RlJ'er gets nicked part II

weadmire

Doctor Doctor,

The name is intended to be a little joke, an antidote/response to condescension and patronage. Did you not tell us that you were two times a doctor? It troubles you, I will stop.

Five doctors, a couple of consultants, Herman-Taylor and a consultant with a device that records images of patients digestive tracts all said Crohn's. His weight had declined from about 80kg to 47kg. There might have been a lottery ticket like chance he was about to start digesting his food, but certainly not a chance anyone sane would want to take.

Touching how you rationalise the Bristol debacle. A bit easy on your fellows here, and what do you have to say about MRSA, Doctor's ongoing inclination to jewellery and their disinclination to personal hygiene? And what about care for the aged? You have yet to tell us why you think Marshall and Warren faced so much resistance from the medical establishment. And if doctors were half as noble and conscientious as you would like to claim why do they need so much clinical governance and money wasting bureaucracy? And why such a high proportion struck off for liaisons with patients if image was not the key issue?

A good deal of the interest in these forums is observing people spin their real motivation. Something with which we are very familiar mainly through the behaviour of politicians. That's what I think we have with you and Always wrong so far.

The evidence is there that trusting your safety to traffic lights is less safe than trusting your eyesight and your sense. Seven of the eight fatalities this year have been women killed trusting traffic lights and another came close on upper Thames Street in the course of the first RLJ'er gets nicked thread. We have not heard of one cyclist being killed jumping lights, this despite quite a large body of interested parties gagging for a jumper to cop it.

The evidence is there in the two reports you have access to. I think that it is personal vanity that prevents you from acknowledging this.

Always wrong so far,

Do you have trouble with sums or is it just a question of being one eyed?

First we have the confusion of 18 and 21, then we have the confusion of what might be described as jumpers and jumpees and now we have the claim that 18% of cyclists jump lights. Read the tables. 73.4% of cyclists were filmed jumping lights at ten carefully selected sites. To help you here 924 cyclists out of a total of 2002 arrived with the lights at red of whom 678, 73.4% jumped the lights. “About 70%” was the figure quoted in RLJ'er part 1 was it not?

Spare us the patronage and the commercial advice. Your firm is in the business of selling hours. Do you have to account for yours? And if so how do you account for rising 4000 posts in about two years? Does your firm or your firm's clients know how much time you spend on forums?

If you think we are infringing copyright please do me a favour write to all the firms whose copyright you think we are infringing and ask them to get in touch with us. Certainly we will not miss any of the shirt designs you detail if the subjects of the shirts decide they can do without our admiration.

Wallace1492

weadmire wrote:

We have not heard of one cyclist being killed jumping lights, this despite quite a large body of interested parties gagging for a jumper to cop it.

First we have the confusion of 18 and 21, then we have the confusion of what might be described as jumpers and jumpees and now we have the claim that 18% of cyclists jump lights. Read the tables. 73.4% of cyclists were filmed jumping lights at ten carefully selected sites. To help you here 924 cyclists out of a total of 2002 arrived with the lights at red of whom 678, 73.4% jumped the lights. “About 70%” was the figure quoted in RLJ'er part 1 was it not?

Just to point out, I have linked earlier to a report that shows at least two cyclists have been killed jumping red lights.

Next, the report refers to another report not published and quotes that "18% of cyclists jump red lights"

Also if you look at table 5.2, it clearly states that on average across the 10 sites, 39% of cyclists jumped red. I believe you are including (for your 73.4%) the people that stop past the ASL, which in my opinion is not jumping. If you want to quote the report, get it right.

Link to it here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/ASL-Findings-Report-October-011106.pdf

prawny

weadmire wrote:

73.4% of cyclists were filmed jumping lights at ten carefully selected sites. .

i.e. lights that are known to be regularly jumped.

This study smells like crap to me.

Porgy

Look at me not getting involved in pointless argument 8)

prawny

Porgy wrote:

Look at me not getting involved 8)

I'm trying not to,but it's like frickin heroin!

