Cyclists - Please stop at red lights

[CopperBrompton]

I'm sure that riding Bromptons accounts for far far less than 2% of cycling fatalities, so should we all buy folding bikes or should we accept that (as i think may have been Red Light's point) this particular number tells us almost nothing useful either way?

Any argument which results in someone buying a Brompton is a good argument.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

These are fine rules for those who need such things. If however you have seen the light change green to red and you know that this means you have got 45 seconds, say, to get clear in front, why shouldn't you go up the inside?

I used to do that, en route from Clapham to Brixton, when such a journey was a daily event, then some twunt in a van RLJ'ed and turned left in front of me.

 

[Red Light]

Hardly 'evidence'

So where is your evidence that red light jumping is dangerous? And proof by assertion - "Its obvious innit" - doesn't count.

 

[John90]

Ah, so its all the womens' fault that they got killed by the trucks is it?

No, but it is the position of their bike rather than the red light that got them killed. Allowing RLJs would not make it advisable and safe to undertake any vehicle at a junction, as I'm sure you'd agree. So the solution to the danger you've highlighted is education and training of cyclists and drivers, not changing the law on jumping red lights.

On the other hand that doesn't mean RLJs are necessarily dangerous (although they are irritating).

 

[Red Light]

The recent addition of bizarre and repeated accusations that a poster is blaming cycists for the collisions that killed them seems tasteless, cheap and undignified.

So you tell me what PK99 meant if it wasn't blaming women cyclists for their own demise?

And as has been pointed out by the Times and TfL, not red light jumping has probably caused the deaths of many tens of women cyclists under lorries over that period in London.

Not so: the cause of a many of those has been poor positioning by the cyclist:

 

[Red Light]

No, but it is the position of their bike rather than the red light that got them killed.

Ah, sorry, I hadn't realised the bike had positioned itself and they were innnocent victims of their bike's stupidity.

 

[Boris Bajic]

You brought up the topic of these deaths in a strangely tasteless piece of wordplay about 'not red light jumping causing death'.

I'm not sure why you did so; it seems gratuitous. Anything to prove a point. Or fail to.

PK99 responded perfectly reasonably and neither of his subsequent replies to your implication that he was blaming the killed seemed of themselves to speak of blame.

I find that raising of the deaths and then the continued reference to them tasteless, gauche and undignified. I may be wrong.

 

[gaz]

So where is your evidence that red light jumping is dangerous? And proof by assertion - "Its obvious innit" - doesn't count.

Where did I say it was dangerous?
I may have implied that there is an element of danger by saying that something else was safer.

 

[PK99]

So tell me, if you are stopped at the white line at a red light and a truck pulls up right on your back wheel what do you do? Do you follow your rules and move forward across the white line, which legally is jumping the red light, so the driver can see you? Do you rapidly dismount and drag your bike out of the way of the lorry while hoping the lights don't change?

.

I move forward - a technical breach to help ensure safety. But the point at issue is not technical breaches, but deliberate flouting of the law by jumping red lights and crossing pedestrian and or traffic lanes

 

[Red Light]

You brought up the topic of these deaths in a strangely tasteless piece of wordplay about 'not red light jumping causing death'.

I'm not sure why you did so; it seems gratuitous. Anything to prove a point. Or fail to.

PK99 responded perfectly reasonably and neither of his subsequent replies to your implication that he was blaming the killed seemed of themselves to speak of blame.

I find that raising of the deaths and then the continued reference to them tasteless, gauche and undignified. I may be wrong.

Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. Or perhaps you think that any debate about why the death rates of women cyclists under lorries is so high should be swept under the carpet and quietly ignored. Blaming the victim for what is in the majority of cases found to be the fault of the driver is what is not acceptable.

 

[gaz]

Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. Or perhaps you think that any debate about why the death rates of women cyclists under lorries is so high should be swept under the carpet and quietly ignored. Blaming the victim for what is in the majority of cases found to be the fault of the driver is what is not acceptable.

Do you have a link to the study? If it is the one I think you are referring to, it doesn't quite say that but that is instead a few peoples interpretations of the numbers....

 

[PK99]

Its a subject that has been covered in both The Times and the BBC and is the conclusion of a study by Transport for London - obeying red lights is the probable reason why so many women are killed by lorries in London. Or perhaps you think that any debate about why the death rates of women cyclists under lorries is so high should be swept under the carpet and quietly ignored. Blaming the victim for what is in the majority of cases found to be the fault of the driver is what is not acceptable.

To avoid putting yourself at risk from an inattentive or careless HGV/lorry driver, follow the guidance of cyclecraft.

Arrive first = stop in primary position at the head of the queue

Arrive later = stop in primary position in the queue a good distance behind the HGV

NEVER EVER cycle up the inside of an HGV at a junction.

Any cyclists who do not know or head that advice need to be educated - to deny that truth for pc/cycling-lobby reasons is to make the problem worse and contributes to the terrible toll.

 

[Red Light]

Do you have a link to the study? If it is the one I think you are referring to, it doesn't quite say that but that is instead a few peoples interpretations of the numbers....

It has not been published but it has been widely reported including in the Times and BBC.

It says "Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights." During the period 1999 - 2004 86% of women cyclist deaths were from lorries while it was only 47% for men.

 

[Blurb]

http://camdencyclists.org.uk/tmp/Pedal Cyclist Fatalities Involving Goods Vehicles.pdf

 

[gaz]

It has not been published but it has been widely reported including in the Times and BBC.

It says "Women may be overrepresented in [collisions with goods vehicles] because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights." During the period 1999 - 2004 86% of women cyclist deaths were from lorries while it was only 47% for men.

Yes, the one I thought.. unpublished.

I'm sure we can all understand that other circumstances could have come into play in all of those collisions, poor filtering, poor road position and poor reading of other vehicles actions. It is not black and white that going through red is safer than not.