“Why I skip red lights”: Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds; Finish fisticuffs as Benoît Cosnefroy grabs British rider after sprinting incident; Jumbo-Visma pro tests positive + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Reaction to the Evening Standard red light column
Some reaction to Sophie Wilkinson’s column now…
.jpg)
There are plenty of people placing the emphasis of the discussion around the need to still give way to pedestrians crossing and not put those on foot in danger.
100% but with one rule: always stop at the light first.
— Transit 🇭🇰 Jam (@Transit_Jam) August 17, 2023
Robin Hawkes replied to Jeremy Vine’s tweet: “The ‘pedestrian priority’ part of this is what most troubles me, as I simply do not see it happening so often in practice.”
Another reply suggested it could “increase risk unnecessarily”.
It makes sense as it’ll be easier for motorists to pull away at junctions.
I’m all for it. However, at present it’s against the laws of the HC.
We can’t on one hand lambast motorists for ignoring the HC then on the other, champion cyclists for doing the same.— SCK1970 (@StuartKaye6) August 17, 2023
Finish fisticuffs as Benoît Cosnefroy grabs Lewis Askey after sprinting incident
Drama after yesterday’s Tour du Limousin sprint, British rider Lewis Askey bearing the brunt of Benoît Cosnefroy’s ire…
A close call! There was drama today at the finish of stage two of the Tour du Limousin, as Luca Mozzato won his first career victory in a hectic bunch sprint!
Watch all the action over on GCN+ 👉 https://t.co/8FSJcLL3Gx (territory restrictions apply) #tourdulimousin #gcnracing pic.twitter.com/PTykwrXbqe
— GCN Racing (@GcnRacing) August 16, 2023
Askey later explained he had gone to see the Frenchman to explain what had happened from his viewpoint, adding that they had shaken hands and there is “no bad blood”.
Cosnefroy gave his side of the story too… “You have to look at the last 150 metres. It’s the game to put me in the box, but from there to put me at the feet of barriers… It’s his job to put me in the box, if he does it — there’s no problem, but between putting myself in the box so that I don’t pass and putting me at the feet of barriers, there is a difference.
“We already take enough risks on the bike, we are often afraid for our lives, and when you see yourself touching the barrier feet, I can tell you that it’s scary. The team worked superbly, so I wanted to look for the win and I felt that I had it surely in my legs. no more fear at the finish, that’s just it.”
Jumbo-Visma rider Michel Hessmann suspended after positive anti-doping test
(Zac Williams/SWpix.com)
It’s been one of those weeks for the sport of cycling…
On Tuesday, former Team Sky and British Cycling doctor Richard Freeman was banned from all sports for four years by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) for violating its rules by taking possession of Testogel for unnamed riders.
Then, last night, Jumbo-Visma, the team that has won both Grand Tours so far this year and the last two editions of the Tour de France, announced that a rider on their books had been suspended after an out-of-competition doping test came back positive for a diuretic medicine.
Not that you’d know it from the team’s website, where news of Ben Tulett’s signing from Ineos Grenadiers and the team time trial success at Vuelta a Burgos is all that’s deemed worthy of mention.
Michel Hessmann is the rider involved, the team announcing the news only on social media in a post with replies disabled. The German was part of the line-up that helped Primož Roglič win the Giro, having finished third at Tour de l’Avenir last season, and was last week competing in the road race in Glasgow.
“It concerned an out-of-competition control on 14 June in Germany. The detected product is a diuretic medicine. We await the results of further investigation. Michel has been suspended by the team until further notice,” Jumbo-Visma’s short social media statement read.
Do the latest track bikes favour wealthier nations, and how will the UCI respond?
> Do the latest track bikes favour wealthier nations, and how will the UCI respond?
Eurostar bike booking process branded "farcical"
> Eurostar bike booking process branded “farcical”
As discussed a bit in the live blog comments…
???
I’m not sure what to say about this, to be honest…
Good potential for comment section punning, I guess…
Will the last person to leave Ineos please turn out the lights?
[Alex Whitehead/SWpix.com]
We touched on Ben Tulett’s Ineos exit a bit earlier while trying to work out the absence of Michel Hessmann’s positive test from Jumbo-Visma’s website. The latest departure means the team has just 15 riders signed up for next season, half of how many are currently on their books.
And while it would mean just needing three of the hideous self-named 4x4s to ferry the entire squad about, one guesses fulfilling a WorldTour calendar with such scarce numbers might be slightly more challenging.
