Actor Nigel Havers has claimed that “no cars go through a red light,” while “every cyclist does,” during a discussion with cycling writer Laura Laker hosted by Jeremy Vine on his BBC Radio 2 TV show.
The exchange took place during Vine’s afternoon programme on the station yesterday, with footage subsequently shared on his social media channels by the host.
Absolutely fascinating today @BBCRadio2 — @NigelHaversUK in the studio to complain about the behaviour of cyclists, along with @laura_laker who has written #PotholesAndPavements disagreeing that they offend more than any other road user.
Really worth hearing this exchange — pic.twitter.com/ebUPmDjxUT— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 10, 2024
“All road users break the law in equal amount,” Laker pointed out. “I’m not saying that that’s right.
“We know that roads policing got decimated a decade ago, we lost 20,000 police officers, and so all of road user behaviour has got worse, drivers have become more aggressive, perhaps cyclists have become more aggressive too.”
Interjecting, Havers said: “I don’t break the law, I don’t break the rules” before claiming that “motor cars aren’t going through red lights.”
Havers invited Laker, whose book on the National Cycle Network Potholes & Pavements was published just last week and who is a contributor to road.cc, to join him “at a crossroads where no cars go through a red light, every cyclist does.”
“That’s not true,” Laker countered. “Definitely people break the law in their cars, with mobile phone use, we know that’s illegal and it’s as bad as drink-driving, even driving hands-free.”
“I don’t know what planet you’re on,” said Havers, who is reported to have been fined £500 and banned for driving for 12 months after being convicted of drink-driving in 1991.
“Come and stand on the crossroads with me and you’ll see every single cyclist go through the red light.”
While it’s true that some cyclists do go through red lights, so too do many motorists, and Laker highlighted that it is the latter who are involved in, on average, five deaths a day on Britain’s roads as well as crashes that leave thousands more people seriously injured.
Undeterred, Havers, who in 2020 called for the removal of the temporary cycle lane briefly installed on Kensington High Street, insisted: “I have not seen a car go through a red light in London in years.”
“I know, but because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist,” replied Laker.
“So you think cars go through red lights just as much as cyclists?” asked Havers, incredulously.
“It’s not cars, it’s drivers,” clarified Laker, who in 2021 worked alongside Westminster University’s Active Travel Academy in developing guidelines for the language the media should use when reporting on road traffic collisions, which are still all too often deemed to be chance ‘accidents’ or in which vehicles crash without a driver seemingly being present.
“If car drivers are not breaking the law, how come vehicles are killing 1,700 people a year,” asked Vine, whose regularly posts videos of law-breaking drivers to his social media channels.
“Well, I mean …” responded Havers, before pausing, eventually breaking the silence by spluttering the word, “cyclists.”
The issue of cyclists and the law has been a high-profile one in the media this week after a coroner’s inquest into the death of a retired teacher who was struck by a cyclist riding in group in London’s Regent’s Park heard that the rider would face no charges in connection with the crash.
A Metropolitan Police officer told the inquest into the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths that there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction” of the cyclist concerned, Brian Fitzgerald, with the officer also confirming unlike motorists, cyclists are not required to adhere to posted speed limits.
Thankfully, road traffic collisions in which a pedestrian is killed following a crash with a cyclist are very rare, with Cycling UK citing official statistics that reveal there are on average around three such fatalities each year.
And it is the very fact that they happen so rarely that sees such incidents and, in their aftermath, wider cyclist behaviour, become the focus of intense media attention in a way that the vast majority of road traffic fatalities in which a motorist is involved do not.
Often, such media coverage takes the form of newspaper columns from celebrities – one example this weekend being found in the Express, with broadcaster Richard Madely calling for cyclists to be registered, and forced to carry insurance – something the government has rejected time and again.





















128 thoughts on ““No cars go through a red light – every cyclist does,” claims Nigel Havers”
Well done Laura top work, the
Well done Laura top work, the facts don’t care a jot for the dotard’s feelings.
Is Havers being disingenuous,
Is Havers being disingenuous, actually lying for the purpose of his argument, or does he genuinely believe the rubbish he’s spouting? Mad
Genuinely believes it I
Genuinely believes it I reckon, and because of who he is, either in his professional life or amongst his social circle of friends, probably rarely if ever gets challenged on it in the way Laura did.
Nigel Havers, poster boy for
Nigel Havers, poster boy for motornormativity. Never mind the facts, logic or sense, it’s always the cyclist’s fault.
I’d suggest that he has absolutely no self-awareness, or he’d be embarrassed to the point of self immolation, but drivers don’t have self-awareness, empathy or compassion: only selfishness, self-justification and an endless supply of reasons to blame everyone else.
17 seconds in and he states
17 seconds in and he states he does not break the law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Havers#cite_note-17:~:text=Havers%20was%20arrested%20in%20February%201990%20on%20suspicion%20of%20drunk%20driving%2C%20and%20taken%20to%20Harrow%20police%20station
Quality ?????? Nice bit of
Quality ?????? Nice bit of detective work there. I tip my hat to you Sir. Chappeu.
