when evidence is provided you say it doesn’t prove anything.

         • My two comments are in

           My two comments are in lockstep with each other, and revolve around the word “consistently”.

           For example, you could put up a compilation clip YouTube video of birds spontaneoulsly falling out of the sky, and then say “aha”, look at all these birds falling out of the sky, birds can’t fly after all! All you’re doing is presenting outlier events as if they are modus operandi.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           My two comments are in lockstep with each other, and revolve around the word “consistently”.

           For example, you could put up a compilation clip YouTube video of birds spontaneoulsly falling out of the sky, and then say “aha”, look at all these birds falling out of the sky, birds can’t fly after all! All you’re doing is presenting outlier events as if they are modus operandi.

           — Garage at Large

           Oh surprise surprise…. Nigel will only accept evidence if it is multiple clips from one set of traffic lights.

           But in the first compliaton spread out through the video there are 3 different clips of drivers running red lights at the same roundabout.  Surely that passes your bar does it not?

           But I know Nigeywigeywoowoo that you will say its a poorly designed roundabout with traffic lights on the roundabout  and that the drivers just had a momentary lapse of concentration, or that the driver set off when the lights were still on red because they could see the lights at the other side phasing so they really did nothing wrong….. or some other such excuse.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           No, I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I’m saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           However, if I cross a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing and a cyclist is approaching, there’s a good chance they’ll ignore it – like this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

           — Garage at Large

           In my experience – YMMV, obviously – I feel the same way about approaching motor vehicles.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           No, I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I’m saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           — Garage at Large

           Ok a rare event? 

           In may 2016 a thismoney article stated “In fact, as many as one in four (24 per cent) of motorists admit to having driven through a red light in the past 12 months — equivalent to 9.3 million motorists’.”

           a uSwitch survey in 2018 said that around 1 in 5 motorists admit they’ve run a red light in last last 12 months.

           or how about this excerpt from an article on The Express

           “Jumping a red light can also be dangerous and statistics reveal the offence may be one of the biggest culprits for road injuries

           Department for Transport data reveals there were 160,597 casualties of all severities in 2018 with 75,095 occurring at junctions.

           This means 47 percent of all accidents happen at areas which are mostly governed by traffic lights in a safety warning to road users.”

           https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1218169/dvla-traffic-red-light-offences-data-glasgow-road-safety-warning

         • Again, I’ve already covered

           Again, I’ve already covered this so I think we’re in agreement – running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

           Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with British law, or the superior justice system we have here.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Again, I’ve already covered this so I think we’re in agreement – running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

           Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with the law, or the superior British justice system.

           — Garage at Large

           admits it is relatively common for drivers to break driving laws, despite cyclists having a badrep for doing likewise

           makes potentially racist comments about the inhabitants of London

         • Whoa there cowboy – it isn’t
           Whoa there cowboy – it isn’t “potentially racist” to state the fact that there is a higher proportion of immigrants in London’s population, nor to hold the established view that Britain has a superior justice system to many other countries of the world.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Whoa there cowboy – it isn’t “potentially racist” to state the fact that there is a higher proportion of immigrants in London’s population, nor to hold the established view that Britain has a superior justice system to many other countries of the world.

           — Garage at Large

           OK, I’ll consider it is not potentially. It is definitely racist to make sweeping assumptions that the justice system in their home country is inferior, or that they are not able to understand the rules here, particularly pertaining to red lights which mean the same everywhere.

            

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Whoa there cowboy – it isn’t “potentially racist” to state the fact that there is a higher proportion of immigrants in London’s population, nor to hold the established view that Britain has a superior justice system to many other countries of the world.

           — Garage at Large

            

           You are correct.  There’s no potentially about it.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Again, I’ve already covered this so I think we’re in agreement – running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

           Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with British law, or the superior justice system we have here.

           — Garage at Large

           Nigel….. what colour is a light that has just turned red?  I will give you a clue it is RED.

