Colin Reed wrote:

"thaksin" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"thaksin" wrote in message news:RggOl.16643

Okay, what you exactly said was "the Highway Code states that I
can ride through a red light legally if my bike is not picked up".

Thank you!

Nice snip. So you obviously acknowledge that your point was ********
all along then? One wonders why you made it in that case, but hey ho...

I and several other posters have made the point about the sensors
not working and therefore the traffic lights as a whole not working
so many times that I felt it unnecessary to point this out yet again,
but I seem to have done so anyway. Hey ho.


No, we've amply demonstrated that the light is NOT faulty, i.e. it
does the job that it was designed to do perfectly well.

You've demonstrated no such thing. Even if you had demonstrated that
the lights were triggered when a car approached, this would only define
them as "car lights". As they are called "traffic lights" for a reason
- that reason being that they apply to traffic, then it is a reasonable
expectation that they work correctly for all traffic. Bicycles are
treated as traffic in the Highway Code, and so if traffic lights'
sensors do not detect them, it is reasonable to recognise them as being
faulty and thereby following the advice given in the Highway Code to
proceed through them with caution.

No, because that condition, that of regarding them as faulty, cannot be
met until the cyclist has satisfied the condition of PROVING them to
be faulty - i.e., by waiting for a sufficient period to ensure at least
one full cycle of lights. Alternatively, if he chooses not to wait that
long, he is perfectly at liberty to dismount and cross as a pedestrian.