Unfair traffic lights.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:29:31 +0100, pk wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..

It does not STATE as Simon claims - that is his interpretation
of the rule

OK, what do you think 'STATE' means, then? My highway code does
state (ie, express in words) just that.

would you care to point out the bit of the highway code that STATES
as Simon claims he

No, because numerous people have already done that. Me pointing it
out to you yet again is futile.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:43:12 +0100, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-12, Ian Smith wrote:

The nearest set of lights to my house routinely don't detect me on my
steel-framed tourer. What happens is that I write or telephone to
complain. If I telephone, they talk some absolute ******** (I've been
told, for example, that bicycles are too light to trigger the pressure
pads under the tarmac). Whether I write or telephone, within about a
week they start detecting me, and within about two weeks after that
they stop detecting me again.

I assume that someone comes out and adjusts something to make the
detection work. Whether that has knock-on problems and they adjust it
back again two weeks later, or whether it just drifts out of
adjustment, I don't know.

What's the worst knock-on problem --- that the light will occasionally
turn green unnecessarily for a short time?

I don't know, but if (for example) the system gets multiple false
readings it might cause the phasing to deteriorate to multiple short
green phases and thereby not clear the queues feeding in. One of the
three legs feeding into the junction is a low traffic cul-de-sac, one
is the main town-centre one-way system, and one is one of four main
roads into the town. Mucking up the flow through the junction could
have a big knock-on effect. The one-way system is fairly short - you
could potentially have the queue to get into the junction looping
right round and obstructing the main exit route from the junction.

But I'm speculating - all I know is that it doesn't remain detecting
bikes for more than a couple of weeks at a time.

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

Colin Reed wrote:

"thaksin" wrote in message
...
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.

You mean as in the earlier post in the thread when Simon wrote
"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 should satisfy your conditions.

I dont agree that lights are 'faulty' simply by virtue of not detecting
a pushbike, but for this sub-thread lets say I accept that premise. The
condition still fails, though, because the cyclist (as Marz and others
indicated) wont wait through that sequence.

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:29:31 +0100, pk wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message
. ..

It does not STATE as Simon claims - that is his interpretation
of the rule

OK, what do you think 'STATE' means, then? My highway code does
state (ie, express in words) just that.

would you care to point out the bit of the highway code that STATES
as Simon claims he

No, because numerous people have already done that. Me pointing it
out to you yet again is futile.

That is incorrect: No one has pointed to the section of the HC that STATES
as claimed by Simon.

Would you care to?

pk

Simon Mason wrote:

"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.

In that case, its non-use at some locations looks deliberate.

Ian Smith wrote:
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...

....by?

Colin Reed wrote:
"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?

I think it *possible*. Especially given the fact that at busy junctions, one
can reasonably expect a flow of detectable vehicles.

Andrew Templeman wrote:
JNugent wrote:

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

Is it certain that the rule that you must stay behind the white line
when the light is on red, does not apply to pedestrians?

Even if it did, it would be meaningless, since a pedestrian (whether pushing
a bike or not) can simply move sideways onto the footway and not cross the
white line.

Adam Funk wrote:
On 2009-05-12, 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).

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

Are you aware of any junctions where motorists are expected to get out
and push their cars through?

Is there a point to that question?

On May 12, 5:57*pm, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
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?

Because it's red?

That wasn't phrased right - I meant never pass the light rather than
not stop in the first instance. I just didn't say that on re-reading
what I wrote. So yes, absolutely, stop because it is red. Stop if it
isn't displaying a light at all. Stop if (as I encountered the other
week) it is showing both green and red. Who, apart from red light
jumping idiots, actually wants to sail out into a junction which may
have traffic coming through it expecting to be able to pass freely
through?

Instead, this thread has argued around the specific meaning of words
(such as "states" and "working") rather than come to the boring common-
sense conclusion that (a) yes you may have to pass a red light
cautiously sometimes if it becomes clear that for some reason the
system isn't going to turn green for you and (b) the HC makes
reference to lights that are not working as a specific loophole to the
never pass a red light rule.

Somewhere inbetween those statements is a workable reality that you
seem to want to deny based on the idea that traffic lights that don't
detect a particular road-user's presence aren't faulty.

I'm not sure why I got involved in this.