Tao Geoghegan Hart is off to Lidl-Trek, Daniel Martínez to Bora-Hansgrohe, Pavel Sivakov to UAE and Tulett to Jumbo. Of course, the 11 remaining out of contract riders can still extend their stay, but we’d expect some reinforcements soon… unless the 2024 plan is just Pidcock, Bernal, Kwiatkowski and Geraint Thomas to ride all three Grand Tours, with Filippo Ganna and Josh Tarling doing the work of two riders each…
Scotland's "unluckiest cyclist" wins compensation – after being knocked off his bike for third time
Primož Roglič wins Vuelta a Burgos stage as Vuelta a España prep continues
More good news for Jumbo-Visma’s website to move things on from the past 24 hours…
PERFECT 🔟
Primoz Roglic storms to his 10th victory of the season!@rogla | @JumboVismaRoad | #VueltaBuegos pic.twitter.com/l85uMWjI7Z
— Eurosport (@eurosport) August 17, 2023
The road bike we should all be riding? The road.cc Podcast + Matt Page takes on the long winding road just to start Paris–Brest–Paris
Here’s a quick round up of some of the other stuff around the site this afternoon, starting with Jamie’s vid on the 2023 Canyon Endurace…
Elsewhere, we’ve also got our latest episode of the road.cc Podcast out now wherever you get you podcasts…
While Matt Page has penned a piece on why just getting to the start line of Paris-Brest-Paris is a bit of a faff… and we don’t mean travel wise…
Your thoughts on whether cyclists should be allowed to ride (cautiously) through red lights
“Why I skip red lights”: Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds (so long as they give pedestrians priority)https://t.co/9vfrjViSVN pic.twitter.com/BWfSN4wvx0
— road.cc (@roadcc) August 17, 2023
Just a few comments on this one… let’s get cracking and hopefully we’re all done in time for tea…
Sriracha: “Of course it is safer for the cyclist to make the left turn before the adjacent HGV does the same. But I don’t think having cyclists jump red lights is the answer. Longer term I’d like to see separate lights for cyclists (like the little ones you see in France) that would go green ahead of the main lights, anywhere where there is a cycle box/ASL (which need to be the norm, not the exception).”
Rendel Harris: “While I’d be happy for cyclists to be allowed through red lights in certain situations – left turn on red for example – I think it would be an horrendous mistake to allow them to run reds on pedestrian crossings. Just last night I was watching our bikes outside East Dulwich station whilst Herself picked up some shopping, in five minutes I saw at least a dozen cyclists run through the red at the pelican crossing whilst pedestrians were on it; at least half of them were riding in excess of 20 mph (it’s at the bottom of a hill) and had to swerve around people crossing.
“If this is the way people behave when it’s totally illegal, I can’t see any improvement occurring if it was made legal. Any legislation to allow any leeway for cyclists at lights must remember the hierarchy of road users and have pedestrian safety as its #1 priority.”
neilmck: “In France there will be a little sign with arrows on the traffic light telling you which directions you can go on red. Whether or not there are these signs depends whether or not there is a cyclist working in the local town hall (this can also be determined by looking at the width of the cycle lanes).
“I commute 50km by bicycle everyday in Paris and I generally go through red lights in the outer Parisian region where there is very light traffic and no pedestrians, however I would never do so (except at a signalled junction) in central Paris (there is just too much happening to be safe).”
Kerry Palmer: “It’s been legal in some States in the US since 1982… and most of the evidence found it’s safer.”
Fair few Facebook comments, I’d suggest without actually reading the article in question, missing out completely the idea Sophie suggested it become law… and instead just piling into one great big anti-cycling bingo round. Gives ’em something to do at lunch, I guess…
Morgoth985: “Seems to me that a lot of the objections to the going through red lights idea are along the lines of ‘don’t break the law, it will just encourage drivers to do the same’. But if it was a change to the HC then it wouldn’t be breaking the law.
“Granted, it would be giving some road users a right that others don’t have, which might annoy the ‘have nots’, but too bad, that’s actually the idea, and wouldn’t be the only instance. [edit: I meant the extra right is the idea, not the annoyance, although who knows, maybe that would be worth it too!]”
"Why I skip red lights": Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds
Journalist Sophie Wilkinson has penned a column for the Evening Standard outlining why she believes cyclists should be allowed to ride through red lights (so long as they give pedestrians priority)…
📻Soapbox: “Let cyclists skip red lights (so long as they give pedestrians priority)”
by @sophwilkinson https://t.co/zdOyrXW8UN— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) August 17, 2023
She writes…
I find it is far better is to jump lights — which is why I say make it legal for cyclists to jump red lights and so much more in order to maintain our safety.
As I always give pedestrians right of way, the only life I risk by jumping a red is my own. Turning left at a junction? I believe it is far safer to do so before the vehicle behind gets the same idea and pulls me under its wheels.
