- 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
- Tubeless valves
- 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
- Spangly Shiny 2 sec ago
"That's, at the very minimum, three or four times less what I'd be stuffing down, I reckon."...
- Rendel Harris 6 min 6 sec ago
I would add to that, look at the curve of the junction. Why do we build junctions in such a way that it facilitates drivers being able to take them...
- bensynnock 37 min 3 sec ago
I see a car go through a red light at almost every single cycle at every single junction. ...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 35 min ago
Also don't forget - Sustrans are a charity *....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 47 min ago
Yes ... but (just due to the large numbers of people affected) this likely would only proceed in the UK at a very ... cautious ... pace....
- EK Spinner 2 hours 4 min ago
Arsehole in the van not with standing, how did they manage to get a risk assessment allowing a race (a group not a TT) group to be competing on ...
- RafaDy 2 hours ago
I think reviewer completely missed the point here trying to match bike's name with what it can do. Ribble is namin git's bike weirdly, the...
- Moist von Lipwig 5 hours 25 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- HKR 6 hours 40 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
Add new comment
75 comments
Would be interesting to get a viewpoint from someone who knows a lot more about human psychology, but I was wondering whether there is a much more personal and therefore memorable element about a close miss with a cyclist where you get to see the person and possibly engage in verbal dialogue compared to the anonymity provided by a car?
I've no qualifications; I was once spoken to as a martial arts expert though. (I achieved a white belt. Lol. Sort of a budget in a sense. No point owning more than 1 belt. Limited language but never really learnt to branch few moves I learnt. Psychology? Used to jog 1.5km including a double crossing of highway with my eyes shut. At work a 2 tonne gantry toppled whilst suspending about 1 tonne of road train v8 block and part chassis rails. The 'H' beam hit my head as 3-5mm edge of beam found rest upon my stance. I was knocked out dude and when I found conscious, stars circled my eyes, my boss looked confused and was asking questions while I was too scared to move jaw as yaw balance was required to keep stance. (Didn't even bleed nor bruise. Amazing aye)
Bicycles have superior primary safety, eg avoidance of collision. Secondary safety low. Eg gone if ya get hit.
Cars have excellent secondary safety as pilots are cocooned in a safety cell. Seems like a lot of drivers are complacent knowing that they can afford an accident without self harm.
Hence invading a drivers privacy of saftey cell might appear to be personal whereas invading requirements of a cyclist to maintain primary safety might not be as personally felt because machine was breaching space and an auto isn't felt as personal as a persons directed voice.
Smile
ride a mile.
Alloys rule. Yeah
The other major difference is that red light jumping cyclists often do it when the lights have been red for a while and go through slowly, whereas most drivers going through red lights do it at speed to get through a light that has just changed. The cyclist is mainly putting themsleves in danger, whereas the driver is putting pedestrians and other road users into danger.
Yeah aye.. I don't know about all but I tend to jump at the end of the red cycle. Been stationary, know lights routine, road is clear and (not putting myself in danger), a 2 metre jump allows me space while starting to build momentum again (not so much fore aft space, between the quarter islands space eg 2metres from side of passing cars).
Red light cameras down here are complimented with speed cameras. Originally lots were discouraged from running a red although encouraged to sprint intersections instead. Caution, smile, speed cameras nowadays too.
Naughty drivers
I think your point is mostly about the relative risks involved, but I think the different behaviours of RLJing cyclists and drivers is also why people seem so enraged by RLJing cyclists. Generally, drivers flouting red lights seem to be amber gamblers, squeezing through a light just before (or after) it turns red. Cyclists flouting reds may be (1) amber gamblers (who will sometimes do it because they're not sure the car behind them will stop if they do...), (2) 'marginal anticipators' who are making a sharp start as or just before a light goes green to get away from vehicles behind, or (3) just sailing through a light which has been (and will be) solid red for some time.
In my experience, category 3 is very rare in drivers , and on the very few occasions I have seen it, it is truly shocking. This sort of RLJing is more common in cyclists, and I think it's this type which is noticeable and pisses people off.
