RLJer gets nicked

ellieb

Given the death and serious injury rates caused by motorised vehicles, shouldn't those people who "get annoyed" be looking at themselves.

Yes, in an ideal world, they should. The trouble is they don't and the rest of us suffer for it. The motorists may be wrong, but they are just as wrong as those who promote the idea that RLJ is accepatble behaviour.

Agent57

iainment wrote:

there's nothing intrinsically wrong about RLJing through a junction.

What about it being against the law? Doesn't that count as intrinsically wrong?

The Chingford Skinhead

ellieb wrote:

Given the death and serious injury rates caused by motorised vehicles, shouldn't those people who "get annoyed" be looking at themselves.

Yes, in an ideal world, they should. The trouble is they don't and the rest of us suffer for it. The motorists may be wrong, but they are just as wrong as those who promote the idea that RLJ is accepatble behaviour.

Agree about the "ideal world" but strongly disagree that motorists who get annoyed and then endanger the health and sometimes lives of cyclists by passing too close, cutting up or harassing are "just as wrong" as those who risk their own lives. Far worse in my opinion

Mr Sworld

The Chingford Skinhead wrote:

I think you'll also find that lights are placed at junctions not on safety grounds but on the grounds of improving traffic flow.

True, I think you'll find in most cities now there are large groups of lights, if not all traffic lights, are tied into computer networks that regulate their sequences. I know for a fact that Chester City's lights are all tied together and modify their sequence times depending on the amount of traffic on the road. At night some of the lights controlling the roundabouts will shut down as the traffic levels are low.

The only lights provided for 'safety' are pelican crossings I suppose?

weadmire

Always, or should I just call you tired?

Who are you calling weed? You have tried lame rhetorical questions, patronage, tosh statistics and now name calling.

Aquila,
This is lame stuff indeed you are reaching for the intellectual bull sh*t button seeking to over complicate. What are you worried about? That you will be outed as a sanctimonious dullard who has had a defining pillar of opinion knocked over if you lose this exchange? All of the factors you mention are probably present to some degree in all of the incidents that have cost cyclists their lives in London, the key factor here is the COMPARISON between jumpers and non jumpers. The non jumpers cop it and the jumpers do not. Try and keep in mind here this is a thread about jumping/not jumping.

Please spare me the cod authority and explain what part of this are you having trouble with.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Always, or should I just call you tired?

Who are you calling weed? You have tried lame rhetorical questions, patronage, tosh statistics and now name calling.

Take a look back at the thread and have a think about how the tone changed and why.

People are trying desperately, and initially politely, to explain to you that (for example) pointing out that most accidents occur at junctions with traffic lights is fairly meaningless. There are many good reasons for this to be the case, and trying to point them out to you is not patronising. It is really very challenging indeed to not appear a little patronising when you contend to have a unique appreciation of the motivations of the police force, whereas common sense and a little worldliness should tell you that you are being let off for the same reason that drivers in ASL's aren't routinely fined, or driving in bus lanes so very rarely commands that theoretical 3 points and a fine.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, please appreciate that in many fellow cyclists' view, your decision to run red lights is a danger to you and, more importantly, to everyone else.

iainment

Agent57 wrote:

iainment wrote:

there's nothing intrinsically wrong about RLJing through a junction.

What about it being against the law? Doesn't that count as intrinsically wrong?

Not necessarily no.

always_tyred

iainment wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

iainment wrote:

there's nothing intrinsically wrong about RLJing through a junction.

What about it being against the law? Doesn't that count as intrinsically wrong?

Not necessarily no.

By definition, yes. Agreement with a law is not necessary.

the_hundredth_idiot

Anyone got a working link to the research to which weadmire refers? I haven't managed to track it down yet and am quite interested to see exactly what it says.
Cheers

weadmire

Always tiring,

I see there might have been another fatality at a light controlled junction involving a woman who complied with the lights this morning. If this is so I think it will take the tally this year to date to 10, eight of whom have been women. That being the case why are you "trying desperately" to convince me that complying with lights is safer than using your own judgment about when to go and otherwise based on whether there is conflicting traffic?

