- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Traffic lights.jpgShould cyclists be allowed to run red lights? The road.cc community has its say
Should cyclists be allowed to run red lights? That was the question posed in a Guardian blog this morning. We put the same question to our Facebook users to see where they stood on the issue.
Ask a simple question, get a monosyllabic answer. A sizeable number of respondents simply went with ‘no’ (perhaps garnished with an exclamation mark). However, a good number of you had plenty more to say.
Christopher Amott argues that allowing cyclists to run red lights would reduce congestion. “It eases traffic flow. Look at a red light in any major city at rush hour and you will see a boat load of cyclists bunched up with cars sitting behind. The motor vehicles all get held up as the cyclists move off and sort themselves out. All those cyclists didn't arrive at the light at the same time. Let them pass safely and congestion will reduce.”
Wayne Brewin, meanwhile, would prefer the use of filter lanes to achieve a similar end. “At traffic lights in general, many would benefit from a cycle filter lane where we can go through it if we believe it is safe to do so. There are so many junctions on my commute where that would mean I am on my way and out of the way of traffic at pinch points on the road. As for the basic point of stopping at red lights, then yes, cyclists should.”
Mike Johnson says he always stops at red lights. Why? “Just to stop pissing off everyone else who has to use the road, and obeys the highway code. Every cyclist I see jumping a red light, upsets half a dozen motorists waiting patiently for the lights to go green, and upsets pedestrians by weaving through them crossing the road.”
Jodie Smith expressed similar sentiments, saying: “We use the road, respect the rules of the road. It couldn't be followed safely in my opinion. Working in London I daily jump out of the way of cyclists completely ignoring red lights and nearly crashing into me, or worse still mounting the curb to cut corners regardless of pedestrians. Gives us all a bad name.”
A lot of people made the observation that the law applies to cyclists as much as anyone else. However, as Ian Jones points out: “The proposal is a change to the law, whereby it would be legal for cyclists to proceed with caution through a red light where specific signs indicate this is allowed - not any and every red light that they encounter. Cyclists would still be obeying the law - but a specific law just for them! I'm all for it, by the way.”
Four of the main candidates to become the next mayor of London are reportedly considering a version of the Idaho Law. Taking its name from the state in which it was introduced in 1982, the law allows cyclists to treat red lights as stop signs, and proceed if the way is clear.
Jules Benson offered a US perspective on this. “Lots of debate here in the US, and many municipal areas debating the merits of the "Idaho Stop" where cyclists can treat red lights as a stop sign (i.e. come to a full stop then go through if it's safe). Seems to work well where it's been instituted.”
We’ll give Richard Bridger the final word. For him, it’s a question of respect for others. “Lots of places on the continent have a system where all traffic (including cars) can turn right when the pedestrian crossing on the road they're turning in to is green - they just have to yield to the pedestrian. Seems to work pretty well there. So as long as cyclists respect the right of the pedestrian, should be fine and it helps solve the issue of cars backing up behind bikes. But in London where I walk, ride and drive, there's not always a lot of respect going about, so a lot will depend on that...”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- IanGlasgow 10 min 56 sec ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- Simon E 41 min 53 sec ago
but tomorrow they and the other shitrags masquerading as newspapers will return to screaming about cyclists, immigrants, benefit scroungers and...
- mdavidford 1 hour 14 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- lesterama 1 hour 17 min ago
Why not have a 5mph speed limit as part of the ETRO? Only a dick would ride fast through an otherwise pedestrianised street.
- levestane 1 hour 28 min ago
'each spoke' (single) and 'leaf spring' (made of many leaves) seems contradictory.
- PenLaw 2 hours 20 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 2 hours 46 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
- David9694 3 hours 26 min ago
Stuff like this seems more relevant than ever after the Trump victory. sorry not a funny
- mdavidford 3 hours 48 min ago
Someone was really worked up about e-scooters.
- JMcL_Ireland 3 hours 51 min ago
More likely the telling phrase is " In 2015, it was sold to private equity firm TZP Group" Hedge fund bell-ends with more lawyers than sense...
Add new comment
30 comments
It's a fantastic idea and I fully support it.
But then, I bothered to read it and didn't steam in to looking to froth at the mouth and slag people off for hypothetical, nonsensical situations.
You crazy non-conformist b@stard you...
Struggling to see either frothing or slagging, but don't let that stop you. It was a good point, well made.
...and while we're at it, spare a thought for those poor folk who use pedestrian crossings while on their mobile phones and are oblivious (or couldn't give a toss as they believe they won't be at fault if 160lbs + of bike & rider hits them, although it WILL hurt) to whether lights are at red or green.
Don't they have rights too!
Just as anyone in charge of dangerous machinery (e.g. a car) on the road owes a duty of care to other road users -- all the more so if they are vulnerable as cyclists are -- so too do cyclists owe a duty of care to pedestrians, even 'those poor folk who use pedestrian crossings'. We expect drivers to be mindful of the way cyclists behave, e.g. we may suddenly jink a metre out into the road to avoid some broken glass, and give us room; we all know to avoid startling horses by proceeding slowly and giving as much space as possible; so too must we be aware that pedestrians behave in unpredictable ways and may be distracted by all sorts of things and make appropriate allowances, not expect them to take sole responsibility for their own safety. It's all part of being a responsible and grown up road user. As you say, '160lbs + of bike & rider ... WILL hurt'. It can even kill or injure.
I dispute that. I used to live in Germany, where the lights at crossroads are often arranged so that cars turning right (equivalent of a UK left) get the green light when the pedestrian crossing they are turning onto is also green. It causes collisions. Such junctions often have signs reminding drivers to give way to pedestrians round the corner--a sure sign that there are problems.
The issue is not so much with the cars that have been stopped at red and set off when they get green, as they are going slowly and have had time to take in the kind of junction it is. Rather, it is with the driver approaching the light on green, who speeds up to get through before it changes, doesn't see the sign and doesn't notice a pedestrian setting out to cross...
The Dutch have achieved their admirable road safety record by designing out conflicts between different modes of transport, and giving motor traffic and pedestrians a green at the same time doesn't do that.
A little off-topic for this discussion, which is about bikes turning left on red, but the argument still holds: pedestrians should be able to trust that their green gives the red to other forms of transport. I would support there being signs to allow 'left on red' for cyclists where there is no such danger, i.e. no pedestrian crossing. But even then, you may get a pedestrian making an informal crossing at the junction, believing that all turning traffic is stopped and therefore not really looking out for something coming round the corner, and the cyclist not expecting the pedestrian either.
I think cyclist should be allowed to turn left and go straight through on T junction sections. The onus of responsibility is still on the rider though, it's not carte blanche to ignore safety
On BBC Breakfast now, they are clarifying that if a cyclist turns left and is hit by a car, it is the cyclists fault as they have turned when not safe.
Cyclists need more protection and not less, this is a law that puts the onus on the more vulnerable and won't work in this country and sends out a dangerous message.
That clarification has to be correct, take responsibility for yourself and stop expecting everybody else to do it for you. If you pull out in front of a car when it is their right of way, you get what you deserve.
you've missed the point Paul, there are many occasions where a cyclist is merrily riding down the road, following the law and a driver will put their lives in danger. In the face of the rider doing nothing wrong it can be seen to be very difficult for the cyclist to be seen as being in the right by the generl public. With this new law we have a direct opportunity for conflict, and as we know, the best way to kill someone and get away with it is by using a car, I can see more accidents as cars push their way past cyclists and claim thay they were riding in an unsafe way.
Having lived in Madrid for many years I can say that the flashing amber, or proceed with caution lights work very well. I just don't think they'd work in the UK where drivers think that we should pay road tax, ride in the gutter and should be subjected to punishment passes. We blame the victim and I can see this being another way of adding to the victim list.
Yes, reckless riders should take responsibility, and you'll note I didn't say all or none as that would be a sweeping generalisation and a bit stupid.
I'm still missing your point I'm afraid.
As I see it, this could be of benefit to both cyclists and motorists. As a cyclist I wouldn't get held up as much, as a motorist the cyclists in front of me at the lights would be out of the way when the lights turn green.
But for it to work cyclists have to take full responsibility for doing it safely. We can't expect motorists to take extra care (over and above what they already have to do for other motorists jumping red lights) in case some idiot on a bike decides to pull out in front of them.
I sincerely hope you're right.
Why can't ALL traffic lights be modified and phased to have a "cyclist green symbol" that illumintes approx 10-20 seconds before the main red traffic light changes to green for motorised traffic to begin moving. Such lights work well in Cambridge.
So many cyclists RLJ in Cambridge not a day goes by without me being nearly taken out by ignorant dangerous chavs or students on bikes, and I am cycling through junctions on green!
And then there are the many many f***ers who cycle up busy one way streets against traffic and me such as in Bridge Street and the police do absolutely bugger all. There should be snipers on the tops of buildings.
I dont think we should be able to jump red lights and we should comply and stop just like anyone else on the highway, and also if we were given the go ahead to jump lights it would just get us more earache from other road users and pedestrians.....
Completely in favour. It has been shown to work in other places and it enables cyclists to conserve momentum where they judge it is safe to do so.
Traffic lights are intended to restrict the damage done by motorized vehicles, they should never have been allowed to interfere with the free flow of cyclists.
If legalised, I'd be wary of using it at "complex" junctions, but at T-junctions where the traffic is stopped to yield to cars coming from the right for example, I think it could work.
I'd also like to see the red light used as a "stop" line with a requirement for the cyclist to yield to pedestrians crossing, to come to a full stop, place a foot down and then move off (essentially use the crossing point as if it was a zebra crossing).
At least this would remove the ambiguity of cyclists slowing briefly, having a squint at the junction and then sprinting through which is what often happens on my commute.
I'd yes yes, but just because it would like make the daily mail website implode on itself
Having taken a long hard look at the Paris rules I think I would give a cautious Yes.
I can see a lot of merit in introducing these new rules but fear the dead hand of British Bureaucracy.
No, we don't have the attitude to deal with this sort of thing. It'll become gridlock as everyone claims their right to jump the light.
you asked a stupid question based upon the Guardian's blatant clickbait headline...
And it worked - have you seen the frothing-at-the-mouth posts on road.cc facebook. That's before you get to the 4000+ comments on the Guardian website! The vast majority of posters, especially on road.cc (surprisingly) have completely totally missed the point and once again we're in the realms of helmet debate - uninformed opinion and anecdotes masquerading as fact from people who've barely got passed the headline before feeling the need to comment.
And that's why it'll take forever to implement, if it even gets to that stage, the media will ensure that the correct amount of clickbait is used to get the general public completely riled over it. I mean, it's even worked for the very people who would benefit most from it!
If you want all cyclists to obey traffic lights then start a huge campaign to penalise all vehicle drivers who do the same, especially taxi drivers, and start stripping their licences away from them for repeated infractions.
I had one jump red lights at Russell Square when I was coming back from my early morning ride and he almost took me out, then after doing my turnaround at home to grab my work gear, had another almost take me out on the Embankment. Both deliberately jumped reds, adn were in full knowledge of it.
No and no.
Where I lived in Holland, the traffic lights in the city centre were switched to flashing orange between eg 9pm & 7am. This meant all traffic did not required to stop as long as the used caution and priority to the right.
I often think this is quite a good system, esp when I am sitting at a red light at 6am and the roads are totally dead.
You aren't "running" a red light if you are allowed to proceed. The headline reads as if the proposal is to allow cyclists to flout the law. The proposal is to allow cyclists to turn left on red or proceed ahead if not in conflict with other traffic. ie not crossing traffic.
Right on red works for all vehicles right across the USA. It works fine and is just common sense.
It will work fine here as well. It's a good idea.
If you don't think it's a good idea then I think you've misunderstood the proposal.
Here is a single reason
You are in the advanced stop box and lorries, buses and motorbikes have encroached close to you and are revving their engines. The lights are red on all sides but on "pedestrian green". The road ahead narrows but is clear of pedestrians and traffic.
Ive also used the new system in Paris and it makes complete sense - safe, quick and ultimately better for drivers and traffic flow.
Used selectively I dont see why it couldnt be rolled out in the UK.
Having just spent a few days riding in Paris I can say that it works very well there. I can see no reason why it wouldn't work here.
I literally cannot think of a single reason why allowing red light jumping would be a good idea. It would be positively suicidal in most city centres.
because there is nothing in between 'stop' and 'imagine this red light is a green light and fly through'?
The proposal is treat red lights as 'stop' or 'give way' i.e only proceed if the way is clear. I think this should apply as default to any set of lights where the change is controlled by sensors in the road which will invariably not detect a cyclist and stay red until the next car happens along.