Brakes work, shame brain doesn't

[kwackers]

the vehicle was not part of a convoy or whatever other imaginary line of traffic, it was separated by a big gap. The HGV WAS a clear danger to other road users..are you really so blind to see what is clearly obvious to continue backing your version of events..deary me that's pitiful!.

Sorry but your talking complete crap. Look at the video, look at the time each vehicle enters the junction. There's 1 second between each vehicle. 1 second!
Where do you get this 'big' gap from? It seems to me your entire argument is predicated on a gap that doesn't exist!

I can't believe you claim I'm blind when you seem incapable of seeing the obvious! Watch the video, look at the time in the left hand corner that each vehicle enters the junction. (That's the time shown, not the slow motion version with you timing it with a watch. )

[[XAP]Bob]

If you look at the second picture above and the lights were working properly it shows the lorry jumped TWO sets of red traffic lights. The taxi driver and the last cyclist may have jumped one set, but assuming lights were OK, the lorry driver has clearly committed an offence. There's nothing to indicate the bus jumped any lights - it's way ahead.

And the biggest complaint about cyclists is .....................

He was well past the STOP line though - he hadn't passed the light on the other side of the road either, but the lights are indicators, the location of their instruction is not determined by their position, but by the road markings...

The cyclists are ahead of the stop line because there doesn't appear to be an ASL? Junction design fault?

That's not a complaint, but to suggest that he hadn't jumped the red light is wrong, he did.

Neither road user should have been there, both broke the rules, only one was in danger.
I'm all for rigorous traffic light cameras to be installed on every set of lights, then we might be able to reduce the "all red" phase, since red would once again mean red, not "red after a few more"

[kwackers]

The lorry driver has committed a criminal offence and as I said if he does it often enough he will kill someone.

He doesn't have the option to ignore the red light because the way is clear and anyway anyone going through the green light "will proceed with caution" and get out his way.

The cyclist also jumped a red light, not only that but he started across the junction from several meters in front of the stop line meaning he only had a few feet to go to 'jump in front of the truck' and he also started across the junction from a moving start so he already had speed.
Then to top it all he didn't see a truck.

IMO it's Darwinism in action.

Whether you like it or not, stand at any junction and you'll see at least one if not more vehicles follow each other through a red light. Most folk make an allowance for that hence the danger is only to those who don't.
Don't know about you but I never jump out in front of a truck on my bike and if I did, well life's been good so far...

[JimL]

Your argument is ridiculous but I'll leave it there.

[[XAP]Bob]

Both parties jumped their respective red light.

The cyclist is/was an idiot.

Universal enforcement cameras with zero tolerance is what's needed, but that would be some sort of 'war on the motorist'

[MikeF]

then it goes to red and two or three vehicles will still keep going.

Needs one of these http://goo.gl/maps/oAqKC. That'll fix it!

[beardy]

As far as the law goes they have both failed to stop for a red light, which should get them both a fine and because doing it with a motor vehicle endangers others and you have a licence you get three points on it too.

As far as damages go, it is going to be very hard for the cyclist to show in this case that the HGV's crossing the junction on a red light caused him to crash into it. Possibly he could say he was expecting it to stop before entering his path as many vehicles do stop beyond the white line.

As for the comment about reversing the positions of the vehicles, I reckon that most juries (if it got to them) would be more than happy to say it was all the cyclist's fault (doing what that lorry did) and the HGV never stood a chance with the cyclist riding into their path.

[Heltor Chasca]

Just want to add something else to the mix: colourblindness?

One of my clients used to fly phantoms for the RAF. I had a discussion about eyesight. He said that short/long sightedness is no problem as you can fix that with contacts or glasses.

HOWEVER colourblindness is an instant fail in the RAF. Why? Red & green colourblindness is problematic as that is how the port and starboard sides of the runways are marked so you can put your fighter jet on the Tarmac where you want it. His summary? Green and red are just about the WORST colours you would choose for runways.

Erm...So why are our traffic lights red and green? Think there could be a point...b

[DavidT]

I haven't read all the posts, so apologies if I'm repeating something somedody else has said. On advanced driver training you are told that green does not mean "Go". It means "Go - If it's safe to go". If you are first in line (in particular), you should be (and in a test situation, are expected to be) checking. I check when I'm in a car. I certainly check when I'm on my bike. (And I most certainly check if there is any amber/green ambiguity). Simple.

[[XAP]Bob]

Almost as if we put them one way up for a reason...

Red is the top light, all my colourblind friends have been aware of that...

[661-Pete]

When I was a kid, the red traffic light had the word STOP written across the lens. Anyone else remember this? Presumably as an aid to colour-blind drivers who couldn't tell top from bottom. I remember asking my father, why doesn't the green light have GO written on it? I don't recall what his answer was. He probably didn't quote the official mantra.

I also remember being taught, Green means "you may go if the way is clear" or some such wording. But we've all got so used to the idea that Green means GO, perhaps there are things we need to un-learn then?

[kwackers]

I also remember being taught, Green means "you may go if the way is clear" or some such wording. But we've all got so used to the idea that Green means GO, perhaps there are things we need to un-learn then?

I remember 'STOP' being on lights.

I'm not sure the colour blind thing has legs. Surely the one at the top is red and the one at the bottom green. Not sure how you can mix up top and bottom unless there's something seriously wrong with you!

At the end of the day you can't move forward if you don't have a clear road. I know folk these days seem to think that green means go but personally I find that attitude annoying. There's a junction I cycle through every night and watch the idiots getting wound up because their light is green and there's still traffic coming through (legitimately because it's all queued on the far side of the stop line waiting to turn and can't move until after the lights change and the oncoming traffic has stopped. Obviously our cyclist would have problems here too!).
Then there are emergency vehicles - might be one of them coming. The lorry in the above case may have even seen one in their rear view mirror and decided the best option was to keep going and follow the bike through. Perhaps he felt there was someone too close to his rear and to stop would risk a collision.
Obviously I'm not claiming any of these was the case but the cyclist couldn't possibly know what was going on. All he should care about is whether his route was clear and in this case it wasn't. I don't see why it needs to be more complex that that.

IMO it's just as well he didn't hurt himself more seriously because I wouldn't put this case in front of a jury and expect a payout.

[DaveP]

I dont know why people are so keen to find excuses for the cyclist.
I can find a weak possible for the driver - he's in a moving traffic situation with a lot of claims on his attention and missed the change. Or he just cynically took a chance...Certainly incorrect, and certainly not uncommon
By comparison, when you are stopped in front of a red light you don't really have too much to do except waiting for it to change - which this individual clearly did not do. He rolls into the pedestrian crossing at some speed as it turns to amber. He's predicted the change and decided that amber means Go for special people. He doesn't even take a rear observation as he swerves around the cyclists waiting by the kerb corner, even thought there was a motor bike alongside him as he waited. He certainly doesn't look the other way either! He's got his head down, and nothing on his tiny except getting from the rearmost of 5 visible cyclists to the foremost.
Legalities aside, he's riding like an idiot.

[reohn2]

I'm all for rigorous traffic light cameras to be installed on every set of lights, then we might be able to reduce the "all red" phase, since red would once again mean red, not "red after a few more"

+1 to that!
And a mandatory £200 fine + 3points and a compulsory half day rehab course.
Second offence,£400 fine+ one month driving ban 6points,all day rehab course.
That'd stop 99.9% of 'em

[kwackers]

Your argument is ridiculous but I'll leave it there.

Of course it's ridiculous.

A lorry driver makes a mistake.
A cyclist makes several.

Lorry driver is at fault.

Obvious init?