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.

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.

 if this is ever going to change then we need, as a group, to cycle responsibly and legally

No, my right to respect and safety is not dependent on how other cyclists behave.

I’ve challenged people who have tried this line of argument about “all cyclists” before, and asked them what the behaviour of the other cyclists had to do with me. They backed off because they couldn’t actually justify their stupid argument.

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.

Or they could just go through red lights when it’s safe, and still get there at the same time with less effort. They’re commuting, not racing.

It’s a total BS justification that it gives cyclists a bad reputation, and every single person I know that has made this argument in real life has gone through a red light because “no that’s not what they mean by red light jumping”. I can’t comment on people on this thread, but I assume this is true of the vast majority.

I jump red lights when it’s definitely safe. Or when I’m half asleep and make a mistake and go through a red. I would say I wait at the majority of the lights I get to. If anyone challenges me on this I’m quite happy to explain why I do it (it’s pointless waiting when there’s no traffic coming or pedestrians corssing, in general it’s nicer to get away before the cars rather than have a mad squeeze past you as everyone accelerates, and on some particular junctions where I turn right it’s downright dangerous not to as cars end up passing within inches of you in excess of the speed limit in both directions – and add to that that many lights don’t even change for cyclists…). Considering running red lights also means that when it goes green I haven’t just been sat there assuming that traffic coming the other way will stop. And as for cars vs bikes running red lights, the only study I’m aware of pointed out that a higher proportion of cars that have the opportunity to run red lights do so than bikes (i.e. most cars can’t as the cars in front are stopped.).

Someone far higher up the thread suggested that parents wouldn’t teach their kids to run red lights. And of course not – in the same way that I’ll teach them to wait for a green man at a pedestrian crossing, but won’t expect them to do so when they are older and capable of making a reasonable judgement.

To summarize, cars run people over and kill and maim them every **** day, why the **** do we have a thread every 3 months on cyclists running red lights? Why for that matter is it fine for cars to go on the pavement to park but nipping onto the pavement for a couple of metres on a bike is a heinous crime too?

What’s the actual issue here? This isn’t whataboutery, it’s priorities. And cyclists that dangerously jump red lights remove themselves from the road by definition. So go ride some trails, if you want to find out why bikes run red lights look at the reasons I’ve put above, and consider that some people just do it without any consideration too. And that’s fine, they don’t hurt anyone but themselves.

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.

It’s beyond human… it’s actually something for most higher life that can reason to some extent.

It’s why some species survived and other’s didn’t.. especially those (like humans) that were prey.

Baby Bambi hears a rustle in the trees and next minute some carnivore has mum by the throat… If baby bambi is to survive then they need to extrapolate that rustling bushes preclude being killed…not make a reasoned response.

90% or more of their life they will be jumping at the wind… but that 10% or less is what gives their genes a better chance of survival.

What this translates into is if I have seen enough cyclists riding the wrong way…. running red lights etc. to extrapolate – I assume most cyclists will behave suicidally because unless I do the 10% will end up with not me being hurt (if I’m in a car) but them.. is it based on reason depends on my assumption???

What do you assume if a football comes out into the road between parked cars?  More often than not nothing happens next… but the assumption a child will be chasing it is a good one.. even if you’re wrong 90% of the time.  What do cars do when they stop in roadside parking… most look behind before opening a door (if only because it could be a car) but when I’m riding I assume they will open the door in my face…

If 1:10 cyclists do something like running the light then statistically given an infinite pool the chance of the next cyclist running the red light is still 1:10…

What however if statistics say if 5 cyclists have already run the red light then the chance of the 6th cyclist is much higher… so that is a different way to look at what’s “reasonable”…

The point and perhaps more the HUMAN part … we as humans focus on the reasons our actions were correct. I doubt bambi gives much thought to panicking at a breath of wind or jumping when another deer lifts its tail… but as humans we will seek to justify our caution.

In this we can forget facts… it might be that our observations are at certain times of day for example… but we make unreasoned emotional decisions.

