# Why do cyclists run red lights?



## Aushiker (31 Jul 2012)

_Almost 40 per cent of cyclists have reported committing red light infringements, but fines should only be part of the strategy to improve safety, according to new research.

Published in Accident Analysis and Prevention, a study by Monash University researchers Drs Marilyn Johnson, Judith Charlton, Stuart Newstead and Jennie Oxley, examined why Australian cyclists run red lights and the characteristics of those who do.

The researchers, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) surveyed more than 2000 cyclists and found that the most common reasons cited for riding through red lights could be at least partially mitigated by more inclusive road infrastructure, amendments to road rules and targeted education programs. 

Almost one third of respondents who had run a red light did so during a left hand turn. The next most common reason, cited by 24.2 per cent of infringers, was that they were unable to activate the sensors in the road, known as inductive detector loops, to trigger a traffic light change. Just over 16 per cent of cyclists reported a red light infringement when no other traffic - vehicular or pedestrian - was present.

Dr Johnson said the study results implied that many cyclists felt it was safe to turn left against a red light.

"The most obvious safety benefit for cyclists if they turn left during the red light phase is that they then don’t have to negotiate the corner with the vehicles," Dr Johnson said.

"A well-planned trial with adequate signage would be a good first step to see if permitting cyclists to turn left on red at some intersections would improve cyclists’ safety."

Dr Johnson said infrastructure adjustments could help resolve the problem of detector loops not being triggered by bikes and leaving cyclists stranded during low-traffic periods. 

"Cyclists across Australia were frustrated by their inability to change traffic lights," Dr Johnson said.

"At some sites, cyclists can activate the signal change if they ride over the right spot. Painting that spot with a bike symbol may be an easy and very cheap solution. At other sites, we need to reconsider how these detector loops are calibrated to ensure all roads users can activate the signal change."

Results showed that overall, men were more likely to infringe than women, as were people aged 18 to 29, compared to those in older age brackets. Cyclists who had been fined for a red light infringement while driving were 50 per cent more likely to have infringed while riding a bike. 

"Fines continue to have a place in enforcing road rules for cyclists, but these will be more effective when combined with measures to make the roads a more inclusive place for cyclists," Dr Johnson said._

Source: Monash University

For those interested the article in press is available for download.

Andrew


----------



## rusky (31 Jul 2012)

You could argue that if a bike doesn't trigger the traffic lights, they are faulty therefore you can legally RLJ.


----------



## lordloveaduck (31 Jul 2012)

Same reason car drivers do. Same way that peds disobey crossing signs. Lifes to long
to get hung up on what others do.


----------



## green1 (31 Jul 2012)

lordloveaduck said:


> Same reason car drivers do. Same way that *peds disobey crossing signs*. Lifes to long
> to get hung up on what others do.


They don't have to obey them, traffic does.


----------



## lordloveaduck (31 Jul 2012)

green1 said:


> They don't have to obey them, traffic does.


 
If the light is red and they go through....who's at fault when an accident happens.


----------



## green1 (31 Jul 2012)

lordloveaduck said:


> If the light is red and they go through....who's at fault when an accident happens.


Traffic


----------



## Dan_h (31 Jul 2012)

lordloveaduck said:


> If the light is red and they go through....who's at fault when an accident happens.


 
If you are still talking about peds the law is the same as if you hit a pedestrian anywhere in your car. The fact that there was a red light for the pedestrian is not relevant as it is only advisory and the fact that the car had a green light does not mean you can go no matter what, running pedestrians down is not allowed even if the light is green and you really feel like it!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (31 Jul 2012)

My driving instructor once said that green did not mean go, it meant "proceed with caution", which surprised me at the time (first lessonitis)

I guess jaywalking isn't a crime here, so legally the onus would be in the driver - but what happens if a pedestrian steps right in front of a vehicle giving no opportunity for the driver/cyclist to stop? Surely the pedestrian must take the blame there?


----------



## FatherCrowe (4 Aug 2012)

MissTillyFlop said:


> I guess jaywalking isn't a crime here, so legally the onus would be in the driver - but what happens if a pedestrian steps right in front of a vehicle giving no opportunity for the driver/cyclist to stop? Surely the pedestrian must take the blame there?



Totally agree, everyone who uses, crosses the road had a responsibility for their own safety & others. So if someone walks out in front of a car then surly you can't blame the driver. But as mentioned before a driver at a free light can't just plough someone down of they haven't finished crossing.


----------



## 172traindriver (4 Aug 2012)

Went to London today, was on Oxrord St, Mrs was in Debenhams, I am outside taking in the weather and watching vast array of London cycle types passing by on bikes.
Anyway traffic lights at particular part of Oxford St turn to red, fancy high powered Met Police car stops at red lights.
Female cyclist approaches passes stopped police car and just continues through red light.
Police vehicle doesn't chase after it.
Just another day in london?????


----------



## FatherCrowe (4 Aug 2012)

172traindriver said:


> Went to London today, was on Oxrord St, Mrs was in Debenhams, I am outside taking in the weather and watching vast array of London cycle types passing by on bikes.
> Anyway traffic lights at particular part of Oxford St turn to red, fancy high powered Met Police car stops at red lights.
> Female cyclist approaches passes stopped police car and just continues through red light.
> Police vehicle doesn't chase after it.
> Just another day in london?????



See that all the time!


----------



## slowmotion (4 Aug 2012)

Why do some cyclists RLJ....?
....because they are arrogant and selfish, that's all.


----------



## 172traindriver (4 Aug 2012)

FatherCrowe said:


> See that all the time!


 
Guess everyone has their views on this subject, but I think some motorists will get arsey and then try to take it out on cyclists.
But I also realise a good number of motorists ares arses anyway.
Can't win.


----------



## slowmotion (4 Aug 2012)

172traindriver said:


> Guess everyone has their views on this subject, but I think some motorists will get arsey and then try to take it out on cyclists.
> But I also realise a good number of motorists ares arses anyway.
> Can't win.


 No need to encourage them.


----------



## 172traindriver (4 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> No need to encourage them.


 
Agreed


----------



## FatherCrowe (5 Aug 2012)

172traindriver said:


> Agreed


agreed agreed!


----------



## Octet (5 Aug 2012)

Although it isn't directly related to Red Light Jumping, I've been caught on the opposite end of the spectrum surprisingly. I've stopped to let a vehicle turn into a private road and the traffic behind me has moved into the opposite lane to overtake me...
Me and the driver I was letting pass just looked at each other and laughed at the incident.

But I agree with all those above who said that Red Light Jumping is for arrogant, impatient and irresponsible cyclists.


----------



## marzjennings (5 Aug 2012)

Funny, so do you actually think those that red light jumpers (including myself) give a cr@p what you say and think, you can tut and squirt as much water as you like from you water bottle. This is NOT a big deal, get over yourselfs.

Why do I do it? Because when I do, and it's not every light, I've assessed the situation and deemed my actions of little or no consequence (except affect their blood pressure it seems) to other traffic on the road.

I guess I have equated myself to the 3 oh so bad characteristics mentioned above, but maybe less arrogant more egocentric.


----------



## slowmotion (5 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Funny, so do you actually think those that red light jumpers (including myself) give a cr@p what you say and think, you can tut and squirt as much water as you like from you water bottle. This is NOT a big deal, get over yourselfs.
> 
> Why do I do it? Because when I do, and it's not every light, I've assessed the situation and deemed my actions of little or no consequence (except affect their blood pressure it seems) to other traffic on the road.
> 
> I guess I have equated myself to the 3 oh so bad characteristics mentioned above, but maybe less arrogant more egocentric.


It's just a simple matter of breaking the law, isn't it? Do those laws apply to you, or do you feel you can be selective more on this matter?


----------



## marzjennings (5 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> It's just a simple matter of breaking the law, isn't it? Do those laws apply to you, or do you feel you can be selective more on this matter?


 
Agreed, it is a very simple matter and yes these laws do apply to me AND I am being selective.


----------



## MattL (5 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Funny, so do you actually think those that red light jumpers (including myself) give a cr@p what you say and think, you can tut and squirt as much water as you like from you water bottle. This is NOT a big deal, get over yourselfs.



I'll give you a fiver to say that to the police when you get caught.


----------



## 172traindriver (5 Aug 2012)

MattL said:


> I'll give you a fiver to say that to the police when you get caught.


 
Matt, have a look at my post from yesterday. That may not always be the case, but I agrre with where you are coming from.
But thats just some people.


----------



## Norm (5 Aug 2012)

'Cyclists' don't run red lights. Some individuals might but even the rather lazy position of the journalists quoted in the OP doesn't pretend there is a majority.


----------



## Drago (5 Aug 2012)

I guess that's the difference between true 'cyclists', and eejuts who simply happen to own a bike.

I'v scraped enough RLJ'ers off the tarmac over the years - many needing a lift to the morgue - to rid myself of any desire to do it myself.

But even worse - what if someone did it and was hit, and became disabled as a consequence? Even if they had insurance it would be unlikely to pay and they'd be a financial and physical burden to their families.

I don't care if people do it or not. Just dont expect me to care when it goes a bit bobby.


----------



## redcard (5 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Funny, so do you actually think those that red light jumpers (including myself) give a cr@p what you say and think, you can tut and squirt as much water as you like from you water bottle. This is NOT a big deal, get over yourselfs.
> 
> Why do I do it? Because when I do, and it's not every light, I've assessed the situation and deemed my actions of little or no consequence (except affect their blood pressure it seems) to other traffic on the road.
> 
> I guess I have equated myself to the 3 oh so bad characteristics mentioned above, but maybe less arrogant more egocentric.



People are waiting at red, you're flying through thinking to yourself "Look at me go, I'm da man. Eastenders double-bill tonight, must get home".


----------



## gavintc (5 Aug 2012)

I believe that the 'running red lights' is based upon how the cyclist views themselves as part of the traffic. I contend that those using the bike as a replacement to walking - ie fast walking for short distances, take the view that normal pedestrian rules apply. If they encounter a red light, no problems, pop on the pavement go over the crossing. Other cyclists who view the bike as slow driving, take a different approach and are more likely to obey the traffic rules. Just my opinion having watched a bunch of cyclists in Portsmouth (my new home) over the last week.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (5 Aug 2012)

gavintc said:


> I believe that the 'running red lights' is based upon how the cyclist views themselves as part of the traffic. I contend that those using the bike as a replacement to walking - ie fast walking for short distances, take the view that normal pedestrian rules apply. If they encounter a red light, no problems, pop on the pavement go over the crossing. Other cyclists who view the bike as slow driving, take a different approach and are more likely to obey the traffic rules. Just my opinion having watched a bunch of cyclists in Portsmouth (my new home) over the last week.


