At the time of writing I am on day four of an increasingly surreal debate on social media. The topic: whether it’s acceptable for cyclists to ignore red lights and endanger pedestrians. Or, more accurately, whether it’s acceptable for pedestrians to be upset about this.
It started when someone posted about nearly being run over twice in one day by cyclists riding on the pavement or going down the wrong side of the road. I shared my own experience of being hit on a pedestrian crossing a while ago by a cyclist who had concluded red lights did not apply to him. The crossing is on my way to work, and I see a dozen cyclists making the same calculation every day. Mostly pedestrians are frightened rather than injured, but it isn’t a pleasant experience.
Since telling this story, I have been granted an insight into a fascinating psychological subculture. The most common reaction has been cyclists demanding to know why I’m not more outraged about dangerous driving, as though the prevalence of deaths caused by cars makes it OK for cyclists to risk hitting pedestrians. The answer – that I think dangerous driving is inexcusable, but that didn’t make it less painful to be hit by a bicycle – has not found favour. I’ve been accused of “motornormativity” and fuelling anti-cyclist hatred. Curiously, the cyclist who hit me has attracted no such ire.
Some of the responses have been more creative. I’ve been told pedestrians overstate the prevalence of bike rule-breaking because of our pro-car bias, but also that cyclists should be allowed to ignore red lights and ride on the pavement if they want to, and that if they break the law the issue is one of insufficient infrastructure, not self-centred entitlement. Objections to any of this are taken as irrational cyclophobia and prompt a side-order of guilt-tripping about how raising concerns increases opposition to provisions that would make the world a safer place for cyclists and pedestrians alike, while also saving the planet. Why do you hate the planet, Rachel?
To get a few things out of the way, I have nothing against cyclists. I think the majority are decent and responsible. I also don’t underestimate how terrifying dangerous driving is if you’re on a bike, nor how frustrating it must be that reckless car users are rarely punished. And I am pro more active transport in urban areas that encourages people to walk or bike when possible. I just don’t think it’s OK for cyclists to decide rules are for other people. And I find it baffling that so many cyclists who purport to be law-abiding want to make that argument.
Partly I think this comes down to the reluctance of experienced cyclists to acknowledge that, in the eyes of the public, there is often no separation between them and the new generation of e-bike users who combine 35kg of powered machinery with a blissful unawareness of the Highway Code. Research by the dashcam company Nextbase found that 54 per cent of e-bike riders were happy to ignore red lights, compared to just 19 per cent of their pedalling counterparts. If you’re someone who follows the rules, it’s annoying to be tarred by other people’s bad behaviour.
But I also wonder whether there’s a wider absence of empathy. Many of my online interlocutors seem to think that because some drivers don’t care about their safety, they shouldn’t care about anyone else’s – even disabled people or small children. It’s the same myopic attitude that sparks shouting matches on public transport when one passenger asks another to kindly use headphones when playing nerve-jangling videos. Or, on a more serious note, that leads to widespread civil disobedience because one group thinks its concerns are the only ones that matter. Everyone else becomes a non-player character.
To reiterate, I do not hate cyclists. But if you could all stop at the pedestrian crossing outside Farringdon Station when the light is red, I’d be much obliged.
[Further reading: Drinking in Soho is a fundamental freedom]
Content from our partners
Related
This article appears in the 24 Sep 2026 issue of the New Statesman, A Sense of Power
Join the debate
Subscribe here to comment