Independent columnist downgrades speed of “Lyrca-clad red-light jumpers” from 52mph to 40mph

Jem PT wrote:

When The Daily Mail Trust bought The Independant they promised editorial indepence would be maintained. This article (pure Daily Mail fodder) would suggest otherwise. 

The Independent isn't owned by the Daily Mail, it's owned by Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev (you may have understandably confused them because the Daily Mail Trust does own the i, which it purchased in 2019 and which was originally a sister paper to the Independent, but the two are now completely separate entities under different ownership). Lebedev also owns the Evening Standard in London which is not exactly renowned for its cycle-friendliness, so there may be editorial interference, but there's always the possibility that editors can come up with this drivel independently, as it were.

Ah yes, my mistake.

Indepent drivel: I like it.

I don't - but because I often travel by bike people still called me a bloody cyclist.

Now what?

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/55/collective-responsibility-collective-...

The only way round it is to change the culture *. The only way that's likely to happen is if there are LOTS of cyclists / everyone cycles some trips - or their family or friends do. To get *there* - see Seville, some places in Scandinavia ... or NL for how far you can get.

* There is another way round it - we can continue the direction most of the UK is going so that cycling continues to disappear as a mode of transport, and the media loses interest because there are so few bogeyman.

BTW lots of people tell me that "London has a *problem* with this". I can believe it's highly salient at some points.

I imagine a) it's early days for more than a few % cycling - so everyone is still adapting b) ... and also for enforcement - but the UK has pretty minimal road rule enforcement everywhere.
Genuinely wonder what the actual KSI numbers are (against baselines like rate that people get killed by drivers at traffic lights).

Hopefully I'll live to see at least some places in the UK figure out we don't need tons of traffic lights for cyclists...

https://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/02/every-traffic-light-in-ass...

What if you haven't got a public image?

john_smith wrote:

What if you haven't got a public image?

Isn't there a company that will do you one?  This one sounds like they do:

https://www.pilofficial.com/#/

Crikey. They still going!?

Well if the Stones are...

To be fair, Lydon looks healthier than he did 40 years ago if pics on their website are anything to go by.

The claim is they do it at 40mph.

5mph faster than the Tour de France time trial speed record.

The columnist is a BS-artist.

There's a lovely smooth road coming down from Newlands Corner in Surrey with some fairly steep parts. I can do 40mph and more on parts of that. Same with the steep road out of Muro towards Sa Pobla in Mallorca (* many other steep downhills also available). But there weren't any traffic lights so I suppose they don't count.

Not really. She didn't say how long they keep it up for. Top sprinters often do 45 mph these days. And they aren't clad from head to toe in Lyrca.

Then you are a dolt in either case.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Think about it, if as a cyclist, the consistent messages you receive are 'all cyclists run red lights' and 'no one is doing anything to stop cyclists running red lights' will this make you more, or less inclined to slip through the odd red light yourself?

Much less in my case, when I approach a red and think "actually I could run this without doing any harm" I don't do it because I don't want to add fuel to the anti-cycling fire. Quite possibly a futile gesture but hey ho.

if I can safely stop in time I always will, partly because yeah I want to demonstrate fwiw not all cyclists run red lights, but also Im quite happy for the recovery pause quite often.

stonojnr wrote:

if I can safely stop in time I always will, partly because yeah I want to demonstrate fwiw not all cyclists run red lights, but also Im quite happy for the recovery pause quite often.

I must admit that if I'm riding hard quite often I will be approaching the lights thinking please go red, please go red, don't make me ride through…

I enjoy it when the car behind me shoots through the red, the car behind them stops and the driver of this car and I exchange looks.

For shizzle... but I don't see the problem being 'proper' cyclists, or more accurately, those invested enough to be posting on cycling websites. 

The problem will be those commuters who's ony riding will be the daily ride to and from work. They probably wouldn't class themselves as cyclists, probably hate cyclists; they won't be thinking about the wider implications of their actions, merely that they are not going to get caught, so balls to it!

Yeah it probably is. I recently stopped at temporary traffic lights for roadworks at a crossroads outside Chessington, joining a queue of vehicles waiting for red to turn green. Another cyclist came up the outside, went ahead of the lights, hauled his bike across a high kerb and gravel (nearly falling over) and carried on his ride with a car being driven through legally from the left going quite close to hitting him. What a nob.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Thinking about the 33% increase in pedestrian hit by cyclists since 2020, does anyone else think this will partly be down to the relentless MSM attacks on cycling?

Think about it, if as a cyclist, the consistent messages you receive are 'all cyclists run red lights' and 'no one is doing anything to stop cyclists running red lights' will this make you more, or less inclined to slip through the odd red light yourself? 

At the same time, if you are a pedestrian, you could take from that messaging that you need to look out for cyclists around red lights as they don't stop, but you could also take a more militant attitude which says 'cyclists are always in the wrong, I'm not cowing down to their lawlessness... give way to me lycra-rat!'

It's time the very real repercussions of the MSM click-bait coverage is called out. 

I'd say that the root cause of the problems is lack of traffic policing. If drivers and cyclists thought that there was a good chance that they'd get caught, then most of them wouldn't bother RLJing as it wouldn't be worth the risk for making your journey a few seconds quicker (though cyclists gain more from RLJing as they can keep momentum which makes a big difference to them).

Unfortunately, we're always going to have a section of the press that pushes toxicity, so we just need to ensure that drivers aren't emboldened by lack of policing (or nonsensical sentencing).

its the lack of enforcement for sure, theres such low risk of getting caught  most drivers ignore red lights, but traffic light cameras are an effective tool, I know costs are always an issue and it falls to councils/highways depts rather than the police that install them.

but the current situation does lead to crashes, injuries, damage & costs to the economy

I think probably the majority of people stick to the rules at lights - most have a sense of self-preservation if nothing else.  It does seem to me that the "accepted grace period" after the lights go amber ("stop"!) has extended - judging by numbers.  I'd say over the last decade.  (Yes, I know "amber gambler" isn't a new concept).

My experience is that it's not uncommon that your light is green but there is still a vehicle clearing the junction from another direction.

This is also "situational" I think - there are clearly some places where this seems more common, probably for a bunch of reasons.

I wonder whether the mostly unchecked expansion of this behaviour actually sets up incentives for those who otherwise would stop not to do so?  For fear of being rear-ended by those expecting to foot down and truck on through when they see an amber light?  (Or just people who are less observant around traffic lights / only looking for red?)