Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

RlJ'er gets nicked part II

weadmireweadmire Posts: 165
edited November 2009 in Commuting chat
RlJ'er gets nicked part II

This from page four of the report on fatalities:

ACCSTATS holds Stats19 records of 87 pedal cyclist fatalities in Greater
London during the study period (Jan 1999 – May 2004). Of these, 56% (49)
also involved a goods vehicle. This compares with goods vehicles making up
just over 1% of licensed vehicles in London.

4.1. Who was Involved in Fatal Collisions?
Table 1 shows that a higher proportion of female cyclists (18 out of 21) were
involved in fatal collisions with goods vehicles than fatal collisions with other
types of vehicle. Women may be over-represented in this type of collision
because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.* This might
increase the likelihood of coming into conflict with turning goods vehicles
waiting at junctions.


For the sanctimonious in the cycling community who want to have it those who are killed are inexperienced and therefore likely to be responsible for their demise the report has this to say:

Table 2 and Table 3 show the levels of experience of cyclists and goods
drivers as reported in the police investigation files. The level of experience is
easier to quantify and, therefore, more often reported for goods vehicle drivers
than for cyclists. The available data suggest that neither the drivers nor
cyclists appear to be particularly inexperienced; mean number of years
experience was 9.3 for cyclists and 18.7 for goods vehicle drivers.


You can read/download the report above by linking to this page http://weadmire.net/category/bicycle-shirtsand then to the Look for Traffic Not Lights t shirt. The reports are in two highlighted downloadable pdfs. There are two reports, one concerning fatalities and another that sought to examine ASL's and cyclists' use of them. The report on ASL's is interesting because it can be used as a basis for the broad calculation of how much safer it is to look for traffic not lights.

Traffic lights should be removed from the streets of London and everywhere else for that matter. They are a monumental waste of time and money.

In practice they do not enhance safety they diminish it. I believe this is mainly because they encourage people who comply with them to abdicate some responsibility. That they diminish safety can be seen in the details of the fatalities of cyclists. Nearly three times as many women are killed than would be expected to be killed: they represent about 30% of the cycling population but about 80% of the fatalities. The report offers the view that this is because women are more law abiding and therefore more likely to comply with traffic lights to a much greater extent than male cyclists. Accept this and it is a short step to conclude that if it is safer for women to look for traffic not lights and proceed appropriately it will be safer for everyone else to do the same. I am sure this will also apply to motor vehicle drivers.

Traffic lights.... Stop being supine and compliant, vote to have them removed or complain about them at every opportunity. Otherwise take the Ghandian option: when greeted by the familiar red light look for traffic. If there isn't any proceed appropriately.
WeAdmire.net
13-15 Great Eastern Street
London EC2A 3EJ
«13456

Posts

  • prawnyprawny Posts: 5,426
    Hooray!

    EDIT: that wead's back, I haven't read the post it's too early.
    Saracen Tenet 3 - 2015 - Dead - Replaced with a Hack Frame
    Voodoo Bizango - 2014 - Dead - Hit by a car
    Vitus Sentier VRS - 2017
  • /Gets the popcorn ready and plumps up the beanbag.
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]
  • Wallace1492Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    What I would say is that Traffic Lights are required to allow traffic to flow from opposite directions at major junctions, if there was not some form of comtrol, there would be chaos.

    However, there are definately too many about.

    Personally, I find traffic lights dangerous places and am always wary of what vehicles are doing, as well as keeping and eye out for the lights.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Women may be over-represented in this type of collision
    because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.* This might
    increase the likelihood of coming into conflict with turning goods vehicles
    waiting at junctions.


    Yes weadmire. This was in the public domain before. It was thoroughly picked apart and discredited by numerous articles and shown to be mere conjecture. For starters there is absolutely no link between the accident statistics in qustion and red lights. It would be no more or less valid to suggest that central reservations were a contributory factor.

    Where is the paragraph and reasoning in the report linking the accidents to red lights? Or is that precisely the problem?


    Now if you take those figures at face value, I would suggest banning all women from cycling - they seem to have more in common with accidents than traffic lights, surely? My reading of those stats is that if you ban females from cycling, you cut down the incident rate by 86%.

    Discuss.

    Tell me why my conclusion is erroneous. I'm not interested in traffic lights any more WeadMire, I'm interested in your analytical skills. 18 out of 21 fatalities involved females. Females should stop cycling since this would eliminate the vast majority of fatal cycling accidents. Its there in black and white.

    Tell me why I am wrong.
  • *sigh*

    Fine, I'll warm up the bears.
  • IrvinetIrvinet Posts: 117
    Now if you take those figures at face value, I would suggest banning all women from cycling - they seem to have more in common with accidents than traffic lights, surely? My reading of those stats is that if you ban females from cycling, you cut down the incident rate by 86%.

    Discuss.

    Tell me why my conclusion is erroneous. I'm not interested in traffic lights any more WeadMire, I'm interested in your analytical skills. 18 out of 21 fatalities involved females. Females should stop cycling since this would eliminate the vast majority of fatal cycling accidents. Its there in black and white.

    Tell me why I am wrong.

    Well, for starters you should read it again. 87 fatalities, 21 of them were women. So, 75% of deaths were male. Really, we should ban men from cycling.... Actually, we should ban everyone from leaving the house.

    The point is that almost all of the women killed were killed by good vehicles.

    Presumably you don't think there is some physical reason why women are more likely to be killed by goods vehicles? Increased gravitational pull of breasts for example? No? So, therefore the reason must be behavioural. Either behaviour of women cyclists or behaviour of third parties towards women cyclists.

    I don't pretend to have the hard data to back it up but in many years of commuting and riding with my wife I instinctively feel that there is probably some merit in the conclusion of the report. I think it is a simplification but there is some truth in there, probably more generally related to the more timid and polite manner in which many female cyclist tend to ride.
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem
  • Greg TGreg T Posts: 3,266
    It's getting crowded in here.

    Weadmire and all his/her multiple pesonalities have arrived - probably ona very large coach.

    Did anyone read what they said?
    Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.

    What would Thora Hurd do?
  • zaneszanes Posts: 563
    *waits and dreads number9 leaping in about HGV inspections*
  • weadmireweadmire Posts: 165
    Always, er... overconfident,

    Where are you wrong? in your reading of 18 and 21 for a start. You will not have read the report not least because our website is down, And "picked apart" by whom? Getting back to 18 and 21, I think you will find that this refers to the proportion of women killed at traffic lights by commercial vehicles, not the number of women killed out of the total number of cyclists, men and women, killed. There have been many more than 21 killed. The report particularly looks at the behaviour of traffic at lights, the vast majority of accidents occur at light controlled junctions. And try to bear in mind we are looking at a comparison here between those who jump and do not get whacked and those who do not jump and get whacked. Be patient while we get to grips with our server and read the reports when they are up. Then try your best to control you inclination to patronage.

    Please make sure you read the ASL report, I recall your lofty claims to representing the majority of cyclists with your views on jumping/non jumping that included the claim that about 20% jumped lights. You will see that for the junctions filmed the jumping rates were, as I said, in the order of 70% with one junction, New Camberwell Road and Boston Road, topping the charts with 60% plus "ignoring" the lights and a further proportion stopping beyond the ASL. This out of a total of 400 plus cyclists who passed through the junction daily.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    So the subject? wtf has that got to do with dead cyclists?

    Also peddling your own website... isn't that spam? or at the very least self promotion... T&C anyone?
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • BAD forumers. Get out from under that bridge. Nothing good is lurking there.

    You are none of the billy goats gruff.
  • Wallace1492Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So the subject? wtf has that got to do with dead cyclists?

