Police in Scotland say a ‘Vulnerable Road User’ initiative saw four cyclists fined in Edinburgh for riding through red lights.
The operation, which also saw cyclists, pedestrians and drivers “spoken to and given advice” appeared to take place at a pedestrian crossing in the Scottish capital, Roads Policing Scotland explaining that four cyclists and one driver were fined for going through red lights.
“Edinburgh Roads Policing were on a Vulnerable Road User initiative where cyclists, pedestrians and drivers were spoken to and given advice. Four cyclists were given FPTs for red light offences and one driver was issued an FPT for red light offence on a pedestrian crossing,” a social media post communicating the action said.
The post was complete with hashtags saying “always on duty” and “red means stop” and attracted more of the often heard social media ‘anti-cycling bingo’ discourse around cyclists, including calls for mandatory insurance for bike riders.
“I wish they would talk to the cyclists around here,” one reply said. “Jumping red lights and racing through pedestrian crossings. Flying down the pavement at speed. Cycling on the wrong side of the road. Take your life into your hands walking around here.”
According to Rule 69 of the Highway Code:
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD Schedule 3 pt 3, sch7 pt4, sch9 pts 4 and 6, sch 13 pt 6, sch 14 pt 2]
This type of police operation, accompanied by a post on social media, is nothing new. Last February, police in Hackney said they had caught 18 cyclists jumping red lights in 90 minutes, each getting a £50 fine and road safety lesson.
A week later questions were asked after another force, in Manchester, was keen to highlight its crackdown on people using bicycles riding through reds. The Manchester post attracted a significant amount of responses questioning why the force is “prioritising” less dangerous offences, and others asking for more effective use of police resources.
A campaign group dedicated to making the A56 in the North West of England safer for all users suggested there are “far more serious” dangers on the road that police should be looking to target.
In January, leading cycle campaigners in Scotland discussed the potential road safety implications of allowing cyclists to ride through red lights, Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet of Bike for Good suggesting that road laws from other parts of the world, such as in some parts of the United States and France where cyclists are permitted to proceed at red lights in certain circumstances, should be implemented in Scotland.
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
However, Cycling Scotland’s safety manager Simon Bradshaw questioned if such action was a road safety priority, and said Scotland’s road laws were “very different to France, making it complex to replicate”.
Last month, an Evening Standard journalist Sophie Wilkinson penned a column titled ‘Why I skip red lights’, in which she outlined why she believes cyclists should be allowed to ride through red lights, so long as they give pedestrians priority.
62 thoughts on “‘Vulnerable Road User’ operation sees police fine cyclists for jumping red lights”
Sounds like the Scottish
Sounds like the Scottish police are on top of traffic crime and well on their way towards Vision Zero.
Zero vision, surely? Of the
Zero vision, surely? Of the highway culture rotting.
Funny, polis Scotland will do
Funny, polis Scotland will do this but fail continually on close passes, etc.
Only time they are interested in cyclists is when to slap them with a fine.
Institutionally corrupt.
Well yeah, cyclists are not
Well yeah, cyclists are not the only “vulnerable road users”, and just like motorists some of them are right pillocks who think only of themselves.
Sriracha wrote:
I agree, but I’d much rather all the idiots were removed from motor vehicles and put onto bikes or scooters where at least they’ll have a bit of skin in the game.
hawkinspeter wrote:
. . . . . or all over the road if they ride like they drive.
Would be acceptable if it was
Would be acceptable if it was proportional to all traffic offences and the severity, but it isn’t hence why it is bullsh1t.
I’m all for operations like
I’m all for operations like this.
Hopefully, it’ll make the RLJer think twice about doing it next time.
It also looks good for cyclist from a PR point of view.
Harder to bleat about cyclists being above the law, when the law gets applied to cyclists.
Red light means stop … doesn’t mean “go if you think it’s OK to do so”, and the more cyclists RLJ, the more they endanger others that stop for reds.
Evidence?
Evidence?
I’d wager that violence against cyclists likely corresponds closer to the frequency and prominence of hate pieces in the media than the actions of any individual cyclist.
This will be a product of
This will be a product of driver whingeing – funny how they discover road user parity when it suits them
So I was wondering to myself,
So I was wondering to myself, as I cycled home this morning, about the legality of cycling through (not across) a toucan crossing that has a green light for pedestrians and cyclists to cross.
