RlJ'er gets nicked part II

2456

Comments

  • kurako
    kurako Posts: 1,098
    weadmire wrote:
    Kurako,

    Curious, why do you assume I had anything to do with the BBC mentioning this report?

    Sorry, I guess I made an assumption on no factual basis :oops:

    I'll edit the post.
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Irvinet wrote:
    Sorry, you keep misrepresenting this... or misunderstanding it....
    For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not arguing that women shouldn't cycle. I'm simply conducting an exercise in information analysis. Yes, I am being blatantly disingenuous, for the purposes of shining a light on the OP. You kind of ruined the experiment by giving the answer, to be honest.

    Quite clearly it is an "eats, shoots and leaves" sort of an issue. Its simply indicative of how sloppy the original author was.
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    weadmire wrote:
    Always, have you read the report?
    Have you?

    Think of your posts like a Wikipedia article. This article contains no references or citations and its accuracy is questionable.

    In the original thread, you indicated that the report was "secret". Thus, I cannot have read it because I do not have national security clearance and if I saw a copy they'd have to shoot me.

    You undertook to get a copy and post it for all to see, because it would "prove" your point. Thus far, you have not. You've cherry picked a couple of paragraphs. What does the rest say? What are you afraid of? Put it online and I'll read it in full.
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    Irvinet, thanks for some objectivity.....the numbers are so small to call into question the whole statistical relevance anyway....

    Been waiting the opportunity to post this one, I was nearly hit by an RLJer last weekend....

    Lights went red for him, green for me, I proceeded, he couldn't see me due to a largish 4x4 in the outside lane and cut past it on the inside, saw me too late to stop and I just had time to avoid a collision, he was doing 20-25mph.

    Pedestrian crossing - I was on foot, ignorant tw@t on a bike deciding the lights didn't apply to him, nearly hit me and the daughter, hit kerb and fell off avoiding me, did I see if he was allright, did I heck, mouthful of abuse and walked off, had he hit my daughter I suspect I'd be under arrest right now - he never even sloed, just came through at full tilt blind to people on the crossing, suspect he thought the 4x4 was stopped for people crossing the other way and didn't expect me, but that's what the rules are for.

    Simon
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • weadmire
    weadmire Posts: 165
    The website is up http://weadmire.net/category/bicycle-shirtsand at last. Always, you will be able to read the report and even down load it. Please pick it apart...
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • I've downloaded the report but haven't yet read it. But, in that respect, thanks Weadmire -since Part 1 of this discussion I've been trying to get hold of a copy and TfL have been ignoring my request. I was just building myself up to make a complaint about them - as it is I might still do that but at least I don't need to wait any longer for the report.
    Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.
  • MrChuck
    MrChuck Posts: 1,663
    Irvinet wrote:
    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.

    I think this is the crux of it. It just doesn't follow from recognising that women are over-represented in these figures to the conclusion that it's safer to jump red lights than not, or that men are more likely to do this than women.

    One speculative conclusion you could draw (as the BBC and others here have done) is that maybe certain behaviour around HGVs at light-controlled junctions is more likely to lead to an accident, and maybe women are more likely to behave that way. But that's not the same as saying that stopping at red lights is more dangerous than not.
  • weadmire
    weadmire Posts: 165
    Doctor Doctor aka Aguila, You are showing out. You want very strict objectivity in the report while embracing the filtering tosh disseminated by the BBC. Not surprising I suppose from a man who thinks a few months inside is a reasonable punishment for a medic who topped one of his patients. Did he get struck off by the way?

    Everyone should make sure they read and download the ASL report. And they should bear in mind that, as was reported some years ago, the report was motivated by the observation that cyclists complying with lights were being killed while cyclists jumping them were not being killed. For the detail of this you need an analysis of the circumstances of the accidents. It is available, someone should write to TfL and ask for it. 28 days is all it will take. Long enough for someone else to get killed while complying with lights but otherwise not too long to wait.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • Greg T
    Greg T Posts: 3,266
    weadmire wrote:
    blah blah blah.

    What does your cross dressing Trickcyclist mate Hans/Amy whatever he or she is called say about it?

