Cyclist hit by Southampton footballer issued with fixed penalty notice for riding through lights on amber

Very much so cyclisto, but a footballer's Bentley can hit 60mph in under 3.5 seconds - banning fast cars is the only option!

Traffic lights timings are based on motor vehicle speeds not bicycle speeds. To make it simpler, if a snail drives through a green light it will probably end up as a tarmac sticker. The problem gets bigger in larger junctions where great distances have to be covered by slow moving vehicles. The thing is simple, if you are too slow, an amber light is equal to red.

It happened at the same junction as where Sandro Filipik was killed last May

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/incident/2593/

Its a very busy junction with bus lanes, loads of pedestrians due to Solent University, turn restrictions, crossings, and tight radius turns. Road surface is knackered from bus traffic and its now a rat run for people trying to avoid the traffic jams caused by IKEA/West Quay. All this means that there's a lot competing for driver attention.

The crossings and the fact that its a four-way stop means that RLJ is common there. You can sit there ages waiting for the lights to change.

Whilst its not a wide junction its entirely possible not to clear the junction if you've started crossing on amber. Its something you learn as a road cyclist through experience (in fact there are junctions nearby where you're lucky to get across on a bike if you started on green). Of course, we have no idea if there was a risk of being rear-ended if he had stopped - its a judgement call but if I have someone behind me I'll usually go on amber in case they don't stop - if necessary turning to join the flow of traffic moving off on green rather than crossing it...

What is the right way to complain about the coverage of these events in the DM and similar. As commented on, peoples perceptions of cyclists and cycling is being readily warped by members of the press, and no one is giving a damn about it. 

Surely there is a route... is it lobbying your local MP? I am guessing the publications are acting within press guidelines, so this has to come from sonewhere else. 

The whole case is weird.

If the facts are as reported, then the outcome seems dodgy, given (a) the guy was already punished by being seriously injured, and (b) it's against the backdrop of pretty-much-universal-and-never-penalised amber-gambling by motorists.

And why (given that these days nobody stops at amber, and the authorities don't enforce that rule at all, ever) are the lights timed in such a way that this can happen? If amber-gambling is now accepted as perfectly normal (which it seems to be) shouldn't lights be timed so as to avoid such an outcome?

But it also seems possible the facts are not as reported...but in whose direction has the story been twisted?

And the injured cyclist's comments sound like those of a 'Stepford cyclist'.

Somebody is telling Porky's. I doubt if many of us would trust the word of a Bently driving footballer, but can anybody tell me this:  The cyclist can't remember the incident, yet we are told he went through on amber.  Was there a witness or CCTV footage? I'm not trying to be provocative here, it just seems odd that the police are so sure that it was in that 4 second amber window, rather than either of the other 2 options. 

Am I the only one that noticed in one of the DM Articles 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4201026/Austin-gives...

The DM have published a photgraph of Charlie Austin.....taking a selfie of himself while driving down the motorway?  How many laws is that he has broken in that one?

just saying 

Without knowing the circumstances it's difficult to tell.... but if the traffic lights are set up so that one set is going from green to amber and an opposing set is already changing to green then the lights are at fault.

I would potentially say that yes the cyclist ran an amber light, which dependent on factors such as speed & road conditions and traffic may have been the safest thing to do. 

Mr Austin saw that his lights had gone from Red to Red and Amber and gave his Bently some welly.....  which would be one of the reasons he got into trouble as lets not forget Red means stop, Red and Amber also means Stop, do not pass through or start until green shows.

Not just one time - here's another bus driver doing exactly the same thing at the same place.

It is this detail - not raised at the Venera M inquest (the traffic signal sequence was described from the cyclists getting the advance green - omitting any review of the routine red light running by the preceding phase) this combined by the confirmed presence of a smaller, faster vehicle, setting off in front of the truck which ran into the REAR of Venera's bike at 13mph.

The possibility of any interaction between the untraced vehicle and Venera's bike was discounted - that interaction could easily have forced her to stop or take avoiding action, or the presence of this vehicle would have hidden her presence  from the driver of the truck until she was in the steradian of invisibility created by the cut-off line of the bottom of the windscreen (no evidence was presented on the presence of any papers/other material lying across the windscreen that may have further increased the hidden zone)

No evidence was presented to indicate the cycling ability/likely speed but as a fit rider it seems most off that a truck travelling at 13mph would be able to rear-end her (typical fit riders on CS2 are travelling at 15-20mph - and faster)

The proposition that she undertook the truck thus fails to hold-up - if she was travelling fast enough to get ahead of the truck - probably over 15mph then how could it hit her having barely reached 13mph?

The other detail where we MUST press for better securing of evidence and proper obective measurement is that it took 49 metres post-impact for the driver to stop - when he was flagged down. Why did he not hear or feel anything? A concession was made to the fact that the A12 was 'noisy' but no obective measurement (it registers over 80dB on my phone app) but no review of whether the driver's window was open or closed, or whether there was a radio or other aural distraction.  Just review so many crashes where the drivers take far too long to stop - or don't stop at all, and this question must be asked.

So back to the Southampton incident - was the driver listening to the radio or music?

The green light - per HC - means you can proceed IF THE ROAD AHEAD IS CLEAR 

That means proceeding with the same level of care and attention you must apply to normal driving and drive such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear of any other road users.

Clearly being aware of traffic which may still be moving as the signals controlling a conflicting movement are changing, classes as driving with the care expected of a competent driver (or cyclist) - I'd highlight video records of the safe(sic) cycle facility at Bow Roundabout, where the 2 second head-start (effectively 3 seconds delay before the motor traffic behind overtakes and left hooks - 3 deaths in 2 years). Motor traffic circulating to join the A12/M11 Link/A102(M) routinely runs the red light by 4-10 seconds showing red - measured from the cyclists' videos, including buses, with a clear picture here of the green light (ie already changed from red & amber) clearly visible THROUGH  the saloon windows of the bus. This timed from SW19's video at 4 seconds AFTER red light showing for circulating traffic.

When the Daily Mail reported this, they did a great job of victim blaming. They altered Anthony Grey's statement, removing the word amber from it, making out that in fact, as Grey received an FPN for jumping the lights, it must have been his fault and somehow an "innocent" motorist was punished unfairly. Grrrrrr.

Yet again, the DM has stoked up anti-cycling sentiment (the comments are enough to make your eyes water) and made it that much more unsafe for cyclists on the road by winding up half-witted morons who drive.

I'm a bit surprised that noone seems to have noticed or commented on the fact that the driver was actually charged with and admitted "driving without due care and attention".

The reallity is that even if the cyclist was completely in the wrong regarding the traffic signal (either amber or red) it is and was incumbent upon the driver to proceed after the signal turned green AND when it was safe to do so. With a cyclist on the junction it was clearly not safe and thus he was charged.

I feel there ought to have been an actual penalty although an awareness course is the likely outcome - that part is a real shame. That cyclist could have been an OAP walking or a child running with little awareness of their surroundings - the driver always has responsibility to check before setting off; yet how many really do that check when the lights change?

Dorset Police had a policy about 15 years ago whereby they do not prosecute drivers (and I would presume cyclists) who had sustained life changing injuries. One of our company cars was involved in a serious collision with a motorcyclist and we were told our driver was in no way to blame and that the motorcyclist would have been charged but for his injuries.

bloke sounds like a total knob

cant ride safely, jumps lights, has a go at "cyclists" for being irresponsible

speak for yourself, you total Hunt

Hey, par for the course in Southampton. Hampshire Police have sent a flyer to local schools claiming that failure to wear a helmet is a £50 FPN, as is carrying passengers on a cycle, as is riding cycle without lights fitted. Plus a couple of other things...

This story is odd. The offence of failing to comply with a traffic signal is only complete when the front wheels of the offending vehicle (which includes bikes) cross the solid white stop line on a Red light.

Amber does mean stop as far as the Highway Code goes, but prosecutions generally only occur when breaching the stop line on Red and it can be shown that the stop line is clearly visible and the light sequence was functioning correctly.

This is primarily to allow slow moving and long vehicles passage through the lights which may be green when the front tyres pass the line but red half way along the vehicle.

The whole story just doesn't add up though. Very odd.

He sounds like exactly the sort of cyclist who wouldn't have gone through an amber light. Something doesn't seem to add up.

He nearly lost the use of his legs, but sure, give him an FPN, that will teach him!

Would-be interesting to see the evidence and how one vehicle going through on amber could have been struck by another going on green.

What is it with 'cyclists' berating 'cyclists'? Is it a version of Stockholm Syndrome? It makes me sick.

reading the comments from the bloke who got splatted, he sounds too humble, my guess is that he went through "on pink" as we say and is just saying that it was amber to make it sound better.
If I'd got through on amber and ended up like this I'd be pretty furious.

The combination of this with a fast accelerating car coming the other way was just too close. If it had been me in my little 1.4 Honda he'd have flashed across in front of me and that would be it.

I understand that the light phase for amber is 3 seconds.  When the the light changes to red, it is a further 3 seconds before the opposing light changes to red/amber then to green.  There is something not right in the investigation of this incident; but then again this is Hampshire where cyclists don't count.