- 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
- Cross country mountain bikes
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Nigel Havers and Laura Laker (via Jeremy Vine on Twitter)“No cars go through a red light – every cyclist does,” claims Nigel Havers
Actor Nigel Havers has claimed that “no cars go through a red light,” while “every cyclist does,” during a discussion with cycling writer Laura Laker hosted by Jeremy Vine on his BBC Radio 2 TV show.
The exchange took place during Vine’s afternoon programme on the station yesterday, with footage subsequently shared on his social media channels by the host.
Absolutely fascinating today @BBCRadio2 — @NigelHaversUK in the studio to complain about the behaviour of cyclists, along with @laura_laker who has written #PotholesAndPavements disagreeing that they offend more than any other road user.
Really worth hearing this exchange — pic.twitter.com/ebUPmDjxUT— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 10, 2024
“All road users break the law in equal amount,” Laker pointed out. “I’m not saying that that’s right.
“We know that roads policing got decimated a decade ago, we lost 20,000 police officers, and so all of road user behaviour has got worse, drivers have become more aggressive, perhaps cyclists have become more aggressive too.”
Interjecting, Havers said: “I don’t break the law, I don’t break the rules” before claiming that “motor cars aren’t going through red lights.”
Havers invited Laker, whose book on the National Cycle Network Potholes & Pavements was published just last week and who is a contributor to road.cc, to join him “at a crossroads where no cars go through a red light, every cyclist does.”
“That’s not true,” Laker countered. “Definitely people break the law in their cars, with mobile phone use, we know that’s illegal and it’s as bad as drink-driving, even driving hands-free.”
“I don’t know what planet you’re on,” said Havers, who is reported to have been fined £500 and banned for driving for 12 months after being convicted of drink-driving in 1991.
“Come and stand on the crossroads with me and you’ll see every single cyclist go through the red light.”
While it’s true that some cyclists do go through red lights, so too do many motorists, and Laker highlighted that it is the latter who are involved in, on average, five deaths a day on Britain’s roads as well as crashes that leave thousands more people seriously injured.
Undeterred, Havers, who in 2020 called for the removal of the temporary cycle lane briefly installed on Kensington High Street, insisted: “I have not seen a car go through a red light in London in years.”
“I know, but because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist,” replied Laker.
“So you think cars go through red lights just as much as cyclists?” asked Havers, incredulously.
“It’s not cars, it’s drivers,” clarified Laker, who in 2021 worked alongside Westminster University’s Active Travel Academy in developing guidelines for the language the media should use when reporting on road traffic collisions, which are still all too often deemed to be chance ‘accidents’ or in which vehicles crash without a driver seemingly being present.
“If car drivers are not breaking the law, how come vehicles are killing 1,700 people a year,” asked Vine, whose regularly posts videos of law-breaking drivers to his social media channels.
“Well, I mean …” responded Havers, before pausing, eventually breaking the silence by spluttering the word, “cyclists.”
The issue of cyclists and the law has been a high-profile one in the media this week after a coroner’s inquest into the death of a retired teacher who was struck by a cyclist riding in group in London’s Regent’s Park heard that the rider would face no charges in connection with the crash.
A Metropolitan Police officer told the inquest into the death of 81-year-old Hilda Griffiths that there was “insufficient evidence for a real prospect of conviction” of the cyclist concerned, Brian Fitzgerald, with the officer also confirming unlike motorists, cyclists are not required to adhere to posted speed limits.
Thankfully, road traffic collisions in which a pedestrian is killed following a crash with a cyclist are very rare, with Cycling UK citing official statistics that reveal there are on average around three such fatalities each year.
And it is the very fact that they happen so rarely that sees such incidents and, in their aftermath, wider cyclist behaviour, become the focus of intense media attention in a way that the vast majority of road traffic fatalities in which a motorist is involved do not.
Often, such media coverage takes the form of newspaper columns from celebrities – one example this weekend being found in the Express, with broadcaster Richard Madely calling for cyclists to be registered, and forced to carry insurance – something the government has rejected time and again.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 30 min 4 sec ago
Yeah, I've read the article again and I think I misunderstood.
- Johnny Rags 30 min 51 sec ago
For all that motorists are the first to claim, often stridently, that reduced speed limits or other measures to reduce the danger motorists bring...