My experience of commuting in and out of London by train is pretty poor… it was also the Sophies choice…

Its not reasonable to  extend this to all rail journeys but the idea of rail journeys fills me with “bad feeling”.  Despite in my youth having some great experiences… A couple of times at the weekend I’ve taken the kid to London… and the journey itself has been quite pleasant but it would take a LOT of these to change my emotional perception of rail journeys in general…  I realise that’s unreasoned… but it doesn’t actually change how I feel about a trip on a train.

My response to a cyclist approaching a red light when I’m driving or cycling is an expectation they will jump the light… its a “safe assumption”… and its reasoned on the consequences of getting it wrong.

My expectation of a cyclist running a red light in general (sat typing now) … I can’t entirely separate (unreasoned as it is) from my “safe assumption”…. I could pretend otherwise but it wouldn’t be really true…

Here is a exercise in reasoning…. (I actually did with my kid recently) .. take a BIG sledge hammer and some rope… secure the sledge hammer so it swings in an arc and touches your chin… stand very still and drop the sledge hammer in an arc and then let it swing back and just touch your chin…

Reasoning and physics tells me it can’t swing higher than it started (unless there is a freak earthquake).. first time you do it though you still cringe a bit… it’s a completely unreasoned emotional response …you can make stronger if you for example drop the hammer onto a coconut first…

Why does that matter? 

Politicians don’t give two hoots if a public response is reasoned or not but if its an emotional response then they can manipulate into a public perception that works for them.

Overtake slow person.

Reach red lights and stop.

See them sail past through them.

Watch them get squished by truck.

A fascinating bunch of imaginary Scenarios and whataboutery…

But you’re still starting from the premise that somehow cyclist hating motorists have a legitimate justification because they’ve seen/heard about a few cyclists RLJing… They don’t they can object to those individuals in the moment I suppose but really what they’re doing is using an anecdote to support their own bias and irrational hatred…

We (people who happen to use bicycles) are not all representatives of some group known as “Cyclists”… I take no responsibility for anyone else’s conduct on a bicycle but my own (OK and maybe my kids until they’re a bit older).

Just like the minority of mobile yapping, inattentive drivers I (still) see are not representative of all people who happen to hold a driving licence.

You really shouldn’t cave into the urge to label/abuse/berate all people who happen to take part in a certain activity based on the actions of a few individuals, and you shouldn’t legitimise the “Complaints” of people who do so either…

So yeah, some people on bicycles ride through red lights, it’s definitely happened… That’s interesting I suppose, I hope they don’t come to any harm but it’s their choice, what more is there really to say?

I’ve been riding through red lights for years (more than 50) and I’ve never caused the slightest inconvenience to anybody

That could almost be someone talking about how they’ve been speeding in their car for 50 years and never caused an accident. A sample of 1 means nothing in either situation. It’s the impact of the collective behaviour that’s the problem

We (people who happen to use bicycles) are not all representatives of some group known as “Cyclists”…

In the perception of the general public you don’t get to choose…

But you’re still starting from the premise that somehow cyclist hating motorists have a legitimate justification because they’ve seen/heard about a few cyclists RLJing

It doesn’t matter a jot if its legitimate in terms of providing funds for infrastructure or legislation…  it can be an out and out lie but if enough of the electorate can be convinced it’s true it doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t even matter of the electorate REALLY believe it’s true in most cases just that it fits their perceptions.

It doesn’t matter a jot if its legitimate in terms of providing funds for infrastructure or legislation…  it can be an out and out lie but if enough of the electorate can be convinced it’s true it doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t even matter of the electorate REALLY believe it’s true in most cases just that it fits their perceptions.

Sorry, I’ve not been reading all the factoids in this thread, is this actually happening? Is cycling infrastructure funding being withheld until all people on bikes behave themselves?

 if this is ever going to change then we need, as a group, to cycle responsibly and legally

No, my right to respect and safety is not dependent on how other cyclists behave.

