Cyclist mows down Sydenham pedestrian

[Rebelmc]

As someone who spends most of his working life driving the streets of London and beyond, I've no doubt Stuart will be dismayed to hear that I can't recall the last time I saw a car run a red light, let alone 30% of my fellow motorised road users.

On the other hand, just today I was sitting at a red light, with a cyclist, in full regalia, patiently stopped beside me; then, along come a couple of Boris Bike riders, who nonchalantly sailed through the lights and into the path of the traffic turning onto the road in front of them, causing one car to brake and swerve.

So there's 66.6% of cyclists who couldn't give a stuff about red lights, and that was just today.............

[stuart]

Ah - but that just proves that perception and reality may be on different planets. Back to the Enlightenment is all I'm asking ... and as for blokes in leathers, my lips are sealed

Stuart

[Rebelmc]

But perception is the thing that needs to be dealt with.

You can prove anything you want with statistics, but if those stats don't square with the general perception, they don't mean squat.

For example, we all know, because we've been told ad infinitum, that flying is the safest form of transport known to man; just recently, I read a stat that said something like, you would have to fly all day, every day, for 160 years, to guarantee being in a plane a crash, and we all know that flying is safer than crossing the road.

But that doesn't stop tens of thousands of people having an almost pathological fear of flying, whilst very few will have an isolated phobia so extreme, that they absolutely refuse to cross a road.

It would be fair to say that the majority of cyclists suffer from the failings of the minority, in the same way that the majority of motorcyclists do; but at least motorcyclists (and all other drivers) have a legal requirement to take training, pass tests, buy insurance and conform to the letter of motoring law.

Cyclists don't have to do any of the first three and, in the main, get away with the fourth; this has the effect of making them, potentially, completely unaccountable, a situation which quite a lot of cyclists use to their advantage, in turn making them dangerous.

I actually don't care about training or tests for cyclists, although I thought the old cycling proficiency scheme was a very good thing.

But I would like to see some way of compelling cyclists to take out the minimum standard of insurance, covering third party loss/damage.

[stuart]

BYou can prove anything you want with statistics, but if those stats don't square with the general perception, they don't mean squat.

Go back to start, do not pass GO, do not collect £200.

The issue with science in general and statistics in particular is that if perception worked there would be no need for either. Take the sun rising or the average rainbow. Perception and science tell two very different stories. Which is real?

Next time you are in an aeroplane - will you trust to the science, mathematics & statistics that underpin the technology or think yourself an Icarus who has kept his distance from the sun?

I'll be waiting below ...

Stuart

[Rebelmc]

Here's the problem:

I have a scientific and logical mind, you have a scientific and logical mind, but I know my school reports remarked on my exceptionally scientific and logical mind; I don't know about your's

The point is, I can use my exceptionally scientific and logical mind to justify the behaviour of the majority of cyclists, because the stats say they are, normally, perfectly safe individuals, with a better accident record than other road users.

But the part of my mind that isn't influenced by statistics, tells me that it still grinds my gears when I see cyclists, on an almost daily basis, running red lights, nipping up on the pavement to avoid lights completely and making various other manouevers, that compromise the safety of other road users and pedestrians.

And it's that bit of my mind that cyclists are up against, along with all the minds of the less scientific and logically gifted

[stuart]

An eloquent and excellent reply.

The issue is when you get a dissonance between your analytical and perceptual experience - what do you do? It may surprise you that when I find 'common sense' and 'experience' contradict with rigorous analysis I feel they should not be dismissed. The science of statistics is basically the null hypothesis - trying to prove the data is wrong. Only when you fail to do that do you accept the probability it might be right.

And the data is pointing in a direction none of us want. But that is not an excuse to rubbish it.

Stuart

[michael]

Stuart,
I'm surprised you would provide such incomparable data to support your assertion that cars jump red lights more than bikes, and that you quoted the figure of 30%.
Although I have not seen the methodology for the RAC survey, the 30% figure seems to include drivers going through a 'last-minute amber signal', which I do not believe the TfL study of 6 London intersections included.
A better study, if you want a comparison, is http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... brigade.do

At Trafalgar Square, researchers spotted 117 road-users charging through lights after they turned red over a three-hour period. Fifty one were cyclists, 13 were motorcyclists and 23 were car drivers.

Eighteen vans shot through on red, as well as four police vehicles not on emergency calls, three lorries and five buses.

The survey was repeated at other locations in central and outer London with similar results.

According to these statistics 44% of red light jumpers were cyclists and 20% were car drivers. So this particular set of data would suggest that cyclists are more likely to jump red lights in absolute terms and much more likely in proportion to the numbers on the road.
Where I have no disagreement with you about is that drivers who jump red lights are a more significant danger to other road users and to themselves, but that should not excuse law breaking by anybody else.

