Forum menu
For me I stop at red lights and wait. Share the roads and all that. Also how can you expect drivers to give us some respect if we ignore the laws they should follow. In reality it may not work but I hope it does in some minor way.
Struggling to see if that red light complies with .s 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and thats why everyone goes through it. I imagine those drivers were thinking the same, as they all know Regulation 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifies which signs come under s.36 . So I guess we have to of course refer to regulation 35. But i'll be damned reg 35 provides for "Portable light signals for the control of vehicular traffic". So as long as they comply with the requirements of Reg 35 they are enforceable under s. 36.
now, the elephant in the room is of course the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions , which gave portable temporary lights at road works and temporary road traffic control schemes equal validity with permanent lights and signs.
So i've answered my own question. Cheers.
.
Nights at home with you must be riveting! 😉
The country is suffering from an epidemic of people not facing up to their responsibilities.
But we’d always have the higher ground and therefore smug factor!
That doesn’t actually help anyone though. In fact it’s exactly the kind of justification people give themselves for hating us.
OK, smug factor isn't the right thing to say, but I'd rather know i'm doing it correctly when others start the anti-cyclist bore-a-thon.
how can you expect drivers to give us some respect if we ignore the laws they should follow.
I really don't think that is what leads to the lack of respect. A cyclist is just seen as an inconvenience to a lot of drivers, someone who is getting in their way. Also, those same motorists are ignoring the laws they should follow too (mainly speeding laws)
For the record I commute through North London and in 11 years the proportion of red light jumpers is probably the same, but the volume has increased and the volume adjusts people's perceptions of jumping getting worse.
I've noticed that jumpers favour pedestrian crossings more than junctions / crossroads probably because of the perceived danger to themselves.
I've tried to talk to jumpers about it and either get ignored, given an excuse or told that it's none of my business. Not one person has talked about doing it with the aim of getting the rules changed...
but I’d rather know i’m doing it correctly when others start the anti-cyclist bore-a-thon.
I'm hardwired the same way, but the reality is that it's purely an exercise of self-satisfaction: experience suggests that no-one whose mindset accepts the non-logic of "I saw some people on bikes jump a light therefore there is a group called cyclists and they all jump lights" will be swayed by the fact that you, I, or anyone else doesn't. Not one. People who take that view simply cannot comprehend the total lack of connection (beyond just happening to have a bicycle) between two people who just happen to have bicycles. It's presumably a curious combination of group attribution bias, confirmation bias and loss aversion: the third of these means people are scared to release the opinions they've formed through the first and cemented through the second.
On my commute there is a junction that I regularly jump.
Its a wide, busy crossroad and I'm turning right. Traffic lights are 2 phases for traffic and 1 phase for pedestrians. The phasing is E/W traffic, N/S traffic, green man. I'm on the west side turning right to head south.
If the lights are red I stop ahead of the last car (sometimes past the ASL, sometime in it). I can see the green man opposite so I wait until the green man goes red, count to three and then go. This give me a head start and enough time to get across the junction before the light changes to green in my lane and the cars move off
I know this is breaking the law but I don't care. I do it every time, its better for everyone. Cars in the right hand lane behind don't have a cyclist in front of them. I don't have to hang about in the junction hoping no one runs into me. I don't have to nip across at the last minute because traffic crossing from the opposite direction has kept driving through the red light.
If there was a dedicated phase for turning right, then i'd wait, like I do at another junction on my commute - and all the other lights where I'm riding straight across the junction
but the volume has increased
Perhaps time to adjust the lights/get rid of them/ make changes that suit all road users...! I haven't worked in london for 5 years now but old colleagues have told me people riding bikes (dont like the word cyclists really) exceed MVs at many road junctons now.
