- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgAuto Express claims three in four cyclists "break road rules"
Motoring magazine Auto Express has claimed that its reporters saw three out of four cyclists – 719 in total – break what it calls “road rules” during morning rush hour at a busy London junction, compared to just one in eight motorists. Closer inspection of the feature published in this week’s edition, however, reveals a very different story.
In a three-page ‘Inside Story’ feature called ‘Cars vs Bikes,’ the magazine sought to answer the question, ‘When it comes to breaking the rules of the road, are drivers or cyclists the bigger sinners?’
The magazine’s reporters spent two hours at Highbury Corner in North London to try and ascertain the answer. During that period, they observed 3,140 motor vehicles and 976 bicycles passing by. Coincidentally – and not mentioned in the article – that suggests that cyclists make up nearly one quarter of rush hour traffic at the junction in question.
The main picture accompanying the article shows a motorist looking angrily at a cyclist, who happens to be wearing headphones, the car complete with a big dent above the wheel arch.
If there has been a collision, the cyclist and his bike seem to be somehow entirely unscathed despite that damage to the vehicle, which in any event appears to have been pulling out of a parking bay when whatever is supposed to have given rise to the staged road rage incident happened.
The story was trailed on the magazine’s website under the heading, ‘Cyclists break more road rules than motorists,’ with the online article going on to say, “We witnessed more than 1,000 breaches of road rules in a two-hour morning rush hour period. These were committed by three quarters of the cyclists but only one in 10 drivers.”
It added that of the nearly 1,000 cyclists observed during the survey, which took place between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday morning, 719 “committed offences” compared to 380 motorists “caught breaking road rules.”
The detailed findings of the research appeared in the print edition. Here’s what they were.
Cyclists %* Fault Cars %** 287 29.4 No reflective clothing NA NA 104 10.7 No indicating 49 1.6 90 9.2 No helmet NA NA 84 8.6 Pulling out without looking 25 0.8 58 5.9 Jumping lights 12 0.4 44 4.5 Wearing headphones 42 1.3 33 3.4 Almost causing collision 17 0.5 16 1.6 Mounting pavement 0 0.0 0 0.0 Waiting in cycle box 83 2.6 0 0.0 Crossing a stop line 83 2.6 2 0.2 Using phone 38 1.2 1 0.1 Eating 9 0.3 0 0.0 Blocking crossing 22 0.7 719 74.2 Total 380 12.1 * Based on sample of 976 bicycles during a two-hour, morning rush hour ** Based on sample of 3,140 vehicles passing during the same period Source: Auto Express magazine
The full article in the print copy, but not the online version, which omits those detailed findings, does address each issue in turn and point out where laws are being broken rather than common sense or recommendations in the Highway Code.
Wearing a helmet or reflective clothing, for example, are recommended for cyclists, it’s true, but they are certainly not compulsory – and on the question of high visibility kit, the survey was in any event conducted in summer, not midwinter.
Yet in lumping everything together under the erroneous heading of “road rules,” that’s the impression that the article gives at first glance. Those two categories alone account for more than half of the supposed breaches that cyclists are guilty of.
Moreover, while Auto Express says that the cyclists or motorists in question “were guilty of at least one of breach of the road rules” – misleading phrasing, since in many cases they are not guilty of anything – it does seem that a cyclist riding without a helmet or reflective clothing, for instance, will have been counted twice.
As the article acknowledges, failure to indicate, whether you’re a motorist or a cyclist, isn’t in itself an offence, the Highway Code simply saying that you should give plenty of warning.
Likewise, pulling out without looking, wearing headphones, eating at the wheel (or handlebars) aren’t in themselves illegal, irrespective of whether you are riding a bike or driving a motor vehicle, although in the latter case they could form the basis of a careless driving charge.
Nor is using a mobile phone illegal if you’re a cyclist – but it is if you are a motorist.
Auto Express acknowledges that its category of “almost causing a collision” is “an entirely objective one” but that it felt “duty bound to include it” because it saw so many instances of it from both cyclists and motorists.
What isn’t said, however, is that organisations such as the AA urge drivers to give cyclists as much room as possible because they can change direction suddenly to avoid obstacles such as potholes.
There is no mention of the fact that a motorist will be much better protected in the event of a collision, even one they may have caused themselves, than a cyclist will.
That’s not to say the above wouldn’t be considered examples of bad riding or bad driving, and in some cases can form the basis of a charge of careless driving – but they aren’t in themselves specific road traffic offences.
So what does that leave? Well, for cyclists, jumping red lights and mounting the pavement, for a total of at most 64 occurrences, assuming no double-counting.
Home Office guidance is that cycling on the footway should only be punished when considered dangerous, as outlined in Bikehub’s Cycling and the Law article.