- Spangly Shiny 57 min 14 sec ago
Greater Manchester version is probably a pretty good bet then. Thanks for the reply.
- brooksby 58 min 51 sec ago
(Grauniad) Cycling to school almost became extinct - until one man revived the bike bus...
- Hirsute 1 hour 20 min ago
No problem with ultegra - have replaced the BB before and regreased. My wife's bike was the problem one. Ended up removing the chain rings instead !
- Hirsute 1 hour 24 min ago
I did wonder that. If you disassemble your cassette you would get a few sprockets!...
- Geoff H 1 hour 34 min ago
Beginner??? Where do I start? No mention of tyre levers, or a floor pump, or ordinary simple hand tools like screw drivers and pliers (needle nose...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 40 min ago
Next time ask them about cycle infra!
- quiff 1 hour 53 min ago
I think Reach.plc and all the other local news purveyors could save themselves and their readers a lot of bother if they turned it into one...
- mdavidford 2 hours 25 min ago
Are you riding them on British roads? In which case that's indistinguishable from gravel anyway.
Add new comment
128 comments
Another celebrity wanglng a lighter sentence, that ordinary folk probably wouldn't be able to...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g9vp24z6qo.amp
Steve Coogan? Yup - discussed on this very site yesterday
Mr Havers has just been on the news, bemoaning the size of potholes in London and, I quote - "now I'm on two wheels, in London , which makes it even more dangerous'
Which raises several questions...
Bicycle or motorbike?
If the former, is it because he lost his licence (hic!) ?
Doe he jump red lights, like every other cyclist?
Perhaps he meant more dangerous to road users in his immediate vicinity.
Lost his licence for dui, again?...
He's bought himself a pair of Heelys.
He's just been on Breakfast TV, talking about his current projects (standard interview format)
At the end, the presenter said...
"You've got a calm, mellow vibe about you - do you ever get wound up about stuff?"
"I get wound up by bicyclists who nearly kill me on the pavement..."
The other presenter threw him a olive branch...
"Only if they're on the pavement though...?"
"I have a thing about them because they don't obey any rules of the road..."
Oh, I wish I'd been the cameraman...
What...like drink driving...?
I caught a clip involuntarily the other day – popped up on Facebook – of an interview between him and his fellow lump of unspeakableness Piers Morgan and he was chuckling away about how he had been stopped for DUI in America and then let off because his passport had "the Right Honourable" on it (because daddy was ennobled for his service as attorney general, nothing to do with any merit on his part). What was striking was the way he said something like, "I was driving along, I'd had a few as you do, you know…" – drink-driving is obviously perfectly acceptable for him.
That's terrible
I just checked to see if I was doing him an injustice, found the actual clip, in fact somewhat worse than I described: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0D91cl645U
It's time we fought fire with fire in the battle against drink-driver Havers: All taxis evade MOT testing- no cyclists do
This is Wigan Council taxi YA54 RMD, taxi number 7859, parked on Garstang High St on 31.5.24 - no MOT since 30.10.23. Problem is that Lancashire Constabulary will ignore the offence like they always do. Garstang Police Station is 150 yards away.
Don't give then ideas. "You lot don't even pay road tax!! And your bikes haven't even got an MOT!!"
8 months on from your post and still no MoT. He would not be able to renew his badge (annual, I think) without one.
It wants reporting to the Licensing Officer as it's still listed as a private hire vehicle.
https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Business/Licensing-Permits-Registrations/Busine...
Hold your horses - some councils are authorised to conduct their own (more stringent) vehicle inspections for taxi use. Where that's the case, taxis don't need a MOT certificate. The council's vehicle inspection is a condition of the licence, but an MOT is not. This vehicle has an inspection appointment booked on 21 May '25. See e.g. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-testing-guide/c-designated-councils-taxis-and-private-hire-vehicles
Havers et al are ignorant. They don't cycle. Any person who has ranted about cyclists has changed their tune once they have ridden on UK roads for a bit. Fact.
Contrary to the HWC, traffic lights are only designed for drivers. They are there to keep the highway clear of pedestrians and at junctions, to ensure vehicles don't collide.
Now remove motor vehicles and on cycle only crossings - without pedestrians - are 'traffic' lights needed? No.
For pedestrians only? No.
Why is this? It's because cyclists and pedestrians don't travel fast enough, will be injured in an impact, but can easily slot through the side emerging users.
