“Pedestrians do it all the time!” Drivers slam “knob on a bike” for jumping red light in viral clip – but cyclists defend “safe, common sense” manoeuvre that “improves traffic flow and should be allowed by law” + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
“This right here is why proper cycling infrastructure is an investment in our communities and our future”
‘Ah, but surely kids in Edinburgh, of all places, won’t be cycling to school in the winter, when it’s snowing and freezing?’
They will when the protected bike lanes are up to scratch:
This. This right here is why proper cycling infrastructure is an investment in our communities and our future. It is only the beginning. This route isn’t even fully finished. When we stop imagining and start doing, change happens. @edinburghcouncil.bsky.social @edi.bike @chasbooth.bsky.social
— A Geo who Cycles (@geocycle.bsky.social) November 19, 2025 at 8:47 AM
The wonderful weightlifting world of the track sprinter
While the likes of Mathieu van der Poel and Tadej Pogačar are busy sunning themselves and enjoying coffee stops during their winter training sessions, double Olympic team sprint champion Jeffrey Hoogland is in the gym, testing out his sumo deadlift technique:
Ugh, lifting weights in the gym… Another reason road racing will always be better than the track.
(I know, I know, roadies use the gym these days too. Just not like that. Take me back to the days when Dutch cyclists were like 1980 Tour de France winner Joop Zoetemelk, who famously only managed one dip and couldn’t complete a single pull-up during his stint on Superstars. That’s proper cycling.)
“Fairly clear proof of the use of motors by pro racers!”
I reckon today’s ‘Best road.cc Reader’s Comment of the Morning’ award will have to be shared, after Paul J and lesterama responded to Lorena Wiebes’ shock encounter with a hit-and-run motorist by fixating on her battery-powered mode of transport:
Where’s Greg LeMond, an Italian documentary crew, and a podcaster when you need them?!
“For the person who hit me and didn’t stop. Luckily I’m quite okay, but this could be way worse”: Lorena Wiebes emerges unscathed after hit-and-run driver strikes her from behind
The list of pro cyclists getting hit by drivers is getting worryingly longer by the day:
> “See how many cyclists get killed by cars”: Lorena Wiebes struck by hit-and-run driver
Cavendish’s old lead-out man Mark Renshaw leaves Astana to join Luke Rowe at Decathlon and lead ambitious French team’s ‘sprint project’
Mark Renshaw, the Aussie sprinter and lead-out supremo who piloted Mark Cavendish to win after win in the late 2000s and 2010s, has been appointed as head of Decathlon CMA CGM’s ‘sprint project’ for 2026, the latest brick in the French squad’s ambitious rebuilding project.
Regarded as one of the great lead-out riders of his era after operating as Cavendish’s right-hand man in the sprints for six years, Renshaw retired at the end of 2019 before moving into a sports director role.
In 2023, he was reunited with the Manx Missile at Astana, playing a key part, albeit this time from the team car, as Cavendish secured his record-breaking 35th Tour de France stage win last summer.
And this week it was announced that Renshaw would be jumping ship from XDS Astana to join Decathlon, where he will be tasked with developing the squad’s new-look sprint train, which includes new signings Olav Kooij and Cees Bol, who also joins from Astana after forming part of the lead-out that helped Cavendish achieve sporting immortality.
“I started my career as a professional rider with a French team, so coming back to France really feels like completing a cycle,” Renshaw said in a statement.
“Working with some of the best sprinters in the peloton, with the aim of going out and winning races at the highest level, is extremely motivating as a sports director. The presence of a dedicated sprint train was the key element that convinced me to join the team. It’s very motivating to be able to build something exceptional for the seasons to come.”
The Cavendish connections don’t end there at Decathlon, however. Heinrich Haussler, who was narrowly pipped on the line by the British sprinter at the 2009 Milan-Sanremo, is also joining the French squad’s DS line-up from Red Bull-Bora.
Haussler will join Luke Rowe, another former Cav teammate at Sky, and Julien Jurdie in Decathlon’s classics department, which has been boosted by the arrival of Visma-Lease a Bike’s Strade Bianche winner Tiesj Benoot, along with nine other new signings for 2026.
These moves underline Decathlon’s lofty ambitions for next season, the first campaign in which the long-running French squad will not feature AG2R as a title sponsor since 1997.
“The arrival of Mark Renshaw and Heinrich Haussler is in line with the team’s vision of sporting and international, development,” Sébastien Joly, the team’s manager, said in a statement. “These two new sports directors balance the dynamic between the team’s French culture and its Anglo-Saxon riders and staff.
“Mark Renshaw will be dedicated to the sprint project, thanks to his experience as a pilot fish and his success as sports director. Heinrich Haussler will form an excellent team with Luke Rowe and Julien Jurdie for the classics: his genuine passion for these races will be a real asset.”
Rebrand and rename all you want, it looks like the furore surrounding the squad formerly known as Israel-Premier Tech will continue to rumble on into 2026
> “The position has not changed”: Canary Islands refuse to host 2026 Vuelta a España if rebranded Israeli team takes part
Ramps, a bungee cord, and two driverless lorries… It could only be Red Bull’s latest terrifying bike stunt
They really love videos of cyclists hanging on to the back of a car or motorbike with a bit of rope, don’t they? Also, not sure we should be championing the proliferation of driverless HGVs, if I’m honest…
You know it’s winter when…
Yep, it’s that time of the year again, folks.
Autumn did its best to hang on for as long as possible, but we all better get used to the numbing sensation of frozen fingers and the sound of chattering teeth, while the club ride clamour for the café’s hot water tap or, in the case of Greg Coley here, its outdoor heater:
Layers, layers, I need all the layers.
Sir Bradley Wiggins’ liquidators consider bulk sale of ‘Wiggo’ trademarks after post-bankruptcy deal fell through
Here’s the riveting latest from Wiggo Finance World:
> Sir Bradley Wiggins’ liquidators consider bulk sale of ‘Wiggo’ trademarks after post-bankruptcy deal fell through
“Making it easier for people to get around cheaply by bike has never been more important”: Cycling UK calls on Rachel Reeves to “invest now to generate economic growth” by protecting funds for cycling and active travel in Autumn Budget
It’s fair to say that cycling’s prospects in the upcoming Autumn Budget are looking fairly grim.
We’ve already heard the reports that Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is expected to reintroduce a spending cap on purchases made as part of the Cycle to Work scheme, in a bid to ensure, as one source quipped, that taxpayers aren’t “footing the bill for luxury leisure”.
According to Cycling UK, that rumoured move – viewed as a “sensible” money-saving tactic – could in fact cost the government in the long run, while also negatively impacting families and disabled people who purchase higher-cost bikes through the scheme.
And now, in a probably forlorn bid to quell any bike-themed budget slashing, the active travel charity has urged Reeves and Labour to “protect and enhance funding for cycling infrastructure and active travel schemes” ahead of the Budget.
In a statement published this afternoon, Cycling UK says it is keen to remind the Treasury, especially in a time of significant financial pressure, that cycling “delivers exceptional returns on investment reaching everything from public health to the economy and household budgets”.
As part of its bid to sway the government’s opinion, the charity set out its own check list for the Budget, calling on Reeves to “maintain dedicated funding for cycling and active travel at current levels as a minimum, ideally moving towards 10 per cent of the transport budget being invested in active travel”.
Labour should also, Cycling UK says, provide multi-year funding settlements to enable proper planning and delivery of schemes, support local authorities with technical expertise and guidance to deliver high-quality infrastructure, and recognise active travel as “essential infrastructure, not optional spending”.
Which all sounds great, to be fair – though as Cycling UK’s policymakers have learned themselves in recent weeks, following the furore surrounding their decision to exclude trans women from their 100 Women in Cycling awards, politics can be a messy game.
“At a time when every pound of public spending must work harder, cycling delivers,” Cycling UK’s director of external affairs Sarah McMonagle said.
“Cycling infrastructure is one of the most cost-effective investments a government can make in terms of easing pressure on household finances, boosting the economy, and improving public health.
“The choice before the Chancellor is clear: invest now to generate economic growth or cut funding in walking, wheeling and cycling and face higher costs in health spending. In a cost-of-living crisis, making it easier for people to get around cheaply by bike has never been more important.
“We stand ready to work with the government to ensure cycling investment delivers maximum value for communities across the UK.”
The road racing season may be over, but one commentator certainly had fun last night (before annoying an entire island in the process…)
I bet there were scenes in the Smith household when Kenny McLean banged that one in from the halfway line at Hampden last night, sealing Scotland’s first men’s World Cup appearance since 1998.
To put the historic nature of last night into context, the ’98 World Cup in France – the reason for the Tour’s ill-fated start in Dublin that year – kicked off on 10 June, with Scotland playing (and losing 2-1 to) reigning champions Brazil in the opening match.
Just 12 days beforehand, Brian Smith finished eighth on stage six of the Prudential Tour of Britain, in a select group containing winner (and future double Olympic TT champion) Viatcheslav Ekimov, Stuart O’Grady, Chris Boardman, Tyler Hamilton, Magnus Bäckstedt, and Jonathan Vaughters.
That’s how long ago that was. So, you can forgive Brian, in his celebratory haste, for bashing out the following tweet, which succeeded in pissing off the entire island of Ireland, regardless of geographical location or politico-national persuasion:
Qualified for World Cup:
England ???????
Scotland ???????Playoffs:
Ireland ??
Wales ???????Hopefully we will get all 4 there ?
— Brian Smith ??? (@BriSmithy) November 18, 2025
You may be thinking, ‘what’s the problem?’ Well, first off, Brian somehow forgot Northern Ireland – following our rousing 1-0 defeat to Germany and almost crack at automatic qualification – are also in the play-offs, a fact he was quickly reminded of in the comments.
“Wow… did not realise that. Go on Northern Ireland,” Brian quickly replied. You saved yourself there, fella.
And that NI erasure wasn’t the only outpouring of manufactured, silly political Twitter outrage Brian had to cope with, as some took exception to him lumping the Republic of Ireland in with the rest of the ‘home nations’ (I told you this was silly).
“We’re not one of your countries, friend. You may as well have thrown Slovakia in there instead of Ireland because that’s as relevant to you as we are,” said Niall, who must take great delight in being a tool on the internet.
“My Grandad was Irish so that’s good enough for me…” Brian replied. Fair play. Now, back to the cycling…
“Failing to address air pollution is a short-term financial fallacy and a moral failure”: Mums for Lungs campaign group blasts Labour government’s “indefensible” decision to cut local council budgets to tackle air pollution by 99%
The budget for local councils to tackle air pollution in their area has been cut by the government by 99 per cent, from £225 million a year to just £1.5 million, in the last five years, according to figures obtained by the clean air campaign group Mums for Lungs.
The figures, published following a Freedom of Information request to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), show that the previous Conservative government increased the grants provided to councils to combat air pollution from £3.7m in 2016/17 to a high of £224.5m in 2020/21.
However, this was drastically cut the following year to £28.6m and has continued to fall under Labour, dropping to just £1.45m in 2024/25, a 99.4 per cent reduction from four years ago.
And now, Mums for Lungs says the government’s inaction on air pollution is “outstripping its annual investment in cost to our economy and NHS by billions of pounds every year”.
In a statement issued this week, the group noted that recent research by the Royal College of Physicians recently estimated that air pollution is costing the UK economy upwards of £27 billion per year in healthcare costs and productivity losses, and killing up to 36,000 people every year.
Mums for Lungs also criticised Labour’s decision to back down on its promise to introduce a legal right to clean air through a Clean Air Act, and argued that this inactivity means it will take far longer for local areas to meet requirements to cut emissions to within World Health Organization guidelines.
Mums for Lungs is a parent-led campaign group fighting for children’s right to breathe clean air. It has become a leading advocate for measures such as Clean Air Zones and investigations into car brands’ emissions testing, as well as School Streets, which ban motor traffic outside schools at pick-up and drop-off times, in a bid to reduce traffic and air pollution and encourage kids to cycle, walk, and scoot to school.
“Cutting air pollution budgets by 99 per cent at a time when children are still breathing illegal and toxic levels of dirty air is indefensible,” Mums for Lungs director and founder Jemima Hartshorn said in a statement, announcing that the group has written to Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Environment Secretary Emma Reynolds calling on them to restore the funding and ensure air pollution levels are brought to safer levels.
“Parents across the country expected Labour to deliver on its promise of a Clean Air Act and a legal right to breathe safe air, but instead, commitments have been dropped and funding slashed,” she said.
“Failing to address air pollution and invest in solutions to clean up our air is a short-term financial fallacy and a moral failure. It is setting up another generation of children for a lifetime of ill health.”
“The human cost of air pollution is immeasurable, the financial cost to our NHS and economy is billions and our government is investing barely anything. We urge the government to urgently restore funding, clean up our air, and protect little lungs from the devastating effects of toxic air.”
What’s Dan been up to so far this winter? Not riding his bike, apparently
Pure sacrilege…
> The best thing I’ve done this winter is not riding my bike
Indoor cat, indoor training
Now, that’s what I call a purr-fect aero gain. I’ll get my coat…
Is the Tour de France gearing up for a return to Ireland? Cross-border Grand Départ plan in the works after previous bid scrapped, reports say, as ASO meets with Prague delegation about hosting 2029 race
The Tour de France’s next trip to the UK, and Edinburgh’s Grand Départ, may be 20 whole months away (and we still have to wait another eight months for Barcelona), but speculation is already beginning to mount surrounding the Tour’s next excursions.
In fact, cycling’s biggest race could be set for four foreign Grands Départs in row, after it was reported this week that race director Christian Prudhomme met with a delegation from Prague, ahead of an anticipated bid by the Czech capital to host the 2029 edition.
“It’s a very good candidacy,” Prudhomme said this week, according to Czech radio reporter Martin Balucha. “Prague is a magnificent city, and Czechia knows how to organise major events. We are carefully examining this candidacy.”
And while Prague is eyeing up the start of the 2029 race, the Grand Départ of the 2028 men’s Tour is yet to be awarded, of course, though Luxembourg appears to be leading the race, with a delegation from the country having already met with Prudhomme.
However, in a shock twist, Ireland could be back in the running for either the 2028 or 2029 Tours, with StickyBottle reporting that a plan is being worked on to secure the race’s opening stages for the first time since 1998.
A joint, cross-border bid between the governments of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland had previously been in the works to bring the Tour to the island in 2026 or 2027, which included a potential Grand Départ in Belfast, which hosted the opening two stages of the Giro d’Italia in 2014.
However, in January 2024, the Irish government confirmed that the project had been scrapped amid concerns over funding, exacerbated by the political impasse at Stormont which had left Northern Ireland without a functioning government for two years.
But despite this setback, it now appears that an Irish Tour bid could be back on, with Cycling Ireland and the Irish government involved in a plan, which is apparently due to launch soon, and would see the race visit the west of the island before crossing the border for a finish in Belfast.
StickyBottle reports that Clare County Council seems to be the driving force behind the plan, while Sean Kelly and former UCI president Pat McQuaid have been enlisted to lend their support to the bid.
LaPresse
The plan is still in its early stages, but could include an opening prologue time trial in Limerick, before a road stage from Ennis to Galway, taking in the Wild Atlantic Way, while a third stage would likely end in Belfast.
I’ve been in touch with some sources within Irish cycling and the Northern Ireland government to verify these reports, and will be keeping you up to speed if there are any developments. Could be a fun few years for cycling fans from these islands…
“Pedestrians do it all the time!” Cyclist slammed for jumping red light in viral clip – but others defend “safe, common sense” manoeuvre that “improves traffic flow and should be allowed by law”
It was only a matter of time before a debate about cyclists and red lights popped up again on the live blog. In fact, it’s been almost two whole months since the Telegraph’s favourite cycling issue (or non-issue, depending on your perspective) last surfaced on these pages.
That long barren run – just like Scotland’s 28-year absence from the World Cup – has finally come to an end, however, thanks to the social media equivalent of a Scott McTominay overhead kick and a last-minute belter from the halfway line… a viral clip and endless bickering on Facebook.
> “Do you pay road tax?” GB News host admits he jumps red lights while cycling
Because this week, a clip of two cyclists waiting at a red light has lit up the algorithm, attracting over a million views, after it was shared on Facebook by ‘Wumi Babs’, a page specialising in seemingly controversial videos featuring people on bikes.
And while most of these clips appear to have failed to capture the collective imagination of the Facebook dads and mums, one video certainly has.
The clip, filmed from the top deck of a bus and curiously captioned ‘And cyclists wonder why the so Mch Hate towards them’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean), shows one cyclist waiting at a junction for the lights to change, while another man on a bike emerges on the pavement and stops at the crossing.
After waiting for 17 seconds, the second cyclist, along with a pedestrian on the other side of the road, checks to see if a motorist is approaching before continuing on his way, while the lights are still red (though, since the video cuts off at that point, it’s hard to tell when they were going to change).
And, unsurprisingly, Facebook’s assortment of fuming drivers (and some cyclists) were not happy at all with one cyclist’s decision making. Can you guess which one?
“I’m a cyclist and this guy is a plank,” Lee said, while others variously described him as a “knob”, “knobhead”, and other assorted insults.
But, crucially, the clip also started a debate about whether the man on the bike who took off could actually be described as a ‘cyclist’.
“He’s not a cyclist. He’s a bloke that rides a bike. There’s a big difference. The cyclist is waiting at the lights,” said Claire.
Darren added: “He’s not a cyclist, he’s using a bike as a mode of transport.”
“The bloke without the helmet is just a bloke on a bike, the actual cyclist is sat waiting properly,” argued Miles. “With a helmet on. Real cyclists aren’t the problem. It’s like confusing a good driver with someone that owns a car, they’re not all the same…”
Ben also took part in that particular debate, but saw it from a decidedly different perspective: “Guy at the lights is a cyclist. Matey cutting through is a man about town getting on with his day. One blocks the roads constantly playing in the road with his chums. The other temporarily gets on the road pub, work, Icelands.”
Classic.
However, others weren’t quite so convinced that the ‘red light-jumping’ cyclist was in the wrong.
“As a car driver I have no problem with this,” said Sean. “In fact the law should permit it as a matter of common sense. It removes the cyclist from the lights and clogging up the junction and puts both themselves and the car driver in a less dangerous position setting off.”
“Exactly,” replied Aidan. “Notice how the clip ends very suddenly, so we don’t see the lights going green? He’s clearly watched the other lights, and pushed off when they’ve gone red and he knows his are on the brink of turning.”
Michael also said the cyclist’s anticipatory manoeuvre “improves traffic flow and has been shown to reduce the number of collisions in countries that allow cyclists to pass through some red lights. Multiple potential wins here, but still people whine.”
“I hate taking off with a pack of cars,” added Margo. “They push to the right without looking. If I ‘bust’ a red light in front of everyone and clear the bottle neck, everyone sees me and respects my lane. Less stress overall, less conflicts.”
“I’m sure the cyclist crossing on red light gets less hate than the one staying in front of the bus,” noted Nikola.
And Joe was just fed up with the whole debate, writing: “Why’s everyone crying over someone crossing the road? Relax, have a tissue.”
“Nothing unusual here at all,” added Garry. “A guy waited ‘til it was safe to cross the road. Pedestrians do it all the time. Car drivers do it quite a lot. No big deal. He did not cause an accident. People crying over nothing. Is life that desperate?”
Probably best avoiding asking that question on Facebook, Garry, you may receive some concerning answers…
“But nobody hates the guy crossing the street on foot?” asked Nick.
Stephen also spotted the guy on the other side of the road doing the same thing: “Funny how the pedestrian managed to walk over the same bit of road without being spotted. ‘Did you see the Gorilla syndrome’ for drivers.
“The cyclists also approached the junction from the footpath and was probably following the same rule as the pedestrian.”
And finally, Gary concluded: “Don’t see a problem, if he was sat in the middle of the road holding all the cars up, we would all be complaining, if he gets out the way and gets moving, he’s still slated.”
You’d nearly think people are just angry about people on bikes using the road, wouldn’t you? Oh, wait…
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...
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
If you could show me a cycling helmet that's designed to protect me when I'm hit by a motor vehicle that would be really helpful. All the ones I've seen so far are only intended to protect me if I fall off a bike.
I do not achieve the speeds of pro-cyclists (45mph+) when I cycle to work or the shops, just as I do not achieve 200mph+ when I drive to the shops.
LLMs are indeed an enormous bag of words, but they are also a clever bag of words as when they pick the next most probable word, they are using a multi-dimensional mappings or relations between words and so they appear to communicate like a human, but they are only simulacrums and have no understanding or intelligence.
The article does say that the parrot lived in Scarponi's son's warehouse. It is sad that Franky reportedly died in the factory fire, but apparrotly he had been warned several times about smoking near to packaging materials. Although the parrot (a blue and yellow macaw) is native to Central and South America, it could probably survive in the wild in Europe, as long as winters weren't too harsh. But this article proves beyond all doubt that parrots are polycyclic.
Clever is not a synonym for enormous ;-)
Try Specsavers
Personally, I think the belkin one was a vast improvement over pretty much all the rabobank offerings - blue and orange - bleuch! Although the blanco kit was much better than either of them (or the subsequent visma ones).
Why do these medical professionals never mention shit driving or infrastructure? And why do they never say anything about all the other activities that helmets might also help with e.g. Driving or being a pedestrian.
I have the current generation of 4iiii heart-rate monitor. It's very good . Will I , when the current one eventually fails , buy this new 4iiii , no. Why you may ask . Well it looks like a proprietary fastener . We all know about proprietary standards and the absolute hassle of sourcing replacements and the associated costs.
I like castorama and Astana kits pictured here.
66 thoughts on ““Pedestrians do it all the time!” Drivers slam “knob on a bike” for jumping red light in viral clip – but cyclists defend “safe, common sense” manoeuvre that “improves traffic flow and should be allowed by law” + more on the live blog”
Technically, I don’t think
Technically, I don’t think the guy even jumped the red light, since he never crossed the stop line it applies to.
(Although he was, of course, riding on the footway, which doesn’t appear to be shared space.)
Actually, looking at the
Actually, looking at the details, the red light jump is understandable – the road at the other side of the junction is clearly narrower and slightly off-set from the road where the bus is, plus there are parked cars on it. To stay safe, the cyclist needs to move several metres to the right, which is not a nice thing to do when there is a massive bus behind you.
If our roads are set out like this, there is no surprise that cyclists go through red lights.
Sorry, I’m normally up for
Sorry, I’m normally up for making excuses for cyclists but I can’t buy that one because there is a very ample advanced stop zone for cyclists (in which the other cyclist is waiting). Plenty of room and time to move across in front of the bus and be ready in primary when the light changes.
A reasonable inference given
A reasonable inference given that there is one on the opposite side, but it seems there isn’t (or at least wasn’t, in 2022) an ASL here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZujRzkkceaJZG8sD8
Fair point, the satellite
Fair point, the satellite view shows that there are ASLs on three arms of the crossroads but not the fourth. Still can’t really accept it as an excuse though because the bus has stopped behind the law-abiding cyclist, so if the pavement cyclist was genuinely concerned about the safety of getting across and around the parked cars ahead he had plenty of time to get onto the road and take up station on the right hand side of the other cyclist and be in primary ahead of the bus when the lights changed.
Agreed. As you’ll see from my
Agreed. As you’ll see from my manifesto above, I’m firmly in the “RLJ bad, even if mostly harmless” camp.