Wallace1492

Wallace1492 wrote:

weadmire wrote:

We have not heard of one cyclist being killed jumping lights, this despite quite a large body of interested parties gagging for a jumper to cop it.

First we have the confusion of 18 and 21, then we have the confusion of what might be described as jumpers and jumpees and now we have the claim that 18% of cyclists jump lights. Read the tables. 73.4% of cyclists were filmed jumping lights at ten carefully selected sites. To help you here 924 cyclists out of a total of 2002 arrived with the lights at red of whom 678, 73.4% jumped the lights. “About 70%” was the figure quoted in RLJ'er part 1 was it not?

Just to point out, I have linked earlier to a report that shows at least two cyclists have been killed jumping red lights.

Next, the report refers to another report not published and quotes that "18% of cyclists jump red lights"

Also if you look at table 5.2, it clearly states that on average across the 10 sites, 39% of cyclists jumped red. I believe you are including (for your 73.4%) the people that stop past the ASL, which in my opinion is not jumping. If you want to quote the report, get it right.

Link to it here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/ASL-Findings-Report-October-011106.pdf

Link wont work, but do google search for "TFL ASL"

ellieb

Seven of the eight fatalities this year have been women killed trusting traffic lights

It's probably not worth pointing out the tendentious logic you use in your diatribe, but what the hell.

Seven out of eight cyclists killed by HGVs were women:
Women are (allegedlly) more likely to obey red lights.
This does not equal seven out of eight cylists killed by HGVs were women obeying red lights.

You have taken two statements and provided a completely fallacious connection between the two. But since you are only in the business of trying to publicize your website I doubt it will bother you.

Onan

I'm so confused right now.

I think I'm going to solve this conundrum myself by hurling through traffic lights at speed to see if I get killed less than usual.

weadmire

Wallace,

The proportion "about 70%" refers to RLJ'er get nicked part 1. What was being queried was the quote, much derided at the time that "about 70% of cyclists jump lights to some extent" this is confirmed by the footage from the ten selected sites. There is no confusion on our part and we have accurately quoted the report. You might say the line has to be drawn and in this case 70 odd % went through it. The report I read of the two who might have been jumpers not jumpees was inconclusive and had all parties going through on amber. And then there is the matter of only two. The non jumpers want to have it that it is dangerous to jump. Remember all that stuff about Darwin etc. There is also the issue of desire in the minds of quite a proportion of people to blame the cyclist. Even with all this it's still just two.

Prawny,

You want to make something of the selection criteria for these sites. I have seen the selection criteria, it was worryingly careful stuff. Worrying in that when you read it you had to think who is paying for this? It might be part of the report, I can't recall, reading it once is enough.

weadmire

Elieb,

You are right. I should have said all the women I have read about who have been killed this year were crushed by a commercial vehicle at or around a traffic light controlled junction. I think it is all seven but I am not certain.

tailwindhome

Porgy wrote:

Look at me not getting involved in pointless argument 8)

Yes but you have.

No

Hold on, we've done this before

Greg T

weadmire wrote:

For that matter what do you generally think about proof by unsubstantiated assertion? .

The only proof I accept comes from posters revealing emails written to them from "friends" who have Boys names but are Burds - who themselves are expert in the field.

Or posters whose Dad's were great cyclists.

Or have strong expertise on other issues - I for one have a good grasp of basic geography - I use this to validate my decison to re-wire my own house, prior to the fire.

This is a fruitcake

Porgy

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

Porgy wrote:

Look at me not getting involved in pointless argument 8)

Yes but you have.

No

Hold on, we've done this before

yep - and you won't get me this time

always_tyred

WeadMires:

I'm still not clear how:

(a) you get from 70% or so at each individual junction, to 18% in total, within the same report.
(b) how you can possibly have failed to address the points raised by the CTC on precisely the topic you've been banging on about.

Its not debating if you answer a question my making a completely unrelated point, Weedy old dear/ladies/ladies and gentlemen/my old chap/gentlemen.

Did I hit a raw nerve with the copyright thing? No, I can't have. You would already have thought about that.

You can get therapy for post traumatic stress disorder, you know. Given that you were tramatised by a doctor, I'd suggest a hypnotist in the first instance.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Elieb,

You are right. I should have said all the women I have read about who have been killed this year were crushed by a commercial vehicle at or around a traffic light controlled junction. I think it is all seven but I am not certain.

It isn't true WeadMire. However, since there are but 7 incidents and seeing as they are necessarily recent, I strongly caution you against discussing individual incidents on this forum. This has been done in the past and quite often relatives and friends find and read the posts.

Aguila

weadmire wrote:

Doctor Doctor,

The name is intended to be a little joke, an antidote/response to condescension and patronage. Did you not tell us that you were two times a doctor? It troubles you, I will stop.

Five doctors, a couple of consultants, Herman-Taylor and a consultant with a device that records images of patients digestive tracts all said Crohn's. His weight had declined from about 80kg to 47kg. There might have been a lottery ticket like chance he was about to start digesting his food, but certainly not a chance anyone sane would want to take.

Touching how you rationalise the Bristol debacle. A bit easy on your fellows here, and what do you have to say about MRSA, Doctor's ongoing inclination to jewellery and their disinclination to personal hygiene? And what about care for the aged? You have yet to tell us why you think Marshall and Warren faced so much resistance from the medical establishment. And if doctors were half as noble and conscientious as you would like to claim why do they need so much clinical governance and money wasting bureaucracy? And why such a high proportion struck off for liaisons with patients if image was not the key issue?

A good deal of the interest in these forums is observing people spin their real motivation. Something with which we are very familiar mainly through the behaviour of politicians. That's what I think we have with you and Always wrong so far.

.

Bizarre.

Your little joke is SO different to patronage/condescension isn't it.

Antimycobacterial drugs do not cure crohn's, evidence based fact, yet still a single anecdote makes you ignore this. This says a lot aout your own interpretation of evidence, you seem to believe what you want regardless of the evidence.

How am I "touchingly" rationalizing Bristol. That scandal changed medicine for ever and led to the birth of clinical governance which exists to prevent all the errors you complain so bitterly about. Yet later on you moan about us needing clinical governance!!??

Doctors are banned from wearing any jewelery except wedding bands, we cant even wear watches now. We are continuously monitored for hand washing, where do you get these views??? I assume you are a Daily Mail reader. You simply haven't got a clue.

MRSA rates have plummeted. There is not a high proportion struck off for liaisons with patients, that's just plain wrong, write to the GMC if you dont believe me. we had the chairman of the GMC talk to us on this very issue last week.

Oh and dont blame doctors for bureaucracy, the government decides how the NHS wastes money on that. I agree with you that care for the elderly is poor by the way.

The NHS could deliver far better care in loads of areas but people will not vote for the taxes it would take to pay for it, if you want an example look at the % GDP places like the US spend to get the results they do.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992- ... -countries

The graph shows the UK spends the least of any developed european country except Finland and Ireland. If you want better health care you are gonna have to pay for it, its far too easy to blame bureaucracy and lazy doctors. But selfish UK will never vote for the investment required, tax cuts are what wins elections. this is why the lib dems do badly, the truth is never popular.

always_tyred

If they took GP salaries out of the UK's numbers, it would be even worse!

EDIT - actually, that's a really misleading set of figures Aguila; it covers a range of GDP's and a range of funding mechanisms. For example, if you took the US figures and stripped out private health care, do you really think they'd be top? So, those figures compare the NHS with profit making healthcare providers in the US. That's absurd. Same goes for Canada.

I agree its not fantastic, but France is more of an outlier than the UK, and we compare reasonably to countries like Norway and Japan.

I also think its a bit hard on the likes of Turkey and Poland to be compared to the G8.

prawny

weadmire wrote:

Prawny,

You want to make something of the selection criteria for these sites. I have seen the selection criteria, it was worryingly careful stuff. Worrying in that when you read it you had to think who is paying for this? It might be part of the report, I can't recall, reading it once is enough.

Do you not want to enlighten me with the selection criteria? I can't be bothered to read the report that may or may not contain it. I have much more important things to do. Such as watching ross noble and drinking orange squash 8)

I really don't know I'm getting involved, you won't get me jumping every red light, it's just not neccesary round my way.

always_tyred

Greg T wrote:

Ah, Genius Cake, my favourite.

bikefish85

weadmire

You provide some interesting stats, but not enough to make the conclusions that you have.

Firstly can you be sure that these accidents would all have been prevented and lives saved if the victims were to have jumped the red light? How do you know that in all those cases the light was not green when the cyclist approached?

You refer to the assumption that male cyclists may be at less risk because they jump the red lights in these situations. But couldn't we also assume that more male cyclists, specifically those who RLJ, would not be in such as dangerous position anyway, and if jumping the red light was not an option, they would have proceeded more carefully? Could not it be that some female cyclists simply do not have the same junction awareness as men? You simply do not have enough relevant info to make your claims, nor looked at all the possibilties at the junction.

You also manipulate your figures. How can it be 100s of times safer to jump a red light? What are you basing this on? You routinely ignore other other facts presented ie that of RLJers being killed (you quote zero) and from a study quote over 70% of cyclists RLJ. Other studies show figures much less than this, larger studies.

There is obviously a problem at some junctions with cyclist safety, but your remedy is fighting fire with fire. What needs to be addressed is how cyclists approach the junction and make themselves aware of the situation and of other road users. Filter lanes can be dangerous, and I think this is an area that needs to be looked at.

Wallace1492

weadmire wrote:

Wallace,

The proportion "about 70%" refers to RLJ'er get nicked part 1. What was being queried was the quote, much derided at the time that "about 70% of cyclists jump lights to some extent" this is confirmed by the footage from the ten selected sites. There is no confusion on our part and we have accurately quoted the report. You might say the line has to be drawn and in this case 70 odd % went through it. The report I read of the two who might have been jumpers not jumpees was inconclusive and had all parties going through on amber. And then there is the matter of only two. The non jumpers want to have it that it is dangerous to jump. Remember all that stuff about Darwin etc. There is also the issue of desire in the minds of quite a proportion of people to blame the cyclist. Even with all this it's still just two.

To Jump or not to Jump, that is the question.... In the report, the figure given for jumping red was 39% so lets just use that. Now, taking that two jumpers have been killed, we see that jumping can be dangerous too.

By it's nature jumers will be more careful, as they are potentially putting themselves in more danger, so it is no wonder less accidents for them, no arguement there.
Yes, jumping can get you into a safer position in some situations and I have no qualms doing this.

So, I would agree to the statement that jumping red lights can be extremely safe. However, as I have said before, for inexperienced cyclists, less confident cyclists, some women for example, jumping red lights will be extremely unsafe. These are the ones that will stay at red, and may get into dangerous situations. So what is the solution to this? Do you want them to jump red? They would get into even more dangerous situations.

I believe it is education for these less confident cyclists. But how that is delivered is the question.

Aguila

Always Tyred wrote:

If they took GP salaries out of the UK's numbers, it would be even worse!

EDIT - actually, that's a really misleading set of figures Aguila; it covers a range of GDP's and a range of funding mechanisms. For example, if you took the US figures and stripped out private health care, do you really think they'd be top? So, those figures compare the NHS with profit making healthcare providers in the US. That's absurd. Same goes for Canada.

I agree its not fantastic, but France is more of an outlier than the UK, and we compare reasonably to countries like Norway and Japan.

I also think its a bit hard on the likes of Turkey and Poland to be compared to the G8.

It certainly isn't fair but that's the point, to get more you need to spend more, the method of funding really isn't relevant. You can illustrate the point within the US by comparing those with insurance to those without. I'm simply showing you that better standards of care/drugs/staffing etc cost, cost a lot.

Don't get me wrong I'm glad we dont have a system like the US, but people claim we should have all the things they do within the NHS, my point is that you could if you were happy to have your taxes tripple, but that isn't ever going to be popular.

weadmire

Wallace,

The issue might be education and how it might practically be delivered. Telling cyclists they should look for traffic not lights would be a good start. It is my argument that not trusting lights will make cyclists better at avoiding dramas, all dramas, by making them more aware of what is going on around them. Monderman schemes are coming and when they start they are bound to spread, we should do what we can to spread them quickly. Jumping and ridiculing lights is a good place to start. And it is safer.

Aguila,

Some of the worst medical malpractice I have witnessed was perpetrated in America. I understand malpractice insurance is on average an American medic's largest overhead. This despite Bush introducing a 2yr time limit on malpractice suits, for everyone else it's 3 yrs or more.

I am surprised you can't seem to see the connection between the need for clinical governance and malpractice. And I think you are naïve in saying things like “changed for ever”. I am not moaning about medical bureaucracy, medics are moaning about medical bureaucracy. They abdicated responsibility, it is my case that they might have been too busy burnishing their image to properly manage themselves and so someone else stepped in.

Do you know the name of the Doctor who first drew attention to the Bristol debacle? I would like to look him up but I do not know his name?

Care of the aged is a disgrace. What goes on - and I can quote chapter, verse and prescriptions from 1st hand observation and experience not newspaper reports btw - is the equivalent of GBH with intent. Unless the patient has someone to protect them they are in serious danger. I am sure you know this. What are you doing about it? Are there any medical forums where this is properly discussed or are you too busy defending the status quo regarding traffic lights to know?

Bikefish,

If 50 people are killed complying with traffic lights and none are killed jumping them simply put it is 50/0 > than 100. The two - I noticed seized here as certainly killed jumping, does no one feel uncomfortable in reflecting on their desire for these people to have been jumpers? – would reduce that. I will put in a freedom of information request concerning fatalities of cyclists from January 2007 to date today. I will specifically ask for the incident reports. It will be four weeks from today. Prawny can put it in his diary.

always_tyred

I guess my questions were too difficult to address.

weadmire

tyred,

What questions? If you are talking about the apparent discrepancy in the report you were going to "pick it apart" were you not? You should be able to tell us. Could it be in their enthusiasm to diminish jumpers they are expressing jumpers as a proportion of all cyclists who pass through light controlled junctions not just those who go through the red light? .

I think you have ADS, Attention Deficiency Syndrome in that you think you do not get enough attention, I think the guy with the thing about cake has a similar problem, like you he sort of says a lot but on examination really says nothing.

Four weeks. Ping us if the timetable slips.

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

tyred,

What questions? If you are talking about the apparent discrepancy in the report you were going to "pick it apart" were you not? You should be able to tell us. Could it be in their enthusiasm to diminish jumpers they are expressing jumpers as a proportion of all cyclists who pass through light controlled junctions not just those who go through the red light? .

I think you have ADS, Attention Deficiency Syndrome in that you think you do not get enough attention, I think the guy with the thing about cake has a similar problem, like you he sort of says a lot but on examination really says nothing.

Four weeks. Ping us if the timetable slips.

No. He who asserts must prove. You are the one making assertions.

You have two matters to address (a) table 12 (b) the CTC report kindly highlighted by Wallace. You have shirked both of these because they are inconvenient to your argument.

Did I say "argument"? I meant "dogma".

PBo

Always Tyred wrote:

weadmire wrote:

tyred,

What questions? If you are talking about the apparent discrepancy in the report you were going to "pick it apart" were you not? You should be able to tell us. Could it be in their enthusiasm to diminish jumpers they are expressing jumpers as a proportion of all cyclists who pass through light controlled junctions not just those who go through the red light? .

