Any reason why you rode through that red light sir?

So I was just riding along (or JRA for short) on the Capital City Trail on my way to work when another cyclist overtook me. This doesn't happen very often, and when it does, my competitiveness and racing mindset sometimes kicks in and I can't help but chase them down. In this case, I chased the bloke down and stuck on his wheel, as we sped past the slower commuters on the trail.
We came to an obstacle - a red light at the intersection where the trail crosses Nicholson St in Carlton North, just opposite Velo Cycles.

The intersection of the Capital City Trail and Nicholson St, Carlton North

There was a group of cyclists waiting at the lights. We slowed down, checked for traffic, and since there were no cars coming we safely continued on through the red light. The guy in front of me darted up Nicholson St while I continued straight, exiting the intersection. Suddenly I found a bloke standing in front of me. I was a little surprised and confused, initially figured it was just someone stopping me for directions. Then I realised he was wearing a high-vis vest with another half a dozen blokes in high-vis beside us, with navy blue clothes and I figured out they were the police. They'd been hiding behind the wormwood bushes on the other side of the intersection peeking through to catch offending cyclists. How sneaky, how cunning!

"Could I just ask you to move off the path please sir?" I complied.
Then the officer proceeded to question me: "any reason why you rode through that red light sir?"
"Yeah, just in a hurry, running late for work." What a lame excuse, I thought afterwards. It must be the oldest excuse in the book, he must have heard that one countless times before. I could have at least come up with something humourous?
He continued on, saying something about that not being acceptable, and that nobody else rode through the red light there, everyone else was happy to wait. I mentioned that actually the bloke in front of me rode through the red light first, but it seemed they hadn't seen him.
The officer then asked to see some identification, so I gave him my licence and he noted down my details in his notebook, then told me "I'll probably send you an infringement notice in the mail". The "probably" part seemed odd to me, he either would or wouldn't send me an infringement notice, I guess he hadn't decided yet. Maybe it just depended on whether they reached their quota or not. I took solace in the word "probably", and decided not to argue with him to avoid angering him and having him resolve to fine me.
I politely thanked him and was on my way again.

Unfortunately for me I did indeed receive the infringement notice in the mail a few days later, and was up for a whopping fine of $352. Now I'm not sure that the penalty matches the crime in this case.

Infringement Notice: fail to obey traffic lights - red bicycle lights.

Afterwards I posted my incident on Facebook, as you do, hoping for some sympathy, knowing I'd get some of my hardline conservative friends telling me I deserve it, but I was also interested in exploring some of the issues and moral implications and hearing some different perspectives. I like a good Facebook debate every now and again, and that's what ensued with a thread 48 comments long and some interesting points raised. These sorts of issues involving cyclists always get people fired up; everytime Fairfax reports an article on cycling there are seems to be around 300 comments on it, with the usual predictable biased tripe that ignorant and uninformed people spew out, although there are a lot of interesting and better informed comments dispersed throughout there too. You can read them in this article reported in the Age on this topic.

I've included some of comments from my own post on Facebook below:

Fred agreed that it was revenue raising and suggested I:

think of it as a donation and it might not be as intolerable.

Good suggestion, I'm just contributing to the prosperity of the state by donating money to the public coffers.
Gervaise said:

Mate don't pay the fine. Cops are farkin lazy they probably won't even process it. They'll be too shagged from riding from the city to fitzroy.
Me and Chris got pull over by a cop in the Cbd last year for running a red. Never saw a thing.

He was quite surprised when I told him they did send me the fine. Gervaise also reckoned that riding a push bike as a cop is usually punishment for screwing up.
Dunny said:

 I would LOVE to see Ned do a runner on the coppers, they would never catch you. 

Chris said:

They were doing the same at St George's Rd/Capital City Trail intersection yesterday. Glad to see they are at least putting some variety into their revenue raising methodology.

Steve said:

It's not like this your first offence Ned, you are well overdue to get booked for breaking that law.

Mark said:

A law applied in ridiculous circumstances. Maybe if they had more reasonable wait times for crossing it wouldn't get broken as much. Last week on the capital city trail when the traffic light finally turned green there was a damn tram who proceeded to enter and then stop in the middle of the crossing. It was easier and safer to cross against the red!

