"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

Some of the original work had been lost over time, but archaeologists have recently managed to reconstruct it.

Chapeau! Or sekhemty (in Egyptological...)!  You certainly don't want a green-duat-crossing god - that would make you think it was Ammit!

Er yes, because the the offence is passing a red light, so regardless of how long it has been red (amber also means stop I believe) or how poor the drivers judgement it is an offence.

Indeed, and the offence on amber is the same as for red; it just has a stutotry defence of "unsafe to stop". 
 

min amber time, UK wide, is 3 seconds. 
 

garage - get eating that hat. 4 people jumped the red light in just one clip. Where traffic lights are not in use they're not illuminated and have a sign stuck on them, so on the balance of probabilities, your supposition that these lights were not in legal force is below the threshold required to take it as a proven fact.  
 

every single one of those clips shows cars going through red lights far after the amber phase, so multiple seconds into the "must stop".  Why do you keep changing the parameters of your bet? Is it because, like most every day, you're caught out in yiur lies? 

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

The second clip in the first video.... the clip starts at 15 seconds.  The lights in the cammers car are at green.  The red light jumper passes the Stop line at 19 seconds.  Also given the fact that there were vehicles already over the stop line that the cammer was approaching it means the lights had been at green for the cammer before the clip starte

Again how the f@#k is that "gambling when the lights have just changed"?

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed

Third clip in the first video starts at 34 seconds, with red light shown to cammer..... white audi passes the red light at 38 seconds.

Do me a favour and just admit you are blatantly lying

TriTaxMan wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed

Third clip in the first video starts at 34 seconds, with red light shown to cammer..... white audi passes the red light at 38 seconds.

Do me a favour and just admit you are blatantly lying

Go easy on Le Garage Grand - being as he's a stickler for PPE he may have an extremely large and tough plastic hat - or several to be safe - to consume...

Can we all agree not to engage with LargeGarage please?

It does no good as no matter how easily you totally take apart his comments he ignores any reasoning and then makes something up, contradicts himself or starts another thread based on whatever was lying around in his brain.

If ignored it would be hilarious seeing him waiting for a response, posting more drivel to get a response and might even be an Alan Partridge in the car park moment (Dan!, Dan!, Dan!.....)

Please do not feed the troll. 

Garage at Large wrote:

More unphased, broken, irrelevant temporary traffic lights - for all we know, there might even have been a "traffic lights not in use" sign just before the video started.

Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I'll eat my hat.

But generally - for balance - I think motorists driving through a newly established red light (i.e. gambling on timings) should have stricter sanctions, as that is a frequent occurrence.

Separately it's good to hear transport bureaucrat Adam Tranter talk about courtesy on the roads - I think this kind of message sent out to cyclists and motorists alike will help to unite us, rather than preserve the current tribal attitudes we sadly see across much of society.

Biggin Hill, Main Road, turning right into Lebanon Gardens - every single phase

belugabob wrote:

Biggin Hill, Main Road, turning right into Lebanon Gardens - every single phase

Unfortunatley Nigel will not accept that because on every single phase the motorists will only run a red light that has "recently established" as red.

The traffic light sequence in Nigels mind for cars is 

• Green
• Amber
• Recently established Red
• Red and Amber
• Green

Which means it is perfectly acceptable for a car to go throug on any one of the phases of the traffic lights.

But for bikes the sequence is 

• Green
• Red
• Red
• Red
• Green

Cyclists are only allowed to proceed when green has been firmly established and they have bowed to their motoring overlords.

Garage at Large wrote:

Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I'll eat my hat.

I see this all the time.

Dam Cam UK videos will tell you otherwise !

I see tritaxman has alrady given examples

https://youtu.be/WhhxErABoa0?t=93

hirsute wrote:

Dam Cam UK videos will tell you otherwise !

I see tritaxman has alrady given examples

https://youtu.be/WhhxErABoa0?t=93

Do you think Nigel will be a man of his word?

Garage at Large wrote:

Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I'll eat my hat. 

I'm waiting for him to say that he really meant that we have to provide evidence of motorists consistently jumping one set of permanent, unbroken traffic lights......

2 of my few successes with Essex Police have been red light jumpers. They certainly didn't go along with gambling or error of judgement.

But over the course of time, everyone will be the first driver at the lights at some point. So if the only thing stopping the majority of drivers from ignoring reds was lack of opportunity, surely we would surely already see far more RLJing.    

quiff wrote:

But over the course of time, everyone will be the first driver at the lights at some point. So if the only thing stopping the majority of drivers from ignoring reds was lack of opportunity, surely we would surely already see far more RLJing.    

In terms of numbers of drivers who have jumped a red light, yes; in terms of instances of red light jumping, no.

I think when stewcelliot said 'how many more drivers' they probably just meant 'how much more red light jumping'.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/road-race-champion-imogen-...

Quote:

“Yesterday while out riding, I was hit by a car,” the 28 year old stated via social media on Thursday. “The car was overtaking a cyclist on the other side of the road and drove head-on straight into me at high speed.

“I feel so lucky to be alive. I was taken by ambulance to hospital, where it appears I fractured my patella and broke my radius, as well as needing quite a few stitches. I had surgery late last night. I’m just so grateful to still be here to write this. It could have been so much worse.”

Thanks for the link - bashed this together in a rush.

I really don't like it when those injured by drivers say such things as 'I fractured my patella' and 'I broke my radius' (or when anyone else referring to the incident does similarly.)  She did not break these things - someone else did it for her.  There's not even any mention of a driver in this.

SaveTheWail wrote:

I really don't like it when those injured by drivers say such things as 'I fractured my patella' and 'I broke my radius' (or when anyone else referring to the incident does similarly.)  She did not break these things - someone else did it for her.  There's not even any mention of a driver in this.

While I agree that this would be something that news editorial standards should correct in their articles, this was someone who'd literally just survived a life-changing crash and is quoted verbatim from an instagram post showing her in extreme discomfort. So maybe cut her some slack?

Someone linked to the story on the BBC on a different thread (can't remember which one)

brooksby wrote:

Anyone seen this one?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/28/man-driving-for-more-tha...

Quote:

A man stopped by police told officers he had been driving without a licence or insurance for more than 70 years.

Officers on a routine patrol in Nottingham said they were stunned when they pulled over the driver in his 80s in a supermarket car park.

The man, born in 1938, told them he had not had a driving licence or insurance since he was 12 years old – and had avoided being stopped by police ever since.

Nottinghamshire police officers said they just happened to pull over the man driving a three-door Mini One in a Tesco Extra car park in the market town of Bulwell on Wednesday.

so how did he pay his "road tax"?

Surely a driver wasn't using a car on the road without paying tax?

brooksby wrote:

The man, born in 1938, told them he had not had a driving licence or insurance since he was 12 years old – and had avoided being stopped by police ever since.

This implies he was insured and had a licence until he was 12??

If only the vehicles had some sort of ID number so that the owner could be traced and registered, and maybe a database of which ones were insured, we could then get cameras to read the numbers and check which ones are allowed out.

Ah but cyclists .....

In a similar vein is that story of a driver who was caught twice in the same day (and same car) driving without a license. And also being driven to pick up the car by someone who was disqualified from driving.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/learner-drivers-car-seiz...