Girl on a Pink Brompton, aka The Hundreth

The analysis was done by the Road Transport Laboratory for Ken Livingstone's administration some years ago. I think it was presented in 2006, it was not made public not least because it is clearly an invitation to everyone to jump lights - what is safer for female cyclists will of course apply to all cyclists and probably for everyone else as well. The report was mentioned in a piece in The Sunday Times or The Times and The Telegraph, I also read a piece in The Evening Standard that at least alluded to it. I thought I had found it in the link I posted in one of my earlier posts to this thread but I see now I was too casual and the link is relevant but not the one I thought I had. If I cannot find the stuff I need I will put in a freedom of info request to the Mayor's Office but that will take a few weeks. Talking of The Mayor I think Boris must have read said analysis him being a habitual jumper and all...

women will of course be safer I

Spiny_Norman

weadmire wrote:

Please spare me the cod authority and explain what part of this are you having trouble with.

Well, confounders have been mentioned several times, but I'd like to raise one thing that I don't think has come up yet. How would you evaluate and control for the wild disparity in sample sizes? Even given that all the accidents you refer to occurred at light-controlled junctions, a very small (I'd like to say vanishingly small, but that would be over-optimistic) percentage of cyclists will be RLJing.

Even if there are cyclists who always RLJ, regardless of the situation (and RLJers invariably claim to only do so when it's safe), they would only be RLJing about half the time, as they'd have a green light the other half. In reality, even hardened RLJers will only RLJ occasionally, so the sample of non-RLJing cyclists at light-controlled junctions will be much larger than the RLJers, even before we take account of the large number of cyclists who never RLJ.

Given all that, any statistics purporting to deal with the safety or otherwise of RLJing should be handled with extreme care.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Always tiring,

I see there might have been another fatality at a light controlled junction involving a woman who complied with the lights this morning. If this is so I think it will take the tally this year to date to 10, eight of whom have been women. That being the case why are you "trying desperately" to convince me that complying with lights is safer than using your own judgment about when to go and otherwise based on whether there is conflicting traffic?

I think it is highly distasteful to comment on this morning's incident, sir. You know nothing about it and it seems extremely serious.

always_tyred

Spiny_Norman wrote:

weadmire wrote:

Please spare me the cod authority and explain what part of this are you having trouble with.

Well, confounders have been mentioned several times, but I'd like to raise one thing that I don't think has come up yet. How would you evaluate and control for the wild disparity in sample sizes? Even given that all the accidents you refer to occurred at light-controlled junctions, a very small (I'd like to say vanishingly small, but that would be over-optimistic) percentage of cyclists will be RLJing.

Even if there are cyclists who always RLJ, regardless of the situation (and RLJers invariably claim to only do so when it's safe), they would only be RLJing about half the time, as they'd have a green light the other half. In reality, even hardened RLJers will only RLJ occasionally, so the sample of non-RLJing cyclists at light-controlled junctions will be much larger than the RLJers, even before we take account of the large number of cyclists who never RLJ.

Given all that, any statistics purporting to deal with the safety or otherwise of RLJing should be handled with extreme care.

Hello Dinsdale.
Actually, I've tried to point this out and it simply elicited a rude and dismissive response.
I must have transgressed the unwritten law. I mean, he HAD to nail my pelvis to a coffee table.

Kieran_Burns

No. I'm sorry. I've tried to be polite but I'm calling 'C*ck'on this ridiculous troll.

He simply isn't listening to reasoned arguments. Is using utterly illogical statements to support his unsubstantiated claims, insults everyone that responds by using a patronising and dismissive tone. Has the utter affront to use a serious accident this morning to bolster his argument; despite not knowing any of the circumstance - not least of which is that the cyclist may have undertaken the lorry as it turned left (not a statement, a speculation) or that maybe there were NO lights involved.

In my opinion this individual has joined this board for no other reason than to insult and belittle forum members. I REALLY hope that it is a genuine newbie and not a regular using a new account to hide behind.

the_hundredth_idiot

@weadmire: Do you have anything with the stats to which you refer? I've found an article on the Times website but, bar the scandal mongering headline, that seems to suggest the research showed the issue is that women get killed because they are more likely to sit in lorries' blind spots (and be less assertive generally - which seems an odd conclusion given most of the women I know :? ). So the answer could simply be better rider education about the dangers of sitting in blind spots. That is, fighting the urge to filter right to the front would be the answer rather than filtering to the front and then jumping the red.

So, based on the Times article and as others have pointed out, it doesn't seem accurate to say that the research proves that jumping red lights is safer than obeying them.

You do seem to have more detailed access to some of the report given the stats you are quoting but it's hard to trust them until I've seen the backing evidence. At the moment, I obey red lights for a number of reasons. If I saw evidence which genuinely convinced me that it was in my interest to jump red lights, I wouldn't have a problem with starting to do so just because the (largely unenforced) law said it was illegal. The law (IMHO) isn't always right - just think about the differing legal status of cannabis compared with alcohol and tobacco for one example of that.

bigmat

Why is weadmire a troll? Just because he/she happens to have a viewpoint on RLJ that differs from what normally gets spouted on here? Following in the footsteps of myself, headhuunter and many others who have since learnt that it is best not to bother. Because however coherent and well constructed and sensible an argument you put forward, you just get patronised, then abused, then accused of being "a troll". Here in the real world, more people than not would appear to RLJ. Its often safer. Its always quicker. And it seldom does anybody any harm. What weadmire is saying seems to be that it makes more sense to pay attention to the traffic / other road users than a set of lights that has been designed to control motor vehicles and forms part of a system that takes very little (if any) account for the safety of cyclists. 100% common sense, and I reckon the (almost) silent majority probably agree.

Great work weadmire, I hope you stick around because on most other subjects people are a lot more approachable on here.

cedargreen

I am sat firmly on the fence on this issue. It's not comfortable, I know.
I always stop at red lights but I can see the rationale for jumping at certain junctions as a way of avoiding being overrun by following traffic- the ASL doesn't give you much of a head start unless you can sprint like Cavendish. What does piss me off is gratuitous RLJ- at pedestrian crossings for example, pissing off pedestrians.

Whether routinely RLJ is safer is probably difficult to prove- in central London most junctions are light controlled, and lorries turning left will tend to be at major junctions- they don't often go down side roads, and the cyclists who RLJ may be more experienced/ assertive than those stopping at red lights. In other words too many variables to make much of a case either way.

The issue of women cyclists forming a high percentage of casualties involving left turning lorries is a bit of a puzzle, maybe lack of awareness of this particular danger among inexperienced cyclists.

My gut feeling is that RLJ may be safer if done with awareness, but I think it puts us in a poorer position when demanding other road users obey the rules. It's good th hear the police motorcyclists dealing with RLJ with a warning. I've yet to see any motorists stopped for using a mobile (very common in London) for instance.

Incidentally, one benefit of stopping at red is that you sometimes get in conversations with fellow cyclists; I've also had chats with cab drivers for example, which hopefully contributes to the perception that we're not all 'lycra louts' (and I do wear lycra).

il_principe

MatHammond wrote:

Here in the real world, more people than not would appear to RLJ. Its often safer. Its always quicker. And it seldom does anybody any harm. What weadmire is saying seems to be that it makes more sense to pay attention to the traffic / other road users than a set of lights that has been designed to control motor vehicles and forms part of a system that takes very little (if any) account for the safety of cyclists. 100% common sense, and I reckon the (almost) silent majority probably agree.

I think many people would suggest that you should do both - keep a close eye on traffic, your surroundings and the lights. I'm sure most of us do all 3 and are safer as a result. I've certainly never had any problems doing the above. I also find I can reel in pretty much anyone that RLJ's in front of me so I'm not convinced it's faster, and anyway a few minutes spent at lights doesn't do me (or anyone else on the roads) any harm.

Also - speculating on today's accident isn't really in the best of taste is it?

roger_merriman

any thought as to safer or not to RLJ are just that, to be blunt the numbers killed in the uk, let alone in london are simply not enought to make sats work, stats work well with nice big numbers, which luckly cyclist deaths are no where near.

thats not to say there aren't some intresting ideas around but a cynical mind, for every complex problem, there is simple answer that is simply wrong, comes to mind often!

bigmat

Il Principe wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Here in the real world, more people than not would appear to RLJ. Its often safer. Its always quicker. And it seldom does anybody any harm. What weadmire is saying seems to be that it makes more sense to pay attention to the traffic / other road users than a set of lights that has been designed to control motor vehicles and forms part of a system that takes very little (if any) account for the safety of cyclists. 100% common sense, and I reckon the (almost) silent majority probably agree.

I think many people would suggest that you should do both - keep a close eye on traffic, your surroundings and the lights. I'm sure most of us do all 3 and are safer as a result.

Fair point, but surely the former is more important than the latter?

[/quote]I've certainly never had any problems doing the above. I also find I can reel in pretty much anyone that RLJ's in front of me so I'm not convinced it's faster, and anyway a few minutes spent at lights doesn't do me (or anyone else on the roads) any harm.[/quote]

So if you were in a race with a RLJing version of yourself, who wins?! And we're not talking a couple of minutes, I'd estimate it would take well over 10 minutes more over my 7 mile commute to stop at every single light compared to if I flew threw them all. In reality, I'm pretty cautious and probably stop at more than not.

[/quote]Also - speculating on today's accident isn't really in the best of taste is it?[/quote]

I absolutely agree, didn't realise I had done but apologies if I gave that impression as I had been thinking the same thing as I read some of the other comments.

End of the day, I appreciate its one of those arguments where people have diferent opinions and I generally keep out of it now, why I posted on this thread is because it bothers me that anybody who strays from the "RLJ is evil" line just gets jumped on to such a ridiculous degree. I've been there myself and its not on.

Wallace1492

There is very much a anti RLJing sentiment on here, and can appreciate why that is. It must be far worse in London than here in "sunny" Glasgow, by worse I mean more cyclists, and therefore more conflict among the road users. Most posters here are London, and probably a lot RLJ on an occassion. Has there been a poll on it?

I used to do more RLJing, mainly to get my "record" commute time, but don't bother now, except at two junctions that I recon that I am safer if I RLJ. Most junctions it is certainly not a safety issue, but a lot of cyclists still do it. It is a personal choice then.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Aquila,
This is lame stuff indeed you are reaching for the intellectual bull sh*t button seeking to over complicate. What are you worried about? That you will be outed as a sanctimonious dullard who has had a defining pillar of opinion knocked over if you lose this exchange? All of the factors you mention are probably present to some degree in all of the incidents that have cost cyclists their lives in London, the key factor here is the COMPARISON between jumpers and non jumpers. The non jumpers cop it and the jumpers do not. Try and keep in mind here this is a thread about jumping/not jumping.

Please spare me the cod authority and explain what part of this are you having trouble with.

This will be my last response to this. You clearly have either not read what I have writen or (more likely) simply do not understand it. The whole point is that the information and accompnying "stats" you have quoted are not capable of comparing the variable of red light jumping. This is because of the lack of examination of confounders, controlling of the two group sizes and almost certain lack of power to answer the question.

We are all trying to explain to you that it is dangerous to label this as evidence. As in the countless examples we have given you, it is possible to "prove" just about anything with badly gathered and interpretted statistics which is why the factors above are important.

So either give us information on confounders, a power calculation and control information for the 2 groups or drop your assertion that this evidence means anything at all.

weadmire

Spiny Norman,

Let's go back a bit. A central claim in this thread is that jumping lights is dangerous and significantly more dangerous than complying with them. Count the references to Darwin etc. This is clearly not so. Expressed crudely, when you make the comparison it turns out cyclists are apparently 130 times more likely to be killed trusting traffic lights than not trusting them and trusting their eyesight/judgement instead. How else can you explain the raw score of 130/nil? The individual circumstances of weather, junction, mobile phone use, rider/driver behaviour in each event are not important because we are making a simple comparison here between jumping and not jumping. The jumpers don't get whacked and the non jumpers do. I don't think the numbers of jumpers vs none jumpers is all that material either in that the jumpers do not feature in the numbers at all. The RTL were asked to look into this and their conclusion was that it is safer to jump them. This conclusion particularly in the context of the female out performance for being killed. It is common for posters to this kind of thread to be routinely judgemental about women cyclists. For example there is more than a smidgen of misogyny in the OP in this case. It is apparently routine for posters to want to blame the cyclists. I can't quite fathom why. Perhaps e'rso tired might like to explain his motivation and give us all an insight.