I cycle through Chesterfield to get to work, during normal waking/ working hours when people and cars are around I stop at red lights. As I work shifts, when I'm heading in at 4.30am or home at 1 or 2am, if there is no one around and I have good visibility all around I generally ride through them. Shockingly if there is on the very odd occasion a lonely person that has triggered a crossing on a deserted street, if that individual is safely on the pavement I will pass through the light even if it is on red. I hardly consider myself a rebel and I've never had an issue or confrontation with anyone in 20 odd year's of doing so. I guess the issues are more polarised in cities like London where folk are putting themselves and other's at risk.
Not a red light but I used to regularly(*) cycle the wrong way up a one-way street cos the alternative was a significant detour on busy roads.
Eventually the council saw the light and installed a contra-flow cycle lane. At a stroke, my cycling changed from a heinous crime to entirely safe and appropriate, all thanks to a stripe of paint.
*(it was quite rare really, just when I cycled to Chester, maybe once a month at most. For those interested, it was the short lane heading north from the library etc, no more than 100 yards on a road that was barely used. The alternative was to work your way though the bus station - dangerous enough in itself - and on to the busy two-lane ring road)
I wouldn't worry about it.
My shop is on a crossroads and it's red plus at least one car.
We had a young girl get knocked over while she was "safely crossing " on the 12 second beeps.
According to the cops it's a council issue.
Do what the **** you like but don't be a minute late back to your car.
I guess the issues are more polarised in cities like London where folk are putting themselves and other’s at risk.
Partly that, but, perhaps more pertinently, "London, where many national journalists are based and where commercial drivers with dashcams tend to latch onto anything that superficially shores up an existing opinion that assigning road space to pedal cycles is a bad thing".
Partly that, but, perhaps more pertinently, “London, where many national journalists are based and where commercial drivers with dashcams tend to latch onto anything that superficially shores up an existing opinion that assigning road space to pedal cycles is a bad thing”.
In fairness, from helmet cam footage I've seen, there's a fair amount of cyclists doing the same thing.
Conclusion, Londoners are mentalists! 😆
Up here, in the civilised world, we generally get on fine! 😆
In fairness, from helmet cam footage I’ve seen, there’s a fair amount of cyclists doing the same thing.
For sure. Such a densely light-controlled and congested area not only offers the greatest reward for going through a red, but inevitably by sheer numbers it also has the greatest visibility through cameras and anecdotes. It's a perfect storm: Londoners aren't a different species, they're broadly the same random assortment of human qualities as anywhere, it's just that the environment both elicits and illuminates different behaviour from those same qualities.
I stop at a red light pedestrian crossing in my car even when there's no one on the crossing, patiently waiting, as do 90% of other people. There's no reason why you shouldn't do the same on a bike. That said the percentage of riders jumping the lights is about the same as drivers, in my experience.
Though I can see what's going on when in race mode and "in the zone". It's the same with runners at junctions. Numerous times I'm in a car (or even on the bike), turning into a junction, and a runner on the foot path reaching the crossing point and clearly doesn't want to stop and break their pace so will cross regardless of traffic. Some riders may feel the same, plus there's the "hassle" of having to unclip 😉
Anyway, did the OP think they were in the Daily Mail comments section?
You think if every cyclist (“person on a bike”) suddenly started cycling entirely completely legally – not on the pavement, never jumped a light, always indicated, had correct pedal reflectors – that suddenly every motorist would show more respect?!
Because that’s total utter bollocks.
Of course not but it's also about not giving the cycle haters any ammunition, targets and justification for their vitriol. Because it might not make a difference is a piss poor reason not to obey the rules of the road like other road users.
I’m hardwired the same way, but the reality is that it’s purely an exercise of self-satisfaction: experience suggests that no-one whose mindset accepts the non-logic of “I saw some people on bikes jump a light therefore there is a group called cyclists and they all jump lights” will be swayed by the fact that you, I, or anyone else doesn’t. Not one.
I don't think that is at all true because it depends what people see,
Regardless there will be a hardcore of cyclists who hate drivers and pedestrians who hate everyone etc.
My perception of London traffic suggests roughly the same. But out here in Surrey and Hampshire my perception is that this situation tends to be reversed:
Which is where a lot of perceptions lie.... and also the legislation!
