Cyclists in the City of London who jump red lights this year will be offered an alternative to a £50 fixed penalty: watching a safety film about a cyclist who was badly injured in a collision with a bus after running a red light.
The cyclist, Gabby Stonkute, had collided with a bus after running a red light at a busy junction close to St Paul’s Cathedral in central London. She was in an induced coma for a week, and suffered a collapsed lung, 10 fractures to her face, including a broken jaw, nose, chin and both eye sockets.
“I was in a rush for a hair appointment,” she told the Financial Times. “I’m not brave. I was just reckless.”
The City of London Police safety film will feature the CCTV footage of the incident, along with Stonkute sharing her story. It will be shown to cyclists in the City of London, the Square Mile at the heart of the city north of the River Thames. The force confirmed to road.cc this lunchtime it is currently being made and will likely be used from the spring.
“They warned me I might be subject to trolling, but I’ll take it as long as it does some good,” said Stonkute. She believes that the fact that the bus driver was going at 15mph instead of the legal limit of 20mph probably saved her life.
The police say using Stonkute’s story will highlight the dangers of reckless cycling and put people off riding through red lights.
City of London Police has repeatedly made headlines for its approach to targeting cyclists who ride through red lights. In the summer of 2023 the force founded a Cycle Response Unit and in its first year in operation the unit issued more than 1,200 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for going through red lights “or putting themselves, other cyclists and pedestrians at risk”.
However, while cyclists running red lights is an often-heard criticism, the London Cycling Campaign’s Simon Munk recently told an ITV news report on the subject that some of London’s cycle lanes are currently operating over their capacity, and that the issues concerning traffic lights and the flow of cycle traffic need to be addressed to ensure fewer people on bikes feel compelled to ride through reds.
Munk also noted that pedestrians are statistically more likely to ignore traffic signals than cyclists, while Martel pointed out in his report that cyclists are far less likely to kill than be killed on Britain’s roads, with fewer than one per cent of pedestrian deaths stemming from collisions with people on bikes.
“It’s not good, and we shouldn’t be jumping red lights,” Munk said. “But what we know is that cyclists are jumping red lights and misbehaving illegally and dangerously in roughly the same proportion as pedestrians. In fact, pedestrians are slightly worse behaved, and drivers are about as equally badly behaved as cyclists [at traffic lights].
“This is annoying, and it’s really deeply hostile to pedestrians. These people shouldn’t be doing it, but it’s not actually statistically very dangerous. I think it’s important to understand that we shouldn’t be accepting cyclists jumping red lights, but we should be working out why. We should be working out what the problem is and fixing it.”
The police say the new safety film policy has followed a Local Policing committee report which stated: “It is now significantly less risky (to personal safety) for City cyclists to run red lights and otherwise cycle dangerously.” The force believes showing riders Stonkute’s story could put people off riding through red lights.
“We’re extremely grateful and praise Gabby’s bravery for working with us on a cycling red-light campaign, which will undoubtedly save lives and prevent serious injuries,” said City police constable Brett Daniels.
Fabian Hamilton MP, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, said: “Levels of cycling in London have been increasing in recent years, which is hugely positive. It means less congestion on our roads, improved public health, and that more people are being enabled to make different choices about how they travel.”
“It is essential that everyone follows the Highway Code and doesn’t behave in a way that endangers either other people or themselves.”
Jaison Patel, an orthopaedic knee surgeon at the Royal London, told the FT there has been an increase in accidents involving riders or pedestrians, although statistics for this claim are not provided. This is partly thanks, he said, to the rise in popularity of e-bikes, which are heavier than traditional bikes, so they tend to cause more severe injuries.
He added, “Prevention measures are possible, though how it’s done is beyond our control. What we can do as surgeons is highlight the issue, and hopefully somebody will take notice and do something about it.”
54 thoughts on “Cyclists caught running red lights in London will be given the option of watching a film about a serious collision that left a cyclist in a coma”
Paris lets cyclists “jump”
Paris lets cyclists “jump” red lights at certain junctions. You’re allowed to dismount your bike and walk across the junction, perfectly legally here in the UK. The traffic lights at the Euston Taxi Rank I use to cross Euston Road (north to south) often have me hammering my bell as pedestrians start walking across the road as soon as the light goes green for me. Crossing the Strand north to south to get to Waterloo Bridge always has cyclists reach the other side of the junction just as people get the green man to cross the road on the other side, leaving cyclists stranded in the middle of the junction.
My point is that traffic lights, particularly in dense cities, are often set up in a fashion that at best inconveniences and at worse is dangerous for cyclists. Cyclists should not be taught to treat traffic lights as the final word on what is safe. I wish the UK government would get a grip and start considering progressive measures to make cycling easier and safer when it comes to traffic lights, like the yellow signs you get in Paris, or the Idaho Stop. The Idaho Stop was passed as a law in 1982. Since 2017 twelve other US states have enacted the same law, five of which treat a red light as a stop sign, much like certain junctions in Paris.
It’s unsurprising that Paris is ahead of us but it’s a sad state of affairs when the UK is falling behind even the USA on progressive cycling laws.
Passing red lights as a cyclist at quiet junctions is not dangerous when treated like a stop sign, just like crossing the road at a junction as a pedestrian isn’t if you stop and look around before doing so.
Further to this, there’s
Further to this, there’s studies to show that the Idaho Stop is safer. I’m sick of red light jumpers being painted as dangerous.
https://www.calbike.org/new-studies-show-no-downsides-for-bicycle-safety-stop/
Boopop wrote:
Some red light jumpers are dangerous – to themselves and to pedestrians in particular – but many (of the Idaho stop type as you say) are not.
Steve K wrote:
Of course. I don’t think any law is going to stop such people anyway though.
Thats the thing i think most
Thats the thing i think most protesting here about their safety right to jump a red would do so mindfully and safely around pedestrians.
Its the ones who dont give a crap for anyone’s safety who create the problem
And its hard to justify a blanket behaviour when it does result in pedestrians being hurt.
But those people are
But those people are dangerously running red lights regardless, so it’s somewhat moot. I’m not convinced making it legal to proceed with caution would increase risk to pedestrians.
Most of this! Completely
Most of this! Completely agree that the ultimate issue is the failure to consider cyclists – and in practice pedestrians. (Because “crossing massively delayed / time-limited is crossing denied” to pinch a phrase.)
I am dubious about implementations of “red means red … except when it doesn’t”. Mostly because in the UK the majority (pedestrians, where cyclists interact with them) currently have strong expectations that “green means green” for them. There are currently not enough people cycling so this becomes “self-reinforcing” rather than just being a source of conflict.
Plus we know that people (even “trained and licenced” drivers) are very quick to decide that eg. red only means red when it’s “established”!
Hopefully we can get to a point where we have infra which facilitates pedestrians and cyclists interacting without it being a drama, like in NL.
Of course the best solution is *no* traffic lights – because they’re really there just for the motor traffic. So that’s “unbundling routes”, reducing the motor traffic volumes or grade-separating crossings…
Boopop wrote:
There’s a lot of junctions where it’s nearly always safe for a cyclist to go through when turning left – the issue is that traffic lights are designed for motor traffic and not cyclists.
If I can use York as an
If I can use York as an example – there is a major three lane crossroads at which the left turn goes first, a solid 2 mins or so before anyone else. That lane leads down onto a very narrow single lane road past the rail and bus station (so is often used by buses obvs). Giving cyclists the jump on this by allowing them to use it while the pedestrian crossings are active (all 4 crossings activate at once) would put them out of harms way for a longer period. There’s no logic in not allowing it, really.
There’s even a film the
There’s even a film the French Ministry of Transport made to explain why it’s often safer…
I’ve been riding daily in the
I’ve been riding daily in the Idaho capital city for a few weeks now, and I can tell you two things about the Idaho Stop. One is obvious, the other not so much.
The obvious one is that you can’t fix stupid. People on bikes can be every bit as stupid as people in motor vehicles, the big distinction being that the stupidity of people on bikes puts them at risk of death or serious injury other than the other way around.
The not-so-obvious benefit of the Idaho Stop – which not only allows cyclists to stop and go at red lights, but allows them to treat stop signs as yield signs – makes motorists more attentive because of concerns about cyclists popping out of “nowhere.”
I actually had an interesting experience at an unmarked intersection when I stopped to consult my phone for directions because I was lost. I was standing there next to a stop sign when a woman approaching the intersection in a car actually stopped, thinking I was preparing to cross.
She clearly had the right-of-way, but stopped anyway in the interest of safety.
Yep – and those stupid
Yep – and those stupid cyclists who ride through a red light without giving way can still be prosecuted for riding recklessly. The Idaho stop is not carte blanche to do as you please.
In France, at some lights,
In France, at some lights, cyclists merely have to giveway and can turn right on red lights (that would be left here). I’m sure they can’t cross the junction or turn left.
I’ve started to see a few green lights for cyclists here in the UK, at standard junctions, that give us an advance signal to go before the vehicles behind then get their green light moments later. That’s helpful.
