Update 26/09/2023:
The cyclist involved finally heard a response from Greater Manchester Police who revealed the report would result in no further action. Alex, who had described the force’s approach to dealing with camera footage reports of dangerous driving as “opaque”, said the outcome was “very depressing”.
He told us: “Police responded that the light was not red so no further action. Very depressing response from Greater Manchester Police. Their exact words were: ‘No further action was taken in relation to this matter. Unfortunately we could not see what the traffic light colour was for the Audi.’ I replied to them that the light was red and showed a screen shot. Not heard anything back.”
Original story follows…
A nurse in Manchester was cycling to work this morning when he was almost hit by a motorist who drove through red lights at a pedestrian crossing, and then went on to swear at the cyclist and deny that the light was red. Unfortunately for him, the cyclist had got it on camera.
Alex has been cycling to work ever since he became a nurse 10 years ago — and the route he was on today has been part of his daily Monday to Friday commute for almost a year now.
Coming up to Rochdale Road from Russet Road in Greater Manchester at just past 8AM today, he stopped and waited for the light to turn red at the pedestrian crossing, so he could join the main road safely. But as he was about to do so, an Audi driver jumped the light and came very close to hitting him.
When he let out an exclaim pointing at the state of events to the motorist, he was met with a deluge on abuse and denial.
“I’m unfortunately used to it, but in my opinion this was very good footage of someone doing something very naughty,” Alex told road.cc.
As visible in the video, the Audi driver is stationary and waiting for the drivers in front of him to pass. When the light turns amber, there’s still another vehicle in front of him, which goes straight ahead just as the red light comes on.
“When I turned they decided to run the red light and almost hit me,” he said.
He can be heard saying: “It’s a red light mate!”
The driver replies with: “Oh f*** off! No, it f****** wasn’t!”
Alex said: “The thing I think is a bit different about this is that the offending car is so clearly captured being stationary behind the red light and so they have very intentionally driven through it. It was no simple accident or episode of inattention.”
He told road.cc that he has submitted the footage to Greater Manchester police and is awaiting a response, but his experience with them has been “hit and miss” so far.
“If I had to describe their responses in one word it would be opaque,” said Alex.
> Near Miss of the Day turns 100 – Why do we do the feature and what have we learnt from it?
Over the years road.cc has reported on literally hundreds of close passes and near misses involving badly driven vehicles from every corner of the country – so many, in fact, that we’ve decided to turn the phenomenon into a regular feature on the site. One day hopefully we will run out of close passes and near misses to report on, but until that happy day arrives, Near Miss of the Day will keep rolling on.
If you’ve caught on camera a close encounter of the uncomfortable kind with another road user that you’d like to share with the wider cycling community please send it to us at info@road.cc or send us a message via Twitter or the road.cc Facebook page.
If the video is on YouTube, please send us a link, if not we can add any footage you supply to our YouTube channel as an unlisted video (so it won’t show up on searches).
Please also let us know whether you contacted the police and if so what their reaction was, as well as the reaction of the vehicle operator if it was a bus, lorry or van with company markings etc.
> What to do if you capture a near miss or close pass (or worse) on camera while cycling
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
86 thoughts on “Near Miss of the Day 875: Red-light jumping driver almost hits cyclist, responds with denial and abuse”
Appalling driving, but I
Appalling driving, but I doubt they’ll get done for breaching a red light. They went over the stop line when the light was green, then sat in the crossing (blocking it, with a cyclist waiting to cross). Technically, they didn’t breach the stop line when the light was red. They might get done for inconsiderate driving, but equally, I could see the police also prosecuting the cyclist for breaching the give way markings.
Not sure about that. I think
Not sure about that. I think that the whole of your vehicle has to be over the line before the light turns red (ref), and I don’t think it was.
Interesting. If the
Interesting. If the articulated vehicle is max 18 m, and the shortest amber light is 2.75 seconds, assuming that the light turns amber right as the front of the vehicle passes the stop line, the vehicle would need to be travelling at (18 m / 2.75 s) = 6.5 m/s = 14.6 MPH to clear the stop line before the red. Not a problem if traffic is flowing freely.
But wait, at for instance 20 MPH the stopping distance for an HGV is 88 ft* (26.8 m). So if the light changed to amber when the vehicle was 26.8 m before the light, it won’t be able to stop in time. If the driver proceeds at 20 MPH (8.94 m/s), though, he’ll cover 24.6 m in 2.75 s, putting the front of the vehicle still behind the stop line.