And why shouldn’t a bike go through a set of green pedestrian lights when there are simply no pedestrians in sight?
Thoughts?
We wouldn’t be the first place to allow it. Cyclists in Paris are allowed to at some junctions (much to the surprise of my visit last year, armed with my very British confusion and willingness to wait in a queue, as legions of Lime bike hirers nonchalantly sailed past me and safely through junctions). Likewise it’s permitted in some other cities on the continent, while in Idaho cyclists must come to a full stop before proceeding and must yield to other traffic.
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
Last year, Colorado adopted new legislation meaning at a stop sign, cyclists are required to “slow to a reasonable speed” and give way to any motor traffic or pedestrians at the junction before proceeding. On encountering a red traffic light, they have to stop at the junction and give way to any vehicles or pedestrians there before continuing on their way – even if the lights haven’t changed.
What do you think? Do you always stop at red lights? Would you like to see a change to the law? Would it make things safer? We’ll round up some reaction to the piece next…
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.
66 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
Genuine question, how much of that increased likelihood is attributable to the fact that less confident/ more nervous riders might be more likely to wear a helmet and also more likely to have a crash, and also to the fact that people are more likely to wear helmets in a perceived-risk environment? If all urban commuters wear helmets and nobody who rides on quiet country roads wears a helmet, obviously the urban commuters are going to be have more collisions and so the figures would show riders with helmets have more collisions but it would be primarily attributable to the environment, not the helmets. Is there any research that shows that amongst a cohort of riders of similar experience and ability, riding in the same type of environment, those wearing helmets will have more collisions?
They really aren't that tough, researchers have found that a simple skull fracture can be caused by a force as low as 10kgs; it has been known for people to fracture their skulls simply by walking into a door frame, and a very significant proportion of fractured skulls come from simple low-impact falls when walking. The idea that hair can protect you from abrasions is pretty risible, maybe if it was woven into a mat it might but on your head it's in individual strands; try running your fingernails over your scalp, does the hair protect you? No, it parts. Now imagine your fingernails are a rough road surface, the same thing would happen. None of this particularly is meant as a pro-helmet argument, but if you think you can rely on your skull and your hair to get you out of a crash undamaged I'm afraid you might well end up severely disappointed.
If there's one thing for sure, you don't anything about her crash. Her helmet shows a crack, and that's significant. Maybe you think it's no big deal. That's your right, but don't think you're making any informed decision or that you know anything about potential consequences. After having had a closed head injury and going through everything that followed, I can safely say I don't want to ever go through that again. As a result, I do what I can to make sure I get home safe and intact. I understand the physics behind how a helmet works, and I further understand the limitations of helmets. With that said, I'm willing to pay for the possibility that a helmet might dissipate enough energy to keep me alive if for whatever I have to exchange energy and momentum with a car, road, or whatever. As for your handwaving statistics, come back when you understand statistics and all the factors that influence statistical outcomes.
Person who gains financially from the support of a helmet company makes superlative claims for the product they are financially rewarded to wear and promote. Shocker.
If you strap something to your head, and you fall, and the thing strapped to your head is damaged, you can NOT infer you would have died if not for that thing. Particularly when that thing is itself fairly fragile. To make the flaw in such logic clear, if you strapped eggs to your head, fell and the eggs broke, would you seriously be able to claim "The eggs saved my life!!!"? Skulls are already pretty tough things. Hair is also a pretty good abrasion resistant material protecting your skin.
Fast forward to 2050. MTBers and gravelers are riding bikes with tyres compatible with the olde Penny Farthings.
Wasn't the parrot some random parrot that just happened to regularly join Scarponi on his local training ride - not Scarponi's own parrot?
"Helmets save lives in certain types of accidents." They also increase the risk of the most dangerous injury, Diffuse Axonal Injury, caused by rapid rotation of the head. After thirty years of denying that helmets increased that risk, the helmet industry realised that there was even more money to be made by producing helmets that might possibly reduce that risk, MIPS etc. Helmets were sold because people were endlessly told that a helmet would save their life, not by the manufacturers, but by helmet zealots. Since it has been proved beyond doubt that helmets don't save lives, the helmet zealots have switched to saving injury, which they probably do. But they also increase the likelihood of a collision, as helmetted riders have more. The biggest reasons that I oppose such misleading, inaccurate stories like this are that they deter people from cycling because they show it as dangerous, they distract from measures that actually make cycling safer, and the whole cycle helmet promotion thing started out from the worst of bad science, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, 1989 https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
I'll bow to your superior knowledge of facebook and twitter as I don't use them (and I'm not going to start if your description is accurate) and I'm not accusing anyone of campaigning for mandatory helmets but I do believe we have to reject the regular unsubstantiated claims of their effectiveness.
I got one of the Dynamic air blasters recently, and coincidentally I also use it for getting the difficult to reach coffee grinds out of my hand-grinder!
66 thoughts on ““Why I skip red lights”: Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds; Finish fisticuffs as Benoît Cosnefroy grabs British rider after sprinting incident; Jumbo-Visma pro tests positive + more on the live blog”
Is this something people have
Is this something people have read, yet?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/aug/17/eurostar-derailed-my-efforts-to-book-a-bike-on-to-one-of-its-trains
Yes, it sounds to me like
Yes, it sounds to me like Eurostar could not care less and replied with “whatever” even to the Guardian journalist.
Considering the multiple
Considering the multiple gigantic suitcases that people can take on Eurostar and other trains, for free, it’s disappointing a bike has such a high charge and difficult process.
And the reason it’s disappointing is because I’d love to do it and buy a ticket!
momove wrote:
I see opportunity for a business with premises at either end to rent out unmarked bike boxes
“It’s just large luggage”
“Oh, what’s in there?”
“…OLED TV”
round my way, I think drivers
round my way, I think drivers should be banned from going through red lights. Remember kids, there are over a hundred pedestrians and cyclists killed by drivers going through red lights for each cyclist or pedestrian killed by cyclists going through red lights
(possibly slightly misremembered DfT stats. Will dig out full comparison later)
Yes, I’d just be happy with
Yes, I’d just be happy with the current rules being enforced for drivers running red lights and speeding.
momove wrote:
If road traffic law enforcement is not a national priority (Active Travel etc.) then changing Attitudes is required to improve compliance.
Over to the Department of Culture Media and Sports to act…
Breaking the law whilst on
Breaking the law whilst on the road is only an issue if youre on a bicycle. There is no where near the same level of outcry about people in vehicles breaking the same laws. Or other even more dangerous laws such as speeding, using a phone whilst driving etc etc.
jkirkcaldy wrote:
The result of media confirmation bias and widespread failure to take responsibility for compliance with the law.
Related to the failure of road traffic policing that is supposedly a democratic process (Police Commissioner) i.e. that a majority can’t be bothered to protect vulnerable road users.
“I find it is far better is
“I find it is far better is to jump lights — which is why I say make it legal for cyclists to jump red lights and so much more in order to maintain our safety.
As I always give pedestrians right of way, the only life I risk by jumping a red is my own. Turning left at a junction? I believe it is far safer to do so before the vehicle behind gets the same idea and pulls me under its wheels.
And why shouldn’t a bike go through a set of green pedestrian lights when there are simply no pedestrians in sight? “
…
“… before the vehicle behind gets the same idea…”
“… THE VEHICLE BEHIND GETS THE SAME IDEA…” ???
Are self driving vehicles available now?
Or should the writer read http://rc-rg.com
Not forgetting: “And why shouldn’t a bike go through a set of green pedestrian lights …”
At least we can blame the bike for doing it, rather than us as cyclists… 😀
mitsky wrote:
I had presumed that the writer was referring to the common motoring technique of “They went, so I can”.
Which can explain why two cars will be driven through temporary traffic lights after they’ve gone red, why one motorist will nip out of a junction in front of you with just enough room but then then the one behind will follow forcing you to emergency stop, &c &c.
brooksby wrote:
It’s like drafting but for motor vehicles…
So standard I can only assume if someone was pulled up on it they’d get loud and start saying “IT’S IN THE HIGHWAY CODE!” (I think for most people this is always a Spacecorps Directives moment).
chrisonatrike wrote:
Kudos for the Red Dwarf reference
brooksby wrote:
A lethal combination of confirmation bias and failing to observe the Highway Code minimum separation of 2 second gap assuming a small vehicle in front (much more required for SUV, Van or HGV which block the field of view much more).
Failure to observe, plan and execute safely results..
Sorry if my original comment
Sorry if my original comment wasn’t clear.
I was picking up on the bad writing, implying the vehicle was thinking for itself rather than being controlled by the driver’s inputs.
“As I always give pedestrians
“As I always give pedestrians right of way, the only life I risk by jumping a red is my own.”
As someone who’s been knocked off his bike by a fellow cyclist sailing blithely through a red light at a crossroads with poor visibility, and who has had plenty of near misses in the same situation, that’s not true.