Advanced green for cyclists
Advanced green for cyclists is perhaps a benefit but in the UK implementations I’ve seen a rather marginal gain. It requires some infra modification anyway (usually it’s a painted ASL / bike box – so we’re already somewhat in magic paint territory)… so why stop there?
Then: it’s only useful for those who already cycle on the roads (a few percent of journeys in the UK, most people just won’t at current motor traffic volumes)!
You have to get to the front, and hope ideally isn’t a motor vehicle in your space already (and often the paint has worn off).
It doesn’t help with the usual issues either like drivers still “following the last amber gambler” when your light is green.
I think a better 2nd class intervention to call for (at suitable junctions) would be all-ways green for cyclists. But the UK seems to be allergic to them and TBF not even all the Dutch (where I think they’re most common) are enthusiastic.
Driver education and design
Driver education and design is an issue…had a near miss attempted left hook when I was going straight ahead through a junction in the cycle lane after the cyclist early start light had gone off and just had the standard green….Driver told me
” but it was my turn ” Standard junction no cycle lane I’d be riding in primary to clearly showing going straight ahead and discourage passing
What the UK could *really* do
What the UK could *really* do with (which would help everyone – perhaps even motorists) is smarter lights.
Apart from costs I’ve heard some concerns about UK legal compliance. But my go-to- expert (Ranty Highwayman) has suggested that many specific cases of “law says no” are not correct, and more to do with “but change!”.
Video here on what we could win: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4
Of course in the UK all this is moot because we still have the “maximum throughout of *motor* traffic” directive baked in so many places, plus very high volumes of motor traffic at times…
“Crossing the Strand north to
“Crossing the Strand north to south to get to Waterloo Bridge always has cyclists reach the other side of the junction just as people get the green man to cross the road on the other side, leaving cyclists stranded in the middle of the junction.”
I would suggest reporting this to the authority that controls the roads.
TfL?
Let them know about the issue, with video evidence and request they change the phasing of the lights.
Maybe worth getting Road CC and LCC involved too.
I would suggest reporting
I would suggest reporting this to the authority that controls the roads
Personal experience of reporting things to the authorities in the UK, along with the experience of those who reported Hillsborough, Tainted Blood, Mid-Staffs Hospitals, Morecambe Bay Hospitals, Post Office persecution, sexual abuse by members of the clergy, Gosport War Memorial Hospital death orders etc. etc, suggests that reporting is a sure way of ensuring nothing is done about the scandal
Even if we were to accept
Even if we were to accept/agree that this policy is a good idea, I’d like to think that the same approach is taken for motorists – especially those who are actually involved in a collision, as a result of their actions. I know that there are speed awareness courses, but I’m not sure about any other kind of awareness courses.
There’s the ‘what’s driving
There’s the ‘what’s driving us?’ course:
The driver who swerved at me whilst yelling ‘I’ll squish yer!’ out of their window got the opportunity to attend one.
HoarseMann wrote:
That’s interesting – any idea how often that option is used?
Not sure about the ratio to
Not sure about the ratio to NFA / prosecution, but in 2024 120,000 people attended a WDU course:
https://www.ukroed.org.uk/scheme/trends-statistics/
Why isn’t it just part of the
Why isn’t it just part of the driving test process I wonder? Preventative medicine and all that…
Cameras at all junctions with
Cameras at all junctions with traffic lights…
I’m not sure about any other
I’m not sure about any other kind of awareness courses
There are clearly no awareness courses for police officers
Yes! Because cyclists are so
Yes! Because cyclists are so stupid that they don’t understand the consequences of being hit by a moving bus! Maybe cyclists should also be required to watch a video on how dangerous it is to ride into the back of a parked car or a building. This is clearly the idea of someone who spends all his or her time in a motor vehicle, where the consequences of not paying attention are minimal as opposed to on a bike where the consequences of not paying attention are maximal.
The point, which your are
The point, which your are missing, is do they all understand the possible consequences of running a red light? Obviously not. And it is only those who don’t or who don’t care (till it’s too late) who get the option to watch the film or pay the fine. This is a good idea.
Its funny isn’t it. Drivers
Its funny isn’t it. Drivers say things like “I don’t why cyclists do X because if they get hit they are the ones that get hurt”. They don’t have the thought that perhaps most cyclists are very aware of the dangers cars present and theres a reason we do certain things.
For balance perhaps they
For balance perhaps they should also be shown a video of someone being driven over by the person not indicating left who turns across them as they pull away, then they can make their own decisions about whether to pointlessly wait at red lights or not.
