I WOULD like to clear up an unfortunate confusion caused by your report about jumping red lights and my quote about it being mostly a “harmless crime” (February 11).

This has misled some readers to suppose that Cyclox regards ignoring red lights as unobjectionable (ie, “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 among all cyclists.

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 Chairman of Cyclox, the cycling campaign for Oxford