Cyclists have hit out at a latest New York Police Department (NYPD) crackdown that will see riders who roll through stop signs or red lights issued criminal summonses rather than regular traffic tickets, calling the move “excessive, unfair and offensive”.
Under the department’s new policy, riders who commit minor infractions such as failing to stop at a red light or stop sign will be required to appear in criminal court, rather than simply paying a civil fine.
The change is part of the NYPD’s rollout of a new Quality of Life Division and will see officers deployed to 14 corridors around the city where complaints about reckless cycling have been recorded, including Manhattan’s busy Sixth Avenue.
“I can understand wanting to step up enforcement but bringing it up to a criminal violation seems excessive and unfair, given the relative danger of a bike compared to a car,” cyclist Amanda Tait said.
The NYPD has said the policy was prompted by concerns over reckless riding, particularly by e-bikes and scooters. Last month, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch described the initiative as a response to rising complaints from pedestrians. However, cycling advocates have argued that the response is disproportionate and risks exacerbating existing inequalities.
Ben Furnas, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, said: “This is an obscene escalation from the police department, and not one that’s grounded in real safety, data, or best practices. We know what works — building the bike lanes and street improvement projects that corridors like Broadway need — not suddenly locking up people on bikes.”
Cyclists have also pointed out the stark difference in treatment compared to drivers. Paula Richter, a New York local and cyclist, told Spectrum News NY1: “The cost of transportation is so expensive, biking is sometimes the only option that people have, and to criminalise that for running a red light when you wouldn’t do that for somebody running a red light in a car is absolutely offensive.”
Concerns have also been raised that the policy could disproportionately impact communities of colour, low-income workers, and undocumented immigrants — many of whom rely on bikes for essential travel and deliveries.
Attorney Steve Vaccaro warned: “Some of these e-bike riders, who are the target of this initiative, are people in this country without status. Forcing them to go to a criminal courthouse — it’s problematic because we understand ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] views courthouses as a place to roundup deportees, to put it bluntly.”

Cyclists have further highlighted the disparity in outcomes between crashes involving bikes and those involving cars. Since 2014, crashes involving people on bikes and pedestrians have killed 11 New Yorkers, compared to 1,359 pedestrians killed by drivers over the same period.
Some pedestrians welcomed stricter enforcement. Fernando Guimaraes, a West Village resident, said: “A lot of times with these bikers, there’s a lot of accidents that happen because they kind of go through these red lights.”
However, cycling groups have argued that the city’s approach punishes the symptom rather than addressing the cause, with many pointing to the need for safer streets and better infrastructure.
The introduction of criminal summonses for cyclists comes amid a broader political climate in New York that has seen increasing hostility toward bike users and active travel infrastructure.
Earlier this year, newly re-elected President Donald Trump called for New York to “get rid of the bike lanes” and “kill” congestion pricing, claiming that reduced traffic was a sign that “people can’t come into” Manhattan. Speaking to the New York Post, Trump said bike lanes were “so bad” and “dangerous”, adding: “They’re whacking people.”
In December, New York City Council said that it was considering a bill that would require e-bikes and e-scooters to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and fitted with visible number plates. The bill, known as Priscilla’s Law, was proposed following 47 fatalities linked to e-bike crashes over the past five years.
Council member Robert Holden described the proliferation of e-bikes as a “scourge” that “continues to wreak chaos, injure and maim people, and, tragically, take lives.” He added: “We need accountability for the victims of e-bike incidents — and we need it now.”
Janet Schroeder, founder of the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, claimed that visible licence plates would help track down riders who flee the scene after collisions.
However, the proposal also faced pushback. Andrew Rigie, executive director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, warned that mandating DMV registration for e-bikes would place “yet another financial burden on small businesses and workers”, pointing out that delivery riders are already required to display an ID number on their clothing and bikes.

























15 thoughts on “Criminal court summons for cyclists who run red lights “excessive, unfair and offensive”, say New York’s cycling community”
Unsurprising to see the UK
Unsurprising to see the UK complying the the new Trumpian mood, with heavy penalties for cyclists, while drivers are forgiven for the same offence.
I’ve been following the
I’ve been following the introduction of congestion charging in New York, because I’ve got a professional interest in air quality, which has let me to taking an interest in all things road safety there.
It seems you can speed as often as you like in New York, and run red lights. You’ll get a ticket, but if it’s a camera based ticket, it is recorded against the car, not the person, and there are no consequences for repeat offences. The car associated with the driver that killed three people recently (while speeding) had dozens of tickets for speeding and running red lights in the last few years.
Because it is apparently impossible to associate a speeding ticket with an individual, and they can’t issue restrictions on an individual’s licence, there is instead a campaign to require speed limiters to be fitted to cars with multiple offences within a certain period. But there is a lot of push back on even that feeble measure.
The other big challenge for pedestrian safety is that it’s still normal in New York to have legally parked vehicles at junctions, so pedestrians and drivers alike have limited opportunity to protect themselves by watching out for those who are speeding or running red lights. Campaigns to introduce what they call ‘day lighting’ is met with derision from car owners who prioritise parking spaces over lives.
And for added fun, the New York police have a reputation for parking illegally and dangerously outside their own police stations, never mind elsewhere.
