Another cyclist dies in London

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Dr Murdoch

3,427 posts

134 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
I have mentioned speed all the way through this.
Apologies, had not really followed this thread, and was responding to someone else.

But yes, the bigger difference in speed, and if there were a collision, it would more likely result in injury (to the cyclist).

Cyclists tend to undertake slower than cars overtake, and the physics involved if they were to touch doesn't favour the rider who does not have a safety cell, and will be pulled towards the overtaking vehicle.

Ban cycling?
Ban overtaking?


Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
[
Stickyfinger said:
Nothing here has convinced me to risk being haunted by an accident.....
So you've read various posts in response to your question; do they answer it, or do you still not see there are differences between a car overtaking a bike, and vice versa?
There is none, a safe space is a safe space no matter who is "overtaking"...........If there is forward movement of the car naturally.
I wasn't asking if you agreed with a safe space discussion because we haven't discussed that yet. I was asking about collisions and relative speeds because that's what you asked about and what we then discussed. So again, did the posts answer your questions about collisions?

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
nickfrog said:
I would say bikers thank you 1 out of 10 times. Probably similar to cyclists as the vehicle used has nothing to do with anything. Morons can be found in any vehicle, including cars.

So much intellectual dishonesty.
I can only go on my experience and observation..............."intellectual dishonesty".....just ...LOL

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
I can only go on my experience and observation....
You might have less experience than other people of cyclists thanking you because you've been deliberately blocking them!

Dr Murdoch

3,427 posts

134 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Its not always possible to raise your hand, controlling the bike, whether motorbike or cycle, sometimes takes priority, particularly when filtering through tight spaces.

Might come across as ungrateful, but thats not 'always' the case. Not in my experience anyway, if I can then I will (and I do often).

He says as a driver, cyclist and motorcyclist

FiF

43,962 posts

250 months

Thursday 19th October 2017
quotequote all
Digby said:
SystemParanoia said:
Comments underneath:

"This exactly supports what I have been saying for ages. In the UK we have cyclists and we have assholes on bikes who are racing on the roads to beat personal best times. If we magically all switched to bikes tomorrow there would be chaos. Also, the racing aholes would be driven (more) insane by not being able to do the speeds they can by ignoring traffic rules and laws like they can today. You better believe that they don't want Mum and Auntie Angie dithering along slowing everyone down on pushbikes while they get the shopping in. Compare the traffic flow of these bikes to the flow of cars. Cars all travel at more or less the same speed. These inconsiderate arses aren't about to have any of that.

Have to agree with that, especially in London.
London is a bit special though, being what some charming sod described as a provincial mud hut dweller the way they carry on amazes me.

Anecdote aimed at m/bikers not cyclists so off topic. But last time was there had been to London Waste at Edmonton and was heading to SELCHP in Millwall. Heading eastwards somewhere north of the river on a main road, multi lane, all the car/van traffic was making its way steadily in lanes, not slow moving but about 30ish. Filtering each side at nutter differential speeds were m/bikers and scooters. You could only hold your breath, keep to the middle of the lane and wait for the clatter.

Sorry but needs ropes and red lamps round the place, signs saying danger hole in the world. Copyright Mike Harding.

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
1. Nope no figures as I am just applying common sense. Keep away from other road to avoid collisions.

2. The adult thing in a discussion is to prove that your argument is correct,

3. its not very grown up to go down the route of name calling.
1. It takes two to collide. You seem to be saying that one type of road user is far more likely to be to blame than the other. You seem to be applying the premise "keep away" to only one of the two. You say this is common sense.

I say that you'll find no statistic to back your case up.

2. Or just say it's common sense, and provide no data at all?

3. I think it's even less adult to make stuff up and to make statements which you know to be untrue. (Not applying this to you, although the "it's common sense" argument is hardly mature at all and often found to be completely wrong).

Just in case you're not aware: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/...

And I've found this, which may give a picture. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Mave said:
I'm not adding complication, I'm answering the question you posed based on what I think is a realistic scenario. If "we" are talking about a different, specific scenario then "we" need to define it more clearly.

In your idealised scenario above, if the cyclist is on the ground next to the car then it doesn't matter who is doing what speed because there isn't a collision!
With a Safe Space there is no problem with either situation is there .....which is my point......I see we have finally got there.
Neither the Car nor the Cyclist should remove the Safe Space by their actions for the sake of the Cyclist's safety.

I note "you" all are still ignoring the effect on the safety of the centrally filtering M/Bike riders.....who are more vulnerable than all according to Heeeebeee
No not according th Heebee, according to all available evidence, something you deliberately mislead on on. I'm still waiting for you to come back with where the police and the law are backing you up. You haven't because you can't, your statements are simply from your Myway Code. My statements are from available evidence.

But anyway, nobody is going to take the slightest bit of notice of your ideas of safe space, however no doubt you'll loop on and on about it, to simply bog this debate down and to waste bandwidth.

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
cb1965 said:
Finlandia said:
Digby said:
You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.

I tried before.

"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"

"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."

"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"

"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"

"So why do so many riders risk it?

"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"

"That makes no sense at all"

"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"
Don't forget.

"Cars going through red are a real problem"

"Yes, and cyclist going through red are too"

"No they are not, a cyclist colliding with someone will not kill that someone, while a car probably will"

"Yes and a cyclist going through red can be hit by a car"

"Umm, yeah but... green only means proceed if safe to do so"

"And red always means stop"

"Troll"

hehe
laugh That just about sums this thread up!
Indeed it does, to you guys it's all pretty much a laugh.

This is a thread about cyclist fatalities in London. Have any of them mentioned so far involved a red light? I can't recall that any of them do, but certainly red light running does not seem to be a prominent factor. I've just found a spreadsheet that someone has done on this subject - as I also see from newspaper reports, the vehicle involved not indicating is quite a common factor, but I'm not seeing red lights as a common factor. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

As pedestrians, we all cross red lights en masse. From figures extrapolated from traffic light cameras, it's estimated that some 9 million drivers per annum cross red lights. For myself I know that on average I see 10 cars a month cross red lights (I actually think it's much more now that I spend time in central Brum) and I've been driving for 40 years, yest Digby claims he sees none.

Some/many cities and jurisdictions allow the passing of red lights under certain circumstances, but on this forum there are those who know better and say it shouldn't be done under any circumstance (yet almost certainly do so as a pedestrian).

Clearly, crossing red lights is absolutely not the issue that you guys bang on and on and on and on about. You know this, you have no evidence to back up the vast and varied statements you make, yet still you persist on going on and on with without evidence.

That is trolling in my book. You are wasting time with statements you either can't back up or know to be untrue. Same with the safe space stuff, SF making statements that are simply untrue and he cannot back up.

It's all just a laugh to you guys, but I know it does great harm to our freedoms to enjoy the roads in our cars as we would wish in our cars. You guys are just confirming what I've been saying for years - my biggest threat to my freedom to motor is my fellow motorist.

Eta: Found a red light incident on that spreadsheet, line 134 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 20th October 07:35

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
I also think that this article on psychology is the more accurate explanation for the opinions that so many of you guys have. I don't think this subject is about red traffic lights or safe space or anything like that - I think this article explains more accurately what is behind the thinking of those ( and you are in the great majority I am happy to admit, as we can see every time we drive) of you who think as you do.

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-25/editi...

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
1. Nope no figures as I am just applying common sense. Keep away from other road to avoid collisions.

2. The adult thing in a discussion is to prove that your argument is correct,

3. its not very grown up to go down the route of name calling.
1. It takes two to collide. You seem to be saying that one type of road user is far more likely to be to blame than the other. You seem to be applying the premise "keep away" to only one of the two. You say this is common sense.

I say that you'll find no statistic to back your case up.

2. Or just say it's common sense, and provide no data at all?

3. I think it's even less adult to make stuff up and to make statements which you know to be untrue. (Not applying this to you, although the "it's common sense" argument is hardly mature at all and often found to be completely wrong).

Just in case you're not aware: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/...

And I've found this, which may give a picture. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...
I am not saying anything of the sort. Quite the opposite in fact. Unlike many on this thread I am saying that all road users cause problems, I am certainly not saying that it is 1 type of road user.

So using common sense and ensuring you have a decent gap isnt mature? And is wrong? So you are saying that you are more likely to collide with someone else if you have a bigger gap?

