red light running

On 19/03/2006 12:59, p.k. said,

Quoted message said:

http://www.stopatred.org/index.php

I must admit, at first glance I thought this was a campaign to make car
drivers stop at red lights!

Perhaps something similar should be set up for them...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

This seems entirely misplaced.

Its website says :-

"Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small
minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of
Britain today."

It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority of
motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today.

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always
tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver
was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght and
twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at
least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of
vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed
squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of a
few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the
motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means
"speed up and get across before it changes to red".

If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that image
like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the
public start to make rational and objective judgements about the comparitive
dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve.

The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED.

I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views.

Rod King said:

This seems entirely misplaced.

Its website says :-

"Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small
minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of
Britain today."

It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large
majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets
of Britain today.

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I
always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate,
lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle.

The difference is of course that I, as a pedestrian can protect myself fro
the [censored] in the car by waiting until the front car stops at the line - I
then cross, only to be confronted by a cyclist who can be anywhere - this
side, in between or the other side of the two lines of traffic and blithely
breezes through the crossing, often weaving through he pedestrians he (most
often a he) has clearly seen.

pk

p.k. said:

http://www.stopatred.org/index.php

A laudable campaign which will have no effect, I'm afraid. Couriers are
a law unto themselves, and POBs don't care. Red light jumping on a bike
isn't *that* dangerous - the problem, as the site acknowledges, is that
it gives J. Random Petrolhead ammunition against cyclists in general.

A true story: on the way to the start of the Dunwich Dynamo last year
three of us stopped at a pelican crossing on Hackney Road. One of the
peds - a big West Indian guy - was flabbergasted. "You don't have to
stop at a red light if you're on a bike," he educated us, without a hint
of irony.

"Rod King" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This seems entirely misplaced.

Its website says :-

"Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small
minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of
Britain today."

It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority
of
motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today.

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I
always
tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless
driver
was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght
and
twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at
least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of
vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed
squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of a
few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the
motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means
"speed up and get across before it changes to red".

If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that
image
like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the
public start to make rational and objective judgements about the
comparitive
dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve.

The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED.

I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views.

I agree. I've known of this site from the start. I won't sign it. I stop at
red lights whether cycling or motoring but this site: I think it's
well-intentioned but horribly misguided. Errant cyclists are a PITA, but it
simply isn't cyclists killing 3500 people every year and injuring tens of
thousands more. The real and serious danger on our roads is errant
motorists. This site simply panders to the prejudices of the petrolheads. If
it was aimed at all road users, it would be different, but what it does is
single out what is, in reality, a PITA and leaves out the real danger,
errant motorists.

On the other hand, the excellent site www.givecyclistsroom.co.uk is one I do
agree with.

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views.

Wot PK said. Bikes still hurt peds, and pointing out that cars hurt more
is the wrong thing to do - we shouldn't wait until others have got their
house in order before we tidy our own.

p.k. said:

The difference is of course that I, as a pedestrian can protect myself fro
the [censored] in the car by waiting until the front car stops at the line - I
then cross, only to be confronted by a cyclist who can be anywhere - this
side, in between or the other side of the two lines of traffic and blithely
breezes through the crossing, often weaving through he pedestrians he (most
often a he) has clearly seen.

I think that, when criticising cyclists who run red lights you should
remember that traffic lights are designed, almost exclusively, to
control motor traffic, not horses, pedestrians or cyclists. If the
only traffic on the road were non-motorised how many sets of traffic
lights do you think there'd be?
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

PK

You are referring to the fact that cyclists should not cross on red. I have
not disputed that, don't do it myself and don't condone it.

Rod King

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rod King said:

This seems entirely misplaced.

Its website says :-

"Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small
minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of
Britain today."

It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large
majority of motorists who consistently break the law on the streets
of Britain today.

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I
always tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate,
lawless driver was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle.

The difference is of course that I, as a pedestrian can protect myself fro
the [censored] in the car by waiting until the front car stops at the line - I
then cross, only to be confronted by a cyclist who can be anywhere - this
side, in between or the other side of the two lines of traffic and

blithely

Quoted message said:

breezes through the crossing, often weaving through he pedestrians he

(most

Quoted message said:

often a he) has clearly seen.

pk

"Rod King" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This seems entirely misplaced.

Its website says :-

"Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small
minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of
Britain today."

It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large majority
of
motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain today.

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I
always
tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless
driver
was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght
and
twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at
least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of
vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed
squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of a
few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the
motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means
"speed up and get across before it changes to red".

If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that
image
like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the
public start to make rational and objective judgements about the
comparitive
dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve.

The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED.

I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views.

The problem I have with this argument, correct and reasonable though it is
(though its mass*speed^2 so 120 times the energy) is that two wrongs do not
make a right. Saying that motorists are worse offenders does not excuse the
cyclist who breaks the law.

