Unfair traffic lights.

In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
Dave Larrington wrote:

Direct quote from the Highway Code: "If the traffic lights are not
working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and
proceed with great care."

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).

Why would it NOT be intended to pick up the presence of a bicycle?

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
applauded.

In . uk,
Simon Mason tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
"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.

There's one of those on the cycle lane opposite Blackhorse Road tube
station. It works about 20% of the time. If it can't reliably detect
something as large as me it's b0rked.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
A complimentary biro(tm) is /not/ to be sniffed at.

On May 13, 9:16*am, wrote:
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.

Gah, and now I've attributed a statement by tahksin (not faulty) to
JNugent.

Apologies. That was not intended.

JNugent wrote:

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.

Of course. I was thinking of the one I deal with where there is not a
footpath. They have now resolved it by putting a push-button device at
the side of the road. (Its picture indicates that this may have been
done for equestrians)

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

On Mon, 11 May 2009 16:16:30 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"JNugent" wrote in message
.. .

If the sensor does not detect my vehicle, then they are not working.

I don't think that there would be a consensus that what you describe is
the lights "not working". The only non-working states about which one
could be absolutely certain would be situations where the lights were
either completely off all around the junction or were stuck on one phase.

The sensor exists to detect vehicles waiting at the traffic lights in order
to turn them green and allow them to proceed.

If they cannot detect a vehicle such as a bicycle then the set of
lights/sensors is not working and rule 176 applies.

I know traffic lights like this but I would be wary of relying on rule
176. I get off and push my bike past the lights and then continue.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

"Mark" wrote in message
...

If they cannot detect a vehicle such as a bicycle then the set of
lights/sensors is not working and rule 176 applies.

I know traffic lights like this but I would be wary of relying on rule
176. I get off and push my bike past the lights and then continue.

Sense from someone at last!

Mr Benn wrote:
"Mark" wrote in message
...

If they cannot detect a vehicle such as a bicycle then the set of
lights/sensors is not working and rule 176 applies.
I know traffic lights like this but I would be wary of relying on rule
176. I get off and push my bike past the lights and then continue.

Sense from someone at last!


It's just too damn simple for some.
Something to do with the inability to get off the bike and push, I'm
sure it has nothing to do with wearing spuds -
see also under - the 200 yard drive to the newsagents and the 100 yard
traffic light dash.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 21:44:06 +0100, 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?

No.

And the relevance is what?


--

"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."

Dave Larrington wrote:
In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
Dave Larrington wrote:

Direct quote from the Highway Code: "If the traffic lights are not
working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and
proceed with great care."

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).

Why would it NOT be intended to pick up the presence of a bicycle?

I don't know - you'd have to ask the engineers. But clearly, there has to be
some sort of minimal threshold of magnetic activity before detection takes
place, otherwise my fountain pen would trigger them when I cross the broad.

On Wed, 13 May 2009 09:43:45 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
Dave Larrington wrote:

Direct quote from the Highway Code: "If the traffic lights are not
working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and
proceed with great care."

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).

Why would it NOT be intended to pick up the presence of a bicycle?


There is no obligation on authorities to make traffic lights detect
cyclists.

Many junctions are on a time phase control - which can be interrupted
if a vehicle is detected whilst on red; in which case the lights will
change more quickly to allow the vehicle to proceed.

It would make sense to not have this same facility for detecting bikes
- ie the cyclist can wait until the timer changes the lights - ie the
cyclist could get off and cross the road like a pedestrian if they
wish.


--

"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."