One in five cyclists ignore red lights, Mail survey shows

thisisoxfordshire: A cyclist goes through a red light at the junction of St Aldate's and Thames Street A cyclist goes through a red light at the junction of St Aldate's and Thames Street

ONE in five cyclists are “putting their lives at risk” by jumping red lights, an Oxford Mail investigation has revealed.

Our survey also showed as many as three in five Oxford bike users failing to use lights early in the morning and around half not wearing a helmet.

Our reporter observed cyclists repeatedly riding on pavements and failing to signal over two one-hour periods at the junctions of St Aldates and Thames Street and Ferry Hinksey Road and Botley Road.

The findings last night received mixed responses from campaigners, with the Oxford Pedestrians’ Association calling for more police enforcement.

But the chairman of cyclists’ group Cyclox denied the problems our test highlighted were serious concerns, especially compared to the dangers posed by motorists.

Pedestrians’ association chairman Sushila Dhall said: “Everyone seems to be angry with each other in Oxford.

“Cyclists are putting their lives at risk by going through red lights and not using lights on their bikes.

“And although I don’t think it is necessarily helpful to fine people, the police do need to enforce bikes stopping at traffic lights.

“And we are concerned about people riding on the pavement because pedestrians are more vulnerable than cyclists.”

But she added: “Cyclists are also vulnerable road users and there are things that the two can campaign on together,” she added.

Cyclox chairman James Styring said cyclists not stopping at red lights was mostly “a harmless crime”. He said: “The reason the police don’t take very seriously this kind of incident is because very few accidents happen when cyclists run red lights or do other things that are annoying.

“It is a harmless crime, in that hardly anybody ever gets injured from doing it.”

He added: “The police know that the real worry is people drink-driving and driving while using mobile phones, which can be just as dangerous. These two acts are by far biggerkillers in Oxfordshire and nationally.”

Mr Styring also said cyclists should be allowed to ignore some red lights at less dangerous junctions.

But Barbara Sandford, who was left with internal bleeding after being knocked down on a pedestrian crossing in Oxford’s High Street by a cyclist who went through a red light last March, disagreed.

She said: “They don’t seem to be thinking ahead.

“When you are driving you have absolutely got to anticipate everything that could happen.

“Cyclists don’t seem to have that awareness, they go sailing on as if they don’t have a care in the world.”

Tafari Miller, then 18, of Greenfinch Close, Greater Leys, later admitted a charge of dangerous cycling at Oxford Magistrates’ Court.

Magistrates imposed a fine of £100, with a £15 victims’ surcharge, £85 costs and £500 compensation.

Regular cyclist Chris Else, 25, from Culham, near Abingdon, said the rule-breakers were giving bike users a bad name. He said: “I don’t jump red lights because I don’t think it is safe and it doesn’t advance the cause of cyclists for anybody. They are not doing themselves any favours.”

Chief Insp Henry Parsons said: “Thames Valley Police is working to reduce the volume of those killed and seriously injured on the roads. Jumping red lights, whether by vehicle or cycle is dangerous. For that reason we will continue to enforce this and other road safety legislation.”

Abingdon taxi driver Stuart Curran, 43, said he had seen many near misses from cyclists jumping lights.

He said: “It beggers belief. I remember a shocking incident some years ago where there was a lady pushing her pram across Iffley Road. I could see a cyclist racing by in my mirror going at full pelt up to the lights so I hit my car horn. The lady stopped and the cyclist shot by only missing her and the pushchair by inches.

He added: “Oxford seems to be one of the worst places for cyclists with no lights. I drive in London a lot and they don’t have the same problem.”

Last year Thames Valley Police issued 346 fixed penalty tickets in Oxfordshire to cyclists ignoring traffic signs, which includes the offence of not complying with a red traffic light. It was unable to provide a breakdown of reasons for the tickets being issued.

Last September the Oxford Mail revealed deaths and injuries of cyclists had more than doubled in the past decade.

Some 58 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in Oxfordshire in 2011 compared to 27 in 2001.

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:41pm Mon 11 Feb 13

diz says...

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
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 diz
  • Score: 6

7:57pm Mon 11 Feb 13

maupertius says...

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?
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? maupertius
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Bart_simpsonDoh says...

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.
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. Bart_simpsonDoh
  • Score: 1

8:01pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Bart_simpsonDoh says...

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!
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! Bart_simpsonDoh
  • Score: 4

8:13pm Mon 11 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
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. museli
  • Score: 9

8:19pm Mon 11 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]maupertius[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. museli
  • Score: 7

8:56pm Mon 11 Feb 13

maupertius says...

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.
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. maupertius
  • Score: -2

9:16pm Mon 11 Feb 13

dant40 says...

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.
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. dant40
  • Score: 2

9:16pm Mon 11 Feb 13

museli says...

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.)
[quote][p][bold]maupertius[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.) museli
  • Score: 4

9:19pm Mon 11 Feb 13

museli says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]dant40[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Come on Dan! Name and shame! museli
  • Score: 3

9:21pm Mon 11 Feb 13

SproKet says...

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.
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. SproKet
  • Score: 14

9:26pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Dilligaf2010 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Bart_simpsonDoh[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 6

9:31pm Mon 11 Feb 13

SproKet says...

Biggest *threat
Biggest *threat SproKet
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Mon 11 Feb 13

SproKet says...

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
[quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bart_simpsonDoh[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more SproKet
  • Score: 4

9:40pm Mon 11 Feb 13

dant40 says...

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.
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. dant40
  • Score: 3

10:53pm Mon 11 Feb 13

JK says...

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?
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
  • Score: 2

6:49am Tue 12 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. museli
  • Score: 2

12:21pm Tue 12 Feb 13

sablond oxford says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]SproKet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dilligaf2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bart_simpsonDoh[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more[/p][/quote]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! sablond oxford
  • Score: 4

12:25pm Tue 12 Feb 13

zimmer, Wolvecote. says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. zimmer, Wolvecote.
  • Score: -8

12:54pm Tue 12 Feb 13

seamusl says...

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.
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. seamusl
  • Score: 5

1:02pm Tue 12 Feb 13

the wizard says...

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.
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. the wizard
  • Score: 2

2:14pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Sid Hunt says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]maupertius[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"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. Sid Hunt
  • Score: 3

2:16pm Tue 12 Feb 13

John Batey says...

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.
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. John Batey
  • Score: 3

3:41pm Tue 12 Feb 13

bobbylashley says...

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??
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?? bobbylashley
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Milliest says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]maupertius[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Always stop at a red light. Milliest
  • Score: 2

3:56pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Milliest says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. Milliest
  • Score: 1

4:23pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Feelingsmatter says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]seamusl[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Well said seamusl! The voice of reason. Feelingsmatter
  • Score: 2

4:30pm Tue 12 Feb 13

bart-on simpson says...

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.
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
  • Score: 2

6:20pm Tue 12 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]bart-on simpson[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. museli
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Floflo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. Floflo
  • Score: -2

7:52pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Floflo says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Milliest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Floflo
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Tue 12 Feb 13

faatmaan says...

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.
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. faatmaan
  • Score: 2

9:03pm Tue 12 Feb 13

LB2013 says...

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.
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. LB2013
  • Score: 5

9:35pm Tue 12 Feb 13

jochta says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Milliest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. jochta
  • Score: 1

9:38pm Tue 12 Feb 13

jochta says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Milliest[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. jochta
  • Score: 1

9:52pm Tue 12 Feb 13

jochta says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]JK[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. jochta
  • Score: 3

10:29pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Fantomas says...

Unless my maths is flawed, this also means that 4 in 5 cyclists DO stop at red lights?
Unless my maths is flawed, this also means that 4 in 5 cyclists DO stop at red lights? Fantomas
  • Score: 2

11:08pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Norbert66 says...

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
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 Norbert66
  • Score: 0

11:41pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Ians view says...

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
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
  • Score: 0

7:45am Wed 13 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Ians view[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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. museli
  • Score: 2

9:48am Wed 13 Feb 13

bigchet says...

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.
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. bigchet
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Wed 13 Feb 13

SteveOX4 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Fantomas[/bold] wrote: Unless my maths is flawed, this also means that 4 in 5 cyclists DO stop at red lights?[/p][/quote]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. SteveOX4
  • Score: 1

1:49pm Wed 13 Feb 13

NinjaBiscuits says...

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!
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! NinjaBiscuits
  • Score: -2

2:55pm Wed 13 Feb 13

GrimlyFeendish says...

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
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 GrimlyFeendish
  • Score: 1

3:37pm Wed 13 Feb 13

maupertius says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]NinjaBiscuits[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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? maupertius
  • Score: -2

4:37pm Wed 13 Feb 13

museli says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]Can we have some data to back up that first statement? museli
  • Score: 1

4:37pm Wed 13 Feb 13

museli says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]Can we have some data to back up that first statement? museli
  • Score: 2

6:53pm Wed 13 Feb 13

dant40 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Ians view[/bold] 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. dant40
  • Score: -1

9:10am Thu 14 Feb 13

GrimlyFeendish says...

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
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]Can we have some data to back up that first statement?[/p][/quote]Here's one article - I can dig out many more as well: http://www.rudi.net/ node/16395 GrimlyFeendish
  • Score: -1

9:33am Thu 14 Feb 13

GrimlyFeendish says...

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
[quote][p][bold]bigchet[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]... 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
  • Score: -1

10:04am Thu 14 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]Can we have some data to back up that first statement?[/p][/quote]Here's one article - I can dig out many more as well: http://www.rudi.net/ node/16395[/p][/quote]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. museli
  • Score: 1

10:07am Thu 14 Feb 13

museli says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigchet[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]... 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[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 2

1:45pm Thu 14 Feb 13

zimmer, Wolvecote. says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrimlyFeendish[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigchet[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]... 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. zimmer, Wolvecote.
  • Score: -9

6:24pm Thu 14 Feb 13

oafie says...

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!
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! oafie
  • Score: 3

12:20pm Sat 16 Feb 13

Waggler says...

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.
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. Waggler
  • Score: 1

7:59pm Sat 16 Feb 13

BenkiuGuasu says...

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...
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
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Sat 16 Feb 13

museli says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]BenkiuGuasu[/bold] 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...[/p][/quote].... and cars crossing red lights? museli
  • Score: 0

9:27am Sun 17 Feb 13

Dora12 says...

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!
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! Dora12
  • Score: 1

6:18pm Sun 17 Feb 13

BenkiuGuasu says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BenkiuGuasu[/bold] 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...[/p][/quote].... and cars crossing red lights?[/p][/quote]Cars crossing red lights = Foolish. Could lead to points on the license. BenkiuGuasu
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Sun 17 Feb 13

zimmer, Wolvecote. says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]BenkiuGuasu[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BenkiuGuasu[/bold] 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...[/p][/quote].... and cars crossing red lights?[/p][/quote]Cars crossing red lights = Foolish. Could lead to points on the license.[/p][/quote]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. zimmer, Wolvecote.
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Thu 21 Feb 13

museli says...

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"
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" museli
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree