Furious van driver blasts horn and rages at cyclist… for stopping at a red light; “You are f***ing it up for all of us”: Cyclist berates Just Stop Oil activists for “harming the green cause”; “Fantastic turnout for DriveLondon” + more on the live blog

80 thoughts on “Furious van driver blasts horn and rages at cyclist… for stopping at a red light; “You are f***ing it up for all of us”: Cyclist berates Just Stop Oil activists for “harming the green cause”; “Fantastic turnout for DriveLondon” + more on the live blog”

1. A while back I was on my

   A while back I was on my motorbike and the lights started to change, so I stopped rather than run the light. The van driver behind beeped his horn and leaned out of the window, shouting. I just pointed to the red light. Some people are idiots.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • OldRidgeback wrote:

     A while back I was on my motorbike and the lights started to change, so I stopped rather than run the light. The van driver behind beeped his horn and leaned out of the window, shouting. I just pointed to the red light. Some people are idiots.

     — OldRidgeback

     Yep, not uncommon; had one not long ago who whined plaintively, “Just my farkin’ luck to get behind the only cyclist in London who stops for reds!” Even more usual to the point of commonplace is getting the horn, if you’ll pardon the expression, for refusing to pull off through the flashing amber on a pelican until the pedestrians are safely across. Is it the refusal to conform to their sterotype of what cyclists do that makes them so cross?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Rendel Harris wrote:

       Even more usual to the point of commonplace is getting the horn, if you’ll pardon the expression, for refusing to pull off through the flashing amber on a pelican until the pedestrians are safely across.

       — Rendel Harris

       Yeah: not pulling away early enough seems to wind some people up far more than not running a red light.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • It’d be really useful if

         It’d be really useful if somebody could collate a booklet of how drivists would like cyclists to behave on the roads.

         They could package it as some kind of code we abide to while on the highways.

         Perhaps one day, that booklet could be enshrined into law.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Here you go: https://road.cc

           Here you go: https://road.cc/content/forum/real-highway-code-299003

         • You’re right – if only

           You’re right – if only someone had the presence of mind to do such a thing and publish it in a handy paper format 😉

   • Cyclist bang to rights.
     Cyclist bang to rights. Cycling on the road, using provided cycle infrastructure, obeying the Highway Code. Probably even wearing hi viz, a helmet and using lights. Of course that’s going to provoke a reaction for some Internet clicks, or something.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • I once stopped at a red light

     I once stopped at a red light. The car behind me clearly wasn’t expecting it (it’s very common for motorists to run the lights at that spot). I didn’t see the car stop but I heard them and when I looked back they weren’t that far from my back wheel. I did look back just in time to see them get rear-ended by the car behind them though.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • I’ve had a couple of hairy

       I’ve had a couple of hairy ones where I’ve stopped, and the car behind has swerved around me to continue through an amber / red light.  

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • I’ve noticed I’ve developed a

     I’ve noticed I’ve developed a shoulder check before I get to a green light. Seeing how closely I’m being tailgated helps me work out if I should slow on amber or not. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • That and listening to the

       That and listening to the sound of the engine, I’ve had to do a few dives to the left to avoid being rear ended after deciding to stop at amber.

       Log In or Register to post comments

2. Does the antiJSO cyclist work

   Does the antiJSO cyclist work for the Torygraph?  Is it a made-up story?

   If not, I guess it just shows that “cyclists” are not one big homogenous group…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • brooksby wrote:

     Does the antiJSO cyclist work for the Torygraph?  Is it a made-up story?

     If not, I guess it just shows that “cyclists” are not one big homogenous group…

     — brooksby

     Did anyone get his name? We’re going to have to expel him from our AGM if he’s not going to toe the line.

     I’ve mentioned it before, but the important point of protests is that someone feels strongly enough to do the protesting. Complaining that they’re not protesting in what you think is the “proper” way is missing the point and is a common tactic to divide people. Presumably, that ex-cyclist (we’re going to have to strip him of his title) believes that a protest has to be agreeable with everyone in order to be successful, but if that were possible, then protesting wouldn’t be necessary.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • You are allowed to protest

       You are allowed to protest and I agree with you but it is important that your protests aren’t inconvenient to anyone, or visible to anyone, or make any sounds as otherwise they risk making people uncomfortable and might have an impact.

       Have you tried clapping?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Patrick9-32 wrote:

         Have you tried clapping?

         — Patrick9-32

         Some people are extremely sensitive to loud noises.  And clapping probably means something very rude to some people, somewhere.  If you think it’s acceptable to protest by clapping next to this busy gyratory / end of airport runway / rugby match you need to have a long hard look at yourself.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Some people are extremely sensitive to loud noises.  And clapping probably means something very rude to some people, somewhere.  If you think it’s acceptable to protest by clapping next to this busy gyratory / end of airport runway / rugby match you need to have a long hard look at yourself.

           — chrisonatrike

           Reminds me of this:

     • I think you’re
       I think you’re oversimplifying somewhat.

       Not all protests are successful.

       JSO are using forms of protest that are alienating huge numbers of people, without those people’s support achieving net zero and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will become less likely.

       If the fossil fuel industry wanted to destroy support for net zero then funding JSO-esque activists would be a pretty good tactic.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         …If the fossil fuel industry wanted to destroy support for net zero then funding JSO-esque activists would be a pretty good tactic.

         — Rich_cb

         Isn’t there plenty of evidence of them trying to slow the rate of changes down already?

         TBH I think much of the fossil fuel / motor industry stands to win either way.  All the talk from e.g. government is that we’ll still be heavily into fossil fuels for decades.  Meanwhile they certainly seem to be looking ahead to take advantage of an environment where other fuels become more important.  They’ll certainly be all over reserves, rates of new finds, trends which affect prices and demand etc! 

         Besides – they’re better resourced than many governments and probably “too big to fail”.

         Organisations can always become focussed on the short-term – because humans.  Ones that have been around for decades tend to have good mechanisms for long-term continuity.  There are examples of companies moving with substantial technology changes (e.g. IBM).

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           Isn’t there plenty of evidence of them trying to slow the rate of changes down already?

           TBH I think much of the fossil fuel / motor industry stands to win either way.  All the talk from e.g. government is that we’ll still be heavily into fossil fuels for decades.  Meanwhile they certainly seem to be looking ahead to take advantage of an environment where other fuels become more important.  They’ll certainly be all over reserves, rates of new finds, trends which affect prices and demand etc! 

           Besides – they’re better resourced than many governments and probably “too big to fail”.

           Organisations can always become focussed on the short-term – because humans.  Ones that have been around for decades tend to have good mechanisms for long-term continuity.  There are examples of companies moving with substantial technology changes (e.g. IBM).

           — chrisonatrike

           https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/hundreds-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flooding-cop26-climate-talks/

           The analysis finds:

           • If the fossil fuel lobby were a country delegation at COP it would be the largest with 503 delegates – two dozen more than the largest country delegation.
           • Over 100 fossil fuel companies are represented at COP with 30 trade associations and membership organisations also present
           • Fossil fuel lobbyists dwarf the UNFCCC’s official indigenous constituency by around two to one.
           • The fossil fuel lobby at COP is larger than the combined total of the eight delegations from the countries worst affected by climate change in the last two decades – Puerto Rico, Myanmar, Haiti, Philippines, Mozambique, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Pakistan.
           • 27 official country delegations registered fossil fuel lobbyists, including Canada, Russia and Brazil

           This news comes as groups around the world, many from countries that bear the brunt of climate impacts, have criticised unequal access to COP26, citing barriers to participation, amidst vaccine apartheid, costly travel restrictions and a lack of safeguarding guarantees.

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         I think you’re oversimplifying somewhat. Not all protests are successful. JSO are using forms of protest that are alienating huge numbers of people, without those people’s support achieving net zero and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels will become less likely. If the fossil fuel industry wanted to destroy support for net zero then funding JSO-esque activists would be a pretty good tactic.

         — Rich_cb

         Obviously, there’s different problems and circumstances facing different protests and that’s going to have a big effect on how successful they are. JSO are facing a very well-funded motor/oil industry and the MSM is well on board with either not reporting at all or demonising them. Personally, I think the nature of the protest is secondary to the influence that vested interests have to keep us using oil for as long as possible.

         I don’t know how you’d go about arranging a protest to maximise the support of disinterested parties and yet also create enough of a stir to get people’s attention. As far as JSO goes, we’ve had decades of attempts to inform the public about the existential dangers of using oil and continuing to pollute, so I’d suggest that anything that isn’t hugely confrontational is going to fail like all the other attempts.

         It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad that the oil industry spent decades adding lead to petrol and massively affecting the intelligence of the public (also increasing criminal tendencies) and yet JSO delay a few buses and people lose their minds.

         Can you think of a successful strategy for JSO to use that would get a thumbs up from people like yourself?

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • The crucial point is that
           The crucial point is that previous forms of protest haven’t failed.

           Weaning a country off fossil fuels takes multiple decades. We started down the path many years ago and we’ve made good progress.

           If JSO genuinely want us to stop using fossil fuels sooner that currently planned they need to put forward feasible alternative plans and educate the public about them.

           Handing out leaflets, knocking on doors etc. Boring but effective. That’s what the green movement has largely done over the last few decades and it has reaped rewards.

           JSO risk undoing all that work.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           The crucial point is that previous forms of protest haven’t failed. Weaning a country off fossil fuels takes multiple decades. We started down the path many years ago and we’ve made good progress. If JSO genuinely want us to stop using fossil fuels sooner that currently planned they need to put forward feasible alternative plans and educate the public about them. Handing out leaflets, knocking on doors etc. Boring but effective. That’s what the green movement has largely done over the last few decades and it has reaped rewards. JSO risk undoing all that work.

           — Rich_cb

           I’d argue that it’s not nearly effective enough as governments keep kicking the can down the road and missing targets. There’s also the various shenanigans around shifting CO2 production to elsewhere in the world and claiming it as a local success (which I suppose it is) and then pointing the finger elsewhere. Also there’s widespread fraud around carbon offsets: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe

         • It’s not been perfect but
           It’s not been perfect but despite that we have genuinely made meaningful progress and so have many other countries.

           Our emissions have plummeted even when you consider off shoring of manufacturing.

           Even China, often much maligned on climate issues, is likely to hit peak CO2 emissions in the next few years.

           Slow, steady activism and political consensus building have got us to a point where net zero is actually possible in a reasonable time frame.

           JSO are putting all that at risk.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           It’s not been perfect but despite that we have genuinely made meaningful progress and so have many other countries. Our emissions have plummeted even when you consider off shoring of manufacturing. Even China, often much maligned on climate issues, is likely to hit peak CO2 emissions in the next few years. Slow, steady activism and political consensus building have got us to a point where net zero is actually possible in a reasonable time frame. JSO are putting all that at risk.

           — Rich_cb

           I am not sure they’re convincing the public / politicians at large any more than the suffragettes.  Who incidentally fitted the definition of terrorists far better!  I’m not sure I can say they were ultimately unimportant in the whole process though.

           I suspect the only way we can hit net zero “in a reasonable time” is by playing with the definition of “reasonable time” (e.g. it doesn’t seem it will mean “without serious consequences” any more).  Or moving the goalposts of what “net zero” is.  Fortunately we have lost no time in doing the latter e.g. at the micro-scale “zero emissions” for “we put the emissions elsewhere and we’re not looking”!  We have had a warm up (no pun intended) in diminishing some of the impact of the motor vehicle as “externalities”…

           I’m probably just old enough that I won’t get to see whatever happens.  Although it’s possible that we’re already in interesting times.  If not I hope it will be as more bullish folks like BikesnobNYC suggest and whatever changes occur people* will adapt.  As we have throughout millenia of changes in climate, society, technology etc.

           * Of course it could be our AI brainchildren according to the folks who are making this happen.

         • chrisonatrike wrote:

           I am not sure they’re convincing the public / politicians at large any more than the suffragettes.  Who incidentally fitted the definition of terrorists far better!  I’m not sure I can say they were ultimately unimportant in the whole process though.

           I suspect the only way we can hit net zero “in a reasonable time” is by playing with the definition of “reasonable time” (e.g. it doesn’t seem it will mean “without serious consequences” any more).  Or moving the goalposts of what “net zero” is.  Fortunately we have lost no time in doing the latter e.g. at the micro-scale “zero emissions” for “we put the emissions elsewhere and we’re not looking”!  We have had a warm up (no pun intended) in diminishing some of the impact of the motor vehicle as “externalities”…

           I’m probably just old enough that I won’t get to see whatever happens.  Although it’s possible that we’re already in interesting times.  If not I hope it will be as more bullish folks like BikesnobNYC suggest and whatever changes occur people* will adapt.  As we have throughout millenia of changes in climate, society, technology etc.

           * Of course it could be our AI brainchildren according to the folks who are making this happen.

           — chrisonatrike

           If only we’d been warned about global warming earlier…

           https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2023/scientists-warned-climate-change-1965-podcast

           (There’s a short transcript that’s worth reading to get a bit of history with global warming and U.S. politics)

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           feasible alternative plan

           — Rich_cb

           Feasible is a key word. Not just technologically, or even financially feasible but also politically. As Jean-Claude Juncker said about this, ‘We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.’

           I agree JSO’s approach is probably counter-productive.

       • You know anyone who is flying

         You know anyone who is flying less because of the impending disaster of global heating?

         Or indeed anyone flying more to give JSO the bird?

         High fuel prices will drive efficiency (fuel duty escalator anyone?), And using less carbon sources from iffy regimes will encourage renewable generation.

         Offsetting is nonsense.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • It would seem that those
     It would seem that those identifying as liberals are not a homogeneous group either

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Good lord!  You mean – drum

       Good lord!  You mean – drum roll! – we are all individuals? 😉

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Who knew?
         Who knew?

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • brooksby wrote:

         Good lord!  You mean – drum roll! – we are all individuals? 😉

         — brooksby

         I’m not

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • We aren’t either.

           We aren’t either.

         • we agree

           we agree

         • So. Do you know your number

           So. Do you know your number then?

         • giff77 wrote:

           So. Do you know your number then?

           — giff77

           Six

       • brooksby wrote:

         Good lord!  You mean – drum roll! – we are all individuals? 😉

         — brooksby

         Yes, you are truly unique… just like everybody else.

         Log In or Register to post comments

3. The tweet from ABD sussex is

   The tweet from ABD sussex is one of the most unhinged things I have read. Framing “I want to be able to live on this planet in 50 years time” as an extremist position takes a level of cognative dissonance that can’t be measured by modern science. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Being anti-car and anti

     Being anti-car and anti-fossil fuel is not extremist. Thinking that the rightness of your cause (be it climate change, votes for women, trans rights, BLM, anti-vax, white supremacy or whatever) gives you the right to seriously impede other people who are not meaningfully responsible for whatever you’re upset about, is at least on the extremist spectrum. 

     I would gladly see the last car owner strangled with the fanbelt of the last internal combustion engine, and I have the right to campaign loudly and publicly in favour of that view. I don’t think I have the right to get people on minimum wage into trouble with shitty employers by making them late for shifts though, as XR and JSO et al have certainly done by blocking roads being used by buses. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. The incident with the van
   The incident with the van clearly shows the danger that red light jumping causes the rest of us that don’t RLJ.

   Every time a motorist sees a cyclist RLJ, it confirms the stereotype, so it soon becomes the mindset that a cyclist *will always jump a red light*, and so the following motorist thinks that they will have time to follow.
   By not jumping, the cyclist has forced the drivist to mentally re-evaluate and potentially fuck up their day.

   So … For the sake of the rest of us, please stop jumping red lights.
   Fight the stereotype, and let’s get our traffic light safety back.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yet (as I understand it but
     Yet (as I understand it but cannot be arsed to go check for the evidence) Cyclists are no more likely to RLJ than other road users, but do it in a different way.

     1. They have more opportunity to filter and run a light at low speed. Such as at a pedestrian crossing.

     2. Turning left on red.

     3. Jumping ahead of the stop line to be clear of traffic waiting behind.

     4. At road works where a cyclist can dodge inside the cones.

     Personally, I cannot remember the last time, if at all, that I witnessed a cyclist deliberately accelerate to crash through a junction at orange / just changed to red as drivers tend to do.

     Whilst I’d agree with you in reminding others to respect red lights, I do think it is probably more important to focus on tackling the incorrect and generally unfair stereotype.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • My commute home through the
       My commute home through the centre of Glasgow is full of traffic lights.
       Food delivery guys – on bikes and throttle pedalecs – have no respect for red lights. I am often sat there, on my bike, watching these guys go past on either the road or non-shared footway.

       It happens … it doesn’t matter if you see it or not … it happens.

       Points 1 through 4 are not acceptable behaviour either.
       Red light means Stop.
       It doesn’t mean go if you can see a way around it.

       Points 1 through 4 only serve to reinforce the driverist mindset that cyclists will go through red lights – and that you have listed them shows that they are right.
       If you are prepared to do any of those behaviours then you are part of the problem.
       Don’t be the problem… change your behaviour and be the solution.

       You can be generic, or “you”. How ever the cap fits.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Indeed. In my bit of London,

         Indeed. In my bit of London, it’s absolutely unremarkable for cyclists (particularly but not at all only delivery riders) to ride through red lights. Pedestrian crossings seem to be the most usual venues, but also turning left at crossroads. I do see motorists do it occasionally, but that’s infrequent enough (during the daytime anyway) that it sticks in my mind. Friends I ride with will sail through red lights if it *looks* clear, and I know they don’t do that when driving. 

         It fucks me right off. Partly the optics, as I want the moral high ground if I’m to be lumped in with all cyclists. Partly a sense that the world would be better if people didn’t feel that the rules are only for others. Mostly because I’ve been knocked off by a woman blithely sailing through a crossroads that looked clear to her, and because I’ve many times had to grab my small child out of the way of someone who presumably thought that red lights aren’t for cyclists. 

         It’s so fucking easy to just stop when and where you’re meant to. (And naturally, that means that if a car or bus is in the ASL box, I’ll be in front of them and taking my sweet time about setting off when the lights change).

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Totally agree with you on all

         Totally agree with you on all your points. I do my utmost to not run lights and will be seen shaking my head when someone else does. There have been a couple of instances where a mirror and shoulder check have established some clown is 6′ off my wheel and I commit to the jump as I’ve no desire to be a billiard ball and be catapulted into the middle of a junction.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Mungecrundle wrote:

       4. At road works where a cyclist can dodge inside the cones.

       — Mungecrundle

       I’ve always worked on the assumption that if the roadworks are set up in such a way that it’s safe to ride through (e.g. lane coned off but no works started, no workers present) and I can ride to the left of the red light and through the coned space without ever encroaching on the oncoming traffic’s lane it’s OK; I might also do this when I have a green if safe so as not to hold up traffic behind, e.g. on an uphill contraflow. This is the only time I’ll pass a red, I assume that passing it to the left of the light and never riding in the lane it’s controlling I’m not actually jumping it, but I’d be interested to know the legality of that.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Why would you consider that
         Why would you consider that as *not* jumping a red light?
         Would you ride through a red to turn left (currently illegal unless signed different)?

         The only way that you can pass through red in those kind of circumstances is to get off and push.
         You become a pedestrian.

         That the traffic lights are temporary and specifically for roadworks is immaterial. They carry exactly the same weight in Law as permanent ones.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Oldfatgit wrote:

           Why would you consider that as *not* jumping a red light?
           Would you ride through a red to turn left (currently illegal unless signed different)?

           ….

           That the traffic lights are temporary and specifically for roadworks is immaterial. They carry exactly the same weight in Law as permanent ones

           — Oldfatgit

           Because I’m passing to the left of the red light, not riding through it, and not riding on the carriageway it’s controlling, as I said. The red light is there to stop people travelling on the available carriageway and I’m not doing that. Rather than asking for a moral lecture I’m genuinely curious about the legal position, which is if I don’t pass through the red light – which I would have to pass on its right to do so – don’t ride on the active carriageway at any point and ride through a coned-off area where no workers are present and no works are yet taking place, am I breaking the law? 

           In answer to your question as to whether I would ride through a red to turn left, I think “this is the only time I’ll pass a red” in my previous post covers that.

         • Even though the lane is
           Even though the lane is closed, you still pass through a red light on the carriageway and it would still be considered RLJ.

           The active status of a lane does not affect its classification and use .. the lane does not stop existing as a carriageway and as such, the law still applies.

           It is similar situation to red crossess over lanes on motorways. The cross means that the lane is closed, and you must not pass that point in that lane. The lane hasn’t stopped existing as part of the carriageway, and it is an offence to proceed in that lane.

           The only way that you can pass a red light is on foot.

           So yes, you are breaking the law.

         • Been reading this with

           Been reading this with interest. I can’t find anything specific to “portable traffic lights” – which tend to be used for most roadworks. They seem to be different to “temporary traffic lights”

           Highway Code Rule 109 seems pertinant:

           You MUST obey all traffic light signals (see ‘Light signals controlling traffic’) and traffic signs giving orders, including temporary signals & signs

           It doesn’t specify portable traffic lights

           I understand what has been said – the red light is closing off the lane you aren’t using – but you will likely have passed a sign saying something like “When red light shows, wait here”

           I think Oldfatgit (it feels rude to call you that!) is spot on – drivists tend to think in the moment, so will be unlikely think “oh thats nice of them – moving ahead so we don’t get held up” I believe they will more likely knee-jerk “f**kin cyclist going through a red light”

         • Oldfatgit wrote:

           …The only way that you can pass a red light is on foot. So yes, you are breaking the law.

           — Oldfatgit

           But only in “in a very specific and limited way” though?

           I’m a hypocrite in that I stick to the rules BUT.  I don’t approve of RLJ by motor vehicles pretty much any time and by cyclists at most times.  However I am less troubled by cyclists breaking them.  Also after having stopped for lights at road works I have indeed then sometimes ignored them rather than waiting further.  This is where I am as certain as I can be that I can see the end of the one-way section and far enough beyond it that I can be absolutely sure of getting through before any vehicle could reach it from the other direction.  I don’t want to risk falling in a trench / having to jump into a hedge.

           FWIW I also roll through them at some points on some critical mass events – which certainly leave some members of the public annoyed and / or confused.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Because I’m passing to the left of the red light, not riding through it, and not riding on the carriageway it’s controlling

           — Rendel Harris

           Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under “Rendel Harris: he really is that stupid”. That you quote Marcus Aurelius on here to look intelligent is increasingly comical.

           You red-light-jumping hypocrite.

         • Whilst I agree that this is

           Whilst I agree that this is running a red – I myself am very dubious of those temporary traffic light/contraflows. They’re not set up with cyclists in mind, the timings do not allow for cyclist speeds and it’s almost impossible to clear them before the upstream light releases a bunch of drivers towards you (all of whom assume you’ve run a red instead of being caught out by the timings, and all of whom will happily have a head-on with you to teach you a lesson). These set-ups have been the source of a number of NMOTD entries – including a particularly terrifying one involving a lorry.

           If I encounter one, I must admit, I’ll usually seek to go around it rather that through it. Though I’ll usually dismount.

         • BalladOfStruth wrote:

           Whilst I agree that this is running a red – I myself am very dubious of those temporary traffic light/contraflows. They’re not set up with cyclists in mind, the timings do not allow for cyclist speeds and it’s almost impossible to clear them before the upstream light releases a bunch of drivers towards you (all of whom assume you’ve run a red instead of being caught out by the timings, and all of whom will happily have a head-on with you to teach you a lesson).

           — BalladOfStruth

           I’ve had this, and I do now find myself checking the timings while waiting (am I going to get through) and also eyeing the closed lane for escape potential. Obviously you may not be able to fully assess either eg. if the roadworks round a corner or otherwise go out of sight.

         • BalladOfStruth wrote:

           Whilst I agree that this is running a red – I myself am very dubious of those temporary traffic light/contraflows. They’re not set up with cyclists in mind, the timings do not allow for cyclist speeds and it’s almost impossible to clear them before the upstream light releases a bunch of drivers towards you (all of whom assume you’ve run a red instead of being caught out by the timings, and all of whom will happily have a head-on with you to teach you a lesson). These set-ups have been the source of a number of NMOTD entries – including a particularly terrifying one involving a lorry.

           If I encounter one, I must admit, I’ll usually seek to go around it rather that through it. Though I’ll usually dismount.

           — BalladOfStruth

           You have a perfectly acceptable and legal option: get off and walk through the lights. Cycling through them on red is illegal. Full stop.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under “Rendel Harris: he really is that stupid”. That you quote Marcus Aurelius on here to look intelligent is increasingly comical. You red-light-jumping hypocrite.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under “ShutTheFrontDawes: he really does have some very worrying anger issues; one can only hope that by being so gratuitously and furiously offensive to so many people so regularly online he lets off steam that stops him behaving like this in real life.” Get well soon.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under “Rendel Harris: he really is that stupid”. That you quote Marcus Aurelius on here to look intelligent is increasingly comical. You red-light-jumping hypocrite.

           — Rendel Harris

           Ah, another one to put in the list of quotes under “ShutTheFrontDawes: he really does have some very worrying anger issues; one can only hope that by being so gratuitously and furiously offensive to so many people so regularly online he lets off steam that stops him behaving like this in real life.” Get well soon.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Perhaps you should try to improve yourself so that you’re not such a danger on the roads. If you don’t know that cycling through a red light is illegal I expect that there are plenty of other dangerous and/or illegal things you do (whether you self-justify with some rediculous excuse or not).

           Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes

           Excellent! There you are, if I hadn’t quoted old Marcus you wouldn’t have gone looking him up to find a telling quote, so you’ve learned something. You’re welcome.

           Maybe soon you could learn the difference between riding through a red light and riding past it on the left in a cordoned off deactivated lane.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           Maybe soon you could learn the difference between riding through a red light and riding past it on the left in a cordoned off deactivated lane.

           — Rendel Harris

           There is literally no difference.

           The highway code is clear: “You MUST obey all traffic light signals”

           The law (RTA 1988) is clear:
           “(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign […] has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.

           It really is that simple.

           Red light means stop Rendel. A child knows it.

         • ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

           Maybe soon you could learn the difference between riding through a red light and riding past it on the left in a cordoned off deactivated lane.

           — ShutTheFrontDawes There is literally no difference. The highway code is clear: “You MUST obey all traffic light signals” The law (RTA 1988) is clear: “(1)Where a traffic sign, being a sign […] has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence. It really is that simple. Red light means stop Rendel. A child knows it.— Rendel Harris

           so where there are multiple lanes, does a red on any of the lanes mean all lanes should stop? Or do you accept that red lights can apply only specifically to some lanes. They certainly never apply to a pavement.

           So in the example of cordoned of roadworks, is the correct result to go through only on green, staying out of the coned off area in the certain knowledge the oncoming traffis will be bearing down on you before you get out the other end, because we know that roadworks never consider giving enough time for cyclists.

           I have to say i was ttempted to stop and walk all the way back through the roadworks infront of him (after all bikes have no reverse) and then sit and enjoy the case when drivers coming the other way proved as bloody minded as the one approhing me, when the driver coming the other way could clearly see me in the roadworks when they decided their light was green so they would go regardless.

         • wycombewheeler wrote:

           so where there are multiple lanes, does a red on any of the lanes mean all lanes should stop?

           — wycombewheeler

           You’re kidding right? Yes of course it absolutely does!

           Unless there are green filter arrows, a red light means stop for ALL lanes!

           If you don’t know that you have no business being on a bicycle, let alone a heavier vehicle like a car.

           There is no defence of “but I went round the traffic light on the other side, therefore it didn’t count”.

         • Let’s be realistic: lawful or
           Let’s be realistic: lawful or not RLJ cyclists are no more dangerous than a jogger crossing the road.

           However it can potentially make the cyclist safer by removing the possibility of them being left hooked/rear ended by the car behind

         • Car Delenda Est wrote:

           Let’s be realistic: lawful or not RLJ cyclists are no more dangerous than a jogger crossing the road

           — Car Delenda Est

           Tell that to Peter McCombie. Oh wait, you can’t because he’s dead. Killed by a red-light-jumping cyclist.

           We have these laws for a reason. Don’t pretend otherwise.

         • I never said it was without
           I never said it was without risk and as I said in my amended post: it can potentially make the cyclist safer by removing the possibility of them being left hooked/rear ended by the car behind.

           I believe that road death statistics would decrease if cyclists could treat a red as a ‘give way’

           And before you argue that I’m trying to legalise dangerous cycling: the current law did no more to deter Emir Loka than what I’m proposing, and they would be no less at fault if they caused a collision

         • There’s a guy near me that
           There’s a guy near me that hops off his bike and sprints alongside it before hopping back on at the other side of a junction to avoid ‘jumping the light’. This seems less preferable than other cyclists who stop and defer to pedestrians and then cycle through at a crawl when the crossing is empty, though this would be illegal unlike the first option. I do hate seeing cyclists go through with speed which makes using the crossing intimidating / unpleasant for some pedestrians even if the cyclist never gets within 3m of a pedestrian. Though I believe this is the norm in some countries?

       • Rendel Harris wrote:

         This is the only time I’ll pass a red, I assume that passing it to the left of the light and never riding in the lane it’s controlling I’m not actually jumping it, but I’d be interested to know the legality of that.

         — Rendel Harris

         I’m also assuming, but my view is that if the lane is coned off and the lights are to the right it’s no longer a lane and I shouldn’t be riding in it. 

         I’ll happily go through (worker-less) coned-off zones to get to the front of a temporary traffic light queue (which don’t seem all that temporary on the Walworth Road right now), but actually going through the lights seems at best unsporting. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Brauchsel wrote:

           I’ll happily go through (worker-less) coned-off zones to get to the front of a temporary traffic light queue (which don’t seem all that temporary on the Walworth Road right now), but actually going through the lights seems at best unsporting. 

           — Brauchsel

           Walworth Road seems to be a cunning plan on the part of Mr Khan to get everyone off public transport and onto their bikes, as I’ve given up taking buses down there!

           It might at first glance appear “unsporting” but in fact it’s to the motorists’ advantage as they won’t have to follow a cyclist through the contraflow so they will get through quicker.

         • I go on the cone side
           I go on the cone side primarily not to hold up motor vehicles. Worst one was an uphill section where the timings did not allow a bike to get to the end of the roadworks! Fortunately, it was only there less than a day.

   • The problem is not how *we*
     The problem is not how *we* see our reason for passing through the red; it’s how the *other* road users see it.

     And until people stop trying to justify illegal and often irresponsible riding, other highway users will be justified in their whataboutifery.

     And I guess that’s my invite to the next AGM blown, then … ??

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • This always comes up.  I

       This always comes up.  I think there is a dash of truth in here combined with a lot of “I know it when I see it” and “stands to reason”.  I don’t have better evidence than anyone else here but my theory is this.  Simply from the numbers of “offended” motorists it would seem that there must be far more, far worse cycling going on than I ever see.  That is possible.

       My alternative explanation: there is already prejudice / dislike out there only indirectly linked to RLJ.  Well-known enough that “bad cyclist” is an widely enjoyed trope, kept going by the media and by people who rarely encounter cyclists and even less any wrong’uns.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • There are certainly some

         There are certainly some problems.  Yes – cycling is by its nature less formal, more casual and doesn’t require training.  There is little enforcement.  So we might not expect great standards compared with driving *.
         Yes – in some places it seems that RLJing is very noticeable.
         Yes – we should regulate the delivery businesses even when they have “contractors” rather than employees and they’re on bicycles.
         Yes – people just aren’t used to cyclists and have little idea of cycling so when they “suddenly appear” or are “tearing along” it can be a shock.

         However I think it’s mostly our “out group” / “detecting cheaters” mechanisms which are getting triggered.  Those will continue to do so while people on bicycles are a minority and are not “us”, or our friends and relations.  We are very sensitive to “others” who are playing but not by the same rules.  They’re getting in our way, they’re getting ahead, they’re doing it for free (no road tax!) when we have to pay, they’re doing it with insoucience!  We’ve been told they’re low status (yoof, crims, people who can’t afford cars) or otherwise objectionable (self-important middle-aged men) and yet they aren’t giving us motorists the deference that it’s simple common sense to expect.

