We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?
Options
Comments
-
Why do some cyclists jump red lights?
Because they can get away with it
That is my take on it as well - motorists will speed and park illegally when they think they will not be caught - cyclists would have difficulty breaking the speed limit but they can sneak across a junction if there is a reasonable gap in traffic - something much more difficult to do in a car.0 -
That is my take on it as well - motorists will speed and park illegally when they think they will not be caught - cyclists would have difficulty breaking the speed limit but they can sneak across a junction if there is a reasonable gap in traffic - something much more difficult to do in a car.
Read the previous posts on here, cars jumping red lights happens all the time, whether it's speeding up to go through on amber, following through as they change to red or just jumping flat out and cause the vast majority of injuries (based on TFL data for injuries to pedestrians caused by red light jumping road users). Focus on the real issue not the idiots who are only risking their own lives.
Also, breaking the speed limit on a bike outside of a congested rush hour isn't that hard on a bike, there's a strava segment near me called the "speed camera challenge" on a slight down hill section which is 40, a couple of people have managed to break 40 but certainly 30 on a downhill is easy enough
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I think you're spot on Norman.Norman_Castle wrote: »I'd suggest accidents are reported based on the severity of injury. I'd also suggest that in many instances lower speed, lower impact accidents could often cause less damage when a pedestrian is hit by a car rather than a bike as cars are designed to be pedestrian friendly where as cycles are not.
There may be an argument that pedestrians have greater expectations of motorists who are in control of an object of much greater potential to do harm and as such are more likely to report accidents.
So when some posters seem to be taking a stance of "It doesn't matter that cyclists break rules because motorists also break them" and quote statistics to show (correctly) that motorists cause more and more serious injuries this does not necessarily indicate the number/proportion of rule-breaking cyclists; only the number that have been caught doing so because of the effect of their rule-breaking.
My observations as a pedestrian suggest that many more cyclists habitually break the rules than some here seem willing to accept. That rule-breaking is sometimes for self-preservation (which might be justified), sometimes unintentional because of poor road design/signage and sometimes reckless as to the impact on other road users/pedestrians. I object to the last group. Mostly because they pose the greatest risk to me as an individual.I need to think of something new here...0 -
Read the previous posts on here, cars jumping red lights happens all the time, whether it's speeding up to go through on amber, following through as they change to red or just jumping flat out and cause the vast majority of injuries (based on TFL data for injuries to pedestrians caused by red light jumping road users). Focus on the real issue not the idiots who are only risking their own lives.
Also, breaking the speed limit on a bike outside of a congested rush hour isn't that hard on a bike, there's a strava segment near me called the "speed camera challenge" on a slight down hill section which is 40, a couple of people have managed to break 40 but certainly 30 on a downhill is easy enough
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists, with very few exceptions.0 -
I think you're spot on Norman.
So when some posters seem to be taking a stance of "It doesn't matter that cyclists break rules because motorists also break them" and quote statistics to show (correctly) that motorists cause more and more serious injuries this does not necessarily indicate the number/proportion of rule-breaking cyclists; only the number that have been caught doing so because of the effect of their rule-breaking.
My observations as a pedestrian suggest that many more cyclists habitually break the rules than some here seem willing to accept. That rule-breaking is sometimes for self-preservation (which might be justified), sometimes unintentional because of poor road design/signage and sometimes reckless as to the impact on other road users/pedestrians. I object to the last group. Mostly because they pose the greatest risk to me as an individual.
Good post except the last sentence. How can cyclists pose the greatest risk to you? Statistically you're surely more likely to be injured by any other vehicle.0 -
There are no speed limits for bicycles except in the Royal Parks. This means bicycles are not subject to speed limits on pretty much every road.Also, breaking the speed limit on a bike outside of a congested rush hour isn't that hard on a bike, there's a strava segment near me called the "speed camera challenge" on a slight down hill section which is 40, a couple of people have managed to break 40 but certainly 30 on a downhill is easy enough0 -
The anti bike/cars do no wrong posters might want to read this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5584409Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Because 1) I think there is under-reporting of incidents involving cyclists colliding with pedestrians which distorts that statistical assertion and 2) Risk is a combination of likelihood of an occurrence and the impact of that occurrence. In a cyclist v pedestrian situation; the impact is relatively low but the likelihood (based on the cyclist/pedestrian behaviour I observe) is medium to high. Some cyclists take care to minimise that likelihood, some do not.Good post except the last sentence. How can cyclists pose the greatest risk to you? Statistically you're surely more likely to be injured by any other vehicle.I need to think of something new here...0 -
Speed limits do not apply to cyclists, with very few exceptions.
I'm aware of that but you can still be done for "furious peddling" or whatever the offence is, and plod will pull you if you're obviously breaking the speed limitSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Because 1) I think there is under-reporting of incidents involving cyclists colliding with pedestrians which distorts that statistical assertion and 2) Risk is a combination of likelihood of an occurrence and the impact of that occurrence. In a cyclist v pedestrian situation; the impact is relatively low but the likelihood (based on the cyclist/pedestrian behaviour I observe) is medium to high. Some cyclists take care to minimise that likelihood, some do not.
You've still not provided any proof for 1) so you really need to stop posting that as if it was anything other than your personal opinionSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards