[Closed] PSA: Bike Rant on BBC Radio Bristol NOW till 12:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/bristol/

There was apparently some sort of rant on BBC Breakfast about cyclists as well, connected to The Times #cyclesafe campaign.
Cyclists should all be on bike paths and never on the roads. Oh and also, we all jump red lights.

🙄

This country's all pervading attitude towards cyclists is only given a boost by these shitty radio discussions.
Woman cut me up on a roundabout this morning and then gave [i]me[/i] a ****er sign... Where does this come from? It's fudging despressing is what it is.

I see The Times were extolling the virtues of wearing helmets and high viz at all times, plus suggesting that bike licenses might be a good idea.

With friends like those...

Far too many do jump red lights, I'm not listening to the radio but I assume it's a two way discussion, it's good for this debate to get the air time though good or bad, I find generally more motorists are becoming cycle aware, and then some of us undo all the good work by riding like idiots.

I'd be happy to wear a hi viz bib with a license number, I can't see it happening though.

My belief is that until society gets past their obsession with cyclists not paying anything, then things'll never progress.

We're seen as getting something for nothing, and this perception is very deelpy ingrained.

What we really need is a national awareness campaign supported by the Government, or a motoring organisation, to spell out the reality.
I don't see any point in a cycling organsation being involved in this because the bike haters will immediately turn off or turn against it.

Far too many do jump red lights

There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.

If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.

[i] the bike haters will immediately turn off or turn against it.[/i]

Of course they will. As you say, the attitude is deeply ingrained.

These lot don't pay 'road tax' either!

http://www.roadtaxprices.co.uk/Road_Tax_Band_A_Cars.htm

Of course they will. As you say, the attitude is deeply ingrained

This is why I mentioned Govt or Motoring Org supporting/fronting.

Coming from somewhere with no vested interest in cycling would have greater impact, and would (hopefully) come across with more authority and as a fact rather than 'what cyclists beleive in their heads'.

If that makes sense.

These lot don't pay 'road tax' either!

There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.

If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.

I see The Times were extolling the virtues of wearing helmets and high viz at all times, plus suggesting that bike licenses might be a good idea.

Where was that - I had a skim through their latest articles, and couldn't find anything like that?

Far too many do jump red lights,

Agreed. But sit at a busy junction for a while and you'll probably count more cars jumping the red light than cyclists.

[url= http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf ]TfL did a study and found that only around 14-15% of cyclists were jumping the red lights at popular sites in London. (PDF)[/url]

I'd be happy to wear a hi viz bib with a license number

Errr... no thanks.

These lot don't pay 'road tax' either!

http://www.roadtaxprices.co.uk/Road_Tax_Band_A_Cars.htm
br />

This information causes the average motorists brain to haemorrhage as it can't compute 'car on road' with 'not paid VED'

Bike = No VED = Be angry

Low Emmission Car = No VED = Does not compute. Me love car. But he no pay.

If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.

Indeed - hence why this article gets included in part of the Times' campaign.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309134.ece

There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.

If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.

This! Too many cyclists opt to pick and choose which aspects of the highway code / motoring laws to observe. Yet the same ones are very quick to condemn anyone driving a car who may make a similar minor transgression. It works both ways people. Roads are congested and will continue to be so. All road users need to respect each other and play by the rules.

*Awaits TJ to come along and tell me I'm wrong*

When a non-cyclist spouts off about hi-viz, what they're really saying is "I'm too stupid/ignorant to pay appropriate attention to other road users".

I'll agree to wear hi-viz all the time on the condition that motorists agree to paint their cars in hi-viz.

Or, we can both agree to PAY PROPER ATTENTION TO OTHER ROAD USERS.

There are many cyclists who seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, usually justifying it as being 'for their own safety'.
If cyclists want to be respected as road users then this attitude needs to change as it just serves to fuel the fires of the anti-cyclist brigade.

The problem here is lumping cyclists together in one homogeneous group.

If some idiots cycle through red lights its got nothing to do with me simply because i happen to have chosen the same form of transport.

Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?

When a non-cyclist spouts off about hi-viz, what they're really saying is "I'm too stupid/ignorant to pay appropriate attention to other road users".

glitch post

[i]Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?[/i]

It's not from me! All motorists are moronic, blind, ignorant retards. It's what keeps me safe. 😉

I was worried that this #cyclesafe campaign would degenerate into this. Tit-for-tat accusations, calls for cyclists to always wear hi viz (basically, blame the victim/vulnerable) and woolly calls for "something to be done" without actually specifying much.

I don't want segregation and more bike paths, I just want to ride on the roads without lunatics telling me to "pay yer road tax". Cyclists jump lights because, often, it's safer. Getting away from the F1 start grid lined up behind me and getting a few clear metres of road space actually benefits me and the motorists but they don't see that aspect, they just see "bloody cyclist jumping red lights".

There's the other issue that, to us as users of a very niche forum, we don't consider a lot of people on bikes to be cyclists, they're just people using bikes. The general public perception is "cyclist" no matter whether you're a tourist on a Boris Bike, a downhiller in full armour, a roadie or a commuter on a Brompton. And all those niches within a niche want different things but the public perception is that we're all one and the same and the actions of one tar everybody.

/sigh

Will Radio Bristle debate make my blood boil!?

Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?

It's not. The trouble is, as much as you'd like to claim you're not the same as the RLJers, the average moron motorist (SWIDT?) can't tell the difference.

Where was that - I had a skim through their latest articles, and couldn't find anything like that?

"If you are cycling without a helmet, you are being selfish to your family and friends. If I don’t wear a helmet and I get knocked off and devastatingly hurt, how can I look my wife, kids or parents in the eye and say I did everything possible to make it home safely to them? It is like with football in the Eighties, where a violent 1 per cent minority of football fans meant the other 99 per cent were tarred as hooligans. "
-- [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309109.ece ]James Cracknell article[/url] (coincidentally James is sponsored by a helmet maker).

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3308569.ece ]"How to Cycle Safely" Graphic on this article[/url]:
Number 1 point: wear a helmet and high viz. With a spurious "60% of cycling fatalities are head injuries" (no source).

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3307439.ece ]Point 4 on their "Road Ahead" infographic here[/url]: "Should we have number plates for bikes? If cyclists want respect and consideration on the roads then perhaps they should be held accountable for their cycling."

On the bright side, they did publish a small but good article:
[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311131.ece ]Cyclists and “road tax”: the truth[/url]

I was worried that this #cyclesafe campaign would degenerate into this. tit-for-tat accusations, calls for cyclists to always wear hi viz (basically, blame the victim/vulnerable) and woolly calls for "something to be done" without actually specifying much.

But it's not has it? Of course the idiot drivers will come out with those things, but as far as I can see it's not derailing the main aim. I mean some stuff is already happening - review of dangerous junctions, EDMs in the commons etc. I can't say I agree with all the details of the campaign, but I agree with most of it, and we're far better off with a united front getting something done than nit-picking.

The problem here is lumping cyclists together in one homogeneous group.

If some idiots cycle through red lights its got nothing to do with me simply because i happen to have chosen the same form of transport.

Why is this kind of stereotyping reserved solely for cyclists?

True, it has nothing to do with you directly, but indirectly you're seen as one of 'them' and attitudes/behaviour toward you is based on this negative experience.

This stereotyping is reserved for cyclists because ... I don't know for certain, but my opinion is it all boils down to money: bikes don't pay for all the stuff that other road users are mandated to (VED, licence, insurance).

aracer +1

My attitude to RLJ has softened recently. Funnily enough becuse I've been using the car more.

If I'm in the car and a cyclist is ahead of me at the lights I'm quite happy if they jump the lights it means I can pass the cyclist further up the road when both of us are up to speed. This means less time spent passing the cyclist which is safer for everyone

As long as they aren't doing something stupid like RLJing at crossroads or busy pedestrian crossings I really don't see the issue. I mean for intance turning left at a red, going straight along the main route at a controlled junction, joining one way traffic etc. There are lots of times is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red. What would you do at the same junstion if it was uncontrolled?