         * In the UK I think we’re maybe better than we might be due to the population who regularly cycle being somewhat at variance from the mainstream.  A selection pressure due to the road conditions – because motor vehicles!

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • I know this must be true. Mrs
         I know this must be true. Mrs Mungecrundle drives through Cambridge about once a week. She’s always seeing cyclists doing naughty things and holding up traffic. I drive with her as a passenger about once a month and on those occassions we do not encounter the hoards of naughty cyclists and as far as causing delays are concerned the cyclists are way down the list, somewhere south of delivery vans and drivers waiting to turn right. Indeed, in central Cambridge the cyclists are usually being held up by vehicle traffic.

         It’s a lazy trope based on a few misdeeds and needs to be confronted. Even if all people riding bicycles behaved like perfect angels there would still be hostility from some to their presence and another poorly evidenced excuse would be promulgated to have them soundly thrashed and sent home to think about what they have done.

         I am aware that London driving is a different league and that there are specific issues with delivery agents (regardless of mode of transport). However, the actions of others are not my responsibility and should be no excuse to drive unsafely near me because you once heard about a deliveroo rider who rode across a red light and scared a Granny on a pavement.

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Drivist whataboutery has
       Drivist whataboutery has nothing to do with our individual behaviour and everything to do work their cognitive dissonance and media portrayal of the cyclist boogeyman

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • I think this view is due to
       I think this view is due to cycling being a minority thing in the UK. If it were more commonplace, there wouldn’t be this view of seeing them as some kind of group.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • The problem is that a fair

     The problem is that a fair number of motorists are so engrained in their habit of jumping lights. I could rattle of a whole swathe of junctions in Paisley where it really is endemic. I’ve found myself swerving to the left and bracing for an impact. Others are too narrow and I have no choice but jump because the bam behind is accelerating and too close. Actually had a McGill’s driver fish tail and rag me for not running the light. He couldn’t accept that he had more than enough time to stop. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

5. Imagine if the protest wasn’t
   Imagine if the protest wasn’t against oil companies etc, but was instead against the Big Bad EU or something like that. Would the protesters get the same treatment by the media? Not a chance.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Cocovelo wrote:

     Imagine if the protest wasn’t against oil companies etc, but was instead against the Big Bad EU or something like that. Would the protesters get the same treatment by the media? Not a chance.

     — Cocovelo

     A lot of the same people punching the protestors and then whingeing about being arrested for it are doubtless those who supported or indeed were involved in the lorry drivers’ convoys in protest at fuel prices or the various London cabby go-slows. As it happens I lean towards the school of thought that says JSO are somewhat counterproductive and selfindulgent in their tactics but there’s no denying the media bias against them.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Irony at its finest, “I’m a

     Irony at its finest, “I’m a liberal and I hate you…You’re hurting the cause”. 

     The Woke hard left will always fall off their ivory towers, because at the depths of their black little pea hearts they are massive hypocrits who hate other people.

     Demand more and more immigration, call anyone who questions it a racist. Meanwhile they happily demand other people curtail anything and everything in their daily lives for ‘the climate emergency’.  

     The majority of posters here know it becaue they are like that, crabs in a bucket, each trying to show off their virtue signal to the tribe, putting a UKR, rainbow, trans flag on their bio, claiming their ’cause’ above all these other ‘stupid people, but dragging each other back down back into their messy bucket of Wokedom. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Roulereo wrote:

       …at the depths of their black little pea hearts they are massive hypocrits who hate other people.

       — Roulereo

       On the basis of this madder than a box of frogs rant, and your many other unpleasant comments about virtually everything on here, one would say it’s actually you who hates other people. Go and have a nice lie down and perhaps a cup of tea.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Demand more and more

       Demand more and more immigration, call anyone who questions it a racist. Meanwhile they happily demand other people curtail anything and everything in their daily lives for ‘the climate emergency’.  

       Even if this were true, with which I disagree, then how is this hypocritical?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Cocovelo wrote:

         Demand more and more immigration, call anyone who questions it a racist. Meanwhile they happily demand other people curtail anything and everything in their daily lives for ‘the climate emergency’.  

         Even if this were true, with which I disagree, then how is this hypocritical?

         — Cocovelo

         I find a useful heuristic for identifying content-less rambling is that anyone using the word “woke” as a perjorative is best ignored.

         Log In or Register to post comments

6. Ignoring the fact they
   Ignoring the fact they probably only mounted the pavement to get alongside the JSO protesters, and that I’m supportive of low speed pavement cycling:
   cycling on the pavement in lycra makes you look like a massive p***k.

   Log In or Register to post comments