On your relative risk point, to play devil's advocate, someone doing a category 1 or 2 RLJ may well be passing through the junction on a brief 'neutral' phase, when no other road user has a signal to proceed, and may therefore pose relatively little risk of incident. The category 3 cyclists I see though often (not always) show a complete disregard for other (more vulnerable) road users who actually have priority at that time. Some do proceed with caution, but I see many who blow through reds at speed.
thanks once again for another article that says much the same thing as has been stated foryears..., It would be good to have data, anecdotal or otherwise, for how many pedestrains ignore red lights..or put themselves in risky positions by not looking before stepping into the road or wearing headphones. I know it is different but ultimately it is about sharing space and being considerate to each other..
I'll hold my hand up as a more than occasional red light transgressor, with the caveat that all my riding is based around being able to stop for the unexpected...so slow down, look once, look twice, proceed. if there is a pedestrian then stop until they have crossed...40 years riding in London makes you alert to everything but not infallible.
The cyclists I feel are dangerous (to others and themselves) are the ones who are unaware of how people and traffic move and put themsleves in high risk positions on the road....it makes me nervous to think they'll end up in hospital for poor road craft.
Theres a weird rabid phobia in this country. Trying to find a rational explanation is impossible because the behaviour is irrational. I think its a mixed form of racism, self loathing, hatred towards people doing something different that people cant comprehend themselves doing, and a god given sense of entitlement from car drivers. I also think it may be to do with the appearance thing, i.e the wearing of lycra.
Good article, whiich provides useful disinfectant when people throw the lycra lout dead cat on the table. As long as people are talking about lycra louts they're not talking about or, more importantly, legislating against motorists.
Unfortunately some cyclists don't do any favours for other cyclists. The number of times I see red light jumpers when pedestrians or women with prams have been waiting to cross is alarming.
no it doesn't give other people who ride bikes a bad rap or doesn't not do them a favour, just like moron drivers doing far worse at red light, and on pavements/footways and pretty much everywhere else don't for all drivers.
The facts as they stand prove peds do more harm to themselves than people on bikes when the two groups are in a collision, we know this from a government review last year.
In the grand scheme of things dangerous cycling is infinitsimally small, you're 5x more likely to get killed by lighting in the UK than you are being killed by an at fault cyclist.
Except it does. It shouldn't, it isn't fair, but it does.
No, it doesn't. What's your evidence that it does? Other than what motorists _say_ to justify their own bad behaviour. They tend to lie about such things, so that's not evidence.
To be fair, what other evidence do you expect anyone to be able to give? It's necessarily going to be anecdotal experience of e.g. motorists tarring us all with the same brush. If "you lot all jump red lights" is their first line of defence, it does suggest the collective responsibility idea has gained some currency. By the same token, what's your evidence that motorists tend to lie about such things? I can give you some first hand evidence though - one of my family got knocked over on a pedestrian crossing by a RLJing cyclist, suffering broken bones. I know that only one cyclist was responsible for that, but I still take a pretty dim view of other RLJers as a result. And I don't tend to lie about such things.
This is a well written article that makes a lot of good points but I feel it's preaching to the converted, what I wonder is why do so many people believe cyclists are so dangerous? Putting stats aside as a pedestrian I'd fancy my chances far better being hit by a cyclist rather than a car and as a motorist, a car running a red light is a genuine concern to me whereas a cyclist is no threat at all just to themselves.
What I find particularly alarming is when well educated individuals such as Sir Robert Winston who you'd think would be someone who could understand statistics, criticises cyclists for the danger they cause. Is it as simple as people wanting ammunition to fuel their own anti-cycling beliefs?
I find it strange how many people just accept that cars will kill and seriously injure many people every year it's just ignored. When Charlie Allison was in the headlines and last year when an e-bike rider tragically killed a pedestrian, I saw many people expressing their concern about the increasing threat cyclists posed and that new laws were urgently required to stop this problem. In a forum thread that had been open for over two weeks discussing the e-bike pedestrian death I pointed out to these people so gravely concerned about the threat cyclists pose that in the time the topic had been open it's likely many people had been killed or seriously injured by motorists. That doesn't seem to count though.
Thanks Mat, fine article.
Pages