The proportion of jumpers being insignificant? I have news for you. Transport for London in their lame attempts to make traffic lights safer for cyclists came up with ASL's. These had no apparent effect. To ascertain why among other things TfL very carefully chose ten junctions in and around the A23, my neck of the woods, and recorded all traffic at these junctions for extended periods. My recollection has it that 76% of cyclists jumped the lights to some degree.

Always,

I don't think you think it is highly distasteful to mention this morning's event. I think the event probably makes you uncomfortable. The witnesses who have posted to the thread in question have it that the victim was female and that she apparently complied with the traffic lights and was mown down from behind. All of this supports my argument and diminishes yours. Your response is to contrive offence. And you want to call me a weed? On the matter of your “pelvis” you sure you've got one?


Matt,
Thanks for that.

Prince,

Speculation about today's incident. What speculation? There isn't any. I refer only to the reports of two witnesses who have posted to the thread who tell us the victim was female and that she was going across the junction not turning left and was hit by a concrete mixing truck. This would be the second, third, perhaps fourth time such a truck has been involved in a serious/fatal accident at this junction. http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article ... mes-street

You are keen to tell us you are fast. Do you have any real palmares to share with us, do you have a racing licence, do you time trial. Let's have the details, “scalping” commuters is very farty especially so if you brag about it in print. I am therefore guessing that as a real racer you a bit of a nobody. Please correct me if I am wrong...

BTW. Thank you to Matt for nailing this particular and banal brag – “It's no faster I always catch RLJers” with the invitation to install a constant comparator into the equation. Witty.

Aquila,

Please explain the relevance of confounding variables in this particular comparison or keep your promise to keep your mouth shut. All the confounding characteristics will be pretty much constant to jumpers or non jumpers. The RTL came to the conclusion that women were more likely to suffer in collisions at light controlled junctions because they are temperamentally more likely to be law abiding. It's not difficult stuff. Same roads, same junctions, same traffic, jumpers nil, non jumpers a bloody and painful 130.

Bassjunkieuk

I think the only thing we get from threads like this is that there are 2 main groups, those that RLJ and those that don't. Regardless of the points made by either group it's unlikely your going to convince them to switch sides.

Personally I don't see the need to chance it with the lights. I'm more then confident enough to hold my own in traffic and I won't take stupid risks. Of the 3 years that I've been riding in London the only 2 accidents that have involved me physically coming off my bike didn't occur at light controlled junctions and where instead on open road sections. Both involved drivers who cut me up (one from behind and another from face on which despite my best efforts I couldn't fully avoid). My commutes take me all over London and I don't try to avoid the busy roads. As IP has said I don't buy any of the arguments about it being faster as I'll happily reel in RLJer's (they make up most of the "targets" on my routes!) thereby negating any perceived gains in speed.

I will accept that there are some junctions that it seems pointless to wait at whilst on a bike, but my reasoning is that it's not acceptable (or legal) for other road users to jump lights so why should I think it's acceptable for this road user to do it?

il_principe

MatHammond wrote:

Here in the real world, more people than not would appear to RLJ. Its often safer. Its always quicker. And it seldom does anybody any harm. What weadmire is saying seems to be that it makes more sense to pay attention to the traffic / other road users than a set of lights that has been designed to control motor vehicles and forms part of a system that takes very little (if any) account for the safety of cyclists. 100% common sense, and I reckon the (almost) silent majority probably agree.

Il Principe wrote:

I think many people would suggest that you should do both - keep a close eye on traffic, your surroundings and the lights. I'm sure most of us do all 3 and are safer as a result.

MatHammond wrote:

Fair point, but surely the former is more important than the latter?

I think they are both fundamental to good road usage.

Il Principe wrote:

I've certainly never had any problems doing the above. I also find I can reel in pretty much anyone that RLJ's in front of me so I'm not convinced it's faster, and anyway a few minutes spent at lights doesn't do me (or anyone else on the roads) any harm.

MatHammond wrote:

So if you were in a race with a RLJing version of yourself, who wins?! And we're not talking a couple of minutes, I'd estimate it would take well over 10 minutes more over my 7 mile commute to stop at every single light compared to if I flew threw them all. In reality, I'm pretty cautious and probably stop at more than not.

The vast majority of quick riders I see (Dynamo aside) tend not to RLJ, perhaps because they tend to be the more experienced cyclists and see the dange inherent in RLJ. Of course an RLJ version of me would beat me, but as I said I'm not in that much of a hurry, I just leave enough time, the whole jumping to save time" argument is fatuous. People are saving time by cycling anyway, and if you plan your journey properly you shouldn't need to rlj to make up time. Besides stopping and staring on an SS makes for a better workout, so I'm not bothered by lights! Please note that this "time" point is not specifically aimed at you Matt.

Il Principe wrote:

also - speculating on today's accident isn't really in the best of taste is it?

MatHammond wrote:

I absolutely agree, didn't realise I had done but apologies if I gave that impression as I had been thinking the same thing as I read some of the other comments.

Not aimed at you fella, apologies if it sounded like it was.

MatHammond wrote:

End of the day, I appreciate its one of those arguments where people have diferent opinions and I generally keep out of it now, why I posted on this thread is because it bothers me that anybody who strays from the "RLJ is evil" line just gets jumped on to such a ridiculous degree. I've been there myself and its not on.

iainment

Always Tyred wrote:

iainment wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

iainment wrote:

there's nothing intrinsically wrong about RLJing through a junction.

What about it being against the law? Doesn't that count as intrinsically wrong?

Not necessarily no.

By definition, yes. Agreement with a law is not necessary.

No, I disagree. Not all laws are right, they only reflect the pecadilloes of lawmakers and prejudices of the people at a given time. In my life I have seen laws enacted that were quickly repealed as they were not enforceable - poll tax being the most obvious (So if you resisted that you were both right and wrong depending on the timeline.), and others that have just not been enforced because the law enforcers have no support or resources to enforce them. I suspect that in the grand scheme of things rlj is not seen as being of mega importance by the law agencies and that over time custom will bring about a change in the law so that bicycles have priority over cars/lorries/motorbikes at junctions and be allowed to proceed even if motor vehicles have to stop.
I will carry on rljing as I have for some 30 years with no accidents at traffic lights.

secretsam

This started out as a nice thread, now it's turned into one person's pompous, self-righteous attempt to troll. And I'm a little bit pi55ed off about it :evil: .

Weadmire, if you want to pick a fight, do it properly, don't sneak around on a forum where people are having a reasonable chat and start picking on everyone's slightest comment.

Frankly, you ain't half as smart as you think you are.

always_tyred

iainment wrote:

No, I disagree. Not all laws are right, they only reflect the pecadilloes of lawmakers and prejudices of the people at a given time. In my life I have seen laws enacted that were quickly repealed as they were not enforceable - poll tax being the most obvious (So if you resisted that you were both right and wrong depending on the timeline.), and others that have just not been enforced because the law enforcers have no support or resources to enforce them. I suspect that in the grand scheme of things rlj is not seen as being of mega importance by the law agencies and that over time custom will bring about a change in the law so that bicycles have priority over cars/lorries/motorbikes at junctions and be allowed to proceed even if motor vehicles have to stop.
I will carry on rljing as I have for some 30 years with no accidents at traffic lights.

Fair enough!! But getting way too philosophical for me. You may be at the vanguard of a law change. If you are, feel free to tell me you told me so!

By the way - I've checked back to the start of page 3 and I can't spot anyone calling anyone else a troll.

I may disagree with RLJing, but Weadmire isn't trolling (he actually believes what he is saying!!) Regarding the tone of the thread - if someone (including me) starts out confrontational, I figure its an invitation to respond in kind.

iainment

It ain't your thread mate, even if you are the OP.

Frustrating I know but that's life.

BTW I didn't think of it as a nice thread but more you revelling in someone else's discomfort. But that's perception for you.

secretsam

iainment wrote:

It ain't your thread mate, even if you are the OP.

Frustrating I know but that's life.

BTW I didn't think of it as a nice thread but more you revelling in someone else's discomfort. But that's perception for you.

Fair comment, was in a bad mood, apologies all round. And no, probably not a nice thread, but still...I like to share... :twisted: