Forum home Road cycling forum Road general

53% of London cyclists found jumping reds.. time to act ?

rickeverettrickeverett Posts: 988
edited December 2013 in Road general
Jumping reds is something I would never do. Its so retarded and stupid and against the law. It also highlights to drivers and pedestrians the anti-cyclist feelings giving us all a bad name and increasing the danger.

However 53% of cyclist in London have been found to jump the lights....

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ights.html

Is it time for the cycling community to act? I personally can't believe there are those that stand up for these peoples actions and encourage jumping reds as well as other poor cycling behaviour just because its "less dangerous junction"
«1345

Posts

  • Best start the wrist slapping... Spend more time worrying about yourself and your own safety and less on others around you.
  • I am thinking about my safety. Safety that is compromised by the actions of other cyclists that's causing a nationwide anti cyclist feeling on and off the road.

    This anti cyclist mentality is leading to drivers taking it out on any cyclist they see.
    I have noticed a increase in accusational / argumentative behaviour towards both myself and other cyclists... Just because they are cyclists on the road.
  • I completely agree about RLJing, it makes my blood boil. I worked as a bicycle courier in London for 4yrs and never jumped lights and now as a regular cyclist I still don't. As cyclists we moan about drivers who are impatient and can't wait for suitable moments to pass us and yet some of us can't wait for a light to change? If you're in that much of a hurry ride harder between the lights. When I started riding with my wife she used to do it but she doesn't anymore as she knows it p|sses me off. I know the car drivers use RLJing as an excuse but if we didn't do it that excuse would be removed. I know others will come on here with hypothetical arguments 3am and no traffic but that really is a rubbish excuse to wait 30secs IMHO.
  • Nuke London from orbit. It's the only way to be sure
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • hangeronhangeron Posts: 127
    Aye it's full of waitrose shopping, gated community dwelling focus drivers
  • hangeron wrote:
    Aye it's full of waitrose shopping, gated community dwelling focus drivers

    Yes. The hoy Polly.
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • As has been pointed out in the comments, it is incorrect to suggest 53% of London cyclists were found jumping red lights. It isn't good but not as bad as the headline suggests, plus what are the KSI figures from this research?

    The premise for their 'research' is weak and flawed and it's an unscientific test designed to enflame hatred.
  • You're trying to make daily mail style headlines out of a flawed statistic in an anti cycling film made by the London Cab Drivers Association. I'm sure that there's been a lot more injuries caused by U turning cabs in London than there ever has been by cyclists.
  • Brakeless wrote:
    You're trying to make daily mail style headlines out of a flawed statistic in an anti cycling film made by the London Cab Drivers Association. I'm sure that there's been a lot more injuries caused by U turning cabs in London than there ever has been by cyclists.

    Cabbies U turning is not the point. Cyclists are jumping red lights. It is illegal and something that people who are anti-cycling are complaining about.

    Cycling has spend a lot of time correcting the 'Road tax' argument and that view has been corrected in most people!

    The people on bikes jumping red lights in this video have given this argument lots more years to run due to their selfishness and idiocy

    There will always be people who are anti-cycling but the actions of the people in this video just give easy ammunition to their argument!
  • Brakeless wrote:
    You're trying to make daily mail style headlines out of a flawed statistic in an anti cycling film made by the London Cab Drivers Association. I'm sure that there's been a lot more injuries caused by U turning cabs in London than there ever has been by cyclists.

    Cabbies U turning is not the point. Cyclists are jumping red lights. It is illegal and something that people who are anti-cycling are complaining about.

    Cycling has spend a lot of time correcting the 'Road tax' argument and that view has been corrected in most people!

    The people on bikes jumping red lights in this video have given this argument lots more years to run due to their selfishness and idiocy

    There will always be people who are anti-cycling but the actions of the people in this video just give easy ammunition to their argument!
    If your'e gonna get drawn in by such worthless 'research' and the flaming that ensues then so be it.

    Alternatively you can accept that this 'research' is of absolutely no academic value, can easily be torn to shreds by empirical research and will not inform any future policy or decision making. Let the flamers have their fun but don't stoop to their level in the debate.
  • cyclingsheepcyclingsheep Posts: 640
    edited November 2013
    Brakeless wrote:
    You're trying to make daily mail style headlines out of a flawed statistic in an anti cycling film made by the London Cab Drivers Association. I'm sure that there's been a lot more injuries caused by U turning cabs in London than there ever has been by cyclists.

    Cabbies U turning is not the point. Cyclists are jumping red lights. It is illegal and something that people who are anti-cycling are complaining about.

    Cycling has spend a lot of time correcting the 'Road tax' argument and that view has been corrected in most people!