Auto Express points out that legislation currently in the pipeline will, however, allow local authorities and Transport for London to impose tougher penalties on cyclists “who put pedestrians at risk by riding on footpaths.”
As for drivers? Well, blocking a junction or waiting in a cycle box aren’t offences, although the latter may well become one in London under that same legislation mentioned in the previous paragraph.
Using a handheld phone is, however, as is crossing the stop line and jumping the lights, for a total of 133, again assuming no double counting.
Other potential offences not considered at all – some of them impossible to tell from looking at a vehicle – include failure to wear a seatbelt, driving an unroadworthy vehicle, failure to display a valid vehicle excise duty disc, or driving while uninsured.
So, taking just the behaviours that breach a specific law, and assuming no double-counting, at most 7.0 per cent of cyclists were observed committing an actual offence, compared to 4.2 per cent of motorists.
Yes, a higher proportion of cyclists than motorists committed a traffic violation assuming that the observations of the Auto Express staff were accurate, but less than a tenth of the proportion implied by that headline figure of 3 in 4 bike riders.
And that comes to perhaps the crux of the complaint that many cyclists would have with the article.
Ask a driver in London what proportion of cyclists jump red lights, for example, and the answer is likely to be much higher than the 1 in 17 that the Auto Express researchers established; it’s figures such as that misleading reference to 3 in 4 cyclists breaking “road rules,” whatever those may be, that sticks in the mind.
We’ll leave the last word to the magazine, which concluded its article with a paragraph headed ‘Our Verdict,” and which twice made a misleading reference to those vague “road rules.”
“Neither party fared well in our survey. However, in this tarmac turf war it’s clearly the cyclists who behave worst [sic], with three out of four breaking at least one road rule during our study period. We were shocked by standards in both camps overall, though, witnessing more than 1,000 breaches of road rules in only two hours.”
Most readers – the site generates more than 1.3 million unique visitors a month, more than 20 times the print copy’s circulation of 56,000 - will only see the online version which omits that detail. Inevitably, that misleading statistic will stick in the minds of many.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 47 min 56 sec ago
Firstly it's pretty desirable to leave the sound in if at all possible, not only so the police can hear how genuinely shocked the victim was by the...
- mitsky 1 hour 14 min ago
While I agree that driving relatively short distances is wastefull and unneccessary, I drove to 6th form daily for 6 months after I passed my...
- Boopop 2 hours 39 sec ago
Bravo! I'd love to know what modifications were made to it. I would hope going up huge hills means he had lower gear than standard.
- mdavidford 2 hours 8 min ago
We might equally pertinently ask: does this stuff come with less rubbish/trash/litter/landfill/etc. than an equivalent product that comes in...
- brooksby 2 hours 23 min ago
I think that they are 'access' or 'deliveries only'. Seems weird that these people appear to think that cyclists are a death-causing menace...
- Paul J 2 hours 45 min ago
Where do you get those numbers? I have their Power Shield Pro and Power Shield RPM pages open here now and I read this, C&Ping from the pages...
- Beatnik69 3 hours 32 min ago
I have a funny feeling that Translink don't allow bikes on trains before 9am, which is ridiculous. They ned to bring back the guard van that used...
- Daveyraveygravey 3 hours 41 min ago
+1 for my Proviz jacket. It's a proper one although I think I got it half price for £50....
- eburtthebike 4 hours 6 min ago
Much better than what I was trying to concoct.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 23 min ago
Was it you that stole my bike?...
Add new comment
49 comments
Further to this, I did some counting on the way to and from work today. To work (sample size 10), 20% crossed the stop line on a red and a further 40% blasted straight through the light. Coming home (sample size 20), 30% crossed the stop line (5/6 of which were the stop lines of empty cycle boxes) and 50% more jumped the light completely. This is close to my normal experience, but I intend to keep statistics for at least the rest of the week.
I am counting individual cyclists who had an opportunity to jump a light, and counting their worst infraction only -- stopping at one light does not forgive ignoring a previous one. If it's unclear whether or not they jumped a light (eg. I couldn't see the line, or the light changed on my approach), they are not included at all or forgiven any unclear infraction should I see them at a second junction. There may be a slight selection bias as I cycle faster than the median cyclist, but I don't know what that will select /for/. I'm counting cyclists crossing and heading the other way, too.
The only car I saw do anything wrong was stopped in a cycle box. That's about 5-10% of opportunities, but I wasn't counting.
What's your route to and from work, and do cyclists jump one at a time or does one do it and then others copy?
a.jumper: Ealing to Hammersmith (West London) along Uxbridge Road.
I don't see much evidence to say that cyclists jump the lights in groups or through some sort of 'peer pressure'; they will sometimes gather in a pack beyond the stop line and then all blast through gaps in the traffic which will group them up -- but only by necessity.