“Havers was arrested in
“Havers was arrested in February 1990 on suspicion of drunk driving, and taken to Harrow police station.[17] He was later banned from driving for one year, and fined £500, but told a woman’s magazine “I don’t regret it at all”. He continued, “I thought the whole thing was pretty unfair. I was only 300 yards from home in a restaurant and had only used my car anyway because it was pouring with rain.” He said “I got the same punishment as people who are three times over the limit. I felt victimised, especially as the police know who I am.””
It would appear that the word arsehole could have been minted specifically for him.
Really wish someone had
Really wish someone had pointed this out live on air.
You can follow his train of
You can follow his train of thought, which is common to many reactionaries like him, on many topics:
With logic that circular, of course they don’t believe any statistics that refute their beliefs, which must therefore be the product of “woke” organisations like the ONS, the OBR, the police, or the Department for Transport.
This!
This!
4A or in a few instances
4A or in a few instances where a silent majority member has been caught red-handed (NB the words in parenthesis in para 1) this is unfair and arbitrary and they should go and catch real criminals and there needs to be a review of whether the method used was fair
Othering: I (and the group I
Othering: I (and the group I belong to) am right, they (and the group they belong to) are wrong.
It’s like talking to a
It’s like talking to a brexthicker.
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:
And you sound like a remoaner. (See, two can play the name calling game.)
We had a vote, you lost, get over it. it was EIGHT YEARS AGO, FFS.
FrankH wrote:
We had a vote in 1975, Brexiters lost and continued to whine and attempt to undermine the elected governments of the day in order to get their way for the next forty-one years, so we’ve got a way to go to catch up with you.
Rendel Harris wrote:
to be fair what we had a vote about joining was very different from what we ended up leaving.
In the same way we have a vote in 2016 about being like Norway, but it turned out we would be like Moldova.
Just because Remain lost that
Just because Remain lost that vote, doesn’t mean that we have to change our opinion about the self defeating stupidity of Leave. Especially as time passes and the so-called Project Fear is proven correct again and again…
FrankH wrote:
Doesn’t stop it from being a sore spot for some. I’ve just lost my second job in five years over it, and now I’m starting from scratch because the industry I have all of my skills and experince in, is now basically gone from the UK post Brexit. It had a very similar result for other members of my family too.
It’s hard to just “get over it” when it’s essentially undone the last ten years of your life and put you back at square one.
We all lost. Unless of course you can explain how you won.
Unless of course you can
Unless of course you can explain how you won
I think there were lucrative trade agreements with Rockall, Tristan da Cunha, St Helena and the Pitcairn Islands
wtjs wrote:
Didn’t we also sign an export agreement with China or somewhere, which raised GDP by 0.00000000005%?
(edit) Just googled it and that was before Brexit so it doesn’t count
brooksby wrote:
I think you may have missed a few zeros. 23 to be precise.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s always 23…
brooksby wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/23-fascinating-facts-about-the-number-twentythree-6262624.html
Blue passports.
Blue passports.
Snark aside – I think the argument goes “the point is we could win at any point (where something bad hits the EU / they bring in a rule we don’t like). After all this is a massive change and it’s too early to say yet”.
Unfortunately this argument will not resolve anything as there is no agreement on the point where we judge the results. Of course it could also be judged a win on “freedom” even if it delivers relative economic woe.
It’s clear is that lots of people in the UK never felt particularly European. This is the case in other countries in Europe of course, it varies – but I believe much smaller percentages.
What surprises me is that despite the wilder Brexiteers (and some not-very-cuddly folks in high office in government keen to “tear up the rule books”) what has been delivered thus far is rather middle-of-the-road. No-one has blown up the Channel Tunnel or proscribed French, German or Spanish lessons. Albeit there has been much cost, mess and confusion.
I would say most of us lost,
I would say most of us lost, and the loss is still being felt by most of us today.
Regarding the 2016 referendum, it is telling that brexiters (assuming that is what you are and your comment wasn’t just a send-up) have yet to find a better justification for the damage that has been done than the twisting of a consultative poll into something that produced “winners” and “losers”, which lies at the heart of the perversion that is “brexit”.
I didn’t think it would be
I didn’t think it would be long before some idiot claims it’s Brexits fault. Go back and crawl under your EU rock you emerged from.
Geordiepeddeler wrote:
He can’t because we’re not in the Schengen area any more.
Were we ever? The problem isn
Were we ever? The problem isn’t so much the border controls as the fact that UK citizens no longer have the right to live and work in the EU that they used to.
I’ve never actually heard
I’ve never actually heard anyone as their argument say “yeah but cyclists” before
This is wonderful news. No
This is wonderful news. No drivers ever jump red lights. We don’t need laws against something that nobody ever does so that’s one law we can take off the statute book.
We have way too many laws in this country so getting rid of one of them must be a good thing, right? Right?
Or maybe all the drivers I see jumping red lights are actually cyclists in disguise. Yeah, that’s probably it.
I’ve cycled many many
I’ve cycled many many thousands of miles and I don’t recall ever going through a red light.
I have occasionally hopped off my bike and walked it as a pedestrian on the pavement before, for example at road works with horrendous queues of cars, but that is perfectly legal.
But perhaps I am a minority, I’ve definitely seen cyclists do it, I’ve also seen tons of cars do it, probably in equal numbers.
I would say the greatest offenders of red light jumping are mopeds, more specially the ones most people refer to as cycles but given they are using throttles and assist over 15mph on their electrically modified bikes these are now unlicensed, uninsured mopeds not ebikes or bicycles.
Nope you ain’t the minority
Nope you ain’t the minority mate, I never ride through any red lights or ignore people waiting to cross on zebra crossings. More cyclists are seriously injured and killed each year from motor vehicles than pedestrians being hit by cyclists, and even then not by jumping lights. So according to Nigel Havers the reason 1700 cyclists are killed a year by motor vehicles is cyclists? Who’s using his family brain cell today? Because it isn’t his!
I’m in Bristol and the worst
I’m in Bristol and the worst offenders by far are the riders of e-scooters (rental ones and the illegal privately owned ones). I appreciate that some element of confirmation bias probably apply, but it’s bad enough that it really stands out if I see an e-scooter stopping at a red light.
brooksby wrote:
I’ve posted on other topics the reasons behind why I sometimes jump red lights and some of the reasons also apply to e-scooters. However, I’m not sure whether the loss of momentum is as big a deal for e-scooter riders , but it’s possible that starting off is more awkward as they have to gain their balance on them.
I do agree that I’ve seen e-scooters go through reds that I’ve stopped at, but then I’m quite selective about the conditions in which I RLJ. I think ultimately that when you see lots of riders (bikes and e-scooters) RLJ that it’s a good indication that the junction isn’t working for all road users. It’s like when you see a “desire path” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path) – it’s not worthwhile trying to change people’s behaviour, but better to understand why they’re doing what they’re doing.
Then again, it could well be that traffic understands how poorly the roads are policed and when there’s rampant speeding and phone use by drivers, it’s difficult to have any respect for some laws.
Also perhaps when using a
Also perhaps when using a scooter it feels more like being a pedestrian? (This would apply to “mass cycling” too). When walking I don’t always wait at red lights at signallised crossings, nor only cross at marked points.
The problem is we’ve also fixed it so that some of that feeling of “casual, relaxed, free mobility” is experienced by drivers. Not that I think that people would drive better if more nervous, tense or uncertain! However “careless, distracted, DGAF” certainly applies to some. I’d suggest it’s not just a few wrong’uns either (though they exist) – “many of the people, some of the time”.
chrisonabike wrote:
That’s my theory too – not in a car, possibly not cyclists either, so just behave as “fast pedestrians” rather than as motorised road users. Many cyclists feel the same, I suspect.
Full disclosure: I have never knowingly jumped a red light while riding a bike or driving a car, and I’ve never ridden an e-scooter.
I make a point of always
I make a point of always stopping for red lights. Yes I’ve seen some cyclists ignore them, certainly not all.
but I can guarantee from the six sets of lights on my commute, when the lights are green for our direction of travel, there is always still at least 1 if not 2 drivers coming through on red at every set of traffic lights.
And its just as bad if I walk into town, in fact so bad the pedestrian crossings are delayed turning green for about 15-20secs, simply to cater for red light jumping drivers to clear before it’s safe to cross
BBC happily having another
BBC R4 on Broadcasting House 9:45 papers segment happily having another “but cycles” hitting most of the wrong notes, stringing together Auriol Gray and the pensioner killed in Regent’s Park and eBikes … However this is redeemed at the end by the guests who confess they’re London cyclists.
BBC R4 on Broadcasting House
BBC R4 on Broadcasting House 9:45 papers segment happily having another “but cycles” hitting most of the wrong notes
I heard this too- I was camped on a hilltop after spending the night awaiting a non-arriving aurora
Well done Laura on not just
Well done Laura on not just laughing at him!
I can’t believe that he wouldn’t simply back down with “OK, some cyclists” (which would have been accurate) but stuck to the ludicrous assertion that “all cyclists”…
Let’s have an experiment. I
Let’s have an experiment. I propose that we cyclists stand next to a set of traffic lights and, clandestinely, film traffic for half an hour. We can then tally the number of motorists, and non-motorists, jumping red lights, on phones, picking noses etc etc etc. Just for a bit of fun.
Had one yesterday where none
Had one yesterday where none of us could work out why this Range Rover 4×4 hadnt moved off after literally only being briefly halted in a traffic queue for 5 secs.
the driver had decided it was a good moment to brush up applying her mascara skills whilst driving.
She hadn’t a clue what was happening on the road or around her, could easily have taken out pedestrians crossing the road when she booted it to catch up with the other traffic.
If the Police were to set up
If the Police were to set up cameras at the Island Roundabout in Stafford on any day of the week, at any time of night or day they would make MILLIONS from fines from people jumping the lights, using their phone, blocking the yellow box junction, getting in the wrong lane to jump the queue…. indeed, almost anything but using the road correctly.
I, for one, am in favour of the Police being self financing via driving fines.
Not if the Transport Minister
Not if the Transport Minister gets his way, DoT have just run a survey on these offences and how councils are using these offences toi create financial surplusses
I ride an 800cc Honda
I ride an 800cc Honda
Every day commuting I will roll up at an amber
Every day I hear drivers accelerate to pass and go through.
Every day I see drivers fail to beat the red, but shoot through…
Couple of sets of lights I will filter to the front and chat with the regular cyclists I know, till the light goes green….
Every day I see drivers fail
Every day I see drivers fail to beat the red, but shoot through…
In Lancashire, on the A6, it’s so routine to crash through red lights, they’re even teaching the L riders to do it. No response from the police to these.
https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
“If car drivers are not
“If car drivers are not breaking the law, how come vehicles are killing 1,700 people a year.”
Something of a logic failure here. Maybe the cars are spontaneously exploding. Maybe the people are throwing themselves in front of them. The fact that someone dies does not imply someone is breaking the law. Mr Havers should have spotted this one.
john_smith wrote:
Impeccable courtroom logic of course.
“So Mr. Smith, this is the 10th time we’ve been called to the scene of a fatal incident this month. And they all seem to be taking place on the footpaths. And just like the last here’s a mangled body and someone’s leg clutched in the mouth of a large
cowdog. *Your* dog, yes?“Oh – we’ve not spoken to you before? And of course walking a dog is entirely legal. Hmm… Well, nothing more for us to do here. Just seen to be a lot of these events happening. Mind how you go, sir.”
To be fair, it’s such a
To be fair, it’s such a staggeringly stupid comment by Havers, that I’m surprised Laura even had a response. I suppose the 711,000 UK prosecutions in 2022 for motoring offences might have been a better reply. And that’s from the roads being barely policed at all.
Eton Rifle wrote:
Havers – and his supporters – would just claim this is evidence of the War On Motorists and that cycling is lawless, because obviously cyclists commit far more offences but not a single one of them is ever prosecuted for it.
To be fair, I’m astonished
To be fair, I’m astonished that Havers hasn’t joined that odd statistic of people that have managed to run themselves over.
I was going to write out a
I was going to write out a long comment citing various statistics and references regarding motoring offences but decided against it because Nigel Havers is a complete twat !
Unrepentant drink driving
Unrepentant drink driving twat!
I wonder whether it’s
I wonder whether it’s possible to send Mr Havers the video of the white van that drove on the pavement to get around me while I was waiting for the red light to change and from the same ride the SUV that accelerated past me on the wrong side of the road when I braked as the light turned red.
If history has taught us one
If history has taught us one thing, it’s that the dinosaurs eventually become extinct.
Alessandro wrote:
I’ve scanned the heavens but can’t see an asteroid with Havers’ name on it.
Very correct Mr Havers, and
Very correct Mr Havers, and cyclists crossing red lights is exactly the reason why we have thousands of people killed by these law abiding cyclists.
Consequently it makes sense why in many countries like US, France, Germany, Netherlands or Belgium it fully illegal for bicycles to cross red lights.
You sure about that? In NL, I
You sure about that? In NL, I can turn right on many red lights. And when I lived in the US, I could even turn right in a car on a red light. In both cases, technically the red light is crossed.
I assume this was satire /
I assume this was satire / parody.
In NL would it not be more correct to say that cyclists are not “passing through the red lights” – they are passing by them as they don’t apply because they often have their own separate cycle path? So the red lights for motor traffic no more apply to them as do signals on e.g. a parallel railway apply to the vehicles. Indeed cyclists may sometimes have their own separate lights.
The US is different – cyclists will be on the main road but in some places are allowed to proceed through a red light which otherwise would definitely apply to them. Indeed motor vehicles are allowed to turn right on red in some states, but this is starting to be recognised as unsafe and generally a bad idea. Hence part of my skepticism about permitting this for cyclists.
The ol’ Idaho stop. And yes,
The ol’ Idaho stop. And yes, in NL, you’ll often see a sign beside a traffic light that says “Rechts voor fietsers vrij”, that basically means cyclists are free to turn right.
Anyway, let’s not distract ourselves from being flabbergsated by the idiocy of Mr. Havers.
You’re quite right – [1] [2].
You’re quite right – [1] [2]. Are these common?
However in some cases there still seems to be a Dutch / everyone else difference. The one in the video on David Hembrow’s blog (Thorbeckelaan / Groningerstraat – there’s one turning the other way also), at least. Here it’s “cycle path” (not cycle lane – although there isn’t much separation from vehicles) before AND after the junction. So the cyclist would only be turning across the pedestrian crossing, not across / joining a lane with oncoming motor traffic. In the UK it’s quite likely you’d be on the road the whole time – so there would be conflict between turning cyclists and pedestrians (perhaps twice – depending if it’s “all ways green” for pedestrians) AND conflict between cyclists and vehicles.
So the UK version of the picture here would likely have none of that red area going round the corner (we just give up at junctions) and the pedestrians would be crossing closer to the junction.
Of course, in much of the UK currently there would be no markings indicating space for cycling whatsoever, or at best a “magic” line of paint at the side of the road.
cyclisto wrote:
Cant believe this actually got a ‘like’. Why are you here anyway? Go back to the Daily Mail.
I think it is sarcasm. But it
I think it is sarcasm. But it is easy to miss that kind of sarcasm when people actually hold those kinds of views for real
Sorry to the confusion I may
Sorry to the confusion I may have spread but guys, there may be one or two per year killed by cyclists in UK, it is as almost as likely to be killed by a thunderbolt, or other crazy deaths, definitely not the thousands I mention.
Maybe somebody understood worldwide, that number could seem sensible (do not know really) but still miniscule among the ~1.2 million killed in motor traffic accidents annually.
bikeman01 wrote:
Think you’ve missed the sarcasm there squire, fairly sure the OP knows that thousands of people aren’t killed by cyclists and also that all the countries they mention have laws that allow cyclists to ride through red lights in specific circumstances.
Sarcasm – I doubt even the
Sarcasm – I doubt even the staunchest DM reader believes it is 1000s.
Havers should take a look at
Havers should take a look at the DfT’s casualty statistics.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Well informed people don’t get booked to spout anti-cyclist nonsense though. As soon as anyone looks at the statistics they soon realise the scale of the problem with cars and drivers.
hawkinspeter wrote:
This is the problem with the BBC feeling they must provide balance. So often the people on one side of the “debate” can only be the uninformed.
wycombewheeler wrote:
I’d say the bigger problem is that they only provide balance on selected topics. Just have a look at their many articles about the monarchy and their family and almost zero articles about how some people want to get rid of the parasites.
There’s also many world events that they’re not providing balance on, so it seems they just cherry pick the topics to “balance”.
Presumably this is the first
Presumably this is the first ever driving offence in the UK
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hampstead-camden-met-police-crime-cyclist-fleet-primary-school-b1157327.html
“One witness described how two passengers inside the car jogged away from the scene.
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: “A 16-year-old boy on a bicycle was injured on 11 May around 4pm when a vehicle mounted the pavement on Fleet Road, Hampstead and collided with the fence of Fleet Primary School. “
Mind you it was a driverless vehicle, so maybe no offence.
Havers should be made to make
Havers should be made to make the same claims to the faces of all the victims (and families of the dead) of motorist violence who have suffered.
The worst offenders for going
The worst offenders for going through traffic red lights are pedestrians – watch them outside any train /underground station in London, they have an irresponsible attitude towards safety – I expect many of them are motorists.
I literally just nearly got
I literally just nearly got killed by a driver blatently flying through a red light while I was on my bike in the cycle advance box.
Shame on that fossil for being such a gross liar
We’re on about things that
We’re on about things that happen only occasionally, like crashes involving bikes planes and trains – things that happen wholesale like anything to do with cars were accepting of/ conditioned to.
We had to seriously brake to
We had to seriously brake to avoid a car running a red light this weekend; we were also in a car, following a green light.
But, sure, drivers never break the law! https://www.kcci.com/article/super-speeders-iowa-state-patrol-pulls-over-teen-120-mph-fort-dodge/60759963while texting!
The strangest RLJ I saw by a
The strangest RLJ I saw by a car was when I was stopped in an ASL at a red light. The driver initially stopped behind me outside the box. But after a bit they lost patience; carefully went round me, through the red and merged with the traffic who actually had green. The only thing I could to surmise from the delibrateness and cautiousness (it had to be its a busy road they were merging into) that the driver is from a country where that manouvre is allowed :-/
He’s obviously wrong. We’ve
He’s obviously wrong. We’ve all seen cars go through red lights. But it would be dishonest to pretend that the proportion of cyclists who go through red lights isn’t greater. If we want to be safe on the road then we should obey the rules of the road in the same way we expect and demand that drivers should. Any cyclist going through a red light is fuelling the likes of Havers, and worse, the aggressive anti-cyclist drivers that are a danger to us. By cycling through a red light you are making the world a less safe place for cyclists.
Mark Pearce wrote:
If we include drivers who go through on amber despite it being perfectly safe to stop, then I’m not convinced this is true. And legally the offence is the same.
Agreed. The offence is the
Agreed. The offence is the same, but people don’t equate amber gambling with what many cyclists (but far fewer motorists) do – ignoring a (wait for it…) “established” red light.
I’d argue its dishonest to
I’d argue its dishonest to claim it is greater, what happens in London doesnt automatically translate to how the rest of the country behaves on the roads
This whole red light jumping
This whole red light jumping thing, I’ve been giving it some thought.
