A group ride in Surrey was stopped by police this weekend, with all four cyclists issued fixed penalty notices after “contravening a red traffic light”.
In footage shared on social media by Surrey RoadSafe, a partnership between the county’s police force and council “working to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on Surrey roads”, the group of four riders are seen at the front of a queue of stationary traffic at a junction in Esher.
#VanguardRST stopped these 4 cyclists in Esher after they were observed contravening a red traffic light. FPN’s issued to all.#vulnerableroadusers #fatal5 pic.twitter.com/np612MNx62
— Surrey RoadSafe (@SurreyRS) January 14, 2024
Turning right off Copsem Lane (A244) onto Milbourne Lane, the traffic lights are seen on red when the group made the turn at 8:40am on Saturday 13 January, according to the date and time seen on the police car’s recording system.
As the riders made the right turn a police vehicle was being driven just behind, the driver rolling up to the stop line as the group turned across the junction, the police following moments before the group was stopped and issued fixed penalty notices.
“Vanguard Road Safety Team stopped these four cyclists in Esher after they were observed contravening a red traffic light,” Surrey RoadSafe told followers on social media. “FPNs issued to all.”
The video has been viewed more than 75,000 times since it was uploaded to social media this morning, sparking hundreds of replies. Some have questioned why the force chose to share a video showing the group already across the stop line, cycling lawyer for Leigh Day law firm Rory McCarron suggesting it would be “surely more dangerous for them to wait in the junction?”
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
“Why is this video unnecessarily cropped to show the cyclists already passed the stop line and not crossing this when the light is red?” he asked. “Surely more dangerous for them to wait in the junction? Highway Code: ‘Red means ‘Stop’. Wait behind the stop line on the carriageway’.”
Replying to another response, he added: “I don’t in any way dispute some cyclists contravene traffic signals and I don’t endorse that in any way. If you are law enforcement posting offences for public awareness — make sure you show the actual offence being committed. This doesn’t.”
Another comment, from Dave McCraw, said: “It would be nice if the video showed an offence, since the way that junction works is for traffic to sit in the right lane past the white line at which point they are free to turn even on red. I’m sure it happened, but the video shows no offence.”
“You should have shown the offence, that would have stopped all these challenges,” a third response suggested. However, others have argued it would be more constructive to use the case as an example that cyclists jumping red lights are subject to police action too, the claim to the contrary often heard from certain anti-cycling types.
> “Why I skip red lights”: Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds
Real Gaz on a proper bike, author of the Cycling South Tyneside website, said: “Cycling Twitter can be its own worst enemy sometimes. Police post a video with some cyclists being done for crossing a red light. To the halfwits out there that’s clear cut. Use it to show cyclists don’t get a free pass, rather than arguing the far end of a fart.”
road.cc contacted Surrey Police for comment but had not received a reply at the time of publication.
Despite the claims of some, we regularly see police action against cyclists ignoring red lights, a September ‘Vulnerable Road User’ initiative in Edinburgh resulting in cyclists fined.
In February 2022, officers in the London Borough of Hackney reported fining 18 cyclists during a 90-minute operation.
84 thoughts on “Four cyclists fined as police force shares footage of group ride stopped for ignoring red light”
The video does not show any
The video does not show any offence being committed. The cyclists could have been waiting in the right turn lane for some time after they had passed the lights at green, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear the junction. If the police actually saw them pass through a red light, why not video evidence?
youngoldbloke wrote:
I think it does show an offence; a motorist appears to go through a red light and turns right from the wrong lane!
Now I know the police have dispensation to treat a red light as a give way, but that is only acceptable if:
“the observance of the prohibition … would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for that purpose”
Is it likely the police would have been unable to apprehend the cyclists if they had waited for a green light?
Is it surreyrider on here who
Is it surreyrider on here who has mentioned a number of times the poor response from the online team over submissions?
What is the cost of the FPN ?
Hirsute wrote:
I believe it’s £50
Thanks
Thanks
£0 in Lancashire I read !
