Sin bin for red light jumping cyclists

[Punkawallah]

Enforcing traffic light stop lines would be useful, if it has an advance cyclists stop line its the one place where BMW drivers suddenly regard themselves as cyclists

Have sympathy for BMW drivers - they pay for indicators they never get to use ;-)

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Spot the difference.

Well done again, several hours after we had already covered that. Does not detract that nine times out if ten, a driver will enter those advance boxes when the light is amber or red. The law gives a get out clause, and really ought to be changed to must, like cross hatched junctions.

 

[matticus]

Do we think all the pedestrians in London are angels? Try this junction on a bike:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/DNMciEmRk2Nc9Wcn6

See all those cyclists waiting at a red light to turn left (North)? If you join them you will find that when the light goes green, and the junction is clear of motorists, a mob of pedestrians will cross Victoria Embankment Road (on their way East) creating mayhem in your path.

 

[matticus]

no we dont, but some of us do have to visit the place fairly often, and its a very noticeable issue thesedays. and that walking around as a pedestrian, you do feel somewhat that just walking on a pavement let alone crossing the road has become more fraught than it should be.

equally one has to remember our politicians, and a good chunk of the MSM spend their lives in a Londonbubble that means they often see London as being totes representative of the UK and no doubt would more than happily introduce some new law or restriction or something just to be seen to be doing something

OK ... so what are you hoping for here? None of these campaigns are going to make a huge difference in RLJs ... and even if they did, remember drivers kill 40times as often at red lights than cyclists, so you won't be improving safety in London! (at best you might remove some cyclists from the roads, if the punishments get really draconian)

So these campaigns just allow the "... be seen to be doing something". which just riles up more anti-cyclist feeling "Hoorah, that'll teach the little cockroaches!" Seriously, how do you see that improving the reputation of cyclists? As several have said:

Cyclists could find a cure for cancer and eradicate poverty and we'd still be demonised, because large sections of the media and social media rely on rage-bait to sustain their existence.
.

 

[matticus]

This last paragraph speaks volumes at the end of the article
Fyans said most cyclists do follow the Highway Code, but that a focus on bicycle users was “disproportionate” and a result of the rising number of bike users on London’s roads.

“I think there’s double standards quite often,” he said. “We’re not the biggest danger. It’s cars and speeding and drivers not paying attention that kill people on our roads. That’s the biggest challenge that needs addressing.”

He's not wrong:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/drivers-ignoring-red-traffic-lights-5HjdQ4D_2/

Department for Transport figures show 23 people were killed and 1,658 were injured in crashes on Britain's roads in 2023, in which a driver disobeying a traffic signal was recorded as a contributory factor​

 

[mjr]

Wrong.
I suggest you check the highway code

Please tell me what you think is wrong and I'll explain why it's not.

Remember that the highway code simplifies the law to the point that parts are basically false for cycling. Several of us pointed that out in the last major consultation, but the government back then didn't correct it.

 

[katiewlx]

OK ... so what are you hoping for here? None of these campaigns are going to make a huge difference in RLJs ... and even if they did, remember drivers kill 40times as often at red lights than cyclists, so you won't be improving safety in London! (at best you might remove some cyclists from the roads, if the punishments get really draconian)

So these campaigns just allow the "... be seen to be doing something". which just riles up more anti-cyclist feeling "Hoorah, that'll teach the little cockroaches!" Seriously, how do you see that improving the reputation of cyclists? As several have said:

I dont think the campaigns work, but we cant continue with the free for all ultimately with the current setup, because eventually people will get hurt badly, and we cant say then we werent warned. So what can you do ?

I think this is just one of those things where those able to stamp the problem out to begin with, just ignored the problem for too long, allowed it to become accepted behaviour, and you cant now push all that sauce back in the bottle, without some kind of major crackdown, which the police in London just dont have the resources for, so it just continues and increases...until some MP comes up with another private members bill that demands all cyclists be identifiable with some of form visible registration because that fixes the resourcing problem right, then they "can" prosecute cyclists for being complete t w a t s, and its something most mp's dont remotely have a strong opinion on, and almost certainly would have stronger constiuency feedback favour for, so will just happily vote for it, because then it makes cyclists equal with drivers right on the road and thats usually literally as far as most mps think about on cycling issues.

 

[icowden]

I'm always very torn on this topic.

I used to cycle in London daily and two things really used to get my goat.

• Red light jumpers
• Moped / Motorbike users in the bike box and/or cycle lane.

The autist in me absolutely seethes because these people are breaking the rules.
The logician in me realises that in the majority of cases red light jumpers are actually safer. In Paris, they introduced the panonceaux M12 - a sign that tells cyclists which ways they can go when the light is red. There has been no increase in acidents (and no decrease either) although pedestrians are more irritated as many cyclists fail to give way to them.

Lyon found that it improved traffic fluidity for cyclists.

Other cities have experimented - particularly with allowing cyclists to turn right on red (for us turn left on red) which improves traffic flow and minimises the possibility of being squashed by a lorry turning left.

Personally I'd create some legalisation of going through red lights for cyclists - perhaps to turn left or go straight on if there is no left turn, but bring back te birch for Moped and Motorbike users taking the mickey.

 

[Brandane]

Personally I'd create some legalisation of going through red lights for cyclists - perhaps to turn left or go straight on if there is no left turn, but bring back te birch for Moped and Motorbike users taking the mickey.

And why not allow the same for mopeds and motorcycles? After all, they have the same (or very nearly the same) advantage over cars in that they have the extra visibility at junctions, and extra manoeuvrability.

In fact, in certain circumstances I believe it should be allowed for all motor vehicles, if drivers could be trusted to do it with proper care and attention. But there lies the problem....

 

[SteveH80]

Other cities have experimented - particularly with allowing cyclists to turn right on red (for us turn left on red) which improves traffic flow and minimises the possibility of being squashed by a lorry turning left.

The issue is that any other road user coming through on a green light then has to deal with someone coming through legally on a red.
Besides the pain and dents who is liable for the costs in these circumstances? I know someone is going to say the motorist because cyclist are an entitled higher species, but what if the vehicle coming through on green is a quarter ton of cargo ebike?
Even the French are falling out of love with priorité à droite, I don’t think introducing a variation on theme of this is a good idea.

 

[Brandane]

The issue is that any other road user coming through on a green light then has to deal with someone coming through legally on a red.
Besides the pain and dents who is liable for the costs in these circumstances? I know someone is going to say the motorist because cyclist are an entitled higher species, but what if the vehicle coming through on green is a quarter ton of cargo ebike?
Even the French are falling out of love with priorité à droite, I don’t think introducing a variation on theme of this is a good idea.

The person coming through on red SHOULD be the one who gives way. Treat the red light in the same way that you treat a give way sign now. It isn't too complicated, as long as people do what they are supposed to do. But again, there lies the problem. We live in a nation of people who in general are selfish and entitled. Incapable of admitting that they messed up (and not allowed to admit it, in their insurance T&C's). Thick as mince and incapable of thinking for themselves in some cases. That's why everything needs to be over regulated and set in stone. Hence why we are even having this "but the highway code says....." discussion.

 

[matticus]

The issue is that any other road user coming through on a green light then has to deal with someone coming through legally on a red.
<snip>
Even the French are falling out of love with priorité à droite, I don’t think introducing a variation on theme of this is a good idea.

Why are you creating a problem that isn't there? The evidence is in the trials (in addition, I'm pretty sure many USA cities have done it for decades with actual cars!). Look, at least two FRENCH cities:

...<SNIP>...
In Paris, they introduced the panonceaux M12 - a sign that tells cyclists which ways they can go when the light is red. There has been no increase in acidents (and no decrease either) although pedestrians are more irritated as many cyclists fail to give way to them.

Lyon found that it improved traffic fluidity for cyclists.

Other cities have experimented - particularly with allowing cyclists to turn right on red (for us turn left on red) which improves traffic flow and minimises the possibility of being squashed by a lorry turning left.

You can't just oppose improvements cos you can think of some situation where things MIGHT go wrong! People cause accidents on the roads as they are; do you therefore choose not to travel by road??

 

[mjr]

You can't just oppose improvements cos you can think of some situation where things MIGHT go wrong! People cause accidents on the roads as they are; do you therefore choose not to travel by road??

No, but that's why cars have speed limiters, geo-restrictions to prevent them driving through street markets, and drivers are reminded of the terms of use each time they unlock one.

Oh, sorry, that's 12mph e-scooters, not cars. 😈

 

[SteveH80]

You can't just oppose improvements cos you can think of some situation where things MIGHT go wrong! People cause accidents on the roads as they are; do you therefore choose not to travel by road??

Not necessarily oppose, but you do need to consider them, ie a risk assessment.

 

[icowden]

Not necessarily oppose, but you do need to consider them, ie a risk assessment.

The stats that I can find at the moment are that 16% of cyclists occasionally run red lights. Of those, none appear to have been killed or injured.
Between 2005 and 2014, no pedestrians have been killed by cyclists jumping red lights but 52 were killed by motorists doing the same thing.
Generally speaking 96% of pedestrians injured in London collisions involve motor vehicles and 4% bicycles.