And my thinking came to this conclusion…
It would be easy for motorists to perceive that more cyclists jump lights than car drivers, as there is nothing to generally stop a cyclist from jumping a light if they fancy it.
And I’m not talking about licence plates, insurance, I’m talking about the fact that as soon as one car stops at a lights, all the cars behind have no choice but to stop and wait.
We’ll never know how many of those stationary cars would have chanced it if given the opportunity, as they were not able to do so
Cyclists however are not so restricted. They can filter through traffic to a light and then roll through.
So if there are any cyclists willing to jump a light on the vicinity, they will get the chance to do so.
I don’t buy this “opportunity
I don’t buy this “opportunity” theory. Every driver will at some point be the first one at the lights. Every driver will at some point have the opportunity to ignore them. The fact there isn’t mass disobedience therefore suggests that the majority do not take that opportunity when it arises.
quiff wrote:
It makes sense to me. If, say 50% of people will jump a red light whether cycling or driving, and at a particular set of lights, there’s 10 cars and 10 bikes approaching it. Jimmy’s opportunity theory suggests that 5 bikes will jump that red light and there’s only a 50% chance that the first driver will RLJ and then a 25% chance that the second driver will as will and a 12.5% chance that the third driver will also do the same etc.
However, the real world is more complex than that and to my mind, there’s a distinct difference between cyclists RLJers and driver RLJers. The drivers tend to RLJ when the light is first turning red and will often speed up in order to get through the junction before the opposing traffic starts moving and thus blocking their route. Cyclist RLJers are more likely to slow down a bit and won’t care about whether the light has been red for a time or not. This also makes cyclist RLJers look more blatant, despite their actions not being anywhere near as dangerous as the drivers that speed up on the approach to a junction.
Totally agree with your
Totally agree with your second paragraph – I think it’s the different nature of cycle RLJing that irks others. And this difference may affect the opportunity argument too. I’d agree that a lot of drivers will amber gamble given the opportunity – that could well be as high as 50%. But I think the number of drivers who would blatantly ignore a light which is red as they approach is much, much smaller.
By the by, I cycled through a red yesterday. Because the two drivers behind hooted at me to do so, convinced that they were not working.
quiff wrote:
In London at virtually every light the first driver who has an opportunity to see the amber and slow down and stop, as per the highway code, will accelerate to go through whilst the light is still on amber, the second driver will go through just as the light changes from amber to red and the third driver will drive through on red. This happens pretty much every time. It’s true that drivers do not, as a rule, approach “established” (!) red lights and just ignore them as far too many cyclists do, but the pervasive nature of the behaviour described above makes one suspect that this is more because they are worried about being caught by police patrols or ANPR cameras without the plausible deniability/leeway of the light just having changed rather than any innate respect for the rules; when they think they can get away with it they will do it. This is particularly obvious at temporary roadworks lights when they know there won’t be an ANPR camera, if there’s nothing coming in the opposite direction and no police vehicles in sight a substantial minority will run the light, regardless of how long it has been on red.
My experience with temporary
My experience with temporary roadworks lights is different. I find that drivers tend to obey them more than permanent lights – possibly because there’s the possibility of them meeting traffic coming the other way and having nowhere to go.
Meanwhile, I’m guilty of going through a few temporary red lights depending on how much escape room I have if there’s traffic coming the other way (e.g. if there’s just cones, then I can easily go the other side of them).
I’m sure that’s true in some
I’m sure that’s true in some cases, I’m thinking of instances where the works necessitating the contraflow are quite small and the road is straight enough to see that there’s enough gap to get through before any oncoming traffic arrives.
Never much harm in a cyclist riding through the coned-off section of a contraflow if there’s nobody working in it as far as I can see; I was actually invited to quite recently by a nice chap wielding one of the old-fashioned stop/go signs – “Ride through there mate, they’ve knocked off for the day and we’re just waiting for the van to come and collect all the gear.”
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’ve had workmen shout at me in the past for ignoring the red light (I wasn’t ignoring it, I just didn’t care about it) even though I was going slowly and not going near them or their equipment. To my mind, it’s better if I get out of the way, so that when the light turns green, the patient drivers don’t then get held up by a cyclist in the single lane.
(I’m somewhat conflicted about whether to hug the side or take primary in those situations as drivers shouldn’t be doing any overtaking whilst going through roadworks, but if there’s room then I don’t begrudge them getting past).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Often the lights do not give cyclists enough time anyway. So If you were to wait for green then go immediately, chances are that you would meet a driver coming the other way.
Meanwhile, I’m guilty of
Meanwhile, I’m guilty of going through a few temporary red lights
Me too- round here they leave them up for days after the work has been completed, so I just go up inside the cones. Havers and the police have excuses ready for drivers who ignore temporary lights like these:
https://upride.cc/incident/ye10aju_mini_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/fd67nej_bmw420_redlightcross/
The police may even try the ‘temporary lights are not the same as real traffic lights’ dodge. But when even they can’t fit the usual stupid excuses to the case, they just say nothing and ignore them like they did with these
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
I have to say my attitude to
I have to say my attitude to red lights whilst cycling has softened over the years.