I have watched tens of cyclists run a single red light forcing traffic coming in on green to stop and the small percentage who stop who stop have abuse hurled a them... that is a completely different perception to seeing tens of cyclists stop and one or two jump the light.
This wasn't a one off.... this happened pretty much every weekday morning and evening.
A lot of those cyclists would probably not do this outside of this time and place, quite a few quite probably didn't want to be were more scared of trying to fight the flow of bikes to stop they were caught up in.
The difference in perception is that for most the drivers and pedestrians one of these is all cyclists except the minority and the other is a few idiots.
Most people only need to witness one extreme example to form opinions that are then hard to change but not impossible ... yes some will not change ever but that less important than a general perception.
I stop at a red light pedestrian crossing in my car even when there’s no one on the crossing, patiently waiting, as do 90% of other people.
Which can be rephrased as, "10% of people in cars ignore red lights on pedestrian crossings".
Numerous times I’m in a car (or even on the bike), turning into a junction, and a runner on the foot path reaching the crossing point and clearly doesn’t want to stop and break their pace so will cross regardless of traffic.
Maybe they're simply aware of Rule 170 in the Highway Code.
London, where many national journalists are based and where commercial drivers with dashcams tend to latch onto anything that superficially shores up an existing opinion that assigning road space to pedal cycles is a bad thing
Yeah, I agree with that. But I have to say I was sat having a late afternoon pint outside a pub in Islington a couple of weeks ago and I was surprised by both the number of cyclists and how poor the behaviour of the majority of them was. It was a bit of an eye opener to me. The behaviour of the majority of car drivers was also poor, but I tend to expect that.
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Do I stop at red lights - Yes.</span>
Do I have lights on my bike - Yes.
Do I have a bell - Yes.
Do I wear a helmet - Yes.
Do I have insurance - Yes.
Do I pay road tax - Yes (I also own a car which at any point i'm using the bike, isn't on the road).
Do I still get abuse, aggression and disdain - Yes!
What more can you do?
Do I pay road tax – Yes
*Family Fortunes buzzer*
"Numerous times I’m in a car (or even on the bike), turning into a junction, and a runner on the foot path reaching the crossing point and clearly doesn’t want to stop and break their pace so will cross regardless of traffic"
I think in that situation, if you're turning into a side street, the pedestrian may have priority, depending on timing (rule 170). Another rule honoured more in the breach, particularly by motorists, because might is right and pedestrians have been cowed into submission.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this whole argument for "Cyclists" collective reputation somehow being damaged by a small proportion of individuals behaviour, and that we all have some responsibility for the wider perception of everyone else on a bicycle... people form their opinions from a variety of sources, one person skipping a light can't be held up as justification for the sort of abuse that some drivers want it to justify.
There isn't really a "community" of cycling commuters, there are people who ride bikes to/from work but that's really where most common ground stops. Just like there isn't really a "Community" of car commuters, or van drivers, there are large numbers of people who use motor vehicles for transport...
The truth is the simmering hatred for people on bicycles is there in a proportion of all tin-boxers for whatever reason, and whether or not those 1 in 6 RLJers feed a little confirmation bias, the irrational dislike will still be there...
People basically know when they break the rules whatever their mode of transport, most people will respond with a tut, strictly speaking the only group that should actually take it any further are the police...
Manchester is quite amazing for cars going through reds, I'm convinced that taxi firms use Steve McQueen as an inhouse driving instructor. the junction of Bury New Rd and Trinity Way by the arena is a doozy
I sometimes (rare) turn left through a red if it gets me away from a queue of cars on my rear wheel. I no longer get upset about people riding bikes on a pavement because the roads are full 24x7 and there is no safe provision (until the beelines start happening in Manchester).
sweeping generalisations about people in cars and vans is as common on here as 'cyclists' on petrolheads I would bet. How often do we see comments about White vans, beemers who don't indicate, audi's driving too fast...
the irrational dislike will still be there…
Yes, but running red lights is such an easy thing for the anti-cycling lobby to trot out and get support from the public on. And unlike riding primary or two abreast or in a group, running a red light is black and white - it's breaking the law, it's obvious when you do it and it's easily measurable (e.g. 1 out of 6). If we are campaigning for safer, better, more active travel, red light jumping is handing the anti-cyclists bullets.
