RlJ'er gets nicked part II

weadmire

Extraordinary:

Table 12:
At signalled junction crossing:
All pedal cycle fatal collisions involving goods vehicles 28 (57.1%)

All other pedal cycle fatal collisions 9 (23.7%)

23.7% plus 57.1% = 80.8%

Directly below the table some narrative:

Location
Table 12 shows that just over half of cyclist fatalities involving goods vehicles
(57%) occurred at signalled junctions or crossings
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.

I have not said the CTC report is "wrong" I have said the two fatal jumpers, cyclists jumping lights were open to interpretation. I have seen the police report of these incidents. This not to be confused with what might be called jumpees: cyclists complying with the lights mown down by jumping motor vehicles. Your confusion in this regard has been pointed out, I think by Wallace.

Kieran_Burns

weadmire wrote:

Extraordinary:

Table 12:
At signalled junction crossing:
All pedal cycle fatal collisions involving goods vehicles 28 (57.1%)

All other pedal cycle fatal collisions 9 (23.7%)

23.7% plus 57.1% = 80.8%

Directly below the table some narrative:

Location
Table 12 shows that just over half of cyclist fatalities involving goods vehicles
(57%) occurred at signalled junctions or crossings
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.

I'll take your word that the figures you produce are correct but these don't appear to say that junctions are dangerous, not that obeying red lights is. The second set seem to imply that London is more dangerous to cycle in nothing more.

Where do you get that RLJ'ing is safer from those figures?

cee

wait...to save me reading this report...can you clarify the numbers for me....

57% of fatalities involving hgv's happened at lights.....28 at lights so that is a total of 49.036 fatalities involving hgv's

23.7% of fatalities involving other vehicles were at lights....9 at lights gives 37.97 total involving non-hgv's

you cannot just add these percentages together, you have to join the datasets and recalculate....
so 86 fatalities total, 37 at lights....gives 37/86= 43% total....not 80odd percent surely

or am i totally up the crumpet?

always_tyred

weadmire wrote:

Extraordinary:

Table 12:
At signalled junction crossing:
All pedal cycle fatal collisions involving goods vehicles 28 (57.1%)

All other pedal cycle fatal collisions 9 (23.7%)

23.7% plus 57.1% = 80.8%

The question I asked was in relation to the final figure - 25% of all collisions.

As you mention it, of the FATAL collisions, around 42% occur at light controlled junctions, but there is no information as to whether or not both vehicles were going through them, or of one or other were stationary. The report is quite clear on that point, possibly in an attempt to disuade morons from misinterpreting it.

To get to the 42%, take the 28 fatalities with HGV's add the 9 with other vehicles, divide by the total of 87 and multiply by 100.

u]Numpty[/u. You've added 57% of 49 incidents with HGV's and 24% of 38 incidents with other vehicles. [/Numpty]

The sobering message of the report is quite how lethal the "death zone" around HGV's is. Its downright irresponsible to take these figures and use them to recommend another form of dangerous behaviour.

The CTC report refers to both categories of incident, as does my brief analysis of it, suggesting that rljers are 4 times over represented (from memory). Read it again.

Wallace1492

weadmire wrote:

Extraordinary:

Table 12:
At signalled junction crossing:
All pedal cycle fatal collisions involving goods vehicles 28 (57.1%)

All other pedal cycle fatal collisions 9 (23.7%)

23.7% plus 57.1% = 80.8%

Directly below the table some narrative:

Location
Table 12 shows that just over half of cyclist fatalities involving goods vehicles
(57%) occurred at signalled junctions or crossings
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.

I have not said the CTC report is "wrong" I have said the two fatal jumpers, cyclists jumping lights were open to interpretation. I have seen the police report of these incidents. This not to be confused with what might be called jumpees: cyclists complying with the lights mown down by jumping motor vehicles. Your confusion in this regard has been pointed out, I think by Wallace.

Very extraordinary!!
Lets get table 12 right.

57% of fatalities caused by HGV's are at light controlled junctions.
23.7% of all other cyclist fatalities are at light controlled junctions.

You cannot add these together!! I mean you cannot say that 43% of HGV fatalities are away from lights, and 76.3% of all other fatalities are away from lights, so that is 119% killed away from lights.... Does not compute, does not compute....

PBo

waits for Weadmire to pick up a spade and dig the hole even deeper.....

Rockbuddy

weadmire wrote:

Extraordinary:

Table 12:
At signalled junction crossing:
All pedal cycle fatal collisions involving goods vehicles 28 (57.1%)

All other pedal cycle fatal collisions 9 (23.7%)

23.7% plus 57.1% = 80.8%

Oh dear, School boy error, adding % from different data sets , if you add the 23% from the total of 2003 aswell you can get over 100%, that must be conclusive, right

The real conclusion from this whole debacle is that Weadmire needs to go back to school No but seriously the data basically states that you are less likely to be killed at a light controlled junction/crossroad but more likely away from them but you are more likely to be killed by a HGV than any other road user type in London. Could go as far as to say that London is more dangerous for cyclists than most other places in the UK, but I won’t

Wallace1492

Others have said it - London is dangerous.

The main point is not whether to RLJ or not, it is situational awareness, and knowing what is going on and what the vehicles around you are doing.

There is too much traffic at some junctions for a free for all, so there must be control. However, I agree with WeAdmire when he says, do not always assume green is safe (could be some bloody RLJers coming through red!!) Just as you should not assume that a vehicle is not turning left just because indicator is on.

Kieran_Burns

Actually I must admit I overlooked the basic error myself :oops:

However, inm y defence I was concentrating on the extrapolation from insufficient data rather than messing the data up in the first place

cee

Wallace1492 wrote:

However, I agree with WeAdmire when he says, do not always assume green is safe (could be some bloody RLJers coming through red!!) Just as you should not assume that a vehicle is not turning left just because indicator is on.

I also agree with this point...

If you listen the spoken message that a green man signal gives for hard of hearing pedestrians....it says 'The traffic coming from somewhere has been signalled to stop'.

It does not offer any promise that the traffic has actually stopped....just that it has been signalled to do so.

Mr Sworld

cee wrote:

If you listen the spoken message that a green man signal gives for hard of hearing pedestrians....it says 'The traffic coming from somewhere has been signalled to stop'.

Surely that would be for the blind? If you are hard of hearing you would just look for the green man to light up?

Down in Brighton way the new Ped X'ing's have a little knob under the push button bit that rotates when the green man lights.

cee

Mr Sworld wrote:

cee wrote:

If you listen the spoken message that a green man signal gives for hard of hearing pedestrians....it says 'The traffic coming from somewhere has been signalled to stop'.

Surely that would be for the blind? If you are hard of hearing you would just look for the green man to light up?

Down in Brighton way the new Ped X'ing's have a little knob under the push button bit that rotates when the green man lights.

yes....erm....you know what i mean... :oops:

Onan

Maths hurts my brian.

biondino

Wallace1492 wrote:

Others have said it - London is dangerous.

Not really. Slower traffic, a higher proportion of professional drivers and proportionally fewer multi-lane roads make London rather safer for the confident, assertive cyclist.

Onan

I haven't ridden a bicycle in London, but I've walked around it, and been driven around it many times, and certainly recently, I would have to say it seems a safer place to do your cycling than here in Stoke.

Huge numbers of cyclists on the roads in london compared to here, and the traffic seems to be more considerate (not in general, but towards cyclists). Also, as biondino says, I think it's much harder to find routes up here which don't involve big multi lane roads roads.

cee

Onan wrote:

Maths hurts my brian.

apparently knowing the difference between blind and deaf is my brains issue

Kieran_Burns

Is it just me or is not very 'admirable' around here now?

bikefish85

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.

Too simply put, and exclusive events. Why do you assume that the persons that were killed would have lived if they had jumped the lights? Why do you assume they even had a chance to jump the lights, as in my original post? You have not supplied all relevant data about the circumstances for all these accidents. Read what I said. Look at the alternative situations. I look forward to your your conclusions from this additional info.

always_tyred

bikefish85 wrote:

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.

Too simply put, and exclusive events. Why do you assume that the persons that were killed would have lived if they had jumped the lights? Why do you assume they even had a chance to jump the lights, as in my original post? You have not supplied all relevant data about the circumstances for all these accidents. Read what I said. Look at the alternative situations. I look forward to your your conclusions from this additional info.

