Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes

ts437 wrote:

Good - the frequency of RLJ amongst cyclists in London is way higher than people on sites like this like to admit.

After three years of daily cycle commute in central London I completely recognise the minority of cyclists that RLJ.
I suspect that most are occasional cycle users (Boris Bike) or the terminally stupid who imagine that the rules don't apply to them.

ts437 wrote:

But one thing is certain is that making pedestrians have to think twice to cross the road on a green man, and feel unsafe doing what they ought to be able to do without caution is a problem. I feel the only way you could make this argument is if you yourself are guilty of doing this regularly.

So given that occasional cycle users do not use this site nor have any sense of community so responsibility for vulnerable road users, how do we change behaviour?

It seems that #VisionZero is attempting that and enforcement is a part of the vision.

One off or infrequent efforts probably won't change behaviour so affordable alternatives need to be found.

Bus lane enforcement is video automated but only works because of motor vehicle registration. So a non-starter for cyclists.

Would registration for cyclists and video at every traffic light be proportional to the issue? I doubt that.

Making RLJ for all modes as socially acceptable as drink driving or paedophelia?

quiff wrote:

Often they do run both in a short space of time, but I don't understand why they don't they run a combined operation - one location, with half the officers targeting offences by cyclists, and half targeting those by drivers. I suppose one answer is that different locations attract different offences.     

That could give some interesting stats.

yupiteru wrote:

.... drivers do not stop for crossing lights if no one is waiting to cross.

This is a direct result of car first thinking in infrastructure design. When the button is pressed the lights should change unless there has been a red light phase in the last minute.

There is no good reason for a 30s or 60s delay from pressing the beg button to the lights changing. Whenever they change there is an equal chance of a driver having to stop.

I have no problem waiting x time to cross if I have just missed a crossing phase. I do object being arbitrarily made to wait because a driver who has not reached the crossing yet (or may not even exist) is prioritised over a pedestrian at the crossing now.

I don't have an issue with stopping rule breaking cyclists, but 14 officers for an hour and a half to catch only 18 cyclists? That's just over 1hr 10 of police time for each infraction. Do we really think officers watching drivers would need to spend 70 minutes watching before they saw an offence?

True.  Most beg buttons on traffic lights controlling a junction don't make the lights change (as many motorists seem to think they do), but just slot a 'pedestrian' phase at some point in the next cycle of lights.

brooksby wrote:

True.  Most beg buttons on traffic lights controlling a junction don't make the lights change (as many motorists seem to think they do), but just slot a 'pedestrian' phase at some point in the next cycle of lights.

So there are three types of pedestrian crossing lights

1) pedestrian crossing only, on a single road - there should never be a delay here except as mentioned before, but there frequently is. I object strongly to this.

2) pedestrian crossing at a junction where there would not otherwise be a red (such as exit from a roundabout/crossroads, in this case there may need to be some slotting in, so the pedestrian phase does not cause the junction to be clogged. This would also apply where there is a single crossing without an island in the middle.

3) pedestrian crossing where the drivers would be stopped anyway (such as entrance to a roundabout/crossroads). here the green man should just come up whenever the red comes up anyway, and there should not even be a button. Placebo button mind games are not helpful.

The ones I was thinking of are on the A369 and are junctions where you've got traffic coming onto and leaving a main road.  Each traffic arm gets a red light phase and a green light phase, obviously.  There are beg buttons for pedestrians.  If you press the button, you get slotted in at the same point in the cycle so it is clearly not 'forcing' the lights to change in your favour (you can end up waiting for what feels like ages, if you press the button at the wrong point in the cycle).  But if you don't press the button, there is no pedestrian phase at all (I've tried it!).   

There are some lights on feeder roads onto the huge roundabout at winersh triangle, where the cars have to stop anyway, where there are beg buttons which you have to use to get a green man, but they could just give a green man when the cars have stopped and no beg button needed, but they don't.

Toucan crossings of course so green bicycle as well as man, but afterthoughts I think so no red bicycle.

All for cars, less thoughts for Peds and cyclists too terrified to use the ridiculous roundabout, it's one of those with a road straight through the middle.

In fact the whole of the cycle route down the Wokingham road was all a bit pants.

There is a dedicated set of crossing lights across the A34 by the M42 J4 which go across the 6 lane dual carriageway, between a business park with nature reserve and Tesco.

