- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Basel red light study (picture credit VDB)Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
Leading cycling campaigners in Scotland have been discussing the potential road safety implications of allowing cyclists to ride through red lights.
Speaking to Scotland on Sunday figures from campaign groups such as Bike for Good, Cycling Scotland and Spokes shared differing opinions on the matter, with disagreements over whether such changes were necessary and what safety improvements they would have.
As per the Highway Code, informed by the Road Traffic Act 1988 section 36, cyclists 'must obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals' and 'must not cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red'.
This differs from road laws in other parts of the world, notably in some parts of the United States and France where cyclists are permitted to proceed at red lights in certain circumstances, something Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet of Bike for Good believes should be implemented closer to home.
"After reading various studies proving that removing the obligation for cyclists to stop at red lights increased safety, I decided to test it myself," he told the Scotsman's Sunday sister paper, arguing a change of road rules could allow those on bicycles to travel through red lights at specially marked junctions after giving way to pedestrians.
"In Paris and Lyon last summer I had the opportunity to experience this and quickly felt much safer on the road. At junctions motorists knew they had to prioritise cyclists and were more cautious — it's time to change mindsets."
However, not everyone agrees, Cycling Scotland's cycling safety manager Simon Bradshaw suggested Scotland's road laws are too different to France's to be compared and questioned if such action should even be a priority.
"There are many actions needed to improve safety for people cycling and we don't believe that permitting people to cycle through red lights is one of them," he said.
"Red lights — and green figures — ensure people can cross roads more safely and confidently. Scotland also has very different rules of the road to France, making it complex to replicate. The recent updates to the Highway Code, if followed, make our roads safer for everyone."
Likewise, Ian Maxwell of the Lothian cycling campaign group Spokes, told the Sunday newspaper he does not believe the matter is "necessary".
"I would like to see all motorists respecting advance stop lines before we try this approach," he explained.
"There is also the question of why this particular priority is necessary. Cycling is already a fast and reliable way of getting through city centres, even if you have to wait at a few red lights."
Just last year Colorado approved a bill to let cyclists ride through red lights with the aim of cutting collision numbers by reducing interactions at junctions between drivers and people on bikes.
The rule change does still require riders to briefly stop at red lights to give way to any vehicles or pedestrians before continuing on their way.
Elsewhere, in Paris, since 2015 cyclists are permitted to travel straight or make right turns through reds when at specially signed junctions, a law change that followed a successful pilot scheme.
> Cyclists in Paris allowed to ignore red traffic lights
"They [red lights] were installed so that car drivers would let pedestrians cross the road, to regulate the flow of traffic and to moderate the speed," Christine Lambert of the campaign group Mieux Se Déplacer à Bicyclette (MDB) said at the time.
"But bicycles don't go fast and don't make any noise. It's idiotic to stop for nothing. You waste energy and it slows you down. The best safety assets for cyclists are your eyes and your brain."
Coverage of cyclists and red lights here in the UK is often a divisive topic, with headlines such as 'Red light Rats!' appearing in the Mail on Sunday after the paper accused 26 "rogue cyclists" of jumping lights outside Buckingham Palace.
The story of last August led to accusations of the article being "manufactured" and "dehumanising" after it was discovered the road was closed to motor traffic and police officers had urged bicycle riders to continue through the lights.
Earlier this month a Deliveroo food delivery cyclist based in Edinburgh spoke out about the pressures of the job and said the struggle to make ends meet leads many couriers to break traffic laws, such as jumping red lights.
"I do not have any issue with laws, and as a recreational club cyclist, I feel some obligation to not give cyclists a bad name and fuel anti-cyclist attitudes held by many motorists. Riding for Deliveroo, I have the opposite mindset," he said.
"If every road law was to be followed, it could easily add five minutes to a delivery, which would cut my income by 20 per cent.
"My normal 'Roo' daytime income averages £10-12 per hour. To reduce that by 20 per cent is therefore not realistic. Most Roo cyclists will, like me, not follow all road laws."
What do you think? Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights in certain circumstances? Would a change in the rules improve road safety for everyone? Is a change even necessary?
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- Smoggysteve 15 min 43 sec ago
I've just read Armstrong being called 'a good guy', yet more Facebook nonsense calling for cyclists to have road tax zzzzz, police failing to...
- Hirsute 41 min 48 sec ago
Average speed cameras wont stop speeding to squeeze past cyclists....
- Robert Hardy 52 min 51 sec ago
Or the Cambridge case where the tanker driver admitted hanging his coat on the nearside camera monitor screen and still escaped a custodial...
- EddyBerckx 55 min 39 sec ago
Christ people are boring Looks fine to me. You have 20 trillion traditional looking bikes to choose from if you don't like this!
- 2wheelsRbetterThan4 1 hour 21 min ago
Should have lead with > CHPT3 files for Chapter 11 (Though not technically correct as it's not a US company)
- OnYerBike 2 hours 52 min ago
Not sure it's entirely fair to infer how well this helmet would score based on other models from the same brand. Both the Imperial testing and VT's...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 29 min ago
When for the same money (or half that on AliExpress) you can get a CooSpo CS500 with maps and GPS navigation I really can't see who's going to pay...
- Paul J 5 hours 19 min ago
CO rebreathing, altitude camps, and altitude/hypobaric tents are all trying to exploit the same effect: The body producing more red-blood cells in...
- levestane 6 hours 17 min ago
DOT4 is pretty aggresive stuff (nothing melted), mineral oil is probably OK on EPS hemets. I'm surprised this is allowed on planes.
- Hirsute 6 hours 22 min ago
" To be fair it is a completely unsolvable problem…. Like aging, belly button lint, or fascism. "
Add new comment
126 comments
What's this nonsense about Scotland hzving very different rules of the road to France?
I've driven ridden bikes in both countries, they're pretty much the same in the areas that would be affected by the Idaho stop.
For me it is a clear yes, cyclists should be allowed to ride through red lights.
It seems weird to me that an 80kg human is allowed to cross vertically a road and an 80kg pedestrian and 10kg of metal and plastic cannot legally do it.
Of course it cannot be done anywhere and under any circumstances just like walking, but it is good that it is finally being discussed.
because when your 90kg combo hits a human at no more than 5mph, Newtons second law of motion kicks in, and the force hitting most likely the humans shoulder is over half a tonne for a fraction of a second.
And I can assure you that hurts.
It is not that bad, it is still better than being hit a 100kg 10mph runner. Even if you get hit by a car at 5mph you will probably not be hurt. The problem is that motor vehicles will reach much greater speeds, incomparable to human powered motion.
So cycling speeds are not really great, especially compared to motor vehicles. The sweet spot in bicycle commuting is going slow and as uninterrupted as you can get, you will not sweat and not get tired. That is why the Dutch love it, they have excellent infrastructure, cycle on rusty bikes with normal clothes and still are happy, good looking, fast and safe.
Both motor vehicles and cyclists can quickly exceed jogging speeds even from a standing start... and certainly motorists passing reds tend to be going fast or even accelerating!
Inertia should also be considered. A runner hitting you will likely fall. So will a cyclist but they may be airborne / land more awkwardly - so maybe worse outcome for them.
Part of the added danger of motor vehicles is that due to their greater mass when they hit you they won't be brought to a stop. If a much more massive and/or higher- clearance vehicle hits you - and you aren't thrown to the side - they will be on top of you...
Agree with the comments on Dutch cycling speed but note that how they manage interactions between modes is *utterly* different from UK. I doubt "just let cyclists through red" would be acceptable as good "sustainable safety" practice. For more on their designs see "unbundling / unravelling modes", smart traffic lights, junction design etc. (You can find all these at bicycledutch - there's a "Themes" section or just search).
My shoulder would disagree with you on how much that hurts.
And bringing motor vehicle forces into it is just whataboutery on this point, the discussion is about letting cyclists go through red lights, and doing that pedestrians will be put at risk because we already see those cyclists willing to take risks through red lights do not treat them as stop and only go if it's safe, they carry on through "uninterrupted" because they dont like stopping and this change would simply give them free licence to do it, and the consequences be damned.
Totally undestand you, when a motorcycle going the wrong way hit me on a pedestrian crossing, I admit I wasn't that kind and I may have used some of my grocery as projectiles against the hasty rider. And I had pain quite a few days.
Nevertheless it is a light injury, I had nastier injuries me just walking alone, playing basketball, or working. I bet that health effects from exhaust fumes from passenger cars driving around, will have compromised much more my health in an irreversible way.
So if we could promote cycling commuting by evaluating again red lights for cyclists, it makes sense to me. There are big health gains for many when even a few people cycle to commute.
One of the worst wrist breaks I ever saw on the rugby field was when a prop forward, jogging at not much above walking pace to get back into position, tripped over a supine teammate and fell awkwardly on the hand he had put out to break his fall (admittedly there was a lot of weight going through it); very ugly compound fracture that required surgery. Young children, pregnant women and the elderly are of course far more vulnerable to bumps and falls at any speed. No legislation or cyclist behaviour should be based on the idea that "if there is a collision it's only going to be a little bump".
