Questions have been asked of Greater Manchester Police after the force shared news of a crackdown on cyclists jumping red lights in the city centre, with many doubting the operation is an effective use of resources.
The force’s transport unit is the latest to ask riders to stop at red lights. Last week, the Metropolitan Police sent 14 officers on a 90-minute operation in Hackney to deter red light jumping cyclists — 18 were fined.
> Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes
On Friday, Derbyshire Police also shared a video of a rider passing through a red light, saying the individual was fined, and accompanied the clip with a message insisting “cyclists must stop”.
However, the Manchester post, below, has attracted a significant amount of responses questioning why the force is “prioritising” less dangerous offences, and others asking for more effective use of police resources.
In just 90 minutes, #gmptransportunit officers dealt with 30 cyclists who were found to have ridden straight through red traffic lights on Oxford Road. Please follow the rules of the road and help us make the city a safer place to cycle #Travelsafe pic.twitter.com/ilFKgWG5eg
— GMP Manchester City Centre (@GMPCityCentre) February 7, 2022
The GMP Manchester City Centre account tweeted to its 176,000 followers: “Traffic offence reports were issued during this deployment, however officers have also utilised education alongside enforcement. By highlighting the dangers and refreshing their knowledge of the law we hope to reduce the risks to all road users, not just cyclists.”
> Derbyshire Police share video of cyclist fined for jumping red light — insist “cyclists must stop”
Despite the explanation, many responses centred on questions around police resources, prioritising more dangerous offences, and doubts about if similar offences by other road users were also being targeted.
Prominent road safety campaigner CyclingMikey, who submits videos of law-breaking drivers to the police, called for more “evidence-led” policing.
I’m not a fan of red light jumping by drivers or cyclists, but shouldn’t you be doing more evidence led policing, focusing on the most harmful and most lawbreaking? pic.twitter.com/PuujLmfGnE
— CyclingMikey tired of road crime. ?????? (@MikeyCycling) February 7, 2022
Another asked: “Did you see any cars speed up and go through changing lights? I see that frequently and is much more dangerous.”
A campaign group dedicated to making the A56 in the North West of England safer for all users suggested there are “far more serious” dangers on the road that police should be looking to crack down on.
There’s far more serious & frequently dangerous road traffic offences committed – 56% of motorists break the 30mph speed limit yet enforcement of this frequently fatal offence is minimal. Plus add driving through red lights, on mobile phones, under the influence of drink / drugs. pic.twitter.com/UJOk4lPf6v
— A56 Safety Campaign (@A56Safety) February 7, 2022
Pompey Cyclist suggested: “Now do cars. Because, you know, they actually cause danger and that wouldn’t be a total waste of our money.”
Another added: “I wonder why you don’t do this with drivers? After all everybody should be held to account.” While someone else asked why there were no pictures of an operation cracking down on red light jumping drivers at the same junction?
Stephen Hines replied: “Did you take the opportunity to stop any drivers at the same time? Enforcement is great, but it would be nice to see all road users held to the same standard, and it might be nice for the cyclists to know how many other offences were dealt with in the same operation.”
However, not everyone questioned the police action. Many comments thanked the force for its work.
One cyclist said: “Thank you for this, I’m truly fed up with getting abuse from drivers for [those] that don’t stop at lights. Now, about those drivers. Mostly the abuse is because I’ve asked them to put their phones down or not pass so closely… You’re going to be targeting them next right?”
Seriously, stop doing this. Ideally stop it because we’re supposed to obey the rules of the road but if that doesn’t bother you then at least stop it because it gives the anti-cycling people free ammunition! https://t.co/I6h3bYLL7A
— Yet Another Tweeting Barrister (@TweetingYet) February 7, 2022
139 thoughts on “Questions asked after another police force keen to highlight crackdown on cyclists jumping red lights”
Sounds like there is a
Sounds like there is a problem at that particular junction and perhaps police are responding to complaints that have been made.
The police have always “got something better to do” so just stop at red lights.
I’m still not buying the
I’m still not buying the “giving anti-cycling people free ammunition”. You don’t hear Highway Code protesters complaining about speeding drivers giving cyclists free ammunition, do you?
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’re forgetting that we are part of a homogenous hive mind. But then of course, so was I…
You are only stating what we
You are only stating what we are all thinking…
Captain Badger wrote:
I’m still not buying the “giving anti-cycling people free ammunition”. You don’t hear Highway Code protesters complaining about speeding drivers giving cyclists free ammunition, do you?
— Captain Badger You’re forgetting that we are part of a homogenous hive mind. But then of course, so was I…— hawkinspeter
Resistance is futile…
Is this part of the ‘Highway
Is this part of the ‘Highway code- cyclists getting a free ride -(no pun intended)- better make sure they know who is ( still) boss on the roads’ campaign of misinformation/deliberate confusion. Some perverse attempt by the Police to placate so called ‘irate’, ‘road rage gonna happen’, aggrieved motorists. Head them off at the pass by coming down on cyclists?
Not defending RLJs, but we all know who does the most harm, most often by jumpng lights.
“Did you take the opportunity
“Did you take the opportunity to stop any drivers at the same time? Enforcement is great, but it would be nice to see all road users held to the same standard”
It would be nice if the police ceased failing to act against RLJ drivers- even though I haven’t yet caught any exceeding Rendel’s 3 seconds after the lights turned red!
wtjs wrote:
It’s not “my” rule, that’s what I was told by a Met officer! I’d be happy for anyone who goes through red at any time to be sanctioned.
Yup, the Met have told me
Yup, the Met have told me this, at least 2 seconds otherwise the Magistrate will give the driver the benefit of the doubt apparently, even though they’ve already had 3 seconds of Amber to stop as required. Sigh
the Met have told me this, at
the Met have told me this, at least 2 seconds otherwise the Magistrate will give the driver the benefit of the doubt
There’s a lot of this about being ‘told’- now somebody should show us where any police force has written down anything about a free pass for going through traffic lights X seconds after they turned red!
There’s one junction on my
There’s one junction on my commute where I like counting how many cars go through the red lights – a traffic light controlled junction between the A369 (Abbots Leigh Road) and the B3129 (Beggar Bush Lane).
https://goo.gl/maps/N4qjwoym5PH1Fcrr5 – this is a streetview travelling toward Bristol, with Bebbar Bush Lane being the road going off to the right.
In the evenings, there are ALWAYS two or three cars which jump the red lights either going toward Bristol or into Beggar Bush Lane.
I like counting how many cars
I like counting how many cars go through the red lights
This sounds to be a junction like ‘mine’- no cyclists go through these on red because they would soon be dead- that type of junction must be in cities with loads of other lights around and slow moving traffic. The offence of 50+mph vehicles coming through lights 2 seconds after they turned red persists because the police don’t view it as a serious offence
brooksby wrote:
I often cycle along Beggar Bush Lane and turn right (towards Bristol) at that junction but have not seen any RLJing there – must be a rush hour thing.
My vote for worst lights for RLJing would be at Temple Gate roundabout. Interested parties could just sit there and catch vehicles RLJing all day long
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4479818,-2.5826971,3a,75y,132.86h,81.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siUT8t-Ltft1Qj-ivpQC93w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
(sorry for the big lorry in the way)
The RLJs with motors tend to
The RLJs with motors tend to be the ones going straight on (Bristol –> Portishead or vice versa) or the ones turning left into Beggar Bush Lane.
Oh! Wait! that’s all the options.
Yeah, maybe it is a (particularly evening) rush hour thing…
PS – and this is a junction with beg buttons if you don’t have a motor. If you press the button, then you get slotted in at a point in the lights cycle (the same point, so you may be waiting a long time). And, to go straight on on the shared-use path travelling from Bristol toward Portishead means you have to press three separate beg buttons
Here are the results of the
Here are the results of the worst RLJing location – 184 a day. UK roads where the most drivers are caught running red lights revealed | This is Money . I read somewhere that up to 12m drivers are issues with FPN per annum in the UK. I dont have a problem with this promotion of police legit stopping cyclists RLJing as it addresses the “cylists jump red lights with impunity” mantra i hear all the time.
brooksby wrote:
There’s two similar junctions on Cable Street in London – yesterday there were about three or four motor vehicles parked (not moving) on each junction when the lights changed to the cycle phase. On a normal day I usually see two or three go through on amber and a few more on red. I dread to think how many go through each day.
I have wondered if I filmed
I have wondered if I filmed cars rolling through a stop sign if the police would take it seriously.
They do seem to arbitrarily choose the laws they enforce.
they will enforce the laws
they will enforce the laws that are easy to enforce. If a crime is reported for example that Requires even a small amount of investigation i.e. a couple of statements they’ll just bin it off.Something wrong with The calibre of who they’re recruiting these days. Then again ,he was a good lad,you know,that Couzens fella…
A revision to the Highway
A revision to the Highway Code to institute the “Idaho stop” in the UK might help here, and it has been shown to reduce fatalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
cmedred wrote:
Totally agree.
I re-read some of that Wikipedia page and found a couple of interesting references:
Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs
Paris cyclists given right to break traffic laws
That could be particularly
That could be particularly useful as a reply to those who ask why cyclists don’t use the cycle paths. Stop signs could be interchanged for driveways, junctions, crossings and pedestrians etc.
Quite a clear explanation of why it’s so inefficient to keep slowing and speeding up…
Will save the link…
None of these photos show
None of these photos show what I would call a cyclist, more like people riding bikes, which by the very definition is a cyclist…. hmmm, we need a different name for two different groups of people maybe like horse riders and jockeys have.
Cycler – one who cycles
Cycler – one who cycles
Cyclist – one who believes in cyclism, an adherent to the one true (cycle) path
Pedal-plodder… some who
Pedal-plodder… some who uses a a bike to trundle from A to B. I might need to change my user name.
Agreed. Drivists will no
Agreed. Drivists will no doubt be disappointed with the the lack of lycra.
Human on a bike: a human
Human on a bike: a human being using a bicycle.
If the rancid press were forced to call us humans on bikes rather than cyclists, their us-and-them blaming narrative would become a lot harder to peddle.
lesterama wrote:
How about “rolling pedestrians”? That’d cover more than just cyclists and could be used to imrpove the state of pavements for wheelchairists too.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It sort of sounds like an advanced form of sleeping policeman, though.
newtonuk wrote:
IIRC the Dutch have those names. Something like ‘road racer’ and ‘bicycle rider’ (but in Dutch, obviously).
brooksby wrote:
I believe it’s “fietser” (“ordinary cyclist” *) vs. “wielrenner” (basically “roadie”). So it’s like walker / pedestrian vs. jogger/runner. Both are normal activities but everyone walks, fewer people put on trainers / shorts and jog.
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/lycra-on-the-streets-of-the-netherlands/
https://transportcyclist.medium.com/of-fietsers-and-shimanongs-426607a7dd87
* I’m unclear whether “fiets” is really extensive word (can be understood as everything with wheels and not powered to the extent of a motorbike) or it’s simply that everyone appreciates that mobility scooters, wheelchairs, handcycles, tricycles, cargo bikes, recumbents, other adapted cycles are all in the same category of vulnerability / having access to “cycle facilities”. BicycleDutch states that that the basic meaning of “fiets” is a cycle you use for everyday transport – probably looking like a “Dutch bike” or roadster. I think the translation of “cycle” rather than “bicycle” works anyway.
Correct…wielrenner and
Correct…wielrenner and fietser.
I see little issue with this,
I see little issue with this, it doesn’t appear to be a regular ‘resource sink’ thing and all areas of the law need to be reminded not to break it at times.
Of course we’d all like our coppers to be like Sherlock Holmes out fighting crime and tracking down wrong’uns.. but we’ll have to settle for the jobworths the system encourages/produces.
I also don’t have a problem
I also don’t have a problem with this either. Cyclists are legitimate road users and as such they occasionally come under the spotlight of the authorities. It’s no different to the police targeting noisy exhausts on motorbikes on a sunny Sunday, dodgy farm trailers on market day, broken lights on cars when the hour changes or any other group that they think there is a problem with. It’s not personal, it’s not vindictive, it’s just today is our turn.
This must be part of
This must be another slice of Operation Red Meat
I don’t really have a problem
I don’t really have a problem with this. As long as they do it say twice a year not every week while ignoring speeding. People who cycle through red lights don’t deserve any sympathy
I fundamentally disagree with
I fundamentally disagree with this use of police time based on my previous experience with this. Several years ago, I was stopped at this junction by the police in an identical operation, under the label ‘Operation Considerate’. However, I hadn’t even jumped the light (and I had proof recorded of this on video too), so I have my concerns that some of those pulled over this time were also incorrectly stopped this time too.
There was a coach taking up the ASL at the junction when I arrived, preventing cyclists safely stopping at the lights, and I was also close passed 30 seconds after having a conversation with the police. The police made no effort to stop either of those drivers who (in my view) were committing the most potentially dangerous offences. They seemed to have a single focus, and given I was stopped unjustly I believe it was to stop as many cyclists as possible, and overall I don’t think it was in the best interests of the public.
I’ve got no problems with the
I’ve got no problems with the police stopping RLJing cyclists at all, in fact I would encourage more of it. It’s just the timing of all of the police forces putting out social media posts about these campaigns is a bit off.
However, it could be the same effect as the close pass campaign….. one force starts it, the other forces follow suit.
I do however think that the cycling press are making too much of it…. as articles like this give motorists and the general press the impression that cyclists are against any form of enforcement of the law against cyclists thereby perpetuating the myth that cyclists think they are/should be above the law.
TriTaxMan wrote:
My thoughts, exactly.
Behaviour should be the focus, not the form of transport
All this talk about police
All this talk about police resources…Of course, I only know about Lancashire Constabulary, but my wish is not that they start conducting RLJ ‘operations’ (a load of clumsy BigFoots in Super-Viz standing around a TL junction surrounded by H&S mandated safety barriers are not going to catch anybody) but that they stop actively working against the RLJ operation I’m doing for them! If they simply started issuing FPNs and distributing points, took a few to court to discourage the others then the problem would soon be solved with a lot less police effort
I don’t see any problem here,
I don’t see any problem here, on my London cycle commute to work, the red-light-jumping twats were more likely to do something else stupid, like very close passing me on the inside and almost knocking me off whilst I’m stationary at a red light, and I’ve seen incidents where they’re putting other cyclists at risk with such behaviour.
giskard wrote:
I’m a London cycle commuter as well. There is something very british about the non-verbal communication that takes place between the cyclists that stop at the lights when some bell-end shoots through. It’s amazing how you can convey ‘what a fucking prick’ in a short glance ?
I find the disparaging shake
I find the disparaging shake of the head works rather well too.
giff77 wrote:
I quite liked stopping, overtaking said Pinarello on the bike formerly known as Boris and telling them how utterly f’ing useless they were and then stopping again at the next light. Repeat ad infinitum…
Not before time , still
Not before time , still waiting for the day it becomes obligatory to always have to use a cycle lane when available.
Holts wrote:
I’m all for red light jumpers being fined. Whatever mode of transport, it’s generally a purely voluntary tax.
But what gives with the cycle lines? Are they especially splendid where you are meaning that going on the road is an illogical decision?
I can’t see a rule coming into play to use cycle paths when using the road can be the safer option
Holts wrote:
no matter how dangerous?
And as luck would have it, a
And as luck would have it, a whole new article !
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-10-february-2022-290211
I feel the same about
I feel the same about bypasses and motorways.
Of course you will need active policing of the lanes to remove vehicles illegally parked by feckless owners.
Holts wrote:
This site really has become a target for new poster trolls in the last week or so, hasn’t it? Is it their pathetic way at hitting back against the terrible “try not to run other people over” regulations in the Highway Code?
Rendel Harris wrote:
Agree, but I’m far more concerned about how quickly the trans issue threads take off.
Holts wrote:
Good luck, but don’t hold your breath
Holts wrote:
Welcome aboard Troll, I am truly overjoyed to witness the erudition of your first two posts.
And when that day comes I will ensure I carry a hammer in my rucksack everywhere I ride. Each vehicle parked in a designated cycle lane will be blessed with hammer blows to the windows and maybe the panels if I can be bothered.
And I’ll also consider buying a telehandler and offering my services to the council. I would use this video as guidance for how it should be done:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/04/teesdale-farmer-cleared-by-jury-over-flipping-car-with-tractor
Simon E wrote:
Welcome aboard Troll, I am truly overjoyed to witness the erudition of your first two posts.
And when that day comes I will ensure I carry a hammer in my rucksack everywhere I ride. Each vehicle parked in a designated cycle lane will be blessed with hammer blows to the windows and maybe the panels if I can be bothered.
And I’ll also consider buying a telehandler and offering my services to the council. I would use this video as guidance for how it should be done:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/04/teesdale-farmer-cleared-by-jury-over-flipping-car-with-tractor— Holts
but if there were parked cars, it wouldn’t be available
Holts wrote:
Except the police across the U.K. regularly conduct operations regarding RLJ’g, failure to use lights, cycling in prohibited areas. It is only now that they have taken a more public stance on social media. Usually you would only pick it up on cycling forums.
Also the vast majority of cyclists will be happy to use infra as long as it is safe, robust and does not place the user in danger by being too narrow or randomly stopping or forcing the user to cross 4 lanes of busy traffic with no controlled crossing. There’s plenty of examples on the site why they don’t get touched. Todays blog having a prime example.
giff77 wrote:
and don’t have to give way to every side road, business access and domestic driveway they cross.
wycombewheeler wrote:
And actually goes to places they want / need to go to.
Please stop feeding headcam
Please stop feeding headcam narcissist CyclingMikey.
Edit. I apologize for upsetting the Messiah.
FatMamil wrote:
I thought narcissists were interested in their own image, not the images of lots of other people doing illegal things?
chrisonatrike wrote:
The guy craves attention more than anything, and has a cult like following on twitter. Knowing he is on London roads causing trouble and perpetuating the us vs them menatality has put me off cycling all the way to work almost as much as the distance involved.
For most people wearing a helmet is a matter of choice. See how he and cult act towards anyone bringing up hemlets and you see what a shower of …. they really are.
FatMamil wrote:
Sounds to me like you are the problem.
FatMamil wrote:
I thought being a bit of a narcissist was an entry requirement for generating ‘content’ on twitter? Still doesn’t mean that what Mikey does is wrong.
FatMamil wrote:
“put me off cycling all the way to work”. I’m sorry there’s something blocking you there. I don’t follow cyclingMikey but I understood he was just videoing motorists. Being a cyclist and probably doing few if any illegal things (you don’t have to wear a helmet by law) I don’t think you have anything to fear from him.
Or are you saying you fear motorists? Presumably because “he provokes them, and I’m a cyclist too, and they can’t tell the difference“? Far as I am aware most motorists have never heard of cycling mikey. Also people are killed and injured by motorists every day in cases where they weren’t even on a bike. Where it’s highly likely the driver had never heard of cycling Mikey. Or had even realised the pedestrian / cyclist was there. In fact, motorists kill and injure themselves and each other every day too – presumably they don’t confuse cars with bicycles?
See where the problem lies?
I hope that you – and I – one day get the kind of public realm designs and rules/principles which minimise danger if you’re not in a car (and even if you are). Until that point it seems one of the mitigations is to try to improve on our extremely patchy and lax enforcement of dangerous and illegal behaviour on the road. The police clearly lack resources to effectively deal with this. Policing in the UK indeed has always relied on information from the public. No doubt people providing information to the police offends some vocal people. I just don’t think the majority care – they haven’t even noticed. It’s unlucky for you if you’ve got some real assholes in cars driving where you are. They’d be assholes regardless of some guy on twitter though.
FatMamil wrote:
Knowing that somebody is making London drivers think twice about using their phones when driving makes you feel less safe about riding in London? What a peculiar attitude. As is classifying somebody reporting crime to the police as “causing trouble”. I think you’ll find it’s the people who are committing the crimes who are causing trouble, not the people who are reporting them.
FatMamil wrote:
A few things….. you seem to have the definition of causing trouble backwards…. in an almost Garage like backwards way.
The people causing trouble are the ones who are committing the legal indescretions that Cycling Mikey is reporting. I mean if the drivers in question weren’t doing anything wrong what would Cycling Mikey be reporting?
As for helmets… you do realise that Mikey is an advocate for keeping helmets as a personal choice…. you know the thing that you said helment wearing was.
FatMamil wrote:
Just two posts and that’s the best you can come up with?
So, so weak.
Being active on social media doesn’t make someone a narcissist, though we all know that those platforms do encourage that kind of behaviour. But there are lots of of ways to avoid/ignore them.
Or do you simply have a problem with the fact that he is actively recording criminals?
And if you’re upset by someone’s stance on helmets then FFS you really won’t want to hang around cycling forums!!! Unless you’re just another troll (or the same boring old troll with a new login).
I think that the roads in
I think that the roads in London would continue to be full of intolerant and impatient motorists placing vulnerable road users lives at risk without the presence of CM.
FatMamil wrote:
You gave up cycling cos someone runs a camera?
Sure y’did..
FatMamil wrote:
I would genuinely support a campaign that would get cycling mikey an honour for services to road safety. He’s the dude.
Surely the narcissists are the the bell-ends he films.
Count me in.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Imma gonna do it. https://www.gov.uk/honours
Question is which nomination. I quite like the idea of gallantry, given I think he is persistent in trying to save lives
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
Please could you request that Dame Cressida Dick gives the award out (Blue Peter badge perhaps?) – would be very befitting.
Garage at Large wrote:
Count me in.
— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB Imma gonna do it. https://www.gov.uk/honours Question is which nomination. I quite like the idea of gallantry, given I think he is persistent in trying to save lives— Rendel Harris Please could you request that Dame Cressida Dick gives the award out (Blue Peter badge perhaps?) – would be very befitting.
I think Cress is probably now applying to lead the team on the next season of Celebrity Hunted… 😉
Great “first” post.
Great “first” post.
Which PBU are you ?
hirsute wrote:
I’m a newbie, so could be way out of line but my initial thought was that the posting aligned to posts by another user who had an unusual fixation on larger men that cycle in lycra… which is an amazing coincidence given the user name.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
And that same user also had a fixation with……….drumroll……… Cycling Mikey.