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
No not according th Heebee, according to all available evidence, something you deliberately mislead on on. I'm still waiting for you to come back with where the police and the law are backing you up. You haven't because you can't, your statements are simply from your Myway Code. My statements are from available evidence.

[b]I have, even shown images, according to you it should be called an "intermittent safe space" it seems.
Why no comment about its effect on M/Bike safety ?[/b]

But anyway, nobody is going to take the slightest bit of notice of your ideas of safe space, however no doubt you'll loop on and on about it, to simply bog this debate down and to waste bandwidth.

have you filled up this page all on your own yet ?
Edited by Stickyfinger on Friday 20th October 07:45

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
I also think that this article on psychology is the more accurate explanation for the opinions that so many of you guys have. I don't think this subject is about red traffic lights or safe space or anything like that - I think this article explains more accurately what is behind the thinking of those ( and you are in the great majority I am happy to admit, as we can see every time we drive) of you who think as you do.

https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-25/editi...
The final paragraph is priceless, spot the neutral language. If you can.

"Analyses tend to look at why pedestrians are so “reckless” as to “jaywalk” away from their designated crossing areas, rather than to study what I would argue are much more fundamental questions about the social, environmental and health consequences of obliging healthy and harmless walkers to yield priority to inactive and polluting drivers."

Priority was granted to pedestrians when the first raised pavement was built alongside a road. Cars generally have no access to that space except when using a dropped kerb.

In addition most adult pedestrians and cyclists will drive or have access to car use from a family member and will see matters from both perspectives rather than the psychologically divide-and-rule approach typified by the language of that last paragraph.

One of the recent fashionable psychoillogical approaches is now on the back foot (pedestrians) / back-pedalling (cyclists) / u-turning (motorists) as signalled by numerous headlines like these, easily found online:


Cars and pedestrians don't mix well, concludes study into shared space schemes

Controversial plans to create a shared space scheme in which vehicles and pedestrians would have equal priority have been scrapped.

Shared space scheme scrapped over 'lack of support'

Council's U-turn over plans for a shared space scheme

'Shared spaces' in towns are putting vulnerable people at risk

Former paralympian Lord Holmes of Richmond is calling to scrap shared space schemes

Roads shared by pedestrians, cyclists and drivers 'cause chaos'

A petition is launched to scrap a shared space scheme.


The contrary viewpoint isn't based on practice / experience as above but emanates from psychologically dubious assertions with emotive psychoactive buzzwords including 'dominance'.

FiF

43,962 posts

250 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
...divide-and-rule approach typified by the language of that last paragraph.
Nail hit on head, very squarely and really quite firmly.

Besides that one thing which I noticed, repeated looping claims on here that the majority of problems are caused by car/van drivers and then an article posted which opens up complaining that at a conference on traffic psychology there are far more delegates attending the drivers session compared to the paltry few at the cyclist seminar. spin

Finlandia

7,803 posts

230 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
cb1965 said:
Finlandia said:
Digby said:
You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.

I tried before.

"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"

"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."

"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"

"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"

"So why do so many riders risk it?

"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"

"That makes no sense at all"

"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"
Don't forget.

"Cars going through red are a real problem"

"Yes, and cyclist going through red are too"

"No they are not, a cyclist colliding with someone will not kill that someone, while a car probably will"

"Yes and a cyclist going through red can be hit by a car"

"Umm, yeah but... green only means proceed if safe to do so"

"And red always means stop"

"Troll"

hehe
laugh That just about sums this thread up!
Indeed it does, to you guys it's all pretty much a laugh.

This is a thread about cyclist fatalities in London. Have any of them mentioned so far involved a red light? I can't recall that any of them do, but certainly red light running does not seem to be a prominent factor. I've just found a spreadsheet that someone has done on this subject - as I also see from newspaper reports, the vehicle involved not indicating is quite a common factor, but I'm not seeing red lights as a common factor. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

As pedestrians, we all cross red lights en masse. From figures extrapolated from traffic light cameras, it's estimated that some 9 million drivers per annum cross red lights. For myself I know that on average I see 10 cars a month cross red lights (I actually think it's much more now that I spend time in central Brum) and I've been driving for 40 years, yest Digby claims he sees none.

Some/many cities and jurisdictions allow the passing of red lights under certain circumstances, but on this forum there are those who know better and say it shouldn't be done under any circumstance (yet almost certainly do so as a pedestrian).

Clearly, crossing red lights is absolutely not the issue that you guys bang on and on and on and on about. You know this, you have no evidence to back up the vast and varied statements you make, yet still you persist on going on and on with without evidence.

That is trolling in my book. You are wasting time with statements you either can't back up or know to be untrue. Same with the safe space stuff, SF making statements that are simply untrue and he cannot back up.

It's all just a laugh to you guys, but I know it does great harm to our freedoms to enjoy the roads in our cars as we would wish in our cars. You guys are just confirming what I've been saying for years - my biggest threat to my freedom to motor is my fellow motorist.

Eta: Found a red light incident on that spreadsheet, line 134 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 20th October 07:35
Red light jumping may not be the statistically biggest issue in London, it does create dangerous situations though, in London and elsewhere. The biggest issue in London seems to be the 'getting squashed by big vehicles', as Digby pointed out.
Looking at footage posted several times, cyclists put themselves in danger by squeezing between buses and HGVs, but hey there is no need for the safety gap when it's the cyclist squeezing through. Other footage shows cyclists breaking the rules and putting themselves at danger, the defence being that everyone does it and the rules only 'should be followed' not 'must be followed' and safety comes in numbers, the more that act like imbeciles the safer everyone will be.

And before the 'drivers do all that too' argument, yes they do, they are idiots as well, but they sit in the big box that is designed to save them when it all goes pear shaped, cyclists have nothing.





yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
With a Safe Space there is no problem with either situation is there .....which is my point......I see we have finally got there.
Neither the Car nor the Cyclist should remove the Safe Space by their actions for the sake of the Cyclist's safety.

I note "you" all are still ignoring the effect on the safety of the centrally filtering M/Bike riders.....who are more vulnerable than all according to Heeeebeee
No one is ignoring "the effect" on filtering motorcyclists. Those motorcyclists have the ability to choose for themselves when it is safe to filter (overtake in the opposing traffic lane in spaces between oncoming cars), lane split (overtaking in the same lane as stationary or slow moving traffic in the face of oncoming cars), or wait in the queue and take their turn at being delayed like everyone else. Which, by the way, is what a large number of the cycle-hating PH mafiosi suggest cyclists should be doing.

If it's OK with you, I'll be the driver taking care of motorcyclists' safety by leaving a motorcycle-length gap between my car and the one in front when queuing or in slow-moving traffic. That's because it is far safer for a motorcyclist to find refuge WITHIN a queue than alongside it. But when I do that, I tend to get retards behind me frothing and flashing headlights, tooting horns, waving their arms around, and worst of all sometimes attempting to overtake into said safe refuge space. Usually without checking their mirrors so that there'll be a motorcyclist heading for that space.

All the time, whether driving, riding, or even walking, I come up against morons who's sole aim seems to be to "win" a few feet of advancement along the road at any cost. It leads to idiots obstructing dropped kerb crossing pints to the detriment of pedestrians, buggies and wheelchairs when they could simply have waited a few feet back. It leads to fkwits obstructing traffic at roundabouts because they see only their "right of way" (it's actually "priority" but you'll never teach a 'tard the correct terminology - they keep asking the same question until someone gives them the answer they think is right anyway). And it leads to halfwits trying to 'police' other road users by blocking the way ahead with their vehicle when other road users may be able to achieve advancement along the road due to being able to take advantage of smaller spaces.

Newsflash, dhead! I will always try to overtake (or "filter") by using an offside lane. Sometimes there is sufficient space that lane splitting is safe too. Occasionally some dumb fk is trying to block nearside "undertakes" so it makes life on the offside even easier. Then there are the ultimate aholes - those who, despite being tucked up to the kerb, often indicating left, will upon seeing a cyclist on their right move fully over to, and sometimes over the centreline to deliberately block a pass. But this type of fruitloop overlooks the fact that almost always there's an option for me to cut between vehicles from the offside to the nearside of the queue, pass in the big wide space you've just left, then cut back to the offside ahead of you.

As a cyclist I am easily head and shoulders above the average car driver, and have no tin top or roof pillars to obscure my all-round vision. It is so much more easy for me to plan a route around the terminally awkward than when I'm in my car, as my bike is no wider than my shoulders. Basically if I can walk through a gap I can get my bike through it.

And to answer your repeated, and stupid question about why it DEFINITELY IS safer close passing a car at bike filtering speeds than it is for a car close passing a bike at normal traffic speeds? Simple. It's because I'm NOT going to fall under your wheels because if I'm close to the side of your, or anyone else's car while filtering through a queue, then I'm likely to have the foot nearest your car unclipped, or off the pedal, ready to dab it down at a moment's notice. And because my other foot (in my case at least) is clipped into the other pedal, I can continue to push the bike forward through all of the pedal stroke by pulling up. Another clue. If I'm close to your car, and my head is (figure picked at random here) 6 feet from the ground, then if I fall sideways without the tyres sliding away from the car, then my head will describe a 6 foot arc as I fall over, and my head will end up 6 feet away from the point on the ground where my tyres were. If your car is within 6 feet of me when I fall, then it follows that I CANNOT end up under your wheels, as I will almost certainly end up falling against the side of your car then slide to the ground alongside it.

Alternatively, you could just ask the same question another 94 times, until you find someone with an equally closed mind who'll agree with you and tell you that you are both right and the vast majority are blinkered fools who won't listen to sense. FWIW I overtake, filter, and occasionally undertake while riding my bike, but only after making a dynamic assessment of the risks. If I considered that my actions might lead to increased danger to me, or to other road users, then I wouldn't do it. But to anyone who suggests I wait within the queue, sandwiched between two vehicles, the rearmost of which may, or may not stop in time, I'm going to take the FAR SAFER option of being alongside another vehicle anyway. This is because being rear-ended in a queue by some fkwit who's too busy pissing about drinking Costa from a drive-thru, or texting his mate with a link to "something funny wot I saw on facebook" while in a car is only ever going to result in some panel-bashing and a stiff neck. If I'm on a bicycle in the gap that is no longer there, chances are I'm at best visiting an A&E department under blue lights, and possibly being zipped into a heavy duty rubber bag. And as you are so fond of pointing out - "You don't want THAT on your conscience for the rest of your days". So you let me worry about my safety, and just drive safely and predictably. The fewer stupid 'dive for the kerb' moves YOU make, the easier it is for me to plan a route around you.

And a further note. I am absolutely and completely acting legally if I decide to bypass a red traffic light by hopping off my bike, taking to the footway ("pavement" for the thick among you wink ) at a jog to get over to the other side by using a favourable pedestrian light phase, then hopping back onto my bike on the other side of the junction. This is because (backed up by Court Of Appeal case law) the second I get off my bike and walk/jog, I'm am no longer "cycling", and laws that apply to cyclists no longer apply to me. Ditto when I get off and walk/jog through temporary road works when I know that the traffic light phase has a massively long "double red phase" specifically put in to account for the large number of car drivers who seem to enjoy tagging onto the back of the convoy through the lights, even when 'their' light went red three cars ago. Furthermore, even though it's probably a technical infringement, cyclists could often safely ignore a temporary traffic light on red and use the coned off area without having any safety implications on other road users. Obviously I'm not going into a coned-off area while plant is operating, but if no work is underway then falling into the open hole is my risk to take. Same as how I can happily cycle where a road is entirely closed to traffic, right up to the excavations causing the closure. You can (if you're a road worker) bellow "the road's closed you idiot" at me all you want. But it isn't closed to pedestrians and if I get off to walk past the closure then case law says I'm a pedestrian pushing a bicycle, and therefore it's entirely legal. In short, sometimes there are massive benefits, in terms of overtaking queues, or taking shortcuts, which is why people actively choose to cycle instead of sitting in cars breathing in concentrated pollutants. If you are one who chooses to sit in traffic in a car, instead of constantly making progress on a bicycle, just accept that you made that rod for your own back, and leave cyclists alone to make their own way in the world. I don't ask for cycle-specific infrastructure, I never have. So don't you fking DARE blame me when carriageway space is taken away from motor vehicles to give it to bicycles. The private car powered by the internal combustion engine has had it's heyday. I'm going to fight tooth and claw to keep the right to drive mine, but I know that the day will come when I'm going to be paying through the nose to do so. When that day comes, I'll be prepared with a fleet of bicycles and the legs and lungs to make good use of them. Good luck to the rest of you who can't see the wood for the trees...

FiF

43,962 posts

250 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
Finlandia said:
heebeegeetee said:
cb1965 said:
Finlandia said:
Digby said:
You may as well give up on the close pass, thing.

I tried before.

"Given how riders do not like even a slow close pass, why do they get so close when they pass?"

"Cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage...."

"Why do so many riders get so close to them, then!?"

"Erm, because, erm.....cars and trucks are bad and heavy and will do great damage"

"So why do so many riders risk it?

"Well, because cars and trucks are bad and heavy and do great damage"

"That makes no sense at all"

"Well, because.....YOU LYING TROLL!!"
Don't forget.

"Cars going through red are a real problem"

"Yes, and cyclist going through red are too"

"No they are not, a cyclist colliding with someone will not kill that someone, while a car probably will"

"Yes and a cyclist going through red can be hit by a car"

"Umm, yeah but... green only means proceed if safe to do so"

"And red always means stop"

"Troll"

hehe
laugh That just about sums this thread up!
Indeed it does, to you guys it's all pretty much a laugh.

This is a thread about cyclist fatalities in London. Have any of them mentioned so far involved a red light? I can't recall that any of them do, but certainly red light running does not seem to be a prominent factor. I've just found a spreadsheet that someone has done on this subject - as I also see from newspaper reports, the vehicle involved not indicating is quite a common factor, but I'm not seeing red lights as a common factor. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

As pedestrians, we all cross red lights en masse. From figures extrapolated from traffic light cameras, it's estimated that some 9 million drivers per annum cross red lights. For myself I know that on average I see 10 cars a month cross red lights (I actually think it's much more now that I spend time in central Brum) and I've been driving for 40 years, yest Digby claims he sees none.

Some/many cities and jurisdictions allow the passing of red lights under certain circumstances, but on this forum there are those who know better and say it shouldn't be done under any circumstance (yet almost certainly do so as a pedestrian).

Clearly, crossing red lights is absolutely not the issue that you guys bang on and on and on and on about. You know this, you have no evidence to back up the vast and varied statements you make, yet still you persist on going on and on with without evidence.

That is trolling in my book. You are wasting time with statements you either can't back up or know to be untrue. Same with the safe space stuff, SF making statements that are simply untrue and he cannot back up.

It's all just a laugh to you guys, but I know it does great harm to our freedoms to enjoy the roads in our cars as we would wish in our cars. You guys are just confirming what I've been saying for years - my biggest threat to my freedom to motor is my fellow motorist.

Eta: Found a red light incident on that spreadsheet, line 134 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oBZ-aQWBdr...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 20th October 07:35
Red light jumping may not be the statistically biggest issue in London, it does create dangerous situations though, in London and elsewhere. The biggest issue in London seems to be the 'getting squashed by big vehicles', as Digby pointed out.
Looking at footage posted several times, cyclists put themselves in danger by squeezing between buses and HGVs, but hey there is no need for the safety gap when it's the cyclist squeezing through. Other footage shows cyclists breaking the rules and putting themselves at danger, the defence being that everyone does it and the rules only 'should be followed' not 'must be followed' and safety comes in numbers, the more that act like imbeciles the safer everyone will be.

And before the 'drivers do all that too' argument, yes they do, they are idiots as well, but they sit in the big box that is designed to save them when it all goes pear shaped, cyclists have nothing.
Thing is RLJing is indeed a statistically very small part of the stats, but as I've pointed out before in the two analyses of police accident stats, in one period examined twice the number of cyclists died as a result of them RLJing vs those who died as a result of another road user RLJing. In the second period examined no cyvlist died as a result of RLJing by either party, but looking at a different definition, ignoring junction controls, then again it was 2:1 ratio caused by a cyclist.

Now whilst the numbers are small compared to incidents with large vehicles, to me it seems a certain mindset amongst part of the cycling community. Sorry but there it is. This mindset can be seen in other more numerous incidents, ignorance, naivety, inexperience and just not giving a toss are all possibilities.

