Cyclists going through red traffic lights

You have not said if you are driving a car or riding a bike but the law is the same either way. If the lights turn to amber and there is a pedestrian waiting to cross, then they have right of way and you should have slowed down in time to safely stop for them.

If no pedestrian is waiting then you can go through.

I've had a similar problem when approaching a lights controlled pedestrian crossing. Instead of watching for the red man to turn green, the old guy on the pavement was obviously watching the traffic lights. I was about 10 yards away when the lights changed to amber and he stepped out in front of me. I missed him but, as there were no witnesses (early morning), I wonder where the blame would have lain if I'd hit him.

Cyclists injured by cars are reported automatically... but pedestrians injured by cyclists on pavements have no such option on the whole. I have been hit by cyclists as I walked along the pavement. The cyclist half fell of his bike and though he saw I was injured he just pedalled off at speed swearing at me! With no means of identifying him (no form of registration like a car has) there was no point in my going to the police. All I could have said was a young man in his 20s with a grey hoody on a standard bike. I could have added.. "a selfish person who only cared for his own self interest. who did not care a toss for breaking the law or for hurting other people who should have been safe walking along in a normal way minding their own business". I got away with severe bruising and a lot of pain. I was lucky if you can call it that... some people have been ki11ed by these hooligans. If they consider the road unsafe then let the cycling associations take it up with car drivers. it does not give them the right to injure other people on the pavement. Fed Up Pedestrian is right, they are a danger to others. and something needs to be done to enforce present and proposed legislation .. Cycling on pavements is illegal for a good reason.. It endangers others.. particularly the old, the disabled and the very young.

I have no idea why it would not go to the video.

If you are interested, and I think it is worth looking at, go to Youtube and enter "Silly cyclists episode 1"

That would be a yes then! Perhaps it just does not like my links. Try again.

Not just jumping red lights, but nearly hitting a pedestrian trying to cross on green man, pavement cycling, squeezing through tiny gaps between cars and kerb and, most dangerous of all, coming up on the inside of a bendy bus on a left turn.

Silly cyclists, episode 1.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H95pnjNVU8&feature=player_embedded#at=12

The effect of cycle usage on traffic jams

'Investing in cycling infrastructure which encourages a higher cycling rate not only benefits cyclists but also drivers and society as a whole.'
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2010/04/effect-of-cycle-usage-on-traffic-jams.html

Kit,
Cycling isn't the only way to reduce the number of cars, but cycling can achieve considerable reductions, given the right cycling environment. And the resulting reduction in motor-traffic will reduce congestion; improve road safety; improve the health of the cyclists; improve the health of the general population by removing pollution; improve the quality of life for many; and benefit society in numerous ways in the process.

While in the UK in 2009, 3% of car journeys were under 3 miles and 14% were under 5 miles. [NTS0309: Average distance travelled by trip length and mode: Great Britain, 2009]. In Europe, 30% of trips in the car cover distances of less than 3 km (1.9 miles). In the Netherlands, where there is a network of dedicated, often segregated cycle paths that make cycling safe, fast, quicker (yes!), more direct and easier than driving. In the UK cycling make-up 1% of journeys, whereas in the Netherlands bicycles are used for 26% of all journeys; 34% up to 7.5 km; 15% from 7.5 km to 15 km; and 3% of 15 km or more.
Source: Cycling in the Netherlands

In European towns [BTW this includes the UK] cycling is the fastest mode of travel for journeys up to 4.5 km and second fastest mode behind cars by only a small margin for journeys up to 8 km / 5 miles.
Comparative table of journey times in the urban environment, time reckoned from door to door http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cycling/cycling_en.pdf

Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany John Pucher and Ralph Buehler
Driven to Excess: Impacts of Motor Vehicle Traffic on Residential Quality of Life in Bristol, UK Joshua Hart April 2008

Kit,
You said: 'Car pooling for commutes to work could actually remove two or three cars for each "share" as could pooling for regular shopping trips among neighbours or friends, although most would probably not care for being tied down to a particular return time.'

While true in theory, but not born-out in reality, the statistics show that drivers are a selfish bunch.

The appallingly low Car Occupancy Rate in the UK, between 1998-2000 average C.O.R. Overall 1.6 (64% single occupancy). By trip purpose: commuting 1.2 (83% S.O.); business 1.1 (90% S.O.); education 2.1 (47% S.O.); shopping 1.6 (61% S.O.).
Car occupancy: by trip purpose, 1998-2000: Social Trends 32

Kit,
I said: "Every cyclist on the road removes a car and reduces congestion"
Well I admit that 'Every cyclist' was wrong, I should have used 'Most new cyclists'.
Most [not all], adult cyclists are drivers and have access to a vehicle. Apparently, there are statistics IIRC that show that the typical cyclist earns above average wages and drives, but don't press me about this, because I haven't seen the figures and can't promise to locate the original study.

grumpyoldwoman
'when 10 or 15 cars are stuck in a queue on a narrow road behind a cyclist for miles causing an unthinkable amount of pollution it's the fault of drivers coming the other way...?'

Irrespective of whether you have seen such a tail-back that you describe, looking at the statistics, it seems extremely unlikely that it's a common occurrence, I have never experienced it and nobody I know has ever complained about it, which I feel sure they would, if they had experienced such an occurrence.

Given that journeys by bicycle make up only 1% of trips (2005 DoT figures) and are mostly are restricted to urban roads, it seems highly improbable that your example is representative of the national picture.

Combine that with the fact that a special set of circumstances have to combine, i.e. a cyclist on a road that is sufficiently narrow that precludes cars from passing. This requires a combination of a number of small probabilities that makes it particularly unusual, if not rare.

So, if in your words 'an unthinkable amount of pollution' is emitted during that [nationally] infrequent and short time when a small (nationally) number of cars queue behind a cyclist on a long narrow road, what does that say about the pollution emitted by all those cars for the rest of their journey? Don't forget that nationally, millions of cars are not queueing behind cyclists on narrow roads, they are queueing behind other cars and other motor-vehicles on ordinary roads and they mostly sit there with their engines running.

It's still not the cyclists!

grumpyoldwoman

In my experience, few motorists show signs of true competence. Most variously show one or more of the following glaring signs of poor skill: cannot parallel park; cannot reverse safely; don't know how wide or long their vehicle is; do not know when or when not to use various lights; show no anticipation regarding road conditions; drive in the wrong gear; driving with a flat tyre (driving without due care?); demonstrate a broad ignorance of the Highway Code (cannot understand road signs (stop, no entry, no motor vehicles), road markings (pedestrian crossings, cycle lanes, Advanced Stop Lines; zigzags) etc.), passing cyclists too close at speed; roundabouts; failure to look properly; follow too closely; opening car door without looking; drive with excessive speed; extreme impatience & aggressiveness (driving on the pavement, driving on the hard shoulder, intimidating cyclists, intimidating pedestrians, dangerous overtaking).

Generalist, you said this, not me!

"4th rider of apocolypse,
Regarding your claim 'Cyclists cause pollution', because 'all the other vehicles that would have been going at a steady rate have to slow down change gear then accelerate by the cyclist to get up to speed again...'.

This is the complete reverse of the truth.
If those drivers were competent, then they should be able to read the road and pass a cyclist easily. If a motorist can't pass a cyclist, it's probably because of the traffic which is primarily comprised of what vehicle type? By far the greatest hindrance to motor vehicles is the presence of other motor vehicles."

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement blaming drivers for incompetence if they cannot pass a cyclist. On a narrow winding road with traffic coming the other way it is often not possible to get past a cyclist, regardless of the competence of the driver. Remember, cars are supposed to give cyclists plenty of room when passing.

You say that if a driver can't pass a cyclist it's because of other cars on the road. This is true, but cars coming the other way cannot be expected to stop to let a queue pass a cyclist; this would be very dangerous. So, the cyclist pulling over is the only alternative.

By the way, whichever of us invented what you call my hypothetical situation, I have seen it happen. Not so hypothetical after all!

grumpyoldwoman
'when 10 or 15 cars are stuck in a queue on a narrow road behind a cyclist for miles causing an unthinkable amount of pollution it's the fault of drivers coming the other way...?'

Your one-eyed logic is second to none.

Your specious argument is couched in terms that convey the implicit false claim that cyclists are a significant impediment to motor-vehicles. Your phrase: '10 or 15 cars are stuck...behind a cyclist for miles'*: what codswallop! AFAICT most cars are only normally held-up behind a cyclist for perhaps ten seconds to perhaps a minute at the most [At the extreme 1 minute at 10 mph = 0.17 miles]. *A cyclist would take 8 minutes @ 15 mph to cover 2 miles. What motorist is that patient? You conveniently ignore buses, and other large vehicles that are considerably more difficult to pass than a cyclist on a narrow road.

You seem stuck in a bygone age where motor cars are a great rarity restricted to a tiny clique of aristocracy; wealthy industrialists; and Royalty. It must be a great surprise to you, but in the real 21st century world, car ownership is now widespread among the hoi polloi. By far the greatest obstacle to the free transit of motor-vehicles is the presence of millions of other motor-vehicles.

In your hypothetical situation, were the cyclist to move out of the way, in all likelihood, your imaginary queue will merely back-up somewhere else. Furthermore, you overlook that most cycling occurs in urban and built-up areas, where traffic speeds are already severely limited by car-caused congestion.

There are instances which render your claim ludicrous, there being no cyclists to cause obstruction: Motorway traffic jams - huge tailbacks persisting for hours after the original incident has been cleared, due to the high density of motor-vehicles.

Please spare me the fatuous hypocrisy of a motorist accusing cyclists of causing pollution, it may assuage your guilt, but it just isn't true.

grumpyoldwoman
'when 10 or 15 cars are stuck in a queue on a narrow road behind a cyclist for miles causing an unthinkable amount of pollution it's the fault of drivers coming the other way...?'

Your one-eyed logic is second to none.

Your specious argument is couched in terms that convey the implicit false claim that cyclists are a significant impediment to motor-vehicles. Your phrase: '10 or 15 cars are stuck...behind a cyclist for miles'*: what codswallop! AFAICT most cars are only normally held-up behind a cyclist for perhaps ten seconds to perhaps a minute at the most [At the extreme 1 minute at 10 mph = 0.17 miles]. *A cyclist would take 8 minutes @ 15 mph to cover 2 miles. What motorist is that patient? You conveniently ignore buses, and other large vehicles that are considerably more difficult to pass than a cyclist on a narrow road.

You seem stuck in a bygone age where motor cars are a great rarity restricted to a tiny clique of aristocracy; wealthy industrialists; and Royalty. It must be a great surprise to you, but in the real 21st century world, car ownership is now widespread among the hoi polloi. By far the greatest obstacle to the free transit of motor-vehicles is the presence of millions of other motor-vehicles.

In your hypothetical situation, were the cyclist to move out of the way, in all likelihood, your imaginary queue will merely back-up somewhere else. Furthermore, you overlook that most cycling occurs in urban and built-up areas, where traffic speeds are already severely limited by car-caused congestion.

There are instances which render your claim ludicrous, there being no cyclists to cause obstruction: Motorway traffic jams - huge tailbacks persisting for hours after the original incident has been cleared, due to the high density of motor-vehicles.

Please spare me the fatuous hypocrisy of a motorist accusing cyclists of causing pollution, it may assuage your guilt, but it just isn't true.

Barry, you obviously know nothing about my attitude.

Cyclists who are holding up other traffic are causing more pollution than they are preventing; Generalist was blaming the drivers stuck behind them for this. I was pointing out the fact that the cyclists could do something about it if they are serious about lessening pollution.

Incidentally, the only cyclist I have come across regularly was a suicidal idiot who used to ride along a tree covered road early on winter mornings while it was still dark with no lights on his bike and wearing a camouflage jacket just to make him extra invisible. I nearly ki11ed him more than once.

Generalist,

"Every cyclist on the road removes a car and reduces congestion"

There is no way you can be certain of that; many cyclists might normally get public transport.

Car pooling for commutes to work could actually remove two or three cars for each "share" as could pooling for regular shopping trips among neighbours or friends, although most would probably not care for being tied down to a particular return time.

Cycling is not the only way to reduce the number of cars on the road and I do get tired of the attitude that cyclists are never in the wrong. There are many atrocious and dangerous drivers out there but as a pedestrian I have more problems with cyclists than I do motorists.

well it would seem cyclists jumping red traffic light is a nation wide problem, and needs to be dealt with.May be the government could consider giving this kind of job to the c.s.p.o and make them a little more cost-effective and as cyclists are becoming as much a danger as any other road user that jumps a red-light maybe its time that should be insured like the rest off us.

Generalist; so when 10 or 15 cars are stuck in a queue on a narrow road behind a cyclist for miles causing an unthinkable amount of pollution it's the fault of drivers coming the other way who are stopping the queue from overtaking the cyclist?

Never the fault of the cyclist who should pull over to let the queue past?

4th rider of apocolypse,
Regarding your claim 'Cyclists cause pollution', because 'all the other vehicles that would have been going at a steady rate have to slow down change gear then accelerate by the cyclist to get up to speed again...'.

This is the complete reverse of the truth.
If those drivers were competent, then they should be able to read the road and pass a cyclist easily. If a motorist can't pass a cyclist, it's probably because of the traffic which is primarily comprised of what vehicle type? By far the greatest hindrance to motor vehicles is the presence of other motor vehicles. You might have a point if the road were clogged by bicycles, instead reality shows that the roads are clogged by cars, vans and lorries. Every cyclist on the road removes a car and reduces congestion.

'Cyclists cause pollution', oh yes?
Look at all those motorists stopped by the roadside chatting on their phones or apparently doing nothing, or in unmoving traffic queues with their engines running.

'Cyclists cause pollution', oh yes?
As a cyclist and driver, I know that most motorists drive in too high a gear. I can hear their engines labouring as they struggle past me, wasting fuel. If they drove in the correct gear, drivers would get much improved acceleration, improved fuel economy and better braking.

Most cyclists know a lot more about reading the road than motorists, because of the physical effort of getting up to speed again after a motorist has selfishly bullied the cyclist into the fifteenth totally unnecessary stop that day.

I am a pedestrian and I to get increasingly more annoyed at cyclists riding willy nilly up and down our footpaths without any care or manners for the people walking!However my partner who is both motorist and keen cyclist points out to me that he (who does ride on the road)finds more and more that motorists don't seem to care or even notice cyclists on the road and that in his opinion is1 of the reasons why people use the pavement ( Pave meaning foot). I think that over time it is society in all areas that has become careless and uncaring and increasingly lacks in manners and respect. Whose fault you tell me!