           There are rules and regulations dictating the length of time that a traffic light must show an amber light based on the speed limit for the road in question.

           The time for the amber phase is long enough to give cars the ability to safely stop from the given speed limit….. which means your excuse of a light that has just turned red is just that…. a flimsy excuse

           No matter how you try and dress it up, if a person goes through a red light they are in the wrong.  Particularly given the fact that many people see Amber as “accellerate to get through the lights” as opposed to “stop if it is safe to do so”

           EDIT

           Even so, in the videos I have posted there are a mix of people amber gambling and running established red lights but it is indicative that there are a lot more people who run established red lights than you think.

         • I completely agree, it’s

           I completely agree, it’s wrong to gamble and drive through red lights under any circumstances. However, talking about “amber gambling” is tangental to today’s story.

           The underlying point which was brought up by the video in today’s blog is “how often do cars drive through established red lights”. The answer to this is “very rarely”, in direct opposition to the very frequent manner in which many cyclists will do the same.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           I completely agree, it’s wrong to gamble and drive through red lights under any circumstances. However, talking about “amber gambling” is tangental to today’s story.

           The underlying point which was brought up by the video in today’s blog is “how often do cars drive through established red lights”. The answer to this is “very rarely”, in direct opposition to the very frequent manner in which many cyclists will do the same.

           — Garage at Large

           The only person that even mentioned “established red lights” was you.

           And I’m not sure your statements when read together make any sense… you agree that driving through red lights is wrong under any circumstances….. but you also want to consider “established red lights”.

           It’s either a red light or its not.

           The only reason I can see for you wanting to segregate the two kinds of red light jumping is to push some anti-cycling agenda.  Along the lines of “I can prove more cyclists run estabilshed red lights, which means more cyclists deliberately run red lights than drivers”

           Whereas when all red light jumping is concerned cyclists and motorists are broadly on par with each other in terms of proportions that run red lights.

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

            you also want to consider “established red lights”.

           — TriTaxMan

           If only we could formalise the first two seconds of red as a grace period, perhaps by display of a different colour, to allow for those drivers who couldn’t possibly stop once the red light came on, then we would have clarity over who has pushed the limits too far, and who is OK. Perhaps we could use a purple light.

           To avoid replacement of all the infrastructure we could remove the secondary go light (amber) and install the purple filter in that space.

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

           […]

           The only reason I can see for you wanting to segregate the two kinds of red light jumping is to push some anti-cycling agenda.  Along the lines of “I can prove more cyclists run estabilshed red lights, which means more cyclists deliberately run red lights than drivers”

           Whereas when all red light jumping is concerned cyclists and motorists are broadly on par with each other in terms of proportions that run red lights.

           — TriTaxMan

           I’m sure you’re right but there is an interesting discussion point here.  The various videos all show “proceeding beyond a stop line after the light is red” but there are actually several different categories here:

           1) Plain blowing through a red light – light’s red and vehicle / cyclist clearly could have stopped.
           2) “Amber gambling” – bending the rules around proceeding when the light is amber. May be associated with greater danger because drivers often actually speed up at this point.
           3) Stopping at an incorrect point e.g. beyond the line. May be in error or a vehicle choosing to ignore an ASL.  May be more or less inconvenient for others and more or less dangerous.
           4) Creeping forward beyond the appropriate line – continuing to move towards / past the line slowly. Impatience, wanting to get to an appropriate position e.g. for a turn before oncoming traffic when lights change. The latter is one reason cyclists may do this e.g. because junction design doesn’t facilitate safe movements on a bike. Or due to experience of motorists coming close to hitting them from behind.
           5) Incorrect route e.g. round the wrong side of pedestrian refuge etc. Often associated with…
           6) Stopping but then moving forward again. Usually where someone’s blocked but can see a route to a side turn which is clear and can’t see any others they think they’d interact with.
           Edit: also “premature launch” – setting off as soon as traffic seems to have cleared the junction but before you’ve a green.
           7) Above also occurs where the person believes that they’re being held incorrectly e.g. “lights are broken” / cyclist believes they’re not detected at lights / long waits at temporary traffic lights. More likely the longer the wait and if the person believes they can clearly see no other road users.
           8) An event / protest – a “bike storm” in this case. A specific event (whether unofficial or official, without foreknowledge of the authorities or tacitly tolerated – not sure where e.g. “critical mass” events fit) in at which people consider some road laws relaxed or just ignore them.

         • You left off (although it’s

           You left off (although it’s kind of a mix of 2 and 4) hightailing it away from the lights as soon as other traffic seems to be stopping, despite the light still being red or amber. Particularly dangerous to slower road users (which often includes cyclists) who may not have cleared the junction as soon as expected.

         • Thank you!  Possibly a

           Thank you!  Possibly a special case of 6 but I’ll add it to the list.  I think that certainly leads to the cyclist counter-moves of 4 and 6 by them.

         • Apologies for distracting

           Apologies for distracting from the otherwise fruitful “but cyclists” / “you’ve contradicted yourself” business!  Anyway, there are several articles around observing that motorists and cyclists do not tend to jump red lights in the same manner. It’s easily observed in the provided videos that drivers tend to be doing 1, 2 and 5 – and certainly the first two carry elevated risks for other road users of all kinds.  This would be sufficient reason alone to declare “but cyclists jump red lights” false equivalence or seem like whataboutery *. I’ve observed 3 from vehicles especially in ASLs.  8 is probably rarer for motor vehicles but certainly not unheard of – fuel protests for one!  Cyclists are generally very aware of the danger to themselves so may jump lights “defensively” (3, 4, possibly 6). 7 definitely applies to both – humans don’t like waiting – there is definitely less detection of cyclists than motor vehicles by light systems though.

           A few ponderings on the subject:

           https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/rlj-red-light-jumping

           http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/07/jumping-red-lights-when-and-why-i-do-it.html

           https://sciencenorway.no/cycling-road-safety-traffic/why-dont-cyclists-just-stop-at-red-lights/1755340

           https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey

           * I’ll give a nod to rich_cb’s (was it?) note about the apparent high frequency of pedestrian collisions with cyclists at lights here although I’ve not looked further at that.

         • Nigel again I am really

           Nigel again I am really confused with what you are saying….. so bear with me.

           Driving through a red light, recently established or otherwise is a criminal offence under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act.  I’ve checked the legislation surrounding the offence and nowhere does it state that running a recently established red light is not a criminal offence.

           On the one hand you state that 

           I think we’re in agreement – running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists

           — Garage at Large

           but on the other hand you state

           No, I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I’m saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           — Garage at Large

           So I’m really struggling to find your logic in saying that drivers commonly run red lights but rarely criminally drive through red lights.

            

         • I just accidentally missed

           I just accidentally missed out “established” in the second quote you gave, it should say “I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car”

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           I just accidentally missed out “established” in the second quote you gave, it should say “I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car”

           — Garage at Large

           How about no…… you never accidentally missed out any word…..

           You are just doing what I have said many times in the past…. when you get called out on your lies you turn round and say that you never meant what you clearly meant

           How about the fact that a red light is a red light…. end of story.

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

           I just accidentally missed out “established” in the second quote you gave, it should say “I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car”

           — TriTaxMan

           How about no…… you never accidentally missed out any word…..

           You are just doing what I have said many times in the past…. when you get called out on your lies you turn round and say that you never meant what you clearly meant

           How about the fact that a red light is a red light…. end of story.

