Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?

Nasqueron

NBLondon wrote: »

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".

NBLondon wrote: »

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.

And like the case where a driver in a 4x4 deliberately hit a bike and was caught on camera but wasn't clear enough to pick out the driver, the 2 people both refused to name the driver and got 6 points and a slap on the wrist fine. With no witness to specifically identify the driver who is going to be identified?

Please don't keep posting anecdotes, you are surely smart enough to know of the logical fallacy with this? We have statistics based on evidence, you have an opinion and guesswork

Norman_Castle

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm pointing out that those trivial injuries (bruises) and near misses (startles) are under-reported,

You're claiming they're under reported. Any evidence to support that?

Car_54

Norman_Castle wrote: »

You're claiming they're under reported. Any evidence to support that?

Does everyone who suffers a minor injury report it? Almost certainly not. Therefore they are almost certainly under-reported.

AFAIK near-misses are not reported at all - whether that is the same as under-reporting is an interesting philosophical question.

OneLeggedPig

There are likely just as many unreported incidents involving cars, so i don't really see what point you're trying to make.

Norman_Castle

Car_54 wrote: »

Does everyone who suffers a minor injury report it? Almost certainly not. Therefore they are almost certainly under-reported.

AFAIK near-misses are not reported at all - whether that is the same as under-reporting is an interesting philosophical question.

Is there a difference in under reporting (as shown by something other than your opinion) between accidents involving cyclists and cars?

Not reporting near misses is a separate question as a near miss is not an accident.

Car_54

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Is there a difference in under reporting (as shown by something other than your opinion) between accidents involving cyclists and cars?

Not reporting near misses is a separate question as a near miss is not an accident.

I didn't make the original comparison between cyclists and cars: I was merely commenting on the question of under-reporting.

However, since you ask, I'd suggest that very few injury accidents involving cars are un-reported, simply because of the legal requirements and potential penalties which only apply to mechanically-propeeled vehicles.

Norman_Castle

Car_54 wrote: »

I'd suggest that very few injury accidents involving cars are un-reported, simply because of the legal requirements and potential penalties which only apply to mechanically-propeeled vehicles.

I'd suggest accidents are reported based on the severity of injury. I'd also suggest that in many instances lower speed, lower impact accidents could often cause less damage when a pedestrian is hit by a car rather than a bike as cars are designed to be pedestrian friendly where as cycles are not.

There may be an argument that pedestrians have greater expectations of motorists who are in control of an object of much greater potential to do harm and as such are more likely to report accidents.

boliston

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I'd suggest accidents are reported based on the severity of injury. I'd also suggest that in many instances lower speed, lower impact accidents could often cause less damage when a pedestrian is hit by a car rather than a bike as cars are designed to be pedestrian friendly where as cycles are not.

There may be an argument that pedestrians have greater expectations of motorists who are in control of an object of much greater potential to do harm and as such are more likely to report accidents.

i think id rather be hit by a 10mph cyclist that a 10mph car! the kinetic energy transfer from vehicle to body would still be vastly more and you can still end up under a slow vehicle

Norman_Castle

boliston wrote: »

i think id rather be hit by a 10mph cyclist that a 10mph car! the kinetic energy transfer from vehicle to body would still be vastly more and you can still end up under a slow vehicle

Given the choice I'd choose the bike but a slower speed minor accident with a car could leave you with no injuries because of the large smooth surfaces whereas a minor bike accident could involve cuts and bruises from hub nuts, bar ends and pedal edges.
Obviously the likelihood of greater injury from the car increases with higher speed.

1886

Why do some cyclists jump red lights?

Because they can get away with it