Ok, so the title is actually a little mis-leading because I don't actually 'run red lights' although I apologise to nobody for making the occasional decision to treat red lights as 'yields' rather than 'stops' but it's also important to make the point that I cycle with absolute respect for those around me. Let's remember that roads—although designed for people, carts, bicycles, vehicles, animals etc—now actually favour motorised traffic. Traffic lights are there to manage the flow of vehicular traffic which would often become gridlocked without it. There are also many traffic lights operated by induction loops under the road surface that register when a car is waiting at a red signal. With a bicycle these often don't operate and so without a car to register the signal, you're stuck! I've seen cyclists actually get off their bicycles and walk through these signals, which really does show how considerate many cyclists are!
So, in context, my personal approach is that if I feel that I am at risk and the way in front is clear, I advisedly move through the red signal. I'll give you an example; a black cab this morning was so close to me and driving very aggressively. I felt threatened by it and it's clear it was being driven in a way that showed no consideration of me. We both stopped at the red traffic signal with me in front and some pedestrians crossed; all the while the taxi behind me was revving his engine and creeping towards my back wheel. By this point he was about 6 inches away from my back wheel and still revving his engine. In this situation I thought about what would happen when the lights changed. Coming to the conclusion that he would accelerate hard and very close behind me I decided that I would check for any further pedestrians and move through the junction, putting some distance between us and allowing me time to adopt a safe position on the road ahead. This decision was well-considered and the sort of decision you often have to make while cycling in London.
Many people would accuse me of 'running a red light' but I will always maintain that this was the safest manoeuvre I could have made in this situation. What I personally consider unnecessary is going through red signals and weaving through crossing traffic or cycling straight through red signals when safe in a bicycle lane. I'm happy to have a few seconds break from pedalling or a chance to practice my trackstands while I wait for the lights to change. It always makes me wonder why people have so little patience that they just
can't stop at any red lights; both cyclists and drivers. As Patrick Field, cycling guru and founder of the London School of Cycling says;
"The people who can’t stop at red lights aren’t happy—they don’t have the psychological resources to be themselves, so they're infected with this anxiety, this “I’ve got to get going.” I’m not saying I’ve stopped at every red light even today, but it’s my default, to stop."One other thing I think is absolutely non-negotiable is not stopping for pedestrian crossings. I see both cars and bicycles driving across pedestrian crossings without allowing pedestrians to cross the road. My personal feeling is that this is unacceptable. My first consideration is always with pedestrians.
All that being said, the really interesting fact about 'running red lights' is that it's a charge often levied at cyclists alone. In fact when cycling around London each day I see every single type of vehicle going through red lights. From the last-minute dash through a signal that has already changed to the vehicle stopped so far through the junction that it's not only blocking the advance stop box for cyclists but also blocking the pedestrian crossing. All vehicles do this, not just cyclists. Ironically it's probably the cyclists that pose the least risk of doing this though.
Similarly it's also fair to pose a question to those that use this topic as a way of complaining about cyclists being on the road; if no cyclist ever went through a red light, would you then completely change your opinion on cyclists? The answer, I suspect, would be no. It's often not just about that particular issue but just that some simply do not want cyclists on the road. Many have postulated opinions about why this should be, and I have my own theories.
An article about this subject appeared a while ago.
'Women cyclists are more likely to be killed in traffic: TfL suppresses report' [link broken,
another source] suggests that in many instances stopping and remaining stopped behind red signals can be the more dangerous option. It makes sobering reading. The thing I take away from this is that simply following rules is not enough. You do need to think carefully about the situation you're in. Think carefully, though, is the important thing. For every time a cyclist goes through a red light a driver is cursing them. In many instances the cyclist is absolutely right to do so though. I suspect that this morning that taxi driver would have thought I was 'trying to get one over on him', 'trying to beat him' or 'not following the rules' but in fact I was attempting to reduce the risk for myself. It was considered…
There are many, myself included, that think we should take a different approach for cyclists to some red lights; the Idaho Stop. The idea is that some red lights are treated as yields by a cyclist allowing them to pass through if there is nothing to give way to or stop if there is.
Bicycles, Rolling Stops, and the Idaho Stop does a great job of explaining this. The fact is that many roads have 'flow control' type of signals. You can see this happening if you watch traffic lights on a very long road. They operate in 'waves' which chunks up traffic and smooths the flow. Of course in a vehicle the only effect of slowing down is that you might need to move your foot an inch or so, or possibly change gear. On a bicycle you lose all forward momentum and have to start pedalling from a standing start again.
Treehugger has an interesting article
Why Cyclists Blow Through Stop Signs: It's Physics in which some of the detail is covered;
"The average commuting rider is unlikely to produce more than 100 watts of propulsion power, or about what it takes to power a reading lamp. At 100 watts, the average cyclist can travel about 12.5 miles per hour on the level…on a street with a stop sign every 300 feet, calculations predict that the average speed of a 150-pound rider putting out 100 watts of power will diminish by about forty percent. If the bicyclist wants to maintain her average speed of 12.5 mph while still coming to a complete stop at each sign, she has to increase her output power to almost 500 watts. This is well beyond the ability of all but the most fit cyclists."This suggests that it's actually very difficult for many cyclists to constantly stop at traffic signals, a thought probably not considered by many drivers because, let's face it, driving is easy. You're sitting in what is essentially an arm-chair in an air conditioned space with music and places to put your coffee cup. You don't have to slog up a road stopping every few hundred yards, you're not cold, wet or dealing with spray from passing traffic. Plus, there really is no comparison to the type of view you get of the road from a bicycle; you see more, you hear more, you're present in that moment not fiddling around with a stereo or chatting on a
hands-free phone.
So while personally I think there's not really much reason to not stop at red lights when it's safe and easy to do so, the entire subject is not just the case that cyclists 'run red lights'. In fact I'd counter that road design very often takes so little care of cyclists that some would argue cyclists should
never stop at red lights if it's safe for them, and others, to go through. Cyclists are never going to gain the respect of the other road-users by stopping at red lights; it simply isn't going to happen. Many cyclists would argue; "Why should I follow this one particular rule when I'm routinely threatened on the road and ignored by road-planners using public money I contribute to?" or "Why should I arbitrarily stop at a red light but then see vehicles of all types blasting through them, often with drivers on their mobile phones?".
Of course there are cyclists that do blaze straight through red lights, but the amount of people I see doing this unsafely is actually quite small. Smaller, I'd say, that the amount of vehicles doing the same. Cyclists, by and large, do not want to die or be injured and this informs the cyclist's opinion; to either go through or stop at the red light.
Ultimately it's about respect for others, something seemingly in little supply for cyclists on London's roads. But our decisions should always be informed and respectful. I'm never going to suggest you blythely 'follow the rules' but they're often there because people can't act in this informed and respectful way, which is a shame.
As Patrick Field says in his wonderful talk at the IQ2 Cycling Festival: "The target is a culture of consideration, not a culture of compliance."
