The Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association film 53% of RLJ-ing Cyclists at 2 junctions

Matt eaton wrote:

This is just the LTDA looking for a fight. Forget about it.

Aye, people tend to get a bit more aggressive when they are ripped to the tits on crack.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

There's a great quote by W Edwards Deming: "Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you're getting."

So if fallible people are regularly dying under the wheels of lorries, it's because the system's design facilitates that. change the design. let's not forget, also, that the people who regularly die under the wheels of lorries are neither the demographic that are more likely to run the lights, nor is their running of a red light often cited as a factor in their death. the point being that even if everyone stopped at the lights tomorrow, people would still die. because their failure to stop at the lights isn't what's causing them to die in the first place. this is a good read on that subject:

http://brackenworld.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/it-isnt-about-cyclist-behavio...

I don't dispute your case of the ASL and filter lane. I'm no fan of filter lanes/ASLs and the rest. But no one grew up knowing how to drive correctly, or for that matter cycling on the road. That's why we have cycling proficiency, and driving tests, so I would still challenge the idea that it is just an infrastructure issue. In fact if you make a system that enables you to use it while being brain dead then you are likely to make worse cyclists, not better ones, and the infrastructure is not going to stretch everywhere - though of course if mortality rates were down I would concede that as a victory for cycling regardless.

Gkam84 wrote:

I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

I think what the van does is certainly illegal because his front wheels appear to be across the second white line, there is no excuse for this given that the lights are amber when the van crosses the first line. Strictly with respect to ASL rules as set out in the RTA and The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 the van has probably again broken the law. Its velocity appears to be such as it is capable of safely stopping before the first line therefore it falls under TSRGD 36(1)e but cannot use the exemption. To be sure we'd need the video to be shot from a little further back so as judge the velocity of the van (and see its brake lights).
Law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/36/made
Highway Code 178: https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

Gkam84 wrote:

I went and had a look at the unedited version's. Just a quick scan through, because I was only looking for one issues that is to do with cyclists.

Motor's filling the ASL....Here is a prime example of what people thing is legal, but in my eye's, what this van driver does in illegal because the lights were already changing.

http://youtu.be/5aeYVju0Vzk?t=20m15s

The first three vehilce's turning right were ok, The white van, the blue car and then silver 4x4, but watch the next van. He had time to stop short of the ASL but went right over it.

What happens now if a cyclist wishes to turn right? This harks back to the cyclist who was fined for jumping a red light last month (I think) because the ASL was full and he went ahead of the traffic....there was quite some debate on it.

What are your thoughts?

I would just sit behind him and wait for him to make his move. When the lights change I'm not going to be any slower than him.

It makes me cringe watching the RLJers go through. I think it is a little contagious. You notice that where one does it other are tempted to follow unless other cyclists have already stopped.

But the thing it made me think (which made me cringe) is watching the motorcyclist and moped riders sitting there correctly behind the ASL, but all the cyclists that appear just buzz straight on through. Some of the RLJers are stupider than others….joining moving traffic from the left. Idiotic and stupid.

People sitting in the ASL do not bother me though. I sort of wish they didn't really exist, except that they remind motorists that cyclists aren't petrol fuelled accelerating machines.

Dave Atkinson wrote:

if you're going to argue that no improvements can be made before a certain group of vehicles behaves, then you'll be waiting a long time for any new infrastructure, be it for bikes or motor vehicles. this 'behave and we'll talk' attitude only applies to bikes, it seems.

We'll be waiting a long time then. I don't think any group is looking for infrastructure changes quite like the cycling lobby, and while cyclists 'appear' to be endangering themselves by cycling through red lights and not wearing helmets cyclists so when the call comes for 'something should be done', they say put a helmet on, or cycle carefully/don't break the rules.

I'm not saying it is right, but equally I don't feel like many cycling deaths don't come without the suspicion that cyclists aren't helping themselves because of regular reckless behaviour which is evident, sad as that is to say. But I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus.

You can't point the finger all around, but if you don't recognise that there are problems that need to be sorted (police stopping poor cycling behaviour is a start - as well as other road users exhibiting poor behaviour) then you don't really move the argument forward. There are as many cyclists on this website that recognise that the poor behaviour of other cyclists really doesn't help the perception of them.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

We'll be waiting a long time then. I don't think any group is looking for infrastructure changes quite like the cycling lobby, and while cyclists 'appear' to be endangering themselves by cycling through red lights and not wearing helmets cyclists so when the call comes for 'something should be done', they say put a helmet on, or cycle carefully/don't break the rules.

I'm not saying it is right, but equally I don't feel like many cycling deaths don't come without the suspicion that cyclists aren't helping themselves because of regular reckless behaviour which is evident, sad as that is to say. But I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus.

