Furious van driver blasts horn and rages at cyclist… for stopping at a red light; “You are f***ing it up for all of us”: Cyclist berates Just Stop Oil activists for “harming the green cause”; “Fantastic turnout for DriveLondon” + more on the live blog

Cocovelo wrote:

Imagine if the protest wasn't against oil companies etc, but was instead against the Big Bad EU or something like that. Would the protesters get the same treatment by the media? Not a chance.

A lot of the same people punching the protestors and then whingeing about being arrested for it are doubtless those who supported or indeed were involved in the lorry drivers' convoys in protest at fuel prices or the various London cabby go-slows. As it happens I lean towards the school of thought that says JSO are somewhat counterproductive and selfindulgent in their tactics but there's no denying the media bias against them.

Irony at its finest, "I'm a liberal and I hate you...You're hurting the cause". 

The Woke hard left will always fall off their ivory towers, because at the depths of their black little pea hearts they are massive hypocrits who hate other people.

Demand more and more immigration, call anyone who questions it a racist. Meanwhile they happily demand other people curtail anything and everything in their daily lives for 'the climate emergency'.  

The majority of posters here know it becaue they are like that, crabs in a bucket, each trying to show off their virtue signal to the tribe, putting a UKR, rainbow, trans flag on their bio, claiming their 'cause' above all these other 'stupid people, but dragging each other back down back into their messy bucket of Wokedom. 

Roulereo wrote:

...at the depths of their black little pea hearts they are massive hypocrits who hate other people.

On the basis of this madder than a box of frogs rant, and your many other unpleasant comments about virtually everything on here, one would say it's actually you who hates other people. Go and have a nice lie down and perhaps a cup of tea.

Demand more and more immigration, call anyone who questions it a racist. Meanwhile they happily demand other people curtail anything and everything in their daily lives for 'the climate emergency'.  

Even if this were true, with which I disagree, then how is this hypocritical?

Cocovelo wrote:

Demand more and more immigration, call anyone who questions it a racist. Meanwhile they happily demand other people curtail anything and everything in their daily lives for 'the climate emergency'.  

Even if this were true, with which I disagree, then how is this hypocritical?

I find a useful heuristic for identifying content-less rambling is that anyone using the word "woke" as a perjorative is best ignored.

Yet (as I understand it but cannot be arsed to go check for the evidence) Cyclists are no more likely to RLJ than other road users, but do it in a different way.

1. They have more opportunity to filter and run a light at low speed. Such as at a pedestrian crossing.

2. Turning left on red.

3. Jumping ahead of the stop line to be clear of traffic waiting behind.

4. At road works where a cyclist can dodge inside the cones.

Personally, I cannot remember the last time, if at all, that I witnessed a cyclist deliberately accelerate to crash through a junction at orange / just changed to red as drivers tend to do.

Whilst I'd agree with you in reminding others to respect red lights, I do think it is probably more important to focus on tackling the incorrect and generally unfair stereotype.

My commute home through the centre of Glasgow is full of traffic lights.
Food delivery guys - on bikes and throttle pedalecs - have no respect for red lights. I am often sat there, on my bike, watching these guys go past on either the road or non-shared footway.

It happens ... it doesn't matter if you see it or not ... it happens.

Points 1 through 4 are not acceptable behaviour either.
Red light means Stop.
It doesn't mean go if you can see a way around it.

Points 1 through 4 only serve to reinforce the driverist mindset that cyclists will go through red lights - and that you have listed them shows that they are right.
If you are prepared to do any of those behaviours then you are part of the problem.
Don't be the problem... change your behaviour and be the solution.

You can be generic, or "you". How ever the cap fits.

Indeed. In my bit of London, it's absolutely unremarkable for cyclists (particularly but not at all only delivery riders) to ride through red lights. Pedestrian crossings seem to be the most usual venues, but also turning left at crossroads. I do see motorists do it occasionally, but that's infrequent enough (during the daytime anyway) that it sticks in my mind. Friends I ride with will sail through red lights if it *looks* clear, and I know they don't do that when driving. 

It fucks me right off. Partly the optics, as I want the moral high ground if I'm to be lumped in with all cyclists. Partly a sense that the world would be better if people didn't feel that the rules are only for others. Mostly because I've been knocked off by a woman blithely sailing through a crossroads that looked clear to her, and because I've many times had to grab my small child out of the way of someone who presumably thought that red lights aren't for cyclists. 

It's so fucking easy to just stop when and where you're meant to. (And naturally, that means that if a car or bus is in the ASL box, I'll be in front of them and taking my sweet time about setting off when the lights change).

Totally agree with you on all your points. I do my utmost to not run lights and will be seen shaking my head when someone else does. There have been a couple of instances where a mirror and shoulder check have established some clown is 6' off my wheel and I commit to the jump as I've no desire to be a billiard ball and be catapulted into the middle of a junction.

Mungecrundle wrote:

4. At road works where a cyclist can dodge inside the cones.

I've always worked on the assumption that if the roadworks are set up in such a way that it's safe to ride through (e.g. lane coned off but no works started, no workers present) and I can ride to the left of the red light and through the coned space without ever encroaching on the oncoming traffic's lane it's OK; I might also do this when I have a green if safe so as not to hold up traffic behind, e.g. on an uphill contraflow. This is the only time I'll pass a red, I assume that passing it to the left of the light and never riding in the lane it's controlling I'm not actually jumping it, but I'd be interested to know the legality of that.

Why would you consider that as *not* jumping a red light?
Would you ride through a red to turn left (currently illegal unless signed different)?

The only way that you can pass through red in those kind of circumstances is to get off and push.
You become a pedestrian.

That the traffic lights are temporary and specifically for roadworks is immaterial. They carry exactly the same weight in Law as permanent ones.

Oldfatgit wrote:

Why would you consider that as *not* jumping a red light?
Would you ride through a red to turn left (currently illegal unless signed different)?

....

That the traffic lights are temporary and specifically for roadworks is immaterial. They carry exactly the same weight in Law as permanent ones

Because I'm passing to the left of the red light, not riding through it, and not riding on the carriageway it's controlling, as I said. The red light is there to stop people travelling on the available carriageway and I'm not doing that. Rather than asking for a moral lecture I'm genuinely curious about the legal position, which is if I don't pass through the red light – which I would have to pass on its right to do so – don't ride on the active carriageway at any point and ride through a coned-off area where no workers are present and no works are yet taking place, am I breaking the law? 

In answer to your question as to whether I would ride through a red to turn left, I think "this is the only time I'll pass a red" in my previous post covers that.

Even though the lane is closed, you still pass through a red light on the carriageway and it would still be considered RLJ.

The active status of a lane does not affect its classification and use .. the lane does not stop existing as a carriageway and as such, the law still applies.

It is similar situation to red crossess over lanes on motorways. The cross means that the lane is closed, and you must not pass that point in that lane. The lane hasn't stopped existing as part of the carriageway, and it is an offence to proceed in that lane.

The only way that you can pass a red light is on foot.

So yes, you are breaking the law.

Been reading this with interest. I can't find anything specific to "portable traffic lights" - which tend to be used for most roadworks. They seem to be different to "temporary traffic lights"

Highway Code Rule 109 seems pertinant:

Quote:

You MUST obey all traffic light signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs

It doesn't specify portable traffic lights

I understand what has been said - the red light is closing off the lane you aren't using - but you will likely have passed a sign saying something like "When red light shows, wait here"

I think Oldfatgit (it feels rude to call you that!) is spot on - drivists tend to think in the moment, so will be unlikely think "oh thats nice of them - moving ahead so we don't get held up" I believe they will more likely knee-jerk "f**kin cyclist going through a red light"

Oldfatgit wrote:

...The only way that you can pass a red light is on foot. So yes, you are breaking the law.

But only in "in a very specific and limited way" though?

I'm a hypocrite in that I stick to the rules BUT.  I don't approve of RLJ by motor vehicles pretty much any time and by cyclists at most times.  However I am less troubled by cyclists breaking them.  Also after having stopped for lights at road works I have indeed then sometimes ignored them rather than waiting further.  This is where I am as certain as I can be that I can see the end of the one-way section and far enough beyond it that I can be absolutely sure of getting through before any vehicle could reach it from the other direction.  I don't want to risk falling in a trench / having to jump into a hedge.

FWIW I also roll through them at some points on some critical mass events - which certainly leave some members of the public annoyed and / or confused.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Because I'm passing to the left of the red light, not riding through it, and not riding on the carriageway it's controlling

Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under "Rendel Harris: he really is that stupid". That you quote Marcus Aurelius on here to look intelligent is increasingly comical.

You red-light-jumping hypocrite.

Whilst I agree that this is running a red – I myself am very dubious of those temporary traffic light/contraflows. They’re not set up with cyclists in mind, the timings do not allow for cyclist speeds and it’s almost impossible to clear them before the upstream light releases a bunch of drivers towards you (all of whom assume you’ve run a red instead of being caught out by the timings, and all of whom will happily have a head-on with you to teach you a lesson). These set-ups have been the source of a number of NMOTD entries - including a particularly terrifying one involving a lorry.

If I encounter one, I must admit, I’ll usually seek to go around it rather that through it. Though I'll usually dismount.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Whilst I agree that this is running a red – I myself am very dubious of those temporary traffic light/contraflows. They’re not set up with cyclists in mind, the timings do not allow for cyclist speeds and it’s almost impossible to clear them before the upstream light releases a bunch of drivers towards you (all of whom assume you’ve run a red instead of being caught out by the timings, and all of whom will happily have a head-on with you to teach you a lesson).

I've had this, and I do now find myself checking the timings while waiting (am I going to get through) and also eyeing the closed lane for escape potential. Obviously you may not be able to fully assess either eg. if the roadworks round a corner or otherwise go out of sight.

BalladOfStruth wrote:

Whilst I agree that this is running a red – I myself am very dubious of those temporary traffic light/contraflows. They’re not set up with cyclists in mind, the timings do not allow for cyclist speeds and it’s almost impossible to clear them before the upstream light releases a bunch of drivers towards you (all of whom assume you’ve run a red instead of being caught out by the timings, and all of whom will happily have a head-on with you to teach you a lesson). These set-ups have been the source of a number of NMOTD entries - including a particularly terrifying one involving a lorry.

If I encounter one, I must admit, I’ll usually seek to go around it rather that through it. Though I'll usually dismount.

You have a perfectly acceptable and legal option: get off and walk through the lights. Cycling through them on red is illegal. Full stop.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under "Rendel Harris: he really is that stupid". That you quote Marcus Aurelius on here to look intelligent is increasingly comical. You red-light-jumping hypocrite.

Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under "ShutTheFrontDawes: he really does have some very worrying anger issues; one can only hope that by being so gratuitously and furiously offensive to so many people so regularly online he lets off steam that stops him behaving like this in real life." Get well soon.

Rendel Harris wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under "Rendel Harris: he really is that stupid". That you quote Marcus Aurelius on here to look intelligent is increasingly comical. You red-light-jumping hypocrite.

Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under "ShutTheFrontDawes: he really does have some very worrying anger issues; one can only hope that by being so gratuitously and furiously offensive to so many people so regularly online he lets off steam that stops him behaving like this in real life." Get well soon.

Perhaps you should try to improve yourself so that you're not such a danger on the roads. If you don't know that cycling through a red light is illegal I expect that there are plenty of other dangerous and/or illegal things you do (whether you self-justify with some rediculous excuse or not).

Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.

Excellent! There you are, if I hadn't quoted old Marcus you wouldn't have gone looking him up to find a telling quote, so you've learned something. You're welcome.

Maybe soon you could learn the difference between riding through a red light and riding past it on the left in a cordoned off deactivated lane.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Maybe soon you could learn the difference between riding through a red light and riding past it on the left in a cordoned off deactivated lane.

There is literally no difference.

The highway code is clear: "You MUST obey all traffic light signals"

The law (RTA 1988) is clear:
"(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign [...] has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

It really is that simple.

Red light means stop Rendel. A child knows it.

Let's be realistic: lawful or not RLJ cyclists are no more dangerous than a jogger crossing the road.

However it can potentially make the cyclist safer by removing the possibility of them being left hooked/rear ended by the car behind

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Let's be realistic: lawful or not RLJ cyclists are no more dangerous than a jogger crossing the road

Tell that to Peter McCombie. Oh wait, you can't because he's dead. Killed by a red-light-jumping cyclist.

We have these laws for a reason. Don't pretend otherwise.

I never said it was without risk and as I said in my amended post: it can potentially make the cyclist safer by removing the possibility of them being left hooked/rear ended by the car behind.

I believe that road death statistics would decrease if cyclists could treat a red as a 'give way'

And before you argue that I'm trying to legalise dangerous cycling: the current law did no more to deter Emir Loka than what I'm proposing, and they would be no less at fault if they caused a collision

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Maybe soon you could learn the difference between riding through a red light and riding past it on the left in a cordoned off deactivated lane.

There is literally no difference. The highway code is clear: "You MUST obey all traffic light signals" The law (RTA 1988) is clear: "(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign [...] has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence. It really is that simple. Red light means stop Rendel. A child knows it.

so where there are multiple lanes, does a red on any of the lanes mean all lanes should stop? Or do you accept that red lights can apply only specifically to some lanes. They certainly never apply to a pavement.

So in the example of cordoned of roadworks, is the correct result to go through only on green, staying out of the coned off area in the certain knowledge the oncoming traffis will be bearing down on you before you get out the other end, because we know that roadworks never consider giving enough time for cyclists.

I have to say i was ttempted to stop and walk all the way back through the roadworks infront of him (after all bikes have no reverse) and then sit and enjoy the case when drivers coming the other way proved as bloody minded as the one approhing me, when the driver coming the other way could clearly see me in the roadworks when they decided their light was green so they would go regardless.