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.

Well, those on two wheels are definitely more vulnerable

https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/raising-awareness/our-current-projects/news-and-blogs/those-on-two-wheels-63-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-or-seriously-injured-than-car-drivers
Brake’s analysis has highlighted the vulnerability of those on two wheels, who, in comparison with car drivers, are 34 times more likely to be killed and 63 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured, per mile travelled, on British roads [3].
Cyclists and motorcyclists account for nearly 4 in 10 of all deaths and serious injuries on British roads, a total of 9,740 in 2017 or an average of one bike death or serious injury every hour.
Bike deaths also make up more than a quarter of all British road deaths, with a total of 101 cyclist deaths and 349 motorcyclist deaths in 2017 [4].

It seems to me that now the argument is being supported by proven statistics and valid reasons posters are resorting to ‘because it’s the law’ and ‘raw numbers being meaningless’

is it legal?

This research suggests cyclists are less likely to be at fault than other vehicle users when involved in a collision

It's hard to establish facts though as many cycle collisions won't be reported to police

https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/

we can conclude that 52 per cent of bikes involved in accidents contributed in some way towards the incident.This compares favourably to other modes of transport - 65 per cent of motorcycles were in some way implicated, compared to 59 per cent for cars. Buses and coaches came off slightly better with an implication rate of 49 per cent.

if proven statistics show that it is fine for you to jump your red lights according to your own personal calculations - lobby MPs. Get cycling organisations to lobby MPs and go about getting the law changed.

Until which you should obey the law.

I honestly don't know

seems to me if you are going against a red light it should be/probably is illegal

and if you are pulling these stunts, you should at least be checking the law about them?

Oh and ‘is it legal’
is that really the only comment you can come up with.

The point is that many traffic controlled junctions were not designed with cyclists in mind and were implemented to manage traffic flow.

It's a bit more nuanced than that though, right?

If you're in a car and the lights go amber as you approach but you choose to continue, passing through them just as they go red - you're technically jumping a red light. But people do it all the time and it might be the safest thing to do.

The roads aren't designed for cyclists, many drivers are extremely hostile, so in some situations you make decisions based on protecting your own safety, even if it means bending the law.

There's fat chance of any MP wanting to take up cyclists' interests because most voters are so hostile, so what's the point?

You admit yourself @Brefugee that you haven’t cycled for years and don’t even live in the UK.

If you don’t even understand my explanations of junctions up thread I do wonder what you’re doing on this thread, unless it’s just because you hate all cyclists

I'm joining a bus lane from a pedestrian crossing where the traffic behind the pedestrian crossing is on a red but I'm technically not. Tell me how to look that up and I'll gladly do so.

i came up with more comments than that, but whatevs.

Until the law is changed, if you are acting illegally, own it. And preferably stop it.

And campaign, using statistics, reason and examples, to have it changed.

It's not difficult

you can' read. I haven't cycled in the UK since i was about 6. (although i remember cycling to Pembroke as a teenager, and in York shortly after i got married, so - meh)

I cycle most days, because i use my bike to commute to the station to get the train to work. It's 50kms a week, plus any incidental cycling i do.

I keep to the laws of the road even though there is one absolute fucker of a hill that i have to stop half-way up, more often than not, for a light which is placed at a junction with a little used side road. There are often no cars around at all at 6am. I stop every time because it is a red cycle/pedestrian light and cars could conceivably turn up quite fast (100km limit on the road, I'm on a cycle path)

Because i don't want to be dead.

As it happens i and pretty much everyone in my town who cycles up that sodding hill are campaigning with the Mayor's office to have it removed. We have had to sit at all hours on various days counting the traffic. That is how you make change. Not breaking the highway code (which is the law, IIRC)

Cyclists go through red lights because there are no consequences for them. No way of identifying them. Unlike cars which can be caught on camera. I see far more cyclists go through red lights than cars and there are far more cars on the road than cyclists so as a proportion far more cyclists are going through red lights.

The rules don't apply to them because they can get away with it.

my guess: if the red light comes before you join the road, you should stop. If you have gone past the light on the cycle lane, before it joins the road, go ahead. be aware that you may have buses coming at you from behind.

This I'm afraid 😨

@fearfuloffluff

even if it means bending the law

There's no "bending" the law. It's clear cut. Go through red, you BREAK the law, go through green, you don't. There's no middle ground there. It's probably the most binary law out there!

I think the whining about "you must hate all cyclists" is pretty pathetic, tbh.

I think more people should cycle. Many many more. Short distances especially. There should be more bike (not shared) paths. Shared paths should be consistently divided in the entire country so the cycle part is between the cars and the pedestrians. Pedestrians should be aware and not walk on the cycle bit if possible, cyclists should use their bells.

Cyclists on roads should follow all the rules of the road including stopping at red lights. They should use lights when needed and ensure that they know how to brake safely.

Cars should give them plenty of room (here 1.5m is recommended) and cars should stay behind the cyclist until it is safe for them to overtake at that distance.

All pedestrians, regardless of who has right of way, should check both ways before crossing a road because it's not just cyclists who jump red lights.

The only vehicles that should ever go through red lights are emergency vehicles with flashing blue lights.

Other road users going through red lights, including cyclists, need to bear in mind that they are endangering other people's lives not just their own . Anything else is just plain selfish.

You're missing the point. Let's just go through it slowly:

In the vast majority of cases, cyclists stop at red lights.

On very few occasions, it is safer for cyclists to jump a red light, and does not endanger any other road users.

Cyclists are vulnerable road users who do not crave collisions with pedestrians, cars or anything else both because they're not psychopaths and because they are very likely to be injured in such a collision.

UK road infrastructure is typically designed with cyclists as an afterthought, so cyclists often have to risk assess as they go along and decide whether to navigate a road layout as indicated, or bend the rules to protect their own safety.

Unlike Germany, the UK has a very hostile attitude towards cyclists so getting any kind of change would be an uphill battle, quite possibly pointless.

Anyway I don't want to campaign, I want to get to my destination safely.

A small proportion of cyclists are irresponsible pricks who ignore rules of the road. They're less likely to be picked up by the law because of the lack of licence plates, but they're more likely to end up under a truck so that balances it out a bit.

Yes of course, red means stop and green means go.

What if green means start off surrounded by cars who try to overtake you dangerously/ don't see you/ cut you up. Yep, they're technically supposed to be considerate but try arguing that when you're under a bus

And going on red, having checked whether doing so poses a risk to any other road users and ruling this out, may on occasion mean less risk to yourself and others?

This is the point. Roads are designed for cars and sometimes following the rules to a T puts you at greater risk. I'm not in any way defending riding at speed towards a pedestrian crossing with people on or near it!

Eg some junctions in areas with high volumes of bikes change the bike sign to green 30 seconds or so before the rest of the traffic gets the go-ahead. This is basically that.

That question was to me

Did you read my response?

I see there’s been no responses to my example of when my lone bicycle doesn’t trigger the lights?

Am I supposed to sit there all day?

Just until your MP comes down to sort it out for you