You can't point the finger all around, but if you don't recognise that there are problems that need to be sorted (police stopping poor cycling behaviour is a start - as well as other road users exhibiting poor behaviour) then you don't really move the argument forward. There are as many cyclists on this website that recognise that the poor behaviour of other cyclists really doesn't help the perception of them.

most of the poor behaviour stems from the inadequate and car-centric provision. deal with that. take that first junction, for example. in any civilised country it would have a filter for cyclists to allow them to do exactly what they're doing. the lights are *only* there to stop motorists clogging up the junction, so far as i can see. Cyclists don't clog the junction, and should be allowed to proceed for anything other than a pedestrian phase. what's hard about that? ideally it would be in a segregated lane too, eh.

the police should be stopping people who are in breach of the law anyway. that's kind of their job, and i have no problem with that.

Quote:

I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus

it's telling that the 'blind spot zone' that TfL roll out on their education mission is the same size and shape as a filter lane leading to an ASL. maybe it's something to do with that? just a thought.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I'm not saying it is right, but equally I don't feel like many cycling deaths don't come without the suspicion that cyclists aren't helping themselves because of regular reckless behaviour which is evident, sad as that is to say. But I can't think of a good reason why you should find yourself to the left of a left-turning HGV/bus.

There is plenty of evidence showing that cyclists are mostly innocent victims when hit by a vehicle so I have no idea where your 'suspicion' comes from. In fact, I find it quite a distasteful comment.

And you've never been overtaken by a bus/lorry/other vehicle and then been cut up at a junction when they decide to turn left even though they are not clear of you?

paulfg42 wrote:

There is plenty of evidence showing that cyclists are mostly innocent victims when hit by a vehicle so I have no idea where your 'suspicion' comes from. In fact, I find it quite a distasteful comment.

And you've never been overtaken by a bus/lorry/other vehicle and then been cut up at a junction when they decide to turn left even though they are not clear of you?

The one time I got hit that was _exactly_ how it happened.

It did make me determined to be much more aggressive about 'taking the lane' in future though (and more determined to ignore enticing-looking cycle lanes that go right across the mouths of t-junctions). And then motorists get angry that you are 'in their way' and 'not using the cycle lane provided'

Dave Atkinson wrote:

incidentally the LTDA obviously picked those two junctions because they're filter junctions

You're absolutely right. I cycle through the fortess junction every weekday on my commute and if I were to pick one junction on my route to skew statistics it would be this one - by far the most RLJing cyclists. That said, I don't dispute that there are too many cyclists who RLJ, just the methodology of this "survey".

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

Neither Taxi drivers nor general motorists are trying to persuade the authorities to do something radical to improve taxi driving and motoring safety at the moment. They don't have a problem.

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously. Hard to argue that case when footage indicates that 50%+ of cyclists in 1 hour at two separate sites clearly don't give a toss about either the law or indeed their own safety or the safety of pedestrians.

The problem is there is no 'we' in the sense you are using the word.

If you personally know a RLJer (of the more reckless type, at least, especially one who barges through pedestrians) then by all means remonstrate with them personally. But I don't accept that my right to be safe as a cyclist or pedestrian is dependent on what random other people with bikes do at red lights.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously.

The problem is there is no 'we' in the sense you are using the word.

By "We", I meant cyclists. If getting the authorities to take cyclists' rights to safety more seriously is not a concern of yours, I sincerely apologise.

-nm-

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

@FluffyKitten
@JackNorell

We have a problem and that problem is getting the authorities to take our safety more seriously.

The problem is there is no 'we' in the sense you are using the word.

By "We", I meant cyclists. If getting the authorities to take cyclists' rights to safety more seriously is not a concern of yours, I sincerely apologise.

If you want the authorities to take cyclists (and pedestrians) rights to safety more seriously you need to put pressure on those authorities. Constantly addressing double-standard sniping at some entirely imaginary amalgamated union of cyclists is a cop-out.

Joeinpoole wrote:

I think LTDA have been fairly selective with their statistics though. If you watch the unedited footage from both junctions (available on the same link) then I reckon I saw fewer than 10% of the total cyclists who passed the junction went through on red. The vast majority were passing through on green. Trouble is LTDA, for the purpose of making their point, are clearly only counting the cyclists when the lights are on red.

That does sound as if they presented the figures in a very misleading way. I wonder how hard it would be to get similar figures for motorists if you used the same methodology and chose the right junction? Especially if you counted those entering the ASL on red as jumping the red (which I think technically it is). I know one junction where during rush hour the motorists going through "just after it went red" pretty much wipe out the pedestrian phase.

Its a propaganda war really, nothing to do with dispassionate study of an issue.
(Which is just plain depressing - human nature sucks!)