I don’t see how a driver can comply with this version of the law.
* can’t find an authoratative number source for this, but there is definitely a range of speeds where the vehicle is going too fast to stop before the line, and too slow to make it entirely through, in 2.75-3.25 seconds, because it’s not travelling much more than its own length in that time
Interesting stuff from both
Interesting stuff from both Tom_77 and andystow, thanks. I was wondering the same about whether the driver’s front bumper had passed the white line. Now I know it makes no difference…and also the highway code is somewhat faulty in this regard!
Tom_77 wrote:
I think that website is incorrect. Looking at the law, it’s quite clear that the only thing that matters is the stop line and whether you can proceed past it or not.
If the light is green you can proceed past the stop line, if the light is red you must not proceed past the stop line:
They went over the stop line
They went over the stop line when the light was green, then sat in the crossing (blocking it, with a cyclist waiting to cross). Technically, they didn’t breach the stop line when the light was red
This is tripe!
I could see the police also prosecuting the cyclist for breaching the give way markings
This is also tripe. Motorist guilty. Probability of any police force in the vicinity of Lancashire prosecuting him, however, approaches zero.
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
wtjs wrote:
I wish it were. I don’t expect a prosecution of the cyclist would get anywhere, as the vehicle was stationary when they moved past the give way and did appear to be waiting. Any sensible court would throw that out.
But I know how some police can overly analyse the actions of the cyclist in these situations, often dependent on how many reports the cyclist submits to them. You would be in trouble if it were Lancs police! 😉
But it clearly says in the HC
But it clearly says in the HC there they shouldn’t do, that so how is that not careless driving ?
stonojnr wrote:
It probably wouldn’t meet the threshold for careless. Even driving instructors can be caught out… https://youtu.be/J87dSUyZc2Q?feature=shared&t=3660
Only because the police or
Only because the police or cps wont pursue it, yet the police guidance on driving offences even cites just mistakenly driving through a red light as an example of careless driving.
I don’t think it technically
I don’t think it technically counts as driving through a red light. The stop line was crossed when the light was green.
What it does breach, is rule 192 of the highway code, which says you should not stop in the crossing area. However, this is not illegal like running a red light, just contrary to the advice in the Highway Code. I do think it would amount to inconsiderate, possibly careless driving, but whether the police would actually prosecute for that single instance, I’m not sure. Most likely they would be given ‘words of advice’.
I submitted a video which
I submitted a video which showed a driver waiting in the ASL box at a red, including them then driving through the red light and pedestrian crossing. Police saw zero issue with it ?♂️
Half expecting the driver to
Half expecting the driver to spout some bullshit about established red lights. Hopefully they will be prosecuted.
A dangerous abusive dick head
A dangerous abusive dick head in an AUDI? That’s not something you see every day . . . .
NOtotheEU wrote:
There was an Audi driver selling his toy on fb marketplace the other day, complete with pictures of it parked on double yellow lines and blocking the pavement.
This Audi blocks the view of
This Audi blocks the view of peds/drivers by parking on the pavement next to the pelican crossing zig zags every day. I saw this picture online and thought with police attending a serious crash yesterday and having to pass the police tape over the bonnet of the car they might have a word with the driver and it wouldn’t still be there on Monday morning . . . .
Monday morning and guess what
Monday morning and guess what? . . . . .
I am not suggesting this is
I am not suggesting this is relevant here, but…
On my old London commute, there was a controlled pedestrian crossing on Holloway Road where I eventually realised that the traffic lights on each side did not turn red at exactly the same time – traffic on the souhtbound side would be stopped a couple of seconds before the northbound (or vice versa, I forget). It wasn’t a massive differential, but it was enough that occasionally pedestrians would give abuse because they thought I had RLJd when I hadn’t. I have no idea if this setup was intentional, or a timing error, but it has made me slightly more cautious about stepping out just because I can see one side is red.
Have you reported it?
Have you reported it?
No – (a) I genuinely wasn’t
No – (a) I genuinely wasn’t sure if it was intended to operate that way. Both road signals went red before the pedestrian signal went green; just not in perfect synchronicity; (b) haven’t cycled there since Covid, so couldn’t say if it’s still the same.
