When is it OK to jump red lights?
Last week a motorist was sentenced to 21 months in jail for hitting and killing a cyclist after jumping the red lights in Hammersmith. In 2006, 18 cyclists died and 349 were seriously injured when cars collided with them. By comparison, there were 58 injuries, most deemed slight by Metropolitan Police figures, when cyclists collided with pedestrians. If a motorist jumps a red light and hits a pedestrian there’s every chance they’ll kill them. If a cyclist does it the unlucky victim will probably limp off with a few cuts and bruises. Light jumping is criminal for all but you cannot compare the two cases.
Jumping lights with good judgement can preserve your safety. Where’s the harm if a cyclist jumps a red light on a clear pedestrian crossing at a reasonable speed ? The benefit, stealing a march on the traffic, is immeasurable.
The green boxes at junctions are supposedly for this, but the few that there are in London might as well be printed with ‘please park here’ for all the notice some motorists take of them. This is particularly apparent weaving south through the city on busy Bishopsgate and continuing where the road narrows to become Gracechurch Street before you reach London Bridge.
Perhaps an amnesty would do the trick. We cyclists will stop jumping red lights if you motorists will stop hogging our space at junctions. Now that would be thinking outside the box.
Route rating
Miles 0.8 (Bishopsgate to London Bridge)
Calories burned 60
Road rules flouted No comment
Risks run Oddly, virtually none
Feature continues
|
|
The best of London in your inbox
Up to the minute picks of the best things to do in London, delivered to your desktop.
|
|
6 comments
'Why adhere to a law that endangers me?' (re illegal pavement cycling) The same stupid selfish comment could possibly be made about knife-carrying. Get off the pavement, you selfish git - even if people say nothing to you don't take it as tacit acceptance, it's probably because they're frightened. Read letters in the local press and reports of local community and police meetings - it's you and others like you who are making the pavements in London a no-go area for old, disabled and vulnerable people. What a stupid and irresponsible article for Time Out to endorse - I will not be purchasing it again.
I was with a cyclist who was catapulted off her bike in an accident last week. She landed on her head and shoulder. Result: Helmet severely dented, concussion, face had a nasty case of road rash, broken collar bone. Without a helmet I think it could have been much worse.
Re: amazing statistics - the trouble with accident statistics is it is impossible to measure all the accidents that don't happen...
Did the writer really mean;
'Anarchic behaviour under the guise of protest is selfish and self-defeating.'
Or perhaps;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of protest is self-defeating.
Or maybe;
Selfish behaviour under the guise of anarchy is self-defeating.
Clean up on the stereotypes mate.
I ride through that road system most days and, as I've found generally with cycling in London at all times of day and night, if you ride with your wits about you, it isn't a problem. A cycle lane past Central St. Martin's would be safer and there's loads of pavement but in the mean time the author should grow a pair and use the road.
LB 's Southwark and Lewisham provide free Adult Cycle Training for all those who live, work or study in the borough. Available via www.cyclinginstructor.com. Online Booking!
Statistics show that amazingly cyclists who wear helmets have more accidents than cyclists who don't. This is because, the study says, drivers of cars and other vehicles tend to take it "slightly easy" when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet as opposed to when a cyclist is unprotected. A model Catch-22 situation innit?