RLJer gets nicked

iainment

SecretSam wrote:

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:

BTW I share your good points!

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Spiny Norman,

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.

OK I couldn't resist, the fact that you ask this question speaks volumes. I have explained the point of confounders and their ability to make staistical conclusions invalid in every post I have made, yet still you dont get it. You are either unable or unwilling to digest this point, the latter I think.

Again, it really doesn't matter what conclusions this group came to if the conclusions are not valid. They are not valid for the reasons I have explained.

You cannot simply assume the confounders I described are equal in the groups and you certainly cannot assume that the factors I describe are irrelevant if you haven't bothered to look into them.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

On the matter of your “pelvis” you sure you've got one?

Its a Monty Python sketch - Doug and Dinsdale Piranha. A spoof of the Cray twins.

Anyway - just so you know, its not unknown for someone related to a person involved in a bad cycling accident to be on the forum. Debating in a vacuum has, I'm afraid, previously caused people distress. I'm not personally offended, just advising you to reign your neck in a bit for now because the actual facts (which, no matter how hard to try to persuade me otherwise, you don't have) may be both complex and distressing, if not to you personally.

Can you post a link to the stats that you keep quoting?

Just a thought - do you think your conduct on here is good advertising for your T-shirt shop?

weadmire

Secret Sam,

Are you trying to suggest I have been underhand, that I have not acted properly? You start a thread that celebrates the possibility of a women being knicked, you even admit that you encouraged the copper to do the knicking and you want to imply I am underhand? How does that work? Then you seem to want to object to the fact I disturbed some farty love in among the self congratulatory and apparently like minded who want to promote a load of demonstrably dangerous rubbish. And then you want approbation for being “nice.” I expect you mother thinks you are nice. I have never claimed to be smart by the way? You show out by claiming that I did.

I think you might need to go for a forum refresher course, you might like to take Kieran the Obe-Wan-Kinobe wannabe who thinks he understands rational argument with you. Next time perhaps best to distract the copper instead of encouraging him.

Tyred,

I will post it wghen I find it, as I said in an earlier reply I might have to write to TfL with a Freedom of information request. It might take weeks. but you will get it.

On the business of commentary if the connections to the person are going to be offended by anything they are going to be offended by the fools who are speculating about women going up the inside of trucks in the thread that first reported the incident.

Aguila,

In your dreams,, No one is impressed with this intellectualese.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Aguila,

In your dreams,, No one is impressed with this intellectualese.

Brilliant!!!

Now that's what I call well reasoned, brilliantly thought out counter argument

It's pretty clear we are going to have to agree to disagree, I for one will be riding to work happy in the knowledge of your ongoing RLJ'ing. We will all be happier knowing you are safe.

By the way as a lover of stats how are you enjoying the RLJ poll? Must be nice to see it confirm that the majority of cyclists agree with you...........

Mr Sworld

weadmire wrote:

Secret Sam,

Are you trying to suggest I have been underhand, that I have not acted properly? You start a thread that celebrates the possibility of a women being nicked, you even admit that you encouraged the copper to do the nicking and you want to imply I am underhand?

Ummmm.. That's not how I read it.

Dodging traffic down the Euston Road, overtake a copper on a motorbike

Next lights are red, copper pulls up next to me. In next lane, woman on an old clunker takes a good look down the junction and merrily trundles across. Copper and I look at each other in a "is she having a laugh?!" kind of way and as the lights change, he fires up the blues and nips off after her, nabbing her at the next lights.

All Sam did is look at the Policeman, not tell him to go and perform his duty! Exchanging bemused glances when someone is so unobservant of a brightly coloured Police bike that they commit a traffic violation in front of him is not encouragement!

All said and done any cyclist who can't observe a Policeman in front of them is hardly observing what is about to hit them by RLJ'ing! The Policeman would of been failing in his duty by not flagging them down and giving them a rollocking!

tebbit

Is weadmire doing this so we look at the link and buy a t-shirt, I really like the Dirk Bogarde one from the Singer Not the Song, might just buy it.

always_tyred

tebbit wrote:

Is weadmire doing this so we look at the link and buy a t-shirt, I really like the Dirk Bogarde one from the Singer Not the Song, might just buy it.

