One in five cyclists ignore red lights, Mail survey shows (From Oxford Mail)

Not anyone has mentioned what else cyclists do, and that is actually cycle across pedestrian crossings to get on to a road. An example of this is on Longwall street by Linacre college,ive not seen anyone dismount yet. And Mr
James Styring how ignorant can one get,unbelievable!!
Diz

What about the pedestrians that cross the road with the red light? Why aren't they considered in the same way as cyclists.
It has happened many times to me that somebody pushes the button at the pedestrian crossing and crosses the road without actually waiting for the green light. So when I cycle past the crossing, my traffic light is red despite nobody is actually crossing. Should I stop or should I go?

Why is James Styring not locked up? He is supposed to represent cyclists and yet advises them to break the law. So, when I go past a junction on a green light and a cyclists runs a red light and ends up squashed and dead under my wheels, I guess the family will be comforted by the fact that Styring thought it was ok. He is a disgrace.

Is that the same when cyclists go through red lights at crossings then maupertius? You seem to miss the point, he is advising cyclists to break the law. Think of the uproar if the AA advised motorists to ignore red lights!

I had to avoid 2 cyclists riding side by side through red on High Street towards the Plain as I turned left on green out of Long Wall earlier today - and I was on my bike! These clowns bug most of us, cyclist, pedestrian and motorist alike, and Styring's views certainly don't represent mine despite me being a committed cycle commuter.

maupertius wrote:
What about the pedestrians that cross the road with the red light? Why aren't they considered in the same way as cyclists.
It has happened many times to me that somebody pushes the button at the pedestrian crossing and crosses the road without actually waiting for the green light. So when I cycle past the crossing, my traffic light is red despite nobody is actually crossing. Should I stop or should I go?

If you're on your bike and your light is red you stop, it's a legal requirement. The pedestrian light is only advisory, they have no obligation to wait if they think they can cross safely.

I understand it is a legel requirement to stop at the red light, but I also understand that it is not illegal to use headphones while cycling (which to me is way more dangerous). My point was that sometimes it can be morally accepted to jump (but not ignore!) a red light. How many times have I seen people jumping down the bicycle, walking past the red light and getting on the bike again? That is probably not illegal, still produces the same result.

If it's who i think it is on the bike going though the red light on that photograph above then he should be ashamed. You see why some student's break the law.

maupertius wrote:
I understand it is a legel requirement to stop at the red light, but I also understand that it is not illegal to use headphones while cycling (which to me is way more dangerous). My point was that sometimes it can be morally accepted to jump (but not ignore!) a red light. How many times have I seen people jumping down the bicycle, walking past the red light and getting on the bike again? That is probably not illegal, still produces the same result.

Like many laws there will always be examples of times when no one seems to lose when they're broken. But if we don't have them and just let the cyclist decide when it's safe to proceed through red then surely we also have to let the motorist go through red if he thinks it safe. Laws have to be applied objectively. It's not actually a problem to wait for the light to change to green, it's a perfectly good law that should be enforced equally for all road users.

(I disagree about the headphones though I don't personally use them when cycling in town - a cyclist with headphones can usually hear a lot better than a motorist with the music on and windows wound up.)

dant40 wrote:
If it's who i think it is on the bike going though the red light on that photograph above then he should be ashamed. You see why some student's break the law.

Come on Dan! Name and shame!

What hope do we have as cyclists with a idiot Like James Styring as a spokesman,
I commute over one hundred mile a week to work on a bike, the biggest treat to me as a cyclist is other cyclists.

Cyclists with no regard for other road users and without sufficient knowledge of road positioning etc, can go out and buy a bike that enables them to cycle at 25mph with no training whatsoever.


I have no issue with buses, taxis or private cars at all. The laws of the road apply to us all
I can not believe Cyclox advocate anyone to break the law. Cyclist get killed when they don't use lights and jump red lights. Fact.

Bart_simpsonDoh wrote:
Why is James Styring not locked up? He is supposed to represent cyclists and yet advises them to break the law. So, when I go past a junction on a green light and a cyclists runs a red light and ends up squashed and dead under my wheels, I guess the family will be comforted by the fact that Styring thought it was ok. He is a disgrace.

