Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Why do some cyclists break the law? US academic surveys 18,000 people to find out

Results due out in summer - but US professor says early results are that proper infrastructure is solution

Why do some cyclists choose to break the rules of the road? That’s the question an academic at the University of Colorado Denver is hoping to answer – and more than 18,000 people have participated in a survey to help him find out why.

Wesley Marshall, a professor of civil engineering at the institution, is currently sifting through the responses to his so-called Scofflaw Survey, with the results due to be published over the summer.

Already, however, he seems to be leaning towards the finding that people riding through red lights, or cycling on pavements, aren’t doing so because they are hell-bent on breaking rules – it’s because they want and need infrastructure that all too often is currently missing.

He told Colorado Public Radio: “Not all bicyclists that break the law are these hooligans that are out to be sort of anti-society. I think a lot of people do it for very practical reasons.”

He said that people on bikes are more likely to comply with road signs and traffic signals when they are aimed specifically at cyclists.

“If we give these people a system that’s built for and really meant for cars, you might see more people breaking the law,” he explained.

He went on to say that some cyclists may ignore a red light because the alternative is fighting for road space at a junction with a car.

But he cautioned that people breaking the law when on a bike are likely to be viewed in a more negative light than those who do so while driving a car.

“Everyone breaks traffic laws, “he said. “It's just that cyclists are judged more harshly.

"People speed on the way to work [while driving cars],” he added.

“And even if it's a few miles over, they are speeding; they are breaking the law.

“But society doesn't judge those people as criminals.

"With bicyclists, a lot of people feel the same way.

“They don't really think it's a big deal to go through a stop sign when there are no other cars or pedestrians around."

The sample size – comprising cyclists, motorists and pedestrians – is a large one, and because of that it’s likely that Professor Marshall’s final report will make for interesting reading.

In the meantime, cycling advocacy groups across the US are already reported to have asked Professor Marshall for localised results.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

38 comments

Avatar
darren13366 | 8 years ago
0 likes

Ok, here's my two penn'orth; I don't live in a city and a large proportion of our traffic lights are "traffic controlled" which means they don't always (ie hardly ever) recognize a puny human on a bicycle. This being the case, I often have to break the law by very carefully going through on red - not a massive issue for a left turn but more of a gamble otherwise. Just as an added extra, I was once waiting at a right hand filter red and a police officer waiting to go straight on, rolled down his window and advised me to go whenever it was safe as I probably be waiting all day.

Avatar
danthomascyclist | 8 years ago
0 likes

I'd like to see a study into why cyclists don't keep killing pedestrians or motorists.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 8 years ago
0 likes

As an occasional RLJ (although I'm always careful of pedestrians and other road users), I'm wondering when we'll see the survey on why some motorists break the speeding laws.

This survey seems to have a hidden agenda that cylists break the laws more than other road users whereas I would disagree with. However, I think it is worth investigating why people do the things they do as this can be used to change how we make and enforce laws and whether the transport infrastructure is optimal or not.

Avatar
ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes

riding two a breast of course is recommended by the highway code. What is needed is driver education on what the highway code says it seems.

Avatar
teaboy replied to ianrobo | 8 years ago
0 likes
ianrobo wrote:

riding two a breast of course is recommended by the highway code. What is needed is driver education on what the highway code says it seems.

But drivers take a test about the Highway Code. They've BEEN educated. Maybe they need to be asked nicely again.... and again.....

Avatar
teaboy | 8 years ago
0 likes

There are certain junctions that I sometimes cross when the lights are red. This is ALWAYS on my utility bike, not a road bike. It is because I find it impossible to "take the lane" at my much-reduced speed on a 30mph road on an incline, meaning I would have to cross a 3-lane roundabout from the left-hand side of the left lane. When the lights are red when I arrive I can position myself in the correct place, and cross the roundabout in safety without having to race cars. Other junctions I cross will be crossroads with simultaneous greens for pedestrians. I cross these slowly, giving way to people on the crossings. Again, it prevents me having to 'sprint' towards pinch-points to avoid motor vehicles behind me. It is entirely a matter of infrastructure.

People should not have to choose between safety and legality, and with high-quality infrastructure you don't need to.

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 8 years ago
0 likes

RLJ by cyclists in London is very common from my limited point of view - I commute 5 days a week doing 30km each way from NW through the City into E14.

I also ride on non-workdays which often involves long road rides out of London through Surrey and back in.

I see RLJ cyclists every day. Large numbers doing it. Why?

You'd have to ask them...Personally, I don't RLJ ever, because I don't see the need, and I really enjoy doing interval training and practising my track stands  3

The 2 concerns I have are:

1. near misses they have with pedestrians crossing on 'green' pedestrian crossing lights, or riding at pedestrian who are using a pelican crossing.

I have seen RLJ cyclists ride into pedestrians in these circumstances. I have seen a collision on the Strand caused by a cyclist RLJ and the cyclist got a real kicking.

It makes me feel awkward to be a cyclist when I see another cyclist RLJ because that pedestrian will tend to see us in the same light as the person who rode into them. I have apologized to pedestrians on the RLJ behalf when this has happened, especially when cyclists ride aggressively through pedestrian pelican crossings.

I have been run over by a RLJ cyclist in Camden by the tube station, and knocked to the ground, getting cuts and bruises. The cyclist managed to escape before I got to my feet.

2. Causing a serious / fatal RTC. This was clearly explained to me by the Police years ago when I got caught RLJ by Liverpool Street and fined. I have not jumped a light since that fine.

The Sergeant was very practical and gave me an example that had happened just down the road the week before, where a cyclist RLJ, causing a car (which had priority) to swerve, mount the pavement and hit a pedestrian who was seriously injured.

The Police officer said to me "You may not realise it, but you could be 1/2 a mile away after jumping the lights and have caused a fatality behind you."

He also said, if something happens to you on the road and you have jumped the lights, don't expect the law to view your case favourably; I don't know if this is true, I am not a lawyer.

The roads are dangerous enough, and there are idiots on bikes, in cars and on foot, but I can't see the gain in making it more dangerous by jumping red lights, riding on pavements, riding through pedestrians using crossings...

Avatar
Must be Mad | 8 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

In general, I agree, I don't know why people get so worked up about it, well, apart from it being as easy drum to bash of course.

However there have been a couple of times, where I have been driving, and taken a long time to wait for a safe moment to pass a cyclist safely - only for a light 20meters down the road to flick to red.... cyclist runs straight through, and then I have to wait again for a safe moment to pass. That's a wee bit annoying.

One aspect in all this which always gets overlooked - I find that as a cyclist I am FAR more likely to get held by a red light than when driving. On a regular run through town, I pass 20 sets of lights, and on the bike, I usually get stopped at red on 17-18 of them, which makes for a very stop-start journey. In a car on the same route, the most reds I have had is 10, and usually far less still.

Perhaps if car drivers were stopped as much as cyclists they might have a different outlook?

Avatar
darkwamp | 8 years ago
0 likes

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to darkwamp | 8 years ago
0 likes
darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

..because they're annoying twats.

Avatar
darkwamp replied to fukawitribe | 8 years ago
0 likes

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

Depends on the situation. Common sense applies.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

I know, it's almost like the 'law abiding' think that they're so much better that they can judge everyone.

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

Mmmm, not sure about that one. That wouldn't stop any funding or make things any harder to obtain.

..because they're annoying twats.

There it is, there's the reason. Not that you believe that you think yourself so much better than the RLJs...

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to darkwamp | 8 years ago
0 likes
darkwamp wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

Depends on the situation. Common sense applies.

Of course it does, hence the use of the word 'may' - it's already been discussed about sensible and even permitted crossing on red - but in general it's not a clever thing to do - unless you think differently in which case i'd be interested in your arguments.

darkwamp wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

I know, it's almost like the 'law abiding' think that they're so much better that they can judge everyone.

I'm not judging 'everyone', although you're right this is of course a gross over-generalisation. I do wonder however, what the line of reasoning is behind behaviour like this, e.g. queue jumping, in particular on motorway exits. If it's not in the belief that their 'need' in someway transcends the law, a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience then what is it ? Lack of empathy ? (often i'd expect) Some libertarian stance against an oppressive authority ? Bloodymindedness ?... actually in hindsight probably all of the above and, I still maintain, a belief - sub-conscious or otherwise - that they're somehow above legal and social expectations.. hence 'better'. Would you have a different word to use ?

darkwamp wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

Mmmm, not sure about that one. That wouldn't stop any funding or make things any harder to obtain.

What makes you sure of that ? As far as cyclists RLJing goes, it certainly makes interaction with other road users, and a depressing proportion of the general populous, more difficult. That relative judgement clearly isn't proportionate or even rational, but it prevalent. I think it would be naïve to assume that that sort of ingrained prejudice doesn't sometimes effect the decisions made by those that hold it.

darkwamp wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:

..because they're annoying twats.

There it is, there's the reason. Not that you believe that you think yourself so much better than the RLJs...

No - it's a reason, and a personal one at that... and yes, I do consider myself better than the RLJs in that one respect in general - I consider myself better than drink-drivers as well, for example, what's wrong with that ? It's hardly hubris IMO. What's your take on all this then ? Where are you drawing the line ? You seem keen to excuse the behaviour but presumably not in all cases - so in the cases you find anti-social or dangerous, what is your opinion on the person involved or the effect of their actions on others ?

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to fukawitribe | 8 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

..because they're annoying twats.

Oh dear. The sad British disease of bitterness towards people "getting away with it". All rather petty.

And as for the whole group blaming argument, I presume you condemn people for wearing Lycra, having a helmet cam, flitering, riding in primary, going to cafes and riding two abreast; as those are all things that people vilify cyclists for, and which make things harder for all of us.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to Bikebikebike | 8 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:
fukawitribe wrote:
darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

..because apart from the danger to themselves they may also, as a consequence of their actions, put others into a dangerous or unpleasant position.

..because I don't understand what they believe makes them think themselves so much better than those observing the rules that they can ignore either (rules or others).

..because they reflect poorly on others in their perceived group and make things more difficult to argue for.

..because they're annoying twats.

Oh dear. The sad British disease of bitterness towards people "getting away with it". All rather petty.

I object to people breaking the law in a manner that puts other in danger or potential harm, i'd say that's far from petty. Please see my clarification on some points lower down or, better still, the post from hampstead_bandit a little above your commet, for reasons why it might be an issue.

Bikebikebike wrote:

And as for the whole group blaming argument,

I'm not - see the previous paragraph and my use of the phrase 'perceived group'.

Bikebikebike wrote:

I presume you condemn people for wearing Lycra, having a helmet cam, flitering, riding in primary, going to cafes and riding two abreast; as those are all things that people vilify cyclists for, and which make things harder for all of us.

What are you on about ? None of those involve breaking the law in a way that creates potential for incidents.

Avatar
quiff replied to darkwamp | 8 years ago
0 likes
darkwamp wrote:

It always tickles me when the subject of red light jumpers comes up.

I only have 1 simple question; why do people get so cross about it?

In my case, because a friend once got hit by red light jumper while crossing a pedestrian crossing on green. My friend was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken foot and collarbone. The cyclist was unharmed and just rode off.

Do most RLJers do this? No, probably not, but there are plenty who ride recklessly through pedestrian crossings without regard to others (but will then stop and wait at busy junctions where they think they might be at risk themselves). And however isolated, they inform other road users' attitudes to everyone else perceived to be in the same group. E.g. the bus driver infringing an ASL who told me: "as soon as you lot start obeying the rules of the road, so will I".

Avatar
teaboy replied to quiff | 8 years ago
0 likes
quiff wrote:

And however isolated, they inform other road users' attitudes to everyone else perceived to be in the same group. E.g. the bus driver infringing an ASL who told me: "as soon as you lot start obeying the rules of the road, so will I".

Well that works both ways, doesn't it - e.g. "As soon as drivers start obeying the rules of the road, so will I." It's a ridiculous point that has no bearing on actual behaviour. How long must "we" behave until the professionally trained, licenced individual starts to drive legally, for instance?

Avatar
arowland replied to quiff | 8 years ago
0 likes
quiff wrote:

In my case, because a friend once got hit by red light jumper while crossing a pedestrian crossing on green. My friend was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken foot and collarbone. The cyclist was unharmed and just rode off.

On Wednesday I observed a cyclist arrive at a junction just after the light had gone red. No cycle-specific infra here and a busy one. He was going straight on and a pedestrian crossing to his left was green for peds, so all the motor traffic was on red. He went through the light and rode parallel to the pedestrians, clearing the junction safely and with no delay to his journey. I can't see anything wrong with what he did, though it was against the law. He even avoided holding up motor traffic, which he might have if he had waited for green.
But if he had been turning left, he would have come into conflict with the pedestrians, which I would condemn for the reason given by quiff.
So why isn't his manoeuvre allowed? I guess a green 'cyclists only go straight on' light would complicate things rather, so we get inflexible rules for people to get hot under the collar about. Of course, in Holland there would be a separate cycle path with its own lights or an all-green phase for cycles at this location...

Avatar
quiff | 8 years ago
0 likes

I think there are two separate questions here:

1. Why do some cyclists choose to break the law?
2. Why do they think it's ok?

On my London commute I sometimes ask other cyclists why they e.g. chose not to stop at that pedestrian crossing or red light (yes, sorry, I'm one of those).

The answer they give is invariably along the lines of "I've never hit anyone" or "I wasn't doing any harm". But that's not why they chose to do it, it's why they think it's ok. While there are exceptions, it seems to me the honest reason most cyclists make a positive choice to break the law is for their own convenience (e.g. not having to slow / stop / unclip), not usually for safety.

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet | 8 years ago
0 likes

Does someone really have to spend thousands on a survey? I can answer that question.

1. Too impatiant.
2. Incompetent to either operate or maintain a vehicle in a safe way.
3. Don't think the law applies to them.
4. Works on the principle it's upto everyone else to avoid them regardless.
5. Total and utter lack of respect for others occupying the same space as them.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to Yorkshie Whippet | 8 years ago
0 likes
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Does someone really have to spend thousands on a survey? I can answer that question.

1. Too impatiant.
2. Incompetent to either operate or maintain a vehicle in a safe way.
3. Don't think the law applies to them.
4. Works on the principle it's upto everyone else to avoid them regardless.
5. Total and utter lack of respect for others occupying the same space as them.

So, you're describing ALL road user groups then?

Of course, pedestrians & cyclists don't kill 3,500 people a year.

Avatar
ron611087 | 8 years ago
0 likes
Quote:

Everyone breaks traffic laws, “he said. “It's just that cyclists are judged more harshly."

No better example of that than the recent Radio 4 "You and Yours" farce.

In measuring the risk that any ring fenced group poses to society you first need to establish a baseline or control against which you are measuring. Something that the Daily Fail (and Radio 4 it seems) has trouble grasping.

I would personally love to see any study which give some sort of indication of the risk that cyclists pose to mankind measured against some sort of base line. For example, outside of traffic incidents the second biggest source of head injuries is assault. A trademark of our delightful species is that even on two pins we are a danger to each other, and while we (cyclists) are fully occupied in trying to stop ourselves from falling over we are prevented from participating in other more mutually harmful things. Who knows, we may even pose less risk to society.

Avatar
samuri | 8 years ago
0 likes

Remember that in the US, some states allow turn right on red.

This can be confusing to newbie drivers as I found out. The light was red, I wasn't moving. Then a truck pulled up behind me and start honking his horn. Still didn't move. Then my colleague pointed out he had a rifle rack in the truck and it looked like it was populated.

I drove on.

Avatar
kevvjj replied to samuri | 8 years ago
0 likes

and that in Paris cyclists are allowed to ride through a red light after stopping, and in Idaho they can ride through stop signs after slowing to check (the Idaho Stop).

Avatar
pakennedy | 8 years ago
0 likes

This comment thread reminds me that it's time for my monthly report to the county council of the 3 defective sets of lights that fail to detect my bike. They're the only ones I'll ride through and even then I stop at them for a while just in case they've been fixed.

I "proceed with caution".

On Sunday I was furious with a lemming in lycra who I overtook coming out of Winchester (love doing that on a hybrid). Arrived at a red light at a crossroads and a car behind me had overtaken him too. He passed the car and me and shot through the lights like they weren't there. I'd quite happily have knocked him off myself for giving us a bad name. I looked back at the car driver, held up my hands and shook my head to indicate "What can you do?"

RLJ people on bikes may be a minority, but they're a highly visible one. Cars tend to jump them on "a little bit red" (mostly); I got stopped and fined for doing that myself once; but the *noticed* bikes do it mid-phase.

Avatar
PaulBox replied to pakennedy | 8 years ago
0 likes
pakennedy wrote:

On Sunday I was furious with a lemming in lycra who I overtook coming out of Winchester (love doing that on a hybrid). Arrived at a red light at a crossroads and a car behind me had overtaken him too. He passed the car and me and shot through the lights like they weren't there. I'd quite happily have knocked him off myself for giving us a bad name. I looked back at the car driver, held up my hands and shook my head to indicate "What can you do?"

I had something similar on Saturday, coming off Dunstable downs I was passed (previous hills had done me) by a 50'something on a nice Trek road bike. We approached a red light with people crossing; probably only doing about 10mph as we'd just come off a roundabout and he went straight through it. Absolutely no excuse, I called him a prick but he didn't respond...

Avatar
Beatnik69 replied to pakennedy | 8 years ago
0 likes
pakennedy wrote:

Cars tend to jump them on "a little bit red" (mostly); I got stopped and fined for doing that myself once; but the *noticed* bikes do it mid-phase.

There's no such thing as a 'little bit red'. The lights turn amber to give you plenty of warning that they are about to go red and you should be prepared to stop. If you go through a red it means you haven't prepared to stop and may have, as many drivers do, sped up to 'beat the red'.

Avatar
pakennedy replied to Beatnik69 | 8 years ago
0 likes
Beatnik69 wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'little bit red'. The lights turn amber to give you plenty of warning that they are about to go red and you should be prepared to stop. If you go through a red it means you haven't prepared to stop and may have, as many drivers do, sped up to 'beat the red'.

Yep. That's why I got 3 points and a £60 fine. I wasn't thinking, just driving like everyone else. They all do it (well, almost all). *They* aren't breaking the law.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to Beatnik69 | 8 years ago
0 likes
Beatnik69 wrote:

The lights turn amber to give you plenty of warning that they are about to go red and you should be prepared to stop.

Actually, Amber = Stop unless too close, i.e. unsafe.

Avatar
DAG on a bike | 8 years ago
0 likes

The traffic lights I get frustrated by (but still don't ride through) are those where the induction loop (?) doesn't detect that I exist, and only changes when a car etc. arrives behind me.

That is a clear failure of the infrastructure that doesn't recognise the needs of the cyclist.

Avatar
vonhelmet replied to DAG on a bike | 8 years ago
0 likes
DAG on a bike wrote:

The traffic lights I get frustrated by (but still don't ride through) are those where the induction loop (?) doesn't detect that I exist, and only changes when a car etc. arrives behind me.

That is a clear failure of the infrastructure that doesn't recognise the needs of the cyclist.

The highway code says that if the lights aren't working - which they aren't if they won't change in a reasonable length of time - then you are to treat it as an umarked junction. Obviously if it's a busy junction you're going to need to exercise caution.

I do it all the time because a lot of my rides take me through a crossroads where I'm joining from a very quiet road with long stretches of time with no cars.

Pages

Latest Comments