I’ve challenged people who have tried this line of argument about “all cyclists” before, and asked them what the behaviour of the other cyclists had to do with me. They backed off because they couldn’t actually justify their stupid argument.

I agree, however this doesn’t seem to be how it works in practice. Our right to respect and safety, as individuals, shouldn’t be dependent on how other cyclists behave but I believe that in actuality and in some instances it is. A number of road users base their dislike of, and lack of consideration for, cyclists on a generalisation (based on a few instances) of endemic dangerous cycling. Any number of sensible cyclists are likely to be ignored (if noticed at all), the occasional red light jumper or idiot pulling off a dangerous manaevor on  bicycle is likely to be noted angrily and added to the list of justifications for treating cyclists badly; I see no reason to inflame the situation.

Ultimately though, the rules of the road are the rules of the road and all road users (and pedestrians) should abide by them; as cyclists we’re no more entitled to flout them than men in white vans or any other sub-group of road users.

I’ve been shouted at a fair few times for simply being on the road; whether it should or not, I suspect that said loud mouths are (at least in part) justifying their aggression towards me on their experiences with other cyclists.

Sorry, I’ve not been reading all the factoids in this thread, is this actually happening? Is cycling infrastructure funding being withheld until all people on bikes behave themselves?

Funding is being with-held for everything, be it schools, NHS, state pension or cycling infrastructure.

Where available funding goes will be to the places that give the most votes.

Most voters at either local, regional or national levels are going to support shorter queues for operations or school places BEFORE funding a group they perceive to do nothing but make it difficult to drop their kids off at the school that’s miles away or drive to the hospital etc. or just be able to park outside their own house.

In their (average voters) perception money was spent on cycling lanes, cyclists don’t use them and continue to use the roads without obeying the traffic rules and they can’t park outside their own house because its now a cycle lane so they have to walk 10 minutes on their hip that needs replacing to get the car to drive to the hospital for their appointment where they pay for parking out of their state pension using fuel that has been taxed.

A good number of people on this thread have indicated that they basically follow traffic rules if they are convenient. Any non cycling forum on cyclist on roads always ends up with pissed motorists and pedestrians who have to read why cyclists shouldn’t follow the same rules as everyone else…

We know why cycle lanes are not used… your average voter doesn’t nor do they care.  They only care that it delays their bus, too away their parking space etc. and if there is any money then there are way better places to spend it.

Your average voter that sees bikes in a positive way is not thinking about carbon framed weapons but sturdy steel framed bikes with shopping baskets and mud guards… they are not thinking of discussions about why a cyclist wants to exert a right to ride two abreast and hold up a huge queue of traffic… because in their eyes a sensible bid user will pull in … the whole idea of using the roads to go as fast as possible is the exact opposite to the message being given out to road users… “if you want to drive quickly go to a track”…. yet cyclist argue they can’t use a cycle path because they can’t ride as quickly… or want to ride two abreast etc.

No politician in their right mind is going to allocate money for cycling infrastructure over what the majority of voters demand regardless of if its the right thing or a better long term solution.

I suspect that said loud mouths are (at least in part) justifying their aggression towards me on their experiences with other cyclists.

I don’t think so. I think it’s a territorial kind of thing. Even if all cyclists were super-strict at obeying the rules, they would still be yelled at.

I have a friend who cycles around North Carolina; at one time he was probably the only person riding a bike in the entire state, and he still had people throwing bottles at him from passing cars, just because.

No cars, go at pedestrian pace. No cars but cops, stop. Cars, stop.

 they are not thinking of discussions about why a cyclist wants to exert a right to ride two abreast and hold up a huge queue of traffic… because in their eyes a sensible bid user will pull in … the whole idea of using the roads to go as fast as possible is the exact opposite to the message being given out to road users… “if you want to drive quickly go to a track”…. yet cyclist argue they can’t use a cycle path because they can’t ride as quickly… or want to ride two abreast etc.

You can see the logical flaw in that scenario though can’t you? Cyclists shouldn’t “hold up traffic” but somehow also shouldn’t complain that (especially in summer) shared use paths are so busy with pedestrians that you just can’t ride at a decent speed.

I kind of do think the whole point of road transport in general is to get from A to B quickly, otherwise I could just walk – I’d get there eventually. Bikes, cars, trucks, everything included. The point is however that you have to be reasonable. Don’t wanna be held up by bikes 2 abreast? Buy a motorbike that can fit past or choose a route consisting of motorways/wide enough roads to pass such a group. By driving a car you’re effectively riding 2 abreast even when alone, and you cause congestion accordingly (which is a real and significant problem, as opposed to the imagined problem of being held up by seconds or at most a minute or two to pass a group of cyclists).

As far as the perception of the general public goes, we should all be riding in the gutter, within easy hitting distance of distracted pedestrians, the majority of potholes and randomly opening car doors. The public needs educating and in the meantime, ****’em. Somebody that gives you hassle because they once saw a bike run a red light – or because they see 50 bikes a day run red lights – or even because they once saw a cyclist cause an accident – are just exhibiting huge levels of selective reasoning to justify their own selfish attitudes.

So just to be clear, nobody is currently citing RLJers as the reason for current funding (or lack thereof) for cycling infrastructure? But you’ve hypothesised that they might in order to attract the support of dim-witted voters? You’ve maybe undersold voter’s and perhaps misunderstood their priorities (IMO).

I’ve not yet seen anyone at any level of government campaigning for office with promises to actively penalise cyclists, in fact several seek to associate themselves with bicycle use for the “Green wash” effect.

There is a danger that people pay too much heed to the Echo-boxes (Social Meeja, DM click-bait, etc) and start to think that just because the “Clarksonites” shout loudest via these forum’s their voices and views are the only ones influencing things, and that somehow the rest of us need to worry about offending such people’s sensibilities in case we end up on their radar. Sorry but Bollox to that…

Well fine, I don’t believe the funding you’re so concerned about is linked to political pressure from angry “Mondeo men”, even if it was by refusing the money for us to “Go Dutch” they’re apparently cutting their own noses off to spite their faces as such infrastructure projects promise to cut congestion. journey times and traffic conflict…

You could turn the whole thing on it’s head of course next time Mondeo man corners you in the office, and point out that as much as anything RLJing cyclists are a symptom of a poorly functioning transport network, one that’s primarily planned around cars and busses rather than including bikes and Pedestrians as a significant consideration.

You could point out that a minority of people on bikes feel it safer to RLJ/amber gamble or simply stop beyond the solid line to stay out of the melee that ensues when a light turns green at certain junctions. You might also point out that elements of segregated infrastructure, adjustments to lanes, signage, traffic lights coupled with improved training for ALL road users could improve the situation and reduce (amongst other things) RLJing…

And point out that whatever they might think, one or two RLJer’s don’t actually represent everyone who uses a bicycle.

I see all categories of people on bikes running reds from the Lycra and carbon ‘serious’ guys through the plodding BSO commuter to the cool kids.

They’re all wrong and they’re all feeding the hate machine of the car-friendly media, helping to make the roads less safe for everyone.

I’d like to see traffic law enforcement on a zero-tolerance basis for all road users at all times, everywhere.

Good to know you are a fellow Nathan Barley fan Bez

I’d like to see traffic law enforcement on a zero-tolerance basis for all road users at all times, everywhere.

Agreed, but considering road traffic enforcement is just one of the Police’s responsibilities and that they need to set priorities (mainly due to funding), before they tackle those RLJers other things could be considered more pressing.

Its maybe worth noting RLJers acount for roughly ~16% of all bicycle users (mostly in that there London it seems), while 23% of drivers apparently still admit to illegal mobile phone use when driving, and apparently mobile phone using drivers kill someone every 10 days or so (35 deaths were recorded in accidents where a driver being distracted or impaired by their phone was a contributory factor in 2016)…  Anyone know the figures for RLJing cyclist caused deaths?

Piss boiling aside, are RLJers really the biggest threat to safety on the roads?

