Here’s a quandary for the masses:
I cycle along a guided bus route with a cycle path to the side, periodically it crosses roads, there are pedestrian crossing on the pavement (of the adjacent roads you are crossing) which you are sort of led to by the path, should I dismount, walk my bike to the lights, press the button and wait for the pedestrian light to change to green before proceeding?

Or am I an rlj for heading through when I see the road is clear (oh and mental for using the pavement also?)

I’m sure there are a few who know the route I’m on about 🙂

http://www.bikebiz.com/features/read/the-times-is-wrong-to-focus-on-cyclists-alone/012577

Some good points made in that. As I mentioned above, by making it a #cyclesafe campaign, there’s been a backlash against cyclists by some journalists who know they can get some easy copy/website views by printing inflammatory anti-cyclist articles. Focus on making streets safer though and the whole thing works.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that a respected broadsheet is doing this, I just think that some of the messages coming from them are a bit … unhelpful.

TfL did a study and found that only around 14-15% of cyclists were jumping the red lights at popular sites in London. (PDF)

Only? That’s a huge percentage!

Compared to my perception of how many cyclists jump red lights in london, that’s a very small amount. As far as I can tell, it’s more like 50%. I’ve seen cyclists getting angry with other cyclists when they *don’t* jump the lights.

I was referring to cycle-related things in general, not specifically The Times’ campaign.

But the bit of mine you quoted and were seemingly referring to was related specifically to the campaign.

There are lots of times is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red.

Not a good enough reason, think of the children, seriously though, is it setting a good example to the younger riders. I don’t really see that many motorist jump lights. Mobile phone use, doing make-up and tinted windows is a bigger issue.

A couple of weeks ago I was driving home in the dark and a guy rode towards me (jumping the red light). With no lights on. Or helmet. And he was riding with his young kid too (and the kid was on the pavement again with no helmet or lights on). What kind of lesson is that teaching the kid? Idjit.

I don’t really see that many motorist jump lights.

Really?? Take a seat in a beer garden overlooking a junction some slow day and count them.

Bear in mind that they are supposed to, by law, stop at amber too unless it is unsafe to do so.

Really??

I’m serious, I commute in from Surrey to London, most drivers seem to obey the traffic lights, odd uh? There’s always the odd driver that will chance it.

Not a good enough reason, think of the children, seriously though, is it setting a good example to the younger riders. I don’t really see that many motorist jump lights. Mobile phone use, doing make-up and tinted windows is a bigger issue.

My point is as a motorist I actually prefer it when cyclists jump the light. Surely I can’t be the only one!

I do get the bad example / all tarred with the same brush arguments but really whats the point? There is and perhaps always will be a hardcore of motorists who think we are all a bunch of freeloading, tree hugging, holier than thou mentalists. Maybe the focus for cycling advocacy should be on getting the laws changed to make cycling a safer form of transport for everyone. Not worrying about appeasing a bunch of idiots who hate us all anyway

Bear in mind that they are supposed to, by law, stop at amber too unless it is unsafe to do so.

Getting tenuous…

There’s always the odd driver that will chance it.

But oddly folk don’t say “Grrr.. all drivers jump red lights” when they see that. Probably because they are also drivers and don’t do it.

Getting tenuous…

Only because, as drivers, we treat the amber light law as optional – the same thing cyclists are accused of.

Only because, as drivers, we treat the amber light law as optional – the same thing cyclists are accused of.

Yes and in most cities the first few seconds of red seem to be optional too. “Its alright it was only a little bit red!”

I really don’t get the ‘it is often safer for a cyclist to run a red light’ argument. Why is it safe for a cyclist to run a red light but not a pedestrian or drivers of cars or vans or buses or motorbikes? And if it *is* safer then why haven’t they changed rules making it legal to do so? Or is it just spurious crap made up by people trying to back up silly arguments?

All in the phrasing isn’t it?

“All cyclists jump red lights” is clearly not true, 85%, the vast majority, obey red lights.

To my mind that’s not the “vast” majority – it means motorists are seeing RLJers at nearly every set of traffic lights they encounter at peak times. Maybe 4 or 5 cyclists are waiting patiently, but the one they notice will be the one jumping the light.

