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
https://www.lifegate.com/san-francisco-cyclists-protest-against-rules
I honestly couldn't care less what the Other Cyclists do.
If they have decided it's safe for them, even if it is breaking the law, it doesn't affect me and then it's really no skin off my nose - I'm the one patiently and visibly waiting at the line.
Yup. Sick, sore and tired of seeing "people riding a bike" breaking reds, mounting pavements etc while cyclists waiting at a junction. It does nothing for our cause in the road wars. We have to be as far as is possible beyond reproach. That means obeying the HC. Just no need for RLJing. None. More of this policing please.
How about we get drivers to stop killing cyclists first, and then we can move on to things such as stopping red light jumping?
Part of the problem with going through red lights is that it puts you in the path of oncoming traffic who had every reason to think they had a clear path.
If someone wants to get away from the lights without being squeezed by passing motors then they need to be in primary, not in the gutter.
And yes, pretty much all lights should have ASLs, and they should be camera enforced, but right now jumping a red light is something that you'll sometimes get away with, but it's rarely actually safe.
It depends on the nature of the junction, but I don't really follow what kind of junction would have oncoming traffic using the same lane - maybe for roadworks where there is just the single lane (most roadworks that I encounter use cones that make it easy for cyclists to go through a red and just go the other side of the cones if necessary).
If a cyclist is turning left, then the chances are that they can easily go close to the gutter and not be in any danger from the other traffic.
Junctions have turns though. Imagine a simple straight road with a turn to (your) left, all light controlled and with pedestrian crossings. When you've got a red then oncoming traffic has a green to turn to (their) right, you jump the red, you're dead in the path they expected to be clear and they hit you. And when they've got a red and the pedestrians have a green then even you turning left is going to put you into the side of pedestrians who had every right to expect a clear run.
The junctions where cyclists really should be able to go on when other traffic is held should have cycle filters, and not all of them do. But jumping a red at a lot of layouts is going to put you in what someone else expected to be clear road, a danger to either yourself or to them. And it's not always obvious when you're at one light just who has a green and where they might be coming from.
I've watched enough people think they were safe to jump a light and then realise uncomfortably too late why they weren't to really fancy it myself in most circumstances.
I don't think we've got the same understanding of "oncoming", but that's mainly irrelevant to the points covered.
Your example of a cyclist going through red to get across a left turn that has green, is a good example of when it's best to not RLJ unless the traffic is sporadic. Most of the time, pedestrians would be very easy to spot when cycling, so there doesn't need to be conflict as there's usually plenty of room for pedestrians and cyclists to use the same road (busy city junctions excepted - best to wait at those).
The junctions that I would consider RLJing through have good sightlines - if you can't see what's there, then speed reduction is always a good idea, whether or not traffic lights are involved.
To my mind, this is the problem - RLJing requires judgement. Sometimes it may be relatively safe, or arguably even safer than waiting to go at the same time as motor traffic. But sometimes it's not, and I have seen plenty of people exercising poor judgment or failing to exercise it at all. Having a red light green light system removes that judgement and minimises the risk of errors of judgement.
Yes, it does take judgement and experience, but then cycling in traffic requires that too (e.g. turning right on a busy road).
It's simple enough though - if you're not sure or have limited visibility, then just wait at the red. Generally, it's fairly obvious that trying to go across the paths of loud and dangerously fast moving lumps of metal is not a good idea.
But for argument's sake, why not extend it more widely? Why not also allow drivers who have made a self-assessment that they have the requisite judgement and experience also to jump red lights, at junctions where they deem it appropriate, and provided of course that they cede to pedestrians and cyclists? They might pose a greater impact risk, but the risk of incidence would be low because they have assessed that they have suitable judgement...
Well, over in the USA, they do allow drivers to turn right on red and unfortunately it leads to more casualties as drivers aren't good at assessing safety of other people. At least with cyclists, we have skin in the game and so we tend to have much better assessment of the risks and dangers
Every reason to think they had a clear path? I'm pretty sure when I learned to drive a green light meant "proceed with caution". If you expect a clear path, you might as well drive with your eyes closed (or firmly fixed on your phone).
No problems with nicking people breaking the law (that doesn't mean I may not ask about priorities / addressing the most dangerous first etc...)
On the one hand, lots of people's brains (most? all?) work like this. (Another reason BTW why "share the road" is never going to work - you're "in the way" and "cheating by overtaking on the inside" etc. We just have to accept that people will see cyclists as "something else" and work with that.)
On the other hand one person's obeying the laws for their group should not be contingent on all people in another group obeying the laws for them.
In a lot cases the safety argument holds water. There's a junction on my old commute that if you arrive at the lights first you need to be in a strong primary and then as soon as the pedestrian phase has finished you need to move off before the filter lights up. Due to a combination of the sweeping bend, vehicles abandoned within the control period and crappy surface as the road starts to climb you really need to be well ahead and up to speed. You also have another junction with a stop line that is ignored and I've never seen a motorist obey it in 20 years.
I've been forced off the road in the past and nearly t-boned along this section due to obeying the signals and have resorted to moving early and getting up to 20mph on this stretch for my own preservation. Even if caught further back in traffic I put myself in the outer third of the lane and use other vehicles to draft.
I shouldn't have to do this. Unfortunately I need to for my own protection. Until the council implements a 20mph zone or installs a cycle priority signal I will continue this approach anytime I'm on this road in the future.
EDIT
Here's a pic of the junction I had to deal with.
Pages