You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My view is that many urban bike riders see themselves as pedestrians on bikes. They treat red lights as a pedestrian would. I.e. You can ignore it if you wish and cross having made your own choice. Red lights are for things with engines.
Never thought of it like this but that does make sense of some of the behaviours in an urban environment.
Personally, I don't jump them as I think people who ride bikes get a bad enough name as it is without playing to stereotypes.
Stop at red lights – unless I can see it’s clear to go through.
Much the same as when I’m in a car.
Seems pointless waiting to give traffic coming opposite direction the right of way – if there is no traffic there.
No need for traffic lights if we all take that view
Seeing more and more of this , what’s your thoughts on it ?
Unless you include your location then such a statement is meaningless. My experience is that in London, it's common. In other cities, it happens and pretty much everywhere else, it's non-existent.
Living here in semi-rural West Yorkshire, I can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist blatantly jump a red light - it just doesn't seem to happen that often. A big difference here is that there is a massive club cycling scene, but perhaps less of the "road warrior" types that you would see in London, so the culture is different. That's not to say that there aren't other friction points between cyclists and motorists, but red lights aren't one of them.
If anyone would care to read RNPR Traffic Note 8 Proportion of Cyclists Who Violate Red Lights in London, please do, I am very proud of my contribution to it (not really I was 25 at the time and it bored me to tears).. it’s nearly 11 years old though. Jesus times flies when you are waiting at red lights
• The majority of cyclists (84%) obey red traffic lights.
• Violation is not endemic, but 1 in 6 (16%) of cyclists do jump a red light, and at
this level may encourage more to do so in the future.
• A much greater number of men cycle during the morning and evening peaks.
When a comparison is made of the behaviour of male and female cyclists it
can be concluded that men are slightly more likely to violate red lights (17%
compared to 13%).
• In general cyclists who ride through red lights are more likely to do so whilst
travelling straight ahead at a junction. They are least likely to do so when
turning right.
• Red light violations are most common by cyclists travelling towards central
London in the morning, and away from central London in the evening.
Good points and they fit my observations of 10 yrs ago except the part I bolded...
The overall stats are in this just stats... because if you are a pedestrian or other road user who are using roads or crossing roads in this peak what you see are not the overall but what you see.
My observations at the time were not only did other cyclist jumping red lights influence future behaviour (as in the next day/week) but hugely influenced the behaviour right then. This is no different from perfectly normal people who follow pack mentality at or after football matches as humans it's easy to be carried around by a herd or pack whilst actually thinking we are being individuals.
If of the first 20 bikes 15 jump the red light then the chance of the 21st jumping it seems hugely increased, if the first 10 all stop then there seems far more chance most of the next 10 also stop.
Not to mention the swearing and cursing at the cyclists who 'inconsiderately' do stop... and get in the way of those who are setting up to sprint the red light between cars coming in from the sides.
But we’d always have the higher ground and therefore smug factor!
That doesn't actually help anyone though. In fact it's exactly the kind of justification people give themselves for hating us.
Everyone should be on the same ground and treating each other like human beings.
In this country. In modern Britain. We're objects. Just like a car.
“one in four (24 per cent) of motorists admit to having driven through a red light in the past 12 months — equivalent to 9.3 million motorists”
It depends how you read howsyourdad1's statement as to how comparable yours is. I read it as either 1 in 6 cyclists will run red lights as a matter of course or (very similar but different) 1 in 6 bicycles approaching a red light will jump it rather than stop. I might be understanding it wrong but that is a very significantly higher number of incidences than your statistic. It is born out in reality too - spend any time in London and attempt to count the number of car and bikes you see red light jumping and I guarantee you will have used all your fingers and toes up a number of times before you see the first car/bus/lorry doing the same.
When it comes down to it, if you’re not going to abide by the laws of the road, you don’t really have any right to moan about others breaking the law, regardless of what vehicle they happen to be in/on.
From a public perception PoV this is equally valid because far more people are pedestrians and/or drive than cycle.
Ultimately though we/cyclists are sending conflicting messages .. because we want special rules for cyclists and perception is the people crying out that drivers shouldn't be in such a hurry and a slightly longer commute is fine <span style="text-decoration: underline;">seem</span> to be the ones who think saving 5-10 minutes on a commute is of the upmost importance.
It depends how you read howsyourdad1’s statement as to how comparable yours is.
Absolutely correct, I was hoping the difference wouldn't go unnoticed 🙂
Like most things, it's a far more complex matter than most people and most statements acknowledge. For instance, much relates to opportunity to jump the light: for vehicles with more than two wheels, as soon as one person stops it normally prevents anyone else with more than two wheels from passing (explanation one, explanation two).
It is born out in reality too – spend any time in London and attempt to count the number of car and bikes you see red light jumping and I guarantee you will have used all your fingers and toes up a number of times before you see the first car/bus/lorry doing the same.
My perception of London traffic suggests roughly the same. But out here in Surrey and Hampshire my perception is that this situation tends to be reversed: partly because the ratio of motor vehicles to bicycles is quite different, but also because you don't gain much if anything by going through red lights round here: there's nowhere near such a density of them, so any savings are minimal in the context of any given journey. In fact in many cases there's nothing to be gained by even filtering: you get through on the next change anyway.
On a slight tangent, here's some bonus entertainment of motorists giving all motorists a bad name, throwing away their moral superiority, blah blah blah...
https://twitter.com/metrouk/status/951166083918114816
I wasnt aware that cycling was about moral superiority. I thought it was a means of transportation and entertainment. Isnt religion, veganism or (more effectively) charitable work what is normally used to get a sense of moral superiority.
Are you for real? Very many cyclists float around in a haze of smug self-congratulatory moral superiority and piety. Many of the posts on fora like this are about cyclists' moral superiority over lazy, unfit, polluting motorists.
Are you for real? Very many cyclists float around in a haze of smug self-congratulatory moral superiority and piety. Many of the posts on fora like this are about cyclists’ moral superiority over lazy, unfit, polluting motorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_attribution_error
For me I stop at red lights and wait. Share the roads and all that. Also how can you expect drivers to give us some respect if we ignore the laws they should follow. In reality it may not work but I hope it does in some minor way.
Struggling to see if that red light complies with .s 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and thats why everyone goes through it. I imagine those drivers were thinking the same, as they all know Regulation 10 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifies which signs come under s.36 . So I guess we have to of course refer to regulation 35. But i'll be damned reg 35 provides for "Portable light signals for the control of vehicular traffic". So as long as they comply with the requirements of Reg 35 they are enforceable under s. 36.
now, the elephant in the room is of course the 1994 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions , which gave portable temporary lights at road works and temporary road traffic control schemes equal validity with permanent lights and signs.
So i've answered my own question. Cheers.
.
Nights at home with you must be riveting! 😉
The country is suffering from an epidemic of people not facing up to their responsibilities.
But we’d always have the higher ground and therefore smug factor!
That doesn’t actually help anyone though. In fact it’s exactly the kind of justification people give themselves for hating us.
OK, smug factor isn't the right thing to say, but I'd rather know i'm doing it correctly when others start the anti-cyclist bore-a-thon.
how can you expect drivers to give us some respect if we ignore the laws they should follow.
I really don't think that is what leads to the lack of respect. A cyclist is just seen as an inconvenience to a lot of drivers, someone who is getting in their way. Also, those same motorists are ignoring the laws they should follow too (mainly speeding laws)
For the record I commute through North London and in 11 years the proportion of red light jumpers is probably the same, but the volume has increased and the volume adjusts people's perceptions of jumping getting worse.
