Is it “often safest” for cyclists to go through red lights? Cyclists’ reactions are split, but some call it a response to tailgating; Regent Street turns to Paris and Barcelona to curb car traffic; 2029 UCI road Worlds in Denmark? + more on the live blog

(If only everyone followed the rules...)

In a word - nope.

In two words - "if only..."  In three - 'there is no "us"' or - to be fairer "bit more complicated...".

Not in two words - "culture war".  This is just about how we move our transport systems (various politicians having favoured motoring over all other modes) to be (slightly) safer, nicer, fairer and more sustainable (including economically).

As far as just "ignore reds" - I'm not really in favour.  The problem is that the roads and road infra aren't well-suited to cycling (certainly not for "mass cycling").  Because they're designed for motor vehicles.  (Our systems aren't really set up to safely handle the degree of mass motoring we have either - that's one for another day though).  What I think is a better solution is for cyclists to cycle right past some red lights like this.

MTB Refugee wrote:

Red light means stop. End of discussion.

That's such a stupid thing to say. What about when a vehicle in front brakes slightly and their red brake lights come on - you have to stop?

What about emergency vehicles - do they have to wait?

How about those traffic lights that don't register bikes - wait minutes/hours until a car comes along?

All the other places that have enlightened bike traffic light rules - you must be tearing your hair out.

Also, I have a red rear light on during the day, but strangely I don't see all the traffic behind me stopping because "red light means stop hurr durr"

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's such a stupid thing to say. What about when a vehicle in front brakes slightly and their red brake lights come on - you have to stop?

You either misunderstood me or are being intentionally obtuse. I'm talking about the red traffic lights and about the laws that are in place regarding them.

Emergency vehicles are allowed to treat a red light as a "give way" in certain circumstances, but do not have an absolute right under law to do so.

As for the countries that have other laws in place regarding cycles, that's great. If they want to change the law in the UK regarding cycles and red traffic lights, then that's also great. I will comply with any road traffic laws that are in place. We aren't talking about other countries though are we, we're talking about cyclist and UK law. I wonder why this makes you so angry?

MTB Refugee wrote:

Emergency vehicles are allowed to treat a red light as a "give way" in certain circumstances, but do not have an absolute right under law to do so.

This exception requires specific protocols - firstly the drivers of any emergency vehicle hold specific accreditation on their licences to do so. Then you have the stipulation that the blue lights must be flashing, and (if necessary) the siren to warn of their presence. It is also a requirement that when travelling through junctions they otherwise have no right of way, to slow to a crawl before proceeding to make sure other road users have seen them and given way. But under blue lights, unless physically unable to progress, Emergency services will ALWAYS proceed through a red light.

And perhaps the reason there is anger is because the UK law is not fit for purpose and puts people at risk, and other countries are showing better solutions our own government are ignoring.

I jumped this red light and swerved off to the right.

The reason being I heard a driver floor it behind me and L1 was fully occupied and I actually feared for my safety.

A lady pedestrian to the left saw it all and asked me afterwards if I was ok !

MTB Refugee wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

That's such a stupid thing to say. What about when a vehicle in front brakes slightly and their red brake lights come on - you have to stop?

You either misunderstood me or are being intentionally obtuse. I'm talking about the red traffic lights and about the laws that are in place regarding them.

Emergency vehicles are allowed to treat a red light as a "give way" in certain circumstances, but do not have an absolute right under law to do so.

As for the countries that have other laws in place regarding cycles, that's great. If they want to change the law in the UK regarding cycles and red traffic lights, then that's also great. I will comply with any road traffic laws that are in place. We aren't talking about other countries though are we, we're talking about cyclist and UK law. I wonder why this makes you so angry?

I didn't misunderstand what you wrote, but you obviously hadn't thought it through and need to add some extra conditions as in general a red light can mean many things. Also, your "end of discussion" was premature as we need to discuss how inaccurate your statement was.

I'm sorry that I reacted angrily, but it bugs me when people think they know what they're talking about, but then ignore all the various edge cases. It shows overly simplistic thinking and a reduction of complicated situations to a simple dichotomy.

