‘All-Mountain’ or enduro in disguise? The 2026 Lapierre Overvolt AM CF breaks cover, and it’s surprisingly mellow

The laws that exist to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely are very definitely applicable to cyclists. I couldn't care less if somebody makes a cheeky left turn on red or goes straight on at a T junction against the light if there are no pedestrians there, unfortunately, in London at least, a lot of the red light jumping involves people going through red lights at pelican crossings and other places where pedestrians have a green light, often swerving in between them on the crossing and even (and this really beggars belief) swearing at them for being in the way. If we could trust all cyclists to behave responsibly and only run reds when it's sensible and safe to do so I'd say go for it, but there are just as many arseholes on bikes as in cars (and that goes double for people on Lime bikes, I'm afraid) and it's a certainty that if red light running was allowed in certain circumstances many people would take that to mean it was allowed in all circumstances.

Are laws that only exist because drivers in motor vehicles kill so many folk, really applicable to cyclists. A very busy junction in Amsterdam was fixed by *removing the traffic lights* - very few cars use it.

There are some practical aspects that should be used to adjust assessments of how many cyclists v motorists fail to stop at red lights. 1. Opportunity. If a driver goes through a red light, that's one; if the next one stops, that stops the others behind. One jumper. If a cyclist stops, the next one can easily filter past. There are fewer practical constraints against red light jumping outside the road user's control on a bike. So, in particular circumstances, the numbers may be different, but that's a difference of opportunity, not propensity. 2. Definition. "Going through a red light" conjures up images of a road user passing from one entry point of a junction to another exit point. But the offence is actually failing to comply with traffic signals. That offence is committed when any part of the vehicle passes the relevant line on the road (white line on the road, or an imaginary line perpendicular to the primary signal in the absence of a line) in contravention of the signal. When a driver could reasonably have stopped on amber but doesn't, or goes over the line on red, they have committed an offence. Guidance also advises drivers not to enter a cycle box if they can't clear it within the signal. That means that any driver in a bike box on red has either failed to drive with due care and attention or (just as/more likely, in my anecdotal experience) rolls over the first line on red, stops in the box, and commits the offence of failing to comply with traffic signals. Even if only the front of the car overhangs the line. 3. Conversely, while cyclists may do this, they have an argument of safety to consider, depending on the circumstances. If the front vehicle is large, such as a pick-up truck or HGV, where driver visibility of what is immediately in front of them may be limited; if the car is in the bike box it could be said that it is not safe to remain behind the line and they need to ensure they are clearly visible for their own safety. There is case law to similar effect.

Why this is funny: Newsthump is a satirical web site on the internet. What this item does is combine a common experience most people have online with a stereotype of a particular mode of transport. The common online experience is ‘Captcha’: having to pass a test to prove they are human by clicking on all the images that obey a certain rule. In this case, the images – often of poor quality to make automated recognition harder – may or may not include traffic lights. The stereotype is that cyclists are known to go through red lights. The joke is that, since we all ‘know’ that cyclists go through red lights, they don’t know or recognise traffic lights, so they will find the Captcha test hard. And that is why it’s funny. Please select a laughing emoji now. Except, it’s not funny. It’s based on a false premise. Cyclists are no more likely than other road users to break the rules. We are all road users, and each mode of transport is broadly speaking, representative of society – broadly enough that such differences as there are not differentiated by modes of transport. Except that, if anything, cyclists are slightly less likely to break the rules, everything else being equal. Lots of comedy is based on false premises. Racist jokes, for example. Other jokes targeting other nations (arguably a form of racism). Mother-in-law jokes. Blond jokes. Making fun of “Karens”. It’s othering. It picks a particular ‘group’ of people – a minority group – to be the butt of the joke. It identifies a group to be the standard ‘out’ group. You don’t need evidence, once you’ve othered the group: you just have a go at them. You can use glib, demeaning terms to refer to them: “lycra-louts” doesn’t need to be justified, you just say it. Their manner on the road is “weaving”, “racing”, “getting in the way”. It punches down. You’re not attacking a group with a single, powerful mouthpiece. While there are organisations that represent cycling, they do not represent them all. Nor are cyclists typically cycling in order to make a statement: they are just out cycling; exercising their right to use the road. A political group seeks a mouthpiece and criticism of its views and actions is legitimate. A leader should be held publicly accountable with reasoned debate. Cyclists face criticism from the gutter press (see, I’m doing it; but the gutter press – apologies for the tautology – has the right and power of reply), from [usually solo] political comment, from the general public. It’s just not funny. To be funny, there needs to be a sense of originality. The more times you hear a joke, the less funny it gets (with some exceptions. Morecambe and Wise with Andre Preview never gets old). But the worst thing of all is that it props up the abuse that many of us have experienced on the roads as we cycle. Not only abuse, but poor-to-dangerous driving that puts us at risk and, all too often, results in injury or death. The abuse we receive – because somebody else who chose the same mode of transport as us happened to get too close/too fast to an elderly relative once – puts our lives at risk. And it’s encouraged by what somebody thinks is funny at our expense. Rape jokes did the same. And that’s why it’s not funny.

@squired RE "Well we all know that jumping a red light is breaking the law. If the vast majority of cyclists are doing that I see it as a massive problem. " "If" ... I believe there have been some studies suggesting that cyclists are on average no more likely to ride through red than motorists to drive through them. BUT I can well believe that in certain places many cyclists do. Also motorists doing so tend to be doing it as the lights have recently turned red, while cyclists may have a different pattern (eg. just before the light goes green, or plain ignoring it...) and so stand out. However ... I'm pretty sure there are even more drivers going through on red than cyclists! Simply because far more drivers / driven journeys / people driving for longer). And yet in popular consciousness this doesn't seem to be a "massive problem"? Indeed the police seem to be intensely relaxed about it in most places also. Speeding: in some places the majority of drivers are speeding - which is very much associated with host risks of crashing AND worse outcomes. Yet the biggest outcry about that seems to be for increasing our even getting rid of the speed limits! Or at least removing checks on people speeding eg speed cameras. In one sense I agree with you (and a nod to the "but why can't we be trusted to pick our speed" folks): if many are breaking a law that suggests that a) people don't feel the rules "work" for them and/or b) enforcement and punishments aren't deterring. There's no getting around the danger from eg. motor vehicle drivers speeding etc. - the KSI (and smashed infra...) stats near that out. More enforcement! But for cyclists, overall it may be cheaper to try a different approach in places: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/cycling-past-red-lights-its-legal-in-the-netherlands/ Making it easier to cycle might reduce numbers of motor vehicles being driven ... which can help reduce several "massive problems"!

Nope !

Bastards Interestingly, I had a comment delayed for several days awaiting 'moderation' because it included : Lancashire Constabulary b******s. Let's see if it happens again, and if it does, it implies that they're concerned about anti-police sentiment which would be a depressing sentiment when so much of our discontent is related to police anti-cyclist behaviour.

Reply to bensynnock: Sometimes it's safer to go through a red than wait for a green light and then have to battle the left-hookers. Obviously, it depends on the nature of the junction though.

Without full knowledge of his exact set up I'd say that's probably a bit of an assumption; I have inward-turned levers on my road bike (for wrist comfort rather than aerodynamics) and this makes it possible to ride in the position he's shown using in the photographs, hands on top of the levers and forearms resting on the flat part of the bar. However, as I have a 44 cm handlebar to suit my broad shoulders and the levers are turned in about 6cm each, making an angle of about 30° from straight forward, I am still well within the minimum lever-to-lever distance. It would be interesting to know what the rider's set up was and by how much the commissaires said he was breaking the rules.

Waiting at the red light doesn't decrease the likelihood that a driver will close pass you or hit you. Probably increases it if there's no advanced stop line or similar infra. I always wait at the lights, but only because I like to have a little break now and again.