- 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
Basel red light study (picture credit VDB)Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
Leading cycling campaigners in Scotland have been discussing the potential road safety implications of allowing cyclists to ride through red lights.
Speaking to Scotland on Sunday figures from campaign groups such as Bike for Good, Cycling Scotland and Spokes shared differing opinions on the matter, with disagreements over whether such changes were necessary and what safety improvements they would have.
As per the Highway Code, informed by the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 36, cyclists 'must obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals' and 'must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red'.
This differs from road laws in other parts of the world, notably in some parts of the United States and France where cyclists are permitted to proceed at red lights in certain circumstances, something Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet of Bike for Good believes should be implemented closer to home.
"After reading various studies proving that removing the obligation for cyclists to stop at red lights increased safety, I decided to test it myself," he told the Scotsman's Sunday sister paper, arguing a change of road rules could allow those on bicycles to travel through red lights at specially marked junctions after giving way to pedestrians.
"In Paris and Lyon last summer I had the opportunity to experience this and quickly felt much safer on the road. At junctions motorists knew they had to prioritise cyclists and were more cautious — it's time to change mindsets."
However, not everyone agrees, Cycling Scotland's cycling safety manager Simon Bradshaw suggested Scotland's road laws are too different to France's to be compared and questioned if such action should even be a priority.
"There are many actions needed to improve safety for people cycling and we don't believe that permitting people to cycle through red lights is one of them," he said.
"Red lights — and green figures — ensure people can cross roads more safely and confidently. Scotland also has very different rules of the road to France, making it complex to replicate. The recent updates to the Highway Code, if followed, make our roads safer for everyone."
Likewise, Ian Maxwell of the Lothian cycling campaign group Spokes, told the Sunday newspaper he does not believe the matter is "necessary".
"I would like to see all motorists respecting advance stop lines before we try this approach," he explained.
"There is also the question of why this particular priority is necessary. Cycling is already a fast and reliable way of getting through city centres, even if you have to wait at a few red lights."
Just last year Colorado approved a bill to let cyclists ride through red lights with the aim of cutting collision numbers by reducing interactions at junctions between drivers and people on bikes.
The rule change does still require riders to briefly stop at red lights to give way to any vehicles or pedestrians before continuing on their way.
Elsewhere, in Paris, since 2015 cyclists are permitted to travel straight or make right turns through reds when at specially signed junctions, a law change that followed a successful pilot scheme.
> Cyclists in Paris allowed to ignore red traffic lights
"They [red lights] were installed so that car drivers would let pedestrians cross the road, to regulate the flow of traffic and to moderate the speed," Christine Lambert of the campaign group Mieux Se Déplacer à Bicyclette (MDB) said at the time.
"But bicycles don't go fast and don't make any noise. It's idiotic to stop for nothing. You waste energy and it slows you down. The best safety assets for cyclists are your eyes and your brain."
Coverage of cyclists and red lights here in the UK is often a divisive topic, with headlines such as 'Red light Rats!' appearing in the Mail on Sunday after the paper accused 26 "rogue cyclists" of jumping lights outside Buckingham Palace.
The story of last August led to accusations of the article being "manufactured" and "dehumanising" after it was discovered the road was closed to motor traffic and police officers had urged bicycle riders to continue through the lights.
Earlier this month a Deliveroo food delivery cyclist based in Edinburgh spoke out about the pressures of the job and said the struggle to make ends meet leads many couriers to break traffic laws, such as jumping red lights.
"I do not have any issue with laws, and as a recreational club cyclist, I feel some obligation to not give cyclists a bad name and fuel anti-cyclist attitudes held by many motorists. Riding for Deliveroo, I have the opposite mindset," he said.
"If every road law was to be followed, it could easily add five minutes to a delivery, which would cut my income by 20 per cent.
"My normal 'Roo' daytime income averages £10-12 per hour. To reduce that by 20 per cent is therefore not realistic. Most Roo cyclists will, like me, not follow all road laws."
What do you think? Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights in certain circumstances? Would a change in the rules improve road safety for everyone? Is a change even necessary?
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Stephankernow 4 min 21 sec ago
Cost! Lack of thought?