I've noticed that jumpers favour pedestrian crossings more than junctions / crossroads probably because of the perceived danger to themselves.
I've tried to talk to jumpers about it and either get ignored, given an excuse or told that it's none of my business. Not one person has talked about doing it with the aim of getting the rules changed...
but I’d rather know i’m doing it correctly when others start the anti-cyclist bore-a-thon.
I'm hardwired the same way, but the reality is that it's purely an exercise of self-satisfaction: experience suggests that no-one whose mindset accepts the non-logic of "I saw some people on bikes jump a light therefore there is a group called cyclists and they all jump lights" will be swayed by the fact that you, I, or anyone else doesn't. Not one. People who take that view simply cannot comprehend the total lack of connection (beyond just happening to have a bicycle) between two people who just happen to have bicycles. It's presumably a curious combination of group attribution bias, confirmation bias and loss aversion: the third of these means people are scared to release the opinions they've formed through the first and cemented through the second.
On my commute there is a junction that I regularly jump.
Its a wide, busy crossroad and I'm turning right. Traffic lights are 2 phases for traffic and 1 phase for pedestrians. The phasing is E/W traffic, N/S traffic, green man. I'm on the west side turning right to head south.
If the lights are red I stop ahead of the last car (sometimes past the ASL, sometime in it). I can see the green man opposite so I wait until the green man goes red, count to three and then go. This give me a head start and enough time to get across the junction before the light changes to green in my lane and the cars move off
I know this is breaking the law but I don't care. I do it every time, its better for everyone. Cars in the right hand lane behind don't have a cyclist in front of them. I don't have to hang about in the junction hoping no one runs into me. I don't have to nip across at the last minute because traffic crossing from the opposite direction has kept driving through the red light.
If there was a dedicated phase for turning right, then i'd wait, like I do at another junction on my commute - and all the other lights where I'm riding straight across the junction
but the volume has increased
Perhaps time to adjust the lights/get rid of them/ make changes that suit all road users...! I haven't worked in london for 5 years now but old colleagues have told me people riding bikes (dont like the word cyclists really) exceed MVs at many road junctons now.
I cycle through Chesterfield to get to work, during normal waking/ working hours when people and cars are around I stop at red lights. As I work shifts, when I'm heading in at 4.30am or home at 1 or 2am, if there is no one around and I have good visibility all around I generally ride through them. Shockingly if there is on the very odd occasion a lonely person that has triggered a crossing on a deserted street, if that individual is safely on the pavement I will pass through the light even if it is on red. I hardly consider myself a rebel and I've never had an issue or confrontation with anyone in 20 odd year's of doing so. I guess the issues are more polarised in cities like London where folk are putting themselves and other's at risk.
Not a red light but I used to regularly(*) cycle the wrong way up a one-way street cos the alternative was a significant detour on busy roads.
Eventually the council saw the light and installed a contra-flow cycle lane. At a stroke, my cycling changed from a heinous crime to entirely safe and appropriate, all thanks to a stripe of paint.
*(it was quite rare really, just when I cycled to Chester, maybe once a month at most. For those interested, it was the short lane heading north from the library etc, no more than 100 yards on a road that was barely used. The alternative was to work your way though the bus station - dangerous enough in itself - and on to the busy two-lane ring road)
I wouldn't worry about it.
My shop is on a crossroads and it's red plus at least one car.
We had a young girl get knocked over while she was "safely crossing " on the 12 second beeps.
According to the cops it's a council issue.
Do what the **** you like but don't be a minute late back to your car.
I guess the issues are more polarised in cities like London where folk are putting themselves and other’s at risk.
Partly that, but, perhaps more pertinently, "London, where many national journalists are based and where commercial drivers with dashcams tend to latch onto anything that superficially shores up an existing opinion that assigning road space to pedal cycles is a bad thing".
Partly that, but, perhaps more pertinently, “London, where many national journalists are based and where commercial drivers with dashcams tend to latch onto anything that superficially shores up an existing opinion that assigning road space to pedal cycles is a bad thing”.
In fairness, from helmet cam footage I've seen, there's a fair amount of cyclists doing the same thing.
Conclusion, Londoners are mentalists! 😆
Up here, in the civilised world, we generally get on fine! 😆
In fairness, from helmet cam footage I’ve seen, there’s a fair amount of cyclists doing the same thing.
For sure. Such a densely light-controlled and congested area not only offers the greatest reward for going through a red, but inevitably by sheer numbers it also has the greatest visibility through cameras and anecdotes. It's a perfect storm: Londoners aren't a different species, they're broadly the same random assortment of human qualities as anywhere, it's just that the environment both elicits and illuminates different behaviour from those same qualities.
I stop at a red light pedestrian crossing in my car even when there's no one on the crossing, patiently waiting, as do 90% of other people. There's no reason why you shouldn't do the same on a bike. That said the percentage of riders jumping the lights is about the same as drivers, in my experience.
Though I can see what's going on when in race mode and "in the zone". It's the same with runners at junctions. Numerous times I'm in a car (or even on the bike), turning into a junction, and a runner on the foot path reaching the crossing point and clearly doesn't want to stop and break their pace so will cross regardless of traffic. Some riders may feel the same, plus there's the "hassle" of having to unclip 😉
Anyway, did the OP think they were in the Daily Mail comments section?
You think if every cyclist (“person on a bike”) suddenly started cycling entirely completely legally – not on the pavement, never jumped a light, always indicated, had correct pedal reflectors – that suddenly every motorist would show more respect?!
Because that’s total utter bollocks.
Of course not but it's also about not giving the cycle haters any ammunition, targets and justification for their vitriol. Because it might not make a difference is a piss poor reason not to obey the rules of the road like other road users.
I’m hardwired the same way, but the reality is that it’s purely an exercise of self-satisfaction: experience suggests that no-one whose mindset accepts the non-logic of “I saw some people on bikes jump a light therefore there is a group called cyclists and they all jump lights” will be swayed by the fact that you, I, or anyone else doesn’t. Not one.
I don't think that is at all true because it depends what people see,
Regardless there will be a hardcore of cyclists who hate drivers and pedestrians who hate everyone etc.
My perception of London traffic suggests roughly the same. But out here in Surrey and Hampshire my perception is that this situation tends to be reversed:
Which is where a lot of perceptions lie.... and also the legislation!
I have watched tens of cyclists run a single red light forcing traffic coming in on green to stop and the small percentage who stop who stop have abuse hurled a them... that is a completely different perception to seeing tens of cyclists stop and one or two jump the light.
This wasn't a one off.... this happened pretty much every weekday morning and evening.
A lot of those cyclists would probably not do this outside of this time and place, quite a few quite probably didn't want to be were more scared of trying to fight the flow of bikes to stop they were caught up in.
The difference in perception is that for most the drivers and pedestrians one of these is all cyclists except the minority and the other is a few idiots.
Most people only need to witness one extreme example to form opinions that are then hard to change but not impossible ... yes some will not change ever but that less important than a general perception.
I stop at a red light pedestrian crossing in my car even when there’s no one on the crossing, patiently waiting, as do 90% of other people.
Which can be rephrased as, "10% of people in cars ignore red lights on pedestrian crossings".
Numerous times I’m in a car (or even on the bike), turning into a junction, and a runner on the foot path reaching the crossing point and clearly doesn’t want to stop and break their pace so will cross regardless of traffic.
Maybe they're simply aware of Rule 170 in the Highway Code.
London, where many national journalists are based and where commercial drivers with dashcams tend to latch onto anything that superficially shores up an existing opinion that assigning road space to pedal cycles is a bad thing
Yeah, I agree with that. But I have to say I was sat having a late afternoon pint outside a pub in Islington a couple of weeks ago and I was surprised by both the number of cyclists and how poor the behaviour of the majority of them was. It was a bit of an eye opener to me. The behaviour of the majority of car drivers was also poor, but I tend to expect that.
<span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Do I stop at red lights - Yes.</span>
Do I have lights on my bike - Yes.
Do I have a bell - Yes.
Do I wear a helmet - Yes.
Do I have insurance - Yes.
Do I pay road tax - Yes (I also own a car which at any point i'm using the bike, isn't on the road).
Do I still get abuse, aggression and disdain - Yes!
What more can you do?
Do I pay road tax – Yes
*Family Fortunes buzzer*
"Numerous times I’m in a car (or even on the bike), turning into a junction, and a runner on the foot path reaching the crossing point and clearly doesn’t want to stop and break their pace so will cross regardless of traffic"
I think in that situation, if you're turning into a side street, the pedestrian may have priority, depending on timing (rule 170). Another rule honoured more in the breach, particularly by motorists, because might is right and pedestrians have been cowed into submission.
I'm sorry but I don't buy this whole argument for "Cyclists" collective reputation somehow being damaged by a small proportion of individuals behaviour, and that we all have some responsibility for the wider perception of everyone else on a bicycle... people form their opinions from a variety of sources, one person skipping a light can't be held up as justification for the sort of abuse that some drivers want it to justify.
There isn't really a "community" of cycling commuters, there are people who ride bikes to/from work but that's really where most common ground stops. Just like there isn't really a "Community" of car commuters, or van drivers, there are large numbers of people who use motor vehicles for transport...
The truth is the simmering hatred for people on bicycles is there in a proportion of all tin-boxers for whatever reason, and whether or not those 1 in 6 RLJers feed a little confirmation bias, the irrational dislike will still be there...
People basically know when they break the rules whatever their mode of transport, most people will respond with a tut, strictly speaking the only group that should actually take it any further are the police...
Manchester is quite amazing for cars going through reds, I'm convinced that taxi firms use Steve McQueen as an inhouse driving instructor. the junction of Bury New Rd and Trinity Way by the arena is a doozy
I sometimes (rare) turn left through a red if it gets me away from a queue of cars on my rear wheel. I no longer get upset about people riding bikes on a pavement because the roads are full 24x7 and there is no safe provision (until the beelines start happening in Manchester).
sweeping generalisations about people in cars and vans is as common on here as 'cyclists' on petrolheads I would bet. How often do we see comments about White vans, beemers who don't indicate, audi's driving too fast...
the irrational dislike will still be there…
Yes, but running red lights is such an easy thing for the anti-cycling lobby to trot out and get support from the public on. And unlike riding primary or two abreast or in a group, running a red light is black and white - it's breaking the law, it's obvious when you do it and it's easily measurable (e.g. 1 out of 6). If we are campaigning for safer, better, more active travel, red light jumping is handing the anti-cyclists bullets.
In the modern world we do not fight facts, we fight perceptions.
I haven't scanned the thread fully so apologies if it has been said before, but I often see cyclists take to the pavement when going "left on red", then reverting to the road having completed the manoeuvre. Thus swapping one offence (running a red light) with another (cycling on the pavement).
The country is suffering from an epidemic of people not facing up to their responsibilities.
Has been for years. People bleating about their rights but unwilling to accept that with rights come responsibilities (most importantly upholding other people's rights).
cyclists take to the pavement when going “left on red”, then reverting to the road having completed the manoeuvre
I quite like the ones who have one foot on a pedal and the other pushing on the floor like it's a scooter and that somehow makes it different / allowable.
If we are campaigning for safer, better, more active travel, red light jumping is handing the anti-cyclists bullets. In the modern world we do not fight facts, we fight perceptions.
It's getting like the Wiggins fan club in here.
You won't fight the perceptions of bigots. Far better to acknowledge the problems they refer to, and use them as reason to justify the actual solution; which in this case is the exact thing you (and Wiggins) think the behaviour undermines.
https://singletrackmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/the-rise-of-the-idiots/
I’m sorry but I don’t buy this whole argument for “Cyclists” collective reputation somehow being damaged by a small proportion of individuals behaviour, and that we all have some responsibility for the wider perception of everyone else on a bicycle… people form their opinions from a variety of sources, one person skipping a light can’t be held up as justification for the sort of abuse that some drivers want it to justify.
?????
So lets break that down .. cyclist ignores red light causing a motorist to have to stop or swerve
People basically know when they break the rules whatever their mode of transport, most people will respond with a tut, strictly speaking the only group that should actually take it any further are the police…
So are you saying the cyclist needs a registration plate so they can be reported and identified?
anyway he reports said unidentified cyclist to the police... the tell him to stop wasting their time as there is nothing they can do and even if they knew the identity of the cyclist nothing will happen anyway
anyway continuing ....
25 other cyclist run the same red light
next day .. A DIFFERENT cyclist ignores red light causing the same motorist to have to stop or swerve
... again he tut's and reports it to the police who tell him to get lost as there is nothing they can do.
The driver puts up with this for a year, maybe 5... maybe 10 then one day a cyclist runs a red light and he winds down his window and shouts suicidal tosser.... he might not have to brake or swerve .. he's just sick of self entitled **** wits who think they can run red lights and everyone else has to adjust and risk accidents around them
even if they knew the identity of the cyclist nothing will happen anyway
Have you tried seeing what the police do when you phone them up to say "I saw XY12ABC go through a red light yesterday"?
25 other cyclist run the same red light
THAT'S NUMBERWANG
next day .. A DIFFERENT cyclist ignores red light causing the same motorist to have to stop or swerve
Literally happens with that regularity, yeah?
The driver puts up with this for a year, maybe 5… maybe 10 then one day a cyclist runs a red light and he winds down his window and shouts suicidal tosser…
I don't think anyone on here is arguing that that's an entirely unreasonable response. Shouting at someone going through a red light is (broadly speaking) understandable.
The point that people are making is that to assume that you or I ride through red lights *is* an unreasonable response. To close-pass you or me because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and clearly dangerous) response. To say that we shouldn't build any infrastructure to cycle on because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and, in actual fact, completely counter-productive) response.
Surely the difference is fairly clear?
and it’s easily measurable (e.g. 1 out of 6)
Aside from when it is actually measured the figures are far lower than what the mouth breathers claim. However when that minor detail is mentioned it is always ignored. As are casual queries about why councils bother with red light cameras for the whiter than white drivers and what is the meaning of an amber light.
Given its just an excuse I really cant get to upset about when cyclists disobey it especially in those cases where drivers ignore the measures put in as an alternative. Although admittedly I do sometimes think they should just train harder since it often ends up being.
Overtake slow person.
Reach red lights and stop.
See them sail past through them.
Rinse and repeat.
Maybe they’re simply aware of Rule 170 in the Highway Code.
I think in that situation, if you’re turning into a side street, the pedestrian may have priority, depending on timing (rule 170). Another rule honoured more in the breach, particularly by motorists, because might is right and pedestrians have been cowed into submission.
The example in my case comes under "If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way" and they haven't started to cross so the priority doesn't exist. The pedestrian will typically wait (except the smartphone zombies), the runner can't stop.
In the US this comes under jaywalking. I've accidentally not noticed someone stepping off a "sidewalk" at a junction while enjoying the right turn on a red light rule over there and got abuse hurled at me "hey, I'm walking here!" (in a yank accent). The instant their foot is on the road, they have RoW. Unless it's a controlled crossing though, if they're not on the road they cannot step on the road unless there's no traffic coming. They have a law for it with pedestrians getting a fine for jaywalking, but we don't in the UK.
