Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?

Nasqueron

NBLondon wrote: »

I think you're spot on Norman.

So when some posters seem to be taking a stance of "It doesn't matter that cyclists break rules because motorists also break them" and quote statistics to show (correctly) that motorists cause more and more serious injuries this does not necessarily indicate the number/proportion of rule-breaking cyclists; only the number that have been caught doing so because of the effect of their rule-breaking.

My observations as a pedestrian suggest that many more cyclists habitually break the rules than some here seem willing to accept. That rule-breaking is sometimes for self-preservation (which might be justified), sometimes unintentional because of poor road design/signage and sometimes reckless as to the impact on other road users/pedestrians. I object to the last group. Mostly because they pose the greatest risk to me as an individual.

On your first point, it's not that people think bikes doing it are not an issue, but rather, you are focusing on the issue you want, not the big issue.

To requote for the umpteenth time, TFL data, 4% of pedestrian injuries in London in 2013 from red light jumping road users were hit by bikes. 71% were hit by cars. Bikes who do it are wrong but cars cause vastly more injury and death, so focusing on bikes is ignoring the bigger issue.

Your personal anecdotes have no weight, it's like me saying I see 100 cars a day jumping red lights narrowly missing nuns with children carrying kittens, there is no weight to this as it's just an opinion, vs genuine evidence proving you wrong.

The problem with this post is not people saying bikes should be ignored, it's people ignoring the evidence that shows cars are a more serious issue but that would challenge the car is right culture in the UK

NBLondon

Nasqueron wrote: »

You've still not provided any proof for 1) so you really need to stop posting that as if it was anything other than your personal opinion

You really need to read all the words... The phrases "I think" and "In my observation" indicate quite clearly that this is not being stated as fact but merely that my experience does not agree with the statistics quoted. Other caveats to be found by the attentive reader include the fact that I am predominantly referring to Central London and acknowledgements that other people's experiences may differ in different areas.

Nasqueron wrote: »

On your first point, it's not that people think bikes doing it are not an issue, but rather, you are focusing on the issue you want, not the big issue.

I'm focussing on the issue that I find affects me most - I've openly stated that.

To requote for the umpteenth time, TFL data, 4% of pedestrian injuries in London in 2013 from red light jumping road users were hit by bikes. 71% were hit by cars.

And when I've explained more than once why I suspect that statistic is possibly flawed, re-stating it does not make it any more convincing. It is a popular tactic with politicians though...

Bikes who do it are wrong

Why does it take so long for some people to admit that?

but cars cause vastly more injury and death,

Never denied that.

so focusing on bikes is ignoring the bigger issue.

When bikes were the original subject - repeatedly shifting the focus to a different issue - the issue you want, perhaps? - is derailing the discussion. It is a popular tactic with politicians though...

Your personal anecdotes have no weight, it's like me saying I see 100 cars a day jumping red lights narrowly missing nuns with children carrying kittens, there is no weight to this as it's just an opinion,

My observations (not just opinions) have the same weight as anyone else's - I don't presume otherwise. I would be surprised if you saw 100 cars a day jumping red lights but I'm happy to accept e.g. Post #43 as someone else's equally valid observation.

vs genuine evidence proving you wrong.

Not proving me wrong - my experience is my experience. Possibly proving that my experience differs from the statistical average for Greater London.

The problem with this post is not people saying bikes should be ignored,

I refer you to posts #22,#34,#40 as clear examples of people not answering the initial question but immediately deflecting it. There's also an element of projection going on (Another popular tactic with politicians....) from some individuals (not necessarily you Nasqeron...) that any criticism of cyclist behaviour automatically means "cars can do no wrong". Which, I think we both know is nonsense.

it's people ignoring the evidence that shows cars are a more serious issue but that would challenge the car is right culture in the UK

I'd challenge the assumption that there is a "the car is right" culture. Probably plenty of people do adhere to it but is it a pre-dominant culture? More or less than the apparent "cyclists are saving the planet so should not be criticised" and "motorists are assumed to be evil" mini-cultures to be found amongst some people?

maisie_cat

I am also a cyclist and a driver & although it drives me nuts when others do it I can see why some If the light changes and you stop, you could well be in the wrong gear and you lose momentum, meaning that to get going again you need quite a lot of power
The car and van drivers behind you ill get very agitated that you are a slower off the blocks then they are and tend to be aggressive.
Whoever designed those bike boxes at the front of the light cannot have been a cyclist, or thought that all motor vehicle drivers are patient
I'm not saying that it's justified, but I can understand

Nasqueron

NBLondon wrote: »

You really need to read all the words... The phrases "I think" and "In my observation" indicate quite clearly that this is not being stated as fact but merely that my experience does not agree with the statistics quoted. Other caveats to be found by the attentive reader include the fact that I am predominantly referring to Central London and acknowledgements that other people's experiences may differ in different areas.

See this is the issue, people are welcome to have an opinion but such an opinion can be challenged if it's proven factually wrong

NBLondon wrote: »

I'm focussing on the issue that I find affects me most - I've openly stated that.

And again, personal anecdotes do not trump recorded evidence

NBLondon wrote: »

And when I've explained more than once why I suspect that statistic is possibly flawed, re-stating it does not make it any more convincing. It is a popular tactic with politicians though...

You have stated your opinion why you think it's wrong, you have not proven it wrong. This is leaning towards the burden of proof fallacy as well. You say you think it's flawed yet have provided no evidence to prove this, thus your opinion can be safely ignored.

