Derbyshire Police took to Twitter to insist “cyclists must stop for red traffic lights”, sharing this video of a rider pedalling through a crossing in Darley Dale.
One of the force’s Roads Policing Unit vehicles was waiting at the lights in the town north of Matlock when the solo rider came past, prompting them to turn around in pursuit of the red light jumper.
The rider was subsequently stopped and issued a ticket, with the Roads Policing Unit warning others: “Cyclists must stop for red traffic lights like other vehicles. This is so that pedestrians can cross safely.
“This pedal cyclist was spotted in Darley Dale riding at speed through a red light at a pedestrian crossing. He was stopped and issued a ticket.”
Cyclists must stop for red traffic lights like other vehicles. This is so that pedestrians can cross safely. This pedal cyclist was spotted in Darley Dale riding at speed through a red light at a pedestrian crossing. He was stopped and issued a ticket. #RoadSafety pic.twitter.com/MrKHfX9r2H
— Derbyshire Roads Policing Unit (@DerbyshireRPU) February 4, 2022
The social media footage comes days after police in Hackney posted on Twitter, saying they had sent 14 officers to catch red light jumping cyclists in the London borough, slapping 18 riders with £50 fines during the 90-minute operation.
The officers 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.
> Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes
Some questioned the Metropolitan Police’s use of resources, although the reaction to Derbyshire Police’s video was generally more supportive.
The video did, however, spark the usual comments about licence plates, insurance and accountability for cyclists, prompting some to question why a mode of transport can trigger such rage.
One user responded to the largely celebratory response to Derbyshire Police’s action: “I knew what the comments would look like here – there are more positions to take about cyclists than generally supportive or absolute disgust. Why not be generally courteous and ambivalent like most people are about most other forms of transport?”
Another questioned if sharing the video, and the subsequent reaction, would make the roads more dangerous for those on two wheels: “Does every car that goes over the speed limits get stopped? Does every car that fails to indicate get stopped? Yes, this is wrong but it’s going to lead to more people being aggressive towards cyclists. I no longer feel safe even riding on the road.”
65 thoughts on “Derbyshire Police share video of cyclist fined for jumping red light — insist “cyclists must stop””
Surely the cyclist should
Surely the cyclist should have got away with it because clearly it was a recently established red light.
Actually I thought the
Actually I thought the loophole was you couldnt establish what the light was showing facing the oncoming traffic, or at least that’s what the police told me when I reported some like that.
That’s the usual get out for
That’s the usual get out for nfa.
Cyclist missed a trick there.
It was perfectly obvious to
It was perfectly obvious to me that the light had been stuck on red for too long so was broken.
Honest Guv.
Should have got a top lawyer;
Should have got a top lawyer; just look at the number of manhole covers on the lead up to the crossing, four! There’s no way he could have risked touching the brakes!
https://goo.gl/maps/DLjr5SLQrprpGmKn7
Two questions:
Two questions:
1) Does the policeman issues tickets to all pedestrians he sees crossing roads not on zebra crossings or with a red light?
2) The policeman reversed a 1 ton car on a narrow road to protect roads from a cyclist, slightly passing a red light at a junction with good visibility. Am I the only one who thinks the fine issued was more dangerous that the traffic violation itself?
cyclisto wrote:
Probably not, because that’s not an offence.
I can’t see how a turn there was particularly dangerous. It might have been more dangerous than the cyclist’s actions, but only inasmuch as moving a car around at all is inherently more dangerous than a bike. Ignoring it and carrying straight on when the lights changed would probably have been more dangerous than the bike as well.
cyclisto wrote:
1) I should hope not – it’s perfectly legal for pedestrians to use roads however they want to (excepting motorways). I guess that you may be an American and are thinking of Jaywalking laws – the motor lobby didn’t manage to persuade the UK to take on such an anti-democratic law.
2) The police car maneouvre looked safe enough to me. The road seems straight and should have reasonable sight lines and there wasn’t lots of traffic.
3) I personally think that kind of RLJing by the cyclist is an example where cyclists should be allowed to progress carefully through a pedestrian light when there’s clearly no pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross. I expect that the crossing had a mandatory timer behind the beg button and maybe a ped had pressed the button and was then able to cross the road before the beg timer ran down. This is an example of a road designed for motor traffic and little thought given to other modes of transport.
cyclisto wrote:
What they said. Whilst this tweet I believe to be ill advised and possibly even discriminatory in principle, Peds can cross the road when they see fit. Cyclists currently don’t have that discretion regarding red lights (established or otherwise….)
cyclisto wrote:
1) no, because no offence has been comitted (and long may it remain that way)
2) I don’t see any issue with doing a 3 point turn in this location, the majority of urban roads in this country are a similar width, and everyone would have had to earn this manouvre to pass their test.
While technically against the law, (and therefore the cyclist takes his own chances with being fined), I won’t get upset about this sort of red light jumping as he has good visibility of the crossing and can see it is empty, risk is zero. I’m also not upset about the fine, the police car is visible enough that anyone who has observed carefully enough to know the crossing is empty should have noticed the police car and reconsidered the wisdom of blowing through the crossing.
Interesting that the cyclist is described as going over the crossing ‘at speed’ while cyclists riding at similar speeds have been reprimanded by police for obstructing traffic.
What’s the police person to
What’s the police person to do ? Clear offence , we need to ‘ person-up’ and take it on the chin in those rare cases we deserve it.
There is no clear offence –
There is no clear offence – see wtjs photos.
If I had submitted this to a police portal, it would be nfa – no evidence of passing a red light.
The difference between this
The difference between this and the wtjs images is that in this example the police took follow up action and ‘traced’ the rider/driver involved. Immediately 🙂
Presumably they interviewed the rider and they admitted to cycling through a red light. If the rider had said that the light was on green, I’m not sure that there would be enough evidence to prosecute.
This tweet is really opening up a Pandora’s box as regards complaints and video evidence.
zero_trooper wrote:
The police would be expected by a court to have checked the lights were working properly. Court would be happy to accept that the lights were not showing green in more than one direction.
Beyond reasonable doubt.
Beyond reasonable doubt.
Is a policeman saying ‘I checked the lights and they appeared to be working correctly’ reasonable?
zero_trooper wrote:
Yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. Whenever I’ve seen traffic lights that are faulty, they’ve been turned off completely – I’ve never seen lights that have been inconsistent for different directions.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’ve seen sets of lights where at least one lamp has been non-functioning – if all three red lamps on the side facing the cyclist were non-functioning, that would look a lot like “turned off completely”. Whilst I’m stretching the bounds of what is plausible…. might also be a defence if the cyclist were blind – I don’t think there’s any legal minimum sight reqiurement for cycling*
* as has been mentioned above there’s no such requirement for motorists either, if the loss of vision is temporary (e.g. blinded the sun or looking somewhere other than where you need to).
jh2727 wrote:
Non-functioning lights would be plausible. Poor eyesight would be an interesting defence as you could have partial sight and be able to cycle yet might miss seeing the light entirely (I wouldn’t fancy cycling in traffic with partial sight though).
‘person-up’.. cute; the
‘person-up’.. cute; the stupidity of non-gendering can be exemplared with the use of the word ‘man’, as it’s often the shortened version of human.
grOg wrote:
Hate to be that guy but ‘human’ comes from the Latin humus for soil and homo for adult male. Whereas ‘man’ comes from Germanic mann, related to Sanskrit manu, meaning human being and man.
So if they’re related words they split from eachother long before history began.
I’m gonna hazard a guess that
I’m gonna hazard a guess that the cheap and nasty booze moniker wouldn’t be about to homo-up.
grOg wrote:
Except that in the phrase in question, ‘man’ clearly is used in a gendered way – it’s an exhortation to become ‘more like a man’ (whatever that means), as opposed to women or children, with the implication that is somehow more admirable. So even if one were to accept that your objection had some validity in some cases, in this case it’s irrelevant.
Shouldn’t there be a couple
Shouldn’t there be a couple of minutes of footage before and after the alleged offence?
The sun was in his eyes. Oh
The sun was in his eyes. Oh sorry that excuse only works for killing people.
Deserves the ticket for not
Deserves the ticket for not noticing the cop car, if nothing else!
More replies like this please
More replies like this please.
Whilst I sort of understand
Whilst I sort of understand the get clear from the traffic, and when turning left arguments about it being safer sometimes to cautiously proceed through a red when cycling. The rules as they currently stand are unequivocal. Don’t ride through red lights. It isn’t difficult to understand.
Of course this has occured
Of course this has occured because the crossing is a pstrian crossing with a beg button and a delay. So the pedestrian has pressed (out of habbit) seen the lights not change, seen the road is clear and proceeded. If motor centric infrastructure did not insist on delaying pedestrians for no good reasosn, this would not happen, as red lights would only occur whilst the crossing is in use.
