RLJer gets nicked

weadmire

Are you asking for my advice?

If so I would say always go round the outside, Apparently daunting but do not worry about the stuff that may be coming toward you in such circumstances, they will tend to be looking and you will tend to looking too. When you get to the front check for traffic, don't bother with checking the lights. If there is no traffic continue.

_Brun_

Not after advice, I manage pretty well with a bit of common sense.

Unfortunately despite the number of reasonably well publicised deaths I see a lot of people who don't seem to possess any, and will still squeeze down gaps next to the kerb wherever possible. Suggesting people should jump lights would only encourage this, despite you and I being well aware of the dangers.

Going back to the point of the topic, this woman sounds typical of the cyclist who meanders around without much appreciation of what's going on around her. Fair enough, jumping the light might not have been dangerous, but you can't stick up for her with an argument about safety unless there's a dramatic increase in the number of female cyclists crushed to death by police motorcycle.

Dog Breath

Weadmire, I think you fall neatly into 'Brun's category of those that are completely devoid of any common sense. My nomination for the next Darwin award.....

Anyway, I'm going to stop feeding the troll now.

weadmire

Brown,
Rhetorical questions then. You were trying to patronise. Best to spare me this sort of thing. I have noticed it is common but not sensible for many forum contributors such as yourself to assume the cyclist crushed by the truck was to blame. The fellow cyclists casting themselves as an apologists for truck drivers. Nice. Never mind that you have probably never witnessed such an incident. Unless you know for sure I do not think it is sensible for you to speculate. Common sense might suggest it is safer to comply with traffic lights but experience tells us otherwise. The sensible course in the face of plenty of evidence is to look for traffic not lights. It seems to me you should take your own advice and try some common sense. When you come to lights ignore them and look carefully instead. If there is no conflicting traffic, proceed. More comfortable for everyone.

Dog Breath,
I take it the ref in your post to Darwin is trying to say I am more likely to be hit jumping lights than otherwise. If this is so you might like to explain why, given that so many cyclists jump lights, more than 70% according to Livingstone's men in my area of South London, there are virtually no incidents recorded where cyclists have been killed doing so. They are all killed complying with lights or at least they were for the six years worth of stats I am familiar with: 1999- 2005.

On the Darwinian front it is probably best you keep your mouth shut, I am sure bad breath and limited intelligence are not advantageous in the very Darwinian business of procreation.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

You all seem rather vindictive. It is not likely that we will ever find out whether said RLJer was indeed find but it is most likely that she was not.

Had said copper knicked me or tried to I would have pointed out that it is much safer for all cyclists to jump lights than it is to trust them with your safety.

.

What absolute nonsense. Have you done a randomised study of the safety of jumping vs obeying traffic lights, no you haven't. You are therefore not in a position to make such a statement. It is then left to anecdotal evidence, which isn't worth much.

The bottom line is that it is illegal to jump red lights, if you want to use the roads you need to obey the law. If you dont then cycle elsewhere.

weadmire

Aguila,

You should learn to be more circumspect, rash assumptions are probably a component of most RTA's. I referred to an NGO in the post you quote. Didn't you read that bit or are you assuming that I might behave in a similar way to you? I am thinking here that you might assume I open my mouth before I have engaged my brains. I believe the NGO in question is the Road Transport Laboratory. Indeed I have just found a link. Try this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/saf ... m-out.html. If you don't like the Torygraph I think the BBC, The Times, The Evening Standard and even those guardians of the motoring establishment The Daily Mail have covered this territory.

The bottom line is that traffic lights are a dangerous contrivance and a waste of time, most particularly for cyclists. The Police on the street acknowledge this which is why they so rarely enforce the rule. I have been pulled up several times on my commute, Brixton - Shoreditch, but never had a ticket issued.

Aguila

That link takes you to a 404 page error.

You simply cannot have a society where people think they can pick and choose which laws apply to them. I for one sincerely hope you do get stopped and fined in the near future. You are not only risking your safety but that of others IMO.

The "evidence" you refer to in the other post is laughable. According to you the mere fact that women "are more likely to obey the law" explains why more are killed on the roads. That relies on the assumption that obeying the law equals risking your life on the roads, where's your evidence of that??

Kieran_Burns

weadmire, you are wrong in so many ways it's almost impossible to know where to begin.

Your lack of courtesy on this forum is clearly mirrored by your lack of courtesy on the road. As evidenced by your wanton disregard for traffic laws, safety and consideration.

It is illegal to jump a red light. That's it. It is an irrefutable fact, and any offensive posts on your part are not going to change this.

You say that as women are more likely to obey the law by stopping at lights they are more likely to be injured. What ridiculous leap of logic took you to that conclusion? There are a whole host of reasons why women **may** be more likely to be injured: less assertive riding, prediliction to filter when it is inappropriate do so (think filtering to the front at red lights for crying out loud), lack of spacial awareness. You take one example and define a general statement from it, this is logically flawed, but then it seems your entire 'argument' is flawed anyway.

Has it occurred to you that given your (unsubstantiated) statement that red light jumpers are not killed, you are ignoring the numbers injured, the numbers of near-misses, the numbers of drivers p*ssed off by the idiots actions?

No... let's make wild statements about how they aren't killed to justify being a cock.

Kieran_Burns

weadmire wrote:

The bottom line is that traffic lights are a dangerous contrivance and a waste of time, most particularly for cyclists. The Police on the street acknowledge this which is why they so rarely enforce the rule. I have been pulled up several times on my commute, Brixton - Shoreditch, but never had a ticket issued.

A fine example of an oxymoron.

The Police don't enforce it but you've been pulled up several times? Why would they pull you up for RLJ if they didn't want to enforce it? You seem to be unable to make the connection here: they have discretionary powers, and are warning you that you are committing and illegal and dangerous act. They have seen an illegal act and have acted accordingly - can you not see this?

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Aguila,

You should learn to be more circumspect, rash assumptions are probably a component of most RTA's. I referred to an NGO in the post you quote. Didn't you read that bit or are you assuming that I might behave in a similar way to you? I am thinking here that you might assume I open my mouth before I have engaged my brains. I believe the NGO in question is the Road Transport Laboratory. Indeed I have just found a link. Try this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/saf ... m-out.html. If you don't like the Torygraph I think the BBC, The Times, The Evening Standard and even those guardians of the motoring establishment The Daily Mail have covered this territory.

The bottom line is that traffic lights are a dangerous contrivance and a waste of time, most particularly for cyclists. The Police on the street acknowledge this which is why they so rarely enforce the rule. I have been pulled up several times on my commute, Brixton - Shoreditch, but never had a ticket issued.

I think you are arguing well.

However..... the reason more cyclists get are in accidents whilst behaving road traffic signals is because even rlj-ers objey the lights, out of necessity, more often than they don't, so you are completely misrepresenting the incident rates with your single set of lights in Lewisham vox pop (or wherever it is).

The argument relating to urban road clutter is interesting but also erroneous. The improvement in (to my memory) a small town in the Netherlands was observed where all road furniture was removed, whereas you are arguing in respect of a scenario where road furniture is present but a subset of road users are ignoring it. Take traffic lights for example - where there are none, all road users approaching a junction will be naturally circumspect, or so the argument goes. If they are present, the drivers facing green will be far more likely to treat the junction as though it does not exist. As such, someone facing red but treating the junction as though the lights were not there are in a far worse position than if they actually were not there.

Kind regards,

C. Darwin.

weadmire

Kieran, are you really asking me, or like Brown in his earlier post, speaking to yourself?

Have you checked the link I provided? Have you searched for the stats on the matter of people killed at light controlled junctions in London? When you have done so please get back to this topic and tell us all how jumping lights is more "dangerous" than complying with them. And you such a vigorous posted an all.

Why do coppers pull me over but fail to nick me? They could be feeling lonely and want to have a chat. They might like the look of my a*se in lycra. They might like making speeches about the Highway Code and the road traffic act. Who knows, I would ask them but in the circumstances it might provoke them. I can say I have yet to meet one who wants to issue me with a ticket. This is more so when I politely ask if he is aware it is safer to jump them than otherwise. So far they have been entirely good natured and for the most part amused. On one occasion, mid speechy flow, I was able to point out a couple of car drivers gabbing into their phones by way of demonstrating what we cyclists are up against in and around the A23.

weadmire

Always Tyred,,

Charles Darwin you ain't. You are jumping them or complying with them. The stats show that if you jump them you are much less likely to be hit than if you assume the lights can be relied on. If you have it in mind to always try to jump them the discipline of it probably has a beneficial effect on your general observation. Who knows? And for that matter who cares? It is clearly safer to look for traffic not lights and act accordingly.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Have you checked the link I provided? Have you searched for the stats on the matter of people killed at light controlled junctions in London?

Why do coppers pull me over but fail to nick me?

I love the way you argue. Best only respond to posts where you have a decent counter argument, and ignore the ones that cause a problem.

The police don't "nick you" because they have better things to do on the whole. Eventually, you'll do something so flagrant that you'll have an on the spot fine though.

If you don't know what you are doing, rljing can be safer, yes. Can I therefore assume that you haven't figured out how to cycle safely whilst obeying the rules of the road? If so, I'l sure that we can provide some useful advice.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Always Tyred,,

Charles Darwin you ain't. You are jumping them or complying with them. The stats show that if you jump them you are much less likely to be hit than if you assume the lights can be relied on. If you have it in mind to always try to jump them the discipline of it probably has a beneficial effect on your general observation. Who knows? And for that matter who cares? It is clearly safer to look for traffic not lights and act accordingly.

What statistics are you talking about? Has someone honestly calculated the total number of equivalent non-controlled junctions and controlled junctions and evaluated accident rates at them? Has someone actually taken a set of junctions, and evaluated the accident rates for cyclists who rlj and compared them to the accident rates at the same junctions for cyclists who don't?

Or have you just decided that because "most accidents happen at controled junctions" it follows that controled junctions are most dangerous? Has it ever occured to you that controls are placed at more inherently dangerous junctions?

Most people with cancer eat bread.

Bread is therefore dangerous.

More people die driving cars than free climbing up skyscrapers. Driving is more dangerous than free climbing up skyscrapers.

The statistics show it.

weadmire

Always Tyred,

You will have not spoken to the coppers who have let me go. Best not to assume that you understand their motivation. Self evidently the ones who pull me over didn't have something better to do at the time. As for conveniently avoiding arguments. You have lost me what are you saying I have not replied to? As for being nicked, I am not short of £30 but I enjoy life.

When someone is killed in an RTA there is always an investigation. The numbers in London are extraordinary for showing that you are apparently 130 odd times more likely to be killed complying with the lights on a bicycle than you are jumping them, at least between 1999 and 2005. So far as I have read this is reflected in the numbers for this year to date. The numbers for 99-05 run something like : 130 killed, a small proportion of whom were killed a motor vehicle that jumped the lights; none of whom were killed because they jumped the lights; and all the rest killed having complied with the lights.

For the rest please spare us the self regarding statistical tosh.

weadmire

Always Tyred,

Where do you do your cycling? Lights placed at the most dangerous junction? You are clutching at straws, in London they are placed at just about every junction commonly even on roundabouts. Happily the tide is starting to turn, no thanks to you and yours.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Always Tyred,

Y The numbers for 99-05 run something like : 130 killed, a small proportion of whom were killed a motor vehicle that jumped the lights; none of whom were killed because they jumped the lights; and all the rest killed having complied with the lights.

For the rest please spare us the self regarding statistical tosh.

Your argument rests on the assumption that the incidents leading to a death were in all other aspects identical other than the presence or absence of red light jumping ie lack of confounders. this is not tosh but the basis for causal analysis of any study/research, look it up if you dont understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

Mr Sworld

weadmire wrote:

Common sense might suggest it is safer to comply with traffic lights but experience tells us otherwise.

And there I was thinking that common sense comes FROM experience!

Well, that's me told....... :roll:

Aguila

by the way weadmire have you noticed that no-one agrees with you? That generally means something.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Always Tyred,

Where do you do your cycling? Lights placed at the most dangerous junction? You are clutching at straws, in London they are placed at just about every junction commonly even on roundabouts. Happily the tide is starting to turn, no thanks to you and yours.

I hate to bore you with self regarding statistical tosh, so how about you provide us with yours, and then sit back and watch cleverer people that you or me utterly tear them to shreds?

I did not suggest that traffic lights were positioned only at dangerous junctions, rather to suggest that lights would be present at a greater proportion of dangeous junctions than safe junctions, such that a comparison between accident rates at the two groups of junctions would merely indicate the inherent dangers of the junctions, and not the lights. You seem to be making your judgments on the basis of really quite fundamental misunderstandings like this.

For what its worth, the study in the Netherlands was very interesting and I for one would love to declutter roads. However, since its not happened yet, I will continue to obey the traffic rules in place.

I also agree with you that crossing a junction on a bike is far more like crossing on foot and not terribly similar in may ways to being in a car. I think there is a very strong argument that we should be allowed to cross when the pedestrian light is on green. I also find the notion of being able to filter left on red interesting, although I've experienced the same in the states and its not quite as straightforward to implement here for various reasons.

I admire your excellent relations with your local constabulary and it is heartening to hear that they make value judgments about which laws should and shouldn't be in place. It is a relief to know that despite the crazy lawmaking decisions of our judiciary and parliament, the country is in such safe hands.

weadmire

Always,

Are you admitting the statistical tosh you quoted is second hand? By implication I think you are. I will go through the tedious business of getting the reports on the accidents in London. But not today, I am about to sign off. There will not be much for the "clever" people you refer to to analyse, it's broadly 130 to nil. Pretty simple. Women hugely over represented and lights a constant feature.

When you have digested the links, reports etc I find will I be able to rely on you not to contribute to witless threads like this in future other than to put the sanctimonious pedants straight?

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Always,

Are you admitting the statistical tosh you quoted is second hand? By implication I think you are. I will go through the tedious business of getting the reports on the accidents in London. But not today, I am about to sign off. There will not be much for the "clever" people you refer to to analyse, it's broadly 130 to nil. Pretty simple. Women hugely over represented and lights a constant feature.

When you have digested the links, reports etc I find will I be able to rely on you not to contribute to witless threads like this in future other than to put the sanctimonious pedants straight?

How about you answer the question of confounders that I keep raising instead of ignoring it. Your 130 to nil stat is laughable. heres another: everyone who has had a diagnosis of cancer has previously taken a breath therefore breathing causes cancer, millions and millions to nil.

This is the level of your argument.

weadmire

Aguila,

About 70 % of cyclists in London apparently agree with me. The analysis of accidents is always imprecise. As in KSI stats the SI bit is too subjective. The 130 or so that I quote all involved a cyclist, a motor vehicle and a light controlled junction. None of them involved a cyclist who had jumped the lights. For practical purposes this is enough. I am sure you would like to "confound" but I doubt you will be able to.

always_tyred

Aguila wrote:

weadmire wrote:

Always,

Are you admitting the statistical tosh you quoted is second hand? By implication I think you are. I will go through the tedious business of getting the reports on the accidents in London. But not today, I am about to sign off. There will not be much for the "clever" people you refer to to analyse, it's broadly 130 to nil. Pretty simple. Women hugely over represented and lights a constant feature.

When you have digested the links, reports etc I find will I be able to rely on you not to contribute to witless threads like this in future other than to put the sanctimonious pedants straight?

How about you answer the question of confounders that I keep raising instead of ignoring it. Your 130 to nil stat is laughable. heres another: everyone who has had a diagnosis of cancer has previously taken a breath therefore breathing causes cancer, millions and millions to nil.

This is the level of your argument.

In Sweden, traffic lights, by law have to bear a label "Traffic lights can kill" and the pedestrian crossing buttons are kept in a locked case and you have to be over 18 to press one.

The 130-nil stat, and the reasoning process you build from this is a little silly I'm afraid, Weed.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Aguila,

About 70 % of cyclists in London apparently agree with me. The analysis of accidents is always imprecise. As in KSI stats the SI bit is too subjective. The 130 or so that I quote all involved a cyclist, a motor vehicle and a light controlled junction. None of them involved a cyclist who had jumped the lights. For practical purposes this is enough. I am sure you would like to "confound" but I doubt you will be able to.

Correct at last and this is the whole point. For practical purposes this is NOT enough.

Unless you can adjust for or exclude confounding factors you can make no conclusions about causality.

You have simply picked one variable and ignored all others (weather conditions,visibility, state of repair of bike/car, alcohol/drugs in system of rider/driver, mobile phone use etc etc etc etc all of which could be the true reasons for the accidents)

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

ellieb

Welcome to the forum weirdmind. There is always a place here for people aggressively promoting self serving garbage :roll:

iainment

Regardless of the above if you are cautious, don't take anyone else's right of way and accept that some on here get teed off about it there's nothing intrinsically wrong about RLJing through a junction.
Obviously going through a red at a busy junction or where peds are crossing is wrong.
It's all about context as far as I am concerned.

Pip pip.

Wallace1492

To RLJ or not to RJL, This is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the mind
To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous traffic lights...

It is a very intereting issue, you can RLJ and be perfectly safe, probably virtully all the time, however that is not the point, by RLJing it pisses of motorists and this leads them to giving cyclists less respect, and may well lead to incident away from the lights when they give us less room, or do not take our movements into account, so by RLJing it may increase accidents.

Personally speaking I started commuting a year ago, at first I never went through red, then got a bit more cocky and jumped as many as possible, however I have since revised my opinion and now virtually never jump. One reason is I decided that one day I would jump without seeing a car, or a bike, or something else.

On saying that however, my worst incident was last week when I had a green and a car shot through red at about 60 and missed me by about a foot.

Mr Sworld

iainment wrote:

Regardless of the above if you are cautious, don't take anyone else's right of way and accept that some on here get teed off about it there's nothing intrinsically wrong about RLJing through a junction.
Obviously going through a red at a busy junction or where peds are crossing is wrong.
It's all about context as far as I am concerned.

Pip pip.

I think the point is, as in the OP, that RLJ'ing is a emotive subject. RLJ'ing in front of a Policeman is just plain stupid!

Mike

The Chingford Skinhead

Whether one agrees with Weadmire or not, he is entitled to state his views without being labelled a troll. He may not conform to the group think of some of the most vocal posters but he is citing evidence (or has promised to). By all means debate but don't jump all over him. Isn't the purpose of a forum to discuss differing views?

A couple of things in the thread interest me:

1 The de-clutter idea. I can see how it is great for drivers / cyclists and other road users. I don't see how it serves the needs of the pedestrian, in particular the most vulnerable - the elderly, visually impaired or those who can't move quickly. I often think it would be a far more civilised soicety if we said pedestrians always had right of way over vehicles when it came to junctions. I think you'll also find that lights are placed at junctions not on safety grounds but on the grounds of improving traffic flow.

2 The idea that cyclists should not jump lights because it will annoy motorists. Given the death and serious injury rates caused by motorised vehicles, shouldn't those people who "get annoyed" be looking at themselves. The number of people who speed, text, phone and amber-gamble when behind the wheel of a vehicle far outweigh the number of cyclists breaking the rules.

Btw - I always obey the lights, but then I'm a bit repressed