Safer Transport Team officers in Hackney fined 18 cyclists in the space of 90 minutes for jumping red lights at the weekend.
The Metropolitan Police Service’s Roads and Transport Policing Command tweeted that 14 officers in hi vis jackets patrolled the Hackney Road junction with Kingsland Road on Saturday evening. They were there as part of Operation ‘Vision Zero’, London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s bid to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the capital’s roads.
@MPSRTPC Hackney STT Officers were in high vis on @OpVisionZero along Hackney Rd j/w Kingsland Rd enforcing safe cycling. 14 officers in hi vis jackets didn’t deter 18 cyclists from jumping red lights. All reported for offences & educated on safety. Cycle safely. Get home safely! pic.twitter.com/lPLKz8VlMF
— Roads&Transport MPS (@MPSRTPC) January 29, 2022
In the space of 90 minutes, the officers caught 18 cyclists jumping red lights in the area. The cyclists in question were lectured on road safety and handed fixed penalty notices of £50, to be paid within 28 days.
The police’s action earned praise from some quarters, with one Twitter account – associated with a group opposed to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods – writing: “Good that this is finally being dealt with. So many cyclists jump red lights and then scream at cars and pedestrians.”
The Roads and Transport team thanked the account for their support and said: “Be assured we will continue with the campaign to enforce cycle safety for all road users”.
Some used the news to call for more stringent rules concerning cycling, with one user writing: “Excellent work but highlights the need for cyclists to obtain a cycling licence and to display number plates. All light jumpers could have had their licences endorsed with three penalty points which would have been well deserved.”
> Dramatic cut in fines for anti-social cycling
However, others weren’t as impressed with the police’s work. One user asked the team “one day could you please send 14 officers to sit at the lights and look for phone drivers? A fiver says you’d get 18 in 10 minutes.”
The police responded: “We understand the risks posed by motorists using hand-held devices whilst driving. Our colleagues in the Traffic unit are dedicated to dealing with this daily.”
Last year Richmond Council was criticised for stopping children riding their bikes on undesignated paths in Sheen Common, and threatening them with fines of £60.
In December a man was fined £75 for riding through a pedestrian zone outside a tube and Overground station in north London, after he had missed the small ‘no cycling’ signs attached to bollards near the station.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
152 thoughts on “Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes”
I’m not adverse to light
I’m not adverse to light jumping cyclists being ticketed – providing and only providing – no-one else committing a crime at that junction got a free pass. It sounds suspiciously like they did though.
There is a lot of
There is a lot of ‘whataboutery’ here. ALL policing should of course be proportionate to the harm caused by lawbreaking. It may be that fatalities involving cyclists are v rare (and such statistics do not necessarily imply culpability on the cyclist’s part).
But deaths are only the visible tip of much wider harms caused by jumping red lights. We also need to consider their impacts in terms of serious and minor injuries to pedestrians (and many of the latter will be unreported in police incident stats), and in terms of the distress such behaviour causes. Many pedestrians express concern at the apparent problem of RLJing cyclists and it is not plausible to believe that this is merely a consequence of ‘cyclist-baiting’ by DM and other irresponsible journalists. Such stories have an impact because at least in part they resonate with people’s experiences.
So, if we wish to take this problem seriously as a society then we need to enforce the laws in a proportionate way (i.e. proportionate to the wider harms they cause and not simply deaths). I think I have only once in my life been stopped by police in an enforcement operation (erroneously offering advice on wearing hi-vis!) and I’m in my 50s. It is true that enforcement action by police against motorists has suffered disproportionately from Tory cuts in recent years and that urgently needs to rectified. Of course tackling dangerous driving should therefore be prioritised – but that does not obviate the need to take action against RLJing cyclists. The police also have a duty of care to all road users including protecting RLJers themselves from the potential consequences of their stupidity and thoughlessness.
We should also recognise that such behaviour has a serious impact on how some drivers choose to treat cyclists (i.e. their behaviour affects other cyclists) and this may cost lives. Offering advice to RLJers through occasional enforcement action seems like a proportionate police response. To argue otherwise would require a comprehensive assessment of the total police resource allocated to such activites in comparison with that targeted at other enforce operations on the UKs roads – NOT focusing on one instance like this to argue that this is somehow ‘disproportionate’… And if one is caught breaking the law in a way that puts others at risk there really are NO EXCUSES.
Crazyhorse wrote:
Seems entirely plausible to me.
Or… Such stories have an impact because at least in part they resonate with people’s prejudices.
Crazyhorse wrote:
That’s a very poor argument. Drivers are entirely responsible for how they act on the roads and legitimising road rage by pointing at some RLJing cyclists is ignoring the true causes and will not lead to safer roads.
I think the reason that we have cyclists wanting to go through red lights is due to traffic lights being designed primarily for motor traffic. The stop-start nature of roads fragmented by lights is the opposite of efficient cycling infrastructure although there may not be good alternatives at busy junctions. More enlightened cycling laws can be found elsewhere such as the U.S.’s ‘right-on-red’ (left on red over here would be the equivalent) which also applies to motor traffic – they can proceed through a red light to turn if it is clear.
There’s also plenty of situations where it can be safe for a cyclist to continue through a red light where it wouldn’t be feasible for a wide motor vehicle to do the same. I’d like something like the ‘Idaho Stop’ law to apply – you may proceed carefully if the way is clear.
There are obviously some reckless RLJers that endanger pedestrians (and themselves), but they are a minority and they should be focussed on as most cyclists will at some point be stuck at a red light and think to themselves “there’s no traffic – why should I have to wait”.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Aahh – but it wouldn’t work here – no alliteration, see?
I am not at all seeking to
I am not at all seeking to legitimise road rage. I am simply saying that when drivers see law breaking by cyclists it may influence their behaviour. I am not at all saying that it ought to do so. But we know that it will.
On your other point – yes, there may well be a case for a change in the law here and we are more than free to press for such changes. But we all need to respect the rules of the road as they currently stand.
Crazyhorse wrote:
To some extent. We are acutely sensitive to perceived unfairness. However I suspect that drivers who already have an marginal or unsuitable temperament / behaviours for the operator of a dangerous powered vehicle will certainly use rule-breaking by others (e.g. cyclists) to legitimise their road rage. They may be triggered by a specific occurrence and react to that. They may just take it out on random others.
As for “we all need to respect the rules of the road as they currently stand” is that an exhortation or a demand for an absolute? Because almost all the rules are broken some of the time and some are broken very commonly. Effectively they’re not really “rules”. Speeding and driving on pavements are the most obvious ones – the latter so ubiquitous that police have de-facto decriminalised it. There are certainly cyclists cycling on non-shared space footways and going through red lights too *.
So I don’t think saying “well everyone should stick to the law” acknowledges reality – although you may have it as an ideal. The questions are “why not?” and “how to address that?” and the answer to the latter is not just “get the police to do their job / more police” although that can be part of it.
* Elsewhere I’ve noted they’re often doing so for different reasons, in different ways, with different risks than motorists and that merits consideration – even if you just want to find out better ways of stopping them!
Crazyhorse wrote:
How does that insight that help me?
Crazyhorse wrote:
Unfortunately it has become normalised for cyclists to have to accept the ire of some motorists because of some perceived slight that the motorist has seen committed by a completely random cyclist. But my question is why should it be normalised?
I would pose a couple of questions to the wider audience.
To those motorists among us, do you think that your actions as a motorist will have any influence on how other motorists are treated by someone that you have “held up” by going at the speed limit?
Imagine you were driving along a motorway and as you were approaching an entry slip road you saw cars coming onto the motorway so you move into the middle lane so that the cars can join the motorway safely. Despite you doing this a driver of a Grey Ford Fiesta (most popular model and colour of car for many years running) pulled straight from the slip road out into the outside lane forcing you to brake sharply. Would you think it is acceptable, 3 days later when you are in a supermarket car park to accost a driver of a Grey Ford Fiesta and threaten them because of the car that caused you inconvenience a few days ago?
So why is it we as cyclists are made to accept that our behaviour good or bad reflects on all other cyclists? It’s akin to the victim of domestic abuse saying ….. well if I had just done one thing differently maybe I wouldn’t have suffered the consequences.
All light jumpers could have
All light jumpers could have had their licences endorsed with three penalty points which would have been well deserved
Except they never do- mostly, in Lancashire at least, the police don’t like to trouble these motorists and do nothing at all. Nobody, in my now great experience, has received points, fines, FPNs. I’m told a few have attended the joke online driving course, and the action is not correlated with the severity of the offence. Right now, and people are no doubt sick of hearing it, they now claim to be taking action with an evasive ‘action letter’ which still leaves them with the option of doing nothing or offering laughable ‘words of advice’
Actually, no, you can’t get
You can’t get points on your driving licence for cycling offences, if that is what the writer meant.
Were they policing compliance
Were they policing compliance with traffic light regulations, or specifically targetting cyclists?
Police on foot are not going
Police on foot are not going to step in front of a rlging motorist, far too dangerous.
ktache wrote:
This is true. And, of course, also shows why cyclists jumping red lights, whilst illegal and wrong, is nowhere near as dangerous as car drivers doing the same, no matter how long it is since the lights turned red.
How many of them were from
How many of them were from the UberEats/JustEat/Deliveroo garden variety of ‘cyclist‘ though?
I thought this while
I thought this while scrolling the social media wars over the Highway Code. I suspect the “pavement riding, red light jumping, no lights cyclists” people complain about are, on the whole, not the same self-identifying cyclists who engage in road safety debates on Twitter.
Well done to the Police for
Well done to the Police for going after the easy targets.
I don’t hear you going after real criminals like Jack the Ripper, Dick Turpin and Robin Hood, these days.
Bloody typical ?
I am split on this. On the
I am split on this. On the plus side 18 bits of low-life have had their wallets lightened and can no longer think that they are excempt. each of them will have 7 friends/associates who will also know that this is a bad thing and that there is a penalty.
It also shows the general public that cyclist can be ‘done’ for jumping red lights and that you don’t need a registration plate to identify the culprits.
But it will just prove to ‘normal people’ that all cyclists jump red lights.
ps. what a bunch of dimwits, the officers being in full uniform with hi-viz.
Oh – what am I saying – hi-viz = full stealth.
Low life ? Tell that to John
Low life ? Tell that to John Stevenson !
How many were making a left turn ?
>> It also shows the general
>> It also shows the general public that cyclist can be ‘done’ for jumping red lights and that you don’t need a registration plate to identify the culprits.
Yup, that’s good.
Some people complaining about red light jumpers are arguing in bad faith. If they can’t find a real complaint, they’ll make one up.
Others are pissed off at flagrant lawbreaking going without consequence. You can write a dissertation proving they’re technically Pareto suboptimal to want these resources deployed if you want. Nobody will care. Ever.
No problem with them
No problem with them enforcing the rules for everyone. It’s also illegal for a vehicle to pass an amber if they are able to stop. I do hope they ticketed all the car drivers that did this too. Otherwise, you know, it would be more lke a publicity stunt.
I would imagine that the
I would imagine that the police only stopped cyclists who blatently rode through established red traffic lights.
Riding through on amber or a “just-red” light is too much of a legal grey area to prosecute, and probably wouldn’t meet the high bar of British justice.
Garage at Large wrote:
No Nigel…. they would stop any cyclist who rode through a light that was red.
This established red light that you keep menitioning is a figment of your imagination.
But as per the normal you keep pushing your lies about this mythical “established red light”.
If a cyclist, like a driver can’t stop in the 3 seconds (as stipulated by traffic light regulations) that a fixed traffic signal remains at amber….. and they go through on a red light …… that is a red light offence…… END OF STORY
If you can’t accept that, if you have a driving licence please hand it back in because you are clearly a danger on the road.
I mean what happens if you as a driver drive through a recently established red light and hit and kill a young child who is crossing the road on the green man? – And remember Nigel answer the exact question as asked…. not what you think was asked
TriTaxMan wrote:
You clearly don’t know much about puffin crossings, because if you did you’d note that there is a time delay between the lights changing to red and the green man appearing.
This time lag is exactly equal to the time it takes for the red light to become established, and so your question is paradoxical: it isn’t possible to hit a young child who is crossing the road on the green man unless the red traffic light is established.
Garage at Large wrote:
Oh FFS Nigel…..
ESTABLISHED RED LIGHTS ARE SOMETHING YOU MADE UP.
JUST ADMIT YOU ARE LYING or provide the legislation….. Hell, I will even tell you where to look ….. Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
And section 36 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is the charging provision.
EDIT – If you can’t provide legislation – it proves you are a liar….. (guess what you won’t find it even in Schedule 14 of the TSRGD2016 which is the specific schedule dealing with traffic lights)
Well he’s certainly got the
Well he’s certainly got the drop on Google with “established red light”, Google’s got nothing on it. The best it comes up with are entries about the establishment of the red light district!
Sriracha wrote:
It’s fine….. because he know’s he is now in a position where either way he has to admit he is a liar he won’t post again in this thread…. he will go and find another thread to try and make stuff up on.
How does it prove anything? I
How does it prove anything? I never said that running a red light under any circumstance wasn’t illegal, what I wrote was that it’s a legal grey area in terms of prosecution, as it’s more difficult to get sufficient evidence – for example you could argue that the lights were on amber, that the camera wasn’t syncronised properly with the lights, that there wasn’t time to brake, etc.
Running an established red light is far more clear cut and carries a far higher risk – as you correctly pointed out, for example, it’s only possible to hit a pedestrian on a puffin crossing when the green man is showing if you drive (or cycle) through an established red light.
Garage at Large wrote:
OK Nigel seeing as you are hard of understanding….. this is what the law says.
“(3) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) to (6), the red signal conveys the prohibition that vehicular traffic must not proceed beyond the stop line.
(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies on an occasion where a vehicle is being used for at least one of the purposes set out in sub-paragraph (6) and the observance of the prohibition in sub-paragraph (3) would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for that purpose.
(6) The purposes are— (a) fire and rescue authority; (b) Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; (c) ambulance; (d) blood service; (e) providing a response to an emergency at the request of an NHS ambulance service; (f) bomb or explosive disposal; (g) special forces (h) police; and (i) National Crime Agency.
(9) An amber signal, when shown alone, conveys the same prohibition as red, except that, as respects any vehicle which is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped without proceeding beyond the stop line, it conveys the same indication as the green signal which was shown immediately before it.”
Therefore a red….. is Red. The ONLY exception is for emergency vehicles….. you seem to be confusing an AMBER light with your mythical RECENTLY ESTABLISHED RED.
Seriously just admit you are LYING.
I have plenty of respect for
I have plenty of respect for you TTM and your comments are accurate, sensible and apposite, but I thought you were ignoring the troll? I know it’s difficult not to bite but I’ve felt ever so much better since deciding not to respond to his drivel, and the fewer people that do respond the sooner he might stop getting his rocks off on getting a rise out of decent folks and bugger off.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I need to go back to that. No matter how many times it is proved he lies he continues to lie but tries to justify his lies….. using his “Evidence based facts”
And remember, many of Nigel’s
And remember, many of Nigel’s stated heroes are inveterate liars (Trump etc). While you may think he should be ashamed of being shown to lie, he lives in a world of alternative facts. His grasp of the truth has always been problem.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Me too. If it was useful, then there would be some point, but you might as well expect Boris to stop lying.
Again, you’re simply trying
Again, you’re simply trying to prove I’ve written something which I’ve never claimed. Jumping red lights is against the law (unless there is a good reason to), as we both agree. However, to get a conviction, you need to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not only that, but there is a difference in seriousness between going through an amber/red light and an established red light, where the threshold likely crosses from careless to dangerous driving/cycling.
As you’ve freely admitted, one such scenario is where a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a puffin crossing. She strides out into the road when the green man appears, only to be flattened by a cyclist who has ignored the established red. If someone had driven or cycled through at the exact time the light turned from amber to red, despite it being illegal (note how I’m agreeing with you), the pedestrian would never be put in danger as there would be a red man on the crossing which wouldn’t turn green for around 3 seconds until the red light is firmly established.
So to conclude – both are technically offences, but one is worse than the other and the less dangerous one is difficult to prove. Which I think it’s what you wrote too, just in a different way.
Garage at Large wrote:
No Nigel….. I am trying to get you to admit to the facts….. the real ones.
You have said its a legal grey area. Its not. The law is incredibly clear…… both amber and red mean stop. There is the exception where it would cause an accident to stop but that only applies to amber.
You keep trying to suggest there is a difference between a ‘recently established red’ and a red. There is not. It’s quite simple a red light is a red light. I have never once tried to distinguish between a red and recently established red….. you are the only one that has even put forward the notion of recently established red.