I think you have ADS, Attention Deficiency Syndrome in that you think you do not get enough attention, I think the guy with the thing about cake has a similar problem, like you he sort of says a lot but on examination really says nothing.

Four weeks. Ping us if the timetable slips.

No. He who asserts must prove. You are the one making assertions.

You have two matters to address (a) table 12 (b) the CTC report kindly highlighted by Wallace. You have shirked both of these because they are inconvenient to your argument.

Did I say "argument"? I meant "dogma".

Hi AT - you really do attract the c0cks don't you - at least Doog the sarcastic has been banned now.

always_tyred

PBo wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

weadmire wrote:

tyred,

What questions? If you are talking about the apparent discrepancy in the report you were going to "pick it apart" were you not? You should be able to tell us. Could it be in their enthusiasm to diminish jumpers they are expressing jumpers as a proportion of all cyclists who pass through light controlled junctions not just those who go through the red light? .

I think you have ADS, Attention Deficiency Syndrome in that you think you do not get enough attention, I think the guy with the thing about cake has a similar problem, like you he sort of says a lot but on examination really says nothing.

Four weeks. Ping us if the timetable slips.

No. He who asserts must prove. You are the one making assertions.

You have two matters to address (a) table 12 (b) the CTC report kindly highlighted by Wallace. You have shirked both of these because they are inconvenient to your argument.

Did I say "argument"? I meant "dogma".

Hi AT - you really do attract the c0cks don't you - at least Doog the sarcastic has been banned now.

I find it quite fun.

weadmire

tyred,

Who are you writing this for, the people who you perceive as your audience and whom you trust not to bother to look? Table 12 details that 81% of cycling fatalities occurred at at light controlled junction, 57% were killed by commercial vehicles and and 24% were killed by other motor vehicles. The majority of those killed were left hooked but quite a high proportion were mown down from behind.

The CTC document is interesting for illustrating how easy it was for you to be confused by the differential between jumpers and jumpees and beyond that your ready acceptance of the CTC's position that two of the fatalities were jumpers. This is suspect, I have seen the analysis. The CTC piece was in any case clearly written from the perspective of mitigating the bad press cyclists get on account of the fine example cyclists set with regard to red lighst.

So far every time you have quoted numbers in this thread you have been wrong. !8/21 jumpers jumpees, 70 +% of fatal accidents occur away from light controlled junctions etc.

If you read the narrative to table twelve you will also note:

"In addition, while 40.2% of all cyclist fatalities occurred on the Transport for
London Road Network (TLRN), 49% of cyclist fatalities involving goods
vehicles occurred on the TLRN. This compares with 32.9% of all London road
user fatalities during this period and 26.8% of all pedal cycle casualties in
2003. These figures show that a higher proportion of cyclist fatalities occur on
the TLRN than total fatalities and casualties. "

Roads within the TLRN are overburdened with traffic light controlled junctions. Strange that.

Four weeks and we will have something you can get your teeth into meanwhile I suggest a refresher course in er... sums.

always_tyred

Table 12: Characteristics of cyclist fatal collisions involving goods and other vehicles
Circumstance
All pedal cycle fatal collisions involving goods vehicles
All other pedal cycle fatal collisions
All collisions involving pedal cycles in 2003
frequency (%)
frequency (%)
frequency (%)
Signalled junction/
crossing
28 (57.1%)
9 (23.7%)
789 (25%)

Copied straight from Table 12. I don't know what you are reading but you've completely *ucked if up I'm afraid. The figure 81% doesn't occur anywhere in table 12. Neither does table 12 contain any information relating to the preponderence of TLCJ's in and out of the TLRN. This is just fiction.

Why exactly have I become confused by the CTC report. I know you say its wrong, but you haven't explained why. Given that your comprehension of the first report is a bit iffy, I'm not too sure we should just take your word for it. Enlighten me.