Cyclist ignores red light, gets hit, driver is prosecuted...
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
a green light is no excuse to just drive though a junction, you should slow enough to ensure you have clear passage, sometimes this will mean crawling through a junction on green, with everybody behind you thinking you are a really crap driver, but that is ok, 'cause it's safer.
So you do that every time you approach a junction? Every single time? heebeegeetee said:
What do you do as a pedestrian? Pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists, yet from what I see, experience and of course do myself, at lights controlled crossings once the traffics moved off peds cross the road en masse and don't give a fig for what colour the lights on.
Are you the sad loner that stays behind and waits for the green?
Whilst that is true - a pedestrian crossing on a red man is not covered by any traffic regulation or law (or at least none is cited in the highway code), so whilst the highway code does strongly advise against crossing on a red man - you don't appear to be breaking a law by ignoring that advise (unlike a motor vehicle or cyclist going through a red).Are you the sad loner that stays behind and waits for the green?
crankedup said:
Your asking me if I act in a way that endangers myself deliberately or exercise caution. As a grown adult I use my experience to judge what is safe and what is not!
Ever been on or near a bike? If you have you forfeit any right to make your own judgements about matters of safety, clothing or lighting. Furthermore your guilt is determined based on actions performed by any other cyclist in the whole of human history.DoubleD said:
I know that red means stop.
I think this thread is evidence is that most drivers don't know what green means, so I'm not asking about red.It a typically hypocritical thread, the norm nowadays. A bunch of drivers are criticising another group over the interpretation of traffic lights when they clearly themselves have got it wrong also.
When cyclists get it wrong they predominantly harm themselves. It doesn't seem to bother drivers one jot that when they get it wrong they predominantly harm others. That seems to be considered acceptable.
Pachydermus said:
NDA said:
Maybe I've missed some vital point here, but the motorist set off when the light was green didn't he? The cyclist went through a red light...
put your cyclist hatred away and imagine it was a little old lady tottering across in front of him. Do you still think he should have just nailed it away from the lights?He 'nailed it away from the lights'? I didn't know that.
So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
NDA said:
Cyclist hatred? Odd comment. I'm merely trying to establish the facts.
He 'nailed it away from the lights'? I didn't know that.
So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
Is there something wrong then, with either the law or the HC, in that it can't just be followed but has to be interpreted? He 'nailed it away from the lights'? I didn't know that.
So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
heebeegeetee said:
When cyclists get it wrong they predominantly harm themselves.
Whilst true - even when they do, it's often other road users who get the blame.Take the recent 'die in' stunt performed in London. The implication of that stunt appears to be that cyclists are being killed on the roads due to the actions of other road users - whilst this is clearly true in some cases, how many cyclists are killed or injured as a result of their own actions.
Why wasn't at least some of the emphasis of this stunt aimed at cyclists themselves? Better behaviour and observation from all parties is what is needed.
NDA said:
.
So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
No, when the lights turn green you make sure that nobody is going to cross your path before proceeding. Try it, it may just save your life even if you don't care about anyone else.So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
Pachydermus said:
NDA said:
.
So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
No, when the lights turn green you make sure that nobody is going to cross your path before proceeding. Try it, it may just save your life even if you don't care about anyone else.So basically don't proceed on green, but instead wait for cyclists breaking the law by going through on red?
Moonhawk said:
Whilst true - even when they do, it's often other road users who get the blame.
That's BS. How many drivers have been done for something they didn't do?If you are driving incorrectly and collide with someone as a result, the fact that the other party was also doing something wrong shouldn't be relied on to get you off.
To reiterate, this case is two people have collided, both were found to be at fault, both have been prosecuted, there really is nothing to see here.
The only issue is that clearly a significant number of driver's believe that a green traffic light means go regardless and woe betide anyone who gets in their way.
The law clearly doesn't allow for that, so a few are responding with their interpretation of the law, when there's nothing wrong with how the law is as it stands.
Pachydermus said:
No, when the lights turn green you make sure that nobody is going to cross your path before proceeding. Try it, it may just save your life even if you don't care about anyone else.
There are a few key things in the highway code that should be drummed into all road users:1. You dont have 'right of way' under any circumstance
2. You should always give way to another road user if it will help avoid an incident
3. Proceed only when your path is clear and it is safe to do so
Aside from poor observation - I bet many incidents come about as a result of misunderstanding these three basic things.
Moonhawk said:
heebeegeetee said:
That's BS. How many drivers have been done for something they didn't do?
I didn't say get "done" - I said "get the blame".I'd say the overwhelming experience is that when drivers hurt or kill, sometimes in the most dreadful circumstances, they are usually treated shockingly leniently.
This leniency was why someone set up Brake IIRC.
Kawasicki said:
a green light is no excuse to just drive though a junction
Couldn't agree more....https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d02_1378943867
NDA said:
Cyclist hatred? Odd comment. I'm merely trying to establish the facts.
You'll get that a lot in this type of thread. Criticising an action of a single cyclist is perceived by some as declaring war on all cyclists and the act of cycling itself.I think it is a bit odd too, mainly because I take the opposite approach. If other cyclists are called out when they misbehave, cycling behaviour should improve and, (as a 'well behaved' cyclist) I will be treated better by motorists.
I sometimes pick up abuse from motorists now when I definitely haven't done anything wrong. Some of that is definitely due to the individual motorists being idiots, but some of it due to the image of cyclists that is damaged each time one sails through a red light.
heebeegeetee said:
And I still call BS. Give us some examples.
I'd say the overwhelming experience is that when drivers hurt or kill, sometimes in the most dreadful circumstances, they are usually treated shockingly leniently.
This leniency was why someone set up Brake IIRC.
I already gave an example. The "die in" was staged and the implication behind it was that the drivers of motorised vehicles were to blame - the cyclists being innocent victims.I'd say the overwhelming experience is that when drivers hurt or kill, sometimes in the most dreadful circumstances, they are usually treated shockingly leniently.
This leniency was why someone set up Brake IIRC.
I'm suggesting this is more than a little disingenuous and that in many cases, cyclists are hurt or killed due to their own reckless actions. Why no emphasis on this aspect in the "die in".
kingston12 said:
NDA said:
Cyclist hatred? Odd comment. I'm merely trying to establish the facts.
You'll get that a lot in this type of thread. Criticising an action of a single cyclist is perceived by some as declaring war on all cyclists and the act of cycling itself.The video of the truck above is exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't take much of a search to find lots of other examples.
Pachydermus said:
people are so blinded by their hatred of cyclists that they don't even realise that they're not even following the same highway code that they're moaning about cyclists not following and why doing so might actually be a good thing for THEM regardless of some idiots on bikes.
The video of the truck above is exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't take much of a search to find lots of other examples.
Totally agree with you on that, I just think that an enforced better standard of cycling would engender a greater level of respect from a lot of other road users. Not from all of them of course.The video of the truck above is exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't take much of a search to find lots of other examples.
The argument always seems to get quite tribal, car vs. bike, when in reality 90% of bad cyclists are probably bad motorists when they get behind the wheel of a car.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff