A cyclist has been ordered to pay a total of almost £400, including a fine and other costs, for riding through a red light as a mum with her child in a pushchair were crossing the road, making them stop in their tracks to avoid a collision.
31-year-old Pavanrao Hanchate was caught by police officers immediately after he failed to stop at the red light, and almost caused a collision with the mother and the child, The Standard reports.
Court papers revealed that he “rode through a red light, which had a pedestrian with a pushchair and child on the crossing”, and the “pedestrian had to stop mid-crossing to avoid collision with the cyclist”.
Hanchate, who lives in Norwich, was offered a fixed penalty fine but this went unpaid, and he was then taken to court in a full criminal prosecution.
The magistrate convicted him of riding a pedal cycle on a road and failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic signal, marking an unusual prosecution likely because the officers noticed the incident and stopped Hanchate at the scene to get his details.
Hanchate was ordered to pay a £220 fine, plus £90 in prosecution costs and an £88 victim surcharge.
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
The news comes just a few weeks after the “dangerous cycling” bill was tabled in Parliament by senior Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith and backed by Transport Secretary Mark Harper, who said it would mean the “tiny minority” of reckless cyclists would face the “full weight of the law”, while protecting “law-abiding cyclists”.
The bill was purposed to introduce the specific offence of “causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling”, which would lead to tougher penalties for those who kill or injure while riding bikes, e-bikes, electric scooters, unicycles, and “personal transporters”.
Duncan Smith’s amendments had been welcomed by Matthew Briggs, a longstanding campaigner for a dangerous cycling law, whose wife Kim was hit and killed by a cyclist riding with no front brakes in London in 2016, with the cyclist Charlie Alliston later being jailed for 18 months after being found guilty of causing bodily harm by “wanton and furious riding”.
The bill was first agreed upon in the House of Commons by ministers, but was then shelved following the announcement of the general elections by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
However, just days after it was reported that the bill won’t become law, it received cross-party backing in the Parliament, with Labour joining the Conservatives in committing to introduce stricter laws on cycling if they form government after winning the upcoming election.
The amendments, if passed, will replace the current legislation with which cyclists who kill or injure while riding recklessly can be prosecuted under the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, which carries with it a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
It means the maximum sentence for causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling, if the proposed amendment passes, would be brought into line with sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving, of which the maximum sentence is currently 14 years’ imprisonment. The government are set to bring forward an updated amendment to James Cleverly’s Criminal Justice Bill as it enters the House of Lords, where it will be debated.
Currently, the Highway Code dictates that cyclists must stop at red lights. In April, we reported that the City of London Police had handed out 944 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for riding through red lights since its Cycle Response Unit was formed nine months ago.
The authority — which polices the Square Mile area of the English capital home to the Stock Exchange, Bank of England and St Paul’s Cathedral — said it would continue to fine cyclists who ride “through red lights, putting themselves and pedestrians at risk”.

























45 thoughts on “Cyclist fined £220 for riding through red light forcing mum with pushchair to stop mid-crossing to avoid collision”
I see no problem with this,
I see no problem with this, cyclists can’t expect car drivers to follow the rules and cyclists not.
I always stop at red lights, very occasionally such as road works with a lane closed I’ll hop off and walk on the pavement as it’s both safer and quicker. But jumping red lights is just dumb as like in this instance you’re putting your own or others lives at risk.
No excuse for that kind of
No excuse for that kind of behaviour
Fair enough! And of course it
Fair enough! And of course it was only so much because he didn’t pay the FPN.
good result. Don’t tell Mr
good result. Don’t tell Mr Briggs, as he is currently under the illusion that it is impossible to prosecute cyclists
Good result and as it should
Good result and as it should be. But Matt Briggs, the one who lost his wife? Shame on him for not getting over it already… ffs dude stay classy.
“dude”? Don’t make
“dude”? Don’t make assumptions…
Anyway, I’m totally sympathetic to Mr Briggs’ loss, but he promotes the falsehood that cyclists are unaccountable. Much, much worse than that, in his campaigning, he has allied himself to some very dodgy causes and organisations, which will greatly reduce safety for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Scores of people walk in
Scores of people walk in front of traffic without looking each year, like his wife did, and are killed. She could have been hit by any cyclist, or an electric car. It happened to be a guy on a bike with only one brake, not that he had time to stop. He deserved the punishment he got for deliberately riding a single brake bike in public but to target cyclists as the real dangers on the roads does no one a service, certainly not the 1,500 killed each year. Does he also campaign for pedestrians to look before stepping into traffic? Would save hundreds of lives per decade unlike his campaign which will save arguably none. The current law for drivers doesn’t stop the carnage.
stevemaiden wrote:
does he campaign for pedestrians to wear helmets, which will apparently save many many cyclists every year.
argiebarge wrote:
Mr Briggs has been at the heart of campaigns against cyclists for years now, demanding compulsory registration, insurance and new unnecessary criminal charges to be created specifically to target cycling. I don’t suppose there’s a soul amongst us who doesn’t feel deeply sympathetic for his loss, but he has chosen to take a position as a high-profile campaigner for restrictions on cyclists and as such he has to be rebutted and refuted by those interested in standing up for them. He can’t just be given a free pass because of his personal tragedy, I’m afraid.
As has Rosamund Kissi-Debrah,
As has Rosamund Kissi-Debrah (mother of Ella Kissi-Debrah who died due to air pollution), apparently campaigning against LTNs…
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/appalling-councils-fining-londoners-driving-through-ltn-kissi-debrah/
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-kissi-debrah-slams-lee-green-ltn/
But paradoxically (ironically?) supports ULEZ…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64624483
mitsky wrote:
Not sure there’s anything paradoxical or ironical about Ms K-D’s position; she wants pollution in London cut so she supports the ULEZ, which has and will unarguably cut pollution (it’s only the amount it will cut and therefore whether it’s worthwhile that has ever been in dispute), but her argument with LTNs (with which I don’t agree but it is an arguable position) is that they don’t reduce pollution, they simply push pollution from one area to another with no reduction in the overall pollution levels.
I’d think that one of the
I’d think that one of the goals of LTNs is to make it safer and more pleasant to walk/cycle short distances rather than drive.
Which would then cut pollution…
mitsky wrote:
Indeed, and as I said I don’t agree with her but increased pollution on certain roads is a side-effect of some LTNs in the short term before people start to realise that they can safely use active travel instead of driving, so I do understand where she’s coming from. Hopefully as more and more LTNs are created and air quality starts improving due to reduce traffic in all areas, not just within the bounds of LTNs, she will change her mind.
Rendel Harris wrote:
The evidence shows that LTNs do reduce traffic and pollution in surrounding areas:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241731/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-reduce-pollution-surrounding-streets/
(I guess you probably know this)
Sounds like someone who ain’t
Sounds like someone who ain’t going to do what they’re told. Hopefully they get the money out of them.
On the other side of this (and may not apply as this seems to be a selfish individual) the UK’s crossings are inherently inefficient (because motor vehicles). I wonder if we could find our way to removing “light jumping” temptations AND make crossing safer by having pedestrians dealing with crossing cycleways separately from the main road? Generally no need for traffic lights or for everyone to come to a halt and wait in that case.
Probably take a generation or so of “learning” in the UK though…
Each country has its own
Each country has its own rules, own infrastructure, own culture and these factors create very different user experience.
The Dutch have understood that a cyclist will need much much more human energy to regain his/her average travelling speed than a pedestrian or a driver, so they try to make their lives easier as much as possible. Combined with arguably the best infrastructure and a flat terrain (Ok there are supposed to be some strong headwinds sometimes) they have managed to have one of the highest cycling usages and very safe too, making Duch citizens rich, healthy and happy.
Some times laws and infrastructure should be updated. Change these and culture will follow.
I quite agree – only the more
I quite agree – only the more I know the more “it’s complicated”. NL has (the world’s best?) mass cycling partly because they never lost it in the way e.g. the UK did. And they yes, they did seize an opportune moment to start reversing the direction of travel to motor dependency * but they also already had some “separated cycle paths” so it was an easier change **.
NL is flat, only … not all of it. And the bridges over the canals can be steep and slow you right up. And it is known for being windy – you never reach the top of a headwind…
So yes – there are definitely local differences to attend to (particularly in societies very different from e.g. Europe – see e.g. Japan [1] [2]). But some things I think are probably universal – which have interlinked “solutions”:
a) Ensure the feeling of “safety”. “Feeling” as humans don’t tend to be good at statistics. That includes “not getting your bike stolen”.
b) Ensure “attractiveness” of facilities. Again – lots of different elements (some overlap with “safety”). The key one is to drastically reduce mixing with lots of (fast) motor traffic. Humans neither feel safe nor enjoy this. Another element (often overlooked – or deliberately impaired in the UK) is social interaction – at its most basic people often travel together, and they like to do so side-by-side.
c) Increase convenience. Cycling must be really convenient to be attractive. So things like “directness of routes” and “goes as close to destinations as possible” and “not having to go up massive hills”. Not only that though – there is to some extent a choice between modes of travel so that cycling trip must compare favourably with the alternatives (normally “drive it instead”). This is where things like addition regulations (PPE, cycle registration etc.) can work against mass cycling.
Note – enforcement can feed in at different places e.g. to provide an additional motivation to keep drivers in line and facilitate things above.
As for “making lives easier” – for cycling maintaining momentum is key. So at all costs try to avoid people having to stop. (That’s a benefit of dedicated cycle infra). Slowing occasionally is OK. With level changes again the Dutch have standards for man-made gradients e.g. what is reasonable for people. And I think when designing they a) try to make the motor traffic go up (so cyclists don’t have to) and where they need to change level, favour underpasses (so that cyclists go down first – so you then can gain speed to convert back into height).
* I’d say they’re still car addicted, but they’ve got it more under control than e.g. the UK has (we “have to drive“…)
** It wasn’t easy at all – it was literally a fight in many cases [1] [2]! Also someone here drew my attention to the intriguing suggestion that the initial motivation for “separate cycle infra” there (long before the “change” in late 1970s) might have been making things safer for motor scooter riders in the countryside.
What a plonker, twice. Once
What a plonker, twice. Once for committing the offence and again for ignoring the fixed penalty and ending up in court.
The magistrate convicted him
Was that two separate offences?
Had it been a car , he’d be
Had it been a car , he’d be charged with driving a motor car on the road and failure to comply
Not sure what need there is to nit pick on what is blatantly bad behaviour by a cyclist which lets us all down
Aberdeencyclist wrote:
Well, I don’t feel let down by them – I don’t even know them
Not picking nits. Just trying
Not picking nits. Just trying to raise a smile.
“Let us all down”, really?
“Let us all down”, really?
dubwise wrote:
My capacity for being let down is already used up by people who also drive there is nothing left for this rude behaviour.
I’m a driver and a cyclist. A
I’m a driver and a cyclist. A quick look on Google gives lots of examples of drivers running red lights and hitting pedestrians. I don’t feel responsible for the actions of those scumbags, so why should I be responsible for the actions of a similarly irresponsible cyclist?
Aberdeencyclist wrote:
….Where else they gonna drive?
Many people seem to think so
Many people seem to think so and that one inevitably leads to the other
All my working life was spent
All my working life was spent in the road transport industry and have driven likewise; I’ve gained the opinion that most bad driving is just bad manners, even without traffic lights, forcing a pedestrian to stop is both inconsiderate and illegal! I don’t think the police should have given this rider the option of a fixed penalty, it should have been full court proceedings at the outset. The evidence suggests we can do with such people, whether riding or driving, the magistrates were far too lenient.
Good, as it should be.
Good, as it should be.
Well deserved for this
Well deserved for this arsehole. If you go through red lights you have to give way.
Not only was he an arsehole, but dumb enough to get caught, and then go to court. How did he think he was getting off?
Today’s election debate is
Today’s election debate is about housing.
How long will it be until I wake in the morning to hear the news “Today, the political parties will be announcing their plans to ‘End the War on Motorists'” ?
Currently, the Highway Code
Currently, the Highway Code dictates that cyclists must stop at red lights. In April, we reported that the City of London Police had handed out 944 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for riding through red lights
Meanwhile, in Lancashire, the bent, idle and hopelessly inept Constabulary simply refuses to take action against motorists’ RLJ offences:
https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
Or against those driving around for months in vehicles with No MOT/ Failed MOT etc. etc. It really is a War on Cyclists
Does anyone know the answer
Does anyone know the answer to my question?
Cycling Mikey no longer reports Gandalf offenders because he says this offence has been “decriminalized”, does anyone know the precise details?
I believe this is an offence under Sect 36 of the RTA 1988, and the penalty is 3 pts and up to £1000 fine, am I correct, has this changed?
I don’t know if it applies to
I don’t know if it applies to London but shire councils can apply to the DfT to decrimalise certain things now and start issuing fines.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/councils-in-england-to-get-new-powers-over-traffic-offences/
https://news.leicester.gov.uk/news-articles/2022/october/new-powers-would-see-council-tackle-moving-traffic-offences/
Thanks. This does apply to
Thanks. This does apply to London too.
I have read through a lot of
I have read through a lot of legal verbage, and in essence, Cycling Mikey is correct. Generally, because the powers to enforce on Section 36 have been devolved to the LAs, the Police no longer want to act on this.
My strong advice to Mikey is:
Don’t Gandalf them, but post videos of the level of the offending you witness, and the near-misses, perhaps then those at Marlowe House will change their policy, and start issuing fines again.
He’s been back, recent posts
He’s been back, recent posts on YouTube, remember he was carried on the bonnet of a lawbreaker and for some reason the court sided with the violent criminal.
I’m glad this idiot got done.
I’m glad this idiot got done.
What would the equivalent punishment have been for a motorist?
mitsky wrote:
more than the £30 failing to stop at a traffic light fixed penalty notice the cyclist declined to pay. If a driver is caught by a speed camera or red light camera and declines to pay the FPN (aside from loophole eploitation on not identifying driver) I would expect them to be fined at least as much for taking it to court.
I have submitted at least 20
I have submitted at least 20 videos of extremely dangerous passes to the police and have not heard anything. I think the people shouting it’s great that the cyclist got done, my answer is yes, anyone who breaks the law deserves to be punished. Just remember I said EVERYONE!
I have submitted at least 20
I have submitted at least 20 videos of extremely dangerous passes to the police and have not heard anything
Yes, they just binned them regardless of the merits of submissions. That’s the purpose of Operation Snap- to give the appearance of doing something without the effort of taking any action
No doubt the IDS brigade will
No doubt the IDS brigade will be thumping the table over this but some idiot (on a “Boris bike”?) is hardly representative of the 10s of thousands who act responsibly on their daily commute or recreational ride.
The fact this incident made “headline news” surely demonstrates it’s biased and disproportionate representative action of the few which tarnishes the responsible 99% of cyclists.
I patiently waited 5 minutes at a set of temporary lights yesterday on a quiet rural road for the traffic lights to “recognise me” but that’s understandably just not news worthy for the tabloids or IDS I suppose?
There are several permanent
There are several permanent traffic lights on my routes in SE London, that have these ‘car only’ sensors. A few times I have waited for 5 minutes or more, then realized I am never going to get a green light, unless a car arrives.
A few years ago, it was suggested these traffic detection systems conflicts with a cylist’s human rights to freedom of movement!
I take red lights as an
I take red lights as an opportunity to get my breath back!
They should do that at the
They should do that at the junction of Priory Lane, which comes from Richmond Park and the south circular road, Every day I walk with my bike from the common to the south side of the road when the lights are green for me – cyclists are always rinding through the lights and whizzing by just behind or in front of me, often I have to stop to avoid a collision. If I tell them a red light means stop for everybody I get a stream of verbal insults, some even try to make out that I’m in the wrong crossing the road when the lights are green for me.