The wait from press to cross is at least 2 minutes, which means that typically there are sufficient gaps in traffic to cross. I'll watch to see when they change after I've crossed and often I haven't seen it happen before they are out of sight.

wycombewheeler wrote:

This is a direct result of car first thinking in infrastructure design. When the button is pressed the lights should change unless there has been a red light phase in the last minute.

There is no good reason for a 30s or 60s delay from pressing the beg button to the lights changing. Whenever they change there is an equal chance of a driver having to stop.

I have no problem waiting x time to cross if I have just missed a crossing phase. I do object being arbitrarily made to wait because a driver who has not reached the crossing yet (or may not even exist) is prioritised over a pedestrian at the crossing now.

Indeed.  I have a pedestrian crossing near my house which I use frequently when walking the dog and it confirms your car first thinking of infrastructure.

I can clearly see the traffic lights for just under 200m as I walk towards them and invariably they are green the entire time it takes me to walk to the lights.  I press the beg button...... and the lights stay green until no cars are within 30m or so of the lights.... eventually they will turn red for the traffic.

Gimpl wrote:

Ignoring all the usual bickering - the Police are doing their job and catching people breaking the law. Some may say their resources could be better applied elsewhere but that certainly doesn't excuse the actions of the people caught breaking the law. It's indefensible and, whether you choose to admit it or not, their actions result in us all being tarred with the same brush!

Well done Metropilitan police. 

My bickering, as you describe it with Nigel, has nothing to do with the defense of cyclists who run red lights. 

In fact I have absolutely no issues with such campaigns being run..... and the fact that so many cyclists have been caught is disappointing because it will simply give more fuel to the fire with regards to the opinion held by a small number of drivers that all cyclists run red lights.

I have always said that a red light is a red light which means that cyclists and motorists alike should stop.... but Nigel has this inherent fascination with lights which have only just turned red as if this is some excuse to be used by motorists to justify their lousy driving.

I'm going to put my neck out here and defend Nige.

In law, I agree with you, there is no difference between a light that's literally just turned red or a light that's been red for a long period.

Prosecuting said offences is a different story. If a light has been red for 20 seconds and a road user goes through it the case is almost indefensible in normal circumstances. If the light has only just changed there are various loopholes and weasel words that can provide a defense and which have done so successfully in the past.

I'd love to see every single red light jumper prosecuted but I accept that there are better uses of public money than pursuing cases which have a relatively high likelihood of being lost.

De jure: All red lights are equal.
De facto: Some red lights are more equal than others!

Sure, but that's just the result of judicial drift, doubtless the result of years of loophole lawer actions.

It needs to be dragged back to square one again: green means go, not-green means don't go.

Amber was always there for loophole lawyers, that's their territory and they need to be reigned back in to amber. That is the domain for their "but it only just changed" excuse.

We need a few prosecutions for people going through on amber when it was clearly unnecessary (ie they accelerated unnecessarily the moment green extinguished, or where they simply tailed through behind the car in front). Doesn't even matter much if the cases succeed or fail, so long as the battle ground is amber. Red, bang to rights guilty.

Like the summary.  Don't agree entirely.

I'm not big into other folks going through red lights. Except I have done so on occasions myself and will likely continue. Examples: roadworks, normal lights not detecting me or ones I know the pattern for that are apparently not working.

I'm pretty sure there are few if absolutists on this - whatever mode.  And it varies - I can't remember going through a red light in a car with the exception of a few mistakes.  I will on a bike - occasionally in specific circumstances.  As a pedestrian, the red man definitely has "for information" status - unless I was with a child.

We just stick to our own codes - which are more or less a close fit to the actual law.

As mentioned before, there are a wide range of "red-light jumping" behaviours.  They seem to occur with different frequencies for different traffic modes.  This is because they are driven by different motivations e.g. not just "I'm impatient and don't care".  Importantly they are not equally dangerous.

Ideally some of these would be designed out.  In simple terms - more often implemented in some other countries - if you're not in a motor vehicle you don't need traffic lights.  Where there are no motor vehicles they're unnecessary.

However since current UK reality is we very often have to deal with a mix of modes it ought to be policed on the basis of danger.  With danger to others weighted slightly higher than danger to self. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect police to assess this without some fairly arbitrary guidelines though.  Possible but onerous / definitely challengeable.

Police and prosecution is always a partial endeavor.  The police are going to police the law - that's reasonable. Except of course when they choose not to - either locally / informally (we'll ignore these guys smoking weed unless they're causing other issues or we've nothing better to do) or formally (effective decriminalisation e.g. we'll not address driving onto pavement to park).

