Cyclists - Please stop at red lights

[gaz]

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

so the above research basis its figures on the report Behaviour at cycle advanced stop lines. which states

20% of male cyclists violated the red light across all sites compared with 12% of female cyclists

If we look at Proportion of Cyclists Who Violate Red Lights in London

17% of male cyclists chose to disobey traffic signals when evidence from all sites was combined, whilst just 13% of female cyclists did.

So whilst yes, men seem to be more likely to cycle through the red light. it isn't by much.

 

[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. .

if the report you purport to quote is the one linked to later in this thread you are deliberately distorting the contents:

1 . para 4.1 from the body of the report, a speculative comment,for which no supporting data is presented and which does not appear in the conclusions

Table 1 shows that a higher proportion of female cyclists (18 out of 21) were involved in fatal collisions with goods vehicles than fatal collisions with other types of vehicle. Women may be over-represented in this type of collision because they are less likely than men to disobey red lights.* This might increase the likelihood of coming into conflict with turning goods vehicles waiting at junctions.

2. para 4.4 again from the body of the report, not appearing in the conclusions

As many collisions occur at signalised junctions when goods vehicles are turning left, nearside lead-in lanes to advanced stop line reservoirs may exacerbate the problem by encouraging cyclists to approach along the nearside kerb. A recent study§ found that a larger proportion of cyclists approach junctions along the nearside kerb when a kerbside feeder lane is provided that when it is not.

later

Advanced Stop Lines (ASL)
Information on the provision of ASLs was available for 11 of the signalled junctions. Only 2 of these junctions had ASL provision for cyclists on the relevant arm and the ASL was not mentioned as being related to the collision.

3. the conclusion in full:

5. Conclusions
Casualty data indicate that over half of pedal cycle fatalities between January 1999 and May 2004 resulted from collisions with goods vehicles. Data from various sources were investigated for these 49 pedal cyclist fatalities involving goods vehicles.

Over half of those collisions occurred at signalled junctions or crossings, often when goods vehicles had been stationary at the signals. A larger proportion of these fatalities (49%) compared with all pedal cycle casualties (27%) in 2003 occurred on the TLRN.

A higher proportion of female cyclists were fatally injured in collisions with goods vehicles than were injured in other fatal collisions or in all collisions in 2003. Pedal cyclists under 16 made up a smaller proportion of fatalities involving goods vehicles than they did of all casualties in 2003 so this is not specifically a child problem. This may reflect the time of day that collisions occurred (with the largest single number occurring during the school day between 1000 and 1600).

Where reported, lack of experience of drivers or riders does not appear to be a problem.

A wide variety of goods vehicle body types and wheel plans were involved in the collisions. Most common wheelplans were 2 axle rigid and 4+ axle rigid and the latter appears to be overrepresented in relation to licensed vehicle records in London. The majority of these were tipper vehicles.

The study of the manoeuvres supported previous analysis showing that left-turning goods vehicles were coming into conflict with cyclists on their nearside. The first point of contact tends to be the front of larger vehicles and injuries were most often sustained to head although most collisions involved more than one injury. Only two junctions were recorded as having had advanced stop lines and in three cases pedestrian guard railing was felt to have possibly played a role in the conflicts and or injuries.

 

[Red Light]

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.

Perhaps the road planners who place cycle lanes and ASL feeder lanes down the inside need to be educated first. TRL PPR240 found more cyclists went up the inside if there was an ASL feeder lane there.

 

[PK99]

As I understand it, and as ever may be well wide of the mark, it is this technical breach which separates the quick and the dead. Men are more likely than women to be prepared to cross the line at lights and wait 3-4m beyond the lorry which might kill those who stop alongside it.

the essential thing is to educate ALL cyclist not to stop alongside a lorry nor to stop hard against the kerb allowing a lorry to stop alongside them - and that does not mean jumping red lights

 

[PK99]

Perhaps the road planners who place cycle lanes and ASL feeder lanes down the inside need to be educated first. TRL PPR240 found more cyclists went up the inside if there was an ASL feeder lane there.

using advance feeder lanes to pass a queue of cars immediately on the lights turning red is a valid thing to do.

All cyclists need to be educated not to use the feeder lane:

1 if they do not know how long till the change of light

2 EVER if it involves passing along the inside of an HGV

 

[PK99]

Almost perfectly the wrong way around. The essential thing is to educate lorry drivers to keep well away from cyclists.

A lorry driver, arriving first at a traffic light junction, signalling left and stopped positioned ready to turn left has done everything she can to keep well away from cyclists.

If a cyclist then advances alongside the lorry and stops between the lorry and the kerb, the cyclist has made a serious and dangerous error. ALL cyclists need to be educated to avoid that hazard.

Lorry drivers need to be educated to be alert for cyclists putting themselves such a dangerous position, but in this scenario the initiating error is by the cyclist.

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 1845153, member: 9609"]I like to get away early too. As soon as I see the other routes starting to stop and I know my turn is imminent, i'm off. I would rather take my chance with an amber gambler than setting off at the same time as the lorry, by the time we've waited at the lights the driver may have forgot about us.[/quote]

do you mean you have positioned yourself to the left of the lorry?

 

[Dan B]

This is why we need to define what we mean by red light jumping precisely. Riding clear across on red is fairly easy. Putting yourself 3-4m over the line but staying there until the light is green is a different matter. Legally it is RLJing but practically it is being sensible about road positioning. Similarly waiting behind the line but setting off 2-3 seconds early.

Surely your definition will depend on your reasons for not rljing? If because it's illegal, you will eschew all forms of rlj even up to entering an asl other than via the feeder lane. If because it's dangerous, you might be happy with amber gambling or with jumping a junction when you can see there's nothing coming . If because it's rude, maybe you jump lights only when there's nobody around at all. If because it annoys car drivers, well, honestly, who knows what will or won't annoy someone who's already irrational? If that's your goal you might wish to stop filtering and to make a voluntary donation to the road fund (sic) while you're at it.

 

[PK99]

Not if that lorry driver has just overtaken the cyclist they haven't .

Cyclecraft: Occupy the primary riding position at the approach to the signals .... do not allow any other vehicle to share the same lane to the side of you

 

[Francesca]

 

[John90]

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

Not what I said.

There has been nothing in this thread to suggest that a better understanding of filtering and taking primary behind vehicles when more appropriate is not the best way to avoid these deaths and injuries. Allowing left turns at red lights might prevent them or it might encourage more poor filtering and greater risk. I've no idea and have seen no evidence either way.

None of which means RLJing is OK as most people on here seem to agree. If the light is red it means someone else, pedestrian or vehicle or other cyclist, has the right of way and there is a possible risk involved in ignoring that right. It's not necessarily a life or death issue, it may cause no more than inconvenience, but it is their right of way, not the cyclist's. Most cyclists might RLJ responsibly, some (too many) do not, so it seems reasonable to have a rule prohibiting it, and reasonable to obey that rule.

If it turns out that allowing RLJs in certain specific circumstances would save lives then fair enough - 'when the facts change, I change my mind' as the saying goes.

 

[Red Light]

Not what I said.

There has been nothing in this thread to suggest that a better understanding of filtering and taking primary behind vehicles when more appropriate is not the best way to avoid these deaths and injuries.

You are assuming that the deaths are caused by filtering up the inside and hiding in blind spots rather than lorries pulling up alongside or behind cyclists at junctions.

 

[CopperBrompton]

I don't see any conflict here. We need to educate lorry drivers not to pull up alongside cyclists at junctions, and cyclists not to go up the inside of lorries and to take primary at junctions. It's not an either-or.

 

[PK99]

And the program to achieve the former, how is it going?

No hgv driver ever pulls up alongside me in the same lane - but then again i do put myself in Primary Position

 

[Brandane]

And the program to achieve the former, how is it going?

Probably much more successful than the latter, given that HGV drivers have to undertake compulsory training. Cyclists? Errrm; no. Unless of course they are among the tiny minority that read on-line forums.