Unfair traffic lights.

JNugent wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:

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

"Mr Benn" %%%@%.%% wrote:
"Simon Mason" wrote:

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am
reluctant to be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed
to do so.

Which section of the Highway Code is that out of interest? How can
you be certain the sensors haven't detected your cycle?

If the other lights go through the whole sequence without yours changing
then it can be established that yours are not sensitive enough to detect
bikes hence you are allowed to proceed with care.

That's not limited to cyclists, which is what you implied.

It is highly unlikely to apply to cars as there is enough metal to trip
the sensors which is the subject of the thread. Of course, if the lights
are out, then the rule would apply to cars as well.

The "it" is a rule which authorises cautious progress through a traffic light
junction - against red - if (and only if) there is good, credible, reason to
suppose that the lights are malfunctioning. It (the rule) applies to
everyone, not just to one class of road-user. If there is no reason to assume
a malfunction, one just has to await one's turn.

I've sat at a set of lights on Palace Street London SW1 with its
junction with Victoria Street with numerous cars on both sides and
seen the pedestrian lights go green twice [1] whilst the Palace Street
lights stayed on red. I came to the conclusion that he sensor on the
pole (radar or R?) was up the spout and proceeded with caution on the
next phase of pedestrian lights. Five minutes later the lights were
changing as they should.

There are a few other sensors around SW1 that I know of where you
have to ride in particular places to trigger because they aren't quite
pointed in the right direction. Also one on my comute that I sometimes
don't trigger because I am playing grandmother's steps with it hoping
the lights will change before I actually have to stop and the camber
mitigates against a track stand on a freewheel, so my approach speed
isn't high enough. :-(

[1] Normally the phase is long green Victoria Street short green
Palace Street (along with the oposing road the name of which escapes
me) then a short pedestrian green whilst all roads are red.

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"pk" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Simon Mason" wrote in message
. uk...

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am reluctant to
be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed to do so


No it doesn't.

Why weaken your sometimes valid arguments by deliberate over statements
that border on untruth - especially when you do know the factual position
as your later posts show?


Other motorists may not realise that I have waiting there for several
minutes before I ride through a red light and assume I am the usual RLJ
lycra lout.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Simon Mason wrote:

"thaksin" wrote in message news:ReWNl.16611
176
"You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is
showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there
is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a
position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat
the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with
great care."

From this, you extract that "The HC says I am allowed to jump red
lights"? **** me, you're nearly as barking as spindrift!

There's jumping a red light instantly (illegal) and waiting through
several traffic light cycles without your turning green due to the lack
of a suitable sensor and proceeding with caution (legal).

Thats not what you said. You said "... the HC says I am allowed to jump
red lights". The lights you refer to are NOT faulty - they work
perfectly well when a car comes along, and that is the job they were
designed to do.

"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...

"pk" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Simon Mason" wrote in message
. uk...

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am reluctant
to be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed to do so


No it doesn't.

Why weaken your sometimes valid arguments by deliberate over statements
that border on untruth - especially when you do know the factual position
as your later posts show?


Other motorists may not realise that I have waiting there for several
minutes before I ride through a red light and assume I am the usual RLJ
lycra lout.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/


But your statement of what the highway code was so wrong as to be
deliberately deceitful to the casual reader

the highwaycode does not as you claim:

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am reluctant
to be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed to do so


Why do you claim that it does?

pk

On Mon, 11 May 2009 23:04:35 +0100, pk wrote:

But your statement of what the highway code was so wrong as to be
deliberately deceitful to the casual reader

I disagree - it's an accurate summary of what it says. If the lights
are not working, you can proceed, even against red.

the highwaycode does not as you claim:

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am reluctant
to be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed to do so


Why do you claim that it does?

It does, why do you say it does not? What part of that summary is not
correct?

Are you claiming that traffic lights which do not detect a bicycle are
not faulty?

Are you claiming that the highway code does not say you can cross
faulty lights at red?

How long would you sit at a faulty set of traffic lights? Hours?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On May 11, 8:23*pm, thaksin wrote:

Thats not what you said. You said "... the HC says I am allowed to jump
red lights". The lights you refer to are NOT faulty - they work
perfectly well when a car comes along, and that is the job they were
designed to do.

Ah, so traffic lights aren't designed for cyclists, eh? I think you
are making Simon's point for him

Tell me why he should stop at this light if it will NEVER go green for
him unless a car comes up behind him?

(Note, I am NOT advocating jumping red lights here. That is a
dangerous, silly and anti-social practice. I seriously doubt that
Simon is using this case to justify sailign through all red lights. I
could be wrong, but I doubt it.)

wrote in message
...
On May 11, 8:23 pm, thaksin wrote:

Thats not what you said. You said "... the HC says I am allowed to jump
red lights". The lights you refer to are NOT faulty - they work
perfectly well when a car comes along, and that is the job they were
designed to do.

Ah, so traffic lights aren't designed for cyclists, eh? I think you
are making Simon's point for him

He made my point perfectly!

And don't put in quotes things I did not write please. Where did I say the
phrase ... "the HC says I am allowed to jump red lights"?

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 12 May 2009 07:09:00 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Mon, 11 May 2009 23:04:35 +0100, pk wrote:

But your statement of what the highway code was so wrong as to be
deliberately deceitful to the casual reader

I disagree - it's an accurate summary of what it says. If the lights
are not working, you can proceed, even against red.

the highwaycode does not as you claim:

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am reluctant
to be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed to do so


Why do you claim that it does?

It does, why do you say it does not? What part of that summary is not
correct?

Are you claiming that traffic lights which do not detect a bicycle are
not faulty?

Are you claiming that the highway code does not say you can cross
faulty lights at red?

How long would you sit at a faulty set of traffic lights? Hours?

regards,

Hello Snipper - Basic comprehension and safety matters are still not
your strong point I see.

Feel free to point out exactly whe " the Highway Code states that I
can ride through a red light legally if my bike is not picked up by
the sensors"

Note the use of the word "state" - off you go now.

I think you would benefit from a full read of the Highway Code - you
are certainly not familiar with it.

Did you ever find where it endorsed and encouraged filtering?

PS - he does not have to wait - he could get off and walk.

Imaging he goes through red "carefully".
He is hit by another vehicle who did not see him.

Is it the other drivers fault - clearly no.

The court case: Did you go through the traffic light whilst it was
showing red - yes.
Why did you do that?
The Highway code *sates* that I "can ride through a red light legally
if my bike is not picked up by the sensors"

Please show us where it *states* that.

Oh - you can't.

Why did you not get off and walk across the junction?

I could not be bothered.



Oh - dear - large fine and possible insurance claim for the damage to
the car.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:59:57 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"pk" wrote in message
news:lvWdnZAqhc7ZyZXXnZ2dnUVZ8hWdnZ2d@brightview. co.uk...
"Simon Mason" wrote in message
. uk...

Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red light
legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors, but I am reluctant to
be seen as a red light jumper, even when I am allowed to do so


No it doesn't.

Why weaken your sometimes valid arguments by deliberate over statements
that border on untruth - especially when you do know the factual position
as your later posts show?


Other motorists may not realise that I have waiting there for several
minutes before I ride through a red light and assume I am the usual RLJ
lycra lout.


Correct - because that is in fact what you are when you do that.

(Not sure about the lycra though:-)

You really do need to take this up with the appropriate authority -
again. Also, tell the authority that you are writing an article for
the local paper on the problem - and what would they like to say.

Given your ability with letters to the newspaper - why not write and
explain the problem, the fact that you have written to the authority
several times, and ask what others think you should do. You cannot be
the only cyclists in Hull affected by the problem.

I really do believe that if you follow the proper channels you *will*
get it sorted. I don't think I have been beaten with such a thing -
you just need the time and the inclination and tenacity.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...

Given your ability with letters to the newspaper - why not write and
explain the problem, the fact that you have written to the authority
several times, and ask what others think you should do. You cannot be
the only cyclists in Hull affected by the problem.

I've already had two letters published on the subject and written to the
Council with no joy. It is a different situation with my employers as they
were deliberately discriminating against cyclists, whereas these are just
badly adjusted sensors. I doubt if the Council deliberately fix them so they
don't pick up cyclists, they are probably bogged down fixing potholes so
car's suspensions aren't damaged.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/