Forum Topic

Proposed Ruling Allowing Cyclists to Go Through Red Lights.

I heard about this the other day and wondered what other people thought about it. I personally wouldn't see any difference as cyclists seem to be a bit colour blind when it comes to traffic lights and the lights at Pelican Crossings. They seem to be quite happy to go through them even when pedestrians have the right of way and in fact get very angry when anyone challenges them. Now before I go any further, I am not suggesting that it is every cyclist is guilty of running a red light, but I reckon a good 85% of them do. So my question is, do we really need a ruling allowing them to do what they are already doing?Any thoughts?

J Smith ● 6373d16 Comments

Road rules should apply equally to cyclists - if they are allowed to run red lights legally where does the blame lie when they are knocked down by a legitimate driver moving off through on the green?  I see cyclists flouting road laws every day, they often don't even look to see if the road is clear. If they do it at their own risk it is their problem, if its legal it creates new precedents.  Of course, if it becomes legal, it means more organ doners - one way of coping with the current shortage.  Macabre, I know, but maybe this is the governments way of solving both overpopulation and organ shortage.  Cynical,moi?

S. D. Brock ● 6373d

Not enough cycling deaths for the second purpose luckily Susan. It's motor bike riders who are described as organ donors by the medics. Plus cyclists tend to get killed by large vehicles often lorries, turning left in front of them or squishing them sideways more than by crossing red lights.  I think it could be quite a good idea in some places - pedestrian crossings with no pedestrians, places where there is a total stop for pedestrians.Even as a motorist I would be happy about those and, as a cyclist, I can't tell you how frustrating it is when the gaps on successive traffic lights are set to a car's road speed so you ALWAYS get caught. Notting Hill is the pits for that.

Sara Nathan ● 6373d

There's been a fair amount of lazy journalism on the subject.The proposal is very specific; that cyclists may turn Left at an intersection controlled by traffic lights when it is safe to do so. The aim to to reduce the number of crush injuries by heavier traffic (there have been 4 such deaths this year in the TfL region).The proposal may lead to a reduction in the number of Advanced Stop Lines at junctions, which are routinely ignored by motorists (and in particular, motorcyclists and scooterist) and therefore are a particular danger.

Gavin Gilbert ● 6372d

there have been 4 such deaths this year in the TfL region......I suppose none will achieve a Darwin Award.  I have always thought that ASLs were a cheap and nasty alternative to proper light control where there is a cyclists' phase. I have yet to see a cyclist use one of these areas and commonsense suggests that they are only of use if a cyclist has just missed a green light. Unless a cyclist knows the route how can he/she ascertain that an ASL exists.The obvious solution is to make it illegal for cyclists to "undertake" lines of traffic whether that traffic is moving or stationary. Cyclists have the ability to dismount and manoeuvre don't forget. Isuppose tricyclists don't but then they are less likely to undertake anyway.If jumping red lights, albeit left turns, is made legal then perhaps so should cycling on pavements, not stopping for red lights, whether pedestrian, traffic junction or level crossings.While the GLA are about it they might as well include smoking certain prohibited substances and an amnesty on illegals.

Alan Brainsby ● 6372d

I’m glad to see in the long period I’ve managed to avoid polluting my PC with this forum the standards of accuracy and objectivity hasn’t been raised.http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23676168-details/First+photos+of+women+killed+within+24+hours/article.doWithout any evidence you accuse people who have been killed of a ‘Darwin Award’ ? You disgust me.FWIW the solution to to make road users who kill or seriously injure other road users go to jail.

Gavin Gilbert ● 6372d

The point I was trying to make was that cyclists as a rule are colour blind to where traffic lights are concerned. I am all for avoiding unnecessary deaths where possible and the proposed ruling may achieve this, but it does not change the fact that a good 80% of cyclists think they are above the highway code.In response to Sheila's earlier comment about cyclists being used as donars - I personally think that is not a macabre comment but sick.I would like to cyclists who run red lights fined as motarists are and perhaps have a test to prove that they know the highway code (back to cycling proficiency days)and can abide by it.

J Smith ● 6372d

Without any evidence you accuse people who have been killed of a ‘Darwin Award’ ?Reading the press reports of cyclists being injured or worse at left turns seems to show that the most accidents involve a large vehicle eg an articulated lorry. Anyone going alongside such a vehicle, even a small car is not demonstrating high intellect. Larger vehicle drivers generally exercise greater road skill than many others, including police drivers.To suggest that drivers who kill or seriously injure other road users is amazing unless the intention was deliberate. If a cyclist chooses to put himself/herself in a position of danger that is then why should someone else be penalized for stupidity?Perhaps the Highway Code should be amended so that a cyclist who has just missed the lights must not be drawn alongside except by another cyclist AND cyclists filtering through stationary or slow moving traffic must not pass the leading motor vehicle.

Alan Brainsby ● 6371d

I think cycling standards have deteriorated over the years, particularly with regards to signalling. I never used to jump lights when I cycled. The fun of urban cycling is moving faster than four wheels.