You have REPEATEDLY tried to say that motorists rarely jump red lights but frequenly jumped your MADE UP “recently established red lights”…. You can’t have it both ways……. either accept that you LIED that motorists rarely jump red lights……. or that all red light jumping is red light jumping and that your “recently established red lights” are LIES.
Do you really think you are coming out of this without accepting that you are a compulsive, habitual LIAR.
Do I need to reference your LIES about you KNEW (you didn’t say that you thought) that the temporary traffic lights were broken from a 30 second clip a week or so ago?
We all know he’s a liar, you
We all know he’s a liar, you’d be better off ignoring him as you intended to earlier in the year.
@Garage at Large
@Garage at Large
I know it’s very irritating to see cyclists jumping red lights or breaking rules (as a law abiding cyclist and motorist I too find it frustrating) you are missing by far the most important point. The guiding motivation for Police resources and increased legislation must always be (and sometimes is) directed at the consequences of those rules being broken. The table you have posted a link to does indeed show that cyclists may exceed their modal share of traffic involved in collisions with pedestrians, but what it much more starkly shows is that the number of fatalaties and serious injuries caused by motor vehicles outnumbers that of cyclists many many times over. That’s lives destroyed and families uttery devastated. In fact the first table shows that beteen 2005 and 2014 there were ZERO people killed by cyclists ‘disobeying automatic traffic signals’. Just consider that, zero lives lost to cyclists whilst 52 were killed by motor vehicles during the same period. 52 lives and families destroyed compared to zero.
The other table demonstrates that during the same period 5 people were killed on pavements by cyclists (an environment where they can legally co-exist) whilst 112 were killed by motor vehilcles. That’s killed ON THE PAVEMENT where motor vehicles have no place. 22 TIMES the number of deaths caused by cycles.
So you see whilst your calling for tabards and arguing about the minutia of what constitutes ‘running a red light’ people are dying and familes are being devastated but almost entirely NOT by cyclists.
Garage at Large wrote:
That is a really interesting sentiment seeing as you also said…
No, I’m not saying that no one ever criminally drives through traffic lights in a car, what I’m saying is that it is a rare occurrence. Hence why people have faith in things like pedestrian and zebra crossings.— Garage at Large
and
So Nigel will you admit that you are a LIAR given your own quotes?
If as you implied in your most recent comment you accept that jumping red lights is against the law AND at the same time you say that not all car drivers criminally drive through red lights……
One of those statements MUST be a LIE. Either jumping red lights is a criminal offence (as you are now attempting to backpedal)…… or your previous statement is a LIE.
So which LIE will you admit?
Garage at Large wrote:
Now I know what your feeble little mind is going to say….. that a car driver who goes through a light which has just turned red has a good excuse.
Lets just prove that nonsense wrong…… If a car is travelling at the speed limit on the approach to a set of traffic lights (which in itself is bad driving)….. in every posted speed limit…. the braking distance is always below the maximum distance that the car could physically be away from the traffic lights for the given posted speed limit given the 3 second amber phase.
For example at 20mph a car would travel 26.82m (in 3 seconds), stopping distance for the highway code is 12m, at 30 mph a car would travel 40.23m (in 3 seconds) stopping distance is 23m.
Therefore if a car is close enough not to be able to safely stop when the lights start to go amber they would still pass the light while it was on amber….. which guess what ….. means they haven’t run a red light.
So…. will you finally accept that a car that runs a red light….. ANY RED LIGHT is doing so criminally i.e. contrary to the law as stipulated in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Schedule 14 paragraph 5 sub sections 3, 4 5 and 6.
Now Nigel I also hope you will follow your own advice.
Have you got a day off or
Have you got a day off or something? You’re spending way to much time on trying to goad Nige into admitting something that everybody here knows they will never ever admit to… 😉
brooksby wrote:
As a matter of fact yes I do 😉
Garage at Large wrote:
Another exposure of your lies coming up.
The other day I showed you videos of car drivers running red lights. To which you responded….
Now the videos in question showed multiple drivers running red lights which had been red for at least 4 seconds (i.e. the time from the clip starting showing a red light to the offending driver and/or a green light to the recording driver)…. to the time the driver plowed through the red light.
So I can only assume that you don’t think a Red Light becomes established until it has been Red for more than 4 seconds…… which means….. wait for it…… drumroll…… if one of those drivers plowed through a red light, which in your own words has “just changed” 4 seconds ago…. they could quite easily hit and kill a pedestrian.
This kind of action simply
This kind of action simply isn’t sustainable or a good use of police resources.
Much better would be if London-based cyclists were used as a pilot for Nick Freeman’s registration tabard idea, along with adapted ANPR cameras to automate fines for law-breakers.
As evidenced by the high number of cyclists caught, despite a huge and visible police presence, such a scheme should help to bring in serious revenue for London’s economy, which has otherwise been devastated by Khan’s appalling profligacy and mismanagement.
Once data has been gathered from the pilot, we’ll get a much better idea as to whether the scheme should be rolled out nationally, or if it acts to reduce the number of people cycling.
I expect that London cyclists
I expect that London cyclists would turn down the offer of a tabbard for pretty much the same reasons you have for not wearing one.
It would obviously have to be
It would obviously have to be mandated, with £1,000 fines for cyclists who were caught without a legal tabard, in line with motorists who drive without a number plate.
Ah ha ha hah! They could fund
Ah ha ha hah! They could fund the exchequer if they enforced the £1000 fine for number plate infractions. Darkened plates have become a trending fashion accessory to match the illegally tinted front windows, whilst front number plates are entirely optional.
Not worth responding to.
Not worth responding to.
“However, others weren’t as
“However, others weren’t as impressed with the police’s work. One user asked the team “one day could you please send 14 officers to sit at the lights and look for phone drivers? A fiver says you’d get 18 in 10 minutes.”
The police responded: “We understand the risks posed by motorists using hand-held devices whilst driving. Our colleagues in the Traffic unit are dedicated to dealing with this daily.””
Why can cyclists jumping red lights be dealt with by ‘ordinary’ beat coppers, but motorists have to be dealt with by traffic officers?
Surely, in an event such as this, there is a briefing of the officers of what to look for … so if beat officers can be briefed on RLJ, why can’t they be breifed on mobile device use?
While I am against red light jumping – by any road user, except in order to escape from a life-threating situation – this does smell slightly of being a PR stunt rather than a serious attempt at road safety … sort of a Mr Loophole version of road safety.
It’s easy to establish
It’s easy to establish whether this action provided real value by looking at how many cyclists jumping red lights have actually caused accidents at that junction. Jumping a red light is not to be condoned, but to justify the resource being used here, it should have value against established targets (eg reduction in KSI). Otherwise it’s just a stunt to appease the gammons. The downside is that it drowns out the message that cyclists are vulnerable road users and bad drivers kill cyclists.
Given that cyclists are of
Given that cyclists are of course vulnerable, then perhaps it would be best if they didn’t go through red lights, eh?
I believe there was an
I believe there was an article/discussion on here recently about this.
IIRC relative to their modal share cyclists are over represented in collisions with pedestrians leading to KSI that involve RLJ.
Rich_cb wrote:
Really? Where’s the link?
I reckon you are spouting Nige-grade bollocks.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey
Actually, rich is completely
Actually, rich is completely correct. According to historical figures, cycling as a modal share is 2% of traffic, but accounts for well over that percentage for both RLJ and footpath collision KSI.
Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pedestrian_ksi_1_from_red_light_2#incoming-744343
I look forward to your retraction, apology, and acknowledgement of the facts.
Garage at Large wrote:
Have you been looking in the mirror again?
Meanwhile how many speeding drivers were ignored? Hundreds? Oh but of course, they are not responsible for pedestrian KSIs, it’s them pesky cyclists whodunnit.
I know it’s very irritating
@Garage at Large
I know it’s very irritating to see cyclists jumping red lights or breaking rules (as a law abiding cyclist and motorist I too find it frustrating) but you are missing by far the most important point. The guiding motivation for Police resources and increased legislation must always be (and sometimes is) directed at the consequences of those rules being broken. The table you have posted a link to does indeed show that cyclists may exceed their modal share of traffic involved in collisions with pedestrians, but what it much more starkly shows is that the number of fatalaties and serious injuries caused by motor vehicles outnumbers that of cyclists many many times over. That’s lives destroyed and families uttery devastated. In fact the first table shows that between 2005 and 2014 there were ZERO people killed by cyclists ‘disobeying automatic traffic signals’. Just consider that, zero lives lost to cyclists whilst 52 were killed by motor vehicles during the same period. 52 lives and families destroyed compared to zero.
