Running reds and stops is not unsafe, when it is done so in a way that it in no way interferes with anyone elses right of way. Many states have laws the allow cyclists to run red lights and stop signs (treat red lights and stops as yield signs), so it is very well established that running reds is a safe practice.

The rest of your post was not without merit, but I just want to address this point.

The crossing in question is a Pelican Crossing. It means that pedestrians stop at the designated point, push a button and await a crossing signal. Once that signal goes (both audio and visual) pedestrian have full right of way in the designated area.

In the UK, in accordance with the Road Traffic Act of 1975, bicycles are classified as vehicles and therefore must adhere to all laws governing vehicles. Therefore red lights and stop signs may never be treated as Yield , or Give Way as we so quaintly put it in this country, signs. For the record, on all roads in the UK, with the exception of Motorways and any specified exceptions (pretty much only tunnels, flyovers (designed to expedite traffic and classified as unsafe for cycling due to speed or visibility issues) or toll roads (often legally private property)) the rules never vary whether your vehicle is motorised or not.

Yeah, I know, look at us Brits with our crazy ideas.

Could this actually be happening as described, with light jumping riders endangering a child twice daily to the point of tears? If so, I am amazed at the apparent parental restraint. Though a generally peaceful person, I would be moved to violence if law enforcement efforts failed.

George

To be fair, I would doubt it.

However it will be a very frequent occurrence. The stretch of road in question is long, straight and flat. It's also divided by a central reservation and has a bus lane making it effectively a dual carriageway. The road is dominant over all others at it's junctions affording it's users right of way over any wishing to enter it. Therefore the flow of traffic is fast, particularly for cyclists. On more than one occasion I have approached this pedestrian crossing and with the lights against me some pedestrians who have their signal have paused as if expecting me to blast through and thanked me when I haven't.

But it's not, it's a bicycle. I have certain advantages, like the advantage of a car being able to go 60km/h without a problem. Maybe i should ask motorists to drive as if they were bicycles?

Not according to British law since 1975 (32 years if you needed to know) and indeed a plethora of dictionary definitions. I have no issues with using the advantages of the type of vehicle you are using, as long as it is done within the bounds of the law.

Southwark must have really low taxes if they have stopped cycling funding due to a few cyclist breaking the law and motoring funding due to several motorist breaking the law. Count your blessings in all that tax money you save.

Actually, Southwark has relatively high taxation in relation to the rest of the country. However, due to the level of poverty in the borough and subsequent exemption, it's revenues against needs is fairly low. However the decision to decline funding for a cycling based project was a democratic decision of it's constituents, not the politicians to official of the local authorities.

There is a moral component to it. If you blow a stoplight and get creamed, the person that hit you suffers the consequences. They may not get a summons for a violation but they have to live with the thought that they cause you harm. Trust me, it's not an easy thing to live with. I have first hand experience...not once but twice. It's a cold hearted ******* that doesn't feel remorse for harming another human.

My entire premise is that you run a red in a manner that does not interfere in any way with anyone's right of way, If you run a red and get hit, well, you did it in violation of someone elses right of way.

Can someone mess up while running a red? Sure, just like someone can forget to unclip at a light, fall over and get run over by the car in back.

Only because motorists are in the majority, so they'd have to hate themselves. Someone in the other thread about red light running made this point (sorry, I forget who), and I think it's right on. It's easy to use any observed negative behavior to justify an already low opinion of a minority population, when you would never apply the same logic to your own majority. Human nature.

Which supports my argument that many drivers just hate bikes, period, and don't think logically about bikes behavior, so why be so worried that drivers will hate us if they see us run reds. They hate us already! Does it matter if they hate us more?

Which supports my argument that many drivers just hate bikes, period, and don't think logically about bikes behavior, so why be so worried that drivers will hate us if they see us run reds. They hate us already! Does it matter if they hate us more?
I think a large part of this problem has to to with cyclist behavior. Cyclist behavior is simply less predictable than drivers. Drivers are licensed (which I know doesn't mean much) but they do generally adhere to most of the laws, most of the time, making them fairly predictable. Bicyclists, however, don't have to prove that they know anything about the law to ride, and therefore, you end of with a wide composite of riders, ranging from those who ride down the wrong side of the road at night with out lights, to seasoned commuters who ride more or less vehicularly. Drivers simply don't know what to expect when they see a cyclist. And if they've had multiple encounters with ******* cyclists, it's probably going to affect their attitude towards cyclists in general. I'm not saying that there aren't ******* motorists out there, but this problem isn't one caused my motorists alone.