Brauchsel wrote:
That statement always annoys me, people always give pedestrians right-of-way until there is the one they don’t see or the one whose speed or trajectory they misjudge. Additionally, of course someone jumping a red light is not only risking their own life, firstly there is the collateral damage that may arise from other cyclists, drivers and pedestrians trying to avoid the cyclist who is “only risking their own life” and inadvertently colliding with others, and then, if the cyclist does lose their own life there is the emotional impact on the innocent third-party who is involved who has to live with the trauma for the rest of their lives, even if they are completely innocent.
While I’d be happy for
While I’d be happy for cyclists to be allowed through red lights in certain situations – left turn on red for example – I think it would be an horrendous mistake to allow them to run reds on pedestrian crossings. Just last night I was watching our bikes outside East Dulwich station whilst Herself picked up some shopping, in five minutes I saw at least a dozen cyclists run through the red at the pelican crossing whilst pedestrians were on it; at least half of them were riding in excess of 20 mph (it’s at the bottom of a hill) and had to swerve around people crossing. If this is the way people behave when it’s totally illegal, I can’t see any improvement occurring if it was made legal. Any legislation to allow any leeway for cyclists at lights must remember the hierarchy of road users and have pedestrian safety as its #1 priority.
I would agree that any change
I would agree that any change to the law is unlikely to lead to an improvement in the behaviour of those cyclists who currently ride with complete disregard for the law and the safety of those around them. But I don’t see that as a reason not to make those changes, if they would make life safer and easier for sensible, law-abiding cyclists.
I know that crossing well,
I know that crossing well, and have seen the same happen many times. Being as kind as I can to the wanton cyclists, I wonder if a warning sign further up the hill might help? If the traffic lights and bus gate are in your favour, you can pick up a lot of speed coming down (it’s about 12% I think) and it’s possible that some riders are caught out and can’t stop safely in time.
But then, I got sworn at yesterday by a woman cycling through a red light at a crossing on Camberwell Church Street. She was coming up the inside of a bus which had stopped at the light, and seemed aggrieved that a pedestrian was crossing at the pedestrian crossing.
Brauchsel wrote:
To be honest most of them at that time of day are commuters who must know the lights are there. However, I entirely agree it needs more warning and I suggested exactly that to the council, the railway bridge would be a perfect place for a sign. There are certainly a lot more drivers running the light coming from Dog Kennel Hill than in the opposite direction, as you say, once people (especially if they don’t know the area) are through the bus gate light they are not expecting to face another light 50 metres on.
The Camberwell Church Street pelican may as well not exist as far as cyclists are concerned, I often feel like Billy no mates in the morning as I stop and watch everyone else ride round me…
(Apologies for being somewhat parochial!)
Anti-cyclist Bingo 101 ‘I
Anti-cyclist Bingo 101 ‘I once saw a cyclist ride through a red light so all cyclists are irresponsible road users’. Nonsense of course but what mainstream and social media says.
Given how few road users are aware of the ‘Hierarchy of Responsibility ‘ in the last update to the Highway Code any changes would need to be publicised much better to avoid mistaken road rage and further unsafe behaviour around vulnerable road users..
IMHO what we really need is a safety first culture not a might is right one.
That requires the Department of Culture Media and Sports to regulate mainstream and social media to change Attitudes including mandating the PACTS Road Collision Reporting Guidelines.
lonpfrb wrote:
Preach, brother!
What we have is a “maximise motor vehicle capacity” model – which has, remarkably, achieved a high level of safety BUT at cost of convenience (or sometimes possibility) for all other road users. That is – it’s only safe because most have been scared off the roads.
There were signs of tiny steps in the right direction a year back – the instigation of the Road Safety Investigation Branch (to mirror the Rail, Air and Marine ones, hopefully). But this may have stalled?
Meanwhile there is a fully-functional “road-tested” system designed for moving people safely, quite nearby…[1] [2]. But … not invented here!
This!
This!
So many drivists are completely out of touch with the latest HC and laws, so it would simply add to the ire of those already angry at those ‘errant’ cyclists when suddenly they noticed a lot more riding through red lights.
Whilst I understand the
Whilst I understand the reasoning behind Sophie Wilkinson’s column, I can’t help but be hesitant on such a subject. Not only because there are implications to such a change, and there are methods to make yourself safer at junctions listed within the HC anyway.
Riders need to be more confident in taking up the Primary Position when at junctions, regardless of the direction you are going to take. Staying in a more central position (both legal and recommended in this instance – Rule 72 part 1 covers this) should make overtaking impossible at that point.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82
If I see a stationary line of traffic ahead (at a red light), I always check front vehicle position, and scan the line for safe gaps before filtering past. If the front vehicle is in front of the line or fully in a cycle box, and there are no safe gaps, I slot behind the last vehicle centrally. If the lights change whilst moving up, the safe gaps are the place to slot back into line as traffic starts to move forward.
Also, the elephant in the room is that making such a move will be divisive amongst drivers to the point that the entitled minorty will take greater liberties when it comes to risk around cyclists. Considering that so many driving offences go unpunished simply because there wasn’t any evidence, I’m not likely to do anything different that might make me any more of a target for abuse.
Seems to me that a lot of the
Seems to me that a lot of the objections to the going through red lights idea are along the lines of “don’t break the law, it will just encourage drivers to do the same”. But if it was a change to the HC then it wouldn’t be breaking the law. Granted, it would be giving some road users a right that others don’t have, which might annoy the “have nots”, but too bad, that’s actually the idea, and wouldn’t be the only instance. [edit: I meant the extra right is the idea, not the annoyance, although who knows, maybe that would be worth it too!]
What I would also consider though is to allow everyone, including motorists, to turn left on red if clear. This is done in some US states and elsewhere (turn right there obv, but you get me) and I am not aware of any major problems from it. Correct me if you know otherwise though.
Morgoth985 wrote:
Well… reviews are mixed. (Personally I’m minded to say this is not only not a solution, it’s not even a good stop-gap on the way to much better designs for junctions – now starting to be attempted in the UK also).
Back in the day the US NTSA concluded that “there weren’t many serious crashes”.
However Streetsblog (which can be a bit noisy – they are activists after all) says there’s evidence that KSIs here disproportionately affect non-motorised traffic. Makes logical sense – another “drivers are looking for other cars” situation.
Ok, fair enough
Ok, fair enough
I once got hit on a
I once got hit on a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist*, so I’ve got some reservations about allowing cyclists to jump red lights.
Fundamentally this is an issue about motorists endangering cyclists and the solution is to tackle that, ideally with better infrastructure.
* 8 years old walking to the Post Office to buy sweets, I pressed the button and when the green man came on I crossed the road without looking.
You still got hit though, the
You still got hit though, the law did not protect you. There are cyclists who will not give way to pedestrians (a very small minority) and those who will give way. Those who do not care about pedestrians will already be running lights. Those who respect red lights will certainly respect pedestrians. Why penalise this group of cyclists?
Yes, I have been too, and it
Yes, I have been too, and it hurt alot, i dont think people realise quite how much 80kgs of person + 12kg of bike travelling even at “slow” speed hurts when it impacts you. Also had two near misses too, one where the cyclist swore at me for getting in their way,seriously wtf, and one where only my hesitation about stepping in front of a bus on a green pedestrian light, saved me.
So no I don’t think this would help at all, plus it creates another dividing wedge between cyclists and motorists about rules on the road.
In France there will be a
In France there will be a little sign with arrows on the trafficlight telling you which directions you can go on red. Whether or not there are these signs depends whether or not there is a cyclist working in the local town hall (this can also be determined by looking at the width of the cycle lanes). I commute 50km by bicycle everyday in Paris and I generally go through red lights in the outer Parisian region where there is very light traffic and no pedestrians, however I would never do so (except at a signalled junction) in central Paris (there is just too much happening to be safe).
Of course it is safer for the
Of course it is safer for the cyclist to make the left turn before the adjacent HGV does the same. But I don’t think having cyclists jump red lights is the answer. Longer term I’d like to see separate lights for cyclists (like the little ones you see in France) that would go green ahead of the main lights, anywhere where there is a cycle box/ASL (which need to be the norm, not the exception).
As for going against a green pedestrian light, just no. The answer there is to get rid of “beg button” delay. The lights should start to change in favour of pedestrians as soon as they press the button, instead of after they have already crossed the road!
Swerving through a populated pedestrian crossing is just crass.
I agree
I agree
Sriracha wrote:
We have quite a number of those in my neck of the woods (Peckham/Camberwell/ East Dulwich) and they work absolutely brilliantly, they should definitely become a standard feature.
Rendel Harris wrote:
We have quite a number of those in my neck of the woods (Peckham/Camberwell/ East Dulwich) and they work absolutely brilliantly, they should definitely become a standard feature.— Sriracha
A few in Edinburgh but they give only about a second start, which doesn’t seem long enough. Also is a bit of an early warning for the cars to start revving. I’m not yet convinced that they help much.
TheBillder wrote:
We have quite a number of those in my neck of the woods (Peckham/Camberwell/ East Dulwich) and they work absolutely brilliantly, they should definitely become a standard feature.
— Rendel Harris A few in Edinburgh but they give only about a second start, which doesn’t seem long enough. Also is a bit of an early warning for the cars to start revving. I’m not yet convinced that they help much.— Sriracha
Yup, I’ve certainly had a few times where a driver on a hair-trigger driver sees green, any green and it’s go!