The other table demonstrates that during the same period 5 people were killed on pavements by cyclists (an environment where they can legally co-exist) whilst 112 were killed by motor vehilcles. That’s killed ON THE PAVEMENT where motor vehicles have no place. 22 TIMES the number of deaths caused by cyclists.
So you see whilst your calling for tabards and arguing about the minutia of what constitutes ‘running a red light’ people are dying and familes are being devastated but almost entirely NOT by cyclists.
jaspersdog wrote:
Great post, although I fear pearls before swine . This mendacious troll cares not one jot about road safety or people getting killed. Discourse in good faith is not possible with them.
There was a brief Christmas
There was a brief Christmas truce – although not really discourse?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Missed that. I was on black and white stripe ops. Can’t really talk about it.
Well Nigel has provided a
Well Nigel has provided a link which then has further data apparently from someone at the someone at Road Safety Statistics, Statistics Travel and Safety, Department for Transport, as requested in 2015 by someone at the CTC (now Cycling UK). So worth looking at that then.
I haven’t done so. I’m a little surprised that they have the level of detail claimed and they’re producing figures that they didn’t already publish. Only because the official figures are normally rather broad-brush. However it’s possible that someone lower down the organisation has some “less official” and more detailed figures and is just being helpful.
There could be a number of factors / reasons here and what I’d take from this immediately is “our junctions could definitely be improved for the safety and convenience of those not in motor vehicles”. Not a surprise. Junctions are the most important parts of road systems for safety and the easiest to muck up. Best practice suggests that we need shorter waiting times to keep people from getting frustrated, that cyclists shouldn’t be mixed in with cars and that better designs avoid some lights entirely – or even send cars and bikes on completely different routes (with bikes getting the more direct links).
That sounds like a sensible
That sounds like a sensible attribution of scarce ressources. Not.
Ignoring all the usual
Ignoring all the usual bickering – the Police are doing their job and catching people breaking the law. Some may say their resources could be better applied elsewhere but that certainly doesn’t excuse the actions of the people caught breaking the law. It’s indefensible and, whether you choose to admit it or not, their actions result in us all being tarred with the same brush!
Well done Metropilitan police.
Gimpl wrote:
My bickering, as you describe it with Nigel, has nothing to do with the defense of cyclists who run red lights.
In fact I have absolutely no issues with such campaigns being run….. and the fact that so many cyclists have been caught is disappointing because it will simply give more fuel to the fire with regards to the opinion held by a small number of drivers that all cyclists run red lights.
I have always said that a red light is a red light which means that cyclists and motorists alike should stop…. but Nigel has this inherent fascination with lights which have only just turned red as if this is some excuse to be used by motorists to justify their lousy driving.
I’m going to put my neck out
I’m going to put my neck out here and defend Nige.
In law, I agree with you, there is no difference between a light that’s literally just turned red or a light that’s been red for a long period.
Prosecuting said offences is a different story. If a light has been red for 20 seconds and a road user goes through it the case is almost indefensible in normal circumstances. If the light has only just changed there are various loopholes and weasel words that can provide a defense and which have done so successfully in the past.
I’d love to see every single red light jumper prosecuted but I accept that there are better uses of public money than pursuing cases which have a relatively high likelihood of being lost.
De jure: All red lights are equal.
De facto: Some red lights are more equal than others!
Sure, but that’s just the
Sure, but that’s just the result of judicial drift, doubtless the result of years of loophole lawer actions.
It needs to be dragged back to square one again: green means go, not-green means don’t go.
Amber was always there for loophole lawyers, that’s their territory and they need to be reigned back in to amber. That is the domain for their “but it only just changed” excuse.
We need a few prosecutions for people going through on amber when it was clearly unnecessary (ie they accelerated unnecessarily the moment green extinguished, or where they simply tailed through behind the car in front). Doesn’t even matter much if the cases succeed or fail, so long as the battle ground is amber. Red, bang to rights guilty.
Like the summary. Don’t
Like the summary. Don’t agree entirely.
I’m not big into other folks going through red lights. Except I have done so on occasions myself and will likely continue. Examples: roadworks, normal lights not detecting me or ones I know the pattern for that are apparently not working.
I’m pretty sure there are few if absolutists on this – whatever mode. And it varies – I can’t remember going through a red light in a car with the exception of a few mistakes. I will on a bike – occasionally in specific circumstances. As a pedestrian, the red man definitely has “for information” status – unless I was with a child.
We just stick to our own codes – which are more or less a close fit to the actual law.
As mentioned before, there
As mentioned before, there are a wide range of “red-light jumping” behaviours. They seem to occur with different frequencies for different traffic modes. This is because they are driven by different motivations e.g. not just “I’m impatient and don’t care”. Importantly they are not equally dangerous.
Ideally some of these would be designed out. In simple terms – more often implemented in some other countries – if you’re not in a motor vehicle you don’t need traffic lights. Where there are no motor vehicles they’re unnecessary.
However since current UK reality is we very often have to deal with a mix of modes it ought to be policed on the basis of danger. With danger to others weighted slightly higher than danger to self. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to expect police to assess this without some fairly arbitrary guidelines though. Possible but onerous / definitely challengeable.
Police and prosecution is always a partial endeavor. The police are going to police the law – that’s reasonable. Except of course when they choose not to – either locally / informally (we’ll ignore these guys smoking weed unless they’re causing other issues or we’ve nothing better to do) or formally (effective decriminalisation e.g. we’ll not address driving onto pavement to park).
Obviously it’s where we want to put our money / focus. If there were injuries to people which appear to come from red-light jumping cyclists at a particular location it’s worth a crackdown. In general I believe this is a poor use of resources in terms of keeping people safe. Leaving aside that this is treating symptoms, not causes.
chrisonatrike wrote:
due to the apparently difficulties in getting sensors to notice cyclists (sometime not even motorbikes), there could just be a general rule for cyclists to treat red lights as a stop sign. Come to a complete stop, then if all ways are clear they may proceed. Saves all the hassle of trying to make the sensors work, and allows cyclists to pull away safely ahead of the race of motor vehicles.
Either that or they need to ensure that every traffic light on a sensor wil react to cyclists, or else remove all sensors and keep all lights on timers. The number of occasiosn where I have waited at an empty junction for an unreasonable length of time before the lights change magically when a car arrives leads me not to trust the lights where I see any indication they may be sensor controlled.
Rich_cb wrote:
My disagreement with Nigel is simply down to his inherent opinion that motorists should always be given the benefit of the doubt….. but cyclists should never be given the benefit of the doubt.
Every single time it is shown drivers jumping red lights Nigel has routinely defended motorists. The last time the subject of red light jumping cropped up on here….. I provided video evidence in the form of youtube clips….. in one video the first 3 clips showed drivers passing red lights which had been red for 2 seconds, 4 seconds and 4 seconds respectively and in one instance a driver who had stopped at a red light next ot a police car pulled away while the lights were on red, and this was the reply I got.
You’ve taken my quote out of
You’ve taken my quote out of context, and I certainly do not have an “inherent opinion that motorists should always be given the benefit of the doubt….. but cyclists should never be given the benefit of the doubt”.
I frequently write that a cyclist is correct and a motorist is wrong – in fact I did so just a few minutes ago on today’s blog. It doesn’t change the fact that, in law, it’s more difficult to prosecute someone crossing a just-turned red light than an established red, and that cyclists are far more likely to indulge in the latter.
I can only repeat the fantastic two sentences that rich_cb wrote, which eloquently summarise my position:
We are so lucky to have rich_cb grace this website – long may he reign over us!
Garage at Large wrote:
Nigel you really think the full quote is going to help your cause? Because here is the full quote.
What I’m talking about is hoardes of motorists driving maniacally at people like this: https://youtu.be/jzQRexswK4w— Garage at Large
You asked for evidence of drivers running red lights… which I gave.
You then said that the videos never showed red light jumping only drivers gambling on lights which had just changed or innocent drivers making errors of judgement…… and then provided a link to a clip in typical Nige whataboutery showing bad cycling.
As I then said in a lot of cases the drivers were running red lights which had been red for AT LEAST 4 seconds.
And it’s interesting how you went on to argue that the evidence I gave you of motorists isn’t indicative of motorists as a whole yet you provide a single video of one group of badly behaved children on bikes which isn’t indicatve of cylists as a whole as if to back up your assertion that all cyclists are reckless.
