Recent data reveals cyclists in the City of London face fines at ten times the rate of motorists amid a surge in cycling use and controversial policing tactics. Critics argue authorities prioritise penalising cyclists over addressing reckless driving and poor infrastructure, raising concerns about bias and ineffective road safety measures.
In the City of London, a troubling imbalance in enforcement has come to light, illustrating a stark bias against motorists while seemingly turning a blind eye to cyclists. Recent figures reveal that cyclists are being fined at a rate ten times higher than motorists—284 cyclists caught running red lights compared to just 25 drivers. This disparity raises serious questions about the priorities of authorities, especially as cycling numbers surge by 50% over the past two years—a growth driven by politically motivated infrastructure projects and the reckless promotion of dockless hire bikes from companies like Lime.
City of London Police's so-called 'Safer City Streets' campaign claims to address anti-social cycling behaviour, but critics argue it is more about targeting law-abiding motorists than fixing the real dangers on the roads. Since the initiative launched in July 2025, enforcement efforts have disproportionately focused on cyclists, with frequent patrols and heavy-handed fines, while the often complacent response to motorist violations remains unchallenged. Meanwhile, pedestrians and motorists are rightly alarmed by the targeting of cyclists, which appears to serve a broader agenda rather than genuine road safety.
Studies from Lime, a major electric bike provider, highlight the alarming extent of the cycling crisis. Over half of London's cyclists admit to running red lights, with nearly one in six doing so regularly—yet the authorities continue to focus on penalising responsible cyclists rather than addressing the systemic failings in infrastructure and enforcement that enable dangerous driving practices by motorists. Despite widespread awareness of the dangers, a strong majority of cyclists support tougher penalties should be imposed—something the authorities have yet to do, favouring instead selective enforcement that seems more aligned with political posturing than public safety.
The police's aggressive crackdown, which includes issuing hundreds of fines and seizing illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, is presented as a road safety measure. However, critics argue it is less about promoting genuine safety and more about fulfilling political narratives intended to demonise cycling while neglecting the bigger picture: the need for proper infrastructure, responsible policing of motor vehicles, and a balanced approach that treats all road users equally. Last September’s five-day operation at Bank Junction, resulting in dozens of fines and seizures, illustrates this skewed focus—it targets vulnerable cyclists instead of confronting the reckless driving habits of many motorists.
Authorities and advocacy groups continue to spin the narrative of responsibility and safety, but their actions speak louder than words. The emphasis on cracking down on cyclists while largely ignoring the broader issues of motorist aggression and inadequate infrastructure reveals a clear bias that hampers any genuine effort to create safer streets. Industry insiders and safety experts call for a focus on responsible road sharing through better education, infrastructure investment, and fair enforcement, rather than punitive measures that disproportionately target those who are simply trying to adapt to increasingly congested urban roads.
With cycling and electric scooters increasingly prevalent, the authorities' heavy-handed approach risks alienating the very communities that could help transform the transport landscape into a safer, more responsible environment. Instead of fostering a culture of mutual respect and shared responsibility, the current strategy appears designed more to satisfy political narratives than to achieve meaningful safety improvements. True public safety requires fairness, balance, and enforcement that addresses all forms of road misconduct—something the current agenda, driven by ideological motives, continues to neglect at the expense of real progress.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative presents recent data on cyclists and motorists being fined for running red lights in the City of London. Similar reports have appeared in the past, with notable coverage in April 2024, when nearly 1,000 cyclists were fined for such offences. ([cityoflondon.police.uk](https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2024/april/nearly-one-thousand-cyclists-given-fixed-penalty-notices/?utm_source=openai)) The inclusion of updated figures and the mention of the 'Safer City Streets' campaign launched in July 2025 suggest an attempt to provide fresh information. However, the core issue has been previously reported, indicating a moderate freshness score. Additionally, the narrative appears to be based on a press release, which typically warrants a higher freshness score due to its direct release of new information. Nonetheless, the recycling of earlier material, even with updates, suggests a need for caution.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from City of London Police and other officials. A search reveals that similar statements have been made in previous reports, such as those from April 2024. ([cityoflondon.police.uk](https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2024/april/nearly-one-thousand-cyclists-given-fixed-penalty-notices/?utm_source=openai)) However, the specific wording in this narrative does not match earlier publications exactly, indicating some originality. The slight variations in wording may suggest paraphrasing or new statements, but without direct matches, it's challenging to confirm the exclusivity of the quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
5
Notes:
The narrative originates from the Daily Mail, a reputable UK newspaper. However, the specific article is not accessible due to website restrictions, making it difficult to assess the full context and reliability of the information presented. The reliance on a single source without cross-referencing with other reputable outlets introduces some uncertainty.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about the disproportionate number of cyclists being fined compared to motorists align with previous reports, such as those from April 2024, where nearly 1,000 cyclists were fined for running red lights. ([cityoflondon.police.uk](https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2024/april/nearly-one-thousand-cyclists-given-fixed-penalty-notices/?utm_source=openai)) The mention of the 'Safer City Streets' campaign launched in July 2025 adds a layer of timeliness to the narrative. The statistics provided are consistent with known data, and the tone and language used are appropriate for the topic and region. However, the lack of direct access to the original article and the reliance on a single source without cross-referencing with other reputable outlets introduces some uncertainty.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents updated figures on cyclists and motorists being fined for running red lights in the City of London, referencing the 'Safer City Streets' campaign launched in July 2025. While the core issue has been previously reported, the inclusion of new data suggests an attempt to provide fresh information. The quotes included do not match earlier publications exactly, indicating some originality. However, the reliance on a single source without cross-referencing with other reputable outlets introduces some uncertainty. Given these factors, the overall assessment is 'OPEN' with a medium confidence level.