Why Do Some Cyclists Run Red Lights?

Nasqueron

Cornucopia wrote: »

Interesting. Not least because those sites are presumably easy to monitor, but not necessarily those where red light issues will be most prevalent. Some of the junctions are simply too big for even the boldest cyclist to want to risk getting caught half way across when the lights change. The one I know best (bottom of Blackheath Hill) is, by contrast, too small and the simple 2-phase operation there does not provide much time within which red light issues could arise.

I would like to see figures for medium-sized, multi-phase junctions within Zone 1. I'd also like to see figures for Zebra crossings and Pelican crossings.

I worked in two different sites in central London, and in both locations there was originally a Zebra crossing over a major road nearby. In both sites, there was a persistent problem of cyclists failing to stop when pedestrians were part-way across the crossings. Eventually, both locations were upgraded to Pelican crossings which seemed to improve matters.

You'd need to ask TFL if they do this or commission your own survey. As it is, facts trump anecdotes

Cornucopia

Nasqueron wrote: »

TFL data, as quoted earlier on this thread for all accidents involving road users hitting pedestrians following a red light jump shows only 4% of such incidents are caused by a bike, cars cause 71% of them. 98% of pedestrian serious injury or deaths in urban areas are caused by motor vehicles, indeed 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries on a fooyway/verge are caused by motor vehicles. 2005-14 NO pedestrians were killed by bikes jumping red lights, 5 a year were killed by motor vehicles

I think that's a somewhat skewed approach to the data. (And between the various TfL sources that have been quoted, there does seem to be the whiff of denial in the air).

It's not rocket science that a car or other large vehicle is capable of doing much more severe damage in the event of a collision than a pedal cycle. That, to me, is a separate issue to whether cyclists abusing traffic light installation and other rules of the road are creating an unnecessary hostile environment to other road users. There is a further issue as to whether policing and enforcement are adequate, given the particular challenges of a largely anonymous cyclist population.

I can see some merit in this - punishing people according to the kinetic energy of their careering vehicle. I'd certainly like to see some of the appalling driving by White Ven Men and Dumper Trucks being suitably dealt with.

Cornucopia

Nasqueron wrote: »

You'd need to ask TFL if they do this or commission your own survey. As it is, facts trump anecdotes

I don't live or work in London any more.

This is only of academic interest to me.

Johno100

Norman_Castle wrote: »

The survey was done in 2007 but was used in an article in 2012.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf

Oh I thought there was a later one as well, so this nearly 10 years old now.

Anyway, as I was saying all they have done is taken the number of cyclists 'violating' red lights at each of the junctions during the monitoring period and divided that by the total number of cyclists using the junction in the same period to determine a percentage of violators. So taking no account of those cyclists who passed through the junction when they had a green light and so couldn't have jumped a red light if they'd have wanted to.

Tilt

There's also the issue of cycling in London at night without having lights on bikes.

A couple of years ago on a Friday evening, I had to drop people off at the Euro Star Terminal which is just off Euston Road. In the last mile or so before reaching St Pancras, I 'encountered' about 30 cyclists dodging in and out of the slow moving traffic (some squeezing through the smallest of gaps between buses etc). I would have to put the number without lights at around 20.

Compared to zero of the of the other vehicles that had no lights on at the same time.

[Deleted User]

Johno100 wrote: »

Oh I thought there was a later one as well, so this nearly 10 years old now.

Anyway, as I was saying all they have done is taken the number of cyclists 'violating' red lights at each of the junctions during the monitoring period and divided that by the total number of cyclists using the junction in the same period to determine a percentage of violators. So taking no account of those cyclists who passed through the junction when they had a green light and so couldn't have jumped a red light if they'd have wanted to.

What are you getting at, are you suggested that more than 16% of the cyclists presented with a green light would have jumped a red light? That's nonsense, if 16% of those who see a red light ignore it, then there's no reason to suppose that any more than 16% of those who see a green light would have ignored a red. Do you think the traffic lights biased the test by only showing red to the most law-abiding cyclists?

Johno100

jack_pott wrote: »

What are you getting at, are you suggested that more than 16% of the cyclists presented with a green light would have jumped a red light? That's nonsense, if 16% of those who see a red light ignore it, then there's no reason to suppose that any more than 16% of those who see a green light would have ignored a red. Do you think the traffic lights biased the test by only showing red to the most law-abiding cyclists?

Come on you are more intelligent than that.

Yes I'm suggesting that more than 16% of cyclists presented with a red light will jump it. Including those presented with a green light as non-violators is just perverse. It's like me going outside with a speed gun and including parked unattended vehicles in a figure for those on the road obeying the speed limit.

[Deleted User]

Johno100 wrote: »

Including those presented with a green light as non-violators is just perverse.

But as I already told you in post 50, that's not what they've done, it's you who is being perverse for suggesting that they would.

"an average of 16% violated red lights, whilst the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals"

That means 16 people saw a red light and ignored it, for every 84 who saw a red light and obeyed it.

JP08

Johnno100. I've had a look at the wording in the survey, and I have to say I think your interpretation of the data is incorrect, though in some cases I will agree it is not clear.

eg "Table 1 shows that the majority of cyclists obeyed the red lights at site 1. Of the 3512 cyclists that used the junction during the surveyed hours an average of 87% of cyclists did not violate red lights. As such, the anecdotal evidence that most cyclists ride through red lights cannot be attributed to this site."

isn't particularly clear whereas

"Table 3 shows the total number of cyclists who either violated or respected red lights during both the AM and PM peaks. Whilst the majority of cyclists did obey the traffic signals at each arm, there are differences in the numbers of male and female cyclists that did so. However, as there were also differences in the numbers of male and female cyclists using the junction, the proportion of men and women violating red lights is similar."

is clearly talking about the number who violated or respected the red signal only.

I think it is safe to assume that the survey methodology was to only count on red lights otherwise (as you say) the whole exercise would be pointless.

JP08

caprikid1 wrote: »

Sit on the motorway at 70mph or go along a 30mph and see the amount of cars that pass / build up behind you.

Regularly drive at 60 on the A1 just north of where I live. Quite amusing to see those hacking up the overtaking lane passing me hit the anchors as they realize those signs for the average speed cameras weren't there just for the fun of it.

Even more amusing watching those who don't understand the concept of average speed accelerating after and braking before each camera ...