"But cyclists!": Count the red light jumpers in this clip; Adam Tranter addresses "nonsense" talked about Highway Code changes; Second Ineos rider hospitalised in Colombia; Pro Jake Stewart offers old kit to young riders + more on the live blog

TriTaxMan wrote:

 you also want to consider "established red lights".

If only we could formalise the first two seconds of red as a grace period, perhaps by display of a different colour, to allow for those drivers who couldn't possibly stop once the red light came on, then we would have clarity over who has pushed the limits too far, and who is OK. Perhaps we could use a purple light.

To avoid replacement of all the infrastructure we could remove the secondary go light (amber) and install the purple filter in that space.

TriTaxMan wrote:

[...]

The only reason I can see for you wanting to segregate the two kinds of red light jumping is to push some anti-cycling agenda.  Along the lines of "I can prove more cyclists run estabilshed red lights, which means more cyclists deliberately run red lights than drivers"

Whereas when all red light jumping is concerned cyclists and motorists are broadly on par with each other in terms of proportions that run red lights.

I'm sure you're right but there is an interesting discussion point here.  The various videos all show "proceeding beyond a stop line after the light is red" but there are actually several different categories here:

1) Plain blowing through a red light - light's red and vehicle / cyclist clearly could have stopped.
2) "Amber gambling" - bending the rules around proceeding when the light is amber. May be associated with greater danger because drivers often actually speed up at this point.
3) Stopping at an incorrect point e.g. beyond the line. May be in error or a vehicle choosing to ignore an ASL.  May be more or less inconvenient for others and more or less dangerous.
4) Creeping forward beyond the appropriate line - continuing to move towards / past the line slowly. Impatience, wanting to get to an appropriate position e.g. for a turn before oncoming traffic when lights change. The latter is one reason cyclists may do this e.g. because junction design doesn't facilitate safe movements on a bike. Or due to experience of motorists coming close to hitting them from behind.
5) Incorrect route e.g. round the wrong side of pedestrian refuge etc. Often associated with...
6) Stopping but then moving forward again. Usually where someone's blocked but can see a route to a side turn which is clear and can't see any others they think they'd interact with.
Edit: also "premature launch" - setting off as soon as traffic seems to have cleared the junction but before you've a green.
7) Above also occurs where the person believes that they're being held incorrectly e.g. "lights are broken" / cyclist believes they're not detected at lights / long waits at temporary traffic lights. More likely the longer the wait and if the person believes they can clearly see no other road users.
8) An event / protest - a "bike storm" in this case. A specific event (whether unofficial or official, without foreknowledge of the authorities or tacitly tolerated - not sure where e.g. "critical mass" events fit) in at which people consider some road laws relaxed or just ignore them.

You left off (although it's kind of a mix of 2 and 4) hightailing it away from the lights as soon as other traffic seems to be stopping, despite the light still being red or amber. Particularly dangerous to slower road users (which often includes cyclists) who may not have cleared the junction as soon as expected.

Thank you!  Possibly a special case of 6 but I'll add it to the list.  I think that certainly leads to the cyclist counter-moves of 4 and 6 by them.

Apologies for distracting from the otherwise fruitful "but cyclists" / "you've contradicted yourself" business!  Anyway, there are several articles around observing that motorists and cyclists do not tend to jump red lights in the same manner. It's easily observed in the provided videos that drivers tend to be doing 1, 2 and 5 - and certainly the first two carry elevated risks for other road users of all kinds.  This would be sufficient reason alone to declare "but cyclists jump red lights" false equivalence or seem like whataboutery *. I've observed 3 from vehicles especially in ASLs.  8 is probably rarer for motor vehicles but certainly not unheard of - fuel protests for one!  Cyclists are generally very aware of the danger to themselves so may jump lights "defensively" (3, 4, possibly 6). 7 definitely applies to both - humans don't like waiting - there is definitely less detection of cyclists than motor vehicles by light systems though.

A few ponderings on the subject:

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/rlj-red-light-jumping

http://www.cambridgecyclist.co.uk/2019/07/jumping-red-lights-when-and-why-i-do-it.html

https://sciencenorway.no/cycling-road-safety-traffic/why-dont-cyclists-just-stop-at-red-lights/1755340

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey

* I'll give a nod to rich_cb's (was it?) note about the apparent high frequency of pedestrian collisions with cyclists at lights here although I've not looked further at that.

Nigel again I am really confused with what you are saying..... so bear with me.

Driving through a red light, recently established or otherwise is a criminal offence under Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act.  I've checked the legislation surrounding the offence and nowhere does it state that running a recently established red light is not a criminal offence.

On the one hand you state that 

Garage at Large wrote:

I think we're in agreement - running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists

but on the other hand you state

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.

So I'm really struggling to find your logic in saying that drivers commonly run red lights but rarely criminally drive through red lights.

Garage at Large wrote:

I just accidentally missed out "established" in the second quote you gave, it should say "I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car"

How about no...... you never accidentally missed out any word.....

You are just doing what I have said many times in the past.... when you get called out on your lies you turn round and say that you never meant what you clearly meant

How about the fact that a red light is a red light.... end of story.

TriTaxMan wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

I just accidentally missed out "established" in the second quote you gave, it should say "I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car"

How about no...... you never accidentally missed out any word.....

You are just doing what I have said many times in the past.... when you get called out on your lies you turn round and say that you never meant what you clearly meant

How about the fact that a red light is a red light.... end of story.

of course that's it! Should have guessed all along that when Garage says one thing, it's not always that exact thing until after people have proven that what Garage said was wrong. Thus we shouldn't be so quick to jump on their failings - after all, until they've had the chance to change what they wrote to something else, it's not yet set in stone

Garage - what's your criteria for this newly aired concept of "established"? Bearing in mind it is already an offence to cross on amber, albeit one where there is a defence you have to prove applies, and there is NO general defence available to passing on red, what's your definition of "established"? 1 second into red? 2? More?  At which point is the offence, already proven in those videos, enough for you? 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

[...]

Garage - what's your criteria for this newly aired concept of "established"? Bearing in mind it is already an offence to cross on amber, albeit one where there is a defence you have to prove applies, and there is NO general defence available to passing on red, what's your definition of "established"? 1 second into red? 2? More?  At which point is the offence, already proven in those videos, enough for you? 

I think that's been covered before? "My client could not possibly have stopped safely in 2 seconds. He was doing 80 at the time."

there is NO general defence available to passing on red

But in Lancashire, the police have created a self-defence for not doing anything about these offences which is we're too busy to bother with stuff like that, or close-passing or crossing unbroken white lines- OK, I'm lying about the last one- the defence they use is that all cycles are always travelling at less than 10mph and it's always safe to cross double white lines to overtake cyclists even if you do so on a humped bridge immediately followed by a right hand bend

I think that we can all agree that Garage isn't wrong until it's established that he's wrong - and, just like a red light, you just have to wait a short time...

Garage at Large wrote:

I just....

You're just saying that the way car drivers illegally run red lights is ok and the way cyclists run red lights isn't. 
 

Just because.

What I should have written...

Garage at Large wrote:

I just accidentally missed out "established" in the second quote you gave, it should say "I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through established red traffic lights in a car"

You know I never tried this when I was 17

Motorbike officer "why did you go through that red light?"  *

me "well it wasn't an established red so I just figured it was kind of a provisional red"

Unfortunately I wasn't quick enough to run with "because I didn't see you officer" either.

Note that despite not wearing a registration number tabard as patented by "road safety expert and top lawyer" Nick Freeman  the police were still able to fine me £20, a significant chunk of my days pay at the time.

*red light for pedestrian crossing, no pedestrians in evidence on the crossing or on the pavement either side, because beg button operates with a pointless delay and pedestrians get bored waiting for the green man.

Cognitive dissonance and the likely logic of someone who, if they are a cyclist and if they are a motorist will be shit at both but think they are fabulous... and everyone else is rubbish

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).

So when are you eating that hat?

BTW, I'm pretty sure most of those immigrants you look down on so much would be able to explain to you why "I was just gambling" isn't an excuse.

Garage at Large wrote:

Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with British law, or the superior justice system we have here.

Tell that to wtjs of this parish

Tell that to wtjs of this parish

I feel duty bound to support this mention.

Vehicles crossing red lights in opposite directions at the same time. No reponse from Lancashire Constabulary to Audi T90 JDT crashing the lights at 50-60mph while towing a caravan

Garage at Large wrote:

Soooo... had the lights just turned to red, or were they established on red for some time before? 

Again irrelevant BS.

Nigel what you should do.... is jump in your car, find a set of traffic lights with a red light camera...... then you should drive through the lights at some point after they have gone red within your "recently established" window.....  When you get the NIP through the post please let us all know if you can escape the points and fine using your "The red light had only been recently established" defence.

Garage at Large wrote:

Soooo... had the lights just turned to red, or were they established on red for some time before? 

did you fail to look at the two stills, failing to work out this is a couple seconds gap? Look at the cars in the background...and compare...

also

again

what is your criteria for "recently changed", and does it concur with the CPS threshold for changing a red light jumping charge into one of dangerous driving? 
 

it is red in the first. It was amber befofe that for AT LEAST 3 seconds. As drivers are taught, amber means stop. That's what the RTA also states. 

 It was amber befofe that for AT LEAST 3 seconds

The amber is on for exactly 3 seconds at the A6 lights at Garstang- as timed on the 50 fps video.

did you fail to look at the two stills, failing to work out this is a couple seconds gap? Look at the cars in the background...and compare...

The Audi had accelerated so much that it was only 1.6 seconds after the red came on that it crossed the Stop line

wtjs wrote:

Vehicles crossing red lights in opposite directions at the same time. No reponse from Lancashire Constabulary to Audi T90 JDT crashing the lights at 50-60mph while towing a caravan

Ha! Mr. Loophole will dismiss your charge.  Your picture could equally show the law-breaking caravan T90 JDT pushing someone's Audi through the lights. It's true my client owns a caravan of that description but we will contend that it had been stolen at the time in question. Most likely the thief will have changed the plates...

There We Are Then. Come to Carlisle.

The same justice system that put the Guildford Four and Meguire Seven in jail?

TriTaxMan wrote:

"Jumping a red light can also be dangerous and statistics reveal the offence may be one of the biggest culprits for road injuries

Department for Transport data reveals there were 160,597 casualties of all severities in 2018 with 75,095 occurring at junctions.

This means 47 percent of all accidents happen at areas which are mostly governed by traffic lights in a safety warning to road users."

Thats a big leap from 47% of casualties occur at junctions, to mostly governed by traffic lights. The vast majority of junctions do not have traffic lights, as traffi clights are a safety improvement, it's a big leap to suggest accients at TL junctions are more common than other junctions

Garbage writ Large wrote:

people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

Here is today's considerate driver. Obviously not happy with the new highway code and is protesting.

mdavidford wrote:

Garbage writ Large wrote:

people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

Not me, I'm an atheist, but you'll have to ask @HawkinsPeter where they fit into the Cthulhu Mythos. My guess would be between Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth as a means of keeping them apart?

SimoninSpalding wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Garbage writ Large wrote:

people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

Not me, I'm an atheist, but you'll have to ask @HawkinsPeter where they fit into the Cthulhu Mythos. My guess would be between Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth as a means of keeping them apart?

You might be onto something.  In ancient Egypt they were already putting the Djed pillar in tombs...