Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cyclists who jumped red light in front of police stopped and fined, as force shares footage with "red means stop" warning

Surrey Police officers spotted the riders "ignoring a red light" and issued a fixed penalty notice...

Footage has been widely shared on Facebook showing the moment two cyclists riding metres in front of a Surrey Police vehicle were spotted jumping a red light, before being stopped and issued a fixed penalty notice.

The incident happened in Epsom, Surrey Police later uploading the footage to social media, the video having been viewed more than 600,000 times over the weekend. Two cyclists are seen riding away from the town centre on the A24 Dorking Road when the pedestrian crossing traffic lights change from green to red as another person, also riding a bicycle, waits to cross.

In the footage, which has attracted almost 800 comments, the two riders are seen freewheeling for a second before continuing through the red light.

Surrey Police reported its officers saw the incident unfold and the two riders were stopped and fined. Sharing the news with the message "#RedMeansStop", the Surrey RoadSafe page wrote: "Our #SPCasualtyReduction (Surrey Police) officers witnessed two cyclists ignoring a red light at a Pelican Crossing where a person was waiting to cross. They were both stopped and issued a fixed penalty notice."

It's not the first time this year that the Surrey RoadSafe account has shared footage of cyclists fined for riding through red lights. In January, a video was shared showing a group ride of four cyclists at a junction in Esher, the footage being widely shared on social media and online.

As the riders made the right turn a police vehicle was being driven just behind, the driver rolling up to the stop line as the group turned across the junction, the police following moments before the group was stopped and issued fixed penalty notices.

> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits

Some, including a lawyer from Leigh Day law firm, questioned why the video was "unnecessarily cropped to show the cyclists already passed the stop line and not crossing this when the light is red?"

"I don't in any way dispute some cyclists contravene traffic signals and I don't endorse that in any way. If you are law enforcement posting offences for public awareness — make sure you show the actual offence being committed. This doesn't," Rory McCarron said.

In response to the questions, Surrey Police released the full unedited footage a day later, lawyer McCarron commenting: "Thank you for showing the whole video. Justified FPN, no excuse. A lesson learned to the cyclists (and maybe the poster of the original video). Whilst this isn't fatal 5, your work generally is applauded."

Surrey Police video of cyclists stopped for ignoring red light (@SurreyRS)

Surrey Police also confirmed that all four had been issued with a £50 fixed penalty ticket for 'contravention of a red traffic light' and were "given suitable safety advice for the future".

Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.

Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.

Add new comment

59 comments

Avatar
mitsky | 2 weeks ago
5 likes

1) Not condoning cyclists jumping red lights but I wonder how many lives (or injuries) this action will help prevent, compared to if authorities clamped down in a meaningfull way on dangerous DRIVERS...

2) As said by others, the cyclists had no identifying markers (registration) but were still caught...

3) If "red means stop", why do so many police forces take no action when presented with blatant RLJs like these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j31onCSh_5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQWeGCVWRPo

Avatar
wtjs replied to mitsky | 2 weeks ago
6 likes

 If "red means stop", why do so many police forces take no action when presented with blatant RLJs like these

Pfff! Lancashire Constabulary cruises the Ignoring RLJs Award. Those are 4 years ago, this is just over 2 months ago, and I have already bored people with many other recent similar RLJs on the A6

https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/

This was the situation when BMW M4 A15 TJV decided to speed through the red light, cheered on by the very understanding Lancashire police

Avatar
Pub bike replied to wtjs | 2 weeks ago
1 like

I reported a car going through a red light not long ago and the Met appear to have acted upon it.

However, reading all the excuses they make for not acting I think I can be forgiven for thinking that they haven't acted even though they've provided me with reference number.  They also don't even seem to be able to use the tab key, either that or they have a nervous twitch whenever they press the space bar.  The line about posting on social media is dumb because they don't tell you when the case is concluded.  They state that they won't actually tell you anything.  There's no accountability.  The line about the conduct of victims and Met police values is particularly ridiculous.

"Cases will not be accepted where footage has been lifted directly from social media

-          We request that footage is not put on social media until your case is concluded

-          Only footage in its original format will be accepted. We will not accept footage edited in any way and this includes captions, slow motion and 360 footage not in its original format

-          All footage will be shared with the offending driver/rider in its original format so please do not submit footage containing anything you are not willing to be shared. This includes things such as your home/work address, facial images of yourself/family or your vehicle registration mark (VRM) We do not have the facility to edit these things from your footage

-          Unless there are extenuating circumstances please only submit a maximum of 2 pieces of footage no longer than 3 minutes in length to support your statement. We do not require supporting photographs as these will not be considered when making a case disposal decision

-          For all allegations of moving traffic offences we require real-time footage which captures the offence in question. Still images alone will not be accepted

-          We will not seek or request footage from 3rd parties on your behalf. Disposal decisions will purely be based on the evidence submitted

-          If the VRM of the offending vehicle is not clearly visible in the original footage cases will not be proceeded with

-          Only one vehicle will be accepted per report submission

-          If the date/time stamp on the footage is incorrect and does not reflect the date/time of the incident reported, the case will not be proceeded with

-          All supporting statements must be completed in full and contain full personal details and the VRM of the offending vehicle

-          Due to the decriminalisation of a large number of traffic offences we are unable to deal with any parking allegations except those relating to white zigzag lines.  We are also unable to deal with any offences relating to driving/riding in bus/cycle lanes and the majority of offences relating to contravention of road traffic signs. This includes, but is not limited to, “keep left”, “no motor vehicle”, “one-way street” and “no left/right turn” signs

-          We are unable to deal with allegations relating to vehicle document offences such as driving without a licence, insurance or tax

-          Do not seek to actively confront, reprimand or engage with drivers/riders in any way. If your conduct is deemed to be aggressive, unacceptable or does not conform to the Met Police values, cases will not be proceeded with

-          Our decision in these cases is final and we will not engage in further communication"

Avatar
wtjs replied to Pub bike | 2 weeks ago
2 likes

You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various GDPR excuses and claiming it's illegal to tell you (it obviously isn't because Northamptonshire police WILL tell you) then you know they either did nothing at all or sent out the worse-than-useless advice letter. When, as Lancashire has done, they're prepared to go to all the trouble and expense of following through the long FoI procedure, refusing at every step, you REALLY know they did nothing at all and are trying to cover it up

Avatar
Steve K | 2 weeks ago
5 likes

The plus point of the police sharing videos like this is that it puts a lie to the common motorist complaint that because bicycles don't have number plates, they can't be held accountable for breaking road laws.

Avatar
mctrials23 replied to Steve K | 2 weeks ago
8 likes

Are you seriously suggesting that motorists apply even a modacum of logic or balance to their hatred for cyclists. 

Avatar
Steve K replied to mctrials23 | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

mctrials23 wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that motorists apply even a modacum of logic or balance to their hatred for cyclists. 

GPWM

Avatar
hutchdaddy | 2 weeks ago
8 likes

I expected there to be a rush of comments from drivers holding solidarity with  cyclists saying things like: this is another part of the war against cyclists, or it's just another money making exercise hitting the hard-working cyclist, they never hold drivers to account when they jump or accelerate towards red lights, or yeah but drivers, or they're probably rushing to..., or I don't know why we pay imaginary taxes just so...

Avatar
Surreyrider | 2 weeks ago
4 likes

If only they did the same for drivers...

 

...because I see a lot more of them going through red lights daily.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Surreyrider | 2 weeks ago
1 like

Surreyrider wrote:

If only they did the same for drivers...

...because I see a lot more of them going through red lights daily.

REALLY?   I see loads of cyclists going through red lights everyday.

Fact is a subset of RLJ cyclsits and car drivers will only be caught when the resource strained cops have time or inclination to do this.

This isnt playground tit for tat - grow the fuck up.