Obviously it's where we want to put our money / focus.  If there were injuries to people which appear to come from red-light jumping cyclists at a particular location it's worth a crackdown.  In general I believe this is a poor use of resources in terms of keeping people safe. Leaving aside that this is treating symptoms, not causes.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Like the summary.  Don't agree entirely.

I'm not big into other folks going through red lights. Except I have done so on occasions myself and will likely continue. Examples: roadworks, normal lights not detecting me or ones I know the pattern for that are apparently not working.

I'm pretty sure there are few if absolutists on this - whatever mode.  And it varies - I can't remember going through a red light in a car with the exception of a few mistakes.  I will on a bike - occasionally in specific circumstances.  As a pedestrian, the red man definitely has "for information" status - unless I was with a child.

We just stick to our own codes - which are more or less a close fit to the actual law.

 

due to the apparently difficulties in getting sensors to notice cyclists (sometime not even motorbikes), there could just be a general rule for cyclists to treat red lights as a stop sign. Come to a complete stop, then if all ways are clear they may proceed. Saves all the hassle of trying to make the sensors work, and allows cyclists to pull away safely ahead of the race of motor vehicles. 

Either that or they need to ensure that every traffic light on a sensor wil react to cyclists, or else remove all sensors and keep all lights on timers. The number of occasiosn where I have waited at an empty junction for an unreasonable length of time before the lights change magically when a car arrives leads me not to trust the lights where I see any indication they may be sensor controlled.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm going to put my neck out here and defend Nige. In law, I agree with you, there is no difference between a light that's literally just turned red or a light that's been red for a long period. Prosecuting said offences is a different story. If a light has been red for 20 seconds and a road user goes through it the case is almost indefensible in normal circumstances. If the light has only just changed there are various loopholes and weasel words that can provide a defense and which have done so successfully in the past. I'd love to see every single red light jumper prosecuted but I accept that there are better uses of public money than pursuing cases which have a relatively high likelihood of being lost. De jure: All red lights are equal. De facto: Some red lights are more equal than others!

My disagreement with Nigel is simply down to his inherent opinion that motorists should always be given the benefit of the doubt..... but cyclists should never be given the benefit of the doubt.

Every single time it is shown drivers jumping red lights Nigel has routinely defended motorists.  The last time the subject of red light jumping cropped up on here..... I provided video evidence in the form of youtube clips..... in one video the first 3 clips showed drivers passing red lights which had been red for 2 seconds, 4 seconds and 4 seconds respectively and in one instance a driver who had stopped at a red light next ot a police car pulled away while the lights were on red, and this was the reply I got.

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

Garage at Large wrote:

You've taken my quote out of context, and I certainly do not have an "inherent opinion that motorists should always be given the benefit of the doubt..... but cyclists should never be given the benefit of the doubt".

I frequently write that a cyclist is correct and a motorist is wrong - in fact I did so just a few minutes ago on today's blog. It doesn't change the fact that, in law, it's more difficult to prosecute someone crossing a just-turned red light than an established red.

I can only repeat the fantastic two sentences that rich_cb wrote, which eloquently summarise my position:

• De jure: All red lights are equal.
• De facto: Some red lights (i.e. established ones) are more equal than others!

We are so lucky to have rich_cb grace this website - long may he reign over us!

Nigel you really think the full quote is going to help your cause?  Because here is the full quote.

Garage at Large wrote:

Er no, because they are either gambling when the lights have just changed (which as I mentioned is a frequent occurrence), or in the case of the guy next to the police car has made an error of judgement.

What I'm talking about is hoardes of motorists driving maniacally at people like this: https://youtu.be/jzQRexswK4w

You asked for evidence of drivers running red lights... which I gave.

You then said that the videos never showed red light jumping only drivers gambling on lights which had just changed or innocent drivers making errors of judgement...... and then provided a link to a clip in typical Nige whataboutery showing bad cycling.

As I then said in a lot of cases the drivers were running red lights which had been red for AT LEAST 4 seconds.

And it's interesting how you went on to argue that the evidence I gave you of motorists isn't indicative of motorists as a whole yet you provide a single video of one group of badly behaved children on bikes which isn't indicatve of cylists as a whole as if to back up your assertion that all cyclists are reckless.

I don't know about you.... reading your full comment..... it seems like it can be summarised as "Motorists make mistakes.....cyclists are reckless"

Or am I missing something?

Nige..... just going back to your posts from the other day.... Lets just examine another one of your gem's that I missed amongst all of your other irrelevant noise.....

