RlJ'er gets nicked part II

cee

weadmire wrote:

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.

the green lights thing comes from a crossroads...if i cross a red....then someone else is on a green...it can either be pedestrians on a green man, or traffic coming from my right across....

of course not looking at what the traffic is doing is dangerous....

I do not want to become involved in the nonsense that is being thrown around, but "Look for traffic not lights is the message" is not the message that you have previously been delivering in previous posts and threads...

Your message so far to me seems to be more that jumping reds is safer than not...you even backed it up by saying that rlj'ers represented 0% of fatalities...whilst light compliantriders represented more than 0, therefor rlj is safer...to the point where you suggested, however seriously or not, that we should encourage female riders to jump more red lights to be safer

also..in response to irvinet...i did back up my statement with the admission that the circumstances I encountered allowed me to do that, and I agree that other circumstances would make that either difficult or impossible. and...in the circumstance you described, you were at the white line of a cross roads where it was possible to turn left, so there must be some way to dismount...and get out of the way of the hgv

I am only responding to the question you asked...with the circumstance you proposed. Your further response changed the circumstance...

Irvinet

Always Tyred wrote:

Irvinet wrote:

Wallace1492 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?

Unintentionally homicidal, yes... that is the whole point of the thread.

Anyway, I think we are probably in general agreement... you get yourself into a spot and you do what you have got to do.

To be perfectly honest I am more likely to be primary. But then I am a bit of selfish bastard and if a car has to wait 2 extra seconds for me to accelerate away then that is just tough luck. The point is that a more polite female rider might be more likely to find themselves in that situation. If I was giving them advice I would say, just like you have: you should not be here... now that you are, you are in danger and the law is secondary to your personal saftey. I don't think this is really a controversial statement.

MrChuck

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.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that complying with the lights in itself, and regardless of any other factors or behaviour, is 100s of times more dangerous than jumping them.

I still don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on any of the data I've seen in this thread.

always_tyred

Would you advise another cyclist to turn left and get off, or to pull across the junction on red?

Wallace - excellent link. Thank you.

Weadmire - Wallace has posted a link to some data analysis conducted by the CTC which flatly contradicts what you say the TFL report indicates.

3 deaths not running red lights, 2 deaths running red lights. Factor in your 10-20% numbers and, erm, RLJers seem to be over represented by about a factor of between 4 and 7.

Please comment. Now that you've explained why I'm wrong by convicingly stating that I'm wrong because I'm wrong, perhaps you could carefully set out why the CTC are wrong as well.

Wallace1492

MrChuck wrote:

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.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that complying with the lights in itself, and regardless of any other factors or behaviour, is 100s of times more dangerous than jumping them.

I still don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on any of the data I've seen in this thread.

In this regard, I think what is being said, is do not blindly comply with the lights. I still take care when crossing at green in case there is a RLJ'r going the other way (be it car or anything else). Also there can be circumstances that jumping to get away from a lorry that has just pulled up makes your situation safer than complying with the light.

Clever Pun

Irvinet wrote:

Wallace1492 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 stop at the white line in primary as I'm entitled to do, thus removing all dangers you mention.. As I set off I make me way to the left of the road to allow faster motor powered vehicles to pass... ain't no cyclist getting past.

Wallace1492

Always Tyred wrote:

Would you advise another cyclist to turn left and get off, or to pull across the junction on red?

Wallace - excellent link. Thank you.

Weadmire - Wallace has posted a link to some data analysis conducted by the CTC which flatly contradicts what you say the TFL report indicates.

3 deaths not running red lights, 2 deaths running red lights. Factor in your 10-20% numbers and, erm, RLJers seem to be over represented by about a factor of between 4 and 7.

Please comment. Now that you've explained why I'm wrong by convicingly stating that I'm wrong because I'm wrong, perhaps you could carefully set out why the CTC are wrong as well.

Regarding the link I posted, two deaths from running red, but the three that you quote above were cyclists killed by other vehicles who jumped red. The only relevent figure is two deaths from jumping. 2 out of 87 is not a huge number, is less than 3% of cyclist killed, Weadmired recons it should be 10% if it was representative.

However, my point is still that jumpers will be more careful, therefore it is not going to be as high as 10%. Jumpers will be, in the main more experienced, braver, bolder cyclists.

