Should cyclists go through red lights?

[Don Shipp]

its also if i am not wrong illegal for the cars to go thru at the end when the light changes.. maybe you favour them for that... fact remains that it can be more dangerous sometimes to go the legal route.. and if no traffic is using the lights why stand still... i am not saying just do it i am saying in my experience it is sometimes safer to do so.. in our area we have police officers on bikes... they do it so why cant i?

in 30 years riding a bike it has served me well.. i only do it in times of need and never if traffic is using it

A red light means stop. The mode of transport is immaterial.
When motorists go through on red they are breaking the law and endangering themselves and others. I do not favour them for that.
When cyclists ride through a red light they a breaking the law and also increasing the risk of an accident. The times when it is actually safer to break the law than to adhere to it are very few and far between and do not justify riding in ignorance, or defiance of the law the rest of the time.

 

[Don Shipp]

i have a challenge for you... come to my local area and tell me how many road users here abide by the rules lol last year a driving instructor in this area was sent to prison for passing motorists who paid for licences and cannot drive properly.. i regularly see all sorts of offenses driving with phone in ear, kids or dogs hanging out of the car... running red lights sometimes even amber ones while the opposite phase is still on amber and trafffic is still on crossing.. reversing out of a parking space on high roads with no fore thought... driving at night with no lights at all .... the usual no indication of any turning and swinging across your path then giving you the finger.... box junctions.. they are the funniest in our area nobody knows youare not sposed to go into it unless the way is clear.. they all hog the damn thing... even the police do nothing...speeding ... why are there speed cameras and humps if these users abide by the rules...

nope i see nothing wrong as long as it is done in a safe way and it can be done safely... in fact in the highway code it states that you may run a red light if an emergency vehicle needs to pass you... a little contradictory dont you think so it has to be safe sometimes....

so as for they abide by the rules.. not in london they dont and london is a bloomin big place why just the travelcard zone is 610 square miles...

If other people in cars or on bikes or whatever else chose to act in an illegal or dangerous manner that does not mean that you have the right to do the same.
I will allow that you may go through a red light if an emergency vehical needs to pass you and there is no other way of letting it do so. Arguing that this means that running red lights must be safe at other times is hardly valid.
Do not break the law, you bring cycling into disrepute.

 

[Don Shipp]

Both the Police and Ambulance use bikes in my area and they often pass me as I am waiting for the light to change, so I guess if it's okay for them, it's good for the gander!

I feel I have to confess, I have on occassion turned left on a red light.

N

The emergency services are allowed to go through on red, a privilage they sometimes abuse. Cyclists should stop.

 

[beltabout]

The emergency services are allowed to go through on red, a privilage they sometimes abuse. Cyclists should stop.

I think the Road Trafic Act states "when responding to an emergency" The only emergency I could see was to beat the traffic.. One rule for one....

N

 

[beltabout]

What about this dichotomy, the kids have done a cycling proficiency course run by the police, who advise them to ride on the footpath, as the roads are too dangerous!

What are we to do, break the law and bring cycling into disrepute or follow the
sensible and well meaning advise of a policeman carrying out his duty of informing and protecting?


N

 

[Don Shipp]

I think the Road Trafic Act states "when responding to an emergency" The only emergency I could see was to beat the traffic.. One rule for one....

N

Indeed.
Cyclists can beat the traffic between lights and do not need to cheat. Running reds can save you a few more minutes but may put you inside one of those other vehicals.
If you do it and get away with it, then you will if nothing else have annoyed all the law-abiding motorists (there are a few) and others, including cyclists, who see you flauting the law.

 

[Don Shipp]

What about this dichotomy, the kids have done a cycling proficiency course run by the police, who advise them to ride on the footpath, as the roads are too dangerous!

What are we to do, break the law and bring cycling into disrepute or follow the
sensible and well meaning advise of a policeman carrying out his duty of informing and protecting?


N

Children are allowed to ride on the pavement. Adults are not.
I would argue that riding on the pavement is not safe. About 800 pedestrians get killed each year and thousands injured, in spite of the fact that they use the pavements.
Most accidents involving bikes and cars occur when the cyclist rides off a pavement onto the road. If you ride on the pavement you run this risk every time you cross the road which will probably be quite often. If you ride on the road all the way then you avoid this particular risk altogether.

 

[beltabout]

Children are allowed to ride on the pavement.

No disagreement but the cycling proficiency test is about riding on the roads!!!

Is it not true of the 800 killed apprx 750 are in the road at the time?

N

 

[Don Shipp]

Children are allowed to ride on the pavement.

No disagreement but the cycling proficiency test is about riding on the roads!!!

Is it not true of the 800 killed apprx 750 are in the road at the time?

N

Pedestrians get killed crossing roads. Cyclists who use the pavements die the same way.
The pavement is a very poor environment for a fast-moving two-wheeled vehical.
We try to protect our children from traffic, neither logic or statistics will make us believe that they should ride on the road; but for an experienced adult there is no excuse.

 

[Mr.Pink]

Hi all

I am writing an article for the Financial Times on the relationship between cyclists, motorists and pedestrians in towns and cities.

Here in London many cyclists commit what they call "minor" infingements of law because it is safer for them (such as crossing junctions when all the traffic is stopped to let pedestrians cross, cycling on the pavement to avoid traffic etc).

I'd be very interested in any thoughts on this. And in particular if there are UK towns that have managed to get the mix of cyclists and motorists right.

Thanks in anticipation and best wishes.

David Baker (cyclist and motorist)
Financial Times

Speaking as a commuter. I commute from Wimbledon to Mayfair everyday. I love it. It is the best way to travel. You ask a great question. The answer is - It depends. Some of the road rules are made FOR CARS. Any cyclist with a brain can figure out that it is useless to wait at a light if there is no "cross" traffic, but only - right turn cars. For example the cycle lane is un-emcumbered on left by any cross-street and cars turning onto the road are only entering from the right, hence they would never touch any cyclist crossing the red light. (not sure if I clearly enunciated that). Yet - a cyclist should never run a red light at a major cross street no matter what since you get "speeders". Cars that try to "make it before the light turns red" and gun the accelerator. I find I often have to wait past green for like 3 or 4 seconds as cars, and HGV's often get the timing of greeen-to-yellow-to- red wrong and any cyclist trying to jump the light would be killed. These are to clear examples.
As a general rule I think common sense should enable most cyclists in london to operate injury free if they keep a wide berth on cycle lanes and do not attempt to be too aggressive on the roads, especially at major roundabouts and major cross-streets.

Hope that helps..
Mr. PInky!

 

[Don Shipp]

Speaking as a commuter. I commute from Wimbledon to Mayfair everyday. I love it. It is the best way to travel. You ask a great question. The answer is - It depends. Some of the road rules are made FOR CARS. Any cyclist with a brain can figure out that it is useless to wait at a light if there is no "cross" traffic, but only - right turn cars. For example the cycle lane is un-emcumbered on left by any cross-street and cars turning onto the road are only entering from the right, hence they would never touch any cyclist crossing the red light. (not sure if I clearly enunciated that). Yet - a cyclist should never run a red light at a major cross street no matter what since you get "speeders". Cars that try to "make it before the light turns red" and gun the accelerator. I find I often have to wait past green for like 3 or 4 seconds as cars, and HGV's often get the timing of greeen-to-yellow-to- red wrong and any cyclist trying to jump the light would be killed. These are to clear examples.
As a general rule I think common sense should enable most cyclists in london to operate injury free if they keep a wide berth on cycle lanes and do not attempt to be too aggressive on the roads, especially at major roundabouts and major cross-streets.

Hope that helps..
Mr. PInky!

It is perfectly true that some laws (and indeed traffic lights) were made for cars but the legal position is clear. Cyclists have to obey them too, all the time and not just when it is covenient to do so.