Garage at Large wrote:

However, if I cross a pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing and a cyclist is approaching, there's a good chance they'll ignore it - like this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4K8AjNIVPA

Now I'm guessing I am taking your comments out of context by challenging your rhetoric.... but here goes.

I'm guessing you just saw the tag line for the video clip and failed to watch it?  Who knows but it definitely seems that way.

In the video there was one cyclist who went to pass through the zebra crossing when there were pedestrians on it...... BUT and this is a big BUT..... there were another 6 cyclists ( possibly more behind the cammer) who actually stopped.

I suppose that you will argue that 14% is a good chance that all cyclists will ignore the Zebra crossing.  Was the cyclist who raced through the Zebra Crossing a d!ck?  yes they were.  

But back to what I was saying earlier..... a growing number of people use instances of bad cycling to attempt to vilify all cyclists like you repeatedly try to do.  All the while attempting justify indescretions by motorists.

But to play devils advocate, the way that you do with lots of the close pass videos on here.  Do you not think that the pedestrian in that case went looking for an argument with the cyclist?  I mean if they had just kept walking the cyclist would have passed behind them.... therefore Nigel Logic dictates that the pedestrian is in the wrong.

And where is your ire for the black cab driver on the opposite side of the road who did exactly the same thing?  They never even slowed down for the zebra crossing, and went straight through despite the pedestrian who challenged the cyclist being just over half way across the opposite side of the road at the time the entered the crossing.

So 6 of 7 cyclists stopped, while 0 of 1 taxis stopped.

also noting that in this clip the cyclist who goes through the crossing is intending to pass beind the pedestrians who are crossing. He has not impeded their journey or significantly endangered them until one pedestrian takes exception and jumps in his path. The same pedestrian circled in the still, who had no issues with identical behaviour from the taxi driver.

Cyclists being held to a higher standard than drivers.

It's worth noting that the actual law (the excitingly named The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations '97) simply states that vehicles (which includes cycles) must 'afford precedence' to pedestrians on the crossing and requires that pedestrians proceed with 'reasonable dispatch'.

Passing behind a pedestrian would, in fact, be entirely legal. 

They understand this in the Netherlands, where cyclists passing people crossing on pedestrian crossings is a quotidien occurrence. The pedestrian and cyclist eyeball each other and each slightly adjusts their speed.  Normally how it works is if the pedestrian is already crossing the cyclists checks slightly and passes behind.

That's why even in the UK when I see someone striding confidently across a crossing wearing orange and listening to "Het Wilhelmus" I pass the Dutchie on the left hand side.

TriTaxMan wrote:

 

But to play devils advocate, the way that you do with lots of the close pass videos on here.  Do you not think that the pedestrian in that case went looking for an argument with the cyclist?  I mean if they had just kept walking the cyclist would have passed behind them...

At the time the Met Police said: 'A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration) but must "accord precedence" i.e. allow a pedestrian to cross first unless the pedestrian is on the opposite carriageway and there is a central island. On the face of it, this rider may have intended to pass behind the pedestrian who confronted him.'

Rendel Harris wrote:

At the time the Met Police said: 'A cyclist may pass behind a pedestrian (with due care and consideration) but must "accord precedence" i.e. allow a pedestrian to cross first unless the pedestrian is on the opposite carriageway and there is a central island. On the face of it, this rider may have intended to pass behind the pedestrian who confronted him.'

Yeah that's my reading of the situation.  The cyclist seemed to be aiming to go behind the pedestrian, but they were spotted by the pedestrian who must not have had their coffee or something before their walk to work.....

Rich_cb wrote:

 If a light has been red for 20 seconds and a road user goes through it the case is almost indefensible in normal circumstances. If the light has only just changed there are various loopholes and weasel words that can provide a defense and which hav!

If a light is only just turned red, it was been amber for 3 seconds, which also means stop. It's not like drivers are caught out by the light changing.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 If a light has been red for 20 seconds and a road user goes through it the case is almost indefensible in normal circumstances. If the light has only just changed there are various loopholes and weasel words that can provide a defense and which hav!

If a light is only just turned red, it was been amber for 3 seconds, which also means stop. It's not like drivers are caught out by the light changing.

I'm sure wtjs will be along in defence of the motorists surprised by changing lights - possibly with illustrations...

18, in over an hour, that's not really a lot though, and with 14 officers that's several on every exit to the junction, not exactly every cyclist is it.