Leading cycling campaigners in Scotland have been discussing the potential road safety implications of allowing cyclists to ride through red lights.
Speaking to Scotland on Sunday figures from campaign groups such as Bike for Good, Cycling Scotland and Spokes shared differing opinions on the matter, with disagreements over whether such changes were necessary and what safety improvements they would have.
As per the Highway Code, informed by the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 36, cyclists 'must obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals' and 'must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red'.
This differs from road laws in other parts of the world, notably in some parts of the United States and France where cyclists are permitted to proceed at red lights in certain circumstances, something Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet of Bike for Good believes should be implemented closer to home.
"After reading various studies proving that removing the obligation for cyclists to stop at red lights increased safety, I decided to test it myself," he told the Scotsman's Sunday sister paper, arguing a change of road rules could allow those on bicycles to travel through red lights at specially marked junctions after giving way to pedestrians.
"In Paris and Lyon last summer I had the opportunity to experience this and quickly felt much safer on the road. At junctions motorists knew they had to prioritise cyclists and were more cautious — it's time to change mindsets."
However, not everyone agrees, Cycling Scotland's cycling safety manager Simon Bradshaw suggested Scotland's road laws are too different to France's to be compared and questioned if such action should even be a priority.
"There are many actions needed to improve safety for people cycling and we don't believe that permitting people to cycle through red lights is one of them," he said.
"Red lights — and green figures — ensure people can cross roads more safely and confidently. Scotland also has very different rules of the road to France, making it complex to replicate. The recent updates to the Highway Code, if followed, make our roads safer for everyone."
Likewise, Ian Maxwell of the Lothian cycling campaign group Spokes, told the Sunday newspaper he does not believe the matter is "necessary".
"I would like to see all motorists respecting advance stop lines before we try this approach," he explained.
"There is also the question of why this particular priority is necessary. Cycling is already a fast and reliable way of getting through city centres, even if you have to wait at a few red lights."
Just last year Colorado approved a bill to let cyclists ride through red lights with the aim of cutting collision numbers by reducing interactions at junctions between drivers and people on bikes.
The rule change does still require riders to briefly stop at red lights to give way to any vehicles or pedestrians before continuing on their way.
Elsewhere, in Paris, since 2015 cyclists are permitted to travel straight or make right turns through reds when at specially signed junctions, a law change that followed a successful pilot scheme.
> Cyclists in Paris allowed to ignore red traffic lights
"They [red lights] were installed so that car drivers would let pedestrians cross the road, to regulate the flow of traffic and to moderate the speed," Christine Lambert of the campaign group Mieux Se Déplacer à Bicyclette (MDB) said at the time.
"But bicycles don't go fast and don't make any noise. It's idiotic to stop for nothing. You waste energy and it slows you down. The best safety assets for cyclists are your eyes and your brain."
Coverage of cyclists and red lights here in the UK is often a divisive topic, with headlines such as 'Red light Rats!' appearing in the Mail on Sunday after the paper accused 26 "rogue cyclists" of jumping lights outside Buckingham Palace.
The story of last August led to accusations of the article being "manufactured" and "dehumanising" after it was discovered the road was closed to motor traffic and police officers had urged bicycle riders to continue through the lights.
Earlier this month a Deliveroo food delivery cyclist based in Edinburgh spoke out about the pressures of the job and said the struggle to make ends meet leads many couriers to break traffic laws, such as jumping red lights.
> Most delivery cyclists jump red lights and ride on pavement to avoid losing income, says Deliveroo rider
"I do not have any issue with laws, and as a recreational club cyclist, I feel some obligation to not give cyclists a bad name and fuel anti-cyclist attitudes held by many motorists. Riding for Deliveroo, I have the opposite mindset," he said.
"If every road law was to be followed, it could easily add five minutes to a delivery, which would cut my income by 20 per cent.
"My normal 'Roo' daytime income averages £10-12 per hour. To reduce that by 20 per cent is therefore not realistic. Most Roo cyclists will, like me, not follow all road laws."
What do you think? Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights in certain circumstances? Would a change in the rules improve road safety for everyone? Is a change even necessary?
Add new comment
126 comments
That's simply not true - pedestrians are road users and don't have to stop at red lights. It also overlooks the numerous othe ways in which the law treats different road users differently (e.g. speed limits; insurance/tax/licence requirements etc.)
In some ways, I think that is actually key to this discussion. The law, and society, largely treat cyclists as "car-lite" - i.e. bikes and cars are both "carriages" in the eyes of the law. Whilst the earliest road traffic laws referring to carriages actually predate the motor vehicle, that term has stuck and the law has been extensively (re)written around the motor vehicle, with the humble bicycle caught up in this definition (with some additional bits of law tacked on for motor vehicles specifically). (Incidentally, having bicycles classified as "carriages" was actually considered a win by cycling campaigners at the time, because it gave cyclists the legal right to freely use public carriageways.)
I would argue that bicycles are better considered "pedestrian-plus". In pretty much all regards (e.g. weight, size, power, speed, vulnerability, situational awareness etc.), a cyclist has more in common with a pedestrian than a car.
And there are plenty of car-free spaces where pedestrians and cyclists mix comfortably with no traffic signals - from my own experience the best examples would be Cambridge's various green spaces (Jesus Green, Midsummer Common, Parker's Piece etc.) which are key routes for both cyclists and pedestrians and yet very safe and largely incident free (not 100% incident free, but if you browse Crash Map or similar it is striking how few incidents occur compared to the nearby roads open to motor traffic).
In that light, any change should not be viewed as "giving cyclists an exemption from traffic law [as it applies to carriages]" but rather "bringing cycists into line with existing traffic law [as it applies to pedestrians]".
I don't think there should be a change. There are a core set of rules in the Highway Code that apply to all road users. Behaviour at junctions is one - and a vitally important one. There are enough road users that struggle with the current rules - complicating them won't help.
It could also create resentment of cyclists if they're considered "special". Cyclists certainly don't need any more resentment against them just now.
A big factor in road safety is the level of compliance with the rules. Historically the UK has done well, but in recent years, the injury accidents from vulnerable road users has been creeping up. Compliance with the rules, whatever they are, by all road users, matters. I say sort out the compliance, not the rules. And that means more enforcement.
I'm not sure that junctions apply here - the rules for using junctions are already different for pedestrians and motor vehicles. In fact, I suspect that very few rules apply to all road users - the code is very clearly sub-divided by different users. I suppose you could make the case if you exclude pedestrians from being road users, but that just becomes a fiction
Sorry, almost every driver I know hates cyclists with a passion, and if we were given the ok to go through red lights in certain circumstances, that situation is only going to get worse. And if a cyclist went through a red under these new rules, and caused an accident...
You simply cannot explain to drivers that there are different rules, they just do not get it, or don't want to get it.
In that case, it's best to completely discount their uninformed opinions and let the adults get on with implementing the best solutions, especially those that have shown benefits in other countries. If a segment of the population are willfully ignorant then there is no benefit in trying to appease them anyway.
What you said! Different modes are different. The fact that in the UK we're unclear about this just means we need to be clearer!
Examples: cyclists are not pedestrians so don't lump them together (especially not on crap infra - being exactly the same narrow footway space). Cycles are legally "vehicles" but are not the same as "motor vehicles" and are already subject to different rules (restricted from motorways etc.)
Pages