Graham Weeks ● 6371d

Alan wrote: >there have been 4 such deaths this year in the TfL region...While the GLA are about it they might as well include smoking certain prohibited substances....

David Fox ● 6371d

I hope I don't upset the line of argument/thinking but a set of recent events made me realise that traffic light infringements like a large number of moving traffic offences are not supervised/enforced at all. Indeed the police told me twice that the police don't do road safety. Who does? well I suppose the Local Authority but who in the local authority? Certainly not the traffic wardens. I try to cross the Lido junction from Naughty knicker shop to NW bank wait for red light and hey ho 2 cars shoot red light. This is a difficult crossing for pedestrians so for vehicles to follow the law is important for pedestrians safety. Anyone attempting to enforce this NO. Motorists parking next to this bank's hole in the wall so the buses can't turn into the Uxbridge Road....police reaction "Write to a councillor". So what is all this talk about cyclists when we can't get the paying motorist sorted out. My last thought if you will forgive me. When I cycled to Amsterdam I was very impressed by lorry drivers who you could see very carefully checking in their mirrors before any turning movements when cyclists were around. Why because they were cyclists and so was their wife their mum in law and their daughter and son. I particularly remember the smoke from the tyres of one lorry because he missed seeing the first time and checked a second time and stopped rapidly to allow a cyclist through before crossing the cycle track....as though his life depended on it. Perhaps the law is different in the Netherlands. I do think that you do look at the whole problem more carefully if you have the opportunity to use all transport modes so when I'm in a car and a cyclist "carves me up" I know I am protected by steel and he /she just has cloth and thin air and I let it go and you can tell when some cyclists are shakey and you give them an enormous wide birth even if other drivers hoot you. Hope this helps.

Arthur Breens ● 6371d

It would be good to achive a cycling lane to be built across all London that should work under the same rules of bus lanes ... you drive on them and you are fined!!If they want us to cycle so much everywhere for so many different reasons they should put some effort into it first and build a decent cycling lane.More people would feel safe abouy cycling and would cycle to work ... I would be one of them! I don't feel safe cycling in London now hence I don't do it. During the past 8 years I have already bought 2 bikes and got rid of them both times after I haven't used them for over a year ... this is just to say that the intentions are all there but I don't feel safe.

Valentina Dell'Aquila ● 6370d

Don't give up Valentina there are times and places when there are few cars about and you can practise then and there and feel more confident  plus there are cycle proficiency schemes.Having said that you are spot on. Everyone might enjoy a cycle if there were dedicated long distance cycle paths along the Thames on a new cantilevered track over the water. In Cornwall there is the wow factor Camel Trail where the word and his wife and/or husband cycle. But I keep dreaming.

Arthur Breens ● 6370d

As Gavin says, only a part of this proposal seems to generally been picked up probably because of its use as a headline.I was nearly knocked down outside Ealing Town Hall while crossing the road as a pedestrian.  The traffic lights were red, the cars had stopped, the pedestrian crossing beeping had started and I was half way across that side of the road when a cyclist whizzed past just missing me.Without a lot of publicity on what exactly may be allowed IF it is allowed there will be plenty of scope for even more accidents.

Philippa Bond ● 6370d

Well it seems that not only cyclists are colour blind - have just had a near miss on the pelican crossing near the post office on Uxbridge Road - red lights for traffic green for pedestrians and am just start crossing when a car goes speeding through, just missing me.

J Smith ● 6366d

Dear F Stone, as I said in my previous contribution you have spotted the problem but there is no one in authority who can or wants to deal with it. I feel it is very irresponsible of the police to have handed over the reponsibility and enforcement of road safety to no one. Ealing council and I presume all other councils haven't picked up where the police left off some years ago. This power vacuum leads to a laissez faire attitude to road safety. The only thing we do notice where anyone takes any interest is the safety camera partnership but this seems to be fund raising first and safety much later. However it doesn't replace the system that was in place years ago.For most of us using the roads and pavements is the next most dangerous thing we do. The most dangerous are accidents in the home?

Arthur Breens ● 6366d

Just what do the visible uniformed police do? Aside from crowd control, arresting criminals after they have been apprehended (by shop security staff for instance), notifying relatives of a serious incident their only other function seems to be forming barriers using themselves, eg at a bus stop or running plastic tape between trees.And if that's too energetic driving at high speed with lights and sirens blazing and blaring when all that's probably needed is a bike and a handbell! Traffic control is left to traffic wardens and CCTV operators, PCSOs seem to have the environmental duties, and much else is given to forensic officers. It seems now the uniformed police are only attendants to UKBA, Revenue Protection Officers, bailiffs, and raiding houses where there is a good chance of finding something or someone (or is that a specialized department?). No doubt they can still recognize any breed of dog and are very good typists.This is not criticism of police officers as individuals but the erosion of their powers and implied responsibilities by those who should know better.

Alan Brainsby ● 6365d