    We need to know the opinions of everyone you are.

    Also their nails cycling Dads - don't forget the fake relatives of your fake friends and multiple personalities
    Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.

    What would Thora Hurd do?
  • kurako
    kurako Posts: 1,098
    What needs to be addressed is behaviour around large vehicles in general.

    You state that jumping lights is the best way to stay safe. That's all well and good but what happens if the lights change unexpectedly and you find yourself stuck inside or just ahead of a truck? There is increased risk for no advantage gained.

    The BBC article showed a 'safe' way to filter to the front at lights. I'm of the opinion that the safest option, as Aguila suggested above, is to wait behind.

    The whole premise that safety is improved because you can be seen is the main problem. In my view ASLs aggravate this by encouraging people to go to the front when its not always appropriate. However, even with no ASLs some people will still put themselves in danger through bad filtering.
  • Irvinet
    Irvinet Posts: 117
    MrChuck wrote:
    I think this is the crux of it. It just doesn't follow from recognising that women are over-represented in these figures to the conclusion that it's safer to jump red lights than not, or that men are more likely to do this than women.

    One speculative conclusion you could draw (as the BBC and others here have done) is that maybe certain behaviour around HGVs at light-controlled junctions is more likely to lead to an accident, and maybe women are more likely to behave that way. But that's not the same as saying that stopping at red lights is more dangerous than not.

    My more general speculative conclusion is that the difference is active danger avoidance vs passive cycling. As cyclists we all occasionally find ourselves in an oh-s**t situation. Sometimes because we have been naughty or stupid and sometimes through absolutely no fault of our own. When you are in this situation it is no longer relevant how you got there, you are there, the question is how you react to it. Do you take action to change your situation or do you wait-and-pray to see how it develops? I would bet the farm that at least a few of the poor souls who died under trucks knew they were in a bad spot but were too rabbit-in-headlights scared to do anything about it. Unpalatable as it is to some people here, I think that RLJ is sometimes the correct way to actively take yourself out of this sort of danger. It is not the whole story but my own experience suggests it is part of it.
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    thats strange.... i thought i posted a question about the relative experience figures quoted in the report extracts from the OP?? It seems to have vanished...

    but i will ask it again...in fatalities involving female cyclists and hgv's....

    it says that the mean experience in years of the hgv drivers involved was 18.7.
    given that the minimum age one can gain driving experience is 17....that puts the lowest possible mean age of the drivers involved at 35.7 Years. Seems reasonable....

    It says that the mean experience of the female cyclists involved was 9.something....at what mean age does that experience begin? Most cyclists I know have done so since they were children. For sake of argument, I will say that the age one starts to gain proper experience is 10 Years....putting the lowest possible mean age of people involved at 19.something....

    I guess my point is that experience of cyclists is much more difficult to quantify than that of drivers (no test, cycling where??on a track, off-road, quite countryside, city centre, cycling how?? leisure, commuting, racing etc...) all give very different experience..


    Now for the question...
    Are these experience figures then even relevant to the report, given that they do not seem to be comparable?
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • Wallace1492
    Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    cee wrote:
    thats strange.... i thought i posted a question about the relative experience figures quoted in the report extracts from the OP?? It seems to have vanished...

    but i will ask it again...in fatalities involving female cyclists and hgv's....

    it says that the mean experience in years of the hgv drivers involved was 18.7.
    given that the minimum age one can gain driving experience is 17....that puts the lowest possible mean age of the drivers involved at 35.7 Years. Seems reasonable....

    It says that the mean experience of the female cyclists involved was 9.something....at what mean age does that experience begin? Most cyclists I know have done so since they were children. For sake of argument, I will say that the age one starts to gain proper experience is 10 Years....putting the lowest possible mean age of people involved at 19.something....

    I guess my point is that experience of cyclists is much more difficult to quantify than that of drivers (no test, cycling where??on a track, off-road, quite countryside, city centre, cycling how?? leisure, commuting, racing etc...) all give very different experience..


    Now for the question...
    Are these experience figures then even relevant to the report, given that they do not seem to be comparable?

    I would think that the cyclists experiance would be in years commuting throug traffic. To take experience from age 10 is not relevent, It would have to be as adult experience in traffic situations to be relevent.

    What has been said is that these are not teenagers, or school kids.

    However, as I said earlier, more men than women have been killed by HGV's, therefore, although this year has mostly been female's the dangers to all of HGV's are huge.

    I personally do not see the link between RLJing and being safer. Being safer is not getting in dangerous situations in the first place, filtering correctly, looking out for all other vehicles and especially HGV's.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • Aguila
    Aguila Posts: 622
    weadmire wrote:
    Doctor Doctor aka Aguila, You are showing out. You want very strict objectivity in the report while embracing the filtering tosh disseminated by the BBC. Not surprising I suppose from a man who thinks a few months inside is a reasonable punishment for a medic who topped one of his patients. Did he get struck off by the way?

    He did get struck off, yes. Did he kill the patient on purpose, no. How long do drivers get who kill cyclists?? How long do you think he should get and why?

    And why are the BBC conclusions wrong?? They actually stand up to logic, rather than your conclusions. Unless you can provide me with figures showing comparison death rates between RLJ'ers and non RLJ'ers (WITH all other variables excluded) then I am not going to agree with you. This is not anything personal, just that this is the only thing that could provide proof, unless you want to run a randomised trial of RLJ'ing. I suspect recruitment for this would be challenging though. :lol:
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    Wallace1492

    the non-relevance was kind of my point....it doesn't actually commit to adult experience in traffic situations ...it kind of fluffed the estimate of experience a bit....

    I personally agree with what you say.. i.e. i personally do not see a link between rlj and being safer....quite the opposite in fact.....

    as for hgv's....yes...i see them as potentially very dangerous due to the large blind spots, so i try not to put myself in a dangerous position.....however, sometimes circumstances quite beyond my control have left me alongside an hgv....to the point where i have dismounted and walked to the crossing to avoid it (although i appreciate that perhaps the situation in my case allowed that where barriers etc would mean this is not possible in other situations)......5 minutes added to my journey is a small price to pay to remove a hazard as potentially dangerous, with the caveat that I personally also see rlj as more dangerous than my chosen alternative.
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • weadmire
    weadmire Posts: 165
    I can't be ar*ed to calculate the exact numbers but from the ASL report into the Camberwell New Road/Boston Street Junction, page 36 of the report, we have 416 cyclists passing through the junction, 234 of them at green, 182, 44% arrive at red. Of these 108, 59% ignored the light, with a further 34, 19% stopping beyond the ASL. So 78% jumped the lights.

    Let's be both generous and conservative. Lets say that 40% of the time cyclists arrive at junctions with the lights at red. Of these let's say 50% jump them. This would give us 20% of the cyclists arriving at traffic light controlled junctions jump the lights. To be on the conservative side let's make that 10%.

    If jumping lights was as dangerous as complying with them we would expect to see jumpers over represented among the cyclists killed at light controlled junctions. If it was as dangerous to jump them as comply with them we would expect to jumpers representing 10% of the fatalities. As it turns out we see jumpers representing zero percent of the fatalities.

    This gives pause as to whether this under performance is an aberration. Is there anything else in the numbers to suggest this is so? If the numbers of jumpers killed is abnormally low what of the numbers for the more than averagely strict compliers? And thus the extraordinary out performance of women cyclists assumes a significance greater than the loss of young fit women, bad though such a loss is.

    Always-wrong so far, what we need to do is encourage women to be less trusting and jump lights, no need for them to stop cycling. Such training will likely improve their general road awareness and chances of survival. For the rest of us carry on jumping, it's much safer.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    weadmire wrote:
    As it turns out we see jumpers representing zero percent of the fatalities.
    How do you know?
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    weadmire wrote:
    If jumping lights was as dangerous as complying with them we would expect to see jumpers over represented among the cyclists killed at light controlled junctions. If it was as dangerous to jump them as comply with them we would expect to jumpers representing 10% of the fatalities. As it turns out we see jumpers representing zero percent of the fatalities.

    In fairness....some red lights are pedestrian crossings..not much scope for fatality jumping those.

    Cross roads are more interesting, but your statement still assumes that the traffic on green just charges straight through...in a city centre, where traffic light sequences are quite close together and change fairly quickly....most drivers on the green are probably not at 30mph when going through...they have started from a stopped position and then either brake to avoid people on the junction, or more likkely...just don't accelerate straight through whatever might be on the junction.

    my point is that there are many other plausible reasons why rlj represent 0% of fatalities (if that is the case..i have seen no numbers either way.), so i do not think it is as simple to say that stopping at a red is inherently more dangerous than not....
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • weadmire
    weadmire Posts: 165
    Doctor doctor, You aren't going to agree with me because you don't want to agree with me. Fess up you will feel better.

    The BBC stuff is speculative rubbish. The last piece in the jig saw is the analysis of the individual incidents, it is this analysis that motivated the reports in the links on our website. The analysis in question is available with a freedom of info request to TfL. If you were honest you would send them the email today. I am betting you won't.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • Wallace1492
    Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    edited October 2009
    weadmire wrote:
    As it turns out we see jumpers representing zero percent of the fatalities.

    Weadmire, you do have some valid points, but this is not one of them:

    Edited link:

    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:4PnPqiyP8v8J:www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/0810_CP_RLJ-pavement_brf.pdf+RED+LIGHT+JUMPING+CYCLIST+KILLED&hl=en&gl=uk&sig=AFQjCNF12mH471g7nYSnuOzfqzQklPnr0A

    This does not even cover all the years in the other reports.
    However, I would also say that any cyclist that is RLJing, knows it is dangerous and will instictively ensure it is very safe to do so, this will only be done by experienced cyclists.

    Encouraging the timid, less experienced ladies to shoot through red lights would be carnage. The accident rates would soar.

    It is experiance and awareness that needs to be encouraged not jumping red lights.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Wallace, the link doesn't work for me -

    Oh, and....
    Weadmire, you do have some valid points

    .... Burn Him!!
  • Irvinet
    Irvinet Posts: 117
    I personally do not see the link between RLJing and being safer. Being safer is not getting in dangerous situations in the first place, filtering correctly, looking out for all other vehicles and especially HGV's.

    I think this is unfair. I absolutly agree that prevention is better than cure, but the following happens to me at least once a week:

    - riding along clear of following traffic. light 100m in front goes amber.
    - I stop at the solid white; on the left with my foot on the curb. There is no advance box at this intersection.
    - Big vehicle(cement truck, garbage truck, council 5toner) pulls up right next to me at the red.
    - I look up/over and see that it has its left indicator on. I am going straight.

    What would you do?
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    cee wrote:
    my point is that there are many other plausible reasons why rlj represent 0% of fatalities (if that is the case..i have seen no numbers either way.), so i do not think it is as simple to say that stopping at a red is inherently more dangerous than not....
    Weadmire, you do have some valid points, but this is not one of them:

    www.ctc.org.uk/resources/.../0810_CP_RL ... nt_brf.pdf

    This does not even cover all the years in the other reports.
    However, I would also say that any cyclist that is RLJing, knows it is dangerous and will instictively ensure it is very safe to do so, this will only be done by experienced cyclists.

    Encouraging the timid, less experienced ladies to shoot through red lights would be carnage. The accident rates would soar.

    It is experiance and awareness that needs to be encouraged not jumping red lights.

    theres another one.
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • Wallace1492
    Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    Updated link
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    Irvinet wrote:
    I personally do not see the link between RLJing and being safer. Being safer is not getting in dangerous situations in the first place, filtering correctly, looking out for all other vehicles and especially HGV's.

    I think this is unfair. I absolutly agree that prevention is better than cure, but the following happens to me at least once a week:

    - riding along clear of following traffic. light 100m in front goes amber.
    - I stop at the solid white; on the left with my foot on the curb. There is no advance box at this intersection.
    - Big vehicle(cement truck, garbage truck, council 5toner) pulls up right next to me at the red.
    - I look up/over and see that it has its left indicator on. I am going straight.

    What would you do?

    i would read my previous post bar one or two....and see that i already said i have been in that situation and have dismounted and got myself into a much safer situation.
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • weadmire
    weadmire Posts: 165
    Cee,

    None of the junctions were pedestrian crossings, check it out, they are all pictured in the report. And where do you get the idea we assumed anything about how people treat green lights? The comparisons are between jumpers and non jumpers.

    For clarity we are saying that complying with lights merely because they are there is more dangerous than always looking for traffic first. 100s of times more dangerous as it happens. Look for traffic not lights is the message.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • Wallace1492
    Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    Irvinet wrote:
    I personally do not see the link between RLJing and being safer. Being safer is not getting in dangerous situations in the first place, filtering correctly, looking out for all other vehicles and especially HGV's.

    I think this is unfair. I absolutly agree that prevention is better than cure, but the following happens to me at least once a week:

    - riding along clear of following traffic. light 100m in front goes amber.
    - I stop at the solid white; on the left with my foot on the curb. There is no advance box at this intersection.
    - Big vehicle(cement truck, garbage truck, council 5toner) pulls up right next to me at the red.
    - I look up/over and see that it has its left indicator on. I am going straight.

    What would you do?

    What I meant was you should try and avoid dangerous situations.

    Bad situation. Either wait where you are, let him turn left. Move in front and jump the light (when safe to do so) Get on pavement.

    What did you do?
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Irvinet wrote:
    I personally do not see the link between RLJing and being safer. Being safer is not getting in dangerous situations in the first place, filtering correctly, looking out for all other vehicles and especially HGV's.

    I think this is unfair. I absolutly agree that prevention is better than cure, but the following happens to me at least once a week:

    - riding along clear of following traffic. light 100m in front goes amber.
    - I stop at the solid white; on the left with my foot on the curb. There is no advance box at this intersection.
    - Big vehicle(cement truck, garbage truck, council 5toner) pulls up right next to me at the red.
    - I look up/over and see that it has its left indicator on. I am going straight.

    What would you do?
    Don't stop at the kerb. Its obvious.

    If you've made that mistake and are in that position, I'm not exactly sure why you won't be across the junction before the truck is above walking pace.

    If you honestly do not believe that you will be able to get away faster than a truck, while the light is red, pull in front of the cab. Do they employ homicidal truck drivers in your area?
  • always_tyred
    always_tyred Posts: 4,965
    weadmire wrote:
    For clarity we are saying that complying with lights merely because they are there is more dangerous than always looking for traffic first. 100s of times more dangerous as it happens. Look for traffic not lights is the message.
    I disagree with your numbers, but this is actually more or less right. What makes you think that complying with red lights (or green lights) is mutually exclusive of being observant? Do you think that heightened Spidey Sense is the sole preserve of RLJers?
  • Irvinet
    Irvinet Posts: 117
    cee wrote:
    Irvinet wrote:
    I personally do not see the link between RLJing and being safer. Being safer is not getting in dangerous situations in the first place, filtering correctly, looking out for all other vehicles and especially HGV's.

    I think this is unfair. I absolutly agree that prevention is better than cure, but the following happens to me at least once a week:

    - riding along clear of following traffic. light 100m in front goes amber.
    - I stop at the solid white; on the left with my foot on the curb. There is no advance box at this intersection.
    - Big vehicle(cement truck, garbage truck, council 5toner) pulls up right next to me at the red.
    - I look up/over and see that it has its left indicator on. I am going straight.

    What would you do?

    i would read my previous post bar one or two....and see that i already said i have been in that situation and have dismounted and got myself into a much safer situation.

    Sorry, been away from keyboard and that was unsent. In any case, sometimes I might do the same. However, if the light was stale, I would think that uncliping and dismounting in that narrow gap would be significantly less safe than checking the intersection and jumping the light. Especially if there is a pedestrian barrier, or I had panniers, or there is another poor bugger stuck behind me in the same pickle... or... or. As I said, it is not the solution every time but sometimes it is a valid and safe response to what is a potentially life threatening situation.
    Roberts Audax - Raleigh Fixie - Thorn Tandem