MTB Refugee wrote:

Red light means stop. End of discussion.

if the lights are sensor controlled and the sensor does not detect anything smaller tnan cars, how long should a cyclist have to wait at a red light until a car turns up and triggers the sensor?

2 minutes, 5 minutes? half an hour? overnight?

Most/many cyclists could get off & walk.

Off course the proper solution is to fix the cyclist sensing, so it's not an issue. The same with fitting early start bike traffic lights, where appropriate.

The French (+?) system of all flashing ambers late at night, might be an option?

I've never found it to be a problem, but the option to get off the bike and become a pedestrian is always there and is perfectly legal.

Breaking a law because it suits you is a slippery slope. You break the law because you are inconvenienced by a red light is OK, a driver breaking the law by close passing you is not OK?

I don't think that it's reasonable to have it both ways. If we expect motorists to abide by the law, then we should also expect to abide by the law.

MTB Refugee wrote:

I've never found it to be a problem, but the option to get off the bike and become a pedestrian is always there and is perfectly legal.

Breaking a law because it suits you is a slippery slope. You break the law because you are inconvenienced by a red light is OK, a driver breaking the law by close passing you is not OK?

I don't think that it's reasonable to have it both ways. If we expect motorists to abide by the law, then we should also expect to abide by the law.

I can't think of any other "crime" as victimless as treating a red light as a stop sign at times of low traffic. It certainly is not equivalent to the example of close passing which directly puts someone at risk.

The latter of course happening far more regularly than cyclists jumping red lights.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I can't think of any other "crime" as victimless as treating a red light as a stop sign at times of low traffic. It certainly is not equivalent to the example of close passing which directly puts someone at risk.

The latter of course happening far more regularly than cyclists jumping red lights.

I'm sure that there are drivers who would say the same about close passing cyclists or pulling out of junctions in front of cyclists. So long as they don't actually hit anyone is everything OK?

Thinking that your law breaking is OK and someone elses is not based on your own arbitrary views is an incredibly dangerous path.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I can't think of any other "crime" as victimless as treating a red light as a stop sign at times of low traffic.

I'm sure there are lots of people who think that even more victimless crimes are 'speeding', and 'using a mobile phone while driving'…

wycombewheeler wrote:

I can't think of any other "crime" as victimless as treating a red light as a stop sign at times of low traffic.

Sure. But where do you draw the line? Can every driver do the same?

New/beginner/tourist cyclists seeing another cycling through on red, are likely to think it's ok & copy (and maybe not be as selective or carefull).

Easy. Dismount, walk across the line. Assess the situation and decide whether to progress as a pedestrian or remount and cycle. That is legal. If you cause no incident, the police haven't got justification to intervene, if you do remount and cause an issue, then you've committed a riding without due care, but not a red light offence. Walking, there's pretty much nothing they can do, you are just a pedestrian who has priority in the road.

Edit: to add, really, one of the things that confuses people is that we can switch modes. A lot of red light jumpers are less experienced cyclists who aren't bothered about laws, they look at a junction and think, "I'd walk across there, so I will do the same on my bike." If they do the same process as crossing a pelican crossing with a red man, then you can see the logic. For reasons mentioned above, it is just less aggravating to all concerned to dismount.

The debate is as much as about whether the current "one size fits all" approach is fit for purpose especially in the interests of protecting vulnerable road users in shared use spaces where traffic isn't segregated, as the legality of the situation.

However the consequences for breaking the law falls very differently between cyclists and drivers. If a law breaking cyclist creates an incident (ie  collision), they are most likely to injure themselves. Also damages for insurance claims will be relatively small. If a law breaking driver creates an incident then they are much more likely to injure someone else. Damages will be higher and has greater potential for resource stretching for authoritative investigation and clean up.

It is not right that vulnerable road users should be forced to break the law for their own safety, and whilst not the circumstance in this case, RLJ is often the result of a driver or motor vehicle doing one or more of the following:

 - Tailgating a cyclist
 - Attempting a close pass but failing as they are also about to jump the red light
 - Red light racers - drivers who attempt to beat the red lights by accellerating through junctions
 - Encroaching dedicated cycle boxes at the front of traffic queues, or positioning themselves in the pedestrian crossing spaces over the stop line.
 - Harrassment and abuse, for simply being there. Either shouting from the window or "playing snooker" with a cyclist.

I'm absolutely 100% on board with changing the laws for the better to protect all vulnerable road users and encourage active transport.

One example that I come across every day is that currently the cars have priority when turning into side roads that cross shared use paths (at least they do where I live). I'd change that to give the shared use path priority over vehicles coming in and out of the side roads.

I'd also make leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run) a mandatory 10 year prison sentance. It seems to be all the rage to knock over a cyclist or pedestrian and then just drive off...

MTB Refugee wrote:

I'd also make leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run) a mandatory 10 year prison sentance. It seems to be all the rage to knock over a cyclist or pedestrian and then just drive off...

You may be interested to read the parliamentary debate in the link below.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2023-24/Criminal_Justice_Bill/15-0_20...

Peter Dowd put forward an amendment to try to go someway to increasing the punishment for failing to stop. Needless to say nothing has been done yet again.

Patrick9-32 wrote:

This is a textbook dog whistle argument. 

They didn't pick an example nobody could queston, they picked one that's easy for the anti cycling people to pick apart and engaging with it is always going to be a net negative game. Either they get you to "admit you cycle like a criminal" or you end up in a "I am a cyclist but I wouldn't do that" position where you are justify their hatred by being able to point to examples where "even cyclists think you are an idiot" 

The only way to win is not to play. 

A strange game, indeed.

mctrials23 wrote:

The problem with a rule like this is that people are idiots (yes, cyclists too) and relying on them to make subjective decisions on these things would be a recipe for disaster.

Not necessarily - the idea is for cyclists to be able to treat junctions with traffic lights as "give ways" instead. Give way junctions work perfectly fine, and cyclists make subjective decisions on whether it's safe to proceed on them all day, every day.

Personally, I think it's safer for me to be able to look left and right, then if clear, cross a junction and get up to speed before the cars are let through, than it is for me to have to accelerate as hard as I can with ten cars trying to barge past and squeeze me through the road furniture around the junction. I haven't read too far into direct affects, but the 14% reduction in cyclist KSIs observed after the introduction of the Idaho stop would suggest there's maybe some merit to this opinion.

mctrials23 wrote:

Thats ignoring the fact it would piss off the already frothing masses of drivers who think that their hour long commute would be 10 minutes if only it wasn't for that single cyclist that held them up for 30s. Oh and the fucker also went through a red light. What a bastard. They probably didn't see 100 instances of bad driving over that same journey...

This is definitely true though. Especially if the Government do what they did with the HC changes and leave it up to the cyclist-hating, gammon-baiting, gutter press to misrepresent the changes in order to paint yet another target on our backs.

I don't do a lot of driving in cities but my Son used to live in Southampton. I often thought that a lot of the RLJers were aware of the lights sequencing and were actually going through the Red on the pedestrian green. Often with no pedestrians about. So yes illegal but actually quite safe.

In fact the green pedestrian signal appears while the van crossing the cyclist's path is still in the middle of the junction so the driver probably also went through on red and that is probably the main danger for the cyclist, other motorists not following the rules.

Backladder wrote:

In fact the green pedestrian signal appears while the van crossing the cyclist's path is still in the middle of the junction so the driver probably also went through on red and that is probably the main danger for the cyclist, other motorists not following the rules.

proving that the most important thing to look for is what other vehicles are doing, and not what the lights are showing.

Maybe a flashing amber cyclists-give-way light would be useful?

levestane wrote:

Maybe a flashing amber cyclists-give-way light would be useful?

Existing traffic signals are hard enough for a number of pea brained road users to understand. Let's not give the drivists more complex things to get rage over that ultimately gets more vitriol thrown at the cycling community.

I nipped though a red light yesterday for exactly that reason. It was just a puffin crossing and the waiting pedestrian was on the other side of the road, so no risk of stepping out in front of me. The light turned red just before I crossed the line, so not a major infringement. I would have stopped in the car, but not on the bike, as I had a driver behind me.

It also meant I had a clear road for the short stretch before I made a right turn. If I'd waited at the light, not only would I have risked being rear ended, traffic would have built up behind. Then instead of a clear road, I would have been managing a line of irritated drivers itching to get past on the dodgy bend lined with parked vehicles.