Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Transport for London: RLJing reduces the risk of accident

cntlcntl Posts: 290
edited October 2007 in Commuting chat
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?

Posts

  • cntlcntl Posts: 290
    I might add it was "reportedly" :D controversial, but they still published it. I couldnt find the full report
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    Bad science.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    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.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • 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.
  • redddraggonredddraggon Posts: 10,862
    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?
    I like bikes...

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

    Mailman
  • GussioGussio Posts: 2,452
    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.).
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    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.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 24,100
    dondare 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!!!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • BentMikeyBentMikey Posts: 4,895
    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 PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    dondare 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
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • That's right, that's exactly what we're doing... :roll:
  • 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
    15 * 2 * 5
    * 46 = Happiness
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    That's right, that's exactly what we're doing... :roll:

    :lol:

    alaska-fishing.jpg
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • BentMikeyBentMikey Posts: 4,895
    Sensible post Mr Tea!!
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    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.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • 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
  • Friends all tried to warn me but I held my head up high...
  • The second one isn't working, but an internet search will find it.
    Friends all tried to warn me but I held my head up high...
  • Friends all tried to warn me but I held my head up high...
  • OK some reason why it's not coming up, so just put "women cyclists safer red lights" into your search engine of choice.
    Friends all tried to warn me but I held my head up high...
  • Even if the voices aren't real, they have some very good ideas.
  • dondaredondare Posts: 2,113
    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.
    This post contains traces of nuts.
  • jbindmanjbindman Posts: 1,328
    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).
    fgg 1666
  • iainmentiainment Posts: 992
    dondare 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:
    Old hippies don't die, they just lie low until the laughter stops and their time comes round again.
    Joseph Gallivan
  • using the same logic, one could conclude that it's safer to stop at a green light to avoid left-turning lorries.
Sign In or Register to comment.