Whereas I suspect “All drivers speed or drive too fast for conditions” is much closer to a truth. Certainly it’s a big majority round my way.

But that’s alright cos cars never hurt people, all those road deaths are caused by cyclists jumping red lights. Everyone knows that.

Arguing that cars are dangerous on a bike forum is a bit of a waste of time, we all know that. But trying to pretend that jumping red lights has no effect is pretty foolish, imo.

Only because, as drivers, we treat the amber light law as optional – the same thing cyclists are accused of.

The vast majority of cyclists I see riding red lights aren’t just chancing it on amber – they are just ignoring them plain and simple.

And if it *is* safer then why haven’t they changed rules making it legal to do so?

Red light jumping by cyclists was so common in Paris that they have recently changed the law to make it legal:

“Parisian cyclists have won the right to go through red lights following a fierce debate over their claim that the move would reduce the risk of road accidents. “
— Cyclists in Paris can ignore the red traffic light (Times, Feb 7 2012)

Cyclists jump lights because, often, it’s safer

I dont really buy that. Yes to be a head of the queue is safer, but there’s little “safe” about jumping the light.

If anyone’s honest, the reason that cyclist jump red lights is because of the energy invested in their momentum that they dont want to give up for anything less than the physical risk of getting flattened, or financial threat of getting fined by the rozzers.

It might be hidden psychology, but Id bet most riders just dont want to stop and then have to get their momentum up again. Im sure there’s some energy/efficiency figures somewhere that I read to back up the massive difference in energy needed to get momentum up on a bike and maintaining speed having once gained the momentum.

I imagine most drivers certainly dont think that way, as after all for them to get up to speed again requires little more effort than a heavy foot.

Why is it safe for a cyclist to run a red light but not a pedestrian or drivers of cars or vans or buses or motorbikes?

Really?

And if it *is* safer then why haven’t they changed rules making it legal to do so?

Different rules exist in other countries already for traffic managements at intersections. Some are obviously more successful than other but we do see very hung up about our red lights in the UK.

Or is it just spurious crap made up by people trying to back up silly arguments?

Nice contribution to the debate there

I really don’t get the ‘it is often safer for a cyclist to run a red light’ argument. Why is it safe for a cyclist to run a red light but not a pedestrian or drivers of cars or vans or buses or motorbikes? And if it *is* safer then why haven’t they changed rules making it legal to do so? Or is it just spurious crap made up by people trying to back up silly arguments?

Mastiles, read the link above by GrahamS.

Roads have become set up for cars/buses/trucks etc. Ignoring the historical debate about how roads came into being for people, horses and bikes, they are now set up for motorised traffic. That means that the rules of the road are primarily there for motorised traffic but, as that article above says, that’s not always appropriate or safe for bikes.

Over the last 30 years or so, the mentality when planning towns, building roads has been “how do we streamline traffic flow” or “how do we make it as easy as possible for cars” and bikes/pedestrians get the potholed bit of tarmac way off over them to keep the pesky buggers out of the way. There’s a fair bit of research starting to be done into how removing traffic lights can actually improve traffic flow. Videos on YouTube if you can be bothered to look, a famous case in Bristol where obviously everyone predicted carnage and death but turning off the lights actually reduced queuing time and congestion.

Maybe 4 or 5 cyclists are waiting patiently, but the one they notice will be the one jumping the light.

And that’s the hypocrisy that annoys me. At the same junction most of the motorists will obey the red, but a few will sneak through on amber or “a bit red” (or will just choose to ignore it completely to save time, as per the video earlier).

But that passes without comment.

The vast majority of cyclists I see riding red lights aren’t just chancing it on amber – they are just ignoring them plain and simple.

Fair enough. I don’t ride much on the road (and when I do I always obey reds) but I see two distinct types red light jumping: the first is a relatively safe slowing right down, checking it is clear then going – which is arguably defensible as getting ahead of the traffic and away from the “starting grid”, especially when there is no ASL – the second is the muppet with headphones on, hopping up and down kerbs, and blitzing through reds without looking, like he’s in some bad courier movie.