NBLondon wrote: »

My observations (not just opinions) have the same weight as anyone else's - I don't presume otherwise.

And yet you have repeatedly quoted your opinion as valid and with as much weight as a proper year long study which proves you wrong

NBLondon wrote: »

I would be surprised if you saw 100 cars a day jumping red lights but I'm happy to accept e.g. Post #43 as someone else's equally valid observation. Not proving me wrong - my experience is my experience. Possibly proving that my experience differs from the statistical average for Greater London.

And again, you don't understand the difference between facts and opinion. You should not, and should never, accept my word as if it had validity when compared to an actual study.

Yes you have been proven wrong. You stated bikes jumping lights are the major issue, recorded evidence proves you wrong.

NBLondon wrote: »

I'd challenge the assumption that there is a "the car is right" culture. Probably plenty of people do adhere to it but is it a pre-dominant culture? More or less than the apparent "cyclists are saving the planet so should not be criticised" and "motorists are assumed to be evil" mini-cultures to be found amongst some people?

Look at any debate about cyclists and cars and all the drivers will come out with the same garbage about "paying road tax to use the road" or claiming roads were made for cars. To pretend the UK doesn't have an obsessive car culture where drivers on the whole believe it is their right to be on the road and no-one else should be is just silly.

Cornucopia

Nasqueron wrote: »

See this is the issue, people are welcome to have an opinion but such an opinion can be challenged if it's proven factually wrong

It depends whether the opinion is made on the same basis as the factual evidence, though. In this case it isn't. (*) Therefore both the opinion and the factual evidence can each exist in their own right, with their own caveats.

You are going to have to accept this, or be condemned to go over and over the same unarguable point indefinitely.

"8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas" may well be the case, but if my cat prefers Chateaubriand, then you're just going to have to accept that for what it is.


(*) Adding more detail: a personal, anecdotal experience of cyclist misdeeds in Central London involves solely locations and times relevant to the observer, and there may, indeed, be confirmation and other biases involved.

A formal, scientific survey ideally involves factoring out as many potential biases as possible, but at the same time can never cover all sites at all times, and therefore it, too, is an approximation albeit of a different sort.

In this case, I queried some pages ago the selection of sites for one of the studies, as I believed that the selection involved would have led to bias against the finding of cyclist misdeeds. I cannot prove that that was what happened or whether it was a deliberate plan or merely random naivety. Nevertheless the potential bias in the results probably exists. IMHO, anyway.

Tilt

My opinion is based on what I witness.

When driving through or in central London (which I do fairly frequently), I see more cyclists flouting the traffic laws and putting themselves at risk, than I do of other wheeled road users.

Clearly there are probably more cyclist injuries compared to car drivers but having witnessed how a lot of cyclists ride, they are the ones who are obviously too complacent about their own vulnerability.

NBLondon

Nasqueron wrote: »

See this is the issue, people are welcome to have an opinion but such an opinion can be challenged if it's proven factually wrong

Now you're confusing opinion with observation with fact. I have never stated my opinion as fact, only as belief. And that my observations (with all the limitations that cornucopia has rightly pointed out) run counter to the statistics (not necessarily the same as evidence {also for the reasons that cornucopia has rightly pointed out}) others are quoting.

And again, personal anecdotes do not trump recorded evidence

Never claimed they did. But they carry more weight to the person affected.

You have stated your opinion why you think it's wrong, you have not proven it wrong.

I have neither the time, resource or need to check TfL's findings. Nor am I required to accept them.

This is leaning towards the burden of proof fallacy as well. You say you think it's flawed yet have provided no evidence to prove this, thus your opinion can be safely ignored.

You're well entitled to ignore my thoughts whether they are backed up by data or not. And the reverse applies..

And yet you have repeatedly quoted your opinion as valid and with as much weight as a proper year long study which proves you wrong

No I have not. I have stated that my observations disagree and why I think that might be. Since I am not stating this as fact (you are repeatedly projecting that - another popular technique with politicians!) the study cannot prove me wrong.

You should not, and should never, accept my word as if it had validity when compared to an actual study.

I don't. I merely accept your declared observations/experiences as equally valid to mine.

Yes you have been proven wrong. You stated bikes jumping lights are the major issue, recorded evidence proves you wrong.

Since I at no point stated that - the evidence is not applicable. I described some forms of cyclists breaking rules (not just red lights) are the major issue that affects me.


Perhaps if you tried responding what I'm actually saying rather than what you assume/presume to be the case - the debate would move forward...


Warning: going off-topic

Look at any debate about cyclists and cars and all the drivers will come out with the same garbage about "paying road tax to use the road" or claiming roads were made for cars.

Some not all. I usually ignore those who go off on that tack.

To pretend the UK doesn't have an obsessive car culture where drivers on the whole believe it is their right to be on the road and no-one else should be is just silly.

I disagree with "on the whole" - plenty agree (here certainly) that all have the right to be on the road and a right to respect others. "Obsessive" is possibly hyperbole - some are; many others consider a car as if it were a tool or an appliance. Using a forum labelled Motoring is also a possible source of selection bias. (Which goes right back to the top of the thread, where some challenged the OP for not asking on the Cycling pages - where more actual answers to the question might have been forthcoming)

[Deleted User]

neilmcl wrote: »

It's just natural selection at work

That made me laugh.

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.

I wonder what the traffic light would spend it's victim surcharge on?