RLJer gets nicked

Roastie

RLJing "for safety" is simply a band-aid for insufficient knowledge of good positioning and defensive riding tactics. Perhaps appears to solve one problem, but creates a whole bunch more.

That is all.

il_principe

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

Rise above it then. The whole - they do so I will to attitude is hardly constructive. Besides which most vehicles I see RLJ tend to just miss the amber, they don't merrily breeze through 10/20 seconds after the lights change...

Headhuunter

Roastie wrote:

RLJing "for safety" is simply a band-aid for insufficient knowledge of good positioning and defensive riding tactics. Perhaps appears to solve one problem, but creates a whole bunch more.

That is all.

I think that's speculative. I'm not saying that every time I'm unable to RLJ I feel in danger, I'm quite capable of positioning myself adequately but there is most definitely something to be said for having the whole road to yourself because all the motor traffic behind is at a red light. If I manage to jump a couple of reds I often find that I am able to keep ahead of clumps of traffic that moves between lights and maintain primary road position for quite long periods. Definitely safer.

Aguila

Stuey01 wrote:

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.

+1

this is clearly the point, the RLJ conclusion weadmire makes is bizarre. It is VERY clear that the issue is road positioning ie waiting at the lights in a lorry's blind spot then getting squished when it subsequently turns left. The lights being red is merely something that precipitates the circumstances for poor road positioning to occur. I doubt any experienced cyclist would ever adopt this position, I and I imagine evryone else here would wait mid lane behing the HGV. This is the reason for those "if you can't see my mirrors I cant see you" stickers you see on lorries. The female difference exists because for whatever reason they are more likely to sit in the blind spot, this is clear in the article. RLJ is not relevant to this. The advice points at the end all focus on road positioning, it does not say jump red lights so we can just abolish them.

Headhuunter

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

Rise above it then. The whole - they do so I will to attitude is hardly constructive. Besides which most vehicles I see RLJ tend to just miss the amber, they don't merrily breeze through 10/20 seconds after the lights change...

I'm not sayin that I RLJ because motorists do it, I'm just making the point that NOT RLJ-ing purely because we somehow have to prove ourselves to motorists is a ridiculous thing to do. I would disagree with you about cars going through amber and it changing to red. I see cars blatantly crossing red lights. It happens at certain junctions.

Soul Boy

The OP. I thought ALL RLJers check very carefully before jumping, or at least thats what they allseem to purport on here? So how exactly do you miss a Police motorbike when carrying out this risk assessment? Seen many get caught in Poice traps. You know the out of order ones where a number of officers stand in plain daylight, in Hi Viz, picking on RLJers :? Again, theyve really made sure theres no danger to themselves or others.

I've been commuting in London for years and years, been reading this for what seems as long.

Something did occur to me last night, there just weren't many women cycling a few years ago. My sisters never rode a bike, I was always out and about on mine.

Maybe lack of experience contributes to the large percentage, but until a proper study is done, who knows. I've given my thoughts on this in other threads.

Apart from a couple of occasions where I've nearly been rear ended at lights (because the driver expected me to go though them - and I have all the RLJing twunts to thank for that) I haven't had a problem from obeying traffic lights. I've seen many a problem caused by those who do.

Do what you want, I just can't stand people trying to justify that RLJ is safe, its not.

Headhuunter

Soul Boy wrote:

Apart from a couple of occasions where I've nearly been rear ended at lights (because the driver expected me to go though them - and I have all the RLJing twunts to thank for that) I haven't had a problem from obeying traffic lights. I've seen many a problem caused by those who do. .

So it's because of RLJ-ers you got rear ended by a stupid motorist, probably changing CDs on the stereo, texting someone or doing make up whilst driving. What a load of spurious tosh! If you ask me, this is a very good TO RLJ!

Soul Boy wrote:

Do what you want, I just can't stand people trying to justify that RLJ is safe, its not.

Well I think it is and as yet, no one has proved to me that it isn't so I guess we'll have to disagree....

cee

I like others do not agree that the lights themselves are the dangerous bit, nor the ASL boxes.

I do think that some folks will try to get to an ASL even if it is dangerous to do so, because it is there. So maybe the lights/asl promote opportunity for poor road placement, but I think the folks who do, would have poor road placement anyway.

In much the same way as drivers can incorrectly feel disadvantaged by having a cyclist in front of them and will overtake at all costs, cyclists seem to feel incorrectly disadvantaged if they can't easily get to the ASL.

In both cases (and loads of other road safety questions), the important caveat is always 'if safe to do so....' and it is the forgetting of this caveat and the feeling of absolute right to overtake/get to the ASL that is the dangerous thing.

Headhuunter

cee wrote:

I like others do not agree that the lights themselves are the dangerous bit, nor the ASL boxes.

I do think that some folks will try to get to an ASL even if it is dangerous to do so, because it is there. So maybe the lights/asl promote opportunity for poor road placement, but I think the folks who do, would have poor road placement anyway.

In much the same way as drivers can incorrectly feel disadvantaged by having a cyclist in front of them and will overtake at all costs, cyclists seem to feel incorrectly disadvantaged if they can't easily get to the ASL.

In both cases (and loads of other road safety questions), the important caveat is always 'if safe to do so....' and it is the forgetting of this caveat and the feeling of absolute right to overtake/get to the ASL that is the dangerous thing.

Or skip the lot and RLJ....

Porgy

Il Principe wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

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.

Rise above it then. The whole - they do so I will to attitude is hardly constructive. Besides which most vehicles I see RLJ tend to just miss the amber, they don't merrily breeze through 10/20 seconds after the lights change...

first time i saw a car RLJ i was aghast - about 12 years ago. ~Mind you it was pretty extreme, the guy mounted the pavement to pass the queue at the lights and then drove straight through the lights at red - and it wasn't a police car.

since then it's become almost common place. most weeks i see a car apparently getting fed up with waiting and just go through a red if there's no other traffic.

but yes - the usual is speed up to get through before it goes red and end up going past red by about 5 seconds or so - especially buses. And quite often you can watch the pedstrians who had started crossing scattering to safety. I've nearly been hit a few times on my bike by RLJing drivers.

Kieran_Burns

cee wrote:

I like others do not agree that the lights themselves are the dangerous bit, nor the ASL boxes.

I do think that some folks will try to get to an ASL even if it is dangerous to do so, because it is there. So maybe the lights/asl promote opportunity for poor road placement, but I think the folks who do, would have poor road placement anyway.

In much the same way as drivers can incorrectly feel disadvantaged by having a cyclist in front of them and will overtake at all costs, cyclists seem to feel incorrectly disadvantaged if they can't easily get to the ASL.

In both cases (and loads of other road safety questions), the important caveat is always 'if safe to do so....' and it is the forgetting of this caveat and the feeling of absolute right to overtake/get to the ASL that is the dangerous thing.

+1 good post.

I have to say that I have been guilty of trying to get to the ASL myself in the past and soon realised the futility and pointlessness of the exercise. Now if it's busy, I wait.

biondino

Headhuunter wrote:

Well I think it is and as yet, no one has proved to me that it isn't so I guess we'll have to disagree....

You didn't read my post of a few weeks ago where a RLJer was almost totalled by a black cab simultaneously RLJing the other set of lights at a crossroads?

When you ride unpredictably you're by definition putting yourself at risk of danger.

_Brun_

Soul Boy wrote:

Do what you want, I just can't stand people trying to justify that RLJ is safe, its not.

Thousands (tens of?) of lights are jumped by cyclists in London every single day. I can't pluck the casualty rates out of thin air, but I'd love to know on what basis you assert it's dangerous. Lack of broken bikes and riders piled up all over the place tends to suggest it isn't, particularly

Also, possibly millions of junctions are crossed by pedestrians while the red man is lit. That doesn't appear to be very dangerous either.

Headhuunter

biondino wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Well I think it is and as yet, no one has proved to me that it isn't so I guess we'll have to disagree....

You didn't read my post of a few weeks ago where a RLJer was almost totalled by a black cab simultaneously RLJing the other set of lights at a crossroads?

When you ride unpredictably you're by definition putting yourself at risk of danger.

Possibly but in IMHO you expose yourself to far greater unpredictability waiting at lights when you risk being left hooked, swerved in front of, bumped from behind, etc etc. You're caught in the middle of a bunch of cars and other motor traffic if you haven't managed to get to the ASL (which was probably blocked) and take primary position at the front.

When I RLJ as I have pointed out, once I have CAREFULLY crossed the junction, I have the road to myself and can take primary road position for quite a while.

weadmire

Tyred, "No offense"? Spare me. From you we have had patronage, dick rhetorical questions, assumptions and eyes that seem to be blind to the word troll etc.

What I think you mean to say is that you and yours would like my reasoning to be a bit fragmented. You cannot say that the RTL report does not come to that conclusion. You can say that TfL does not want the RTL report to come to that conclusion. TfL have a serious vested interest in traffic lights if only for the legacy of that which they have foisted upon us.

The observation that more motor vehicles jump lights than do cyclists is indeed a reflection that there are more of them, but so what?

We have had some worthy stuff about road positioning, primary and the like. Extrapolate a little, advise the people you know to position themselves right off the front to be safe. Stop inviting them to kid themselves that trying to hold the primary position on busy roads in London is a practical proposition. It is not. I am neither small, nor retiring, nor slow. Primary down the A23 in the rush hour is a non starter.

The issue of the riders complying with green lights, ie arriving at the lights when they are green is an interesting one. My father taught me to jump lights having had the experience of being regularly up ended going through green lights while assuming he was safe. It was his contention that trusting lights is the issue. When you decide not to trust them it is hard not to come to the conclusion that you should jump them. In my experience he is right. Within this thread we had a non jumper saying he had come as close to a whack as he had ever come going through a green light, this backs my contention up and diminishes yours. 130/nil similarly backs me up. You claim it does not, not because you are open minded and curious but because you can't quite bring yourself to leave your wrong headed position. Admit that you are sanctimonious and contrived in this, you will feel better.

For the last time do not attempt to patronise me with cod advice like: “Seriously get yourself... “ You are not addressing me you are talking to yourself and your fellow travelers. This is rude.

tailwindhome

Stuey wrote:

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.

Aquila wrote:

It is VERY clear that the issue is road positioning ie waiting at the lights in a lorry's blind spot then getting squished when it subsequently turns left. The lights being red is merely something that precipitates the circumstances for poor road positioning to occur. I doubt any experienced cyclist would ever adopt this position, I and I imagine evryone else here would wait mid lane behing the HGV. This is the reason for those "if you can't see my mirrors I cant see you" stickers you see on lorries. The female difference exists because for whatever reason they are more likely to sit in the blind spot, this is clear in the article. RLJ is not relevant to this. The advice points at the end all focus on road positioning, it does not say jump red lights so we can just abolish them.

Worth repeating for slow learners?

Rockbuddy

weadmire wrote:

The issue of the riders complying with green lights, ie arriving at the lights when they are green is an interesting one. My father taught me to jump lights having had the experience of being regularly up ended going through green lights while assuming he was safe. It was his contention that trusting lights is the issue. When you decide not to trust them it is hard not to come to the conclusion that you should jump them. In my experience he is right. Within this thread we had a non jumper saying he had come as close to a whack as he had ever come going through a green light, this backs my contention up and diminishes yours.

Hang on, where's the logic here? You are promoting that cyclists ignore red lights for their own safety. That's your position, fair enough, so how does someone having a close shave with a car who decided to RLJ at speed back up your views? The car was jumping lights which you promote while cycling, what goes around comes around. Don't you see any negative repercussions of your promoting RLJing? (This is a serious question, it’s not rhetorical).

Aguila

Rockbuddy wrote:

weadmire wrote:

The issue of the riders complying with green lights, ie arriving at the lights when they are green is an interesting one. My father taught me to jump lights having had the experience of being regularly up ended going through green lights while assuming he was safe. It was his contention that trusting lights is the issue. When you decide not to trust them it is hard not to come to the conclusion that you should jump them. In my experience he is right. Within this thread we had a non jumper saying he had come as close to a whack as he had ever come going through a green light, this backs my contention up and diminishes yours.

Hang on, where's the logic here? You are promoting that cyclists ignore red lights for their own safety. That's your position, fair enough, so how does someone having a close shave with a car who decided to RLJ at speed back up your views? The car was jumping lights which you promote while cycling, what goes around comes around. Don't you see any negative repercussions of your promoting RLJing? (This is a serious question, it’s not rhetorical).

You're onto a loser looking for logic in his argument. Seriously though your point is a good one. The world weadmire wants would have no traffic lights and would be full of junctions with multiple sets of traffic trying to barge past each other without control, these experiences would become the norm.

tailwindhome

Aguila wrote:

The world weadmire wants would have no traffic lights and would be full of junctions with multiple sets of traffic trying to barge past each other without control, these experiences would become the norm.

Was this not tried somewhere as an experiment in road safety?

Will find link and report back


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ights.html

Greg T

Headhuunter wrote:

When I RLJ as I have pointed out, once I have CAREFULLY crossed the junction.

Good lad.

I make sure the newsagent is looking the other way before I nick the Mars bar.

It's all about observation.

Also - don't mug fit young men - you'll get a shoeing - go for frail old ladies - it's much safer.

Aguila

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Aguila wrote:

The world weadmire wants would have no traffic lights and would be full of junctions with multiple sets of traffic trying to barge past each other without control, these experiences would become the norm.

Was this not tried somewhere as an experiment in road safety?

Will find link and report back


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ights.html

That's interesting, I can't help thinking it would never work in this country because of the nature of most British people who IMO are more selfish/aggressive/inconsiderate than our European equivalents we run on the "I'm alright Jack, screw you philosophy" (OK huge generalisation granted but true for a lot of people, esp drivers). Plus the numbers of cyclists is so much higher there they are more cycle friendly per se.

Just think of what happens here when a set of lights breaks, the result is always unbridled chaos.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Tyred, "No offense"? Spare me. From you we have had patronage, dick rhetorical questions, assumptions and eyes that seem to be blind to the word troll etc.

I don't think I called you a troll.

What I think you mean to say is that you and yours would like my reasoning to be a bit fragmented. You cannot say that the RTL report does not come to that conclusion. You can say that TfL does not want the RTL report to come to that conclusion. TfL have a serious vested interest in traffic lights if only for the legacy of that which they have foisted upon us.

Possibly. I honestly am of the opinion that your reasoning is erroneous, but yes, there is no particular reason to assume that TfL are entirely objective. But lets read the report. It would be interesting. Its good that you highlighted it.

The observation that more motor vehicles jump lights than do cyclists is indeed a reflection that there are more of them, but so what?

I'm sorry I don't understand your point then. Are you saying that because cars run red lights, you might be hit by one if you are going on green? Surely there are more cars who obey red lights and proceed on green?

trying to hold the primary position on busy roads in London is a practical proposition. Primary down the A23 in the rush hour is a non starter.

Of course it isn't, however appropriate positioning at junctions, roundabouts etc. is perfectly possible. So I think that there is a good argument that good road craft vs. bad road craft is far more significant than to RLJ or not. I personally think that there is also an argument to say that if you ride in a certain way, it can seem better to RLJ - and perhaps if you ride that way (which is not necessarily particularly bad or anything) it is. I would go on to say that there is an even better way to cycle which does not involve RLJing.

Within this thread we had a non jumper saying he had come as close to a whack as he had ever come going through a green light, this backs my contention up and diminishes yours.

Yup, one event to nil.

130/nil similarly backs me up.

Absolutely it doesn't. You are drawing conclusions that cannot be supported by the datum. Its consistent with that one statistic, yes, but so are other explanations, for example that the overwhealming majority of traffic passing through controlled junctions does so whilst obeying the road signals. For example, if one vehicle in 1000 disobeys the road signal, there is roughly a 90% chance that your statistic (if taken at face value) simply reflects average traffic flow through such junctions.

I'd like to know more about your statistic that 75% of cyclists run red lights to some extent. This needs definition:
- does this mean that 75% of cyclists run at least some red lights?
- If so, what are the total proportion of red lights run by cyclists?
- Do all of those 75% run all red lights they encounter?
- define "to some extent".
- Does this mean if I place my front wheel over the white line, I've run the red light "to some extent"?
- What if I roll forward a foot to clip in when the opposing light goes red, so that I get away fast when mine goes green? Is that a RLJ?
- If I have ever run a red light for any reason, for example late at night when the induction loop won't detect me, or when a red light has malfunctioned, does this count?

These are not patronising rhetorical questions, Weadmire, I actually want an answer.

This is rude.

:shock:

Headhuunter

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Stuey wrote:

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.

Aquila wrote:

It is VERY clear that the issue is road positioning ie waiting at the lights in a lorry's blind spot then getting squished when it subsequently turns left. The lights being red is merely something that precipitates the circumstances for poor road positioning to occur. I doubt any experienced cyclist would ever adopt this position, I and I imagine evryone else here would wait mid lane behing the HGV. This is the reason for those "if you can't see my mirrors I cant see you" stickers you see on lorries. The female difference exists because for whatever reason they are more likely to sit in the blind spot, this is clear in the article. RLJ is not relevant to this. The advice points at the end all focus on road positioning, it does not say jump red lights so we can just abolish them.

Worth repeating for slow learners?

Repeat it as patronisingly as you wish. I don't agree....

weadmire

I did not say you called me a troll. You miscounted the number of people who did call me a troll by a multiple of three or four. Trust me when I say I am not bothered by people for whom a troll is someone whose main offence is to not agree with them.

You do not understand the point I am making about the aggregate number of motor vehicles that jump lights exceeding the number of cyclists that jump lights? Hmmm.

Positioning at junctions etc? The RTL are apparently of the opinion that the best position for all cyclists at light controlled junctions is well off the front. Headhunter and I and a large number of other readers of these forums certainly agree with them. I expect that you do too but like TfL you just can't find the words to express yourself properly.

The near miss on green reported here and described by you as “one event to nil” is worth expanding upon, not least because I am being accused of being illogical by some earlier poster or other. The danger in assuming you are safe when you arrive at lights that are green is the problem here. In fact it is the same problem with all light conditions red, amber or green, it just varies by degree. A key danger when arriving at lights that are green is in getting right hooked by oncoming traffic that is turning right across you. In my father's experience you relax your guard slightly if you give lights credibility and they are green. If they are red you will tend to look more carefully. It was his contention, and I agree, that being of the inclination to always proceed regardless of the colour of the light will maintain your alertness. And will probably usefully maintain it for all the threats that you face.

Supported by the “datum”, is this you trying for authority with obscure words again or just a typo? Certainly what follows can most politely be described here as a typo. It's just a load of old intellectualese. Who do you think you are talking to, Aquila? Stop spouting this rubbish. All but about 8 of the 130 parties to the collisions were complying with the lights. The 8 had the cyclist complying and the motor vehicle not complying. The 130/nil is a comparison. If it was more dangerous to jump than comply jumpers would be being hurt, they ain't.

“To some extent” means just what it says. The TfL surveyors were suitably pedantic. I can't recall the precise breakdown, my recollection had it that about 30% went all the way through, another 10% went half way if there was an island at the junction, 20% went well beyond the ASL etc etc.

Do you ever stop with the coded language? Your “let's read the report” demonstrates you have not read it, so what was your “Seriously - get yourself a copy of the report - email the London School of Cycling guys.” about? This clearly implies you have read it. Clearly you have not. In your last post you conclude with ”These are not patronising rhetorical questions, Weadmire, I actually want an answer.” You do not want an answer you want a dispute, probably because your vanity gets in the way of admitting you and yours are wrong.

always_tyred

What don't you agree with, HH?

Headhuunter

Aguila wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Aguila wrote:

The world weadmire wants would have no traffic lights and would be full of junctions with multiple sets of traffic trying to barge past each other without control, these experiences would become the norm.

Was this not tried somewhere as an experiment in road safety?

Will find link and report back


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ights.html

That's interesting, I can't help thinking it would never work in this country because of the nature of most British people who IMO are more selfish/aggressive/inconsiderate than our European equivalents we run on the "I'm alright Jack, screw you philosophy" (OK huge generalisation granted but true for a lot of people, esp drivers). Plus the numbers of cyclists is so much higher there they are more cycle friendly per se.

Just think of what happens here when a set of lights breaks, the result is always unbridled chaos.

Yet as someone said on one of the other threads, RLJ-ing is completely acceptable in many contintental cities including Antwerp where it's perfectly normal for cyclists to proceed on red if the way is clear, just as it's perfectly acceptable for peds to cross when the red man is showing.

Headhuunter

Always Tyred wrote:

What don't you agree with, HH?

That it's all down to road positioning

Spiny_Norman

Always Tyred wrote:

weadmire wrote:

130/nil similarly backs me up.

Absolutely it doesn't. You are drawing conclusions that cannot be supported by the datum. Its consistent with that one statistic, yes, but so are other explanations, for example that the overwhealming majority of traffic passing through controlled junctions does so whilst obeying the road signals. For example, if one vehicle in 1000 disobeys the road signal, there is roughly a 90% chance that your statistic (if taken at face value) simply reflects average traffic flow through such junctions.

I'd like to know more about your statistic that 75% of cyclists run red lights to some extent. This needs definition:
- does this mean that 75% of cyclists run at least some red lights?
- If so, what are the total proportion of red lights run by cyclists?
- Do all of those 75% run all red lights they encounter?
- define "to some extent".
- Does this mean if I place my front wheel over the white line, I've run the red light "to some extent"?
- What if I roll forward a foot to clip in when the opposing light goes red, so that I get away fast when mine goes green? Is that a RLJ?
- If I have ever run a red light for any reason, for example late at night when the induction loop won't detect me, or when a red light has malfunctioned, does this count?

+1

weadmire, I'm quite happy to consider good, reliable, statistically significant evidence about the safety of RLJing, and depending on your definition, it wouldn't surprise me if it has a small positive impact on safety, but what you've presented so far doesn't tell us anything. The sample size is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions, although it may well be enough to prompt further research; the conclusions as quoted in the linked article are supposition; the respective sample sizes, as I said earlier, haven't been defined or evaluated; and most importantly of all, correlation does not imply causation.

ETA:

weadmire wrote:

“To some extent” means just what it says. The TfL surveyors were suitably pedantic. I can't recall the precise breakdown, my recollection had it that about 30% went all the way through, another 10% went half way if there was an island at the junction, 20% went well beyond the ASL etc etc.

This doesn't answer the question. To begin to make any sense of the statistics you quote, we need a precise breakdown of the proportion of cyclists passing through light-controlled junctions do so in a given way, and particularly how different non-RLJing cyclists behave at reds. There's a strong suggestion in what's been posted so far that the problem isn't non-RLJers, but rather cyclists who are daft enough to put themselves on the inside of lorries.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

You do not understand the point I am making about the aggregate number of motor vehicles that jump lights exceeding the number of cyclists that jump lights? Hmmm.

Yes, your mental acrobatics have left me rooted to the spot.

Positioning at junctions etc? The RTL are apparently of the opinion that the best position for all cyclists at light controlled junctions is well off the front. Headhunter and I and a large number of other readers of these forums certainly agree with them. I expect that you do too but like TfL you just can't find the words to express yourself properly.

Well, I do agree with you. That's not the same as going across the junction, i.e. RLJing, though. So do have some agreement.

I even agree that there is a damn good argument that bikes should be allowed to go when pedestrians go (at light controled junctions). At the moment, we can't (legally) and so I don't.

in fact it is the same problem with all light conditions red, amber or green, it just varies by degree. A key danger when arriving at lights that are green is in getting right hooked by oncoming traffic that is turning right across you.

Again, its possible to agree with this, but disagree with the best way to mitigate this risk.

In my father's experience you relax your guard slightly if you give lights credibility and they are green. If they are red you will tend to look more carefully.

Fine - it is always important to be alert and to assume the worst, even if you have priority in principle.

It was his contention, and I agree, that being of the inclination to always proceed regardless of the colour of the light will maintain your alertness. And will probably usefully maintain it for all the threats that you face.

This is where we differ. It is to essentially argue that by increasing the intrinsic risk, you become so alert to risk in general, that you are actually safer. Personally, I prefer to minimize risk.

Supported by the “datum”, is this you trying for authority with obscure words again or just a typo?

Is the singular of data, not a typo. You'll probably learn this in 6th form.

It's just a load of old intellectualese.

Thank you.

All but about 8 of the 130 parties to the collisions were complying with the lights. The 8 had the cyclist complying and the motor vehicle not complying. The 130/nil is a comparison. If it was more dangerous to jump than comply jumpers would be being hurt, they ain't.

I wasn't pointing out that you were wrong, but that you couldn't determine if you were right or not. you do not appear to have understood.

“To some extent” means just what it says. The TfL surveyors were suitably pedantic. I can't recall the precise breakdown, my recollection had it that about 30% went all the way through, another 10% went half way if there was an island at the junction, 20% went well beyond the ASL etc etc.

40% of 75% is already down to 30% of all cyclists. If those cyclists on average encounter lights on red half the time, that's 15% of all cyclists pasing all controled junctions. If they only RLJ some of the time, lets say 1/3 of the time (lassuming they aren't suicidal), you are down to attempting to interrogate about 5% of the accident figures.

Do you ever stop with the coded language?

:roll:

Your “let's read the report” demonstrates you have not read it, so what was your “Seriously - get yourself a copy of the report - email the London School of Cycling guys.” about? This clearly implies you have read it.

No I have not read the report. The times article that you have read cites the London School of Cycling as the source of the article. I therefore assume that the LSoC has access to the report and that the may be happy to share it with you.

Jay dubbleU

Whatever the statistics prove or don't prove RLJing is illegal and if you are stupid enough to do it in front of a copper you will get nicked - end of story
In the same way if you are stupid enough to try filtering up the left side of an HGV then sooner or later you will get caught out - not worth it guys