The crossing probably should be a zebra crossing, why do we install traffic light crossings instead of zebras? Is it because drivers are not respecting zebras? It can’y be due the number of poedstrians crossing at this location, because I have seen a zebra directly outside a train station, such that when the train arrives the cars get stopped for a considerable time while all the pedestrians cross seperately.
No, the crossing shouldn’t be
No, the crossing shouldn’t be a zebra crossing, that’s what it used to be when every road user flouted the rules, leaving pedestrians stranded, waiting for vehicles to have the courtesy to stop, leading to the crossing being upgraded to what is there now.
This is situated on the A6 between the tourist towns of Bakewell and Matlock, as well as being the primary access to Chatsworth House from the south and is an exceptionally busy road throughout the year.
Regardless of whether there was a pedestrian crossing or not, the cyclist should have slowed and stopped if neccessary just as the motorists had done too. It only take one pillock to screw the system up for everyone else, although the officers should choose their words more wisely next time as that was hardly speeding
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
so you didn’t read the 18 words after the words you responded to?
Zebra crossings work best as they allow pedestrians to proceed without delay and cars not to be delayed for empty crossings, but BECAUSE drivers are not respecting the law we are pushed onto pelican crossings. This is made worse by the pointless delay on the beg button.
And yes, I agree the cyclist should have stopped and have no issues with the fine as in my other post. but IF the lights had changed promptly to the button press (as they should) the pedestrian would be on the crossing when the light was red, and in th cyclist would (most probably) have stopped.
wycombewheeler wrote:
We don’t see enough at the start of the video, but I came to a similar conclusion – either the pedestrian has crossed long before the light turned red, or the ‘pedestrian’ is the cyclist we can see riding away from the crossing on the path on the left (who maybe crossed before the light changed).
A while ago I realised that delay after pressing the button on this sort of a crossing serves no-one – the light is going to turn red for road users at some point, the delay just determines which road users (i.e. the road users now or some later road users). The end results are:
1. There’s often no-one there to cross when it finally turns red.
2. Our children learn the lesson that the time of road users is more valuable than the time of pedestrians.
NB: not that any of the above is a defence for the cyclist who was ticketed.
No problem with the ticket as
No problem with the ticket as far as I’m concerned, but it’s interesting that I’ve had a number of RLJ videos (of cars) knocked back from the Met because they were coming from in front or to the side: I was told it was not possible to prosecute unless the specific light that was jumped was visible in the video to demonstrate that there was no fault with it.
This is pretty standard,
This is pretty standard, Devon and Cornwall Police said the same to me when I submitted an obvious side-on RLJ
Maybe it’s because this is a
Maybe it’s because this is a pedestrian crossing, rather than a junction?
Because the lights are only a couple of meters apart, there’s less chance that one side will be out of phase with the other.
Just guessing … The police can move mysterious ways.
Nope,it will simply be the
Nope,it will simply be the cyclist admitted guilt when stopped & questioned.
No problem with the ticket as
No problem with the ticket as far as I’m concerned
Well there is as far as I am! I am quite surprised at the way cyclists have acquiesced with the principle here, even though they can’t do anything about the practice- we have to accept that the police observing something is different to members of the public doing so. We now have two topics largely extolling the police really sorting those bloody cyclists out in order to appease the hyper-junk press and their crazed nutter readers. 14 officers to nail those RLJ cyclists was bad enough, but a fine in this case was not reasonable. I think the cyclist went through the lights too quickly, and I would have slowed to ensure no pedestrians in the vicinity and then proceeded. This is my specialist subject- admittedly only in Lancashire- and drivers in massive tipper trucks crashing through the lights at 50+mph are essentially waved through by a Lancashire Constabulary too busy to do anything about it. As you know only too well, there are loads of RLJ offences going on every day 1/2 a mile from where I am now. For months and years Lancashire Constabulary did nothing whatsoever about them- now they’re doing essentially nothing, with layer upon layer of non-penalties when they could kill off the offences rapidly by dispensing a mere 3 points on several occasions. As it is, the nutter BMW drivers just carry on, because they know it’s only ‘words of advice’ or the joke warning letter they’re risking- this is silver PY65 GYF
You can check the lights
You can check the lights yourself and a court would accept that they can’t show green in more than one direction at a time. You are being fobbed off by the police.
