'Vulnerable Road User' operation sees police fine cyclists for jumping red lights

neilmck wrote:

what is the difference between going through a red light as a pedestrian or sitting on a bicycle?

About 17mph or more on a downgrade.

No one goes at 20mph through a red light, you won't have time to consider giving way to traffic and will be killed. 5 to 7 mph is more like it.

neilmck wrote:

No one goes at 20mph through a red light, you won't have time to consider giving way to traffic and will be killed. 5 to 7 mph is more like it.

I wish that were the case, certainly in London plenty of cyclists ride through red pelican crossing lights without cutting their speed at all. Obviously people do slow down at junctions, but most definitely not at all red lights.

I assume that the difference is due to it being illegal on a bicycle to cross the stop line on a red light (RTA88), whereas a red man on a pedestrian crossing is advisory rather than compulsary?

I have no idea about red cyclist lights on toucan crossings as to whether they are advisory or compulsary. 

You think the guy who went through the red light is a "nob". But isn't it the system you have in the UK that makes all cyclists "nobs” for waiting pointlessly at red lights? In the towns around where I live in France we have little signs on traffic lights that allow cyclists to go through red lights simply giving way to traffic. The sign will indicate which directions it had been deemed safe to do so, generally straight-on and right (your left).

JohnCc wrote:

A red light 🚦 means stop, fuĺlstop no matter what you riding or driving - 999 vehicles on lights and sirens excluded.

...and except for places that implement the Idaho Stop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop) or in Paris (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33773868) or the countries that allow turning on red (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red) or if a traffic light doesn't detect bicycles you can probably invoke the last bit of HC rule 176: "If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care."

Yes, it totally means stop without any exception (except for the numerous exceptions).

There's a strong argument to be made for changing our traffic laws to make traffic lights more relevant to cyclists as unfortunately traffic lights are designed by car drivers, for car drivers. Have a read of this: https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/turn-left-red-running-red-lights

I note that Cycling UK haven't yet come to a conclusion on this kind of thing.

Presumably doing this would be in line with seeing cyclists as more like pedestrians (e.g. red light is for information).

Given that neither motorists nor cyclists are likely to see any enforcement in the UK around traffic lights currently it's slightly moot.

I don't think having signals which serve an important safety purpose and then saying they've a conditional meaning (depending on your choice of vehicle) is the best idea.  Also I don't think it would make onlookers who are offended by this kind of thing - whether in cars or on foot - any happier.

What we really need are not two different rules for bikes / motor vehicles, but two different spaces (with their own lights).  Then we can have this totally safe kind of cycling through reds, and this safe and convenient kind of interaction with pedestrians.

"Yes, it totally means stop without any exception (except for the numerous exceptions)."

The numerous exceptions, apart from the broken traffic light one (which I agree with you about), which are nothing to do with the current law in the UK. Might as well advocate carrying an assault weapon because it's legal *somewhere*. 

I can definitely see an argument for allowing cyclists to cross a red light to turn left where the junction isn't also a pedestrian crossing. Motorists would be apoplectic, but there are other benefits too. 

But that's not currently the rule here. If the lights are working, and you're not in real and imminent danger, you stop at the red light. Then you don't have to weigh up whether the way ahead is clear, or guess if there's a pedestrian legging it from behind you while the green man's displayed. And the more people do that, the less likely you are to come to harm from the actions of another conscientious road user who thinks the rules don't apply to them because they're really skillful.

Brauchsel wrote:

"Yes, it totally means stop without any exception (except for the numerous exceptions)."

The numerous exceptions, apart from the broken traffic light one (which I agree with you about), which are nothing to do with the current law in the UK. Might as well advocate carrying an assault weapon because it's legal *somewhere*. 

I can definitely see an argument for allowing cyclists to cross a red light to turn left where the junction isn't also a pedestrian crossing. Motorists would be apoplectic, but there are other benefits too. 

But that's not currently the rule here. If the lights are working, and you're not in real and imminent danger, you stop at the red light. Then you don't have to weigh up whether the way ahead is clear, or guess if there's a pedestrian legging it from behind you while the green man's displayed. And the more people do that, the less likely you are to come to harm from the actions of another conscientious road user who thinks the rules don't apply to them because they're really skillful.

There's certainly some traffic light junctions where I'd much rather do a turn-left-on-red rather than tangle with the motorists when the lights turn green, so I'd put the importance of obeying the law as secondary to my own safety. There's the consideration, though, of not endangering other people - that is far more important than the colour of traffic lights. I've often seen drivers that speed up as they approach an amber traffic light and then speed through the red and that's a particularly stupid way of "trying" to get through before it's red, (presumably to remain legal) as they then have no leeway of stopping due to something unexpected.