I used to be very diligent at stopping for all red lights, but I have since become more pragmatic and will slip through a red now-and-then on the bicycle when I know it will increase my safety without inconveniencing anyone else.
If I could be certain all drivers would adhere to the highway code (or even if those that don’t would be prosecuted by the police), then I would adhere to all the rules myself when cycling. But if drivers do not fear the long arm of the law when it comes to driving dangerously around vulnerable road users, then I don’t think I need to fear it when putting nobody at risk on a bicycle (same attitude I used for the occasional bit of careful pavement cycling).
I do still stop at all red lights when driving, as I don’t feel there’s any safety benefit to myself for not doing so and I pose a much greater risk to others by using a car.
if drivers do not fear the
if drivers do not fear the long arm of the law
In Lancashire, drivers are only too aware that the arms of the law are exceedingly short with hands in pockets, while the head of the law is determinedly looking the other way
quiff wrote:
I think you’re missing my meaning. Every driver will be first to the lights at some point, and those that jump it will do so. However as soon as any cars stop, so does any further red light jumping for those lights.
For bikes, there is no similar social control, and those willing to jump red lights are free to jump lights every single time. Crucially, they’ll also be seen doing it, every single time by the waiting motorists.
Which, even if the percentage of cyclists / motorists happy to jump a light are exactly the same, the amount of jumping done by cyclists will be more (more times by a given individual), and with it the perception of greater rule breaking amongst cyclists.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
I think you’re missing my meaning. Every driver will be first to the lights at some point, and those that jump it will do so. However as soon as any cars stop, so does any further red light jumping for those lights. — quiff
I understand that. All I was trying to say is that it is exceedingly rare for me to see the first car approaching an “established” (I hesitate to use the term) red light simply disregard it in the way that many cyclists do. If it was purely lack of opportunity (i.e. their way being physically blocked) stopping people, then I would expect far more drivers to ignore reds in these circumstances than actually do. It’s actually pretty shockingly sociopathic when you do see it.
quiff wrote:
The obvious reason why drivers don’t do that is that there’ll be cars in their way, whereas there’s almost always space for a cyclist to squeeze down the side of the road.
I was talking about the first
I was talking about the first car approaching a red light, so no other cars in front, opportunity to ignore the red, yet very few do. But perhaps you mean they don’t do it because they will be blocked by traffic flowing from another arm of the junction?
I’m just not persuaded by the opportunity argument. I think most drivers see red and think red means stop. With the significant caveat of the “charge of the changing lights brigade” that Rendel mentions.
quiff wrote:
Yeah – I was meaning blocked by the green-light flow of traffic.
If only. At temporary lights
If only. At temporary lights (3 way light sign warning of delays) I pulled up at the red light, short of a left hand side road to leave space for traffic coming through the lights and wanting to turn in front of me. Numbskull No.1 got fed up waiting and came around the queue behind me, only to be met by a postie’s van coming the other way. Blocked the junction, blocked the postman and then continued on his merry way , lights still on red. Numbskulls No.s 2,3 & 4 then got fed up of waiting and pulled the same manouevre. Lights changed and Numbskull No.5 ran me into the pavement as he came from behind and tried to squeeze in in front of me. Idiots will find an opportunity to be idiotic whatever the circumstances.
This is the scenario I was
This is the scenario I was thinking of in my comment above where I ran a red. I’m pretty sure the lights *were* actually working – it’s just that drivers find a three-way signal wait inordinately long (they should try watching as the drivers get a full two cycles at a junction before the cycle lane gets its turn) and I didn’t want to stick to my guns while they all started coming past me.
If I’d been on a bike I might
If I’d been on a bike I might have nipped on to the pavement and ridden through…I was in a car at the time which makes the idiots’ idiocy even more idiotic I suppose.
Why oh Why do we give these
Why oh Why do we give these “celebrities” air time?….Just because they are famous it doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about and here is proof in spades. Cars don’t jump red lights????….what is he on. Why is it then that the Government runs numerous Education courses for Vehicle Drivers who have jumped red lights? Nigel Havers stick to what you know, Acting, not spouting rubbish on the radio because it gives you a bit of the publicity you patently crave. I don’t approve of cyclists jumping lights or not being responsible but trying to make out motorists are the innocent party in this respect is farcical….
DaveSpokes wrote:
The problem is that you can’t get anyone who knows what they are talking about to argue that the actions of cyclists are the biggest road safety problem in this country at this time.
So in the interest of “balance” the BBC have to scrape deeper and deeper into the bottom of the barrel. to find a counterpoint on their “discussion”. But really getting a convicted drink driver to discuss road safety is hopefully the nadir of their poor selection of debaters.
Oi, Nigel.
Oi, Nigel.
Check this out:
(13 drivers run red light consecutively.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck9NQ-S0NCI
Havers et al are ignorant.
Havers et al are ignorant. They don’t cycle. Any person who has ranted about cyclists has changed their tune once they have ridden on UK roads for a bit. Fact.