           — Garage at Large

           of course that’s it! Should have guessed all along that when Garage says one thing, it’s not always that exact thing until after people have proven that what Garage said was wrong. Thus we shouldn’t be so quick to jump on their failings – after all, until they’ve had the chance to change what they wrote to something else, it’s not yet set in stone

            

           Garage – what’s your criteria for this newly aired concept of “established”? Bearing in mind it is already an offence to cross on amber, albeit one where there is a defence you have to prove applies, and there is NO general defence available to passing on red, what’s your definition of “established”? 1 second into red? 2? More?  At which point is the offence, already proven in those videos, enough for you? 

         • nosferatu1001 wrote:

           […]

           Garage – what’s your criteria for this newly aired concept of “established”? Bearing in mind it is already an offence to cross on amber, albeit one where there is a defence you have to prove applies, and there is NO general defence available to passing on red, what’s your definition of “established”? 1 second into red? 2? More?  At which point is the offence, already proven in those videos, enough for you? 

           — nosferatu1001

           I think that’s been covered before? “My client could not possibly have stopped safely in 2 seconds. He was doing 80 at the time.”

         • there is NO general defence

           there is NO general defence available to passing on red

           But in Lancashire, the police have created a self-defence for not doing anything about these offences which is we’re too busy to bother with stuff like that, or close-passing or crossing unbroken white lines– OK, I’m lying about the last one- the defence they use is that all cycles are always travelling at less than 10mph and it’s always safe to cross double white lines to overtake cyclists even if you do so on a humped bridge immediately followed by a right hand bend

         • I think that we can all agree
           I think that we can all agree that Garage isn’t wrong until it’s established that he’s wrong – and, just like a red light, you just have to wait a short time…

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           I just….

           — Garage at Large

           You’re just saying that the way car drivers illegally run red lights is ok and the way cyclists run red lights isn’t. 
            

           Just because.

         • What I should have written…

           What I should have written…

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           I just accidentally missed out “established” in the second quote you gave, it should say “I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car”

           — Garage at Large

           You know I never tried this when I was 17

           Motorbike officer “why did you go through that red light?”  *

           me “well it wasn’t an established red so I just figured it was kind of a provisional red”

           Unfortunately I wasn’t quick enough to run with “because I didn’t see you officer” either.

           Note that despite not wearing a registration number tabard as patented by “road safety expert and top lawyer” Nick Freeman  the police were still able to fine me £20, a significant chunk of my days pay at the time.

           *red light for pedestrian crossing, no pedestrians in evidence on the crossing or on the pavement either side, because beg button operates with a pointless delay and pedestrians get bored waiting for the green man.

         • Cognitive dissonance and the
           Cognitive dissonance and the likely logic of someone who, if they are a cyclist and if they are a motorist will be shit at both but think they are fabulous… and everyone else is rubbish

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Again, I’ve already covered this so I think we’re in agreement – running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

           — Garage at Large

           So when are you eating that hat?

           BTW, I’m pretty sure most of those immigrants you look down on so much would be able to explain to you why “I was just gambling” isn’t an excuse.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with British law, or the superior justice system we have here.

           — Garage at Large

           Tell that to wtjs of this parish 😉

         • Tell that to wtjs of this

           Tell that to wtjs of this parish

           I feel duty bound to support this mention.

         • Vehicles crossing red lights

           Vehicles crossing red lights in opposite directions at the same time. No reponse from Lancashire Constabulary to Audi T90 JDT crashing the lights at 50-60mph while towing a caravan

         • Soooo… had the lights just

           Soooo… had the lights just turned to red, or were they established on red for some time before? 

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Soooo… had the lights just turned to red, or were they established on red for some time before? 

           — Garage at Large

           Again irrelevant BS.

           Nigel what you should do…. is jump in your car, find a set of traffic lights with a red light camera…… then you should drive through the lights at some point after they have gone red within your “recently established” window…..  When you get the NIP through the post please let us all know if you can escape the points and fine using your “The red light had only been recently established” defence.

         • Garage at Large wrote:

           Soooo… had the lights just turned to red, or were they established on red for some time before? 

