Another day, another debate about cyclists and red lights on the internet.
This latest fair and balanced discussion comes courtesy of a video shared by Surrey Police’s RoadSafe account – which has a bit of history when it comes to contentious cyclists and red light clips – which shows a cyclist riding through two sets of red lights in Guildford last week, before being promptly pulled over by officers and issued with a £30 fine.
“Vanguard Road Safety Team officers patrolling in an unmarked car on Thursday witnessed this cyclist flagrantly contravening multiple red lights in Guildford town centre!” the Surrey RoadSafe account tweeted yesterday.
“The rider was handed a fixed penalty notice. Reminder: red lights mean stop for all road users.”
While the clip and news of the FPN was greeted with the usual glee from motorists – with some claiming they are “sick to death of seeing this kind of behaviour” and that “most cyclists don’t stop at red lights” (Nigel Havers, is that you?) – it has also appeared to divide opinion within the two-wheeled community.
> Under-fire police force releases full video of cyclists fined for ignoring red light amid questions over original footage
“Totally deserved. Red lights apply to everybody and there is no mitigation here,” wrote cyclist Paul Sheen, while Chapona Bike added that he hoped the £30 penalty “will teach him a lesson”.
“Good. Rules are there for a reason. It may not look dangerous until the situation when it ends up very bad,” wrote road safety activist account PhoneKills.
Meanwhile, Philip said: “As an occasional cyclist I’m glad to see this rider get a penalty, because it’s bad cycling like this that appears to give vehicle drivers the justification to ignore the rules around priority for vulnerable road users. A case of ‘they don’t follow the rules, why should I?’”
However, others were critical of the decision to stop and fine the cyclist, arguing that he was, in fact, enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic.
“He treated those lights as give ways, which is safer for cyclists to do and should be legal, and it is legal in many places where they’ve thought about it. Get serious about road safety,” said Chris.
“I guess Surrey RoadSafe are unaware that RLJs at quiet intersections free of pedestrians are one of the ways cyclists enhance their safety over the length of their journeys,” added vfclists.
“Going shoulder to shoulder with 2+ tonne vehicles accelerating away from traffic lights must be very safe!”
> "Why I skip red lights": Journalist makes the case for cyclists riding through reds
When challenged that he only sees “the benefits and not the risk” of continuing through red lights, the cyclist continued: “If it wasn't safe why was the police carable to chase him right away through the same red lights? Didn’t they notice that the red lights were red too?
“Being in a car they would have waited for the lights to turn green then catch up with him. So why ignore the red lights?”
> Cyclists slam "victim blaming" road safety video advising "improve visibility on the road" so drivers don't hit you
Meanwhile, Travis, the owner of London’s most famous cycling cat Sigrid, pointed out that he’s “basically gone full California” – “If there is a green man in my direction, I jump the red (proceeding with caution and giving pedestrians priority, of course). It makes so much sense, but I doubt it’d fly here legally with the anti-cycling lobby.”
“100 per cent on this,” replied Sy. “If the red is for the pedestrians to cross, and there are no pedestrians, it also means no traffic to knock you off. Highway hierarchy should win always.”
And to back up his point, Travis reminded everyone of the time “I learned my lesson about unnecessarily stopping for reds”:
> Police scold cyclist riding with pet cat in basket for not wearing a helmet after moped rider knocks them off bike
Finally, other cyclists stayed out of the debate, with Adespoto noting: “It’s like all those times you tweeted film of drivers blocking cycle lanes. (Zero).”
Thoughts, comments?
Add new comment
75 comments
I was started to drum on the bonnet of a vehicle that had encroached the cycle box. Driver was furious. I dryly pointed out that the advance line was for me and not her and that she had pulled up a full 30 seconds after me. Added if she really continued to make an issue I has a camera running and I would stop of at the police station on the way and leave them the clip. She quickly backed down at that point.
You wouldn't have any luck with the police in London I'm afraid, I was informed last year (directly by the Met) that they will only take action if the driver has completely filled the box both laterally and perpendicularly: if they have only driven halfway into the box, or the box covers two lanes and the driver is only filling one of them, NFA. So basically it's okay to break the law as long as you only break it a little bit. I sent a rather facetious reply to that email asking if it would be okay for me to shoplift as long as I broke the chocolate bar in half and left half in the shop, for some reason they never replied…
So, so long as you only break the law in a very specific and limited fashion?
I knew that polis Scotland would never have progressed it. Was going for the mind games. Maybe she was sitting on 9 points or so and wasn't risking more.
Added if she really continued to make an issue I has a camera running and I would stop of at the police station on the way and leave them the clip
The thought of this empty threat having any effect on a motorist in Lancashire has amused me no end. We don't have many ASLs around here, because there aren't many traffic lights, but where they exist they're ignored routinely. The police don't understand them anyway- although it's only an academic point here, because the police ignore RLJs where the driver is 10s of yards away when the lights turn red, the police think that it's legal to continue across the proper stop line if you have 'crossed the ASL' before the lights turn red
Was it because you were doing Moby Dick?
