Interesting stats on cycle red light jumpers

[Earl Aelfheah]

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

You have not addressed the central issue that if cycling is on the rise (including use of e-bikes) then incidences of bad or risky cycling behaviour are also likely to rise. What is being dobe to mitigate this?

I have addressed both those points. Go back and read what I've posted if you're genuinely interested.

56 minutes ago, first mate said:

I am not aware of more cars driving across newly created pedestrian spaces, like Dulwich Sq, or of cars driving down pavements on Lordship Lane

As a pedestrian you are more likely to be seriously injured by a person travelling by car than by bicycle. Including on the pavement. By a significant margin.

Edited Tuesday at 09:11 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

I do feel this thread has run its course. No new information is emerging, it's just the same old dogs (I've been one of them) tusseling over the same manky bones. If Admin locked it now I wouldn't be crying buckets. 

[first mate]

Fair enough. I do rather agree.

[Rockets]

Yeah the usual suspects are trying their usual tricks....the numbers are there to see and are taken from STATS19 so good that there is finally some data sources showing the scale of the problem and now the bar has been set for further comparisons on whether the problem is getting better or worse.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You mean the types of tricks used in an article with the headline "How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians", described here:

On 06/10/2025 at 22:22, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whilst collisions involving cyclists can lead to pedestrian injuries, collisions involving motorists injure pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and all other road users (those additional injury numbers are excluded). The relevant comparison is 28,000 serious injuries involving motor vehicles annually, and 189 involving bicycles.

For deaths you can see the graphs above. Motor vehicles led to around 1,600 deaths, bicycles 3 (two more than were caused by a pedestrian running into someone else who was on foot).

Which takes us to the other issue; Using percentages to compare changes from wildly different baselines. If next year pedestrians cause 2 deaths instead of 1 there will have been a 100% increase, but it won’t tell you much about how dangerous pedestrians are getting. Likewise if there is one less death caused by a cyclist, it would represent a 30% drop, but wouldn’t really tell you that cycling is getting safer.

The article also ignores the relative growth in people travelling by bike over the reference period. Cycling is the fastest growing mode of transport in London, but this obviously relevant context isn’t mentioned.

Fundamentally, the more people who cycle rather than drive, the safer pedestrians are.

...or the ones where you have used misleading data, and conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally?

Edited 23 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[tedfudge]

Cyclists in the City of London have been caught 10 times more often than motorists for running red lights this year.

Since the start of 2025, 284 cyclists in the City of London have been fined for failing to stop at lights, but only 25 motorists were ticketed for the same offence

This report is from the standard.  And I see it on a nighty basis while driving to work , report also says cyclists are fined £50 while a motorists is fined £100 and 3 points on licence... 

58% of cyclists surveyed say the regularly jump red lights 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@tedfudge No one is doubting that cyclists are far more likely to jump red lights than cars (for one thing they have far more opportunity to than a full width vehicle).

Not sure about 58% figure though. TFL, as well as the article that started this thread, both suggest it's around 16%.

Constantly posting evidence that people on bicycles are sometimes involved in collisions, or that they can break the rules of the road, isn't adding much. Neither fact is disputed. Placing it in context however, describing the relative impact, is obviously important if you're interested in proportionate and appropriate interventions.

Edited yesterday at 11:06 by Earl Aelfheah

[tedfudge]

I'm also going by experience not just what's in the papers or Internet etc , im going on what I see on a nightly basis and I can guarantee 100% that i will see a minimum of 15 cyclists per night going through the lights and im driving from barry road to peckham up peckham hill street towards old kent road then along old kent road to the flyover and go down great Dover street towards southwark street and then over blackfriars and then ludgate circus. 

Edited 8 hours ago by tedfudge

[malumbu]

I agree on one point, that this thread has long since run it's course 

@Rockets as said before this us Vs them is so unhelpful and 'usual suspects' is both insulting and petulant.

I've tried not to label people, even by association, as petrolheads or the motorist lobby, and if I have done in the past I apologise.  

As regards the City of London police campaign this has been discussed mainly times.  If the police have a targeted campaign they will catch people.  This can be equally applied to WMP and catching illegal ebikes, or in the past country pub boozing, day after the office party or when there were far more random speed traps.  

Added: obviously we all want to have the last say 😊

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, malumbu said:

@Rockets as said before this us Vs them is so unhelpful and 'usual suspects' is both insulting and petulant.

I've tried not to label people, even by association, as petrolheads or the motorist lobby, and if I have done in the past I apologise.  

Ha ha @malumbu these sentences are just brilliantly Alan Patridge! 😉 Bravo!

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, tedfudge said:

I'm also going by experience not just what's in the papers or Internet etc , im going on what I see on a nightly basis and I can guarantee %100 that i will see a minimum of 15 cyclists per night going through the lights and im driving from barry road to peckham up pecham hill street towards old kent road then along old kent road to the flyover and go down great Dover street towards southelwark street and then over blackfriars and then ludgate circus. 

That may be true. It obviously varies according to time of day, location etc. But objective counts regularly put the number at around 16-17%, or 1 in 6. We could fall down a rabbit hole discussing the exact percentage however, it's not really the point. The point is that it's too high and we need to do something about it that is proportionate and actually improves safety.

I'm not really interested in rules for rules sake, but I am interested in improving safety, especially for those impacted by others bad behaviour. I think this is why interventions like the Idaho stop rules would help. As well as putting pressure on companies like Lime to review the incentives they create with their charging models.

Ultimately though, I do think it needs a degree of perspective. People travelling by bicycle are far, far less likely to seriously injure others. The more people who cycle, rather than drive, the safer our roads get. Reading the multiple discussions across this section and in the right wing media, one might be forgiven for thinking that the opposite is true (or as the article shared, hysterically declares: "cyclists are waging war on pedestrians"), which is misleading and unhelpful.

Edited 23 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah