Jumping lights. difficult to talk about.

[[XAP]Bob]

I might think that's a cyclist is silly, but I think the same whether I'm on 2,3 or 4 wheels.

There is a bridge near me that is only wide enough for one way motorised traffic, so is light controlled.

From one side most cyclists mount the narrow pavement and crawl through, before rejoining the road - despite a reasonable level of pedestrian traffic and a pretty narrow path I've never seen a conflict there.

In the other direction there is an ASL fed from a shared use path - Drivers frequently encroach onto the ASL, usually well after the lights have turned (since red means three more cars). But the line of sight through the tunnel is excellent, so many cyclists wait until the oncoming lights have turned red, and the last car has cleared the 'tunnel' and then go.

There is no significant risk involved in this manoeuvre - the only reason that their lights aren't already green is that the lights accommodate a long inter green in case of congestion? The pedestrian phase is for peds who generally cross behind the ASL (where the island is).

Personally I wait for the lights to go green, and that seems to *really* wind up some motorists...

[TonyR]

If you look at what little research has been done, cyclists are no more likely to jump a red light than motorists. They do so in a different way though. Cyclist red light jumpers tend to act like pedestrians and cross when it's clear to do so. Drivers don't but instead will speed through a light for up to several seconds after it has gone red but then not until it turns green again. Which is why 50% more cyclists are killed by motorists running a red than while running a red themselves.

[pwa]

If, like me, you believe in the principles of Democracy and the Rule of Law you must either comply with the law or be a hypocrite. Rules that you disagree with (there will always be some) you should seek to change. This applies whatever your mode of transport.

[kwackers]

If, like me, you believe in the principles of Democracy and the Rule of Law you must either comply with the law or be a hypocrite. Rules that you disagree with (there will always be some) you should seek to change. This applies whatever your mode of transport.

Perhaps. But it seems to me that for stuff that doesn't benefit the big boys that only mass disobedience / protest actually results in changes.
Consider the various experiments to allow cyclists to legally rlj - do you think they'd happen if all cyclists obediently wait at red lights?

Of course if enough cyclists die so that it makes politicians uncomfortable then you also get action. The question is how many would that be? Cyclists are fairly pro-active and make a lot of noise, conversely pedestrians are a mish mash of lots of barely represented groups and yet they die in relatively huge numbers compared to us, but a pedestrian death rarely makes it beyond a paragraph in the local rag.

I for one salute our RLJ'ing brethren.

[TonyR]

If, like me, you believe in the principles of Democracy and the Rule of Law you must either comply with the law or be a hypocrite. Rules that you disagree with (there will always be some) you should seek to change. This applies whatever your mode of transport.

I assume you refuse to use clipless pedals and won't ride a recumbent.

[pwa]

If, like me, you believe in the principles of Democracy and the Rule of Law you must either comply with the law or be a hypocrite. Rules that you disagree with (there will always be some) you should seek to change. This applies whatever your mode of transport.

I assume you refuse to use clipless pedals and won't ride a recumbent.

You're right. I make it sound too black and white. But the Rules of the Road (not a legal term, but broadly the Highway Code) is something that I try to adhere to because I don't think I am special enough to be exempt. If I disagree with any of it I can campaign and vote like anyone else. The pedal issue is a good point and I will have to think about that. On the lights issue, too, I think I am non compliant, so perhaps I am guilty of double standards. But I don't breach the Highway Code to the best of my knowledge.

When, occasionally, I talk to a non cyclist and they air their grievances against us it is two things they mention. One is riding two or more abreast when it is holding up other traffic. The other is red light jumping. Naturally, I defend riding two abreast except where it causes problems (covered by the Highway Code) but I distance myself from red light jumpers. Yes, car drivers sneak through a second after the lights have gone to red, but it is cyclists who blatantly pass waiting traffic and go through a red that has been red for a while. It gives us a bad image. Even those of us who don't do it. The fact that it endangers no-one but the offender is correct, but it looks bad. It makes it harder to get other road users to give us the respect we need.

[[XAP]Bob]

The RVLR are sufficiently outdated, and globally irrelevant, to make it very hard to adhere to them. You're best chance is to go for the "EU equivalence" clause and buy German...

Pedal reflectors are suitably, if not legally, replaced with ankle reflectors - but they aren't even compulsory on all bikes. My upright doesn't have them, and doesn't need them. So their absence cannot be considered a mitigating factor IMHO - I bet some lawyer would disagree...