- Runtilyoudrop 1 hour 21 min ago
Does this mean they will answer my emails and give my money back?
- OldRidgeback 1 hour 29 min ago
Yes, it's something I notice a lot when I'm cycling in traffic or riding my motorbike in traffic. I pass a lot of vehicle with drivers obviously...
- BBB 4 hours 40 min ago
Inhumane system that now will be getting even worse.
- Bungle_52 8 hours 4 min ago
In case anyone missed it in yesterdays blog here are the two pevious articles. The second one contains the testimony from the driver....
- David9694 8 hours 13 min ago
The old role was appointed at the Mayor's pleasure; is in addition to the permanent staff of the Combined Authority. I'm not sure if Adam was an...
- Destroyer666 11 hours 38 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 11 hours 54 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 12 hours 20 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 12 hours 36 min ago
The problem with this argument, though, is that it's just not true....
Add new comment
126 comments
This is just the beginning for adequate facilities for bikes. In London, we have a crucial lack of adequate lanes more or less everywhere, except for a few main roads, but at each junction, there are issues. But yes, most of the time, it would be nice to have the release lights so that we can cross also safely before the fast cars arrive. For that we need to be able to get to the bike SAS and also fine non cyclists that are there properly.
This is also where I have to say that the Scotland advocate is clearly out of line and needs to be replaced. I would also fault here RoadCC for not explaining the new signals that are available in france and that are the subject of this discussion (also, a side note, to promote cycling, you need to promote soft speed changes as well, and that where the Scotland advocate is failing utterly, as they clearly don't understand how to promote cycling, please get another one that KNOWS what the science is).
These signals are not for any type of crossing. They are only acceptable if they don't cross another car flow coming in, and they are yield the way, always. So they are a complement to the release lights, not a replacement because the lights are mandatory for crossing, yield the way is only for non crossings (and they are still not adequately understood by everyone in Paris, to be fair).
Typically where it would make sense in London is around Regent's Park, counter clock wise. It would be far better to have also a dedicated lane for everyone, and this signal to yield the way on all red lights. This would fluidify the traffic. The fact that it's used for cyclists to break some speed record is a problem though and the same speed limit that applies to cars should be enforced there at the same time. BUT, if on top we change the facilities there and make it even one way only for cars, we could have a bidirectional lane that is safe for everyone AND a lane where these kind of signals could be tested.
London is clearly way behind most European capitals and need to up its game, get more data on cyclists behaviors and how to promote, through facilities, better, safer cycling. But if even the advocates don't know what they are talking about, we first need to change them for people that get to the information and the data.
Just that adding early relase lights to every traffic light junction is a significant cost and so will never happen, allowing the Idaho stop requires a change to the highway code (and proably also the law, so maybe those early release lights might be quicker after all)
I don't seek the opposite I'm just not an advocate for jumping lights for the reasons I've outlined. I'd be in favour of designated lights for cyclist rather than rule changes 'cos I just don't trust the pillocks behind the wheel. They don't seem to understand anything new fangled like the recent Highway code changes
Rendel has also brought up the early release lights for cyclists/scooters and although I think they're a good idea, I'm not sure if they go far enough and of course there's expense involved in changing junctions. It'd be interesting to see if they provide more or less benefit than just decriminalising RLJing.
I'm a bit leery of just saying "suggest cyclists ignore (some) red lights". This is mostly because the UK is at such a motorcentric point. That has consequences such as "motorist aren't looking for anything but other motorists", "it's a war on the roads - between drivers (and good luck to anyone else)" etc.
On the other hand it's a "quick win" and "cheap intervention". However that in itself should indicate caution - UK has repeatedly gone for "cheap and quick" and many of these measures have actually put people off (because they're not joined up / actually make things feel less safe).
Some countries (Thailand one I've seen) have a more "traffic rules by negotiation" method in practice but a) this seems to rely on congestion to ensure slow motorists b) few motorists are arguing with elephants and c) I think they have a pretty unenviable safety record anyway.
Early release lights can help - again with the caveat of UK motornormativity. That means that the numbers of motorists who see these and take them as their own green may not be small and that situation will persist for a long time.
It's not about ignoring them, but treating them as a stop-and-give-way sign instead.
I understand - but I suspect we're at a toxic "stable point" now. There are very few non-motorised road users in most places (couple of % of cyclists basically). Though people don't realise it all public space is completely set up for driving. So the idea of "using the same space but not obeying the rules" will further trigger our "cheating" or "othering" psychological features.
I think the "happy with understanding another mode with different requirements" thing only really kicks in when there are lots of that mode. So it needs cyclists about. Plus either you occasionally cycling on the road yourself, or friends / family that do. I'd also help to see cyclists using special dedicated spaces around the place and that being just fine. (Contrast UK's "we made the pavement a cycle-path as well" and other conflict-creating stuff).
Note that most drivers aren't jealous about pedestrians "filtering" past on the pavement while they're sat somewhere even when those pedestrians then cross the road - using the "car infra".
Anyway this is all moot because I bet about zero people would be tempted out of their cars by "current road infra but with some relaxed rules at junctions". I doubt that will make things that much better for many existing cyclists! I'd probably not change how I rode much due to self-preservation and knowledge of the unhelpful junction designs and wild drivers about...
I don't think we're at a "stable point" at all.
There's some competing forces at play
I don't think traffic will look the same in 10 years time, but which way it goes is difficult to predict. I could add electric vehicles to the above list, but I think they're mainly a marketing distraction and not feasible until battery tech moves away from lithium.
Interesting summary! Competing visions of the future on display here: rich_cb's optimistic "autonomous tech" for the win (plus "demographic changes" - which I'm sure is true), Martin73's bitter "tragedy of the commons", maybe some kind of critter-cal mass revolution...?
By "stable point" I mean there are a lot of forces resisting much change from our current motoring-based transport system. In fact I think we'll tolerate worse congestion, more expense and certainly more death and pollution, and the current direction of travel is overall still "more cars". For congestion, even if some quit driving I suspect this then creates space and more fill it.
I just don't see driving as a habit suddenly disappearing unless the fuel runs out. But cultures do suddenly collapse, so...
Optimistically - cycling for example has the advantage of being distributed, low-resource requirements, individual, super-efficient. It still hasn't become extinct in the UK (though tiny). So like mammals existing as mouse-sized creatures until the dinos died out it can always pop up to fill some gaps. It might also "drift in" to the transport mix by being used for some journeys even as we still rely on cars.
I'm going to settle for "the future will look quite like now, but less so the further we get from the present". That should have me covered - barring asteriods, nuclear / biological war or some technological singularity.
I think traffic and congestion will be worse in ten years time.
That certainly seems to be the direction we're heading in.
I think that is because they don't see the same pedestrians filtering past them at every set of lights for several miles.
There's something to that. However I've received abuse and missiles when the relationship hasn't even been that long. Of course there are idiots everywhere and I could have been collecting on behalf of another. Nevertheless I was still collecting.
Your point on momentum is spot on though - efficiency when steadily moving is cycling's killer selling point. Read somewhere that making a casual cyclist stop is energetically equivalent to adding another hundred metres to the journey - that adds up fast in the UK!
... however I think there are much better / safer ways to resolve that (separate infra, allowing cyclist to take short cuts motorists can't, smarter lights...). Albeit these have to be done one- by- one in the UK and each may be a battle.
From memory of when I used to commute through a relatively small town, my incentive for red light jumping was conservation of momentum, once I've actually stopped then I might as well wait a few seconds for the green light. It may be different in London and other large cities, I havent ridden enough in the city recently to know.
Although "Vision zero" is much better than the current approach (maximum throughput of motor vehicles consistent with safety) an aside: this often comes over as more "slogan" than plan. I appreciate there are various versions of "Vision zero" and I have tried to understand the detail where it's actually given (not always).
That's why I keep pointing to the Dutch "sustainable safety" model. There is a clear goal which is a positive goal ("safe and efficient movement of people") rather than just "no deaths". The latter suggests fixing what's already there, the former a whole new direction.