They have a law for it with pedestrians getting a fine for jaywalking, but we don’t in the UK.
Correct, so don't run people over, m'kay? What's the problem?
stevextc what about the mirror situation where cyclists see drivers doing what you are describing (at considerably higher danger)?
It’s getting like the Wiggins fan club in here.Far better to acknowledge the problems they refer to, and use them as reason to justify the actual solution; which in this case is the exact thing you (and Wiggins) think the behaviour undermines.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Was this just a segue to your article?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Was this just a segue to your article?
No, the link was there in the hope that it might save me having to repeat the point here.
Clearly that hope was misplaced, so:
The idea that "someone jumped a light therefore all cyclists are scum" (or whatever variant you feel is appropriate) is idiotic enough on its own, but the suggestion that this is a reason to refuse to provide infrastructure is completely misguided.
People display "idiotic" (bad, silly, whatever adjective you prefer) behaviour. All of us, to a greater or lesser extent. Sometimes purely accidentally, sometimes through negligence, sometimes wilfully or even maliciously.
But that's human nature. You won't stop it. (Just as you won't stop the "therefore all cyclists are scum" non-logic either.) The way to address it is to minimise the problems it causes: you don't want people exhibiting these "idiotic" behaviours at the wheel of a ton or two of metal, and you don't want them exhibiting the same behaviours in any vehicle on the pavement where people should rightly expect to walk in safety.
So the fact that idiotic behaviour exists is a very good reason to apply an engineering solution. Indeed, this is proven in the real world: Copenhagen (and, IIRC, other locations) have shown that when people get infrastructure that better supports cycling, they don't break the rules anything like as much, because there's far less reward for doing so.
That was what I was getting at.
...may be starting to see this in London. When I commuted pre-congestion zone: Hackney Rd/Bishop's gate/London Bridge/Elephant it was mainly gridlocked. I was vaguely resentful of red-light jumpers when I started, but soon got into the swing - can't honestly see why a car driver'd want me there taking up road when I could be long gone... Folks who waited at reds tended to be those who fancied a bit of a race. Which is fine too, of course.
But these days with ten times more bikes and filter lanes etc, I think the balance has swung so sailing through red past a crowd of people waiting on bikes would feel more of an infraction.
So lets break that down .. cyclist ignores red light causing a motorist to have to stop or swerve
Who said anything about riding through red lights in a manner likely to cause a motorist to stop or swerve? The post title is about cycling through red lights full stop (no pun intended). I've been riding through red lights for years (more than 50) and I've never caused the slightest inconvenience to anybody, other than maybe the driver that has a problem with somebody moving through traffic quicker than him (it's usually a him). I rode through a red pedestrian crossing light twice today, but only once the crossing was clear. Doing so gives me a head start on the cars that seem hell-bent on overtaking me regardless of the road conditions. I'd not dream of doing the same in a car because a car takes up a huge chunk of the road, is hugely unmanoeuvrable and is capable of doing much more damage than a bike. I don't condone cyclists riding fast through lights without looking but I do condone riding through red lights with due care. Forget pandering to the idiot "you don't pay road tax" brigade as you've already lost them - they don't think logically and have probably never ridden a bike on the road in their lives. At one time every motorist would have ridden a bike at some time in their lives, to school, or around the streets as a kid, or even to work, but that went years ago and many now see bikes as intruders onto the place designed for cars. It won't change for a long time (if at all).
Literally happens with that regularity, yeah?
Where I used to work this happened from 8-9 and 4-6 every day ...
THAT’S NUMBERWANG
25 is a massive under estimation to how many cyclists ran a single red light.... (as in before it changed again not per hour or per day).
Cars and other traffic were literally forced to stop due to the stream of cyclists running the red light. This happened every weekday... Can't be far from the Islington pub someone mentioned exactly the same thing.
The point that people are making is that to assume that you or I ride through red lights *is* an unreasonable response.
I don't know if it's unreasonable... it's a very HUMAN response to seeing something that appears endemic.
As I alluded to earlier the behaviour patterns are close to football hooliganism... in the not to distant past.
Is it reasonable to think every England fan is only going to a football match to get into a fight?
Not really but it's human nature because plenty of people wearing certain football tops pretty much set a perception...most people simply want to be able to walk down the high street etc. without being beaten senseless.
Other countries hosting football didn't want English fans... quite happy we buy their weed and screw their prostitutes but please don't come wearing your England/Millwall shirt... (Obviously the message was a bit different in places other than Holland)
The point really is 200-300 louts acting consistently at a match with 50,000
In some places red light running is endemic.. it's dome as far as I could see just for the thrill... or because commuters are racing... but it drags in a far wider group....
Once the first 4-5 force the cars on green to stop... it's like the others at the football match.
To close-pass you or me because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and clearly dangerous) response.
Yes.... but essentially its human nature....
To say that we shouldn’t build any infrastructure to cycle on because someone else rode through a red light *is* an unreasonable (and, in actual fact, completely counter-productive) response.
Its an entirely reasonable response if that is what most of your electorate think...it's short sighted but it isn't counter productive to being re-elected. It doesn't even matter if it's true or not.. on one hand you can spend some money on a minority and on the other you save it.. most politicians really don't give two hoots if its counter-productive or not.
Where I used to work this happened from 8-9 and 4-6 every day … 25 is a massive under estimation
Fair enough. I've personally never seen anything remotely like it, not in London and most certainly not outside it, but that's not to say it doesn't happen. But you presumably recognise that it's an extreme example…?
I don’t know if it’s unreasonable… it’s a very HUMAN response to seeing something that appears endemic.
OK, let's not get into the semantics of "unreasonable". Yes, it's a very human response. Humans are prey to a multitude of cognitive biases which means that their decisions and (especially) their opinions are not well reasoned. This is what I mean by unreasonable: if Person X goes through a red light, the assumption or assertion that Person Y goes through red lights is without reason.
but the suggestion that this is a reason to refuse to provide infrastructure is completely misguided
Ok, I get your point now. I'm not suggesting that it's a reason on its own but isn't it conflated with logical fallacies like 'bicycle lanes cause pollution' to create barriers to approval for engineered solutions. I appreciate that I may also be misguided in this regard.
For sure. Some people have economic interests that are genuinely impacted by cycling (fewer car sales to city dwellers, for example); some have fears that their interests will be impacted by cycling (shopkeepers who assume that loss of car access will reduce trade, even though studies show that it normally results in the reverse); some simply hate cycling; any of them wanting to influence others will leap on things which make cycling look bad, because those things superficially support their arguments. As humans we're easily led and we don't have the time to sit down and have counter-intuitive realities explained to us for every subject we come across in our lives: we all generalise, and we're all massively susceptible to influence. Brandolini's Law is effectively a pithy summary of this.
if this is ever going to change then we need, as a group, to cycle responsibly and legally
No, my right to respect and safety is not dependent on how other cyclists behave.
I've challenged people who have tried this line of argument about "all cyclists" before, and asked them what the behaviour of the other cyclists had to do with me. They backed off because they couldn't actually justify their stupid argument.
Although admittedly I do sometimes think they should just train harder since it often ends up being.
Overtake slow person.
Reach red lights and stop.
See them sail past through them.
Rinse and repeat.
Or they could just go through red lights when it's safe, and still get there at the same time with less effort. They're commuting, not racing.
It's a total BS justification that it gives cyclists a bad reputation, and every single person I know that has made this argument in real life has gone through a red light because "no that's not what they mean by red light jumping". I can't comment on people on this thread, but I assume this is true of the vast majority.