    The people on bikes jumping red lights in this video have given this argument lots more years to run due to their selfishness and idiocy

    There will always be people who are anti-cycling but the actions of the people in this video just give easy ammunition to their argument!
    If your'e gonna get drawn in by such worthless 'research' and the flaming that ensues then so be it.

    Alternatively you can accept that this 'research' is of absolutely no academic value, can easily be torn to shreds by empirical research and will not inform any future policy or decision making. Let the flamers have their fun but don't stoop to their level in the debate.

    I think some people are missing the point here. Sure I have issues with the headline and the video but the evidence that more than a few people in London jump red lights is a fact. All I'm saying is it is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY and while debates are being had between all road users RLJing is going to be used to create anti-cyclist feeling which doesn't help our cause (despite it being a complete red herring), why give them the ammunition? And as for it not forming policy or decision making have you seen this http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 933789.ece ?
  • BozmanBozman Posts: 2,518
    edited November 2013
    You'll probably find that stat is similar nationally too.
    If I lived in London I'd probably be one of the 53%, it's a nightmare driving there and it's even a pain walking with road crossings every 50 metres, I'd end up getting frustrated by that endless stream of lights. Every time I go down there I'm so happy that I don't live there, the place is a cyclists nightmare with the traffic, fumes and weekend rides around Richmond Park.

    I do feel that there's an ulterior motive here, they can't stop the traffic, they can't widen the roads, so they'll hit the cyclists. You either blame them or educate them.
  • pdwpdw Posts: 315
    53% is in fairly start contrast with TfL's surveys:

    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf‎

    where they typically see at least 70-80% obeying red lights.

    The LTDA obviously has an agenda, so I assume that they carefully selected the junctions to maximise the statistics.

    Very disappointing that the LTDA somehow feels that this is a useful thing to be doing, as the implication is that if some people on bikes break the rules, then nobody who rides a bike deserves to be on the road.

    What really annoys me is that you could find similarly damning statistics against pretty much all road users. For example, from my experience in Oxford, I suspect that a similar proportion of taxi drivers regularly break 30mph speed limits.
  • wongataawongataa Posts: 945
    What about all the motor vehicles jumping the red lights in the video?
  • A couple of questions that I would like answering by the cyclists featured in the video footage.
    1.Why are you failing to comply with the traffic lights?
    2.What makes you feel exempt from complying?
  • I think some people are missing the point here. Sure I have issues with the headline and the video but the evidence that more than a few in London people jump red lights is a fact. All I'm saying is it is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY and while debates are being had between all road users RLJing is going to be used to create anti-cyclist feeling which doesn't help our cause (despite it being a complete red herring), why give them the ammunition?
    People will always have animosity to other road users and cyclists being a minority outgroup suffer more than most. It's disappointing that some still RLJ but even if cyclists didn't RLJ some people would find something, anything, no matter how trivial to demonise cyclists.
    And as for it not forming policy or decision making have you seen this http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 933789.ece ?
    Fortunately, the individual who issued the email regarding using cyclists to hit penalty targets was shown the error of their ways as it was not policy and a poor decision by the individual.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    I am not in favour of dangerous cycling and appreciate its London we are talking about, but cars 'jump' red lights to turn right in the states (or at least they did the last time I drove there) perfectly safely.

    Car drivers are a bit childish getting upset by bikes that jump red lights when they are stopped by the same lights also. Its fair enough if they are on the road that the cyclist is illegally joining though.

    Personally I think cyclists should be able to treat a junction with lights as if it were just a give way if it were safe to do so (maybe not in central London though).

    Is it not sometimes safer to get ahead of the traffic and easier for cars to negotiate you further down the road?

    I tend to obey the lights personally (mainly to keep childish drivers from throwing their toys out of the pram/non soft top), but there is one road on a one way system that I often 'jump' on a Saturday morning.
    You can see the traffic (or lack of it) to the right and the road turns left as soon as you leave the lights.
    If I can see there is absolutely no traffic coming it seems much better to cycle off than wait for the lights to go green and negotiate the corner (that I have to be in the middle of two lanes as it immediately splits to turn right) with possibly hungover, anti cyclist and/or un insured drivers.
  • Comes back to the 'queue jumping' thing doesn't it, there's nothing we British hate more than a queue jumper, even if it has no affect whatsoever on us personally.
  • The LTDA's own unedited videos quite clearly demonstrate that the 53% number is completely made up. Just from watching the first 5-10 minutes it becomes obvious that one or two jump the red lights, but most stop. Unlike the motorists, 3 or 4 of which jump the red light every time it changes, plus another that then blocks the ASL (so jumping the red light). What this shows is that the behaviour of cyclists is better than the behaviour of motorists, and whilst cyclists mostly endager themselves, motorists entirely endager others. The thing is, once one motorist has stopped, others can no longer jump the light. So the question is what proportion of those given the opportunity, jump the lights. From the videos, it would seem that of the motorists, the proportion is around 70-80%, whilst for cyclists its around 30%.

    I suspect that taxi drivers were informed about the 'hidden' cameras and either avoided the junctions or were on their best behaviour that day.
    The same youtube poster put up a video of a taxi driver going the wrong way down a one way street. Using his logic concerning cyclists, that must mean that ALL taxi drivers do that, and it is therefore perfectly acceptable to kill & maim them. :roll:

    I'm not defending the idiots who do it, I'm just putting it into context and pointing out that the headline and 'highlights' video are extremely biased and outright wrong. It could be construed as incitement to perform harmful acts. :cry:
  • GiantMikeGiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Regardless of whether the 53% figure is accurate, cyclists should abide by the rules of the road. All road users should, and those that don't should be warned or fined. Anybody who rides up the inside of a vehicle indicating left should have their bike taken off them for their own safety. Anybody riding without lights after dark should have a large torch shoved up their @rse.

    The system works because there are rules. Without the rules there would be anarchy, which is worse than the system with rules. Imagine if every road user decided for themselves whether it was safe to ignore a red light on the basis that they were sensible (rather than inconsiderate) and had the right to make these decisions for themselves as long as it doesn't endanger others. Now apply that to speed limits, parking, one-way streets etc.
  • Carbonator wrote:
    I tend to obey the lights personally (mainly to keep childish drivers from throwing their toys out of the pram/non soft top), but there is one road on a one way system that I often 'jump' on a Saturday morning.
    You can see the traffic (or lack of it) to the right and the road turns left as soon as you leave the lights.
    If I can see there is absolutely no traffic coming it seems much better to cycle off than wait for the lights to go green and negotiate the corner (that I have to be in the middle of two lanes as it immediately splits to turn right) with possibly hungover, anti cyclist and/or un insured drivers.

    The above quoted text means you are part of the problem.

    If the lights are RED then stop, simple.
  • I'm astounded at some of the debate and comments on here.

    It doesn't matter if the stats are flawed.

    It doesn't matter if the research is biased.

    It doesn't matter if it is part of a giant web of anti cyclist propaganda.

    What does matter, and what I'm sure was key to the OP posting, is that we will never get anywhere unless we as a community face up to what some of us do wrong.

    And then we attempt to make it as unacceptable within our community as it is outside.

    It's the law. Whether we think it is a good or bad law doesn't matter. It's the law and it is based on a lot of sense that all road users should adhere to.

    Obey signs, obey signals. If we all follow the same path we are less likely to clash with each other.

    I can't see how anyone can justify Red Light Jumping so some of us should stop trying.
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    RibTime wrote:
    Carbonator wrote:
    I tend to obey the lights personally (mainly to keep childish drivers from throwing their toys out of the pram/non soft top), but there is one road on a one way system that I often 'jump' on a Saturday morning.
    You can see the traffic (or lack of it) to the right and the road turns left as soon as you leave the lights.
    If I can see there is absolutely no traffic coming it seems much better to cycle off than wait for the lights to go green and negotiate the corner (that I have to be in the middle of two lanes as it immediately splits to turn right) with possibly hungover, anti cyclist and/or un insured drivers.

    The above quoted text means you are part of the problem.

    If the lights are RED then stop, simple.

    Why is it/am I a problem? Because it upsets the drivers that are behind me at the lights? If so then I think it's the drivers that are the problem.

    The cycle only box at the front of the lights upsets a lot of drivers. Maybe they should be removed then?

    So do you think it's better to have to cycle off with the traffic in that situation?
  • AnonymousAnonymous Posts: 79,678
    It's only the fact that red means red for every road user that allows the car drivers to have a hissy fit.
    If cyclists could treat a red as a give way then drivers would not be able to moan when cyclist act reasonably.

    Do you only cross the road when it's a green man even if there is no traffic?
    Surely you just use the same precautions as you would if crossing the road at a non designated crossing point.
  • This is genius 'I'm a student of the law myself....', Personally I think the police should be given special powers to CS spray and club members of the public at will.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7BQvt3XeAY

    Maybe in London they just have difficulty with traffic signals.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Carbonator wrote:
    It's only the fact that red means red for every road user that allows the car drivers to have a hissy fit.
    If cyclists could treat a red as a give way then drivers would not be able to moan when cyclist act reasonably.

    Do you only cross the road when it's a green man even if there is no traffic?
    Surely you just use the same precautions as you would if crossing the road at a non designated crossing point.

    I would also like to have certain laws that I can pick an choose if and when to obey.

    why should I, living in a rural location, have to walk/taxi home after having a few beers? surely, along a country road, with little traffic, I can drive myself home?

    I think that drink drive laws should only apply to urban areas, after all, I can drink and walk.
  • Carbonator wrote:
    It's only the fact that red means red for every road user that allows the car drivers to have a hissy fit.
    If cyclists could treat a red as a give way then drivers would not be able to moan when cyclist act reasonably.

    Do you only cross the road when it's a green man even if there is no traffic?
    Surely you just use the same precautions as you would if crossing the road at a non designated crossing point.

    You are part of the problem. What you are arguing is not the law so you should not decide that it would be better to have that law and treat red lights as such. If the law changes then you can ride like that. It really is this simple :roll:
  • I'm astounded at some of the debate and comments on here.

    It doesn't matter if the stats are flawed.

    It doesn't matter if the research is biased.

    It doesn't matter if it is part of a giant web of anti cyclist propaganda.

    What does matter, and what I'm sure was key to the OP posting, is that we will never get anywhere unless we as a community face up to what some of us do wrong.

    And then we attempt to make it as unacceptable within our community as it is outside.

    It's the law. Whether we think it is a good or bad law doesn't matter. It's the law and it is based on a lot of sense that all road users should adhere to.

    Obey signs, obey signals. If we all follow the same path we are less likely to clash with each other.

    I can't see how anyone can justify Red Light Jumping so some of us should stop trying.

    Of course it matters if people are using flawed statistics and biased research, it shows up the anti cycling arguments as being biased and more often than not stupid.

    The whole red light, road tax thing is b u l l s h i t. Sometimes it is safer for a cyclist to get ahead at a junction and if this means going through a red light that has been designed to make motorised traffic flow better with no thought to the safety of cyclists then so be it. It doesn't justify it all the time but in some circumstances it is safer and occasionally I'm happy to break a traffic law than risk being squashed by an impatient bus or lorry driver.

    As for obeying signals does it count when an inexperienced cyclist follows the badly designed cycle lanes that often lead straight up the inside of stationary traffic at junctions.

    Saying there's a community of cyclists is also rubbish, most commuter cyclists don't spend their lunch breaks checking Bike Radar. Is there a community of drivers? If red light jumping is unacceptable outside of the cycling 'community' why at nearly every single traffic light change in London do a couple of vehicles jump through at the very last minute just as it is changing? This is illegal but a lot of drivers see it as acceptable in the same way as most drivers routinely drive above the speed limit.

    The reason drivers are learning that the road tax argument is rubbish is because they have been told so many times, if they keep getting told statistics such as these used by the London cabbies are also rubbish they will slowly become more realistic about what the real issues are regarding traffic in our cities, i.e drivers are wound up and frustrated not because of cyclists but because there are way too many vehicles on city streets.
  • adr82adr82 Posts: 4,002
    Brakeless wrote:
    The whole red light, road tax thing is b u l l s h i t. Sometimes it is safer for a cyclist to get ahead at a junction and if this means going through a red light that has been designed to make motorised traffic flow better with no thought to the safety of cyclists then so be it. It doesn't justify it all the time but in some circumstances it is safer and occasionally I'm happy to break a traffic law than risk being squashed by an impatient bus or lorry driver.
    Please explain to me when it's "safer" to jump a light? I have a feeling it's going to involve being badly positioned in the queue of traffic, which is entirely your own fault. So many cyclists feel this compulsion to get right to the front of the queue no matter what. If you just have a tiny bit of patience and wait in the queue and not in the blind spot of a truck or bus for the sake of being a few metres further forward it makes life easier and safer for everyone involved.
  • @ cyclingsheep, thanks for making me chuckle. You worked as a bike courier for 4 years in London & never jumped a light? I'd be interested to find out who employed you & if you ever made any money. I did a lot longer & knew a lot of people on circuit. The premise was, accidents happen at junctions. You are in the way at junctions as the bottle neck clears. Slow down/wait till everyone clears the junction & then get out of the way by getting away.

    Cars then have a clear run through the junction and away. As a driver myself I would rather cyclists were up the road and out of my way.

    That does not equal running full tilt through red lights [unless you've had a really good look], cutting everyone up, pushing over pedestrians & scratching cars as you go & shouting out pirate like obscenities. Done nicely no-one even notices unless they're in a car & jealous. And cars never break the speed limit or infract the highway code, obviously.

    I have been to several courier funerals, always HGV's over taking & turning left & one drunk driver. And I have a degree and postgraduate qualifications so please don't classify me as an ignorant hooligan. I do understand that watching some people ride bikes makes you want to shut your eyes because either you don't want to see the accident they are about to get into, or you want ride up to them & lecture them about manners & common sense. London roads are chaotic and you have to adapt.

    I must admit now I live in the countryside I do tend to stop at traffic lights. I must be going soft.
Sign In or Register to comment.