           — Garage at Large

           did you fail to look at the two stills, failing to work out this is a couple seconds gap? Look at the cars in the background…and compare…

           also

           again

           what is your criteria for “recently changed”, and does it concur with the CPS threshold for changing a red light jumping charge into one of dangerous driving? 
            

           it is red in the first. It was amber befofe that for AT LEAST 3 seconds. As drivers are taught, amber means stop. That’s what the RTA also states. 

         •  It was amber befofe that for

            It was amber befofe that for AT LEAST 3 seconds

           The amber is on for exactly 3 seconds at the A6 lights at Garstang- as timed on the 50 fps video.

           did you fail to look at the two stills, failing to work out this is a couple seconds gap? Look at the cars in the background…and compare…

           The Audi had accelerated so much that it was only 1.6 seconds after the red came on that it crossed the Stop line

         • wtjs wrote:

           Vehicles crossing red lights in opposite directions at the same time. No reponse from Lancashire Constabulary to Audi T90 JDT crashing the lights at 50-60mph while towing a caravan

           — wtjs

           Ha! Mr. Loophole will dismiss your charge.  Your picture could equally show the law-breaking caravan T90 JDT pushing someone’s Audi through the lights. It’s true my client owns a caravan of that description but we will contend that it had been stolen at the time in question. Most likely the thief will have changed the plates…

         • There We Are Then. Come to

           There We Are Then. Come to Carlisle.

         • The same justice system that

           The same justice system that put the Guildford Four and Meguire Seven in jail?

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

           “Jumping a red light can also be dangerous and statistics reveal the offence may be one of the biggest culprits for road injuries

           Department for Transport data reveals there were 160,597 casualties of all severities in 2018 with 75,095 occurring at junctions.

           This means 47 percent of all accidents happen at areas which are mostly governed by traffic lights in a safety warning to road users.”

           — TriTaxMan

           Thats a big leap from 47% of casualties occur at junctions, to mostly governed by traffic lights. The vast majority of junctions do not have traffic lights, as traffi clights are a safety improvement, it’s a big leap to suggest accients at TL junctions are more common than other junctions

         • Garbage writ Large wrote:

           people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           — Garbage writ Large

           

         • Here is today’s considerate

           Here is today’s considerate driver. Obviously not happy with the new highway code and is protesting.

           CO₂ emissions

           324 g/km

         • mdavidford wrote:

           people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           — mdavidford

           

           — Garbage writ Large

           Not me, I’m an atheist, but you’ll have to ask @HawkinsPeter where they fit into the Cthulhu Mythos. My guess would be between Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth as a means of keeping them apart?

         • SimoninSpalding wrote:

           people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

           — SimoninSpalding

           

           — mdavidford

           Not me, I’m an atheist, but you’ll have to ask @HawkinsPeter where they fit into the Cthulhu Mythos. My guess would be between Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth as a means of keeping them apart?

           — Garbage writ Large

           You might be onto something.  In ancient Egypt they were already putting the Djed pillar in tombs…

            

         • Some of the original work had

           Some of the original work had been lost over time, but archaeologists have recently managed to reconstruct it.

         • Chapeau! Or sekhemty (in

           Chapeau! Or sekhemty (in Egyptological…)!  You certainly don’t want a green-duat-crossing god – that would make you think it was Ammit!

       • Er yes, because the the

         Er yes, because the the offence is passing a red light, so regardless of how long it has been red (amber also means stop I believe) or how poor the drivers judgement it is an offence.

         

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Indeed, and the offence on

           Indeed, and the offence on amber is the same as for red; it just has a stutotry defence of “unsafe to stop”. 
            

           min amber time, UK wide, is 3 seconds. 
            

           garage – get eating that hat. 4 people jumped the red light in just one clip. Where traffic lights are not in use they’re not illuminated and have a sign stuck on them, so on the balance of probabilities, your supposition that these lights were not in legal force is below the threshold required to take it as a proven fact.  
            

           every single one of those clips shows cars going through red lights far after the amber phase, so multiple seconds into the “must stop”.  Why do you keep changing the parameters of your bet? Is it because, like most every day, you’re caught out in yiur lies? 