I don’t know about you…. reading your full comment….. it seems like it can be summarised as “Motorists make mistakes…..cyclists are reckless”
Or am I missing something?
Fantastically argued. I
Fantastically argued. I couldn’t have written it better myself.
Nige….. just going back to
Nige….. just going back to your posts from the other day…. Lets just examine another one of your gem’s that I missed amongst all of your other irrelevant noise…..
Now I’m guessing I am taking your comments out of context by challenging your rhetoric…. but here goes.
I’m guessing you just saw the tag line for the video clip and failed to watch it? Who knows but it definitely seems that way.
In the video there was one cyclist who went to pass through the zebra crossing when there were pedestrians on it…… BUT and this is a big BUT….. there were another 6 cyclists ( possibly more behind the cammer) who actually stopped.
I suppose that you will argue that 14% is a good chance that all cyclists will ignore the Zebra crossing. Was the cyclist who raced through the Zebra Crossing a d!ck? yes they were.
But back to what I was saying earlier….. a growing number of people use instances of bad cycling to attempt to vilify all cyclists like you repeatedly try to do. All the while attempting justify indescretions by motorists.
But to play devils advocate, the way that you do with lots of the close pass videos on here. Do you not think that the pedestrian in that case went looking for an argument with the cyclist? I mean if they had just kept walking the cyclist would have passed behind them…. therefore Nigel Logic dictates that the pedestrian is in the wrong.
And where is your ire for the black cab driver on the opposite side of the road who did exactly the same thing? They never even slowed down for the zebra crossing, and went straight through despite the pedestrian who challenged the cyclist being just over half way across the opposite side of the road at the time the entered the crossing.
So 6 of 7 cyclists stopped,
So 6 of 7 cyclists stopped, while 0 of 1 taxis stopped.
also noting that in this clip the cyclist who goes through the crossing is intending to pass beind the pedestrians who are crossing. He has not impeded their journey or significantly endangered them until one pedestrian takes exception and jumps in his path. The same pedestrian circled in the still, who had no issues with identical behaviour from the taxi driver.
Cyclists being held to a higher standard than drivers.
It’s worth noting that the
It’s worth noting that the actual law (the excitingly named The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations ’97) simply states that vehicles (which includes cycles) must ‘afford precedence’ to pedestrians on the crossing and requires that pedestrians proceed with ‘reasonable dispatch’.
Passing behind a pedestrian would, in fact, be entirely legal.
They understand this in the
They understand this in the Netherlands, where cyclists passing people crossing on pedestrian crossings is a quotidien occurrence. The pedestrian and cyclist eyeball each other and each slightly adjusts their speed. Normally how it works is if the pedestrian is already crossing the cyclists checks slightly and passes behind.
That’s why even in the UK when I see someone striding confidently across a crossing wearing orange and listening to “Het Wilhelmus” I pass the Dutchie on the left hand side.
TriTaxMan wrote:
At the time the Met Police said: ‘A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration) but must “accord precedence” i.e. allow a pedestrian to cross first unless the pedestrian is on the opposite carriageway and there is a central island. On the face of it, this rider may have intended to pass behind the pedestrian who confronted him.’
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yeah that’s my reading of the situation. The cyclist seemed to be aiming to go behind the pedestrian, but they were spotted by the pedestrian who must not have had their coffee or something before their walk to work…..
Rich_cb wrote:
If a light is only just turned red, it was been amber for 3 seconds, which also means stop. It’s not like drivers are caught out by the light changing.
wycombewheeler wrote:
If a light is only just turned red, it was been amber for 3 seconds, which also means stop. It’s not like drivers are caught out by the light changing.— Rich_cb
I’m sure wtjs will be along in defence of the motorists surprised by changing lights – possibly with illustrations…
18, in over an hour, that’s
18, in over an hour, that’s not really a lot though, and with 14 officers that’s several on every exit to the junction, not exactly every cyclist is it.
I live close to a juntion
I live close to a juntion with a few sets of lights, filter lanes etc and I would easily catch the same number of motorists or more, red light jumping over the same time period.
Once one car slips through on amber a whole string follow them through and around here many drivers do not stop for crossing lights if no one is waiting to cross.
Of course this is considered perfectly acceptable but it is different when it those non road tax paying cyclists.
yupiteru wrote:
This is a direct result of car first thinking in infrastructure design. When the button is pressed the lights should change unless there has been a red light phase in the last minute.
There is no good reason for a 30s or 60s delay from pressing the beg button to the lights changing. Whenever they change there is an equal chance of a driver having to stop.
I have no problem waiting x time to cross if I have just missed a crossing phase. I do object being arbitrarily made to wait because a driver who has not reached the crossing yet (or may not even exist) is prioritised over a pedestrian at the crossing now.
I don’t have an issue with stopping rule breaking cyclists, but 14 officers for an hour and a half to catch only 18 cyclists? That’s just over 1hr 10 of police time for each infraction. Do we really think officers watching drivers would need to spend 70 minutes watching before they saw an offence?
True. Most beg buttons on
True. Most beg buttons on traffic lights controlling a junction don’t make the lights change (as many motorists seem to think they do), but just slot a ‘pedestrian’ phase at some point in the next cycle of lights.
brooksby wrote:
So there are three types of pedestrian crossing lights
1) pedestrian crossing only, on a single road – there should never be a delay here except as mentioned before, but there frequently is. I object strongly to this.
2) pedestrian crossing at a junction where there would not otherwise be a red (such as exit from a roundabout/crossroads, in this case there may need to be some slotting in, so the pedestrian phase does not cause the junction to be clogged. This would also apply where there is a single crossing without an island in the middle.
3) pedestrian crossing where the drivers would be stopped anyway (such as entrance to a roundabout/crossroads). here the green man should just come up whenever the red comes up anyway, and there should not even be a button. Placebo button mind games are not helpful.
The ones I was thinking of
The ones I was thinking of are on the A369 and are junctions where you’ve got traffic coming onto and leaving a main road. Each traffic arm gets a red light phase and a green light phase, obviously. There are beg buttons for pedestrians. If you press the button, you get slotted in at the same point in the cycle so it is clearly not ‘forcing’ the lights to change in your favour (you can end up waiting for what feels like ages, if you press the button at the wrong point in the cycle). But if you don’t press the button, there is no pedestrian phase at all (I’ve tried it!).
There are some lights on
There are some lights on feeder roads onto the huge roundabout at winersh triangle, where the cars have to stop anyway, where there are beg buttons which you have to use to get a green man, but they could just give a green man when the cars have stopped and no beg button needed, but they don’t.
Toucan crossings of course so green bicycle as well as man, but afterthoughts I think so no red bicycle.
All for cars, less thoughts for Peds and cyclists too terrified to use the ridiculous roundabout, it’s one of those with a road straight through the middle.
In fact the whole of the cycle route down the Wokingham road was all a bit pants.
There is a dedicated set of
There is a dedicated set of crossing lights across the A34 by the M42 J4 which go across the 6 lane dual carriageway, between a business park with nature reserve and Tesco.
The wait from press to cross is at least 2 minutes, which means that typically there are sufficient gaps in traffic to cross. I’ll watch to see when they change after I’ve crossed and often I haven’t seen it happen before they are out of sight.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Indeed. I have a pedestrian crossing near my house which I use frequently when walking the dog and it confirms your car first thinking of infrastructure.
I can clearly see the traffic lights for just under 200m as I walk towards them and invariably they are green the entire time it takes me to walk to the lights. I press the beg button…… and the lights stay green until no cars are within 30m or so of the lights…. eventually they will turn red for the traffic.
When they run an operation
When they run an operation targeting drivers, drivers say “but what about cyclists”. When they run an operation targeting cyclists, cyclists say “but what about drivers”. Often they do run both in a short space of time, but I don’t understand why they don’t they run a combined operation – one location, with half the officers targeting offences by cyclists, and half targeting those by drivers. I suppose one answer is that different locations attract different offences.
quiff wrote:
That could give some interesting stats.
Good – the frequency of RLJ
Good – the frequency of RLJ amongst cyclists in London is way higher than people on sites like this like to admit.
I ride to work every day, and if cyclists can get away without crossing a perpendicular stream of traffic, plenty will go through the red. I see people cutting through groups of pedestrians, even amongst children.
I walk my boy to nursery every morning, and cross a busy pelican crossing at Balham High Road. I have to have my head on a swivel as a stream of riders take their chances with our safety, riding out from alongside a bus barely even slowing. I regularly get shouted at.