I jump red lights when it's definitely safe. Or when I'm half asleep and make a mistake and go through a red. I would say I wait at the majority of the lights I get to. If anyone challenges me on this I'm quite happy to explain why I do it (it's pointless waiting when there's no traffic coming or pedestrians corssing, in general it's nicer to get away before the cars rather than have a mad squeeze past you as everyone accelerates, and on some particular junctions where I turn right it's downright dangerous not to as cars end up passing within inches of you in excess of the speed limit in both directions - and add to that that many lights don't even change for cyclists...). Considering running red lights also means that when it goes green I haven't just been sat there assuming that traffic coming the other way will stop. And as for cars vs bikes running red lights, the only study I'm aware of pointed out that a higher proportion of cars that have the opportunity to run red lights do so than bikes (i.e. most cars can't as the cars in front are stopped.).
Someone far higher up the thread suggested that parents wouldn't teach their kids to run red lights. And of course not - in the same way that I'll teach them to wait for a green man at a pedestrian crossing, but won't expect them to do so when they are older and capable of making a reasonable judgement.
To summarize, cars run people over and kill and maim them every ****ing day, why the **** do we have a thread every 3 months on cyclists running red lights? Why for that matter is it fine for cars to go on the pavement to park but nipping onto the pavement for a couple of metres on a bike is a heinous crime too?
What's the actual issue here? This isn't whataboutery, it's priorities. And cyclists that dangerously jump red lights remove themselves from the road by definition. So go ride some trails, if you want to find out why bikes run red lights look at the reasons I've put above, and consider that some people just do it without any consideration too. And that's fine, they don't hurt anyone but themselves.
OK, let’s not get into the semantics of “unreasonable”. Yes, it’s a very human response. Humans are prey to a multitude of cognitive biases which means that their decisions and (especially) their opinions are not well reasoned. This is what I mean by unreasonable: if Person X goes through a red light, the assumption or assertion that Person Y goes through red lights is without reason.
It's beyond human... it's actually something for most higher life that can reason to some extent.
It's why some species survived and other's didn't.. especially those (like humans) that were prey.
Baby Bambi hears a rustle in the trees and next minute some carnivore has mum by the throat... If baby bambi is to survive then they need to extrapolate that rustling bushes preclude being killed...not make a reasoned response.
90% or more of their life they will be jumping at the wind... but that 10% or less is what gives their genes a better chance of survival.
What this translates into is if I have seen enough cyclists riding the wrong way.... running red lights etc. to extrapolate - I assume most cyclists will behave suicidally because unless I do the 10% will end up with not me being hurt (if I'm in a car) but them.. is it based on reason depends on my assumption???
What do you assume if a football comes out into the road between parked cars? More often than not nothing happens next... but the assumption a child will be chasing it is a good one.. even if you're wrong 90% of the time. What do cars do when they stop in roadside parking... most look behind before opening a door (if only because it could be a car) but when I'm riding I assume they will open the door in my face...
If 1:10 cyclists do something like running the light then statistically given an infinite pool the chance of the next cyclist running the red light is still 1:10...
What however if statistics say if 5 cyclists have already run the red light then the chance of the 6th cyclist is much higher... so that is a different way to look at what's "reasonable"...
The point and perhaps more the HUMAN part ... we as humans focus on the reasons our actions were correct. I doubt bambi gives much thought to panicking at a breath of wind or jumping when another deer lifts its tail... but as humans we will seek to justify our caution.
In this we can forget facts... it might be that our observations are at certain times of day for example... but we make unreasoned emotional decisions.
My experience of commuting in and out of London by train is pretty poor... it was also the Sophies choice...
Its not reasonable to extend this to all rail journeys but the idea of rail journeys fills me with "bad feeling". Despite in my youth having some great experiences... A couple of times at the weekend I've taken the kid to London... and the journey itself has been quite pleasant but it would take a LOT of these to change my emotional perception of rail journeys in general... I realise that's unreasoned... but it doesn't actually change how I feel about a trip on a train.
My response to a cyclist approaching a red light when I'm driving or cycling is an expectation they will jump the light... its a "safe assumption"... and its reasoned on the consequences of getting it wrong.
My expectation of a cyclist running a red light in general (sat typing now) ... I can't entirely separate (unreasoned as it is) from my "safe assumption".... I could pretend otherwise but it wouldn't be really true...
Here is a exercise in reasoning.... (I actually did with my kid recently) .. take a BIG sledge hammer and some rope... secure the sledge hammer so it swings in an arc and touches your chin... stand very still and drop the sledge hammer in an arc and then let it swing back and just touch your chin...
Reasoning and physics tells me it can't swing higher than it started (unless there is a freak earthquake).. first time you do it though you still cringe a bit... it's a completely unreasoned emotional response ...you can make stronger if you for example drop the hammer onto a coconut first...
Why does that matter?
Politicians don't give two hoots if a public response is reasoned or not but if its an emotional response then they can manipulate into a public perception that works for them.
Overtake slow person.
Reach red lights and stop.
See them sail past through them.
Watch them get squished by truck.
A fascinating bunch of imaginary Scenarios and whataboutery...
But you're still starting from the premise that somehow cyclist hating motorists have a legitimate justification because they've seen/heard about a few cyclists RLJing... They don't they can object to those individuals in the moment I suppose but really what they're doing is using an anecdote to support their own bias and irrational hatred...
We (people who happen to use bicycles) are not all representatives of some group known as "Cyclists"... I take no responsibility for anyone else's conduct on a bicycle but my own (OK and maybe my kids until they're a bit older).
Just like the minority of mobile yapping, inattentive drivers I (still) see are not representative of all people who happen to hold a driving licence.
You really shouldn't cave into the urge to label/abuse/berate all people who happen to take part in a certain activity based on the actions of a few individuals, and you shouldn't legitimise the "Complaints" of people who do so either...
So yeah, some people on bicycles ride through red lights, it's definitely happened... That's interesting I suppose, I hope they don't come to any harm but it's their choice, what more is there really to say?
I’ve been riding through red lights for years (more than 50) and I’ve never caused the slightest inconvenience to anybody
That could almost be someone talking about how they’ve been speeding in their car for 50 years and never caused an accident. A sample of 1 means nothing in either situation. It’s the impact of the collective behaviour that’s the problem
We (people who happen to use bicycles) are not all representatives of some group known as “Cyclists”…
In the perception of the general public you don't get to choose...
But you’re still starting from the premise that somehow cyclist hating motorists have a legitimate justification because they’ve seen/heard about a few cyclists RLJing
It doesn't matter a jot if its legitimate in terms of providing funds for infrastructure or legislation... it can be an out and out lie but if enough of the electorate can be convinced it's true it doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter of the electorate REALLY believe it's true in most cases just that it fits their perceptions.
It doesn’t matter a jot if its legitimate in terms of providing funds for infrastructure or legislation… it can be an out and out lie but if enough of the electorate can be convinced it’s true it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter of the electorate REALLY believe it’s true in most cases just that it fits their perceptions.
Sorry, I've not been reading all the factoids in this thread, is this actually happening? Is cycling infrastructure funding being withheld until all people on bikes behave themselves?
if this is ever going to change then we need, as a group, to cycle responsibly and legally
No, my right to respect and safety is not dependent on how other cyclists behave.
I’ve challenged people who have tried this line of argument about “all cyclists” before, and asked them what the behaviour of the other cyclists had to do with me. They backed off because they couldn’t actually justify their stupid argument.