Gus said:

Usually I have no sympathy for anyone in violation of traffic light regulations. I'm not looking at the intersection right now, nor do I know how dense the traffic was, obviously it wasn't that bad if you could safely cross on red. Sounds pretty shitty to get a fine for it anyway - and that's coming from me, I've gotten a red light camera fine in the car before and I take full responsibility for it, it was dumb and dangerous and I made a silly mistake and even I (from what I understand) think your fine is a bit over-the-top.

Jess said:

My plan if I get pulled up for running a red light on my bike is to say 'I was told its ok when you're on a bike and you feel safe'... I wonder if it'll work?! Damn Ned that fine sucks!!!

Andy said:

The only reasonable solution I can think of for running a red on your bike is because you don't weigh enough to trigger the lights to change for you. I'm probably in the minority, but I am glad they are fining cyclists for going through red lights. And yes, I ride my bike to work every day.

Actually it's a myth that traffic lights are triggered by weight - in fact they work on electro-magnetism.
Soon the real debate started with a few of my more hard-lined and/or conservative friends who thought what I did was wrong and not okay. I'd like to discuss a few of the arguments raised below.

Firstly I'll just describe my position on the matter, which stems from my own morals and political beliefs, resulting from my genes, the environment I grew up in and my experiences (and obviously these vary for all of us). I generally don't ride through red lights for several reasons:

1. If I don't ride through red lights, I eliminate the possibility of being caught and fined for it.
2. Motorists get jealous of cyclists jumping red lights, and I don't want to exacerbate the animosity of motorists towards cyclists or create a bad name for cyclists or provide any reasons for motorists to criticize, disrespect, abuse or endanger cyclists.
3. It is illegal.

In some instances I do ride through red lights for several reasons:

1. There is a low probability of being caught
2. There is no adverse impact from the maneuver, no-one is being harmed, and no-one is worse off if nobody sees it.
3. The traffic system in Australia is not designed with cyclists in mind, making following the laws impractical in some instances such as cyclists not being able to trigger the traffic lights to change. The rules and regulations governing our roads favour cars over bicycles and may result in deaths that could have been prevented.
4. It is often safer for a cyclist to jump the lights in order to get ahead of the traffic which often has to merge from two lanes into one lane at the other side of the intersection.

I think that the police fining cyclists here for this offence is disappointing, that it has nothing to do with improving cyclist safety and that it is solely to raise revenue. Such law enforcement discourages cycling and I think governments should be doing all they can to promote and facilitate cycling for the benefits it provides to the community and society. I'm not trying to justify my offence, I want to make the world a better place for everyone - that's what it comes down to.

Another shot of the intersection of the Capital City Trail and Nicholson St.

Police should fine cyclists for running red lights for their own safety and the safety of other road users, right?
Cyclists don't simply "run the red light", but rather "safely negotiate the intersection". Cyclists are the vulnerable road user and are always going to come off second best in a collision involving a motorist and a cyclist - this is dictated by simple physics (large mass with occupant protected in a body of steel vs unprotected vulnerable low mass cyclist). A cyclist isn't going to recklessly run a red light unless they wish to injure themselves!

There is an interesting article here on profiling cyclist crashes in South Australia.

Some findings to note from the article:

• Red light jumping by a cyclist was the cause of the crash in one incident (1%) and a motorist ran the red light in another case (1%);
• The use of headphones was reported in only three cases (4%);
• All night-time or early morning/late afternoon cases where the use of lights were warranted, the cyclists where using lights;
• 90% of the crashes involved a car or car derivative;
• With the exception of four cases all crashes occurred in fine or non-rainy conditions;
• In 79% of the cases the motorist was found to be at fault;
• The majority of the crashes occurred within five kilometres of home

So if improving cycling safety is the goal, there's not a lot to gain from targeting red light running and using headphones. Instead police should focus on the real issues - motorist/cyclist interaction and how this can be improved. Building more separated bicycle infrastructure to separate cyclists from motorists would be a good approach!

What are police really for? To protect our citizens? I think they should be concentrating on real criminals such as thieves, criminal bikies and gangsters, fraudsters, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, sex offenders, etc, or even targeting drivers which are the cause of cyclist crashes in some 90 % of cyclist-motorist incidents, not cyclists running red lights which is rarely the cause of cyclist-motorist accidents. Then they'd be making a real difference to the safety of our citizens.

Riding through a red light is illegal, therefore it is wrong!

Well I don't that something being illegal necessarily makes it wrong. Laws are based on what most people, or at least the politicians involved, consider to be right or wrong at the time they are passed. They may be based on religious ideals or questionable politics or lawmakers without adequate information or with their own agendas; they may be influenced by racism, fear, ignorance, greed, corruption, cronyism, nepotism, etc. The point is, not everyone is going to agree with all  of these laws at the time or later on in time, and something being law doesn't determine it to be right or wrong. People have different morals, and some laws will not be morally wrong to them.

There are lots of obsolete or irrelevant laws in Australia, but which are still currently laws. For example, in Victoria it is illegal to change a light-bulb unless you're a licenced electrician; it's illegal to wear hot pink pants after mid-day on a Sunday; bars are required to water feed and stable the horses of their patrons; you must have a neck to knee swimsuit in order to swim at Brighton beach; and it's illegal to walk on the right hand side of a footpath.
Male homosexuality was only legalised in Victoria in 1981, and not until 1997 in Tasmania. I'm sure many of the male homosexual population at the time would have disagreed with that law and argued that homosexuality was not "wrong".

Two states in the US, Colorado and Washington, have legalised the recreational use of cannabis. What were the reasons for criminalising cannabis use in the US in the first place, something to do with discrimination against the Mexicans? The two drugs which kill the greatest number of people in the world - alcohol and tobacco - are legal; why?

The argument in support of mandatory helmet laws in Australia is questionable (but I won't go into that one now).

Many young people in Australia illegally download music, movies and TV shows, but think that this is okay. Jay-walking and fare-evading are commonplace.

Yet people consider cyclists breaking the golden rule of red lights preposterous?

I think in the case of cyclists running red lights is not an issue if it isn't harming anyone or has no detrimental effect.

If bikes are allowed to 'safely negotiate' an intersection, why can't motorbikes? Why can't I? I don't understand how some bikers run reds, speed and ride dangerously and then complain about not being given way to.

Firstly, the fact that some cyclists break the law and run red lights does not mean you should put all cyclists in the same box and justify not giving way to other cyclists (who may well be fully law-abiding), or breaking the road laws in your car in some other way. As the common adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Any cyclist who is not given way to by a motorist has a right to complain about that, not only because the motorist is breaking the law but because they are being put in danger. Even if that particular cyclist has previously broken the law, in no way does this justify a motorist intentionally failing to give way to them. Often the cyclists who suffer (and complain) about motorists endangering them are not the ones breaking the law.

Obviously I don't condone cyclists riding dangerously, and I think this is quite rare because cyclists are the vulnerable road user so they're really only putting themselves at risk. Also I don't think cyclists speeding is too common!

And guess what - motorists also break the law. I've seen many motorists driving recklessly, speeding, using their mobile phones and going through red lights, but does that justify you putting all motorists into the same box and saying that "motorists run reds, speed and drive dangerously so they can't complain if they're not given way to by other motorists"?

A cyclists harmlessly riding through a red light is quite different to a motorist intentionally endangering other road users when they don't give way to cyclists, pass too close, cut them off, etc. Obviously if the cyclist is speeding, riding recklessly, going through red lights, etc and they get hit by a car then that's their fault and they suffer immediate consequences, but some 90 % of the time, accidents involving a cyclist and motorist are the motorist's fault.

A study by Monash University investigated red-light running by setting up unobtrusive video cameras at two signalised intersections. The study found that 7 % of cyclists ran the red light, which seems to be much lower than what many people think and imply, particularly angry/frustrated motorists who are always stuck in traffic.