Contrary to the HWC, traffic lights are only designed for drivers. They are there to keep the highway clear of pedestrians and at junctions, to ensure vehicles don’t collide.
Now remove motor vehicles and on cycle only crossings – without pedestrians – are ‘traffic’ lights needed? No.
For pedestrians only? No.
Why is this? It’s because cyclists and pedestrians don’t travel fast enough, will be injured in an impact, but can easily slot through the side emerging users.
In a 4cu metre 2 tonne machine travelling at 40kmh+ this is impossible.
Traffic lights should be renamed Driver Lights, just as pedestrian crossings are named as such.
So much road infrastructure is designed by drivers for drivers we forget where the fault is.
In Cambridge years ago I influenced Highways to install one of the first cycle green phase lights at a busy cross road in the city.
I said that all lights could be green for cyclists so that cyclists could all cross for an 8 second timing.
They just wouldn’t try it. Even now, with about 5 more of these across the city, many drivers cross on their ‘traffic’ red when the cycle light is green. So their argument was two [stupid] drivers could collide.
Which just proves how little drivers comprehend and observe on the roads.
People like drink driver Havers.
polainm wrote:
Any time someone uses “Fact.” in a comment, what precedes it is not a fact. Fact.
So by your reasoning, this is
So by your reasoning, this is a fact. Fact.
And by the same reasoning, this is a fact too. Fact. Fact.
As is this. Fact. Fact. Fact.
You’ve not come across
You’ve not come across mdavidford before have you.
You should carefully reread the post.
Unfamiliar with Epimenides
Unfamiliar with Epimenides paradox and/or irony perhaps? Or just responding in like manner?
Quite. Except that what I
…
I hadn’t.
…
Do you need some help
Do you need some help understanding it ?
No. Do you?
No. Do you?
It’s time we fought fire with
It’s time we fought fire with fire in the battle against drink-driver Havers: All taxis evade MOT testing- no cyclists do
This is Wigan Council taxi YA54 RMD, taxi number 7859, parked on Garstang High St on 31.5.24 – no MOT since 30.10.23. Problem is that Lancashire Constabulary will ignore the offence like they always do. Garstang Police Station is 150 yards away.
Don’t give then ideas. “You
Don’t give then ideas. “You lot don’t even pay road tax!! And your bikes haven’t even got an MOT!!”
8 months on from your post
8 months on from your post and still no MoT. He would not be able to renew his badge (annual, I think) without one.
It wants reporting to the Licensing Officer as it’s still listed as a private hire vehicle.
https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Business/Licensing-Permits-Registrations/Business-and-Trading/Public-Register.aspx
Hold your horses – some
Hold your horses – some councils are authorised to conduct their own (more stringent) vehicle inspections for taxi use. Where that’s the case, taxis don’t need a MOT certificate. The council’s vehicle inspection is a condition of the licence, but an MOT is not. This vehicle has an inspection appointment booked on 21 May ’25. See e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-testing-guide/c-designated-councils-taxis-and-private-hire-vehicles
Mr Havers has just been on
Mr Havers has just been on the news, bemoaning the size of potholes in London and, I quote – “now I’m on two wheels, in London , which makes it even more dangerous’
Which raises several questions…
Bicycle or motorbike?
If the former, is it because he lost his licence (hic!) ?
Doe he jump red lights, like every other cyclist?
Perhaps he meant more
Perhaps he meant more dangerous to road users in his immediate vicinity.
Lost his licence for dui,
Lost his licence for dui, again?…
He’s bought himself a pair of
He’s bought himself a pair of Heelys.
He’s just been on Breakfast
He’s just been on Breakfast TV, talking about his current projects (standard interview format)
At the end, the presenter said…
“You’ve got a calm, mellow vibe about you – do you ever get wound up about stuff?”
“I get wound up by bicyclists who nearly kill me on the pavement…”
The other presenter threw him a olive branch…
“Only if they’re on the pavement though…?”
“I have a thing about them because they don’t obey any rules of the road…”
Oh, I wish I’d been the cameraman…
What…like drink driving…?
I caught a clip involuntarily
I caught a clip involuntarily the other day – popped up on Facebook – of an interview between him and his fellow lump of unspeakableness Piers Morgan and he was chuckling away about how he had been stopped for DUI in America and then let off because his passport had “the Right Honourable” on it (because daddy was ennobled for his service as attorney general, nothing to do with any merit on his part). What was striking was the way he said something like, “I was driving along, I’d had a few as you do, you know…” – drink-driving is obviously perfectly acceptable for him.
Rendel Harris wrote:
That’s terrible
I just checked to see if I
I just checked to see if I was doing him an injustice, found the actual clip, in fact somewhat worse than I described: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0D91cl645U
Another celebrity wanglng a
Another celebrity wanglng a lighter sentence, that ordinary folk probably wouldn’t be able to…
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9vp24z6qo.amp
Steve Coogan? Yup –
Steve Coogan? Yup – discussed on this very site yesterday