    It all kicked off last time from a post about a RLJ'r getting nicked.
    http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12641692&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=fbdfa7d14b9adb4b990746cabde4d32e
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So the subject? wtf has that got to do with dead cyclists?

    It all kicked off last time from a post about a RLJ'r getting nicked.
    http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12641692&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=fbdfa7d14b9adb4b990746cabde4d32e

    but this thread has nothing to do with it... that's my point
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • Wallace1492Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    Clever Pun wrote:
    Clever Pun wrote:
    So the subject? wtf has that got to do with dead cyclists?

    It all kicked off last time from a post about a RLJ'r getting nicked.
    http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12641692&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=fbdfa7d14b9adb4b990746cabde4d32e

    but this thread has nothing to do with it... that's my point

    And it is a fair point. Will leave it to Weadmire to answer.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • weadmireweadmire Posts: 165
    Greg T try as you might to mask who you are and what you are about sooner or later you show out: "Did anyone read what they said?" You did for a start. You are sounding worried. Is this because we might just see this sanctimonious light jumping tosh finally nailed for what it is?
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    weadmire wrote:
    Always, er... overconfident,

    Where are you wrong? in your reading of 18 and 21 for a start. You will not have read the report not least because our website is down, And "picked apart" by whom? Getting back to 18 and 21, I think you will find that this refers to the proportion of women killed at traffic lights by commercial vehicles, not the number of women killed out of the total number of cyclists, men and women, killed. There have been many more than 21 killed. The report particularly looks at the behaviour of traffic at lights, the vast majority of accidents occur at light controlled junctions. And try to bear in mind we are looking at a comparison here between those who jump and do not get whacked and those who do not jump and get whacked. Be patient while we get to grips with our server and read the reports when they are up. Then try your best to control you inclination to patronage.

    Please make sure you read the ASL report, I recall your lofty claims to representing the majority of cyclists with your views on jumping/non jumping that included the claim that about 20% jumped lights. You will see that for the junctions filmed the jumping rates were, as I said, in the order of 70% with one junction, New Camberwell Road and Boston Road, topping the charts with 60% plus "ignoring" the lights and a further proportion stopping beyond the ASL. This out of a total of 400 plus cyclists who passed through the junction daily.
    You state that "Getting back to 18 and 21, I think you will find that this refers to the proportion of women killed at traffic lights by commercial vehicles, not the number of women killed out of the total number of cyclists, men and women, killed."

    This is wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG. One mistake. Two left. Be careful now.

    The stat is number of people killed by HGV's. Nothing about traffic lights. You made that up, you sneaky devil you.

    You state, " The report particularly looks at the behaviour of traffic at lights, the vast majority of accidents occur at light controlled junctions.

    WRONG. WRONG AGAIN. You are stating that the vast majority of accidents take place at light controlled junctions. Sometimes these are on green and the accident is between two parties going through on green, for starters. That, and there is no mention of where the accidents took place in the information you provided. You've imagined this. I can't see the text to back this statement up.

    Two mistakes, one left. Careful now.

    Okay, back to my point. There is no information as to the total proportion of men/women killed. The only gender breakdown we have relates to a subset of accidents, those with HGV's.

    Therefore, based on the information you have provided, if we extrapolate the data we have regarding the proporation of men and women killed to all bicycle fatalities, and we have no reason not to, I contend that females should be banned from cycling. That is what your figures say.
  • Don't make me roll up this newspaper...
  • weadmireweadmire Posts: 165
    Clever pun,

    Nothing to do with it? Read the original thread if you have not done so already and repeat the question if you are still not sure.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    weadmire wrote:
    Clever pun,

    Nothing to do with it? Read the original thread if you have not done so already and repeat the question if you are still not sure.

    In your original post which RLJ'er gets nicked? No-one... it's all hearsay and conjecture, a bit like the rest of your post
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • weadmireweadmire Posts: 165
    Always, have you read the report?
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • stuaffstuaff Posts: 1,736
    Move along, nothing to read here......
    Dahon Speed Pro TT; Trek Portland
    Viner Magnifica '08 ; Condor Squadra
    LeJOG in aid of the Royal British Legion. Please sponsor me at http://www.bmycharity.com/stuaffleck2011
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    edited October 2009
    weadmire wrote:
    4.1. Who was Involved in Fatal Collisions?
    Table 1 shows that a higher proportion of female cyclists (18 out of 21) were
    involved in fatal collisions with goods vehicles than fatal collisions with other
    types of vehicle. Women may be over-represented in this type of collision
    because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.* This might
    increase the likelihood of coming into conflict with turning goods vehicles
    waiting at junctions. [/i]

    Your whole argument is based on an assumption which is, if not provably false, is certainly a little shaky. Are the ratio of male RLJ'ers higher than the ratio as a whole? Have you done a study on that?

    Certainly in my experience, whenever there is a red light there are at least as many men who stop compared to women. If your argument about lights being the problem was valid then I'd expect the ratio in terms of fatalities to be more like 50/50. However, this is not the case.

    The BBC quoted the same report recently. I posted a comment on the BBC site criticising that very point and they failed to publish it.
  • IrvinetIrvinet Posts: 117
    Two mistakes, one left. Careful now.

    Okay, back to my point. There is no information as to the total proportion of men/women killed. The only gender breakdown we have relates to a subset of accidents, those with HGV's.

    Therefore, based on the information you have provided, if we extrapolate the data we have regarding the proporation of men and women killed to all bicycle fatalities, and we have no reason not to, I contend that females should be banned from cycling. That is what your figures say.

    Sorry, you keep misrepresenting this... or misunderstanding it....

    The raw number from the OP are:

    Total Cycle Deaths 99-04: 87
    Total Female: 21 (24.1%)
    Total Male: 66 (75.9%)
    Total M+F Killed by HGV: 49 (56.3% of total)
    Total M Killed by HGV: 30
    Total F killed by HGV: 19

    % of M Fatalities caused by HGV: 45%
    % of F Fatalaties caused by HGV: 90%

    Not sure how, from any of the above you could conlude that we should stop women cycling... You two don't seem to like each other but I think you could tone down the "Careful now" jabs until you get a bet grip on the stats.

    You don't have to be a master statistician to think that the 90% figure is a little odd and worth investigating.
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    Irvinet wrote:
    Two mistakes, one left. Careful now.

    Okay, back to my point. There is no information as to the total proportion of men/women killed. The only gender breakdown we have relates to a subset of accidents, those with HGV's.

    Therefore, based on the information you have provided, if we extrapolate the data we have regarding the proporation of men and women killed to all bicycle fatalities, and we have no reason not to, I contend that females should be banned from cycling. That is what your figures say.

    Sorry, you keep misrepresenting this... or misunderstanding it....

    The raw number from the OP are:

    Total Cycle Deaths 99-04: 87
    Total Female: 21 (24.1%)
    Total Male: 66 (75.9%)
    Total M+F Killed by HGV: 49 (56.3% of total)
    Total M Killed by HGV: 30
    Total F killed by HGV: 19

    % of M Fatalities caused by HGV: 45%
    % of F Fatalaties caused by HGV: 90%

    Not sure how, from any of the above you could conlude that we should stop women cycling... You two don't seem to like each other but I think you could tone down the "Careful now" jabs until you get a bet grip on the stats.

    You don't have to be a master statistician to think that the 90% figure is a little odd and worth investigating.

    Of course the 90% figure is odd. There are clearly behavioural differences but to attribute it to women being 'less likely than men to disobey red lights' strikes me as utter tosh.
  • Clever PunClever Pun Posts: 6,778
    weadmire wrote:
    Always, have you read the report?

    Why would I go and do something like that? it's self promotion I'm not interested in that, put the relevant information in your post
    Purveyor of sonic doom

    Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
    Fixed Pista- FCN 5
    Beared Bromptonite - FCN 14
  • AguilaAguila Posts: 622
    The report says "Women may be overrepresented........this might increase the likelihood..."

    These words say it all, this is speculation/hypothesis but weadmire interprets this as proof. If such proof existed the words would be very different. The BBC article citing this came to very different conclusions ie that the deaths are due to the women filtering up the inside of HGVs at the lights into their blind spots and then getting squished when the vehicle moves off esp if turning left.

    The problem is clearly road positioning not the lights, which are a confounder in this case. This is born out by the fact that if you wait behind the HGV at the lights, in primary position, the accident will not occur. This is what most experienced cyclists would do.
  • Wallace1492Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    Can we have a slightly different perspetive here. I will take the following as correct:

    The raw number from the OP are:

    Total Cycle Deaths 99-04: 87
    Total Female: 21 (24.1%)
    Total Male: 66 (75.9%)

    Total M+F Killed by HGV: 49 (56.3% of total)
    Total M Killed by HGV: 30
    Total F killed by HGV: 19

    % of Fatalities caused by HGV (male): 61%
    % of Fatalaties caused by HGV(female): 39%

    Of those killed by HGV's, the higher percentage is male.
    HGV's kill 30 male, 19 female, HGV's are dangerous to both sexes.

    What I would point out is that outside of HGV's, a higher portion of males are killed.
    Is that because they take more risks, jump red lights, ride agressively. Probably a higher % of males cycing anyway.

    Let's get some perspective on this.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • IrvinetIrvinet Posts: 117
    Kurako wrote:
    Of course the 90% figure is odd. There are clearly behavioural differences but to attribute it to women being 'less likely than men to disobey red lights' strikes me as utter tosh.

    Indeed, there is nothing in those numbers that allows us to conclude that RLJ is a factor at all. However I have not read the full report so I presume they had some other evidence to make that conclusion.

    As I said already, I think this is an over simplification but I could see how it could be a contributing factor.

    My default behavious is to stop at reds. It lets me catch my breath for starters and I am a big lad who kinda likes the sprints over the extended battles. However, full disclosure, I do jump plenty for various reasons. A honking great arctic parked halfway through a cycle advance box would often motivate me RLJ or at least sprint extra hard once the amber/greens come on. My wife would wait patiently... under certain conditions I could see how this could get her killed. This is my opinion... it may not be The Truth.
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem
  • IrvinetIrvinet Posts: 117
    Can we have a slightly different perspetive here. I will take the following as correct:

    The raw number from the OP are:

    Total Cycle Deaths 99-04: 87
    Total Female: 21 (24.1%)
    Total Male: 66 (75.9%)

    Total M+F Killed by HGV: 49 (56.3% of total)
    Total M Killed by HGV: 30
    Total F killed by HGV: 19

    % of Fatalities caused by HGV (male): 61%
    % of Fatalaties caused by HGV(female): 39%

    Of those killed by HGV's, the higher percentage is male.
    HGV's kill 30 male, 19 female, HGV's are dangerous to both sexes.

    What I would point out is that outside of HGV's, a higher portion of males are killed.
    Is that because they take more risks, jump red lights, ride agressively. Probably a higher % of males cycing anyway.

    Let's get some perspective on this.

    Indeed a key figure that we are missing is the relative proportion of cyclist. On my commute, I would think that between 10 and 20% of the riders are women... this has been increasing I think, so perhaps a bit lower in a 99-04 study.

    Yes, I instictivly feel that I take more risks than the average female cyclist I see and am therfore more likely to be killed. However, the HGVs unfortunatly seem to level the playing field.... this is not good.
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem
  • weadmireweadmire Posts: 165
    Kurako,

    Curious, why do you assume I had anything to do with the BBC mentioning this report?
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
Sign In or Register to comment.