SO many comments on this article are from cyclists with their head in the sand about this problem.
They’re saying either:
1. Whatabout drivers?
well yes – but also whatabout other unrelated things?? We need to fix our own house.
2. Is this a proportionate use of police time vs tacklingdriver phone usage for example?
Sure. But this is a stupid argument – taken to its logical conclusion, maybe all police should concentrate solely on murders and good luck getting any police action on more minor things.
3. These RLJers aren’t knocking down people, so it’s not so bad.
Sure – the frequency of serious incidents is v low. But one thing is certain is that making pedestrians have to think twice to cross the road on a green man, and feel unsafe doing what they ought to be able to do without caution is a problem. I feel the only way you could make this argument is if you yourself are guilty of doing this regularly.
ts437 wrote:
Unfortunately, many cyclists are killed by inattentive drivers and yet we see insufficient enforcement of the relevant laws – that’s why there is a legitimate complaint that the police may be performing a PR exercise.
I don’t have a problem with police switching tactics and performing ad-hoc enforcement of different areas and catching RLJers, but they need to ensure that they are also dealing with the most dangerous crimes.
And yes, pedestrians should not have to be wary when crossing at a green man.
You get the feeling it’s a
You get the feeling it’s a post Highway Code change reaction , and it’ll be fine as long as they respond proportionately regarding the other groups affected by changes
Aberdeencyclist wrote:
Except that the media has already moved on to the next news cycle and completely wiped the HC changes from their collective attention and memory…
Ime most people on these
Ime most people on these types of sites recognise RLJ by people riding bicycles in London is an issue, and the impact it does have on making pedestrians feel unsafe walking around. I dont have an issue with the police targeting cyclists who break rules in this way.
But most of us also accept drivers of vehicles RLJ is also a problem, which makes pedestrians & cyclists & other vulnerable road users feel unsafe and does lead to crashes which injure people. There are several junctions I ride through frequently (when green), where there can be 2-3 cars per light change still crossing on a red light whilst the lights are already green for the other directions and this isnt in some urban city location with high volumes of traffic and congestion hold up, it’s in small rural market towns where populations barely hit 10s of thousands and drivers know theyll never be caught for it and cant wait the odd minute, youd easily capture 18 drivers in 90mins.
So I’d hope any police targeted action on RLJ didnt ignore modes of transport its “harder” for them to stop and treated all RLJ as a problem they needed to be dealing with. They only needed to borrow a SafetyCam van, and prosecution is as simple as sticking a stamp on a letter.
It depends what you think is the bigger problem.
100% agree. And of course
100% agree. And of course older people live in fear of their next “fall” (as in, grandad had a fall today). That’s a broken hip, often it’s the down-payment on their exit ticket. So the “its not as bad being hit by a cyclist” line doesn’t wash. If the light isn’t green then stop.
That said, maybe there is scope for cycle lanes to have a protected filter lane through some lights, like side feeder lanes at some roundabouts. But until that day, cyclists are just going to have to respect the lights (assuming the lights recognise their presence, which I don’t see being a problem in London as there will always be a car there anyway).
ts437 wrote:
The question is about priorities, not simply whataboutism. Police resources are limited, so sending 14 officers to police a set of lights to ticket cyclists running through the red lights seems like a disproportionate response to an issue that causes minor risk to others in comparison with things that don’t get that sort of attention (such as phone use … cyclingmikey would not need to do what he does if the police did this sort of thing to counter that much more risky activity).
Also … in terms of your “logical conclusion” article argument …
My house was burgled a few years ago, with the thieves leaving the place insecure and making off with several thousand pounds worth of musical instruments, gadgets and a number of unreplaceable items. Police response?
They emailed me a questionnaire and when I returned it they sent a crime number to claim on the insurance and advised me there would be no active investigation but they would let me know if they happened to come across anything relevant.
Seems to me they already concentrate on the stuff they want to and good luck getting any police action on minro things.
Incidentally, I don’t consider someone breaking into my house a “minor thing”.
Police resources are limited,
Police resources are limited, so sending 14 officers to police a set of lights to ticket cyclists running through the red lights seems like a disproportionate response
Which makes the wasting of Lancashire police time by not doing anything about black Astra ML60 YMP (I have tried to provide some variety in these offences) crashing the red lights at 50mph all the more culpable- the amount of time they have had to waste dealing with my harassment is much more than they saved by simply ignoring these cases. I have provided evidence of numerous red light offences by motorists at these lights, but I can’t find any evidence of a gaggle of officers in super-viz turning up to not detect any RLJ offences
wtjs wrote:
I wonder if GAL will accept that this set of traffic lights is somewhere it can be proved that drivers repeatedly run red lights in a dangerous manner…… sufficent for him to accept that he must eat his hat.
Because from my perspective it meets all of his criteria….. that drivers consistenly run red lights at the junction. The motorists are driving maniacally through a junction at 50mph.
But no doubt he will cling to the excuse that the drivers only ever crash through the lights at 50mph because they have recently changed to red…… now given his previous comments he considers that a red light showing for anything less than 4 seconds is a “recently established red light”.
Rendel claimed that the Met
Rendel claimed that the Met won’t even consider action unless the offender crosses the stop line over 3 seconds after the lights turned red. This proved to be incorrect, but he seemed quite happy with that degree of laxity- which would allow 6 seconds after these Garstang ones turned amber. Even Lancashire Constabulary daren’t admit in writing to a policy of ‘allowing x seconds after the lights turned red’ even when x is a fraction less than 1- their usual dodge is to simply ignore RLJ offences rather than ‘NFA-ing’ them. At the 50-60+mph the A6 offenders usually crash through the lights they’re not even on the frame when the lights turn red. A 4 second ‘allowance’ would result in collisions and serious injury or death
Which bit was incorrect? as I
Which bit was incorrect? as I’d swear I’d heard DCS Andy Cox of the Met had stated thats the case in London, either in the podcast he did or via some social media q&a
wtjs wrote:
I can’t be arsed to search through and find to what comment of mine you’re referring (Road.cc, it would be really good if there was a “search by commenter” function as most websites have with their comment sections) but I am most certainly not happy with that (I don’t know how that was proved incorrect either, it was what I was told by a copper) – I have numerous examples of egregious RLJs that I think should be sanctioned but that I haven’t submitted because I know no action will be taken.
I can do better than that, I
I can do better than that, I know where that particular set of traffic lights is on the A6 in Garatang. I sometimes pass through them on the way to Scorton and through to the Trough of Bowland.
I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I’ve never seen a single motorist drive through those lights on red, so if wtjs hasn’t manipulated the photo it must be a rare occurrence indeed.
If a motorist did illegally go through on red, it wouldn’t have been established for any length of time because this junction is busy and be too dangerous to take any large risk (and therefore be unlikely to prosecute).
Garage at Large wrote:
Nigel that has to be one of the most unhinged and utterly indefensible statements you have made.
Firstly you state that you “sometimes pass through” the same traffic lights that wtjs regularly posts images of vehicles who drive throught the lights at speed. And because you drive through there “sometimes” and you haven’t seen any red light jumping….. therefore it is a “rare occurrence indeed”.
Second of all you are accusing someone, without any basis in fact, of manipulating photographs (I’m pretty sure wtjs has provided dozens of photgraphs over the last few months). All because his photgraphs show something that you have decided in your world of alternative facts has been manipulated.
Thirdly you are continuing on with this fallacy of the light not being established for any length of time. As if it makes any difference at all.
Don’t worry though….. I will make sure that everyone sees your unhinged diatribe against wtjs the internet is for ever
Garage at Large wrote:
If I had a shot for every vehicle jumping the lights below my flat I would be in a permanent drunken stupor. I see them floor it from about 50 metres out. By the time they cross the studs at the other side they can be doing nearly 50mph. I’ve watched them consistently go through reds that are pretty much established. If you can’t recognise an amber from 50 metres out you really should not hold a licence. I can take you round pretty much every junction in the area and you will see the same phenomenon. The only junction that is respected is the one by the police station.
giff77 wrote:
Come now giff….. that doesn’t count in QAnon Garage’s mind….. Because the lights only recently changed and it’s perfectly acceptable for drivers to floor it to get through a recently changed red light because they know that pedestrians wont be crossing for another 3 seconds
But I’m confused here. Do
But I’m confused here. Do they not pay big money for lessons, insurance, registration and all that to ensure they don’t make crappy decisions on the road.
giff77 wrote:
Yeah that’s what we are led to believe anyway.