Both car and bicycle moving
Both car and bicycle moving slowly. This was not a near collision and really no big deal. Driver was a d*ck though, no need to use his horn or shout even if he thought he was in the right. He was slow to move off, he should of expected the cyclist to move into the space he left.
neilmck wrote:
As the cyclist moves into the lane the car is around four metres away (the zigzag markings are each 2m long). Four metres at 10mph is one second, about the time it takes the cyclist to cross the lane, so it’s a fair assumption that the car and the rear of the bicycle came into pretty close proximity. It’s not a terrifying, could-have-been-killed miss, obviously, but equally clearly there is a risk of a bump. If they were nowhere near each other, why did the car driver react as he did?
Maybe this kind of thing is
Maybe this kind of thing is rare in most of the UK. In Paris it is the standard riding style through dense traffic. People are always pushing, cheeky at red lights, etc. That type of slow, lets-play-chicken “near-collision” happens to me 10 -20 times a day, the motorists aren’t d*cks though and ignore you.
neilmck wrote:
FTFY. Let’s not normalise horrendous English.
Swap cyclist for driver and
Swap cyclist for driver and that is a maneuver I have seen many times that not only doesn’t elicit a “warning” from the other driver, but in fact is encouraged with a lights-flash.
These are two separate things
These are two separate things, the junction negotiated by the cyclist, and the light-controlled pedestrian crossing. I’m not sure that the cyclist is entitled to rely on the lights, he should satisfy himself his own junction is safe to traverse. The car driver may or may not be guilty of an infraction at the pedestrian crossing, but does that have any bearing on what the cyclist does? Suppose it had been a regular zebra crossing, with pedestrians clearly waiting to cross, every expectation that Audi-man should be stopping, but then doesn’t.
My betting is that this is MGIF. Audi-man thinks, if I wait for the lights then that cyclist is getting in front, can’t let that happen, so since I’ve nosed over the line already, go for it.
A bit like this charmer
A bit like this charmer yesterday who called me a c**t, oh but wait it was a cyclist… and he then proceeded through the next red which was a pedestrian crossing, but then it wasn’t busy with people, it’s not like it was somewhere like…. Trafalgar Square. First snap shows him literally staring at the cab in the lane next to me.
Edited for a spelling mistake, hope that is OK.
Been a while since I had the
Been a while since I had the brompton out to cycle from Charing Cross to Chiswick. I had forgotten how appalling the behaviour of a large number of cyclists is in London is.
File under “man with
File under “man with questionable shoe and trouser pairing turns out to be an arrogant bully”?
Interesting though – I’ve not noticed the shirt cycling demographic so much. (Probably a bad idea to start trying to group demographics based on clothing, but…) I’m the wrong side of the (tram) tracks most of the time though!
Don’t know London but do you think that policing would improve behaviour (and how much would be needed), or that the infra design contributes, or it’s just because this is a relatively new thing (provision for cycling), or “bloody Londoners”, or some other reason?
Why does what the guy is
Why does what the guy is wearing come into it? That is no different to someone bemoaning “lycra clad” cyclists. Was it equally questionable that I was wearing jeans?
Policing would likely have limited impact in the same way as roads policing in general. Though if it were carried out more it would likely have a positive effect on pedestrian safety if regular cyclists (assuming this guy commutes here a lot) know they may get stopped/fined.
Other than that I would say it is a general arrogance. The infra is much improved, from Charing Cross to Chiswick probably 80% of the 6.8 miles is on cycle ways and it is now even possible to bypass Hammersmith roundabout, which is a godsend. I would say arrogance becuase probably 50% or more of cyclists using this route blatantly ignore traffic signals, including those specific to the cycle ways. Like it or not, this does reflect on the opinion people have as cyclists in general, much the same as many on road.cc seem inclined to with motorists.
Adam Sutton wrote:
(The reason for the clothes mention is “why would what he’s riding / using to travel with come into it”? On which questions below.)
Thanks! Again, I don’t know London but the stories suggest that the new cycling provision has (somewhat…) increased cycling – so people who maybe didn’t before are now doing so.
So would you say this arrogance is just that Londoners are more arrogant in general (more of them on bikes, more arrogant cyclists), or that the arrogant preferentially take up cycling, or that getting on a bike makes you more arrogant?
As to ignoring red lights – would this be something that they might do as pedestrians also? Maybe they still feel it’s the same kind of activity PLUS they now have a chance of getting across bigger junctions which would not have felt safe when on foot?
Serious question – I think that getting in a car will change how you feel with respect to others so I imagine it’s possible getting on a bike could. Perhaps a perceived lack of feedback from the law as you mention? That of course also applies to motorists (illegal driving is under-policed) but there will likely be less policing of cyclists (albeit there are fewer rules).
EDIT – I bet that “human laziness, carelessness, selfishness and arrogance” applies most places. I agree that due to our street / road environment the demographics of those cycling will be skewed – but that should be becoming less so in London I’d have thought?
Also I think conflict is likely to be heightened in places “in transition” e.g. London. Where there really are tons of cyclists somehow this doesn’t seem to be a major public issue though.
Maybe that’s because where cycling is normal we don’t specially notice bad behaviour by “cyclists” – they’re just more normal “people being selfish” occurrences? Perhaps cyclists in NL are less likely to be stressed / have their “war face” on (as they might be in the UK)? Of course in NL it could be simply that cyclists have also become the bullies (like motorists here) but I’ve read NL is rated as a very good place to walk in.
Strange, last week spoke to a
Strange, last week spoke to a lycra clad cyclist after running a red light, asked him if he was going to do the same at the next set, reply was, that’s only for you lot, then proceeds to cycle slowly in front of me, last night, lycra clad man thinks the rules don’t apply to him either, when I,m turning right at a roundabout, he thinks it ok to keep on going and enters on the left, nearly colliding into the side of my car. Unfortunately, it’s these idiots who give cyclists a bad image, because the selfish individuals who have no regards for roads safety and pedestrians.
Osram wrote:
A bad image? Is that like how all the speeding drivers give ALL drivers a bad image?
Isn’t it strange that if you specify a group of people to be an out-group, that you can them blame them all for the actions of some of them? I saw an angry, red-headed, jeans clad BMW driver the other day who didn’t indicate when turning and then used a rude gesture at me as I was trying to cross the road (as a ped). It’s people like that who give all red-heads a bad name.
A squirrel once yelled
A squirrel once yelled obscentities at me, and someone told me a very violent one was trapped people in their houses once. Can’t trust any of ’em.
chrisonatrike wrote:
It’s the jeans-clad squirrels you really need to be careful of.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or should that be the red-head squirrels?
Great first post?
Great first post?
HoarseMann wrote:
And hopefully last.
Bingo-cards out everyone!
Bingo-cards out everyone!
First off – you’ve mentioned Lycra twice. Why? Cycling (at speed) is a physical activity, and some form of active wear is objectively the correct kit for the job. If I did my commute in jeans, I’d need skin grafts by the time I got to work. I bet you don’t give the gym-goers at your local gym shit for wearing active wear, or shout at the kids on your local five-a-side for wearing football kit. Using “Lycra” as a pejorative just makes it sound like you’ve got an axe to grind and undermines any argument you might have.
Secondly – this whole “giving other cyclists a bad name” nonsense. Not only is collective responsibility total rubbish, it apparently only applies to cyclists. The average driver behaves worse and more dangerously than the average cyclist by every metric we have access to – KSI fault, speed compliance, rule breaking, etc. How come they aren’t giving you a bad name, but RLJ-ing cyclists are apparently giving me a bad name? If we held drivers to anything like the same standard that drivers think cyclists should be held to, we’d have banned cars years ago.
Clearly, the two cyclists you mention are dickheads, but that’s not due to their wardrobe choice, and it’s nothing to do with me.
Thanks for shining a light on
Thanks for shining a light on that, Osram.
Not disputing the existence of eejits on bikes – or even selfish eejits who answer back and think the rules don’t apply to them. Or nearly hit you. And in some places (London, people tell me) this is definitely very salient eg. running red lights. (Perhaps a bit more policing would help there?) Luckily they’re very low risk to you in your car (or even to pedestrians) – especially because they cycle slowly (relative to cars). Better than them being in a car, which they almost certainly drive (and likely badly). Even those out on a jolly in their lyrca would be otherwise doing something – and probably drive to it – wouldn’t they?
That’s another reason why I would like more places in the UK to look like this – it makes it safer AND more convenient for everyone – including those driving, honestly! Also it relies less on exhortations to humans to improve their natures, or the hope of “police it better”.
Unfortunately the several “bad cyclist” stereotypes are out there already. Given the tiny number of cyclists and the fact that only a few of us come to the committee meetings us other cyclists* lack the resources to fix them. Any more that you’ll be sorting all the red-light running / drunk / unlicenced / speeding / pavement drivers.