Well said that man, James Styring is all for sticking to rules, unfortunately they're his own rules, one day somebody will be scraping him off the road with a shovel.

Biggest *threat

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

Bart_simpsonDoh wrote:
Why is James Styring not locked up? He is supposed to represent cyclists and yet advises them to break the law. So, when I go past a junction on a green light and a cyclists runs a red light and ends up squashed and dead under my wheels, I guess the family will be comforted by the fact that Styring thought it was ok. He is a disgrace.

Well said that man, James Styring is all for sticking to rules, unfortunately they're his own rules, one day somebody will be scraping him off the road with a shovel.

Couldn't agree more

I Would love to but I've read the terms and condtions writing on here. I will see if the lads in that work place believe its him to. see if any post on here get closer to what his title is.

Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Many cycle lanes are so poorly designed that they are dangerous, the one that funnels bikes up the inside of traffic where there is obviously not enough room on Long Wall Street is just one example. Other cycle lanes lead onto pavements that the council has inappropriately designated 'shared use' where cyclists become a threat to pedestrians. Anyway cycles were using UK roads long before cars appeared, roads are NOT just for cars, they are rights of way for all of us. If motorists can't share them safely then they should buy some land and build their own exclusive routes.

SproKet wrote:

Dilligaf2010 wrote:

Bart_simpsonDoh wrote:
Why is James Styring not locked up? He is supposed to represent cyclists and yet advises them to break the law. So, when I go past a junction on a green light and a cyclists runs a red light and ends up squashed and dead under my wheels, I guess the family will be comforted by the fact that Styring thought it was ok. He is a disgrace.

Well said that man, James Styring is all for sticking to rules, unfortunately they're his own rules, one day somebody will be scraping him off the road with a shovel.

Couldn't agree more

Do cyclist vote for a chairman of Cyclox or is James Styring self appointed? as he doesn't seem to represent the views of any cyclists who have posted on this story.
I think it's not just the cyclists that break the law that are giving cyclist as a whole a bad name, James Styring seems to be on a mission to do that all by himself!

museli wrote:

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Many cycle lanes are so poorly designed that they are dangerous, the one that funnels bikes up the inside of traffic where there is obviously not enough room on Long Wall Street is just one example. Other cycle lanes lead onto pavements that the council has inappropriately designated 'shared use' where cyclists become a threat to pedestrians. Anyway cycles were using UK roads long before cars appeared, roads are NOT just for cars, they are rights of way for all of us. If motorists can't share them safely then they should buy some land and build their own exclusive routes.

The 'orse n cart were using the roads centuries before cycles were invented. But I agree with you about using the road safely, we should position a Constable at the major junctions in Oxford for an hour everyday, with zero tolerance, and fine every road user for breaking the law. Not only would it raise £thousands, the break down in figures would show who exactly are the most unsafe, lawbreaking group of road users once and for all, and stop all of this bickering. The last time this happened nearly 120 cyclists were given tickets for crossing a Red Light in just two hours, and in two hours 15 motorists were fined on 29th Jan for any offence being committed by Seacourt P&R. We all have a responsibility on the road, not just those with a motor vehicle.

I also cycle/tricycle around 90 miles per week and find James views incredible, a wrong is a wrong not shades of it. I would like to add that I feel the lack of policing has a great relevence here, I have trikled home in the early hours lit up like a christmas tree with other cyclists using no lights at all, a police car passes with not a second glance, it is ok having the odd purge but let us have consistenct, lastly as the Oxford Mail is on about breaking the law why do they mention helmet wearing (or lack of it) it is NOT illegal to cycle without a helmet indeed a lot of research say they can be dangerous, when they design ones that offer protection from more than a glancing blow and don't promote rotational injuries then people might be attracted. in short wind yer kneck in James and police pay some attention please.

With James Styring showing such contempt and attitude towards these findings is it any wonder that he is held in equal contempt by other road users.

OK Jamie boy, jump a red light in front of me, you show your contempt and take your chance, you may well not live to regret it, and you in your statement above condone those actions, idiot.

maupertius wrote:
I understand it is a legel requirement to stop at the red light, but I also understand that it is not illegal to use headphones while cycling (which to me is way more dangerous). My point was that sometimes it can be morally accepted to jump (but not ignore!) a red light. How many times have I seen people jumping down the bicycle, walking past the red light and getting on the bike again? That is probably not illegal, still produces the same result.

"How many times have I seen people jumping down the bicycle, walking past the red light and getting on the bike again? That is probably not illegal, still produces the same result."

If you do this you are failing to comply with the traffic sign, technically you are committing an offence under the Road Traffic Act.

Whether you would be prosecuted is another matter.

Why is it that cyclists who are blamed for committing road traffic offences (notice ROAD traffic offences, it is illegal to ride on footpaths anyway) always seem to want to avoid the issue and point out what other road users ie. car drivers, or pedestrians on crossings, do. These issues are irrelevant.
Cyclox should get a grip on the section of society they presume to represent. Someone should, because policing has disappeared over the horizon.

I love cycling but have to say cyclists are not above the law.
All too often no lights on the bike, disregard for road traffic law, signs etc
Often when caught let off with a warning.
Time to get real take the bike off them when they brake the law. Car drivers have to face stiff penalties if they break the law.
Also why dont newsagents take responsibility when they send out the paper boys / girls and check they have lights on their bikes, yes you would expect the parents to do it but, it should be the responsibility of the employeer to check shouldnt it??

maupertius wrote:
What about the pedestrians that cross the road with the red light? Why aren't they considered in the same way as cyclists.
It has happened many times to me that somebody pushes the button at the pedestrian crossing and crosses the road without actually waiting for the green light. So when I cycle past the crossing, my traffic light is red despite nobody is actually crossing. Should I stop or should I go?

Always stop at a red light.

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Cycllists using Wallingford bridge are just as bad. There is a cycle lane on each side so regardless of red traffic lights, they continue over the bridge with traffic coming in the opposite direction. The cycle lanes are very narrow, so if you have a cyclist riding in each direction with a car trying to drive over as well that is a tight squeeze. Some ride on the pavement and I have seen children, mothers and pushchairs scatter, sometimes into the road.

I think cyclists should have to obey the law like other people. Drivers pay a lot of money to use the roads (road tax and tax on fuel) and have insurance. This should apply to cyclists as well.

seamusl wrote:
I also cycle/tricycle around 90 miles per week and find James views incredible, a wrong is a wrong not shades of it. I would like to add that I feel the lack of policing has a great relevence here, I have trikled home in the early hours lit up like a christmas tree with other cyclists using no lights at all, a police car passes with not a second glance, it is ok having the odd purge but let us have consistenct, lastly as the Oxford Mail is on about breaking the law why do they mention helmet wearing (or lack of it) it is NOT illegal to cycle without a helmet indeed a lot of research say they can be dangerous, when they design ones that offer protection from more than a glancing blow and don't promote rotational injuries then people might be attracted. in short wind yer kneck in James and police pay some attention please.

Well said seamusl! The voice of reason.

James Styring has to be one of the most outrageous things I have read since I saw the coppers go sledging on their riot shields.

Not just red lights though; watching pedestrians confront cyclists at the Sandhills subway is quite instructive at the moment.

bart-on simpson wrote:
James Styring has to be one of the most outrageous things I have read since I saw the coppers go sledging on their riot shields.

Not just red lights though; watching pedestrians confront cyclists at the Sandhills subway is quite instructive at the moment.

The subways round Green Road roundabout are part of the ring road cycle track built with cyclists in mind almost 50 years ago back when cycling to work was the norm. The blue advisory 'Cyclist Dismount' signs have no legal force whatsoever. These subways are a shared use facility that neither pedestrians or cyclists have a right to monopolise.

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

The Culham bridge in the morning rush hour is best avoided - at least if you are on a bike.

Cycle along the road and all too often there's an impatient driver behind you. Van's and lorries honk their horn to urge to you get off the road, or you'll be overtaken and given very little space.

With drivers all to often trying to intimidate you off the road I'm not surprised that some people choose to cycle on the pavement - which rarely has anyone walking it.

