- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgCycle campaigners see red over IAM red light jumping survey
Much of the national media is this morning reporting the ‘fact’ that more than half of cyclists jump red lights, based on a misleading headline in a press release from the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) that misinterprets the results of a online survey conducted by the road safety charity. The sensationalist nature of the press release’s headline and failure to properly analyse the data from what is itself a questionable piece of research before putting it into the public domain has provoked an angry reaction and fears that the ‘statistic’ will further reinforce the widely held perception that cyclists are a law unto themselves.
The research was conducted via a self-selected survey on the IAM website, conducted using Survey Monkey, that asked several questions of cyclists regarding their behaviour . It’s the claim that 57 per cent of cyclists jump red lights, as well as one that 73 per cent ride on pavements, that today is receiving attention from media outlets such as the Daily Mail, which has the story on the front page of its website, and BBC Breakfast.
Breaking down the multiple choice responses to the question in the survey according to figures supplied by IAM to road.cc presents a rather different picture, however.
IAM poll question: The slight difference between figures in pic and IAM's quoted figures is because the poll was left open after it was supposedly closed and Carlton Reid of Bikebiz answered the questions
Asked, “As a cyclist, do you ever jump red lights,” 1.9 per cent chose, “Yes, frequently.” Some 11.8 per cent replied “Yes, sometimes,” but 24.6 per cent replied “rarely,” 19.1 per cent “once or twice” and a full 42.7 per cent said “Never.”
In other words, 13.3 per cent of respondents to the survey claimed to jump red lights either frequently or sometimes; the remaining 86.7 per cent at most do so rarely and fully half of them state they have never jumped a red light, which puts the findings of the survey in a rather different light.
The press release, embargoed until 0001 today, was sent out yesterday morning under the attention-grabbing heading “More than half of cyclists jump red lights” and was immediately queried with IAM by road.cc, Carlton Reid, executive editor of trade journal BikeBiz, and others.
By lunchtime, BikeBiz had decided to break embargo and publish a story on the press release, saying it was doing so “in order to prepare cyclists for the hate they'll receive from the mainstream media tomorrow.” With a pre-emptive damage limitation exercise in full swing, Peter Walker in the Guardian Bike Blog and Kaya Burgess in The Times had also challenged the survey’s findings.
Besides the misrepresentation of the responses - as well as the discovery by Reid that the survey had also found that 32 per cent of motorists admitted jumping red lights, not contained in the press release - the nature of the survey itself, conducted via Survey Monkey, was also queried, with self-selected online samples notoriously less robust as a form of research than random surveys conducted by professional market research organisations.
That point was highlighted by the website Full Fact, which said: “If this is indeed the case, that means that not only could any visitor to the website – cyclist or otherwise – have influenced the headline result, but also there would have been no weighting to account for participant attributes such as age, gender or location.”
We at road.cc queried the findings of the poll, and the way in which they had been reported, with IAM, including pointing out that the consequences of a motorists running a red light were potentially much more serious than those of a cyclist riding through one, questioning why red light jumping by other road users were not discussed, and also highlighting that a sent according to a report in to cycling casualties carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory for the Department of Transport, only 2 per cent of cycling casualties were the result of red light jumping cyclists.
We also asked the IAM, which among its activities provides cycle training and has a class of membership specifically aimed at cyclists, whether it had any concerns “that the figures quoted in the press release about this poll may well stoke anti-cycling comment from some sections of the media and reinforce the negative stereotypes of cyclists that are held by some media commentators and by a section of the nation's road users?”
The reply we received provided a regional breakdown of survey results, which we had requested, as well as the breakdown given earlier with of how that 57 per cent headline figure had been arrived at. The reply was signed off with the words, “These should hopefully answer your points.” Needless to say, it didn’t.
Reacting to the survey, national cyclists’ organisation CTC said: “All road users, including drivers and motorcyclists, break the law. In a similar self-reported survey drivers admitted to routine lawbreaking as half of respondents admitted to using mobile phones while driving (mostly illegal hand-held). Another found that 82% ‘sometimes or frequently’ exceed the speed limit.
Roger Geffen, CTC’s campaigns director, said: “As road users we would like to see road traffic laws be enforced for the safety of everyone, but let’s not forget that the risk imposed by cyclists is minimal when compared to red light jumping drivers.”
He added: “Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does. As an organisation representing those two road user groups, CTC suggests IAM ought to call for more road traffic policing to enforce traffic laws, rather than highlighting red light jumping by cyclists.”
In its response to the survey, British Cycling did not directly address the shortcomings of the survey or the misrepresentation of the results, but instead highlighted reasons why some cyclists felt the need to jump red lights in the first place.
Its Director of Policy and Legal Affairs, Martin Gibbs, said: “All road users must adhere to the Highway Code and traffic enforcement laws and of course that includes waiting at red lights and not cycling on pavements. But this survey clearly shows that instances where people bend the rules tends to be on stretches of road where they don’t feel safe on their bikes.