I was told it was not
I was told it was not possible to prosecute unless the specific light that was jumped was visible in the video to demonstrate that there was no fault with it
This is the standard dodge by the police, and is used routinely in Lancashire where it is doubly disingenuous because they have no intention of prosecuting any RLJ offences. In a way, it was a relief to me because it’s difficult to get the number of a vehicle hammering across at 60mph on the other side of the road, with a diagonal view and other vehicles getting in the way. They will use any excuse to get out of doing anything and it wasn’t worth my while objecting because there were quite enough offences on my side of the road which they were ignoring
In my opinion it is behaviour
In my opinion it is behaviour like JRL that fuels the animosity between car drivers and cyclists. Cyclists are quick to point out their “rights” and critisise motorists who don’t obey the rules. Just look at the proliferation of videos on line posted by cyclists and screaming about bad drivers. So when a cyclist is caught breaking the law, which is what RLJ’s are, then they should pay the price. If it had been a car driver fined for the same offence then there would have been jubilation from the militant cyclists. Every road user should obey the law, cyclists or car drivers can’t pick or choose the laws they like and ignore the others. One comment on here claimed the cyclist couldnt have stopped safely because of the number of manhole covers in the approach to the crossing? So if there had been a pedestrian using the crossing then presumably the rider would have ploughed into them? So the excuse of too many manholes just says to me the cyclist was riding too fast and failed to judge the conditions ahead? The cyclist got caught and paid the price for breaking the law. Dont JRL and you dont get caught.
If a motorist did it nobody
If a motorist did it nobody would bother to publicise it, despite the fact that it’s a more common and lethal issue.
That is the true cause for animosity towards cyclists, the media is amplifying the bad behaviour of the few to paint a unfavorable picture of all cyclists.
Older and sadder wrote:
I was joking! It’s the sort of feeble excuse a certain celebrity lawyer might use to get motorists off the hook.
The cyclist should have stopped (and should have been in primary to avoid those manhole covers). It was illegal and it was right he got fined.
However, the cyclist had a clear view and if there were no pedestrians on or near the crossing, then it was not dangerous and put no one at risk. Contrast that with the warning letters handed out to motorists who most certainly put cyclists at risk with illegal close passes.
Older and sadder wrote:
This. 100%.
Jem PT wrote:
Nooooo! This is reinforcing the idea that cyclists and drivers are two tribes that act as homogenetic entities.
The reality is some people break the law, no matter their mode of transport. The criticism most cyclists have is the wildly variable enforcement of those laws.
Jem PT wrote:
Although this seems to be what people are saying / wanting:
a) cyclists normally appear in conversations as an “out group” / an “other”. At that point people aren’t normally interested in changing their opinion of the group. Evidence will likely be dismissed either because it conflicts with an established belief or because people are not interested – because “cyclists” are just a very simple stereotype.
b) as others have said the notion of a group of cyclists we represent is both a human trait * and going along with a fallacy. Drivers don’t see berks in cars / lorries as giving them a bad name. The other person is just an idiot – what’s that got to do with me?
* We want to belong to groups – even ones that others have put us in. I still find myself “speaking up for cyclists” despite knowing this. However if someone’s already got argumentative about “cyclists” already I probably won’t take it on my shoulders. We’re not going to have a conversation – move on and wait for a more opportune time.
chrisonatrike wrote:
This is something that I have said before…… and it is said on here a lot about someones cycling being representative of all cyclists. The problem lies with the fact that no matter how sensible, courteous, law abiding I am as a cyclist it won’t change how some drivers feel towards all cyclists because of the one time they saw a cyclist do……..
As cyclists I doubt any of us feel the need to retaliate against a random motorist for a close pass or dangerous move against us by a completely unrelated motorist, yet for some reason in a small minority of cases motorists will do just that…. they might have been held up earlier in their journey by another completely different cyclist but will close pass another cyclist later on because they are still seething about being held up by the “bloody cyclist” earlier.
As cyclists I doubt any of us
As cyclists I doubt any of us feel the need to retaliate against a random motorist for a close pass or dangerous move against us
Depends what you mean by ‘retaliate’! If it means stuff the b*****d by any feasible legal means, I disagree about at least one cyclist
I think you misunderstand –
I think you misunderstand – TriTaxMan is talking about retaliating against a random motorist for an offence committed by an entirely different motorist.
I think you misunderstand
I think you misunderstand
Yes, I see you’re right
Older and sadder wrote:
In my opinion the animosity of cyclists towards drivers sis toked up by tabloid media misrepresenting facts to paner to their reader base/auto industry sponsors.
The is no animosity form ‘cyclists’ towards ‘drivers’ because most cyclists are both. There is only animosity towards bad drivers, fueled by lives being put in danger.
The is no animosity form
The is no animosity from ‘cyclists’ towards ‘drivers’ because most cyclists are both. There is only animosity towards bad drivers, fueled by lives being put in danger
Oh yes there bloody is! ‘Bad drivers’ = ‘most drivers’ where overtaking cyclists is concerned. A6 northbound Lancashire today, 50+mph Nissan Juke BP11 FLM. I am now working my way through 10 close passing reports to b*****d Lancashire Constabulary (for whom I feel no sympathy whatsoever, because it’s the LC minimal punishment-no deterrence policy which leads to this universal offending). I realise that there will be the usual sniggering ‘what a fuss he’s making, and making up RLJ offences as well!’ opinions so you’re going to get another one just above-and there’s the close pass by the Fabia just before this one which is on another topic. It’s hell out there, and I haven’t even told you why I was on a sleuthing trip up to Galgate! It’s a number plate-no MOT-perverting the course of justice story which will appear here soon
This is massive 50 mph Auto
This is massive 50 mph Auto Trail Apache NX17 CHN
The cyclist has eyes and
The cyclist has eyes and presumably checked for pedestrians before crossing.
I challenge your opinion. I
I challenge your opinion. I don’t think RLJ fuels animosity at all, I believe it is used a as a tool to justify pre-existing animosity.
Tax, insurance, registration, pavement riding… all these things are constently put forward as agitators, but they’re all just excuses. The fundamental truth is that people have issues with cycling and cyclists on the highway.
I say this as it really wouldn’t matter if every single person throwing a leg over the bike, paid road tax, had a cycling licence, insurance and followed the highway code to the letter, motorists would still have issues with cyclists.
The true reasons for this animosity are far more complex and therefore harder to manage, but rest assured, doffing caps the to populist ideals perpetuated by the main stream media (for nothing more than profit), is a fools errand – to put it politely.
They don’t like you getting
They don’t like you being in front. They don’t like you getting past them. They don’t like you being different. The rest is just sprinkles on the icing. Top comment!
where’s the Village Idiot on
where’s the Village Idiot on this one? It should be right up his street this article.
Maybe it wasn’t an
Maybe it wasn’t an established red?
Not really sure how anyone
Not really sure how anyone can complain about this. It’s one thing when police put significant resources into catching cyclists RLJing (in terms of priorities/best use of resources) but when the see law breaking they must respond to it.
The problem is that it’s
The problem is that it’s being publicised.
A road user broke a law, if it were a motorist we never would have heard about it, but because there’s a fire to fuel we get this instead.
Car Delenda Est wrote:
The publicity is a bit of a double edged sword…. on the one hand it is proving to drivers that cyclists run red lights….. a fact which no one here can ever deny and I don’t think anyone would try to.
But on the flip side…. as a cyclist we can say….. that cyclists don’t always get away with breaking the law…. a frequent cry of some motorists in their ceaseless quest for Number Plates for cyclists.
And I wonder if the latter is why the police have been publishing these endeavours…. to try and show that its not all about persecuting car drivers for offences.
Do you mean this type of
Do you mean this type of offence?
If you look at the feeds of most RPUs, you’ll see them full of speeders/ no insurance/ no MOT/ no VED/ drunk drivers that have all been stopped and publicised.
Unless intelligence led, I would have thought that most active policing is about being in the right place at the right time to catch the offender committing the actual offence – as this unit so clearly was.
I would have expected the same reaction – including Twitter post – had the light been ran by a car driver.
Let’s not forget here that the cyclist didn’t *just* jump the light … They breezed straight though it like it wasn’t there.
Road police units do this all
Road police units do this all the time for all manner of offences on the road, it’s not like they are sweeping the uninsured, unroadworthy vehicles, drunk/drug drivers etc they stop under the carpet, and only posting cyclists.
There should be many more
There should be many more Toucan crossing facilities so that riders can get through junctions and safely away from motorised traffic.
You would be pleased with
You would be pleased with Gloucestershire then. They are in the process of installing a toucan crossing for a cyle path along with adding extra queing lanes for cars at the junction. They say they can’t build the cycle path yet though cos they’ve used the money for these road works.
Can’t see what the problem is
Can’t see what the problem is here, light on red, you stop, simply. Oh, others get away with it, well there aren’t enough police on the roads given the Tories are only funding parties as no. 10 downing st with tax payers money
I just get off my bike, walk
I just get off my bike, walk across and get back on the bike.. simple and legal.