Milliest wrote:

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Cycllists using Wallingford bridge are just as bad. There is a cycle lane on each side so regardless of red traffic lights, they continue over the bridge with traffic coming in the opposite direction. The cycle lanes are very narrow, so if you have a cyclist riding in each direction with a car trying to drive over as well that is a tight squeeze. Some ride on the pavement and I have seen children, mothers and pushchairs scatter, sometimes into the road.

I think cyclists should have to obey the law like other people. Drivers pay a lot of money to use the roads (road tax and tax on fuel) and have insurance. This should apply to cyclists as well.

According to the road markings at this bridge cyclists don't have to stop. Take a look - next to the lights there are give way marks for cars, but the cycle path is continuous with no stop lines.

so at less than one ticket a day for cyclist crimes, the police send out a message that the crimes commited by cyclists are so far down their list that they will where possible turn a blind eye..Adults should not be cycling on pavements period. in poor visibility, no lights no bike, crossing red lights, same punishments as cars. all road users have to follow the highway code, why should any group whoever, be exempt, when you get on the roads you know the score, ignorance is no defence in motoring law.

As a motorist and a cyclist in Oxford I agree that there are a large number of dangerous cyclists in Oxford who pay little attention to the rules of the road. However I see equal numbers of dangerous drivers daily in Oxford.

I just wanted to counter a few of the comments made above.

diz- the crossing on Longwall street in front of Linacre college is a combined pedestrian and cycle crossing. Take a look at the cycle markings from the cycle path on either side. Surely cyclists using a crossing is safer than cycling out in front of traffic and should be encouraged.

Maupertius- studies have shown that wearing earphones does not increase the danger to cyclists on the road as they can still hear traffic and are still much more aware of other road users than motorists.

JK- A consultation was carried out some years ago looking into making cycling in cycle lanes compulsory. Thankfully it was not put into place as it was found that in many places cycling in the cycle lane puts cyclists at greater risk, as many are poorly designed.

Many cycle paths throughout Oxford are extremely dangerous. Such as the Headington Hill cycle path which has lamp posts in it (!) and being extremely narrow and along side a high wall it causes a funneling effect with the wind when a high-walled bus goes past, sucking cyclists under the wheels. Not to mention that the downward section of the Headington Hill cycle lane has several section where pedestrians enter out into it from behind walls or high bushes, causing danger to both pedestrians and cyclists, neither of which can see each other- this cycle path has to be one of the most dangerous I have ever seen and no sensible cyclist uses it.

Whenever you see a cyclist cycling out in traffic rather than the cycle lane, this will be because the cycle lane is too narrow and encourages car and buses to try to squeeze past, which is a huge danger to cyclists and I have been hit by wing mirrors many times by drivers trying to do this. Overtaking a cyclist is the same as overtaking a car, it should only be done when there is no traffic in the oncoming lane and you should pull out and go around as wide as if overtaking a car. I only see about one motorist a week overtaking a bike correctly.

And the red light issue- I always stop at red lights as the rules of the road apply to us all. However I understand those who choose to jump ahead as again, studies have shown that cyclists who get a head start at red lights are safer as drivers see them and do not flatten them when accelerating when the lights go green. For this reason there are separate green lights at crossings in many countries and some parts of the UK giving cyclists a few seconds head start.

All in all we need better road planning in Oxford. This is a city with surely one of the highest density of cyclists in the country and yet some of the most dangerous cycle lanes I have ever seen. Combined with this antagonism which is needlessly churned up between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists it make for a toxic environment. Surely we should all combine our frustration and direct it towards something that could actually improve the problem: petitioning the council for some sensible road planning.

Milliest wrote:

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Cycllists using Wallingford bridge are just as bad. There is a cycle lane on each side so regardless of red traffic lights, they continue over the bridge with traffic coming in the opposite direction. The cycle lanes are very narrow, so if you have a cyclist riding in each direction with a car trying to drive over as well that is a tight squeeze. Some ride on the pavement and I have seen children, mothers and pushchairs scatter, sometimes into the road.

I think cyclists should have to obey the law like other people. Drivers pay a lot of money to use the roads (road tax and tax on fuel) and have insurance. This should apply to cyclists as well.

Cyclists jumping the red light on Wallingford Bridge really annoy me as a cyclist as they endanger me, who always waits for the green light, when following cars try and squeeze between me and the RLJ cyclist. I often take a more primary position over the bridge to prevent reckless close passes by following vehicles.

The pathetic cycle lanes through Wallingford, over the bridge and through Crowmarsh don't help the situation and they should be removed immediately.

This is one area where a green light for cyclists a few seconds before the green light for cars would be a benefit. It would give slower cyclists a chance to clear the bridge before the sequence changes to green oncoming.

BTW I see cars jump the red lights on the bridge too most days.

Floflo wrote:

Milliest wrote:

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Cycllists using Wallingford bridge are just as bad. There is a cycle lane on each side so regardless of red traffic lights, they continue over the bridge with traffic coming in the opposite direction. The cycle lanes are very narrow, so if you have a cyclist riding in each direction with a car trying to drive over as well that is a tight squeeze. Some ride on the pavement and I have seen children, mothers and pushchairs scatter, sometimes into the road.

I think cyclists should have to obey the law like other people. Drivers pay a lot of money to use the roads (road tax and tax on fuel) and have insurance. This should apply to cyclists as well.

According to the road markings at this bridge cyclists don't have to stop. Take a look - next to the lights there are give way marks for cars, but the cycle path is continuous with no stop lines.

Actually there are advance stop lines for cyclists in the cycle lane on both sides of the bridge. They are very worn though. The bridge linework needs redoing. They should remove the cycle lanes, add cyclist roundels in the centre of the road and have proper advance stop lines at both ends across the full width of the lane.

JK wrote:
Try Culham bridge in the morning rush hour - the cyclists take to the pavement or just go straight through red lights ... and, given it is one way traffic, they head straight towards unsuspecting motorists coming the opposite way. And while we are at it, can it be made compulsory for cyclists to use cycle lanes where they exist?

Actually this bridge is called Sutton Bridge and is very tricky to navigate on a bike, especially at rush hour. If you happen to cross the lights on green just before they change it's quite a long distance to cover with several bends, if you are a slower cyclist you could find yourself in no-mans-land as the lights have already gone green for oncoming traffic.

Actually I've never seen a bike jump the lights here, to do so would be very inadvisable and foolish, especially travelling south to north, as you are very likely to get squeezed between the wall and on oncoming Hanson cement truck on the first left-hand bend.

I often see the children from the European School using the pavement to get over the bridge and TBH I don't blame them, it can be very intimidating. Strictly speaking they should dismount and walk across though.

Most cycle lanes are unusable and more dangerous than using the roads properly. They should never be made compulsory.

Unless my maths is flawed, this also means that 4 in 5 cyclists DO stop at red lights?

There are so many places where the rules are flouted by cyclists. Try walking on the pavement between Tesco & Lidl on the Watlington rd (past the Mini factory) Most of the time, cyclists choose to use the pavement, while there are no less than 3 cycle lanes!!!!
I agree with posters above, who suggest stronger policing - it would bring in much-needed funds.
If there are issues with design/layout, then address them with the council.
To stop this continuous bickering, maybe Oxford Mail should launch a 'Name & Shame' website. Almost everyone these days has a camera phone, just make a site available to all to publish details of ALL (car,bike,bus,taxi,t
ruck ....) transgressions/flagr
ant breach of the law. We cold then get a far better idea of who is right/wrong

The gentleman pictured is slowly, harmlessly and safely going about his daily life. He is of no danger to anyone. He has made a decision to proceed having used his common sense to ensure it's safe.

There is a problem with the traffic lights that expect a person to stand, waiting pointlessly in the cold, and wet.

He isn't going to harm anyone, or be in a collision with anyone driving at a safe, low speed. By contrast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-cov
entry-warwickshire-2
1433328

Ians view wrote:
The gentleman pictured is slowly, harmlessly and safely going about his daily life. He is of no danger to anyone. He has made a decision to proceed having used his common sense to ensure it's safe.

There is a problem with the traffic lights that expect a person to stand, waiting pointlessly in the cold, and wet.

He isn't going to harm anyone, or be in a collision with anyone driving at a safe, low speed. By contrast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-cov

entry-warwickshire-2

1433328

It looks to me like the car on the left would very much like to continue through what may well be it's green light but is unable to do so because of this selfish old criminal. Even if it does happen to be reasonably safe in this case it is still not up to the individual to decide when to break the law. In many cases their view of when it's safe to break the law will not be the same as that of other road users.

what i find surprising is that the junction showed is very close to st aldates police station; surely it would be relatively easy to post an officer there particularly at peak times when the majority of offences occur. i have driven and cycled around oxford for years and have been amazed at the the total disregard for the rules of the road shown by cyclists partly because they know they will escape prosecution.

Fantomas wrote:
Unless my maths is flawed, this also means that 4 in 5 cyclists DO stop at red lights?

Yeah, can you imagine what a crap headline it would have made if it said "80% of cyclists observe red lights" though I am surprised it is that high.

Clearly just a story to attract traffic to the site (for the countless advertisers) and a pathetic attempt to be controversial. The Daily Mail does a significantly better job at the latter.

Can I just point out that at the cross roads near the centre of town by the Kings Arms often the traffic lights do not sense me, a lone cyclist hoping to turn left, so I sit there like a lemon as the other 3 lights change repeatedly, but mine does not. It really annoys me as I always stop at red lights (both in my car and on my bike!), and every now and again (only at this junction) I have to go through the light else I'd be sat there shivering all night!

Absolute claptrap! Many more cyclists are killed waiting at red lights than are jumping them. As a pedestrian, you are 200 times more likely to be hit by are car on the pavement or on a crossing than you are a cyclist. This article is all about assuaging the indignation of a certain class of car driver and nothing to do with road safety

NinjaBiscuits wrote:
Can I just point out that at the cross roads near the centre of town by the Kings Arms often the traffic lights do not sense me, a lone cyclist hoping to turn left, so I sit there like a lemon as the other 3 lights change repeatedly, but mine does not. It really annoys me as I always stop at red lights (both in my car and on my bike!), and every now and again (only at this junction) I have to go through the light else I'd be sat there shivering all night!

Here another example. The underground sensors located in the traffic light just after the one shown in the picture (at the corner with Tesco) have many times failed to detect my bicycle. Unless there is another car there or more bikes, I would have to wait there forever. How about that?

GrimlyFeendish wrote:
Absolute claptrap! Many more cyclists are killed waiting at red lights than are jumping them. As a pedestrian, you are 200 times more likely to be hit by are car on the pavement or on a crossing than you are a cyclist. This article is all about assuaging the indignation of a certain class of car driver and nothing to do with road safety

Can we have some data to back up that first statement?

GrimlyFeendish wrote:
Absolute claptrap! Many more cyclists are killed waiting at red lights than are jumping them. As a pedestrian, you are 200 times more likely to be hit by are car on the pavement or on a crossing than you are a cyclist. This article is all about assuaging the indignation of a certain class of car driver and nothing to do with road safety

Can we have some data to back up that first statement?

Ians view wrote:
The gentleman pictured is slowly, harmlessly and safely going about his daily life. He is of no danger to anyone. He has made a decision to proceed having used his common sense to ensure it's safe.

There is a problem with the traffic lights that expect a person to stand, waiting pointlessly in the cold, and wet.

He isn't going to harm anyone, or be in a collision with anyone driving at a safe, low speed. By contrast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-england-cov

entry-warwickshire-2
Trust me Ian if you knew this person like I do.

Then let's see how your comments are when this person cycles in front of you and suddenly turns off into a side road with no hand signal or any signs that he's going to just shoot out and cross over, and lucky I know this person.

He also just thinks he can pull out into oncoming traffic and aspects them to sudden slow down.

And he also likes to go across in front of on coming traffic to head down a side road so he wants you to sudden break.

The next person will be doing 30mph on Banbury road and it might be different story. I'm sure there is a lot more like him out there.

I think many drivers have been lucky with this person and not rammed him up the saddle.

So really he's not harmless he's a pain Ian sorry to say.

museli wrote:

GrimlyFeendish wrote:
Absolute claptrap! Many more cyclists are killed waiting at red lights than are jumping them. As a pedestrian, you are 200 times more likely to be hit by are car on the pavement or on a crossing than you are a cyclist. This article is all about assuaging the indignation of a certain class of car driver and nothing to do with road safety

Can we have some data to back up that first statement?

Here's one article - I can dig out many more as well:
http://www.rudi.net/
node/16395

bigchet wrote:
what i find surprising is that the junction showed is very close to st aldates police station; surely it would be relatively easy to post an officer there particularly at peak times when the majority of offences occur. i have driven and cycled around oxford for years and have been amazed at the the total disregard for the rules of the road shown by cyclists partly because they know they will escape prosecution.

... and while they are at it they can prosecute the 50% of drivers who ignore the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists!
In truth the police have to deal with real fatalities and serious injuries on the road and, unlike this reporter, know where the real dangers lie

GrimlyFeendish wrote:

museli wrote:

GrimlyFeendish wrote:
Absolute claptrap! Many more cyclists are killed waiting at red lights than are jumping them. As a pedestrian, you are 200 times more likely to be hit by are car on the pavement or on a crossing than you are a cyclist. This article is all about assuaging the indignation of a certain class of car driver and nothing to do with road safety

Can we have some data to back up that first statement?

Here's one article - I can dig out many more as well:
http://www.rudi.net/

node/16395

Yes I thought you meant that study. What it actually showed is how dangerous it is to wait on the inside of a large vehicle in it's blind spot, often not really the cyclists fault as councils tend to encourage this by running cycle lanes up the inside. A very rare situation where getting in front of the vehicle is probably safer even if it involves breaking the law, I doubt even 1 in 10,000 cases of cyclists jumping (rather than just waiting ahead of) red lights come from this situation. Lorries are quite good at squashing cyclists by turning across them without any traffic lights being present at all so hardly a legitimate excuse for most red light jumping. This only solution to this problem is to make full visibility, by cameras if necessary, a legal requirement for all large vehicles and to stop allowing 'blind spots' as an excuse for running people over.

GrimlyFeendish wrote:

bigchet wrote:
what i find surprising is that the junction showed is very close to st aldates police station; surely it would be relatively easy to post an officer there particularly at peak times when the majority of offences occur. i have driven and cycled around oxford for years and have been amazed at the the total disregard for the rules of the road shown by cyclists partly because they know they will escape prosecution.

... and while they are at it they can prosecute the 50% of drivers who ignore the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists!
In truth the police have to deal with real fatalities and serious injuries on the road and, unlike this reporter, know where the real dangers lie

This seems to be getting worse - I wonder if the police ever enforce these. It would help if the council repainted them once in a while.

museli wrote:

GrimlyFeendish wrote:

bigchet wrote:
what i find surprising is that the junction showed is very close to st aldates police station; surely it would be relatively easy to post an officer there particularly at peak times when the majority of offences occur. i have driven and cycled around oxford for years and have been amazed at the the total disregard for the rules of the road shown by cyclists partly because they know they will escape prosecution.

... and while they are at it they can prosecute the 50% of drivers who ignore the Advanced Stop Line for cyclists!
In truth the police have to deal with real fatalities and serious injuries on the road and, unlike this reporter, know where the real dangers lie

This seems to be getting worse - I wonder if the police ever enforce these. It would help if the council repainted them once in a while.

The problem lies with the law. Even if the motorist has passed his white line on Green, if the lights change, as they often do in heavy traffic, the motorist MUST stop in the ASL box, and not go over the red light. There lies the modern dilemma. ASL infringement most occurs within the law, and as such is impossible to police.

Why do so many people have problems accepting that the law and highway code actually applies to each and every user of the road...............I
t doesn't matter what your argument is, or what planning you think there should be, or whether you think the laws are wrong...............
....it may be boring but true..if everyone just did what they should on the roads/pavements there really would be a lot less incidents....here's another one

Two wrongs's do not make a right...............
you may have cycled off unharmed but be completely oblivious to what chaos you might have left in your wake.

