- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Red light operation (@PSOSRoads)'Vulnerable Road User' operation sees police fine cyclists for jumping red lights
Police in Scotland say a 'Vulnerable Road User' initiative saw four cyclists fined in Edinburgh for riding through red lights.
The operation, which also saw cyclists, pedestrians and drivers "spoken to and given advice" appeared to take place at a pedestrian crossing in the Scottish capital, Roads Policing Scotland explaining that four cyclists and one driver were fined for going through red lights.
"Edinburgh Roads Policing were on a Vulnerable Road User initiative where cyclists, pedestrians and drivers were spoken to and given advice. Four cyclists were given FPTs for red light offences and one driver was issued an FPT for red light offence on a pedestrian crossing," a social media post communicating the action said.
The post was complete with hashtags saying "always on duty" and "red means stop" and attracted more of the often heard social media 'anti-cycling bingo' discourse around cyclists, including calls for mandatory insurance for bike riders.
"I wish they would talk to the cyclists around here," one reply said. "Jumping red lights and racing through pedestrian crossings. Flying down the pavement at speed. Cycling on the wrong side of the road. Take your life into your hands walking around here."
According to Rule 69 of the Highway Code:
You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws Road Traffic Act 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD Schedule 3 pt 3, sch7 pt4, sch9 pts 4 and 6, sch 13 pt 6, sch 14 pt 2]
This type of police operation, accompanied by a post on social media, is nothing new. Last February, police in Hackney said they had caught 18 cyclists jumping red lights in 90 minutes, each getting a £50 fine and road safety lesson.
A week later questions were asked after another force, in Manchester, was keen to highlight its crackdown on people using bicycles riding through reds. The Manchester post attracted a significant amount of responses questioning why the force is "prioritising" less dangerous offences, and others asking for more effective use of police resources.
A campaign group dedicated to making the A56 in the North West of England safer for all users suggested there are "far more serious" dangers on the road that police should be looking to target.
In January, leading cycle campaigners in Scotland discussed the potential road safety implications of allowing cyclists to ride through red lights, Gregory Kinsman-Chauvet of Bike for Good suggesting that road laws from other parts of the world, such as in some parts of the United States and France where cyclists are permitted to proceed at red lights in certain circumstances, should be implemented in Scotland.
> Should cyclists be allowed to ride through red lights? Campaigners split on safety benefits
However, Cycling Scotland's safety manager Simon Bradshaw questioned if such action was a road safety priority, and said Scotland's road laws were "very different to France, making it complex to replicate".
Last month, an Evening Standard journalist Sophie Wilkinson penned a column titled 'Why I skip red lights', in which she outlined why she believes cyclists should be allowed to ride through red lights, so long as they give pedestrians priority.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. Having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for the Non-League Paper, Dan joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- Grumpy17 16 min 27 sec ago
Makes no difference. they still have no power to physically detain you
- chrisonabike 20 min 50 sec ago
Will have to have a read and obviously his professional judgement trumps random Internet posters like me ... but I have my doubts!
- chrisonabike 26 min 57 sec ago
Pretty sure the distinction between the "user in charge" and the person sitting in the driver's seat already exists in the Scottish legal system at...
- Rendel Harris 53 min 16 sec ago
Indeed, my grandfather used to read it even though his political opinions were towards the left, he said he found it the most objective and best...
- OldRidgeback 2 hours 41 min ago
I've seen firms in other sectors being bought by investment companies. It rarely ends well. I spoke with the president of one such firm that'd been...
- S.E. 2 hours 49 min ago
Why not offer a model with both a tail and a visor though...
- marmotte27 3 hours 14 min ago
Ill thought out and implemented bike lane creates all sorts of problems and safety hazards shocker...
- giff77 10 hours 4 min ago
Looks like a taxi driver ( silver car ) is pulling into the taxi rank bedside the Spar resulting in the other swerving rather than stopping.
Add new comment
62 comments
I never did say it was ok (AS YOU KNOW) for cars to jump red lights, only for eyclists did I say I think it's ok.
When will you stop twisting people words to try to make them mean something else that suits your agenda?
I didn't accuse you of that, silly boy, I asked you a simple question: why is it okay for you to run a red light on a bicycle when you decide it's safe to do so but not okay for a car driver?
You asked me, and I quote below (assuming that you haven't edited your comments, not unknown before now but I haven't got a photographic memory:
is it okay for a motorist to do the same thing at the same speed?
If it's OK for you to ignore the law on a bike if there's no harm done, why not for motorists too?
That misses the point completely - I never said it was ok, only did I say it was ok for cyclists to jump red lights. So no, I'm not going to bother answering those stupid questions.
I'm not a fan of relaxing the red rules within the *current* UK system, but I think we get overly concerned about the danger of cyclists* at lights. (There does seem to be an issue of unpleasant conflict in some places in London though).
Maybe because of early childhood education we understand the road space as dangerous territory for those on foot? Regardless of the type of vehicle. However cycles per se are little threat to pedestrians - actually almost none as long as they're expecting them of course!
To benefit from this fact it's much better to separate the motor vehicles from cycles though. Then pedestrians can safely and conveniently cross the cycle path without formal crossings. (Another reason why simply saying "the roads are great cycle infra" isn't quite right - then pedestrians still have to cross a very wide space rather than a narrower cycle path, even for a two-way one).
* Some posters did dig out some numbers suggesting elevated risk to pedestrians at crossings. Although with low absolute numbers IIRC that mostly suggests "more study needed" as to how and why.
