"But cyclists!": Count the red light jumpers in this clip; Adam Tranter addresses "nonsense" talked about Highway Code changes; Second Ineos rider hospitalised in Colombia; Pro Jake Stewart offers old kit to young riders + more on the live blog

This video followed on from the one you linked ...
https://youtu.be/sxsOBnkKTKk

It's easy to see why other road users hate us.
Ok, it's a minority - but a significantly visible minority in a world where people only remember the mistakes that have been made.

Some of the riding in this video is potentially defendable ... But not the majority.

I think they should whistle a whimsical tune, maybe The Bridge on the River Kwai. Second choice would be calliope music from a carousel. Either would discourage riding aggressively.

I think Bill Bailey's your man for this!

How about Barwick Green?

SimoninSpalding wrote:

How about Barwick Green?

I like it, but too much pomp and not enough whimsy.

Ice cream van Greensleeves 

ktache wrote:

Ice cream van Greensleeves 

Oh, nice! Although sadly for me, ice cream vans have also acquired a Glasgow / Shameless association.

They are looking for a candidate with a "track record of delivering contested infrastructure". I imagine that, in England, many of the people with the most up-to-date experience delivering contested infrastructure are working on the High Speed 2 rail project. 

So I Googled "HS2 Management" and "Keen Cyclist". Linked-In tells me there is a man at the Department of Transport whose most recent role was overseeing land aquisition by HS2, but whose background is in cycling policy development for the gov. Enthusiastic triathlete too, it says.

I wonder if he is already lined up for the job? If not, headhunters may feel free to contact me for the name. I'll take my finders fee!

Creakingcrank wrote:

They are looking for a candidate with a "track record of delivering contested infrastructure". I imagine that, in England, many of the people with the most up-to-date experience delivering contested infrastructure are working on the High Speed 2 rail project. 

So I Googled "HS2 Management" and "Keen Cyclist". Linked-In tells me there is a man at the Department of Transport whose most recent role was overseeing land aquisition by HS2, but whose background is in cycling policy development for the gov. Enthusiastic triathlete too, it says.

I wonder if he is already lined up for the job? If not, headhunters may feel free to contact me for the name. I'll take my finders fee!

I was with you until I re-read:

"...delivering..."

I guess he could claim he'd delivered on the contention part?

Ha! HS2 has bought a lot of land and done a lot of of "digging up" round where I live. Time will tell if they end up filling in and selling back....

That would be the HS2 that decided building cycleways and underpasses where B roads had been severed was far too expensive and too much trouble, so cyclists or pedestrians can jolly well go 50 miles north to the next main A road that does cross the rail route.

Yes. I have cuts on my legs right now from an attempt to find a diverted footpath past the route this weekend. Quite possibly, the same individual was involved in all those missed opportunities to build brilliant new bike/walk infrastructure alongside it too. I'm not recommending the guy, just trying to imagine how these hiring decisions are made.

Garage at Large wrote:

More unphased, broken, irrelevant temporary traffic lights - for all we know, there might even have been a "traffic lights not in use" sign just before the video started. Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I'll eat my hat. But generally - for balance - I think motorists driving through a newly established red light (i.e. gambling on timings) should have stricter sanctions, as that is a frequent occurrence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhhxErABoa0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLwwHU6cf6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaPbZiyrXog

There are a quick few videos I've found..... all permanent unbroken traffic lights.

Now we wait to find you are not a man of your word and wont eat your hat.....

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

Seriously?

The first car in the first clip was gambling when the lights have just changed?  The lights went to red at 4 seconds.... the car crossed the ASL at the 6 seconds mark.

So you consider someone crossing the line after the lights have been at red for 2 seconds...... gambling when the lights have just changed?

Garage at Large wrote:

No, I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I'm saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

No Nigel what you said was this.....

Garage at Large wrote:

Show me motorists consistently jumping permanent, unbroken traffic lights in the same way many cyclists do and I'll eat my hat.

You have been shown that mulitple instances of exactly what you asked for yet you continue to say you haven't

You are flip flopping like a dying fish like you did yesterday.... you can't make up your mind what you are objecting to and when evidence is provided you say it doesn't prove anything.

Garage at Large wrote:

My two comments are in lockstep with each other, and revolve around the word "consistently".

For example, you could put up a compilation clip YouTube video of birds spontaneoulsly falling out of the sky, and then say "aha", look at all these birds falling out of the sky, birds can't fly after all! All you're doing is presenting outlier events as if they are modus operandi.

Oh surprise surprise.... Nigel will only accept evidence if it is multiple clips from one set of traffic lights.

But in the first compliaton spread out through the video there are 3 different clips of drivers running red lights at the same roundabout.  Surely that passes your bar does it not?

But I know Nigeywigeywoowoo that you will say its a poorly designed roundabout with traffic lights on the roundabout  and that the drivers just had a momentary lapse of concentration, or that the driver set off when the lights were still on red because they could see the lights at the other side phasing so they really did nothing wrong..... or some other such excuse.

Garage at Large wrote:

No, I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I'm saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

However, if I cross a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing and a cyclist is approaching, there's a good chance they'll ignore it - like this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

In my experience - YMMV, obviously - I feel the same way about approaching motor vehicles.

Garage at Large wrote:

No, I'm not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I'm saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.

Ok a rare event? 

In may 2016 a thismoney article stated "In fact, as many as one in four (24 per cent) of motorists admit to having driven through a red light in the past 12 months — equivalent to 9.3 million motorists’."

a uSwitch survey in 2018 said that around 1 in 5 motorists admit they've run a red light in last last 12 months.

or how about this excerpt from an article on The Express

"Jumping a red light can also be dangerous and statistics reveal the offence may be one of the biggest culprits for road injuries

This means 47 percent of all accidents happen at areas which are mostly governed by traffic lights in a safety warning to road users."

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1218169/dvla-traffic-red-light-offences-data-glasgow-road-safety-warning

Garage at Large wrote:

Again, I've already covered this so I think we're in agreement - running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with the law, or the superior British justice system.

admits it is relatively common for drivers to break driving laws, despite cyclists having a badrep for doing likewise

makes potentially racist comments about the inhabitants of London

Garage at Large wrote:

Whoa there cowboy - it isn't "potentially racist" to state the fact that there is a higher proportion of immigrants in London's population, nor to hold the established view that Britain has a superior justice system to many other countries of the world.

You are correct.  There's no potentially about it.

Garage at Large wrote:

Whoa there cowboy - it isn't "potentially racist" to state the fact that there is a higher proportion of immigrants in London's population, nor to hold the established view that Britain has a superior justice system to many other countries of the world.

OK, I'll consider it is not potentially. It is definitely racist to make sweeping assumptions that the justice system in their home country is inferior, or that they are not able to understand the rules here, particularly pertaining to red lights which mean the same everywhere.

Garage at Large wrote:

Again, I've already covered this so I think we're in agreement - running a red light that has just changed is a relatively common event from motorists (i.e. your figures).

Running an established red light is a rare occurence. One place where I might concede this might be more frequent is in London, where its inhabitants might not be as familiar with British law, or the superior justice system we have here.

Nigel..... what colour is a light that has just turned red?  I will give you a clue it is RED.

There are rules and regulations dictating the length of time that a traffic light must show an amber light based on the speed limit for the road in question.

The time for the amber phase is long enough to give cars the ability to safely stop from the given speed limit..... which means your excuse of a light that has just turned red is just that.... a flimsy excuse

No matter how you try and dress it up, if a person goes through a red light they are in the wrong.  Particularly given the fact that many people see Amber as "accellerate to get through the lights" as opposed to "stop if it is safe to do so"

EDIT

Even so, in the videos I have posted there are a mix of people amber gambling and running established red lights but it is indicative that there are a lot more people who run established red lights than you think.

Garage at Large wrote:

I completely agree, it's wrong to gamble and drive through red lights under any circumstances. However, talking about "amber gambling" is tangental to today's story.

The underlying point which was brought up by the video in today's blog is "how often do cars drive through established red lights". The answer to this is "very rarely", in direct opposition to the very frequent manner in which many cyclists will do the same.

The only person that even mentioned "established red lights" was you.

And I'm not sure your statements when read together make any sense... you agree that driving through red lights is wrong under any circumstances..... but you also want to consider "established red lights".

It's either a red light or its not.

The only reason I can see for you wanting to segregate the two kinds of red light jumping is to push some anti-cycling agenda.  Along the lines of "I can prove more cyclists run estabilshed red lights, which means more cyclists deliberately run red lights than drivers"

Whereas when all red light jumping is concerned cyclists and motorists are broadly on par with each other in terms of proportions that run red lights.