What do cyclists do when there is more than one of them jumping a red light...how about two...or three....do they take it in turns....No they all think they have the same right to do so........and therefore increase the risk of something happening to them, but ......more likley to someone else!

I'm setting up a help group for bike riders who ignore red lights. Please fell free to join Cyclists Unable to Notice Traffic Signals.

Cyclists not using lights = Dangerous.

Cyclists not using helmut = Freedom of choice.

Cyclists crossing red lights = Same as a pedestrian crossing the road without a green man. Only dangerous when it is dangerous to do so. Get it? Good...

BenkiuGuasu wrote:
Cyclists not using lights = Dangerous.

Cyclists not using helmut = Freedom of choice.

Cyclists crossing red lights = Same as a pedestrian crossing the road without a green man. Only dangerous when it is dangerous to do so. Get it? Good...

.... and cars crossing red lights?

As a commuting cyclist my biggest threat isn't cars or buses, it's other cyclists. Many times on Broad St Junction from Holywell I have had near misses from cyclist crossing a red light when i am crossing on a green. It angers me SO much, there needs to be something done because until they get hit and suffer brain damage from the lack of helmet also, then they will not learn their lesson! And as a driver in Oxford as well, I know how easy it could be to hit an unruly cyclist - and who would get the blame - the driver!
If they want to cycle on the road, they should follow the rules of the road!

museli wrote:

BenkiuGuasu wrote:
Cyclists not using lights = Dangerous.

Cyclists not using helmut = Freedom of choice.

Cyclists crossing red lights = Same as a pedestrian crossing the road without a green man. Only dangerous when it is dangerous to do so. Get it? Good...

.... and cars crossing red lights?

Cars crossing red lights = Foolish. Could lead to points on the license.

BenkiuGuasu wrote:

museli wrote:

BenkiuGuasu wrote:
Cyclists not using lights = Dangerous.

Cyclists not using helmut = Freedom of choice.

Cyclists crossing red lights = Same as a pedestrian crossing the road without a green man. Only dangerous when it is dangerous to do so. Get it? Good...

.... and cars crossing red lights?

Cars crossing red lights = Foolish. Could lead to points on the license.

Cyclist crossing red lights = £30 fine, and possible free ride in an ambulance. I am surprised that in these hard times that the police do not do a check on the Broad Street Parks Road junction more often, the last time the did it they netted £2,700 in just an hour.

I've seen James Styring's response elsewhere but not here (maybe somewhere else on Ox Mail website but I can't find it):

"Sir-
I would like to clear up an unfortunate confusion caused by the headline of your report about jumping red lights ( Ignoring red lights is mostly harmless 14th February).
The headline has misled some readers to suppose that Cyclox regards ignoring red lights as unobjectionable (i.e., harmless ). This is wrong.

In fact, by harmless I meant that jumping red lights does not generally lead to physical harm or injury, which is quite different.

Every right-minded cyclist dislikes red light jumpers. Indeed, for years red light jumpers have had their own acronym amongst the cycling advocacy community: RLJs. Red light jumpers are irresponsible and annoying. They give cyclists a bad name and their behaviour can be dangerous, as poor Barbara Sandford is testament. But, while mostly harmless in that it tends to cause few actual injuries, it is never acceptable for a cyclist to ignore a red light.

I wrote to Thames Valley Police in 2009 urging a zero tolerance approach to cycling misdemeanours such as red light jumping, combined with a 'Bike Polite' education programme encouraging a protocol of good behaviour amongst all who cycle. The police's reply said we could expect only one crackdown every year on bad cycling because we must concentrate on the main killers which are car drivers using phones, not wearing seatbelts, speeding, drink/drug driving, etc. . This position is understandable but regrettable. Cyclox tried, also in vain, to sign the county council up to a Bike Polite programme.

The suggestion that I, or Cyclox, in any way condone jumping red lights is false. Although it is worth maintaining a sense of proportion (as the police do), something could and should be done about cyclists ignoring red lights.
James Styring
Chair - Cyclox, the cycling campaign for Oxford"