Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[first mate]

I am seeing many more cyclists jumping red lights; it seemed to reduce for a while. Yes, a lot are e-bike users but these are classified as cyclists.

Also seeing more of the same cycling on pavements that are not shared use. E-bike riders on pavements is a new thing. Until recently, we could feel reasonably confident that pavements were a safe, traffic free environment with the expectation that powered vehicles were confined to the roads. This distinction is now becoming blurred.

[malumbu]

Illegal e bikes are not bicycles.  They essentially are motor bikes. The GLA report I attached had recommendations for addressing this increasing hazard too.

[Rockets]

Ha ha @malumbu they are bikes...they are called e-bikes for a reason. I love how some of you try to blame the problem as e-bikes and then try to claim e-bikes are actually motorbikes.

Is a Lime bike a motorbike then?

[first mate]

Exactly, and in my experience Lime bike riders are one of the biggest offenders in terms of anti-social non-shared pavement cycling. I have also seen a number of parents on powered bikes ( not sure which category) with little ones in a trailer, behind. I have a certain sympathy with this but if many more start using pavements in this way it could become a problem- also said parents were not going slowly when on the pavement.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

There are some obvious differences between traditional bicycles, pedal assist e-bikes, and illegal electric motor powered bikes that are throttle operated. 

[first mate]

I think we can all agree, Lime bikes and other brands of hire e-bike are incredibly easy to identify. Food delivery drivers are more likely to use illegal e-bikes but are big for cycling on pavements. Parents cycling with children towed in a trailer may use a range of bicycles but should try to cycle very slowly on non shared use pavements. If more and more people start to cycle with trailers then I think non- shared pavement use will have to stop.

[exdulwicher]

35 minutes ago, first mate said:

If more and more people start to cycle with trailers then I think non- shared pavement use will have to stop.

Agreed - it's already noted in the LTN 1/20 guidance (LTN in this case means Local Transport Note, not Low Traffic Neighbourhood!). Basically it's the guidance setting out how infrastructure for walking, wheeling and cycling should be designed and built, and it covers shared space and segregated space but it notes that the old days where a council could paint a line down the middle of a pavement for a bit then put a blue "Cyclists Dismount" sign at the end of it is nowhere close to acceptable any more. 

This obviously applies double for any form of adapted bike, trike, cargo bike etc which are far bigger and far less manoeuvrable than "traditional" bikes which is largely what has been accommodated so far. Thankfully there are an increasing number of parking bays, cycle hangers etc designed for e-bikes, cargo bikes, adapted bikes etc now.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha @malumbu they are bikes...they are called e-bikes for a reason. I love how some of you try to blame the problem as e-bikes and then try to claim e-bikes are actually motorbikes.

Give over Rockets. Funny how pedantry is really your strong point when it suits you but now you're just going "they're all e-bikes!"

They're not, at all. Even the law says they're not so your statement is simply wrong. "e-bike" (in the colloquial term) refers to EAPC - Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle. These are the legal bikes sold by reputable manufacturers and it also includes Lime, Dott etc. No throttle, the motor can only assist when pedalling, the motor cuts out at 25kph blah blah. It's all enshrined in law. You can even read about it here cos I know how much you'll want references and data points and "where did you get this info from?"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs-in-great-britain-information-sheet

However "e-bike" is also used colloquially (and incorrectly) to refer to any sort of electrically-powered 2-wheel bike-shaped thing, usually by people who don't know or care about the differences and sometimes by media seeking some clickbait. If it has a throttle, it's regarded in law as a moped or motorbike. That can actually be legal if it's registered, insured, taxed, has a number plate and so on. But you can buy them from any number of websites including Amazon, sold under the guise of "they're legal if they're only used on private land" disclaimer which as we all know is a total get-out clause.

Whatever "crackdown" has to happen needs to be from a mix of angles. Confiscate the illegal bikes, absolutely. But then the Uber Eat / Deliveroo lot simply beg, borrow, buy or steal another one and they're back on the road in 24hrs - mostly because the whole system of gig economy basically demands that they use the cheapest fastest mode of transport possible. You also need to go after the online sellers saturating the market with illegal bikes, the back-street "workshops" that work on them or modify them (most reputable bike shops won't touch them) and the people selling crap quality batteries. All those battery fires are from illegally modified bikes, often being used with aftermarket batteries and incompatible chargers. Actual EAPCs from reputable manufacturers aren't a problem. And in law, EAPC is regarded as "a bike". Same as any other normal road-legal bike. Allowed to use the same trails, paths, infrastructure as any other normal road-legal bike.

Edited September 25, 2025 by exdulwicher

[malumbu]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha @malumbu they are bikes...they are called e-bikes for a reason. I love how some of you try to blame the problem as e-bikes and then try to claim e-bikes are actually motorbikes.

Is a Lime bike a motorbike then?

Do you not take on board what others post just because they don't agree with you?  Illegal 'e bikes' have been discussed numerous times on this forum.  Here is the definition again:

"in the UK, an electric bike (e-bike) that doesn't meet the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC) regulations is legally classified as a moped or motorcycle. This occurs if the e-bike's motor provides assistance above 15.5 mph (25 km/h), has a maximum power output over 250 watts, or has a throttle that can be used without pedaling. "

A Lime bike is a bike or an electrically assisted pedal bike.

Pretty clear.

[first mate]

Thanks Mal, yes, we can easily identify Lime bikes and e-bikes, a bit harder to know which are souped up. But this thread is not about 'bike spotting' it is about noticing a rise in the number of cyclists running red lights (and I added the issue about pavement use). Do feel free to start a bike-spotter thread though, or it might sit nicely in your 'joys of cycling' thread 🙂

[malumbu]

You raised e bikes not me.  Beyond some discussion about changing the regs for cyclists I don't find this thread of any interest.  

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

You raised e bikes not me.  Beyond some discussion about changing the regs for cyclists I don't find this thread of any interest.  

In that case, why do you keep on  posting on it ? 

[Rockets]

@malumbu all this "it's the e-bikes that are the problem" is nothing more than a distraction attempt. Yes there are problems with souped up illegal e-bikes but the vast majority of problems are being caused by what everyone categorises as a bike - pedal bikes, Lime bikes, pedal assist legal bikes.

What is in play here is a weak attempt by the cycle lobby to point the finger of blame at a group to try and absolve itself of responsibility for addressing the challenge - it's another "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS".

Trust me, TFL is not embarking on a cyclist education poster campaign because of illegal e-bikes! 

 

 

[tedfudge]

All 2 wheeled pedal bicycles are a problem with red light jumping whether that be e bike or normal pedal bike , this morning at junctions of east dulwich Grove and Crystal palace road a cyclist jumped the red light going along east dulwich Grove towards goose green round about and I was going across the lights towards Crystal palace road and nearly hit the idiot , I had to brake hard and honk my horn and he just looked at me and shrugged his shoulders , next time I wont stop and just take them out

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 minutes ago, tedfudge said:

next time I wont stop and just take them out

I'm not sure deliberately driving a car into someone (no matter how poorly they're behaving) is advisable Ted.

[Penguin68]

Clearly driving into anyone if you are able to stop, outwith 'responsibility', isn't a good thing, but I note it always seems to be others 'slamming on brakes' including pedestrians, rather than cyclists. Drivers in cars and vans etc. have to pass hazard awareness tests, cyclists (those who haven't passed driving tests) don't. And of course many cyclists are hazard aware, and I'm sure they also take avoiding action at times, but not very obviously, in my experience. And they are the group on the roads, apart from pedestrians, who are most at risk of serious injury in any incident. Whoever is to blame. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

but I note it always seems to be others 'slamming on brakes' including pedestrians, rather than cyclists

This is not the case. It's not unusual for cars to pull out straight into the path of cyclists either. And I'm sure we've all experienced pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking / on their phones.

There are some pretty irresponsible road users unfortunately, regardless of the mode of transport they are using. We need to encourage better behaviours all round; The 'cars vs bicycles' narrative isn't particularly helpful.

There are particular issues around people travelling by bicycle not stopping at lights, seriously endangering (primarily) themselves, and also people in motor vehicles regularly breaking speed limits, and seriously injuring and killing others (around 30,000 in the UK annually).

We need to point resources at addressing both in ways that are proportionate and increase safety for everyone.

Edited September 26, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

On 25/09/2025 at 23:37, Rockets said:

@malumbu all this "it's the e-bikes that are the problem" is nothing more than a distraction attempt. Yes there are problems with souped up illegal e-bikes but the vast majority of problems are being caused by what everyone categorises as a bike - pedal bikes, Lime bikes, pedal assist legal bikes.

What is in play here is a weak attempt by the cycle lobby to point the finger of blame at a group to try and absolve itself of responsibility for addressing the challenge - it's another "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS".

Trust me, TFL is not embarking on a cyclist education poster campaign because of illegal e-bikes! 

 

 

I didn't raise e bikes on this thread.  You perpetuated the common view that all e bikes are the same as pedal bikes.  Two of us corrected you.  Rather than say 'fair enough' you then turn to your usual narrative of a cyclists lobby etc.

If you don't post factually incorrect stuff the I would have no need to post correcting this.

Edited: yes this is tedious but factually incorrect stuff does need to be challenged.

Edited September 28, 2025 by malumbu

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

You perpetuated the common view that all e bikes are the same as pedal bikes. 

I think the point being made may rather be that e-bike riders and cyclists share a similar world-view as regards what's acceptable as a rider/ driver of either of these. It's not about the vehicle but its rider. 

[malumbu]

Which is the perfect example of why a number of you have it wrong in treating all cyclists the same.  We are not a uniform group 

A youth may be very different to a commuter, in turn a leisure cyclist, a Deliveroo rider in a hurry to deliver due to the awful zero hours model*, and a full on electric 30mph cgaf (work that out for yourself).

If you could get your head around that rather than demonise all cyclists, and what the solutions are available to improve behaviours we could have and informed debate.  I've said all this before but people just return to the same old entrenched views 

*Wrote to Ellie today asking for delivery riders to be PAYE 

Edited September 28, 2025 by malumbu

[Rockets]

Ha ha @malumbu the cycle lobby loves to claim cycling is on the increase (often propped up by increasss in the very groups of cyclists you say should not be treated as cyclists).

You can't have it both ways.....

I am sorry but as far as the public are concerned if you are on a pedal bike, an assisted pedal bike, an electric bike, a cargo bike or some form of legal/illegal e-bike then you are on a bike and are a cyclist. 

Each of the aforementioned bikes are different in their design but if you ride one you are cyclist in the minds of the public - and seemingly those who count cyclists....

[Spartacus]

@malumbu, I am convinced you said, and I quote, "I don't find this thread of any interest" yet still you are reading and posting 😉 

I also love your latest quote "a number of you have it wrong in treating all cyclists the same.  We are not a uniform group " as often the pro cycling lobbying posters on here believe exactly that of drivers that they are a uniform group.

Maybe we all need to take off the blinkers  recognise some cyclists are breaking the rules as well.as some drivers, and then we could potentially have a chance of a constructive debate. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

TfL set up cameras to monitor people going through red lights whilst travelling by bike. They found around 16% breaking the rules. That's similar to the figure of 1 in 6 given in that article who said they regularly ignore the lights.

A 2023 gov.uk report showed that in 2022, 45% of cars on motorways and 50% on 30mph roads were exceeding the speed limit.

There are issues around people travelling by bicycle not stopping at lights, seriously endangering (primarily) themselves, and a significant problem of people in motor vehicles breaking speed limits, and seriously injuring and killing others (around 30,000 in the UK annually).

Both need to be tackled in ways that are proportionate and increase safety for everyone.

[malumbu]

Thanks, good to debate.

Most cyclists who run red lights do not endanger themselves or others.  They do it when there are no other road users at the junction.

In terms of safety that is not a concern,

The issue here is obeying the rules of the road and setting an example to other road users.  As you say many drivers behaviour also lout the rules of the world.  Cyclists and red lights doesn't keep me awake at night.

Riding through pedestrian lights when there are people present is another issue, particularly at speed and with heavier bikes such as Lime and legal/illegal ebikes.

The cyclist putting themselves at risk you could argue more fool you, but where there is impact with another road user, be it bike or motorised, there could be damage both physical and mental, and at worst the other road user could be vulnerable to abuse/attack (in this case the same as any other form of road rage).

 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A 2023 gov.uk report showed that in 2022, 45% of cars on motorways and 50% on 30mph roads were exceeding the speed limit.

There is a big caveat here...and this is why trying to use stat to says "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" is such a risky strategy....especially if you haven't looked at the caveat.......you kind of missed the point of that government report which measured speeds on "free-flowing roads". Which they define as 

The report stats: Only sites where the road conditions are free flowing, for example where there are no junctions, hills, sharp bends, speed enforcement cameras or other traffic calming measures. 

So what you are actually comparing are stats for speeding drivers on long straight roads with no impediments versus cyclists who are being ordered to stop to give way to other road users.

P.S. the speeding driver issue has been declining year on year and saw another 8% drop in that report.

I do agree with you that cyclists who do this are ultimately endangering themselves and it is interesting that, despite the millions invested in cycle infrastructure TFL's own measure of risk (KSIs per million journeys) has shown little improvement for cyclists between 2015 and 2024 and I do wonder whether much of that is being driven by red-light stupidity amongst that growing number of cyclists that do it.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

There is a big caveat here...and this is why trying to use stat to says "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" is such a risky strategy

I'm not using any 'strategy'. I don't' believe in this constant 'footballification' that you love to indulge in, where everything must be seen through a lens of cars v's bikes, where you fight for your 'team'. Most people travel around by different modes at different times, and many of the people who demonstrate bad road behaviour do so whether they're in the car, or on a bike.

I'm pointing out that there are issues of road safety that need addressing, and that interventions should be proportionate to maximise their impact on safety. I don't believe this is anything a rational person could argue with - but then if you insist on seeing it as a competition with sides, then of course you're not being rational.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

P.S. the speeding driver issue has been declining year on year and saw another 8% drop in that report.

That's good, but it still leaves a significant problem; we tolerate around 30,000 serious injuries and deaths each year in the UK. In London it's around 4,000, with speed playing a role in more than half of them. Amazing that you would imply that's not such an issue, but then you were also trying to minimise a car on it's roof on another thread, so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

In terms of red light hopping by those travelling by bicycle, I think we should look at legal reforms to allow safe progression through red lights at some junctions. Exdulwicher mentioned the 'Idaho stop' previously, which alongside stricter penalties and enforcement, sounds eminently sensible. Other than that, more dedicated infrastructure to separate bicycles and cars would help, but you've generally opposed that.

Edited September 29, 2025 by Earl Aelfheah