Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?

Johno100

Cornucopia wrote: »

What would a proper punishment be?

Well for the oft quoted 80% of cyclists who are apparently also drivers - 3pts on their driving licences.

Cornucopia

Johno100 wrote: »

Well for the oft quoted 80% of cyclists who are apparently also drivers - 3pts on their driving licences.

Isn't that a bit unfair on driver-cyclists vs. non-driver-cyclists?

jimjames

anotheruser wrote: »

I am trying to understand something in life.

Why do some cyclists run red lights, and perhaps do other things that contravene the highway code.

I don't know. Why do some drivers run red lights and break highway code? Might be the same reason

fred246

I love it. On the first page of the motoring forum you have this thread and another entitled 'Britain's most effective revenue camera'. Obviously if motorists followed the highway code cameras would never make a penny.

davomcdave

anotheruser wrote: »

I am trying to understand something in life.

Why do some cyclists run red lights, and perhaps do other things that contravene the highway code.

I know there's an excuse of some cyclists feet are attached to the pedals, or that it takes a lot more effort to pull off from a standing start, but then a car is the same, with the latter anyway!

So just wondering why some cyclists think it's okay?

The justification is that it is safer to go through a red light having checked the road is clear than to start at the same time as the cars (and especially lorries) around you which try to squeeze past and in doing so occasionally hit and kill cyclists.

It is claimed that the reason the death rate among female cyclists is higher than that of male cyclists is that men are more likely to go through a red light.

Make of that what you will.

My opinion when driving a car and when riding a bike is that I will put my safety above the law. A recent example is when I was driving and being aggressively tailgated a few days ago I drove faster than the legal speed limit on a dual carriageway in order to complete my overtaking maneuver quicker so I could pull left and was no longer being tailgated.

JP08

There is another reason, so obvious that only occurred to me this morning.

Opportunity.

Think about it like this.

Assume 1 in 10 car drivers want to jump red lights and the same proportion of cyclists want to do the same.

For the car drivers, the jumper can only do it one time in 10, when they are at the front of the queue. Otherwise the car in front is in the way.

The cyclist can get to the front of the queue nearly every time and therefore jump the light nearly every time.

Norman_Castle

Johno100 wrote: »

That Tfl study is totally flawed, the reported 84% of cyclists who reportedly didn't 'violate' a red light included those who arrived at the light when it was green, so didn't get the opportunity to jump it.

Any evidence to support this?

NBLondon

boliston wrote: »

I have noticed that both cyclists and motorists regularly run red lights but in a different way - motorists will typically see a light turn amber and decide to floor it through the junction wheras a cyclist will typically check to see if the junction is clear or not before proceeding. There is good reason for this as blindly running a red "motorist style" would often result in instant death for a cyclist compared with a few bent panels for a motorist.

I think there are three different variations -which I call "running", "jumping" and "shooting" the lights.

"Running" is what boliston has just described - carrying through when the light has gone amber to red. I see all sorts of road users do it in London. Some cyclists will justify it as safer (and less effort) than stopping and starting again.

"Jumping" is starting just before the light goes to green. I see more cyclists do this than motorists. Some cyclists justify it as safer to get up speed a second or two before the traffic moves - and I can see the point here.

"Shooting" is approaching an already red light, checking and then carrying on through at speed, possibly overtaking already stopped vehicles and swerving around any pedestrians. I see cyclists do this 2 or 3 times a week in London; I have never seen a motor vehicle do it apart from those with blue flashing lights and two-tone sirens. Some cyclists will try and justify this on the same grounds as what I've called "running" - but I think it more likely that they are just arrogant.

I don't think there are many cyclists over the age of about 7 who genuinely don't know that traffic lights, signs and other "rules of the road" apply to cyclists but there is a significant minority who decide that they can be flouted because of the relatively low likelihood of being identified and punished. Plus another segment who choose to disregard rules in the name of self-preservation - in some cases, there is justification for this where the rules could be improved. There's a bit of overlap between those two groups though.

There are of course also a minority of motorists who make the same decision to flout rules. They can be seen on TV regularly in the likes of Police, Camera, Action.

caprikid1

I am trying to understand something in life.

Why do some motorists speed, and perhaps do other things that contravene the highway code.

I know there's an excuse of some motorists are unable to concentrate for more than 2 seconds due to the comfort and distractions of modern cars, or that it takes a lot more effort to stay alert, but then a bicycle is the same in terms of staying alert due to so many distractions too.

So just wondering why most motorists think it's okay?

caprikid1

Sit on the motorway at 70mph or go along a 30mph and see the amount of cars that pass / build up behind you.