I agree, however this doesn't seem to be how it works in practice. Our right to respect and safety, as individuals, shouldn't be dependent on how other cyclists behave but I believe that in actuality and in some instances it is. A number of road users base their dislike of, and lack of consideration for, cyclists on a generalisation (based on a few instances) of endemic dangerous cycling. Any number of sensible cyclists are likely to be ignored (if noticed at all), the occasional red light jumper or idiot pulling off a dangerous manaevor on bicycle is likely to be noted angrily and added to the list of justifications for treating cyclists badly; I see no reason to inflame the situation.
Ultimately though, the rules of the road are the rules of the road and all road users (and pedestrians) should abide by them; as cyclists we're no more entitled to flout them than men in white vans or any other sub-group of road users.
I've been shouted at a fair few times for simply being on the road; whether it should or not, I suspect that said loud mouths are (at least in part) justifying their aggression towards me on their experiences with other cyclists.
Sorry, I’ve not been reading all the factoids in this thread, is this actually happening? Is cycling infrastructure funding being withheld until all people on bikes behave themselves?
Funding is being with-held for everything, be it schools, NHS, state pension or cycling infrastructure.
Where available funding goes will be to the places that give the most votes.
Most voters at either local, regional or national levels are going to support shorter queues for operations or school places BEFORE funding a group they perceive to do nothing but make it difficult to drop their kids off at the school that's miles away or drive to the hospital etc. or just be able to park outside their own house.
In their (average voters) perception money was spent on cycling lanes, cyclists don't use them and continue to use the roads without obeying the traffic rules and they can't park outside their own house because its now a cycle lane so they have to walk 10 minutes on their hip that needs replacing to get the car to drive to the hospital for their appointment where they pay for parking out of their state pension using fuel that has been taxed.
A good number of people on this thread have indicated that they basically follow traffic rules if they are convenient. Any non cycling forum on cyclist on roads always ends up with pissed motorists and pedestrians who have to read why cyclists shouldn't follow the same rules as everyone else...
We know why cycle lanes are not used... your average voter doesn't nor do they care. They only care that it delays their bus, too away their parking space etc. and if there is any money then there are way better places to spend it.
Your average voter that sees bikes in a positive way is not thinking about carbon framed weapons but sturdy steel framed bikes with shopping baskets and mud guards... they are not thinking of discussions about why a cyclist wants to exert a right to ride two abreast and hold up a huge queue of traffic... because in their eyes a sensible bid user will pull in ... the whole idea of using the roads to go as fast as possible is the exact opposite to the message being given out to road users... "if you want to drive quickly go to a track".... yet cyclist argue they can't use a cycle path because they can't ride as quickly... or want to ride two abreast etc.
No politician in their right mind is going to allocate money for cycling infrastructure over what the majority of voters demand regardless of if its the right thing or a better long term solution.
I suspect that said loud mouths are (at least in part) justifying their aggression towards me on their experiences with other cyclists.
I don't think so. I think it's a territorial kind of thing. Even if all cyclists were super-strict at obeying the rules, they would still be yelled at.
I have a friend who cycles around North Carolina; at one time he was probably the only person riding a bike in the entire state, and he still had people throwing bottles at him from passing cars, just because.
No cars, go at pedestrian pace. No cars but cops, stop. Cars, stop.
they are not thinking of discussions about why a cyclist wants to exert a right to ride two abreast and hold up a huge queue of traffic… because in their eyes a sensible bid user will pull in … the whole idea of using the roads to go as fast as possible is the exact opposite to the message being given out to road users… “if you want to drive quickly go to a track”…. yet cyclist argue they can’t use a cycle path because they can’t ride as quickly… or want to ride two abreast etc.
You can see the logical flaw in that scenario though can't you? Cyclists shouldn't "hold up traffic" but somehow also shouldn't complain that (especially in summer) shared use paths are so busy with pedestrians that you just can't ride at a decent speed.
I kind of do think the whole point of road transport in general is to get from A to B quickly, otherwise I could just walk - I'd get there eventually. Bikes, cars, trucks, everything included. The point is however that you have to be reasonable. Don't wanna be held up by bikes 2 abreast? Buy a motorbike that can fit past or choose a route consisting of motorways/wide enough roads to pass such a group. By driving a car you're effectively riding 2 abreast even when alone, and you cause congestion accordingly (which is a real and significant problem, as opposed to the imagined problem of being held up by seconds or at most a minute or two to pass a group of cyclists).
As far as the perception of the general public goes, we should all be riding in the gutter, within easy hitting distance of distracted pedestrians, the majority of potholes and randomly opening car doors. The public needs educating and in the meantime, ****'em. Somebody that gives you hassle because they once saw a bike run a red light - or because they see 50 bikes a day run red lights - or even because they once saw a cyclist cause an accident - are just exhibiting huge levels of selective reasoning to justify their own selfish attitudes.
So just to be clear, nobody is currently citing RLJers as the reason for current funding (or lack thereof) for cycling infrastructure? But you've hypothesised that they might in order to attract the support of dim-witted voters? You've maybe undersold voter's and perhaps misunderstood their priorities (IMO).
I've not yet seen anyone at any level of government campaigning for office with promises to actively penalise cyclists, in fact several seek to associate themselves with bicycle use for the "Green wash" effect.
There is a danger that people pay too much heed to the Echo-boxes (Social Meeja, DM click-bait, etc) and start to think that just because the "Clarksonites" shout loudest via these forum's their voices and views are the only ones influencing things, and that somehow the rest of us need to worry about offending such people's sensibilities in case we end up on their radar. Sorry but Bollox to that...
Well fine, I don't believe the funding you're so concerned about is linked to political pressure from angry "Mondeo men", even if it was by refusing the money for us to "Go Dutch" they're apparently cutting their own noses off to spite their faces as such infrastructure projects promise to cut congestion. journey times and traffic conflict...
You could turn the whole thing on it's head of course next time Mondeo man corners you in the office, and point out that as much as anything RLJing cyclists are a symptom of a poorly functioning transport network, one that's primarily planned around cars and busses rather than including bikes and Pedestrians as a significant consideration.
You could point out that a minority of people on bikes feel it safer to RLJ/amber gamble or simply stop beyond the solid line to stay out of the melee that ensues when a light turns green at certain junctions. You might also point out that elements of segregated infrastructure, adjustments to lanes, signage, traffic lights coupled with improved training for ALL road users could improve the situation and reduce (amongst other things) RLJing...
And point out that whatever they might think, one or two RLJer's don't actually represent everyone who uses a bicycle.
I see all categories of people on bikes running reds from the Lycra and carbon ‘serious’ guys through the plodding BSO commuter to the cool kids.
They’re all wrong and they’re all feeding the hate machine of the car-friendly media, helping to make the roads less safe for everyone.
I’d like to see traffic law enforcement on a zero-tolerance basis for all road users at all times, everywhere.
Good to know you are a fellow Nathan Barley fan Bez
I’d like to see traffic law enforcement on a zero-tolerance basis for all road users at all times, everywhere.
Agreed, but considering road traffic enforcement is just one of the Police's responsibilities and that they need to set priorities (mainly due to funding), before they tackle those RLJers other things could be considered more pressing.
Its maybe worth noting RLJers acount for roughly ~16% of all bicycle users (mostly in that there London it seems), while 23% of drivers apparently still admit to illegal mobile phone use when driving, and apparently mobile phone using drivers kill someone every 10 days or so (35 deaths were recorded in accidents where a driver being distracted or impaired by their phone was a contributory factor in 2016)... Anyone know the figures for RLJing cyclist caused deaths?
Piss boiling aside, are RLJers really the biggest threat to safety on the roads?
So just to be clear, nobody is currently citing RLJers as the reason for current funding (or lack thereof) for cycling infrastructure? But you’ve hypothesised that they might in order to attract the support of dim-witted voters? You’ve maybe undersold voter’s and perhaps misunderstood their priorities (IMO).
No it's not that clear....
Voters don't need to be dim witted to vote for what makes their life better... they just need to be naive to beleive it will happen but people mostly vote FOR something... like reducing queues in NHS... or school places for their kids and not vote for things that make life worse like making it difficult to drive their kids to the school that's miles away due to under funding.
If they don't vote for policy then they vote for what the media that makes the right headlines for them tells them to vote for.
There is a danger that people pay too much heed to the Echo-boxes (Social Meeja, DM click-bait, etc) and start to think that just because the “Clarksonites” shout loudest via these forum’s their voices and views are the only ones influencing things
That would be because they are what influences things... the auto industry and others have a lot of money to 'fuel' the media .. the media love sensational headlines as that drives click bait and click bait drives revenue
Well fine, I don’t believe the funding you’re so concerned about is linked to political pressure from angry “Mondeo men”
Does Grannie cookaa drive a Mondeo ??? Mondeo man is simply a tool to sell more cars and jump on social media ... it's not Mondeo man himself (or Mondeo Woman) that exerts the pressure its the lobbyists that use Mondeo mans quotes and dash cams... to push public opinion into their agenda.
somehow the rest of us need to worry about offending such people’s sensibilities in case we end up on their radar. Sorry but Bollox to that…
Suit yourself but IMHO the real damage to a cycle agenda is NOT the dash cams .. it's the response of cyclists justifying why they don't follow the rules or why they must ride two abreast and why traffic MUST wait for them.
Try any non-cycling community and see how many people SUPPORT RLJ or cycling on pavements or not using an available cycle lane or riding two abreast ... it really doesn't matter how or if these are justified because most voters don't want them because they don't cycle.
Its maybe worth noting RLJers acount for roughly ~16% of all bicycle users (mostly in that there London it seems), while 23% of drivers apparently still admit to illegal mobile phone use when driving, and apparently mobile phone using drivers kill someone every 10 days or so (35 deaths were recorded in accidents where a driver being distracted or impaired by their phone was a contributory factor in 2016)… Anyone know the figures for RLJing cyclist caused deaths?
Piss boiling aside, are RLJers really the biggest threat to safety on the roads?
Piss boiling aside what does that matter to most voters ? The only relevant thing TO THEM is reducing mobile phone usage vehicles... you might as well be giving figures for numbers of vacuum cleaners sold per household in New Zealand vs Iceland... as quote how many cyclist jump red lights or how many deaths it causes.
Agreed, but
But what? You can't seem to accept that feeding the sensationalist car loving mainstream media works out badly for cyclists.
Like I said, I see RLJing bicycle riders as a symptom of dysfunctional road traffic system... It's not in accordance with the rules, I don't personally do it, but I understand some of the reasons why people might choose to RLJ.
It's all well and good to join in and berate a relatively small minority, for helping "Fuel the hate" but that argument in itself legitimises the angry, shouty lot because you're willing to understand Mondeo Man/Woman's (often disproportionate) response and inability to differentiate between people on bicycles, but you seem unwilling to even consider the RLJers might have their own reasons...
You've extrapolated all the way from anecdotes and youtube ragers up to political outcomes, sort of ignoring the real social/political landscape and whereabouts on the "giveashitometer" RLJing cyclists really sit for most people, I'd say the vast majority of people give the topic a tut and a shrug and move on, it's a general annoyance. Angry Ban-everything types want people on bikes shot on site regardless of their real conduct...
You might as well be giving figures for numbers of vacuum cleaners sold per household in New Zealand vs Iceland… as quote how many cyclist jump red lights or how many deaths it causes.
Precisely my point, you're shouting at people, telling them to modify their behaviour because it apparently affects the narrative presented in the media, and reinforces the claimed justifications used to support the way some notional group are treated by a bunch of already biased, generally angry people, that's the same media that won't let facts get in the way of a good bit of click-bait and the same grumpy sods that just hate everyone on a bicycle regardless... If facts don't matter, why bother trying to change them? And if fact's do matter why not prioritise more hazardous behaviour like Mobile phone using drivers, or choose to improving cycling infrastructure so RLJers have more alternatives to dancing amongst the Range rovers at rush hour and endangering themselves?
You’ve extrapolated all the way from anecdotes and youtube ragers up to political outcomes, sort of ignoring the real social/political landscape and whereabouts on the “giveashitometer” RLJing cyclists really sit for most people, I’d say the vast majority of people give the topic a tut and a shrug and move on, it’s a general annoyance.
Yep its a general annoyance to many people... but when it comes to funding a hospital car park or providing a new school none is going to put an annoyance to most on the agenda.
(Personally I'd rather have the cycle path to school but sadly 90% of parents would rather have it easier to drive)
Precisely my point, you’re shouting at people, telling them to modify their behaviour because it apparently affects the narrative presented in the media,
It provides the narrative... the narrative is not bike jumps red light... the narrative is bid jumps red light and a bunch of these weird green-warrior cycling types are saying why it's OK....
and reinforces the claimed justifications used to support the way some notional group are treated by a bunch of already biased, generally angry people,
Again, I think you missed the point ... the narrative isn't "bike jumps red light"... that just in your words "give the topic a tut and a shrug and move on, it’s a general annoyance".... the "narrative" is when people defend it and justify it. The agenda is to portray pro-cyclist groups as some people who want to big up roads and make canals and cycle paths whilst legalising weed and prostitution.... (OK some of those things are also sensible) but it's like the US anti-gun lobby are portrayed ... it's about type casting bid users as anti-establishment people who will make the price of your house go down if they get their way (again debatably not a bad thing either)... but its not what people vote for.
that’s the same media that won’t let facts get in the way of a good bit of click-bait and the same grumpy sods that just hate everyone on a bicycle regardless…
No its not the grumpy sods... they are grumpy sods...
If facts don’t matter, why bother trying to change them?
If you want to change them then you need to do it through appealing to people's self interest and in our democracy that means the majority of voters. I'm not saying facts don't matter ... I'm saying they don't matter to voters when they are choosing between their self interest
And if fact’s do matter why not prioritise more hazardous behaviour like Mobile phone using drivers, or choose to improving cycling infrastructure so RLJers have more alternatives to dancing amongst the Range rovers at rush hour and endangering themselves?
The two are completely different... A party can stand saying they are going to pass a law and be tough on mobile phone use whilst driving and a majority will either see that as positive or not care...
Choosing to improve cycling infrastructure? First it costs money from somewhere else and secondly is for a group who are externally identified as "cyclists" who are doing a great job of looking like a bunch of extremists who refuse to obey existing traffic laws.
What do you assume if a football comes out into the road between parked cars?
MASSIVELY different to the subject of this thread.
If I see a ball bounce into the road I treat that as a signal that there is a higher than normal chance of someone about to run into the road and thus, being at the wheel of a car or behind the bars of a bike I prepare more than normal for that eventuality. It's a risk indicator. It doesn't mean I *assume* behaviour of even the individual, let alone some imagined group. It just means I'm better prepared to *anticpate* that behaviour.
I don't treat it as a stimulus to claim that all children are idiots or scum, that playing with balls should be licensed, that I should shout at the next child I see, that children should start paying tax if they want playgrounds, or anything like that.
I know all analogies are by nature flawed, but quite how you think this one is adequately analogous is a little baffling.
While I admire your attempt to analyse the interconnectedness of all things, I fear the world we currently live in is far simpler.
If not one person on a bike in the entire UK jumped a red light for the entire next 12 months, I'm almost certain the narrative in certain quarters of the media wouldn't change one jot and the funding of cycle infrastructure would probably not be adjusted up or down in response...
The two are completely different… A party can stand saying they are going to pass a law and be tough on mobile phone use whilst driving and a majority will either see that as positive or not care…e whilst driving and a majority will either see that as positive or not care…
They're quite comparable, both are road traffic offences neither is effectively policed or prevented one occurs more frequently and kills more people each year than the other, I'm simply suggesting that under circumstances where resources are restricted addressing the offence which does more harm should be the first priority, it's not a crazy idea really.
The OP asked for our collective thoughts on RLJing cyclists I still don't think it's the biggest problem facing the nation, not even top 50 probably...
"I’ve not yet seen anyone at any level of government campaigning for office with promises to actively penalise cyclists...."
not quite campaigning for government but here in Aus' politicians have twisted the concept of "being fair" to make rule breaking by cyclists expensive...in NSW at the same time as a 1m/1.5m min passing law was introduced fines for offensives committed by cyclists were doubled. It was also proposed (but backed down on) that cyclists must carry photo ID.
In Victoria where I live the use of hand held mobile phones by cyclists has been banned and the on the spot fine set the same as that for car drivers caught using a mobile phone (Red light penalties were already the same with no Min. passing distance rule)
"We hope that by bringing this fine into line with the penalty for car drivers, we'll stop the dangerous and potentially deadly practice of cyclists using their phones while riding." - Minister for Roads and Road Safety Luke Donnellan said.
What intrigues me about this is that the offences (red light running or using a mobile phone) when committed by a cyclist and when committed by the driver of a motor vehicle are not near equivalent - generally if a cyclist breaks these laws the dangerous outcome is for the cyclist.....what we have is a pandering to fairness - its the politics of the nursery school playground with drivers pointing:
"miss, miss look he ran a red light...its not fair"
"look look little Richard's talking on his mobile he'll kill someone"
"on the way to nursery today we saw loads of cyclists nearly cause millions of accidents"
as to law breaking behaviour by some cyclists impacting all cyclists it does but only because a lot of drivers unreasonably believe they are being badly done to already...I don't care a toss if a cyclist decides to run a red light if it impacts no one else and if a driver cites it as a reason for their bad road behaviour its because they are simply a retarded tool.
I almost never jump reds. I did on Sunday - 15 minutes into my 20minute functional threshold power test were roadworks. Nothing coming the other way so through I go to avoid 15minutes of agony being wasted. Only to be shouted by another cyclist who was offended. Luckily I had no breath to shout back.
I don't think its wise to RLJ but each event should be judged in its merits.
They’re quite comparable, both are road traffic offences neither is effectively policed or prevented one occurs more frequently and kills more people each year than the other, I’m simply suggesting that under circumstances where resources are restricted addressing the offence which does more harm should be the first priority, it’s not a crazy idea really.
No it's a sensible idea but it's not how things work in either local or national politics.
What happens is the one that influences most votes and costs the least (or can be made to generate revenue) and support the agenda of lobbyists who give support and funding will be implemented above the other.
Which one wins is a balance of these... in many cases the democratic process itself is merely a sham because promises have already been made for services or bribes already rendered. Additionally they wanted an excuse to close the avenue for the new developments to lay a sewage pipe... and surprise the same company got awarded that.
An example of this is that we were consulted on speed calming measures for our avenue... Our avenue is lucky in that we didn't have any need for speed calming measures so that was a bit baffling... the one thing it does have is it ends up being used for parking for the local football club and this creates a hazard itself. Something I thought would only be made worse by speed calming measures.
Anyway... public consultation... but I then found out the contract was already promised to a company. It didn't matter what the public consultation said... because the company was already chosen and the solution already priced. Some councillor probably ended up with something for free like their private drive ... we ended up with some pointless traffic calming that as it happens makes decent ramps for the bike, the sewage capacity is increased... a local company got paid.. everyone is happy right?
The council also had great fun awarding the contract for emptying the public bins to the same company issuing on-the-spot fines... they sent out their bin covering and stick a out of service sticker team and disabled the bins then sent out the revenue team to issue fines to those trying to leave rubbish on top of the closed off bins.
Well not everyone... we live between 2 roads that are both 30mph but both had and still have a speed problem.
What intrigues me about this is that the offences (red light running or using a mobile phone) when committed by a cyclist and when committed by the driver of a motor vehicle are not near equivalent – generally if a cyclist breaks these laws the dangerous outcome is for the cyclist…..what we have is a pandering to fairness – its the politics of the nursery school playground with drivers pointing
I think you missed the memo ... that's what politics is.
Crime is rampant in NSW... and if it isn't they will invent a new one to charge for.
"Look, that man left one of his gloves on the train ...." $$$$$
"Look that person is watering their lawn" - "They paid a bribe to use the same water table it's OK"
NSW is NSW...
Back to normality in the UK or Victoria.....
as to law breaking behaviour by some cyclists impacting all cyclists it does but only because a lot of drivers unreasonably believe they are being badly done to already
Yes... at least in part.
Drivers are being told that they can't park here or there and shouldn't be in a rush etc. The idea of if you want to go fast go to a racetrack but mostly that the act of driving has gone from pleasant to unpleasant to increasingly unpleasant..(of course the number of drivers is a overwhelming factor but to someone who MUST drive to get to work or drop their kids at school that factor is irrelevant). but non of that applies to cyclists so they see it as "unfair".... to many who simply must drive they see the use of roads for leisure has gone... so why should cyclists make the unpleasant ever more unpleasant whilst "using the roads for leisure".
Of course there is a HUGE elephant... if we had a proper cycling infrastructure and people were not driving... if we had schools close enough to walk or even better connected by cycle paths etc. but that isn't going to happen here... (perhaps in St Kilda or out in the leafy suburbs in Victoria... ) because there is a huge list of other things that need doing first... We created a self feeding monster in London... however many billion a year I looked up catch trains into London... It's a misery for millions a day... the roads are full of holes..we don't have enough housing and the NHS is in meltdown. etc. etc.
The problem is that each of these have their own pressure groups... and each is being steered by agendas... and cycling infrastructure is way down in terms of numbers of people they can make cheap policy to make happy and vote... Not only that but it also has an agenda that is easily linked to an anti-establishment sentiment.. breaking the rules and trying to roll Britain back into a deadfall time when mobile phones didn't even exist... the implication being if the pro-cycling lobby get their way we will all be living in caves again....
Its a huge stretch but people in general don't care... taking away peoples cars... phones... where will it all end... half the people are those fresh air types that want to knock down houses and factories and plant trees... etc.
At the minimum it's seen by many as "they want to take our cars away and force us to ride bicycles". (ala Amsterdam)
The other huge elephant though is that roads only function when everyone is obeying the (same) rules...
Its nothing to do with politicians caring if ACTUAL people die... (most politicians would probably rather someone that votes against them dies than lives)... it's about public perception.
Public perception is that roads would be much less unpleasant if everyone followed the rules... and that when some break rules then others do as well. This is also true... and its probably a fairly equal factor to the sheer number of cars. (At least in terms of unpleasantness)
Very few voters have had their lives impacted by someone using a mobile phone whilst driving... we all agree its dangerous and stupid but the numbers of voters directly affected is very small.
Nearly all voters have had their life negatively impacted by a cyclist not following the rules... whether the outcome of that was merely a scare annoyance or a trip to hospital is just a matter of scale when there is a bandwagon to jump on.
All of this feeds into the very well funded agenda of making cyclists look like a bunch of regressive tree huggers...