In the modern world we do not fight facts, we fight perceptions.
I haven't scanned the thread fully so apologies if it has been said before, but I often see cyclists take to the pavement when going "left on red", then reverting to the road having completed the manoeuvre. Thus swapping one offence (running a red light) with another (cycling on the pavement).
The country is suffering from an epidemic of people not facing up to their responsibilities.
Has been for years. People bleating about their rights but unwilling to accept that with rights come responsibilities (most importantly upholding other people's rights).
cyclists take to the pavement when going “left on red”, then reverting to the road having completed the manoeuvre
I quite like the ones who have one foot on a pedal and the other pushing on the floor like it's a scooter and that somehow makes it different / allowable.
If we are campaigning for safer, better, more active travel, red light jumping is handing the anti-cyclists bullets. In the modern world we do not fight facts, we fight perceptions.
It's getting like the Wiggins fan club in here.
You won't fight the perceptions of bigots. Far better to acknowledge the problems they refer to, and use them as reason to justify the actual solution; which in this case is the exact thing you (and Wiggins) think the behaviour undermines.
https://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/the-rise-of-the-idiots/
I’m sorry but I don’t buy this whole argument for “Cyclists” collective reputation somehow being damaged by a small proportion of individuals behaviour, and that we all have some responsibility for the wider perception of everyone else on a bicycle… people form their opinions from a variety of sources, one person skipping a light can’t be held up as justification for the sort of abuse that some drivers want it to justify.
?????
So lets break that down .. cyclist ignores red light causing a motorist to have to stop or swerve
People basically know when they break the rules whatever their mode of transport, most people will respond with a tut, strictly speaking the only group that should actually take it any further are the police…
So are you saying the cyclist needs a registration plate so they can be reported and identified?
anyway he reports said unidentified cyclist to the police... the tell him to stop wasting their time as there is nothing they can do and even if they knew the identity of the cyclist nothing will happen anyway
anyway continuing ....
25 other cyclist run the same red light
next day .. A DIFFERENT cyclist ignores red light causing the same motorist to have to stop or swerve
... again he tut's and reports it to the police who tell him to get lost as there is nothing they can do.
The driver puts up with this for a year, maybe 5... maybe 10 then one day a cyclist runs a red light and he winds down his window and shouts suicidal tosser.... he might not have to brake or swerve .. he's just sick of self entitled **** wits who think they can run red lights and everyone else has to adjust and risk accidents around them
even if they knew the identity of the cyclist nothing will happen anyway
Have you tried seeing what the police do when you phone them up to say "I saw XY12ABC go through a red light yesterday"?
25 other cyclist run the same red light
THAT'S NUMBERWANG
next day .. A DIFFERENT cyclist ignores red light causing the same motorist to have to stop or swerve
Literally happens with that regularity, yeah?
The driver puts up with this for a year, maybe 5… maybe 10 then one day a cyclist runs a red light and he winds down his window and shouts suicidal tosser…
I don't think anyone on here is arguing that that's an entirely unreasonable response. Shouting at someone going through a red light is (broadly speaking) understandable.
The point that people are making is that to assume that you or I ride through red lights *is* an unreasonable response. To close-pass you or me because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and clearly dangerous) response. To say that we shouldn't build any infrastructure to cycle on because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and, in actual fact, completely counter-productive) response.
Surely the difference is fairly clear?
and it’s easily measurable (e.g. 1 out of 6)
Aside from when it is actually measured the figures are far lower than what the mouth breathers claim. However when that minor detail is mentioned it is always ignored. As are casual queries about why councils bother with red light cameras for the whiter than white drivers and what is the meaning of an amber light.