Did I miss the bit in that police video where they have intel that the cyclist is an imminent threat to the public or has a big stash of drugs on him to warrant that response? Seems very much like the situation with the fixed penalty notice giving out in town centres where it's the people who pose the least threat and are most considerate that are more likely to be issued with fines.
Glad the jerk got a ticket. I'm so sick of getting the 'red-light' jibe from motorists. Red means stop, its simple. If you want it changed, write to your MP and your council, stop making excuses for jerks like this that break the law. Cars still suck.
The simple answer to this jibe (usually, IME, delivered while I am waiting at a red light) is - "have you seen me jump a red light"? Preferably followed up with an observation about their handheld mobile phone / lack of seatbelt / child not in a carseat / illegal 4D numberplate etc.
Its OK, if all cyclists stop jumping red lights, all motorists will stop hating cyclists, putting our lives at risk and generally disregarding almost all of the road rules themselves.
Spoiler, it won't make the blindest bit of difference to their behaviour or their attitudes towards us.
The jibe is nonsense/hypocrisy, so I would ignore it if I were you. Here are some hard-working law-abiding motorists on one street local to me.
The failure of logic here is that someone doing something wrong on a bike reflects badly on all cyclists, whereas a driver breaking the law has no impact on the reputation of other drivers.
OK, so Beech Grove ain't a nice place to ride a bike, too narrow for one thing. Why not use Victoria Road instead? reasonable surface, lots wider and safer all round. (ex Harrogate courier speaking here.)
Well good on them I say!
I'm sick and tired of my "fellow cyclists" riding right past me and through the red light that I am waiting at. I often shout that there's a red light but they either shout abuse back or ignore me. How can you expect drivers to respect cycle lanes, cycle boxes, or us if we fail to obey the rules too?
I think the so-called safety argument of "enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic" is very weak indeed.
I think we need more patrolling like this and maybe more police officers trained to ride motorcycles to help catch the low-lives that frequent our roads on illegal e-bikes or stolen mopeds and motorbikes.
"I think the so-called safety argument of "enhancing his own safety by riding through the lights (slowly) and not mingling with accelerating motor traffic" is very weak indeed."
Would you remove ASLs and advanced cyclist traffic lights as they are all designed to help cyclists not mingle with accelerating traffic.
But ASLs and advanced cyclist traffic lights are built into a system - they provide some safety from traffic behind, whilst also protecting you from traffic in other directions, which is held at red. This cyclist (who does not appear to be the one actually raising the safety issue) appears to be proceeding into a three lane system where traffic could be approaching from other directions, and doesn't seem to be checking particularly carefully. The safety argument may have some merit, but I don't think this example illustrates it well, and often I think "it's safer" is a justification people use when really they are just prioritising their own convenience.
As a sometime RLJer, I'd agree that most of the time going through a red is more about convenience and conserving momentum/energy. However, there's some junctions where safety is my motivation for RLJing, so it depends on the nature of the junction and traffic.
I can definitely conceive of situations where I might. And when I was regularly London commuting, I would definitely be a "green anticipator" at some junctions - ready to go on amber before the Mad Max mobiles behind me. It's really just those going through red and a green man who get my ire.
ASLs and advanced lights are designed to enhance cyclists' safety (and convenience) in ways that are understandable and predictable to other road users.
Riding through a red light is neither understandable nor predictable. This is particularly acute at pedestrian crossings where pedestrians will often rush across to catch the green man, and may not be expecting a cyclist and his fucking cat to be riding blithely through because he's decided the rules don't apply to him. None of us have perfect vision or foresight, so we have rules in place to mitigate that.
In all fairness, in the video clip shown, the cyclist and his fucking cat stopped at the red light.
That's what I thought - but I think Brauchsel was referring to the text where Travis uses that incident as justification for having now gone "full California".
In all fairness, I'm fairly sure the cat wasn't doing that at all - as far as I could tell it was just sitting there.
Cats are never *just* sitting there - they're always judging
And if they're not judging, they're plotting.
Quite often both
Thank you for your post.
Sorry - late post on this. Agree with your drift but an edit regarding ASLs:
Do you really think that if suddenly ALL cyclists obeyed every possible law, then motorists would also start obeying laws such as speeding? Also note that when motorists break the law, it's usually extremely dangerous for other people, but when cyclists break the law, it usually only changes their own safety (either improves or reduces their safety depending on the conditions).
Speeding routinely, cutting corners coming in and out of roads, dangerous overtakes, red light jumping, ignoring road markings, dangerous overtakes, not indicating, using their phones while driving.
Seriously. If I got paid £1 for every rule that I saw a car breaking on a 45 minute drive I would probably have well over £1000. Its constant. Its constant and its normalised and its completely accepted despite it being dangerous. Cyclist jumps a red light though and they lose their minds.
No they wouldn't, but there's rarely a valid excuse not to obey those red light rules and treating it as just something minor does cyclists as a collective, no favours at all, because it does makes crossing the road in parts of London alot riskier than it should.
Cyclists don't exist as a collective, except in the minds of apopleptic drivers and the mainstream media.
Pages