The overall goal in the "sustainable safety" model is served by a set of principles and applying those leads to the design detail and rules. Finally one of the principles is a requirement for a feedback process. So issues (crashes, problems with rules etc.) aren't just viewed through the "someone - an isolated wrong 'un - done wrong / it was just one of those things" lenses we have here. Applying a more "systems-based" approach to issues can lead to recognition of less-than helpful designs, or prompt more training or rule changes.
That's a much better approach, but I'm concerned that the UK is more interested in copying the U.S. than Europe.
One aspect of allowing RLJing by cyclists/scooters is that it reinforces the idea that different vehicles should have different restrictions according to weight/speed/momentum etc. so maybe we can get past the tired old theme of "if you use the road you have to abide by all the same rules as everyone else".
I bet the families of all the cyclists killed by left turning HGVs just after the lights changed are glad they blindly followed the rules.
Obviously no one is suggesting cyclists ride through red lights as if they are invisible, I fail to see how waiting at a junction with no other traffic around waiting for the signal to change adds anything to safety, compared to stopping, looking and then proceeding if clear. so talk of bike v car is just a straw man really. I assume you are capable of using UK roads and manage to safely negotiate junctions with stop signs or give way signs without coming into collision with motor vehicles.
I assume you are capable of using UK roads and manage to safely negotiate junctions with stop signs or give way signs without coming into collision with motor vehicles
Well, lots of us aren't when we're on the main road and a driver pulls out from the side road right in front of us in broad daylight without looking, and kills us- and PC B*****d essentially blames the cyclist for not wearing a helmet or hi-viz, and excuses the driver.
The Idaho Stop works very well, in my experience, here in the US. It seems that Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet has not really experienced this in action since the Idaho Stop does not require specially marked junctions and does not 'prioritise cyclists'.
Coincidentally, I just saw this on Facebook.
Is road.cc owned by Shell now as well?
Seen some ludicrous articles recently, really show us all up in my opinion.
What this is proposing is based on too many "if x then do x" which is stupid. Red is stop. Green is go. No interpretations, simple, elegant even.
Consider this;
Should pedestrians cross where ever they want?
inb4; "THEY ALREADY DO" hows that been working?
So embarrassing.
Except there is more to Green is Go.
There is always If Clear and Proceed with Caution.
If I viewed life with your level of simplicity I'd have been dead long ago and many times over when attempting to cross the road.
Don't forget folks accellerating through the junction because they were already hooning and the red was not yet "established"... and the driver behind them doing follow-my-leader!
Still, I think given things are already confusing for some road users making them even simpler is the way to go. They could start with removing any "hardship" dodges for driving offenses, ditch the "mandatory cycle lane parking" exemptions, then move on to making the speed limit, you know, a limit...
And emergency vehicles going through on red with caution.
Life seems to be getting somewhat complicated, doesn't it?
The only embarassment here is when someone's been so brainwashed by carbrain and populism that they think everything is simple. It's not. Advanced stop lines for cyclists must blow your mind!
Unless you are a London cyclist*
Green means go, amber means GO, red means GO GO GO! Zebra cossing Goooooo!!
*not all cyclists, just an exasperated p**s take from experience being one of few who do stop at lights and for pedestrians in London.
26 "rogue cyclists"
In the context of red lights and particularly as they'd just been discussing the French situation, it was inevitable to misread this.
I notice that the article and those quoted all seem to be Scotland-based. Is this proposed as a UK-wide change or is it limited to Scotland? (A quick search suggests transport policy is devolved but I'll stand corrected if it's not).
Intuitively, I'd support such a change but agree it's probably not the most pressing issue.
The question I'd ask is; who does it benefit?
To that end, it brings to mind a very old blog post (by 'magnatom') which (iirc) argued that ASLs 'promoted' in less confident or inexperienced cyclists a mindset that because an ASL was there, that's where they should be, regardless of any present dangers to get to it. Could we make a similar argument here?
I think this article is Scotland-focused because it started out with a comment by a Glasgow-based charity (Bike for Good) and was picked up by a Scottish newspaper. And, as you say, transport policy is devolved so I suspect it would need to go through legislation separately in Scotland and rUK.
But all the arguments apply equally across the UK and it is something that has been mooted before, especially in regards to London:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/turn-left-red-running-red...
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/let-cyclists-run-red-lights-says-pressure...
Pages