Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

are you trying to claim that somehow all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes

No. I have not said anything of the sort as is self evident and as you very well know..

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

are Lime bikes now to be classified as less speedy electric motorbikes

Again no one has said or even remotely suggested this. 

You’re just making ridiculous straw man arguments and spiralling badly.

You’ve absolutely embarrassed yourself on this thread, making a number of objectively false and misleading statements. Instead of admitting your ‘mistakes’, or just staying quiet for a bit, you’re doubling down as usual, and showing yourself up further.

9 hours ago, Sue said:

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

Sorry to hear this Sue, hope you weren’t too shaken.

I actually see cars jumping reds most days on my commute into central London, unfortunately it’s not as rare as you might imagine.

The fact is that whilst people are much more likely to jump a red light when travelling on a bicycle (for one thing they have far greater opportunity to than a full width vehicle), as a pedestrian, you’re much more likely to be seriously injured or killed by someone in a car jumping a red.

Anyway, glad you’re ok.

Edited Saturday at 05:05 by Earl Aelfheah

[teddyboy23]

Earl  rockets is the wedding still on 🍾

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’ve absolutely embarrassed yourself on this thread, making a number of objectively false and misleading statements. Instead of admitting your ‘mistakes’, or just staying quiet for a bit, you’re doubling down as usual, and showing yourself up further.

Oh, crikey Earl, do you think anyone really buys this?

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’ve absolutely embarrassed yourself on this thread, making a number of objectively false and misleading statements. Instead of admitting your ‘mistakes’, or just staying quiet for a bit, you’re doubling down as usual, and showing yourself up further.

Alternative interpretations are available. "Showing yourself up further"....that made be chuckle out loud! 😉

BTW at what point do you think a bicycle magically morphs itself into an electric motorcycle or moped?

30 minutes ago, teddyboy23 said:

Earl  rockets is the wedding still on 🍾

Absolutely. If we can get passed the arguments over the vows...Tickets will be sold for seats to the divorce proceedings though! 😉

Edited Saturday at 07:31 by Rockets

[first mate]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

actually see cars jumping reds most days on my commute into central London, unfortunately it’s not as rare as you might imagine.

Now, if we were you Earl we would respond with something like ' I commute daily but do not see multiple cars jumping red lights' or comment on your cognitive biases or simply imply you are making the whole thing up.

[Rockets]

Or say they arent cars that are jumping the red lights but a subset of cars that should not be considered cars....

[first mate]

Hmm. I wonder how many 'motorbikes' and 'powered mopeds' daily jump red lights, along with e-bikes and cyclists, of course.

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Now, if we were you Earl we would respond with something like ' I commute daily but do not see multiple cars jumping red lights' or comment on your cognitive biases or simply imply you are making the whole thing up.

That’s why it contains a hyperlink to some data.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

Hmm. I wonder how many 'motorbikes' and 'powered mopeds' daily jump red lights, along with e-bikes and cyclists, of course.

Again, no one has said people on bicycles do not jump red lights. And your trying to claim that motorbikes (under the legal definition of motorcycles shared multiple times with you), are actually bicycles, is a ridiculous and irrelevant distraction.

Edited Saturday at 09:39 by Earl Aelfheah

[tedfudge]

In the UK, e-bikes are classed as bicycles if they meet the criteria for an Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC): they must have pedals, an electric motor with a maximum continuous power of 250 watts, and provide assistance only up to 15.5 mph (25 km/h). If an e-bike meets these rules, it can be used on roads and cycle paths like a standard bicycle, with no need for registration, insurance, or a driving licence. However, if the e-bike exceeds any of these limits, it is considered a motor vehicle and requires registration, a driving licence, and insurance. 

Edited Saturday at 09:46 by tedfudge

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 minutes ago, tedfudge said:

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

I agree. No one has said otherwise btw.

Rockets just trying to deflect by bringing electric mopeds and motorbikes (a clear legally defined category) into it.

Illegal electric mopeds are also a problem of course, but a different one in terms of enforcement.

30 minutes ago, tedfudge said:

In the UK, e-bikes are classed as bicycles if they meet the criteria for an Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle (EAPC): they must have pedals, an electric motor with a maximum continuous power of 250 watts, and provide assistance only up to 15.5 mph (25 km/h). If an e-bike meets these rules, it can be used on roads and cycle paths like a standard bicycle, with no need for registration, insurance, or a driving licence. However, if the e-bike exceeds any of these limits, it is considered a motor vehicle and requires registration, a driving licence, and insurance. 

Yep. This has been discussed many times, even recently on this thread. There are pedal assist e-bikes and there are electric mopeds / motorcycles. These two are quite different.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

BTW at what point do you think a bicycle magically morphs itself into an electric motorcycle or moped?

Are you not reading anything that’s been posted?

Edited Saturday at 10:08 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

55 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets just trying to deflect by bringing electric mopeds and motorbikes (a clear legally defined category) into it.

A reminder @Earl Aelfheah I was not the one who brought illegal ebikes into the discussion about cyclists jumping red lights...I think you'll find it was brought in as a "it's not actually cyclists jumping red lights" deflection tactic! ;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rubbish. I mentioned Lime bikes because there is something you could do specifically in relation to their charging model to encourage people to stop at red lights. I have offered some other suggestions about push bikes more generally too. That's not a deflection tactic, it’s actually engaging with the topic. At no point have I or anyone else said "it's not actually cyclists jumping red lights". In fact I provided the stats for how many cyclists do regularly jump the lights, described it as a problem and offered some potential solutions. You've started going on about illegal bikes / mopeds.

You've literally spent pages, adding nothing constructive. You've contradicted yourself over a "report that did not include 20mph roads" (and then quoted what it says about 20mph roads). You've attacked me based on your 'confusing' a comment about a drop in KSI numbers with an entirely different exchange on the prevalence of speeding. And you've made a series of really silly straw man arguments about people claiming "all the woes caused by cyclists are due to people riding illegal 70mph e-bikes", and people pretending Lime bikes are motorbikes - no one has said these things, you've just made them up.

And when any of this has been pointed out, instead of just going back, reading what's been said and admitting your errors, you've doubled down (at which point, it can't really be said to be a misunderstanding; It's just base dishonesty).

You seem incapable of engaging in good faith.

Edited Saturday at 11:50 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Might be of interest to the discussion 

Cyclists injuring record numbers at pedestrian crossings https://share.google/bwAFKqPRE6IKmaKJY

Behind a firewall but says 

"

A record number of pedestrians has been injured by cyclists, the latest official data show.

Department for Transport (DfT) road casualty figures analysed by The Telegraph also reveal the highest-ever number of casualties involving cyclists at zebra crossings and on pavements.

In 2024, police recorded 603 incidents where a pedestrian was injured in collision with a cyclist, an 18.9 per cent increase on 507 similar injuries in 2023.

Last year, 321 of those collisions occurred on either a pavement or a pedestrian crossing – a 9 per cent increase on 292 in 2023

In just five years, the number of pedestrians injured in collision with a cyclist on a pavement or at a crossing soared 60 per cent compared to 2019.

During that period, the Government ploughed billions of pounds into promoting cycling, as well as allowing private companies to hire out e-bikes in cities.

The true threat posted by cyclists who flout road rules will be far greater because the DfT data, known as Stats 19, only record injuries reported to police.

The data do not show which party was at fault or whether collisions involved conventional bicycles or e-bikes.

Call to protect pedestrians from cyclists
There has been growing concern that some cyclists ignore road rules by failing to stop at red lights or zebra crossings, or riding on pavements.

Road safety campaigners claim the data proves more must be done to protect pedestrians, particularly those who are elderly or young, from dangerous cyclists.

Of the 603 recorded injuries in 2024, roughly one in three (189) was a serious injury requiring hospital treatment, with one pedestrian dying from their injuries. The 189 killed or seriously injured was the joint-highest on record, equalling 2023.

The data include incidents where pedestrians were injured in collision with a cyclist and the police became involved.

More than a quarter of those injuries last year occurred on pedestrian crossings, with 164 at zebra and pelican crossings. This was up 13.1 per cent on the previous year. 

The next most common locations for accidents were on verges or footways, including pavements, where there were 157 injuries. There were 132 injuries on roads themselves.

A total of 16 per cent of all those injured were 65 or over and 15.3 per cent were children under 16." 

For balance it does go on to say "Cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists. 

However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. In 2024, there were 14,727 injuries to pedestrians after collisions with cars." 

 

[malumbu]

What is the source?

Billions invested in cycling?  Really?  How was this calculated?

[Dulwich dweller]

Paywall removed

 

https://archive.is/20251004145020/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/04/how-cyclists-are-waging-war-on-pedestrians/

[Spartacus]

9 hours ago, malumbu said:

What is the source?

Billions invested in cycling?  Really?  How was this calculated?

So your take on the article about the increase in accidents is questioning how the spend is calculated. 

jeez louise, you are so transparent in your methodology now. 

[Rockets]

These paragraphs show how bad the problem is getting and help steer the "WHAT ABOUT THE CARS" brigade. I also think bad cycling is also a contributing factor to the fact that cyclist KSI per millions of miles cycled is on the increase again after years of decrease. Some cyclists are riding like they are entering the Darwen Awards.

Exerpt from Telegraph piece:

Cars pose a far greater risk to pedestrians, with 24 times more pedestrians injured by motorists than cyclists. 

However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. In 2024, there were 14,727 injuries to pedestrians after collisions with cars.

Matt Briggs has campaigned for cycling laws to be updated since his wife, Kim, died after being hit by a cyclist riding a “fixie” bike with only one working brake.

He said: “A near 20 per cent year-on-year increase in the number of pedestrians injured underscores the importance of the new Road Safety Laws which are now thankfully making their way through Parliament.

“These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads”

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Spartacus said:

So your take on the article about the increase in accidents is questioning how the spend is calculated. 

jeez louise, you are so transparent in your methodology now. 

It's a fair question.  Throwing lines about billions being spent in cycling us misleading and shows bias.

[Penguin68]

If you take into account:-

The cost of redefining roads across the city for cycles, some of which required extensive and disruptive work

The consequential  economic on-cost of increasing travel times both during construction and as a consequence of the loss of road paths to exclusive cycle use

The loss to TFL of bus and tube revenue as a consequence of diverting paying passengers onto two wheels

I think you will find that 'billions' is a reasonable estimate. 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

It's a fair question.  Throwing lines about billions being spent in cycling us misleading and shows bias.

What about the rest of the article @malumbu....sigh....

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 05/10/2025 at 08:19, Rockets said:

the fact that cyclist KSI per millions of miles cycled is on the increase again after years of decrease.

Is that right? I thought government data showed overall cycling casualty rates on UK roads falling since 2004, even as cycle traffic has increased (from an estimated 2.59 billion miles in 2004 to 3.61 billion in 2023 - an almost 40% increase). The most recent figures I can find for London specifically show a 43% reduction in casualties per million cycle journeys between 2000 and 2022.

The Telegraph article is based on their own analysis and omits a lot of important information (the massive increase in cycling numbers over the period referred to for example). This is especially relevant in the City of London (which it identifies as having the highest number of bicycle / pedestrian collisions); In the City bicycles are now the majority mode of transport during peak commuting hours. The headline (which is actually ridiculous), betrays the Telegraph’s agenda. They publish these types of articles regularly (and of course they get good click through / engagement from their target demographic).

All that said, there clearly is an issue with people behaving irresponsibly and dangerously, and it’s becoming a bigger issue in relation to bikes specifically, especially as the number of people cycling increases.

It is worth mentioning that this is well recognised (despite the pretence by people like rockets that somehow it is not), and there are things being done to address it. This includes changes in the law referenced in the article, and targeted enforcement (I linked earlier in the thread to an article about measures the City police have been taking specifically). 

Other things I think could be done include changes to road layouts on some of the bigger commuter routes (for example Blackfriars’ Bridge Road bike lane), where the numbers of bikes travelling at rush hour is massive and the fast and constant flow of traffic creates a risk of being  rear ended when you stop to let a pedestrian cross. Some traffic calming measures (signage and textured road surfaces around crossing for example) would be really good to see. Also some pressure on Lime to look at their charging model to discourage red light hopping, and some more creative solutions around things like the Idaho stop as already discussed.

And of course (even though for some reason we’re not allowed to mention it as road safety has to be discussed through a 'team' lens 🙄), if we want to increase pedestrian safety we do need tougher crack downs on speeding and dangerous car driving - as a pedestrian you are still much, much more likely to be killed or seriously injured by someone acting irresponsibly when travelling in a car.

Edited Monday at 11:28 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Earl Afelheah said about rising issues with poor/dangerous cycling:

"It is worth mentioning that this is well recognised (despite the pretence by people like rockets that somehow it is not), and there are things being done to address it."

My goodness, not so long ago you accused me of making up daily examples of bad cycling behaviour I witnessed at Dulwich Sq. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

My goodness, not so long ago you accused me of making up daily examples of bad cycling behaviour I witnessed at Dulwich Sq.

I suggested that your claim to be witnessing dangerous cycling and near misses on the pavements at Dulwich Square daily, stretched the bounds of probability.

It was on a thread where it was being said the square was a dangerous place for pedestrians, and there was a good deal of hyperbole on display.

I have never suggested that dangerous road behaviour doesn’t exist, and that includes by people travelling on bicycle.

Edited Sunday at 20:18 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

Edited Sunday at 20:07 by Earl Aelfheah
Deleted as accidentally double posted

[first mate]

I relayed multiple incidents of bad cycling I witnessed and you accused me of lying. Now you proclaim that incidents of bad cycling behaviour are well recognised. 🤔