What odds a run on this?

http://www.weadmire.net/product.aspx?productid=311

8)

Rockbuddy

No weadmire today then??? Given up soo soon? Or just off counting T-shirt sales

Mr Sworld

I'm sure s/he is writing out the request for the information that has been referred too...

Rockbuddy

Maybe they're off designing T-shirts...maybe something along the lines of

"Guns don't kill people, Traffic lights do"

8)

weadmire

Sword, you missing me already?

Perhaps no need to write after all. Here is the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 695668.ece I thought I was pointing to earlier in the thread. Things are a little fraught here because we are advertising for a web developer to revise our site. It seems developers are keen to work for us, the phones are busy.

Not hard to understand why TfL do not want to publish their RTL report. They have tried to manage traffic with lights and here is a report implying they might be liable. Perhaps someone should try to rope them into their PI claim for promoting ASL's long after they knew they were dangerous. TfL certainly now understand the consequences of what they have done, they are just applying sticking plaster to the problem by trying to make lights more sophisticated. I am hoping that the great fan of traffic lights, K Livingstone should prove to be said lights nemisis. There are a number of experiments starting that will hopefully give us shared space and proper responsibility. we should all make a point of jumping them to speed their demise.

The Times report itself is interesting for its use of language: "that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47 per cent of deaths of male cyclists. "Women collided" suggests they were to blame whereas the men...? Also "pedestrian barriers" is a laugh. As if the barriers were intended to protect pedestrians. The barriers are intended to manage pedestrians the better to let motor vehicles dominate the piece.

I will try to get a copy of the report, in any case it will be a while.

always_tyred

Ummm. Its still a 404 error.

Weadmire, without wishing to elongate the thread, can you go over this again -

Are you against ASL's or traffic lights generally?

What's the relevance of the proportion of women:men injured to the dangers of traffic lights?

You see, the issue of ASL's is not, I thought, what we were talking about, although its an interesting one, because they DO encourage filtering.

owenlars

In the article (dating from 2007) it cites a couple of examples of people who had accidents with lorries. In both these examples it said they were waiting next to lorries at traffic lights (in the blind spot)!

I have to say if you do that you are risking all as there is no way you can expect a lorry driver to see you. Wait behind the lorry and it can't get you!

always_tyred

Okay - reddit - don't know what the 404 error was all about.

Weadmire, this is an article about some accident statistics and lists several possible explanations, all of which appear to be opinions or speculation.

Let us know when you have an actual copy of the report.

EDIT: Why don't you email the London School of Cycling? They are the listed source for the article and you may get a faster response than the requisite 20 working days for a FoI request.

Rockbuddy

Hey AT, keep trying the link it works eventually (well did for me after a few 404 errors).

So finally read the evidence, which is the same article that IL Principe posted a few pages ago. The article does indeed conclude that women are more likely to be involved in a collision with a lorry because they obey the law and stop at lights (about half way down the page). However, reading it through to the end the article actually states that the majority of collisions (more than 50%) were due to the lorry turning left. There is then a quote from a Tfl spokesman

“…there was no direct evidence that women were more at risk because they obeyed red lights.”

