RAC report on Red lights cars and cyclists

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Allan McVie, Jun 20, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Allan McVie

    Allan McVie Guest

    Tags:


  2. Adam Dugmore

    Adam Dugmore Guest

  3. > Surprise surprise. But _only_ 50% of cyclists in London? IME it's more like 80%...
    >
    Actually on second thoughts they probably got that figure because they included lights where
    cyclists were forced by traffic conditions to remain stopped until the green in their count. Take
    away those and you would certainly come up with a relatively small percentage of cyclists who
    actually remain stopped for the full phase of the red in London.

    Rich
     
  4. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Allan McVie wrote:
    > The RAC have put out a report that looks at people jumping red lights
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm Looks like cyclists are worse than cagers.

    If the report hadn't been put out by a motoring organisation then I'd find the result quite
    surprising, just because I see so many more cagers jumping red lights than cyclists.

    But then the study was done in the centres of London and Glasgow, so is hardly representative of the
    real world. I have found that the closer I get to a city centre, the lower the general standard of
    cycling tends to be.

    --
    Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
    http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
    Thomas Paine
     
  5. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Allan McVie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi
    >
    > The RAC have put out a report that looks at people jumping red lights
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm
    >
    > Looks like cyclists are worse than cagers.

    It's no excuse but the repercussions are different. If I'm in my car I have little to fear from an
    errant cyclist and all to fear from other motor vehicles, more so when walking or cycling.

    Pete
     
  6. Stephen \

    Stephen \ Guest

    "Allan McVie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi
    >
    > The RAC have put out a report that looks at people jumping red lights
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm
    >
    > Looks like cyclists are worse than cagers.
    >
    Can't be bothered to read it but a cyclist isn't going to write off a car coming in the other
    direction and a cyclist isn't going to get stuck in the yellow box and hold up all the traffic. A
    more worthwhile study might have been with pedestrians at pelican crossings obeying the "red man".
    If it's clear you go as you're no threat to anyone else. Probably 99% of pedestrians know this.
    Cyclists know it too as we are vulnerable. Motorists going through on red risk their own lives and
    those of pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
     
  7. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > It's no excuse but the repercussions are different. If I'm in my car I
    have
    > little to fear from an errant cyclist and all to fear from other motor vehicles, more so when
    > walking or cycling.
    >

    I've had a few "moments" with cars taking avoiding action because of errant cyclists

    Tony

    --
    http://www.raven-family.com

    "All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
    Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
     
  8. Not Me

    Not Me Guest

    Stephen (aka steford) deftly scribbled:

    > "Allan McVie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> Hi
    >>
    >> The RAC have put out a report that looks at people jumping red lights
    >>
    >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm
    >>
    >> Looks like cyclists are worse than cagers.
    >>
    > Can't be bothered to read it but a cyclist isn't going to write off a car coming in the other
    > direction and a cyclist isn't going to get stuck in the yellow box and hold up all the traffic. A
    > more worthwhile study might have been with pedestrians at pelican crossings obeying the "red man".
    > If it's clear you go as you're no threat to anyone else. Probably 99% of pedestrians know this.
    > Cyclists know it too as we are vulnerable. Motorists going through on red risk their own lives and
    > those of pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.

    Isn't that just the point though ? All users of a crossing have a potentially fatal choice to make.

    What if a pedestrian 'sees' the crossing (When on a red signal) as clear and crosses, but in actual
    fact he missed something, and walks into a fast-moving cyclist .. SMIDSY ... What if a cyclist sees
    the crossing as clear and rides into a pedestrian .. SMIDSY .. A ped walks into a bike or a bike
    runs into a ped, both scenarios can be fatal.

    The reason we have lights is to give a clear indication to all users of that crossing, from whatever
    direction, of a temporary right of way until the lights change again. If someone breaks that right
    of way, then they are in the wrong, no matter whether they're a cyclist, motorist or pedestrian ..

    --
    Digweed
     
  9. "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > The reason we have lights is to give a clear indication to all users of
    that
    > crossing, from whatever direction, of a temporary right of way until the lights change again. If
    > someone breaks that right of way, then they are
    in
    > the wrong, no matter whether they're a cyclist, motorist or pedestrian ..
    >

    Not necessarily - emergency vehicles aren't restricted by the colour of the lights although of
    course they do tend to make a lot of noise, have flashing lights and sometimes proceed only very
    cautiously until they are sure the opposing traffic has stopped for them. If they do have an
    accident while doing all that it may be that it will be the other user, proceeding with the green
    light, that was in the wrong.