And a repeated antipathy for
And a repeated antipathy for Mikey despite it being explained many times, by many posters that his Dad was killed by a drunk driver back in Zimbabwe.
I also found out that one of his mates was hit and injured by a driver going round the roundabout the wrong way when he was much younger.
I can’t think why either of those would motivate someone to be concerned with road safety.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
Great “first” post.
Which PBU are you ?
— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB I’m a newbie, so could be way out of line but my initial thought was that the posting aligned to posts by another user who had an unusual fixation on larger men that cycle in lycra… which is an amazing coincidence given the user name.— hirsute
Good call – I hadn’t noticed that.
FatMamil wrote:
If young Michael was reporting burglars instead of drivers would you still object?
mike the bike wrote:
Presumably that would be furthering the burglar-vs-homeowner mentality
mike the bike wrote:
Don’t be absurd, but Mikey would likely be campaigning for people to leave their property unlocked with the door wide open and take no responsibility for their own actions playing.
His response to police action against cyclists breaking the law is eye rollingly predictable. It’s good to see majority here seeing police action as a good thing though, if anything it undermines the idea cyclists are not accountable and need licensing.
Still it was fun to see the reaction to mesiah Mikey being criticized. Have a good one and ride safe.
I had a feeling this thread be inundated with Mikey’s fanboys, but gee.
If young Michael was reporting burglars instead of drivers would you still object? — FatMamil
Not the messiah, not fanboys.
Not the messiah, not fanboys. Well, not everyone. Write in favour of the devil if you like – but explain why or expect people to be suspicious and ask you your reasons.
As you seem to like the first century idiom (or Monty Python) I think the question might be “If young Michael was reporting people writing ‘Roman
esiEuntIte Domusm’ instead of beatings and crucifixions by Romans would you be in favour?”Again sorry that you feel you can’t ride to work. That would seem to be the important point here. But you didn’t explain why not, nor how that was related to some guy most people have never heard of and couldn’t care about posting stuff on Twitter.
FatMamil wrote:
That idea is something that the behaviours and opinions of cyclists will make zero difference to. Unless you believe in sinister conspiracies by the Velominati or Lycrist Infiltrators at the highest levels? Or that “cyclists control the media”? I am sorry I / we don’t but there aren’t enough of “us”! There wouldn’t be enough time to proselytize or convince everyone of my bona fides (so tiring…) and still have time for a ride.
I think I already left this one for you but you’re welcome and you can have a couple of freebies in case you encounter “but red lights” or keen licence proponents:
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/55/collective-responsibility-collective-guilt
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/11/people-break-the-rules-when-cycling
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/33/cycling-should-require-a-licence-and-registration
chrisonatrike wrote:
I thought it was space lizards?
wycombewheeler wrote:
So hard to tell them apart.
FatMamil wrote:
Ha ha, you’re fanning the flames in these threads more than anyone.
You must be even dumber than I thought.
There’s no messiah here matey boy, we are just grateful that anti-social behaviour and dangerous driving are being reported to the police.
2 very simple questions for you:
1. Have you ever created any login/account/profile on road.cc before the one named FatMamil?
2. Do you also post infantile drivel like this on any other forums or web platforms? (that includes being a columnist for the Daily Fail et al)
FatMamil wrote:
The people actually “feeding” CyclingMikey (he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very good bloke) are the drivers that insist on driving dangerously by using phones etc.
You failed to reply to any of
You failed to reply to any of the responses on here and then you post that.
Your objective on here then is to look foolish.
Well done, as you have achieved that.
PS here is a driver who was grassed up by footage from another driver
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19914426.braintree-man-given-nine-year-sentence-fatal-collision/
I’m getting the feeling that
I’m getting the feeling that FatMamil might just have been one of Mikey’s catches…
The law is the law, the
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.
Adam Sutton 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.
hawkinspeter 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 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
Are you claiming walking your bike on the pavement is an offence ?
For older folks who remember
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
Loitering with an intent to use a pedestrian crossing.
Walking on the cracks in the pavement.
hirsute wrote:
Clearly not, but edited for those unable to comprehend that fact.
You posts so far are rather
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
I’ll be sure to extinguish naked flames. I wasn’t aware strawmen were so prevalent here when I joined.
Adam Sutton wrote:
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
*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:
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,
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
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
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:
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:
You’re inviting him to become Beetlejuice?!
The problem here Adam is that
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…
Like this…
Excuse me while I run for
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.
I enjoyed your post, but
I enjoyed your post, but please don’t blaspheme. Your posts can stand without using coarse, pointless language – leave that to others with weaker arguments.
Adam Sutton wrote:
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
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!)
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.
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:
Anyway as I’ve not seen that one (not on Twitter) I’ve no idea – maybe that guy was an asshole or even illegal.— Adam Sutton
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:
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:
Love a bit of ludicrous hyperbole for breakfast.
Thanks for this I needed a
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:
Seems perhaps you’re reading comments that aren’t there.
mdavidford wrote:
Well yes, I mean given we have now reached the realms of troll accusation because I don’t toe the narrative, I am being completely unreasonable in making that point.
Adam Sutton wrote:
That (which was only one person) happened well after you’d started accusing everyone of hyperbole, strawman burning (strawmen are for hitting, btw, not burning), and being a clique, and claiming you’d have to go in to hiding.
So, what, you have future sight, and decided to get your retaliation in first?
No “future sight needed” My
No “future sight needed” My initial comment is 100% true. The police were doing their job, the cyclists were breaking the law and Joe public don’t get to dictate how the police use their resources.
What followed and lead up to being accused of being a troll, from the very first response was nothing more than whataboutery and strawman arguements, some of which was quite bizarre. I think the best was being told to “get a grip” after presenting a screenshot that they had a close pass. So what? We know that happens, it has nothing to do with cyclists jumping lights though. Or maybe it was the accusation that I was condoning bad driving. Some epic reaching happening there. I make no apology for responding as I did.
The funny thing is this mirrors how drivers act when confronted with their behaviour. Don’t address that just straw man it out.
Adam Sutton wrote:
This is just untrue. There were plenty of moderate, reasoned responses that tried to engage in a genuine discussion with you, with only one or two that had a slightly more imtemperate tone.
The rest of your post just seems like post hoc rationalisation for your hyperbolic attempt to dismiss everyone that disagreed with you as some kind of torch-wielding mob.
Adam Sutton wrote:
also you
Funny, reading your older quote (2nd one above) it seems to say that you think we have to set an example becuase what I do reflects on how drivers treat other cyclists
Lets look at stats, estimates are that each year around 9 MILLION drivers will run a red light at least once….. and I think last stats I found shows around 97,000 motorists were prosecuted for red light jumping…. around 1%. And that’s because there are so few Red Light Cameras.
As evidenced by wtjs’ repeated rejections of evidence submitted to police forces of cars running red lights at 50+mph with NO positive action being taken the chances of getting caught RLJing for a car is pretty small unless you run a light with a red light camera.
As for speeding…. estimates are around 85% of cars speed in 20mph zones and over 50% speed in 30 zones (that equates to 30.5 MILLION and 18 MILLION respectively) so the chances of getting stopped is infinitessimally small or there would be a far higher proportion of drivers with points on their licence.
And why the reference to your endorsable revokable licence as a motorist? The only reason people tend to even mention a licence…. is because they feel that cyclists are not held accountable because they don’t have a licence (normally shortly followed by mention of a registration plate too) which means they can be banned from cycling.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Just focusing on that point there…. I assume you never read any of the comments by motorists on police social media posts about motorists who are caught by the police?
The comments are staggering
I mean that last one….. A speed camera van catching multiple motorists…. one going at 67 in a 40 zone….. yet motorists somehow manage whataboutery on cyclists…
TriTaxMan wrote:
Yes, I have. It goes to show the issue is people not the vehicle, it’s as ludicrous as the responses here in regards cycling policing.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I thought we were in agreement over some issues – why are you now categorising my responses as being ludicrous? I can understand disagreement of opinions, but you’re implying that the responses are factually incorrect – if so, I’d be interested in learning the actual facts of the matter.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I believe we had found some semblance of common ground on infrastructure etc, but this has descended into something else now with a heavy dose of whataboutery to claim police should ignore cyclists. If anything it has reminded my why I prefer cycling alone and avoid other “cyclists”
Adam Sutton wrote:
Huh? I don’t believe I made any such claim – can you elucidate?
Adam Sutton wrote:
On behalf of “other cyclists”, thanks.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Such a charmer, but I would still offer a spare tube if you needed it and I passed you.
Adam Sutton wrote:
You’ve joined this site and immediately gone out of your way, at tedious length, to be antagonistic, patronising and just plain rude to virtually everybody just because they don’t agree with your opinions. You’re on a cycling website and outright say you don’t like “other cyclists.” Now you’re whining because “other cyclists” don’t like your attitude and opinions. Got to question why you’re bothering. You’re quite the charmer yourself.