“Some junctions are so badly designed that people on bikes feel they have to choose between riding legally and riding safely, and this urgently needs addressing. Cycle provision and cycle safety must be designed into roads and junctions before they are built, and existing problem junctions re-engineered, so we create an environment in which people can cycle safely and no-one feels excused from obeying the law.”
At a time when cycling has become an issue discussed at national level, thanks to the efforts of cycle campaigners and the high-profile Cities fit for Cycling initiative from The Times newspaper, the IAM poll, and the way its findings were communicated to the media and in some cases reported without question, is likely to reinforce anti-cyclist views held by many.
That is perhaps epitomised by one comment to the Daily Mail story and its reporting that 57 per cent of cyclists jump red lights, which simply says: “And the other 43 per cent are lying.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- IanMK 0 sec ago
It's the road mentioned in the Yorkshire post. Although it's a long road and we don't know where the collision occurred I can see that it fits with...
- kinderje 34 min 14 sec ago
Have you tried Garmin customer service? My charging door woudn't close properly and would shake loose on every ride. A call to Garmin and they put...
- Pot00000000 48 min 3 sec ago
That's a great looking bike. Shame it's a Bianchi
- ktache 9 hours 32 min ago
The Cure, 1989 day was fantastic, what little I got to hear. I think the BBC is wonderful, not perfect, but I'm so glad we have it.
- Ride On 10 hours 16 min ago
I ended up using Parcelforce - paying online and printing off a sticker - then drop off at the post office. I came across a couple of things worth...
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 23 min ago
Reckless doesn't exist as a charge in the UK, it's either careless or dangerous.
- mattw 10 hours 46 min ago
First Degree Assault in Maryland is serious - intent to cause serious injury, regardless of whether injury caused. A firearm makes it First Degree...
Add new comment
35 comments
Road.cc adding to the misreporting by referring to "AIM" in their headline?!?
I have just completed my own survey, and discovered that 100% of all motorists have deliberately driven on the pavement in order to murder hard working families and especially babies in prams.
FACT.
Haste/speed and cooks/broth are word pairs that spring to mind - but thanks for pointing it out so quickly so we could fix it.
Oops, that's my fault I put AIM in Simon's head
how many motorists use their mobile whilst driving?
how many break the speed limit?
100% I reckon - or near as damn it.
when they drive perfectly, I'll start accepting some criticism.
Lies, damned lies and statistics...
I really don't know why you encourage people to visit the Mail or even quote it in articles like this. We all know it's a cesspit of boggle eyed reactionary trolls, why bother giving it the attention?
Interestingly, very few motorist know that crossing the advance stop line into the cyclist reserved area (while the traffic light is red) counts as RLJ - I'm guessing many see it as 'optional' - i.e. OK to do so if a cyclist isn't using it.
And if you haven't been fed enough borrocks by the Daily Mail already
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2144328/How-cycling-reduce-wom...
To be honest I'd say the numbers are understated. I ride to work in London every day, pass maybe 15-20 sets of lights and would say I see anywhere between 2-10 light jumpers every single morning and evening. I've also had the misfortune of going to court twice as a witness to RTA's caused by light jumpers (one a car jumping the light, and 1 a bike jumping the light).
Whilst the tone of the article is indeed inflammatory, cyclists are not blameless
The comments section on the Daily Wail's reporting of these "statistics" is really really depressing. I wonder how people that stupid are actually allowed to breed.
The BBC pissed me off this morning with their piece on it. They asked the lady from BC if she jumped lights. When she said no they then badgered her trying to get her to say yes, totally belittled her and basically accussed her of lying.
The fact the at cars encroachment into the ASL is technically RLJ was quickly ignored.
It's good to see the BBC taking such a neutral stance!
I broke the embargo for good reason. I could see the hate to come.
Evening Standard even manages to get "Lycra louts" in the first sentence of its piece.
This stat of 57% is now set in stone and will be wheeled out by the haters - and bona fide sources - for ever.
I told the IAM's PR person this would happen and respectfully asked for the release to be withdrawn and amended with the angle that all road users run red lights. She refused to do this. And The Guardian asked, too.
I was told a release on motorists running reds - a stat pulled from the same dodgy survey - would be produced at a future date. In fact, IAM buried it in the cyclist-bashing release on its website but didn't submit the revised release to the mainstream media.
This is clear bias, and was obviously done to get column inches for IAM. As an organisation that previously did a few good things for cyclists, trying to dispel the 'them and us' myth, this was an awful stunt to pull.
I stopped on a red at a Canary Wharf pedestrian crossing yesterday and a security guard in a golf kart pulled up alongside me and applauded me for stopping. He said I was the first cyclist he'd seen stop all day.