In a 4cu metre 2 tonne machine travelling at 40kmh+ this is impossible.
Traffic lights should be renamed Driver Lights, just as pedestrian crossings are named as such.
So much road infrastructure is designed by drivers for drivers we forget where the fault is.
In Cambridge years ago I influenced Highways to install one of the first cycle green phase lights at a busy cross road in the city.
I said that all lights could be green for cyclists so that cyclists could all cross for an 8 second timing.
They just wouldn't try it. Even now, with about 5 more of these across the city, many drivers cross on their 'traffic' red when the cycle light is green. So their argument was two [stupid] drivers could collide.
Which just proves how little drivers comprehend and observe on the roads.
People like drink driver Havers.
Any time someone uses "Fact." in a comment, what precedes it is not a fact. Fact.
So by your reasoning, this is a fact. Fact.
And by the same reasoning, this is a fact too. Fact. Fact.
As is this. Fact. Fact. Fact.
You've not come across mdavidford before have you.
You should carefully reread the post.
Unfamiliar with Epimenides paradox and/or irony perhaps? Or just responding in like manner?
...
...
Do you need some help understanding it ?
No. Do you?
Oi, Nigel.
Check this out:
(13 drivers run red light consecutively.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck9NQ-S0NCI
Why oh Why do we give these "celebrities" air time?....Just because they are famous it doesn't mean they know what they are talking about and here is proof in spades. Cars don't jump red lights????....what is he on. Why is it then that the Government runs numerous Education courses for Vehicle Drivers who have jumped red lights? Nigel Havers stick to what you know, Acting, not spouting rubbish on the radio because it gives you a bit of the publicity you patently crave. I don't approve of cyclists jumping lights or not being responsible but trying to make out motorists are the innocent party in this respect is farcical....
The problem is that you can't get anyone who knows what they are talking about to argue that the actions of cyclists are the biggest road safety problem in this country at this time.
So in the interest of "balance" the BBC have to scrape deeper and deeper into the bottom of the barrel. to find a counterpoint on their "discussion". But really getting a convicted drink driver to discuss road safety is hopefully the nadir of their poor selection of debaters.
This whole red light jumping thing, I've been giving it some thought.
And my thinking came to this conclusion...
It would be easy for motorists to perceive that more cyclists jump lights than car drivers, as there is nothing to generally stop a cyclist from jumping a light if they fancy it.
And I'm not talking about licence plates, insurance, I'm talking about the fact that as soon as one car stops at a lights, all the cars behind have no choice but to stop and wait.
We'll never know how many of those stationary cars would have chanced it if given the opportunity, as they were not able to do so
Cyclists however are not so restricted. They can filter through traffic to a light and then roll through.
So if there are any cyclists willing to jump a light on the vicinity, they will get the chance to do so.
I don't buy this "opportunity" theory. Every driver will at some point be the first one at the lights. Every driver will at some point have the opportunity to ignore them. The fact there isn't mass disobedience therefore suggests that the majority do not take that opportunity when it arises.
It makes sense to me. If, say 50% of people will jump a red light whether cycling or driving, and at a particular set of lights, there's 10 cars and 10 bikes approaching it. Jimmy's opportunity theory suggests that 5 bikes will jump that red light and there's only a 50% chance that the first driver will RLJ and then a 25% chance that the second driver will as will and a 12.5% chance that the third driver will also do the same etc.
However, the real world is more complex than that and to my mind, there's a distinct difference between cyclists RLJers and driver RLJers. The drivers tend to RLJ when the light is first turning red and will often speed up in order to get through the junction before the opposing traffic starts moving and thus blocking their route. Cyclist RLJers are more likely to slow down a bit and won't care about whether the light has been red for a time or not. This also makes cyclist RLJers look more blatant, despite their actions not being anywhere near as dangerous as the drivers that speed up on the approach to a junction.
Totally agree with your second paragraph - I think it's the different nature of cycle RLJing that irks others. And this difference may affect the opportunity argument too. I'd agree that a lot of drivers will amber gamble given the opportunity - that could well be as high as 50%. But I think the number of drivers who would blatantly ignore a light which is red as they approach is much, much smaller.
By the by, I cycled through a red yesterday. Because the two drivers behind hooted at me to do so, convinced that they were not working.
Pages