City of London officials have claimed “dangerous, anti-social and nuisance cycling behaviours” need to be addressed with stricter punishments for riders who ride through red lights touted.
It’s worth noting from the outset that the City of London refers to the Square Mile north of the River Thames from the Tower of London to near Blackfriars, not the entire city, but City of London Police and Corporation officials have touted tougher penalties for cyclists who run red lights in the area.
The story was reported by the BBC who suggested City of London Police is considering using Community Protection Warnings and Notices to issue stronger sanctions than £50 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs).
Officials have reportedly expressed concern about “dangerous, anti-social and nuisance cycling behaviours” such as red light jumping, with councillor Jacqueline Webster also suggesting promotion of a “culture of courteousness” among cyclists is needed due to parking of dockless hire bikes.
At a meeting of the Corporation’s Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee last week, the situation was raised and a paper noted that claimed poor behaviour remains a concern, even if road safety statistics show the City’s streets are safer than ever for cyclists and pedestrians.
Of this poor behaviour, cyclists running red lights at busy junctions, dangerous use of e-bikes, and bikes being ridden in pedestrianised areas were apparently the main issues raised.
While cycling behaviour has attracted the attention and now faces the prospect of tougher punishments, the paper did also note that cycle numbers are up massively in recent years and, with vehicle traffic in the City falling, casualties per cyclist are also down 45 per cent since 2016-17.
However, the Corporation and City of London Police appear keen to clamp down on what it has called “dangerous, anti-social and nuisance cycling behaviours” and stricter punishments, such as prosecution, have been touted to replace £50 FPNs. Both organisations said they would continue to lobby government for stronger powers.
Thousands of cyclists have been fined in the City of London in recent years. In August 2024, the City of London’s statistics showed its Cycle Response Unit had issued more than 1,200 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for going through red lights “or putting themselves, other cyclists and pedestrians at risk”.
That Cycle Response Unit was formed in July 2023 and the force said the thousands of fines were “great results” in a response to “concerns from the community around road safety and anti-social behaviour”.
This summer, we also reported the bizarre case of a cyclist being fined for allegedly riding no-handed, one of City of London Police’s dedicated cycling officers claiming the riding “contravenes the Human Rights Act”.
Barrister and cyclist Paul Powlesland accused the force of wasting resources after he was issued a ticket back in March, a subsequent video from April then showing him confront the same officer who had ticketed him a month earlier.
73 thoughts on “City of London considers stricter punishments for “dangerous and anti-social” cyclists jumping red lights”
60 pedestrians killed in
60 pedestrians killed in London in 2024/2025. I guess from this proposed clampdown that they must have all been killed by cyclists jumping red lights? Thought not.
Whilst I agree with your
Whilst I agree with your comments – the CoL aka the Square Mile is not the same as London.
The CoL probably has some of the densest and safetest cycling provision in the world.
Its also one of the few places in the UK that has a 20mph limit everywhere.
And worth noting that the
And worth noting that the City of London has very high rates of cycling compared with driving, so it’s not unreasonable to give attention to improving standards of cycling.
I do question whether going through red lights on a bike is automatically dangerous or reckless or anti-social, but it definitely can be. I’d argue that there’s a lot more to anti-social and reckless cycling than going through a red light, such as the behaviour associated with the stereotype of delivery drivers on bikes that are not road legal, and selfishly abandoning dockless hire bikes in the middle of pavements etc.
I hope that whatever is happening, it involves a bit of thought and requires an assessment of actual risk and that focus resources towards those who are causing the biggest nuisance and posing most danger, and there’s not a disproportionate number of penalties for slow moving, actually pretty safe, cyclists who are easy to catch.
As a pedestrian at a
As a pedestrian at a pedestrian crossing in London now, I always double check for incoming bikes even when the lights are most definitely in my favour and others have started to cross. I have never felt the need to do that for cars. Cyclists jumping red lights may not kill many people but that’s more by luck and the fact that pedestrians are aware of the risks than the “skills” of the idiots barrelling through the crossing. A bit of enforcement to introduce the fear of it hurting their wallet wouldn’t go amiss.
Its not ‘luck’ that more
Its not ‘luck’ that more pedestrians are not killed by cyclists, its physics. 12kg bike is very unlikely to kill in a collision vs 1700kg car. If on a gun range, one shooter uses a potato gun vs another using a Magnum 45…which do you think is more likely to kill you if they shot at you?
Agree with the drift. But
Agree with the drift. But because how we have set up things over the last century, we have an assumed divide: roads for cars * and therefore footway for pedestrians. Cyclists clearly don’t fit people’s expectations here, either on footways (sometimes legit on shared use paths but why should pedestrians care about the distinction? ) or “coming out of nowhere” by trying to exist on roads where everyone is just looking for motor vehicles.
Hopefully we eventually blunder our way to the solution the Dutch have – separate *clearly marked* space for everyone in urban areas. Without that there will always be conflict between cyclists and people walking (and “nearly killed me!” by the majority, even though this is likely to remain incredibly rare in reality). Even after a generation or so when people have learned to check for both cars AND cyclists when crossing roads.
* Everyone else having been chased off them. Also for every hour spent cycling in Edinburgh I’ll probably see a couple of people driving on the footway so blurring the line – yesterday a taxi driver who didn’t want to spend the extra time completing a 3 point turn – hey presto the footway is now road also.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Plus the fact that we are so narrow compared to cars, so there’s nearly always room to swerve or at least hit a glancing blow rather than a full-on crash. One of the many reasons I don’t drive cars is that in the brief experience I had of doing so I found it terrifying to think of the damage I could do to others and the lack of escape routes, compared to riding my bicycle or motorcycle, if an incident started to develop.
Rendel Harris wrote:
But the feedback loop of “just drive” is helping make the pedestrians wider on average…
Snark aside I do think it will take some years before people are comfortable walking around lots of cycle traffic. And if the Dutch situation is anything to go by that will require having distinct pedestrian-only space (eg. footway then space between cycle path and road). So much “shared use” infra is actually increasing the perception of “problems”.
(Also – is it me or – via MTB fashions? – are cycle handlebars also wider on average now?)
800mm is not unheard of. My
800mm is not unheard of. My early 90s x-lite ti’s are 550mm, late 90s x-lite x-countries are 600, maybe 610. I went for the narrower Jones loop h at 660, I’m in the UK’s largest town, their will be traffic, but I miss the extra inch on either end for when the going gets quite up. I’ve seen some insanely wide gravel bars, often with ludicrously flared drops. Each to their own.
I don’t tend to see those ridiculously narrow barred fixes anymore. Still a thing in that there landan, rendel?
ktache wrote:
Ah yes, mate had one (flat bar) which seemed to have barely enough room for your whole hand either side of the stem…
Rendel Harris wrote:
The “escape route” is the brake pedal since car brakes are so much more effective than those on bikes or motorbikes but most drivers don’t want to waste momentum any more than cyclists do so they keep trying to steer their way out of trouble. Steering is an acceptable action after you are braking as modern ABS systems will let you do both.
Fair point but actually
Fair point but actually sportsbike motorcycles can go and stop more quickly than most cars are able and a lot faster than their drivers are capable:
0-60 3.0sec fast
60-0 2.5sec faster
Warm and dry, but alarmingly quick.
Modern tyres as much as modern engines
lonpfrb wrote:
Very few motorbikes (if any) are outperforming a car re emergency stopping.
And most sports bikes are worse not better than other bikes re stopping.
Because stopping limit for motorbikes (or bicycles) is tipover not grip, while cars are only limited by grip. Improving grip is a case of better tyre materials. Tipover is changing shape + weight distribution of bike, which has other trade offs preventing improvement. (Basically if a bike can do a stoppie then it has a longer stopping distance than any road legal ABS equipped car (so anything built in the last 20 years))
This doesn’t mean that most motorcyclists aren’t better than drivers in actually using brakes (and therefore stopping quicker). But that issue is driver compentency (not pushing brake pedal hard enough).
Worth noting that City of
Worth noting that City of London plod are the keystone cops of policing – apart from their lucrative sideline in copy right enforcement.
There is a Zebra crossing,
There is a Zebra crossing, just around the corner of City of London Police’s HQ, on Middlesex Road, that everyday is full of cars parking all day on the white zig-zags:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/B7oRoJbYNYaUmM1f8
Lately its the same vehicles parked on the zebra crossing all day, no tickets given, no vehicles ever towed.
Amazing how they never enforce this. Police vans are always parked just around the corner and I’ve seen them walking up and down this road so not sure what back-handers are going on. I reported this a couple of times on Fix My Street, but it’s being ignored.
Quite probably their (CoL
Quite probably their (CoL Police) own vehicles. Brixton police station used to be surrounded by badly and illegally parked vehicles back in the day, I was reliably informed by a traffic warden that they’d been told not to ticket that stretch because they were all officers’ private vehicles they’d driven to work.
I would be more than happy if
I would be more than happy if they introduced harsher penalties for red light jumping cyclists. It makes me cringe every time I see a cyclist go through a red light, they are providing ammunition for the anti cycling brigade and the law is the law.
Any punishment would be ok, so long as they apply at least the same to the car drivers. I see way more cars go through red lights than cyclists, although it’s usually less blatant i.e. light turns to red and driver keeps going because…
It makes not the slightest
It makes not the slightest difference to drivers hatred of cyclists whether they see cyclist go through red lights. By all accounts its very prevalent in London. By all accounts the complaints against it are universal and despite seeing 100x more rule breaking by cars than cyclists and that rule breaking being 100x more dangerous from drivers I still hear the same anti-cyclist drivel everywhere I go.
Peoples dislike of cyclists has no basis in logic or reality and if every cyclist was magically an exemplery road user tomorrow there would still be 99% as much hatred towards us.
There are a spectrum of
There are a spectrum of opinions about cycling, those with great passion and love, those in the middle who don’t mind either way, and those with an absolute hatred.
You are correct that we will never influence those with a hatred, their minds are made up and they will never change. There is however a significant majority of people in the middle who are neither pro nor anti cyclist.
We all have an ability to influence those who are undecided. We can do this through polite and considerate actions, adherence to the rules and kindness. Everyone can be an ambassador for cycling, you just have to use a bit of common sense and forethought.
The idea that you can act like some kind of maniac with a disregard of the law and others, and this not affect the view that people hold on other cyclists is baffling.
If the need to adhere to red
If the need to adhere to red lights is simply so that cyclists are less hated by non-cyclists, I really don’t care. Cyclists are not a recognised minority group that would make it illegal to incite hatred or violence against them, in fact that behaviour is by the motor and oil sponsored media regardless. Therefore why should I behave as an ‘ambassador’ for a group that is not recognised as a group? Clamping down on red light jumping cyclists should be backed by facts about the number of injuries etc. caused by these RLJ cyclists, and therefore success measured by a reduction of injuries. Many cyclists, like myself, will set off before the light turns green in order to get ahead of the drivers who think they are on the starting grid of santa pod..I need to get out of the danger zone and back into traffic ahead of the lights. I see very few cyclists ignore a light turning red, certainly way more motorists do that.
The laws are there to protect
The laws are there to protect everyone, you don’t get to pick and choose which ones apply to you.
Suppose you decide red lights don’t count for you, then maybe a driver decides the same and also decides that close passed are ok. It’s a slippery slope that ends in chaos, injuries and death.
The law can be stupid and blunt, but usually it’s a good thing.
I choose to do what I believe
I choose to do what I believe is safer for me. End of.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Yeah…trouble is you can’t really apply that to the law, or at least you can’t really complain about being sanctioned if you do. I could say that I believe it’s safer for me to carry CS spray for my own protection but if I did, knowing it to be illegal, it would be a bit rich to complain about it when caught, wouldn’t it?
Muddy Ford wrote:
It really isn’t simply that, it genuinely pains me to say it but every day in London I see cyclists barelling through red lights and slaloming through pedestrians including elderly people, parents with pushchairs et cetera, shouting and swearing at them to get out of the way and forcing people to jump back or run forward to avoid them. I fully understand the justification for rolling ahead before motor traffic starts for safety reasons and more and more around here we are getting cyclist early release lights and that’s great, but that’s an entirely different issue to cyclists who ride at red lights when pedestrians are crossing and don’t stop. If we could rely on every cyclist being sensible and showing good judgement about when it was safe and reasonable to run a red and when it wasn’t then sure, don’t enforce red lights against them, but cyclists are human beings and we all know what selfish twats some of them are…
I don’t think any of those
I don’t think any of those ‘cyclists’ that have no intention of stopping at red lights will ever give a toss what we think of their behaviour. It’s been many years since I had a daily cycle commute through London, the cycle lanes back then were bus lanes..we were allowed to use them. I don’t recall seeing any fixies or road bikes, and certainly no hire bikes. I jumped lights to get ahead of the drivers who would otherwise drive over the top of me. Where I live and commute now, if you jumped a light that was turning or had turned to red, you’ll likely get squashed by a driver barrelling through at 40mph on the amber light that had been on for a nanosecond. I expect that many pedestrians ignore a red light too, believing safety in numbers if they continue crossing as a large group, which combined with a cycle couriers ridiculous drop goals will mean there’ll always be conflict.
Muddy Ford wrote:
No, they certainly won’t, indeed they almost always become abusive and sometimes violent when challenged. So the only way of stopping them is to enforce the law and unfortunately that means enforcing the law for everybody, even people like your good self who I’m sure was exercising proper care and good judgement and not doing any harm. I think if you cycled in London now you really would be shocked at what a big problem it’s become.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I also see the same situations daily in central London. And my closest shave last year was caused by a reckless cyclist when I was walking, not a car driver when I was cycling.
MTB Refugee wrote:
So considering the dangerous and poor level of driving that most drivers display, how much hatred and bile is there for drivers. If it had even a slight relation to peoples views then drivers would be dispised based on the hatred cyclists get for their bad behaviour.
The vast majority of people I speak to or overhear talking about cyclists who are not cyclists dislike them. Perfecly nice people who are otherwise tolerent and mild mannered dislike cyclists. They don’t qualify their views saying “some cyclists”, its almost always a generalisation.
All cyclists bad behaviour does is gives them a thin veneer of an excuse for their dislike. They would simply hang it on something else if all cyclists were exemplery. Whinging about active travel spending, whinging about bike lanes not being used, numberplates, road tax, entitlement, holding them up and all the other crap they talk about.
In central London, I see many
In central London, I see many more cyclists than drivers going through red lights. Many more.
And I’ve had some frightening experiences caused by reckless cyclists when I’ve been walking.
I dislike close passes by cars when I’m cycling and close shaves from reckless cyclists when I’m walking.
Oh I don’t doubt it. London
Oh I don’t doubt it. London does seem rather bad for it. My point was mainly in response to the idea that RLJ cyclists give us a bad name and people a valid reason to hate cyclists. If that was the case then hating cyclists would be more prevalent in london which it isn’t.
Around me I see very few cyclists outside of the oiks who like to ride with no lights on the wrong side of the road, preferably with a mate on the bars at the same time. Still the same level of hatred.
If it was based on behaviour, motorists would be the most hated group going.
I look forward to their
I look forward to their stricter punishments for dangerous and anti-social drivers.
Like it or not, cyclists
Like it or not, cyclists jumping red lights is a major problem. It’s dangerous and illegal, and is also one of the things that anti-cyclists’ regularly use against us. We have as much of an obligation to obey the law and ride safely as they have to drive legally and safely.
How dangerous is it?
How dangerous is it?
I don’t do it myself, but it seems to be that the only reason that it’s a problem is because it’s illegal. If it wasn’t illegal then no problem.
bensynnock wrote:
As per below, in London I regularly see shithouses going through red lights at crossings at speed and swerving through the pedestrians crossing, forcing them to take evasive action. It’s pretty dangerous and if it wasn’t illegal it would still be a problem.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I don’t agree with this. I think these sort of bike riders are the same who swerve through pedestrians at speed no matter the legality of where they are riding. I see this behaviour on shared use paths, zerbra crossings etc. too.
Riding carelessly is a separate thing to treating a red light at a pedestrian crossing as a “give way”. I wouldn’t conflate the two.
I’d also be careful calling it dangerous, as despite apperances, the statitics show it doesn’t result in as much death and injury as some would have us believe. I certainly rather these individuals were cycling than driving.
HoarseMann wrote:
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, the law is the law and I’m afraid in every sphere of human activity there are too many idiots to say it’s okay for people to decide for themselves when it’s safe to ignore it. Would we allow motorists to say yes it’s stupid to drive at 90 mph on the motorway when it’s foggy but it’s okay when traffic is light and it’s a clear sunny day? It’s okay to pass a cyclist by 50 cm because it’s a nice straight road with a good surface? Ultimately, traffic lights are there to help everyone use the road space safely. I really don’t see why it’s such a big deal to obey traffic lights anyway, personally I ride a 25 km return trip from Peckham to Fulham twice a day through central London, so I probably have as many traffic lights on my commute as anyone (29 sets in 12.5km on my usual route, I believe, a couple fewer if I use the parks) and I stop for all of them (when red, obvs). Depending on traffic, weather etc the round-trip takes me between an hour and an hour and 10 minutes; on my Strava the difference between the moving time and the total time is usually less – often a lot less – than 10 minutes. Stopping for red lights just isn’t that big a deal.
ETA Also, I have to say I don’t like the reliance proponents of RLJ have on statistics, i.e. hardly anyone’s killed and not many injuries so where’s the harm? The harm is that it worries and frightens a lot of pedestrians, particularly elderly people, people who rely on walking aids et cetera. Just because you know you’re skilled enough to ride through that gap without hitting anyone doesn’t mean they know it. Causing anxiety to vulnerable road users to save a few seconds is not justifiable. In a lot of instances it’s simply bad manners.
The “fear and alarm” – has
The “fear and alarm” – has nuance.
This should be taken seriously but is not something fixed. For one thing it’s clear that motor traffic presents a more serious threat and yet people are comfortable walking along roads with vehicles streaming past at 30mph+.
There is a measure of “losing our space” here i think also.
People can adapt where there are clear rules which everyone seems to be following (part of the current problem). Example – when I first emerged from Centraal station in Amsterdam it was a scary experience – there seemed to be chaos everywhere. Wherever I went trams, buses or bikes seemed to be bearing down on me – scary! But… after a few days, I got the hang of it.
chrisonabike wrote:
Yes, but when I’m walking alongside a 30 mph road I know that cars are not going to mount the pavement and threaten my safety unless they lose control or hit another vehicle, something that I’ve seen happen when walking I think twice in half a century and both times coming nowhere near hitting me, so a vanishingly unlikely threat to my safety. When I am using the pelican crossing outside my local station at rush-hour, I know to a certainty that when the cars both ways have stopped for the red there will be (usually multiple) cyclists running through the light every single time. Once the green man is lit, you have to check the inside of the car to your right to make sure there are no cyclists coming up the inside, when you get to the middle you have to check there are no cyclists from either direction overtaking at speed, and finally before gaining the pavement on the opposite side you have to check to your left to make sure there are no undertaking cyclists coming through the red on that side. It doesn’t cause me fear and anxiety, being built like the proverbial sanitary facility and well aware of the danger and prepared to react to it, but it does cause me extreme annoyance. In this case it’s not my perception that I’m in more danger using the pelican crossing then I would be walking alongside a 30 mph road, it’s a simple fact.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Well … I think it would be worth checking the numbers – statistically we know that more people are killed on pavements by drivers than by cyclists in total. And if a driver does lose control i suspect the likelihood is you would never need to worry about this again, less likely with a cyclist. OTOH *given* the number of motor vehicles passing compared to cyclists you could be quite correct.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I agree with the annoyance. But the two cases you give are not equivalent.
In the “cars past my elbow” case there is almost certainly nothing you can do to influence your safety (other than not stepping off the footway). (Interestingly that *may* make people more relaxed – “act of god” so why worry too?)
In the crossing road / cyclist case you can in fact check and see – you are *much* more in control!
Should pedestrians have to do this when cyclists are breaking the law? Certainly not. But notice that (aside from the waiting area / “refuge” being in front of a stopped motor vehicle) this is somewhat similar to the Dutch “cross the cycle path, then the road” case. Of course in that a) there isn’t a motor vehicle potentially blocking your view and b) nobody should be driving or cycling through the waiting area.
I’m not saying it’s fine in the UK case – it’s bad design and bad behaviour. (But as we know changing *behaviour* of the general public on the roads is *very* difficult… ). Just that it is perhaps less dangerous that people may feel.
Again it’s also about assumptions – sometimes pedestrians simply assume that *their* green also means “go” (like when they’re in cars) and head across without checking. (I have seen people have near misses with drivers when doing this). And again *that* is made more likely by pedestrian waiting times being long (because optimising for motor traffic flow), distances to cross often being far (ditto) and crossing times sometimes being short (ditto).
I wonder if there is another “fighting over scraps” element here in that because most places don’t have a good cycle route *network* (most in the UK have none) even London sometimes has a lot of cyclists all directed along a few routes? Plus the cycling infra may breed more frustration even than for motorists – because while most in cars are driving at the minimum speed limit at least people cycling go a wide range of speeds. And due to the narrowness of the infra overtaking may be difficult?
Ultimately, traffic lights
I’m certainly for sticking to the red light rules, but as (hopefully) we move towards looking for serious alternatives to motoring we should recognise that for signalised crossings practice is different from rules – people have different ways of “sticking to the rules” (eg. not!) when driving, cycling and walking.
In places that are really trying to get less driving it’s generally accepted that a) making cyclists come to a complete stop is quite discouraging for most people cycling b) safety is much improved if wait times are short c) there’s a virtuous circle that can be accessed by separating pedestrian and cyclist flows from motor traffic flows. This facilitates less need for signalised crossings, making active travel more convenient and safer, and can also improve motor vehicle flows (they’re only waiting for each other).
Of course that is into much (politically) harder “look at the network, not just the junction” territory…
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/every-traffic-light-in-assen.html
I think a lot of people
I think a lot of people assume the reason a cyclist rides through a red light is purely to save time. But that’s not the reason in all cases. I only ever do it when it’s safer for me and others.
Case in point, there’s an old pelican crossing near me with broken sensors. It takes so long to go green for pedestrians, they’ve often given up and crossed in a gap between traffic before the lights change. The other day as I approach this crossing it turns to red, with no pedestrians anywhere near it. I check my mirror and there’s an HGV approaching. So, I carefully ride through the red. The HGV stops at the red light and I get a 30 second head start to get a bit further up the road and make my right turn safely. If I stop for the red light, I know from experience I could have an HGV driver trying to make a dodgy overtake just at the point I’m wanting to turn right. No thanks!
The thing is, you are not the
The thing is, you are not the problem. I have no doubt (sincerely) that you are a considerate and careful rider who only breaks the rules when there’s a good reason for doing so and it’s safe, the example you give being a case in point (in that situation I myself would have taken the middle of the lane, stopped at the light and made sure that I got up to 20 mph as quickly as possible to reduce delay and potential silly buggery from the HGV driver; however I do realise this is easier in London where nearly everywhere is a 20 mph limit so drivers don’t get anywhere near as irritable about cyclists in the middle of the road as they do where the limit is 30 mph plus).
The problem comes with the significant minority, or in London it can feel like majority, who aren’t as sensible and who if they saw any law allowing cyclists to ride through red lights with due care and attention under certain circumstances would only hear “Cyclists are allowed to ride through red lights” and would do it everywhere and at all times; it’s already an epidemic in London, that would turn it into a plague. Unfortunately laws have to be framed and enforced with regard to what the stupidest and most selfish people in society are likely to do and I fear that really rules out attempting to introduce any form of conditional leeway for cyclists at lights. What we definitely need for cyclist safety is a massive rollout of cyclist early release lights at junctions, these work brilliantly and remove the need for people to jump red lights because they want to get ahead of the cavalry charge of motor vehicles.
and therein lies the problem,
and therein lies the problem, perhaps a one-size-fits-all solution is not really practicable.
I quite like the solution in France, where there are signs on the traffic lights letting cyclists know which directions they can treat a red light as a give way.
But I agree the gold standard is early release cyclist signals – they’re just very rare outside of large cities.
HoarseMann wrote:
“Gold standard?” Shurely “a third-rate-bodge which in some cases even makes things *more* dangerous (trigger-happy drivers who hit the go button at the first flash of anything green). That may be helpful for the racing snakes of today but still make you ‘race the bulls’ just with a slight head start.
Albeit something that – still with a fair amount of expense /delay implementing and the usual howls from motorists about “not fair” – some local authorities feel they *can* just about manage as at least they don’t have to reallocate space from motorists”?
chrisonabike wrote:
Well, God knows we’ve got our share of racing start devotees here in South London but actually I very, very rarely see drivers going on the cycle light green, literally maybe one every couple of months. More often I get irate drivers hooting because they haven’t seen/don’t know about early release lights and think I’ve just ridden off through the red – including recently, and quite astonishingly, a police driver who blipped his siren and started to come after me; I slowed down and looked back to see his colleague in the passenger seat clearly pointing to the early release lights. Really wish I’d had a rear facing camera for that one!
TBF Edinburgh now has a few
TBF Edinburgh now has a few of these so I get to sample them probably a few times per week. I *have* had a couple of unpleasant twitchy starters … but TBF I’m not dead yet and as you note it seems to be a “large majority do right”.
My other beef (well main one) with these with infra is they are normally combined with bike boxes / ASLs (not a good start…). So I don’t get to test their utility as normally there is a motor vehicle already sat there *!
I have a choice of course – if there’s room I could filter either side of them. But when they’re right up front I tend to take this as a sign of someone only dimly aware of what’s going on around them and hang back – in which case the early release might just serve me up eg. a left hook.
* Perhaps excusable sometimes because due to the inadequacy of paint-as-infra the box box markings have worn enough to be poorly legible.
Early release – this could
Early release – this could perhaps work with cycle lanes/paths with the cyclists advanced forward (not waiting in a bike box)? (But then how would that work with pedestrian phases / take more space? Just do a Dutch junction already…).
The way all this is normally implemented in Edinburgh where there are cycle *paths* is to have cycle-only lights stopping cyclists before the pedestrian crossing. So at junctions you are some distance from the junction itself. It seems the council has heard about drivers cyclists – at any rate cyclists are also held back when motorists have a green light and might make a turning movement, so the result is you have to wait out *both* the motorist cycle and the pedestrian one!
(I feel someone deserves a gold award in the “providing safe cycle infra which make it significantly less convenient to cycle” category – presumably “we gave you a separate cycle path – you must make some compromises too!”).
Quite so. The reluctance to
Quite so. The reluctance to stop as required by law is also an admission of incompetence both mental and physical.
Being physically capable to stop and go is core to being a competent cyclist so the entry criteria for using the public highway.
Similarly observation, planning and execution skills are core mental capabilities to be a competent cyclist.
All this and more is covered in the cycle training provided in Primary Schools. So it’s not a big ask to get it right, and respect the safety of pedestrians and other cyclists already stopped.
Shouting STOP at people who don’t is a good way to check your lung function, and their usually profane response is a clear admission that they have no justification for their behaviour. I’m delighted to provide them with appropriate stress for their actions and learning opportunity..
lonpfrb wrote:
Think this comes down to “do we see cyclists as kind of mini-cars”?
I think that is the general perception in the UK eg. compared to pedestrians – cyclists should be on the roads and come to a compete stop when interacting with pedestrians.
Quite a few UK “cyclists” have this belief also. But it seems to come from a slightly different perspective: we are as good as / have just as much right to roads as motorists. This also links to a belief about “*we* cyclists are / should be better (fitter, more disciplined, courteous…) than others”.
Cyclists (probably reacting to the negative perceptions of them / out-grouping) seeing themselves as an elite. Which finds ultimate expression in vehicular cycling. (Not the way to “mass cycling”.)
I think it would be great if people were less lazy – mentally and figuratively. Enforcement could change things… a little.
But if we want fewer journeys driven / more cycled (i believe these are somewhat related albeit it’s complicated) we have to understand human behaviour.
We know that many people don’t want extra effort – because they’ll drive short distances *. We know that forcing cyclists to stop imposes what is for some a non-trivial physical cost.
Obviously in busy urban areas some stopping is required. But other places (eg. NL) have found that it is worth effort and cost to reduce that where possible.
* There are many reasons why we have mass motoring…
The Hierarchy of
The Hierarchy of Responsibility in the Highway Code H1-3 does make it clear to all road users how it’s supposed to work.
Very occasionally I’ve seen a pedestrian give way to a cyclist, perhaps conscious of the effort being made, but clearly that’s not something to expect nor rely on.
It’s still routine to see pedestrians not aserting their priority in a sideroad over vehicles turning in from the major road. If people won’t do it the drivers continue to believe they have no responsibility to give way..
lonpfrb wrote:
I’m not convinced that’s true, given the number of people who evidence an obvious failure to understand it.
mdavidford wrote:
I’m not convinced that’s true, given the number of people who evidence an obvious failure to understand it.— lonpfrb
“Passed my test first time … driving fifty years without accident, son” … something something can’t get people to understand what they think it’s in their interest not to?
lonpfrb wrote:
There is no “entry criteria” for using the public highway on a bike other than the requirement to actually have a bike. The notion that you have to be a competent cyclist before you are allowed to use the road is utter rubbish.
Backladder wrote:
There is no “entry criteria” for using the public highway on a bike other than the requirement to actually have a bike. The notion that you have to be a competent cyclist before you are allowed to use the road is utter rubbish.— lonpfrb
There’s no competency requirement per se, but you do have to be a careful and considerate cyclist.
OnYerBike wrote:
No that’s only advisory not compulsory 😉
Rendel Harris wrote:
I would agree if I saw much of that obviously.
But of course there are two “problems”: 1) the actual hard casualty numbers (which I’ve not seen – though I did find a couple of reports of injuries in Edinburgh). Allowing for difficulties in gathering data, for the volume of complaints surely the hospitals would be overwhelmed now?
(Plus those also really should be put against those from all modes at junctions, adjusted for numbers of “vehicles” or perhaps “passenger numbers”…)
2) Then of course there’s *feelings* – which extend a lot further than those people having to dodge a cyclist.
And we *should* certainly take seriously any “suppression of walking”, same as we should do with mass motoring suppressing active travel by making it unpleasant.
Trying to move the debate forward – looking at eg. NL – they’ve LOTS of cyclists and pedestrians, why isn’t there war?
Well, for one look at their junction designs and how people cross the cycle path. There is very commonly space for pedestrians to wait after crossing the cycle path before crossing the road *. Partly because of this it seems *very* rare for there to be a signalled crossing of the cycle path.
Finally – there are few shared use paths (and not narrow alleys…) in urban areas.
Those 3 are almost exactly the opposite to how we’ve started doing things in the UK! (Although at least in London there are a few more separate cycle paths – although as usual these should be even more clearly marked…)
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/06/12/how-hard-is-it-to-cross-the-cycle-path/
* Almost certainly helps that the speed limits are often lower on those roads / there are fewer very wide / multi-lane at-grade crossings. Oh and motor traffic reduction in urban areas helps too…
60somethingcyclist wrote:
I don’t like the “us” and the “we” here – I’m not responsible for anyone else’s cycling when I’m on my bike, and I’m not responsible for anyone else’s driving when I’m in my car.
Yes.
Yes.
But that doesn’t stop you being stereotyped / put in an out- group by others.
… but neither is that fixed by you being more of a stickler for polite and law-abiding behaviour than the average driver. (Even if we all agree at the Bloody Cyclists’ AGM). *
* Probably even more complex because human psychology – humans actively seek confirmatory evidence and minimize contrary. Hence some really odd conversations I’ve had eg. one with a chap insisting “I’ve never seen cyclists use this cycle path!” while a couple cycled past…
You may not like but it’s the
You may not like but it’s the reality of motornormative perception that “I once saw an RLJ cyclist offence, so obviously all cyclists are RLJs”.
Guilty until proven innocent, you might say.
lonpfrb wrote:
… but even if “proving innocence” were possible (it’s always possible that someone *will* break a rule) that simply won’t happen while “cyclists” are an out-group anyway. I suspect no amount of “proving” will shift perception.
OTOH you get that fixed for free (rightly or wrongly) when cycling becomes a just another normal mode of transport.
chrisonabike wrote:
If this government were truly interested in change, and joined up government between
Department of Transport,
Department of Health,
Department of Culture Media and Sport,
They would change road users attitude and behaviour by changing mainstream and social media output using the existing Equality legislation to make cycling a protected characteristic…
lonpfrb wrote:
I get what you’re saying. I don’t think this is quite the right to for the job though. Unless someone is literally “born in the saddle” and can’t do anything but ride – in which case disability legislation should cover it? Or they have such deep feelings for their bike / strong belief in cycling that it becomes a new sexuality / gender expression / religion?
You may not like but it’s the
You may not like but it’s the reality of motornormative perception that “I once
sawheard about an RLJ cyclist offence, so obviously all cyclists are RLJs”That’s all that’s required for hyper-junk press readers
If red light jumping cyclists
If red light jumping cyclists didn’t exist, it would be necessary for motorists to invent them.
(So to save bother, they just do anyway.)
I suspect London is a little
I suspect London is a little better than eg. Edinburgh here but what I’ve seen often continues the UK bodge – set up conflict by mixing pedestrians and cyclists. (Deliberately in places but much more by having left vulnerable road users to fight over scraps).
Then: we’ll be “in transition” for some time (a generation?) so until everyone has sorted “how it works” in practice that will be some cyclists on footways (in error, because a cycle path stopped, because they don’t care – possibly haven’t been taught to). And even more pedestrians on the cycle path (which is and should always be legal IMO – but again there are ‘didn’t realise’ all the way to “screw them they can cycle around me / they’ve got the road”)
I think our governments’ assessing that illegal use of electric motorbikes and things isn’t worth attention doesn’t help (and their unchecked sale – including high street stores handing them over with no instruction).
Nor does their “could care less” approach to the food delivery “outsource responsibility” companies help (invest in lawyers and politicians and you can then skip all kinds of expenses which appear necessary for others).
(Of course they’re also currently intensely relaxed about the death and injury toll on the roads…)
Ultimately it will perhaps follow the same path as how it was with motor vehicles taking over (but with much better benefits and tiny drawbacks).
One large measure of “make it very easy and convenient for people to do the right thing” (humans will *always* cut corners and quite often chance it). Plus a bit of negative feedback. A tiny bit from police, some from self-inflicted injury, mostly from nosy, righteous, aggrieved or even aggressive other members of the public, same as always. “ON THE BIKE PATH MATE! YOU BLIND?!”
Within Greater London the
Within Greater London the CIty of London Police still do red light jumping stings at busy junctions (there was one just by my office this morning) while the Met Police don’t have the resource to do many any more. Any decent observation skills would alert you to their presence at the junction/crossing as they are in Police HiViz.
I’m not sure bigger penalties would make much difference, and the City of London lobbying the government over traffic changes hasn’t been effective in the past (their request for a 15mph speed limit for the city was turned down a few years ago).
I’ve noticed from dashcam
I’ve noticed from dashcam series an increase in drivers using the verge/footway to make progress. So not as safe as it was – example below.
https://youtu.be/kuzuIzvSBS8?si=vs845sRubCwqvqAq
Ah but they do that carefully
Ah but they do that carefully and considerately! And if they didn’t then the police would throw the book at them, because cars have numberplates! And anyway pedestrians always know that there’s a car there because they’re big and always noisy and have powerful headlights on at night!
Just a +1 for Rendel’s (and a
Just a +1 for Rendel’s (and a few others’) comments on anti-social cycling in London. It’s a problem which merits stronger sanctions and enforcement.
I went from Liverpool Street
I went from Liverpool Street station to Waterloo on Sunday. The number of traffic lights was ridiculous.
At one intersection it was red and I was the only road user. Gave up and pushed my bike.
Not surprised people ignore red if it looks safe.
After watching BicycleDutch’s
After watching BicycleDutch’s relaxing rides for a while I suddenly realised what I wasn’t seeing … which was waiting at traffic lights. Not because he’s a scofflaw or only rides in the country – but there simply aren’t that many traffic lights that cyclists encounter.
And even where there are traffic lights which may apply to cyclists, some don’t require you to stop (eg. if turning right in a cycle path / continuing straight on through a T- junction). And even beyond that Dutch lights are “smarter”, have more phases and detection loops so that often they know eg. a cyclist is coming and the junction is clear so can set lights to red for motor traffic and green for the cyclist.
More on all of this:
More on all of this:
Why the Dutch don’t have long waits at traffic lights: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4&pp=ygUPI25vdHJhZmZpY2xpZ2h0
Cycling past “red lights” is often legal: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cycling-past-red-lights-its-legal-in-the-netherlands/
Networks are arranged to avoid different modes needing to interact: https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/every-traffic-light-in-assen.html?m=1