- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
feature
Cyclists in Richmond Park with London skyline (copyright Simon MacMichael)'Cyclists are always breaking the law and are a menace on the roads' – cycling myths debunked
Cyclists stand accused of putting themselves and others in danger on Britain's roads by constantly breaking the law. Certain newspapers seem obsessed with cyclists supposedly terrorising the streets and you see comments on social media all the time condemning the behaviour of 'Lycra louts'.
Our articles on changes to the Highway Code, including the introduction of a Hierarchy of Road Users and minimum 1.5-metre passing distance that have now been added the Code, led to a number of angry emails landing in the road.cc inbox: "Cyclist's are all now taking to using the pavements to cycle", "cyclists don't give a crap", "Cyclist must be insured to use the roads!"... there's a brief flavour of the less positive communications we received about the article.
Back in 2019, we also reported that Talksport presenter Andy Goldstein had stated on air that 95% of cyclists jump red lights (among other gripes about cyclists). This kind of claim is common, but what's the truth?
Comments on social media frequently cite the fact that many cyclists don't wear helmets or bright clothing as evidence that we're all criminals. You'll know that this is nonsense. The Highway Code advises cyclists to wear a helmet and light-coloured clothing in daylight, and reflective clothing and/or accessories in the dark but, of course, these aren't legal requirements.
You'll also see comments complaining that cyclists are flouting the rules by wearing earphones, riding two abreast, positioning themselves in the middle of the lane, and not using cycle lanes. Again, you'll know that none of these things are illegal.
Jumping red lights is perhaps the classic complaint about cyclists. It's an old favourite. This one at least gets off to a better start than most in that jumping red lights is against the law (some cyclists jump red lights because they feel safer moving into open space at signalised junctions rather than waiting for the following traffic to accelerate into that junction when the lights turn green – but the rights and wrongs or jumping red lights are a topic for another day).
How many cyclists jump red lights, then?
Back in 2007 (yes, we're going back a bit here, but there's not a lot of quantitative evidence out there), Transport for London's Road Network Performance & Research Team looked at the proportion of cyclists who jumped red lights at five sites in the capital and said, "An average of 16% violated red lights, whilst the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals. Therefore it can be concluded that the majority of cyclists do not ride through red lights."
More recently, in a 2013 YouGov survey 27% of London cyclists said they ignored red lights occasionally while another 8% said that they did so often. This survey relied on self-reporting and we couldn't judge its accuracy.
Many road users will tell you that the figures are higher than this. You'll sometimes hear claims of people seeing dozens – maybe hundreds – of cyclists jumping certain traffic lights every day. They might be right. How much of a safety concern is this? Let's have a look at some more stats...
From 2007-16, no pedestrians in Britain were killed by red light jumping cyclists, while around five a year were killed by red light jumping drivers. For pedestrians hit by red light jumpers, just 7.6% of those slightly injured and 5.4% of those seriously injured involved cyclists. The other 92%-95% involved motor vehicles.
The percentages relating to cyclists are higher in London, where the concentration of pedestrians, cyclists and traffic lights is particularly heavy: 16% of pedestrians injured or seriously injured by red light jumpers were hit by cyclists, the other 84% involved drivers/riders of motor vehicles.
Judged purely on the number of casualties, red light jumping motorists are a far greater problem than red light jumping cyclists.
If it sounds like this is turning into an 'Us versus Them' thing, bear in mind that almost everyone on the road.cc staff is a motorist as well as a cyclist, the vast majority of you road.cc readers are both, and about 90% of British Cycling members also drive. However, if cyclists are singled out for breaking the law it makes sense to examine the degree to which other road users stick to it as a means of comparison.
According to the Department for Transport's Vehicle Speed Compliance Statistics, 48% of car drivers exceeded the speed limit on motorways in 2017, 52% exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads, and a massive 86% exceeded the speed limit on 20mph roads under free flow conditions.
How big a problem is exceeding the speed limit? Well, more figures from the Department for Transport say that in 2017 it was reported as a contributory factor in accidents that resulted in 220 deaths, 1,493 serious injuries and 5,855 slight injuries (travelling too fast for the conditions but within the speed limit was reported as a contributory factor in many, many more injuries and deaths). A massive problem, then.
The consequences of cyclists jumping red lights are small compared with the consequences of motorists jumping red lights, and they're tiny compared with the consequences of motorists speeding. In fact, all of those usual gripes you hear about cyclists – riding on the pavement and the like – result in very few casualties.
Despite that, it's cyclists who are routinely denounced as “a dangerous nuisance”, “a threat to safety" and the like on social media, and you'll encounter headlines like "Cyclists kill or maim two pedestrians every week, according to statistics" in The Express... ignoring the fact that between 2007 and 2016 motor vehicles were involved in 98.5% of collisions where a pedestrian was seriously injured and 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian died. The biggest threat to pedestrians certainly doesn't come from cyclists!
Mile for mile, pedestrians are more likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a bicycle. From 2012 to 2016 in Great Britain, for every one billion miles ridden overall, cycles were involved in 1.4 pedestrian fatalities. For every one billion miles they were driven, cars were involved in 1.9 pedestrian fatalities.
Cyclists breaking the law can sometimes have major – occasionally tragic – consequences, but why do so many people seem convinced that the problem is bigger than it actually is? There's a huge disparity between perception and reality here.
We'd guess – and it is a guess – it's partly because jumping a red light and riding on the pavement are so much more obvious than a motorist doing 35mph in a 30 zone. Plus, some people simply seem to believe that speeding at 85mph on a motorway in a two tonne vehicle is perfectly acceptable in a way that riding a push bike at night with a light out isn't.
Research prepared for the Department for Transport also suggests that drivers can exaggerate the misbehaviour of cyclists because of a tendency to see us as an ‘out group’, and are prone to “overgeneralise from the behaviour of individual members of an ‘out group’ to the behaviour of members of the ‘out group’ as a whole.”
We'll leave the final word to Sam Jones, Cycling UK’s senior campaigns officer.
“Sometimes it feels as though cyclists are represented in the national media as the ‘real danger’ of our roads," he said. "The reality is that we cause negligible harm, but are disproportionately at risk of suffering serious injury. While that might seem to paint a grim picture for us cyclists, it’s worth bearing in mind Britain’s roads are relatively safe, and the benefits of cycling will always far outweigh any risks.
“Just because cyclists represent a smaller risk to other road users, that doesn’t justify inconsiderate or dangerous cycling. Cycling UK would encourage everyone to cycle considerately and within the boundaries of the law.
“The main problem is the shocking injustice that victims of road traffic incidents all too often face. It’s high time the Government took this problem seriously and ended the injustice suffered by far too many families who are being let down by the system.”
Cycling UK has compiled an excellent document to counter many of the accusations most commonly fired at cyclists, by the way. Check it out here.
Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 4 min 57 sec ago
RE: “They work fine in Europe so why not here?”: Are floating bus stops a “non-issue” or is there scope for design improvement?...
- Jaijai 16 min 7 sec ago
I'm surprised ,the ones I've seen 8n and built have all needed paint overspray pretty much all areas ,including headtube ,brake mount areas wheel...
- S.E. 26 min 47 sec ago
I had 2 bikes stolen in France, the police openly told me they only register bike thefts to file insurance claim, nothing more would be done about...
- HoarseMann 59 min 13 sec ago
Another thing that wasn't mentioned in the news articles, is why this lorry was there in the first place. There are weight restrictions on both...
- quiff 1 hour 21 min ago
Interesting. I would have expected someone else (wearing gloves) to handle the swab and administer the test to minimise that sort of contamination....
- eburtthebike 1 hour 36 min ago
No problem: Trump's going to fix it. The same way the tories fixed the NHS, only much, much worse.
- the little onion 2 hours 49 min ago
The bus should have been bigger and brighter coloured. How are drivers expected to spot a bright yellow double decker bus on our roads?...
- HoarseMann 3 hours 41 min ago
BBC news article on this implies anyone cycling on the road, rather than using the cycle area, is riding incorrectly! ...
- festina 5 hours 6 min ago
One thing that definitely doesn't hold up emergency vehicles is the volume of car traffic on the road or the autobesity of cars that has been going...