    The point is that colour codes are a poor indication of whether it is safe to proceed at an
    intersection or not - apart from emergency vehicles of course other users do wrongly run the lights,
    but that fact that they were in the wrong will be of little consolation if it is a car doing it to a
    cyclist or ped. Green lights neither indicate safety to proceed nor do red lights necessarily mean
    it is unsafe. Everything depends on observation at all times. Get that wrong and you'll be in
    trouble whatever the colour of the lights. Get it right and you'll be safe from harm whatever the
    colour. If you are confident in your judgement in crossing the road as a pedestrian, and most people
    are, there is no reason for being any less confident as a cyclist.

    Rich
     
  10. "Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote:

    | Allan McVie wrote:
    | > The RAC have put out a report that looks at people jumping red lights
    | > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm Looks like cyclists are worse than cagers.
    |
    | If the report hadn't been put out by a motoring organisation then I'd find the result quite
    | surprising, just because I see so many more cagers jumping red lights than cyclists.
    |
    | But then the study was done in the centres of London and Glasgow, so is hardly representative of
    | the real world. I have found that the closer I get to a city centre, the lower the general
    | standard of cycling tends to be.

    Isn't that due to more couriers in the city centres? At least they have a reason to jump - they get
    to keep their jobs by being "competitive". I wonder what's happened to the bike courier scene in the
    London CZ now.

    --
    Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk
     
  11. "Patrick Herring" <[email protected]$pamblock.anweald.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Isn't that due to more couriers in the city centres? At least they have a reason to jump - they
    > get to keep their jobs by being "competitive". I wonder what's happened to the bike courier scene
    > in the London CZ now.
    >

    Don't think so, not in London, IME. It's just everyone really. Virtually the only people who remain
    stopped for the whole red-light phase are those doing it to make a point.

    Rich
     
  12. Not Me

    Not Me Guest

    Richard Goodman deftly scribbled:

    > "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >> The reason we have lights is to give a clear indication to all users of that crossing, from
    >> whatever direction, of a temporary right of way until the lights change again. If someone breaks
    >> that right of way, then they are in the wrong, no matter whether they're a cyclist, motorist or
    >> pedestrian ..
    >>
    >
    > Not necessarily - emergency vehicles aren't restricted by the colour of the lights although of
    > course they do tend to make a lot of noise, have flashing lights and sometimes proceed only very
    > cautiously until they are sure the opposing traffic has stopped for them. If they do have an
    > accident while doing all that it may be that it will be the other user, proceeding with the green
    > light, that was in the wrong.

    Actually emergency vehicles _are_ restricted to the laws of the land, but are given a dispensation
    to proceed through a red light when they see it is safe and clear to do so ...

    > The point is that colour codes are a poor indication of whether it is safe to proceed at an
    > intersection or not -

    That was part of my point .. while we have right of way due to a light colour at a crossing, this in
    no way determines how _safe_ that crossing actually is. If some fool thinks it's clear and crosses
    on red, the person crossing on green is still in the right, but may not actually be safe.

    > apart from emergency vehicles of course other users do wrongly run the lights, but that fact that
    > they were in the wrong will be of little consolation if it is a car doing it to a cyclist or ped.
    > Green lights neither indicate safety to proceed nor do red lights necessarily mean it is unsafe.

    That's what I was saying .. We have a clear indication of right of way. Some people choose to ignore
    it, at their or others potential peril ..

    --
    Digweed
     
  13. "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> writes:

    >"Patrick Herring" <[email protected]$pamblock.anweald.co.uk> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...

    >> Isn't that due to more couriers in the city centres? At least they have a reason to jump - they
    >> get to keep their jobs by being "competitive". I wonder what's happened to the bike courier scene
    >> in the London CZ now.

    >Don't think so, not in London, IME. It's just everyone really. Virtually the only people who remain
    >stopped for the whole red-light phase are those doing it to make a point.

    What is the point they're trying to make? How do you know that's why they're doing it?
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
    Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205
     
  14. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 08:19:53, Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > >Don't think so, not in London, IME. It's just everyone really. Virtually the only people who
    > >remain stopped for the whole red-light phase are those doing it to make a point.
    >
    > What is the point they're trying to make? How do you know that's why they're doing it?

    It's obvious isn't it - everyone knows that all cyclists go through red lights, so any that doesn't
    must, by definition, be not doing so out of cussedness.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  15. Stephen \

    Stephen \ Guest

    "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Stephen (aka steford) deftly scribbled:
    >
    > > "Allan McVie" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >> Hi
    > >>
    > >> The RAC have put out a report that looks at people jumping red lights
    > >>
    > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3005364.stm
    > >>
    > >> Looks like cyclists are worse than cagers.
    > >>
    > > Can't be bothered to read it but a cyclist isn't going to write off a car coming in the other
    > > direction and a cyclist isn't going to get stuck in the yellow box and hold up all the traffic.
    > > A more worthwhile study might have been with pedestrians at pelican crossings obeying the "red
    > > man". If it's clear you go as you're no threat to anyone else. Probably 99% of pedestrians know
    > > this. Cyclists know it too as we are vulnerable. Motorists going through on red risk their own
    > > lives and those of pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists.
    >
    > Isn't that just the point though ? All users of a crossing have a potentially fatal choice
    > to make.
    >
    > What if a pedestrian 'sees' the crossing (When on a red signal) as clear
    and
    > crosses, but in actual fact he missed something, and walks into a fast-moving cyclist .. SMIDSY
    > ... What if a cyclist sees the crossing as clear and rides into a pedestrian .. SMIDSY .. A ped
    > walks into a bike or
    a
    > bike runs into a ped, both scenarios can be fatal.
    >
    > The reason we have lights is to give a clear indication to all users of
    that
    > crossing, from whatever direction, of a temporary right of way until the lights change again. If
    > someone breaks that right of way, then they are
    in
    > the wrong, no matter whether they're a cyclist, motorist or pedestrian ..
    >
    > --
    > Digweed
    >
    Absolutely - I'm not saying it's right. Cyclists and pedestrians go through at any time if they
    consider it safe. Cars go through blind as it were as the lights change from amber to red mostly -
    far more dangerous IMHO but all equally wrong except with differing amounts of danger to self and
    others. I would never run across on red as a pedestrian if I hadn't looked or go through on red on
    my bike without taking it steady and being sure it was clear of peds and cars but no-one in a car
    who speeds up whe lights are on amber/red looks - they just assume they are OK.
     
  16. "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 08:19:53, Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > What is the point they're trying to make? How do you know that's why they're doing it?
    >
    > It's obvious isn't it - everyone knows that all cyclists go through red lights, so any that
    > doesn't must, by definition, be not doing so out of cussedness.
    >

    No, I wouldn't say cussedness, not at all. I would rather say that in not following the herd, they
    must have a very clear reason, 'a point' in doing so, which probably goes beyond the mere fact that
    that is what the law requires. It appears to me, and I think it is a very reasonable one, to be to
    overtly and explicitly demonstrate (when they could just follow the majority) that they obey traffic
    laws and hence expect others to do the same, and so that if they criticise any failings on the part
    of others they can do so with a clear conscience. Another motivation is setting an example - if no
    road rules were observed by anybody, the roads would be a very much more dangerous place for
    everybody, so an example of compliance should be set to avoid any contribution towards everything
    disintegrating into anarchy.

    All of these reasons demonstrate conscious choice for positive reasons, rather than a simple 'the
    law is the law' without any real thought as to why there might be reasons for following it, other
    than safety issues which are easily disputed. I think cyclists who remained stopped at lights when
    traffic conditions would permit proceeding generally do it because they have a point to make.

    Rich
     
  17. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I think cyclists who remained stopped at lights when traffic conditions would permit proceeding
    > generally do it because they
    have
    > a point to make.

    In my case I think it's for both reasons. It's ingrained in me to never run red lights when driving
    so I would find it difficult to do so when cycling. And I get a certain smug sense of satisfaction
    when stopped at reds on my bike as it removes another source of potential outrage from cagers and of
    course I can take the moral high ground knowing that I cycle more law abidingly than the majority of
    them despite wearing Lycra (for which maybe I do need locking up :) So yes, I'm making a point.

    Pete
     
  18. "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> writes:

    > easily disputed. I think cyclists who remained stopped at lights when traffic conditions would
    > permit proceeding generally do it because they have a point to make.

    I stop at red lights to get my breath back. Also because if I didn't I wouldn't then be able to race
    cars away from the lights.

    Doesn't _everyone_ treat city centre cycling as a convenient form of interval training? ;-)

    -dan

    --

    http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
     
  19. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "Daniel Barlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Doesn't _everyone_ treat city centre cycling as a convenient form of interval training? ;-)

    I generally ride in the countryside but when re-entering suburbia I love to sprint from lights,
    after a suitable track stand of course :)

    Pete
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...