I don’t jump red lights in my hometown but I sure as shit do when I’m in London. It just makes sense most of the time.
I don’t want to jump into the
I don’t want to jump into the whole red light discussion again (I’m told that the London cycling community hates me and that I’m not a “real cyclist” because I jump red lights), but I will point out the only time I’ve been hit by a motorist in the UK was because I decided to stop at a red light, and the motorist behind me insisted on overtaking me IMMEDIATELY when it turned green.
I honestly believe it’s safer
I honestly believe it’s safer in lots of situations, particularly in London. Getting ahead of traffic and back into infrastructure is my priority when sharing the road with taxi drivers and lorries.
I always try to follow the
I always try to follow the rules at lights, but yes one of my closest near misses has been when stopping at a red, and the car behind has coontiued on through.
I guess the issue is that you
I guess the issue is that you are putting the decision making on cyclists and the consequences of hitting cyclists isn’t just bourne by the cyclist. Most reasonable people would be traumatised if they hit and killed someone even if it wasn’t their fault. With the way some people cycle, especially in London from what I can tell, giving cyclists carte blanche to ignore red lights at their discretion might not be a good idea.
Its like so many ideas. Good until our brightest and best get involved and make you realise that humans are fundamentally stupid.
mctrials23 wrote:
Well … because cyclists and pedestrians *are* vulnerable sometimes the only realistic solution is to put the decision making on the vulnerable road users. BUT we can arrange it so that this isn’t needed so much as it is currently in the UK (separation, motor traffic reduction). AND there are definitely better ways to arrange it to give the vulnerable road users the best possible chances and minimise consequences when things go wrong.
I don’t think “treat red as ‘stop’ ” alone meets those standards though, particularly from where we are in the UK.
Agree about asking “what happens when mass humanity does it”? Then we find that – statistically – numbers (of careful, law-abiding people) sometimes do not follow rules if they’re inconvenient (see eg. motorist speeding, footway driving and “amber gambling” among many). Plus humans, so while “some people are fools all of the time, all people can be fools some of the time”.
BUT … we know it *is* possible to “fix it for vulnerable road users”, because NL (and other places to a lesser extent) exists.
In other news, drivers will
In other news, drivers will be offered an alternative to a fixed penalty: they will be shown a 2h compilation of cyclists’ submissions to Operation Snap, complete with commentary on why
the driving was dangerousthe police couldn’t be bothered to prosecute.drivers will be offered an
drivers will be offered an alternative to a fixed penalty: they will be shown a 2h compilation of cyclists’ submissions to Operation Snap, complete with commentary on why the police couldn’t be bothered to prosecute
Can I provide the whole 2 hours?
etc. Lancashire Constabulary did nothing about any of them
By popular demand from David9694:
The Lancashire Constabulary Traffic Officer’s View
Clearly, these drivers were all rushing emergency blood from Preston to Royal Lancaster Infirmary for aged pedestrians who had fallen victim to 50mph Terror – Cyclists and were naturally incensed at this obstacle put in their way solely to featherbed cyclists crossing the A6
https://youtu.be/xhe9kRCySxM
Reading comments here makes
Reading comments here makes me wonder.
Does the Highway Code/ rules of the road not just apply to all road users? In one breath us cyclists shout we are road users like any other and cars/drivers should respect that,therefore it can only be fair to apply the same and that we shouldn’t stop at red lights.
I commute daily and stop at lights when they are red. I have not had any challenges with this behaviour. Occasionally I pull into bike box, often with a car IN the box, make eye contact and work out where the car is going. We then proceed with mutual respect.
Shame the mutual respect didn
Shame the mutual respect didn’t start by not being in the bike box.
Very true, but id struggle to
Very true, but id struggle to remember the last time I saw any drivers respect them.
The highway code does apply
The highway code does apply to all users but roads are not built with cyclists in mind, and bikes and cars are different vehicles, hence why cyclists and pedestrians can share space safely. It makes no sense to not allow bikes to cross on pedestrian greens, assuming you’re not crashing into anyone.
Justin Hame wrote:
“We should all just share the road” right?
I tend to stick to rules myself, and think that red light rules are important ones. I don’t think formally changing this one in the UK is a good move.
But apart from your personal righteousness points stating “as a cyclist I stick to all the rules” does what, exactly? Cyclists aren’t going to “earn respect” that way (certainly not from the “bloody cyclists!” brigade). And even if so it won’t do anything for your safety that being a careful and alert cyclist won’t already.
Why? Given that some people on the road (motorists) have massive powers in terms of invulnerability, weight and the ability to gain immense kinetic energy relative to a cyclist or pedestrian, and given fallible humans are driving …
… then “share the road” / mutual-respect-type aspirations are always going to be a hope. (Without major changes like those implemented in NL, which are designed to take account of the lazy, corner-cutting humans we are sometimes).
It’s all a bit abuse victim
It’s all a bit abuse victim ish isn’t it. Maybe if we behave really well then the people who drive their vehicles at us to intimidate us will stop.
“We should all just share the
“We should all just share the road” right?
I think, in this case of ‘driver trolling cycling website’ it’s more ‘can’t we all just get along?’
Hi, not sure if replied to me
Hi, not sure if replied to me or Chrisonabike, but I am by no means a driver trolling cycling website. I probably ride 10x the hours that I spend behind a car wheel. Do I drive? Yes. I ride way more though.
Reqding the comments, I guess I am in the minority in my view that trying to follow rules of the road is safer than not to. That is ok.
Justin Hame wrote:
The issue is mainly at light controlled junctions – it’s usually more risky to set off at the same time as the drivers when the lights turn green. There’s more risk of them either left-turning into you or not seeing you at all (possibly phone related). If you can set off a few seconds earlier than the drivers, then at least it puts you into a more visible position and hopefully gives you enough time to get across the junction before the drivers catch up.
I guess I am in the minority
I guess I am in the minority in my view that trying to follow rules of the road is safer than not to
On the contrary, I firmly believe that everybody should obey the legislation that the Highway Code is based upon – unfortunately, the bastard police don’t see it that way and routinely ignore offences committed by drivers. In particular, they ignore red light and MOT offences- you can see too many cases on here from me. The problem is not cyclists getting away with murder, it’s drivers routinely getting away with manslaughter – although that’s the other arm of the Get Drivers Off Conspiracy: the Courts. As to your own history: people who appear suddenly on here with a ‘can’t we all just get along’ message are generally ‘I’m a cyclist myself’s
I’m getting mutual respect,
I’m getting mutual respect, established red, TT danger vibes
If the legislation was
If the legislation was changed to treat red lights as a stop.
i) a large number of cyclists would be unaware of the change
ii) the majority of motorists would be unaware of the change (note recent(!) changes to the Highway Code).
This would result in an increase in blood pressure of many motorists (both the unaware & those who know, but think it wrong). Leading too, possibly, less consideration, more aggression, etc.. I would suggest that would be the, obvious, unintended consequence.
The more we create different rules for different groups, the more we create different groups [discuss].
ChrisA wrote:
The different groups already exist in terms of different modes of transport, so the different rules are just fine-tuning what rules are applicable. It would be laughable to declare just one set of traffic rules and then prosecute pedestrians who failed to use indicators or hand signals when overtaking (other peds) or turning. Similarly, it wouldn’t be a great idea to allow drivers to use pavements. I could however be persuaded that getting all pedestrians to pass a driving test to be allowed to use pavements and roads would be a good idea.
The problem we have is that most road junctions have been designed mostly around motor vehicles with only a grudging after-thought of how pedestrians/cyclists/scooters are supposed to use them safely. Without there being changes to traffic rules, it’s just a natural reaction for pedestrians/cyclists/scooters to figure out the best compromise between speed of travel and safety.
I’m hearing complaints about
I’m hearing complaints about excessive delays on the cycle track at CYCLOPS junctions in Manchester, like for 2 or 3 cycles of traffic changes.
On videos (like Ranty
On videos (like Ranty Highwayman’s *) they look OK**… but it wouldn’t surprise me that they were adequate as specified / initially installed but then there was pushback / modifications elsewhere in the system “because motor traffic capacity!”.
Or simply that detection (if that’s used – if not why not) isn’t working as it should?
Still yet to try any of these though.
* eg:
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2022/08/summer-cyclops-safaris-part-2-cambridge.html
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2022/05/traffic-signal-pie-innie-vs-outie.html
** I understand the motivation somewhat, in the UK it’s likely much more possible if something is primarily presented as “more pedestrian-friendly” rather than “cycle infra”. (Although my calculation suggests there are more potential pedestrian/ cyclist path-crossings in the Cyclops design).
Perhaps I’m just suspicious because “look! Reinvented here” rather than using proven, well-tested designs?
Fuck the fucking shitcxnts of
Fuck the fucking shitcxnts of City of London police. I cycled in the city from 1989 to 2004, and I can tell you not one of their predecessors gave a damn about cyclists back then. Losers, the lot of them. I don’t believe they care about cyclists’ safety now, either.
C’mon – tell us what you
C’mon – tell us what you really think.