I want to examine this problem from an overall societal welfare perspective, minimizing total fatalities and serious injuries across different modes of transport.
Everyone talks about how reckless and dangerous these cyclists running red lights are, but just how dangerous exactly? Before reading on, take a guess in your head how many pedestrian deaths are caused by cyclists, and also take a guess what % of these are due to rule breaking.
The first answer is 2 pedestrian fatalities across the whole UK in 2025 (compared to 245 due to cars), and only 7% of cyclist collisions injuring pedestrians had illegal manoeuvres as a cause, according to TfL in 2024 (FOI request). Wow, 7% is really not a lot in my opinion, it’s very surprising if you think about it.
If you look deeper at the actual data, every person who chooses to cycle decreases the fatality risk for everyone around them (compared to the average UK transport mode), and increases the fatality risk for themselves. Overall, considering both personal risk and risk to those around them, choosing to cycle saves around 2 lives per year per million people who switch (back of napkin math from available data), and 10 pedestrian lives per million people (again, this number is higher because the cyclists endanger themselves more). It’s clearly the selfless choice.
My point?
We should encourage cycling by any means possible. And journey time (and cost, for e-bike hire) is one of the biggest factors. I measured my commute waiting for the full light vs proceeding at red lights when clear. 22 minutes stopping, 16 minutes giving way (I have pedestrians at least 3-4 meters of space, more than a car lane). I also noticed that I felt personally much safer when not waiting for the full light. This is because when I wait with the cars at a junction, they will pass me once the light turns green which is scarier especially starting from a standstill, while if I went through I have more often fully empty tarmac ahead of me and can get well ahead of cars.
By increasing the time (and cost) of journeys by enforcing cyclists stopping at red lights with rules designed for something SIGNIFICANTLY more massive, we are discouraging cycling, and also perpetuating that cyclists are “dangerous” when the actual injuries caused by cycling (and even rule breaking) is miniscule. 7%, fractions of a fatality per year, and many fatalities saved when considering that the alternative is often driving/ride share.
I bet we don’t apply the same outrage to cars causing injuries to cyclists (improper sharing of lane, for example), even though I bet there’s many many more injuries and deaths caused by this. We seem to accept the risk of cars who own the road, and focus all our attention on the much lesser hazard.
Worth mentioning, It’s hard to find exact data on how poor tube air quality impacts health in terms of fatalities/lifespan reduction but studies do suggest it’s very much non negligible. Additionally studies obviously acknowledge the health benefits of active transport.
Still reading?
Your counter argument may be: yes, cycling is good, but we can be RESPONSIBLE cyclists too, sacrificing the 6 minute longer commute for being safer on the roads is the responsible choice, so we should enforce it. My response to this:
- The impact on safety is not as pronounced as expected (the 7% figure)
- The impact on the appeal of cycling and journey times is significant
- Cycling remains the choice that is the most selfless and safest to others. We should encourage it as much as possible.
- The narrative that cycling is dangerous is misleading, distracts attention and outrage away from the true danger of the road (cars), and will discourage people from cycling and discourage implementation of pro-cycling policies (e.g. bike lanes) that will save lives
- A “car-first” set of rules perpetuates cars as the “status quo” and everyone else as an afterthought, when really this should be scrutinized. You wonder why we shouldn’t design the road rules for cyclists, and more dangerous users should get more stringent rules.
- The enforcement of red light rules by police uses valuable resources that can be directed elsewhere (for example, by focusing on motor vehicles which are inherently much more dangerous, and how they treat other road users).
- It continues a culture war between “cyclists” and “pedestrians” which is unproductive for overall making our cities a better place
Countries like France and Belgium allow junctions to be designated as give way for cycling and the data doesn’t show an impact either way in terms of safety. Again, probably because running reds just isn’t as dangerous as people think.
Even better, we should design our roads to that cyclists rarely need to stop, like in the Netherlands.
EDIT:
A lot of people are saying “red means stop, you’re just trying to justify not following the rules”.
Exactly, but I’m trying to say that the rules are meant for cars, and cars are so dangerous that “running a red” carries an extremely negative connotation. However, bikes are way less dangerous, just look at the stats I put in the post. If we keep treating bikes as dangerous, we’ll eventually be less welcoming to pro-cycling policies and make cycling less appealing, leading people to choose worse transportation methods and reducing overall system safety.
From everything on the news and all the anecdotes here you’d expect cyclists to be the new danger, well they’re still a factor of 100 safer than cars. And they should be treated as such. Otherwise we will never design our roads correctly.