Questions asked after another police force keen to highlight crackdown on cyclists jumping red lights

On a related issue, there is a set of those lights on my way home which have a special green light for cyclists, supposedly so that cyclists *can* get a head start on the motorists (only afew seconds, but I'll take it). Except that I very rarely can take it - pedestrians crossing can see that the motor traffic (you know, the dangerous traffic) hasn't started moving so they just carry on. And keep coming. And at the time I'm travelling, that's a lot of people - which completely negates any advantage offered by the green bike because the peds only stop crossing when the cars start moving...

Adam Sutton wrote:

The law is the law, the police are just doing their job and joe public doesn't get to cherry pick what they should be doing. Seeing cyclists stopped probably went some way to countering the idea that cyclists are above the law, so I see no negatives here.

Public disobedience is an incredibly important part of societies when faced with unjust or discriminatory laws, so saying "the law is the law" is ignoring the many, many examples where laws have been shown to be immoral.

However, I don't think that red light laws are immoral and necessarily need to be protested against, but attention should be paid to the nature of RLJing. In particular there's a difference between how motorists and cyclists RLJ - motorists will tend to increase speed to get through just after the light turns reds whereas cyclists have a more complicated profile of RLJing (slowing down before carefully progressing through red, or sailing through long after the lights turn or my favourite is to stop at the red and then attempt to cross just as the light turns from red to green).

This difference in behaviour is showing that some traffic light controlled junctions are designed for motor traffic and no consideration is given to the different size, speed and needs of cyclists. There is also the possibility of amending traffic laws to accomodate some of these different requirements, such as the Idaho Stop and Dead Red laws in parts of the U.S. and there's also the Parisienne de-criminalisation of cycling through red lights.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Public disobedience is an incredibly important part of societies when faced with unjust or discriminatory laws, so saying "the law is the law" is ignoring the many, many examples where laws have been shown to be immoral.

However, I don't think that red light laws are immoral and necessarily need to be protested against, but attention should be paid to the nature of RLJing. In particular there's a difference between how motorists and cyclists RLJ - motorists will tend to increase speed to get through just after the light turns reds whereas cyclists have a more complicated profile of RLJing (slowing down before carefully progressing through red, or sailing through long after the lights turn or my favourite is to stop at the red and then attempt to cross just as the light turns from red to green).

This difference in behaviour is showing that some traffic light controlled junctions are designed for motor traffic and no consideration is given to the different size, speed and needs of cyclists. There is also the possibility of amending traffic laws to accomodate some of these different requirements, such as the Idaho Stop and Dead Red laws in parts of the U.S. and there's also the Parisienne de-criminalisation of cycling through red lights.

That is a lot of reaching there. I am fully aware as a cyclist and a driver of the nature of junctions for both cyclists and drivers, and know there are a number of junctions close to me that awful for cyclists when lights change etc, where temptation is to break the law and sneak through or legally walk their bike through on the pavement. That doesn't change the reality that there are many more cases where there is no excuse, the link to the Derby police instance was a cyclist going through a pedestrian crossing like it wasn't even there, as an example. We don't know the nature of the road where GMP carried out this operation, though a glance on google maps shows it to be a straight road with pedestrian crossings and a cylcle lane, so I would hazard a guess at not really excusable.

As I was hinting, berating the police for using resources in this way and in essence trying to elevate cyclists above traffic laws isn't helpful to the image of cyslists by and large. 

Are you claiming walking your bike on the pavement is an offence ?

For older folks who remember Not the Nine o'Clock News and Constable Savage: "It is not against the law to 'wear a loud shirt in a built up area during the hours of darkness', nor is 'being in possession of an offensive wife', similarly, 'urinating in a public convenience' is not an offence, nor is 'looking at me in a funny way.'"

Loitering with an intent to use a pedestrian crossing.
Walking on the cracks in the pavement.

hirsute wrote:

Are you claiming walking your bike on the pavement is an offence ?