* But perhaps we all look the same to those not cycling?
Thanks for shining a light on
[quote=chrisonatrike]
Thanks for shining a light on that, Osram.
Indeed, truly an illuminating post.
You lost your argument the
You lost your argument the moment you said “lycra clad cyclist”…
Why did you run a red light
Why did you run a red light to speak to a cyclist?
As you seem to imply you were in a car (cycle slowly in front of me), do you go and chase down other drivers who run red lights as well and ask them whether they will do it again?
Also can you explain the roundabout story better. It seems you were on the right of the island as you are turning right, surely if he was coming from the left (onto the island), there would be plenty of room for both of you? I might also point you to UK Dashcam on youtube. Normally a third of all videos are cars entering a roundabout and either colliding or almost colliding with other vehicles. Unfortunately it is these idiots who give drivers a bad image, because the selfish individuals who have no regards for roads safety and pedestrians (and cyclists).
There’s more than enough
There’s more than enough selfish, narcissistic sociopaths out there who endanger and take the lives of cyclists and pedestrians while driving. There’s plenty of us on this forum who have the scars to show as a result of self entitled, aggressive behaviours demonstrated daily by motorists. The numbers affected by shoddy cycle craft pale into insignificance when compared to those affected by shoddy road craft.
The fact he is wearing lycra
The fact he is wearing lycra is neither her or there. What fat people in cars do not understand is that I do you are cycling more than 5 miles then wearing lycra makes a big difference in the effort you need when you pedal.
Lack of awareness or maybe
Lack of awareness or maybe arrogance from the cyclist, but equally bad from the Audi driver who completely over reacted.
The best thing about cycling is being able to jump red lights – best way to make up time.
Bullshit, troll.
Bullshit, troll.
Just wanted to say that I
Just wanted to say that I cycle to and from work Monday thru Friday. About six or seven miles each way. I’ve been doing this for about twelve years and I have “jumped” a red light once (in my defence, there was nobody crossing, no traffic joining at the junction, and I’d been distracted worrying about a van approaching from behind me at speed). I have never intentionally crossed a red light.
OT, but it does seem that we’ve had a lot of one post wonders today…
I thought that too – I’m
I thought that too – I’m beginning to wonder if it’s graduation time from troll school.
brooksby wrote:
It would be interesting if Road.cc mods can see the IP addresses being posted from and compare. Maybe a certain PBU or maybe should that be SBBAU, (Should Be Banned Again User) might have gotten his new NordVPN deal and switching to a different country every few minutes.
Although this also happens when one of Road.cc’s tweets gets pushed into the time lines of certain people, especially if mentioning Vine or Mikey.
If there is a traffic light
If there is a traffic light alone in a forest and there isn’t a cyclist to run it, is it a red light?
Drivers do jump lights but
Drivers do jump lights but for every driver , I’ve seen 20cyclists jump them but rarely do i see cars driving down the pavement like I do with bikes . I wish I had a £1 for time I had to swerve my wheelchair out of the way of a bike doing 15/20 on the pavement , we need to see these mad bikers taken to court to pay and they need to pass a compulsory test like car drivers
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
the number of times I’ve had to take evasive action as a pedestrian due to a driver deciding they were going to park on the pavement, whether there was a pedstrian there or not.
So no cycling until you are
So no cycling until you are 17? And as compulory tests do nothing for a sizeable minority of drivers (how many speed over 30mph for example), why would taking a compulsory test stop the cyclists who decide to weirdly aim their bikes at someone in a wheelchair. I mean if I aimed my bike at one, I would actually do myself as much damage as the person in the wheelchair might get. Not that I cycle on the pavement or cycle through a red light or all the other things I’m accused of doing because I ride on two wheels. I do however see some asshats on mostly illegal motorbikes who do stupidly speed along when the pavement doesn’t justify the speed and might be doing the 15-20mph speeds you have approximated. They normally can be spotted by the lack of pedalling.
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
Over estimating how many cyclists go through red lights to the extent you say is obviously a load of nonsense. There are a few bad cyclists who go through red lights, but there are significantly more bad drivers who do it and they pose a much bigger danger to all other road users.
Over 80% of cyclists also drive. They know and put into practice good cycling because their lives depend on it. Drivers take more risks because they are safe in their metal cocoons.
