Getting our own house in order....

Headhuunter

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Cyclists are not one homogeneous group, race our religion,

Unfortunate then that cyclists are perceived as one homogeneous group race or religion by the great unwashed outside of this little forum and that some of those unwashed aren't very nice to perfectly innocent people on bikes because of the actions of others on bikes who choose to engage in more selfish/less lawful acts.

And to comment on an earlier point. Drivers (legally) do have to prove themselves worthy of being on the road by means of test & granted licence in a way cyclists don't.
This again gives some of them a skewed & prejudicial view of the issue regarding the prevalence, recklessness and severity of misdemeanours and a belief that they are somehow safer to those around them in their convenient lawbreaking than cyclists are who choose to ignore inconvenient laws.


Edit - not saying that you're wrong BTW, I don't feel responsible or any sort of puritannical role model etc for anyone else & can't see any practical way any group of individuals will ever set their house in order to the satisfaction of an entirely different group of individuals (or why they should in isolation when said groups are as bad if not worse), but internet right doesen't necessarily translate to real world right.

Point taken tha drivers have to "prove" their right to the road. It should be that way, they are in charge of 2 tonnes + of glass and and steel, capable of very high speed.... As for motorists taking 1 cyclist's crime out on another, that's their problem and it's an attitude that needs addressing....

Headhuunter

Jeepie wrote:

I don't feel responsible for policing cyclists. If someone drops litter it really annoys me but I wouldn't tell the litterer to pick it up. Would you?

Also the blatant law breaking with regards to the RLJs is primarily what upsets me. A cyclist will go up to a set of red lights, that have been red for some time and go through. There's no debate about whether they were nipping through on amber etc... It's just cut and dried blatant law breaking. I don't see any motorists doing this - they "jump" the lights on amber sure.... but they don't go up to lights that are red and have been for 30 seconds and just go through.....

I wouldn't get so annoyed if some litter fell out of someone's pocket accidentally on purpose but simply dropping it on the floor is another matter. Still I wouldn't start shouting about it.

Get on with your own life and set your own example is my view.

At certain junctions on my commute I regularly see motorists jump reds. Not just ambers, they jump reds... 2 or 3 cars go through red on each phase. It really isn't rare at all. As you say, cyclists go through red mid phase which is somehow seen as a more horrible crime than some car driver whizzing his large and dangerous vehicle through a red but I'm afraid not in my book. If the road is clear, I see cyclists pushing through reds as no different to peds crossing a junction when the red man is showing...

corshamjim

Headhuunter wrote:

If the road is clear, I see cyclists pushing through reds as no different to peds crossing a junction when the red man is showing...

Granted the risks might be similar, but in law the two are very different. The one is illegal the other isn't.

unclejimbo1983

Headhuunter wrote:

I disagree. I feel no more responsible for other cyclists action than I do for other pedestrians actions when I'm walking. Cyclists are not one homogeneous group, race our religion, they are just people on bikes

I seem to have rambled so much that my point was lost.

I don't think we should feel responsible for other cyclists' actions, but I do get pissed off at antisocial cyclsits and I think they do indirectly make my life more difficult through the backlash they provoke. Not to mention the fact that my Nan has to cross the road just like everybody else's and I don't want her killed by some wannabe messenger shaving 30 seconds off his commute.

I find myself sitting at the lights thinking "why can't someone do something about these pr1cks" and realise that, as a cyclist I am uniquely placed to do something about it - I'm right there, not in a box or at a distance and I am (however tenuously) one of their peers who might just be able to shame them into being more considerate.

My issue is more what to do about it. I can't think of a course of action that wouldn't either come across as really aggressive or get me pushed under a bus.

Maybe something a bit more passive, like a special edition Hump emblazoned with "When you run a pedestrian crossing, everyone thinks you're a twunt"

Headhuunter

Don't get me wrong, I think we could all be a bit more community minded about the things that bother us,I just resent the implication that cyclists need to be targeted as a particular threat.I think you're nan probably has more to fear from a speeding motorist on his our her mobile than an errant cyclist

nameinuse

Perhaps addressing the perception by drivers that "cyclists" are a homogeneous group is more important that trying to do something about the minority of cyclists who behave like idiots? I think that would likely be more effective for my personal safety than trying to police the behaviour of kids in hoodies on BSOs. As a separate issue there is the point that RLJing, pavement riding, etc... are antisocial but don't really represent a risk to pedestrians, and certainly a far lower risk than motorists do.

As far as I can tell affecting driver behaviour is going to be far more effective for both cyclist and pedestrian safety than anything else because drivers are responsible for the vast, vast majority of injuries. Whilst it's indirect it's about the best we can do. I'm not sure telling occasional idiots on bikes off will go any way to changing that behaviour, only the normalisation of cycling and a wider acceptance of the responsibility in driving will.

corshamjim

nameinuse wrote:

... because drivers are responsible for the vast, vast majority of injuries.

Assuming you mean of cyclists then I think you'll find injuries are statistically more often the cyclists own fault and don't involve a collision with another vehicle (deaths are another matter entirely).

bails87

corshamjim wrote:

nameinuse wrote:

... because drivers are responsible for the vast, vast majority of injuries.

Assuming you mean of cyclists then I think you'll find injuries are statistically more often the cyclists own fault and don't involve a collision with another vehicle (deaths are another matter entirely).

1. Of all the injuries as a result of car/cyclist collisions around 2/3 are entirely due to fault on the part of the driver.

2. Of all injuries on the road/pavement, involving anyone, motor vehicles are respoinsible for the vast majority. I can't remember the source, but I'll have a look, but 4% of pedestrians hurt as a result of RLJing were hurt by bikes, the other 96% were hurt by motor vehicles.

3. More pedestrians are killed *on the pavement* by cars than by cyclists anywhere each year.

edit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ed-dimwits

The most authoritative statistics on blame in bike accidents came from the quasi-official Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), which analysed police reports from 2005-7 for the Department for Transport (DfT). Their 2009 report found that with adult cyclists killed or seriously injured, police found drivers solely to blame in 60-75% of cases. As a TRL researcher pointed out to me at the time, this is the conclusion of police, not usually known as militant pro-cyclists.

nameinuse

corshamjim wrote:

nameinuse wrote:

... because drivers are responsible for the vast, vast majority of injuries.

Assuming you mean of cyclists then I think you'll find injuries are statistically more often the cyclists own fault and don't involve a collision with another vehicle (deaths are another matter entirely).

I meant "injuries to vulnerable road users", on the assumption that much of the objection raised to cyclists breaking road rules is that it puts pedestrians at risk, but that a much, much greater risk to them comes from motor vehicles so that should be addressed first.

However, you raise an interesting point. I'm not sure about how the very useful statistics Bails mentioned were collected, but ROSPA suggest that only 16% of serious teenage/adult cyclist injuries reported to the police don't involve a collision with another vehicle, suggesting that drivers are responsible for the majority (if not the vast majority) of commuter-type cyclist injuries too.

bails87

Of course there are loads of injuries that don't get reported, but they'd tend to be minor, if an ambulance is called then the police would also attend wouldn't they?

nameinuse

Yup, I agree. The statement made up-thread that the majority of cycling injuries are down to the cyclist only really works if you include very minor injuries, and there isn't a lot of conclusive evidence either way. Taking the two sets of stats together, if we're talking about serious injuries to cyclists it does appear that motor vehicles are more responsible than the cyclist themselves.

For me it does all point to the conclusion that it's not roads, cycling or being a pedestrian that are dangerous, but motor vehicles and the way they're operated. Based on that, if someone feels minded to improve the lot of cyclists by trying to alter people's behaviour, it would be better focus efforts on changing that of drivers, not the few idiots on BSOs who can't see a red light.

dav1

I think for the purposes of this debate it is irrelevant whether drivers are to blame for most accidents.

Of course cyclists can be hit and injured on the road, we are all aware of this. The point is that risks can be reduced if cyclists are behaving correctly on the road. Regardless of risks from drivers, as a vulnerable road user a cyclist needs to take care. Ultimately anyone that jumps a red light is putting themselves at risk, and if a car is involved they will get hurt.

I agree somewhat with the premise of this thread, i think people should speak up against RLJers (although it usually falls on deaf ears). We can complain all we want that cyclists are tarred with the same brush, but public displays of condemnation against those that break the rules helps to break the stereotype that cyclists believe they are exempt from the highway code. The problem is though that a few cyclists/drivers/peds shouting at these people will do nothing because they are aware they can get away with it.

I think the police need to crack down on RLJers if there is to be a significant change in their behavoir, and i doubt this will happen any time soon.

bails87

Yep, it's also worth mentioning the perception of danger too.
Like this

Not to mention the fact that my Nan has to cross the road just like everybody else's and I don't want her killed by some wannabe messenger shaving 30 seconds off his commute

Fair point, of course you (or I) don't want that. But if she is hit and seriously injured or killed while crossing at a red light, there's a 96% chance that she'll be hit by a motor vehicle, and a 4% chance that she'll have been hit by a bike. That's what the stats tell us about peds who are hit by RLJers. And yet there's probably fewer threads on pistonheads about how to get the motorist 'house' in order than there are on here about cyclists.

As for a police crackdown on RLJers......I agree, but for all road users, for all rules.

nameinuse

I'm not sure this is about "whether we should jump red lights". It's clearly silly from lots of directions. The question is much more about whether we should challenge that behaviour in other cyclists to make our road-going lives safer. I definitely agree that it would be a good thing to raise RLJing with anyone who does it in a safe and calm way, and that if someone jumps a red and gets hurt doing so I have little sympathy. However, I still think it's a very dangerous to feed the idea that my safety, as I ride lawfully, is somehow predicated on the behaviour of others who some people like to lump together. Sadly this is often the implied threat when the phrase "get your house in order" is used; that we can't expect motor vehicles to drive safely around us until all cyclists behave as exemplars of road use.

I'd like to see all road laws properly enforced too, whether I'm driving or riding. It's really not that hard to stick to the rules of the road in either vehicle, and anyone who can't yet holds a license should have it taken away... Enforcing the law on RLJing when it's not enforced for speeding, ASL infringement and all the other things that are apparently culturally expectable but illegal would have a negative effect, in my opinion. Police resources are limited so should go where harm is greatest first (pedestrian deaths caused by motor vehicles), and cracking down on "cyclists" could well have a detrimental effect on cyclist numbers. Aside from the safety-in-numbers effect, I'd much rather encounter an RLJing idiot on a bike than in a car! Of course people's perception matters too, and it's strange how disproportionately scared people are by cyclists than cars, but I suspect that's entirely separate from the breaking of general road rules.