Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?

Norman_Castle

Car_54 wrote: »

There is no need to "criminalise" the cyclists. By breaking the law they automatically become criminals, albeit unconvicted.

There's no need to find fault with the survey but you seem intent on doing that as it doesn't suit your opinions.

Lifes to short.

Car_54

Cornucopia wrote: »

Thanks for that.

The penalty is 3 points on a Driving Licence, though?

I think I can see the problem.

For cyclists, usually the offer of a £50 fixed penalty. Otherwise a court summons with an income-related fine, costs and victim surcharge.

Car_54

Norman_Castle wrote: »

There's no need to find fault with the survey but you seem intent on doing that as it doesn't suit your opinions.

Lifes to short.

Life is indeed short, but it's a wet Saturday morning and I'm trying to put off doing my tax return.

I wasn't finding fault with the report, rather with your concept of criminality.

NBLondon

Nasqueron wrote: »

4 in 100 accidents from a bike
71 in 100 accidents from a car

Perhaps my wording/maths was off as I was in a rush but there are nearly 18x as many pedestrians injured in London from cars jumping red lights as from bikes based on TFL data. Given the vastly greater chance of being hit by a car I'd be more worried about them than bikes

Your maths is right but the underlying data is possibly skewed because it is only based on reported incidents, I'd say it's more likely that an injured pedestrian (or witnesses) will report a motor vehicle with a registration number than a cyclist who just curses and pedals off. Walking across Central London this morning I had 3 near misses (i.e. I had to stop suddenly or jump aside because of another road user ignoring signals). 2 were cyclists ignoring a red light at pedestrian crossings, one was a van making an illegal left turn. So had I not been paying attention (texting, Candy Crushing, slurping coffee) I was twice as likely to be injured by a cyclist.

Norman_Castle

NBLondon wrote: »

I'd say it's more likely that an injured pedestrian (or witnesses) will report a motor vehicle with a registration number than a cyclist who just curses and pedals off.

I suspect people are more likely to report accidents based on how badly they are injured and serious injury is more likely from a car than a bike. I've been knocked off my bike by a car where my elbow left a dent in the bonnet but despite having driver details, witness details and no dispute from the driver I didn't report it because I wasn't injured.

Nasqueron

NBLondon wrote: »

Your maths is right but the underlying data is possibly skewed because it is only based on reported incidents, I'd say it's more likely that an injured pedestrian (or witnesses) will report a motor vehicle with a registration number than a cyclist who just curses and pedals off. Walking across Central London this morning I had 3 near misses (i.e. I had to stop suddenly or jump aside because of another road user ignoring signals). 2 were cyclists ignoring a red light at pedestrian crossings, one was a van making an illegal left turn. So had I not been paying attention (texting, Candy Crushing, slurping coffee) I was twice as likely to be injured by a cyclist.

If you believe the underlying data is skewed then present your own contradicting it, or accept it.

The data is based on injuries to pedestrians following collisions, I'm sure there are cars that zoom off after a collision, I've heard plenty of cases of that happening

Nasqueron

Car_54 wrote: »

For cyclists, usually the offer of a £50 fixed penalty. Otherwise a court summons with an income-related fine, costs and victim surcharge.

Indeed, in 2013 there were 11,000+ cyclists fined for it - 7000+ for pavement cycling, 4000 for red light jumping/ignoring road signs. You can't get points on your driving license from cycling offences

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2541739/More-11-000-cyclists-caught-running-red-lights-riding-pavements-just-one-year.html

NBLondon

Nasqueron wrote: »

If you believe the underlying data is skewed then present your own contradicting it, or accept it.

I did so in the same paragraph... And furthermore, based on the times I've actually been hit and injured (bruised) in a collision with another road user it is 100% due to cyclists ignoring explicit No Cycling signs and riding into a pedestrian at speed...

I don't doubt that there are motorists who speed off after collisions. Unless they have Romulan Cloaking Devices in your neck of the woods, I think it more likely that they will be reported and possibly identified because "It was a white Ford Transit with Bert's Builders on the side and an 08 number plate" is more distinct than "It was a bloke on a mountain bike with a red jacket".

Richard53

NBLondon wrote: »

2 were cyclists ignoring a red light at pedestrian crossings, one was a van making an illegal left turn. So had I not been paying attention (texting, Candy Crushing, slurping coffee) I was twice as likely to be injured by a cyclist.

But a hundred times more likely to be seriously injured by the van. Injuries from collisions with cyclists tend to be trivial; injuries from collisions with motor vehicles tend to be non-trivial.


Notice I say 'tend to' - I know there are exceptions.

NBLondon

Yes, Richard, I'm not denying that. I'm pointing out that those trivial injuries (bruises) and near misses (startles) are under-reported, so the statistics being thrown around do not necessarily reflect the likelihood of cyclists breaking rules and some of those causing minor injuries to pedestrians.