I went looking for some data on this subject and found:-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/306163/response/754931/attach/htm...
(there is a link at the top right of the page to a PDF version which is formatted better)
Comparing the data with the number of times I see people in all sorts of vehicles jumping red lights it is not the problem we think it is and we should concentrate safety efforts elsewhere.
vehicles jumping red lights it is not the problem we think it is and we should concentrate safety efforts elsewhere
The idea that only those moving traffic offences which can be proved to have resulted in collisions, injuries and death are worthy of consideration, and the rest should be shrugged off as 'everybody does it' is a counsel of despair and a call to anarchy! To start with, it leads to 'if you survived a close pass it wasn't worth talking about'- this is essentially the case at the moment, and the reason why the count of NMotD is nudging 850 with no improvement so far
With the massive reductions in traffic police since the introduction of "speed cameras" we should concentrate these scarce resources where they will do the most good.
Most reasonable people recognise that most bike RLJs are not a danger to anyone else and jumping the red light can in some cases can be the safest option. That said, I personally don't like it and some RLJs are just arseholes.
Any changes would be expensive, require a lot of communication and would be put to a public resistant to change.
I'd propose a slightly different approach. Change guidelines to say that unless someone has been harmed or property damaged through cycling RLJ, no penalty will be enforced. However if harm ensues or property damaged, maximum penalty enforced.
I'm feeling like I've hijacked my own account today, but I'm going to have to disagree on that one as well! I agree that RLJs are not often a direct danger to anyone else in terms of the likelihood of colliding with them and the severity of injury if they do, but riding in London I frequently see motor vehicles and/or other cyclists having to take evasive action to avoid RLJs, action which could easily cause incidents with oncoming traffic, pedestrians et cetera.
From previous discussions on this it seems that there is a "thing" with this in London. Is this just "concentration" e.g. small area with sufficient cyclists so that the x% who jump lights are actually "lots")? Is it "demographics" where the cyclists there are more likely to take risks (e.g. more riders are young / Londoners are somehow more pushy / there's an excess of bicycle messengers / food delivery services)? Is it that there is enough 'adequate' cycle infra for there to be a noticable number of cyclists? Is the infra itself contributing (maybe excessively long waits tempting people)?
Tbf most RLJs I see seem to be people who have no idea about the HC so may not be representative of a legal RLJ.
Ashley Neal wants to disagree! (His first post on the Picardy Place Leith Street / York Place collision). His point (I think) is "it's not just 'only a danger to themselves' - there is an effect on a driver who hits them, the family of that driver, their own family..."
I think we should talk about that. However I suspect he would emphasise a certain aspect (personal responsibility / enforcement) whereas I see this as a more systemic issue. I'd say we're setting vulnerable road users up to fail - or at best forcing them to choose safety OR convenience in a way we simply don't with the dominant mode (driving). We're also obscuring the seriousness of the choice you make each time you decide to drive.
I'm also still interested in getting to the bottom of the figures repeatedly brought up by some posters here. These apparently suggested pedestrians are at an elevated risk of being in a collision where cyclists were "involved" at crossings (relative to other vehicles). This clearly needs much more detail however as to what is actually being recorded and why this might be the case.
Those figures (assuming you are referring to the infamous TfL table, the bottom of which a certain person likes to cut off) are a nonsense, because all they did was record all vehicles involved in an incident, whether or not they actually came into contact with a pedestrian. If an out-of-control motorist hit a cyclist and then span into a pedestrian, that was recorded as a pedestrian collision/injury/fatality involving a cyclist with no record of circumstance or fault. I've looked reasonably hard for any evidence that pedestrians are at greater risk on crossings from cyclists than from motor vehicles and haven't been able to find anything; I'm pretty sure that if there was a study or evidence that showed that it would be being quoted at us ad nauseam by the motor lobby.
Don't worry, Martin73 will be able to share the outputs of his various Freedom of Information requests, which for some reason known only to him, are restricted. It's going to be a big story. But he can't share it yet. Probably because it doesn't exist. Probably.
Does the table you’re referring to specifically talk about crossings? I thought is was just general traffic in London - which is why it shows the numbers it does. Cars, vans, and HGVs should only come into conflict with pedestrians at crossings, or when the pedestrian is crossing the road. On the other hand, cycle infra (by-and-large) either exists in or adjacent to (but often not separated from) pedestrian spaces. A car could spend 2-5% of its journey in “conflict” with pedestrians, but a cyclist could spend 50-70% of their journey in “conflict” with pedestrians (if they used as much provided infra as they could).
Combine this with other context (pedestrians are 23% more likely to be to blame in these collisions according to TfL stats, and the extremely loose definition of the word "involved") and the table in question actually paints cyclists in a rather good light.
However, a certain poster likes to conveniently "forget" to include this context so that he can make dubious claims like "cyclists are more of a danger to pedestrians than HGVs are".
Funnily enough, DfT stats show this claim to be utter, utter bullshit:
I agree that the poster you mentioned was - politely - overselling their pitch. I'd suggest that DfT stat summary you've got there unfortunately doesn't tell us much more. You could possibly suggest uncontroversial takes like "cars are by far the dominant mode", "motorbikes go faster than bikes so are more dangerous" and "big vehicles like lorries and buses kill more than they injure because of their mass and catching people under their wheels / superstructure"
Indeed if you simply adjusted corrected for the proportion of traffic you could argue that cars, vans and lorries were less dangerous than cycles per unit of traffic! I think this was as reported in the PACTS data summary. However this doesn't help much if you were actually interested in understanding what was going on and reducing harm of course, rather than just hunting for some reason to shout a cyclists...
I think there were some other figures mentioned by rich_cb (?) and others (?) some time back specifically about junctions / lights. Although possibly it was another view of the same data set? No one's appeared waving these triumphantly so like Rendel I'm tempted to believe this provided neither further insight nor ammunition against mass cycling.
Left turn seems ok to me as long as it is clear that it is give way to peds and they always get priority.
Be interested to hear what leadensky(ies) thinks.
I’m torn on this one. There are definite safety benefits to it on roads with clear visibility, and I must say that personally, one of the situations that makes me feel the most vulnerable is sitting at a red light with a queue of cars behind me - knowing that as soon as the light goes green, I’m going to have 4-5 of them race forward and try to squeeze me through the road furniture on the other side of the junction. There are quite a few non “smart” lights near me that are just on timers where it would usually be perfectly safe for me to roll through and re-establish my position on the road well before the drivers behind have a chance to grind me into a traffic island. I also think it would make a lot of left-turns safer. I also (though it's been a long time since I've done any reading on it) seem to recall the Idaho stop resulting in a fairly significant drop in cyclist KSIs - though US roads, driving attitudes and rules are quite different, so you couldn't automatically assume the same would be true here.
On the other hand - there’s already so much animosity and misinformation towards cyclists already due to constant crap in the media. If this was ever even proposed, let alone enacted, I can’t imagine a reality where the right-wing gutter press wouldn’t make it their mission to turn the roads into open-season for cyclists. Remember when the Government updated the highway code but decided against any public information or publicity of any sort and just left it up to the Telegraph and the Daily Mail to run with the “cyclists are taking over at YOUR expense” line? Did anyone else notice a massive uptick in abuse on the roads for the period until the news cycle rolled onto something else. I sure as fuck did.
Gosh - here's a talking point and a half, so many angles here. Short - I'm with the Spokes-person - it's not the big issue. What is? Reducing the number of motor vehicles on the roads, keeping them to the existing rules, making more dedicated space for each of cycling and walking - and taming motor vehicles where these modes interact, as they always will ... the list goes on.
Our whole approach in the UK for road transport changes seems to be to focus on a detail and worry it to death, or try to "fix" one part in isolation. I think that is part of why our system is less than ideal. More of the same won't change things.
However, if we are only talking about lights here are a few thoughts:
Cyclists jumping red lights "solo" can run into problems because of motorists. Cyclists and motorists jump red lights for different reasons. Motorists (cars or motorbikes) who run red lights are often accellerating through at the end of a green light cycle or "anticipating" the start of a cycle with a quick getaway.
Advanced green lights for cyclists exist in the UK [1] [2] but are not common currently. It's quite likely that "trigger-happy" motorists may mistake these for their own green. Although this should improve over time this is an imperfect solution. It relies on cyclists filtering to the front / may require an ASL - and this is commonly blocked by motor vehicles. Unfortunately this is also sometimes used instead of more expensive / "controversial" but better infra / network works...
On Critical Mass rides if lights change while the stream of cyclists are passing the rule is that everyone continue to ride on through the red light. (That's not a goal BTW - it's actually for ride safety). This is safe as cyclists are travelling at about 6 - 8 mph and in a continuous stream (several abreast!) plus there will be "blockers" martialling the junction. So it's very obvious to others that they can't get through. It can of course result in anger - including from pedestrians.
If delivery companies - using any mode - are tacitly incentivising dangerous behaviour that needs recognising and tackling. That is a separate issue.
There is an existing proven way to improve things for cyclists with minimal infra changes (lights and controllers). This is the "all ways green" / "simultaneous green" / "scramble" light cycle. This is scalable to many junction designs / sizes and can even work in conjunction with pedestrians crossing simply because cyclists can clear a junction quite quickly.
Motorists (cars or motorbikes) who run red lights are often accellerating through at the end of a green light cycle
Of course, what this means to these drivers is 'I was only accelerating to go through on the green!!'- and everybody does it!
So how long are the apologists going to allow them, because all times are at the end of a green light cycle?
https://upride.cc/incident/t90jdt_audiwithcaravan_rljatspeed/
And if they decide that shouldn't be allowed, how about this 32 tonner at speed?
https://upride.cc/incident/pk68zfl_32tonnetipper_redlightcross/
I'm pretty mixed about this one. In some ways it will be good, especially on junctions that are notorious for their safety or those junctions that are on a hill. In general I think it may only serve to increase the antipathy that some motorists already have. As an aside. I've noticed an increase in motorists of late to block access to the ASL by pulling into the nearside. It doesn't really bother me that much as I filter to the offside or will just wait behind. Part of me feels that we could see a greater increase in this behaviour.
"There is also the question of why this particular priority is necessary. Cycling is already a fast and reliable way of getting through city centres, even if you have to wait at a few red lights."
This is exactly the problem with a non-cyclist's* way of thinking. It's quite often not about speed at all.
*Or, alternatively, a segment-hunter's
It's about momentum as much as anything else. That at least is recognized in the USA regulations.
Also worth pointing out that in pretty much everywhere that this or similar rules exist – including those for motor vehicles – the rule is stop first, then proceed if clear. In other words, you treat the red light like a stop sign.
And having to clip in again...
Personally, I lean towards thinking that some kind of change would be good, although not sure what this would look like exactly in terms of which junctions/lights are covered and what requirements remain.
The arguments for are convenience and safety. Convenience isn't just about the time spent stopped, it's also the effort required to stop and start. And whilst you might think "convenience" is not a strong argument, I would reiterate the point that making cycling more convenient is an important part of getting more people cycling - which I think has numerous benefits for road safety and public health.
Safety - it's well established that allowing cyclists precedence over motor vehicles is a good thing - it's why we have ASLs and even early release lights for cyclists in some instances. But IMHO those current features are insufficient, even when not abused - a couple of meters/a couple of seconds ahead just isn't enough to clear the junction. Going through on a "red" can be much more effective in getting space away from motor vehicles.
I would also point out there are numerous cases where going through on a red would have zero potential for conflict due to bike-specific facilities not being taken into consideration when designing the lights - for example when turning onto a dedicated cycle track or onto a contra-flow cycle lane.
As for the cons, the main concerns seem to be:
Potential for cyclists to hit pedestrians. I think this risk is low, and in any case I certainly expect any change to the law would still require cyclists to give way to pedestrians. The sort of reckless cyclist that might endanger pedestrians is probably the sort of reckless cyclist that isn't stopping for the red light anyway. And while by and large I think pedestrians and cyclists should be segregated, I also think that cyclists and pedestrians can mix much more safely and cordially than when motor vehicles are involved. If pedestrians and cyclists can successfully negotiate "shared" paths and other shared spaces, I don't see that a crossing is much worse.
Potential for cyclists to be hit by drivers. Obviously this would depend on exactly how the law is changed, but in general I think the risk is low. As above, I assume any change would require cyclists to give way to motor vehicles proceeding through a green light. Cyclists do not want to be hit by a car, and most would only proceed when safe to do so. Again, the sort of cyclist who proceeds recklessly into the path of a car is the sort that would probably jump the red light anyway.
Finally, there's the "optics". On principle, I object to the idea that we should base any laws around the ill-informed mouthing-off of bigots. There's also an argument that given all cyclists supposedly already jump red lights, if the law permitted cyclists to do so that would actually be one less thing for them to complain about.
One more thing - the debate becomes moot if there was actually good, segregated infrastructure where lights/junctions/crossings are actually designed around what is safe and convenient for cyclists, rather than for motor vehicles.
Pages