I see more cars mount pavements than cyclists. Drivers also block footpaths so people in wheelchairs and buggies etc have to go into the road, with the cars, who statistically are very likely to be speeding, looking at their phones or distracted.
We need to see entitled bad drivers like this Audi driver penalised for going through the red light, being abusive and close passing.
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
But do link to petrolheads where you lambast drivers for blocking the footway so you are unable to pass.
I’ve yet to see a mobility
I’ve yet to see a mobility chair user travel at less than 4mph. In fact not so long ago I had to jump onto the road to avoid being hit by one.
They’re all out in lycra-mix
They’re all out in lycra-mix (for comfort) after GOMs (grandpa / grandma of the mountain).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k-6tnk6_pW4
The modern ones are much improved I think, have assisted folks in the past who’d got stuck due to steep gradients / awkward kerb and they were heavy!
In the last five years if I
In the last five years if I had a pound for every time I had to avoid a cyclist doing 15/20 on the pavement I’d probably have a pound. Not even enough to buy a copy of the Beano. When did comics get so expensive?
Careful, you’ll set the
Careful, you’ll set the others off like the Monty Python Yorkshiremen sketch!
“Right… well… t’other day I saw a peleton of … 60 of them, 30-abreast, doing 100mph wrong way down a maternity unit corridor with a dozen babies impaled on their tri-bars, they sliced a ward sister’s leg clean off and the lycra and flashing lights caused 3 cases of epilepsy. And on the way out every man jack of them stopped to pee in some baby’s crib. And they didn’t even give a wave!
There are a few wrong-uns out
There are a few wrong-uns out there too though…
Wheelywheelygood wrote:
These two drove from the petrol station to the Burger King next door down the pavement . . . .
https://upride.cc/incident/2-drivers-confuse-the-pavement-sidewalk-for-the-road/
You only need one motorist to
You only need one motorist to stop and the other motorists behind, who would have driven through the red light without a care in the world, grudgingly have to stop too.
That’s the only difference.
You only need one motorist to
You only need one motorist to stop and the other motorists behind, who would have driven through the red light without a care in the world, grudgingly have to stop too.
That’s the only difference.
Ever seen a car parked on the
Ever seen a car parked on the pavement and wondered how it got there?
funny tht our pavements are
funny that our pavements are full of cars parked on them, but they don’t drive on pavements? how did that get there? do that drop from the sky?
Do not pass go. Do not
Do not pass go. Do not collect £200. Go straight to SNAP.
What a fukunt.
Had he know he was being a terwat to an NHS nurse, I’m sure he would’ve been more contrite.
Well. You’d hope so.
He should be pistol whipped.
Nearly all English people
Nearly all English people will walk across a pedestrian crossing when the man is red if there are no cars coming and it is obvious that to do so will present no danger. Why should anyone expect the English to behave differently when sitting on a bicycle?
By English do you mean
By English do you mean English?
Or, by English do you mean any resident of Britain but you call us English anyway??
There’s an epidemic of
There’s an epidemic of drivists running red lights round my part of North London. At a T-junction of Highbury Grove and St Paul’s Road this morning, lights had gone green, then a drivist in an Audi – what else? – flies through across the top of the T on a clear red. No amber in it at all.
Couple of minutes later, going down New North Road, lights at Essex Road go red and two drivists – one in an Audi, again! – flatten it to go through on a full red. Again, not a suggestion of amber.
I see so many drivists running red lights – it’s the best argument against cyclist jumping red lights, they risk being mown down by a red light running drivist.
Amber means STOP as well.
Amber means STOP as well.
Quote:
I thought they tested for colourblindness as part of the application procedure for the force? I assume what they are really saying is that they cannot guarantee that the light facing the Audi driver had also turned red. However I made a specific inquiry to the Met a while ago as to whether they would act on a case with the same sort of evidence (facing traffic light only, oncoming RLJ jumper) and they said they would (and they did, with the driver accepting an education course), it would be up to the driver to prove that there was some fault in the traffic light which meant it was still green on one side when it had turned red on the other. The default assumption (according to them) is that the equipment is functioning properly unless proved otherwise.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I thought they tested for colourblindness as part of the application procedure for the force? I assume what they are really saying is that they cannot guarantee that the light facing the Audi driver had also turned red.
It has to be red (or amber) as he’s crossing the stop line; since he’s beyond it when the light changes, he’s not committed the offence.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
I think you’ve got the cars mixed up, the offender is the silver car you can see in the screenshot above quite clearly still behind the crossing when the light turns red, not the white car that has already gone through the crossing.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Another bloody duplicate post!
It’s ok everyone, as a
It’s ok everyone, as a Manchester resident, I can confirm that it works differently round here. It’s red light plus 5 cars. And who’s counting anyway.
All road law is suspended within 100yrds of Miami Crispy, too.
Stop criticising the hard working bobbies, they’re mowed out here.
I had exactly the same
I had exactly the same experience and response from Police Scotland in June. Was on a 2 lane road waiting at a set of lights at a crossroads. I was watching the other lights so I could be ready to go, watched them change to red and mine change to green. 2 drivers from the right drove through the red light as we (me and the car beside my plus the 2 cars facing me) all moved off. As we approached the middle of the junction a van ploughed through the red from the right, with multiple horns tooting from the cars who were on green plus me shouting.
Reported to police with clear video evidence, initial officers who took report seemed to think it was a slam dunk and would pass on to officers from the area where it happened. A few days later I get a call from that area’s officers saying they weren’t going to proceed despite the evidence. Basically it was too hard for them to prove the lights weren’t faulty, some nonsense about how they would have to sit and monitor the lights for hours and so on. I confirmed it was on the video and I could confirm a saw their lights were indeed red, but they weren’t interested.
They also refused to even entertain prosecuting a drive on the same ride who nearly killed both me and my daughter by left hooking us as we all moved off from a set of lights. Again all on camera. And that’s running 2 high powered lights front and rear. I asked for a review but same response. Apparently easy mistake to make and no prospect of conviction.
Furthermore refused to pursue Dutch driver who passed extremely close and fast. Acknowledged that if it was a UK driver they would but since they were foreign it would be too much hassle. Seems foreign drivers can do whatever they want from what I could gather.
They are pursuing the car that came straight out a side street causing me to serve and break and who then gave me a mouthful of abuse when I caught up with him at the lights. This was the main reason for calling them out so not too bad a result. Don’t report too many drivers. That was the worst cycle I’ve ever been on (also managed to tear my hamstring on the same ride).
Riggs wrote:
That’s a Brexit benefit (for foreign drivers). Since we left the EU, our police have lost access to the systems that allowed EU drivers to be traced and fined. It’s a far more complicated process now, and they won’t bother.
Northants police publish a list of their traffic offence outcomes and as far as I’ve seen, all offences involving foreign vehicles are marked as ‘cancelled – foreign driver’.
The issue is, as far as a red
The issue is, as far as a red light is concerned, the offence is committed only when you proceed beyond the stop line whilst the light is red (or amber). Since he’s already beyond the line when the light changes, he hasn’t committed that offence and he’d be correctly acquitted at court.
There may be another offence which could be considered, of course, but not RLJ.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Two problems with that, firstly the driver is quite clearly not beyond the stop line when the light turns red (see screenshot), and secondly even if you are on or partially over the stop line when the light turns red you must stop if safe to do so (as it clearly would’ve been for this driver) otherwise it counts as running the red.
It’s not easy to see but he
It’s not easy to see but he is over the white line, or at best rear wheels on the line.
and from this streetview
and from this streetview screenshot there’s a car in almost an identical position, so he wouldn’t be able to see the light on the left.
Still probably shouldn’t have been stopped there in the first place and should have proceeded much more safely.
(edit) Rule 192 https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/pedestrian-crossings.html
“In slow-moving and queuing traffic you should keep crossings completely clear, as blocking these makes it difficult and dangerous for pedestrians to cross. You should not enter a pedestrian crossing if you are unable to completely clear the crossing.”
but it’s a *should* not a *MUST NOT*
OK… Not exactly sure what’s
OK… Not exactly sure what’s going on here but the white line on your first photograph is not visible at all in the video, have you added that for demonstration purposes? If so you have put it in completely the wrong place, your own Streetview photo shows that the stop line is perpendicular to halfway down the first panel of railings, your other photo shows the stop line at least two panels back if not more from the light.
OK… Not exactly sure what’s
OK… Not exactly sure what’s going on here but the white line on your first photograph is not visible at all in the video, have you added that for demonstration purposes? If so you have put it in completely the wrong place, your own Streetview photo shows that the stop line is perpendicular to halfway down the first panel of railings, your other photo shows the stop line at least two panels back if not more from the light.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Duplicate post
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Treblicate post, honestly this site is a bit of a mess right now!