In the last few posts you have claimed that personal observation is no substitute for good statistics, and again you have no disagreement from me. But I await to see some good statistics on red light jumping, until then I think most of the people on this forum will be sceptical regarding your claims that more motorists jump red lights than cyclists.

And I feel that this focus on cars jumping red lights is just a distraction from the issue that most posters on this thread have with pavement cycling, which you seem unwilling to consider as any type of problem however annoying many posters perceive it to be.

[Tim Lund]

An eloquent and excellent reply.

The issue is when you get a dissonance between your analytical and perceptual experience - what do you do? It may surprise you that when I find 'common sense' and 'experience' contradict with rigorous analysis I feel they should not be dismissed. The science of statistics is basically the null hypothesis - trying to prove the data is wrong. Only when you fail to do that do you accept the probability it might be right.

And the data is pointing in a direction none of us want. But that is not an excuse to rubbish it.

Stuart

I'm staying out of the details on this one - but I'd be fairly amazed if cyclists didn't jump red lights more than car drivers and motor cyclists, since the risk of any legal comeback is minute (in my teens, a policeman with nothing better to do once stopped me for cycling down an empty pedestrianised road). The risks to our own personal safely - and others', including pedestrians - are rather more important, to be blunt, and there are occasions when observing a red light is positively dangerous - I made a passing reference to one such in this thread.

On the general principle of following the evidence rather than unexamined attitudes, I'm with Stuart and The Enlightenment. But, as Rebelmc says, such attitudes are also part of the world, like it or not. Hence my saying "it's also anthropological" earlier in this thread. Anthropology, as far as I can tell, attempts to analyse such irrationalities, and a broader Enlightenment understanding of resentment of this alternatively dressed urban tribe would involve some anthropology as well as statistics. As a cyclist, I'm very aware of pedestrians, since some have an alarming habit of stepping out into a road when they can't hear any cars coming. I also realise that many other road users will resent how cyclists can get away with rule breaking.

If you really want to see anthropology stomping all over narrower Enlightenment rationalities, look at attitudes to drugs - for example this view point - from a social anthropologist - on the BBC recently on how alcohol affects behaviour. Anthropology also kicks in when society legislates that some psychoactive chemicals are legitimate, and others aren't, regardless of hard evidence. As former chief government drugs advisor, John Nutt, knows to his cost.

[stuart]

Michael,

Your researcher in Trafalgar Square appears to be measuring "people charging through red lights" which is only a subset (probably quite small) of people committing a traffic light offence. That is crossing the stop line. If they do that they put in danger or inconvenience pedestrians (who have to step round) when using the crossing.

That is precisely the problem you appear to have with pedestrians on pavements. There are no figures I can find on pavement parking AFAIK (when did you last see a traffic warden in Sydenham?).

We can go on and on about this. You are continually seeking to discount the much greater danger and inconvenience posed to pedestrians and fixating and inflating a real but much smaller problem. It doesn't seem logical. Hence you do create an impression of being prejudiced against a group.

As ever I always hope I'm wrong when I come to an uncomfortable conclusion. So I will conclude here. Have the last word ...

Stuart

RebelMC: Another misapprehension. You even get a PCN for pushing a bike through a red light in the City.

[Voyageur]

Stuart,
....And I feel that this focus on cars jumping red lights is just a distraction from the issue that most posters on this thread have with pavement cycling, which you seem unwilling to consider as any type of problem however annoying many posters perceive it to be.

Good to get back to the OP michael, and I can't but agree. The fact that more pedestrains are killed by cars than cyclists is a red herring - nobody is arguing with that as far as I can see.

My experience yesterday was typical: twice whilst walking from where I live down to Gipsy Hill station I had to step aside - once into someone's driveway - to allow pavement cyclists to go by without potential collision. One of them, a older teenager, was coming along so fast that several people remonstrated with him only to receive a mouthful of abuse - it seems a particular problem at times down near GH station.

It is a problem. In my experience it is a growing problem. I wish that more could be done to get rid of the problem. Simples.

[michael]

My last word will be that I am not prejudiced against cyclists. In fact when driving I try to give them more consideration that any other road users as I recognise how vulnerable they are. Unfortunately I see some other drivers who are not so considerate. I also have a huge amount of respect (and just a little jealousy) for their fitness as I am unable to cycle for more than 10 minutes without complete exhaustion.

Despite all of this, and the dangers posed by cars, I would like pavements to be safer places for pedestrians.

[Edited by me (Michael) to remove unfair and unreasonable accusations]