Is it “often safest” for cyclists to go through red lights? Cyclists’ reactions are split, but some call it a response to tailgating; Regent Street turns to Paris and Barcelona to curb car traffic; 2029 UCI road Worlds in Denmark? + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Tiny Pogi! Photo of 12-year-old Tadej winning the Criterium Grand Prix race in Slovenia
Cool image of 12 years old Tadej Pogačar winning the Criterium Grand Prix race in Idrija, Slovenia. Winner from the beginning. 🇸🇮🏆
📷: Klemen Petrič pic.twitter.com/ulMPlT15U0
— Lukáš Ronald Lukács (@lucasaganronald) January 31, 2024
Denmark submits bid for road cycling World Championships in 2029
Cometh the man, cometh the hour. Is 2029 finally the year we see Jonas Vingegaard make an appearance on the UCI’s cycling men’s road World Championships?
On Wednesday, the Ministry of Culture announced that they have sent an official application to the International Cycling Union (UCI) for Denmark to host the World Cycling Championships in 2029, reports TV2.
The application states that Aarhus will host the individual starts, and the line races will be held in Zealand. The races will start in Helsingør and Roskilde, and the finish line is in Copenhagen.
UCI is expected to make the decision in September this year. So can we expect a road race around the streets of Copenhagen to crown the best rider with the rainbow arounds?
As of now, the upcoming destinations for road cycling Worlds are Zurich this year, followed by Rwanda, Montreal, Haute-Savoie and then Abu Dhabi in 2028.
Regent Street turns to Champs-Élysées in Paris and La Rambla in Barcelona to curb motor traffic and become more cycling-friendly
What’s common between Champs-Élysées in Paris, La Rambla in Barcelona and Mariahilfer Strasse in Vienna?
Well, they’re all definitely more cycling-friendly than a lot of London streets, including Regent Street. However, some of Europe’s most famous shopping streets, along with other active travel-friendly cities such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Seville, are set to serve as inspiration for the iconic London street’s “grand European overhaul”.
According to The Standard, Westminster Council and The Crown Estate have unveiled their “Regent Street Public Realm Vision”, which includes plans to reduce traffic to make way for more cyclists and pedestrians.
The council said the “ultimate ambition” is to create a “new green link through the heart of the West End” that connects St James’s Park to Regent’s Park. The project would also mean changes to Piccadilly Circus, Haymarket and parts of Pall Mall.
“This would emphasise and reimagine the famous architect John Nash’s ‘park-to-park’ connection, set out over 200 years ago,” a spokesman said.
Paul Dimoldenberg, cabinet member for city management and air quality, added: “The Regent Street Public Realm Vision report represents a commitment to a more vibrant, sustainable and inclusive urban environment. We’ve worked extensively with members of the public to shape a vision that is based on what they want to see.”
A Tour de France-style final stage for the Tour of Britain on Regent Street, with Tom Pidcock and Wout van Aert, racing in front of the three H&Ms and alarmingly high number of American candy shops? Well sign me up! (Here’s to hoping the ToB makes a swift comeback…)
> Tour of Britain and Women’s Tour no longer listed on UCI calendar
While we are at the topic of jumping traffic lights...
While everyone is at the topic of passionately debating whether red light-jumping for cyclists should be acceptable or not, CycleGaz has posted this compilation video of motorists clearly not giving heed to the traffic lights.
When are motorists going to learn the difference between🔴 Red and🟢 Green🚦? pic.twitter.com/NoD7tiiiy4
— CycleGaz™ (@cyclegaz) January 31, 2024
What are his thoughts on the cyclist going through on red lights from earlier today, you ask?
“Stop at red”
— CycleGaz™ (@cyclegaz) January 31, 2024
Councillor defends closing park "rat-run" to drivers to promote cycling and address "challenge" of "dominance of the car"
A councillor has urged locals to respect the consultation process and “see how the trial progresses” amid noise and protests from an outspoken group of residents unhappy at the decision to close a “rat-run” through a park in order to promote a safer environment for cyclists and walkers.
From 17 January, a road through Poole Park, in the Dorset town, has been closed to through-traffic, preventing rat-running drivers using the heritage listed park in a conservation area as a cut-through near Sandbanks, one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the country.
Councillor Andy Hadley, BCP Council’s portfolio holder for the environment, insisted the council does not have an “anti-car agenda” but there is a “challenge on our roads about the dominance of the car” with vehicles “getting bigger and more of them”.
Read more: > Councillor defends closing park “rat-run” to drivers to promote cycling and address “challenge” of “dominance of the car”
What's the consensus on today's red-light debate? The road.cc readers have their say...
Going through on red lights: a complicated issue for some, a straightforward one for others. We’ve received a myriad of interesting and wide-ranging replies on our live blog, and here’s a roundup of the most compelling ones.
MTB Refugee: “Red light means stop. End of discussion.
I cycle more than I drive, but as both a cyclist and a driver I really despair to see cyclists (or drivers) go through red lights.
Every cyclist who goes through red lights provide ammunition for the anti-cycling lobby. It is also illegal and it makes it tough to argue against motorists breaking the law (close passes etc.) if they can constantly refer to law breaking by cyclists.”
Tom_77: “In an ideal world everyone would obey the highway code at all times.
In the real world drivers break the rules all the time*, frequently putting cyclists in danger. It’s not surprising that cyclists sometimes feel the need to break the rules in order to put some distance between themselves and a carelessly driven motor vehicle.
Personally, I haven’t ever jumped a red light. But I will cycle on an empty pavement if it’s safer than the road.”
bensynnock: “When I go out cycling I count how many motorists jump a red light and I permit myself to jump that many myself. I never get anywhere near to my limit.
It’s always, one driving through on amber, second one accelerating through the amber, then the third accelerating even harder and going through on red. Every set of lights at every junction.
I am completely past the point of caring what the rules are. They were designed for cars. I obey them stringently when I drive the car, but very few other motorists do. They speed around the city, even over 40 in the 20 zones, they skip the lights, they sit on their phones, they never indicate, they cut corners at junctions, they never give way to pedestrians, they park across the pavement and cycle lanes… Any rule they think they can get away with breaking they will.
The rule breaking from drivers is relentless. It’s a lawless mess. But apparently if I decide to take a right turn during the pedestrian phase of the lights so I’m not sat in the middle of the road with traffic passing on both sides until there’s a gap, then that makes me the bad guy?
I don’t actually do it very often, but if I feel it’s safer then I’ll break the rules. Everybody else does.”
HoarseMann: “The green pedestrian signal was showing for cross traffic from the left, so the main consideration was traffic from the right. It was clear and getting across meant no conflict with the oncoming right-turning traffic. The bus behind had pulled into a stop, so less of a concern.
Yes, it’s illegal, but if done with care then not unsafe. I would need to see more of this cyclist’s riding style to know whether that was a carefully considered infraction or they were just oblivious!”
Soudal Quick-Step's Tim Merlier records first win of 2024 in Tour of AlUla
Soudal Quick-Step’s Belgian sprinter Tim Merlier has started the new cycling road season with a bang, winning the third stage of Tour of AlUla after missing out on the win and only managing a podium in the first stage of the race dominated by sweeping, sandy vistas (and echelons in the peloton, lots of them) in Saudi Arabia.
.@MerlierTim venceu a etapa 03 do #alulatour pic.twitter.com/1JksKBXimi
— O País Do Ciclismo (@opaisdociclismo) February 1, 2024
He managed to hold off UAE’s Juan Molano, Rui Oliveira and Team DSM’s Casper Van Uden, the current points leader who eventually finished third.
“It’s a public road!”: Cheddar Gorge road will close once a month to invite more cyclists and walkers, and drivers aren’t happy
Earlier this morning, news broke that the roads to the Cheddar Gorge, an incredibly lush (and also incredibly challenging — those who’ve tackled it on a saddle will know) route popular amongst the tourists in Somerset is set to close once a month to motor traffic, in order to make it more enjoyable for cyclists and walkers.
An Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) has been placed by the Mendip Hills National Landscape Team who will see how the project goes, and are thus, looking for eventual feedback.
But naturally, the news hasn’t been taken well by motorists and other petrolheads, who can’t believe they will now have one day less to drive upto the ravine in Somerset.
Under the news post by BBC on Facebook asking if it was a “good idea”, commenters have expressed their dissent, with one person saying: “For God’s sake if you want to walk take the foot paths not the main road it’s so laughable that someone got paid to think of that idea!”
Another person said: “Just another silly idea when someone’s nothing else better to do, leave well alone its not just a visitors play place its home to many of us that use the road daily, and pay our taxes to do so.”
A third person said that they’ve never had any problems with traffic in the area, however it was the cyclists who “tend to be the most inconsiderate road users in the gorge whilst also putting themselves and others at risk”.
Others tried to be a bit more egalitarian with their outlook towards cyclists and drivers, one comment saying: “This is an excellent idea. However, in the interests of equality it should also be shut once a month for motor enthusiasts to do time trials. Fair’s fair and all.”
French pro cyclist does a Lance Armstrong at Etoile de Bessèges by going off-road — and almost getting taken out by support car driver
It’s 2003 Tour de France. Lance Armstrong has built up his brash but winner reputation among cycling fans and is chasing a fifth consecutive yellow jersey. If he wins, he’d join the hallowed hall of fame of the riders with the most TdF titles, joining the likes of Jacques Anquetil, Eddy Merckx, Bernard Hinault, and Miguel Indurain.
Will this be the year Jan Ullrich finally steps out of Armstrong’s shadow and beats him to the maillot jaune, or someone else, say this one Kazhak rider by the name of Alexander Vinokourov take the top prize?
Come to stage 9, Vinokourov is on the attack on the descent of Col de Manse. The Spanish rider Joseba Beloki is trying to chase him down with the yellow jersey Armstrong on his tail. Beloki locks his wheel on the melting road surface and goes down. Armstrong has nowhere to go, cuts across the serpentine descent and goes over the swathes of grass, gets off his bike and hops back onto the road, rejoining the rest of the peloton. And in doing so, almost gets hit by the following riders and a race motorbike.
Why am I narrating all this? Because a very similar incident just took place in Etoile de Bessèges, with French pro Maximilien Juillard from team Van Rysel – Roubaix in the midst of all the action.
Proper 😬😬😬 moment at #EDB2024
(Behold the production values!) 😆 pic.twitter.com/nOdMGQxLQC
— Katy M, 23 days to Omloop edition (@writebikerepeat) February 1, 2024
When they say choose your idols carefully, they do really mean it.
I’m not going to lie, these last few weeks of watching cyclocross made me instinctively think that he was going to jump his bike down from the mini-cliff! Well, I’m glad at least no one was hit, because as soon as Juillard was on the road, it could have ended badly with the team car drivers coming up at speed behind him.
"Absolutely disgusting verdict that doesn't take into account children at all": Cycling campaigners lament LTN removal despite "extremely positive" data showing reduced congestion
In a startlingly adverse decision for active travel in the city, Newcastle City Council has decided to remove the Jesmond low-traffic neighbourhood trials, citing increased residents journey times and unaffected emergency services, with 77 per cent in opposition of the scheme.
However, as one person pointed out, the increased journey times were of those using a car, and didn’t include pedestrians and cyclists.
Newcastle-based researcher and urban planner said: “Newcastle Council to rip out Jesmond LTN despite the data being extremely positive. Whose voice mattered here? Not the children and young people growing up in the city. This is hugely disappointing news.”
Newcastle Council to rip out Jesmond LTN despite the data being extremely positive. Whose voice mattered here? Not the children and young people growing up in the city. This is hugely disappointing news. https://t.co/jb6m2XCg4h
— Sally Watson (@salawatson) January 31, 2024
Meanwhile, transport journalist from Jesmond, Carlton Reid said: “Good news for motorists. Until, that is, congestion builds up again because of the excess of cars, especially as new housing developments will add to motor traffic in years ahead.
“This scheme mostly benefitted pedestrians. A great many residents will be shocked by the reintroduction of cars. Goal was to reduce number of car journeys in a very walkable neighbourhood. Goal was achieved. The noisy (and often abusive) complaints worked.
“Key complaint was length of time to do car journeys at peak times (car journeys off-peak were as swift as usual). Predicted traffic increase on Coast Road will mean junctions will clog up, leaving complainers wondering why removing LTN didn’t solve the congestion problem.”
How utterly utterly depressing. Driver convenience trumps residents’ safety, health and wellbeing. What on earth are you doing? Listening to the pro motoring lobby. We can all see how that’s going to end. Congestion, pollution, road danger and unhealthy lifestyles. Deary me.
— Leicestershire Loves Cycling (@LeicsCountyBike) January 31, 2024
Absolutely disgusting verdict that doesn’t take into account children at all.
— History Gal (@historygal123) January 31, 2024
In May last year, a self-proclaimed “keen cyclist” had launched a petition littered with factual errors objecting to the Jesmond LTN, with many residents and signatories of the petition calling for the trial consultation to be “axed immediately”.
Cyclists and pedestrians could enjoy traffic-free Cheddar Gorge once a month under new plan
Full story on this one…
> Cyclists and pedestrians could enjoy traffic-free Cheddar Gorge once a month under new plan
Is it safer for cyclists to go through red lights? Social media reaction (and Community Notes) counter, but some call it a response to tailgating
Before we begin any discussion on today’s live blog, it’d be nice to provide a disclaimer: Jumping red lights is illegal for cyclists according to the Highway Code.
With that said, let’s get into the latest storm that’s brewing up in the world of cycling Twitter (cycling X doesn’t have the same ring). Andy Boenau, an urbanist and active travel campaigner from Virginia, USA, has shared a video of a cyclist in London going through on red lights at a junction, with the words, arguing that it’s “often safest for a cyclist to go through a red light”, and claiming that video was an example of how a cyclist can safely keep momentum.
“Bicycles and motor vehicles should never be treated as equals, so “but red means stop!” isn’t a useful reaction,” he added.
It’s often safest for a cyclist to go through a red light. Here’s an example of safely keeping momentum.
Bicycles and motor vehicles should never be treated as equals, so “but red means stop!” isn’t a useful reaction.
pic.twitter.com/o8oHQGQb6z— Andy Boenau (@Boenau) January 30, 2024
While such a tweet was certain to bring the most staunch anti-cycling fanatics from the pits of the universe, this opinion has even led to a lot of cyclists in the UK disagreeing with the statement. Besides the rather lengthy and detailed Community Notes on Twitter reiterating the Highway Code rule 69 which says that cyclists “MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals” (Is this the first time we’ve seen Community Notes being used for something like this?)
Cycling instructor and advocate from Birmingham Tim reacted to the tweet saying: “
This isn’t true. This is terrible cycling. And the red light jumping is only part of it. Cyclist should be in primary position for a start”
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
However, a few people, including Boneau also took an issue with the bus driver tailgating the cyclist, with some also arguing that jumping red lights is one way for cyclists to get rid of drivers creeping up way past the point of comfort behind them.
Boneau wrote: “With all the attention focused on this cyclist rolling through red at the end of the video, no one talks about the bus tailgating the cyclist at the start of the video. It’s bad enough to ride up on a bike like that, but even worse knowing the bus is about to stop.”
That might be the camera angle ie looking down by some margin I assume double decker.
This said london buses are driven poorly ie will tailgate and so on particularly slower cyclists and so on.
Still not convinced it’s wise or safe though!
— Roger Merriman (@rogermerriman) January 31, 2024
Another campaigner and Twitter user named Plastic Irony said: “Not going to jump onto a thread started from Virginia, but in UK context, I’d be taking issue with the tailgating first. Does that exonerate the cyclist? No, don’t think it does, because car on other side is indicating right and not all junctions are directly symmetrical.
“Even if we take out the car on opposite, I’ve never accepted argument that it’s ok to go through red simply because it builds gap from vehicles behind – they can just catch up anyway.
“But in early hours, especially on bike with step through frame, there’s case to rethink law, but for now, just step out of frame and become a pedestrian, no law is being broken. See also lights that won’t change due to poorly designed sensors. In my humble opinion neither apply here.”
If I am honest from the chap position, I assumed he wasn’t a very confident rider, stopping at the lights would have been fine, I assumed they wanted to get ahead of the bus following relatively closely behind. I can understand that motivation.
— Christopher Lang (@langoo) January 31, 2024
Just a couple of weeks ago, Surrey Police stopped and fined four cyclists jumping a red light and shared the video on social media, leading to a lot of commotion and questioning of the police force’s actions.
It also might be interesting to point out here that the safety of cyclists having to stop at red lights is probably one of the most divisive topics amongst cyclists. In fact, in some parts of the world, such as Colorado in the United States and Paris, France, it is perfectly legal for cyclists to go through red lights.
Cycling campaigner Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet of Bike for Good, speaking to Scotland on Sunday last year, even argued that similar practices could be implemented here in the United Kingdom.
But as we can all assume, the odds of that happening in the country right now seem quite low. But as always, no better place to express your opinions than the road.cc live blog comment section. So go ahead and let us know if you think cycling through red lights could be safer or not…
1 February 2024, 10:02
The company that owns bike brands such as Raleigh, Lapierre and Ghost is to "simplify operations and enhance efficiency" by merging facilities and cutting up to 150 jobs.
Raleigh owner Accell Group to cut jobs and streamline European production to "simplify operations and enhance efficiency"
Redundancies will affect Accell Group's Netherlands-based workforce, with two facilities to merge and some production relocated to Hungary and Turkey
1 February 2024, 10:02
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
97 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Same here. I have a helmet with built in front and rear lights and have a red light clipped onto my bag plus lights attached to my bike front and rear but still have drivers putting me in danger. My commute is about two miles and I normally have around four incidents a week where I have to brake hard or take other evasive action to avoid being hit by distracted drivers. A big percentage of these are drivers coming on to roundabouts when I am already on them.
Glasgow's South City Way sounds great, does it not? As a user from before and after I wholeheartedly welcome the construction of the segregated route, but so much of the detailed construction is poor, if not unsafe. I provide a link to a presentation I made when construction was half complete (a personal view) and the construction errors remain outstanding to this day: crossed by high speed flared road junctions, poor colour differentiation, car door zone risks and so on. And yet cyclists come because they feel safe. It's a complex subject but IMHO the feeling of safety (or lack of) is a critical component. https://drive.proton.me/urls/B67AK44G90#CFueBGjscoWr
I can only conclude that you haven't been into a city in the last few years. Food delivery riders in particular are riding overpowered "eBikes" that are basically mopeds ... powered only via the throttle without pedalling at significantly more than 15mph. Problem is they look like normal bikes/ebikes and not like mopeds so that is what people describe them as. My reading of the article is that it is those vehicles that are being talked about here.
I have the Trace and Tracer, which have essentially the same design, albeit smaller and less powerful. The controls are a little complicated but only because there are loads of options. In reality, once you've chosen your level of brightness, you'll only cycle through 1 or 2 options and it's dead simple. The lights are rock solid, bright, with good runtimes. The only thing I find annoying is charging them - if your fingers are slightly wet or greasy, getting the rubber out of the way of the charging port is a pain in the arse.
Dance and padel is all very well, but when is Strava going to let me record my gardening?
You can use it to check whether it's raining.
If it's dusk, i.e. post-sunset, then the cyclists should have lights on and thus the colour of their top is irrelevant. If you want to complain about cyclists not having lights when it's mandatory then by all means do but their top has nothing to do with it.
All of my Exposure lights with a button allow cycling through the modes with a short press. I have five of those; it would be odd if Exposure didn’t allow this functionality with the Boost 3. I also have two Exposure Burners if I remember correctly: they are rear lights for joysticks that clip on and are powered through the joystick charging port. They don’t have a button. None of my Exposure lights have failed. I looked at the Boost 3 review photos but none showed the button, so far as I could tell. I also have Moon lights. Good experience generally. One did fail, possibly because it was so thin it used to fall through the holes in my helmet onto the ground. Also, the UI and charge indicators vary for my Moon lights. Perhaps the latest ones are more consistent. My worst lights ever were from See.Sense.
Steve really doesnt like exposure products does he? Boost and Strada marked down for being too complicated. While the Zenith and Six Pack reviewed by his colleagues give them rave reviews (as most exposure products have on road.cc), the Zenith even touted as 'even more intuitive to use' with the same controls.
They are more interested in dog shit. https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/people/lancaster-police-launch-search-for-person-who-sprayed-dog-faeces-with-pink-paint-5605519
97 thoughts on “Is it “often safest” for cyclists to go through red lights? Cyclists’ reactions are split, but some call it a response to tailgating; Regent Street turns to Paris and Barcelona to curb car traffic; 2029 UCI road Worlds in Denmark? + more on the live blog”
Red light … (Apologies to
Red light … (Apologies to mark1a)
What I would like instead.
Twice I’ve been driven into
Twice I’ve been driven into at a red light – I stopped for it, the driver behind me didn’t.
I nipped though a red light
I nipped though a red light yesterday for exactly that reason. It was just a puffin crossing and the waiting pedestrian was on the other side of the road, so no risk of stepping out in front of me. The light turned red just before I crossed the line, so not a major infringement. I would have stopped in the car, but not on the bike, as I had a driver behind me.
It also meant I had a clear road for the short stretch before I made a right turn. If I’d waited at the light, not only would I have risked being rear ended, traffic would have built up behind. Then instead of a clear road, I would have been managing a line of irritated drivers itching to get past on the dodgy bend lined with parked vehicles.
On some puffin crossing the
On some puffin crossing the wait between pressing the button and the lights going red can be quite a long time. If the road happens to be clear the pedestrian will cross before the light goes red. I know cars will still stop but if you can see that there are no peds about why should a cyclist stop (other that it’s the law). ( NB The crossing down by the old Lodge Plugs is a perfect example).
In that situation I’d
In that situation I’d recommend slowing down if you decide to cross
IanMK wrote:
Yep, that’s the one!
the little onion wrote:
was it an established red light? But seriously I will rarely stop on teh bike if the lights are amber, due to no confidence the driver behind me will also stop.
Amber means stop unless unsafe to do so, and two tonnes of vehilce bearing down on me would make it unsafe in my book.
A lot of cyclist fatalities at intersections are due to starting at the same time as a left turning lorry and getting crushed. A situation that cannot occur if going through the red (with care).
No one (I don’t think) is suggesting just ignorning the red light and blowing through without looking or slowing. I think this example is bad though, even the Idaho stop law requires a stop, and not just a give way as this cyclist (maybe) carried out.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Very much right. I have on a few occasions been approaching changing lights with not enough distance to stop safely, only to be blown past by a speeding German performance vehicle (cue Harry Potter meme “why is it always you three – Audi, BMW, Mercedes) when I am already in the middle of the junction. If I had come to a sudden stop and took the primary position as indicated, I would probably be in the middle of the junction anyway, but not in one piece and rubber side down.
Unfortunately a number of drivers see “beating” red lights as a challenge and take the fact they are still travelling at or above the speed limit as not safe to stop, despite the fact the act of speeding up on approach in and of itself is not safe practice.
The green pedestrian signal
The green pedestrian signal was showing for cross traffic from the left, so the main consideration was traffic from the right. It was clear and getting across meant no conflict with the oncoming right-turning traffic. The bus behind had pulled into a stop, so less of a concern.
Yes, it’s illegal, but if done with care then not unsafe. I would need to see more of this cyclist’s riding style to know whether that was a carefully considered infraction or they were just oblivious!
I don’t do a lot of driving
I don’t do a lot of driving in cities but my Son used to live in Southampton. I often thought that a lot of the RLJers were aware of the lights sequencing and were actually going through the Red on the pedestrian green. Often with no pedestrians about. So yes illegal but actually quite safe.
In fact the green pedestrian
In fact the green pedestrian signal appears while the van crossing the cyclist’s path is still in the middle of the junction so the driver probably also went through on red and that is probably the main danger for the cyclist, other motorists not following the rules.
Backladder wrote:
proving that the most important thing to look for is what other vehicles are doing, and not what the lights are showing.
Maybe a flashing amber
Maybe a flashing amber cyclists-give-way light would be useful?
levestane wrote:
Existing traffic signals are hard enough for a number of pea brained road users to understand. Let’s not give the drivists more complex things to get rage over that ultimately gets more vitriol thrown at the cycling community.
The problem with a rule like
The problem with a rule like this is that people are idiots (yes, cyclists too) and relying on them to make subjective decisions on these things would be a recipe for disaster. Thats ignoring the fact it would piss off the already frothing masses of drivers who think that their hour long commute would be 10 minutes if only it wasn’t for that single cyclist that held them up for 30s. Oh and the fucker also went through a red light. What a bastard. They probably didn’t see 100 instances of bad driving over that same journey…
mctrials23 wrote:
Not necessarily – the idea is for cyclists to be able to treat junctions with traffic lights as “give ways” instead. Give way junctions work perfectly fine, and cyclists make subjective decisions on whether it’s safe to proceed on them all day, every day.
Personally, I think it’s safer for me to be able to look left and right, then if clear, cross a junction and get up to speed before the cars are let through, than it is for me to have to accelerate as hard as I can with ten cars trying to barge past and squeeze me through the road furniture around the junction. I haven’t read too far into direct affects, but the 14% reduction in cyclist KSIs observed after the introduction of the Idaho stop would suggest there’s maybe some merit to this opinion.
This is definitely true though. Especially if the Government do what they did with the HC changes and leave it up to the cyclist-hating, gammon-baiting, gutter press to misrepresent the changes in order to paint yet another target on our backs.
This is a textbook dog
This is a textbook dog whistle argument.
They didn’t pick an example nobody could queston, they picked one that’s easy for the anti cycling people to pick apart and engaging with it is always going to be a net negative game. Either they get you to “admit you cycle like a criminal” or you end up in a “I am a cyclist but I wouldn’t do that” position where you are justify their hatred by being able to point to examples where “even cyclists think you are an idiot”
The only way to win is not to play.
Patrick9-32 wrote:
A strange game, indeed.
Red light means stop. End of
Red light means stop. End of discussion.
I cycle more than I drive, but as both a cyclist and a driver I really despair to see cyclists (or drivers) go through red lights.
Every cyclist who goes through red lights provide ammunition for the anti-cycling lobby. It is also illegal and it makes it tough to argue against motorists breaking the law (close passes etc.) if they can constantly refer to law breaking by cyclists.
“Every driver who goes
“Every driver who goes through red lights provide ammunition for the anti-driver lobby”
Fixed that for you. Because collective punishment works for every situation.
Whether you like it or not, a
Whether you like it or not, a significant number of drivers absolutely WILL tar us all with the same brush, and put ALL cyclists at risk because they see ‘some’ go through red lights. We can all claim that we do not represent the bad cyclists, but sadly the reality is different for far too many narrow minded drivers.
I have only gone through a red on a few specific occasions (traffic light sensors not detecting cyclists and no other traffic to trigger them), but despite that I have been sworn at by a driver that had just close passed me because “all cyclists go through red lights, and you don’t pay road tax so I don’t give a flying fuck how much space you want!” Okay so he was perhaps an extreme example, but you don’t have to speak to that many drivers to hear some say cyclists don’t deserve the driver’s respect because cyclists don’t follow the rules of the road.
Dicklexic wrote:
Unfortunately that is not within my control. Indeed I’ve managed to dig out from someone I talked to that they had never actually seen some cyclist behaviour they were moaning about, and their “friend” who reported this may not have seen this more than once (or at all)…
That’s how it is with stereotypes and out-grouping. People will accept the whole thing, and then all they’re looking for is evidence (which can be hearsay / “stands to reason…”) which positively reinforces this perception.
I’m not denying that some people (any mode) break the rules. And currently in the UK this may be very salient for cycling – at least in some locations.
In the end changing perception of “others” is usually a very slow business: one relationship (or life change) at a time. Perhaps you / your loved ones start riding then one day you realise you’re / they’re one of “them” – but you/they are a normal/good person…
I think it takes both redefining the “problem” (so if there’s protected infra / much reduced “conflict” and cycling is clearly a different but legitimate thing) AND redefining the people (cycling is now a normal mainstream activity). I believe the latter requires the former e.g. networks of convenient safe cycle routes of sufficient quality, with safe storage/parking” as one necessary (though perhaps not sufficient?) condition to occur.
the little onion wrote:
You fixed nothing.
Your opinion and my opinion of cyclists is irrelevant, it sounds like we are both extremely pro-cycle so there is nothing to fix.
What remains is the current culture war between some of the pro-bike and the pro-car/anti-bike lobby. Cyclists who break the law and inflame the anti-cycling muppets are part of the problem.
If everyone abided by the laws of the road, then a lot of the problems that cyclists face would not be problems any more.
In a word – nope.
(If only everyone followed the rules…)
In a word – nope.
In two words – “if only…” In three – ‘there is no “us”‘ or – to be fairer “bit more complicated…“.
Not in two words – “culture war”. This is just about how we move our transport systems (various politicians having favoured motoring over all other modes) to be (slightly) safer, nicer, fairer and more sustainable (including economically).
As far as just “ignore reds” – I’m not really in favour. The problem is that the roads and road infra aren’t well-suited to cycling (certainly not for “mass cycling”). Because they’re designed for motor vehicles. (Our systems aren’t really set up to safely handle the degree of mass motoring we have either – that’s one for another day though). What I think is a better solution is for cyclists to cycle right past some red lights like this.
MTB Refugee wrote:
That’s such a stupid thing to say. What about when a vehicle in front brakes slightly and their red brake lights come on – you have to stop?
What about emergency vehicles – do they have to wait?
How about those traffic lights that don’t register bikes – wait minutes/hours until a car comes along?
All the other places that have enlightened bike traffic light rules – you must be tearing your hair out.
Also, I have a red rear light on during the day, but strangely I don’t see all the traffic behind me stopping because “red light means stop hurr durr”
hawkinspeter wrote:
You either misunderstood me or are being intentionally obtuse. I’m talking about the red traffic lights and about the laws that are in place regarding them.
Emergency vehicles are allowed to treat a red light as a “give way” in certain circumstances, but do not have an absolute right under law to do so.
As for the countries that have other laws in place regarding cycles, that’s great. If they want to change the law in the UK regarding cycles and red traffic lights, then that’s also great. I will comply with any road traffic laws that are in place. We aren’t talking about other countries though are we, we’re talking about cyclist and UK law. I wonder why this makes you so angry?
MTB Refugee wrote:
This exception requires specific protocols – firstly the drivers of any emergency vehicle hold specific accreditation on their licences to do so. Then you have the stipulation that the blue lights must be flashing, and (if necessary) the siren to warn of their presence. It is also a requirement that when travelling through junctions they otherwise have no right of way, to slow to a crawl before proceeding to make sure other road users have seen them and given way. But under blue lights, unless physically unable to progress, Emergency services will ALWAYS proceed through a red light.
And perhaps the reason there is anger is because the UK law is not fit for purpose and puts people at risk, and other countries are showing better solutions our own government are ignoring.
I jumped this red light and
I jumped this red light and swerved off to the right.
The reason being I heard a driver floor it behind me and L1 was fully occupied and I actually feared for my safety.
A lady pedestrian to the left saw it all and asked me afterwards if I was ok !
MTB Refugee wrote:
I didn’t misunderstand what you wrote, but you obviously hadn’t thought it through and need to add some extra conditions as in general a red light can mean many things. Also, your “end of discussion” was premature as we need to discuss how inaccurate your statement was.
I’m sorry that I reacted angrily, but it bugs me when people think they know what they’re talking about, but then ignore all the various edge cases. It shows overly simplistic thinking and a reduction of complicated situations to a simple dichotomy.
MTB Refugee wrote:
if the lights are sensor controlled and the sensor does not detect anything smaller tnan cars, how long should a cyclist have to wait at a red light until a car turns up and triggers the sensor?
2 minutes, 5 minutes? half an hour? overnight?
Most/many cyclists could get
Most/many cyclists could get off & walk.
Off course the proper solution is to fix the cyclist sensing, so it’s not an issue. The same with fitting early start bike traffic lights, where appropriate.
The French (+?) system of all flashing ambers late at night, might be an option?
I’ve never found it to be a
I’ve never found it to be a problem, but the option to get off the bike and become a pedestrian is always there and is perfectly legal.
Breaking a law because it suits you is a slippery slope. You break the law because you are inconvenienced by a red light is OK, a driver breaking the law by close passing you is not OK?
I don’t think that it’s reasonable to have it both ways. If we expect motorists to abide by the law, then we should also expect to abide by the law.
MTB Refugee wrote:
I can’t think of any other “crime” as victimless as treating a red light as a stop sign at times of low traffic. It certainly is not equivalent to the example of close passing which directly puts someone at risk.
The latter of course happening far more regularly than cyclists jumping red lights.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’m sure that there are drivers who would say the same about close passing cyclists or pulling out of junctions in front of cyclists. So long as they don’t actually hit anyone is everything OK?
Thinking that your law breaking is OK and someone elses is not based on your own arbitrary views is an incredibly dangerous path.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’m sure there are lots of people who think that even more victimless crimes are ‘speeding’, and ‘using a mobile phone while driving’…
wycombewheeler wrote:
Sure. But where do you draw the line? Can every driver do the same?
New/beginner/tourist cyclists
New/beginner/tourist cyclists seeing another cycling through on red, are likely to think it’s ok & copy (and maybe not be as selective or carefull).
Easy. Dismount, walk across
Easy. Dismount, walk across the line. Assess the situation and decide whether to progress as a pedestrian or remount and cycle. That is legal. If you cause no incident, the police haven’t got justification to intervene, if you do remount and cause an issue, then you’ve committed a riding without due care, but not a red light offence. Walking, there’s pretty much nothing they can do, you are just a pedestrian who has priority in the road.
Edit: to add, really, one of the things that confuses people is that we can switch modes. A lot of red light jumpers are less experienced cyclists who aren’t bothered about laws, they look at a junction and think, “I’d walk across there, so I will do the same on my bike.” If they do the same process as crossing a pelican crossing with a red man, then you can see the logic. For reasons mentioned above, it is just less aggravating to all concerned to dismount.
The debate is as much as
The debate is as much as about whether the current “one size fits all” approach is fit for purpose especially in the interests of protecting vulnerable road users in shared use spaces where traffic isn’t segregated, as the legality of the situation.
However the consequences for breaking the law falls very differently between cyclists and drivers. If a law breaking cyclist creates an incident (ie collision), they are most likely to injure themselves. Also damages for insurance claims will be relatively small. If a law breaking driver creates an incident then they are much more likely to injure someone else. Damages will be higher and has greater potential for resource stretching for authoritative investigation and clean up.
It is not right that vulnerable road users should be forced to break the law for their own safety, and whilst not the circumstance in this case, RLJ is often the result of a driver or motor vehicle doing one or more of the following:
– Tailgating a cyclist
– Attempting a close pass but failing as they are also about to jump the red light
– Red light racers – drivers who attempt to beat the red lights by accellerating through junctions
– Encroaching dedicated cycle boxes at the front of traffic queues, or positioning themselves in the pedestrian crossing spaces over the stop line.
– Harrassment and abuse, for simply being there. Either shouting from the window or “playing snooker” with a cyclist.
I’m absolutely 100% on board
I’m absolutely 100% on board with changing the laws for the better to protect all vulnerable road users and encourage active transport.
One example that I come across every day is that currently the cars have priority when turning into side roads that cross shared use paths (at least they do where I live). I’d change that to give the shared use path priority over vehicles coming in and out of the side roads.
I’d also make leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run) a mandatory 10 year prison sentance. It seems to be all the rage to knock over a cyclist or pedestrian and then just drive off…
MTB Refugee wrote:
You may be interested to read the parliamentary debate in the link below.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2023-24/Criminal_Justice_Bill/15-0_2024-01-30a.486.2?s=cycling#g487.6
Peter Dowd put forward an amendment to try to go someway to increasing the punishment for failing to stop. Needless to say nothing has been done yet again.
In an ideal world everyone
In an ideal world everyone would obey the highway code at all times.
In the real world drivers break the rules all the time*, frequently putting cyclists in danger. It’s not surprising that cyclists sometimes feel the need to break the rules in order to put some distance between themselves and a carelessly driven motor vehicle.
Personally, I haven’t ever jumped a red light. But I will cycle on an empty pavement if it’s safer than the road.
* UK drivers collectively have over 10 million points on their licenses
Tom_77 wrote:
And that’s only the handful of instances when they are caught!
How many of those are on the
How many of those are on the licenses of people using the “Exceptional Hardship” excuse to continue driving at any one time?
“However, a few people,
Adwitiya. LANGUAGE MATTERS.
“However, a few people, including Boneau also took an issue with the bus DRIVER tailgating the cyclist…”
http://rc-rg.com
It is all about momentum.
It is all about momentum. Among motorists, cyclists and pedestians, cyclists will spend massively more human energy to regain their traveling speed compared to other road users.
A good first step would be to select a small city and do trials at selected junctions where red lights will be allowed to be crossed by cyclists.
It’s free interval training!
It’s free interval training!
How do you account for the ~40s recovery time that the red-light jumper misses out on?
Anyway, how much energy is actually needed to accelerate a 15kg bicycle? (A 2t car will need orders of magnitude more energy/fuel/pollution)
That’s why I said human
That’s why I said human energy. Of course a car will need more, but the driver will just gently step on a pedal, so he will be the least tired of all humans.
Nah not cycling to train, just commute.
It’s trialled every day in
It’s trialled every day in London, it’s not working for pedestrians, that much I know.
stonojnr wrote:
Have you got the figures on pedestrians injured at red lights by cyclists, and by drivers?
You could have said time
You could have said time there and just said, but what about ?
Do we have any informationa
Do we have any informationa about that redesign for Regent Street – I think that photo is Oxfrod Street, which is a total dog’s breakast – they are treating cycles and mobility aids to be like motor vehicles.
1 traffic lane in each direction, and they can’t even create a separated mobility track?
Borough of Westminster stuck in the 1980s FFS.
Will Regent Street be a similar multimillion pound mess? I can’t find any ddesign information anywhere.
mattw wrote:
It is Regent Street, or at least an artist’s impression thereof, I’m pretty sure the right-hand turn there is the one into New Burlington Street. What’s worrying is that if that’s the artist’s impression of what it’s going to look like at the end of the project, I can’t see a great deal of change between that and what’s there now, paint-only cycle lanes abutting very narrow vehicle lanes. It’s not a pleasant street to cycle down at the moment, I can’t really see anything there that would effect an improvement.
When I go out cycling I count
When I go out cycling I count how many motorists jump a red light and I permit myself to jump that many myself. I never get anywhere near to my limit.
It’s always, one driving through on amber, second one accelerating through the amber, then the third accelerating even harder and going through on red. Every set of lights at every junction.
I am completely past the point of caring what the rules are. They were designed for cars. I obey them stringently when I drive the car, but very few other motorists do. They speed around the city, even over 40 in the 20 zones, they skip the lights, they sit on their phones, they never indicate, they cut corners at junctions, they never give way to pedestrians, they park across the pavement and cycle lanes… Any rule they think they can get away with breaking they will.
The rule breaking from drivers is relentless. It’s a lawless mess. But apparently if I decide to take a right turn during the pedestrian phase of the lights so I’m not sat in the middle of the road with traffic passing on both sides until there’s a gap, then that makes me the bad guy?
I don’t actually do it very often, but if I feel it’s safer then I’ll break the rules. Everybody else does.
Agree. The Idaho Stop has
Agree. The Idaho Stop has worked for cyclists for decades now.
That seems very sensible, a
That seems very sensible, a system designed for cars but bikes. Eyes are right at the front on a bike, and most of us can hear the traffic around us, both unlike cars.
I like the French idea of
I like the French idea of using a box of macarons for scale
Surely there must be
Surely there must be statistics out on Google, which never lies, and research, which is never biased, to support both sides of the red light jumping debate. Questioning these sources would be nothing less than silly.
Personally, if there is no danger, the law itself might need rewriting. Plenty of countries manage with a flashing amber.
I was out cycling with a mate
I was out cycling with a mate. We came to some road works. Red light so I stopped. He continued through the red light and cycled up the inside of the coned off area (weekend so no workers). Light goes green, the stream of trafffic with me at the front set off passing him, still in the coned off area. The moment we get through the roadworks the bus behind me close passes me. So yes it would have been much safer to be my mate and go through the red light.
In general I don’t run red lights (can’t say never) but the cyclist is much more adaptable. We can make risk based decisions to choose the safest option for ourselves and often that might help the genaeral flow of traffic. However, the law is not nuanced.
I think that’s pretty much
I think that’s pretty much where I am.
I’ve done that, but as the
I’ve done that, but as the offence is going through the red light, any red light I want to take liberties with, typically temporary ones, I will dismount to go through the light.
Motorists go two ways when you go in the cones when it is obviously safe, pleased you have got out of the way, or incensed because you are a cyclist, especially if you get out the other end before them, you can’t win.
I would argue that they are
.
Unfortunately alot of
Unfortunately alot of cyclists aren’t nuanced either, for every example of one doing the right thing in that situation, there are as many that won’t.
And the close pass isn’t connected to whether you stop at a light or not, they’re completely independent events.
in a world without traffic lights or you stopping, the bus still catches up with you, it likely still close passes you.
I would argue that they are
I would argue that they are potentially not independent events. The bus driver is on a schedule. He was stuck behind me through a long stretch of road works where he can’t overtake. I think that might already be testing his patience and therefore more likely to attempt a risky overtake.
I only run red lights under
I only run red lights under three conditions:
Quote:
I’ve only ridden it a couple of times, and heaven knows I’m the opposite to a mountain goat, but while I agree it’s absolutely beautiful and every British cyclist should ride it at least once, “incredibly challenging?” It’s 3.5km at 4.7%, with a total elevation of 165m (Veloviewer climb) – it’s a Cat 3! Admittedly there’s a nasty 500m or so about a kilometre in where it ramps up to 12% but that’s over almost before you’ve registered it and the rest is really a doddle, even for me.
If anyone (ie anti-cycling
If anyone (ie anti-cycling trolls) complains that cyclists aren’t being held to account, show them this:
(regarding drivers giving false registration/address details to DVLA etc)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-68152945
but but registration plates..
but but registration plates…. Top road safety expert Nick Freeman something something
mitsky wrote:
The DVLA Vehicle registration system is broken because second hand sales do not include any verification of the identity nor address of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred to.
It should be a requirement to present documents in person for verification but it’s not so any trash can be written on the registration form parts leading to fully incorrect and illegal data.
Add the low value of old vehicles Vs the cost of insurance being not really worth it i.e. completely ignoring 3rd party liability and you have a really broken system.
Plenty of evidence on this platform of vehicle enforcement being low to non-existent as a police priority.
Regulations allowing cyclists
Regulations allowing cyclists to run stop signs and treat red lights as yeild signs have actually been studied, and the studies concluded https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/the-idaho-stop-gets-added-momentum-with-chicago-study/
Regarding red light jumping,
Regarding red light jumping, it’s up to you if you do it. Whether you get caught for the offence or not, just remember that I’m in a large metal box travelling across your path, so any conflict is unlikely to come out in your favour. As I said, your choice.
However, I’d be interested to see how any court case might go given the hierarchy changes. Am I held in any way liable for your illegal actions?
If red light jumping for cyclists is legalised, then that changes the whole picture and certainly puts the whole responsibility on the driver to avoid cyclists. That then changes cyclists behaviour as they learn that motorists will yield and so they’ll go through with less and less attention expecting everyone to get out of their way. Just simply a recipe for disaster in my opinion.
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Like the current way people drive motor vehicles? That already is a disaster.
Technically, you have an
Technically, you have an obligation to avoid having an accident.
If you *saw* – and as a responsible driver, you would have – the cyclist and made no effort to reduce the chances of a collision, then some of the liability will be on you.
However … as the cyclist is the one committing the offence, then its likely that the majority of the responsibility will lie with them.
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Really? if the law requires/allows cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs or give ay signs, they will immediate abuse this to dominate drivers? Do you currently see this with cyclists flying out of side roads without slowing and expecting drivers to avoid them? I don’t see it so I don’t see why treating red lights the same as these situations would lead to the change you describe.
If anything I see more drivers failing to yield to cyclists because they know self preservation will kick in.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Do you currently see this with cyclists flying out of side roads without slowing and expecting drivers to avoid them? I don’t see it so I don’t see why treating red lights the same as these situations would lead to the change you describe.
[/quote]
In a busy West end road like Byres Road in Glasgow, I already see cyclists (75% are delivery cyclists), jumping red lights in a manner that requires others (cars and pedestrians) to take avoiding action.
What is really concerning is when they do this at night and/or in the rain when visibility is limited. Accidents happen when all of the safety layers are defeated and in those conditions + red light jumping the safety layers get mighty thin…
Changing the law will just exacerbate this risk.
Bradshsi wrote:
But will it really though?
If people are already ignoring the law – but they are overwhelmingly “Bad Cyclists” ™ * – how is tweaking the law going to make things worse? I bet most other people on bikes will be more concerned about their own wellbeing so won’t be charging through as you describe – like they might in a car.
I am not actually a fan of ideas like this. That’s because I want something much better, not tinkering with a flawed (for vulnerable road users) system.
* These may be unaware of legislation / may be in “grey” legal status / high / incentivised to ignore risks by working for peanuts for companies who don’t care about their (definitely not) employees or their effect on the general public. I suspect that in the UK’s “the fit, the brave and the feckless” cycling on-road environment there are likely a substantially larger proportion of “road warriors” than you’d find e.g. if there was mass cycling. But then we’ll simply never get that in the UK while we focus on maximising capacity / convenience for drivers. Tinkering with red light rules seems to be an example of not really challenging that…
Is this you applying mass
Is this you applying mass responsibility by saying you don’t see cyclists abusing this?
Is this the same mass responsibility that gets denied because some riders can’t see how their actions may effect the opinions and actions of others … normally to the detriment of others?
RLJ.
RLJ.
I’ve made my feelings known about this subject every time its come up, and see the same old responses.
If you want to RLJ, go ahead … but remember that if you feck it up and get hit by another road user, good old contributory negligence will come in to play.
If you get fecked up as badly as i was [and remember I was driven in to], that was 4 months off work … 4 months of not being able to walk or use my left arm.
Then … I had a further 14 months on phased return to work … so 18 months on reduced pay.
Can you afford that?
If you hit someone – pedestrian or another cyclist – then it’s likely that your insurance won’t pay out … or if they do, they’ll come looking to you for reimbursement.
So, you’ll get sued by whoever you hit.
Can you afford that?
On top of your loss of earnings.
Think about the consequences of your actions to save a few moments.
Is it *really* worth it?
Oldfatgit wrote:
…if you’re not certain, just … drive a car. Then do it anyway and let the others out there worry about the consequences of your actions.
(I can be smug and say we’re asking the wrong questions here [1] [2]. That’s because I currently have the luxury of travelling for for several miles on a “mini network” without encountering ANY traffic lights. Until they nix my route to the shops / station / town that is).
Lucky you for no lights.
Lucky you for no lights.
I’ve had to change my commute from Easterhous to Mount Vernon, along the A74 / London Road because of the traffic lights.
There’s beautiful, brand spanking new segregated cycle lane (it’s smooth and got a big kerb and everything) … but the light phasing from John Dewar’s to Trongate is terrible for cycling.
If the main road light is on green, then the cycle lane is red … and there’s no beg buttons for the cyclists.
There’s pressure strips … less than a bike length from the stop line in the cycle lane … so they are pretty much useless.
Instead, I choose to go a less protected – but significantly less traffic lights – from Easterhouse, through Shettleston and down Duke Street.
Far more hazardous… but significantly less time sitting at lights.
Because I can use the paths I
Because I can often use the paths (for now…) I find I generally automatically pick routes using them (no lights) even when this makes things further. (Helps that they’re much more pleasant than being in traffic, mostly!)
Yeah, in the UK we have very stupid lights and mostly they don’t consider cycling (I’m still dubious about “early release” lights for cyclists. Bit of a cheap hack which is then hyped as a general “solution” or even special concession. Not duly thankful…)
Of course cyclists don’t need traffic lights – they’re there because we have so many motor vehicles and humans in cars can’t be relied on to sort that out safely. And the more of the latter or the greater the speeds, the more lights.
Honestly, it’s in the interest of people driving (and walking!) to have a radical programme of building cycling infra and (as important) developing separate networks where cycling and driving only interact where there are few motor vehicles, moving slowly. (Trams are great, but in Edinburgh we’re building ones which don’t play to their advantages; and addionally because “mass motoring” we don’t get near their theoretical capacity. Apologies – don’t have the actual numbers to hand – anyone?)
Oldfatgit wrote:
surely they must pay out, almost every crash ont he road is caused by one driver breaking the law, or at least the highway code. It would make 3rd party insurance pointless if the insurer just said “you were speeding so not paying” or “you failed to give way so not paying”
They could well come after you for payment, but we don’t see too many reports of drivers claiming to have been bankrupted by the insurer recovering costs, so I assume it doesn’t happen. Or at least if it does, only for things like drunk driving, nothing as common as going through a red light.
I haven’t said that the other
I haven’t said that the other party insurance *will* come after you.
I’ve said it’s *likely*.
Insurance companies are not in it for love … they are in if for profit, and paying out because you have broken the law does not make profit.
Depending on policy, the insurers *could* sue you for the recovery of payment … or they *could* decide to walk away and write off losses.
If I’ve understood it correctly, the term is “subrogation”.
IANAL and thankfully not in the Insurance business either. I’ve enough people not liking me because I rode a bike without being a member of either of those professions.
Red lights are there to serve
Red lights are there to serve a purpose, which is to give everyone a fair turn at crossing an intersection safely, in confidence that no conflicting traffic is going to take them out. Effectively they are light-controlled stop lines, lines which require you to stop for as long as the light is red – regardless of whether there actually is any conflicting traffic to stop for.
But, not all stop lines require lights to tell you whether to go or not. And not all green lights mean it is safe to go, observation is still needed to watch for, for example, emergency vehicles proceeding against red, and pedestrians, who are allowed to make their own judgement as to whether to go or not at any time. What the purpose of red lights is not, is to hold anyone up just for the sake of it.
And for that reason I refuse to get held up just for the sake of it. Just barrelling through on red without looking would be stupid, but if you’ve looked properly, given priority to all opposing traffic and there isn’t any other traffic, simply waiting around for a colour change is a bit pointless. If you trust your eyes, have clear view of the whole intersection, have checked and seen there’s no conflicting traffic, there’s not really much point in waiting there just for the sake of it.
Re red lights. Since I
Re red lights. Since I decided to never cycle without a camera I haven’t cycled through a red light or rode on the pavement. I am fairly confident that the police will do nothing about most of my reports of bad driving but I suspect they would be more than happy to prosecute me with the evidence I would have to provide to them with the footage. They want 2 minutes either side. I do dismount and walk the bike across at junctions I know the timings of if it will be quicker for me.
A possible solution to red light jumping would be to provide all cyclists with cameras and then act on their reports.
I was going to put exactly
I was going to put exactly the same thing !
Friday morning after a
Friday morning after a commute so I feel like wading in on the RLJ thing. I don’t jump red lights, I’m scared on amber and cautious on green.
I have found whenever I come to a traffic on amber or green I do a shoulder check to see how close my tailgater is. Too close and I’m going through, I’ve been almost rear-ended a few times by slowing down when I should. In a lot of cases car drivers speed up on amber (or ‘recently established reds…’) and are often fixated on the lights rather than the brightly lit 6’3″ obstacle in the way. Often they’ll blast their horn or swear at me for slowing down (and squeeze past anyway). Green lights I usually check for RLJ cars, saved me a few times as I’ve stopped to avoid somebody flying through on amber or red.
I cycle with a camera and am about to submit a video of a licensed private hire vehicle accelerating towards an amber light 100m away in the town centre. He made it through even though by that time it had been red for a few seconds. Nothing will come of that report but I’ll do it anyway.
We all have a duty to look after ourselves and others on the roads in the best way we can. For me it is a obessive following of the rules (so I always have the moral high ground). For others it may be to go through a red light if they feel is safer for them. This is not a problem in my eyes.
The RLJs that everybody pictures when they say all cyclist go thruogh red are not the people I’ve described above, they are invincible kids or delivery riders trying to hit a schedule. You can’t do anything about the first lot, if they had cars they’d be doing donuts in the car park or racing each other on dual carriageways. The second lot SHOULD be clamped down on, food delivery services are not a sustainable business model if their riders and drivers followed all the laws.
bobbypuk wrote:
surely they are, how much time does jumping reds really save? 1 minute per delivery? put the delivery payment up by 25p, that equates to £15/hr. so they could be sustainable. And I bet the overall companies could eat that from their profits.
I bet the delievry only gets a small percentage of the additional cost difference between ordering for delivery and just going to buy takeaway.
Traffic lights are put there
Traffic lights are put there for road users safety and convenience and, as such is so, it must be considered unwise to ignore them. Of course there will be exceptions like those computer controlled lights that will only change for vehicles; leaving cyclists sitting like lemons till a car comes along, or strange road configurations where it can really be unsafe for slow movers at a busy junction. But, in my experience, our Police are generally amenable to consider such things provided one is reasonable and polite; best practice is to obey the rules unless you have a well considered reason and argument not to. Stay safe everyone!
Almost – just the first bit:
Almost – generally agree with the drift but just a rant on the first bit and a correction:
This might sound woke but in a world of motor vehicles almost all road infra – including cycle paths*, pedestrian crossings and underpasses – is really for / because motorised road users. Because in their absense (bear with me) cyclists and pedestrians – with a possible query about the theoretical optimum for those with sight impairments – really don’t need traffic lights or roundabouts for that matter etc.
Consider if the “hierarchy of road users” meant something? Wouldn’t it be applied to design? Would we still have motor vehicles on roads on street level taking the direct route while – say – people walking had to take large detours, climb over bridges or navigate manky underpasses to cross them safely? Or wave a flag while crossing?
* Cycle paths being separate from the motor vehicle carriageway. I’m less and less sure what cycle lanes are for. Ticking boxes, sop to “we’re showing willing but obviously we’re not gonna spend money or seriously hassle the voters”?
Jumping red lights is the
Jumping red lights is the least of people’s worries ,the mass of stupid things I’ve seen in this last year ,from tailgating a lorry at 55mph to making children jump into the road by a bike on the pavement at over ,30 mph to going down the wrong side with a child in a trailer . The list is so long I believe a lot of cyclists were absent the day that brains were handed out
I feel your pain. My dog has
I feel your pain. My dog has started barking in her sleep again. And don’t get me started on Sheffield buses.
A bike on the pavement at
A bike on the pavement at over 30 mph? Was that, perchance, a balaclava’d bloke with a food delivery box and a suspicious quantity of duct tape filling the centre of the frame? Those electric motorcycles are already illegal and not really anything to do with “cyclists”.
But you knew that already…
No, none of that, it never
No, none of that, it never happened.
Best to ignore them and leave
Best to ignore them and leave them to their fantasy land.
Tailgating a lorry at 55 mph!
Tailgating a lorry at 55 mph!, surely that must have been Guy Martin on his way to setting a new world speed record .
All running a red does is
All running a red does is increase your risk of being hit sideways by another vehicle, be the cause of an accident by forcing another road user with the right of way to take emergency avoiding action and at the very least make other road users hate us all more. Its a dick move, it’s illegal.