- 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
news
Police Hackney (via Roads&Transport MPS Twitter)Police in Hackney catch 18 red light jumping cyclists in 90 minutes
Safer Transport Team officers in Hackney fined 18 cyclists in the space of 90 minutes for jumping red lights at the weekend.
The Metropolitan Police Service’s Roads and Transport Policing Command tweeted that 14 officers in hi vis jackets patrolled the Hackney Road junction with Kingsland Road on Saturday evening. They were there as part of Operation ‘Vision Zero’, London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s bid to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the capital’s roads.
@MPSRTPC Hackney STT Officers were in high vis on @OpVisionZero along Hackney Rd j/w Kingsland Rd enforcing safe cycling. 14 officers in hi vis jackets didn't deter 18 cyclists from jumping red lights. All reported for offences & educated on safety. Cycle safely. Get home safely! pic.twitter.com/lPLKz8VlMF
— Roads&Transport MPS (@MPSRTPC) January 29, 2022
In the space of 90 minutes, the officers caught 18 cyclists jumping red lights in the area. The cyclists in question were lectured on road safety and handed fixed penalty notices of £50, to be paid within 28 days.
The police’s action earned praise from some quarters, with one Twitter account – associated with a group opposed to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods – writing: “Good that this is finally being dealt with. So many cyclists jump red lights and then scream at cars and pedestrians.”
The Roads and Transport team thanked the account for their support and said: “Be assured we will continue with the campaign to enforce cycle safety for all road users”.
Some used the news to call for more stringent rules concerning cycling, with one user writing: “Excellent work but highlights the need for cyclists to obtain a cycling licence and to display number plates. All light jumpers could have had their licences endorsed with three penalty points which would have been well deserved.”
> Dramatic cut in fines for anti-social cycling
However, others weren’t as impressed with the police’s work. One user asked the team “one day could you please send 14 officers to sit at the lights and look for phone drivers? A fiver says you’d get 18 in 10 minutes.”
The police responded: “We understand the risks posed by motorists using hand-held devices whilst driving. Our colleagues in the Traffic unit are dedicated to dealing with this daily.”
Last year Richmond Council was criticised for stopping children riding their bikes on undesignated paths in Sheen Common, and threatening them with fines of £60.
In December a man was fined £75 for riding through a pedestrian zone outside a tube and Overground station in north London, after he had missed the small ‘no cycling’ signs attached to bollards near the station.
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 3 sec ago
What this research is lacking is any evidence as to how often cyclists hit any sort of bollard - I've never seen it happen. Unless it's actually a...
- Daclu Trelub 6 hours 57 min ago
A bit like underarm, surely?
- hand0j1n 8 hours 12 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 2 min ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 8 hours 47 min ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 8 hours 56 min ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 9 hours 34 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 9 hours 43 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 10 hours 20 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 10 hours 39 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
Add new comment
142 comments
If you do wait for the green, as you are supposed to, you'd be flattened, because the lead car will move off the moment amber lights up, which is to say whilst the red light is still showing. So the truth is, almost every light every time is passed with red still showing.
Pretty much. I've seen guys ahead of me pull up and hold the rails and not clip out to end up being boxed in and forced to stop or deal with the crap road after moving off. These same lights have drivers moving with amber/red which is why I want the jump on them.
There's a fundamental problem with traffic lights, they only exist because of motorized traffic.
Yes, but life as we know it today cannot exist without motorised traffic , even if it's restricted to buses and delivery vehicles. So traffic lights it is .
I think the point is we could do this all much better even with the existence of motorised traffic. Even from where we are. Here we have a very busy location with pedestrians, mobility vehicles, cyclists interacting - and no need for lights:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/the-busiest-cycleway-in-the-netherlands/
We've just chosen and continue to choose to design infrastructure around motorised traffic and only then fit everyone else around that. This is probably even a more expensive way to do things since we then need to add lots of measures to keep pedestrians / cyclists safe. These are not the best way of keeping people not in cars safe, don't make people feel safe and absolutely don't make it convenient for them. They don't even make it particularly convenient for motorists.
It's just a different perspective. Traffic lights are for motor vehicles. Pedestrian crossings are for motor vehicles. Ludicrous? Even in the UK currently there are many places we arrange it so pedestrians don't have to interact with cars. Or motor vehicles don't have to interact with pedestrians / cyclists (motorways).
There will always be some interaction between modes. But it really is about who we choose to prioritise and how we design for everyone. What we have now is not what must be. And there are even paths from here to more efficient and equitable designs of our roads and streets.
Good - the frequency of RLJ amongst cyclists in London is way higher than people on sites like this like to admit.
I ride to work every day, and if cyclists can get away without crossing a perpendicular stream of traffic, plenty will go through the red. I see people cutting through groups of pedestrians, even amongst children.
I walk my boy to nursery every morning, and cross a busy pelican crossing at Balham High Road. I have to have my head on a swivel as a stream of riders take their chances with our safety, riding out from alongside a bus barely even slowing. I regularly get shouted at.
SO many comments on this article are from cyclists with their head in the sand about this problem.
They're saying either:
1. Whatabout drivers?
well yes - but also whatabout other unrelated things?? We need to fix our own house.
2. Is this a proportionate use of police time vs tacklingdriver phone usage for example?
Sure. But this is a stupid argument - taken to its logical conclusion, maybe all police should concentrate solely on murders and good luck getting any police action on more minor things.
3. These RLJers aren't knocking down people, so it's not so bad.
Sure - the frequency of serious incidents is v low. But one thing is certain is that making pedestrians have to think twice to cross the road on a green man, and feel unsafe doing what they ought to be able to do without caution is a problem. I feel the only way you could make this argument is if you yourself are guilty of doing this regularly.
Unfortunately, many cyclists are killed by inattentive drivers and yet we see insufficient enforcement of the relevant laws - that's why there is a legitimate complaint that the police may be performing a PR exercise.
I don't have a problem with police switching tactics and performing ad-hoc enforcement of different areas and catching RLJers, but they need to ensure that they are also dealing with the most dangerous crimes.
And yes, pedestrians should not have to be wary when crossing at a green man.
You get the feeling it's a post Highway Code change reaction , and it'll be fine as long as they respond proportionately regarding the other groups affected by changes
Except that the media has already moved on to the next news cycle and completely wiped the HC changes from their collective attention and memory...
Ime most people on these types of sites recognise RLJ by people riding bicycles in London is an issue, and the impact it does have on making pedestrians feel unsafe walking around. I dont have an issue with the police targeting cyclists who break rules in this way.
But most of us also accept drivers of vehicles RLJ is also a problem, which makes pedestrians & cyclists & other vulnerable road users feel unsafe and does lead to crashes which injure people. There are several junctions I ride through frequently (when green), where there can be 2-3 cars per light change still crossing on a red light whilst the lights are already green for the other directions and this isnt in some urban city location with high volumes of traffic and congestion hold up, it's in small rural market towns where populations barely hit 10s of thousands and drivers know theyll never be caught for it and cant wait the odd minute, youd easily capture 18 drivers in 90mins.
So I'd hope any police targeted action on RLJ didnt ignore modes of transport its "harder" for them to stop and treated all RLJ as a problem they needed to be dealing with. They only needed to borrow a SafetyCam van, and prosecution is as simple as sticking a stamp on a letter.
It depends what you think is the bigger problem.
100% agree. And of course older people live in fear of their next "fall" (as in, grandad had a fall today). That's a broken hip, often it's the down-payment on their exit ticket. So the "its not as bad being hit by a cyclist" line doesn't wash. If the light isn't green then stop.
That said, maybe there is scope for cycle lanes to have a protected filter lane through some lights, like side feeder lanes at some roundabouts. But until that day, cyclists are just going to have to respect the lights (assuming the lights recognise their presence, which I don't see being a problem in London as there will always be a car there anyway).
The question is about priorities, not simply whataboutism. Police resources are limited, so sending 14 officers to police a set of lights to ticket cyclists running through the red lights seems like a disproportionate response to an issue that causes minor risk to others in comparison with things that don't get that sort of attention (such as phone use ... cyclingmikey would not need to do what he does if the police did this sort of thing to counter that much more risky activity).
Also ... in terms of your "logical conclusion" article argument ...
My house was burgled a few years ago, with the thieves leaving the place insecure and making off with several thousand pounds worth of musical instruments, gadgets and a number of unreplaceable items. Police response?
They emailed me a questionnaire and when I returned it they sent a crime number to claim on the insurance and advised me there would be no active investigation but they would let me know if they happened to come across anything relevant.
Seems to me they already concentrate on the stuff they want to and good luck getting any police action on minro things.
Incidentally, I don't consider someone breaking into my house a "minor thing".
Police resources are limited, so sending 14 officers to police a set of lights to ticket cyclists running through the red lights seems like a disproportionate response
Which makes the wasting of Lancashire police time by not doing anything about black Astra ML60 YMP (I have tried to provide some variety in these offences) crashing the red lights at 50mph all the more culpable- the amount of time they have had to waste dealing with my harassment is much more than they saved by simply ignoring these cases. I have provided evidence of numerous red light offences by motorists at these lights, but I can't find any evidence of a gaggle of officers in super-viz turning up to not detect any RLJ offences
I wonder if GAL will accept that this set of traffic lights is somewhere it can be proved that drivers repeatedly run red lights in a dangerous manner...... sufficent for him to accept that he must eat his hat.
Because from my perspective it meets all of his criteria..... that drivers consistenly run red lights at the junction. The motorists are driving maniacally through a junction at 50mph.
But no doubt he will cling to the excuse that the drivers only ever crash through the lights at 50mph because they have recently changed to red...... now given his previous comments he considers that a red light showing for anything less than 4 seconds is a "recently established red light".
Rendel claimed that the Met won't even consider action unless the offender crosses the stop line over 3 seconds after the lights turned red. This proved to be incorrect, but he seemed quite happy with that degree of laxity- which would allow 6 seconds after these Garstang ones turned amber. Even Lancashire Constabulary daren't admit in writing to a policy of 'allowing x seconds after the lights turned red' even when x is a fraction less than 1- their usual dodge is to simply ignore RLJ offences rather than 'NFA-ing' them. At the 50-60+mph the A6 offenders usually crash through the lights they're not even on the frame when the lights turn red. A 4 second 'allowance' would result in collisions and serious injury or death
Which bit was incorrect? as I'd swear I'd heard DCS Andy Cox of the Met had stated thats the case in London, either in the podcast he did or via some social media q&a
I can't be arsed to search through and find to what comment of mine you're referring (Road.cc, it would be really good if there was a "search by commenter" function as most websites have with their comment sections) but I am most certainly not happy with that (I don't know how that was proved incorrect either, it was what I was told by a copper) - I have numerous examples of egregious RLJs that I think should be sanctioned but that I haven't submitted because I know no action will be taken.
Nigel that has to be one of the most unhinged and utterly indefensible statements you have made.
Firstly you state that you "sometimes pass through" the same traffic lights that wtjs regularly posts images of vehicles who drive throught the lights at speed. And because you drive through there "sometimes" and you haven't seen any red light jumping..... therefore it is a "rare occurrence indeed".
Second of all you are accusing someone, without any basis in fact, of manipulating photographs (I'm pretty sure wtjs has provided dozens of photgraphs over the last few months). All because his photgraphs show something that you have decided in your world of alternative facts has been manipulated.
Thirdly you are continuing on with this fallacy of the light not being established for any length of time. As if it makes any difference at all.
Don't worry though..... I will make sure that everyone sees your unhinged diatribe against wtjs the internet is for ever
If I had a shot for every vehicle jumping the lights below my flat I would be in a permanent drunken stupor. I see them floor it from about 50 metres out. By the time they cross the studs at the other side they can be doing nearly 50mph. I've watched them consistently go through reds that are pretty much established. If you can't recognise an amber from 50 metres out you really should not hold a licence. I can take you round pretty much every junction in the area and you will see the same phenomenon. The only junction that is respected is the one by the police station.
Come now giff..... that doesn't count in QAnon Garage's mind..... Because the lights only recently changed and it's perfectly acceptable for drivers to floor it to get through a recently changed red light because they know that pedestrians wont be crossing for another 3 seconds
But I'm confused here. Do they not pay big money for lessons, insurance, registration and all that to ensure they don't make crappy decisions on the road.
Yeah that's what we are led to believe anyway.
Cycling Mikey doesn't 'need' to do what he does.. he does it it because he enjoys being a self-appointed law enforcer.
Whoa, there! That there's fightin' talk round these parts!
Cycling Mikey doesn't 'need' to do what he does.. he does it it because he enjoys being a self-appointed law enforcer
Well, I'll stand up in favour of CM!
Except. He doesn't take any enjoyment out of it. In fact he would rather not have to challenge people for their behaviours and go through the whole hassle of editing and reporting to the police.
Except that he doesn't enforce laws, he simply reports law breaking to the police with appropriate evidence. This is what members of the public should do and the police encourages responsible crime reporting.
the police encourages responsible crime reporting
That's very charitable of you! Actually, they really bloody hate cyclists who report traffic offences but they still have to write, with teeth gritted to the maximum, Dear Mr ..., thank you for your report...
Definitely seems to be more of an issue in London than where I live (not all that far from London). Although 18 in 90 minutes - that's only one every five minutes. I am pretty sure that if I picked any traffic light controlled junction if could record more than one motorist commiting a traffic light offence every 5 minutes.
Though perhaps the conspicuous police presence was a deterrent and/or maybe only 18 stopped when instructed by the officers.
Most cyclists that run red lights my way are typically yobs, not the lycra set; the yob cyclist element is easily identified in Australia, as they never wear helmets or hi-vis and never use lights when riding at night.
Pages