But then you have a driver
But then you have a driver right up your arse until the road widens again. On an empty junction I can see no argument for not allowing cyclists to ride through the red light/have the same signals as pedestrians.
I think the only excuse for
I think the only excuse for going through a red light on a bike is if you think it’s broken. This is just bad road craft, if you want to “cross the road” like a pedestrian then get off and walk.
For the red light jumper, do
For the red light jumper, do the exact same scenario but swap it for a car. It’s the hypocrisy and double standards that for one set of road users it’s fine and for another it’s not. They’d scream that the driver was a reckless maniac and that’s it’s potential attempted murder, even if the situation was exactly the same as this cyclist.
How many cyclists want drivers to follow the high way code to the letter, but cherry pick what they want to follow on it as it suits them.
The law accounts for the dumbest people on the road. Allowing it “sometimes or under common sense” opens it to a wide range of interpretation, where as a strict No, leaves no room for misinterpretation. We need better thought out infrastructure. Less segregated cycle lanes, more ASL’s and Bike before Cars lights instead of a separate cycle and lights for bikes and cars. It just wastes everyone’s time. When they can cut the lights and changes by half so they cycle through faster. More red light cameras and ASL cameras with stricter enforcement for encroaching.
Nearly all road laws exist,
Nearly all road laws exist, including traffic lights themselves, because cars are in fact quite different than bicycles.
Traffic lights mean all
Traffic lights mean all traffic, and that includes cyclists. So stop giving motorists a reason to do a close pass on you, stop at the red lights.
Love your logic there, but
Love your logic there, but why would motorists do a close pass on me if they didn’t want to give me a reason to follow them home and set fire to their house?
sigirides wrote:
They’re just attracted to your elegant fur? (Perhaps it’s an electrostatic thing?)
Some sets of lights have
Some sets of lights have separate cyclist only lights which go green before the car lights. The standard sort only still exist because nobody has thought to change them.
You have to be careful though because going through on cyclist green means you have to be aware of drivers going through red from the other direction, as they so often do.
Drivers RLJing is
Drivers RLJing is whatabouifery.
They *tend* to blow through amber and just turned red.
In my experience, it’s pretty rare – on a set of permanent lights that are obviously working – for a driver to sit for 17 seconds on red, then think “fuck it” and then blow through the red.
Ironically, if he’d discounted and pushed through the crossing and re-mounted the other side, no fucks would be given as – and here’s the kicker – *he wouldn’t have broken the Law*.
RLJ – unless you’re a blue-lighting ESV, there is no need for it, and endangers those that refuse to do it.
Your right it is rare but I
Your right it is rare but I’ve had it a couple of times; I get to the red light and stop, the driver behind stops too but after 15-20 secs they overtake round me and go through red. The worst I had was in the Edinburgh meadows where there was quite a busy flow of west to east flow along the main road and the driver who had initially stopped behind me on the minor road somehow after RLJ managed to merge into them.
I assure you, fucks would be
I assure you, fucks would be given. I’ve seen this levelled as a complaint against cyclists.
Main list is:
Riding on roads
Riding on pavement
Blocking traffic at lights
Going through red lights
Going too fast on the road
Going too slow on the road
Rolling through an empty junction
Dismounting and using a pedestrian crossing to get across a junction
Having too many lights
Not having lights
Often from the same person in the same thread.
You forgot:
You forgot:
Wearing all black so I can’t see them!
No, they put their foot down
No, they put their foot down on amber and then hit the light on red. This happens at almost every junction at almost every phase of the lights.
There is zero moral
There is zero moral equivalency between a motor vehicle driver jumping a redlight compared to a cyclist. Cyclists are almost always only putting themselves at risk, and the risk posed to other road users including pedestrians is minimal. Motor vehcile operators on the otherhand create a much greater hazard when running red lights and have a much increased likelihood of harm to others as well as themselves. Personnally I don’t condone cyclists running red lights but don’t try to paint it as the same offense as a driver running a red light.
There is zero moral
There is zero moral equivalency between a motor vehicle driver jumping a redlight compared to a cyclist
I haven’t yet seen, still less filmed, a cyclist offending at our sole local permanent traffic light set. There are lots of offending drivers, and I’ll go and film some more when the mental Christmas traffic begins in earnest. The offence has been decriminalised and ignored as ‘everybody does it’ by Lancashire Constabulary around here, although they claim to ‘take action’ over red light offenders at Barbara Castle Way in Blackburn
https://upride.cc/incident/kn13aus_knausmotorhome_doubleredlightpass/
wtjs wrote:
Ah, but that’s because the council has provided that wonderful segregated cycle route on the left so they can bypass them entirely 😉
On RLJing (not all in direct
On RLJing (not all in direct reply to oneillcp).
Incidentally, I did see a motorcyclist (of the ICE variety) do this, and then ignore a series of reds, on the Embankment last week. So rare that it was pretty shocking.
“Pedestrians do it all the
“Pedestrians do it all the time” – ok. But that’s not an offence here.
“Traffic lights only exist because cars” – ok. But in law they apply equally to cyclists. I can see some arguments that maybe this could be tweaked. By all means campaign for change. But simply ignoring them puts others (who are legitimately expecting it to be safe e.g. to cross) at risk.
“RLJers are only putting themselves at risk” – again, probably mostly true. But it’s no comfort to the (admittedly rare) victims that they are statistically insignificant. One of my relatives suffered broken bones and lasting impacts after being hit by a RLJ cyclist while crossing on a green man. RLJers don’t usually intend to hurt anyone, but it happens.
“It’s safer for cyclists to RLJ” – I have some sympathy with this. But in most cases it seems to me the RLJer is simply prioritising their time and convenience over others’ safety. It’s telling how often they’ll RLJ a simple pedestrian crossing, but then wait at a complex junction, when the supposed ‘getting away from the car behind me’ imperative is the same. If it’s genuinely about safety, cross as a pedestrian and then remount.