The first I understand. The second has a death wish.

I think i`m right in saying, in Holland and Germany, cyclists and pedestrians have right of way.

If you are in a car and have a collision with a cyclist it is your fault.

Perhaps if that was the case here, people may be a little more aware of what was going on around them.
Just a thought ?
As a first step, shift the onus of responsibility on to Drivers.
Drivers as a consequence become more aware of cyclists and give them more room etc. (If only through the fear of insurance claims etc)
Cyclists as a result become safer in traffic due to better awareness all round.
Cyclists behaviour improves as a result of not needing to avoid so many potentially dangerous stop start situations ?

Just looking at the problem from a slightly different perspective and opening it up for discussion 😉

Ohh I entirely agree that removing traffic lights can improve traffic flow – I don’t need to watch videos on YouTube to be able to work that one out.

And no doubt there are some occasions where it is safe for cyclists to run a red light. Just like there are occasions when it is safe for cars and trucks and things that go to do so too. But to accept any running of red lights by cyclists because ‘it is safer’ is nonsense. Do all these cyclists actually weigh up the risks when running the lights or do the vast majority of them run the lights because it is just what they do – possibly because some numpty on an interweb forum has put the daft idea in their heads that it is safer?

possibly because some numpty on an interweb forum has put the daft idea in their heads

Or a popular broadsheet running a cycling safety campaign?

“Mary, a [Times] news reporter, would be first to ask why it is not mandatory for lorries driving on city streets to be fitted with sensors and mirrors to pick up cyclists in their blind spots. Or why training for cyclists and drivers on how to share the road responsibly is so poor. Or why some junctions are so dangerous that jumping a red light can actually be a safer option than lining up alongside HGVs at the lights like a racetrack starting grid.“
— ”Save our cyclists”, The Times (Feb 2, 2012)

If anyone’s honest, the reason that cyclist jump red lights is because of the energy invested in their momentum that they dont want to give up for anything less than the physical risk of getting flattened, or financial threat of getting fined by the rozzers.

It might be hidden psychology, but Id bet most riders just dont want to stop and then have to get their momentum up again. Im sure there’s some energy/efficiency figures somewhere that I read to back up the massive difference in energy needed to get momentum up on a bike and maintaining speed having once gained the momentum.

Just to be clear. I fully agree that sailing through a junction so you don’t need to slow down is wrong and dangerous.

My suggestion would be that the red light rules are amended to allow cyclists to turn left or carry on straight at T junctions.

Crossroads or complicated / dangerous junctions would carry signs to indicate that cyclist must stop.

I also don’t see anything wrong with recommending hi-viz.

Neither do I, but lets not forget that they won’t actually make people look & react to what they see 😥 sadly one of the main reasons I wear hi-viz & helmet is to make sure other road users don’t have any excuses they can fall back on if they do hit me

My cycle commute includes three toucan crossings. It’s a very rare day indeed when at least one motorist doesn’t jump the lights as I’m waiting to cross. It’s gross hypocrisy on their part, and a total failure to understand the implications of jumping the lights in 1.5 tonnes of metal vs. 90kg of rider plus bike.

I’ve come to the conclusion that even if all cyclists cycled in perfect compliance with the highway code, the simple fact is that a large percentage of motorists simply believe that we have no right to be on the road. Going on about RLJ is simply a convenient smokescreen, and a diversion from the simple fact that it is cars that kill people, not bicycles.

(And before you start, I have a car).

Or why some junctions

SOME

Which is my point – I regulary see SOME cyclists running red lights at junctions where it is NOT safe.

I did already say

And no doubt there are some occasions where it is safe for cyclists to run a red light.

So I don’t really see the argument you are trying to make with me.

I am simply playing Devil’s Advocate here because I really don’t agree with the way SOME cyclists use the road, the effect their behaviour has on SOME car drivers and the resultant effect it has on my use of the road as a cyclist. Sometimes.

I also don’t see anything wrong with recommending hi-viz.

It’s a tricky one.

On the one hand, being seen is obviously a good thing, on the other it reinforces the idea that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity that requires specialist safety equipment usually associated with building sites or railways.

That notion that cycling is terrible terribly dangerous (as promoted by The Times campaign) doesn’t hold true if you look at the figures. Worse, it puts people off cycling and marginalises it, which does actually make it more dangerous.

Copenhagen is often held up as an example of a city with good cycling. More than a third of Copenhagen’s residents go by bike to work or school every day. But they don’t wear high-viz and lycra (or helmets). They are not “cyclists”. They are just people on bikes.

Image from http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/

Lots of good stuff on http://www.copenhagenize.com/

Compared to my perception of how many cyclists jump red lights in london, that’s a very small amount. As far as I can tell, it’s more like 50%.

that study was done in 2007, the world of cycling in London has changed since then and far more jump red lights, and not just because there are more cyclists than in 2007, the proportion has increased too.

I have commuted the same route for 5 years and now I would estimate that 50% of cyclists run red lights. I go through over 20 sets and on average there are two or three who will wait at each red set, and two or three who will go through.

AND if I was to generalise (which is always fun), I would say that those that run red lights are:
– young men (early 20s)
– women
– people on Aldi specials
– hipsters on fixies

carry on straight at T junctions.

I can’t see that going well 😀

+1 on shifting responsibility to drivers a la Holland

In truth, it’s a jungle out there – I can only speak from my experience of commuting through the crazy streets of north Bristol, but in my daily journey I see cars and bikes regularly jumping red lights and people regularly doing things on both 4 and 2 wheels that they shouldn’t be.
I don’t want to die riding into and home from work, so I wear hi-viz, a lid, lights, don’t jump red lights and assume no-one on the road has seen me.

Well said Graham S couldn’t agree more – sadly any lawyer is likely to argue for contributory negligence given any opportunity to do so.

sadly any lawyer is likely to argue for contributory negligence given any opportunity to do so.

Sadly so.

Perhaps we should campaign for all cars to be painted flouro yellow so we can see them coming? I mean if they can take simple steps to be seen and they choose not to for silly fashion reasons, then that is contributory negligence surely? 😉

I’d love to see a test case of that 😀

Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?

Yeah, no-one ever tars (for example) all BMW drivers with the same brush, do they? 🙂

Even on a bike forum, I still see plenty of posts up there referring to “road tax”. That seems to be one of the main causes of resentment amongst motorists, so it’s worth reposting this link http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece

To sum up:
1) It’s “vehicle Excise Duty”- it’s a tax on your vehicle, not on your use of the roads.
2) It’s based on carbon emissions.
3) It does not pay for the roads, it goes into the general taxation pool.

There is a considerably more detailed explanation of “road tax” at the ironically named ipayroadtax.com

Carlton Reid fighting the good fight as ever.

jim – if you read all the incidences of the use of “road tax” again properly you will see that all the posters are using it in quotations to indicate that they know perfectly well all the points you list.

On the one hand, being seen is obviously a good thing, on the other it reinforces the idea that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity that requires specialist safety equipment usually associated with building sites or railways…

Fair enough – the thing is we’re not Copenhagen, and wearing hi-viz can help with safety. I just don’t think it’s that big a deal to have a little hidden recommendation like this in the context of a campaign which might do a lot to help with road safety. I should point out that I often enough cycle without and hi-viz, and I don’t make my son put any on for riding his bike to school (admittedly mostly using off-road paths).

And no doubt there are some occasions where it is safe for cyclists to run a red light.

The problem is with that quote is it’s your (humble) opinion on what is/isn’t safe. My opinion might be completely different. Waynes opinion on his Raleigh Arena may be all red lights are safe as I am a god-like cyclist and have magical powers.

The problem is with that quote is it’s your (humble) opinion on what is/isn’t safe. My opinion might be completely different. Waynes opinion on his Raleigh Arena may be all red lights are safe as I am a god-like cyclist and have magical powers.

Absolutely agree 100%.

And I used to have a Raleigh Arena. A gold ’10 Speed’ one, none of that blue 5 speed crap for me.