Brakes work, shame brain doesn't

[Edwards]

The timing of the Traffic Lights changing does seem to be short. However that does not say the truck driver is not wrong.

If this is the standard of cycling not just by one but a good few cyclists in the film then I am not surprised that so many cyclists get killed in London.
<moderated>

This post has been moderated because it was a direct question to Tony. It was meant in jest and not to be taken seriously.
So I apologise if any offence was caused that was not the intention. I was trying to convey how embarrassing this incident must be for the cyclist. Especially if he is identified.

[Tonyf33]

2. The lorry was at the stop line when the light phase was already changing for the cyclists, given the width of the junction this would indicate that the lights had already being on red for a good 3-4 seconds and amber for longer.
3. The cyclist whilst beyond the stop line (as were many others) had not gone 'through' the lights or the junction before the lights went green.

Yes, but these aren't really facts are they. You don't know & I don't know how long the lights for the lorry have been red. If it is a good 3-4 seconds then both the taxi & the boris bike have also jumped the lights. You are just making a supposition and there is no evidence for it. Secondly: The cyclist has gone through the lights on red. Not only has he passed over the solid white line (which is what the legal offence technically is) but the light you can see is a repeater. It is the second of two lights with the first one being on the stop line mounted on the lamp post. If you want to be pedantic about it, if he isn't past the repeater while it is still on red & amber then he is inches away from doing so. So as people keep saying: They both jumped the lights.

My take on it is that what the lorry does is, sadly, not unusual and anyone riding in a large urban area will see motor vehicles doing that many times a day. It does not excuse what he does, It is still ilegal, but it is hardly out of the ordinary. What the cyclist does, however, is not what one might expect to see. To completely ignore a large vehicle, which is clearly continuing across the junction in plain view, just isn't 'normal'. It takes two to make an accident, but I know which of the two protagonists behaviour I am most surprised by.

Er, yes they REALLY are facts, it isn't supposition at all..Or are you suggesting that the light phase for the lorry would remain green whilst the light changes to green for the carriageway perpendicular to it (the one with the cyclists on it)?
If so then you don't understand light phase changes and the built in timings especially for wider junctions where it takes longer to get across, light phase changes that are designed around avoiding conflict between the traffic coming from different directions. Clearly you and others just can't accept that as actual real life..er FACTS
And what bit of point three isn't a fact, can you not see the still picture that I extruded from the video?
And at no point have I said the cyclist was without fault, just that the lorry was in the majority of fault here and was dangerous, according to 'Kwackers' it wasn't dangerous at all for the lorry to run a red light at such a busy intersection

[Tonyf33]

The timing of the Traffic Lights changing does seem to be short. However that does not say the truck driver is not wrong.

If this is the standard of cycling not just by one but a good few cyclists in the film then I am not surprised that so many cyclists get killed in London.
<moderated>

This post has been moderated because it was a direct question to Tony. It was meant in jest and not to be taken seriously.
So I apologise if any offence was caused that was not the intention. I was trying to convey how embarrassing this incident must be for the cyclist. Especially if he is identified.

You can PM me your question if you're desperate to know the answer to it, I haven't being on so haven't seen it so can't be offended by it. Just don't be surprised if the answer isn't the one you're hoping for especially if it is a particularly obtuse and/or stupid question

[beardy]

according to 'Kwackers' it wasn't dangerous at all for the lorry to run a red light at such a busy intersection

Because of the low speed that traffic was assumed to be doing, it was only dangerous if somebody was not looking where they were going.
However if there wasnt traffic stuck at the lights and some car was on the road the cyclist was on already doing 30mph and luckily had the lights change in front of them then the truck driver's actions may well have been lethal and nobody would blame anybody but him.

The difference here is that cyclists are seen as slow and able to stop easily, so it is quite safe to pull out in front of them. Which is pretty much accepted by most people, even cyclists it seems.

[Tonyf33]

Okay, it wasn't dangerous to anyone I'm sure the authorities across the land fully agree and past fines refunded due to it being a ridiculous notion that running a red light isn't dangerous..
that's truly enlightening.

[beardy]

As has been said many times before crossing a red is not in itself a dangerous act. In fact the main reason for having traffic lights is to share out the use of the junction between both roads.

That doesnt stop crossing a red being a dangerous act on occasions just as pulling out from the minor road (without traffic lights) can be a dangerous act on occasions.

In this case the lorry driver may have been fully aware that there was gridlock and thought he could safely force his way through when it wasnt his right to do so. Being rammed by a cyclist who is setting off is not an everyday occurrence.

[kwackers]

And at no point have I said the cyclist was without fault, just that the lorry was in the majority of fault here and was dangerous, according to 'Kwackers' it wasn't dangerous at all for the lorry to run a red light at such a busy intersection

As I pointed out both jumped red lights and only one ignored highway code advice about entering a junction that wasn't clear. I'd be interested in knowing how you square up the idea that the one with the least blame is actually the one who broke the most rules??

But you're right. In the instance above there's nothing particularly dangerous in what the lorry did, in theory you could have an entire procession of traffic for 10 minutes after the lights have changed and it wouldn't be dangerous - for normal folk. Obviously if you're blind and stupid then all bets are off.
Had the lorry not been part of a procession of traffic then it would have been dangerous but in the instance as shown it was simply an annoyance that was turned into danger by the stupidity of another.

[beardy]

I'd be interested in knowing how you square up the idea that the one with the least blame is actually the one who brakes the most rules??

That is easy, the one rule that the truck broke is a law with a much higher penalty than the law the cyclist broke. The other rule which you accuse the cyclist of breaking is actually already covered in the same law that you have already counted against him and is not a law but a part of the highway code.

In the spirit of the law the cyclist should have been riding there and the HGV driver should not have been.

[JimL]

But you're right. In the instance above there's nothing particularly dangerous in what the lorry did,

It was almost lethal for the cyclist.

[kwackers]

It was almost lethal for the cyclist.

His stupidity was what almost killed him. Not much you can do if someone is going to charge across a junction when vehicles are going across.

In all the years of cycling I've never seen anyone else do that. Even when cyclists RLJ they check that nothing is coming! The green light is a hint not a command.

[beardy]

The green light is a hint not a command.

It seems that many see the red light in exactly the same way.

[kwackers]

It seems that many see the red light in exactly the same way.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with what the lorry driver did.
But the scenario in the OP is played out at pretty much every junction on every light change (particularly in cities). You pretty much have to expect it otherwise you too will (at best) be a parody of stupid cycling for every Clarksonite to have a laugh at.

I'd normally argue against traffic violations on bicycles being registered on your driving license. But after watching that video and thinking about it I think my position has changed. I think cyclists who break laws should have the same penalties applied.
If I had my way I'd remove the licenses of both parties.

[beardy]

You realise that from your previous posts about RLJing on other threads that would have you walking too.

[kwackers]

You realise that from your previous posts about RLJing on other threads that would have you walking too.

Would it? Why's that?

I guess you're talking about the technical infringement of stopping ahead of traffic where an ASL doesn't exist?
TBH I'd plead not guilty and force them to take me to court. I think the 'prior art' (i.e. ASL's improve safety therefore it's logically safer for a cyclst to be ahead of traffic) and the fact the last time they tried to prosecute someone for it they dropped the charges before it went to court.
In that respect I'm feeling pretty safe thanks.

[beardy]

There is a set of written rules for us all to obey, when people start choosing which ones they like (and ban others for disobeying) and which one they dont like they may find somebody else wants to ban them for breaking those laws.

Personally I think a ban is a bit much, just fines and points (for motorists) will suffice for me.
Though every one is still safe to carry on as enforcement is unlikely.