WiseOwl182 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 How is that relevant? Are you suggesting that speeding should be ignored since cyclists rarely have the opportunity to do it. It's very interesting that you post this, since I was going to respond to the fallacy of your "opportunity" logic. I freely admit that some cyclists go through red lights, and I abhor it when they do so. But they generally do so in a very different manner to motorists. They make an observation about the state of the traffic and/or pedestrians and then choose to go. But the interesting thing is, that any cyclist in a queue will have the opportunity to overtake, get to the front and do so. Yet in my experience, more often than not, they don't. When it comes to motorists, as others have said, their red light running is generally taking the attitude that if they arrive within 2-3 seconds of the light having turned to red, then it's a reasonable risk to take - without reference to the state of the traffic at the junction. Opportunity-wise, it's only the driver at the front of the queue at any given moment who gets that opportunity - and often they'll take it. I actually only encountered one red light this morning. The three cars at the front all ignored it. The two cyclists in the queue both waited patiently. That's not an unusual scenario. Well our observations are very different, but I think opportunity is the only method to use. I suggest we meet up at Hunters Bar roundabout, evening rush hour, and pick a set of lights to study. When the lights are at red, we will count cyclists running red vs stopping, and the same for cars, and calculate percentages as comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I wasn't comparing an extreme example of a cyclist running a red at an empty pedestrian crossing versus a car doing 70mph in a 20 zone at school closing time. Do you really believe those 1500ish cases are generally caused by motorists going at 70mph in a 20 zone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, there is also the attitude, quoted by someone earlier on here, that (to paraphrase, in case I forget the exact quote) Some will forgive their friend for eating with his fingers, while criticizing his enemy for using the wrong knife and fork. I think it is a good analogy. Some drivers see other drivers as like them, so can accept when they are held up by a queue of similar cars, but are immediately outraged by something "different", ie a cyclist, that is in their way. So you're saying dangerous and aggressive drivers,which is what I was referring to in Cyclone's post, only have it in for cyclists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Some drivers see other drivers as like them, so can accept when they are held up by a queue of similar cars, but are immediately outraged by something "different", ie a cyclist, that is in their way. Very true. As an autistic individual I'll also point out that aversion to the 'different' is a classic trait of the neurotypicals who make up the majority of motorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 A good observation. And, of course, cyclists are able to observe more than an equivalent motorist due to their riding position (high up and not limited by a bonnet- a car driver is always observing from further back than the cyclist). so it's Ok for an artic driver to go through on red ..? He's high up and has no bonnet to obstruct his view and is nearer the front of his vehicle than a car driver... is that the logic you're using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I also made clear that I abhor such behaviour, and I don't believe it makes a cyclist safer. I never suggested otherwise- you're clearly intolerant of cyclists going through reds, which is why I pointed out that it was well observed that, unlike most of the knee-jerk 'cyclist going through reds is always evil' crew here, you could acknowledge that many cyclists go through reds in a rational and observant manner. ---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 10:50 ---------- so it's Ok for an artic driver to go through on red ..? He's high up and has no bonnet to obstruct his view and is nearer the front of his vehicle than a car driver... is that the logic you're using? No, it's not OK- he/she is a motorist. Having said that, a bonnetless artic is clearly going to be able to observe far more than an equivalent car driver- for the same reasons that a cyclist can see much more than an equivalent car driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I never suggested otherwise- you're clearly intolerant of cyclists going through reds, which is why I pointed out that it was well observed that, unlike most of the knee-jerk 'cyclist going through reds is always evil' crew here, you could acknowledge that many cyclists go through reds in a rational and observant manner. ---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 10:50 ---------- No, it's not OK- he/she is a motorist. Having said that, a bonnetless artic is clearly going to be able to observe far more than an equivalent car driver- for the same reasons that a cyclist can see much more than an equivalent car driver. Certain views are very limited for an HGV, especially their view of cyclists when close up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 No, it's not OK- he/she is a motorist. Having said that, a bonnetless artic is clearly going to be able to observe far more than an equivalent car driver- for the same reasons that a cyclist can see much more than an equivalent car driver. Why is it safe an OK for a cyclist to go through red lights but not an artic if both rider and driver can see it's clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Do you really believe those 1500ish cases are generally caused by motorists going at 70mph in a 20 zone? 1,500 cases of what? My point was that, generally, any vehicle running a red is more dangerous than speeding, but there are exceptions at either end. Most cars speed, I admit that, but most only speed within a few mph of the limit, which is less dangerous than if they ran a red at a junction or pedestrian crossing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Well our observations are very different, but I think opportunity is the only method to use. I agree that opportunity is the only method to use. And yes, my observations are that given the opportunity to run a red light after it's just changed, many motorists will take it. I suggest we meet up at Hunters Bar roundabout, evening rush hour, and pick a set of lights to study. When the lights are at red, we will count cyclists running red vs stopping, and the same for cars, and calculate percentages as comparison. I really have better things to do with my time, but you're very welcome to do so. But given the comments myself and others have already made about how driver-red-light-crossing occurs, Hunters Bar is going to be a particular bad site. All the traffic lights there occur at a point where drivers will either already be slowing down on the approach to the roundabout or else will not have properly picked up speed coming away from it. A much better test would be a more typical junction, eg. Queens/Wolseley/London Roads, or Abbeydale/Archer/Springfield Roads, or any pedestrian crossing which doesn't neatly coincide with another major road feature such as a roundabout. ---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 11:06 ---------- you could acknowledge that many cyclists go through reds in a rational and observant manner. I made no claim about it being rational, especially in any absolute sense. I simply made clear that it doesn't bear any comparison to going through a red light or speeding in a car. ---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 11:12 ---------- My point was that, generally, any vehicle running a red is more dangerous than speeding, but there are exceptions at either end. Most cars speed, I admit that, but most only speed within a few mph of the limit, which is less dangerous than if they ran a red at a junction or pedestrian crossing. Maybe they should do neither then. As you're going to generalise, would you therefore agree that generally a car speeding is more dangerous than a cyclist observantly running a red light? 1,500 cases of what? Keep up. Perhaps you should explain that to some of the parents of the 1500 or so pedestrian children killed in RTAs each year? Edited July 2, 2015 by mattleonard Add 1500 bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts