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

A good point! I have also yet to see an intersection of cycle lanes being controlled by traffic lights in the UK. Usually, they're completely unmarked as regards to priority. Nor have I ever seen a cycle lane in isolation that has a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing.

(Actually a good point about priority / give way markings - perhaps we could bring in the simple Dutch "sharks' teeth" system of triangles painted at junctions?  If the triangle points towards you it's your duty to give way.  Also works as a "passive fallback" in conjunction with active things like traffic lights.)

Yes!  And also we need roundabouts for cyclists (that's only cyclists)!  (Oh dear... we did *).

Because bicycles are basically cars and as dangerous as such.  You certainly wouldn't be able to cross the cycle path without a proper pedestrian crossing...

Of course this is snarky because in the UK a) most places seeing anyone cycling is a new and startling thing b) cycle infra is nowhere standard - we can't even agree on a colour to mark it, if we even bother) c) because "change" it will still take years - maybe a generation - for everyone to adapt.

* TBF the UK is not the only place where the "bright idea fairy" has afflicted people - there are even a couple in NL e.g. here, or here; rightly derided.

Rendel Harris wrote:

 if you don't want to get fined there's this one weird trick you can use...

Is it being on first name terms with the Police and Crime Commissioner?

Rendel Harris wrote:

Not making excuses for them, they broke the law and so deserved what they got. However it does seem from the video that the rider in black makes a thumbs up gesture towards the person waiting to cross (another cyclist); I wonder if that person had said go ahead lads, I'll follow you or something similar. As I say, not an excuse but possibly an explanation. Certainly nowhere near as egregious or dangerous as the countless incidents of cyclists and drivers running reds I see every single day in London, but still, if you don't want to get fined there's this one weird trick you can use...

To me it highlights how pedestrian crossing lights are far better designed for motor traffic as they can require traffic to come to a stop even when there's no-one crossing due to the "beg" time delay between someone pushing the button and crossing. If that crossing was a zebra crossing, then the same behaviour by the cyclists would be legal and of course cyclists are often trying not to come to a complete stop so that they can maintain momentum and reduce energy (also not falling off when you forget to unclip).

However, not knowing that there's a police car behind you is poor situational awareness.

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, not knowing that there's a police car behind you is poor situational awareness.

Indeed, "I'm afraid I'm going to ticket you for driving without due care and attention." "Why officer?" "Because you just did that right in front of me and we don't have a ticket for 'being a complete chump'."

hawkinspeter wrote:

To me it highlights how pedestrian crossing lights are far better designed for motor traffic as they can require traffic to come to a stop even when there's no-one crossing due to the "beg" time delay between someone pushing the button and crossing. If that crossing was a zebra crossing, then the same behaviour by the cyclists would be legal and of course cyclists are often trying not to come to a complete stop so that they can maintain momentum and reduce energy...

Most road infra is motor infra - because first we gave all the space to the cars * and then we realised that humans equipped with cars were killing pedestrians and each other at publically-unacceptable rates, so had to retrofit stuff "for" pedestrians (actually only "because drivers") and other drivers.

Pedestrian crossings vs. cyclists: we should just be able to say "you'll have no problems when we put in cycle paths!"

In the UK unfortunately "more cycling" will play out in an environment where - to many - cycles are mini-cars.  Plus people are "not expecting" cyclists (not looking for them - in cars or on foot).  On foot people often "look" with their ears first and of course cycles are quiet.  Then people mis-estimate cyclists' speed (both too high and low).

There is also a population skew because we don't have mass cycling (so few of the 8's and 80s and notably fewer women).  There are a certain fraction of cyclists are cycling 'less socially' (e.g. some delivery folks, crims too young or poor to own cars) and when there are only very few cyclists that is a bigger proportion.

* This was partly the result of "just let everyone share the road" but partly deliberate policy.  There is an *awful* lot of money in the driving / freight / fuel business (plus of course spin-offs from creating things "because war").

Rendel Harris wrote:

However it does seem from the video that the rider in black makes a thumbs up gesture towards the person waiting to cross (another cyclist); I wonder if that person had said go ahead lads, I'll follow you or something similar. As I say, not an excuse but possibly an explanation.

That's where I would be laying my bet.

Is there a connection between the incidents?

If not, what's your point?

From a legal standpoint both cyclists in the video deserve to be stopped by the police, no doubt and no further discussion needed. The police did their job.

But I guess I could be possible that I would have done the same… they checked if it's clear to pass and did so… but it's still wrong… problem is that the rules are mandatory for everyone not matter of car driver or cyclist. And if the cyclist demand "free pass after checking" car drivers could do the same.

In Qld, Oz you can ride of the pavement. Nothing illegal about leaving the road via the drop kerb, rolling across the adjacent crossing then rejoining. Left on green if possible, or leave the road and re-enter your original lane from the drop kerb.

Jump off the bike and run across. I cycle in trainers though.

I don't condone what the cyclist did. However, we are on a hiding to nothing if we give in to the Iain Duncan-Smiths of this world - with their logic, it just requires one naughty cyclist to justify their worldview. A battle that cyclists can never win. Far better is to push back against the entire logic of collective culpability. After all, it is pretty insane for anyone to claim collective culpability for drivers - that the bad behaviour of one somehow justifies punishment of all drivers.

I'm not suggesting that anybody give in to the IDSs of the world. But why give them ammunition, if it can easily be avoided.? Avoiding breaking the law is not giving in.
I believe that a senior cabinet minister once described IDS as being a bit dim ( even for an ex guardsman) - logical analytical thinking may not be his forte, but grabbing an easy, simplified argument will be.

Inexcusable. Allows people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph buffers to tar all cyclists with the same brush

This 'tarring' isn't applied to motorists, and an entire police force, Lancashire Constabulary, has decided that the offence is so common ('everybody does it') it won't take any action against motorists who are firmly convinced that 'red means stop' doesn't apply to them- all of these were reported and all of the reports were ignored by the most hopelessly ineffectual and dodgy police force in the UK

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

https://upride.cc/incident/jo55chb_kiasportage_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/kl04ndo_vw_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/da21sww_leon_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/pl68tev_polo_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/ma08opb_crv_redlightpass/

https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/

The PCC describes these 'no action' decisions as 'operational decisions by the police' which are nothing to do with the PCC

Mr Blackbird wrote:

Inexcusable. Allows people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph buffers to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

Indeed. 

"What about lawbreaking car drivers?" comments don't help. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Mr Blackbird wrote:

Inexcusable. Allows people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph buffers to tar all cyclists with the same brush.

Oh, please! 

If every single cyclist obeyed every single traffic rule all of the time, and ceded priority to every passing motorist, and wore hi viz everything right down to their underwear, AND paid some sort of road use fee and wore an ID tag, then people like Iain Duncan-Smith and other Daily Telegraph readers would STILL find something to hate.

Ceding priority to motorists, wearing hi Viz and wearing id tags aren't law as far as I'm aware. And most cyclists already pay road tax (along with income tax, vat, council tax), as they own cars. All I am saying is don't give blimps like Duncan Smith easy cheap targets. And why shouldn't cyclists obey the law?

I'm not saying they shouldn't.

All I was saying, was that even if cyclists did Every Single Thing that the velophobes at the Torygraph requested then They would still hate us.

brooksby wrote:

I'm not saying they shouldn't.

All I was saying, was that even if cyclists did Every Single Thing that the velophobes at the Torygraph requested then They would still hate us.

Besides which it's double standards. Some drivers routinely exceed maximum speed limits, often use mobile phones whilst driving and don't pay enough attention to vehicles/bikes around them (not to mention countless other ways that they are dangerous and inconsiderate to others). Meanwhile, cyclists present far less chance of injuring/killing others and are being punished for carefully going through a red pedestrian light when it was obviously safe to do so.

Local to me too, and disappointing in the sense that Surrey Police will apparently prosecute a case like this while taking no further action on the close pass reports that you have submitted.

In both cases the law has been broken. Yet they are seen to take action in the "easy" case where nobody was in any real danger, but take no action where you were put directly at risk by the passing driver.

I bought a camera last week and have been using it on all my rides since then.  Several run-of-the-mill close passes so far, but nothing quite dangerous enough to upload to the police.  But from what you report, maybe it's not even worth bothering?  Are the Met. police any better? 

No idea about the Met - have had very few reasons to submit anything whilst on the commute up to that London (CS7 is many things, but its treated me pretty well over the years).  Like you, I get "standard" close passes all the time & have given up reporting them, even though technically they are probably well short of the required safe distance.  Which is depressing really because it normalises poor driving standards & leads to worse behaviour in the long term because of the de facto validation that "close" is OK because no harm no foul last time & "hey, nobody's looking" (even though you are & have evidence).

I honestly think you have to clearly be forced into evasive action (ie obviously rapidly change line / wobble / hit the kerb / fall off) for any kind of close pass to even be considered, which penalises good bike handling & confidence.  And don't you dare use any kind of "colourful" language in the event that you nearly end up another KSI statistic whilst Mr/Mrs School run piles past you alongside a line of parked metal boxes missing your elbow by no more than six inches, that'll just be used against you.  And besides - driving innit.

All you can do is submit the ones that leave you shaking/fuming for some time & hope for the best.    

They're as bas as the worst of them (although for some unfathomable reason Road CC loves the traffic cops X feed).