Nearly 400 cyclists have been given on-the-spot fines for flouting the law in the last three months as part of a police crackdown on traffic offences in the City - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23572385-details/Hundreds%20of%20cyclists%20fined%20for%20flouting%20rules%20of%20the%20road/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

Most of the £30 fines have been given to cyclists going through red lights, with 296 handed out for this offence since the start of Operation Typhoon in July.

Another 27 cyclists have been fined for riding on pavements, 48 for flouting other traffic signs and a handful have been fined for failing to stop for a police officer or riding without lights at night. The crackdown has also targeted motorcyclists and car drivers.

The Met and City police conduct periodic enforcement campaigns in which cyclists who break the law are handed £30 on the spot fines or warned about their conduct. Police community support officers are also now able to issue fixed penalty notices.

Should the crackdown against cyclist offences in the City be extended?

If you mean extended beyond London then I am ambivalent,
if you mean extended as in for another three months or hopefully for ever then I would vote for that with both hands.
There are undoubtedly a great many responsible law abiding cyclists, but then there are the hard core lycra warriors who have become accustomed to doing whatever they like, secure in the knowledge that the Keystone Kops will avert their eyes.
I think that the law should cane them unmercifully, I would suggest that if they get stopped for a second transgression the fine should be doubled, then doubled again if they won't learn and get stopped again. £30, then £60, then £120, then £240, eventually they'll get the message.

Extended to where? All road users should respect the law.

The problem is, and the question that really needs answering is why cyclist who jump the lights are targeted, but motorists who enter the ASL (advanced stop lines) are not. (in law also jumping the lights, and subject to a fine and 3 points.)

The Police do not enforce this part of the road traffic act. They have no targets for it. Many do not even know this part of the road traffic act exists.)

Ask a policeman how many bikes they have you booked, then ask how many cars they have booked for the above offence, you'll get an embarrassed silence.

These cycle "safety" areas are regularly abused by so called professional (taxi, bus and even the police themselves.) as well as motor cycles and cars. Although not condoning the practice, perhaps it is safer to "jump" the lights as a cyclist rather than be "assaulted" in an ASL, where all motor vehicles know they will not be prosecuted.

A cyclist.

> Ask a policeman how many bikes they have you booked, (sic) then ask how many cars they have booked for the above
> offence, you'll get an embarrassed silence.
> A cyclist.

I would suggest that if you asked a policeman that question you would get the same reaction that you would get if you asked how much overtime he did in the previous month, and it would definitely not be an embarrassed silence.

I am a cycle commuter of 3 yrs in central London. I treat vehicles with caution, and pedestrians with respect and will always give way when they are waiting to cross at zebra or pelican crossings.

There are degrees of idiocy amongst cyclists as there are amongst drivers (judging by the comments on this page!). It is important to recognise that this is not a black and white issue, where a cyclist who runs a red light is as bad as one who does so with pedestrians crossing. It is important to recognise this as it is perfectly possible to cycle considerately and safely whilst breaking the law (as you do when you drive - who hasn't broken a speed limit?)

My main arguments to support this and for general consideration are as follows:

The start point for discussing what cyclists should and shouldn't do is that bicycles are pedestrians on wheels, not motorbikes without engines.

The discretion exercised by cyclists in judging whether to proceed through a red light is no different to the discretion exercised by a driver in driving at 54mph in a 50 zone. Both acts are illegal but safe (which is why Police won't prosecute you for doing 54mph in a 50 zone unless you are being reckless!

If a pedestrian can exercise discretion in crossing the road when it is safe, why can't a cyclist? Cyclists (should) have all there senses judging the risks. Drivers have only their eyesight and that is restricted, which is why they are not free to exercise the discretion cyclists are capable of in these situations, particularly because the consequences of a mistake are much higher.

What is the problem if it is safe? Why do drivers take such vociferous exception to this, when they are not placed at risk and their progress is not impeded? Jealousy? If so, buy a bike!

Message to drivers. Ask yourself why seeing a cyclist break the law when it is safe, and where it doesn’t impact on you in any way, still upsets you so much?

Message to cyclists. Treat all road users, but particularly pedestrians, with the same respect and courtesy that you would wish to receive. Above all, progress as you need to to keep yourself as safe as possible, without placing anyone else at risk. If this means cycling through a red light at a pelican crossing at 10pm with no one around, I wouldn’t lose sleep over it!

You write a lucid, well thought out post. However, as far as I am concerned you just don't get it.
If a traffic light is red it means that EVERYONE stops, it's the law. I taught my children that if they cross the road at traffic lights, they wait for CROSS NOW to appear, then, and only then, is it safe to do so. In addition they were told not to cross at a pedestrian crossing until the traffic had stopped completely. Should I now tell them that it is safe to cross the road but to watch for any ignorant cyclists deeming that it is also safe for them to keep going through the red light or past vehicles that have stopped at the pedestrian crossing?