“Wait til you hear about drivers” – don’t get me started – I had to stop halfway across a zebra crossing recently for a driver who sailed on through and (when I caught them up at the next lights) swore that they hadn’t seen me at all. But two wrongs don’t make a right / is that really the standard we’re holding ourselves to?
Drivers RLJing is whatabouifery. They *tend* to blow through amber and just turned red. In my experience, it’s pretty rare – on a set of permanent lights that are obviously working – for a driver to sit for 17 seconds on red, then think “fuck it” and then blow through the red.
“the issue is that is an
“the issue is that is an offence, not that it is inherently dangerous” – I have given you a personal example of the very real impact it can have. Travelling through a pedestrian crossing while pedestrians are crossing and have a legitimate expectation that they can do so is inherently dangerous.”
“in the UK. Alternative solutions exist elsewhere – either separate cycle phases/bypsesses or cautious turning on red” – as I said, by all means campaign for that change. But just ignoring the system we have right now poses a risk to others who are not expecting you to be there.
“if it’s rare, then is the blanket application appropriate? we should not be legislating for the rare occurrence” – blanket application is the status quo. Will such injuriries be rare if you de-criminalise RLJing?
“Two wrongs… but it’s only wrong because it has been defined as wrong. What if it was right? What if we acknowledged that cyclists, who present a very low 3rd-party risk (so much so that insurance is usually bundled free), don’t actually need to be prevented from going through a red light with caution? Then it wouldn’t be wrong.” again, I have said I don’t necessarily object to that – but right now it is wrong. Simply taking direct action and treating it as if the rules don’t apply to cyclists doesn’t seem a responsible way to proceed to me.
oneillcp wrote:
Don’t know where you live but here in London that’s definitely no longer true (I would’ve agreed with you five years ago). Case in point just last night, pelican crossing outside King’s College Hospital on Denmark Hill, 5 pm, about 15 people crossing including elderly people with sticks, mothers pushing pushchairs et cetera, three lads on Lime bikes came charging downhill and slaloming between the people on the crossing at speeds of 20 mph plus (shrieking with laughter as they did so, twats), missing people by 50 cm or less. This is not an uncommon sight. Like you, I don’t jump reds myself but I’m not bothered if someone carefully rides through a junction when there’s no traffic but a considerable minority now ride as if red lights don’t exist and definitely put pedestrians at serious risk.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It’s not really the lights that are the issue here – those same people would be riding through those people even if it was away from any lights, as well as riding on pavements in an inconsiderate manner, etc. Conversely, if they were considerate, they could probably still proceed through the lights, but slowly, and picking their position/timing so that it didn’t inconvenience/endanger anybody.
I think you’ve got the crux
I think you’ve got the crux here.
While there is a sliding scale from assassins down through the antisocial (“IDGAF, others can get out of my way”) … I think the vast majority of bad behaviour out there emerges from human “mental shortcut / just not thinking about others”. After that has worked a few times it becomes habit and unconscious.
(I suspect we do an awful lot more walking, cycling and driving on autopilot than we think).
Also applies when we’re on foot – we see green / hear the signal and just head straight across. (We shouldn’t *expect* people to check, even though it’s a very good idea…)
Same goes when we “look with our ears” and step into the road (possibly onto some cycle infra).
And this is perhaps the “new thing under the sun” and the source of expectations being incorrect. The presence of lots of cyclists is a) relatively new b) rare in the UK outside a handful of places. And cyclists are a lot smaller and quieter than motor vehicles.
As well as “It takes time for
As well as “It takes time for people to adapt” is it also we’re still stuck in a “motorists, pedestrians … then cyclists” place?
We have (in the best places in UK) 2nd or 3rd class infra. Good enough to have a large number cycling now *, but still probably substantially outnumbered by pedestrians. And still with lots of motor traffic.
Feedback loops: there is still wide motor vehicle space. That means pedestrians have to cross a long way, so hurry. Then there’s pressure to keep crossing cycles infrequent and short; same effect.
Pressure for motor vehicle space (and occasionally for footways/cafe frontages…) squeezes the cycle space. So there is no/little space where (the large number of) pedestrians can wait *after* crossing the cycle infra, like there would be in the better designs.
Those pressures and cost mean we often just put a cycle lane on the road (even if there is a bit of “protection” added). For pedestrians we’ve effectively added another lane to cross – may feel even less pleasant. But (especially if with protection) to cyclists it might feel like a separate space so “traffic lights are for cars” (they *would* be if the infra were a better design…)
* Still a fraction of what it looks like in NL – and there things are probably more self- enforcing simply because there will often be more cyclists than pedestrians.
With regards to the “red
With regards to the “red light jumping cyclist”…
I’m wondering if it is worth taking a step back and in time to when we didn’t have red lights, road markings, driver licencing, the highway code etc.
All of those were put in place because humans couldn’t be trusted with driving motor vehicles safely so had to be controlled.
None of those are really required for pedestrians/cyclists etc as the majority of the time we take a bit of care when crossing roads etc.
Edit to add, I’m not condoning cyclists red light jumping especially if it is done recklessly.
At the end of the day, if we are using a vehicle that is intended for the road, we should obey the road rules.
If I’m faced with a situation where the wait would be long then I might get off and walk around/through the junction to carry on.
Exactly – there’s almost no
Exactly – there’s almost no need for traffic light signals for cyclists (and things like swing-bridge access control and railway crossings might be done another way of course). And plenty of places have worked out that cyclists and pedestrians can interact safely and indeed more conveniently without signals. (With suitable infra and once everyone gets used to it).
BUT … in the UK, it’s a case of “a century of motornormativity has fundamentally changed things”.
Because of the danger from motor vehicles pedestrians have been literally driven from the roads. And now we expect and rely on signalised crossings (it is often too chancy even on a zebra crossing, never mind informal). Especially children who we train, those with disabilities, visual impairments or who aren’t so nimble eg. older people.
The expectation is that everything on the road is highly dangerous (or at least will be angry if you walk there) BUT (in return for losing most of your space / your freedom) if you push the button and wait long enough everything on the road should stop.