I just thing these are a (hopefully) passing phase on the way to a much better solution (cyclists get their own completely separate set of lights – and because they’re on separate infra half the time these aren’t even needed…)
Sriracha wrote:
Agree to sorting out the pedestrian lights* and not having cyclists ploughing through. Although with a cycle path people and cyclists can safely cross without need for any lights.
However ASL / “advanced cycle release” lights are pretty much still in the 3rd class category I’d say – not even sure Copehagen (2nd class) has them? Meanwhile in 1st class road design land you avoid this issue by having (where needed) different space for each mode. So everyone just has to deal with one type of traffic (motor vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians) at a time and there’s a space for everyone. [1] [2] [3] [4]
I know – “impossible” right? “Costs too much…” – AKA “we chose to spend all the money and more on motor traffic”.
* The totally unpopular and “impractical” (expensive) idea above might have the lights return to green for pedestrians and red all directions for vehicles if none are detected approaching.
I think that racing involving
I think that racing involving trade teams should be allowed to have bike development and choice involved as is the current case, but anything that involves National Federations, including World Championships and Olympic events, should be on standardised equipment. As there is little to no franchising in track racing, perhaps having events like 6 Days and the UCI Track Champions League involve trade teams to showcase these innovative equipment, and keep the “available for the public to buy” rule.
I made a similar observation on TT bikes in the comments of a GCN video (I think what we would like to ban from racing) how TT bikes also favour the richest trade teams, and that there is no affordable equipment available to buy new that is anywhere close to what’s being developed.
Ten years ago you could get a third teir groupset equipped alloy frame TT bike for well under £2000, and an alloy framed track bike from a number of manufacturers for as little as £700. But becuase that market was so small the equipment doesn’t exist any more (with the exception of Dolan Pre Cursa which is pretty much every velodrome hire bike too)
getting into the competitive side of the sport has become much harder as a result, and the introduction of a Road Bike category at CTT level has gone a long way to help, but a number of people who are new to the sport but are serious about track or TT racing and are on a limited budget are unable to afford any dedicated equipment and are forced to look to the secondhand market, which is both fairly scarce of equipment choice, and a minefield of item condition and usability.
So Ms Wilkinson’s argument is
So Ms Wilkinson’s argument is basically – all the other road users behave badly and are breaking rules /laws so it is ok to do the same.
Apart from that being a lazy Tu Quoque logical fallacy, on a more practical level: FFS grow up and be an adult in the room even when everyone else is a toddler.
I don’t think that’s fair.
I don’t think that’s fair. It’s a call to change the law, not to break the law.
Bradshsi wrote:
Well it’s a short article so I can recommend you read it. (FWIW I don’t entirely agree with it, having better ideas in mind – but that’s something else).
You won’t find “but they jump red lights too!” exactly. The closest the argument gets is the idea that it’s safer for cyclists to get out of the way of cars – because cars may move when the lights are not green. Not quite the same as “I shove people but you do too”.
I think ending doesn’t quite get the point. The difference between motor vehicles and other road users is not the horsepower per se. It’s that motor vehicle having much greater acceleration, higher speeds and the occupants being almost invulnerable – certainly at no risk from cyclists or pedestrians. Oh – and that when scanning for hazards drivers are often looking out for other motor vehicles (the most frequent item / greatest hazard to them), not necessarily for all other road users.
Why I don’t use the cycle
Why I don’t use the cycle path
“The path itself is covered with silt and debris and the safety fencing is mangled from where a car hit it. It is also wildly overgrown. It’s not exactly safe or attractive.”
At least you had the backbone
At least you had the backbone to share Dr Of All THingsd Bizarre’s post, Dan
Agree with Sophie, not the
Agree with Sophie, not the end of the world a cyclist crossing a red light, especially in a country where there are no jaywalking laws and a bicycle/rider can have the same weight and speed of a fast jogger.
If we convince ourselves first as a community, then we may demand for it, with careful thought and adapted to local situations. But as I see here in the comments not even the cycling community is convinced about it, so maybe too early.
cyclisto wrote:
You can always hop off, run across (perfectly legal as you say) and jump back on. Then (IIRC) legally you’ve not run a red light.
You still won’t make any friends though,
Inconvenient? A little, but you did say “…speed of a fast jogger”!
I don’t think this is the way to go for the UK. I don’t think it much improves safety overall, if not the opposite. Yes, in many situations it’s no drama given “careful and observant cyclist” etc. but I think we will get the usual amount of predictable human fallibility, lazy and careless behaviour, the more the more people cycle.
I am in favour of something similar (not getting off bike / stopping at a pedestrian crossing) which I do think would improve safety and convenience for all… IF we make a small but significant modification to the street layout.
they dont have the same speed
they dont have the same speed, you have to contrive up a fast jogger to make your comparison valid.
the average speed of a jogger is 6mph, average speed of a cyclist is 12mph.
that will make a significant difference to the amount of force/kinetic energy when you are hit as a pedestrian.
It is somehow comparable with
It is somehow comparable with pedestrians. A 1.5 ton car traveling at 30mph, is on a totally different level of kinetic energy.
I think the cycling community
I think the cycling community probably doesn’t see anything wrong with the idea intrinsically but cycling has never been about what we do, its about how other behave towards us.
Watch a video of drivers nearly killing people 20 times through dangerous driving, head on near misses that would 100% have killed someone and a single video of a cyclist going through a red light will have more comments and hate on it than all the driving ones.
Giving drivers another reason to hate cyclists is an awful idea even if it makes sense from a safety and traffic flow issue. If drivers weren’t so predjudiced against cyclists they would probably see the benefit of cyclists not having to stop and start so much in heavier traffic but thats sadly not the case.
My slight concern is that
My slight concern is that there’s a thin end of the wedge argument – if you allow cyclists to go through red on the proviso that they do so slowly, carefully, ceding to pedestrians etc, drivers might reasonably ask why they can’t also go through reds on the same basis. I guess, to answer my own question, the reason it’s different is because (a) if the driver gets it wrong, the result is likely to be far more injurious; and (b) that drivers also need to obey traffic lights for traffic network management, which doesn’t affect cyclists in the same way.
Is this confirmation of Road
Is this confirmation of Road.cc completely disappearing up its own butt, quoting faceless comments in its own stories?
I believe “Own Butt” got
Anyone seen “Own Butt”?
I think he made one album and
I think he made one album and then faded into obscurity, although he may play Glastonbury next year.
Wasn’t he a full back for
Wasn’t he a full back for Port Vale?
No, sorry that was Owen Butt. I think you are correct. According to Wikipedia Own Butt are still popular in Japan & regularly tour there.
I think his most well known
I think his most well known song is ” I ripped my bottom open and now I wear a colostomy bag”. For some reason the BBC refused to play it.
perce wrote:
Ah, that’s why I never heard it. The one I’m aware of is “Faceless Comments” – they recorded as Tinfoil Dave and the Cyberbullies IIRC from a Peel session?
Was the unofficial anthem of the anti-LTN and ULEZ crew for a while.
Good knowledge sir. Little
Good knowledge sir. Little known fact that Tinfoil Dave’s singer “Fire man” Nigel McStongArm Roulero provided backing vocals on the Chicken Song.
Pierre Rolland in the Équipe
Pierre Rolland in the Équipe French TV coverage today said that he thought that if BC hadn’t given his comments in the interview straight after the race the commissaires would have come down more heavily on Askey
I am going to declare red
I am going to declare red lights a hate crime, then just ride through them.
I will self identify as a law abiding citizen, I just need to be sure not to say anything like #LesbianNana to the police arresting me.
I feel like I’ve come back to
I feel like I’ve come back to this thread and missed a really big change of tone…
Why the heated discussion of lesser known 1960s skiffle bands?
Oh blimey! To claim “Own Butt
Oh blimey! To claim “Own Butt” were a skiffle band could get you really into trouble in some parts!
To paraphrase the Great Den
To paraphrase the great Den Dennis – I’m leaving the group if we’re anything to do with
the New Romanticsskiffle bands!“Popular beat combo”, then?
“Popular beat combo”, then?
Ah, the four men who shook
Ah, the four men who shook the Wirral. Great stuff!
were they not lads then, them
were they not lads then, them wot did the shaking?
“99% of traffic installations
“99% of traffic installations are there for cars, to solve problems caused by cars – so nothing to do with me, thanks” vs the idea that we have to set the example to drivers – e.g. I’m looking at you, Mrs horse rider with you ‘phone out yesterday, or idiot cyclist filming himself riding along the road a few month back.
Funny how some wierd parity argument suddenly comes to the fore “cyclists will have to obey 20 mph limits”. Stop killing 4-5 people each day and injuring dozens more and we might think about it.
The red light jumping and pavement cycling are both lies that drivers have been pretty successful at installing in the public’s mind as “always” happening – a brilliant distraction from the industrial scale offending by drivers.
All a big roundabout or one way system does is degrade life for everyone else; as with the Rotherham housing estate / no road markings story shows, drivers are increasingly having to be spoon-fed the most basic common sense or skill – which is all fine & dandy because the Road Tax and fuel duty (every Penny of which is bitterly resented) will cover the costs.