Yes. But not reported
Yes. But not reported anything in a long time. Probably because of poor response.
After watching the video a
After watching the video a few times, by the positioning of the cyclists in the junction, I’d be hard pressed to conclude that they did not RLJ.
Looking at the video, the road layout has a safe refuge for right turning traffic and the right turn is light controlled… and that light is red.
I’d suggest that if the lights had been green when they crossed the stop line, then the cyclists would have been either clear of the junction or deeper in to the refuge.
I’d also suggest that the mannerisms of the two last riders is one of knowing that they had gone through the red and were proceeding with more hesitation and caution than had they have gone through on green. There’s a deliberate slow, ready to stop caution about the way the whole group is riding that I would suggest would not be there if they had gone through on green.
I’d also suggest that if they had gone through on amber, they would be further in to the junction and, again, their manner of riding I feel would be different.
On a personal level to these 4 … its a loose. They RLJ and they got caught.
As a PR to cycling en mass [and yes, I know some of you refuse to agree that the actions of the few are rubbed on to the rest of us], it’s one to hold up every time we get the ‘cyclists get away with *everything*’ type shite.
It would be so easy to show
It would be so easy to show the correct bit of the video (the bit where the light was red as they crossed the line) so the fact that it isn’t shown is suspicious to me, police don’t have much credibility nowadays.
Backladder wrote:
Not one to gloat … but are you happy now?
Clearly shown crossing the stop line when the lights were red.
Oldfatgit wrote:
It would be so easy to show the correct bit of the video (the bit where the light was red as they crossed the line) so the fact that it isn’t shown is suspicious to me, police don’t have much credibility nowadays.
— Oldfatgit Not one to gloat … but are you happy now? Clearly shown crossing the stop line when the lights were red.— Backladder
Not happy but satisfied.
Oldfatgit wrote:
You’re conclusions are not proof.
Unless the police can prove that they saw the cyclists cross the stop line when the light was red, the cyclists should take the case to court and ask for it to be dismissed. If the police say that the light was red when the cyclists cross, the cyclists could counter claim that it was not, and I suspect that there are more of them.
If the police say that the
If the police say that the light was red when the cyclists cross, the cyclists could counter claim that it was not
It’s suspicious that they didn’t include a few more seconds of video. In my experience, the police have a very elastic notion of evidence- when confronted with indisputable proof of an undoubtable offence (RLJs as below, or vehicles without MOT, for instance) that they don’t like, they just ignore it. Therefore, I find myself easily able to believe that they make up evidence when it suits them. It then becomes a question of whether the word of a police officer is the same thing as evidence, which doesn’t seem to be the case in this type of alleged offence.
And yet …
And yet …
According to the article, none of the cyclists are appealing the FPNs.
Make of that what you will.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Perhaps they don’t know the law, they didn’t get legal advice, or they have an overwhelming respect for the police.
eburtthebike wrote:
Or perhaps you’re an apologist for crappy road use when cyclists are invovled?
eburtthebike wrote:
You’re conclusions are not proof.
Unless the police can prove that they saw the cyclists cross the stop line when the light was red, the cyclists should take the case to court and ask for it to be dismissed. If the police say that the light was red when the cyclists cross, the cyclists could counter claim that it was not, and I suspect that there are more of them.— Oldfatgit
JFC you sound like a drivist – stop it. Its pathetic. Occam’s razor suggests the cops just didnt share the correct bit of razor on social media. Would you twist yourself in these knots for a motorist?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Occam’s razor doesn’t do suggestions: we need proof, which is conspicuously absent. No sheepshank required, just evidence.
[Snip]
[Snip]
You’re conclusions are not proof.
[Snip]
No, not proof … but pretty much spot on.
You’re welcome.
I’m really done with giving a
I’m really done with giving a flying f### about cyclists crossing red lights. At any traffic light junction where the cyclist/s came to a complete stop, they could have just dismounted the bicycles, ran across with their bike (including across the white line), and it would have been completely legal. As soon as they do it with pedal power though it’s suddenly illegal. The French actually recognise the insignificant danger posed by cyclists crossing red lights with their excellent yellow arrow signs at junctions, at least in Paris.
I’ll start considering RLJ cyclists (such as myself now, after experiencing Paris myself, you won’t be surprised to learn) an issue once they start causing multiple deaths a year on UK roads – IE never.
So the pedestrians using a
So the pedestrians using a pedestrian crossing correctly should just suck it up when some entitled halfwit comes barrelling through a red light when they’re trying to cross?
I’d support a change in the law to allow cyclists to go through red lights in some, safer, situations (e.g. left turns). But everyone, especially pedestrians who are more vulnerable than cyclists, should be able to expect other road users to obey the law as it is rather than as they think it should be.
More and harsher penalties for shit drivers of course, but shit drivers don’t make shit cycling acceptable.
Brauchsel wrote:
I’m only speaking for myself. I don’t cycle through crossing pedestrians. When I do go through a red light I’ve usually slowed down to walking pace if not stopped before I go again. This whole idea that despite having cycled tens thousands of miles over the past decade, including across the continent and in mulitple cities, never having crashed in to a pedestrian or vehicle through my own fault, yet I’m somehow I’m unable to judge what is a risk to myself or others is for the birds.
Maybe consider looking at how many deaths are caused by RLJ’ing cyclists vs motor vehicles. Between 2005 and 2014 in the UK it was 51 deaths thanks to motor vehicles, 0 caused by cyclists.
Boopop wrote:
I’m sure you’re very good at judging risk, but some people aren’t and we have no way of knowing who is and who isn’t. I see plenty of people online saying that they’ve taken their cars to Germany and driven at 140 mph on the autobahn which proves they are safe to do it over here. There are arguments for introducing Idaho stop type rules, but allowing people to break the law as it stands because they believe their judgement is good enough to do so isn’t, in my opinion, a good idea. What’s the old statistic, 95% of people think they are better than average drivers?
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’d agree with you if it weren’t for the fact that the vast majority of the time in the UK it feels like local, central government, along with the police does not give a damn about the risks that cyclists face. We don’t have an effective cycle network across British towns and cities.
Traffic lights weren’t implemented for the sake of cyclists, and the only reason they apply to cyclists is becuase it’s the simplest solution and if they didn’t drivers would be very upset.
Cycling in the UK is a constant exercise in risk management, much more than walking or driving. Then suddenly when we approach a set of traffic lights we’re told we’re no longer capable.
I agree with most of what you
I agree with most of what you are saying here. The problem is that the UK along with many other societies cannot cope with catching and punishing individual behaviour so we make laws which apply to everyone and while this inconveniences considerate and capable individuals it allows us to punish and therefore deter incapable and inconsiderate drivers thus leading to the saftey of the rest of us.
A recent exampe is cycling in pedestrian areas which has now been made illegal for everyone in some areas in order to allow the police to bring the real offenders to account.
Unfortunately this leads to a disproportionate number of the capable and considerate being caught when they do break the law because they don’t just run away (eg hit and run) and accept the punishment rather than employ an amoral but capable lawyer to get them off the charge (recent sun in eyes case).
I don’t know what the answer is but as things stand we need to campaign to get a law changed if we don’t like it and accept the punishment if we choose to break it in the mean time.
I think the same is true for the highway code. We can’t expect the police to bring drivers to account for ignoring, for example, the 1.5m rule if we don’t accept being brought to account for not wearing a helmet or hi vis. The correct approach is to campaign to have these sections removed from the code or reworded and there is plenty of research evidence available to allow this to happen.
..
..
Bungle_52 wrote:
I most definitely can. Drivers staying away from me when overtaking obviously improves my safety, whereas helmets and high-vis are known to not be particularly effective in preventing 2 tons of metal from killing me.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Yes we can, because ignoring the 1.5 metre rule is frequently transgressing the law regarding careless/dangerous driving whereas not wearing a helmet or high vis whilst cycling is never against the law.
We can’t expect the police to
We can’t expect the police to bring drivers to account.
Yes, that’s pretty much it. We can’t, even though we should, and they should. For blatant, indisputable offences they just don’t and then say they’re too busy. This is Jaguar XF FN19 FSY, no MOT since 15.9.23 and no VED since 1.9.22. I can guarantee there will be no police response and no action
Neither are brought to
Neither are brought to account. You can close-pass all day long and face no punishment, just as you can not wear a helmet. You can also kill or seriously injure people and very little will happen eg maybe you will get a short driving ban.
Not stricly true.
Not stricly true.
The police sometimes undertake close pass intitiatives where an officer on a bike reports close passes to officers up the road who then stop the vehicle and action is taken. This will range from words of advice to prosecution if they think it will have a chance of it sticking in court with a jury of drivers and a defence barrister who is clued up.
We applaud this but if the police do a session where they advise cyclists to wear helmets and/or hi viz we take them to task.
Both are “shoulds”, not “musts”, in the highway code but we want the police to treat them differently.
Bungle_52 wrote:
They are different. If you breach the “should” with regards to passing distance you are quite likely committing an offence of careless driving and can be prosecuted for same; if you don’t wear a helmet or hiviz you are not committing any offence at all and cannot be prosecuted. Of course the police should treat behaviours that are potentially indictable offences and behaviours that are not indictable under any circumstances differently.
Going through red lights and
Going through red lights and not respecting pedestrians are two totally different things.
In France, towns and hence town halls tend to be small so whether or not the traffic lights have the little signs for cyclists depends upon whether or not a cyclist works at the town hall. In one town I cycle through, every light has signs often for turning right or going straight on at red. I guess in that town the mayor cycles to work every day.
neilmck wrote:
When the red lights are part of a pedestrian crossing, they are exactly the same thing.
There are a couple of crossings near me (Camberwell Church Street, for the locals), where it is the norm for cyclists to ride straight through the red light unless the motor traffic makes it impossible. I’ve nearly been taken out a couple of times while crossing by people cycling up the inside of a bus, and I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a small child having to be yanked back when a parent realises that the oncoming cyclist is not going to stop.
It’s selfish, entitled behaviour that makes our shared spaces just that little bit worse.
Brauchsel wrote:
I know exactly the two you mean, it’s an absolute embarrassment to sit at those pelicans watching virtually every other cyclist stream through. Keep an eye out for a middle-aged bloke on a Roubaix or Orbea alternately shouting imprecations at those cyclists and apologising for their behaviour to pedestrians, that will be me.
Just another example of a
Just another example of a police force using social media to highlight what the general public want to believe is a bigger problem than motorists doing the same or worse, to stir up shit…It’s on par with local rag click bait.
the video is cropped because
the video is cropped because the mpv blocks the view of the cyclists in that lane till the police car gets to the front. All it would show is maybe when the lights changed
But its showing red and the position of the last in the group suggests to me it was absolutely red when they all crossed the line, they weren’t in the junction gap waiting when the lights changed.
Especially given barely anyone stops on yellow thesedays, or even red it feels round here, and both the mpv has stopped and the car the other side has stopped and neither would have spotted the police presence till the last second.
Yeah you can argue wheres the harm, wheres the danger, I still maintain if its red light you stop, if anything just to show to other road users, I follow those rules.
I don’t disagree that you
I don’t disagree that you stop on red but I have problems with the police assuming things that they didn’t actually see. It doesn’t matter what their position at the start of the clip suggests, innocent until proven guilty.
Fair point, but I’m presuming
Fair point, but I’m presuming what the police claimed to see happening is enough evidence even without the video as backup.
As I thought their dashcams weren’t always on, and were linked to blues & twos use.
The full video has now been
The full video has now been produced and the cyclists were in the wrong, but if they didn’t have the relevant video then just showing what they have is not good enough. At least road.cc got three pages of comments out of it!
Not to suggest anyone in
Not to suggest anyone in Amerika might have a better idea, but why not just get English lawmakers to adopt the “Idaho stop” and be done with this? Four bike-friendly states other than Idaho have now adopted that law because it gives motorists one less thing to complain about, and it makes roads safer.
The Idaho Stop has its
The Idaho Stop has its problems.
Treating a red light as a (in Usonian) Yield would be better, because making a person riding a cycle physically stop unnecessarily loses all momentum.
I think in the UK there are currently bigger issues to fight.
They should have opted for a
They should have opted for a ‘top lawyer’ to get them off on a technicality.
I was wondering if the red
I was wondering if the red light was “established”…
All this argument about the
All this argument about the moment the cyclists crossed the stop line! Rather different to the attitude of Lancashire Constabulary to my much better filmed RLJ offences by motorists which always also include the moment the change to amber occurs : No Response, No Action. RLJs at speed by motorists are essentially legalised in Lancashire
https://upride.cc/incident/pj23vmc_honda125_redlightcross/ PJ23 VMC
Reported to both OpSnap Lancs and LC’s DoItOnline portals, because this was an opportunity to convince a learner biker not to crash red lights at speed, rather than convincing him that you can do what you like. As usual, no response from OSL, and the response from Force Control Room (which deals with DoItOnline) was simply to insist that these offences are reported to OSL
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/ G16 DHT
This is David Hartley Transport and Training of Lancaster. He trains people to drive with trailers! Picture below. Reported to OSL only. No response.
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/ K7 DDY
It’s a combination of the most lax and idle police force in the UK (OK, Police Scotland might be nearly as bad!) and an Audi driver- what do you expect? Reported to OSL only. No response
Strange to use a video that
Strange to use a video that doesn’t show them passing a red light.
They would presumably all get
They would presumably all get 3 points for this, would they not?
I don’t think so – it’s a
I don’t think so – it’s a different offence.
Edit
https://offencecode.uk/offence/ride-a-pedal-cycle-on-a-road-fail-to-comply-with-a-red-light-traffic-sign/
A very interesting website.
A very interesting website. However, it says about a motorised vehicle red light offence: This offence carries a fine of £100 and three penalty points.
Well, it doesn’t up here, as I have shown many times!
mattw wrote:
No, there’s no mechanism for cycling offences to accrue penalty points on a driver’s licence. In very extreme circumstances a licence can be suspended or revoked for cycling behaviour (but it has to be really extreme, riding the wrong way down the motorway after a bottle of Scotch extreme), but never points.
No, it’s just a fine, unless
No, it’s just a fine, unless something has changed since 1991
Stopping at red lights is a
Stopping at red lights is a pain, but if there’s ever an accident, I want every advantage possible on my side. It also provides pissed off motorists with a bit less to be pissed off about.
Allowing bikes to stop in front of cars for increased visibility seems sensible, but variations like the “Idaho Stop” muddy the waters. If we all stop on red, there’s less for anyone to be confused or argue about.
Stopping at Red is just
Stopping at Red is just another opportunity to show your legs off and improve take off speed, why cyclists do not do this amazes me! Missing out on vital training chances is only for the lazy/shoddy roadcrafter and is not what we are about!
Ugh? The video doesn’t show
Ugh? The video doesn’t show the cyclists going through the red light.
Umm…for everyone complainig
Umm…for everyone complainig that the video doesn’t show the offence, isn’t that normal for police posts? That they don’t show the actual offence in case the cyclists challenge and go to court etc?
As for the post in general, yeah it’s pretty tragic they engage in gammon-friendly bait posts like this
Why show anything at all if
Why show anything at all if it’s not done and dusted?
Police don’t normally show footage (as opposed to stills) till after.
Good.
Good.
I suspect there’s a high correlation between red lights jumped by cyclists and close passes. For every RLJ there’s at least 1 p*ssed off motorist who then doesn’t process properly when they see the next rider. If we all just stopped at the damn things, half the impetus behnd crap driving would disapear. ANd yes I know (and regularly rant about) drivers who RLJ at far higher higher speeds and risk ratios, but if we want a soapbox to stand on, we can;t keep kicking it out from under ourselves.