I understand your frustrations, but from a cyclists point of view, with the lack of enforcement of ASLs and cycle lanes which are routinely ignored by motorists and the complete lack any kind of proper cycle network or phased lights to allow cyclists to move away from junctions before motorists, as I pointed out on the other thread, it is often safer to keep going through red to avoid the rush of revving motorists accelerating through lights as they change, often cutting up cyclists to turn left.

Personally I would only ever ride through a red if the way is clear, precisely to avoid the above situation, but I understand that many cyclists push on through crowds of pedestrians causing resentment. On the other hand I see frequent stupidity from other road users too. Anyway we've been through all this on the other thread....

"If a traffic light is red it means that EVERYONE stops, it's the law"...

- Do you ever break the speed limit? If so, why is that any more acceptable?

"Should I now tell them that it is safe to cross the road but to watch for any ignorant cyclists deeming that it is also safe for them to keep going"...

- Any cyclist who rides a red light with pedestrians waiting to cross - especially children!- should feel the full weight of the law on their shoulder, as should any driver who speeds when the conditions are inappropriate.

Once upon atime all junctions required that you had the right of way, or that you had to give way. The introduction of the traffic light at junctions was to enable those having to give way to have the right of way, to ease congestion. At some junctions they were also in response to accidents but only ever involving motor-vehicles with the associated costs to society.

Ask yourself this: If I am alongside a pedestrian at a cross-road junction and we both want to cross in the same direction. He can choose when to cross (when he deems it is safe to do so). Why can't I? Using my argument above, it may be technically illegal, but it is safe, as is doing 41mph in a 40 zone.

Right off the bat let me say that I have no wish to get into a WW3 argument with TWG. It is patently obvious that we see this bone of contention from opposing sides. TWG appears to concede that my instructions to my children re- crossing roads are not unreasonable. For this I both thank and applaud him/her. By this concession alone it is obvious that I am not crossing swords with a moron.
Now, do I ever exceed the speed limit? Yes I do.

Interested only in developing each others arguments until either I stop at an empty zebra crossing at 11pm and patiently wait for the light to change, or until you stop turning yourself inside out with apoplectic rage whenever you see a cyclist cautiously progress across an empty junction against a red light!

We share the same point of view against the lunatics out there who cut up pedestrians.

What annoys me is that this 'crime' doesn't have a victim, other than the hurt and jealous feelings of some car drivers. The number of car drivers injured because of this crime in the last 5 yrs = 0. The number of pedestrians = 5 (in central London). Yet we have Police officers spending hours trying to catch cyclists, when I have had a garden shed broken into, and a bike stolen and for both crimes the Police couldn't even be bothered to turn up!...this is REALLY screwed up...!

Please answer this. If the Police are successful, and cyclists stop running red lights, what is going to be the tangible result of this 'victory'? Over 5 yrs 5 pedestrians will have less cuts and bruises than they would have had, meanwhile kids continue to kill each other, and steal our things because of a "lack of resources". Great victory for society - well done to all involved!

> What annoys me is that this 'crime' doesn't have a
> victim, other than the hurt and jealous feelings of
> some car drivers.

Wrong Sir...TOTALLY WRONG...This offence CAN have a victim, and that victim is most likely to be the cyclist him/herself

Let me put a scenario to you:-
You are a driver of a Police Car /Ambulance or Fire Engine, on your way to an emergency in which many lives are threatened. As you approach the lights, you see that your direction is green, therefore EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE STOPPED, and this includes cyclists. However, you proceed through the junction at some 20 to 30 mph, only to suddenly find that you have hit a stupid cyclist who has ignored the red light and crossed in front of you!
Result is one cyclist dead, an emergency call not responded to in a timely manner, and the possibility of many other lives being lost. All this because a cyclist thought he/she was above the law, and that traffic lights are not meant for him/her!

You have a very sad view on the world if you think that you are above the law. You moan about the fact that Police Officers could not come to your shed that was broken into due to a lack of resources. Perhaps a number of the resources were dealing with foolish cyclists who had ridden through red traffic lights and sustained injury in collision with another vehicle, of which, undoubtedly, in your view, the driver of said vehicle would be to blame for the collision.

Quick question:

Do you ever break the speed limit (even by a couple of mph)? If you do, you too think you are above the law. I am just trying to establish how sad your view of the world is.

Apart from the suicidal few, cyclists crossing red lights are treating them as give way junctions. If they can't cross a give way junction without being hit by an emergency vehicles (presumably with lights flashing a siren blaring), then the cyclist shouldn't be on the road.

Very bad example...choose a more challenging one. But before you do, look up how many cyclists have been killed in the last year because they jumped a red light (answer none!).