The focus of the article seemed to me to be more on cyclists being safe around big vechiles and their blind spots;

Road survival code
Advice to cyclists on how to avoid collisions with lorries:
— If a lorry is in front of you, wait where you can see the mirrors until it is possible to pass it
— You should pass a lorry only on the right and only when you are sure you have enough time and space to get far enough ahead for the driver to see you clearly before they start moving
— If a lorry is behind you, ride where the driver has to consider your presence
— Ride where lorries cannot pass you, or cannot pass you without changing their position on the road
— HGVs are so dangerous to cyclists that they should be treated with extreme caution
— Women cyclists are more likely to put themselves in danger by adopting a “don’t worry about me I’m not really here” attitude

I don’t believe that jumping lights is safer than not generally but if you find a HGV pulling up along side or behind you the safest thing to do would be to get out of the way all together. I just think weadmire has jumped on the statement about traffic lights and concluded that the most dangerous thing on the road is the traffic lights where as the article actually reads more like, the most dangerous thing on the road are HGVs and lorries. Like most people are saying here use your common sense, don’t filter for the sake of it and not down the side of lorries, buses, HGVs etc. as this can be a very costly action.

Alrighty back to work………….

Mr Sworld

weadmire wrote:

Sword, you missing me already?

Not really, it's just that I'm off work sick and need something to do..... xxx

biondino

This kind of troll makes me long for the days of YOUR ALL GAY N00BZ LMAO type trolls. So much quicker to read.

weadmire

You sure there is a 404 error it loads just fine for me.

Are you struggling to tell me ASL's are off topic in an RLJ thread?

What's the relevance of the proportion of women to men? Hmm. You serious?

My contention is that traffic lights are dangerous not least because they deliver a false sense of security when you comply with them. If my contention was correct you would expect more people to be injured when complying with them than otherwise.

This turns out to be correct in that over a period of five or six years from 1999 until 2004 or 2005 of the 130 odd cyclists killed at light controlled junctions in London all of the cyclists were complying with the lights none of them were jumping the lights. You with me?

One of the extraordinary features of the numbers is the over representation of women among the dead. TfL are worried by this and ask the Road Transport laboratory to look into it. The RTL having studied the incidents come to the conclusion that women are over represented because they are more likely to comply with the lights. This would concur iwth the fact that none of those cyclists killed had been jumping the lights. TfL do not likle this conclusion because to accept it would be to be to admit that lights are dangerous and to ignore/jump them is the best way to treat them. Instead they look into how people treat lights and most particularly how cyclists treat lights. They record all traffic at a number of junctions around the A23 in South London. This confirms among other things that the total of cyclists who jump lights is dwarfed by the number of motor vehicles that do likewise and that about 75% of all cyclists jump the lights to some degree. Hows that? Off topic?

biondino

tl;dr

secretsam

weadmire wrote:

Secret Sam,

Are you trying to suggest I have been underhand, that I have not acted properly? You start a thread that celebrates the possibility of a women being knicked, you even admit that you encouraged the copper to do the knicking and you want to imply I am underhand? How does that work? Then you seem to want to object to the fact I disturbed some farty love in among the self congratulatory and apparently like minded who want to promote a load of demonstrably dangerous rubbish. And then you want approbation for being “nice.” I expect you mother thinks you are nice. I have never claimed to be smart by the way? You show out by claiming that I did.

I think you might need to go for a forum refresher course, you might like to take Kieran the Obe-Wan-Kinobe wannabe who thinks he understands rational argument with you. Next time perhaps best to distract the copper instead of encouraging him.

Oh, I just can't be bothered any more. And yes, my Mum thing's I'm ace, yes, I'm bright.

I've no idea what "show out" means, sounds a bit rude, fnarrr.

Can't comment on Kieran, he's never bothered me. And why would I distract someone whose salary I pay from the doing the job I pay him to do (ie Mr Plod-on-a-bike)???

always_tyred

No offence, but your chain of reasoning is a bit fragmented. TFL come to no such conclusion. It is a quote (perhaps) taken in isolation and I would like to see the context of the passage of the report from which it is taken.

The report is directed to cyclists filtering, being left hooked and/or trapped against railings and the propensity for men to filter to the right, and more positively. All of which appears to be speculation as to the reason for the high proportion of women injured and killed.

I don't see any connection to your stats relating to the A23. Surely it simply reflects that more than 95% of all traffic is motor vehicle traffic?

Weadmire, you cannot come to any conclusions with your 130:0 stat. For example, how many of the cyclists were "complying with the lights" when they were green? Are you arguing that you should stop at green lights and go on red? Of course not. For example, at how many of those junctions would it actually be possible to run a red light? Presumably you aren't proposing that when at a major junction with traffic flowing across your path, you run the red light for safety's sake into that traffic? Of course not.

There is absolutely no basis for your contention that any or all of those people would have been more safe had they run a red light.

Seriously - get yourself a copy of the report - email the London School of Cycling guys.

Stuey01

The study states: “Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.”

By jumping red lights, men are less likely to be caught in a lorry driver’s blind spot. Cyclists may wait at the lights just in front of a lorry, not realising that they are difficult to see.

Quoting from the much vaunted article.

Disobeying or obeying the lights is not the real issue here, claiming that obeying the lights in and of itself is dangerous is erroneous, the real problem is one of poor road positioning at the lights.
By taking primary, never stopping or filtering inside a large vehicle and asserting your position it is perfectly possible to be safe at traffic lights.

It may be safer to jump a light than it is to pull up alongside an HGV, but I contend that it is safer still to obey the lights but position yourself in a safer, more visible position, or behind said HGV.

Rather than arguing about the relative merits of RLJ or not I think we would be better served discussing how to educate both drivers and cyclists regarding awareness and positioning.

Headhuunter

weadmire wrote:

Sword, you missing me already?

Perhaps no need to write after all. Here is the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 695668.ece I thought I was pointing to earlier in the thread. Things are a little fraught here because we are advertising for a web developer to revise our site. It seems developers are keen to work for us, the phones are busy.

Not hard to understand why TfL do not want to publish their RTL report. They have tried to manage traffic with lights and here is a report implying they might be liable. Perhaps someone should try to rope them into their PI claim for promoting ASL's long after they knew they were dangerous. TfL certainly now understand the consequences of what they have done, they are just applying sticking plaster to the problem by trying to make lights more sophisticated. I am hoping that the great fan of traffic lights, K Livingstone should prove to be said lights nemisis. There are a number of experiments starting that will hopefully give us shared space and proper responsibility. we should all make a point of jumping them to speed their demise.

The Times report itself is interesting for its use of language: "that 86 per cent of the women cyclists killed in London between 1999 and 2004 collided with a lorry. By contrast, lorries were involved in 47 per cent of deaths of male cyclists. "Women collided" suggests they were to blame whereas the men...? Also "pedestrian barriers" is a laugh. As if the barriers were intended to protect pedestrians. The barriers are intended to manage pedestrians the better to let motor vehicles dominate the piece.

I will try to get a copy of the report, in any case it will be a while.

Interesting article and confirms what I thought, that getting ahead of traffic is far safer than sitting among it and getting caught as it accelerates away from lights. Until Police enforce ASLs or we have proper filter lights to allow cyclists away from lights ahead of motor traffic, I'll be the RLJ-er in front....

I still think that this baying, hysterical focus on RLJ-ing is unhelpful. There are far better things to focus on to help people avoid death and injury when cycling. For example positioning oneself on the road, using lights and reflectors, NOT listening to music (which many people here admitted to doing on the other RLJ thread, yet somehow did not seem concerned that they were going against advice in the Highway Code and interfering with perhaps the second most important sense used in cycling).

People just seem to have an auto, "computer says no" and if you don't agree with me you're a troll/idiot/w@nker etc etc (delete as appropriate) response with no thought involved to RLJing.

secretsam

Headhuunter wrote:

People just seem to have an auto, "computer says no" and if you don't agree with me you're a troll/idiot/w@nker etc etc (delete as appropriate) response with no thought involved to RLJing.

I think that's a little unfair - if an individual chooses to break the law, and RLJ, then that's their risk. I choose not to, and I uphold the right to be righteous about this :twisted: . I don't think less of the people who do it - it's just the behaviour I dislike. I can't comment on the individuals who carry out the behaviour, as I don't know them.

But I reserve the right to gloat when someone breaks the law and gets caught. As no doubt those who never exceed the speed limit will have done when I was nicked for speeding a year ago (in my car, natch - I'm so slow on my bike you can see me ageing).

Headhuunter

SecretSam wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

People just seem to have an auto, "computer says no" and if you don't agree with me you're a troll/idiot/w@nker etc etc (delete as appropriate) response with no thought involved to RLJing.

I think that's a little unfair - if an individual chooses to break the law, and RLJ, then that's their risk. I choose not to, and I uphold the right to be righteous about this :twisted: . I don't think less of the people who do it - it's just the behaviour I dislike. I can't comment on the individuals who carry out the behaviour, as I don't know them.

But I reserve the right to gloat when someone breaks the law and gets caught. As no doubt those who never exceed the speed limit will have done when I was nicked for speeding a year ago (in my car, natch - I'm so slow on my bike you can see me ageing).

Yet your earlier responses on this and other thread are pretty antagonistic, referring to people as trolls etc. I think it's "a little unfair" that people who choose to RLJ in the absence of enforcement of ASLs and proper filter lights, get lambasted, whereas in fact there are many other "sins" out there that probably should be addressed.

Porgy

weadmire wrote:

They record all traffic at a number of junctions around the A23 in South London. This confirms among other things that the total of cyclists who jump lights is dwarfed by the number of motor vehicles that do likewise and that about 75% of all cyclists jump the lights to some degree. Hows that? Off topic?

ha! - this is a long-standing contention of mine and whenever anyone around me brings up the issue of bikes RLJing I refuse to discuss it on that limited basis and insist on widening the debate to include RLJing in general.

To say the least - this does not go down well among motorists and i have been sworn at often.

can you let me know where i would find this data please?

il_principe

@ Headhuunter: I think the music thing is a red herring really. I listen to music but not at the expense of my hearing - ie I can hear traffic just fine. There's a deaf fella who posts on LFGSS and he manages to cycle around London without trouble...

I like being able to hear traffic but I don't rely on my hearing over my eyes, just as well really given the number of near silent hybrid cars I see in London these days - I always shoulder check before pulling out etc, and I can hear sirens, engine noise etc. I'm not sure that it's really fair to compare listening to music to RLJ (although as I've said before, wearing noise cancelling earphones isn't the best of ideas). Of course RLJ is illegal and listening to music isn't. Plus the fact that my wearing headphones doesn't endanger other road users, whereas I've had two very close calls with RLJ'ers in the past - what they do can pose an active risk to other people, which is one of the main reasons I find it so objectionable.

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

@ Headhuunter: I think the music thing is a red herring really. I listen to music but not at the expense of my hearing - ie I can hear traffic just fine. There's a deaf fella who posts on LFGSS and he manages to cycle around London without trouble...

I like being able to hear traffic but I don't rely on my hearing over my eyes, just as well really given the number of near silent hybrid cars I see in London these days - I always shoulder check before pulling out etc, and I can hear sirens, engine noise etc. I'm not sure that it's really fair to compare listening to music to RLJ (although as I've said before, wearing noise cancelling earphones isn't the best of ideas).

don;t even discuss it. :evil:

Headhuunter

Porgy wrote:

weadmire wrote:

They record all traffic at a number of junctions around the A23 in South London. This confirms among other things that the total of cyclists who jump lights is dwarfed by the number of motor vehicles that do likewise and that about 75% of all cyclists jump the lights to some degree. Hows that? Off topic?

ha! - this is a long-standing contention of mine and whenever anyone around me brings up the issue of bikes RLJing I refuse to discuss it on that limited basis and insist on widening the debate to include RLJing in general.

To say the least - this does not go down well among motorists and i have been sworn at often.

can you let me know where i would find this data please?

I've pointed this out here before. One of the reasons given NOT to RLJ is that as cyclists we almost need to earn our place on the road and if we RLJ motorists have some right to treat us like crap. Yet every day I see motorists RLJ at several junctions on my commute. Every day.