I think that in a traffic situation which leads to cyclists ignoring red lights without causing danger to themselves or others, you should legalise that, and that would also encourage cyclists to follow the rules which you really need them to follow, and which are actually important.

To address the first part of your question above, cyclists aren't currently allowed to 'safely negotiate' an intersection but can nonetheless choose to. In fact you too can choose to safely negotiate a signalised intersection, legally or otherwise, on your choice of a bike, motorbike or car. You too can choose to break the law. If you do it in a car or motorbike, you're arguably more likely to endanger others, and you could promote a situation where motorists hap-haphazardly run red lights to the detriment of other road users. If you do it on a bicycle, you're unlikely to endanger anyone else and your instinct of self-preservation will in most cases ensure you make a safe crossing. I don't condone behaviour which adversely impacts others.

Maybe the law should be changed in Australia to allow cyclists to 'safely negotiate' signalised intersections? Indeed this is already the case in other parts of the world and guess what? The world hasn't ended. In the US it is legal for cyclists to turn right through red lights if it's safe to do so (equivalent of Australian cyclists turning left). Paris made headlines last year when it issued a decree allowing cyclists in some cities to disregard red lights at certain intersections, not merely because such regulations work against cycling physics, but because it actually makes roads safer for everyone. And such laws already exist in the Netherlands and Belgium. 

My experience cycling in Italy showed that most cyclist ride through red lights. Cycling in Melbourne a few months ago I was riding back along Beach Rd and we'd stopped at a pedestrian crossing for a red light. The pedestrians had crossed and the light was still red. My mate Erik, from Holland, went to go but stopped seeing as I wasn't moving, and genuinely asked "why are we waiting?" because in Holland everyone would simply ride on through the red light in that instance. Could it be that leniency on cyclist red-light running = more cyclists riding? Greater convenient for cyclists going from A to B perhaps? More freedom?

Riding your bike through a red light is bad; not endangering or affecting someone else is just your opinion or perspective of the situation.

Well yes, it is my assessment of the situation but that's likely to be quite a reliable assessment because if I wasn't good at making those assessments, I would probably already be dead. Indeed I, and any other motorist or cyclist, relies on making these same assessments at any non-signalised intersection that it is safe to proceed and that they will not be endangering or adversely affecting anyone else whenever they are travelling on the roads. Personally I'm confident that I'm more than capable of crossing this particular intersection without the aid of traffic lights. If I was not confident of this, I would not proceed through the red light. Again, my instinct of self-preservation dictates this, and this would be the case for most cyclists.

Interestingly the particular intersection I was fined at has another crossing point only twenty metres further south, where Park Street crosses Nicholson St.

The Capital City Trail crossing Nicholson St in the foreground with Park St crossing on the background.

The Capital City Trail crossing Nicholson St in the foreground with Park St crossing on the background.

Thus I could have made the same crossing 20 metres further south, with the same inherent risk relying on my own assessment of the safety and my own judgement, as with any other intersection with a Give Way sign. Both crossings arguably carry the same risk, yet one is perfectly legal and acceptable, the other results in a $352 fine.

Cyclists need to behave predictably so that motorists know what to expect; cyclists jumping red lights are unpredictable.

If motorists expect cyclists to ride through red lights then is this still unpredictable, or unsafe?

I agree that it is important for cyclist's safety to ride in a predictable manner. However the case of cyclists riding through a red light at an intersection generally only occurs when there are no cars approaching and the predictability argument is not relevant as there aren't any motorists there that need to interact with the cyclist; that is, there aren't any motorists that need to predict the cyclists behaviour. The argument obviously falls through if there is no-one else at the intersection.

Everyone needs to follow the road laws and the system relies on compliance otherwise it becomes very dangerous and turns into chaos.

I think if motorists started haphazardly running red lights regularly then this would indeed result in a dangerous situation. I don't think that's necessarily the case for cyclists, and indeed the aforementioned trial of allowing cyclists to proceed through red lights in Paris has not resulted in any increase in cyclist injuries there. Is there any reason why such a trail could not also take place in Australia? Some might argue that if this isn't consistently applied across all intersections or all cities it would result in an inability of motorists to predict cyclists behaviour. I don't see this as a valid argument. The law could be applied across the whole state at the same time. I also don't think it would drastically change current cyclist behaviour - cautious people would continue to wait at lights, while those cyclists who currently run red lights would continue to do so, just legally instead, although one would expect an increase in the numbers of cyclists doing this.

Until cyclists follow the road rules, I will not respect them on the roads.
Respect for other road-users should exist by default - it should not have to be "earned"!
People love to discriminate against minority groups don't they? The negative mentality of many motorists towards cyclists is one of the major issues for cyclists in Australia. It endangers cyclists, and precludes a culture which would be more conducive to encouraging cycling.
In Australia most people begrudgingly tolerate cyclists on our roads, but the high-cycling countries of Western Europe actually prioritise cycling over driving for the numerous short to medium-distance trips that are a part of daily life. 

The Netherlands have one of the highest rates of cycling in the developed world (27 per cent of daily trips are by bicycle); it also has the lowest cyclist injury rate (1.4 per 10 million kilometres cycled). These figures highlight the potential for a win-win-win-etc scenario. More cycling trips mean more health, cleaner air, less traffic congestion, more liveable cities, and, if we get it right, fewer road traffic injuries. It seems cyclists should be entitled to more respect than motorists; don't they have a moral superiority here? Would you rather them driving their cars, contributing to congestion and delaying your car-commute to work even more than it already is?

I'm not going to get started on the argument that cyclists should be registered - that's beyond the scope of this post and I'll cover it another day - suffice to say that it would not work or provide a benefit.

Consider yourself lucky that there are bike lanes in Melbourne, for if you were over here [US] it is impossible to ride to work at all.

Well it's that car-centric, car-dependent, car-focused attitude of many people in the States (and indeed in Australia), people saying "well there are no cyclists so why should we build cycling infrastructure?" that prevents cycling infrastructure being built or improved and that's why there are so few cyclists - a vicious cycle. If you build the infrastructure, the people will come. Build safe bike paths and people will cycle. So many people I speak to would like to cycle for transport or recreational purposes but don't because they are scared and fearful, because they see cycling as too risky and unsafe. Providing more cycling infrastructure would do much to dispel this perception and encourage more people to cycle. And the more people that cycle and the more normalised it becomes, the safer it becomes and the more people there are that will take up cycling - it's a positive feedback process!

As I say, governments should be doing all they can to encourage cycling due to it's positive effect on the economy (vs. the negative effect of cars) when considering all the externalities. I wouldn't say we are lucky to have bike lanes in Melbourne because any competent government should provide them as they have a positive effect on society, and there is plenty of evidence for that.

It's a tragedy that you and others in the States and wherever else can't safely ride their bikes to work due to short-sighted conventional car-focused outdated engineering, infrastructure and attitudes.

The same day I was in the emergency room with a broken neck a family had their lives snuffed out because they were swerving to miss a cyclist who did just what you did. They missed the cyclist, who left the scene and were hit by a truck.
If you can live with that possibility then not only are you a selfish human you are approaching a dangerous moral area.

Well this is indeed an unfortunate event! The cyclist causing the death of the car occupants through running the red light is rare and it is usually the car drivers killing cyclists (and indeed pedestrians). Everyone has their own anecdotes but it's important to take a holistic view and indeed the statistics show, very strongly, that motorists cause many more deaths and injuries per capita (and absolutely, obviously) than cyclists do. Many cyclists and pedestrians are killed or injured each year because of motorists (see here).

And my safe negotiation of the Nicholson St crossing was vastly different to the case you mention - I only traverse a red light if its safe to do so, and even then, not often, for reasons I've mentioned. My crossing was equivalent to crossing any non-signalised intersection where I have to rely on my own judgement. And yes, I trust my judgement enough to live with that tiny possibility - if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to navigate the roads at all, not on foot, bike or motorised vehicle!

I'm sure the police have plenty of violations they are targeting and that you got unlucky being booked. But you get no sympathy here when you haven't been wronged in anyway. If you don't like the loss of money, obey the law set down that all other road users have to follow. If you wish to travel on a public road you have to act like it and follow the rules that go with that privilege. Plus if your reckless abandon towards the breaking of laws helps fund the endeavours of the more law abiding citizens and pays the salaries of some police officers/teachers etc, I like that.

Bad luck son.

Yes, that's a hard-lined but reasonable approach you've taken there. I've broken the law and I've paid the fine, fair enough. But that doesn't mean I can't point out the flaws in the system or argue for a better system, for better laws, and advocate better uses for an important public resource, the police, in order to improve society for everyone.

Sure, the police will be targeting a range of violations/offenses but they are a limited resource, funded by limited tax-payer money (which is currently in short supply in Victoria, probably why they're targeting cyclists running red lights as an easy way to raise revenue) and so they should be employed in the most effective way possible, where they can protect the greatest number of people, improve the safety of the greatest number of people, and provide the greatest benefit to society and I'd argue that targeting cyclists running red lights is not the most effective way to spend that resource in order to protect people!

If the state needs to raise more revenue then there are many better and more beneficial ways to do this, such as reinstating automatic indexation the petrol excise, reducing waste, increasing tax on, and reducing tax evasion by, the rich, introducing a junk-food tax, replacing stamp-duty with a universal land tax, and whatever other approaches that can be conceived to strengthen the economy such as investment in education, research, clean energy, etc. Indeed, police reducing crime and improvement in cycling infrastructure would bolster the economy. The economics of the state and country is a complex matter but there are certainly more appropriate ways to gain revenue than by fining cyclists a disproportionate 2.5 penalty units for safely riding through a bicycle crossing.

On a side note, my commute to work where I stopped to take a few shots for this blog post was interesting in itself, and provides some insight into cycling issues and culture in Melbourne.

Intersection of the Capital City Trail and Nicholson St, Carlton North.

Check out that man in high-vis! He's doing a good job to minimise his risk of not being seen, but this does demonstrate his perceived fear and perception of the risks of cycling, whether they're real or not. Due to mandatory helmet laws, Bicycle Victoria and other organisations (not to mention coroner's reports) recommending that cyclists wear high-vis clothing, and the way the media portrays cycling, there is a culture of fear surrounding cycling which discourages many people from taking up cycling, especially women. It's good to see that in the photo above, two of the cyclists are women. Note that one of them is hanging her helmet on her handlebars, but I'm not going to get started on the old chestnut of MHL now.

The intersection of the Capital City Trail with Aimee St - unusual in that cyclists are given priority.

Much of the northern section of the Capital City Trail has recently been re-laid, which is great! When this section was re-laid, the intersection was modified such that cyclists were given priority and motorists are required to give way. This is quite a progressive modification for Australian bicycle infrastructure, something which is very common in places like Holland, but not here. The only problem with this intersection is that motorists are so unaccustomed to not having priority over cyclists that many motorists fail to give way to cyclists here - at least that has been my experience, and on this very morning I would have been collected by a motorist if I hadn't been very vigilant and braked hard. I find the same problem on the St Georges Rd bike path.

As I continued on the commute, I passed a unicyclist. The Melbourne cycling community is quite diverse, with cyclists ranging from people on racing bikes, townies, utility bikes, hybrids, fixies, to mountain bikes,etc.

The intersection of the Capital City Trail with Footscray Road in Docklands.

This photo shows some inadequate/poor cycling infrastructure where the Capital City Trail meets Footscray Rd (I was riding towards the road from the top-right of the picture). The bike path continues along Footscray Road on the other side and cyclists have to make two crossings to get there, which is quite slow. I stay on this side of the road because my office is located on this side of the road just a kilometre further on (behind the photographer) and it is way too cumbersome to cross the road here and then cross the road back again at the office.
As you can see from the photo, cyclists wishing to continue down the road have a section of dirt and a gutter to traverse first. On this particular morning I took a tumble riding over the gutter due to the mud, and had to pick myself up off the road.
Infrastucture like this needs to be improved for cyclists. An under-pass here to the bike path on the other side would be great, as would a path down this side of the road, or at least a bicycle lane.