Add new comment
75 comments
This is one of Road.cc's nods to the environment - the comment you're replying to is a year old....
I only noticed after the fact. Reduce, re-use, recycle! And all that...
I think the biggest issue for drivers is that cyclists cause them to move out of the line they were travelling in, slow down to do so, keep an eye on what cyclists are doing and having to be that much more attentive. That is seen as an irritation when infact it is forcing awareness. If better cycle lanes were available - without road debris, lampposts, overhanging bushes, etc - it would allow both to coexist better. Also, dedicated lanes for cycling only. So many are shared with walkers, why not clearly indicate where walkers and cyclists should try to travel? It works in other countries.
I know this article is far from new and much had been commented, but the closeness of the fatalities per billion miles between cars and bikes is a surprise - 1.9 vs 1.4. Either being hit by a cyclist is more dangerous than I thought, or cyclists hit pedestrians more often per mile than I realised. Perhaps the stats are skewed by the masses of pedestrian-free miles done on motorways etc. In any case, we need to get that number down. I'd like to know if shared use paths might be part of that problem - I usually avoid them due to the unpredictable movement of some pedestrians (and broken glass, aimed fireworks, piano wire left by the local branch of the Great Escape Re-enactment Society, etc).
I was interested by the proximity of the figures too- I think you are probably right- millions of miles on motorways and dual carriageways where there are no pedestrians at all, whereas the majority of cyclist miles will be in urban areas.
The closeness is interesting but warrants more digging - with the caveat tha the "number of casualties I am likely to cause in a lifetime's cycling" numbers are really tiny so "chance" may not be just a hand-waving excuse.
Cyclists travel some places cars don't and vice versa. Also, aside from the motorways there's a general effect of roads seeing less pedestrian motor vehicle casualties because there are fewer people outside cars on them. As was said back in the day (1920s?) - the child, the animal and the pedestrian have learned to get out of the way of the car. Or rather - we've depressed their road usage. We also put barriers to keep them off the roads.
I think that there is an institutionalised attitude that car = right/correct. At a recent inquest in East Yorkshire, a Coroner decided that it was a tragic accident that resulted in the death of a drunk, unqulified and therefore uninsured driver when his car left the road and hit a tree. He did not consider the facts that the deceased was unqualified to drive a car and had consumed seven pints of lager to be contributing factors in the drivers death. Until attitudes like this Coroners are corrected, cyclists will always be an outgroup. Personally I'm just grateful that this driver did not kill anyone else.
Go into any big city near a uni or college and you'll see plenty of cyclists that look like they need stabilisers or something. Not saying you should be able to be doing nose manual tailwhips down the road but some people do look a liability on 2 wheels.
I remember when I did my CBT and the instructor told us you get some useless sods thinking they can ride motorbikes. This one lad turned up, started to ride off and dropped it...repeatedly. When asked if he could ride a bicycle, he couldn't!
For me, the ongoing frustration/irony of drivers accusing cyclists of being a danger on the because we haven't had to be trained and undergo a test is that even drivers only have to prove their competence once. Over a single 45 minute period.
I passed my test in 1987 (so no written test, no parallel parking etc.) and get to keep that licence for another 20 years without at any point having to prove my continued competence to take a vehicle on the road, in spite of vehicles in general being more powerful, and more numerous, than they were in the lat 1980s.
I also do not ever have to even look at the highway code no matter how many changes and updates are made.
I would have more sympathy with the argument for compulsory cycle training if it wasn't so easy to get a driving licence and keep it for 50 years+.
But if you look at the stats drivers who passed there tests 20-40 years ago are not high risk groups.
The cost of retraining drivers would be pretty massive simply because there are a lot of them and the evidence that it would have any impact on what are already pretty low numbers of deaths is not there.
If you were to look at what the highest risk group is by a mile, it is motorcycle riders, there are also pretty much the highest trained group of road users.
There are better ways to spend the money, e.g. cycle paths and road improvements, particulary on out of town A/B roads with blind bends and concealed entrances.
I had a browse through the stats after reading this, one of the most basic observations was that in 2018 26% of car occupant fatalities were not wearing their seatbelt! Hence why to get a 5 star NCAP you need an annoying bong if the seatbelt isn't fastened which is a relatively cheap intervention.
nniff - I commute around 10 miles morning and 10 in the evening probably being passed by around 100 killing machines each way. It beggars belief that statistically I'm maybe at risk by 10 drivers per day (not to count the ones with all the credentials but no idea) yet the general public think I need taxing, insuring and identifying!!!
1.8% of vehicles are untaxed.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
In addition, there are vehicles that have no MOT and/or are uninsured. Those that are untaxed are likely to lack one if not both of these.
In addition, there are vehicles with a SORN that are on the road and are therefore unlikely to have insurance or an MOT.
On top of that, there are drivers without licences and those driving whilst disqualified or unfit.
Then there are vehicles with MOT's that would fail if tested.
Add the frustrated red light jumpers who have to stop because the car in front does.
It makes it a joy to be out on the road :o)
Cycling's biggest problem is its biggest attraction. Anyone can get on one.
Even among those who cycle regularly I'd argue some shouldn't be on the road. A guy at work who only rides and doesn't drive because he was famously shit at it is also pretty shit at riding. Some people shouldn't be allowed on the roads at all, they just have no natural balance or spacial awareness. They're like drunks except they're not.
I'd say the bit I bolded is more the point here - cars very weirdly are seen as a sign of wealth, of power. Those in a £500 Corsa still feel superior and more entitled to somebody on a £8k bike!
As for those incapable of riding well, I'd suggest that's around 0.0001% and still a significantly lesser risk than those in cars. I'd suggest the majority of shit riders choose to ride that way...
I'm not excusing any bad behaviour by car drivers but I think one reason cycling is so demonised and annoys so many is the anxiety (then expressed as anger) caused by sharing the road with such a vunerable user. I think this is also why the debate often becomes so polarised: a cyclist hit by a car is potentially dead or seriously injured and in 99% of cases this something neither wants, but its potential creates a lot of fear. Therefore, if people see something that regularly causes them stress, then rightly or wrongly, they are probably going to want to bemoan it.
Having said that, there are a lot of very angry / thoughtless / stupid people who really ought not be allowed behind the wheel of a car...or the bars of a bicycle.
That's not entirely logical as the majority of cycle related injuries are caused by poor driving of motor vehicles. If people were being triggered by that, they'd be demonising the drivers that jump red lights, speed, drive distracted etc.
I think there is a logical point here. If, as a motorist, you are stressed that you might injure someone, or might be blamed for injuring them, then you may act irrationally around them. Hence the driver who, on coming round a blind bend too fast towards me got aggressive and among other things said "But what if I'd hit you?".
Though I'd ascribe more poor driving to unawareness, inattentiveness, bloody mindedness, and direct hostility.
This falls down though in that the most vociferous complaints about cyclists come from the drivers who behave worst around them. This doesn't seem to be the symptom of someone who is worried for the cyclists safety only upset about the perceievd loss of their own time.
From my own observations on my regular lunchtime walk alongside a moderately busy small rural town A road, somewhere between 7% and 15% of drivers at any one time are doing something that could be enforceable by fine / points:
Active use of a mobile phone
Eating, drinking, smoking
Reading delivery notes or paperwork
Blatant speeding
Jumping red lights
Plus apparently there are a significant number driving whilst untaxed, unlicensed, un-insured, without a valid MOT or with vehicle defects. Not to mention those who are inebriated or unfit to drive through drugs - prescription or otherwise.
In my home town in the last 5 years there have been multiple pedestrian fatalities involving a motor vehicle, including a fire engine on an emergency callout.
I'm not saying that people using bicycles in an antisocial way should get a free pass on account of someone else is doing something worse, but when it comes to policing and allocation of limited resources to improve pedestrian safety, cyclists have to be a long way down any evidence based list of priorities.
I find it odd that the 16% of cyclists who jump red lights rougly equates to the 14% of motorists who actually abide by the law in a 20mph speed limit.
Well said Sriracha. Everyone needs to play by the rules. For me it all boils down to a need for better infrastructure backed up by better enforcement. Who's gonna pay though? Until society sees the light and stumps up it'll be the vulnerable road users.....
It could be funded if we decided to crack down on speeding motorists and use some of their fines. After all, everyone needs to play by the rules.
Or cancelled HS2, or Trident, or the road programme.
"The biggest threat to pedestrians certainly doesn't come from cyclists!"
No indeed, but you could say the same for the threat from cars over 500bhp. There simply are not that many of them. Which does not make it a worthwhile argument.
If it transpired that 16% of such cars jumped red lights, there would rightly be calls to curb these reckless high performace drivers, despite their paucity of numbers. Indeed, it is telling that you chose to truncate from the quote the final sentence. To help I have put the bit you edited out in bold:
"... an average of 16% violated red lights, whilst the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals. Therefore it can be concluded that the majority of cyclists do not ride through red lights. However, the 16% that do must be discouraged from ignoring traffic signals. "
I agree so long as the traffic signals are fit for purpose - in both the places I have lived in the UK I have come across so called "smart" traffic lights that seem incapable on picking up cyclists. In early morning rides when cars aren't about (the whole reason I leave early) to continue your journey you have no option but to cross a red light or wait in excess of 5 minutes for a car to turn up and trigger the lights - obviously you also must take responsibility for doing so safely.
It's legal to cross a non-functional traffic light. You treat it like a give way.
Thanks, I appreciate your point however there is an onus to prove the light is defective which I feel the plod will argue isn't the case when they turn up with the their police car and the light turns green.
My bigger issue is that this is such a problem, many a time I have found myself having to try and role my bike repeatedly over a narrow unresponsive sensor, or pull forward and gesture to the car behind to pull forward over the sensor because I can't set it off and you can't see the way is clear.
Otherwise I obey traffic signals, and shake my head at those that don't. But it isn't hard to see how such experiences would drive some to lose respect for and ultimately disregard them.
Hi kt26 ,
After riding round my local area ,( Chester ) I've noticed two different types of " smart " traffic lights . The older type , which do not pick up a single cyclist and a newer type , recognisable by a small antenna attached which does pick up me on my Cannondale . See if you have any where you live
I'm pretty sure that given the opportunity, much more than 16% of motorists jump lights - and by "given the opportunity", I mean when they are at a traffic, but a prevented from jumping the light due to the presence of another road user who has stop at the junction, denying them the opportunity.
There are junctions where I routinely see several cars driven through the junction after the light turns red, the vast majority of motorists will drive through on amber when they have the they could safely stop behind the stop line. Most drivers when they do stop for a red light will pass the stop line or advanced stop line (and often both) after the light has turned red. Even the ones who manage to stop behind the stop line, will then proceed to creep forward past the stop line whilst the light is still red. These are all technically the same offence - they might not generally be at all dangerous, but then neither are the vast majority of the times that a cyclist proceeds through a red light.
I have been musing recently that there might be an secondary perception issue in that it is well understood that getting hit by a motor vehicle could be fatal, as such it is considered and easy thing to do. However it is less well understood that you can have a fatal accident just falling over and hitting your head, and so less well understood that a collision with a cyclist cause such harm, as such viewed as more difficult to achieve so then viewed in someway that the cyclist must have been behaving in a way far more dangerous than a motorist who's actions had the same result.
People seem to have a disconnect between probability and risk, in that you are far more likely to be killed in a car accident on the way to an airport than on a plane, yet many people still fear flying.
The point that has irked me more recently, the complete disconnect that 1/20 people die prematurely each year from air polution. Yet still "green" active transport is demonised. We are facing as a society many crisis which have a link to motorised personal transport, obesety, polution and road death on a scale that makes the most wars look pretty safe. Yet still soceity finds ways to demonise those looking for better solutions.
I get very angry with the vitrol I read on this subject, having been hit 3 times and more near misses than Fidel Castro. I am well aware when I leave for work in the morning, leave to come home in the evening, or go out for a leasure ride on the weekend - it might be my last, the persons responsible will be told "it's alright these things happen" (if they actually stop or even have enough empathy to care at all). It is something that is on my mind a lot, might have stopped altogether by now if I wasn't so stubborn.
I hope one day the situation improves, but the realist in me has only seen in get worse and I don't yet see any light in this cave.
Pages