Unfair traffic lights.

Marz wrote:
On May 12, 9:53 am, thaksin wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

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"?
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". That is not
true. The only "point made" was that you choose to interpret the HC,
which lets not forget isn't the law anyway, in a manner in which it was
not intended.

Really! You know this because you wrote the HC?

If it intended to say "should you not be heavy enough to trigger the
light, you can jump it", don't you think it'd say "should you not be
heavy enough to trigger the light, you can jump it"? You'd have to be
pretty naive to think that the OP was the ONLY cyclist this had happened
to - I'd reckon more than enough for the HC to be aware of. They're not
known for deliberately obfuscating the point, so if they meant to permit
cyclist to abandon lights I'm pretty sure they'd be more explicit.

"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

"Still, the Highway Code states that I can ride through a red
light legally if my bike is not picked up by the sensors"

There are bits that might be interpreted that way or may be thought to imply
that or from which it may be inferred, but nowhere does it STATE as claimed.

this is not a matter of opinion, but of objective fact.

pk

On May 12, 2:22*pm, thaksin wrote:
Marz wrote:
On May 12, 9:53 am, thaksin wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

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"?
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". That is not
true. The only "point made" was that you choose to interpret the *HC,
which lets not forget isn't the law anyway, in a manner in which it was
not intended.

Really! You know this because you wrote the HC?

If it intended to say "should you not be heavy enough to trigger the
light, you can jump it", don't you think it'd say "should you not be
heavy enough to trigger the light, you can jump it"? You'd have to be
pretty naive to think that the OP was the ONLY cyclist this had happened
to - I'd reckon more than enough for the HC to be aware of. They're not
known for deliberately obfuscating the point, so if they meant to permit
cyclist to abandon lights I'm pretty sure they'd be more explicit.

No, I think it's very clear. If the light fails to do its job, i.e.
register the presence of a road user then it has failed and is faulty.
At that point the only way to move forward is to go through the red
light.

It happens to a lot of cyclists all the time. One reason it's hardly
noticed is that there's nearly always a car to trigger the lights and
one reason why it's not reported is that it's easy enough to just go
through.

"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.

Colin

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.

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? I couldn't see
the exception with a casual look through.



--
Andy Templeman http://www.templeman.org.uk/

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?

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?

Simon Mason wrote:
...

Yes, because claims by people for damage cause by potholes can and do
cost the Council money in damage claims, so they will get priority over
a few cyclists stuck at red lights. Here is one such example.

(...West Sussex example...)

As a cyclist, I'm quite happy for pothole-fixing to be higher priority.
A faulty traffic light won't knock me off my bike (unless it falls on
me). A pothole may well do.

Incidentally, my local council (Hampshire) states that if the sensor
doesn't detect a bicycle, it "suggests a fault."

"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.

Colin