It certainly is a problem in London and becoming worse, I couldn't really care less about people nipping through red lights when it's safe (though I don't do it myself) but I find myself multiple times each day having to shout at cyclists who speed through pelican crossings, weaving to avoid pedestrians. It's just creating a level of conflict that isn't necessary and that I fear will ultimately lead to more restrictions being imposed upon us if we're not careful.
So if you don't mind cyclists running red lights, why is it not ok for cars to jump red lights?
How stupid are you?! You're just here for an argument, I said the same thing above (that it's ok for cylicsts to run red lights) yet you make a song and a dance about it, and challenge me on whether cars should also be able to - you need to grow up.
Also - you nasty piece of work, mind your own business rather than shouting at people in a holier than thou outburst
"You Nasty piece of work"? Withdraw or come on mods.
why is it not ok for cars to jump red lights? - I dunno, could it be that one kills 4-5 people each day and injures dozens more and the other doesn't?
FWIW, I don't think cyclists should ignore red lights* - we need to set an example as we rely heavily on the rules of the road for our safety in all other respects. So no 'phone use either.
* and I absolutely get that many lights, all roundabouts and one ways are put there for cars, to address the many problems cars cause. No-one else benefits.
No, I do not withdraw that statement. I have seen a lot, lot worse on here that has not been commented on or made an issue of
As for the question - it was a sarcastic question for Rendel, seeing as that is exactly what he was asking me previous.
No, I do not withdraw that statement. I have seen a lot, lot worse on here that has not been commented on or made an issue of
As for the question - it was a sarcastic question for Rendel, seeing as that is exactly what he was asking me previous.
True, there was the absolute filth for which you were banned as thisismyusername, for a start.
Get well soon.
Aha is that the best you can do?
Your two faced attitude was exposed unfortunately.
A motorist at the same speed will have much more momentum, so it's not a fair comparison. Also, they have less visibility around their vehicle and far less manoeuvrability. They're also less likely to be careful as they don't have any skin in the game and likely wouldn't even notice if someone bumped into the side of their vehicle. There's also the issue of motorists just stupidly following the vehicle in front, so if one motorist goes through carefully, the next driver might be looking at their phone and just follow them through the red light without even realising it.
So vehicle drivers have killed 50,000 people in the UK since year 2000, but hey, let's crack down on cyclists running red lights. Let's not bother with drivers speeding, cutting junctions killing motorcyclists/cyclists - that's ok is it? Get drivers to drive within speed limits and then Governments won't have to lower speed limits to 20 mph.
It's a pity Nottinghamshire Police don't do something similar in Nottingham specifically targeting all the Deliveroo/User etc riders.
They are a fucking menace who probably bring more shit towards other cyclists than anyone else.
Riding everywhere on the pavements, jumping red lights while riding illegal bikes. As an ex-bike courier it really pisses me off.
Presumably Deliveroo/Uber are incentivising them to cycle like this. I guess if you are one of their riders you have a choice, join 'em or leave. Invidious choice.
You are incentivised to the extent that the quicker you can complete a delivery the more deliveries you can do, and the more you can earn.
You can do the job and ride fully legally, but I think the problem really is that very many people either don't know or don't care what the rules are - evidenced by the large number of people riding illegal ebikes.
These people are not cyclists, they are riding illegal motorbikes, often on pavements or cycle paths, up to 40mph, with no licence, insurance, MOT, or helmet, and with little regard for cyclists or pedestrians.
Delivery business has expanded and changed hugely over not many years. As we've seen with "employees-not-employees" there is a strong incentive for firms - while not necessarily setting out to break the law - to bend the rules comprehensively.
So we should be looking at the companies themselves. There's also the fact that those prepared to do this low-paid and precarious work may not be so concerned about the letter of the law.
FWIW I suspect it's a quite different culture than the much less numerous bike messenger / cycle courier group so may need different approach.
True, but I'm not sure they invented it. See Hell Drivers (1957) only really a B movie, but a cast of many stars on the day.
So I was wondering to myself, as I cycled home this morning, about the legality of cycling through (not across) a toucan crossing that has a green light for pedestrians and cyclists to cross.
To be fair, I wouldn't wonder about that, it is illegal. But if you want to join the cycle lane across that Toucan crossing, that is also illegal. Yet, it would be safer to do so when the lights are red, as there won't be pedestrians waiting to cross, blocking the access and you're at less risk of getting rear-ended by a driver as you slow to join the cycle path.
Personally, I think there are situations where it's actually safer for a cyclist to go through a red light. I would like to see a relaxation of the rules to allow cyclists to treat some red lights as a give way.
I am aware that crossing on a red bicycle is a no no, unlike pedestrians crossing on a red man.
I'm all for operations like this.
Hopefully, it'll make the RLJer think twice about doing it next time.
It also looks good for cyclist from a PR point of view.
Harder to bleat about cyclists being above the law, when the law gets applied to cyclists.
Red light means stop ... doesn't mean "go if you think it's OK to do so", and the more cyclists RLJ, the more they endanger others that stop for reds.
Evidence?
I'd wager that violence against cyclists likely corresponds closer to the frequency and prominence of hate pieces in the media than the actions of any individual cyclist.
This will be a product of driver whingeing - funny how they discover road user parity when it suits them
Would be acceptable if it was proportional to all traffic offences and the severity, but it isn't hence why it is bullsh1t.
Well yeah, cyclists are not the only "vulnerable road users", and just like motorists some of them are right pillocks who think only of themselves.
I agree, but I'd much rather all the idiots were removed from motor vehicles and put onto bikes or scooters where at least they'll have a bit of skin in the game.
. . . . . or all over the road if they ride like they drive.
Funny, polis Scotland will do this but fail continually on close passes, etc.
Only time they are interested in cyclists is when to slap them with a fine.
Institutionally corrupt.
Pages