It's the same way with pedestrians, some cross at proper crossing points, wait for the green man, and others wander willy nilly. The latter brass off people trying to use the roads, equally those who behave themselves get pissed off when they have stuck to the sensible route, but then are endangered by others who just ignore their responsibilities in this keeping others safe too part of the equation.

I'll say one thing again, and no doubt get accused of raising the same issues, sigh, but every road user, pedestrians, cyclists, bikers, drivers of cars, vans, buses, trucks etc have a responsibility to keep themselves and others safe. They have a particular responsibility to keep those more vulnerable than themselves especially safe, simply because of the consequences in event of an incident. Furthermore all have a responsibility to those less vulnerable than themselves simply due to the psychological impact on people involved in a serious incident, even if they were personally in no way responsible for the causation.

Enricogto

646 posts

144 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
Another one, unfortunately.

https://twitter.com/citypolice/status/523072568224677889

Apparently the presence of the cycle lane wasn't sufficient.

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
No one is ignoring "the effect" on filtering motorcyclists. Those motorcyclists have the ability to choose for themselves when it is safe to filter (overtake in the opposing traffic lane in spaces between oncoming cars), lane split (overtaking in the same lane as stationary or slow moving traffic in the face of oncoming cars), or wait in the queue and take their turn at being delayed like everyone else. Which, by the way, is what a large number of the cycle-hating PH mafiosi suggest cyclists should be doing.
rant.....their choice and safety is reduced if I am stepped out from the curb

If it's OK with you, I'll be the driver taking care of motorcyclists' safety by leaving a motorcycle-length gap between my car and the one in front when queuing or in slow-moving traffic. That's because it is far safer for a motorcyclist to find refuge WITHIN a queue than alongside it. But when I do that, I tend to get retards behind me frothing and flashing headlights, tooting horns, waving their arms around, and worst of all sometimes attempting to overtake into said safe refuge space. Usually without checking their mirrors so that there'll be a motorcyclist heading for that space.
I leave a gap in front as well, not when close to turnings admittedly due to the same reactions you get frown ....some road users are just mental, if they were on a forum they would post paragraphs of ranting !


All the time, whether driving, riding, or even walking, I come up against morons who's sole aim seems to be to "win" a few feet of advancement along the road at any cost. It leads to idiots obstructing dropped kerb crossing pints to the detriment of pedestrians, buggies and wheelchairs when they could simply have waited a few feet back. It leads to fkwits obstructing traffic at roundabouts because they see only their "right of way" (it's actually "priority" but you'll never teach a 'tard the correct terminology - they keep asking the same question until someone gives them the answer they think is right anyway). And it leads to halfwits trying to 'police' other road users by blocking the way ahead with their vehicle when other road users may be able to achieve advancement along the road due to being able to take advantage of smaller spaces.
some road users are just mental, what is the point of winning 2feet when you just have to wait in it..., if they were on a forum they would post paragraphs of ranting !

Newsflash, dhead! I will always try to overtake (or "filter") by using an offside lane. Sometimes there is sufficient space that lane splitting is safe too. Occasionally some dumb fk is trying to block nearside "undertakes" so it makes life on the offside even easier. Then there are the ultimate aholes - those who, despite being tucked up to the kerb, often indicating left, will upon seeing a cyclist on their right move fully over to, and sometimes over the centreline to deliberately block a pass. But this type of fruitloop overlooks the fact that almost always there's an option for me to cut between vehicles from the offside to the nearside of the queue, pass in the big wide space you've just left, then cut back to the offside ahead of you.
enjoy the extra safe central space I and others give you

As a cyclist I am easily head and shoulders above the average car driver, and have no tin top or roof pillars to obscure my all-round vision. It is so much more easy for me to plan a route around the terminally awkward than when I'm in my car, as my bike is no wider than my shoulders. Basically if I can walk through a gap I can get my bike through it.
between a truck and a bus as well, between a curb and a car, you like to trust your life to a 2 foot gap and the ability of the driver to maintain a dead straight line ?...I worry for your health

And to answer your repeated, and stupid question about why it DEFINITELY IS safer close passing a car at bike filtering speeds than it is for a car close passing a bike at normal traffic speeds? Simple. It's because I'm NOT going to fall under your wheels because if I'm close to the side of your, or anyone else's car while filtering through a queue, then I'm likely to have the foot nearest your car unclipped, or off the pedal, ready to dab it down at a moment's notice. And because my other foot (in my case at least) is clipped into the other pedal, I can continue to push the bike forward through all of the pedal stroke by pulling up. Another clue. If I'm close to your car, and my head is (figure picked at random here) 6 feet from the ground, then if I fall sideways without the tyres sliding away from the car, then my head will describe a 6 foot arc as I fall over, and my head will end up 6 feet away from the point on the ground where my tyres were. If your car is within 6 feet of me when I fall, then it follows that I CANNOT end up under your wheels, as I will almost certainly end up falling against the side of your car then slide to the ground alongside it.
Mentalistic logic and trust in chance

Alternatively, you could just ask the same question another 94 times, until you find someone with an equally closed mind who'll agree with you and tell you that you are both right and the vast majority are blinkered fools who won't listen to sense. FWIW I overtake, filter, and occasionally undertake while riding my bike, but only after making a dynamic assessment of the risks. If I considered that my actions might lead to increased danger to me, or to other road users, then I wouldn't do it. But to anyone who suggests I wait within the queue, sandwiched between two vehicles, the rearmost of which may, or may not stop in time, I'm going to take the FAR SAFER option of being alongside another vehicle anyway. This is because being rear-ended in a queue by some fkwit who's too busy pissing about drinking Costa from a drive-thru, or texting his mate with a link to "something funny wot I saw on facebook" while in a car is only ever going to result in some panel-bashing and a stiff neck. If I'm on a bicycle in the gap that is no longer there, chances are I'm at best visiting an A&E department under blue lights, and possibly being zipped into a heavy duty rubber bag. And as you are so fond of pointing out - "You don't want THAT on your conscience for the rest of your days". So you let me worry about my safety, and just drive safely and predictably. The fewer stupid 'dive for the kerb' moves YOU make, the easier it is for me to plan a route around you.
no, I would always feel bad if I ever was involved, this fact is NOT under your control....I agree about being "rear ended", quite painfull

And a further note. I am absolutely and completely acting legally if I decide to bypass a red traffic light by hopping off my bike, taking to the footway ("pavement" for the thick among you wink ) at a jog to get over to the other side by using a favourable pedestrian light phase, then hopping back onto my bike on the other side of the junction. This is because (backed up by Court Of Appeal case law) the second I get off my bike and walk/jog, I'm am no longer "cycling", and laws that apply to cyclists no longer apply to me. Ditto when I get off and walk/jog through temporary road works when I know that the traffic light phase has a massively long "double red phase" specifically put in to account for the large number of car drivers who seem to enjoy tagging onto the back of the convoy through the lights, even when 'their' light went red three cars ago. Furthermore, even though it's probably a technical infringement, cyclists could often safely ignore a temporary traffic light on red and use the coned off area without having any safety implications on other road users. Obviously I'm not going into a coned-off area while plant is operating, but if no work is underway then falling into the open hole is my risk to take. Same as how I can happily cycle where a road is entirely closed to traffic, right up to the excavations causing the closure. You can (if you're a road worker) bellow "the road's closed you idiot" at me all you want. But it isn't closed to pedestrians and if I get off to walk past the closure then case law says I'm a pedestrian pushing a bicycle, and therefore it's entirely legal. In short, sometimes there are massive benefits, in terms of overtaking queues, or taking shortcuts, which is why people actively choose to cycle instead of sitting in cars breathing in concentrated pollutants. If you are one who chooses to sit in traffic in a car, instead of constantly making progress on a bicycle, just accept that you made that rod for your own back, and leave cyclists alone to make their own way in the world. I don't ask for cycle-specific infrastructure, I never have. So don't you fking DARE blame me when carriageway space is taken away from motor vehicles to give it to bicycles. The private car powered by the internal combustion engine has had it's heyday. I'm going to fight tooth and claw to keep the right to drive mine, but I know that the day will come when I'm going to be paying through the nose to do so. When that day comes, I'll be prepared with a fleet of bicycles and the legs and lungs to make good use of them. Good luck to the rest of you who can't see the wood for the trees...

....errrr....OK
Edited by Stickyfinger on Friday 20th October 09:42

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 20th October 2017
quotequote all
SystemParanoia said:
hehe

Every time...
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED