Motorists Break Law to Save Time, Cyclists Break Law to Save Lives (2020)
forbes.com
forbes.com
But I would always filter to the front of red traffic lights ready to take off.
A number of taxis and dumper trucks used to jump red lights, either just running the light when it had just changed, crawling through, or just positioning themselves across the crossing and then going early or when they saw a gap.
But most car drivers never spot this as they aren't at the front where they can see this happen daily.
I stopped and watched a police fishing operation where they were looking for red light jumping cyclists, and I had to physically go over to the police to point out drivers that were also jumping reds in front of them, as they were so fixated on their 'job' of catching cyclists.
Their boss likely knew. They just wanted to appease a certain group by tackling the cyclists. They can’t be accused of bias against cars if they spend money catching cyclists too.
You have to be brain dead as a pedestrian or driver to not know that red light jumping by cars has been a big and increasing problem for a decade easily.
I've been a cyclist, motorcyclist and a driver. I've never jumped a red light on a bike. In the past 10 years of living in London I've seen hundreds of cyclists running red lights long after they've changed, or before they change back. I've seen plenty of motor vehicles run through a yellow-red, but never a long-red light (until yesterday actually).
Just yesterday I did see a taxi cross a junction on a red as it was about to change back to green, but while still red (how impatient can you be)?
I don't cycle anymore, I was hit by cars 3 times when I wasn't at fault before I moved to London, and decided not to take my chances there.
I'm always aware of cyclists and motorcyclists around me and will go out of my way to accommodate them, too many road users are blind to them, but I can't agree with red light running; if someone comes across the junction while its red for you because you decided to cross, and kills you, it's very much your fault, but they'll take the blame, or at least the burden, and you'll be dead.
As for police fishing operations, I've seen them sitting on one-way streets ticketing cyclists and scooter users, which personally I think is a bit silly (especially in the case of this particular street).
I really don't think you're paying attention. I cycle daily with a GoPro in London, I initially reported every driver obviously ignoring red lights to the Met through their online portal, but it was several a week and took up too much of my time.
This is known to city planners, and when you have bicycle and car lights at a crossing, the bicycle light will go Green before the car lights. This is taken to the extreme when joining Parliament Square from Millbank.
That’s why cyclist jump red lights: The required infrastructure is not there to keep them safe.
This has lead to a general disregarding of the rules (a British trait c.f. speed limits on motorways), which has in turn lead to people doing things that obviously are not in the interest of their safety: riding through a red light when there are pedestrians crossing, especially bad when it’s just a two way crossing.
As a driver, I don't see the need to accelerate any faster than a reasonably fit cyclist who's willing to stop at the front of traffic (the slower ones do not typically).
I have no issue waiting for a cyclist to cross the junction and get to where there is sufficient space for me to pass, but I suppose, in London in particular, most drivers aren't as courteous (I hated being a driver in and around London let alone a pedestrian or cyclist).
I moved away recently, and I've really noticed, now that I use electric-scooter hire during my commute, that drivers where I am now are much more courteous.
I’ve been cycling in London for 20 years and sometimes view it as a form of extreme sport, like running with the bulls in Spain
The reality is, as usual, not without nuance.
A 2009 study showed a 14.5% decrease in bicyclist injuries after the passage of the original Idaho Stop law (though did not otherwise tie the decrease to the law). A Delaware state-run study of the "Delaware Yield" law (allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs) concluded that it reduced injuries at stop-sign controlled intersections by 23%.
A study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop", while a 2013 survey of stop as yield in Colorado localities where it is legal reported no increase in crashes.[17] Another study done in Chicago showed that compliance with stop signs and stop lights by cyclists was low when cross-traffic was not present, but that most were still performing an Idaho Stop; and therefore "enforcing existing rules at these intersections would seem arbitrary and [capricious]".
Mainly I did it as it meant I could keep my speed and stay away from cars - if you come to a stop at a light (at the front of the queue) then you are accelerating from the front of the pack as the cars are itching to get by you - this way when they caught up with me and passed me at 30 (if they were lucky) I was already doing 20.
As I said, I stopped relatively soon in my commuting career and just got better at holding road position, and at my own fitness so stopping and starting had less of an affect on me. Also slowly over the year traffic seemed to get more bike aware and less hectic. But I do understand why people do it, even if it does make all cyclists look bad.
I was 'knocked off' (though not actually off) my bike 3 times, and all three was thankfully scary but not painful. Once I taxi passenger opened their door into the bike lane and nearly doored me, I was able to just skid into the door and shout so loud the passenger didn't actually get out so wasn't hurt, and twice drivers just turned left into my lane in 2 (or 3) lane traffic - luckily our speeds were similar - once I was able to keep myself up by hanging from the vans wing mirror, and once I was just knocked a bit. Horrible - but all helped me take the road space I needed and actively stop cars overtaking me when it was not safe (and inversely pulling to the side when possible to let more timid drivers pass).
That’s the beauty of cycling, you can magically turn into a pedestrian and do what the hell you like.
Edit: I saw a guy do this at the bottom of Kingsland Road through a police trap.
He clocked the police, hopped off and went right through the crossing. I was just behind and did the same. It was only once we got round the corner that I saw his face with a massive grin; police didn’t touch us.
It was at Hyde Park Corner, heading north toward Park Lane - the light guarding the intersection with Knightsbridge turned red, the bus sailed through, and I think a nearby police car just happened to notice. Pulled the bus over and had a word with the driver, nothing more I think, but it was curiously reassuring.
I agree with you (as a former cycle commuter too) that drivers in London jump the lights far more than most people realise. If you go out for a half-hour walk and pay attention, you're highly likely to see it at least once.
I regularly see cyclists ride through pedestrian crossings with pedestrians on them, which as a pedestrian is utterly terrifying - particularly when it happened when I was in a wheelchair, on crutches or with a walking stick (I had serious mobility issues a few years back).
I have never seen a cyclist stop for a pedestrian waiting at a zebra crossing in London. I’ve seen it once in Manchester.
I regularly see cyclists on pavements, even riding next to kerb-segregated cycle lanes. This is an offence the Highway Code is incredibly clear about. When a cyclist is doing over 20mph on a pavement coming towards me, it’s terrifying, again.
When I am watching my speed in a 20 zone, I am rarely overtaken by a frustrated vehicle driver who thinks they know better, but I am often overtaken by cyclists who seem to think speed limits don’t apply to them. In 20 zones with high density of cyclists to pedestrians (Richmond Park, Bushy Park, and so on), this is scary to experience both as a driver and as a pedestrian.
Your anecdata is yours, mine is mine, but I will not accept that cyclists are all about safety in London, and motorists are not.
The perception of most non-cyclists in London is that cyclists consistently behave in ways dangerous to pedestrians and other traffic, and running red lights are just one of the factors in that. Yes, cars should give you time and space to move off, and I always do, but all the other behaviours I’ve described are common, dangerous, and inexcusable.
Some of what you have said is correct but let’s make this clear: cycling across a pedestrian crossing at walking pace posses vastly less threat to human life than a car doing that would.
Fundamental physics, momentum=mv
Bicycle plus rider: 100kg
Car: 1500kg
That’s a 15x
For a comparison,
Human: 80kg
Bicycle + rider: 100kg
That’s 1.25x
If we assume that risk is proportional to momentum, then that’s an 125% increase of threat from a bicycle vs a human (running at the same speed) and 1500% increase of threat from a car vs a bicycle.
So to compare cars to bicycles doesn’t work, they pose a vastly reduced threat to human life va cars and in fact, cars pose more of a threat to cyclists than they do to pedestrians (I.e more cyclist die in car accidents that pedestrians).
It's proportional to likelihood and impact and is determined entirely by context.
Vehicles, cycles and pedestrians need segregated context to protect all of them.
The moment a bicycle is on a pavement, it increases the risk to pedestrians to an unacceptable degree, which is why it is illegal in the UK (and many other countries).
Your argument basically points out that a car on the pavement would be higher risk, but the fact that the car on the road poses a problem to cyclists on the road (which is your intent), isn't the pedestrian's problem. You're basically saying "for me to be safer, I will make others less safe". Do you realise that how that sounds to pedestrians, given bike riding is a choice in a way being a pedestrian is not? You could just walk too.
Your argument is fallacious and is rooted in the idea that cyclists' lives are more important than pedestrians. The truth is all lives are important. Yes, road usage needs to be safer for cyclists, but that doesn't mean you get to raise risks for pedestrians just because.
The law is the law.
To your straw man, as people have pointed, out there are many mixed use pathways where pedestrians and bicycles share the same path. In rural Germany it is incredibly common for cyclists and pedestrians to share a single path. Your argument that bicycles and pedestrians sharing a single path leads to unacceptable risk to pedestrians is simply not true.
Some numbers:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
Per passenger mile:
~200 pedestrians killed by cars
~4 pedestrians killed by bicycles
Please don’t make assumption about my behaviour. I ride in the road and not on the pavement, but I regularly have a near-death experience.
In Germany and across norther Europe, bicycles and pedestrians share a (slightly) segregated space on the pavement and cars are in a completely separate space.
Maybe a reckless kid but surely someone cycling at 20mph on a pavement is a rare occurrence.
Either way, having someone running at you at 20mph might not be as terrifying, but it poses a similar risk to you life vs a bicycle if they hit you.
A car at 20mph on the other hand…
A decent rider can do 20mph on pavement if it's not uphill. I regularly did 15-20mph on the flats when I rode often.
I once saw a racing bike (rider was in lycra racing gear like he was in the Tour de France, sigh), go through the pedestrian crossings at the junction at Bank at well over 40mph. If people hadn't noticed him and held back he could have hurt dozens of people.
And yes, somebody sprinting at you is scary, but you won't have to deal with wheels, chains and a metal frame - just another skeleton dressed in muscle, fat and skin coverings.
Most cyclists (or at least the average cyclist) is not doing 20mp+.
I cycled daily for nearly 10 years, and while I could sprint fast, 20mph was my standard speed, and I was faster than the majority of the East London to West London cycle traffic (and more traffic tbh) - for a good period had the Strava KoH to prove it. Those that beat me were usually coming out at night to complete set sections of the route so as not to compete with traffic.
I'm not as fit as I was, and on the flat 20mph is now my 'good speed' - I can hit 25 when going for it, and even 30 if I can draft in behind a better cyclist or a van. Was the junction at Bank on a steep downhill section for the person to do 40mph?
How are you so sure people are riding at 20 on the pavement? I would be terrified to do 20 on a London pavement - such a thin area to cycle on, and risk of doors opening, and traffic etc.
When I tell this to people that drive only, they tend to disagree and get annoyed that I don't follow the law and can't really get penalized for it. I still think it's better for everyone when I jump lights - and they probably will also think that once they have to wait for a cyclist to slowly accelerate when the light turns green.
I’ve walked along a pavement in London, and a cyclist has come towards me at over 20mph when there is a cycle lane just 6 feet away - that cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in public money to install - is completely empty and unobstructed, and it was utterly terrifying and very, very frustrating.
I don’t want cyclists to be in danger - and I always give plenty of room to them when driving - but at the same time, I’ve yet to encounter a more selfish and tone-deaf community of road users in London, particularly the pavement riders. If you don’t feel safe cycling on the road, please don’t cycle at all: stop endangering pedestrians and making life worse for everyone (including other cyclists).
So you are terrified of a 15 kg bicycle, but you don't accept that maybe cyclists are terriefied of a 15,000 kg vehicle driven by a nutcase?
I've beed cycling for 10 years, I have never hit a pedestrian and I dont know any cyclist who has. I've been hit by a car 3 times.
London cycling experience, my wife was grazed by a motorbike in a cycle lane (!) going at proper 30 Mph+
I had a sportscar drive up to me and start swerving agressively threatening to hit me while the driver shouted obceneties. This was 11PM, I am cycling on a left side of the three-lane road, no-one else around.
We are not talking about 'driver ran red light', we are talking of 'driver escaped a mental asylum'.
When it's raining I cycle on pavement - the visibility is too poor and breaking path is too long if I meet another idiot, I am dead. Obviously you go slower on pavement, and usually pavements are empty in the rain.
Some cycle paths are actually protected by a curb, but others are just a bit of paint of the ground, often used for parking or just plain driven in
Zero pedestrians were killed last year, and the year before that. Stastically more people are killed by cheese.
Cycling on the pavement considerately does not 'Inflict terror', but some people do speed and act incosiderately - mostly I see deliveroo drivers do this.
In my neighbourhood it's mostly teenagers. Sometimes speeding on e-bikes, those are actually terrifying. A lot of the time when the road is completely free.
They are the minority though, and indeed even though I have seen and been on some close calls, I have never seen one of them actually crashing into a pedestrian.
Bad, but yeah - not as bad as cheese. :D
I don't know why you think the employer of the cyclist has some bearing on the safety or otherwise of cyclists on pavements. It's illegal regardless of their job.
I can not grasp any reason why anybody would argue that cycling on pavements is a good and fine thing. I doubt you see my point that is illegal for a reason, should be more vigorously enforced and is morally disgusting. As we'll never agree with each other, we should probably stop now.
The route part I use the sidewalk is 0.6 miles long (checked on Google maps) and I go past maybe 10 people at the busiest of days.
We really need dedicated cycling infrastructure with cyclists physically separated from motor vehicles with barriers.
Cycling in Holland is an absolute pleasure, and despite the weather being just as damp as Britain, people cycle year round.
It wasn't a problem at all, there weren't many cars and very few larger vehicles like trucks, trailers or busses.
These days the road is super-busy, with large vehicles coming by all the time at full speed. I barely feel safe standing in the driveway.
Back in the day there was no need for a sidewalk. These days I don't dare to walk to the "nearby" store without, hence I drive.
I was lucky that I had either great showers at work or at a gym - so cycled in commuter clothes and changed and dried at work into my work wear. But that wasn't always an option, but wasn't a deal breaker for me, but seems to be for a lot of people.
> (A Transport For London camera study of 7,500 cyclists at five junctions found in 2007 that, contrary to popular perception, most cyclists do not run reds: 84% of the cyclists stopped at red traffic lights
It looks a lot like you actually agreed with the parent. Was there a disagreement I missed?
Is 16% of cyclists running red lights considered low? I have nothing to compare this. Do 16% of cars run red lights?
Other than that this sounds like the title isn't accurately describing the content. They cite a study saying
> “The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless,” reported the daily newsletter for JSTOR, a digital library of academic journals, “they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to themselves or others.”
> “[Law breaking] bicyclists tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them,” concluded the researchers.
"function efficiently" means saving time, and they're breaking the law "when little harm could come to them and others". So just like everyone, they're mostly doing it to save time.
But they also sometimes break the law for safety reasons.
/sites/ is the "pay for publishing" part of forbes, right?
Cyclists here are a lot safer than elsewhere, and motorists are much more aware of cyclists and their vulnerability (because they've also cycled much of their lives), and I've been wondering if maybe that's why I've even seen parents with children break the law in ridiculously dangerous ways.
I don't. Ever since I got kids and got my driver's license, I've become a lot more well-behaved, also to set a good example for my kids. My kids seem to be growing up with a very good sense of how to behave in traffic and when to break the law.
> "[...] road safety would be improved for all if more motorists also cycled"
While this statement seems quite trivial I think there's more truth in that than one might realize straight away. I would say that even if cyclists break the law (even to save time and not only to save lives as the title suggests), they often know that they're breaking the law. On the other hand many motorists who break traffic rules regarding cyclists doesn't even know that they're breaking them.
It might seem that knowingly breaking the rules is even more morally reprehensible, but I think at the same time this leads to less entitlement - and in consequence to less road rage.
Some examples of rules a lot motorists doesn't know about (mind German traffic rules):
* it's not allowed to overtake cyclists if you can't keep at least 1.5m distance; this rules only works one way, cyclists may overtake without keeping that distance. The minimum distance even applies if the cyclist is in a marked bike lane on the road.
* there's only an obligation to use bike lanes if they're explicitly marked with a distinct sign; there's another sign which indicates that it's allowed to use e.g. a sidewalk with a bike, but not an obligation
* It's allowed to pass standing / slow moving cars on the right (this is especially usefull in front of red traffic lights); unfortunately there's no obligation to cars to leave space on the right if possible. If you know this rule as a (considerate) motorists, you can leave that space.
* There's a sign which allows cyclists to use one-way streets in both directions; if this sign is posted, cyclists have the same rights of way as cars regardless of direction
* Even if there is a obligatory bike-path, you're allowed to switch to a left-turn car-lane in front of crossings to make a left turn unless it's explicitly disallowed by signs.
I could go on and on, but motorists not knowing these rules might come to the conclusion that cyclists are breaking the rules all the time, which in turn leads to more agression against cyclists. None of the rules above were mentioned during my drivers lessons - it was more like a general 'be careful regarding cyclists because they are weaker, behave unpredictable and don't know the rules'. When it fact it's ofentimes the other way around.