This morning, 10 stopped, 4 crossed and 11 ran the lights, but 5 of those who stopped were in a big group behind me so it's unclear if they'd've stopped had I not. At the last junction, 3 waited while 4 ran the lights (and all 4 had already crossed the stop line).
This evening, the numbers were 7/4/5 and actually included a car who ran a set of red lights in a blatant way (though about normal behaviour for a cyclist, I've never seen a car overtake stopped traffic on the wrong side of the road and then blow straight through a red light). So cyclists almost looked good on that trip. Except not.
By the way, I'm only counting cyclists who cross the stop line with their rear wheel as crossing the line -- I'm trying to be as forgiving as I can be.
bucko909: I'm not suggesting that there's a peer pressure, but that one gets away with it and then others copy the example.
I'd also note that cyclestreets.net suggests some other routes for that trip which are almost as fast, have fewer lights and are probably nicer than riding along an A road into London, so there may be other rule-obeying riders making that journey just out of your sight. Which way do the cycle route signs send you? For some reason open cycle map won't load for me just now.
Your article stating that waiting in the cycle ASL is not correct. It is correct if the lights are not red, or the motorist stopped in them as it changed to red.
If the motorist drives into the cycle ASL when it is red and waits there it is an offence with a fine of £60 and 3 penalty points.
This is explained well at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/29/cycling-advance-stop-line
a.jumper: I may give its suggested route a go, but it seems like it's full of junctions, which, being a careful road user, will almost certainly kill my speed and take longer (and probably require more effort, too), as well as much more careful navigation than just powering down a moderately busy road. There are no cycle route signs at all, but there's cycle paths marked along most of the route, and the road is wide with slow traffic which is why I like it.
Should I take an alternative route, I may see fewer people jump red lights, but this will probably be due to the fact that there's fewer red lights to jump. The ratio of jumpers to non-jumpers is dramatically higher when considering only slow cyclists (who I'd expect to see on side roads) -- and for some reason people in cycling clothes. Especially and ironically those wearing Barristers on Bikes high-vis jackets and Lycra. I guess they just think they're better than everyone else.
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/auto-express-inadver...
the above points out that a very high percentage of cyclists are at the front of the queue when given the oppurtunity to RLJ. on any given queue of traffic at a light only one or two ( the cars at the front of the queue)cars have the oppurtunity to RLJ. When this is factored in, cyclists are much more compliant at red lights than motorists.
Sounds about right for my commute as well (Clapham to the City)
More poor stats, and dodgy use ofd them from Auto Express.
The only good survey into red light jumping in London I know of was by TfL back in 2007.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights...
This found an average of 16% of cyclists jumped red lights at four locations in the rush hour.
From my experience commuting by bike in London this seems about right.
I'm not sure wht AE think cyclists should be wearing reflective clothing on a bright summer morning.
By the way:
If a driver drives into a cycle box when the light has turned red that is failing to stop at a red light.
I think the most sensible comment here is the one pointing out that Dennis Publishing is launching a cycling magazine - called 'Cyclist' - in a few weeks and we should avoid it like the plague.
Greedy and irresponsible publishers need to learn that consumers aren't stupid sheep and will punish their sales/advertisers when they treat us like shit:
#boycottdennis
Hi. While trying to make a case for cyclists, please don't use phrases like "There is no mention of the fact that a motorist will be much better protected in the event of a collision, even one they may have caused themselves, than a cyclist will." -- that's the same argument creationists use to try to get creation into evolution and it makes me angry. The only thing it implies is that cyclists should in general demonstrate safer behaviour.
I'm somewhat shocked that cyclists were never seen crossing a stop line, as somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of all cyclists I observe at traffic light junctions do that, even if they don't blatantly run straight through the lights.
So did this highly rigorous survey manage to do a full background check on all the drivers and vehicles who were included in the 'survey'. Did it identify how many were driving without insurance? 13% in London at the last time of counting. Were all the vehicles road worthy and have MOT certificates? How many had illegal tyres?
How many of the drivers were under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
How many of the drivers had committed an offence either side of the tiny snapshot of their journey or at any other point in their driving history?
I could go on.
The red light running stats comparison will always look unfavourable – what should be measured is the %age referenced to the number which had the opportunity to do so.
Because cyclists can filter to the head of the queue a greater percentage has the opportunity to run the red light, whereas, only the car at the front of the queue has the opportunity. If he doesn't take it, the cars and vans behind him can't either.
It wouldn't look half as unfavourable if it had counted the numbers of drivers ignoring the amber (= stop if you safely can) and red (= bloody well stop, and don't speed up to beat it) lights at every change from green to red.
I reckon about five on each change of the lights in the London rush hour.
Motoring Magazines? Well, they are a bias bunch when publishing any type of survey results; especially when it involves Non motoring road users.
You would think their organisations would welcome seeing cyclists on the road during a rush hour, or at any other time of the day! Surely they realise that every cyclist seen; is just one LESS car (vehicle) on the road! Well, if every cyclist park their bikes up and used a car instead. The motorists would have a lot more traffic to contend with; and they would spend good deal more of their time, sitting in their cars = going nowhere. Seems Logical. But, the press have many Forrest Gumps reporting for them; and the Motoring Magazines think that way! Stupid is as stupid does, or sometimes thinks.
I live in France and recently spent a couple of days in London during which I spent a few hours riding round London.
I'm pretty sure I was the only cyclist stopping at red lights.
Apart from it obviously being dangerous how can this be acceptable?
Sure you're not exaggerating? I was in London last week and the red light jumpers were really noticeable because they were quite rare. 1 in 10 tops.
Also, I'm back from a country where you can turn on red... And you get abuse if you don't! So maybe some of these riders who jump are foreign?
I commute in London and, sadly, the red light jumpers are far from rare. I've started counting at junctions - the numbers vary according to the type of junction (fewer at major junctions) but at smaller junctions its often over 50% who jump the lights. Obviously this isn't scientific research and I'm not claiming that 50% of cyclists jump red lights - but it's certainly a significant issue in London (less so in, for example, the Midlands where my parents live).
Well, I was riding in central London, following signposted routes, at commute time and really saw nothing like that. Might it suggest that it's a bit contagious? That once a few cyclists jump lights, others copy the example?
Or is it less common on the signposted routes? That the sort of person who thinks they know better which routes to take than the signpost makers will also think they know better than the lawmakers?
Is anyone studying why people RLJ? Cycling or driving, I don't really understand it unless the light is really defective.
I find it interesting that scanning the area in Google Maps and Streetview that I cant find any lights to jump..?
Am I looking in the right area?
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Highbury+Corner+in+Islington&hl=en&ll=5...
You're looking in the right area but I don't know why you can't see them - Street View confirms traffic lights on the junction itself at the Upper St and Canonbury Road entrances, traffic-light controlled pedestrian crossings a few yards from it on St Paul's Road and on Holloway Road outside Highbury & Islington tube.
Gah! I have just realised I was looking for "corner" as a road name, the lights have been found. Though I wish AE could have been more specific (maybe this has been edited since).
From what I see there there is not advanced green for cyclists, no ASL. Cyclists would have to be very confident and hold their lane.
On another note, I see that there is now a boycott campaign for their sister publication "Cyclist":
http://www.facebook.com/BoycottNewCyclistMagazine
Too many motorists riding bikes nowadays, they ignore regulations when driving so why does auto express expect them to comply when riding a bike?
The new 'Cyclist' magazine is currently running a subscription page that exhorts you to "See inside Auto Express". Oops.
How many of those cyclists "mounting the pavement" were 2-foot detours to get past white vans* that had deliberately pulled right over to the left into cycle lanes to stop cyclists getting past?
*or addison vermin/black cabs
Just posted a comment - not that it really matters or that any of the idiots at Auto Express will take note.
Two things are at work here. Firstly, people are not very good at following (or even knowing) "the rules". This applies to -ists of every kind. Motorists, cyclists and journalists.
Secondly, journalists are rarely trained to conduct robust social research. Like most of the population they are not interested enough to care. They are paid to write stories that attract attention. Here is a "good story". Like all good stories it is a fiction, based loosely on the writer's experience of real life.
My opinion is that it's best to ignore such dross because no amount of erudition, scorn, complaint, sanity or information can undo the mischief already done by its first publication. Nobody loves a smartarse - especially when they are right. If we have time and effort to spare it would best be spent writing better stories that illustrate our alternative experiences.
I posted a comment on the Auto Express article about how it's a blatant disregard of the Press Complaints Commission's editor's code, but oddly the comment never made it to through the submissions process. I encourage everyone who's reading this to take it up with the PCC - it's a completely unfair article that misrepresents cyclists.
Well done - as ever - to road.cc for highlighting this ghastly piece.
And how does one take things up with the PCC? pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html or is there a better way?
A helmet may help a helmet may not help, there are cases when it makes things better and cases when it makes it worse. But if the choice is being hit by a car whilst wearing a helmet and not being hit by a car not wearing a helmet i think i, along with most people, will chose not being hit. After all a helmet is little more than a couple of inches of polystyrene, and that isn't much protection.
As for you other points, all part of the motorists victim mentality, look how much we have to pay in tax, vat VED, duties, etc etc. and those cyclists don't pay a penny. Obviously motorists on the whole forget that roads existed before the car, that there are plenty of zero VED cars, that they have to have a licence that comes with conditions such as don't speed, don't park on double yellow lines etc. I see plenty of drivers breaking laws every day, in fact i would go as far as saying most motorists break at least one law every time they drive, but that isn't newsworthy is it?
Pages