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.

Why are you talking about cyclists vs cars, when this is about pedestrians who are surely the most vulnerable of all?

Cyclists are a fucking menace to pedestrians, cutting lights, swerving up on pavements, but if the bad behaviour is ever mentioned, all you get is ‘cars this, cars that’.

Stop going through red lights and endangering people.
People are basically saying if I slow down it’s dangerous for me, so I’ll keep going, even if it’s dangerous for others.
Selfish.

RTFT

None of us are advocating putting pedestrians at risk. We’re answering the OP’s question, which is where mentioning motorists comes in to the conversation.

Because the road system prioritises cars and makes pedestrians and cyclists compete for space, in many cases

A lot of cyclist behaviour is shaped by a wish to reduce the risk posed by cars, which is why it's relevant

Cyclists are also likely to be injured if they collide with a pedestrian, it's not like they're immune to harm

There is a small minority of twats who behave irresponsibly on a bike, as on any form of transport

I’ve read the fucking thread thanks.

As a regular pedestrian in London, the amount of times I’ve experienced cyclists putting me/other people in danger far exceeds the number of times a car has.

Fucking menaces who thinks the laws of the road don’t apply to them.

This is where they have specific cycle lanes split off from the road, so nothing to do with cars either.

They’re just fucking twats who think they’re too important to stop

Ah well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there aren't any complete pillocks in London!

I'm one of those cyclists.
I skip red lights (definitely not all, but quite a few) if it keeps me safer.
I would absolutely not race across red at a junction because of any speed considerations. I do not want to break any speed records. In fact I do my utmost to arrive safely wherever I want to go.
When I skip a red light I always cycle very slowly and I would not skip a red light if pedestrians are still crossing.
I do it when it's safe for me and safe for others. As PP said, it is often safer to get ahead of traffic.
I know many drivers hate this about cyclist, but many of those - if they could (without getting fined) would do exactly the same. And possibly much more recklessly - let's not forget road statistics... very few people get killed by cyclists; many many more die in car crashes.
A lot of car drivers do not like cyclists full stop.
Incidentally I have so far had two accidents, and both caused by pedestrians crossing the road (not at a crossing) without looking.

I agree with that.

Anyway, to answer the question in the OP …

Work as a personal injury solicitor and cannot stand cyclists that use their phones or garmins and get into countless accidents which can cause harm to children as well as adults but ofcourse no insurance so some people are left worse off. Not all cyclists ofcourse but bloody be responsible.

As a pedestrian I am put at risk of harm much more frequently by cyclists in London than I am by cars.
They are much less likely to follow the rules designed to keep me safe, I'm guessing because they are focused on keeping themselves safe from cars?

In Germany many people have pedestrian insurance as well, in case they cause an accident while out walking. (I'm not kidding)

If you required cycling insurance, why not pedestrian insurance? Whenever I've come off my bike, it's been as a result of pedestrians stepping out in front of me without looking and with no warning.

For all the cyclists who say that cars are worse, I think in London they genuinely aren’t as bad when you are a pedestrian. Cars don’t often speed as there’s so much traffic. And there’s so many cameras on lights, they don’t generally go through red lights. However as a pedestrian I regularly (daily) encounter adults cycling through red lights or on the pavement. The stats that are presented are obviously around fatalities and while I accept that a cyclist is unlikely to kill me, I do think I’m more likely to get hurt by a bike than a car in London.

@fearfuloffluff don't disagree with that at all. Pedestrians do cause incidents too however, cars and cycles can go at much higher speeds and the same principle with cars should be applied to cyclists. If you're a regular cyclist then you should do the responsible thing and have some sort of insurance. Worst thing though is when there is no way to identify a cyclist that has caused the incident. For cars the MIB pays out but for a cyclist theres no other options. People left with serious injuries and no compensation of any kind. I act for cyclists too and I am in no way against them, just the ones that lack compassion for others.

It might be wise to have, but making it mandatory would not be in the public interest.

I see how you must see very sad cases doing personal injury law, but overall if people are getting exercise on their bikes and avoiding adding to the air pollution etc by not driving, that has to be a good thing.

I'd be supportive of having police out playing a role to set the culture - telling off cyclists for going on the pavement, not having lights etc, applying fines in particularly bad cases.

Improved cycling infrastructure that kept cyclists and pedestrians apart, and more funding for bike training, would be a good idea.

In central London at least, a higher proportion of drivers will be professionals (taxi, bus, delivery drivers) with regular training and more to lose in the event of an accident.

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

patronising twattery doesn't help your case.

The point i was making that you so obviously don't understand is: the law is not to be broken. If you think the laws are wrong campaign to have them changed (see, we can do this all night - it still doesn't help your case)

@fearfuloffluff excellent ideas but it all stems from requiring cyclists to be identifiable unfortunately which isnt the case in the uk. And I doubt its high priority.

most people in Germany have 3rd party insurance. So if you break something you're covered. You can get insurance as a cyclist too.

@Brefugee I was breaking it down because you keep saying 'don't break the law' over and over without acknowledging that it might be more complex than that

Licensing cyclists is unworkable and would put people off cycling - even in Germany and they don't do that, do they? How are offending cyclists identified in order to claim off their insurance? Doesn't that just make people stop having insurance thereafter?

I also think a push to get more people cycling would help. The stereotype of the arrogant (probably young and male) cyclist puts people off, if there were more plump ladies going at a stately pace on the nation's bike paths I think there would be less hareing around.

I get what you're repeating. I don't agree that it is the right thing to do. (but you're a red running cyclist so basically your position is that you are always right and everyone else is wrong so i really don't know why you're banging on about the law)

The law is the law and frankly i wish the police would charge more people for dangerous cycling and breaking the law on their bikes (they do in Germany. I've seen people being fined for not having a bell, which is legally mandated for bikes that you ride on public paths/roads/cycle tracks).

If you want the law to be changed - work to get it changed. Don't just break it willy nilly. I simply don't believe that every occasion you run a red light your life would otherwise be in danger, which is the only real reason to do it

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.

And if you’re a pedestrian about to cross, that’s infuriating too.

you're not supposed to do an emergency stop at a traffic light. If people drove the correct breaking distance from the car in front, and only close the gap at a traffic light once they are red, doing a relatively spontaneous stop wouldn't be a problem.

It's like the line in Starman when he says he'll drive "Green is go, red is stop and amger is drive faster"

What colour would the light be for 'everyone else stop, cyclists who believe its safe can go, even if traffic/pedestrians coming at you'?

Contradictory.
It obviously wouldn’t be safe in that situation 😊

Again.
No-one has commented on my 3 examples and the reasons stated upthread.

So says you, but if another cyclist used your logic and felt they could do it? Why isn't that the same?