Why do some cyclists not want to stop at red lights?

[Puppytrashedmysofa]

Had a day off last week so took son up to London to see the sights.About to cross with six seconds to go when my son held me back.To my right was a helmet jiggling about trying to not put his foot down. Fully crossed that road and about to cross another I saw another gent in his fifties looking to cross when I bike swerved round him at speed.He said something to him and the biker told him to FU.Guy then crossed the road , all the cars had stopped.
I asked son why you held me back.He said biker was going so fast he had to swerve all over the road to stop.Of course my son reported to my family that he saved my life today.
My son said none of the bikes stop at reds where he works.
I ride a track bike occasionally and a motorbike and I know if I didn't stop it could be fatal.
My son said I should have looked right ,was I in the wrong?
Just interested.

@fetchacloth they do it because, as with the roundabout example I gave above, it's sometimes safer.

The idea of bikes being licensed and insured has been raised a bazillion times, it would be unworkable and create a huge amount of bureacracy and expense that would put people off cycling at a time when we need to encourage active transport.

Do you think the police want to be checking if bikes have insurance when they barely have enough time to investigate burglaries? Do you think little Mikey, when he uses an old bike from his uncle's shed, should have to complete official online forms and send off a fee then attach a licence plate?

Those things are merited for cars because of how heavy, fast and dangerous they are, and the risk of things going wrong if brakes fail etc.

With cycling, you'd be far better off funding things like cycling proficiency training and making bike lanes good enough for kids to ride on them rather than pavements. Carrot rather than stick.

When a bike hits a pedestrian, the cyclist is at a very high risk of injury as well as they're falling onto the road/kerb at speed, if that's not enough of a disincentive then I don't know what is.

The “I’m ok to break the law because I’m making a sensible risk based decision” is actually very questionable.

I think you misspelt ‘sensible’ there.

With cycling, you'd be far better off funding things like cycling proficiency training and making bike lanes good enough for kids to ride on them rather than pavements. Carrot rather than stick.

Generally I agree. But one of my common routes is next to a path. Road, pavement and shared pedestrian/cycle track in park all run parallel to each other and yet the cyclists still cycle on the pavement. I can’t for the life of me work out why

Near me there's an inner ring road, it's inner city but not somewhere pedestrians are strolling for fun. Pedestrian crossing to help people get from housing estates to city centre on the other side.

Not a junction, just a pedestrian crossing where people sometimes cross. Pedestrians press the button but then cross if it's clear before the light changes.

Tell me how it's risky to jump a red light there when there is clearly no one waiting to cross, no traffic that is joining, clear and straight bit of road. Definitely more risky for a cyclist to stop ahead of/next to traffic and start off than keep going through a red light.

By the same token, I assume you're happy for motorists to also ignore the red light under those exact same circumstances, i.e. clearly no pedestrians in sight wanting to cross the road at those traffic lights?? If not, why not??

There's a pavement AND a shared use track? That's unusual. Most of the time when cyclists don't use a track it's because it has flaws that make it dangerous, wouldn't always be obvious to pedestrians or drivers. Eg one near me has bushes that would whack you in the face if you cycled on it, or tree roots that make it bumpy, obstacles like trees and bollards that mean you have to keep stopping or swerving.

A lot of the time it's teens who go on pavements, and they're the ones who tend to go a bit fast and behave inconsiderately as well.

@fearfuloffluff I'm sorry but we'll have to agree to differ.

The difference is that I would be jumping a red light to avoid the risk posed to me by the motor traffic. They are the motor traffic.

I also drive and would never jump a light when in my car.

It is unusual but the shared track runs through a park. There are no bushes blocking it. In winter it might get muddy but most of the year I can’t see what the issue with it is. I often walk on it.

Also my husband cycles and uses the shared path when with the children (road when not) so I assume there are no major issues.

You do know that a cyclist can kill someone and have done so in London? It’s a complete free for all in this city these days. Cyclists on pavements, jumping read lights, electric scooters doing the same. I never see drivers doing this though, and I mean never, and I’ve driven in London for many years. Why do cyclists think they are invincible and above the law?

Of course I know that cyclists can and have killed pedestrians in London and I do sympathise with the general situation in London. Statistics differ from your experience though and it seems that most people believe they’re above the law

I do find it interesting that I posted on here to answer the OPs question, whilst also agreeing that the cyclist in the OPs situation was wrong.

No posters have actually asked me in which situations I do go through a red light. Not one.

Ok. In which situations do you go through a red light?

unless the answer is "the alternative is being killed" every single time you are simply in the wrong. As are pedestrians who cross against lights and cars who jump red lights.

Ok. Examples of traffic lighted junctions where I consider cycling through red lights

A light controlled T-junction when I’m cycling on the main road that forms the T going straight on. The lights go red to allow traffic to join from my right. However, there is a solid edge cycle lane that takes me straight through. The only other vehicles I will encounter are other cyclists joining me in the cycle lane.

A light controlled T junction where I am exiting to join the main road and turning left. This is on a steep hill with narrow lanes where the red light has been placed further back to allow large vehicles coming from the right to swing round. I always go past the first red light to stop at the top (keeping to the left and I can still see the light opposite). The lane is narrow, the lights change quick and it’s dangerous for me to be setting off with vehicles close behind, it is also frustrating for them. Having reached the top of the hill I check to the right and then go if nothings coming. There is also a pelican crossing to the right on the main road, so the best scenario for me is if the crossing bleepers are going because I know all the traffic lights are on red so I can exit turning left with no risk to anyone.

There is also a few junctions I cycle through where the lights are only triggered when a vehicle is there (usually a right turn crossing the carriageway) Motorists should be aware that in some cases cyclists do not trigger this and unless a motor vehicle joins me the light won’t go green. In this situation I give way to oncoming traffic and cycle through as if the junction wasn’t traffic lighted.

I haven't cycled in the UK since i was about 6 and haven't lived thee in years so i literally have no idea of any of those things you mention.

The only question now is: are those red light crossings that you do legal? yes: stop it.
no: fair enough carry on

It's unfair you've made a sweeping statement based on 1 day. I cycle every day in London, and yes some cyclist do skip the lights, but so do many cars. And the amount of drivers using their phones is mad. Please stop fuelling the anti cyclist rhetoric that is so pervasive in this country. Drivers are the ones killing people on a daily basis.

The amount of pedestrians killed by cyclists is in the single figures - ever. Five people die every day on the road in the UK, caused by drivers.

Another scenario where I technically jump a red: I often cross a busy three-lane intersection where I want to continue straight ahead but there's a road that joins from the left.

I use crossings to get across the road that goes off to the left. But then I would either have to cycle on pavement to continue ahead (shared use path full of commuters looking at phones) or loop back to put myself at head of traffic joining from left that might be starting up without noticing me, or wait by crossing and start off when I hear the cars behind me start up. None of which seem very safe.

So instead I continue on from the crossing into the straight ahead bit where there's a bus lane, even though technically that is jumping a red. That bit of road has not been designed with bikes in mind. You have to suss out the safest option for yourself.

The only times I've collided with a pedestrian as a cyclist have been when they step into the road unexpectedly and without looking. So it does cut both ways. A pedestrian knocking a cyclist from their bike could send them skidding into the path of a lorry.

Absolutely
ot just make the news when it’s a cyclist and there’s uproar! Especially in the case of that cyclist in London on a fixie

What is the proportion of journeys/miles driven by drivers as opposed to cyclists?

Raw numbers are meaningless. It needs to be as a proportion to illustrate the real situation.