"If you don’t like cyclists going through red lights, support cycling infrastructure": Cyclists jumping lights spark debate; Van der Poel's terrifying uphill sprint; Doughnut shop can't open due to World Champs; Creepiest bike + more on the live blog

neilmck wrote:

The problem isn't cyclists going through red lights, it is not respecting pedestrians. In France one is allowed go through on red at many lights (there is a sign allowing this) but one has to give way to pedestrians and other road users.

I agree - I personally think running red lights is one of the big advantages of riding in urban areas, as it means you can get from a - b much quicker than cars. 

However, it does mean that you will come across cars & peds - and the key to running a red light is being acutely aware of your surroundings. 

neilmck wrote:

The problem isn't cyclists going through red lights, it is not respecting pedestrians. In France one is allowed go through on red at many lights (there is a sign allowing this) but one has to give way to pedestrians and other road users.

There's definitely a case for allowing left turn on red etc, but I really don't think it's applicable to a non-junction pelican like this one. Why would the people who currently think it's OK to ride straight through the red when there are pedestrians on the crossing be more, not less, respectful of the pedestrians if there was a light saying they could go? Can't see that happening. Where pedestrians are crossing the only sensible control is a mandatory red for all road users, in my opinion. It would be lovely if one could say cyclists could be trusted to be sensible, and the vast majority of us can, but (as the video shows) a significant minority can't.

It's very common in Southampton where I live for there to be a sign on the pavement indicating a shared use cycle/footpath and a picture of a bike and a pedestrian showing green on the pedestrian phase of the lights. So, if I am to mount the pavement and cross the road on my bike this is perfectly safe and legal at these junctions, but if I ride through it without mounting the pavement first it's dangerous and illegal? Or if I'm to ride through on the pedestrian phase when there are no pedestrians close by this is also dangerous?

The rules around cyclists and red lights have nothing to do with safety.

Using a signed shared use area to cross the road in parallel with the pedestrians when you have a shared green signal is very different from riding perpendicular to the pedestrian flow at a  time when they have a legitimate expectation you won't be. 

[Edited to add - it's possible I have misunderstood what you're describing]

As far as I understand your description you're talking about on the one hand crossing the road with the pedestrians on a green on a Toucan crossing without dismounting your bike and on the other hand riding through a red light across the path of the pedestrians crossing the road, is that right? In which case yes, one is safe and legal and the other is dangerous and illegal. Apologies if I've misunderstood your description.

Jinx!

People are people.  If there's no feedback for breaking rules the rules will be broken.  Having enough police and courts to fix established rule-breaking can be really expensive apart from having unwanted side-effects.

Why not acknowledge human nature and work with it?  Make it so there is less incentive to break the few rules which are really needed.

So let cyclists ride past red lights!  And get rid of the pedestrian crossings!  (Sorry, bit of provocation there...)

All things being equal I reckon giving someone an armoured exoskeleton capable of rapid acceleration and very high speeds might lead to worse behaviour than putting someone on a bike.  Especially when there is minimal enforcement of rules - including use of distracting entertainment systems.  And when this is also a way of demonstrating your status / prestige...

Brauchsel wrote:

It's normal at some junctions for over 50% of cyclists to completely ignore the lights though, and it's not ok. 

I'm sorry but that's just not true, unless you have the data to back that up, that is an anecdote. 
For example on yesterdays ride I can say that 100% of cyclists I saw stopped at a specific red light. I can only say that because when I was at said traffic light there was only one other cyclist at that specific time. It would then be completely wrong to say 100% of cyclist stop at that specific traffic light as I was only there for said short period. If a traffic survey over a full day was done we can actually get far more accurate data. 
 

The saying "the plural of anecdote is not data" has sadly been picked up by dim people as a kind of "gotcha" to excuse their own prejudices. It wasn't an anecdote, it was an assertion: the limited data I have observed supports it, and you can believe me or not  

I'm not going to sit around all week to do a study. But I can think of three or four junctions near me where, if the lights are red, more than half of the cyclists approaching will go through anyway. I've observed that at all times of day or night, so I don't think it's an unreasonable assertion. 

It isn't for us to judge whether we're too close, can get round safely, whatever. We, and other road users, are poor judges of speed and distance and others' behaviour, and so there are rules in place to mitigate that. So it's for us to stop at the fucking red lights and wait our turn. 

Brauchsel wrote:

The saying "the plural of anecdote is not data" has sadly been picked up by dim people as a kind of "gotcha" to excuse their own prejudices. It wasn't an anecdote, it was an assertion: the limited data I have observed supports it, and you can believe me or not  

I'm not going to sit around all week to do a study. But I can think of three or four junctions near me where, if the lights are red, more than half of the cyclists approaching will go through anyway. I've observed that at all times of day or night, so I don't think it's an unreasonable assertion. 

It isn't for us to judge whether we're too close, can get round safely, whatever. We, and other road users, are poor judges of speed and distance and others' behaviour, and so there are rules in place to mitigate that. So it's for us to stop at the fucking red lights and wait our turn. 

Assertion/Anecdote,  it still results in you having no "scientific" data. My assertion based on 30 years of anecdotal evidence is that 90% of cyclist stop at red lights. Now you can believe that or not but I'm not going spend my time to look for actual studies to prove my point when I can just Chuck out lazy assertions. 
And I will stop at fucking red lights where I deem it right and proper (99% of the time). The other 1% I have yet to kill or maim anyone by going through one. 

"And I will stop at fucking red lights where I deem it right and proper (99% of the time). The other 1% I have yet to kill or maim anyone by going through one."

Should all the other people, who aren't fortunate enough to have your superhuman powers of observation and foresight, get to pick and choose which traffic laws they obey? 1% feels like a high level of occasions in which it would be hazardous for you to stop. 

I can readily believe the overall studies at 13% or whatever (although imagine if one in eight cars didn't bother stopping). Many/most junctions it's obviously unsafe to cross on red because there's a stream of traffic, and often drivers prevent us from getting to the front by filling the ASL box (which should also be enforced). The junctions I am talking about (and I didn't claim otherwise) are not like that. They're mostly pedestrian crossings, or where a major road meets a minor and most riders *do* go straight through because they perceive it to be safe *for them*. They're usually right, but that's not the point: the people who are following the (rational and well-known) rules should be able to expect to cross safely on their turn. 

Brauchsel wrote:

Should all the other people, who aren't fortunate enough to have your superhuman powers of observation and foresight, get to pick and choose which traffic laws they obey? 1% feels like a high level of occasions in which it would be hazardous for you to stop. 

The junctions I am talking about (and I didn't claim otherwise) are not like that...

Being able to observe one's surroundings at 15-20mph is not a super power. In 30 years of riding I have had zero pedestrian incidents precisely because I'm careful and observant. 
You say the junctions you're talking about "are not like that" but are happy to chuck out another assertion about my riding through 1% of traffic lights without any idea of the time of day, Road layout and design or location. Impressive. 
 

"Being able to observe one's surroundings at 15-20mph is not a super power. In 30 years of riding I have had zero pedestrian incidents precisely because I'm careful and observant."

Not so careful or observant when it comes to reading. I am sure you're an excellent rider (as most people say they are) and I won't be so petty as to ask for data beyond your own claims.

But, many people are not excellent riders or drivers even though they think they are. You trust your judgement: they trust theirs, but theirs is shit. If you can jump red lights when you feel like it, so can they. 

This causes problems. A solution might be to have some kind of signal, to let excellent and shit riders alike know that the way ahead of them is going to be clear. If everyone obeys those signals, nobody's going to ride into anybody else. They might have to slow down or stop for a few seconds, which might be a bit frustrating, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable price to pay in order to have a system which is reasonably fair and predictable for everyone. 

I could be wrong but... tell me you're a lawyer without telling me you're a lawyer 

Brauchsel wrote:

"Being able to observe one's surroundings at 15-20mph is not a super power. In 30 years of riding I have had zero pedestrian incidents precisely because I'm careful and observant."

Not so careful or observant when it comes to reading. I am sure you're an excellent rider (as most people say they are) and I won't be so petty as to ask for data beyond your own claims.

I can read perfectly well. You suggested not everyone had my "superpowers". I asserted that I do not have superpowers just am careful and observant. Of course not everyone is careful and observant.

What sort of data could I possibly provide anyway to prove such a claim apart from my own personal anecdotes of my riding over the past 30 years? It's a pointless point. 

And again you have no clue what red lights I am chosing to "jump" i.e to come to a slow roll, check there are no cars about before carrying on my merry way. Pedestrians are not at a couple of the traffic lights as they are not pedestrian crossings or I am crossing with the pedestrians who also often cross on the red light (naughty pedestrians, yes it's not illegal but well, we should all observe the red lights, right?) 
 

The best solution is as far as possible, separated infrastructure for cycling, walking and motor vehicles as per the Dutch. Everything else is just half arsed. 

Brauchsel wrote:

RDaneel wrote:

"And I will stop at [unnecessary word removed] red lights where I deem it right and proper (99% of the time). The other 1% I have yet to kill or maim anyone by going through one."

Should all the other people, who aren't fortunate enough to have your superhuman powers of observation and foresight, get to pick and choose which traffic laws they obey?

This is the problem. Very few people intend to kill or maim anyone by jumping a red light. The cyclist who hit one of my family on a pedestrian crossing probably didn't intend to hit her, or to break her ankle and collarbone. But, as with investments, past performance is no guarantee of future performance.  

I think your excusing drivers "sneaking" through a red misses the huge acceleration, noise and speeding that accompanies it.

And this is not forgetting the size and weight of the vehicle.

Though many of them are trying to camouflage them with the tarmac grey colourings...

RDaneel wrote:

Brauchsel wrote:

It's normal at some junctions for over 50% of cyclists to completely ignore the lights though, and it's not ok. 

I'm sorry but that's just not true, unless you have the data to back that up, that is an anecdote. 

 

Indeed. I've read two studies on this, one based in London and one in Northern Ireland that put the rate at under 13% (I think the NI one was around 10-11%, the London one was around 12.5% - but this is from memory)

I noticed on Twitter an increasing number of drivists suggesting that, in response to RJLing videos, if the cars didn't hit anything, where was the problem?

I agree. But I find it weird that cyclist are the only folks subject to this collective responsibility. Does a driver cutting through red lights make all other drivers look bad?

Rendel Harris wrote:

There's definitely a case for experimenting with changing signage/lights at junctions. However, this light (which I know well as I ride through it twice a day (when on green, obviously), it's on the Brixton Road) is a pelican for crossing a very busy four-lane (two traffic and two bus) road that is used by eight bus routes and very heavy motor and cycle traffic. If it wasn't there there would be no way for pedestrians to cross and the nearest junctions are several hundred yards in either direction. Cyclist behaviour there, particularly around 7-8AM, is frankly appalling with peletons of young men (sorry but it is 95% young men) barrelling through the red without thinking of stopping regardless of who is on the crossing.

Yeah but.. London, which to my non local eye appears to be both the pinnacle and the nadir of British cycle commuting.

peted76 wrote:

Yeah but.. London, which to my non local eye appears to be both the pinnacle and the nadir of British cycle commuting.

From my observations when perambulating around the country to see friends I'd say that in cities (mainly Newcastle, Leeds, Bristol, Cardiff, Brighton) pretty much the same percentage of cyclists run reds as do so in London; it's more noticeable in London because we have far higher numbers of cyclists, ten of a hundred running a red looks a lot worse than one of ten.

It's clearly very salient in London however I suspect that's just due to concentration as you say.

However in the UK it's not quite just "some people on bikes" - there is a selection effect, because we don't have "mass cycling".  If we had that I'd bet the levels of selfishness would trend towards the numbers we currently see in driving * - assuming there is some policing like there is in NL **.

Counter-example though - apparently in parts of Amsterdam a sizeable fraction of cyclists don't respect red lights.  But there doesn't appear to be a slaughter of pedestrians; in fact NL rates as one of the safest places to walk.

So like other anti-social behaviour we need to measure what the actual outcomes / effects are to determine the priority for addressing this.  Anyone have numbers / any evidence of "suppression of walking" - like happens where there are lots of motor vehicles?

* EDIT for clarity - which might make some rule-breaking increase!  To fix that again address issues which cause people to break rules (e.g. make it more convenient) and then ensure the few remaining rules are policed.

** In the UK it seems this is "almost none" for cyclists - as opposed to "very little" for motorists who also e.g. run red lights despite being in easily identifiable cars with numberplates...