Near Miss of the Day 875: Red-light jumping driver almost hits cyclist, responds with denial and abuse

Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:

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.

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.

Duplicate post

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 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 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 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.

Treblicate post, honestly this site is a bit of a mess right now!

Riggs wrote:

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.

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'.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Quote:

Unfortunately we could not see what the traffic light colour was for the Audi

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:

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.

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.

Another bloody duplicate post!

Amber means STOP as well.

By English do you mean English?
Or, by English do you mean any resident of Britain but you call us English anyway??

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

but rarely do i see cars driving down the pavement like I do with bikes . 

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 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:

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 

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:

Here's some shit I made up.

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 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 (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 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 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 too though...

Wheelywheelygood wrote:

. . . . rarely do i see cars driving down the pavement like I do with bikes. 

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-t...