I know it is against the UK
I know it is against the UK law, (legal though in other countries) but it doesn’t seem to me that dangerous for other users (apart from the law abiding cyclists themselves) to have it posted by the police.
I don’t think Singapore police posts videos of guys leaving toilets without having flushed toilets.
It’s a bit like filming shark
.
I would encourage those of my
I would encourage those of my fellow cyclists who drive not to be dicks when they’re behind the steering wheel. I’d encourage my fellow cyclists when out on two wheels to similarly not behave like dicks. Surely it’s really not too big an ask?
That’s great, and I agree!
That’s great, and I agree!
…but what has this to do with road safety though (unless you’ve got a sure-fire way of preventing all those other people being dicks, and other well-known human deficiencies)?
Quite right they’ve been
Quite right they’ve been prosecuted. Road users can’t be selective about which rules to follow.
There’s a cost to all law breaking. At one extreme, cyclists going through red light and getting wiped out by vehicle they didn’t see is not just a cost to them and their families – it’s a cost to all of us. At the other end of the spectrum, Pi****g off other road users by breaking the rules will hurt the cyclists’ ligitimate cause for fair treatment.
Road users can’t be selective
Road users can’t be selective about which rules to follow
What you mean is cyclists can’t be selective… I have shown below 3 motorists who decided not to bother with all this confusing ‘traffic light’ bureaucracy and the police do nothing about it ‘because everyone does it’. I also show a motorist who decides to shun the MOT, insurance and VED bureaucracy who will also get away with it. So I’m not about to tolerate without complaint a notion which takes (so far unproven) cyclist RLJs more seriously than, say, an Audi towing a caravan through a red light at speed, so b***** off!
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
As Yossarian (I think) says in Catch-22:
What if everyone thought like that?
Then I’d be a damn’ fool to think any other way
wtjs wrote:
This is still a very small sample size…four cyclists got fined, there’s thousands who don’t get fined on a daily basis.
Can apply the same to
Can apply the same to motorists. 9 mile commute and 10 controlled junctions. There will be at least 3 motorists jump on amber and red at each junction. Have yet to see any pulled over due to the lack of cops about over the last year. Thats over 15000 drivers a year and that’s only the ones I physically see on that particular route.
And don’t forget those
And don’t forget those motorists who do stop for a red and those in the queue who are on their phones…
giff77 wrote:
Similar experience to my own – I’ve lived in three completely different areas over the last decade and those figures tally with my own.
Surrey Police have now
Surrey Police have now released fuller footage which shows the riders undertaking the traffic waiting in the right turn lane, riding through the light on red and turning. Bang to rights, I’m afraid.
https://twitter.com/SurreyRS/status/1746912014071451649
Beat me to it and with the
Beat me to it and with the same wording !
Still for the sensible folk not on twitterx
“The cycling trolls will find some other excuse, such as the cyclists only ran the red light because they were being pursued by a Dalek.” !
Bang to rights, I’m afraid
Bang to rights, I’m afraid
But not quite as ‘bang to rights’ as the rider of PJ23 VMC, who got off scot-free
When will people just accept
When will people just accept the world is full of idiots. Some drive, some cycle, not all drive, not all cycle. The mode of transport and their behaviour and not somehow intrinsically linked. One mode of transport doesn’t make the someone act in a particular way. These people are arseholes 24/7 regardless of what they do
I partially agree with this.
I partially agree with this. People are people, but:
… if I’d paid lots of money for an expensive machine – maybe a speedy one, especially one I’d want to show for my mates – and I knew that the chance of me getting stopped for any offense was minimal and the penalties insignificant, and that even if they had a video record I could just say it wasn’t me – then …
… I’d be describing being a driver of a motor vehicle as much as being a cyclist.
I think there are some modifiers of behaviour according to transport mode choice. I’d expect that to be most significant for the prestige mode (driving). Because driving is definitely bound up with “status” (and currently in many countries that’s skewed towards “pushy, risk-taking men”).
For some people being in a motor vehicle may make them proceed more carefully (don’t want to “end up in court” or scratch my motor or even injure someone). For many it seems that it makes them proceed less carefully (including illegally e.g. speeding, pavement driving, “amber gambling” AKA running stop signals etc.) Humans quickly identify with their transport (“did you just hit me (my car)?”). Unfortunately when people have a common human reaction to a situation (“… I’ll teach you a lesson!”) the driver has forgotten they now have an extremely powerful (and potentially deadly) exoskeleton.
I would expect some cyclists to be a bit less careful about rules. That’s partly because cycling is more accessible so some could be children (but some will also be “advanced drivers” on the bike that day!). Plus it’s a more “casual” mode due to cycling being far less danger to everyone (hence no plates, testing, insurance requirements …).
However I’d expect risky behaviour to be moderated by their awareness that cyclists are at risk of injury in any crash, in a way that e.g. motorists or bus passengers just aren’t.
So in your first paragraph
So in your first paragraph you condone arseholish behaviour Just because you might have a nice bike? That kinda makes it worse. Not only are you an arsehole you’re conscious of the fact and still do it.
You must have lost interest
You must have lost interest after skimming the first para. Summarised – more likely entitled driver than entitled cyclist.
Longer: I expect there will be slightly different rates of encountering arsehole behaviour from users of different modes – especially in the UK – reasons in my first post.
I read what you wrote, but it
I read what you wrote, but it pretty much agrees that the world is full of arseholes. Some drive, some cycle etc. you just over elaborate on the same points for no good reason
Close, no cigar.
Close, no cigar.
“The world is full of arseholes” = random, it’s on you (the rider / driver / walker) to lookout, nothing else.
Arseholery varies (slightly) by mode = we can do something about it with targetted road design / policing (if police and politicos were minded to…)
A better harm reduction is to reduce the potential damage from the arseholes in the most deadly mode though e.g. by having less driving.
So many words. So little
So many words. So little sense.
btw, by having *fewer driving. ??
(No subject)
Smoggysteve wrote:
You’re assuming that he is using driving as a verb and therefore means having fewer people driving. In fact he is using driving as a gerund (noun form), as in the activity driving, and asking a reduction in the quantity of it, in which case “less” is perfectly correct. /pedantry
Yes. But “…having fewer
Yes. But “…having fewer driving less” keeps everyone happy?
I was trying to avoid claxons of “they want to stop me driving!” – it’s more that we need less journeys driven
overall!
Chris makes a lot of sense,
Chris makes a lot of sense, actually. His posts are well considered, very often thoroughly backed up with relevant links, and I can’t recall having read an incensiary or disparaging or insulting comment from him on here (which is not your case).
Totally agree.
Totally agree.
You aren’t doing yourself any
You aren’t doing yourself any favours with these ad hominen posts.
And I very much doubt the number of drivers is countable.
Smoggysteve wrote:
And some would appear to be in the police force, how difficult is it to get the clip correct first time?
They shouldn’t ‘ve gone
They shouldn’t ‘ve gone through the red light.
What I see in the loveliness of the newspaper comment columns is the endless repetition of the driver bullshit that cyclists are all RLJ-ers, have no lights at night and are pavement riders – those things are fixed in drivers’ minds as happening “all the time”. Drivers are also doing their utmost with using cycle lanes, helmets and hi viz: “surely as a responsible cyclist…”
BTW all of this bollocks will be pumping through the veins of Reform if – Lord help all of us – they ever get anywhere near power.
Anyway, add to all that the observable reality that every day drivers RLJ, speed, pavement park, crash into buildings and use ‘phones, etc but (a) it happens so much that a lot people have stopped noticing all but the biggest whoppers and (b) drivers no longer see these things as wrong when they do them – the cutting down of speed cameras and the general dissing of the police (“catch some real criminals”, “it’s all about the fines”, “they just want to control ‘us'”) bear this out.
As pressure on road space grows, breaking the rules will get seen by drivers as necessity – coming up soon: “how else am I supposed to get to work/ school pick up on time, you tell me”.