So just to be clear, nobody is currently citing RLJers as the reason for current funding (or lack thereof) for cycling infrastructure? But you’ve hypothesised that they might in order to attract the support of dim-witted voters? You’ve maybe undersold voter’s and perhaps misunderstood their priorities (IMO).

No it’s not that clear….

Voters don’t need to be dim witted to vote for what makes their life better… they just need to be naive to beleive it will happen but people mostly vote FOR something… like reducing queues in NHS… or school places for their kids and not vote for things that make life worse like making it difficult to drive their kids to the school that’s miles away due to under funding.

If they don’t vote for policy then they vote for what the media that makes the right headlines for them tells them to vote for.

There is a danger that people pay too much heed to the Echo-boxes (Social Meeja, DM click-bait, etc) and start to think that just because the “Clarksonites” shout loudest via these forum’s their voices and views are the only ones influencing things

That would be because they are what influences things… the auto industry and others have a lot of money to ‘fuel’ the media .. the media love sensational headlines as that drives click bait and click bait drives revenue

Well fine, I don’t believe the funding you’re so concerned about is linked to political pressure from angry “Mondeo men”

Does Grannie cookaa drive a Mondeo ???  Mondeo man is simply a tool to sell more cars and jump on social media … it’s not Mondeo man himself (or Mondeo Woman) that exerts the pressure its the lobbyists that use Mondeo mans quotes and dash cams… to push public opinion into their agenda.

somehow the rest of us need to worry about offending such people’s sensibilities in case we end up on their radar. Sorry but Bollox to that…

Suit yourself but IMHO the real damage to a cycle agenda is NOT the dash cams .. it’s the response of cyclists justifying why they don’t follow the rules or why they must ride two abreast and why traffic MUST wait for them.

Try any non-cycling community and see how many people SUPPORT RLJ or cycling on pavements or not using an available cycle lane or riding two abreast … it really doesn’t matter how or if these are justified because most voters don’t want them because they don’t cycle.

Its maybe worth noting RLJers acount for roughly ~16% of all bicycle users (mostly in that there London it seems), while 23% of drivers apparently still admit to illegal mobile phone use when driving, and apparently mobile phone using drivers kill someone every 10 days or so (35 deaths were recorded in accidents where a driver being distracted or impaired by their phone was a contributory factor in 2016)…  Anyone know the figures for RLJing cyclist caused deaths?

Piss boiling aside, are RLJers really the biggest threat to safety on the roads?

Piss boiling aside what does that matter to most voters ?  The only relevant thing TO THEM is reducing mobile phone usage vehicles… you might as well be giving figures for numbers of vacuum cleaners sold per household in New Zealand vs Iceland… as quote how many cyclist jump red lights or how many deaths it causes.

Agreed, but

But what?  You can’t seem to accept that feeding the sensationalist car loving mainstream media works out badly for cyclists.

Like I said, I see RLJing bicycle riders as a symptom of dysfunctional road traffic system… It’s not in accordance with the rules, I don’t personally do it, but I understand some of the reasons why people might choose to RLJ.

It’s all well and good to join in and berate a relatively small minority, for helping “Fuel the hate” but that argument in itself legitimises the angry, shouty lot because you’re willing to understand Mondeo Man/Woman’s (often disproportionate) response and inability to differentiate between people on bicycles, but you seem unwilling to even consider the RLJers might have their own reasons…

You’ve extrapolated all the way from anecdotes and youtube ragers up to political outcomes, sort of ignoring the real social/political landscape and whereabouts on the  “giveashitometer” RLJing cyclists really sit for most people, I’d say the vast majority of people give the topic a tut and a shrug and move on, it’s a general annoyance. Angry Ban-everything types want people on bikes shot on site regardless of their real conduct…

You might as well be giving figures for numbers of vacuum cleaners sold per household in New Zealand vs Iceland… as quote how many cyclist jump red lights or how many deaths it causes.

Precisely my point, you’re shouting at people, telling them to modify their behaviour because it apparently affects the narrative presented in the media, and reinforces the claimed justifications used to support the way some notional group are treated by a bunch of already biased, generally angry people, that’s the same media that won’t let facts get in the way of a good bit of click-bait and the same grumpy sods that just hate everyone on a bicycle regardless… If facts don’t matter, why bother trying to change them? And if fact’s do matter why not prioritise more hazardous behaviour like Mobile phone using drivers,  or choose to improving cycling infrastructure so RLJers have more alternatives to dancing amongst the Range rovers at rush hour and endangering themselves?

You’ve extrapolated all the way from anecdotes and youtube ragers up to political outcomes, sort of ignoring the real social/political landscape and whereabouts on the  “giveashitometer” RLJing cyclists really sit for most people, I’d say the vast majority of people give the topic a tut and a shrug and move on, it’s a general annoyance.

Yep its a general annoyance to many people… but when it comes to funding a hospital car park or providing a new school none is going to put an annoyance to most on the agenda.

(Personally I’d rather have the cycle path to school but sadly 90% of parents would rather have it easier to drive)

Precisely my point, you’re shouting at people, telling them to modify their behaviour because it apparently affects the narrative presented in the media,

It provides the narrative… the narrative is not bike jumps red light… the narrative is bid jumps red light and a bunch of these weird green-warrior cycling types are saying why it’s OK….

and reinforces the claimed justifications used to support the way some notional group are treated by a bunch of already biased, generally angry people,

Again, I think you missed the point … the narrative isn’t “bike jumps red light”… that just in your words “give the topic a tut and a shrug and move on, it’s a general annoyance”…. the “narrative” is when people defend it and justify it.  The agenda is to portray pro-cyclist groups as some people who want to big up roads and make canals and cycle paths whilst legalising weed and prostitution…. (OK some of those things are also sensible) but it’s like the US anti-gun lobby are portrayed … it’s about type casting bid users as anti-establishment people who will make the price of your house go down if they get their way (again debatably not a bad thing either)… but its not what people vote for.

that’s the same media that won’t let facts get in the way of a good bit of click-bait and the same grumpy sods that just hate everyone on a bicycle regardless…

No its not the grumpy sods… they are grumpy sods…

If facts don’t matter, why bother trying to change them?

If you want to change them then you need to do it through appealing to people’s self interest and in our democracy that means the majority of voters. I’m not saying facts don’t matter … I’m saying they don’t matter to voters when they are choosing between their self interest

And if fact’s do matter why not prioritise more hazardous behaviour like Mobile phone using drivers,  or choose to improving cycling infrastructure so RLJers have more alternatives to dancing amongst the Range rovers at rush hour and endangering themselves?

The two are completely different… A party can stand saying they are going to pass a law and be tough on mobile phone use whilst driving and a majority will either see that as positive or not care…

Choosing to improve cycling infrastructure?  First it costs money from somewhere else and secondly is for a  group who are externally identified as “cyclists” who are doing a great job of looking like a bunch of extremists who refuse to obey existing traffic laws.

What do you assume if a football comes out into the road between parked cars?

MASSIVELY different to the subject of this thread.

If I see a ball bounce into the road I treat that as a signal that there is a higher than normal chance of someone about to run into the road and thus, being at the wheel of a car or behind the bars of a bike I prepare more than normal for that eventuality. It’s a risk indicator. It doesn’t mean I *assume* behaviour of even the individual, let alone some imagined group. It just means I’m better prepared to *anticpate* that behaviour.

I don’t treat it as a stimulus to claim that all children are idiots or scum, that playing with balls should be licensed, that I should shout at the next child I see, that children should start paying tax if they want playgrounds, or anything like that.

I know all analogies are by nature flawed, but quite how you think this one is adequately analogous is a little baffling.

While I admire your attempt to analyse the interconnectedness of all things, I fear the world we currently live in is far simpler.

