Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes

Given that cyclists are of course vulnerable, then perhaps it would be best if they didn't go through red lights, eh?

I believe there was an article/discussion on here recently about this.

IIRC relative to their modal share cyclists are over represented in collisions with pedestrians leading to KSI that involve RLJ.

Rich_cb wrote:

I believe there was an article/discussion on here recently about this. IIRC relative to their modal share cyclists are over represented in collisions with pedestrians leading to KSI that involve RLJ.

Really?  Where's the link?

I reckon you are spouting Nige-grade bollocks. 
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-re...

@Garage at Large

I know it's very irritating to see cyclists jumping red lights or breaking rules (as a law abiding cyclist and motorist I too find it frustrating) but you are missing by far the most important point. The guiding motivation for Police resources and increased legislation must always be (and sometimes is) directed at the consequences of those rules being broken. The table you have posted a link to does indeed show that cyclists may exceed their modal share of traffic  involved in collisions with pedestrians, but what it much more starkly shows is that the number of fatalaties and serious injuries caused  by motor vehicles outnumbers that of cyclists many many times over. That's lives destroyed and families uttery devastated. In fact the first table shows that between 2005 and 2014 there were ZERO people killed by cyclists 'disobeying automatic traffic signals'. Just consider that, zero lives lost to cyclists whilst 52 were killed by motor vehicles during the same period. 52 lives and families destroyed compared to zero. 

The other table demonstrates that during the same period 5 people were killed on pavements by cyclists (an environment where they can legally co-exist) whilst 112 were killed by motor vehilcles. That's killed ON THE PAVEMENT where motor vehicles have no place. 22 TIMES the number of deaths caused by cyclists.

So you see whilst your calling for tabards and arguing about the minutia of what constitutes 'running a red light' people are dying and familes are being devastated but almost entirely NOT by cyclists.

jaspersdog wrote:

..

So you see whilst your calling for tabards and arguing about the minutia of what constitutes 'running a red light' people are dying and familes are being devastated but almost entirely NOT by cyclists.

Great post, although I fear pearls before swine . This mendacious troll cares not one jot about road safety or people getting killed. Discourse in good faith is not possible with them.

There was a brief Christmas truce - although not really discourse?

chrisonatrike wrote:

There was a brief Christmas truce - although not really discourse?

Missed that. I was on black and white stripe ops. Can't really talk about it.

Garage at Large wrote:

I look forward to your retraction, apology, and acknowledgement of the facts.

Have you been looking in the mirror again?

Meanwhile how many speeding drivers were ignored? Hundreds? Oh but of course, they are not responsible for pedestrian KSIs, it's them pesky cyclists whodunnit.

Well Nigel has provided a link which then has further data apparently from someone at the someone at Road Safety Statistics, Statistics Travel and Safety, Department for Transport, as requested in 2015 by someone at the CTC (now Cycling UK).  So worth looking at that then.

I haven't done so.  I'm a little surprised that they have the level of detail claimed and they're producing figures that they didn't already publish.  Only because the official figures are normally rather broad-brush.  However it's possible that someone lower down the organisation has some "less official" and more detailed figures and is just being helpful.

There could be a number of factors / reasons here and what I'd take from this immediately is "our junctions could definitely be improved for the safety and convenience of those not in motor vehicles".  Not a surprise. Junctions are the most important parts of road systems for safety and the easiest to muck up.  Best practice suggests that we need shorter waiting times to keep people from getting frustrated, that cyclists shouldn't be mixed in with cars and that better designs avoid some lights entirely - or even send cars and bikes on completely different routes (with bikes getting the more direct links).

I expect that London cyclists would turn down the offer of a tabbard for pretty much the same reasons you have for not wearing one.

Ah ha ha hah! They could fund the exchequer if they enforced the £1000 fine for number plate infractions. Darkened plates have become a trending fashion accessory to match the illegally tinted front windows, whilst front number plates are entirely optional.

Not worth responding to.

Garage at Large wrote:

I would imagine that the police only stopped cyclists who blatently rode through established red traffic lights.

Riding through on amber or a "just-red" light is too much of a legal grey area to prosecute, and probably wouldn't meet the high bar of British justice.

No Nigel.... they would stop any cyclist who rode through a light that was red.

This established red light that you keep menitioning is a figment of your imagination.  

But as per the normal you keep pushing your lies about this mythical "established red light".

If a cyclist, like a driver can't stop in the 3 seconds (as stipulated by traffic light regulations) that a fixed traffic signal remains at amber..... and they go through on a red light ...... that is a red light offence...... END OF STORY

If you can't accept that, if you have a driving licence please hand it back in because you are clearly a danger on the road.