All this is not to say that injuries and deaths caused by cyclists in New York are not a big deal. However, there are so many measures to improve road safety that are being overlooked by politicians and New York police alike that this particular campaign can only be interpreted as a crude attempt at deflecting from the much bigger harms from cars, including the parked ones.
Not astonished. Maybe things
Not astonished. Maybe things have changed in the last couple of years, but I read BikeSnobNYC’s blog (now in its newer home) for a while. It seems two things the police liked doing were a) springing to defend drivers who killed (truck drivers seemed to get particular benefit) and b) responding to those deaths by mounting campaigns to fine cyclists for minor infractions.
Oh, and there’s apparently something called “placard abuse” which I don’t fully understand but seems to be the result of important folks like police and city officials and a few others being exempt from things like parking regulations – and everyone else wanting in on that.
Having noted all that the fact that they’ve managed to make a small but significant change toward active travel is remarkable (in a US city – albeit one with such population density it seems a no-brainer).
chrisonabike wrote:
chrisonabike wrote:
If you think that’s bad there are literal Get Out Of Jail Free cards.
Whilst acknowledging that in
Whilst acknowledging that in no way are our police perfect, most ‘all cops are corrupt’ claims would have got an eye-roll from me a few years ago, but the more I read about American policing, the more I realise that while ‘all cops’ remains unfair – it’s definitely a lot more than a handful, and far too often it’s entrenched and has become a big part of the appeal of the job (along with getting to point guns at people) for many of those who apply.
New York police cannot enforce traffic legislation effectively on the general public, because they are so used to violating the rules themselves, and see them as perks that special people like them are entitled to, and not something that endangers others.
If that’s not bad enough, the unions pressuring the well intentioned police to join in with the corruption is part of why unions have a bad reputation in America. So bad for anyone who would like regular workers’ rights, like a safe working environment and fair pay, as opposed to indemnity from shooting anyone who looks a bit shifty whilst black.
I think the system is self
I think the system is self-reinforcing – where police fear violent death (and people – doing good or bad – fear the same from the police) there’s a polarisation.
Can’t find them now but have read a couple of articles looking at how the mantra of “come back alive from your shift” may lead to a “defensive approach” which often means police being quicker to suspect threat, quicker to escalate etc. And that then may become self-fulfilling.
Of course the US has all kinds of other complexities like “up-armouring” with use of ex-military kit (and indeed personnel).
Possibly money comes into it also? In countries where police pay is poor (or thought to be) that can lead to “private enterprise” by forces and general corruption.
Necessary pressure to achieve results can become unbalanced and lead to quota filling. Why spend energy trying to detect crime when you can just arrest the next shifty-looking type who comes your way?
I sometimes wonder how UK policing remains relatively public-serving, despite all the bad cops and police self-interest we’re increasingly aware of.
I used to work with a guy
I used to work with a guy from South Africa, and he would often tell us we had no idea how different and professional and well educated our police were compared with back home, where the police were, he said, a law unto themselves, and they’d just beat people up for fun, and had a shoot first, ask questions later attitude.
I also saw a programme a few years ago with Ed Balls attending a training session for new officers of a small rural police force, and it was terrifying. The pay was going to be peanuts, the level of education of the recruits was very low, and training was brief. And as you say, the risk of someone shooting at them was quite high. It was all very depressing and self-fulfilling, and I felt very sorry for those recruits, and for those trying to do the best they can on what were clearly inadequate budgets.
And then there’s the areas where they have access to weaponry that should only be available to the army, and who treat the public as enemy combatants.
a programme a few years ago
a programme a few years ago with Ed Balls attending a training session for new officers of a small rural police force, and it was terrifying. The pay was going to be peanuts, the level of education of the recruits was very low, and training was brief
So this was in the UK, then?
FionaJJ wrote:
I can only imagine what fear they must have experienced when confronted with him – some would probably barely be able to remember the first Ed Balls Day. And terrifying for viewers – particularly considering his record of motoring offenses…
Oh my, this is so easy it’s
Oh my, this is so easy it’s almost stupid. “How do you plead?”
“Not guilty, your Honor. I’d like a jury trial please.”
A jury trial for rolling through a stop sign? That’ll cost the city a zillion dollars. Seriously. This is about as stupid a solution as I could imagine. Criminal cases ARE ENTITLED to a jury trial.
jthurber80 wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that states must offer a jury trial for any offence that carries a sentence of six months’ incarceration or more and I don’t believe any state offers a jury trial for offences that only incur a fine. Certainly in New York jury trial is not available for Class B misdemeanours and below; Class B is anything incurring a penalty of up to 90 days’ incarceration. So I’m afraid that one won’t fly.
This is totally going to be
This is totally going to be used by racist cops to target minorities. It’s the American way – just automatically assume that non-wealthy people with brown skin are criminals.
I’ve no sympathy with anyone
I’ve no sympathy with anyone who deliberately ignores a red light. However, it’s wrong to treat cyclists differently to drivers.
I agree, and as all the
I agree, and as all the motorists crashing through red lights on the A6 at speed are immediately forgiven by Lancashire Constabulary (I’ve given the links on here many times), the same should apply to cyclists – not that I’ve seen any cyclist offenders