Unfair traffic lights.

JNugent wrote:
Dave Larrington wrote:

If a sensor-controlled light fails to pick up the presence of a
vehicle it is not working.

Only if it is *meant* to pick up the presence of a bike (especially one
with as little magnetic material as the one described).

If it is broken by design it is still broken. It needs to be able to
detect all vehicles or have a design that does not require it detecting
all vehicles.


There isn't really a problem in any event. The cyclist can dismount and
become a pedestrian without breaking the law.

IIRC the cyclist has to carry the bike to be sure that this is legal.
Something I could not possibly do on my triplet.

"JNugent" wrote in message

Only if it is *meant* to pick up the presence of a bike (especially one
with as little magnetic material as the one described).

On Puffin crossings an infra red or microwave sensor detects the presence of
a pedestrian or cyclist and changes the lights accordingly, so technology to
pick up anyone, including horse riders (see Pegasus crossings) does exist.


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

Simon Mason wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message

What makes you so sure that the lights (and their control system) are
designed to detect bicycles?

If they're not, they're not faulty.

Because I am expected to stop at a red light until it changes to green
when it senses my presence via the loop sensors. They should detect all
vehicles, not just a select few otherwise they are not fit for purpose
by definition.

That's your view - it isn't a fact.

On Tue, 12 May 2009, JNugent wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

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?

What makes you so sure that the lights (and their control system) are
designed to detect bicycles?

If they're not, they're not faulty.

If lights which are not fit for purpose have been installed, then they
are faulty in that implementation. They are clearly not working as
required, if they sit at red waiting for traffic when traffic is at
the line. It matters not whether they are not working and are
incapable of working, or whether they are not working and have just
stopped working because of a fault which has developed.

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

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

"JNugent" wrote in message

What makes you so sure that the lights (and their control system) are
designed to detect bicycles?

If they're not, they're not faulty.

Because I am expected to stop at a red light until it changes to green
when it senses my presence via the loop sensors. They should detect all
vehicles, not just a select few otherwise they are not fit for purpose by
definition.

That's your view - it isn't a fact.

Why is there an option of reporting sensors that do not detect cyclists to
the relevant council department then?

One cyclist's result.

"When I got to the top the lights were on red and went through 5 cycles
without changing in my favour during which I tried walking the bike back and
fore over the loop, laying the bike down on the loop, and swinging it over
the top of the loop. In the end I gave up being a cyclist and used the
adjacent pedestrian crossing. The following day, I phoned the council to
complain. They promised to adjust the sensors and when I went back that way
a few days later they detected my bike first time. So it is worthwhile
reporting these lights and persisting if they don't sort them out. "


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

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
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?

What makes you so sure that the lights (and their control system) are
designed to detect bicycles?

If they're not, they're not faulty.

Do you really think it likely (or reasonable) that traffic lights would be
installed that deliberately do not detect a subset of the legal traffic that
would be using the junction? On balance, it is far more likely to be a
fault with the sensor, and reasonable to argue that the lights are faulty
and can indeed be crossed on red, taking due care. Is this reasonable, or
are you playing pedantic devil's advocate?

Colin

Chris Gerhard wrote:


IIRC the cyclist has to carry the bike to be sure that this is legal.
Something I could not possibly do on my triplet.


Once you're off the bike and wheeling it you are back to being a
pedestrian. The bike requires your power to pedal it to become a
propelled vehicle.
Arrive at lights, hop off, push over junction, re-mount.
Also handy for things like prohibited right turns - pedestrians can -
once off and pushing it you are merely a ped with a bike (best to keep
to the pavement to avoid confusion).

No, it doesn't mean that cars can also be pushed as they already have
regulations about testing and in-sewer-ants and stuff they are supposed
to sort out before going on the road. We don't (blah blah 3rd party
insurance CTC - LCC etc)

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
If lights which are not fit for purpose have been installed, then they
are faulty in that implementation. They are clearly not working as
required, if they sit at red waiting for traffic when traffic is at
the line. It matters not whether they are not working and are
incapable of working, or whether they are not working and have just
stopped working because of a fault which has developed.

That's right and if the council subsequently adjust the sensors to detect
cyclists, then that proves that prior to the adjustment they were faulty and
any associated crossings of a red light was fully justified by Highway Code
Rule 176.


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

On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:58:36 +0100, Keith T wrote:

Chris Gerhard wrote:


IIRC the cyclist has to carry the bike to be sure that this is legal.
Something I could not possibly do on my triplet.


Once you're off the bike and wheeling it you are back to being a
pedestrian. The bike requires your power to pedal it to become a
propelled vehicle.
Arrive at lights, hop off, push over junction, re-mount.


This is unacceptable becuase it may extend the cyclists journey times
by as much as two or three minutes.



--

"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."

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.