I suspect if you conducted the survey in Canary Wharf then the results might not look favourable
I've lost a lot of respect for the IAM over this.
A much better survey (by observation of road junctions) conducted by TfL in London found that only 16% of cyclist jumped the red lights.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/traffic-note-...
Institute of A-hole Motorists and the Biased Broadcasting Corporation strike again! I was wondering why it was worse than usual on the roads this morning!
Statistics? It's an online self-selected survey, as Peter Walker has mentioned (link above).
This is a classic case of so-called 'statistics' being misleading and ignoring the elephant in the room.
Even if the numbers were remotely near describing the reality, I don't see how releasing this information help anybody. It just provides another opportunity for cretinous knee-jerk reactions amongst drivers, AND SOLVES NOTHING.
I won't condone RLJing, red lights exist for a reason and I think cyclists who consider it's OK to do this routinely should be apprehended. However, if I was trying to cross the road I'd prefer to be hit by a bicycle than 2 tonnes of poorly driven taxi (which in my experience is more likely).
Edit: rant sent to head of research via the media team contact form:
Is it that easy to establish a falsehood as accepted fact simply by
a) making it sound like it comes from a respectable organisation
b) being the first to say it
?
If anyone would like to give some feedback to IAM then you can do so via their twitter account
https://twitter.com/#!/iamgroup
Yep. It really is that easy.
Tell people what they want to believe and they will swallow it without question. It's how leaders persuade a country to go to war, among other things.
The self-selecting nature of this poll means it wasn't even a survey of "cyclists" as such, it was a survey of motorists and motorcyclists *who use bicycles* AND visit the IAM website on a regular enough basis to see the poll.
In other words, even if the stats were true, they'd simply be insulting their own members!?
Yep. It is.
"A bicycle is stolen every 30 seconds" is a dodgy stat from an insurance company and is now the base stat used in lots and lots of media stories about bike thefts.
Original was picked up by BBC and since then I've seen it quoted as "According to the BBC..."
in that case I've just inaugurated the Foundation Of Allied Tax Paying Expert Human Road Users and after polling my member have established that 100% of the Mini driver who nearly clipped me with their wing mirror this morning was examining their hairdo in the mirror rather than paying attention to traffic. I hope to get this message out through the main media outlets by the 6pm news after I've written my manifesto.
Any journalist who prints that without thinking that 1,051,200 bikes being stolen in the UK every year might be a bit deserves ridicule.
Only quick thinking stopped my 11 year old son from being flattened by a black BMW driven by a woman who rather than slow down at a red light, decided to speed up. The green man was showing and my son said he thought the woman was about to stop so he put his foot on the crossing. She then accelerated and he stepped back out of the way rather quickly. That was on the A23 last Friday, not some sidestreet, and just across the road from his school. But this sort of incident happens so often, it is never reported.
Use this website to report such behaviour: http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/
Still "AIM" in the carousel.
Curious as to how many cyclists frequent IAM's website. I know for me it isn't that high up on my list of things to do when on the internet. The media hasn't even highlighted that this is NOT an official survey or that it was carried out on a motoring website and that the respondents would primarily be motorists. I wonder if IAM would be as quick to publish the results of mobile phone use to the media. On a 30 minute. Commute this morning I observed at least a dozen phone users. I also had a van nudge my back wheel while waiting at aa set of red lights.
Maybe road.cc should run aa poll on RLJing and release the results to IAM as a comparison on how weak their own 'survey' was.
Can someone explain to me, as a regular commuter in a city that is not London, how jumping a red light is safer than waiting. I have never been able to get my head around this, and am ignorant as to the safety advantageous. Can anyone explain this? I am curious.
The Breakfast presenters are idiots, particularly Chrlie Stayt. Instread of simply asking questions of the guests, he spends 5 minutes giving the answer he wants to them. Moron...
No-one forces you to watch it. Every television has an 'OFF' button.
Most telly output is shit, particularly what passes for entertainment and the navel-gazing, indulgent fluff on breakfast/daytime TV. The less TV I watch the better my quality of life.
Personally I don't do it, but I have observed others doing it. They basically use a. the period when there isn't anything coming through the green light, to jump the gap, or b. the 'dead zone' - that few seconds when all lights are red between stages of the light sequence. The idea is that this makes them one of the only moving road users at that point (clearly relies on good observational skills/anticipation of others' actions etc) and, bereft of surrounding motor traffic with intentions to overtake/turn/accelerate etc, therefore safer than moving off amongst said surrounding traffic.
I have seen people doing this really stupidly, but I have also seen it done rather better. Just this morning a chap in full Team GB kit (including Team-Sky coloured Pinarello and the regulation weighted backpack, so presume he wasn't a wannabe) in Manchester doing this rather well; the biggest danger he presented was to the perception of other motorists that we all RLJ.
If anyone RLJs in our club kit, they're in for some words from the club secretary, for just this reason.
Pages