RLJ (Red Light Jumping). (The definitive bikeradar thread)

£50 CUNTING QUID

I swear it was amber but "no, we don't have cameras on our bikes so it's your word against mine". What a fucking cunt. Can I still dispute it without video evidence? I dont' even fucking RLJ!

[/rant]

Fight it all the way!

Has anyone here fought it? So loathed to spend £50 on something I didn't (and genuinely don't) do!

Amber means stop.

Amber means stop.

No it doesn't.

It really does.

Amber means stop. Unless you are too close to the lights to stop safely.

(e)the amber signal shall, when shown alone, convey the same prohibition as the red signal, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it shall convey the same indication as the green signal or green arrow signal which was shown immediately before it;

throws toys out of pram

Loads of drivers don't know that either and it boils my piss, at lots of pedestrian crossing the fuckers speed up on amber, one drove through the waiting pedestrians a few weeks ago with an apologetic hand held up as people started to cross, I was going to boot his wing mirror off but there's CCTV round there.

Green means go, amber means go, red means go unless it's been red for more than a few seconds.

PC stopped me for going through a red. Which I didn't. Regardless of what amber means. I'm a considerate rider and driver and there were no pedestrians at the crossing. I've been rear-ended before in similar situations (truth) because of lesser considerate drivers behind me when stopping at lights. I know better than to expect a sympathetic ear from the forum but I feel I'm a little bit hard done by. By the PC. Not you lot.

Can you not ask to see the footage, data protection act and all that, they'll probs tell you no but worth a shot

Data protection act won't cover it.
GO FOR BROKE YOU WANT FOI REQUEST FOR THAT SHIT WOOLS.

Was it a PC? Did they have their hat on? It's not legal if they don't.

Even he said he stopped you for going through a red, the offence is failing to comply with a traffic signal (or something along those lines) which you did by not stopping for the amber (unless you couldn't have done safely because someone was on your arse).

I am sympathetic because you were very unlucky. Don't think there's much you can do about it though unfortunately.

I went through on amber. There was a Police Officer who stopped me and has alleged I went through on red, so it is my word against his. Can I fight the allegation?
You can dispute the allegation, but the mere fact that the lights were not red, does not provide you with a defence. If you crossed on amber, you have still committed the offence, unless you can show that it was unsafe to stop. If the Police Officer can convince the Court that there was no reason why you should not have been able to stop on amber, you could be convicted. The fact that it is his word against yours does not prevent a prosecution, although clearly, the outcome will depend heavily on each party's version of events/credibility.

Go jump some actual reds to make up for it and get your monies worth.

Fuck - I always gamble on amber. I have never considered that I could get done.

To stop at the traffic lights would have caused an accident, the driver behind me was driving too close so I decided to drive through. Do I have a defence?
If the light was red, it is not a defence. There are no circumstances for passing the stop line when the lights are red.

What are the rules regarding traffic lights?
The obligation on the motorist is to stop, unless the light is green, in which case you may proceed only if it is clear and safe to do so. If the amber light is illuminated, a vehicle must stop, unless it has already passed the white stop line or the vehicle is so close to the stop line, that coming to a halt might cause an accident. If the red light is showing, then you must stop behind the stop line in all circumstances.

Did you consent your details and sign anything?

just on a side note, is there a thread on dealing with the police and the 'law' aka legislation.

personally, if there isnt a victim there's isnt a crime.

You could argue a bike is not a vehicle.
dumm dumm dumm
yeaaah yeahhh
yeah!

^^ Not sure if serious, or tynan trolling.

Or just a monstrous idiot.

you might then get fined for riding a kitchen appliance in public though

If you thought it would be unsafe you did the right thing. I'd also argue that if you look behind and see a truck on fire flashing it's lights and sounding it's horn, then going through on red is fine too.

^^^ A bicycle is defined as a vehicle for the purposes of the 1988 RTA

Gray! Graaaaaaaaay!