Given its just an excuse I really cant get to upset about when cyclists disobey it especially in those cases where drivers ignore the measures put in as an alternative. Although admittedly I do sometimes think they should just train harder since it often ends up being.
Overtake slow person.
Reach red lights and stop.
See them sail past through them.
Rinse and repeat.
Maybe they’re simply aware of Rule 170 in the Highway Code.
I think in that situation, if you’re turning into a side street, the pedestrian may have priority, depending on timing (rule 170). Another rule honoured more in the breach, particularly by motorists, because might is right and pedestrians have been cowed into submission.
The example in my case comes under "If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way" and they haven't started to cross so the priority doesn't exist. The pedestrian will typically wait (except the smartphone zombies), the runner can't stop.
In the US this comes under jaywalking. I've accidentally not noticed someone stepping off a "sidewalk" at a junction while enjoying the right turn on a red light rule over there and got abuse hurled at me "hey, I'm walking here!" (in a yank accent). The instant their foot is on the road, they have RoW. Unless it's a controlled crossing though, if they're not on the road they cannot step on the road unless there's no traffic coming. They have a law for it with pedestrians getting a fine for jaywalking, but we don't in the UK.
They have a law for it with pedestrians getting a fine for jaywalking, but we don’t in the UK.
Correct, so don't run people over, m'kay? What's the problem?
stevextc what about the mirror situation where cyclists see drivers doing what you are describing (at considerably higher danger)?
It’s getting like the Wiggins fan club in here.Far better to acknowledge the problems they refer to, and use them as reason to justify the actual solution; which in this case is the exact thing you (and Wiggins) think the behaviour undermines.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Was this just a segue to your article?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Was this just a segue to your article?
No, the link was there in the hope that it might save me having to repeat the point here.
Clearly that hope was misplaced, so:
The idea that "someone jumped a light therefore all cyclists are scum" (or whatever variant you feel is appropriate) is idiotic enough on its own, but the suggestion that this is a reason to refuse to provide infrastructure is completely misguided.
People display "idiotic" (bad, silly, whatever adjective you prefer) behaviour. All of us, to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes purely accidentally, sometimes through negligence, sometimes wilfully or even maliciously.
But that's human nature. You won't stop it. (Just as you won't stop the "therefore all cyclists are scum" non-logic either.) The way to address it is to minimise the problems it causes: you don't want people exhibiting these "idiotic" behaviours at the wheel of a ton or two of metal, and you don't want them exhibiting the same behaviours in any vehicle on the pavement where people should rightly expect to walk in safety.
So the fact that idiotic behaviour exists is a very good reason to apply an engineering solution. Indeed, this is proven in the real world: Copenhagen (and, IIRC, other locations) have shown that when people get infrastructure that better supports cycling, they don't break the rules anything like as much, because there's far less reward for doing so.
That was what I was getting at.
...may be starting to see this in London. When I commuted pre-congestion zone: Hackney Rd/Bishop's gate/London Bridge/Elephant it was mainly gridlocked. I was vaguely resentful of red-light jumpers when I started, but soon got into the swing - can't honestly see why a car driver'd want me there taking up road when I could be long gone... Folks who waited at reds tended to be those who fancied a bit of a race. Which is fine too, of course.
But these days with ten times more bikes and filter lanes etc, I think the balance has swung so sailing through red past a crowd of people waiting on bikes would feel more of an infraction.