Cycling Mikey doesn’t ‘need’
Cycling Mikey doesn’t ‘need’ to do what he does.. he does it it because he enjoys being a self-appointed law enforcer.
grOg wrote:
Whoa, there! That there’s fightin’ talk round these parts! 😉
Cycling Mikey doesn’t ‘need’
Cycling Mikey doesn’t ‘need’ to do what he does.. he does it it because he enjoys being a self-appointed law enforcer
Well, I’ll stand up in favour of CM!
Except. He doesn’t take any
Except. He doesn’t take any enjoyment out of it. In fact he would rather not have to challenge people for their behaviours and go through the whole hassle of editing and reporting to the police.
grOg wrote:
Except that he doesn’t enforce laws, he simply reports law breaking to the police with appropriate evidence. This is what members of the public should do and the police encourages responsible crime reporting.
the police encourages
the police encourages responsible crime reporting
That’s very charitable of you! Actually, they really bloody hate cyclists who report traffic offences but they still have to write, with teeth gritted to the maximum, Dear Mr …, thank you for your report…
ts437 wrote:
Definitely seems to be more of an issue in London than where I live (not all that far from London). Although 18 in 90 minutes – that’s only one every five minutes. I am pretty sure that if I picked any traffic light controlled junction if could record more than one motorist commiting a traffic light offence every 5 minutes.
Though perhaps the conspicuous police presence was a deterrent and/or maybe only 18 stopped when instructed by the officers.
Most cyclists that run red
Most cyclists that run red lights my way are typically yobs, not the lycra set; the yob cyclist element is easily identified in Australia, as they never wear helmets or hi-vis and never use lights when riding at night.
ts437 wrote:
After three years of daily cycle commute in central London I completely recognise the minority of cyclists that RLJ.
I suspect that most are occasional cycle users (Boris Bike) or the terminally stupid who imagine that the rules don’t apply to them.
So given that occasional cycle users do not use this site nor have any sense of community so responsibility for vulnerable road users, how do we change behaviour?
It seems that #VisionZero is attempting that and enforcement is a part of the vision.
One off or infrequent efforts probably won’t change behaviour so affordable alternatives need to be found.
Bus lane enforcement is video automated but only works because of motor vehicle registration. So a non-starter for cyclists.
Would registration for cyclists and video at every traffic light be proportional to the issue? I doubt that.
Making RLJ for all modes as socially acceptable as drink driving or paedophelia?
There’s a fundamental problem
There’s a fundamental problem with traffic lights, they only exist because of motorized traffic.
Yes, but life as we know it
Yes, but life as we know it today cannot exist without motorised traffic , even if it’s restricted to buses and delivery vehicles. So traffic lights it is .
I think the point is we could
I think the point is we could do this all much better even with the existence of motorised traffic. Even from where we are. Here we have a very busy location with pedestrians, mobility vehicles, cyclists interacting – and no need for lights:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-busiest-cycleway-in-the-netherlands/
We’ve just chosen and continue to choose to design infrastructure around motorised traffic and only then fit everyone else around that. This is probably even a more expensive way to do things since we then need to add lots of measures to keep pedestrians / cyclists safe. These are not the best way of keeping people not in cars safe, don’t make people feel safe and absolutely don’t make it convenient for them. They don’t even make it particularly convenient for motorists.
It’s just a different perspective. Traffic lights are for motor vehicles. Pedestrian crossings are for motor vehicles. Ludicrous? Even in the UK currently there are many places we arrange it so pedestrians don’t have to interact with cars. Or motor vehicles don’t have to interact with pedestrians / cyclists (motorways).
There will always be some interaction between modes. But it really is about who we choose to prioritise and how we design for everyone. What we have now is not what must be. And there are even paths from here to more efficient and equitable designs of our roads and streets.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to know if the 18 cyclists started early before lights were green, or chanced the lights turning red. Going early is often used for safety when there are baying drivers behind and a narrowing of the road on the other side of the junction. It would then be an argument to install an ASL or priority light. If they were caught crossing after red, what was the time delay between green, amber and red and is it sufficient to allow a cyclist that started to cross when green. I have been caught out on a long junction using a slow cargo bike where the opposing traffic started coming at me whilst I was still crossing and had definitely set off when it was green. I would be tempted to ask for this to be tested if I was one of the 18, unless of course they completely ignored a solid red light in which case they are a moron.
Muddy Ford wrote:
You mean – was it an ‘established’ red light?
brooksby wrote:
I mean the intent is different. Cyclist either wants to get ahead of the queue behind so as to be more visible and therefore makes a premature start, or the cyclist doesnt want to have to stop in order to get going again. I would imagine that most cyclists that jump the amber, green are very familiar with the light sequence at the junction.
There’s a junction my way
There’s a junction my way that I’ll leave about a second or two before it changes from red. The road has a bend with illegally parked cars and the surface is pretty badly cut up that takes up about a car width and runs for about 100 metres. The change occurs after the pedestrian phase. My moving off gives me distance and allows me to hold an even stronger position as I need to be right out to the white line.
It’s the only set of lights I do this and only when the driver behind has rolled right up to my wheel. If they keep their distance or there’s nothing I wait for green. It’s pretty much a call on self preservation as I will be forced into parked cars/pot holes or receive a close pass. it’s not right and I don’t like doing it. Unfortunately my hand is forced because motorists would rather bully me otherwise. Hopefully the new HC will change things.
giff77 wrote:
If you do wait for the green,
If you do wait for the green, as you are supposed to, you’d be flattened, because the lead car will move off the moment amber lights up, which is to say whilst the red light is still showing. So the truth is, almost every light every time is passed with red still showing.
Pretty much. I’ve seen guys
Pretty much. I’ve seen guys ahead of me pull up and hold the rails and not clip out to end up being boxed in and forced to stop or deal with the crap road after moving off. These same lights have drivers moving with amber/red which is why I want the jump on them.
On the whole red lights thing
On the whole red lights thing, I wanna tell you a story.
Riding home last night I got to the traffic lights at the end of Suspension Bridge Road, here – https://goo.gl/maps/WtCbKKwX5DFkZMjx9
The road you can see going left to right is the A369. This streetview point is just beyond the actual traffic lights and ASL.
Just out of shot on the A369, to the left, is a bus stop.
I wanted to go straight over, to go right onto a shared use path alongside the A369.
I was waiting at the red lights, and there was a bus at the bus stop so cars were (obviously!) beginning to back up behind it rather than waiting behind their stop line until they could clearly get across the junction.
My lights went to green and I started to move. As I did so, a small white van came across from the right and waited behind the other waiting cars, sitting right across my lane to do so. As I got level with him and started to pass in front of him, the bus started to move and the other cars all followed it. But van driver had to wait because I was passing in front of him.
And then – and this is the kicker – he shook his head at me!
As if I was the one who’d gone through a red light!
Ripley : Did IQs just drop
Ripley : Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?
Awavey: Which bit was incorrect? as I’d swear I’d heard DCS Andy Cox of the Met had stated thats the case in London, either in the podcast he did or via some social media q&a
In that topic, I provided a link to Cyclingmikey’s YouTube video and his statement that the Met had ‘acted’ against the RLJ offender of a lot less than 3 seconds. I’ll back that against your unsupported ‘swearing’. You’d have to be a pretty barmy police officer, and a really deranged DCS, to leave a hostage to fortune in the form of a ‘we don’t bother about red light offences of 3 seconds or less’, because 3 seconds is a very long time at TLs where people are hammering across at 60mph- there must be some of those in the Met’s jurisdiction?
there are over 107 comments
there are over 107 comments in this article alone, apologies for not reading, remembering & keeping ontop of every exact detail of them.
Just a simple repeat of that detail to answer my question, would have sufficed.
A useful cycling tip here is.
A useful cycling tip here is. Dont cycle through red lights. If the law changes (maybe turn left on red) then you can. If you arrive at the light as it goes red and your going to fast to stop you get a special free pass. Actually if you can’t stop your cycing like a div . Be fined and I have no sympathy.
Quote:
Shouldn’t it be ‘as it goes amber’?
Anyhoo – presumably the same guideline would apply to motorists? (Yes, I am aware that is a Premium Whatabout, but I thought I’d check…)
Yes the guidline should apply
Yes the guidline should apply to motorists.
Cyclists and motorists jump red IMO in different ways. Some cyclists will just cycle through a red regarding as a give way or warning where most car red light jumpers are going through as or just after it goes red.
