Transport for London: RLJing reduces the risk of accident

cntl

There was some report prepared by TFL saying that cyclists waiting for the green are at a bigger risk of death/accident than RLJs. Anybody else heard of it or has a link?

cntl

I might add it was "reportedly" controversial, but they still published it. I couldnt find the full report

dondare

Bad science.

dondare

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

Drfabulous0

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

It's perfectly legitimate science, if we all had your attitude we'd still think the world was flat.

redddraggon

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

Are you a scientist?

mailmannz

Himler was using "perfectly" good science for his final solution too.

Mailman

Gussio

I am on the bad science side. The hypothesis refered to above is drawn from too small a sample pool, overgeneralises and doesn't take into account other environmental contexts. There are arguements for getting to the front of the traffic queue, same as there are arguements for hanging back. In different situations each arguement holds weight. Justifying RLJing on the basis of the TFL report is a weak defense as best. Lack of common sense and defensive riding (not cycling in the blind spots of lorries or trying to squeeze down the inside at the approach to a junction) is probably the bigger contributor to accidents, moreso than anything connected with traffic lights.

It is a bit like the "you shouldn't wear a helmet because it encourages drivers to drive closer to you" argument. This doesn't take into account all the other factors that might cause you to smack your head on the tarmac (RLJs, peds in the road, oil patches, wet grids, etc. etc.).

dondare

redddraggon wrote:

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

Are you a scientist?

Yes.

ddraver

dondare wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

Are you a scientist?

Yes.

FACE!!!

BentMikey

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

I'm with dondare. It's simply stupid, IMO, to conclude that the left-turning lorry issue has anything to do with jumping lights.

Clever Pun

dondare wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

Are you a scientist?

Yes.

name some of your publications...

I suspect girls are more likely to go down the inside of lorries as they're too busy making sure the hair isn't ruffled or doing their make up to pay attention to silly things like signalling

Totalnewbie

That's right, that's exactly what we're doing... :roll:

cupofteacp

Jumping Red lights is dangerous

However, is you look at the deaths 1999 to 2005 only 2 were atrributed to RLJing.
When you look at those driven into at lights it's 5.
When you start looking at the number of people killed by cars etc turning left or other stuff withinn 75 yrds of a junction the number jumps.
Junctions are very dangerous, is it because you've jumped the lights, is it because you've stopped? I don't think you can tell
75% of women killed in London were by trucks turning left, would they have lived if they RLJed? I don't know.
But someone should find out

Clever Pun

Totalnewbie wrote:

That's right, that's exactly what we're doing... :roll:

BentMikey

Sensible post Mr Tea!!

dondare

cupofteacp wrote:

Jumping Red lights is dangerous

However, is you look at the deaths 1999 to 2005 only 2 were atrributed to RLJing.
When you look at those driven into at lights it's 5.
When you start looking at the number of people killed by cars etc turning left or other stuff withinn 75 yrds of a junction the number jumps.
Junctions are very dangerous, is it because you've jumped the lights, is it because you've stopped? I don't think you can tell
75% of women killed in London were by trucks turning left, would they have lived if they RLJed? I don't know.
But someone should find out

It would be somewhat unethical to actually conduct this experiment. (It might just result in an IgNobel Prize.)
The number of accidents is too small (thankfully) and the number of variables too great to derive any valid conclusion from the existing data.

Jeremy Parker

cntl wrote:

There was some report prepared by TFL saying that cyclists waiting for the green are at a bigger risk of death/accident than RLJs. Anybody else heard of it or has a link?

I have a source who gave me a copy. I don't think it's on the internet.

The report makes it very clear that being to the left of a left turning lorry is a bad idea.

All too many people nowadays ride a bike as if they are magnetically connected to the kerb.

If one insists on being to the left of lorries, red light jumping is a way to reduce the lorry hazard, as the report does say. However, to me that looks rather like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Better, it seems to me, is to be to the right of left turning traffic, or to wait in front or behind it

Jeremy Parker

Oddballcp

Here's two bits of media-bollox, with comments.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 695668.ece

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... xpand=true

Oddballcp

The second one isn't working, but an internet search will find it.

Oddballcp

Try again...


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

Oddballcp

OK some reason why it's not coming up, so just put "women cyclists safer red lights" into your search engine of choice.

Shadowduck

Oddball's link.

dondare

And again:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

I don't think that the report itself was ever published, just leaked to the Press.

jbindman

im a scientist.

i try not to get trapped on the left of trucks at lights

but the report doesnt provide evidence for actually crossing the junction does it- get out in front or stay well back but this doesnt support RLJs (which i do when i judge it safe- Im not a zealot, but seems to me the main issue is not getting in the way of cross traffic, whatever the lights say).

iainment

dondare wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

dondare wrote:

It was observed that several women cyclists had been killed by left-turning lorries.
It was hypothesized that men do not get killed as often as women at junctions because they are more likely to jump the lights, and therefore not get caught by left-tiurning lorries.
It was concluded that jumping lights must be safer than waiting.

Bad Science.

Are you a scientist?

Yes.

A bad scientist.

:twisted:

bracestower

using the same logic, one could conclude that it's safer to stop at a green light to avoid left-turning lorries.