Another day, another debate about cyclists and red lights on the internet.
This latest fair and balanced discussion comes courtesy of a video shared by Surrey Police’s RoadSafe account – which has a bit of history when it comes to contentious cyclists and red light clips – which shows a cyclist riding through two sets of red lights in Guildford last week, before being promptly pulled over by officers and issued with a £30 fine.
“Vanguard Road Safety Team officers patrolling in an unmarked car on Thursday witnessed this cyclist flagrantly contravening multiple red lights in Guildford town centre!” the Surrey RoadSafe account tweeted yesterday.
“The rider was handed a fixed penalty notice. Reminder: red lights mean stop for all road users.”
While the clip and news of the FPN was greeted with the usual glee from motorists – with some claiming they are “sick to death of seeing this kind of behaviour” and that “most cyclists don’t stop at red lights” (Nigel Havers, is that you?) – it has also appeared to divide opinion within the two-wheeled community.
> Under-fire police force releases full video of cyclists fined for ignoring red light amid questions over original footage
“Totally deserved. Red lights apply to everybody and there is no mitigation here,” wrote cyclist Paul Sheen, while Chapona Bike added that he hoped the £30 penalty “will teach him a lesson”.
“Good. Rules are there for a reason. It may not look dangerous until the situation when it ends up very bad,” wrote road safety activist account PhoneKills.
Meanwhile, Philip said: “As an occasional cyclist I’m glad to see this rider get a penalty, because it’s bad cycling like this that appears to give vehicle drivers the justification to ignore the rules around priority for vulnerable road users. A case of ‘they don’t follow the rules, why should I?’”
However, others were critical of the decision to stop and fine the cyclist, arguing that he was, in fact, enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic.
“He treated those lights as give ways, which is safer for cyclists to do and should be legal, and it is legal in many places where they’ve thought about it. Get serious about road safety,” said Chris.
“I guess Surrey RoadSafe are unaware that RLJs at quiet intersections free of pedestrians are one of the ways cyclists enhance their safety over the length of their journeys,” added vfclists.
“Going shoulder to shoulder with 2+ tonne vehicles accelerating away from traffic lights must be very safe!”
> "Why I skip red lights": Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds
When challenged that he only sees “the benefits and not the risk” of continuing through red lights, the cyclist continued: “If it wasn't safe why was the police carable to chase him right away through the same red lights? Didn’t they notice that the red lights were red too?
“Being in a car they would have waited for the lights to turn green then catch up with him. So why ignore the red lights?”
> Cyclists slam "victim blaming" road safety video advising "improve visibility on the road" so drivers don't hit you
Meanwhile, Travis, the owner of London’s most famous cycling cat Sigrid, pointed out that he’s “basically gone full California” – “If there is a green man in my direction, I jump the red (proceeding with caution and giving pedestrians priority, of course). It makes so much sense, but I doubt it’d fly here legally with the anti-cycling lobby.”
“100 per cent on this,” replied Sy. “If the red is for the pedestrians to cross, and there are no pedestrians, it also means no traffic to knock you off. Highway hierarchy should win always.”
And to back up his point, Travis reminded everyone of the time “I learned my lesson about unnecessarily stopping for reds”:
> Police scold cyclist riding with pet cat in basket for not wearing a helmet after moped rider knocks them off bike
Finally, other cyclists stayed out of the debate, with Adespoto noting: “It’s like all those times you tweeted film of drivers blocking cycle lanes. (Zero).”
Thoughts, comments?
Add new comment
75 comments
“Please do tell us where drivers are to park now?” community activist Stephen McNamara asked.
I wonder which community Stephen thinks he's representing? Certainly not the local pedestrians, shoppers or cyclists, so that only leaves the drivers.
Just stop in the road. If what you need to stop for is that important I'm sure the other motorists will understand, up until now you've forced cyclists and pedestrians to see your point.
Yup!
In NL this happens and apparently people are genuinely OK with waiting for a minute or so because e.g. someone's doing a drop off. And they've *actually* made designs where it so the street is too narrow for one car to overtake another, while there is still useable space for walking and cycling.
Well - perhaps not "OK" but presumably this doesn't lead to fighting in the streets / cars rammed into houses?
Of course the UK solution would be "damn the planters! Walkers and cyclists can look out! I have to drive past!"
Based on what we have seen recently, people manage to blame cyclists for cars crashing so I don't think its a stretch to suggest the thought won't even enter their heads that its not cyclists fault that their fellow motorist has blocked the road.