But none of it matters . bike or car go through on red its an offense.
nicmason wrote:
This behaviour seems to relate to unwillingness to stop and start again [weakness?] in London by ‘Boris Bike’ users who by definition are mostly non-owners of a bicycle so haven’t been trained or thought about the consequences of their behaviour. The Advanced Stop Line makes this behaviour more of a risk because cyclists are stopped there so that the law breakers attempt to ride between them to RLJ. That’s a close pass nobody deserves.
I would even welcome motorcycle riders using the ASL (off side) because their size and weight makes it apparent that there is no way through, though clearly the ASL is not for them.
The mainstream media lie that all cyclists jump red lights means that it does matter more that as cyclists we do not red light jump.
Pedestrians should not be in fear of unsafe crossing, and drivists should not be given any reason to disrespect our safety.
I stopped speaking to RLJ offenders as I rode by since they were usually defensive to the point of profanity. So I welcome the Met doing a PR exercise to remind the stupid minority that RLJ is not acceptable, and some observation skills are required.
Hope the FPN fines go some way to pay for the action. I’m just sorry this is not normal traffic safety policing.
lonpfrb wrote:
Whether or not I decide to jump through red lights has no influence on the tripe that the MSM publishes about cyclists. Even if every single person in the world pledged to not jump red lights whilst on a bike it would make no difference. Listening and responding to the fake concerns of the MSM is very similar to appeasement which simply does not work in the real world.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Whether or not I decide to jump through red lights has no influence on the tripe that the MSM publishes about cyclists. Even if every single person in the world pledged to not jump red lights whilst on a bike it would make no difference. Listening and responding to the fake concerns of the MSM is very similar to appeasement which simply does not work in the real world.— lonpfrb
It would demonstrate that the MSM is not grounded in fact, rather provide click bait aimed at confirming the prejudice of their readers. So there’s a small chance that some might question the reality, and why that is different.
Regardless of the media aspects, it is the right action to put the safety of others and self first as vulnerable road users. The hierarchy of responsibility makes that clear.
So appeasement is not the motivation rather safe travel for all.
#VisioZero #TravelKind
lonpfrb wrote:
Regardless of the media aspects, it is the right action to put the safety of others and self first as vulnerable road users. The hierarchy of responsibility makes that clear.
So appeasement is not the motivation rather safe travel for all.
#VisioZero #TravelKind— lonpfrb
I agree with using safety as the motivator for decent roadcraft, rather than your MSM argument which I don’t agree with at all (if anything, the MSM makes me want to deliberately wind up drivers).
I think the RLJ issue should be re-framed into investigating the reasons behind RLJing. With motorists, RLJing seems to boil down to impatience as most infractions are going through the lights late and at speed (trying to beat the red).
However, cyclists have a different pattern (in addition to trying to beat the red) and often will go through a red that’s been established for quite some time, or even slow, stop and then go through the red. That signifies that the junction has been poorly designed for cyclists and that maybe they are being stopped just because it is unsafe for large motor vehicles to progress.
A don’t make a habit of
A don’t make a habit of jumping a red except for this one and I’ve explained the circumstances. On occasion I’ve received a brutal punishment pass as I’ve been passing the illegally parked vehicles. Other times I’ve received an underpass due to my being so far out to avoid the potholes.
I will hold my hands up to running a light because the mirror and shoulder check have determined the driver behind is a car length and I don’t want the last noise I hear being a screech of brakes.
A car was able to pass you on
A car was able to pass you on the left because you were avoiding a pothole? that must have been a monster pothole..
Road pot holes and poorly
Road pot holes and poorly repaired. Also to the right of the image is a 100m longe gouge that perfectly holds a 36mm tyre. Go to the left you’re in the door zone. To ensure you’re to the right you need to be at the line passing the junction. The pic is where the undertake occurred followed by a cut up to make a point. I don’t like driving my car over this patch. I’m sure not cycling over it. It has also deteriorated since this Google image and council have done nothing.
Be fined and I have no
Be fined and I have no sympathy
Just as long as it’s not only cyclists who are fined! None of the really blatant RLJ offences I have reported in Lancashire are known by me to have been fined- several have been on the joke online course (which, I admit, costs money but doesn’t cost any points). Most of them result in no response at all- recently, it’s all non-penalty penalties where they won’t tell you what they did- this means they did essentially nothing.
You have to be a special kind
You have to be a special kind of dumb to go through a red light with 14 hi vis wearing police officers standing around.
Should have tried the “I
Should have tried the “I panicked – because of all the police” line. Sure I’ve heard that somewhere.
Of course, there is a legal
Of course, there is a legal way to go through a red light with a bike – dismount.
If I get trapped by a dodgy temporary light, I’ll dismount, walk through and use the pavement or walk behind cones. I’ll then remount at whatever point appears safe, the offence is passing the red light, though obviously don’t want to get in legitimate light users way, including if the lights end up changing – I’m usually quite happy to be out of the way of motorists who are already frustrated by the lights and annoyed that cyclists don’t have the courtesy to give way to them (though many are the temporary road works where I’ll be held up by cars).
I’m glad they’re dealing with
I’m glad they’re dealing with this.
Because if they don’t, at some point the idiots in govt will try to put a numberplate on my bike, like they attempted to in Italy.
So that’s FIVE numberplates in total. FFS.
Vo2Maxi wrote:
Doubt it. Even with a large majority and apparently willingness to go for things appealing to some of their core supporters the government has explicitly dismissed this idea – more than once IIRC.
That’s not to say it *couldn’t* happen (some core recent policies of current lot I’d personally have put in the “wildly improbable” category a few years ago ). I think you’re safe for the near future though, whatever some other people do.
Also – busting RLJ cyclists
Also – busting RLJ cyclists will cheer some but will do nothing to change the opinion of those vexed by cyclists.
In life, reputations are
In life, reputations are generally earned. I don’t want RLJ giving ME a bad reputation, thank you very much.
In life, reputations are
In life, reputations are generally earned. I don’t want RLJ giving ME a bad reputation, thank you very much
Try not to torture yourself too much- where car drivers are the offenders, the police view (in Lancashire, at least) is that ‘everybody does it, so it’s completely OK if there’s no collision’, and that ‘reputation’ doesn’t seem to have unduly traumatised drivers. The dodge the police use is ‘risk based action’- the same trick they use for absolving drivers for close-passing cyclists: No Collision = No Offence. All of these cases resulted in no response from Lancashire Constabulary and no action, despite all registrations being identified- most people on here have seen most of these before
https://upride.cc/incident/lc11vep_kiavenga_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/px68nhc_toyotatrailer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/yd18knj_vwgolf_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/f2yny_rangerover_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/pe62gyb_agila_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/mf09hyk_chevroletaveo_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/dl66xgz_lcctraffic_redlightpass/
In Lancashire, even the County Council Highways Department don’t bother about red lights
https://upride.cc/incident/vo12hxu_berlingo_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/pn68kpg_hiluxtrailer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
https://upride.cc/incident/pk68zfl_32tonnetipper_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/ds6972_porsche_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/ye10aju_mini_redlightcross/
Pedantry – by your first
Pedantry – by your first sentence surely all you have to do is not jump red lights and *your* reputation will remain unblemished?
Or are we talking about stereotypes here? To avoid repetition, there is a Bad Cyclist stereotype- and there are some Bad Cyclists. I wouldn’t suggest reinforcing it. However the stereotype will almost certainly remain regardless of how you and all cyclists you know behave.
There are plenty of examples of the stubborn persistence of largely unjustified negative stereotypes.
And another thing. When I go
And another thing. When I go out on my bicycle I always wear my personal tabard and hang my car registration plate from my neck. Whenever I see another cyclist I shout ” Oy! Tabard” They usually look at me in surprise and then give a cheery wave. I like to think I’m getting through to these thickos with their hive minds. If anyone wants to copy my fine example they can do, it’s not hard
And another thing. These
And another thing. These protestors have now disrupted the Proms! I can’t believe it. I know some working class people – well, not personally, who have been saving up all year to go and wave their little flags around. Shame on you JSO! I had a contretemps with some liberal lefties the other day – they were saying ”Ooh this tory government is rubbish”. I had to point out to them if it wasn’t for this government we wouldn’t have any of these food banks that people rely on. That soon shut them up I can tell you. Anyway back in the olden days my granddad got off his backside and got on his bike looking for work. Oh and Victorian values are great I think. Hot buttered scones for tea, lashings of ginger beer. Yay!