"OK Plod -- I blagged a thousand quid but those guys in Kent were
professionals and nicked 15 million so it don't count" -- "yes son, it does,
your still nicked".

That said, I suspect many of the 'cyclist goes through red' claims are
highly overstated. Many go 'through' a pelican crossing because they can
clearly see the peds are clear, many create an unofficial ASL to give them a
bit more leeway. Both are wrong but harmless (and I do both on occasions --
indeed one right turn junction I nearly always advance to a nice little
'lamb chop' island because its much more comfortable and (I believe) safer
so to do). They put no other road user at risk.

In comparison I see too many motorists with little or no respect for the
law -- running reds (particularly at Pelicans), parking on pavements and
double yellows to save a 10 yard walk, travelling at silly speeds, etc.

However, my case is weakened because I am not perfect.

T

Tony

I would not defend it or propose that two wrongs make a right, merely that
this website focusses on a very small minority of cyclists who in relative
terms cause very little danger.

Even if it got a million pledges, with something like 10 million cyclists it
would prove nothing. It certainly would not stop some motorists having a go
at cyclists.

Regards and thanks for the comment

Rod

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rod King" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This seems entirely misplaced.

Its website says :-

"Stopatred is a campaign aimed at changing the behaviour of the small
minority of cyclists who consistently break the law on the streets of
Britain today."

It strikes me that the biggest problem for cyclists is the large

majority

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of
motorists who consistently break the law on the streets of Britain

today.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I
always
tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless
driver
was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght
and
twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

least 60 times greater. The real concern at lights is not the number of
vehicles going through red lights but their tonnage times their speed
squared. When this is taken into consideration then the trangressions of

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few lightweight, slow moving cyclists are trivial compared with the
motorists who often beileve that a single amber light after green means
"speed up and get across before it changes to red".

If cyclists have a problem with their image then we must realise that
image
like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Only when motorists and the
public start to make rational and objective judgements about the
comparitive
dangers of bad cycling or bad motoring will our image improve.

The real campaign should not be STOP AT RED but STOP HATRED.

I throw it open for discussion and would appreciate your views.

The problem I have with this argument, correct and reasonable though it is
(though its mass*speed^2 so 120 times the energy) is that two wrongs do

not

Quoted message said:

make a right. Saying that motorists are worse offenders does not excuse

the

Quoted message said:

cyclist who breaks the law.

"OK Plod -- I blagged a thousand quid but those guys in Kent were
professionals and nicked 15 million so it don't count" -- "yes son, it

does,

Quoted message said:

your still nicked".

That said, I suspect many of the 'cyclist goes through red' claims are
highly overstated. Many go 'through' a pelican crossing because they can
clearly see the peds are clear, many create an unofficial ASL to give them

a

Quoted message said:

bit more leeway. Both are wrong but harmless (and I do both on

occasions --

Quoted message said:

indeed one right turn junction I nearly always advance to a nice little
'lamb chop' island because its much more comfortable and (I believe) safer
so to do). They put no other road user at risk.

In comparison I see too many motorists with little or no respect for the
law -- running reds (particularly at Pelicans), parking on pavements and
double yellows to save a 10 yard walk, travelling at silly speeds, etc.

However, my case is weakened because I am not perfect.

T

Rod King said:

Whenever someone complains to me about a cyclists going through red I always
tell them to be thankful that the anti-social, inconsiderate, lawless driver
was on a bike and not in a motor vehicle. If so with 15 times the werght and
twice the speed, the kinetic energy sailing through the lights would be at
least 60 times greater.

UTAPLC. Between 3 and 4 pedestrians are killed on the roads a year by
cyclists and about 700 by motor vehicles (Source: Hansard, 19 April 2004
& Table 8.1 of Transport Statistics for Great Britain 2005) Cycling
makes up about 1% of all journey distance (Table 7.2 of Transport
Statistics for Great Britain 2005). So pro-rata for distance it's about
1:2. You get a similar result of 1:3 by looking at pedestrian injuries
(72 & 3,453 respectively in 2003; Hansard 16 March 2005). Its a
rough calculation but it's indicative that the relative risks are much
closer than you might think.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tom Crispin said:

I think that, when criticising cyclists who run red lights you should
remember that traffic lights are designed, almost exclusively, to control
motor traffic, not horses, pedestrians or cyclists. If the only traffic
on the road were non-motorised how many sets of traffic lights do you
think there'd be?

There would be plenty. But they would get bored with nothing to do.
http://www.trafficlightwars.co.uk/
Website is as mad as a fish.