Funny how that almost never happens. So many motorists will park on the footway/cycle path rather than stop in the road so they don't "hold up the traffic / block the road".
Vanguard Road Safety Team officers write: Reminder: red lights mean stop for all road users
Unless they're Panzer drivers in Lancashire. I can state with absolute certainty that no action will be taken against the driver of Range Rover FH16 VFA who was speeding hard as he came past me and charged up the blind humpbacked bridge where the right side of the road was blocked by the roadworks, so the oncoming traffic on green would be on [my] left side of the road
Re: ignoring temporary lights
Riding through Bo'ness the other week, I came across temporary lights (early evening, so no work in progress), and could see a queue of cars at the opposite lights. Mine turned green as I approached and so I continued onwards. I was about a third of the way through when the lead motorist (middle aged, for the record) drove towards me, window helpfully lowered. The others remained stationary.
I called out, "My light is green!" to which his reply was...
"Mine was red" 👀 No arrogance, no satire, just a simple statement of fact on his part! 😡 He genuinely gave the impression that he had been doing the right thing by heading towards me on red.
As there was nobody behind me, I told the now lead driver at the other lights (still very much red) what he'd said, and she was as astonished as me.
How much is it to get someone to take a driving test for you? 🙄
I thought I would revive this topic as a means of showing the video of the 3 most recent blatant RLJs performed for me by drivers in Lancashire, fully reported with video and, of course, completely ignored by LancasFilth under their 'Oh, but everybody does that!' Motorists Excuse Policy- that is the reason there are so many such offences here
https://upride.cc/incident/fh16vfa_rrover_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/ma08opb_crv_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/de56ztv_discovery_redlightpass/
Good to see Edinburgh plod pulling and ticketing illegal electric mopeds on South Bridge today.
It appeared to a Warning / FPN exercise as I didn't see them impound any of the bikes.
Not against people making a living, but do it legally.
They should come to the North West - Granton, Pilton, Craigroyston, Muirhouse ...!
I'm going to sound like wheelywheely of this parish but a couple of days ago I watched a lad doing a wheelie while stood on the saddle of his, going down the main road (sorry no pics or strava). And yes - obviously we are talking full illegal electric motorbike. Even waved a leg as a salute at a passing police car (obviously police had better things to do that react).
Passed a couple out tonight also.
None of those (AFAIK) were food delivery ones though. I can only speculate on whether they were working and if so what they might be delivering.
I'm actually a bit surprised there was much for the police to do there as the ones I see in the town all seem to be being pedalled. If the Zoomo ones count as illegal then most of the deliveries would be cancelled!
These weren't Zoomo; these were your black things with knobly tyres that wouldn't look outta place on a wheelbarrow and more black tape than frame.
There was 4 plod ... 2 each side of a junction so there was no escape.
Couldn't linger too much, but they were definitely taking names and making notes in their official notebooks.
Interesting...! Well and good. If it actually amounts to something - I suspect some of those folks don't really worry about anything less that the bike getting confiscated.
Isn't vehicle confiscation used for no insurance?
These guys are riding uninsured, no MOT, VED or registration plate mopeds ... so the should be confiscated.
These guys are riding uninsured, no MOT, VED or registration plate mopeds ... so they should be confiscated
I understand that ScotRozzer has a crack team intent on wresting the crown of 'Worst Force in the UK' from LancsFilth, so I can't see them losing points by confiscating illegal electric motorbikes while Lancashire is forging ahead refusing to take action over IKZ 177 seen 2 days ago outside Garstang High School
Where should motorists park their cars now? That's an easy one; not in the cycle lane, not on double yellows. How is this complicated? The bollards change nothing, except they do.
Just curious - why has road.cc removed the numberplate from the pic of an Astra parked on a bike lane? It appears in the original pic.
A £30 FPN for cycling through a red light is the same penalty for cycling on a footway. I regularly do both where it improves my safety and doesn't inconvenience anyone else.
The risk of a fine is one I feel I have to take, as it's far better than the risk of the alternative.
If you do less soshul meejah, you will have more time to do more constructive things and your life will be happier. You will also save electricity, be a better cyclist and have more sex. I think it is safe to say that Twatter or whatever it is called is for losers.
I don't do social media (if you don't count Road.cc) and I agree . . . .
Sadly not.
It's about time we gave serious consideration to concessions for cyclists such as left-with-caution on red or when parallel to pedestrian green lights (subject to hierarchy).