Of course both of those are only an issue between sunset and sunrise...

Most cyclist RLJ doesn't even endanger the cyclist, in fact it makes life safer for the cyclist (even if only because motorists can't be trusted to be sufficiently patient). The abuse I get for waiting for the green light - because motorists want to burn rubber the moment the amber light is on...

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... ng-traffic

RED means ‘Stop’. Wait behind the stop on the carriageway
RED AND AMBER also means ‘Stop’. Do not pass through or start until GREEN shows
GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing
AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident

Other than green - EVERYTHING means stop. And green only means go IF the way is clear.

Personally I think we should drop the RED&AMBER phase - modern vehicles don't need to 'prepare' to start off in the way that they did when the light sequence was designed.

[Bmblbzzz]

I find the red and amber phase useful. I always go on it, as long as it's clear of course, while drivers use this time to engage gear, release handbrake, etc. In congested traffic I can get some way ahead before they catch me (if there isn't another jam first) and even out of town, it's nicer to be overtaken when you've got going, got stable and occupied your preferred bit of road than when initially moving off. This is especially true, of course, when turning.

[[XAP]Bob]

I find the red and amber phase useful. I always go on it, as long as it's clear of course, while drivers use this time to engage gear, release handbrake, etc. In congested traffic I can get some way ahead before they catch me (if there isn't another jam first) and even out of town, it's nicer to be overtaken when you've got going, got stable and occupied your preferred bit of road than when initially moving off. This is especially true, of course, when turning.

Engaging gear and releasing handbrake? Where do you live?

Here it's rev time all through red - generally jumping the red light about halfway through the cycle and continuing to creep forwards until the amber starts to light at which point they rehearse for a drag race...

[TonyR]

But I don't breach the Highway Code to the best of my knowledge.

So you always wear a helmet and hi-viz, always use the cycle facilities provided and you of course have pedal reflectors?

[Vorpal]

But I don't breach the Highway Code to the best of my knowledge.

So you always wear a helmet and hi-viz, always use the cycle facilities provided and you of course have pedal reflectors?

The HC doesn't require that people use cycle facilities.

Rule 61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

[TonyR]

But I don't breach the Highway Code to the best of my knowledge.

So you always wear a helmet and hi-viz, always use the cycle facilities provided and you of course have pedal reflectors?

The HC doesn't require that people use cycle facilities.

Rule 61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

It says to use them, not that you might like to use them. The only exemption is on safety grounds.

[Audax67]

I have certainly gone through red lights on my bike, but only in very specific conditions:

1. There are lights near us that operate when they detect a vehicle waiting. Unfortunately their definition of "vehicle" doesn't include bicycles. You can either wait for a car or sit there until you croak. Or ride through or take the pavement.

2. Lights controlling traffic down a single open lane beside road works that are so long that the lights will have changed to green for the opposite direction before you reach them. The dutiful cyclist finds himself riding into an oncoming stream in a lane with no escape. If the lights are still red and no traffic is waiting when I reach the beginning of the roadworks, therefore, I'll go on through.

The latter situation once happened to a bunch of us cycling up an 8% slope through a tunnel in Austria. Nasty moment, that.

[pwa]

But I don't breach the Highway Code to the best of my knowledge.

So you always wear a helmet and hi-viz, always use the cycle facilities provided and you of course have pedal reflectors?

Well, yes to the helmet and bright clothing (hi-viz at night). Cycle facilities I use when they make sense, which I think is arguably lawful. Pedal reflectors no, but at night I make sure I have some reflectives on the ankles. Bending the rules but adhering to the spirit. I stop at red lights, don't ride on footpaths, don't go the wrong way down one way streets and so on. I think it makes us look better.

I concur with Audax67 about rare exceptions where you have to (with care) go through a red light. I know a red light that will stay red until a car comes along, and at six in the morning that can take a long, long time with no other traffic on the road.

[TonyR]

But I don't breach the Highway Code to the best of my knowledge.

So you always wear a helmet and hi-viz, always use the cycle facilities provided and you of course have pedal reflectors?

Well, yes to the helmet and bright clothing (hi-viz at night). Cycle facilities I use when they make sense, which I think is arguably lawful. Pedal reflectors no, but at night I make sure I have some reflectives on the ankles.

So you do breach the Highway Code.