- 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
red light CitizenM_Glasgow_Hotel_02Cyclist fined £220 for riding through red light forcing mum with pushchair to stop mid-crossing to avoid collision
A cyclist has been ordered to pay a total of almost £400, including a fine and other costs, for riding through a red light as a mum with her child in a pushchair were crossing the road, making them stop in their tracks to avoid a collision.
31-year-old Pavanrao Hanchate was caught by police officers immediately after he failed to stop at the red light, and almost caused a collision with the mother and the child, The Standard reports.
Court papers revealed that he “rode through a red light, which had a pedestrian with a pushchair and child on the crossing”, and the “pedestrian had to stop mid-crossing to avoid collision with the cyclist”.
Hanchate, who lives in Norwich, was offered a fixed penalty fine but this went unpaid, and he was then taken to court in a full criminal prosecution.
The magistrate convicted him of riding a pedal cycle on a road and failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic signal, marking an unusual prosecution likely because the officers noticed the incident and stopped Hanchate at the scene to get his details.
Hanchate was ordered to pay a £220 fine, plus £90 in prosecution costs and an £88 victim surcharge.
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
The news comes just a few weeks after the “dangerous cycling” bill was tabled in Parliament by senior Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith and backed by Transport Secretary Mark Harper, who said it would mean the “tiny minority” of reckless cyclists would face the “full weight of the law”, while protecting “law-abiding cyclists”.
The bill was purposed to introduce the specific offence of "causing death by dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate cycling, and causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling", which would lead to tougher penalties for those who kill or injure while riding bikes, e-bikes, electric scooters, unicycles, and "personal transporters”.
Duncan Smith’s amendments had been welcomed by Matthew Briggs, a longstanding campaigner for a dangerous cycling law, whose wife Kim was hit and killed by a cyclist riding with no front brakes in London in 2016, with the cyclist Charlie Alliston later being jailed for 18 months after being found guilty of causing bodily harm by "wanton and furious riding”.
The bill was first agreed upon in the House of Commons by ministers, but was then shelved following the announcement of the general elections by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
However, just days after it was reported that the bill won’t become law, it received cross-party backing in the Parliament, with Labour joining the Conservatives in committing to introduce stricter laws on cycling if they form government after winning the upcoming election.
The amendments, if passed, will replace the current legislation with which cyclists who kill or injure while riding recklessly can be prosecuted under the 1861 ‘wanton or furious driving’ law, which carries with it a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
It means the maximum sentence for causing death or serious injury by dangerous cycling, if the proposed amendment passes, would be brought into line with sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving, of which the maximum sentence is currently 14 years' imprisonment. The government are set to bring forward an updated amendment to James Cleverly’s Criminal Justice Bill as it enters the House of Lords, where it will be debated.
Currently, the Highway Code dictates that cyclists must stop at red lights. In April, we reported that the City of London Police had handed out 944 fixed penalty notices to cyclists for riding through red lights since its Cycle Response Unit was formed nine months ago.
The authority — which polices the Square Mile area of the English capital home to the Stock Exchange, Bank of England and St Paul's Cathedral — said it would continue to fine cyclists who ride "through red lights, putting themselves and pedestrians at risk".
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- galibiervelo 21 min 40 sec ago
That is class news. Super bikes and vision. Bet there will be no stand at the Taiwan bike show next year! Big luck to all the team
- Hirsute 44 min 3 sec ago
"However, he said that by moving his head around Wilkinson, who was driving at around 20mph, could and should have been in a position to have seen...
- Destroyer666 1 hour 3 min ago
Pretty clearly stated several times in the text that the issue was not related just to his son. And besides, everybody watching the races could see...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 19 min ago
All Fizik and Selle Italia saddles (though not all their other products) are made in Italy I believe, and their 3D printed models definitely are.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 45 min ago
If you're not on the road with a car, I bet its driver is much less likely to swerve into your space *. Because you're not "in the way"! (Any...
- mdavidford 2 hours 1 min ago
The problem with this argument, though, is that it's just not true....
- Legin 3 hours 56 min ago
The tory party will oppose anything that might restrict their tanks rolling at the next election.
- mdavidford 4 hours 26 min ago
Especially since the similarly priced Tickr X did have that functionality.
Add new comment
45 comments
I quite agree - only the more I know the more "it's complicated". NL has (the world's best?) mass cycling partly because they never lost it in the way e.g. the UK did. And they yes, they did seize an opportune moment to start reversing the direction of travel to motor dependency * but they also already had some "separated cycle paths" so it was an easier change **.
NL is flat, only ... not all of it. And the bridges over the canals can be steep and slow you right up. And it is known for being windy - you never reach the top of a headwind...
So yes - there are definitely local differences to attend to (particularly in societies very different from e.g. Europe - see e.g. Japan [1] [2]). But some things I think are probably universal - which have interlinked "solutions":
a) Ensure the feeling of "safety". "Feeling" as humans don't tend to be good at statistics. That includes "not getting your bike stolen".
b) Ensure "attractiveness" of facilities. Again - lots of different elements (some overlap with "safety"). The key one is to drastically reduce mixing with lots of (fast) motor traffic. Humans neither feel safe nor enjoy this. Another element (often overlooked - or deliberately impaired in the UK) is social interaction - at its most basic people often travel together, and they like to do so side-by-side.
c) Increase convenience. Cycling must be really convenient to be attractive. So things like "directness of routes" and "goes as close to destinations as possible" and "not having to go up massive hills". Not only that though - there is to some extent a choice between modes of travel so that cycling trip must compare favourably with the alternatives (normally "drive it instead"). This is where things like addition regulations (PPE, cycle registration etc.) can work against mass cycling.
Note - enforcement can feed in at different places e.g. to provide an additional motivation to keep drivers in line and facilitate things above.
As for "making lives easier" - for cycling maintaining momentum is key. So at all costs try to avoid people having to stop. (That's a benefit of dedicated cycle infra). Slowing occasionally is OK. With level changes again the Dutch have standards for man-made gradients e.g. what is reasonable for people. And I think when designing they a) try to make the motor traffic go up (so cyclists don't have to) and where they need to change level, favour underpasses (so that cyclists go down first - so you then can gain speed to convert back into height).
* I'd say they're still car addicted, but they've got it more under control than e.g. the UK has (we "have to drive"...)
** It wasn't easy at all - it was literally a fight in many cases [1] [2]! Also someone here drew my attention to the intriguing suggestion that the initial motivation for "separate cycle infra" there (long before the "change" in late 1970s) might have been making things safer for motor scooter riders in the countryside.
good result. Don't tell Mr Briggs, as he is currently under the illusion that it is impossible to prosecute cyclists
Good result and as it should be. But Matt Briggs, the one who lost his wife? Shame on him for not getting over it already... ffs dude stay classy.
"dude"? Don't make assumptions...
Anyway, I'm totally sympathetic to Mr Briggs' loss, but he promotes the falsehood that cyclists are unaccountable. Much, much worse than that, in his campaigning, he has allied himself to some very dodgy causes and organisations, which will greatly reduce safety for both cyclists and pedestrians.
Scores of people walk in front of traffic without looking each year, like his wife did, and are killed. She could have been hit by any cyclist, or an electric car. It happened to be a guy on a bike with only one brake, not that he had time to stop. He deserved the punishment he got for deliberately riding a single brake bike in public but to target cyclists as the real dangers on the roads does no one a service, certainly not the 1,500 killed each year. Does he also campaign for pedestrians to look before stepping into traffic? Would save hundreds of lives per decade unlike his campaign which will save arguably none. The current law for drivers doesn't stop the carnage.
does he campaign for pedestrians to wear helmets, which will apparently save many many cyclists every year.
Mr Briggs has been at the heart of campaigns against cyclists for years now, demanding compulsory registration, insurance and new unnecessary criminal charges to be created specifically to target cycling. I don't suppose there's a soul amongst us who doesn't feel deeply sympathetic for his loss, but he has chosen to take a position as a high-profile campaigner for restrictions on cyclists and as such he has to be rebutted and refuted by those interested in standing up for them. He can't just be given a free pass because of his personal tragedy, I'm afraid.
As has Rosamund Kissi-Debrah (mother of Ella Kissi-Debrah who died due to air pollution), apparently campaigning against LTNs...
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/appalling-councils-f...
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18616846.air-quality-voice-rosamund-k...
But paradoxically (ironically?) supports ULEZ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64624483
Not sure there's anything paradoxical or ironical about Ms K-D's position; she wants pollution in London cut so she supports the ULEZ, which has and will unarguably cut pollution (it's only the amount it will cut and therefore whether it's worthwhile that has ever been in dispute), but her argument with LTNs (with which I don't agree but it is an arguable position) is that they don't reduce pollution, they simply push pollution from one area to another with no reduction in the overall pollution levels.
I'd think that one of the goals of LTNs is to make it safer and more pleasant to walk/cycle short distances rather than drive.
Which would then cut pollution...
Indeed, and as I said I don't agree with her but increased pollution on certain roads is a side-effect of some LTNs in the short term before people start to realise that they can safely use active travel instead of driving, so I do understand where she's coming from. Hopefully as more and more LTNs are created and air quality starts improving due to reduce traffic in all areas, not just within the bounds of LTNs, she will change her mind.
The evidence shows that LTNs do reduce traffic and pollution in surrounding areas:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241731/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-reduce-pollution-surrounding-streets/
(I guess you probably know this)
Fair enough! And of course it was only so much because he didn't pay the FPN.
No excuse for that kind of behaviour
I see no problem with this, cyclists can't expect car drivers to follow the rules and cyclists not.
I always stop at red lights, very occasionally such as road works with a lane closed I'll hop off and walk on the pavement as it's both safer and quicker. But jumping red lights is just dumb as like in this instance you're putting your own or others lives at risk.
Pages