As a London cyclist I'd say my experience is very similar. I'm a little concerned, though, that new and returning cyclists may actually believe that the media cliché about red light jumping is simply what cyclists do.


----------



## slowmotion (5 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Agreed, it is a very simple matter and yes these laws do apply to me AND I am being selective.


 It has consequences for other people.


----------



## Aperitif (5 Aug 2012)

I pass lots of traffic lights on my commute and, at red, it is a time for reflection and to absorb what is going on around me. Tossers who know better - well, it will be their loss. Don't worry. The only thing that really disturbs me these days is someone who passes me on the inside when I'm stationary, as, (apart from being a tight squeeze) it's careless to me. Alas, I repeatedly resist the forearm smash / ' left arm stretch' ploy - as much as I want to...


----------



## marzjennings (5 Aug 2012)

MattL said:


> I'll give you a fiver to say that to the police when you get caught.


 
That's not the point, I am fully aware of the legal ramifications and will accept any penalties from the police.

I'm am not asking for the law to be changed or expecting any leniency from the police.


----------



## marzjennings (5 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> People are waiting at red, you're flying through thinking to yourself "Look at me go, I'm da man. Eastenders double-bill tonight, must get home".


 
I'm rarely ever in a rush or attempting to race the other cyclists on the road. Plus I'm not sure I've ever watched Eastenders, well not for fun.

As mentioned, your opinion of me is just not that important.


----------



## marzjennings (5 Aug 2012)

slowmotion said:


> It has consequences for other people.


 
What consequences to other people are there when it's 5.30am, there's no other traffic in view and I just can't be bothered to wait for the red light to change?


----------



## bvpi157 (5 Aug 2012)

Folks - if you could attach something to your bike that could be read by traffic signals and enable them to respond to your presence, would this make a difference?


----------



## slowmotion (5 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> What consequences to other people are there when it's 5.30am, there's no other traffic in view and I just can't be bothered to wait for the red light to change?


I'm not sure how many desert islands have traffic signals.


----------



## redcard (5 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> I'm rarely ever in a rush or attempting to race the other cyclists on the road. Plus I'm not sure I've ever watched Eastenders, well not for fun.
> 
> As mentioned, your opinion of me is just not that important.



Don't worry, I didn't give it much thought.

Funny you felt the need to defend yourself though.


----------



## redcard (6 Aug 2012)

User said:


> I'll just point out that the evidence shows a larger percentage of motorists jump red lights than cyclists...



You could quote the evidence rather than pointing it out.


----------



## GrasB (6 Aug 2012)

My feeling as to why cyclists jump red lights? For the same motorists do; they think they can get away with it. People will try to justify it with all kinds of reasoning but that's trying to justify the action.


----------



## Hector (6 Aug 2012)

If you have one foot on the ground scooting then it ain't red light jumping...


----------



## marzjennings (6 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> Don't worry, I didn't give it much thought.
> 
> Funny you felt the need to defend yourself though.


 
Not defending or excusing my behaviour. Actually attempting to give it some thought as to why, in difference to how I normally live and drive well within the law, on a bike I think feck it and ride,as some would call it, like an arseh@le.


----------



## benb (6 Aug 2012)

I think that in the vast majority of cases, RLJ puts no-one at risk except the cyclist. That's not the case with motorised traffic that RLJ, who tend to do so faster and far more dangerously than cyclists.

I personally would be in favour of changing the law to make red lights the equivalent of give way lines for cyclists.

I'm not saying people should break the law; I'm saying we should change the law.


----------



## Hector (6 Aug 2012)

User said:


> Yes it is.


 
After looking at some case law it would appear that you are correct.


----------



## redcard (6 Aug 2012)

User said:


> I'll try and dig it out when I get to work. It was an analysis of signal cameras done a few years ago.
> 
> There was a wonderful example a few years ago, when the London Evening Standard was in one of its 'let's bash cyclists' phases. It had run a series of articles about awful cyclists who jumped red lights. A reporter got the chance to go out with the BiB when they were doing a 'crackdown'.
> 
> The result? The BiB's haul was 3 cyclists... and 143 motorists. The London Evening Standard suddenly started talking about the menace of drivers running red lights and the 'ambler gamblers'.



I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling. Sure, you always get the scum taxi driver pushing through an amber, but I see oblivious cyclists doing it 3-4 times a day


----------



## benb (6 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling. Sure, you always get the scum taxi driver pushing through an amber, but I see oblivious cyclists doing it 3-4 times a day


 
Well I see many more drivers RLJ, and far more dangerously, than cyclists. But I do not cycle in London.


----------



## GrasB (6 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling. Sure, you always get the scum taxi driver pushing through an amber, but I see oblivious cyclists doing it 3-4 times a day


on my inbound commutes I have to treat green lights as give way signs due to the number of people completely ignoring the lights. On the A10 today I was stationary for the entire time my lights were green due to cars jumping the lights!


----------



## marzjennings (6 Aug 2012)

User said:


> If you ride like an arseh@le then, despite your assessment of your driving behaviour, you are most likely to drive like an arseh@le as well. Being an arseh@le isn't dictated by the mode of transport.


Maybe.

My only infraction on my driving license was a speeding ticket about 15 years ago, but you're right, maybe I've just not been caught doing something stupid/illegal/irresponsible in over 20 years 15000 miles per year.

And I do distinguish between the two; doing something stupid in a car may kill someone else, where as doing something stupid on my bike may kill me.