Tony Raven said:

UTAPLC. Between 3 and 4 pedestrians are killed on the roads a year by
cyclists and about 700 by motor vehicles (Source: Hansard, 19 April 2004
& Table 8.1 of Transport Statistics for Great Britain 2005) Cycling
makes up about 1% of all journey distance (Table 7.2 of Transport
Statistics for Great Britain 2005). So pro-rata for distance it's about
1:2.

Have you corrected fr teh quantity of motor vehicles miles using roads
with no pedestrians (motorways) or few pedestrians (non-urban trunk
and similar routes)?

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

Quoted message said:

(72 & 3,453 respectively in 2003; Hansard 16 March 2005). Its a
rough calculation but it's indicative that the relative risks are much
closer than you might think.

Tho one should note that the motor behicle figures are flattered by many
many miles on sparsely populated motorways, dual carriageways and (to a
lesser extent) A roads. It's like comparing the safety of aeroplane
journeys with rail journeys - per mile is not a useful measure due to the
vast mileage spent in the safety of Up There.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

(72 & 3,453 respectively in 2003; Hansard 16 March 2005). Its a
rough calculation but it's indicative that the relative risks are much
closer than you might think.

Tho one should note that the motor behicle figures are flattered by many
many miles on sparsely populated motorways, dual carriageways and (to a
lesser extent) A roads.

Flattered would be too strong a word. Motorways represent 20% of
mileage and if you took out all non-urban journeys it would only change
the odds from 2:1 to 4:1. On the other hand the average occupancy of
cars is 1.6 which takes us almost back to where we were in terms of
person miles.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Ian Smith said:

Tony Raven said:

UTAPLC. Between 3 and 4 pedestrians are killed on the roads a year by
cyclists and about 700 by motor vehicles (Source: Hansard, 19 April 2004
& Table 8.1 of Transport Statistics for Great Britain 2005) Cycling
makes up about 1% of all journey distance (Table 7.2 of Transport
Statistics for Great Britain 2005). So pro-rata for distance it's about
1:2.

Have you corrected fr teh quantity of motor vehicles miles using roads
with no pedestrians (motorways) or few pedestrians (non-urban trunk
and similar routes)?

As I said its a rough calculation that's indicative. Motorways are a
20% correction and the correction for average occupancy of motor
vehicles gives a correction in the other direction. Its all tinkering
on the margin though.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tom Crispin said:

I think that, when criticising cyclists who run red lights you should
remember that traffic lights are designed, almost exclusively, to
control motor traffic, not horses, pedestrians or cyclists. If the
only traffic on the road were non-motorised how many sets of traffic
lights do you think there'd be?

Maybe. But cyclists are traffic and should obey the RTA as much as any
other user. AFAIK there's nothing in the HC about cyclists being allowed
to skip lights, ride on pavements and so on - quite the contrary.

Many cyclists I know and know of want nothing more than to be accepted
as part of the traffic flow, and have their position respected. This is
wholly undermined by those selfish ones who break the law.

All selfish, aggressive behaviour on our roads is a Bad Thing -
regardless of the mode.

wafflycat said:

I agree. I've known of this site from the start. I won't sign it. I stop
at red lights whether cycling or motoring but this site: I think it's
well-intentioned but horribly misguided. Errant cyclists are a PITA, but
it simply isn't cyclists killing 3500 people every year and injuring
tens of thousands more. The real and serious danger on our roads is
errant motorists. This site simply panders to the prejudices of the
petrolheads. If it was aimed at all road users, it would be different,
but what it does is single out what is, in reality, a PITA and leaves
out the real danger, errant motorists.

On the other hand, the excellent site www.givecyclistsroom.co.uk is one
I do agree with.

Cheers, helen s

Of course - there are many motorists out there who feel they have
already been "singled out" by the widespread use of speed enforcement
devices.

With respect, red light jumpers are not just a "PITA". My mother is
registered blind, and cannot see when a cyclist is coming at her. When
the crossing sound goes - she has every right to expect her way is clear
- and a cyclist who puts her in danger is every bit as culpable as a
speeding motorist. She also has osteoporosis and to be struck by a
cyclist is probably as likely to be as catastrophic as being run over by
a car.
I would like to see this "we do less harm than motorists" message put
aside as it's not very constructive - even if the stats suggest it's true.

Just my 0.02p 🙂

Tony Raven said:

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

(72 & 3,453 respectively in 2003; Hansard 16 March 2005). Its a
rough calculation but it's indicative that the relative risks are much
closer than you might think.

Tho one should note that the motor behicle figures are flattered by many
many miles on sparsely populated motorways, dual carriageways and (to a
lesser extent) A roads.

Flattered would be too strong a word. Motorways represent 20% of
mileage and if you took out all non-urban journeys it would only change
the odds from 2:1 to 4:1. On the other hand the average occupancy of
cars is 1.6 which takes us almost back to where we were in terms of
person miles.

What about per person-journey?

...d