       • Garage at Large wrote:

         Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

         — Garage at Large

         The second clip in the first video…. the clip starts at 15 seconds.  The lights in the cammers car are at green.  The red light jumper passes the Stop line at 19 seconds.  Also given the fact that there were vehicles already over the stop line that the cammer was approaching it means the lights had been at green for the cammer before the clip starte

         Again how the f@#k is that “gambling when the lights have just changed”?

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Garage at Large wrote:

         Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed

         — Garage at Large

         Third clip in the first video starts at 34 seconds, with red light shown to cammer….. white audi passes the red light at 38 seconds.

         Do me a favour and just admit you are blatantly lying

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • TriTaxMan wrote:

           Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed

           — TriTaxMan

           Third clip in the first video starts at 34 seconds, with red light shown to cammer….. white audi passes the red light at 38 seconds.

           Do me a favour and just admit you are blatantly lying— Garage at Large

           Go easy on Le Garage Grand – being as he’s a stickler for PPE he may have an extremely large and tough plastic hat – or several to be safe – to consume…

         • Can we all agree not to

           Can we all agree not to engage with LargeGarage please?

           It does no good as no matter how easily you totally take apart his comments he ignores any reasoning and then makes something up, contradicts himself or starts another thread based on whatever was lying around in his brain.

           If ignored it would be hilarious seeing him waiting for a response, posting more drivel to get a response and might even be an Alan Partridge in the car park moment (Dan!, Dan!, Dan!…..)

           Please do not feed the troll. 

   • Garage at Large wrote:

     More unphased, broken, irrelevant temporary traffic lights – for all we know, there might even have been a “traffic lights not in use” sign just before the video started.

     Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I’ll eat my hat.

     But generally – for balance – I think motorists driving through a newly established red light (i.e. gambling on timings) should have stricter sanctions, as that is a frequent occurrence.

     Separately it’s good to hear transport bureaucrat Adam Tranter talk about courtesy on the roads – I think this kind of message sent out to cyclists and motorists alike will help to unite us, rather than preserve the current tribal attitudes we sadly see across much of society.

     — Garage at Large

     Biggin Hill, Main Road, turning right into Lebanon Gardens – every single phase

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • belugabob wrote:

       Biggin Hill, Main Road, turning right into Lebanon Gardens – every single phase

       — belugabob

       Unfortunatley Nigel will not accept that because on every single phase the motorists will only run a red light that has “recently established” as red.

       The traffic light sequence in Nigels mind for cars is 

       • Green
       • Amber
       • Recently established Red
       • Red and Amber
       • Green

       Which means it is perfectly acceptable for a car to go throug on any one of the phases of the traffic lights.

       But for bikes the sequence is 

       • Green
       • Red
       • Red
       • Red
       • Green

       Cyclists are only allowed to proceed when green has been firmly established and they have bowed to their motoring overlords.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • Garage at Large wrote:

     Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I’ll eat my hat.

     — Garage at Large

     I see this all the time.

     Log In or Register to post comments

8. Fancy being the new active
   Fancy being the new active travel England CEO ?
   https://www.gatenbysanderson.com/job/GSe82292/Chief-Executive-of-Active-Travel-England

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • They are looking for a

     They are looking for a candidate with a “track record of delivering contested infrastructure”. I imagine that, in England, many of the people with the most up-to-date experience delivering contested infrastructure are working on the High Speed 2 rail project. 

     So I Googled “HS2 Management” and “Keen Cyclist”. Linked-In tells me there is a man at the Department of Transport whose most recent role was overseeing land aquisition by HS2, but whose background is in cycling policy development for the gov. Enthusiastic triathlete too, it says.

     I wonder if he is already lined up for the job? If not, headhunters may feel free to contact me for the name. I’ll take my finders fee!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Creakingcrank wrote:

       They are looking for a candidate with a “track record of delivering contested infrastructure”. I imagine that, in England, many of the people with the most up-to-date experience delivering contested infrastructure are working on the High Speed 2 rail project. 

       So I Googled “HS2 Management” and “Keen Cyclist”. Linked-In tells me there is a man at the Department of Transport whose most recent role was overseeing land aquisition by HS2, but whose background is in cycling policy development for the gov. Enthusiastic triathlete too, it says.

       I wonder if he is already lined up for the job? If not, headhunters may feel free to contact me for the name. I’ll take my finders fee!

       — Creakingcrank

       I was with you until I re-read:

       “…delivering…”

       I guess he could claim he’d delivered on the contention part?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Ha! HS2 has bought a lot of

         Ha! HS2 has bought a lot of land and done a lot of of “digging up” round where I live. Time will tell if they end up filling in and selling back….

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • That would be the HS2 that

           That would be the HS2 that decided building cycleways and underpasses where B roads had been severed was far too expensive and too much trouble, so cyclists or pedestrians can jolly well go 50 miles north to the next main A road that does cross the rail route.

         • Yes. I have cuts on my legs

           Yes. I have cuts on my legs right now from an attempt to find a diverted footpath past the route this weekend. Quite possibly, the same individual was involved in all those missed opportunities to build brilliant new bike/walk infrastructure alongside it too. I’m not recommending the guy, just trying to imagine how these hiring decisions are made.

9. road.cc wrote:

   London’s rental e-scooters are all going to produce the same sound so that pedestrians can hear when they’re approaching

   — road.cc

   Ooh – more possible skeuomorphs!  I think there should be a public vote with options to choose from:

   Squeaking wheel
   Rattling shopping trolley
   Running dog barking and growling
   Ogmios gently intoning “here’s a scooterboy”
   Vincent Price’s laugh from Michael Jackson’s “Thriller”
   Yackety sax

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I think they should whistle a

     I think they should whistle a whimsical tune, maybe The Bridge on the River Kwai. Second choice would be calliope music from a carousel. Either would discourage riding aggressively.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I think Bill Bailey’s your

       I think Bill Bailey’s your man for this!

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • How about Barwick Green?

       How about Barwick Green?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • SimoninSpalding wrote:

         How about Barwick Green?

         — SimoninSpalding

         I like it, but too much pomp and not enough whimsy.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Ice cream van Greensleeves 

     Ice cream van Greensleeves 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • ktache wrote:

       Ice cream van Greensleeves 

       — ktache

       Oh, nice! Although sadly for me, ice cream vans have also acquired a Glasgow / Shameless association.

       Log In or Register to post comments

10. Nationally, the number of

    Nationally, the number of convictions for failing to stop at a red light increased by more than 5,000 to over 67,000 last year.  Figures from 2016

    Source:  Birmingham Live (birminghammail.co.uk) 

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. I was looking at that twitter

    I was looking at that twitter thing from Abergavenny, and someone further down had posted the meme below (I think, not really sure how twitter displays…)

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. Pretty sure that’s just an
    Pretty sure that’s just an entrance to the Upside Down

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. I’m such a scofflaw, instead

    I’m such a scofflaw, instead of a registration number tabard it’ll be a red light jumper.

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. Here in Cambridge, it’s the
    Here in Cambridge, it’s the exception rather than the norm for cyclists to stop at red lights. I’m serious when I write that I’m actually surprised when I see a cyclist stopping.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • This video followed on from
      This video followed on from the one you linked …
      

      It’s easy to see why other road users hate us.
      Ok, it’s a minority – but a significantly visible minority in a world where people only remember the mistakes that have been made.

      Some of the riding in this video is potentially defendable … But not the majority.

      Log In or Register to post comments