----------



## slowmotion (6 Aug 2012)

marzjennings said:


> And I do distinguish between the two; doing something stupid in a car may kill someone else, where as doing something stupid on my bike may kill me.


 It's not that simple. If you got squashed crossing a junction on red, how do you think the car driver would feel about it? He might spend the rest of his life wondering if there was anything he could have done to save you. There are consequences. You don't exist in a bubble.
Sorry, mj, end of lecture.


----------



## Glow worm (6 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling. Sure, you always get the scum taxi driver pushing through an amber, but I see oblivious cyclists doing it 3-4 times a day


 
I have two junctions on my commute where you almost always get three or four cars going through on very mature amber or blatant red. At the worst one (Newmarket Road/ Ditton Lane junction in Cambridge) I frequently have to slow down or delay setting off completely whilst red light jumping cars clear the junction (turning right onto Newmarket road from Ditton Lane).


----------



## on the road (7 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling. Sure, you always get the scum taxi driver pushing through an amber, but I see oblivious cyclists doing it 3-4 times a day


You must live a sheltered live, because everywhere where I've been I've always seen cars jumping red lights. There's a couple of junctions that I've seen that are always grid locked and all because cars continue to go through on red.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Aug 2012)

on the road said:


> You must live a sheltered live, because everywhere where I've been I've always seen cars jumping red lights. There's a couple of junctions that I've seen that are always grid locked and all because cars continue to go through on red.


 

Agreed.
See car rlj'ing every day.. without fail... on my commute


----------



## StuartG (7 Aug 2012)

Its difficult to compare car & cycle RLJing. Basically once one car stops then they all have to, potential RLJers too. Whereas a stopped cyclist is no deterrent to a following determined cycling RLJer. You might also not wish to equate someone who crosses the line but stops (still legally a RLJer), someone who overgambles amber and someone who saunters through well after the lights have changed.

In other words be very careful quoting statistics you have think you may have read somewhere sometime with an objective method of measuring adherence, or not, with traffic signal law.


----------



## slowmotion (8 Aug 2012)

As a matter of curiosity, do all RLJ cameras trigger on bikes? I know that some do because I've been flashed for stopping five metres over the stop line going into a big RA.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Aug 2012)

No, it was just me. I edged forward by a few yards so that I could start out a bit sooner in front of a shedload of traffic which was all stopped at a busy road going into a roundabout. Swandon Way/ Wandsworth Bridge Road. I was the culprit. BTW, having edged forward, I did stop and wait for the lights to change.


----------



## User482 (9 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling. Sure, you always get the scum taxi driver pushing through an amber, but I see oblivious cyclists doing it 3-4 times a day


 
I see it every day. That includes going straight through red as I'm waiting to cross with my baby daughter in the trailer.


----------



## dawesome (9 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> I don't recall any blatant red light jumping from cars in the 6 months I've been cycling.


 
Ten thousand vehicles jump reds EVERY MONTH in London alone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3723726.stm


----------



## redcard (9 Aug 2012)

StuartG said:


> Its difficult to compare car & cycle RLJing....



Yes, most here appear to be equating zipping through a red light 0.16 seconds late with the cyclist who's piling through junctions, swerving round peds.


----------



## redcard (9 Aug 2012)

dawesome said:


> Ten thousand vehicles jump reds EVERY MONTH in London alone.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3723726.stm



You say that like it's a big number!

That's about one every 6 minutes.


----------



## GrasB (9 Aug 2012)

From this morning:
Number of lights encountered with motorists present - 4
Number of those lights with cameras - 1
Number of lights jumped - 3
Number of times I was forced to stop even though I had a green light - 3
Number of times another road user was forced to stop with a green light - 2
Number of cars jumping lights - 7

This is fairly typical of my commutes into work. So assuming that people in London are as aware of light cameras as they are around here, that's an astonishingly high number of drivers caught jumping lights.


----------



## Davidc (9 Aug 2012)

I don't rlj on the bike or in the car.

The original report mentions sensors not detecting bikes. Certainly a problem, but in the UK if that happens the lights are faulty and it's not rljing or an offence to pass the red with care. Same applies in a car.

Car drivers rljing are homicidal maniacs, cyclists doing it are suicidal maniacs. I can't do anything about other people so just try to allow for it.


----------



## Dan B (9 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> Yes, most here appear to be equating zipping through a red light 0.16 seconds late with the cyclist who's piling through junctions, swerving round peds.


One behaviour is just as illegal as the other. And that 0.16 seconds of red was preceded by at least half a second of amber (during which, incidentally, you were also legally obliged to stop if possible) so you can't exactly claim you were taken unawares by the light change


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2012)

redcard said:


> Yes, most here appear to be equating zipping through a red light 0.16 seconds late with the cyclist who's piling through junctions, swerving round peds.


 
Well, I know which is more likely to kill or injure someone.



Dan B said:


> One behaviour is just as illegal as the other. And that 0.16 seconds of red was preceded by at least half a second of amber (during which, incidentally, you were also legally obliged to stop if possible) so you can't exactly claim you were taken unawares by the light change


 
I think I'm right in saying that amber has to be on for 3 seconds.


----------



## dawesome (10 Aug 2012)

> “Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping, only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.


 
http://beta.ctc.org.uk/press-releas...umping-stats-for-cyclists-misleading-says-ctc

Not only do drivers jump reds more than cyclists they also hurt a lot more people doing so.


----------



## StuartG (10 Aug 2012)

Dan B said:


> One behaviour is just as illegal as the other.


