Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

But the headline you quoted did not contain any 20mph roads.....goodness me....the headline stat you used was from 30 mph, national speed limit and motorway free-flowing roads. Come on @Earl Aelfheah just admit you're wrong.

I really don't get your point, or how you think you've shown me to be wrong? I originally said:

On 29/09/2025 at 13:03, 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.

The point was simply that speeding is common place. As usual, you ignored the point and tried minimise the prevalence of speeding, claiming that those roads aren't relevant (although there are still plenty of motorways and 30mph roads in London). So I pointed out that the same report also looked at 20 mph roads, where the number of people speeding is even higher.

Quote

...Under free flow conditions, 84% of cars exceeded the speed limit at 20 mph road sites where data are available, and 16% exceeded the speed limit by over 10 mph

But again, the point of course is not the numbers per se - it's that speeding is commonplace and is a significant problem. It's a factor in more than half the collisions that result in serious injury and death in London each year.

But rather than talk about that fact, you obviously, predictably, tried to kick up dust. Because ultimately, although it is unequivocally true that people speeding whilst using cars kill a lot of people, you weirdly see them as 'your team', so you knee jerk deflect. Its' ridiculous.

4 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

This thread has long since stopped being about cyclists jumping lights

Getting back to that. There is definitely something around the pricing model for Lime bikes that could make a difference. When you're on a bicycle, getting started from a stop is the hardest part, so there is some incentive to maintain momentum where possible (which may be why some people are reluctant to come to a full stop if they think they can get away which not doing so). The beauty of pedal assist bikes is that they reduce the 'cost' of lost momentum, with that electric boost to get going again.

Lime's pay per minute model works against this, encouraging people to keep moving despite the electric assist. If they had a pay for distance model, then you might see more people happy to stop and start.

Edited October 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

But rather than talk about it, you obviously, predictably, tried to kick up dust.

No. I corrected you because you then tried to suggest that interventions like LTNs and 20mph zones were one of the reasons that there had been year-on-year decreases in the number of those speeding within that very report. Which clearly was nonsense as any 20mph roads were not included and the survey was, very deliberately, on free-flowing sections of roads 30mph and above.

So, once again, you are leaving out part of the story.

 

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Getting back to that. There is definitely something around the pricing model for Lime bikes that could make a difference. When you're on a bicycle, getting started from a stop is the hardest part, so there is some incentive to maintain momentum where possible (which may be why some people are reluctant to come to a full stop if they think they can get away which not doing so). The beauty of pedal assist bikes is that they reduce the 'cost' of lost momentum, with that electric boost to get going again.

Lime's pay per minute model works against this, encouraging people to keep moving. If they had a pay for distance model, then you might see more people happy to stop and start, with the motor reducing the effort.

I agree but would Lime ever do this? Or would TFL be brave enough to force it on them? Lime bikes are clearly a large contributor to the problem but I do wonder how much control they have over rider behaviour.

[Earl Aelfheah]

18 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No. I corrected you because you then tried to suggest that interventions like LTNs and 20mph zones were one of the reasons that there had been year-on-year decreases in the number of those speeding within that very report.

Well then you haven't read what I said, because this is not true. And you've just changed your argument - a minute ago you were claiming that your issue was the report didn’t mention 20mph roads?!

You’re all over the place. It's just the usual noise and deflection 

It's very, very, tedious.

Edited October 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Well then you haven't read what I said, because this is not true. And you've just changed your argument - a minute ago you were claiming that your issue was the report didn’t mention 20mph roads?!

The headline from the report you quoted had (very deliberately on the part of the government) nothing to do with 20mph roads yet you tried to link the year-on-year decreases to them and interventions likely on them.

Let me explain...the government did their report...they focused on 30mph, national speed limit and motorway "free-flowing" sections of road. They very deliberately left 20mph roads out of the headline dataset...why...well they explain it in the report....

So it is not me who is all over the place.

 

Vehicle speeds on 20 mph roads

The department also has data for a number of ‘free-flow’ sites with 20 mph speed limits, however the data from these sites need to be interpreted with additional caution for the following reasons.

By their nature, roads with 20 mph speed limits are particularly likely to have traffic calming measures in place, or not be ‘free flow’ for other reasons (for example being narrow or having many corners and bends). Department for Transport (DfT) guidance suggests that 20 mph speed limits are most effective when they have traffic calming measures or when average vehicle speeds are already below 24 mph.

The 20 mph ‘free flow’ sites, by contrast, tend to be on ‘through routes’ rather than smaller residential streets – reflecting the constraints both of finding ‘free flow’ traffic conditions and locations suitable for the installation of automatic traffic monitoring equipment. Quieter residential streets, which make up a large proportion of 20 mph roads, will be under-represented in the data.

Therefore the ‘free flow’ 20 mph sites in this data set will tend to be unrepresentative of 20 mph roads in general, and this effect will be much greater than for other speed limits considered above. These factors need to be considered when looking at the results for 20 mph sites available in this data set.

20 mph roads should not be compared year-on-year due to the small number of sites in the sample and the relatively high turnover in sites from year to year.

All of the ‘free flow’ ATC sites on 20 mph roads available for 2023 were in England, so the results for 20 mph roads in this publication should be regarded as relating to England, rather than to Great Britain.

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Let me explain...the government did their report...they focused on 30mph, national speed limit and motorway "free-flowing" sections of road. They very deliberately left 20mph roads out of the headline dataset...why...well they explain it in the report....

And you then quote an extensive section of the report outlining 20mph zones and why it's a bit more difficult to analyse them but it's all still valid data... 

???

And it's still got nothing to do with cyclists (or drivers) jumping red lights.

Edit: I've also explained on another thread about the issues of "free-flow" and why it's really quite a nebulous concept in urban environments.

Edited October 1 by exdulwicher

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets Wow that’s some Olympic level nonsense and deflection. You know that everything that is said is recorded? You seem to forget. Go back and read what I’ve written. 

Edited October 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

And you then quote an extensive section of the report outlining 20mph zones and why it's a bit more difficult to analyse them but it's all still valid data... 

???

Which is why they were not part of the report that @Earl Aelfheah used the headline from and then tried to convince us that the year on year reduction in said report was due to 20mph zones.......

Goodness me.....

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

And it's still got nothing to do with cyclists (or drivers) jumping red lights.

Yes and I didn't take us down this track.....it was someone who wanted to make a "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!" point...;-)

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You know that everything that is said is recorded? You seem to forget. Go back and read what I’ve written. 

It's probably timely for me to remind you of exactly the same thing.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Which is why they were not part of the report that @Earl Aelfheah used the headline from and then tried to convince us that the year on year reduction in said report was due to 20mph zones.......

This is just nonsense. You’re spiralling. Show me where I’ve said this, show the quotes.

Have you actually bothered reading anything I’ve said before responding?

On 30/09/2025 at 13:54, Rockets said:

20mph roads are not included as part of the "free-flow" analysis that they did

Not long ago you were saying that they didn’t look at 20mph zones.

5 hours ago, Rockets said:

the ‘free flow’ 20 mph sites in this data set will tend to be unrepresentative

Now you say they were.

It’s all of course irrelevant to the point being made (that speeding is commonplace and contributes to serious injuries and deaths), but you love to kick up dust, and deflect to obscure facts you don’t want discussed.

Edited October 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 29/09/2025 at 17:47, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 

But not in the context of the reduction in the speed of free-flowing 30mph, national speed limit or motorways.....and that was my point...clearly. 

I rest my case!

6 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

And any time there's anything about a vehicle collision or incident, you'll look to minimise it, have a go at anyone criticising it and then it just becomes like this thread has, an increasingly tiresome tit-for-tat where you'll post some general nonsense, Earl will step in to correct it and you accuse him (her/it?) of doing exactly what you're doing.

Ha ha...you've got the @Earl Aelfheah bug, accusing me of trying to minimise things....when I have done nothing of the sort? Hilarious.

In the interests of balance @exdulwicher you should probably chastise Earl too as I am not sure they can be accused of trying to step in to correct things....be fair now, they don't come across as the peacemaker in the midst of a fist fight. 😉

6 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

Much like how the traffic drops noticeably during school holidays, it was very noticeable how the traffic on this section of the forum dropped significantly when you were on your little enforced "holiday"...

Ha ha...low blow Ex -  I just wish sometimes admin would police some of the things posted by others on here with the same vigour that I went to forum jail for (I did the crime, I did the time and I am a changed person!!! ;-))- some do push the boundaries way beyond what is acceptable and there are very real examples of that within the recent posts on this thread. 

I would love to debate the red light issue but some want to try and detract from any narrative they don't agree with. Happens all the time.

 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 29/09/2025 at 16:20, Rockets said:

But we aren't tolerating it [high killed and seriously injured numbers] are we....people are trying to do something about it and whatever they are doing seems to be working as the numbers are going down year on year.

@Rockets the quote you’ve used was a response to the above, in which I explain the interventions that have led to a drop in KSI numbers. Read it again:

On 29/09/2025 at 17:47, Earl Aelfheah said:

On 29/09/2025 at 16:20, Rockets said:

whatever they are doing seems to be working as the numbers are going down

‘Whatever they’re doing’, is things like 20mph limits, LTNs, segregated bike lanes, cameras and fines… all the things you’ve regularly complained about. 🤔 

You can read about it here https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/safety-and-security/road-safety/vision-zero-for-london 

So no, it's nothing to do with a random, contorted context you're trying to desperately apply, to prove... something - I've no idea what?

25 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But not in the context of the reduction in the speed of free-flowing 30mph, national speed limit or motorways.....and that was my point...clearly. 

I rest my case!

Your 'case' may have some holes in it. 

Edited October 1 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

20 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Your 'case' may have some holes in it. 

As I said, I rest my case. If you think it has holes in that's utterly predictable and your prerogative but anyone paying any attention (I doubt they will be to be fair) will know the truth!

[Earl Aelfheah]

What ‘case’? I’ve quoted a report on speeding directly, which you have then claimed doesn’t say things you’ve gone on to quote it as saying. 

I’ve also pointed out why KSI numbers have fallen (notably in London, having plateaued elsewhere) because of targeted and successful interventions you’ve argued against.

Meanwhile you’ve done nothing but try to kick up dust and deflect with your usual nonsense, because we can’t discuss speeding in relation to motor vehicles (only bicycles bizarrely), or what has actually been effective in improving road safety (because it involves things you’ve argued against).

It’s embarrassing. And if you had any shame, you'd apologise for repeatedly making stuff up and stating that I've said things I self evidently have not.

Edited October 3 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

On 28/09/2025 at 19:54, Rockets said:

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....

Rather than just dismiss what I have to say because it doesn't fit in with your narrative why don't you engage with what I have raised.  This is the way you have behaved for several years.  On your soap box but when points worthy of discussion are raised you fail to engage.

It's daft lumping all cyclists together.  Most of the public can differentiate between a parent on their bike taking their kid to school, a teenager riding to school through the Village to Kingsdale or Dulwich College, an  older person pootling on their bike, and a supersized illegal ebike doing 25mph.  Or would you as a cyclist like to be labelled as a the latter?

On 30/09/2025 at 18:14, Rockets said:

Well, to be fair @malumbu it is a thread on red light jumping cyclists......#justsayin

 

I haven't seen you starting many threads on dangerous cyclist behaviour either @malumbu so not exactly sure what point you are trying to make....

 

 

 

 

 

Why on earth is that relevant?  I have posted a thread on the joys of cycling, and one on cycle routes, both hijacked by the usual suspects complaining about cyclists.   I add some balance to the numerous threads attacking cyclists.  I could give you numerous examples of poor driving but life is too short.

On 28/09/2025 at 20:23, Spartacus said:

@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. 

Haven't a clue why you posted this and what value it has to the discussion.  I've never said drivers are a uniform group. I'm aware that some cyclists do daft things.  I choose to look at the bigger picture as the benefits of cycling outweigh all the negativity on this forum.  This us vs them stuff is so unhelpful.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets are you disputing the fact that cycling has increased. The number of daily cycle journeys in London has risen 26% since 2019.

Edited Saturday at 04:52 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah thanks...making the point for me. 

I am not disputing cycling is on the increase. What I am saying is, and as both you and @malumbu have both wonderfully demonstrated (thank you both for that) is that on the one hand the cycle lobby celebrates the increase in cycling but in the same breath then says that everyone needs to differentiate between types of cyclists and that it is "daft lumping all cyclists together" when you claim a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping.

Folks, you cannot have it both ways - but please keep going as between the two of you you're doing a great job validating our points! 😉

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

the cycle lobby celebrates the increase in cycling but in the same breath then says that everyone needs to differentiate between types of cyclists and that it is "daft lumping all cyclists together" when you claim a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping.

Where have I claimed that "a certain type of cyclist are the ones causing problems like red light jumping."? This is rubbish. I actually pointed out that data shows around 16% of people on bikes don't stop.

I did suggest that you could do something targeted, to disincentive people travelling by Lime bike specifically, from jumping the lights (amending the charging model). This is not to say that they're 'the ones causing the problem'. I also pointed out in the same post that in many ways pedal assist bikes generally, do less to discourage stopping, because the loss of hard gained momentum is not an issue in the same way as it may be on a conventional push bike. I've suggested other, more general interventions you could make, that taken together might help reduce red light hopping. From what I can tell, you've contributed nothing constructive at all, as usual.

On 28/09/2025 at 19:54, Rockets said:

Ha ha @malumbu the cycle lobby loves to claim cycling is on the increase (often propped up by increases 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. 

Firstly, your constant reference to anyone who disagrees with you as 'the cycle lobby' is getting increasingly embarrassing. Are you 'the car lobby'? The only one who constantly takes irrational, binary positions, based on a dumb 'car vs bicycle' position, is you. Most people are thankfully capable of looking at evidence and applying their critical faculties in order to form nuanced opinions.

Concerning cycling numbers, they have consistently been on the rise for around two decades now. Boosted by the investments in cycle infrastructure you regularly complain about and claim to be ineffective. There is plenty of data on this, which of course you've (predictably) tried to minimise or misrepresent on numerous occasions.

On the classification of different two wheeled vehicles, this has been discussed many times with you (so it's not like you don't know this):

On 25/09/2025 at 13:28, malumbu said:

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.

Trying to suggest that someone travelling on an illegal, throttle powered, electric motorbike (which may be capable to travelling of speeds up to 70 mph) is a 'cyclist', is self evidently ridiculous / desperate.

You really are not engaging in good faith debate. It's just a constant stream of nonsense.

Edited October 3 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I think it is bad faith to suggest that most would describe the majority of e-bikes, including throttle assisted as anything but "e-bikes". Are you really suggesting that most people looking at say the bog standard food delivery driver that is using an illegal e-bike, would describe that vehicle as a motorbike? Whether you like it or not, most view these as e-bikes, it is a grey area. This is how delivery drivers using those vehicles are confident in driving across all the pedestrian areas no motorbike user would attempt- because they are behaving like cyclists.

Edited October 3 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

Just now, first mate said:

Whether you like it or not, most view these as e-bikes, it is a grey area.

It's not a grey area though is it. There is a clear legal framework.

"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 pedalling. "

I don't really care what you chose to call it. Both legally, and in common sense terms, it is a nonsense to claim that a motor powered, throttle operated bike, capable of doing speeds perhaps as high as 70mph, is a bicycle. 

[first mate]

It is a grey area in terms of perception and that is what you are wrestling with. Illegal e-bike users dare to behave exactly like cyclists because they know the perception is that they are e-bike users.

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is nonsense. A person on an illegal moped doesn't behave 'exactly like cyclists'. Your perception is irrelevant (and objectively wrong in terms of the legal framework and I would argue, any type of common sense). 

This is also, completely irrelevant to the discussion. As usual Rockets, with nothing constructive to add and having been caught out making a series of false statements, has again deflected. It's very tedious.

[first mate]

Why is it then that we do not see many motorbike users (applying the common perception of what a motorbike looks like) regularly riding on pavements and other pedestrianised areas, not shared with cyclists but used by them, nonetheless?

[Moovart]

Just now, first mate said:

Why is it then that we do not see many motorbike users (applying the common perception of what a motorbike looks like) regularly riding on pavements and other pedestrianised areas, not shared with cyclists but used by them, nonetheless?

Because mopeds and motorbikes are registered, insured vehicles and electric powered bikes are not so they're more difficult to control. The police can confiscate them and the government could enforce registration of them as motor bikes but what other control is there?

[malumbu]

Obviously a separate subject:

Information at point of sale including those providing kits to convert standard bikes, or get round restrictions on road legal bikes 

Information campaign accompanied with enforcement by police and local authorities.

Target grey importers and the like perhaps legislate that suppliers take some responsibility if bikes are inappropriately used.  Perhaps a registration scheme, like owning a shot gun, I will only use this on private land with the owners approval.

Costly, and no doubt not fully enforceable.

But all worthy of consideration by our politicians.  Put up a separate thread and I'll see what select committees, parliamentary groups, local authorities etc have said.

[Sue]

I can't be a***d to read all this, and it isn't worth starting a separate thread, but I would just like to say that around 7.15pm this evening I came out of M&S on Lordship Lane.

I pressed the crossing button, the green man came on, a car stopped.

I was halfway across the crossing when a blue car coming from the Goose Green direction suddenly shot across in front of me.

My reactions were too slow to get the reg number.

The light on that car's side must have been red for some time before the car reached it.

I sincerely hope that car drivers'  disregard for red lights and the safety of pedestrians isn't going to go the same way as that of some cyclists.

Not sure that last sentence is grammatical, but you hopefully get the gist.

Edited October 3 by Sue
Clarification

[Rockets]

15 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Firstly, your constant reference to anyone who disagrees with you as 'the cycle lobby' is getting increasingly embarrassing. Are you 'the car lobby'?

Ha ha….is it not the cycle lobby who makes the bold headlines about the increases in cycling figures? In my defence do you see me making the same proclamations about cars…..no didn’t think so…..

 

15 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Trying to suggest that someone travelling on an illegal, throttle powered, electric motorbike (which may be capable to travelling of speeds up to 70 mph) is a 'cyclist', is self evidently ridiculous / desperate.

Do you mean an illegal e-bike? And are you trying to claim that somehow all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes because they are very few and far between….and are actually normally the choice of those partaking in illegal activities. To many of those who travel around London the vast majority of problems are caused by those either on normal pedal cycles, delivery rider bikes or Lime bikes…..(in other words….cyclists ) or are Lime bikes now to be classified as less speedy electric motorbikes……🤣

Edited October 3 by Rockets