When I’m cycling I stop at red lights. That includes red lights at the bottom of hills, where flying through would save having to start a long grind from standstill. The reason I do this is because I also drive a car and recognise how annoying it is. I also live in one of the most bike unfriendly cities in the UK and spending my last remaining seconds of life under a bendy bus is not one of my life goals.
Matt Seaton, of The Guardian, nails the public relations problem for cyclists, but then proposes an ineffective mechanism of fixing it.
there’s nothing more visible than a cyclist breezing through a red light, it is spectacularly bad PR. According to an official at Cycling England, the body charged with promoting cycle use, one of the chief reasons why the Department for Transport is so unenthusiastic about cycling is because the Home Office dumps on its doorstep the vast postbag of letters about the outrages perpetrated by “Lycra louts” – cycling without lights, riding on the pavement, and, above all, ignoring traffic signals. In other words, when a cyclist runs a red light, the rest of us might as well get out the old revolver and fire one off at our collective foot.
Seaton’s solution is that cyclists should be licensed. Although the easy option is to say “A Guardian journalist suggesting state licensing to fix a problem, what a surprise!”, but I’m quite willing to dust off my old cycling proficiency badge. However, the problem with this idea is that licensing may not affect behaviour. The majority of cyclists who go through red lights are not doing so out of ignorance, they do so out of choice – the same way motorists choose to break speed limits. Seaton says:
Cyclists themselves will ask why they should have to pass a test when, unlike cars, bicycles almost never cause serious injury to others. But most people would pass without difficulty – with a very useful reminder of traffic etiquette. It would be a formality little more arduous than getting your car taxed or renewing your passport, and quite a lot more fun.
So we pay for setting up a testing system, a licensing system and all the associated government apparatus to run such a scheme. Does this mean cyclists will never again violate the sanctity of a red light? Seaton does not appear to have any evidence for that outcome. Cyclists are more likely to behave the way they are expected to in the confines of the test, then return to applying the same value judgements and balancing of risks as they did before in the real world. A subject which was extremely well covered by Newsnight’s cycling economics editor, Stephanie Flanders in July.
3 Comments
It’s a difficult one. While cyclists are as legally bound by the rules of the road as any other vehicle, they don’t seem to be given the same courtesy as other, bigger, less mobile, traffic – for example having other vehicles stay out of their lanes, being allowed to change lane, allowed to wait for a right turn without being rammed, or being allowed to cycle along the road at all without being driven into the kerb.
Personally I always stop at red lights (partly because I still think a bit like a car driver when it comes to things like road positioning and signals), and get quite annoyed by cyclists who go through them when it is dangerous. One-way streets are something I tend to take on a case by case basis. I wouldn’t cycle on the pavement, that’s what the road is for.
There is a grey area, especially when there are cycle lanes and the light prevents you making a left turn. I normally get off and walk across the pavement if I want to go through a red light.
Perhaps, if there was some concerted effort to actually make the roads more cycle friendly, with signals that actually take them into account, cyclists would be less likely to break the law in that way.
Agreed:
I stop at red.
I indicate.
I always wear a helmet.
I have two sets of lights: one constant beam front and back attached to the bike (so as to be legal), and one set of flashing lights attached to my helmet (see above, so that I am seen, and so that I can shine a light straight in the face of the driver about to emerge from a side street, without having to turn the handlebars).
I have a flourescent yellow/reflective rucksack cover.
I have reversible (flourescent green for day, scotchlite for night) ankle bands – moving reflectors are much more visible.
Why?
So that if any bastard driver knocks me off I can take him to cleaners with absolutely no mercy.
Cyclists really desperately need to hold the moral high ground and you are absolutely right that following the rules of the road is an essential element of this.
As for RS’s left turn: I disagree: it is a red light. You stop. You must be seen to stop. You can, as you suggest, get off and walk through if you really want to, but there will be a reason for the red light: there will be pedestrians or other traffic crossing.
A more substantial gripe is the car parked in a cycle lane that forces you to have to pull out into traffic. Cars are often very reluctant to let you out even though they can see that you are going to have to pull out and are indicating (thus taking a hand off the bars, whilst straining uphill….) and try a cheeky half overtake. I find the only way to deal with this is to indicate REALLY REALLY early, start to pull out and then stay in the middle of the lane to stop a car trying to squeeze past.
Come the revolution….
Toodle Pip!
PG
“As for RS’s left turn: I disagree: it is a red light. You stop. You must be seen to stop. You can, as you suggest, get off and walk through if you really want to, but there will be a reason for the red light: there will be pedestrians or other traffic crossing.”
Legally yes, but the reason the red light is there is often so that cars can cross the junction. If there is a cycle lane, then cars will not be in that lane (nor will pedestrians as we are talking about a road junction), so the only traffic you are avoiding is other cyclists crossing the junction. Given the speed of cyclists is necessarily pretty slow, you could turn left into the cycle lane without any risk of hitting cars or cyclists.
As I say, I generally wouldn’t do this, but you can see why people might, there is no risk to anyone, only the strategic and legal issues.