 

Avatar
neilmck replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 weeks ago
5 likes

Sitting at the front of the traffic lights on a bicycle you can often see the lights for the other directions that you would not see in a car. On my 50km daily commute I typically see 10-15 cars rush through lights at high speed just after they have turned red. There are not many bicycles on my route so I will only see 2 or 3 cyclists cautiously go through a red.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to neilmck | 2 weeks ago
2 likes

neilmck wrote:

Sitting at the front of the traffic lights on a bicycle you can often see the lights for the other directions that you would not see in a car. On my 50km daily commute I typically see 10-15 cars rush through lights at high speed just after they have turned red. There are not many bicycles on my route so I will only see 2 or 3 cyclists cautiously go through a red.

That's how it used to work in Madrid for the cars, see the opposing light on red and off we go. smiley

Avatar
Jaijai replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

How many have you seen posted on Social media with cars ? The police don't handle this well in any way .Wether it's cars or bikes. This is a not to the cyclist haters by the pigs, it's a look at us .Happy to be corrected if they advertise it the same with cars ,but I won't hold my breath

Avatar
bensynnock replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 weeks ago
2 likes

I see a car go through a red light at almost every single cycle at every single junction.

Of course you have to remember that amber means the same as red, ie stop. Sometimes it's just one, they'll see the light turn to amber and think it's too late to stop so carry on, but then often another one will follow them putting their foot down before it hits red, but then another one will follow putting his foot down and getting through it just as it turns red, and then there's another one who gets through just before the other lights turn green.

If they think they'll get away with it, they'll do it.

Avatar
Benthic replied to Secret_squirrel | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

There's no need for foul language.

Avatar
panda | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

I've made a comment to this effect before on here and been met with outrage and "are you Nigel?" (whatever the **** that means) but I'll make the observation again anyway:

If you live or work in a city (I worked in central London for a long time) then you will see two types of red-light jumping.  

You will see cars accelerate through a light which is turning or has just turned red - presumably with the weird justification that if they're going fast enough they can argue it wouldn't have been safe to stop.  This has a material chance of causing serious harm and rightly makes people on here angry as people have died being hit by people doing this.  

You will also see - maybe low percentage of people on bicycles, but certainly at least one on any meaningful journey through London - cyclists riding up to a light which has been red for some time and going through it like it is a "give way" sign.  If turning left, they may not even slow down.  This is not the same behaviour, it's less dangerous than the car example, but it makes people stuck at lights or trying to cross the road (whether they're paying as much attention as they should be or not) REALLY angry.

It's rare for cyclists to do the former, because they know there's a good chance someone will go on the "A" of the "Amber" and hit them from the side.  I'm also going to argue that's it's rare for car drivers to do the latter.  Not that it never happens, but that it's comparatively rare compared to how often Jonny Ubereats does it.

Probabilistically, as I've said before, if I'm going to be killed on the streets of London, it will be a skip lorry or Hackney carriage doing something unexpected.  If I'm going to be knocked over without serious consequence beyond maybe a suit needing repair, it's going to be a delivery rider on an e-Bike doing something stupid. 

I'm not condoning anything car drivers do, just trying to add some context to why the whataboutery doesn't necessarily help - in most drivers' minds there's nothing badly wrong with the former, and there is with the latter.  i.e. saying "car drivers go through red lights too" just doesn't resonate because they think there's a couple of seconds grace built into the timings.  As I type that, I wonder whether the prevalence of the behaviour means there is now a buffer built in?  Hmm.

Flame away.

Avatar
brooksby replied to panda | 2 weeks ago
10 likes

Are you Nigel? yes

Avatar
neilmck replied to panda | 2 weeks ago
3 likes

In other countries they have realised that it is silly enforcing irrelevant laws. Most people when on a bicycle realise that it is reasonable to treat a red light as give-way/stop in the same way as nearly everybody treats a red man light as give-way when they are not sitting on a bicycle. There is the Ioha Stop law that implents red lights as stop signs for cyclists and here in France we have give-way signs on traffic-light poles telling cyclists which directions they can treat as give-way if the light is red (often it is just right, but quite often straight-on as well and sometimes all directions).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to neilmck | 2 weeks ago
1 like

Or ... they just fix it so cyclists can cycle "past" some red lights in complete safety.  Or the lights are "smarter" and rules slightly different so they don't have to wait as long.  Or make it so cyclists encounter far fewer lights in the first place.

Traffic lights are really for motor vehicles (or because motor vehicles).  But where they're really necessary (see above - eventually mostly only for motorists) I'm in favour of the rules being really clear and cut-and-dried e.g. red (and red and yellow, people...) = stop, in all circumstances.  (Despite the Dutch doing a bit of "free right turn for cyclists"...)

It's then up to people (and enforcement) whether they comply but I think there should just be one clear rule.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to panda | 2 weeks ago
3 likes

Any chance you could precis that into a couple of sentences so that I can be bothered to read it?

Avatar
EK Spinner replied to panda | 2 weeks ago
1 like

panda wrote:

As I type that, I wonder whether the prevalence of the behaviour means there is now a buffer built in?  Hmm.

Flame away.

It may be built in at some junctions, but my obervations (mainly in Scotland) where lights have been installed on roundabouts, this is certainly not the case. there is virtually no dead spot between one green and theother, amber gamblers are normally very close to a collision.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to EK Spinner | 2 weeks ago
1 like

There's a built in buffer in my head now, as I have learned to expect there to be vehicles still crossing (or even preparing to do so) when the light turns green for me...

Avatar
Muddy Ford | 2 weeks ago
8 likes

Is there similar video uploads from Surrey Police showing how they stopped speeding / red light jumping / close passing drivers and fined them on the spot? I doubt it. Whenever the police post an article about their speed traps / close pass initiatives, they state x number of drivers were spoken to and given advice about safe driving and x were to be prosecuted for some other random offence they uncovered during the lectures. But see a cyclist ignore a pedestrian red light that changed with very little warning because unlike cars it doesnt detect cyclists approaching before changing to red, then it's stick the blue flashing light on and fine the bastards...no talking to, no lectures about road safety. I'm surprised they didnt put them behind bars and crush the bikes. 

Avatar
HLaB replied to Muddy Ford | 2 weeks ago
5 likes

I think they might have.  I was half asleep when I scrolled through my phone last night and came across the video of the two cyclist at the crossing, posted next to a video of a close passing driver and I think the inference was the latter is worse.  The comments though (I should not read the comments  2 ) were just as vile, typically pointing out that it was ok for the driver to do the dangerous manouvre as they could be caught due to their licence plate, etc  2

Avatar
S.E. | 2 weeks ago
4 likes

The law is the law, but fines are maybe a bit excessive here. 2 seconds after the red there is no inconvenience for the pedestrian-cyclist or anyone else.

Avatar
alexuk | 2 weeks ago
3 likes

Good! Jump a red, get a ticket. As it should be. If you're going to jump a red, especially infront of a cop, frankly, you're an idiot and you deserve it. No excuses.

Avatar
stonojnr | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

Ack, You'd be annoyed having to stop for someone on a bike using a pedestrian crossing on that road.

But I wonder if the police attention was higher on them, because the junction where the video starts, they're passing when the lights clearly red in their direction & green already for the police.

Then when there's clear evidence of RLJ, it's easier to justify dishing out the fine approach, rather than just having a word or even ignoring it.

And I mean the oncoming MINI isn't being an examplar of road safety at a crossing like that is it.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 2 weeks ago
7 likes

Must have been difficult for the police to decide whether to prosecute the red light jumpers or the pavement cyclist. I guess it's £50 vs £30 FPN, so red light for the win!

Yes, it's illegal, but no one put at risk and perfectly safe. Nothing compared to some of the actually dangerous illegal activity on the roads that often goes unpunished.

Avatar
antigee replied to HoarseMann | 2 weeks ago
9 likes

I've checked on Facebook and stopping the red light running cyclists was simply revenue raising and police time is better spent chasing real criminals...as to the cyclist on the footpath had his vehicle got a registration plate it would have been easy for the police to check if had responsibility for a string of pedestrian murders...typical police chasing down people who for all we know have an untarnished record and the heat of the moment and a concern for the environment meant slowing down wasn't an option

Avatar
cyclisto replied to HoarseMann | 2 weeks ago
2 likes

HoarseMann wrote:

...Yes, it's illegal...

To be exact, it's illegal in UK, both of the these two actions are legal in other places in the world, especially pavement riding.

Pages

Latest Comments