> Let me put a scenario to you:-
> You are a driver of a Police Car /Ambulance or
> or Fire Engine, on your way to an emergency in which
> many lives are threatened. As you approach the
> lights, you see that your direction is green,
> therefore EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE STOPPED, and this
> includes cyclists. However, you proceed through the
> junction at some 20 to 30 mph, only to suddenly find
> that you have hit a stupid cyclist who has ignored
> the red light and crossed in front of you!
> Result is one cyclist dead, an emergency call not
> responded to in a timely manner, and the possibility
> of many other lives being lost. All this because a
> cyclist thought he/she was above the law, and that
> traffic lights are not meant for him/her!
>
> You have a very sad view on the world if you think
> that you are above the law.

Nice try Sneekial, and a quite reasonable analogy I thought, but I fear you are wasting your time with TWG, there are none so blind as though that will not see. I would imagine that even if, God forbid, he went through a red light on his cycle, got hit and hospitalised he would emerge on crutches and declare himself ready to do it again as soon as he were fit to get back on his cycle.

TravisBickle,

Perhaps you'd like to address my question to Sneekial, developing the debate, and confirm that you've never broken the speed limit, instead of lazy sniping from the sidelines (adding nothing very useful). If you have ever broken a speed limit, you support to Sneekial is confusing since his central argument is that the law is never to be broken, regardless of the cirumstances.

My argument is that in practice the law is routinely broken depending on the cirumstances, cars speeding and cyclists treating traffic light junctions as a 'give-way' being two examples. Both equally illegal, and equally safe (assuming the appetite for risk applied to both acts is equal). A driver is just as capable of deciding it is safe to do 75mph as a cyclist is of concluding that it is perfectly safe to progress against a red light.

Don't confuse the safe progress through a red-light practiced daily by a very large number of cycle ommuters with the lunacy displayed by a minority who dodge both traffic and pedestrians with equal disrespect. I am certainly with most of you on that issue.

> TravisBickle,
>
> Perhaps you'd like to address my question to
> Sneekial, developing the debate, and confirm that
> you've never broken the speed limit, instead of lazy
> sniping from the sidelines (adding nothing very
> useful).

TWG,
In my post of 18.10.08, replying to your post, I admitted that, yes, I have exceeded the speed limit. When doing so I KNOW that I am breaking the law, even if it is 03.30 on an empty road and I feel it safe to speed up a touch. If I "flash" a speed camera, or get pulled over by the police then I would bite the bullet and take the fine/points. I cannot conceive of trotting out a weak, "but it was perfectly safe officer, there were few other vehicles/pedestrians around at the time" excuse. Where we appear to differ is that I freely admit to breaking the law if I exceed the speed limit, but I am prepared to take the punishment should I be caught, whereas you, while admitting to law breaking too, feel that you should not be punished because in your opinion it was "safe" to do so. I reiterate my previous statement, I have no desire to engage in a war of words with you. You have your entrenched attitude to this, I see it from a different aspect.

TravisBickle,

So, if we agree that the two acts (speeding by cars, and red-light jumping by bikes) are equally illegal (but neither justifies the other) can you offer an explanation as to why car drivers get so upset about red-light jumping bikes, when red-light jumping bikes don't really give a monkeys about a car doing 75 on the motorway, when the car presents a much greater threat to other road users.

The point of my argument is to demonstrate that red-light jumping on a bike is no more of a sin than many other illegal acts routinely carried out but under conditions that make them perfectly safe. But for some reason many individuals turn themselves inside out over cyclists...why? Why don't people feel the same 'blind fury' for a car sneaking over the speed limit. Particularly when the risks to others are much higher. The risks for cyclists are only to themselves. As much as I appreciate this selfless concern from apoplectic car drivers, it does confuse me.

> TravisBickle,
>
> So, if we agree that the two acts (speeding by cars,
> and red-light jumping by bikes) are equally illegal
> (but neither justifies the other) can you offer an
> explanation as to why car drivers get so upset about
> red-light jumping bikes.

TWG,
How about we agree to stop wasting each other's time, and no doubt boring other contributors, by constantly stating where we each stand on this point?
You can't understand why I should feel that cyclists should be subject to the same rules as other wheeled traffic on the roads, and I can't understand why you have the stones to declare that they shouldn't.
Personally I do not become incandescent while I watch cyclists passing lights on red, or threading their merry way through pedestrians on zebra crossings while motorised traffic has stopped to let the pedestrians cross.
No, what mystifies me is the deafening clang of the Keystone Kops eyes shutting tight when cyclists run the red lights.
In closing, I sincerely wish you well, and hope that you never become an accident statistic, be it on a cycle, on foot, or in a car.

Yes, Sneekial, interesting analogy, but hardly a regular occurence. I cycle around 120 miles a week, much of it in London and I have never found myself in difficult circumstances with an emergency vehicle.

I DO cross lights on red - regularly - for reasons I have outlined on the other thread under "current affairs", however emergency vehicles tend to make a lot of noise and flash alot and as a cyclist, out in the open, in a raised position with clear view across junctions, I am able to spot them coming from a long way away.

Completely agree with TWG. Motorists are happy to get up on their high horses about cyclists passing through red lights as though they were some kind of saints of the road, pausing only briefly at red lights themselves to polish their Highway Code Halos. Oh how far from the truth.....

I am all in favour of penalising cyclists for flouting the road traffic act and the highway code. After all they are road users as well and as so should abide by the rules as everyone else has to. Many years ago I had a run in with a cyclist who jumped a red light gave me the finger and laughed, he didn't laugh for long when I knocked him off his bike and left him sitting on the pavement. Yes I did do it on purpose. Just to show him that he would come off worse if he wanted to play chicken with cars. I wonder if he learned his lesson. Doubt it.
I also think that bicycles should pay some sort of insurance to cover for their blatent disregard of the rules of the road. Maybe they wouldn't be so gung ho about their actions. This should also be extended to the Rickshaws in London, in fact they should confiscate them for not being licensed or insured for carriage of passengers.
Just a by thought is it not a legal requirement that all vehicles using the roads must have adequate lighting so as to be seen at night?

> he
> didn't laugh for long when I knocked him off his bike
> and left him sitting on the pavement. Yes I did do it
> on purpose.



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt realise that it was actually an offence at he moment to be in one of the green zones at junctions.

At times it is possible to find that your vehicle is in one because trying to stop before crossing the line might cause the idiot behind you to rear end you as they are to close.

No lights at night on a bicycle? a definite, if only to emphasize the stupidity of doing so. Try looking in a mirror with headlights approaching from behind and spotting the cyclist with no lights, no easy task.

Get those really bright flashing lights and you stand a much better chance of being seen. Also, many cyclists do have a red light on the back but its not always very bright or easy to see and sometimes its partially or completely obscured by clothing, just an observation.

One more thing, how many cyclists here actually look behind them and indicate their intention to move out to overtake a parked vehicle, many I see just move out totally taking for granted that other road users are going to anticipate what they are about to do and take the appropriate action.

Most of The Highway Code isn't backed by any law, so you can't be penalised for breaking it. Bicycles are, however, covered by the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, so you can be nicked for not having lights or, indeed, for having flashing ones.

>london_boy

>or, indeed, for having flashing ones.

Flashing lights are legal.

Highway code, rule 60:

At night your cycle MUST have white front and red rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen. Flashing lights are permitted but it is recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas without street lighting use a steady front lamp.

>nighter

>I didnt realise that it was actually an offence at he moment to be in one of the green zones at junctions.

It's not an offence.

It's illegal to cross the first white line whilst the light is showing red.

If you are over the first line and the light goes red you must stop at the second line.

It's not illegal to be stopped in the ASL.

So, if the light is red and you cross the first white line to enter the box then the offence is that you crossed the line, not that you're stopped in the box.

> >london_boy
> >or, indeed, for having flashing ones.
> Flashing lights are legal.
>
> Highway code, rule 60:
>
> At night your cycle MUST have white front and red
> rear lights lit. It MUST also be fitted with a red
> rear reflector (and amber pedal reflectors, if
> manufactured after 1/10/85). White front reflectors
> and spoke reflectors will also help you to be seen.
> Flashing lights are permitted but it is
> recommended that cyclists who are riding in areas
> without street lighting use a steady front lamp.
>
>

I stand corrected. I was looking at the original 1989 regulations, but it appears that the 2005 amendment allows flashing lights.

> >nighter
> >I didnt realise that it was actually an offence at
> he moment to be in one of the green zones at
> junctions.
>
> It's not an offence.
>
> It's illegal to cross the first white line whilst the
> light is showing red.
>
> If you are over the first line and the light goes red
> you must stop at the second line.
>
> It's not illegal to be stopped in the ASL.
>
> So, if the light is red and you cross the first white
> line to enter the box then the offence is that you
> crossed the line, not that you're stopped in the box.

I thought as much, thanks

Although isn't there some scheme in the future to make it an offence to be in the green zone when the lights are red.

>Nighter

>Although isn't there some scheme in the future to make it an offence to be in the green zone when the lights are red.


I've not heard of it, it would be silly though as it means you'd have to jump the red ot get out of the box.

> >Nighter
> >Although isn't there some scheme in the future to
> make it an offence to be in the green zone when the
> lights are red.
>
>
> I've not heard of it, it would be silly though as it
> means you'd have to jump the red ot get out of the
> box.

I think the idea was that drivers should regard the line at the start of the green box as the stop line at the traffic light controlled junction and not enter it under pain of penalty points etc. It does seem to have gone quiet on that particular subject, although as we all know that doesn't necessarily mean it aint gonna happen