[Secret_squirrel]

Friendly warning.  Ashley Neal’s gone full on troll (if he wasnt already).  If you havent seen his latest piece of them and us trash I’d block him before your blood pressure goes up like mine.

Do a favour and dont link it on here. (though Im sure it will be on the live blog soon).

Topic

[mt1138]

Long time lurker here on road

Long time lurker here on road.cc. I actually created an account just to post this.

I’ve never felt that Ashley is anti-cyclist and his video analysis of dashcam footage is generally good.

However, I’m deeply unimpressed with his conduct on this one. I posted a comment on the video drawing attention to the design of the junction and pointing out that you can’t just assign 100% blame to the cyclist without considering their view. Hoped the comment might generate some discussion. Checked back later and couldn’t find my comment. Assumed youtube had messed up.

Posted it again. Again it went missing. Several other of my replies to other comments also went missing. I’m pretty certain Ashley was deleting my comments. The comments section is full of the predictable anti-cyclist rantings.

I think it’s incredibly unprofessional of him to delete comments actually seeking to shed further light on the situation. Especially as the footage has provided an opportunity for somebody with a platform to draw attention to a dangerous junction that is a serious accident waiting to happen. Instead he’s happy to pass blame fully to an injured party, and censoring anybody suggesting his analysis is incomplete.

[chrisonabike]

He’s just picked a bad
He’s just picked a bad example but I don’t think he’d really worry. It seems the point is mostly “innocent drivers suffer psychologically when they kill people and it’s not their fault” (he mentions examples other than just RLJ if I remember).

Hence my long ramble about is it fair? Trying to ask some questions. All those blameless drivers *chose* to drive – no driving, no death! How aware are we / should we be about rare but currently inevitable consequences? What if any responsibility do we as individuals have given legislators, street designers and vehicle manufacturers have built in conflict? And “society” / the current “environment” essentially “creates driving” – hence “I have to drive”?

That’s too much for a comment anyway (or for my thinking capacity now).

[chrisonabike]

You’re right, I was nearby
You’re right, I was nearby yesterday so went to have a look. Looking at the phasing – at least for the few cycles I was there – I don’t think you can get “caught out” so it would seem the cyclist would have had to go through a red light. However because the position of the straight-on control signal (you’re actually physically moving right to left, even in a car although especially as a cyclist following the “guide lane” markings on road) switches from the left light set on the first head to the right set on the far head (e.g. within 10 metres…) I suspect confusion was likely. In many positions you wouldn’t see other light which could help correct a mistake.

The planter luckily doesn’t hide a cyclist coming straight towards a car on the S-bend but as Ashley pointed out drivers are not likely to be looking there. Plus there’s plenty other visual distraction. And waiting pedestrians can block the view also. So it’s really important this junction is made properly safe while still being rebuilt.

Unfortunately this seems unlikely. It was retained as a football-pitch-sized gyratory and the opportunity to rethink how we do transport here was rejected. It just had to have a tramline through. 2nd goal keep the motor vehicles. Still lots of buses here and a “route” (Edinburgh only has one tramline!). Everything else came last. For a cyclist there are inconvenient and conflict-creating design elements both on the junction and on most routes as they lead into here.

[chrisonabike]

Well, Ashley’s (apparently)

Well, Ashley’s (apparently) been to road.cc a few times so while I wouldn’t say “trolling” he’s aware of some cyclists’ viewpoints.  Again – seems good on the requirements of motorists around cyclists but he’s also presented some takes on cycling I’d consider really odd (or at least not knowledgeable).  When others have politely questioned them (here) he’s doubled-down.

I think mass motoring really is a huge invisible cultural “elephant”.  With driving and cycling (or even walking where people interact with vehicles) we end up holding fundamentally different activities to the standards of one (driving).

I can’t really make an analogy because driving is exceptional*.  What else is potentially as dangerous to self and others, is technically a voluntary activity but yet ubiquitous and has been made a “requirement” or expectation?  What else has been so promoted (including building infra and subsidies both direct and concealed) for generations … but where people practicing it aren’t regularly trained / tested / held to safety standards / others protected from them?

And – relevant to “red light jumping” – designing for motoring is at the expense of everyone else – in terms of convenience (Traffic lights / pedestrian crossings ARE motoring infrastructure).  Knowing human nature we should take this into account in our designs.

So maybe – in the current environment – we should be up-front with drivers?  Perhaps we should all have a “horror show” and have to view some crash aftermath images?  Or like seeing the sanitised versions on the news does that just desensitise us / make us fatalists?

Maybe driving instructors should say / the vehicle’s binnacle should read “before you start this vehicle beware this activity comes with a small but real risk you could kill or maim others any time you do it.  Could be strangers or your family and friends.  Whether or not it’s your ‘fault’.  Think – can you handle that?“

* Drinking maybe?  It’s ubiquitous.  You can “pass” at 18 and take part (no further “tests”), it’s taxed, there’s social pressure to participate and even some institutional encouragement.  Yet we know that for a small proportion – but large number – this is a massive issue.  And not just for them but for their families.  And overall this leads to lots of unpleasantness including injury to innocent / uninvolved people and massive cost to the taxpayer.

[chrisonabike]

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Yet riding at dusk / in the dark without lights or any high-viz.

Poor effort, Boy.  Sadly you’d better give Ashley some more clicks and watch this video.  Actually – don’t bother, see another still below.  Clearly has a (flashing) light.  It’s not so obvious from the screen grab I posted, I know…  Oh, and a helmet.  And is carefully following the “guide lines” marked out by the council.  (There as an effort to cheaply mitigate their failure to design safe tram-track crossing points for cyclists which minimise the risk of fall.  Again – this has lead to a death – at another crossing point – and lots of compensation for injuries so it’s not a “theoretical” issue.)

Hi-vis is not a requirement – although a good idea in poor visibility conditions.  Note “wearing a light-coloured top” though (as light coloured as the car!)

Finally having lights (which they had!) and hi-vis – in this particular case – would have had precisely zero effect on the collision.  I can’t say for certain this was an innocent mistake caused by totally confusing light timing / junction design.   At the very least it’s quite possible.  That’s then compounded by the council’s (?) decision to put a large obstacle – alongside the constructor’s clutter of signs etc. – which can totally block a driver’s vision at this junction.

[Awavey]

theres unquestionably a video

theres unquestionably a video out there to make a valid point about red light jumping and its consequences, its just this wasnt that video.

[Flintshire Boy]

.

.

‘not someone with no concern for their own safety’ you say.

.

Yet riding at dusk / in the dark without lights or any high-viz.

.

Surely that’s asking for trouble?

.

[HoarseMann]

mattw wrote:

I think that’s probably fair comment from Ashley

I think it’s unfair comment from Ashley, this cyclist was not some sort of scofflaw with no concern for their own safety or consideration of others. The choice to ride a bike with drop bars was irrelevant (and the bit I think the original poster thought as being trolling).

PTSD is a terrible thing, it could happen to anyone who does anything where their actions (or inaction) could result in harm to someone else through no fault of their own.

[hawkinspeter]

mattw wrote:

I think that’s probably fair comment from Ashley, even though some here may feel it is making it about smeone else – there’s been at least one account in AN’s comments recently of a driver in an accident later killing themselves.

Important elements of a necessary conversation where all sides need to try to avoid getting too angry.

As a regular reader and commenter both over there and here, I think the headline on this article is unnecessarily confrontational.

Obviously, we don’t want drivers (or anyone) taking their own lives due to just trying to get around the public roads, but I don’t think it’s a useful point to bring up when there’s pedestrians and cyclists being killed regularly by poor driving. Imploring cyclists to follow all the car-based rules on the roads by asking cyclists to think of the poor drivers is unlikely to be a successful gambit when it’s clear to cyclists that they are themselves vulnerable and errors of judgement usually end up wiith a lot of pain.

[mattw]

Forum – true.

Forum – true.

Though I think my comments still apply.

[Hirsute]

It’s not an article though it
It’s not an article though it’s a thread created by a forum member.

[mattw]

I think that’s probably fair

I think that’s probably fair comment from Ashley, even though some here may feel it is making it about smeone else – there’s been at least one account in AN’s comments recently of a driver in an accident later killing themselves.

Important elements of a necessary conversation where all sides need to try to avoid getting too angry.

As a regular reader and commenter both over there and here, I think the headline on this article is unnecessarily confrontational.

[HoarseMann]

Yep, that’s the confusion.

Yep, that’s the confusion. You have to drive past the red light because it’s the light to the right with the green arrow that’s supposed to indicate priority for going ahead. It’s daft. Anyone sitting at those lights would expect the light that is red to apply to the lane going ahead. 

[Hirsute]

Finally on street view, it is

Finally on street view, it is green ahead leading to red at the next bit.

Where does the silver car go ??!!

 

[Hirsute]

Then moving forward on street

Then moving forward on street view the second one is now green but left, so are you now not allowed to go straight on despite the swerving cycle lane lines taking you straight on?

And is you stop at the purple x, how do you know what the lights are ?

 

[Author]

Replies