Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Derbyshire Police share video of cyclist fined for jumping red light — insist "cyclists must stop"

"Cyclists must stop for red traffic lights like other vehicles. He was stopped and issued a ticket."...

Derbyshire Police took to Twitter to insist "cyclists must stop for red traffic lights", sharing this video of a rider pedalling through a crossing in Darley Dale.

One of the force's Roads Policing Unit vehicles was waiting at the lights in the town north of Matlock when the solo rider came past, prompting them to turn around in pursuit of the red light jumper.

The rider was subsequently stopped and issued a ticket, with the Roads Policing Unit warning others: "Cyclists must stop for red traffic lights like other vehicles. This is so that pedestrians can cross safely.

"This pedal cyclist was spotted in Darley Dale riding at speed through a red light at a pedestrian crossing. He was stopped and issued a ticket."

The social media footage comes days after police in Hackney posted on Twitter, saying they had sent 14 officers to catch red light jumping cyclists in the London borough, slapping 18 riders with £50 fines during the 90-minute operation.

The officers were there as part of Operation ‘Vision Zero’, London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s bid to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the capital’s roads.

> Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes

Some questioned the Metropolitan Police's use of resources, although the reaction to Derbyshire Police's video was generally more supportive.

The video did, however, spark the usual comments about licence plates, insurance and accountability for cyclists, prompting some to question why a mode of transport can trigger such rage.

One user responded to the largely celebratory response to Derbyshire Police's action: "I knew what the comments would look like here - there are more positions to take about cyclists than generally supportive or absolute disgust. Why not be generally courteous and ambivalent like most people are about most other forms of transport?"

Another questioned if sharing the video, and the subsequent reaction, would make the roads more dangerous for those on two wheels: "Does every car that goes over the speed limits get stopped? Does every car that fails to indicate get stopped? Yes, this is wrong but it’s going to lead to more people being aggressive towards cyclists. I no longer feel safe even riding on the road."

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

65 comments

Avatar
grOg | 1 year ago
0 likes

I just get off my bike, walk across and get back on the bike.. simple and legal.

Avatar
leedorney | 1 year ago
2 likes

Can't see what the problem is here, light on red, you stop, simply. Oh, others get away with it, well there aren't enough police on the roads given the Tories are only funding parties as no. 10 downing st with tax payers money

Avatar
WiznaeMe | 1 year ago
2 likes

There should be many more Toucan crossing facilities so that riders can get through junctions and safely away from motorised traffic.  

Avatar
Bungle_52 replied to WiznaeMe | 1 year ago
2 likes

You would be pleased with Gloucestershire then. They are in the process of installing a toucan crossing for a cyle path along with adding extra queing lanes for cars at the junction. They say they can't build the cycle path yet though cos they've used the money for these road works.

Avatar
Steve K | 1 year ago
7 likes

Not really sure how anyone can complain about this.  It's one thing when police put significant resources into catching cyclists RLJing (in terms of priorities/best use of resources) but when the see law breaking they must respond to it.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to Steve K | 1 year ago
11 likes

The problem is that it's being publicised.
A road user broke a law, if it were a motorist we never would have heard about it, but because there's a fire to fuel we get this instead.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
7 likes
Car Delenda Est wrote:

The problem is that it's being publicised. A road user broke a law, if it were a motorist we never would have heard about it, but because there's a fire to fuel we get this instead.

The publicity is a bit of a double edged sword.... on the one hand it is proving to drivers that cyclists run red lights..... a fact which no one here can ever deny and I don't think anyone would try to.

But on the flip side.... as a cyclist we can say..... that cyclists don't always get away with breaking the law.... a frequent cry of some motorists in their ceaseless quest for Number Plates for cyclists.

And I wonder if the latter is why the police have been publishing these endeavours.... to try and show that its not all about persecuting car drivers for offences.

Avatar
Oldfatgit replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
2 likes

Do you mean this type of offence?
If you look at the feeds of most RPUs, you'll see them full of speeders/ no insurance/ no MOT/ no VED/ drunk drivers that have all been stopped and publicised.
Unless intelligence led, I would have thought that most active policing is about being in the right place at the right time to catch the offender committing the actual offence - as this unit so clearly was.
I would have expected the same reaction - including Twitter post - had the light been ran by a car driver.

Let's not forget here that the cyclist didn't *just* jump the light ... They breezed straight though it like it wasn't there.