To be fair, I wouldn’t wonder
To be fair, I wouldn’t wonder about that, it is illegal. But if you want to join the cycle lane across that Toucan crossing, that is also illegal. Yet, it would be safer to do so when the lights are red, as there won’t be pedestrians waiting to cross, blocking the access and you’re at less risk of getting rear-ended by a driver as you slow to join the cycle path.
Personally, I think there are situations where it’s actually safer for a cyclist to go through a red light. I would like to see a relaxation of the rules to allow cyclists to treat some red lights as a give way.
I am aware that crossing on a
I am aware that crossing on a red bicycle is a no no, unlike pedestrians crossing on a red man.
It’s a pity Nottinghamshire
It’s a pity Nottinghamshire Police don’t do something similar in Nottingham specifically targeting all the Deliveroo/User etc riders.
They are a fucking menace who probably bring more shit towards other cyclists than anyone else.
Riding everywhere on the pavements, jumping red lights while riding illegal bikes. As an ex-bike courier it really pisses me off.
Presumably Deliveroo/Uber are
Presumably Deliveroo/Uber are incentivising them to cycle like this. I guess if you are one of their riders you have a choice, join ’em or leave. Invidious choice.
You are incentivised to the
You are incentivised to the extent that the quicker you can complete a delivery the more deliveries you can do, and the more you can earn.
You can do the job and ride fully legally, but I think the problem really is that very many people either don’t know or don’t care what the rules are – evidenced by the large number of people riding illegal ebikes.
These people are not cyclists, they are riding illegal motorbikes, often on pavements or cycle paths, up to 40mph, with no licence, insurance, MOT, or helmet, and with little regard for cyclists or pedestrians.
Delivery business has
Delivery business has expanded and changed hugely over not many years. As we’ve seen with “employees-not-employees” there is a strong incentive for firms – while not necessarily setting out to break the law – to bend the rules comprehensively.
So we should be looking at the companies themselves. There’s also the fact that those prepared to do this low-paid and precarious work may not be so concerned about the letter of the law.
FWIW I suspect it’s a quite different culture than the much less numerous bike messenger / cycle courier group so may need different approach.
True, but I’m not sure they
True, but I’m not sure they invented it. See Hell Drivers (1957) only really a B movie, but a cast of many stars on the day.
So vehicle drivers have
So vehicle drivers have killed 50,000 people in the UK since year 2000, but hey, let’s crack down on cyclists running red lights. Let’s not bother with drivers speeding, cutting junctions killing motorcyclists/cyclists – that’s ok is it? Get drivers to drive within speed limits and then Governments won’t have to lower speed limits to 20 mph.
I stop at red lights. And
I stop at red lights. And watch quite a few cyclists not stop. But they never actually endanger anyone – or even themselves. They just do what pedestrians do when confronted with a red signal; slow, look and then cross / cycle. It’s not a big deal really. I think the hysteria around it is exaggerated. Pavement cycling is bad though – even if undertaken cautiously.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
I don’t (quite) agree. I too see quite a few cyclists not stop at red lights. The majority don’t actually endanger anyone, but some do. Some also force pedestrians to stop when pedestrians have priority. So whilst the hysteria is exaggerated, it is not a nothing issue. (I also don’t see why you think cycling through a red light is not an issue, but cautious pavement cycling is always bad – particularly when the infrastructure actually specifically allows it in places.)
“But they never actually
“But they never actually endanger anyone – or even themselves.”
I considered myself endangered when I was knocked off by a young woman who had blithely sailed through a red light at a crossroads. And on the many occasions as a pedestrian when I’ve had to dodge out of the way (or grab my child out of the way) when it’s become obvious that a cyclist isn’t going to slow, let alone stop, at the crossing I’m currently on.
I can only think of one occasion where I’ve seen a car driver completely ignore a red light and a pedestrian (me) crossing, and I went fucking apeshit at him because it’s obviously much more dangerous than a cyclist doing it. And I do see drivers sneaking through as the lights change, and hate that too.
We’ve been through this before: maybe it is London-specific behaviour, but I regularly observe junctions where the majority of cyclists don’t stop on red. Sometimes it is actively dangerous, sometimes it’s not: it’s always selfish, entitled behaviour which chips away at the basic idea that we should all abide by the law even if it doesn’t suit us personally at that precise moment. It’s no answer to say “well others do it worse, and *I’m* careful”: that’s exactly what all the careless others say.
I stop at red lights. I’ve
I stop at red lights. I’ve seen plenty of cyclists not stop, endanger themselves, and endanger pedestrians. Indeed, the pedestrians around here know that they can’t rely on a green light at a pelican crossing if there’s a cyclist (or e-scooter) around — they’ll wait for it to pass / stop. And, of course, not stopping rightly pisses off car drivers and others who do stop. Some of those car drivers (not-rightly) will then drive aggressively around cyclists.
Agreed on that – I personally
Agreed on that – I personally will go through red lights if it is safe to do so. It’s no different to crossing a road where there is no crossing available – look both ways, check there is nothing coming and you wont hinder anything, and go.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Apart from the minor fact that it isn’t illegal for pedestrians to do that whereas it is illegal for cyclists to do it. If it’s OK for you to ignore the law on a bike if there’s no harm done, why not for motorists too? Obey the law, if you don’t like the law by all means campaign for it to be changed, but until it is, obey it.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Motorists do ignore the law. Going 80mph on a clear stretch of motorway for example.
And no, sorry – I will continue to jump red lights when it is safe to do so. Judging by this website’s current reporting the cops are at every red light catching cyclists so I will let you know if I am ever fined.
In fact, I did nip through some red lights at Buckingham Palace in the early morning a couple of weeks ago and there was a police van behind, they didn’t speak to me/fine me or anything else.
I was specifically (as you
I was specifically (as you know) referring to your logic about jumping red lights. If it’s okay for you as a cyclist to “look both ways, check there is nothing coming and you won’t hinder anything, and go”, is it okay for a motorist to do the same thing at the same speed? If not why not?
I never did say it was ok (AS YOU KNOW) for cars to jump red lights, only for eyclists did I say I think it’s ok.
When will you stop twisting people words to try to make them mean something else that suits your agenda?
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
I didn’t accuse you of that, silly boy, I asked you a simple question: why is it okay for you to run a red light on a bicycle when you decide it’s safe to do so but not okay for a car driver?
You asked me, and I quote
You asked me, and I quote below (assuming that you haven’t edited your comments, not unknown before now but I haven’t got a photographic memory:
is it okay for a motorist to do the same thing at the same speed?
If it’s OK for you to ignore the law on a bike if there’s no harm done, why not for motorists too?
That misses the point completely – I never said it was ok, only did I say it was ok for cyclists to jump red lights. So no, I’m not going to bother answering those stupid questions.
I’m not a fan of relaxing the
I’m not a fan of relaxing the red rules within the *current* UK system, but I think we get overly concerned about the danger of cyclists* at lights. (There does seem to be an issue of unpleasant conflict in some places in London though).
Maybe because of early childhood education we understand the road space as dangerous territory for those on foot? Regardless of the type of vehicle. However cycles per se are little threat to pedestrians – actually almost none as long as they’re expecting them of course!
To benefit from this fact it’s much better to separate the motor vehicles from cycles though. Then pedestrians can safely and conveniently cross the cycle path without formal crossings. (Another reason why simply saying “the roads are great cycle infra” isn’t quite right – then pedestrians still have to cross a very wide space rather than a narrower cycle path, even for a two-way one).
* Some posters did dig out some numbers suggesting elevated risk to pedestrians at crossings. Although with low absolute numbers IIRC that mostly suggests “more study needed” as to how and why.
chrisonatrike wrote:
It certainly is a problem in London and becoming worse, I couldn’t really care less about people nipping through red lights when it’s safe (though I don’t do it myself) but I find myself multiple times each day having to shout at cyclists who speed through pelican crossings, weaving to avoid pedestrians. It’s just creating a level of conflict that isn’t necessary and that I fear will ultimately lead to more restrictions being imposed upon us if we’re not careful.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So if you don’t mind cyclists running red lights, why is it not ok for cars to jump red lights?
How stupid are you?! You’re just here for an argument, I said the same thing above (that it’s ok for cylicsts to run red lights) yet you make a song and a dance about it, and challenge me on whether cars should also be able to – you need to grow up.
Also – you nasty piece of work, mind your own business rather than shouting at people in a holier than thou outburst
“You Nasty piece of work”?
“You Nasty piece of work”? Withdraw or come on mods.
why is it not ok for cars to jump red lights? – I dunno, could it be that one kills 4-5 people each day and injures dozens more and the other doesn’t?
FWIW, I don’t think cyclists should ignore red lights* – we need to set an example as we rely heavily on the rules of the road for our safety in all other respects. So no ‘phone use either.
* and I absolutely get that many lights, all roundabouts and one ways are put there for cars, to address the many problems cars cause. No-one else benefits.
David9694 wrote:
No, I do not withdraw that statement. I have seen a lot, lot worse on here that has not been commented on or made an issue of
As for the question – it was a sarcastic question for Rendel, seeing as that is exactly what he was asking me previous.
David9694 wrote:
No, I do not withdraw that statement. I have seen a lot, lot worse on here that has not been commented on or made an issue of
As for the question – it was a sarcastic question for Rendel, seeing as that is exactly what he was asking me previous.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
True, there was the absolute filth for which you were banned as thisismyusername, for a start.
Get well soon.
Get well soon.
Aha is that the best you can
Aha is that the best you can do?
Your two faced attitude was exposed unfortunately.
Rendel Harris wrote:
A motorist at the same speed will have much more momentum, so it’s not a fair comparison. Also, they have less visibility around their vehicle and far less manoeuvrability. They’re also less likely to be careful as they don’t have any skin in the game and likely wouldn’t even notice if someone bumped into the side of their vehicle. There’s also the issue of motorists just stupidly following the vehicle in front, so if one motorist goes through carefully, the next driver might be looking at their phone and just follow them through the red light without even realising it.
You really have to ask why
You really have to ask why police are in charge of our roads.
To keep a certain section of public support I would say 99.9% of speeding offences get missed.
The system is in dire need of change. Proper road governance would mean both speed humps and speeding would near cease to exist.
I would not want it in my old
I would not want it in my old Smart Roadster, but speeding especially in urban environments could be enforced by GPS tracking for cycles and cars. This could also lower insurance premiums as well. All new cars could have GPS device which links to driver and drivers phone GPS. Any speeding in Urban areas immediately flagged and fined, a bit like the Dart charge. Taxis, Busses lorries also link driver to vehicle, could stop illegal working.
You do know that the law
You do know that the law regarding speed limits only applies to motor vehicles, and not pedal cycles (including e-bikes, though their assisted speed is limited of course)? So they’d definitely be putting one in your old Smart Roadster.
A red light ? means stop,
A red light ? means stop, fuĺlstop no matter what you riding or driving – 999 vehicles on lights and sirens excluded.
JohnCc wrote:
…and except for places that implement the Idaho Stop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop) or in Paris (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33773868) or the countries that allow turning on red (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red) or if a traffic light doesn’t detect bicycles you can probably invoke the last bit of HC rule 176: “If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.”
Yes, it totally means stop without any exception (except for the numerous exceptions).
There’s a strong argument to be made for changing our traffic laws to make traffic lights more relevant to cyclists as unfortunately traffic lights are designed by car drivers, for car drivers. Have a read of this: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/turn-left-red-running-red-lights
I note that Cycling UK haven
I note that Cycling UK haven’t yet come to a conclusion on this kind of thing.
Presumably doing this would be in line with seeing cyclists as more like pedestrians (e.g. red light is for information).
Given that neither motorists nor cyclists are likely to see any enforcement in the UK around traffic lights currently it’s slightly moot.
I don’t think having signals which serve an important safety purpose and then saying they’ve a conditional meaning (depending on your choice of vehicle) is the best idea. Also I don’t think it would make onlookers who are offended by this kind of thing – whether in cars or on foot – any happier.
What we really need are not two different rules for bikes / motor vehicles, but two different spaces (with their own lights). Then we can have this totally safe kind of cycling through reds, and this safe and convenient kind of interaction with pedestrians.
“Yes, it totally means stop
“Yes, it totally means stop without any exception (except for the numerous exceptions).”
The numerous exceptions, apart from the broken traffic light one (which I agree with you about), which are nothing to do with the current law in the UK. Might as well advocate carrying an assault weapon because it’s legal *somewhere*.
I can definitely see an argument for allowing cyclists to cross a red light to turn left where the junction isn’t also a pedestrian crossing. Motorists would be apoplectic, but there are other benefits too.
But that’s not currently the rule here. If the lights are working, and you’re not in real and imminent danger, you stop at the red light. Then you don’t have to weigh up whether the way ahead is clear, or guess if there’s a pedestrian legging it from behind you while the green man’s displayed. And the more people do that, the less likely you are to come to harm from the actions of another conscientious road user who thinks the rules don’t apply to them because they’re really skillful.