For the image with the child
For the image with the child on a cycle lane. That is nice but it doesn’t show the reality.
It shows an empty cycle lane which is great. But in reality, especially in rush hour you’ll have other dangers. Pro peloton wannabes zooming for their PB’s, youths popping wheelies or zig zagging in the lane on their phones, ebike and escooter rental riders who don’t pay attention at the best of times and poor maintenance on these bikes, especially the brakes, delivery riders on illegal ebikes that go more than 20mph, regular commuters trying to get to their destination as quickly as possible regardless if they endanger other road users, poor maintenance of cycle lanes and councils not clearing debris or leaves off regularly, cycle lanes are usually not gritted or salted in cold weather like roads so will be very icy on cold days etc.
Cycle lanes are not the safety utopia people think it is. If anything, they pay less attention to safety than when on the road with cars, ignore pedestrians more when trying to cross, etc.
And with ebikes campaigners trying to increase the speed of legal ebikes. The allowing of throttles (which I think is a bad idea), usually the cheap bikes have mechanical disc brakes instead of hydraulic disc brakes and with no legal requirement for having a minimum standard of care for the ebike, like MOTs for cars, many people will not take their bikes for service or replace worn parts and brake pads regularly. And with bikes getting bigger and heavier, that’s a recipe for more accidents. And with stories increasing of serious injuries occurring by being hit by ebikes even some fatalities, this will only increase in frequency and seriousness with the speed increasing and no regulation and enforcement of illegal ebikes and accountability of all cyclists.
hanofgod13 wrote:
They’re still better than mixing with the traffic.
Seems to be a cry for
Seems to be a cry for punctuation there.
If Flintshirelad is still about perhaps he could lend you some of his sentence bollards?
.
.
LOL! Nice one, Chris – though a comma is needed after ‘about’.
.
It’s great to have been living rent-free inside your head for such a long time.
.
A Lay Bah government! A Laaaaaay Bah government!
.
How’s that werkin out fuh ya??
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
Alas I keep upgrading you to Lad, but of course you remain a boy.
We have the SNP (minus Greens) up here of course).
Still the case that “vote Labour, get Tory-lite government”. But there’s a new offer – vote Conservative, get Reform (and a grab- bag of the US short-term “big business gets to take the money and run” policies)…
hanofgod13 wrote:
The most important and dangerous “etc.” for both cyclists and pedestrians in this context is that cycle *lanes* usually offer no protection against motor traffic. You’ll find vehicles parked in them (often legally in the UK because of a mess of rules, not that this seems to bother a minority of drivers anyway), buses pulling into them, drivers pulling out of side roads and driveways only looking out for other motor vehicles etc.
From the cyclist perspective: they may also lead to drivers all-but-driving in them so passing a few centimeters from you, when you’ve no room to move…
I expect anyone who has cycled for more than a few minutes in them does not have that illusion.
What’s needed are separated cycle paths, or streets where motor traffic has been slowed significantly and there is little of it compared to numbers cycling. That’s not “utopia” – or should be the minimum sensible requirements (and also help us get to significantly more pleasant places for everyone). Here’s what we could win: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/10/29/october-rides-month-part-5-traversing-s-hertogenbosch-in-autumn/
hanofgod13 wrote:
Throttles aren’t allowed (except in cases of bikes manufactured before 2016), they are illegal. Properly-maintained mechanical disc brakes are pretty much as effective as hydraulic discs, they just lack a certain amount of modulation available with hydraulics.
Properly-maintained
Properly-maintained mechanical disc brakes are pretty much as effective as hydraulic discs
My very first experience of disc brakes was using the TRP Spyre mechanicals on my now 7 year old Vitus gravel bike. They’re fantastic, and I instantly resolved to never get another rim-brake bike. I am mystified at nutter dinosaurs proudly proclaiming, and we saw one such on here only yesterday, ‘I don’t want disc brakes on a road bike’ when they’re obviously much better for everybody except possibly champion hill climbers. These barmy notions are undoubtedly doomed as the overwhelming dominance of disc brakes continues to steam-roller forwards. I later bought a Halfords folder (excellent except for stupid wheel size and unobtainable tyres, I won’t make that mistake again) which came with El Cheapo hydraulics, which are even better. That doesn’t get heavy bad weather use, so I haven’t yet experienced the centring problems publicised by Froome et al.
I must admit I’m a dinosaur
I must admit I’m a dinosaur who cant get on with them (disc brakes). It might have been different if I didn’t have chemo to destroy my finger nerves, but I prefer the more gradual feel of rim brakes I can feel in my hand, rather than my senseless fingers.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Throttles aren’t allowed (except in cases of bikes manufactured before 2016), they are illegal. Properly-maintained mechanical disc brakes are pretty much as effective as hydraulic discs, they just lack a certain amount of modulation available with hydraulics. — hanofgod13
Not to mention that legal ebikes only assist at speeds that a reasonably fit person could reach without the assist anyway, and no-one’s panicking about the idea that non-e bikes might have mechanical disc brakes.
hanofgod13 wrote:
Just wait until you hear about motor vehicles – they’re big and really fast and getting bigger!
(Notjustbikes channel on the upscaling of vehicle sizes):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo&pp=0gcJCR4Bo7VqN5tD
I am also keeping an eye on the sector – we certainly need some effective measures to tackle the illegal use of all kinds of electric wheeled things, particularly electric motorbikes. (Would suggest this needs to tackle individuals, the delivery companies who turn a legally compliant blind eye, the sellers who can just say “not our responsibility what people do with them”). And other companies are pushing to get legal rights for new types of things to more spaces which are currently “walking wheeling and cycling”-only…
Legal EAPCs however – I think we should be – carefully – welcoming them. They will mostly (note of caution watching the Dutch experience ) be going within the usual range for non- racing cyclists. That is what the power assistance is legally restricted to. If they’re capable of more it’s a motorbike and almost certainly being used illegally.
And while they’re typically heavier than common UK bikes we’re talking 5-10 kg. That’s the shopping i might be carrying (unpowered) in my panniers and less than the difference between me and the average rugby player…
hanofgod13 wrote:
Well thank god you’ve told us all, I for one am going to sell my bikes and go straight out and buy a car!
Backladder wrote:
Well thank god you’ve told us all, I for one am going to sell my bikes and go straight out and buy a car!— hanofgod13
It sounds like that won’t save you, the ebikes will just get bigger and flatten it. Proceed straight to “tank” – the ebikes might already be big and heavy enough to flatten even that but you’ll be able to attack them from range.
Cycling wear and patio
Cycling wear and patio heaters don’t seem like a great mix tbh – might get rather warmer than bargained for. ???
On Spain’s Costa Blanca,
On Spain’s Costa Blanca, local and overseas cyclists (including dudes and dudettes who ride bicycles as a mode of transport) have to pay a 100-euro fine when they jump a traffic light. The fine reaches 200 euros when offenders can’t pay on spot. Cash only, thank you. A bicycle on the road is a vehicle. Then cyclists must abide by the traffic rules, unless their safety is in grave danger.
On Spain’s Costa Blanca,
On Spain’s Costa Blanca, local and overseas cyclists have to pay a 100-euro fine when they jump a traffic light. The fine reaches 200 euros when offenders can’t pay on spot
Good idea, as long as they apply the same rigour to drivers of motor vehicles, which they wouldn’t do here
A cyclist rode through a red
A cyclist rode through a red light at Clapham Junction in London, hit another cyclist and killed him. Also, cyclists wear helmets for safety, but then ride through red lights, which is dangerous. You don’t have a choice; a red light means stop.
This isn’t showing up on
This isn’t showing up on Google, can you link please? I’m not going to jump to conclusions and assume you mean someone an e motorbike rather than a push bike, as I’m not sure how the latter could kill someone. I’m very happy to be told I’m wrong though!
The only cyclist on cyclist
The only cyclist on cyclist fatality I can think of that’s occurred anywhere around here (south London) for as long as I can remember is this one, reported by road.cc at the time (it’s Balham but that’s only a few hundred yards from Clapham Common so may have been reported as Clapham by some outlets). No mention of RLJ being involved though and I can’t remember or find any details of any subsequent court case.
https://road.cc/content/news/london-cyclist-dies-after-collision-another-rider-286889
Thank you, sounds like a
Thank you, sounds like a freak accident as much as anything.
How far back does your
How far back does your cycling memory go back? Mine goes back 67 years of cycling in London, no electronic news items in those days and no computers, so it would probably be nearly impossible to find the report. Sorry, I do not have the date. I read the report in a newspaper report and it has stuck in my brain from a long time ago.
kingleo wrote:
Well, you beat me there, only been cycling in London about forty-five years. I don’t have any memory in that time of a cyclist killing a cyclist and have never heard anyone else mention it having happened. For the record I am very much against cyclists running red lights and never do it myself but the fact that you can only think of one incident a long long time ago shows it is so rare it has little relevance to the arguments, doesn’t it?
It happened a long time ago,
It happened a long time ago, and also, every news item ever does not appear on Google. It happened a long time before e-bikes. It does happen sometimes, a time trial rider ran into the back of another rider and killed her.
So what you’re saying is that
So what you’re saying is that the risk to others is so low that you can only remember one incident and it happened ages ago.
Sounds like a freak incident, which doesn’t go anyway to prove what you’re trying to argue.
Cyclists going through red
Cyclists going through red lights often hit and injure pedestrians. I’m 83, and I find it frightening when crossing a light-controlled crossing, and cyclists go through a red light and do a close pass in front and behind me at speed.
‘often’
‘often’
Google starts with “there are
Google starts with “there are no recent reports “
Has there been an increase in
Has there been an increase in randomwordrandomwordrandomnumber users or is it just me? Are the bots trying to divide us here too?
For me – I rlj in London because a) everyone does it and b) the lights often aren’t actually timed properly so you’re on the same one as drivers rather than pedestrians (I know which one is safer to mix with).
Funnily enough I don’t do it in my home town, but that’s usually because the junctions are much busier/there’s no infrastructure.
It’s quite enjoyable in London, I’ve cycled in other countries e.g. Morocco where bikes and scooters are essentially exempt from lights and traffic just flows. It feels like London is almost at that critical point at the moment.
The first question I’d ask
The first question I’d ask anybody complaining about cyclists going through red lights is if they can tell me what an amber light means.
Accelerate hard so that you
Accelerate hard so that you are speeding when you go through the red?..
It’s alright, it isn’t “established” anyway…
Certainly.
Certainly.
It means stop, unless unsafe to do so.
Funnily enough, green does not mean ‘GO’. It means proceed, if safe to do so*.
* AIUI, in the UK there is an obligation to avoid a collision. Proceeding when the light is green and your exit is blocked by another vehicle, is not safe to do so; also, proceeding in to a yellow box junction when your exit is blocked, would not be considered legal to do so, as it is an offence to block a yellow box, unless waiting to turn right.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Which is pretty much 99.8% the case when I am approaching a traffic light controlled junction on my bicycle when amber comes on and I have a car following close behind me.
You know that there’s a hand
You know that there’s a hand signal in the Highway Code for slowing, right?
You know that if you are too close to the stop line on Amber, then its not safe to stop, right?
Did you also know that it’s good roadcraft to anticipate lights changing, and that *most* traffic lights have good approach visibility that facilitates that?
Don’t make excuses for breaking the law.
I know the hand signal, I
I know the hand signal, I learnt it for my cycling proficiency, ’81 I reckon. I think I might have used it once or twice in the following week.
But would the impatient driver behind me have any idea what the “flappy arm” meant?
I fully understand all the
I fully understand all the arguments for why it’s fine for cyclists and pedestrians to ignore red lights. But, unfortunately it is illegal for cyclists to do so. Of course, if the law changes then I’d hope that the current “priority” rules wouldn’t apply where a cyclist has made their own risk assessment and got it wrong. It’s entirely your responsibility at that point.