Clearly not, but edited for those unable to comprehend that fact.

You posts so far are rather black and white, so you should not be surprised when people ask for clarification.

I'll be sure to extinguish naked flames. I wasn't aware strawmen were so prevalent here when I joined.

Adam Sutton wrote:

I'll be sure to extinguish naked flames. I wasn't aware strawmen were so prevalent here when I joined.

I'm crying virtual tears for you.

If you really think that these actions are a good use of police time, are proportionate and deal with the greatest threat of harm on our roads then you are even more deluded than the trolls that visit regularly.

Perhaps a little reading wouldn't go amiss. You could do worse than start with the West Midland Road Harm Reduction Team:

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com

I don't cycle through red lights and don't think it's a good idea but there really far bigger fish to fry on our roads if you care about safety.

*YAWN* Nice one, another strawman. 

Nowhere was this about proportionality or even denying cars do more harm. Maybe as I suggested actually check what road policing units are doing, rather than get in a twist over clickbait. Stopping cyclists is a very small part of what they are doing.

Adam Sutton wrote:

That is a lot of reaching there. I am fully aware as a cyclist and a driver of the nature of junctions for both cyclists and drivers, and know there are a number of junctions close to me that awaful for cylists when lights change etc, where tempation is to sneak through or walk the bike through on the pavement. That doesn't change the reality that there are many more cases where there is no excuse, the link to the Derby police instance was a cyclist going through a pedestrian crossing like it wasn't even there, as an example. We don't know the nature of the road where GMP carried out this operation, though a glance on google maps shows it to be a straight road with pedestrian crossings and a cylcle lane, so I would hazard a guess at not really excusable.

As I was hinting, berating the police for using resources in this way and in essence trying to elevate cyclists above traffic laws isn't helpful to the image of cyslists by and large. 

I'm not trying to provide justification, but a different perspective on how to address road safety and offences.

With the Derby police instance, if the pedestrian crossing had been a zebra, then the cyclist wouldn't have committed an offense, so it can be enlightening to look at why that's a light controlled crossing (most likely to do with amount of traffic).

A similar kind of thinking can be applied to motorist offences as well. If we look at why motorists are speeding or using phones or performing dodgy MGIF overtakes, then I'd say that a lot of it boils down to motorists getting bored and frustrated with congestion. Lots of queueing in traffic can be very frustrating (moreso with those damned cyclists filtering through) and boring and that's just the kind of thing that leads people to be inattentive and think that they might as well look at their phone. It's human nature.

To my mind (as a non-motorist), the best way to decrease congestion and improve driving conditions is to get more people using active travel or even alternatives such as e-scooters or mopeds. That would reduce congestion as well as improving health etc. If we are going to be serious about increasing the uptake of cycling, then improving junctions for cyclists is one approach.

Alternatively, law enforcement can be increased so that people are more likely to think that they will get caught when RLJing etc. That is going to involve more police presence or possibly using tech (e.g. cameras) to enable the police to be more efficient when dealing with traffic.

In terms of berating the police - some of us feel that police forces are lack-lustre when dealing with motoring offences, even when provided with clear cam evidence (cue wtjs) and then they publicise a crackdown on cyclists. That seems a strange priority and may be a populist strategy. Now, my experience with Avon & Somerset police has been positive, so I wouldn't begrudge them doing the odd cyclist crackdown.

You raise some valid points, but ultimately it isn't about motorists or cyclists, it's about people trying to get from A to B. When you are sat on just one side it may well seem like the focus is one way, if all you're looking at is articles like this on cycling sites it's no surprise all you see is cyclists being stopped. A lot of police road units have social media presence and if you pay attention their focus is rightly on roads and drivers. Personally speaking I've been stopped twice at checkpoints while driving. One late at night checking for drink driving and once just a random check. Police cars also have ANPR to aid them to target uninsured and unlicensed drivers. I've never been stopped cycling, but know that (rightly) there is a regular police presence near work, as pavement cycling is a big problem there. I neither expect to bypass law when cycling vs driving or be treated differently by law enforcement if I'm cycling. I agree on getting people out of cars where possible as that is precisely why I started cycling. The problem is infrastructure. Around where I live we have had numerous new developments that were a blank canvas, yet no real cycling infrastructure was implemented, so yes junctions could and should be reworked. However none of that is an excuse for jumping lights or breaking the law, as a cyclist at a junction that could do with redesign. To come back to the Derby incident, if it were a zebra crossing the same would apply for the drivers, but it isn't t and there are lights. I have in the past come across a broken crossing where the lights changed red with no one there, I was driving and stopped. If I'd been cycling, I would have stopped. Simple as.

Worth mentioning as well though, that it is precisely that attitutude that grates. A driver stops at a crossing when the lights are red, a cyclist goes sailing past with the attitide that there is no one there, if it were a zebra crossing it wouldn't matter. That hardly sets an example and is liable to just reafirm the drivers belief cyclists ARE a menace that think they are above the law. Next cyclist the driver sees, they think why should I give them room, cyclists don't care about the rules why should I? Two wrongs don't make a right, but be the better person/road user, set an example.

I agree with what you're saying up until the setting an example bit.

As you say, we should focus on the people travelling rather than the vehicle and we seem to have got stuck with designing roads and spaces around cars to the exclusion of other modes. To reverse this trend, we need to appreciate that it's better for everyone if we get someone out of a car and onto a bike even if that person then decides to blast through a pedestrian crossing. Even better would be designing roads to support cyclists and pedestrians so that cyclists don't feel the need to break the law and pedestrians don't have to use a beg button just to get across the road. I see the cyclist going through red partly as a symptom of poor design and partly as the cyclist acting selfishly.

The problem I have with cyclists setting examples is that the principle isn't applied to motorists even though motorists are far more likely to kill or injure. It's trivial to find motorists dashing through red lights, speeding or using mobiles and yet they're not accused of setting a poor example. (Even worse is that some motorists turn violent when confronted with criticism of their driving). There's also the collective responsibility thing - I have no control over other cyclists (except for comrades in the Evil Cycle Lobby, but we've got our own secret agenda). Also, no matter how meticulous I may be at following rules, there will still be motorists getting mad at me not using some dodgy infrastructure or for getting to the front of traffic queues - there's no appeasing them apart from not using the roads at all.

Ultimately, I'd like to see some law changes and better junction designs so that there's far less need for cyclists to break the law. I did notice in Copenhagen (went there on holiday) that traffic lights seemed to be followed meticulously by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. However, there were lots of cyclists using phones whilst pootling along in separate cycle/scooter lanes which made me kind of twitchy - I think that's illegal there but was certainly very commonplace.

As a motorist I have an endorsable and revokable license, and will rack up points if I speed or jump lights. Technology has been invested in that catch motorists doing either and has been adapted to catch phone use. The law has also changed to make any phone use illegal. The idea that this is trivialised is bunkam.

I feel again like I (and I know I'm not alone) am sat here, as both a motorist and cyclist, on a fence between cyclists and motorists despairing at both sides.

There is hypocrisy from the cycling community though and even campaigners. While reporting motorists using phones while stopped in traffic (yes illegal, not denying that) I've also seen cycling Mikey retweet and praise a Dutch journalist who was cycling along a busy route doing a piece to camera.

Not been saying you are responsible for the action of other cyclists, but you seem to want to treat motorists as a collective while cyclists as individuals, in some ways above the law. I think we are done here, not least as reading some of the comments I'm probably going to have to go into hiding for criticizing Mike.

Adam Sutton wrote:

As a motorist I have an endorsable and revokable license, and will rack up points if I speed or jump lights. Technology has been invested in that catch motorists doing either and has been adapted to catch phone use. The law has also changed to make any phone use illegal. The idea that this is trivialised is bunkam. I feel again like I (and I know I'm not alone) am sat here, as both a motorist and cyclist, on a fence between cyclists and motorists despairing at both sides. There is hypocrisy from the cycling community though and even campaigners. While reporting motorists using phones while stopped in traffic (yes illegal, not denying that) I've also seen cycling Mikey retweet and praise a Dutch journalist who was cycling along a busy route doing a piece to camera. Not been saying you are responsible for the action of other cyclists, but you seem to want to treat motorists as a collective while cyclists as individuals, in some ways above the law. I think we are done here, not least as reading some of the comments I'm probably going to have to go into hiding for criticizing Mike.

If you think that drivers using mobile phone isn't endemic, then cycle past a line of stationary traffic and see if you can spot a driver using one - my experience is that there will be a significant number. Personally I'm less concerned about phone use in traffic queues although it has been the cause of crashes and it is surprising how much a quick glance totally screws with perception of the road, but phone use whilst turning into/out of junctions is what I think is really dangerous.

By contrast, when cyclists are using phones they are primarily putting themselves at risk (similarly with pedestrians that walk along, head down) and any collisions they cause are very likely to cause hurt to themselves (e.g. bashing into a lamppost). I don't really see it as hypocrisy because there aren't significant numbers of KSIs caused by cyclists using phones whereas people are being killed by negligent drivers. Comparing driving misdemeanors directly with cycling misdemeanors is comparing apples with oranges in terms of harm caused. Think of the difference between, say a large company dumping industrial waste into a river vs a pedestrian dropping a bio-degradable sweet wrapper onto the pavement - they're both littering but clearly not the same thing at all.

I'm curious as to why you think that I'm treating drivers as a collective?

hawkinspeter wrote:

If you think that drivers using mobile phone isn't endemic, then cycle past a line of stationary traffic and see if you can spot a driver using one - my experience is that there will be a significant number.

You're inviting him to become Beetlejuice?!

The problem here Adam is that you're still suggesting a cyclist leaving the line early at a red light is as dangerous as the van driver that passed me at 80mph yesterday without crossing the central line...

You've started bullshit bingo about licensing and punishment yet he will not be punished.

Get a grip mate!

Like this...

Excuse me while I run for that fire extinguisher to put our all these burning strawmen. How the hell you managed to reach the conclusion I am saying a cyclist leaving a stop line is as dangerous as a cars is beyond idiotic. Jesus Chirst.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Not been saying you are responsible for the action of other cyclists, but you seem to want to treat motorists as a collective while cyclists as individuals, in some ways above the law. I think we are done here, not least as reading some of the comments I'm probably going to have to go into hiding for criticizing Mike.

I am also both things, and drive much more now than I used to because my  route to school now takes me up an unlit 50mph road that would be foolish to tackle with the dark evenings and mornings through Winter. 

However, you seem to be falling into the trap that lots of people do, which is working from a baseline assumption that bikes and cars are essentially the same and should be treated as such. They aren't, and the way many drivers deal with cyclists on the road stems from that same belief ... a product of the standard of driver education in this country, as evidenced by the quoted responses of some driving instructors to the new Highway Code changes over the last few weeks. 

The rules/laws of the road are written based on the need to keep motorised traffic moving with little regard to how cyclists fit into that. 

And in terms of treating drivers as a collective ... well, even if 99.9% of drivers were faultlessly competent on the road (and they are not), it still only takes 1 single, individual driver to kill me, so I make no apologies for riding with an assumption that every driver is an incompeten a***hole who might do something stupid and dangerous at any moment. 

I can cite a number of situations where that has literally saved me. 

Flip that around, and I am sure you can acknowledge that if I were to do something stupid and dangerous on my bike the chances are I am endangering the lives of precisely zero drivers. 

First - your general point about polarised views have some truth. Firstly "internet forums" - echo chambers definitely appear. But secondly "cyclists" - which in the UK is significantly self-selected because there are many factors to dissuade people from riding on the road.  Including others labelling you a "cyclist" even if e.g. you mostly drive and walk and then applying a bunch of stereotypes - RLJ being a fave.  So a measure of this being a "support group" whenever people who sometimes ride bicycles get together - and shouting at "the enemy" - should be expected.

I know there are some people who identify more with the underdog and others more with the majority / status quo.  All our perspectives are influenced by this unless we really are disinterested outsiders - which is rare.

It probably isn't a good way to campaign - but actually I doubt that part of things has any impact.  Haters gonna hate.  Media gonna serve up clickbait.  Most of the actual change comes via other things, especially via building relationships between people.

There is a very common false equivalence in play too.  Part of that is "same rights, same responsibilities, we're all just trying to get from a to b".  There's even now a slight counter to that in the Highway Code hierarchy. In terms of negative effects in many areas motorists are far in front.  In terms of negative effects on each other motorists have almost nothing to fear from cyclists but the opposite isn't true.  Pedestrians may feel intimidated by cyclists sometimes (our "shared space" infra...) but are actually safer around them than vehicles. (Still awaiting rate of accident analysis by rich_cb obvs. but the fact is the actual numbers are tiny and I doubt you can increase the frequency of cycling without building infra which would reduce the rate!)

Adam Sutton wrote:

As a motorist I have an endorsable and revokable license, and will rack up points if I speed or jump lights. Technology has been invested in that catch motorists doing either and has been adapted to catch phone use. The law has also changed to make any phone use illegal. The idea that this is trivialised is bunkam

If it weren't possible to go over the limit on points and not have your licenced revoked, and if the rate of detection and prosecution for phone use was at all high your argument would be stronger.

Adam Sutton wrote:

I've also seen cycling Mikey retweet and praise a Dutch journalist who was cycling along a busy route doing a piece to camera.

It does seem a bit "what about" though ("yeah, Cycling Mikey likes some bad stuff") - which I'm obviously tempted to counter by the same ("Top Gear presenters" / "people walking"). If that was in The Netherlands presumably not a busy road as it's much less common to have to ride on a busy road there?  Anyway as I've not seen that one (not on Twitter) I've no idea - maybe that guy was an asshole or even illegal.

Cycling Mikey does seem to be a weapons-grade troll in the eyes of people who're keen on their motoring / not so keen on cyclists though.  If he was dressed as a GATSO would that help?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Adam Sutton wrote:

I've also seen cycling Mikey retweet and praise a Dutch journalist who was cycling along a busy route doing a piece to camera.

Anyway as I've not seen that one (not on Twitter) I've no idea - maybe that guy was an asshole or even illegal.

I suspect the reference is to Anna Holligan's 'News from the cycle path' - not a Dutch journalist, but a journalist in Dutchland.

Adam Sutton wrote:

There is hypocrisy from the cycling community though and even campaigners. While reporting motorists using phones while stopped in traffic (yes illegal, not denying that) I've also seen cycling Mikey retweet and praise a Dutch journalist who was cycling along a busy route doing a piece to camera

You presumably mean Anna Holligan of the BBC (https://twitter.com/annaholligan) whom Mikey follows and sometimes retweets. She presents "News from the cycle path" in which she does indeed do pieces to camera but a) as the title suggests, not on roads but on cycle paths and b) with a wand-mounted camera with both hands on the bars, perfectly legal and indeed safe in both the Netherlands and the UK.

Adam Sutton wrote:

reading some of the comments I'm probably going to have to go into hiding for criticizing Mike.

Love a bit of ludicrous hyperbole for breakfast.

Thanks for this I needed a belly laugh. If anything my comment was facetious in response to the diatribe of hyperbole being spilled out by what seems to be the road.cc clique.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Thanks for this I needed a belly laugh. If anything my comment was facetious in response to the diatribe of hyperbole being spilled out by what seems to be the road.cc clique.

Seems perhaps you're reading comments that aren't there.