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

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

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. 

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

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. 

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'.

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?

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?

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!).

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. 

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?

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!

That's a KOM you missed there...

Who said anything about missing it? 

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!

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

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.

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.

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).

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...