Brauchsel wrote:
There’s certainly some traffic light junctions where I’d much rather do a turn-left-on-red rather than tangle with the motorists when the lights turn green, so I’d put the importance of obeying the law as secondary to my own safety. There’s the consideration, though, of not endangering other people – that is far more important than the colour of traffic lights. I’ve often seen drivers that speed up as they approach an amber traffic light and then speed through the red and that’s a particularly stupid way of “trying” to get through before it’s red, (presumably to remain legal) as they then have no leeway of stopping due to something unexpected.
As of course are signed speed
As of course are signed speed limits, but it is extremely rare for a motorist to be prosecuted and fined for travelling at 31 mph in a 30mph maximum speed zone.
JohnCc wrote:
Indeed it does.
My experience commuting in central London was that two groups didn’t stop:
Selfish twunts who imagined that they were entitled, or
Weak riders not willing to slow, stop and start again.
The first need enforcement and the second education.
Obviously the first are a danger to those correctly stopped as well as whom they meet on the junction.
Funny how no one ever
Funny how no one ever complains about pedestrians ignoring the red man when they have deemed it is safe to do so.
neilmck wrote:
Because pedestrians can’t seriously injure other pedestrians by bumping into them, perhaps?
I have absolutely no issue
I have absolutely no issue with Red Light jumpers being stopped and fined. So long as it’s ALL RLJs. When I commuted by bike into major cities (Incl London and Glasgow), it burned my gears both the number of vehicles (especially flamin buses!) that came through junctions on red. I would wait and double check to avoid getting mown down on my green light. It also massively irked me when myself and other cyclists were waiting patiently for a green light and some nob would casually cycle past and straight across the junction. But there is another point here – cyclist who RLJ usually endanger themselves and fdw other people. A 20ton X77 bus in the middle of Glasgow (usually Waterloo & Wellington junction) can endanger an awful lot more…
You think the guy who went
You think the guy who went through the red light is a “nob”. But isn’t it the system you have in the UK that makes all cyclists “nobs” for waiting pointlessly at red lights? In the towns around where I live in France we have little signs on traffic lights that allow cyclists to go through red lights simply giving way to traffic. The sign will indicate which directions it had been deemed safe to do so, generally straight-on and right (your left).
In my experience here in
In my experience here in Bristol, the majority of motorists and the majority of cyclists stop at red lights (whether established or not <wink>). And by ‘majority’ I would ball-park it at more than three-quarters, maybe even more than 4 in 5.
But the majority* of e-scooterists do not stop. Or even pretend to slow and then go, “Oh well, I’ll go through this time”. Which given that I think you just twist the throttle to start them moving again, seems ridiculous. They just appear to sail around at constant speed (and undertake me while I’m waiting at lights, which really annoys me).
And yes, I’m aware that I miught be falling into the trap of confirmation bias / only noticing the ‘Other’…
I am willing to be corrected
I am willing to be corrected but from memory that road is a 20MPH limit. I wonder how many vehicles passed the Polis at greater than 20 during their safety purge?
A few years ago during Police
A few years ago during Police Scotland’s Operation Close Pass I was close-passed by a Police Scotland vehicle (it was featured in NMOTD at the time).
So it comes as no surprise that their Vulnerable Road User Initiative is mostly about fining vulnerable road users.
The vast majority of English
The vast majority of English people will ignore the red man and cross the road if they determine it is safe to do so. Why is there an expectation of a change of behaviour when English people sit on a bicycle? A car is different, you do not have same visibility or ability to manoeuvre. But what is the difference between going through a red light as a pedestrian or sitting on a bicycle?
neilmck wrote:
About 17mph or more on a downgrade.
No one goes at 20mph through
No one goes at 20mph through a red light, you won’t have time to consider giving way to traffic and will be killed. 5 to 7 mph is more like it.
neilmck wrote:
I wish that were the case, certainly in London plenty of cyclists ride through red pelican crossing lights without cutting their speed at all. Obviously people do slow down at junctions, but most definitely not at all red lights.
I assume that the difference
I assume that the difference is due to it being illegal on a bicycle to cross the stop line on a red light (RTA88), whereas a red man on a pedestrian crossing is advisory rather than compulsary?
I have no idea about red cyclist lights on toucan crossings as to whether they are advisory or compulsary.