Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?

Norman_Castle

Car_54 wrote: »

OK. See my post #65 above.

TfL appear to have ignored cyclists jumping amber lights in order to understate the extent of their criminality.

TFL ignored amber lights because the study was about stopping at red lights. A study including stopping at amber lights would need to include an opinion on each cyclists ability to stop. The study was not an attempt to measure the extent of cyclists criminality it was done to measure how many cyclists failed to stop at red lights.
Amber gambling is a separate problem and not what was being studied.

There is this mention of amber gambling.

2.11 One surveyor noted that a cyclist
on a recumbent bike moving across the
junction from Millbank onto Grosvenor R
oad was almost killed by a van turning
left onto Vauxhall Bridge. Whilst the cyc
list obeyed the traffic signals, the van
went through on amber.

Understating cyclists criminality?

4.10 One surveyor noted that approximately 10%
of cyclists using the junction rode on
the pavement. Another said that of thos
e cyclists using Streatham Hill, four rode
on the pavement to avoid
stopping at a red light.

Nasqueron

Cornucopia wrote: »

That really doesn't sound right. Where does the "18x" come from?

4 in 100 accidents from a bike
71 in 100 accidents from a car

Perhaps my wording/maths was off as I was in a rush but there are nearly 18x as many pedestrians injured in London from cars jumping red lights as from bikes based on TFL data. Given the vastly greater chance of being hit by a car I'd be more worried about them than bikes

Cornucopia

I think it's your wording - or rather the fact that you haven't said how unhelpful these figures are in understanding the true picture (this seems to be a theme with the TfL data).

It's not rocket science to see that of all accidents causing injury, many more of them will be associated with cars. Presumably there are more cars than cycles to start with, and the consequence of being struck by a cycle are significantly less severe.

ISTR there have been some serious "KSI" incidents involving cycles in London, though. Usually when a cyclist collides with an already vulnerable pedestrian.

Car_54

Norman_Castle wrote: »

TFL ignored amber lights because the study was about stopping at red lights. A study including stopping at amber lights would need to include an opinion on each cyclists ability to stop. The study was not an attempt to measure the extent of cyclists criminality it was done to measure how many cyclists failed to stop at red lights.
Amber gambling is a separate problem and not what was being studied.

There is this mention of amber gambling.

2.11 One surveyor noted that a cyclist
on a recumbent bike moving across the
junction from Millbank onto Grosvenor R
oad was almost killed by a van turning
left onto Vauxhall Bridge. Whilst the cyc
list obeyed the traffic signals, the van
went through on amber.

Understating cyclists criminality?

4.10 One surveyor noted that approximately 10%
of cyclists using the junction rode on
the pavement. Another said that of thos
e cyclists using Streatham Hill, four rode
on the pavement to avoid
stopping at a red light.

If "the study was not an attempt to measure the extent of cyclists criminality", then why did they report on the number riding on the pavement?

Anyway, if we add the 16% ignoring red lights to the 10% riding on the footpath and the unknown number (at least another 16%?) ignoring amber lights, we have a very much lower proportion of law-abiding cyclists than the report would have us believe.

Richard53

Johno100 wrote: »

We've still got some of the safest roads in Europe if not the World.

I'm going to stick my neck out here ...


Go to Youtube, search for Russian dashcam and watch a few of the clips. A truly frightening mixture of incompetence, bullying and murderously aggressive speed (combined with a lack of understanding of giving way at junctions and poor road layouts). I guarantee that you will come back to British roads and be grateful for the excellent infrastructure and signage, and the (generally) high standard of driving and patient attitudes here.


It's easy to knock the occasional bad driver, but in general UK driving is of a very high standard in global terms.

Norman_Castle

Car_54 wrote: »

If "the study was not an attempt to measure the extent of cyclists criminality", then why did they report on the number riding on the pavement?

Anyway, if we add the 16% ignoring red lights to the 10% riding on the footpath and the unknown number (at least another 16%?) ignoring amber lights, we have a very much lower proportion of law-abiding cyclists than the report would have us believe.

The amber gambling van and pavement cyclists were added as observations.

The cyclists could have been fingerprinted and crb checked and the results added to the cyclists criminality but as the study was about ignoring red lights and not an attempt to criminalise cyclists this was not done.

Cornucopia

Is there an actual offence for which a cyclist could be prosecuted?

Car_54

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The amber gambling van and pavement cyclists were added as observations.

The cyclists could have been fingerprinted and crb checked and the results added to the cyclists criminality but as the study was about ignoring red lights and not an attempt to criminalise cyclists this was not done.

There is no need to "criminalise" the cyclists. By breaking the law they automatically become criminals, albeit unconvicted.

Car_54

Cornucopia wrote: »

Is there an actual offence for which a cyclist could be prosecuted?

If you (and the cyclists) read the Highway Code, you would find that failure to obey traffic lights is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Cornucopia

Car_54 wrote: »

If you (and the cyclists) read the Highway Code, you would find that failure to obey traffic lights is an offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Thanks for that.

The penalty is 3 points on a Driving Licence, though?

I think I can see the problem.