I am not convinced either way. Nothing says jumping is safer. As I said, if you start encouraging more timid, hesitant cyclists to jump you will have a bloodbath. No-one has answered how you deal with that.

prawny

Clever Pun wrote:

Irvinet wrote:

Wallace1492 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 stop at the white line in primary as I'm entitled to do, thus removing all dangers you mention.. As I set off I make me way to the left of the road to allow faster motor powered vehicles to pass... ain't no cyclist getting past.

Yup, stop in the middle of the road move over when your half way across the junction(ish) cars are no faster to 10-15mph than I am, HCVs haven't got a chance in hell of overtaking me before I get across to the other side.

weadmire

Mr Chuck,

The key data missing here, as we have said, is the analysis of individual incidents. What is needed is for Doctor doctor or always wrong or anyone else for that matter to write to TfL and ask them for the analysis of cyclist fatalities in London from January 1999 to date. What they are going to find is something like jumpers nil compliers 100. What they are not going to find is jumpers 50 compliers 50 let alone jumpers 60 compliers 40 etc.

Irvinet

Clever Pun wrote:

I stop at the white line in primary as I'm entitled to do, thus removing all dangers you mention.. As I set off I make me way to the left of the road to allow faster motor powered vehicles to pass... ain't no cyclist getting past.

Yeah... in reality me too. Including the bit about no cyclists passing me.

I was really trying to make the point that it is easy to get into a situation where avoidance is no longer easy.

If you don't like that scenario we can construct one where the truck pulls along side you just as it goes amber and you have a following cyclist. Whatever... my point is just that you can get yourself into sticky spots, so I don't buy the argument that we can't discuss what you are supposed to from that position because we are all pefect and always spot danger 1000yards off.

I generally stop at reds. I am very considerate of pedestrians even if they are breaking the law and as polite to cars as I have to be. However, I will never feel guilty about making a judgment call to protect myself or someone else. I don't think any of you would either. Hell, if you won't run a red in your car to make room for an ambulance then you are a wanker. I think we all understand that there are exceptions and I am fine if people wish to deny that here for the sake of this argument, we can agree to disagree.

I don't think stop lights should be abolished but I don't think personal judgment should either.

As a child my father taught me well, you cross the road when it is safe. What does the green man mean? You are allowed to cross. Does it mean it will be safe? Maybe. Check.

If you die on the road, it is your problem. If may be someone else's fault but it is your problem. Do what you have to do...

As for the source of all this, I think it is absolutly terrible the number of women who are being killed by trucks. Not least because it discourages lots of people from taking up cycling. There is a ghost bike under the A102 that I pass every morning about 200m from my house, so I think about it every day. We should all keep an open mind and support changes to help stop this happening.

weadmire

Wallace,

Indeed jumpers will be more careful, that is one of our points. You are going to jump you are going to look. If you are going to comply to some degree you are going to misplace some trust in the lights. It is at this point that you are more likely to be whacked.

Wallace1492

weadmire wrote:

Mr Chuck,

The key data missing here, as we have said, is the analysis of individual incidents. What is needed is for Doctor doctor or always wrong or anyone else for that matter to write to TfL and ask them for the analysis of cyclist fatalities in London from January 1999 to date. What they are going to find is something like jumpers nil compliers 100. What they are not going to find is jumpers 50 compliers 50 let alone jumpers 60 compliers 40 etc.

Anything can be analised in different directions.
What we have is Killed Jumping:2 other deaths: 87
We do not know if any of these other 87 were red light jumpers, but killed in other places, the jumping could have been a contributary factor.

Weadmire, none of this proves it is safer. As I said, you cannot encourage timid, inexperienced cyclists to jump, as that would be inherently dangerous. Jumpers will be much more savvy, experienced cyclists, so it is no wonder their mortality rates are lower, it is what I would expect. Nothing beats experience and understanding what will happen.

secretsam

If I recall rightly, the OP in my wonderful and melliflously expressed thread was about some silly moo ploughing through a red despite a hi-viz member of Her Majesty's Constabulary being sat no more than 10 metres away.

In all politeness, WTF has the OP in this thread got to do with that? RLJ'ing is against the law. Whether you agree or disagree, that is a fact. You do it, fine, but if there's a cop there, you're nicked, and I totally reserve the right to laugh my ar5e off at you, as I did with the lady in question.

Harrumph.

PS: have got a horrible chest infection/cought type thing courtesy of the kids and am feeling immeasurably sorry for myself, hence bad tempered post

weadmire

SecretSam,

The sentiment in your last post was what we thought you had in mind with your OP. Good to see the time lapse has helped your self expression. Bit coy originally. As we have pointed out if there is a cop there the balance of probability is that you are not nicked btw. Certainly if you engage them in polite conversation and point out it is certainly safer to jump than comply and further explain why you think it is so it is very likely you will be on your way without much drama. The joke will be on sanctimonious jerks like.... let's say tyred or that other nobody who wishes he was the bastard son of Terry Thomas out of Princes Margaret.

secretsam

weadmire wrote:

SecretSam,

Good to see the time lapse has helped your self expression. Bit coy originally.

COY!!!! ROFL never been called that before, must share that one with colleagues/missus SecretSam/family

Self expression has never really been a problem, thanks, I know who I am, what I think and I think I express it really rather well. But hey, I'm always open to alternative opinions and positive criticism, so thanks for that.[/i][/b]

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

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.

I don't agree with you because I think you are wrong, it's called independent thought.

I wont be emailing them because frankly I dont have the time. I'm simply not going to do something that all logic and experience dictates is stupid. If you told me it was safest to ride with my eyes closed I wouldn't do that either.

BTW, I assume you've had words with your crohn's disease hero and asked him why his 90% cure rate from antibiotics has been shown to be 0% in studies, bet that was hard for you to swallow. We were all told there was no chance of you being wrong about that too remember.

You haven't told me how long the malpractice doctor should go to prison and why, or commented on sentences for drivers who kill cylists.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

that is one of our points

Wait a god damn minute - you really DO have multiple personalities.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

The key data missing here, as we :shock: have said, is the analysis of individual incidents.

Hang on - aren't you contradicting yourself. Earlier you were banging on about the link between red light running and these very statistics. I asked you how you knew. You ignored me. Here you let slip (all of you let slip, or both, who knows) that there is no information about the individual incidents.

Very fishy, Watson.

I agree Holmes.

Ooops, there we go talking to ourselves again.

kurako

weadmire wrote:

SecretSam,

The sentiment in your last post was what we thought you had in mind with your OP. Good to see the time lapse has helped your self expression. Bit coy originally. As we have pointed out if there is a cop there the balance of probability is that you are not nicked btw. Certainly if you engage them in polite conversation and point out it is certainly safer to jump than comply and further explain why you think it is so it is very likely you will be on your way without much drama. The joke will be on sanctimonious jerks like.... let's say tyred or that other nobody who wishes he was the bastard son of Terry Thomas out of Princes Margaret.

Does misrepresenting facts, ignoring the arguments of of others and petty name calling help you sell a lot of t-shirts?

Good luck with the trolling. I'm done with this thread.

Wallace1492

As far as I can see here are the facts:

1. Red light jumping is illegal

2. People die from red light jumping, but more die in other incidents.

3. There are ocassions that RLJing will make you safer

4. People that RLJ are more likely to be more careful as it can be dangerous, so they have to be aware of all vehicles and peds

5. Having all people RLJ would be dangerous, as less experienced and timid cyclists would not be as aware and could get into trouble.

6. There is no reports to prove RLJing is safer - but see point 4

7. Likewise no proof that sitting at red is safer, but you would think that it should be, should everyone be aware of what all other vehicles and cyclists are doing. But it is not a perfect world.

8. Some incidents may involve attempted RLJing and not be recorded as such - example - RLJer speeds up inside of lorry to go straight on (lorry is at red, wanting to turn left) Light changes as cyclist is filtering, lorry turns left hitting cyclist. Cyclist has not RLJed but it was intention to do. Obviously this is just example.

I have no side here, just trying to understand the points, as I every day I cycle commute, my main point is to get home alive. If at times that means RLJing, then I will do so. I will not do it if I do not need to however.

Full awareness of drivers and cyclists is required as to the dangers of all accidents and their cause.

I prefer facts, and from what I have read here and on other reports and websites, there are times it will enhance safety, but as a law abiding citizen, I will stop when a light is red, as long as it does not put me in danger. If, when stopped danger appears, then I will judge best course of action.

You must keep your wits about you, and always be vigilent for traffic, whether you are going through red or green.

Please be safe out there!!

prawny

That won't fix it wallace, wead doesn't respond to sense. This will go on and on and on and on.......

always_tyred

Weed, just had a quick look at the report. Did you get as far as table 12? Seems that although 57% of collisions between cyclists and goods vehicles took place at light controlled junctions, only 25% of all accidents occurred at such junctions.

Why is your venom not directed to the removal of free flowing stretches of road? 75% of all cycling accidents occur away from light controlled junctions.

The other report suggests that 18% of cyclists jump red lights. I feel sure that you've been banging on about figures far far higher than this. Not accusing you of misrepresentation or anything.

Incidentally, you want to be careful about Copyright infringement on your website and T-shirts.

Cheers.

MonkeyMonster

Holy Crap, I leave it just 2 days and its 5 pages? Can't be arsed at all to read through em though...

ellieb

STOP PRESS:

Sales of tacky t-shirts at an all time low!

Desperate retailers embark on a new marketing campaign

always_tyred

ellieb wrote:

STOP PRESS:

Sales of tacky t-shirts at an all time low!

Desperate retailers embark on a new marketing campaign

No, busy consulting a solicitor about:
the Bobby Moore T-shirt (complete with West Ham logo)
the Super Mario T-shirt (conspicuously NOT the cyclist; bad show WeadMire)
the Talking Heads T-shirt (might be a TM, that one)
the Star Trek "live long and prosper" t-shirt (I know I wouldn't want to take on Paramount Stuidos)
the Mr Spock t-shirt
the Mr T Tshirt
the Pulp Fiction quote t-shirt
the Holy Grail screenshot t-shirt
the Yoda t-shirt (wow, Paramount AND 20th Century Fox.... that's brave)

I would go on... pretty much every copied photo has a 70 year copyright term... Personally I think its jolly unfair not to be able to copy other people's images, photos and ideas and flog them for a profit, but there you go.

weadmire

Doctor Doctor,

What do you think/say when someone who is trying to persuade you about something declares that you should trust them because they are honest? For that matter what do you generally think about proof by unsubstantiated assertion? What do you think goes through the minds of the readers of this thread when you declare you are an “independent thinker”. And similarly when you, with a post count of 230 odd in about 8 months, declare you do not have the time to send an email to TfL?

Jumping lights is safer than complying with them “defies all logic”. Risk compensation might be considered by the cautious to defy all logic. That jumping lights is generally safer than complying with them is counter intuitive, for some it's clearly hard to swallow and for everyone it is interesting.

The Crohn's study we are particularly familiar with is the one that occurred in our family. 12 rising 13 years without any relapse would count as a cure me thinks. And why use the word “hero”, is this some attempt at sarcasm? Why do you want to diminish the man? Could it be that he is the independent thinker you aspire to be and you are jealous?

“Malpractice doctor”? “Malpractice” or “mistake” which is it?

Society is generally tolerant of the carnage caused by doctors and drivers of motor vehicles so you have made an interesting comparison, you clearly think there is an equivalence. I can't see the relevance myself. But it does cause me to recall an article by the Doctor who first noticed the statistical discrepancies in the survival rates of children undergoing heart surgery round Bristol. Was it late 80's early 90's? He had it that in the UK the medical profession prematurely end the lives of about 25,000 people a year, or as he put it in the article a Jumbo jet load a week. 11 Months? Was it enough, with time off for good behaviour he was likely out in less than half that time but I do not have a view on whether this is harsh or otherwise but in absolute terms a few months inside is probably not that tough. You seemed to think it was notable. Other than to someone with an axe to grind it wasn't notable. If you turn a blind eye to 500 a week to get exercised about one does not seem rational.

What would I do to professions generally to improve their behaviour? For a start I would prevent them striking off their members for bringing their game into disrepute. Malpractice/mistakes? By all means ban them but disrepute, and I am here mainly talking consenting adults - sex the bete noir of the BMA - there should be no charge to answer. In such a circumstance the medics of this world would spend less time burnishing their image and more time doing their jobs. Perhaps in such a circumstance we would then have clinicians running hospitals instead of bureaucrats.

Jay dubbleU

Carnage caused by doctors ??? :shock:

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Doctor Doctor,

What do you think/say when someone who is trying to persuade you about something declares that you should trust them because they are honest? For that matter what do you generally think about proof by unsubstantiated assertion? What do you think goes through the minds of the readers of this thread when you declare you are an “independent thinker”. And similarly when you, with a post count of 230 odd in about 8 months, declare you do not have the time to send an email to TfL?

Jumping lights is safer than complying with them “defies all logic”. Risk compensation might be considered by the cautious to defy all logic. That jumping lights is generally safer than complying with them is counter intuitive, for some it's clearly hard to swallow and for everyone it is interesting.
The Crohn's study we are particularly familiar with is the one that occurred in our family. 12 rising 13 years without any relapse would count as a cure me thinks. And why use the word “hero”, is this some attempt at sarcasm? Why do you want to diminish the man? Could it be that he is the independent thinker you aspire to be and you are jealous?

“Malpractice doctor”? “Malpractice” or “mistake” which is it?

Society is generally tolerant of the carnage caused by doctors and drivers of motor vehicles so you have made an interesting comparison, you clearly think there is an equivalence. I can't see the relevance myself. But it does cause me to recall an article by the Doctor who first noticed the statistical discrepancies in the survival rates of children undergoing heart surgery round Bristol. Was it late 80's early 90's? He had it that in the UK the medical profession prematurely end the lives of about 25,000 people a year, or as he put it in the article a Jumbo jet load a week. 11 Months? Was it enough, with time off for good behaviour he was likely out in less than half that time but I do not have a view on whether this is harsh or otherwise but in absolute terms a few months inside is probably not that tough. You seemed to think it was notable. Other than to someone with an axe to grind it wasn't notable. If you turn a blind eye to 500 a week to get exercised about one does not seem rational.

What would I do to professions generally to improve their behaviour? For a start I would prevent them striking off their members for bringing their game into disrepute. Malpractice/mistakes? By all means ban them but disrepute, and I am here mainly talking consenting adults - sex the bete noir of the BMA - there should be no charge to answer. In such a circumstance the medics of this world would spend less time burnishing their image and more time doing their jobs. Perhaps in such a circumstance we would then have clinicians running hospitals instead of bureaucrats.

Lets go through the points in bold. I'm sure I could email them if for one second I thought it would be worthwhile use of my time. If some killer proof were available within this analysis of incidents I'm sure you would have told us by now, it is your theory after all that you are desperate to prove.

2 It is both counter-intuitive and interesting, what we need is evidence, you have presented speculation.

3 So now proof comes from a n=1 experience not a study of hundreds. how do you know he wouldn't have got better anyway, you dont. I think the most likely explanation is that he never had crohn's in the first place. Oh and I'm certainly not jealous of someone who tells peole he can cure them when there is clear evidence that's a lie.

4 I would find 11 months in prison a terrifying prospect, that's before you mention your career destroyed and a life of guilt/remorse. You seem to assume the doctor in question would simply laugh at the death of a patient, I'd bet he is devastated.

Mistakes will happen in any system run by human beings, Bristol and all of clinical governance exists to minimise this. The actually shocking aspect of Bristol is that people knew mistakes were being made and kept quiet, that culture is now largely gone. Most doctors do a very difficult job very well.

5 Fitness to practice is nothing to do with the BMA, you need to speak to the GMC if you want figures for that. Myself and my colleagues spend zero time worrying about our image and lots on our patients.

And what is this "doctor doctor" business about?: sarcasm, humour, insult?? Please explain, not particularly effective as any of those things, I'm afraid it just makes you sound a bit weird.

always_tyred

I have it - WeadMire was once knocked off their bikes by a doctor running a red light.

That's the only explanation.

biondino

Hang on a second. Can we explore this?

Nick Griffin's sweatier, less tolerant little brother wrote:

What is needed is for Doctor doctor or always wrong or anyone else for that matter to write to TfL and ask them for the analysis of cyclist fatalities in London from January 1999 to date. What they are going to find is something like jumpers nil compliers 100.

Even though 75% of cyclist deaths are happening away from traffic lights? Are you suggesting that these cyclists are clearly stupid enough to get themselves killed, therefore they MUST be stupid enough to stop at traffic lights? Otherwise I'm really struggling to see the logic.