I mean what happens if you as a driver drive through a recently established red light and hit and kill a young child who is crossing the road on the green man? - And remember Nigel answer the exact question as asked.... not what you think was asked

Garage at Large wrote:

You clearly don't know much about puffin crossings, because if you did you'd note that there is a time delay between the lights changing to red and the green man appearing.

This time lag is exactly equal to the time it takes for the red light to become established, and so your question is paradoxical: it isn't possible to hit a young child who is crossing the road on the green man unless the red traffic light is established.

Oh FFS Nigel.....

ESTABLISHED RED LIGHTS ARE SOMETHING YOU MADE UP.

JUST ADMIT YOU ARE LYING or provide the legislation..... Hell, I will even tell you where to look ..... Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

And section 36 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is the charging provision.

EDIT - If you can't provide legislation - it proves you are a liar..... (guess what you won't find it even in Schedule 14 of the TSRGD2016 which is the specific schedule dealing with traffic lights)

Well he's certainly got the drop on Google with "established red light", Google's got nothing on it. The best it comes up with are entries about the establishment of the red light district!

Sriracha wrote:

Well he's certainly got the drop on Google with "established red light", Google's got nothing on it. The best it comes up with are entries about the establishment of the red light district!

It's fine..... because he know's he is now in a position where either way he has to admit he is a liar he won't post again in this thread.... he will go and find another thread to try and make stuff up on.

Garage at Large wrote:

How does it prove anything? I never said that running a red light under any circumstance wasn't illegal, what I wrote was that it's a legal grey area in terms of prosecution, as it's more difficult to get sufficient evidence.

Running an established red light is far more clear cut and carries a far higher risk - as you correctly pointed out, for example, it's only possible to hit a pedestrian on a puffin crossing when the green man is showing if you drive (or cycle) through an established red light.

OK Nigel seeing as you are hard of understanding..... this is what the law says.

"(3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) to (6), the red signal conveys the prohibition that vehicular traffic must not proceed beyond the stop line.

(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies on an occasion where a vehicle is being used for at least one of the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (6) and the observance of the prohibition in sub-paragraph (3) would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for that purpose.

(6) The purposes are— (a) fire and rescue authority; (b) Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; (c) ambulance; (d) blood service; (e) providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service; (f) bomb or explosive disposal; (g) special forces (h) police; and (i) National Crime Agency.

(9) An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as red, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it."

Therefore a red..... is Red.  The ONLY exception is for emergency vehicles..... you seem to be confusing an AMBER light with your mythical RECENTLY ESTABLISHED RED.

Seriously just admit you are LYING.

I have plenty of respect for you TTM and your comments are accurate, sensible and apposite, but I thought you were ignoring the troll? I know it's difficult not to bite but I've felt ever so much better since deciding not to respond to his drivel, and the fewer people that do respond the sooner he might stop getting his rocks off on getting a rise out of decent folks and bugger off.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I have plenty of respect for you TTM and your comments are accurate, sensible and apposite, but I thought you were ignoring the troll? I know it's difficult not to bite but I've felt ever so much better since deciding not to respond to his drivel, and the fewer people that do respond the sooner he might stop getting his rocks off on getting a rise out of decent folks and bugger off.

I need to go back to that.  No matter how many times it is proved he lies he continues to lie but tries to justify his lies..... using his "Evidence based facts"

And remember, many of Nigel's stated heroes are inveterate liars (Trump etc). While you may think he should be ashamed of being shown to lie, he lives in a world of alternative facts. His grasp of the truth has always been problem.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I have plenty of respect for you TTM and your comments are accurate, sensible and apposite, but I thought you were ignoring the troll? I know it's difficult not to bite but I've felt ever so much better since deciding not to respond to his drivel, and the fewer people that do respond the sooner he might stop getting his rocks off on getting a rise out of decent folks and bugger off.

Me too.  If it was useful, then there would be some point, but you might as well expect Boris to stop lying.

Garage at Large wrote:

Again, you're simply trying to prove I've written something which I've never claimed. Jumping red lights is against the law (unless there is a good reason to), as we both agree. However, to get a conviction, you need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only that, but there is a difference in seriousness between going through an amber/red light and an established red light, where the threshold likely crosses from careless to dangerous driving/cycling. As you've freely admitted, one such scenario is where a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a puffin crossing. She strides out into the road when the green man appears, only to be flattened by a cyclist who has ignored the established red. If someone had driven or cycled through at the exact time the light turned from amber to red, despite it being illegal (note how I'm agreeing with you), the pedestrian would never be put in danger as there would be a red man on the crossing which wouldn't turn green for around 3 seconds until the red light is firmly established. So to conclude - both are technically offences, but one is worse than the other and the less dangerous one is difficult to prove. Which I think it's what you wrote too, just in a different way.

