Should cyclists have the same speed restrictions as motor vehicles?

[Rockets]

Police do seem to be taking a more proactive approach to enforcing rules for cyclists. I know City of London police have been doing it a lot but I saw a load of PCSOs lingering around the junction of Chelsea Embankment and Albert Bridge last week and saw that they were jumping out and grabbing cyclists who were jumping the red lights - I couldn't see if they were issuing PCNs or just giving warnings.

[Spartacus]

I am curious why some cyclists jump red lights. 

I was on a bus the other day which was stopped at a red pedestrian controlled light, a large number of cyclists also stopped but as soon as they could approximately half of them started up again and went through the red light. 

I was once told it's to do with losing momentum, but in this case that's obviously not the reason. 

Can someone from the cycling side explain the rational because I, and lots of others, just don't get it?

If its not acceptable behaviour for motorised vehicles, why is it accepted by a large number of cyclists? 

 

[Rockets]

As a cyclist I think it is a number of things:

1) not losing forward momentum

2) trying to get ahead of traffic before the lights go green for other vehicles

3) an ignorance that the red lights don't/should not apply to cyclists.

 

It's interesting because back in 2007 (and I can't determine if they have done one since) TFL did a cyclist red-light jumping survey of a number of sites across London and found that 1 in 6 cyclists were jumping red lights and concluded then that it was not "endemic" but that "at this level may encourage more to do so in the future". I do wonder what the level is now and from unscientific observations I would say it is a lot higher than that now - I have actually been chastised by other cyclists for stopping at/waiting at red lights.

[first mate]

Saw several incidents yesterday, most on e-bikes of some description.

Now the weather is getting better and more take to their bikes, whether motorised or pedalled only, it'll be interesting to see the cycling behaviour at red lights and in pedestrianised areas like Vanity Square.

[Rockets]

Seemingly Labour are going to try to address dangerous cycling.....it will be interesting to watch the reaction of those who said this was all political and anti-cyclist when the Tories suggested it....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w8g18x9no

 

Interesting quote from someone whose wife was killed by a cyclist:

He added that it was "incomprehensible" cycling was "literally lawless" under "old-fashioned" measures not designed for modern road usage.

And he praised the transport secretary for going up against the cycle lobby:

Mr Briggs said Alexander had shown "enormous personal kindness" over the years, and "courage and commitment" in going up against a "strong" cycling lobby to push for the change.

Speaking of which:

Duncan Dollimore, head of campaigns at Cycling UK said while the charity supports "a proportionate and evidence-based approach" to updating the law, "it's crucial that any legislative changes do not discourage people from cycling, particularly at a time when promoting active and sustainable travel is vital for our health, environment, and economy".

Looks like the law is finally catching up. Not before time.

Edited Friday at 18:06 by Rockets

[tedfudge]

BBC News, London

 

• Published
  25 April 2025

The Royal Parks charity has launched a campaign encouraging cyclists to be more considerate and stick to the speed limits in the parks.

The Considerate Cycling campaign follows several incidents in the parks, the charity said, with the aim to enhance safety and improve the park experience for all visitors.

The campaign also comes after a recent research found almost three-quarters of pedestrians surveyed in London had witnessed or experienced a near miss, or collision, with a cyclist.

Tom Fyans, from the London Cycling Campaign, said: "While cyclists riding too fast are annoying and can undeniably be dangerous, the biggest cause of road danger to anyone inside a Royal Park remains drivers."

 

Image source,Getty Images Image caption,

The campaign will run through the spring and summer months

The survey, which was conducted in February and consulted 2,005 people.

It found 72% regarded "people cycling without due care and attention" as the main concern as a pedestrian.

Also 86% of people said the 20mph vehicle speed limit in central London should also apply to bicycles, which are currently exempt.

The campaign will run through the spring and summer months.

It is backed by a new code of conduct, external that all cyclists entering the parks should adhere to, regardless of whether they are commuting, exercising or exploring the parks recreationally, the charity said.

New signage is also displayed across the Royal Parks in high-traffic areas, with a new cycling online hub on the charity's website.

'Behave better'

Darren Share, from The Royal Parks charity, said: "Cyclists must understand the impact their speed can have on others, which is why it is crucial that they comply with the park regulations, and we are asking people to stay within the vehicle speed limits in the parks.

"The safety of all visitors is our top priority. By encouraging cyclists to slow down, respect the park environment and be considerate of others, we hope to foster a culture of respect and a safer, more enjoyable experience for all park visitors whether on two feet or two wheels."

Tom Fyans, from the London Cycling Campaign, added: "Paying attention to your speed when cycling is sensible and shows respect to others around you.

"Everyone needs to be sensible, everyone needs to behave better, everyone should be safe - and The Royal Parks needs to keep the focus on reducing road danger for everyone."

[borderpaul]

As a regular cyclist, I believe these changes are a step in the right direction.
Poor behaviour by some cyclists discourages wider adoption and keeps cycling as a minority pursuit.
Companies like Lime, whose bikes have arguably encouraged a small amount of reckless behaviour, could use their bike-tracking technology to fine users who ride through red lights. Whether they choose to is another question — but it could be a useful revenue stream for councils and a way to promote safer cycling.

[malumbu]

  On 25/04/2025 at 11:31, Rockets said:

Seemingly Labour are going to try to address dangerous cycling.....it will be interesting to watch the reaction of those who said this was all political and anti-cyclist when the Tories suggested it....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0w8g18x9no

 

 

 

Expand  

Well you have got your way so no doubt you will be pretty pleased.  I expect that this wont make a jot of difference to most cyclists.  As for 99.99999%  it is irrelevant.  The big issue will be increasingly with illegal ebikes, many ridden by delivery riders.  Hopefully little parliamentary time will be spent on the above change.  If Starmer was braver he would take on the delivery companies, get them to PAYE their riders, provide legal bikes and training.  But that is unlikely to happen.  There will be some line about how it would affect hard working families who are just about managing.

Much of the interest is due to two high profile incidents, and good to see that IDS has got something to put his teeth into, as he was dreadful as a Tory leader.  https://road.cc/content/blog/iain-duncan-smiths-anti-cycling-crusade-anti-reality-310779

I tried to get some stats on the number of cyclists doing time, but couldn't find any.   I came up with some stats on drivers doing time , this is not meant to be tit for tat but I found it interesting reading - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/motoring-offences-statistical-bulletin/

Over 300 a year sentenced for causing death by dangerous, or by inconsiderate driving, and a similar number for serious injury,

Effort would be much better in improving driving standards for all road users, even pedestrians, through education, information, training and, yes, a little nudge as well.

Royal Parks encouraging riders to be more considerate is not a bad thing.  The only Royal Park that I regularly use is Hyde, where the cyclist speed bumps are a bit excessive, so difficult to go above 10mph!

Cyclists causing death by dangerous cycling is around the same number as killed by cows, lightening and no doubt sand castles collapsing. 

 

 

[Penguin68]

  On 27/04/2025 at 11:56, malumbu said:

Cyclists causing death by dangerous cycling is around the same number as killed by cows

Expand  

About 5 people a year are killed by cows in the UK, many more are injured. 

[malumbu]

Ah, but are these cows on bicycles, and were they using their horns to warn pedestrians? And was this on a beach?

[Rockets]

Mal, your use of the cow analogy really demonstrates the problem here. Cows dont make conscious decisions to behave in a way that might endanger humans and no cow has ever been charged with an offence against a human. Other humans on bikes can make concious decisions that can harm other humans. And this is what this is about: holding cyclists accountable for their actions.

You cite your experience of Hyde Park yet in Regent's Park a pedestrian was killed by a cyclist doing a speed over 25mph yet his defence was "I cannot be held responsible because the speed limit does not apply to cyclists". And he got off because of exactly that.

Now he wouldn't be able to play that hand and anyone who has any modicum of interest in road saftey would agree that holding cyclists accountable for their actions is as important as holding every other road user accountable for theirs.

You may not agree with it but this is incredibly important as those who are injured, maimed or killed by cyclists cycling dangerously will be able to get some form of justice and it may just make some cyclists think twice about cycling irresponsibly.

And i suspect this will be the tip of the iceberg and we will, finally, see authorities taking bad cycling seriously. Not before time.

[malumbu]

It would be useful if you could address my points.  The cow, and the facetious pictures, were just putting into context that the numbers killed where a cyclist is involved are tiny.  And I don't even know whether this was due to a pedestrian stepping out into the road without looking - as many pedestrian deaths are, sadly.

I don't see any of the many cyclists I know, and know of, suddenly changing their behaviour due to the highly unlikely situation that they are being irresponsible and kill someone and could face much harsher punishment.  That is because few of us actually don't want to hurt others, and that applies to the overwhelming majority of us, whether we ride at 10 or 22 mph, and whether we stop at every red light of not.

I don't think that you understand the notion of proportionality.  That is targeting effort where  you get the greatest reduction in harm.  You may also get a broader understanding of the situation by looking through my attachments, which I am most happy to discuss.

 

[alice]

When you get it wrong, you respond with a joke when someone picks you up on the joke you blame the victim. So repetitive and predictable.

[malumbu]

This is a forum for debate.  How are you engaging?  Throwing insults is not debating.  I made some points.  If you don't want to discuss the issues then I don't understand why you are getting involved.  

[first mate]

Give over Mal. Nobody has thrown insults. 
 

If finally something is going to be done to address reckless cycling behaviour, like regularly running red lights and cycling in pedestrian areas, that has to be a good thing. If more people take to cycling and use of e-bikes increases, then it is just common sense to start tightening up on bad behaviour and be clear what is and is not acceptable. It is a positive move.

[Rockets]

  On 27/04/2025 at 19:49, malumbu said:

That is because few of us actually don't want to hurt others, and that applies to the overwhelming majority of us, whether we ride at 10 or 22 mph, and whether we stop at every red light of not.

Expand  

Therein lies the point. If you now dont stop at a red light and do seriously harm someone in the process you will face serious consequences for your actions something you would not have done previously.

  On 27/04/2025 at 19:49, malumbu said:

I don't think that you understand the notion of proportionality. 

Expand  

Oh I do, whilst others are seemingly struggling with the notion of accountability, which is actually the point here. Ride or drive dangerously and kill or injure someone in the process then expect to have the full weight of the law thrown at you.

As much as you might fight and scream against it if this is passed then it is a step in the right direction to making the roads and pavements safer for everyone and I very much suspect the beginning of tighter enforcement and policing of cyclists. Dangerous cycling is clearly a growing problem that the government and local authorities will have to deal with.

 

[Penguin68]

I would add to this that flouting the law (the laws about stopping for zebra crossings and at traffic lights do apply, even now, to all road users, even where speed limits apparently don't, as do laws about vehicles having lights at night) is a bad habit to get into - the more the law is flouted the less respect people have for it in general - it is to the long term benefit of society that abiding by the law in general should be ingrained. 

Some laws of course can be wrong (particularly in oppressive societies) - but fighting against those does, and should, have consequences.

[malumbu]

  On 27/04/2025 at 21:21, first mate said:

Give over Mal. Nobody has thrown insults. 
 

If finally something is going to be done to address reckless cycling behaviour, like regularly running red lights and cycling in pedestrian areas, that has to be a good thing. If more people take to cycling and use of e-bikes increases, then it is just common sense to start tightening up on bad behaviour and be clear what is and is not acceptable. It is a positive move.

Expand  

The scheme in the park will do more to encourage more courteous cycling than a threat of a lifetime in prison.  The latter situation is just not going to happen.  The comparison with sentencing guidelines for causing death by careless driving is useful - essentially you have to cross all the boxes to get four years in prison in terms of recklessness and attitude, and for most it will significantly less if the sentence is custodial.  You'd have to be using our bike as a weapon to get more than this,
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/

Cars make much more effective weapons than bikes, and powers are already there for the courts - manslaughter and murder.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-fatal-offences-and-bad-driving

If the vehicle was used as a weapon to kill a person, with the intent to kill them or commit grievous bodily harm, a charge of murder may be considered. This is not a question of the standard of driving but rather of the defendant’s intention. Alternatively, a charge of manslaughter, whether unlawful act, gross negligence or corporate may be appropriate.

Few of you want to engage in a proper discussion and just repeat the same views again and again, which for some seems to be driven by a general dislike of cyclists, and/or a number of environmental schemes that have put some restrictions on motorists.

Cyclists are not a homogeneous group.  A first approach is to understand why some are not courteous and what the levers are to address this.  Rather than an ineffective nuclear option.

Funny thing was I hadn't realised how pointless this new change was until I had looked deeper.  Instinctively I knew it was daft, but now I know that is the case.

 

[Rockets]

  On 28/04/2025 at 20:42, malumbu said:

A first approach is to understand why some are not courteous and what the levers are to address this.  Rather than an ineffective nuclear option.

Expand  

Are you saying that holding cyclists to account is the nuclear option and we presume you dont support this move by the government? And are you really suggesting that cyclists should not be policed but that time should be taken to "understand" why they cycle like that? Is there any other example where an approach of "understanding" is applied in a similar circumstance or do you just want cyclists to be excluded from any sort of regulation? To be fair it's this type of cycle-myopic approach which means I suspect there will be more stringent policing of cyclists - way too many think they sit outside of the law and the rules of the road do not apply to them.

I do wonder whether the contagin effect is at play here - the red light jumper research I found suggested that was a big risk and there does seem to be a big problem now with it - bad cycling is contagious but at least when this law gets passed then bad cycling will be punished accordingly. Given the fact that the existing law was drawn-up in the late 1800s for horse-drawn carriages it is about time it was grought into the modern era.