If not one person on a bike in the entire UK jumped a red light for the entire next 12 months, I’m almost certain the narrative in certain quarters of the media wouldn’t change one jot and the funding of cycle infrastructure would probably not be adjusted up or down in response…

The two are completely different… A party can stand saying they are going to pass a law and be tough on mobile phone use whilst driving and a majority will either see that as positive or not care…e whilst driving and a majority will either see that as positive or not care…

They’re quite comparable, both are road traffic offences neither is effectively policed or prevented one occurs more frequently and kills more people each year than the other, I’m simply suggesting that under circumstances where resources are restricted addressing the offence which does more harm should be the first priority, it’s not a crazy idea really.

The OP asked for our collective thoughts on RLJing cyclists I still don’t think it’s the biggest problem facing the nation, not even top 50 probably…

“I’ve not yet seen anyone at any level of government campaigning for office with promises to actively penalise cyclists….”

not quite campaigning for government but here in Aus’ politicians have twisted the concept of “being fair” to make rule breaking by cyclists expensive…in NSW at the same time as a 1m/1.5m min passing law was introduced fines for offensives committed by cyclists were doubled. It was also proposed (but backed down on) that cyclists must carry photo ID.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cycling-fines-soar-in-first-year-of-harsher-penalties-in-nsw-20170801-gxn311.html

In Victoria where I live the use of hand held mobile phones by cyclists has been banned and the on the spot fine set the same as that for car drivers caught using a mobile phone (Red light penalties were already the same with no Min. passing distance rule)

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/cyclists-using-mobile-phones-in-victoria-to-face-476-fine-from-july-20170626-gwz2cb.html

“We hope that by bringing this fine into line with the penalty for car drivers, we’ll stop the dangerous and potentially deadly practice of cyclists using their phones while riding.” – Minister for Roads and Road Safety Luke Donnellan said.

What intrigues me about this is that the offences (red light running or using a mobile phone) when committed by a cyclist and when committed by the driver of a motor vehicle are not near equivalent – generally if a cyclist breaks these laws the dangerous outcome is for the cyclist…..what we have is a pandering to fairness – its the politics of the nursery school playground with drivers pointing:

“miss, miss look he ran a red light…its not fair”

“look look little Richard’s talking on his mobile he’ll kill someone”

“on the way to nursery today we saw loads of cyclists nearly cause millions of accidents”

as to law breaking behaviour by some cyclists impacting all cyclists it does but only because a lot of drivers unreasonably believe they are being badly done to already…I don’t care a toss if a cyclist decides to run a red light if it impacts no one else and if a driver cites it as a reason for their bad road behaviour its because they are simply a retarded tool.

I almost never jump  reds. I did on Sunday – 15 minutes into my 20minute functional threshold power test were roadworks. Nothing coming the other way so through I go to avoid 15minutes of agony being wasted. Only to be shouted by another cyclist who was offended. Luckily I had no breath to shout back.

I don’t think its wise to RLJ but each event should be judged in its merits.

They’re quite comparable, both are road traffic offences neither is effectively policed or prevented one occurs more frequently and kills more people each year than the other, I’m simply suggesting that under circumstances where resources are restricted addressing the offence which does more harm should be the first priority, it’s not a crazy idea really.

No it’s a sensible idea but it’s not how things work in either local or national politics.

What happens is the one that influences most votes and costs the least (or can be made to generate revenue) and support the agenda of lobbyists who give support and funding will be implemented above the other.

Which one wins is a balance of these… in many cases the democratic process itself is merely a sham because promises have already been made for services or bribes already rendered.  Additionally they wanted an excuse to close the avenue for the new developments to lay a sewage pipe… and surprise the same company got awarded that.

An example of this is that we were consulted on speed calming measures for our avenue… Our avenue is lucky in that we didn’t have any need for speed calming measures so that was a bit baffling… the one thing it does have is it ends up being used for parking for the local football club and this creates a hazard itself.  Something I thought would only be made worse by speed calming measures.

Anyway… public consultation… but I then found out the contract was already promised to a company. It didn’t matter what the public consultation said… because the company was already chosen and the solution already priced.  Some councillor probably ended up with something for free like their private drive … we ended up with some pointless traffic calming that as it happens makes decent ramps for the bike, the sewage capacity is increased… a local company got paid.. everyone is happy right?

The council also had great fun awarding the contract for emptying the public bins to the same company issuing on-the-spot fines… they sent out their bin covering and stick a out of service sticker team and disabled the bins then sent out the revenue team to issue fines to those trying to leave rubbish on top of the closed off bins.

Well not everyone… we live between 2 roads that are both 30mph but both had and still have a speed problem.

What intrigues me about this is that the offences (red light running or using a mobile phone) when committed by a cyclist and when committed by the driver of a motor vehicle are not near equivalent – generally if a cyclist breaks these laws the dangerous outcome is for the cyclist…..what we have is a pandering to fairness – its the politics of the nursery school playground with drivers pointing

I think you missed the memo … that’s what politics is.

Crime is rampant in NSW… and if it isn’t they will invent a new one to charge for.

“Look, that man left one of his gloves on the train ….” $$$$$

“Look that person is watering their lawn” – “They paid a bribe to use the same water table it’s OK”

NSW is NSW…

Back to normality in the UK or Victoria…..

as to law breaking behaviour by some cyclists impacting all cyclists it does but only because a lot of drivers unreasonably believe they are being badly done to already

Yes… at least in part.

Drivers are being told that they can’t park here or there and shouldn’t be in a rush etc. The idea of if you want to go fast go to a racetrack but mostly that the act of driving has gone from pleasant to unpleasant to increasingly unpleasant..(of course the number of drivers is a overwhelming factor but to someone who MUST drive to get to work or drop their kids at school that factor is irrelevant). but non of that applies to cyclists so they see it as “unfair”….  to many who simply must drive they see the use of roads for leisure has gone… so why should cyclists make the unpleasant ever more unpleasant whilst “using the roads for leisure”.

Of course there is a HUGE elephant… if we had a proper cycling infrastructure and people were not driving… if we had schools close enough to walk or even better connected by cycle paths etc. but that isn’t going to happen here… (perhaps in St Kilda or out in the leafy suburbs in Victoria… ) because there is a huge list of other things that need doing first… We created a self feeding monster in London… however many billion a year I looked up catch trains into London… It’s a misery for millions a day… the roads are full of holes..we don’t have enough housing and the NHS is in meltdown. etc. etc.

The problem is that each of these have their own pressure groups… and each is being steered by agendas… and cycling infrastructure is way down in terms of numbers of people they can make cheap policy to make happy and vote… Not only that but it also has an agenda that is easily linked to an anti-establishment sentiment.. breaking the rules and trying to roll Britain back into a deadfall time when mobile phones didn’t even exist… the implication being if the pro-cycling lobby get their way we will all be living in caves again….

Its a huge stretch but people in general don’t care… taking away peoples cars… phones… where will it all end… half the people are those fresh air types that want to knock down houses and factories and plant trees… etc.

At the minimum it’s seen by many as “they want to take our cars away and force us to ride bicycles”.  (ala Amsterdam)

The other huge elephant though is that roads only function when everyone is obeying the (same) rules…

Its nothing to do with politicians caring if ACTUAL people die… (most politicians would probably rather someone that votes against them dies than lives)… it’s about public perception.

Public perception is that roads would be much less unpleasant if everyone followed the rules… and that when some break rules then others do as well. This is also true… and its probably a fairly equal factor to the sheer number of cars. (At least in terms of unpleasantness)

Very few voters have had their lives impacted by someone using a mobile phone whilst driving… we all agree its dangerous and stupid but the numbers of voters directly affected is very small.

Nearly all voters have had their life negatively impacted by a cyclist not following the rules… whether the outcome of that was merely a scare annoyance or a trip to hospital is just a matter of scale when there is a bandwagon to jump on.

All of this feeds into the very well funded agenda of making cyclists look like a bunch of regressive tree huggers…