Court summons for RLJ

Hah! I don't think couriers regulalry try and run people over. Surely the whole point is to skillfully avoid them, whilst looking suave, dashing and unwashed with dreads and a roll up hanging from their bottom lip and nicotine stained fingers and dirty nails..

You must hang around in Central London as well then ;p

I didn't says it's okay to RLJ, I'm saying it's understandable for courier to RLJ that all.

It's understandable yes, in the same way that a white van driver might find it convenient to jump a red, but not legal. Whether you agree with it or not, you run the risk of being caught. The idea that it's often understandable on a bike but under no circumstances OK in a car is a biased falsehood.

The main reason I would never, ever, ever run a red in a car is because of all the legislative protocol that surrounds the car as a form of transport (i.e. you'd lose your licence). If you misjudge either and hit someone you're a prick, fact. On a bike it's a discretionary thing.

You can legally run a red if it would be less dangerous than stopping. I forget the exact wording, but the exemption is there.

I bet you can make a case that being on a bicycle it's often more dangerous to stop than go through them.

NEFPN = Non-endorseable fixed penalty notice. Payment of an FPN is an automatic admission of guilt (the reasoning being that, if you're not guilty, why would you pay it?).

Not paying it means that you do not accept the charge, and are willing to defend yourself in front of the beak.

There are many offences under the Road Traffic Act (and others) that do not distinguish between vehicles, including bicycles (although there are offences that do make the distinction).

I was under the impression (can't find a source, perhaps the wanderings of my broken mind) that the FPN offered a kind of 'third way' in respect of guilt - ie you accept a fine but you are not guilty, having not been convicted of anything. of course in practical terms it amounts to the same thing but....

I shall attempt to ascertain where I got this ridiculou idea from and get back to you.

You can legally run a red if it would be less dangerous than stopping. I forget the exact wording, but the exemption is there.

I bet you can make a case that being on a bicycle it's often more dangerous to stop than go through them.

Case specific, you would never get away with generalities.

I have found it:

"A fixed penalty is not a fine. Payment of the penalty by the recipient discharges there liability to conviction for the offence for which the FPN was issued. It does not constitute an admission of guilt, but removes the possibility of the creation of a record of criminal conviction."
From a police websitd no less: http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/fixedpenaltynotice

Suck on that!

Appalling literacy skills from the plod. 'discharges there' tsktsk.

A lack of paperwork does not mean that a summons might be on its way.

As I recall, the police has 6 months to lay evidence before the court.

What I meant was did the copper take down the OP's details, if he hasn't then who will they post the summons to?

Obviously in an ideal world there shouldn't be concesions for anyone red light jumping, but lets be honest, it's often just plain absurd to wait at, say, a red light on a pedestrian crossing when there's no pedestrians.

It can also be safer to take up the empty road ahead, as opposed to getting 10 cars speed past as you're peddling hard.

It is clearly different for cyclists and cars, I'm not saying cyclist shoudl be given carte blanche at all, but it obvious, and it undermines the law if the use a sledgehammer on basically innocent people.

What I meant was did the copper take down the OP's details, if he hasn't then who will they post the summons to?

Even if he did know the address RM would do their dangest to lose the little kipper. Wouldn't worry too much.

Obviously there should be no concesions for anyone red light jumping, but lets be honest, it's often just plain absurd to wait at, say, a red light on a pedestrian crossing when there's no pedestrians.

I did wait at a red light when there's no peds, it's good to get into the force of habit of doing so.

£2500 fine!? WTF?!

richoking is TreeTrunk and I claim my £5.

phew that was an effort............ ;p

I quite agree. You cannot be fined without a conviction.

I disagree. I'm also happy to point out that council websites talk the highest order of shit at times.

I completely agree.

Don't take it up with me my man, but for what it's worth i'll take the word of a council website over that of an anonymous typesmith such as your good self. Semantics I guess, but I maintain that I am not guilty of any naughtiness whatsoever. I simply choose to give occaisional £30 donations to Her madge.

Courier currently earn fuck-all right now, they earn something like £2 per package (I think), I recall it being a bit more than that a couple years ago, so for those who want to earn a decent wages, they really do need to shift as much package per hours to get the minimum (need someone to clarify courier's wages).

As for motorised vehicles jumping red light, that's frankly a different kettle of fish despite being a vehicle, the likeihood of getting killed by a motorised vehicles jumping by a red light increased dramatically.

May be so, but if you wish to be treated as equals on the road then you should abide by the same laws as others*.

• I know this is not always the case.
  

I did wait at a red light when there's no peds, it's good to get into the force of habit of doing so.

Of course you're right, but you can't treat cyclists which don't (in this empty ped crossing example) the same as motorists. I think that's unreasonable, and hightlights a huge disparity in the law.

Yeah but the 'price' is meant to be a £30 fine, not a court summons and possible massive fine. I think it will be difficult for him to prove that you were conducting 'dangerous wreckless or careless cycling', though. It's very rare that cyclists are done for shit like this and its usually cause someone has been hurt/killed. Wouldn't worry too much, but perhaps seek legal advice.

Couriers run red lights cause they're gnarly and have skills commuters can only dream of. Haters be jealous.

Red light jumping is annoying AT ped crossings, road junctions then it's often best to get out the way when you safely can.

£30 is a deterrent, £2500 is completely disproportionate and another fucking Tax, maybe they will take action on pedestrians cross the roads on red and step out into the road in any place other than a ped crossing.

Sounds pessimistic but I can’t help but get the feeling they see the rise in cyclists and need a way to make the coin, when is this right at lights coming in?

marvellous.

... ... when is this right at lights coming in?

It's left at lights, you fucking Queen fan.

Every time you jump a red light another cyclist gets hit by a car...

Were you wearing a helmet?

Left.. fucking that would explain the near misses i have been having.. cleared that one up

Left.. fucking that would explain the near misses i have been having.. cleared that one up

:)

OP let us know the outcome of this little hum-dinger.

Just like to point out again that 1. I was going very slowly, even if I hit someone it wouldn't have done a thing, and 2. The single person there was not within the lines of the crossing.

Also, it is more than fair to complain about killer taxis, I get them cuttin me up and forcing me into the curb for no reason ther than that they can. I was just trying to save some time by going through a red light with one ped on it, where I know for a fact that it is a red light for all directions of traffic.