Ahem, be careful. Illegal is by definition breaking the law. It is just as illegal to be a serial murderer as not paying your council tax.

The interesting bit comes with deciding (a) do you prosecute/PCN and (b) if you prosecute and win - what sanction is imposed. What I don't like about PCNs is that they are a flat rate punishment. Hence they do need a bit of discretion in their application. The enforcement officer always has an option of giving a stern warning or taking a long time to decide creating useful discomfort to the offender. Just as for dangerous driving the sentence is related to the severity of the consequences and the blatancy of the infringement and not simply the offence itself.

In the old days if a car went over a HALT sign without stopping it was a 10/- fine. If you were a cyclist it was 2/6d


----------



## Richard Mann (10 Aug 2012)

I apologise to my guardian angel when the light goes amber at the bottom of New Road (non-conflicting move), and I could have safely stopped. I'm not sure that they give-a-damn, though.


----------



## Dan B (28 Aug 2012)

StuartG said:


> Ahem, be careful. Illegal is by definition breaking the law. It is just as illegal to be a serial murderer as not paying your council tax.


Indeed, that was pretty much my point. You can't say rlj on a bike is as bad as in a car just because both are illegal.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (28 Aug 2012)

dawesome said:


> http://beta.ctc.org.uk/press-releas...umping-stats-for-cyclists-misleading-says-ctc
> 
> Not only do drivers jump reds more than cyclists they also hurt a lot more people doing so.





dawesome said:


> http://beta.ctc.org.uk/press-releas...umping-stats-for-cyclists-misleading-says-ctc
> 
> Not only do drivers jump reds more than cyclists they also hurt a lot more people doing so.



Filed under No Shoot Sherlock. Which 2 of the 3 modes of transport are narrow and agile enough to swerve a collision that a 4 wheeled lane width chunk of metal can't. Not excusing it in any form but 2 wheels have a disproportionately huge chance of a getting away with a near miss when in the wrong vs a car.


----------



## benb (28 Aug 2012)

Also, it's a bit rich to be lectured on RLJ by motorists, who are generally habitual speeders.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (28 Aug 2012)

User said:


> I'll try and dig it out when I get to work. It was an analysis of signal cameras done a few years ago.
> 
> There was a wonderful example a few years ago, when the London Evening Standard was in one of its 'let's bash cyclists' phases. It had run a series of articles about awful cyclists who jumped red lights. A reporter got the chance to go out with the BiB when they were doing a 'crackdown'.
> 
> The result? The BiB's haul was 3 cyclists... and 143 motorists. The London Evening Standard suddenly started talking about the menace of drivers running red lights and the 'ambler gamblers'.






User said:


> I'll try and dig it out when I get to work. It was an analysis of signal cameras done a few years ago.
> 
> There was a wonderful example a few years ago, when the London Evening Standard was in one of its 'let's bash cyclists' phases. It had run a series of articles about awful cyclists who jumped red lights. A reporter got the chance to go out with the BiB when they were doing a 'crackdown'.
> 
> The result? The BiB's haul was 3 cyclists... and 143 motorists. The London Evening Standard suddenly started talking about the menace of drivers running red lights and the 'ambler gamblers'.



143/3 = 47. 66 1 bike to <50 cars. In Central Manchester and surrounds I see far more than 50 cars : 1 bike, so IMO that proportion still shows pro rata more bikes than cars RLJing. 


To those in the thread saying that they daily get gridlocked and stopped for full phases of green by RLJ cars. Not saying I disbelieve you but its never once happened to me in 30 years cycling / 20 years with a driving licence always living in busy large urban conurbations. How about a quick video on the mobile since you're stationary anyway to show it happening a few times.
Or are you making out those that go through on green but can't clear the junction into RLJ's?


----------



## redcard (28 Aug 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> 143/3 = 47. 66 1 bike to <50 cars. In Central Manchester and surrounds I see far more than 50 cars : 1 bike, so IMO that proportion still shows pro rata more bikes than cars RLJing.
> 
> 
> To those in the thread saying that they daily get gridlocked and stopped for full phases of green by RLJ cars. Not saying I disbelieve you but its never once happened to me in 30 years cycling / 20 years with a driving licence always living in busy large urban conurbations. How about a quick video on the mobile since you're stationary anyway to show it happening a few times.
> Or are you making out those that go through on green but can't clear the junction into RLJ's?



Figures quoted earlier show that in London there is one rlj car every 6 minutes.

That's in the whole of London. 10 rlj in an hour.

The gridlocked green light phase is obviously complete nonsense!


----------



## ozzage (1 Sep 2012)

Any objective person can only laugh at claims that cars RLJ as often as bikes, or even anywhere NEAR as often. Do you guys HONESTLY believe that? I mean come on... we're all out there on the roads... we see the reality even if we like to deny it...

I'm sick of people justifying RLJing because it's "safe". It would be safe in a car too a lot of the time, if you crept forward slowly, looked around, made sure nobody was coming and then moved across. Including for pedestrian crossings. Would that be OK too? Why bother having laws or even lights at all? Just have clear rules on right of way and everybody will be fine they just need to check if it's safe first...


----------



## defy-one (1 Sep 2012)

Depends on the lights IMO
Busy major junctions - always stop
Small crossroads in London - nothing coming both ways - i'm gone. Sorry if that upsets some of you :-)


----------



## Dan B (1 Sep 2012)

ozzage said:


> I'm sick of people justifying RLJing because it's "safe". It would be safe in a car too a lot of the time, if you crept forward slowly, looked around, made sure nobody was coming and then moved across. Including for pedestrian crossings. Would that be OK too?



I'd be fine with that if you did it without getting in anyone's way or intimidating them. In something as wide and heavy and potentially fast as the average car I think the opportunities for doing so would be rather more limited than on a bike, but if they apply, go for it


sent from my outboard brain


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Sep 2012)

It is not uncommon to find threads on any cycling forum condeming poor driving standards. I would consider anyone to make such comments without first abiding by the laws which govern our roads to be hypocrits.. We all want the roads to be safer and the standards of those who use it to increase, I would have hoped that most cyclists would like to set an example.


----------



## TheDoctor (1 Sep 2012)

Oh FFS. Not this red herring again.
Some people run red lights. They might be on bikes, they might be in cars.
Can we stop banging on about it? It's getting kinda dull now...


----------



## CycleDrew (3 Sep 2012)

Nothing worse than being the person waiting at the lights and having someone roll right by, only to be overtaken shortly afterwards. Once is bad enough but when it happens at every set of lights on the embankment it drives you potters.


----------



## Dan B (3 Sep 2012)

CycleDrew said:


> Nothing worse than being the person waiting at the lights and having someone roll right by, only to be overtaken shortly afterwards.



Either you don't mean that literally, or you have a lack of imagination unparalleled in the modern age. 

sent from my outboard brain


----------



## AbelianGrape (5 Sep 2012)

I used to work with a chap who had been cycling to work through London for years. One morning he didn't turn up for work. He had been waiting patiently at a red light, and had been rear-ended by a RLJing car driver. Put him in hospital with some rather gory injuries.

I stop at red lights, because that is the law. I'm under no illusions that it's a particularly safe thing to do.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (5 Sep 2012)

I went through a red light at weekend, I was sat there on my own at the red lights, everyone else was let go, then my turn but it didnt charge, everyone else went again. Had to go through, I was sat there for 5 mins.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (5 Sep 2012)

2023368 said:


> This one comes up quite frequently. If the lights don't recognise you they count as broken and you should proceed at caution.


 
So its not a myth...


----------



## Dan_h (5 Sep 2012)

AbelianGrape said:


> I used to work with a chap who had been cycling to work through London for years. One morning he didn't turn up for work. He had been waiting patiently at a red light, and had been rear-ended by a RLJing car driver. Put him in hospital with some rather gory injuries.
> 
> I stop at red lights, because that is the law. I'm under no illusions that it's a particularly safe thing to do.


 
That happened to me but on a motorbike, I stopped, the person behind me put their foot down.. I ended up with a broken shoulder and extensive bruising to my back. Fortunately it was not my bike (it was from the shop as mine was being serviced) so no real harm done


----------



## AbelianGrape (18 Sep 2012)

My theory is that the number of crap drivers will continue to rise, and at some point we will have to concede defeat and reclassify the RLJ as defensive cycling. Stopping at lights will mark us out as old-fashioned, quaint and timid, a bit like riding in the gutter.


----------



## Nicobulus (17 Oct 2012)

Basic problem is we're all very impatient and equate waiting a lights when we could be moving as wasting time. The Monash research (and it's a fine tertiary institution) suggests that we'd all be happier if we could legally circumvent the problem. Traffic lights don't help with that; especially when users know that stopping means a long wait. "Green man" schemes are the most infuriating of all as they make motorists trigger happy.
Roundabouts and common sense should apply.


----------



## User6179 (19 Oct 2012)

I have two red lights that I go through regulary but only because there is no reason to stop other than its at red.


----------



## Stugiffy (27 Nov 2012)

In london there are traffic lights nearly every 500 metres or so, and it's so annoying when ur at lights and no one is moving, I personally feel if it is safe to do so go for it, traffic in London is a nightmare and if its not bad enough being cut up but taxis, buses, half wits in the 6litre 4x4s, then u have the problem of the zombie pedestrians who just walk out in front of you while there on there precious mobiles. It is quite satisfying to get ahead of the traffic at the lights, and in london the cyclist is the fasted mode of transport apart from mopeds anyway.


----------



## benb (27 Nov 2012)

I am becoming more and more of the opinion that, for cycles, red lights should have the equivalent status of a give way junction.

I don't think cyclists should flout traffic laws; I think we should change the law.


----------



## Drago (27 Nov 2012)

AbelianGrape said:


> I used to work with a chap who had been cycling to work through London for years. One morning he didn't turn up for work. He had been waiting patiently at a red light, and had been rear-ended by a RLJing car driver. Put him in hospital with some rather gory injuries.
> 
> I stop at red lights, because that is the law. I'm under no illusions that it's a particularly safe thing to do.


I once got rear ended (fortunately with no injury or damage). I was waiting to turn from a minor road into the heavy traffic of a major road, so I had no choice but to wait.

Im under no illusion that I was hit because the car driver was simply an in attentive arriss and had nothing to do with me obeying the law and waiting, not that I had much choice.

There is much underground discussion, but I've yet to see anything empirical that reasonably proves that breaking the law on the road lessens your chance of coning to harm.


----------



## biggs682 (31 Dec 2012)

Eddy said:


> I have two red lights that I go through regulary but only because there is no reason to stop other than its at red.


 surely that is a good enough reason ?

would you do it if you were driving a motor vehicle of any description


----------



## AbercynonGaz (31 Dec 2012)

Always stop at red lights, never know when a lunatic is coming the other way at high speed. (I have seen a few) If they are sensor controlled lights that don't pick cyclists up, then I proceed with caution. (My fave three words of this thread:-))


----------



## User6179 (1 Jan 2013)

biggs682 said:


> surely that is a good enough reason ?
> 
> would you do it if you were driving a motor vehicle of any description


 
On one of the lights there should be a filter arrow to turn left but there is not , dont ask me why because I dont know, so I turn left as the cars from the left come out to their right, like I say no reason to stop other than the light is at red( I do stop for green man tho) and last week the police were in the queue of traffic so slowed right down in cycle lane til lights changed and as I got to the corner at the traffic light to turn, the car to my right cut the corner but luckily I thought he might athough he wasnt indicating to turn left and I managed to stop, so next time police or no police am going through , Dont know why they stop cycle lanes before a corner instead of around the corner, surefire way of getting someone killed!

The second light I jump is one where the lights at either side of a small narrow rail bridge where both lights are always at red to allow walkers a safe course across the bridge and if I didnt want to jump a red light would have to either walk in my cleats or wait for a car to come so I just go throught it when clear to do so.

In answer to your second question I would jump the second light in a car if it didnt respond to my presence like it dosnt on the bike but I imagine it would so I wouldnt need to.

I think people see these idiots in big citys jumping every light n going through pedestrian crossing and assume all red light jumping is bad when its not, there are a lot of red lights where the law should be changed to treat in particuliar left turns like you would treat a stop sign so you can turn left when safe to do so while cycling,this would allow the cyclist to get ahead of traffic and IMO a lot safer than waiting and getting cut-off on the corner especially if a large vehicle appears behind you as you wait.


----------



## User6179 (1 Jan 2013)

AbercynonGaz said:


> Always stop at red lights, never know when a lunatic is coming the other way at high speed. (I have seen a few) If they are sensor controlled lights that don't pick cyclists up, then I proceed with caution. (My fave three words of this thread:-))


 
So not ALWAYS stop at red lights then ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Jan 2013)

Eddy said:


> I think people see these idiots in big citys jumping every light n going through pedestrian crossing and assume all red light jumping is bad when its not, there are a lot of red lights where the law should be changed to treat in particuliar left turns like you would treat a stop sign so you can turn left when safe to do so while cycling,this would allow the cyclist to get ahead of traffic and IMO a lot safer than waiting and getting cut-off on the corner especially if a large vehicle appears behind you as you wait.


I think the law should be changed so that I can help myself to bottles of single malt at Waitrose without the tedium of having to pay for them. Judging by the shoplifting problem they have there I guess a lot of other folk agree share my desire.

But until the law is changed I guess I'll have to carry on paying for my scotch like a civilised law-abiding citizen.


----------



## green1 (9 Jan 2013)

AbelianGrape said:


> My theory is that the number of crap drivers will continue to rise


 Yes it will until they realise you can't police roads with speed cameras and you need more traffic police.


----------



## benb (9 Jan 2013)

green1 said:


> Yes it will until they realise you can't *only* police roads with speed cameras and you need more traffic police.


 
FTFY.


----------



## Richard Mann (10 Jan 2013)

Front page of the Brighton Argus yesterday was complaining about RLJing.

At a junction with no approach cycle lanes, and no ASL (1 lane becoming 2 on the approach to the lights), and an all-green pedestrian phase. So what happens? You filter through the queue, get to the lights just as they go red, then sit alongside a car while a few pedestrians cross. It would try the patience of a saint.


----------



## green1 (10 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> Front page of the Brighton Argus yesterday was complaining about RLJing.
> 
> At a junction with no approach cycle lanes, and no ASL (1 lane becoming 2 on the approach to the lights), and an all-green pedestrian phase. So what happens? You filter through the queue, get to the lights just as they go red, then sit alongside a car while a few pedestrians cross. It would try the patience of a saint.


So if you were driving would you just plough on through as well? Your on a vehicle on the road, you should obey the lights. It really isn't rocket science.


----------



## User6179 (10 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I think the law should be changed so that I can help myself to bottles of single malt at Waitrose without the tedium of having to pay for them. Judging by the shoplifting problem they have there I guess a lot of other folk agree share my desire.
> 
> But until the law is changed I guess I'll have to carry on paying for my scotch like a civilised law-abiding citizen.


 
Ive yet to meet a scotch drinker that is civilised!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Jan 2013)

Eddy said:


> Ive yet to meet a scotch drinker that is civilised!


I'm fairly civilised, I think, before I drink the scotch.


----------



## Renard (10 Jan 2013)

I ran a red light today or at least an ambery pink one. I was driving a car. Now I'm not sure if I did it because of some cyclist part of my genetic makeup?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jan 2013)

Nah Amber Gamblers should join Amber Gamblers Anonymous, a long established organisation.


----------



## hoski (11 Jan 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> Front page of the Brighton Argus yesterday was complaining about RLJing.
> 
> At a junction with no approach cycle lanes, and no ASL (1 lane becoming 2 on the approach to the lights), and an all-green pedestrian phase. So what happens? You filter through the queue, get to the lights just as they go red, then sit alongside a car while a few pedestrians cross. It would try the patience of a saint.


 
I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, right?


----------



## Richard Mann (12 Jan 2013)

hoski said:


> I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, right?


 
An approach cycle lane and ASL (you know, like we have at virtually every junction in Oxford) would certainly put any non-saints in a better frame of mind. It's just a piece of poor infrastructure, and the misbehaviour of a few cyclists is just lazy who-can-we-have-a-go-at-this-time journalism.

There are problems: solve them. If you don't have a solution then try tolerance.


----------



## Bromptonaut (13 Jan 2013)

redcard said:


> Figures quoted earlier show that in London there is one rlj car every 6 minutes.
> 
> That's in the whole of London. 10 rlj in an hour.


 
I'm sorry but that figure is nonsense, perhaps derived from actual offences detected by cameras

I can stand at the Holborn end of Chancery Lane and see 10 motor vehicles rlj in as many minutes. Buses and taxis amongst worst offenders.


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Jan 2013)

Cyclists run red lights for the same reason a dog licks its wotsits.

Because it - and we - can.


----------



## newfhouse (15 Jan 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> Cyclists run red lights for the same reason a dog licks its wotsits.
> 
> Because it - and we - can.


I can't. I'm not as flexible as I used to be.


----------



## Dan B (15 Jan 2013)

2252330 said:


> OK, let's look at it the other way around then. Why do so many cyclists stop at red?


Speaking from personal experience only, because traffic is often coming the other way, and it's at a minimum Quite Rude to make them take evasive action when they have priority. And/or pedestrians, although I'm not sure that there's any applicable legal concept of 'priority' for peds, but scaring the sh#t out of then is still not very polite


----------



## Dan B (15 Jan 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> I can stand at the Holborn end of Chancery Lane and see 10 motor vehicles rlj in as many minutes. Buses and taxis amongst worst offenders.


If you count vehicles going through on amber (which I believe but would not swear is the same offence in law) I reckon you would see 10 motor vehicles rlj in *each* of those minutes


----------



## Dan B (16 Jan 2013)

2257229 said:


> What about when it is quite pointless though? Pelican crossing that turns red and the person who pushed the button has crossed and gone. Plenty of us still stop for that one.


That's a good time to fiddle with the mp3 player, or else to fix spelling and grammar in cycle chat posts composed on the move.


----------



## benb (16 Jan 2013)

Dan B said:


> If you count vehicles going through on amber (which I believe but would not swear is the same offence in law) I reckon you would see 10 motor vehicles rlj in *each* of those minutes


 
You believe correctly. If however you are so close to the line when it changes to amber that to pull up would itself be dangerous, then you may proceed as though it was green. IOW: flooring it to get through while it is still on amber is just as illegal as going through on red.


----------



## Bromptonaut (17 Jan 2013)

benb said:


> You believe correctly. If however you are so close to the line when it changes to amber that to pull up would itself be dangerous, then you may proceed as though it was green. IOW: flooring it to get through while it is still on amber is just as illegal as going through on red.


 
It is an offence to fail to stop on amber but there is a valid defence if driver believes it would be dangerous. Crossing on red is an absolute offence; only defence is instruction by a police officer in uniform.


----------



## GrasB (18 Jan 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> It is an offence to fail to stop on amber but there is a valid defence if driver believes it would be dangerous. Crossing on red is an absolute offence; only defence is instruction by a police officer in uniform.


Or you moving through the red would enable you to avoid a collision.


----------



## CopperBrompton (23 Jan 2013)

TfL survey on RLJing:


----------



## StuartG (23 Jan 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> Crossing on red is an absolute offence; only defence is instruction by a police officer in uniform.


Is that true?

I was stopped (driving a car) at a red traffic light protected by a camera when a Fire Engine on blues & two came up behind. Do I move over the line to let him through and get a flash (and try negotiate with the insane people who administer penalty tickets in London) or put lives at risk? I dithered. Happily the lights decided to change and solved my conundrum. But we really don't need any ambiguity here. Flashing blue lights should mean 'get out of the way' with the same authority as a fully dressed plod.


----------



## CopperBrompton (23 Jan 2013)

Yes, I recall one time years ago I was driving on the M20 on a coned-off section with only one lane open, 50mph limit but nobody working there. A police car with blues-and-twos came up behind me. I waved to them then accelerated to 90 until clear of the cones, and got a wave of thanks as they accelerated past. These days, with all the speed cameras around, I'm not sure I'd do the same.


----------



## Bromptonaut (23 Jan 2013)

StuartG said:


> Is that true?
> 
> I was stopped (driving a car) at a red traffic light protected by a camera when a Fire Engine on blues & two came up behind. Do I move over the line to let him through and get a flash (and try negotiate with the insane people who administer penalty tickets in London) or put lives at risk? I dithered. Happily the lights decided to change and solved my conundrum. But we really don't need any ambiguity here. Flashing blue lights should mean 'get out of the way' with the same authority as a fully dressed plod.


 
As I understand it yes. There are fairly regular cases in popular papers where people get camera tickets for this sort of thing. Problem is camera rarely captures the fire appliance or ambulance.


----------



## StuartG (23 Jan 2013)

Bromptonaut said:


> Problem is camera rarely captures the fire appliance or ambulance.


Even if they do they are rarely manned by police in uniform. Otherwise it should not be a problem as i understood that all blues & twos must be carefully logged so it should be straightforward to cross reference any defence against incident.

My gambit (if the lights had not quickly changed) was to wait till the engine was right behind me so it would feature on the snap too. Silly and potentially dangerous. And if you are right - no defence!


----------



## CopperBrompton (23 Jan 2013)

The problem is we're dependent in this situation on intelligent decision-making, a commodity that is frequently in short supply among those making prosecution decisions.


----------