What we need is education of all road users as to how to share the road, not appeasement of one group by another.

Let the flaming commence!

some stuff is already happening - review of dangerous junctions, EDMs in the commons etc

True. Very slowly, things are happening.

Over time, perhaps it'll all gain enough momentum to see major changes in attitudes.

Alghough it's going to be a bit like stopping/turning an oil tanker.

Cyclists jump lights because, often, it's safer.

Hence my comment about ALL road users respecting each other. You can't pick and choose and not expect other road users to get pissed off.

James Cracknell article

Well that's his personal POV, one which is quite well known (I've seen him saying something similar before) - hardly a Times party line.

"How to Cycle Safely" Graphic on this article:

It's a kind of minor point - hardly them extolling the virtues. I also don't see anything wrong with recommending hi-viz.

Point 4 on their "Road Ahead" infographic here:

That's not good - but as above, it's a minor point, and not one which makes it into any main articles. Also lots of question marks and "perhaps", so at the worst a debating point. Also something which will never be taken seriously once anybody looks at the practicalities.

I think you're getting overly worked up by the negatives.

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!

Very slowly, things are happening.

Well give them a chance - this campaign has only been going less than a week - how quickly do you expect things to happen?!

This information causes the average motorists brain to haemorrhage as it can't compute 'car on road' with 'not paid VED'

Yep, always a good point to make to these muppets. There a ~2 million VED-exempt motor vehicles on UK roads (Band A, or exempt for other reasons).
http://ipayroadtax.com/bloody-tax-dodgers/bloody-tax-dodgers-theres-millions-of-em/

There are lots of times is perfectly safe for a cyclist to jump a red. What would you do at the same junstion if it was uncontrolled

This is all very well, but those people with a chip on their shoulder about bikes don't see it this way.

They just see someone breaking the law.

There are probably (fewer) occasions when technically it's perfectly safe for me to drive through a red light.

But I suspect this would enrage cyclists as being dangerous and illegal.

You can't have it both ways.

If cyclists want to be treated equally and respected then we need to be seen to be cycling legally at the very least.

Heaven forbid, some of us might need to change our behaviour if we want to positively contribute to the greater good / bigger picture.

We can't really complain about things being the way they are if we're not willing to be proactive in helping things to change.

Very slowly, things are happening.

Well give them a chance - this campaign has only been going less than a week - how quickly do you expect things to happen?!

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

+1 joao3v16.

Only? That's a huge percentage!

All in the phrasing isn't it?

[i]"[u]All[/u] cyclists jump red lights"[/i] is clearly not true, 85%, the vast majority, obey red lights.

Whereas I suspect [i]"All drivers speed or drive too fast for conditions"[/i] 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.

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.

[i] 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! [/i]

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.

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, [url= http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made ]by law[/url], stop at amber too unless it is unsafe to do so.

Really??

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 [b]motorist[/b] 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.

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

But oddly folk don't say [i]"Grrr.. all drivers jump red lights"[/i] 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.

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. "
-- [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311182.ece ]Cyclists in Paris can ignore the red traffic light (Times, Feb 7 2012)[/url]

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?

[i]Really?[/i]

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?

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 [u]arguably[/u] 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. [b]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.[/b]"
-- [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3306502.ece ]"Save our cyclists", The Times (Feb 2, 2012)[/url]

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

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.

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 [i]does[/i] actually make it more dangerous.

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309168.ece ]Copenhagen is often held up[/url] as a[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3309165.ece ]n example of a city with good cycling[/url]. 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.

[img] [/img]
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

[b]To sum up:[/b]
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 [url= http://ipayroadtax.com/ ]ipayroadtax.com[/url]

[url= http://twitter.com/#!/carltonreid/ ]Carlton Reid[/url] 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.

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