- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- 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.
Latest Comments
- Aluminium can 1 hour 28 min ago
Its not a booby trap as it says clearly right on the side the outcome of cutting it. The same as aerosol paint cans have warnings not to...
- eburtthebike 1 hour 48 min ago
A comedian with a purpose can achieve more than the politicians e.g. Zelesky.
- Hirsute 3 hours 23 min ago
Sounds a bit specific though given 90% are bought on some sort of finance.
- Rekrab 3 hours 42 min ago
MORE LANES, MORE LANES!!!!
- Simon E 3 hours 48 min ago
The numbers don't tell anything like the whole story....
- Simon E 4 hours 19 min ago
Just squirt some thick grease all over his side windows and door panels. If you're feeling really uncharitable you could throw some sand at the...
- David9694 4 hours 59 min ago
check under 'W'for "What cars do to people"
- Global Nomad 5 hours 41 min ago
good to see you're testing the farsports wheels - hope to see road.cc continue to expand the range of brands it considers. These or the shallower...
- chrisotherwise 6 hours 14 min ago
Sadly very normal. And the sand contains loads of evil little shards of flint.
Add new comment
128 comments
In London at virtually every light the first driver who has an opportunity to see the amber and slow down and stop, as per the highway code, will accelerate to go through whilst the light is still on amber, the second driver will go through just as the light changes from amber to red and the third driver will drive through on red. This happens pretty much every time. It's true that drivers do not, as a rule, approach "established" (!) red lights and just ignore them as far too many cyclists do, but the pervasive nature of the behaviour described above makes one suspect that this is more because they are worried about being caught by police patrols or ANPR cameras without the plausible deniability/leeway of the light just having changed rather than any innate respect for the rules; when they think they can get away with it they will do it. This is particularly obvious at temporary roadworks lights when they know there won't be an ANPR camera, if there's nothing coming in the opposite direction and no police vehicles in sight a substantial minority will run the light, regardless of how long it has been on red.
My experience with temporary roadworks lights is different. I find that drivers tend to obey them more than permanent lights - possibly because there's the possibility of them meeting traffic coming the other way and having nowhere to go.
Meanwhile, I'm guilty of going through a few temporary red lights depending on how much escape room I have if there's traffic coming the other way (e.g. if there's just cones, then I can easily go the other side of them).
I'm sure that's true in some cases, I'm thinking of instances where the works necessitating the contraflow are quite small and the road is straight enough to see that there's enough gap to get through before any oncoming traffic arrives.
Never much harm in a cyclist riding through the coned-off section of a contraflow if there's nobody working in it as far as I can see; I was actually invited to quite recently by a nice chap wielding one of the old-fashioned stop/go signs - "Ride through there mate, they've knocked off for the day and we're just waiting for the van to come and collect all the gear."
I've had workmen shout at me in the past for ignoring the red light (I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't care about it) even though I was going slowly and not going near them or their equipment. To my mind, it's better if I get out of the way, so that when the light turns green, the patient drivers don't then get held up by a cyclist in the single lane.
(I'm somewhat conflicted about whether to hug the side or take primary in those situations as drivers shouldn't be doing any overtaking whilst going through roadworks, but if there's room then I don't begrudge them getting past).
Often the lights do not give cyclists enough time anyway. So If you were to wait for green then go immediately, chances are that you would meet a driver coming the other way.
Meanwhile, I'm guilty of going through a few temporary red lights
Me too- round here they leave them up for days after the work has been completed, so I just go up inside the cones. Havers and the police have excuses ready for drivers who ignore temporary lights like these:
https://upride.cc/incident/ye10aju_mini_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/fd67nej_bmw420_redlightcross/
The police may even try the 'temporary lights are not the same as real traffic lights' dodge. But when even they can't fit the usual stupid excuses to the case, they just say nothing and ignore them like they did with these
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
I have to say my attitude to red lights whilst cycling has softened over the years.
I used to be very diligent at stopping for all red lights, but I have since become more pragmatic and will slip through a red now-and-then on the bicycle when I know it will increase my safety without inconveniencing anyone else.
If I could be certain all drivers would adhere to the highway code (or even if those that don't would be prosecuted by the police), then I would adhere to all the rules myself when cycling. But if drivers do not fear the long arm of the law when it comes to driving dangerously around vulnerable road users, then I don't think I need to fear it when putting nobody at risk on a bicycle (same attitude I used for the occasional bit of careful pavement cycling).
I do still stop at all red lights when driving, as I don't feel there's any safety benefit to myself for not doing so and I pose a much greater risk to others by using a car.
if drivers do not fear the long arm of the law
In Lancashire, drivers are only too aware that the arms of the law are exceedingly short with hands in pockets, while the head of the law is determinedly looking the other way
I think you're missing my meaning. Every driver will be first to the lights at some point, and those that jump it will do so. However as soon as any cars stop, so does any further red light jumping for those lights.
For bikes, there is no similar social control, and those willing to jump red lights are free to jump lights every single time. Crucially, they'll also be seen doing it, every single time by the waiting motorists.
Which, even if the percentage of cyclists / motorists happy to jump a light are exactly the same, the amount of jumping done by cyclists will be more (more times by a given individual), and with it the perception of greater rule breaking amongst cyclists.
I understand that. All I was trying to say is that it is exceedingly rare for me to see the first car approaching an "established" (I hesitate to use the term) red light simply disregard it in the way that many cyclists do. If it was purely lack of opportunity (i.e. their way being physically blocked) stopping people, then I would expect far more drivers to ignore reds in these circumstances than actually do. It's actually pretty shockingly sociopathic when you do see it.
The obvious reason why drivers don't do that is that there'll be cars in their way, whereas there's almost always space for a cyclist to squeeze down the side of the road.
I was talking about the first car approaching a red light, so no other cars in front, opportunity to ignore the red, yet very few do. But perhaps you mean they don't do it because they will be blocked by traffic flowing from another arm of the junction?
I'm just not persuaded by the opportunity argument. I think most drivers see red and think red means stop. With the significant caveat of the "charge of the changing lights brigade" that Rendel mentions.
Yeah - I was meaning blocked by the green-light flow of traffic.
If only. At temporary lights (3 way light sign warning of delays) I pulled up at the red light, short of a left hand side road to leave space for traffic coming through the lights and wanting to turn in front of me. Numbskull No.1 got fed up waiting and came around the queue behind me, only to be met by a postie's van coming the other way. Blocked the junction, blocked the postman and then continued on his merry way , lights still on red. Numbskulls No.s 2,3 & 4 then got fed up of waiting and pulled the same manouevre. Lights changed and Numbskull No.5 ran me into the pavement as he came from behind and tried to squeeze in in front of me. Idiots will find an opportunity to be idiotic whatever the circumstances.
This is the scenario I was thinking of in my comment above where I ran a red. I'm pretty sure the lights *were* actually working - it's just that drivers find a three-way signal wait inordinately long (they should try watching as the drivers get a full two cycles at a junction before the cycle lane gets its turn) and I didn't want to stick to my guns while they all started coming past me.
If I'd been on a bike I might have nipped on to the pavement and ridden through...I was in a car at the time which makes the idiots' idiocy even more idiotic I suppose.
He's obviously wrong. We've all seen cars go through red lights. But it would be dishonest to pretend that the proportion of cyclists who go through red lights isn't greater. If we want to be safe on the road then we should obey the rules of the road in the same way we expect and demand that drivers should. Any cyclist going through a red light is fuelling the likes of Havers, and worse, the aggressive anti-cyclist drivers that are a danger to us. By cycling through a red light you are making the world a less safe place for cyclists.
If we include drivers who go through on amber despite it being perfectly safe to stop, then I'm not convinced this is true. And legally the offence is the same.
Agreed. The offence is the same, but people don't equate amber gambling with what many cyclists (but far fewer motorists) do - ignoring a (wait for it...) "established" red light.
I'd argue its dishonest to claim it is greater, what happens in London doesnt automatically translate to how the rest of the country behaves on the roads
I literally just nearly got killed by a driver blatently flying through a red light while I was on my bike in the cycle advance box.
Shame on that fossil for being such a gross liar
We’re on about things that happen only occasionally, like crashes involving bikes planes and trains - things that happen wholesale like anything to do with cars were accepting of/ conditioned to.
We had to seriously brake to avoid a car running a red light this weekend; we were also in a car, following a green light.
But, sure, drivers never break the law! https://www.kcci.com/article/super-speeders-iowa-state-patrol-pulls-over-teen-120-mph-fort-dodge/60759963while texting!
The strangest RLJ I saw by a car was when I was stopped in an ASL at a red light. The driver initially stopped behind me outside the box. But after a bit they lost patience; carefully went round me, through the red and merged with the traffic who actually had green. The only thing I could to surmise from the delibrateness and cautiousness (it had to be its a busy road they were merging into) that the driver is from a country where that manouvre is allowed
The worst offenders for going through traffic red lights are pedestrians - watch them outside any train /underground station in London, they have an irresponsible attitude towards safety - I expect many of them are motorists.
Havers should be made to make the same claims to the faces of all the victims (and families of the dead) of motorist violence who have suffered.
Presumably this is the first ever driving offence in the UK
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/hampstead-camden-met-police-crime...
"One witness described how two passengers inside the car jogged away from the scene.
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said: “A 16-year-old boy on a bicycle was injured on 11 May around 4pm when a vehicle mounted the pavement on Fleet Road, Hampstead and collided with the fence of Fleet Primary School. "
Mind you it was a driverless vehicle, so maybe no offence.
Havers should take a look at the DfT's casualty statistics.
Well informed people don't get booked to spout anti-cyclist nonsense though. As soon as anyone looks at the statistics they soon realise the scale of the problem with cars and drivers.
This is the problem with the BBC feeling they must provide balance. So often the people on one side of the "debate" can only be the uninformed.
Pages