But, for now, those rules don't apply. And it annoys me when other people on bikes do go through on red.
Some will say that it only reflects on them, not all cyclists; but those who say that have obviously never read the comments from anti-cycling people in positions of power or influence, or the swathes of people on SM building up antipathy that we all suffer from on the roads.
And of course it annoys me more when drivers also go through on red/stop in ASLs (even when legal, it's avoidable)/park on footways/block cycle lanes/pass too close/... but this isn't about that. Just like when they do that, it's not about cyclists going through on red.
The anti-cycling comments are invariably full of made up bullshit and we should not be using the opinions of idiots to shape road design and safety culture.
I agree. But it's not an excuse for breaking the same laws that drivers do.
We can't 'win' their argument by doing the right thing, we can only lose it by doing the wrnong thing.
I don't agree with framing road danger as an "argument" that can be won or lost.
What we need is to focus on the most dangerous activities and prevent or provide strong incentives for people to not do those. Cyclists going through red lights is so far down the list of dangerous activities that it's laughable that anyone would think it's a priority to be focussed on.
As I've pointed out before, there's plenty of more enlightened places that recognise that traffic lights are very much designed for controlling motorised traffic and thus amend the red light laws for cyclists so that they can treat them as STOP/give way signs instead.
...because it's not an argument - it's an irrational fury.
People would quite literally explode with rage. Imagine the idea of cyclists, the most entitled and pandered to of all road users getting to ignore red lights. I can see the steam from here. Are shit cycle lanes covering tiny proportions of our roads not enough. Do we cyclists need more! The sheer fucking cheek!
It's almost as though several other countries don't alreeady have similar rules.
If you are saying "it's a little irrational but motorists seeing cyclists do stuff they can't do feeds the fury" - and you're concerned about the "fury" part - then the answer is probably not "just legalise some stuff for cyclists which motorists can't do".
But maybe if we wait awhile drivers will just get used to it and it'll become a non-issue? Maybe... But how long have there been cyclists, and yet some people are apparently mostly angry because cyclists?
So I don't think "waiting it out" really works, not unless we also do other things to bring about mass cycling (the only way to increase drivers' empathy - because it really could be their kid, or partner, or parent ... or even them, because they all cycle from time to time).
Getting off topic but unlike some here I'm not a fan of legalising cyclists ignoring stop signals on some lights. There are a few reasons for this (not quite the same but motorists being able to do so in US is a source of danger).
I'm aware that in a few places this is legal and the world hasn't ended - I just think it's a hack which doesn't really go in the best direction for improving everyone's safety. Do they do this / think they need it in NL? Don't think so...
I'm much more in favour of making it so most lights (whatever colour) simply don't apply to people cycling.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying motorists use the occasions they see a cyclist breaking the rules to justify their hatred/dismissal of cycling. So let's not give them ammunition by breaking the rules.
I'm more than fine with rules differing between cyclists and drivers, because that reflects the difference in the two vehicle types.
They can justify it anyway. I'm pretty sure that some folks behaving badly around cyclists (e.g. young ones) have never seen a cyclists doing bad things - unless it was themselves, recently.
Unfortunately "rules differing reflecting the difference in vehicle types" is not going to fix stuff - I suspect the opposite. Fundamentally I think the emotional reaction (which I've been on the end of, when cycling courteously and obeying the law) is at least in part due to some basic human psychology *. It amounts to "if you're in the same place doing the same thing (driving, riding) you should follow the same rules".
Hence "you don't pay road tax" (no, and there isn't a rule to say cyclists should). And "cycling two abreast!" (no reason why we shoudn't - in fact it's in motorists' interest that cyclists do so to help them pass safely). And complaints about cyclists going too fast (not just around pedestrians) when in fact speed limits don't apply. (Not that it's wrong to question some cyclists' speeds - but I don't think this often comes from thoughtful consideration...)
* It's "cheater detection". And we're most sensitive to that when we think those with lower status / who should take more care (cyclists!) are trying it on (lots in the psychology literature about that)! It doesn't always apply - people sometimes seem to understand that horses won't behave like cars, for example. I believe it is possible to set up conditions where cyclists and motorists share space at some points without this always triggering people but it needs some specific conditions and social conventions in place (see NL and the few places with genuine mass cycling).
I'm intrigued by the implication that motorists leave ASLs clear, something I rarely see.
Pages