I think I missed some, point
I think I missed some, point them out and I will tell them where to park their bike.
Adam Sutton wrote:
But to every one else you are an ‘other cyclist’ and by your logic you are now giving all of us a bad reputation as you fail to understand any concept of the vulnerable road user.
It’s been a good try to masquerade as a ‘cyclist’ but I’m sorry you’re hitting too many troll triggers:
Equal responsibility
Number Plates
Licensing
Reputation
Excusing dangerous violence
You’re just ‘helmets’ and ‘road tax’ away from a full house…
alansmurphy wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:
Many traffic light controlled junctions don’t work for cyclists, especially in relatively low traffic areas/times. For example, near where I live, there are two crossroads(es?!) where the traffic lights sense traffic and change if nothing is coming the other way, to maintain flow. They don’t work for bikes, especially carbon framed ones. I’ve been stuck at them numerous times on red when there’s been nothing else around, and it can take ages for a car to come and be sensed by them. There’s no way I can hang around indefinitely so I really have no option other than to go through, carefully, when they’re on red. This, of course, is a very different situation to the ones described where they’re just being ignored.
I actually would agree with changes that would allow vehicles to cross through red lights when they’re turning left. I understood that was the Parisienne change; cycles could turn right on red, but not ignore them otherwise, however I may have missed what was actually brought in as I don’t cycle in Paris! Having driven on some US roads where all vehicles can turn right on reds in certain circumstances, this seems eminently sensible to me.
However, in terms of the police crackdown described in this article, I think it’s sensible. There is a lot of antagonism between drivers and cyclists that really needs to stop for the roads to be safer for all of us. If cyclists continue to cross through red lights willy-nilly, drivers are always going to have a go at them because of it. If cyclists stopped doing that, it would be one less excuse for drivers to moan then, perhaps one day, we could live in harmony and safety with each other rather than put up with all the rubbish that goes on now (a lot of which is promulgated as much by pro-cycling sites, like this one, as pro-driving sites).
Here’s the first thing I
Here’s the first thing I found on Paris cycle-red-light laws:
https://www.eta.co.uk/2015/07/13/cyclists-can-run-red-lights-in-paris/
What I’ve come to realise is that so many road junctions in the UK are designed primarily for motor vehicles. If we’re lucky we get an ASL and if we’re really lucky, that ASL won’t be blocked by some motorist (it’s a minority, but still very frequent). The thing is that RLJing is safe for cyclists in certain circumstances (see the Paris law for examples) and most cyclists will understand that, but the problem is that non-cycling drivers most likely won’t understand and just see it as selfish law breaking (which to be fair it is).
The ideal solution is for junctions to be redesigned for smaller traffic (cyclists, e-scooters) so that we don’t have to be subjected to the stop-starting that can be really off-putting for people who don’t want to practise sprinting from a standing start or track-standing (I’m a bit rubbish at that and will unclip after a couple of seconds attempt).
I really don’t get on with the “one less excuse for drivers to moan” as they moan about non-existent laws as well, so why even bother to appease them? I put my own safety ahead of any laws and so I will continue trying to anticipate light changes and go through junctions whilst the light is still red, but just on the point of changing – it prevents left hooks and puts me in clear view of the motorists. If i were to get caught doing so, then I would accept the consequences, but it hasn’t been picked up by police when I’ve submitted videos so far – maybe my timing is too sharp for them or could be they consider it to be safe enough (they’ve mentioned or questioned a couple of my maneouvres).
That’s the biggest excuse I
That’s the biggest excuse I’ve ever seen in my life.
jrscott wrote:
Excuse or not, why do you think that some cyclists RLJ?
I don’t have any problem with
I don’t have any problem with the police ticketing red light jumping cyclists. The problem is it is low hanging fruit for them, because a group of beat officers can easily stop cyclists at a set of lights, which they definitely cannot do for motor vehicles jumping the same lights. That would require a camera set up or a police vehicle to pull drivers over.
Whatever you might think of the police, asking an officer on foot to step into the road and flag down a driver running a red light is unreasonable.
That means they can trumpet schemes like this as a win while ignoring the more dangerous (and more difficult to police) actions of drivers.
I thinking cyclists running
I thinking cyclists running reds are in the same category as cyclists using footpaths; police should only go after cyclists that do so dangerously; in particular, I don’t think police should act if cyclists stop at a red light, then proceed when safe to get a jump on motorised traffic.
On a related issue, there is
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…