So lets break that down .. cyclist ignores red light causing a motorist to have to stop or swerve
Who said anything about riding through red lights in a manner likely to cause a motorist to stop or swerve? The post title is about cycling through red lights full stop (no pun intended). I've been riding through red lights for years (more than 50) and I've never caused the slightest inconvenience to anybody, other than maybe the driver that has a problem with somebody moving through traffic quicker than him (it's usually a him). I rode through a red pedestrian crossing light twice today, but only once the crossing was clear. Doing so gives me a head start on the cars that seem hell-bent on overtaking me regardless of the road conditions. I'd not dream of doing the same in a car because a car takes up a huge chunk of the road, is hugely unmanoeuvrable and is capable of doing much more damage than a bike. I don't condone cyclists riding fast through lights without looking but I do condone riding through red lights with due care. Forget pandering to the idiot "you don't pay road tax" brigade as you've already lost them - they don't think logically and have probably never ridden a bike on the road in their lives. At one time every motorist would have ridden a bike at some time in their lives, to school, or around the streets as a kid, or even to work, but that went years ago and many now see bikes as intruders onto the place designed for cars. It won't change for a long time (if at all).
Literally happens with that regularity, yeah?
Where I used to work this happened from 8-9 and 4-6 every day ...
THAT’S NUMBERWANG
25 is a massive under estimation to how many cyclists ran a single red light.... (as in before it changed again not per hour or per day).
Cars and other traffic were literally forced to stop due to the stream of cyclists running the red light. This happened every weekday... Can't be far from the Islington pub someone mentioned exactly the same thing.
The point that people are making is that to assume that you or I ride through red lights *is* an unreasonable response.
I don't know if it's unreasonable... it's a very HUMAN response to seeing something that appears endemic.
As I alluded to earlier the behaviour patterns are close to football hooliganism... in the not to distant past.
Is it reasonable to think every England fan is only going to a football match to get into a fight?
Not really but it's human nature because plenty of people wearing certain football tops pretty much set a perception...most people simply want to be able to walk down the high street etc. without being beaten senseless.
Other countries hosting football didn't want English fans... quite happy we buy their weed and screw their prostitutes but please don't come wearing your England/Millwall shirt... (Obviously the message was a bit different in places other than Holland)
The point really is 200-300 louts acting consistently at a match with 50,000
In some places red light running is endemic.. it's dome as far as I could see just for the thrill... or because commuters are racing... but it drags in a far wider group....
Once the first 4-5 force the cars on green to stop... it's like the others at the football match.
To close-pass you or me because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and clearly dangerous) response.
Yes.... but essentially its human nature....
To say that we shouldn’t build any infrastructure to cycle on because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and, in actual fact, completely counter-productive) response.
Its an entirely reasonable response if that is what most of your electorate think...it's short sighted but it isn't counter productive to being re-elected. It doesn't even matter if it's true or not.. on one hand you can spend some money on a minority and on the other you save it.. most politicians really don't give two hoots if its counter-productive or not.
Where I used to work this happened from 8-9 and 4-6 every day … 25 is a massive under estimation
Fair enough. I've personally never seen anything remotely like it, not in London and most certainly not outside it, but that's not to say it doesn't happen. But you presumably recognise that it's an extreme example…?
I don’t know if it’s unreasonable… it’s a very HUMAN response to seeing something that appears endemic.
OK, let's not get into the semantics of "unreasonable". Yes, it's a very human response. Humans are prey to a multitude of cognitive biases which means that their decisions and (especially) their opinions are not well reasoned. This is what I mean by unreasonable: if Person X goes through a red light, the assumption or assertion that Person Y goes through red lights is without reason.
but the suggestion that this is a reason to refuse to provide infrastructure is completely misguided
Ok, I get your point now. I'm not suggesting that it's a reason on its own but isn't it conflated with logical fallacies like 'bicycle lanes cause pollution' to create barriers to approval for engineered solutions. I appreciate that I may also be misguided in this regard.
For sure. Some people have economic interests that are genuinely impacted by cycling (fewer car sales to city dwellers, for example); some have fears that their interests will be impacted by cycling (shopkeepers who assume that loss of car access will reduce trade, even though studies show that it normally results in the reverse); some simply hate cycling; any of them wanting to influence others will leap on things which make cycling look bad, because those things superficially support their arguments. As humans we're easily led and we don't have the time to sit down and have counter-intuitive realities explained to us for every subject we come across in our lives: we all generalise, and we're all massively susceptible to influence. Brandolini's Law is effectively a pithy summary of this.