As of course are signed speed limits, but it is extremely rare for a motorist to be prosecuted and fined for travelling at 31 mph in a 30mph maximum speed zone.

JohnCc wrote:

A red light 🚦 means stop, fuĺlstop no matter what you riding or driving - 999 vehicles on lights and sirens excluded.

Indeed it does.
My experience commuting in central London was that two groups didn't stop:
Selfish twunts who imagined that they were entitled, or
Weak riders not willing to slow, stop and start again.
The first need enforcement and the second education.
Obviously the first are a danger to those correctly stopped as well as whom they meet on the junction.

Funny how no one ever complains about pedestrians ignoring the red man when they have deemed it is safe to do so.

neilmck wrote:

Funny how no one ever complains about pedestrians ignoring the red man when they have deemed it is safe to do so.

Because pedestrians can't seriously injure other pedestrians by bumping into them, perhaps?

You do know that the law regarding speed limits only applies to motor vehicles, and not pedal cycles (including e-bikes, though their assisted speed is limited of course)? So they'd definitely be putting one in your old Smart Roadster. 

BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:

I stop at red lights. And watch quite a few cyclists not stop. But they never actually endanger anyone - or even themselves. They just do what pedestrians do when confronted with a red signal; slow, look and then cross / cycle. It's not a big deal really. I think the hysteria around it is exaggerated. Pavement cycling is bad though - even if undertaken cautiously. 

I don't (quite) agree.  I too see quite a few cyclists not stop at red lights.  The majority don't actually endanger anyone, but some do.  Some also force pedestrians to stop when pedestrians have priority.  So whilst the hysteria is exaggerated, it is not a nothing issue.  (I also don't see why you think cycling through a red light is not an issue, but cautious pavement cycling is always bad - particularly when the infrastructure actually specifically allows it in places.)

"But they never actually endanger anyone - or even themselves."

I considered myself endangered when I was knocked off by a young woman who had blithely sailed through a red light at a crossroads. And on the many occasions as a pedestrian when I've had to dodge out of the way (or grab my child out of the way) when it's become obvious that a cyclist isn't going to slow, let alone stop, at the crossing I'm currently on.

I can only think of one occasion where I've seen a car driver completely ignore a red light and a pedestrian (me) crossing, and I went fucking apeshit at him because it's obviously much more dangerous than a cyclist doing it. And I do see drivers sneaking through as the lights change, and hate that too. 

We've been through this before: maybe it is London-specific behaviour, but I regularly observe junctions where the majority of cyclists don't stop on red. Sometimes it is actively dangerous, sometimes it's not: it's always selfish, entitled behaviour which chips away at the basic idea that we should all abide by the law even if it doesn't suit us personally at that precise moment. It's no answer to say "well others do it worse, and *I'm* careful": that's exactly what all the careless others say. 

I stop at red lights.  I've seen plenty of cyclists not stop, endanger themselves, and endanger pedestrians. Indeed, the pedestrians around here know that they can't rely on a green light at a pelican crossing if there's a cyclist (or e-scooter) around -- they'll wait for it to pass / stop. And, of course, not stopping rightly pisses off car drivers and others who do stop. Some of those car drivers (not-rightly) will then drive aggressively around cyclists.

Agreed on that - I personally will go through red lights if it is safe to do so. It's no different to crossing a road where there is no crossing available - look both ways, check there is nothing coming and you wont hinder anything, and go. 

Left_is_for_Losers wrote:

Agreed on that - I personally will go through red lights if it is safe to do so. It's no different to crossing a road where there is no crossing available - look both ways, check there is nothing coming and you wont hinder anything, and go. 

Apart from the minor fact that it isn't illegal for pedestrians to do that whereas it is illegal for cyclists to do it. If it's OK for you to ignore the law on a bike if there's no harm done, why not for motorists too? Obey the law, if you don't like the law by all means campaign for it to be changed, but until it is, obey it.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Apart from the minor fact that it isn't illegal for pedestrians to do that whereas it is illegal for cyclists to do it. If it's OK for you to ignore the law on a bike if there's no harm done, why not for motorists too? Obey the law, if you don't like the law by all means campaign for it to be changed, but until it is, obey it.

Motorists do ignore the law. Going 80mph on a clear stretch of motorway for example.

And no, sorry - I will continue to jump red lights when it is safe to do so. Judging by this website's current reporting the cops are at every red light catching cyclists so I will let you know if I am ever fined.

In fact, I did nip through some red lights at Buckingham Palace in the early morning a couple of weeks ago and there was a police van behind, they didn't speak to me/fine me or anything else. 

I was specifically (as you know) referring to your logic about jumping red lights. If it's okay for you as a cyclist to "look both ways, check there is nothing coming and you won't hinder anything, and go", is it okay for a motorist to do the same thing at the same speed? If not why not?