Avatar
Adam Sutton replied to Car Delenda Est | 1 year ago
0 likes

Road police units do this all the time for all manner of offences on the road, it's not like they are sweeping the uninsured, unroadworthy vehicles, drunk/drug drivers etc they stop under the carpet, and only posting cyclists.

Avatar
BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 1 year ago
6 likes

where's the Village Idiot on this one? It should be right up his street this article. 

Avatar
Rua_taniwha replied to BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP | 1 year ago
9 likes

Maybe it wasn't an established red? 

Avatar
Older and sadder | 1 year ago
5 likes

In my opinion it is behaviour like JRL that fuels the animosity between car drivers and cyclists. Cyclists are quick to point out their "rights" and critisise motorists who don't obey the rules. Just look at the proliferation of videos on line posted by cyclists and screaming about bad drivers. So when a cyclist is caught breaking the law, which is what RLJ's are, then they should pay the price. If it had been a car driver fined for the same offence then there would have been jubilation from the militant cyclists. Every road user should obey the law, cyclists or car drivers can't pick or choose the laws they like and ignore the others. One comment on here claimed the cyclist couldnt have stopped safely because of the number of manhole covers in the approach to the crossing? So if there had been a pedestrian using the crossing then presumably the rider would have ploughed into them? So the excuse of too many manholes just says to  me the cyclist was riding too fast and failed to judge the conditions ahead? The cyclist got caught and paid the price for breaking the law. Dont JRL and you dont get caught.

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to Older and sadder | 1 year ago
12 likes

If a motorist did it nobody would bother to publicise it, despite the fact that it's a more common and lethal issue.
That is the true cause for animosity towards cyclists, the media is amplifying the bad behaviour of the few to paint a unfavorable picture of all cyclists.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Older and sadder | 1 year ago
12 likes
Older and sadder wrote:

One comment on here claimed the cyclist couldnt have stopped safely because of the number of manhole covers in the approach to the crossing?

I was joking! It's the sort of feeble excuse a certain celebrity lawyer might use to get motorists off the hook.

The cyclist should have stopped (and should have been in primary to avoid those manhole covers). It was illegal and it was right he got fined.

However, the cyclist had a clear view and if there were no pedestrians on or near the crossing, then it was not dangerous and put no one at risk. Contrast that with the warning letters handed out to motorists who most certainly put cyclists at risk with illegal close passes.

Avatar
Jem PT replied to Older and sadder | 1 year ago
1 like
Older and sadder wrote:

In my opinion it is behaviour like JRL that fuels the animosity between car drivers and cyclists. Cyclists are quick to point out their "rights" and critisise motorists who don't obey the rules.

This. 100%.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Jem PT | 1 year ago
7 likes
Jem PT wrote:

This. 100%.

Nooooo! This is reinforcing the idea that cyclists and drivers are two tribes that act as homogenetic entities.

The reality is some people break the law, no matter their mode of transport. The criticism most cyclists have is the wildly variable enforcement of those laws.

Avatar
chrisonatrike replied to Jem PT | 1 year ago
5 likes
Jem PT wrote:
Older and sadder wrote:

In my opinion it is behaviour like JRL that fuels the animosity between car drivers and cyclists. Cyclists are quick to point out their "rights" and critisise motorists who don't obey the rules.

This. 100%.

Although this seems to be what people are saying / wanting:

a) cyclists normally appear in conversations as an "out group" / an "other".  At that point people aren't normally interested in changing their opinion of the group.  Evidence will likely be dismissed either because it conflicts with an established belief or because people are not interested - because "cyclists" are just a very simple stereotype.

b) as others have said the notion of a group of cyclists we represent is both a human trait * and going along with a fallacy.  Drivers don't see berks in cars / lorries as giving them a bad name.  The other person is just an idiot - what's that got to do with me?

* We want to belong to groups - even ones that others have put us in.  I still find myself "speaking up for cyclists" despite knowing this.  However if someone's already got argumentative about "cyclists" already I probably won't take it on my shoulders.  We're not going to have a conversation - move on and wait for a more opportune time.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to chrisonatrike | 1 year ago
5 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

b) as others have said the notion of a group of cyclists we represent is both a human trait * and going along with a fallacy.  Drivers don't see berks in cars / lorries as giving them a bad name.  The other person is just an idiot - what's that got to do with me?

This is something that I have said before...... and it is said on here a lot about someones cycling being representative of all cyclists.  The problem lies with the fact that no matter how sensible, courteous, law abiding I am as a cyclist it won't change how some drivers feel towards all cyclists because of the one time they saw a cyclist do........

As cyclists I doubt any of us feel the need to retaliate against a random motorist for a close pass or dangerous move against us by a completely unrelated motorist, yet for some reason in a small minority of cases motorists will do just that.... they might have been held up earlier in their journey by another completely different cyclist but will close pass another cyclist later on because they are still seething about being held up by the "bloody cyclist" earlier.

Avatar
wtjs replied to TriTaxMan | 1 year ago
0 likes

As cyclists I doubt any of us feel the need to retaliate against a random motorist for a close pass or dangerous move against us
Depends what you mean by 'retaliate'! If it means stuff the b*****d by any feasible legal means, I disagree about at least one cyclist

Avatar
mdavidford replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
2 likes

I think you misunderstand - TriTaxMan is talking about retaliating against a random motorist for an offence committed by an entirely different motorist.

Avatar
wtjs replied to mdavidford | 1 year ago
0 likes

I think you misunderstand
Yes, I see you're right

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Older and sadder | 1 year ago
3 likes
Older and sadder wrote:

In my opinion it is behaviour like JRL that fuels the animosity between car drivers and cyclists. 

In my opinion the animosity of cyclists towards drivers sis toked up by tabloid media misrepresenting facts to paner to their reader base/auto industry sponsors.

The is no animosity form 'cyclists' towards 'drivers' because most cyclists are both. There is only animosity towards bad drivers, fueled by lives being put in danger.

 

 

Avatar
wtjs replied to wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
0 likes

The is no animosity from 'cyclists' towards 'drivers' because most cyclists are both. There is only animosity towards bad drivers, fueled by lives being put in danger

Oh yes there bloody is! 'Bad drivers' = 'most drivers' where overtaking cyclists is concerned. A6 northbound Lancashire today, 50+mph Nissan Juke BP11 FLM. I am now working my way through 10 close passing reports to b*****d Lancashire Constabulary (for whom I feel no sympathy whatsoever, because it's the LC minimal punishment-no deterrence policy which leads to this universal offending). I realise that there will be the usual sniggering 'what a fuss he's making, and making up RLJ offences as well!' opinions so you're going to get another one just above-and there's the close pass by the Fabia just before this one which is on another topic. It's hell out there, and I haven't even told you why I was on a sleuthing trip up to Galgate! It's a number plate-no MOT-perverting the course of justice story which will appear here soon

Avatar
wtjs replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
1 like

This is massive 50 mph Auto Trail Apache NX17 CHN

Avatar
grOg replied to Older and sadder | 1 year ago
2 likes

The cyclist has eyes and presumably checked for pedestrians before crossing.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to Older and sadder | 1 year ago
5 likes

I challenge your opinion. I don't think RLJ fuels animosity at all, I believe it is used a as a tool to justify pre-existing animosity.

Tax, insurance, registration, pavement riding... all these things are constently put forward as agitators, but they're all just excuses. The fundamental truth is that people have issues with cycling and cyclists on the highway. 

I say this as it really wouldn't matter if every single person throwing a leg over the bike, paid road tax, had a cycling licence, insurance and followed the highway code to the letter, motorists would still have issues with cyclists. 

The true reasons for this animosity are far more complex and therefore harder to manage, but rest assured, doffing caps the to populist ideals perpetuated by the main stream media (for nothing more than profit), is a fools errand - to put it politely. 

 

 

 

Avatar
chrisonatrike replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 1 year ago
1 like

They don't like you being in front. They don't like you getting past them.  They don't like you being different. The rest is just sprinkles on the icing.  Top comment!

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
9 likes

No problem with the ticket as far as I'm concerned, but it's interesting that I've had a number of RLJ videos (of cars) knocked back from the Met because they were coming from in front or to the side: I was told it was not possible to prosecute unless the specific light that was jumped was visible in the video to demonstrate that there was no fault with it.

Avatar
mr_pickles2 replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
5 likes

This is pretty standard, Devon and Cornwall Police said the same to me when I submitted an obvious side-on RLJ

Avatar
Oldfatgit replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
1 like

Maybe it's because this is a pedestrian crossing, rather than a junction?
Because the lights are only a couple of meters apart, there's less chance that one side will be out of phase with the other.
Just guessing ... The police can move mysterious ways.

Pages

Latest Comments