Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[Shaggy]

I think there are worse problems in the world and, while I do see cyclists jumping reds, I often see vans close-passing cyclists and red-faced tubsters getting their plus-sized knickers  in a twist for no reason.

 

However, I do worry for some Lime bike users.  I’ve been cycling in London for thirty years and know how to do it and stay safe. And sometimes that involves jumping lights.  But I worry for the casual Lime bike users who are a danger to themselves.

 

[HeadNun]

Shaggy's continued fat-shaming of people who don't cycle (now removed from his / her previous post) reflects quite well the smug superiority of so many cyclists. Occasionally setting off before a light turns green at some junctions not designed for bikes, I can forgive if it's for safety. But there's no excuse for not stopping at a pedestrian crossing and I don't exaggerate when I say that the majority of times I see any type of cyclist - Lime or otherwise - approaching a crossing, they just plough through. I see it every. Single. Day. On foot and on my bike. It's pure arrogance and shows that they consider their journey and progress to be more important than anyone else's. 

So maybe, Shaggy, the person you previously mentioned (I see you removed all your comments about fat people) who got irate even though you did stop, has just had their fill of cyclists in general. And I say all this as a cyclist.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 04/07/2025 at 18:42, exdulwicher said:

A lot of US states have something similar for cyclists called the Idaho Stop - Idaho as the state that introduced it. Basically says that cyclists can treat a red light as a STOP sign and a STOP sign as a Give Way. So if you get to a red light, stop, can see that the way for a bike is clear and it's safe for everyone, you can make the turn.

It;s a tacit admission that bikes are not cars and sometimes measures designed for cars are not entirely necessary for bikes.

On the other hand, if you blow through a red light, mowing down pedestrians every which way, you can expect to be severely punished for it, there are traffic cops everywhere in the US. As a result, the road laws are generally complied with.

This is so eminently sensible. You can already hear the Daily Mail headlines if this were ever floated in the UK however.

Edited July 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Looks like change is starting slowly..the government seems to be switching on to some of the problems.

BBC News - Pause on new 'floating' bus stops welcomed by campaigners - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm20x7lk83vo

[Rockets]

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963

[Sue]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963

Silly question, sorry,  but are there speedometers for cyclists?

Because if not, how do they know how fast they are going?

And how will they (or anyone else) know if they are breaking a new speed limit?

And how will they be identified if they are (as presumably they would be fined?)

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963

Do you have some sort of alert set for any story or article concerning bicycles that is slightly negative in tone, or do you just spend a lot of time searching the internet for them? 

[Penguin68]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Do you have some sort of alert set for any story or article concerning bicycles that is slightly negative in tone, or do you just spend a lot of time searching the internet for them? 

You really don't seem to understand how the internet works. AI works out what you're interested in and gives you links. You don't have to set alerts, Google and Chrome does that for you. You need spend no time at all.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not how search engines work, but social media, yes. It would partially explain the rabbit hole. As Sue points out, it seems wholly impractical and I am very confident that it won't happen. 

Edited Wednesday at 12:15 by Earl Aelfheah

[ianr]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

You really don't seem to understand how the internet works. AI works out what you're interested in and gives you links. You don't have to set alerts, Google and Chrome does that for you. You need spend no time at all.

In what part of the page do the links of the sort you're talking about appear, and in what circumstances?

[Rockets]

12 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Do you have some sort of alert set for any story or article concerning bicycles that is slightly negative in tone, or do you just spend a lot of time searching the internet for them? 

Nope. I just read a lot, it helps expand the mind! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

You don’t even read the scientific papers you ‘critique’ 🤣 

17 hours ago, ianr said:

In what part of the page do the links of the sort you're talking about appear, and in what circumstances?

The circumstances are those where you get your ‘news’ from Facebook

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-cycle-lanes-could-soon-have-speed-limits-314963

Do you really think putting speed limits on cyclists is negative? Given this is being considered in the mecca of cycling, it should surely serve as a wake up call?

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, first mate said:

Do you really think putting speed limits on cyclists is negative? Given this is being considered in the mecca of cycling, it should surely serve as a wake up call?

I didn't say the policy itself was necessarily negative. I pointed out that Rockets seems to dig out every article related to bicycles with a slightly negative tone. The fact that you say it should 'serve as a wake up call', kind of makes my point. It is very clear to me that (as inferred by Penguin), some people are deep in a social media rabbit hole and being served up content that is driving some of the behaviours we see across this thread.

...being those where they treat the simple act of travelling by bicycle as some sort of culture war issue.

Edited yesterday at 12:17 by Earl Aelfheah

[tedfudge]

I watched a cyclist go through a red light last night at junction of ludgate circus and nearly get hit by a taxi turning on a green light and I was right behind him and then nearly hit a woman crossing the road and called her a stupid c**t.... and currently fleet street is closed one way and the road has been narrowed but cyclists still come down it head on towards buses , lorry's,  cars , etc and expect you to somehow move over for them even though they shouldn't be there .. cyclists are a menace to pedestrians and other people using the road , I see it every single night multiple cyclist going through red lights but I have not seen one motor vehicle go through a red light ... something needs to be done to stop them 

[first mate]

@Earl Aelfheah Okay, so you agree there may be a reason to look more carefully at speed controls for cyclists? If you don't think the policy is necessarily negative as outlined in the article why then do you view the article as having a slightly negative tone? That does not make sense.

A "wake up call" simply means that instead of going into knee- jerk denial mode that an increase in cycling and cycling modes (e-bikes; cargo bikes) might require additional controls, we open our minds to what is going on in other countries with greater experience of cycling infrastructure, and take note.

Edited yesterday at 11:09 by first mate

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I pointed out that Rockets seems to dig out every article related to bicycles with a slightly negative tone

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah there are lots of people who post solely positive articles on cycling...yet you don't seem critical of them doing so....why might that be? I mean, have you ever posted something critical of cycling or anything other than something in glowing support of LTNs?

Be thankful some like me are on here posting articles for the sale of balance! Forums tend to be better when they aren't just vehicles of propaganda! 😉

But i do also think it is interesting that you automatically jump to assessing articles as negative and use it as some sort of crux to attack me with. The article was highlighting measures being considered in what is widely accepted as the leading cycling country and I dont think was particularly negative in tone. The issue, and the flagging as it being "negative", is seemingly based on the sensitivity amongst many in the pro-active travel community in having to address anything that might suggest there are issues that might need addressing.  It is this knee-jerk reaction that leads many to believe that there are some who just dont want to have to deal or discuss any of the issues people are raising - that the head-in-the-sand approach is best.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

I mean, have you ever posted something critical of cycling or anything other than something in glowing support of LTNs?

Not sure I've posted random opinion pieces on 'cycling'. I do point to data and research in support of my positions. That's because I believe in reading available evidence before forming an opinion (rather than forming an opinion and then trying to take apart opposing evidence to prove a prejudice).

I don't live in an echo chamber where I'm being fed 'culture war' stories concerning 'bikes vs cars', which I strongly suspect some are, and as Penguin implied.

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Forums tend to be better when they aren't just vehicles of propaganda!

Most of what you post is unevidenced opinions, or just objectively false assertions. For example, claims that LTNS increase pollution, or increase road danger.

Edited 20 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Most of what you post is unevidenced opinions, or just objectively false assertions.

What, a bit like your majority support for DV LTNs false assertion where you clearly hadn't read the whole report...;-)

[jazzer]

This morning, Forest Hill Road turning left into Woodvale. Cyclist at speed went straight through a red light and continued to take the corner at speed and in the process nearly had a pedestrian. 

So what happens to the cyclist if they ride into and hit a pedestrian?

Is the cyclist liable?

As cyclists do not have insurance for riding bicycles, who does the pedestrian claim from?

What action would the Police take? If they even bother to attend such an incident?

Why would a cyclist take a blind corner at speed?

 

 

[Spartacus]

Careful Jazzer, lest you provoke a response of " cars are more dangerous, what are you doung about them?" 

Which, whilst a valid point, does distract from the point that cyclists are often riding dangerously and you raised fair points about insurance, police action and attitude. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

15 hours ago, Rockets said:

What, a bit like your majority support for DV LTNs false assertion

I didn't say this though. You can keep doubling down, but it's a straight forward lie. The quote you have produced (having scoured the forum, desperately trying to wiggle out of simply admitting an error - heaven forbid that you should ever do that), was: "Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative". This is not a false assertion. It is a fact.

You've also quoted me as saying 'the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable'. Also not a quote from me / completely untrue.

And why did you make up these quotes / try to misrepresent things I said on completely different threads? - to deflect from legitimate challenges as to how you’d concluded some research was 'propaganda' and 'statistical jiggery pokery', without having read it.

It's not about differences in opinion. These are bad faith tactics used repeatedly - say something that has no basis, and when questioned deflect / change the conversation, often with other misleading statements or personal attacks. It's just 'flooding the zone'. It’’s embarrassing.

Edited 1 hour ago by Earl Aelfheah

[jazzer]

Cars are just if not even more dangerous but cyclists can seriously injure and if not kill someone as well.

Just asking questions for a "friend"

[DulvilleRes]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I didn't say this though. You can keep doubling down, but it's a straight forward lie. The quote you have produced (having scoured the forum, desperately trying to wiggle out of simply admitting an error - heaven forbid that you should ever do that), was: "Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative". This is not a false assertion. It is a fact.

You've also quoted me as saying 'the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable'. Also not a quote from me / completely untrue.

And why did you make up these quotes / try to misrepresent things I said on completely different threads? - to deflect from legitimate challenges as to how you’d concluded some research was 'propaganda' and statistical jiggery pokery, without having read it.

It's not about differences in opinion. These are bad faith tactics used repeatedly - say something that has no basis, and when questioned deflect / change the conversation, often with other misleading statements or personal attacks. It's just 'flooding the zone'. It’’s embarrassing.

... and all of this in a context where despite posting One Dulwich press releases and having concerns that are near indentically alligned to them, Rockets states he has no idea who is behind them or who funds them. Is this ignorance either an indicator of an incredibly one sided approach to local issues which doesn't lend itself to any genuine balanced debate, or perhaps a bad faith approach to engaging on these threads?

[HeadNun]

23 hours ago, tedfudge said:

I watched a cyclist go through a red light last night at junction of ludgate circus and nearly get hit by a taxi turning on a green light and I was right behind him and then nearly hit a woman crossing the road and called her a stupid c**t.... and currently fleet street is closed one way and the road has been narrowed but cyclists still come down it head on towards buses , lorry's,  cars , etc and expect you to somehow move over for them even though they shouldn't be there .. cyclists are a menace to pedestrians and other people using the road , I see it every single night multiple cyclist going through red lights but I have not seen one motor vehicle go through a red light ... something needs to be done to stop them 

I've witnessed this level of aggression - someone once called me a 'putan!' for stopping at a pedestrian crossing to let someone cross, and he went into the back of me. 

I've also witnessed a man on a bike, aggressively pinging his bell at a FOUR YEAR OLD who was ambling along a path IN A PARK. 

Just last week a woman rang her bell at me in a park - sorry, if I'm on foot in a park, you can bloody well cycle around me. The aggressive bell-ringing really gets on my proverbials. 

Ugh, I can feel my blood pressure rising as I type. 

The worst thing is, even though I consider yourself to be a respectful and safe cyclist, I can feel my own anger levels rising when I get on the bike. There's something about cycling which can bring out the very worst in people. .