No Nigel..... I am trying to get you to admit to the facts..... the real ones.

You have said its a legal grey area.  Its not.  The law is incredibly clear...... both amber and red mean stop.  There is the exception where it would cause an accident to stop but that only applies to amber.

You keep trying to suggest there is a difference between a 'recently established red' and a red.  There is not.  It's quite simple a red light is a red light.  I have never once tried to distinguish between a red and recently established red..... you are the only one that has even put forward the notion of recently established red.

You have REPEATEDLY tried to say that motorists rarely jump red lights but frequenly jumped your MADE UP "recently established red lights"....  You can't have it both ways....... either accept that you LIED that motorists rarely jump red lights....... or that all red light jumping is red light jumping and that your "recently established red lights" are LIES.

Do you really think you are coming out of this without accepting that you are a compulsive, habitual LIAR.

Do I need to reference your LIES about you KNEW (you didn't say that you thought) that the temporary traffic lights were broken from a 30 second clip a week or so ago?

We all know he's a liar, you'd be better off ignoring him as you intended to earlier in the year.

@Garage at Large

I know it's very irritating to see cyclists jumping red lights or breaking rules (as a law abiding cyclist and motorist I too find it frustrating) you are missing by far the most important point. The guiding motivation for Police resources and increased legislation must always be (and sometimes is) directed at the consequences of those rules being broken. The table you have posted a link to does indeed show that cyclists may exceed their modal share of traffic  involved in collisions with pedestrians, but what it much more starkly shows is that the number of fatalaties and serious injuries caused  by motor vehicles outnumbers that of cyclists many many times over. That's lives destroyed and families uttery devastated. In fact the first table shows that beteen 2005 and 2014 there were ZERO people killed by cyclists 'disobeying automatic traffic signals'. Just consider that, zero lives lost to cyclists whilst 52 were killed by motor vehicles during the same period. 52 lives and families destroyed compared to zero. 

The other table demonstrates that during the same period 5 people were killed on pavements by cyclists (an environment where they can legally co-exist) whilst 112 were killed by motor vehilcles. That's killed ON THE PAVEMENT where motor vehicles have no place. 22 TIMES the number of deaths caused by cycles.

So you see whilst your calling for tabards and arguing about the minutia of what constitutes 'running a red light' people are dying and familes are being devastated but almost entirely NOT by cyclists.

Garage at Large wrote:

Again, you're simply trying to prove I've written something which I've never claimed. Jumping red lights is against the law (unless there is a good reason to), as we both agree.

That is a really interesting sentiment seeing as you also said...

Garage at Large wrote:

No, I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I'm saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

and

Garage at Large wrote:

Again, I've already covered this so I think we're in agreement - running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

Running an established red light is a rare occurence. 

So Nigel will you admit that you are a LIAR given your own quotes?

If as you implied in your most recent comment you accept that jumping red lights is against the law AND at the same time you say that not all car drivers criminally drive through red lights......

One of those statements MUST be a LIE.  Either jumping red lights is a criminal offence (as you are now attempting to backpedal)...... or your previous statement is a LIE.

So which LIE will you admit?

Garage at Large wrote:

Again, you're simply trying to prove I've written something which I've never claimed. Jumping red lights is against the law (unless there is a good reason to), as we both agree. However, to get a conviction, you need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now I know what your feeble little mind is going to say..... that a car driver who goes through a light which has just turned red has a good excuse.

Lets just prove that nonsense wrong...... If a car is travelling at the speed limit on the approach to a set of traffic lights (which in itself is bad driving)..... in every posted speed limit.... the braking distance is always below the maximum distance that the car could physically be away from the traffic lights for the given posted speed limit given the 3 second amber phase.

For example at 20mph a car would travel 26.82m (in 3 seconds), stopping distance for the highway code is 12m, at 30 mph a car would travel 40.23m (in 3 seconds) stopping distance is 23m.

Therefore if a car is close enough not to be able to safely stop when the lights start to go amber they would still pass the light while it was on amber..... which guess what ..... means they haven't run a red light.

So.... will you finally accept that a car that runs a red light..... ANY RED LIGHT is doing so criminally i.e. contrary to the law as stipulated in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Schedule 14 paragraph 5 sub sections 3, 4 5 and 6.

Now Nigel I also hope you will follow your own advice.

Garage at Large wrote:

I look forward to your retraction, apology, and acknowledgement of the facts.

Have you got a day off or something?  You're spending way to much time on trying to goad Nige into admitting something that everybody here knows they will never ever admit to...