Yes yes. But if you take two beans, and add these two beans, what do you get? 100% beans. That's right. Quite clearly that's what you get. There are no not beans, only beans. And what's more, 81% of those beans would have avoided being baked if they'd been half baked.

I'm always wrong.

Wallace1492

weadmire wrote:

tyred,

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

I think an apology is due, as someone certainly needs a refresher course in er.... sums!

Stuey01

This has been riveting stuff.

WeAdmire is conspicuous by her absence since the summing percentage error was pointed out.

Wallace1492

Stuey01 wrote:

This has been riveting stuff.

WeAdmire is conspicuous by her absence since the summing percentage error was pointed out.

Yes, but WeAdmire has not been the best at looking at figures. Continually quotes over 70% jump, even though the report stated from the 10 junctions in the survey, and average of 39% jumped.

However, I still think WeAdmire has some valid points, and further analysis should be conducted, but as long as it is quoted, interpreted correctly!!

Clever Pun

Let.it.die

Rockbuddy

weadmire wrote:

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.

Mmm, this sounds a bit familiar If and when you finally do get the report(s) are you going to need some help interpreting it / them

Seriously though, still waiting for the damming evidence that irrefutably proves how dangerous Traffic Lights are? or was the HGV report it???

biondino

Clever Pun wrote:

Let.it.die

Ain't gonna happen. You may have to kill it. With extreme prejudice.

weadmire

I wanted to leave this until the incident report arrives. But such a celebration of a simple error, and especially from Always tedious who still seems to want to treat the CTC jumpers and jumpees as pretty much one and the same. What is there in the Wallace linked CTC report besides the dubious claim two jumpers and three jumpees were killed? In any case the jumpees count for my side of the argument not that of the anti RLJ brigades. And why don't any of you wish to question the CTC analysis of two jumpers killed?

First to Always tyred's “fiction” concerning traffic lights in London. It it said that in London you are not likely to be more the 10ft from a rat. I'd say in Central London at ground level you are not likely to be more than 50m from a traffic light. If it is the case that roads controlled by TfL have a greater proportion of fatalities than otherwise - despite the effects of the congestion charge - the fact that we are overburdened with traffic lights might have something to do with it. This was commentary, expressed with the words “strange that.” Where is the “fiction”, where did I claim it was part of the report?

To the much asked “25%”. I can't pretend to be all that interested in the SI of KSI, it's too subjective but if that proportion, 75%, occurred away from junctions I would be very surprised. I think you would be surprised too which raises the issue of why mention it? Is this you “picking the report apart”? Bit lame if that is the best you can do. If however it was claimed that these figures apply to Central London I'd say you are never so far from a junction and a traffic light in London for either or both not to influence an incident. If you were to drive a truck across Central London stopping or being prepared to stop every 100m or so must affect your behaviour, you must start to put your brains in neutral or risk mental exhaustion. This report was commissioned by a political group committed to traffic lights and it was not intended for publication. It was deliberately suppressed.

On the matter of saying what you mean what are you on about with 7 incidents not 8 this year and the patronising and misplaced warning concerning discussion of recent incidents? Given I have never accused any of the victims of being negligent in going up the inside of trucks, quite the reverse, while you and yours often denigrate the victims, why warn me? Is it the case you thinking of yourself here? Are you concerned you will not be able to throw the usual traffic light supporting victim criticising generalities about?

In about three weeks we will have a report of the incidents. One thing that may strike you - when and if you try to “pick the report apart” - might be the rather sketchy nature of the information. Given it is more recent than the CTC 2 (or is that still 5 in your mind?) I would like you to dwell on the implied quality of their information. And their motivation for being conservative in their interpretation when writing a political press release mainly detailing pedestrian deaths on the foot way and the sweet innocence of cyclists.

Wallace,

“Continually quotes over 70% jump, even though the report stated from the 10 junctions in the survey, an average of 39% jumped.”

Your inclination to reduce the proportion that jumps is not rational and is contrary to what we know about human nature. Two of the junctions with the highest flow of cyclists had a proportion of jumpers, as in “ignored the light”, of about 60%. The average proportion across 10 carefully selected sites that went beyond the line was in excess of 70%. Given an opportunity and the right traffic conditions the evidence is there that this is the sort of proportion that would “ignore”. It is also the case that some junctions are not worth trying to jump. 70% is a more accurate reflection of reality than 39%. I would say the inclination to jump is the important factor. It is my case that the mind set of cyclists to jump that will tend to protect in all circumstances.

Biondino,

Extreme prejudice? In your dreams...Your prejudice never rises above the level of farty.

Wallace1492

weadmire wrote:

Wallace,

“Continually quotes over 70% jump, even though the report stated from the 10 junctions in the survey, an average of 39% jumped.”

Your inclination to reduce the proportion that jumps is not rational and is contrary to what we know about human nature. Two of the junctions with the highest flow of cyclists had a proportion of jumpers, as in “ignored the light”, of about 60%. The average proportion across 10 carefully selected sites that went beyond the line was in excess of 70%. Given an opportunity and the right traffic conditions the evidence is there that this is the sort of proportion that would “ignore”. It is also the case that some junctions are not worth trying to jump. 70% is a more accurate reflection of reality than 39%. I would say the inclination to jump is the important factor. It is my case that the mind set of cyclists to jump that will tend to protect in all circumstances.

It is not my inclination to reduce the number of jumpers, I am quoting directly from the report. It is you that is speculating that "others" would jump. I am merely quoting exactly what was in the report.

I myself quite often stop past the line, but do not consider this to be a jump, so why are you assuming that all the incidences of stopping over the line are jumps, that is not logical, as there are numerous reasons why one would stop over the line.

Granted, there will be instances in which potential jumpers have had to comply with the lights due to traffic, but lets stick to the facts, the report states 39% jumped. If you do not wish to use the facts from the report, why bother getting the other reports.

I still am not sure what you are suggesting should happen. Jumping can be safe, yes it can. However, are you suggesting that inexperienced, less confident cyclists start jumping? They are likely to get into more trouble.

biondino

weadmire wrote:

Biondino,

Extreme prejudice? In your dreams...Your prejudice never rises above the level of farty.

I wasn't talking to you, cocknocker. Also, your last post is complete rubbish, Seriously, STFU and leave us alone.

always_tyred

Someone sent me a quote today, which I think is apposite.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts."

- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Kieran_Burns

I wanted to leave this until the incident report arrives. But such a celebration of a simple error, and especially from Always tedious who still seems to want to treat the CTC jumpers and jumpees as pretty much one and the same. What is there in the Wallace linked CTC report besides the dubious claim two jumpers and three jumpees were killed? In any case the jumpees count for my side of the argument not that of the anti RLJ brigades. And why don't any of you wish to question the CTC analysis of two jumpers killed?

Your simple mathematical error appeared to be the cornerstone of your mathematical 'analysis' of the figures and used to counter an argument put against you; so it is natural that people will question your statements
Could you please clarify your definitions of 'jumpers' and jumpees'? I presume you mean 'those that jump' and 'those that are affected by those that jump' i.e. crossing on a green light and interacting with a RLJ?

First to Always tyred's “fiction” concerning traffic lights in London. It it said that in London you are not likely to be more the 10ft from a rat. I'd say in Central London at ground level you are not likely to be more than 50m from a traffic light. If it is the case that roads controlled by TfL have a greater proportion of fatalities than otherwise - despite the effects of the congestion charge - the fact that we are overburdened with traffic lights might have something to do with it. This was commentary, expressed with the words “strange that.” Where is the “fiction”, where did I claim it was part of the report?

"You'd say you are not like to be...." do you have evidence of this? Otherwise your following comments are pure speculation, and don't actually appear to make a point. I fail to see how the introduction of a congestion charge would affect peoples driving behaviour while within the charge zone. - again this is unsubstantiated speculation on your part
"The fact that we are overburdened..." again this is your opinion and not substantiated by facts.


Really I could go on, but practically it isn't worth it. You are a bigot, in the classic sense of the word. You refuse to acknowldge any other view point despite logical counter-arguments to your posts. You create spurious statistics to back up your claims and rather than use clarity to highlight your points; you deliberately obfuscate your langage to generate a fiction of intellectualism

It's all a bit pathetic to be blunt..