View previous topic | View next topic

Sentencing and its worth.

Page 12 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

barbados
1326568.  Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:26 am Reply with quote

So the data we’ve been looking at (NTS 0409)has no reference to the number of cyclists : the number of cars

 
cnb
1326569.  Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:49 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
So the data we’ve been looking at (NTS 0409)has no reference to the number of cyclists : the number of cars


It does, but only to the extent that those vehicles form the Main Mode of Transport of a Trip per NTS definitions.

From the raw NTS data you should be able to obtain plenty of better alternatives, none of which will be perfect, but for the purposes of showing that "there are many times more cars than cycles on the road" that doesn't seem necessary.

 
barbados
1326571.  Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:36 am Reply with quote

Thanks

 
Willie
1326577.  Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:44 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Thanks

Finally

 
barbados
1326614.  Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:41 pm Reply with quote

cnb wrote:
barbados wrote:
So the data we’ve been looking at (NTS 0409)has no reference to the number of cyclists : the number of cars


It does, but only to the extent that those vehicles form the Main Mode of Transport of a Trip per NTS definitions.

From the raw NTS data you should be able to obtain plenty of better alternatives, none of which will be perfect, but for the purposes of showing that "there are many times more cars than cycles on the road" that doesn't seem necessary.


Mind you, to discover that data all you really need to do is look at the roads eh?

 
PDR
1326619.  Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:04 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:

Mind you, to discover that data all you really need to do is look at the roads eh?


I think the statisticians would regard reality as a special case...

:0)

PDR

 
dr.bob
1326767.  Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:52 am Reply with quote

So, after 5 pages of discussion, have we reached a point where we agree with Willie's point back in post 1326255 that more car drivers than cyclists jump red lights?

I think that's the conclusion we've drawn, but I just wanted to check I didn't miss anything.

 
Jenny
1326803.  Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:53 pm Reply with quote

Depends if you're talking about raw numbers or about percentages.

 
PDR
1326804.  Mon Jul 15, 2019 3:55 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
but I just wanted to check I didn't miss anything.


Well there was an excellent Mens Singles semi, a disappointing Womens singles final, a superb Mens singles final, a superb British Grand Prix and the odd bit of cricket. Oh yes, and Donald did another bo-bo.

Apart from that nothing much.

PDR

 
Leith
1326805.  Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:15 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
So, after 5 pages of discussion, have we reached a point where we agree with Willie's point back in post 1326255 that more car drivers than cyclists jump red lights?

I think that's the conclusion we've drawn, but I just wanted to check I didn't miss anything.

No I don't think we've demonstrated that at all.

I think we've established fairly well that there are substantially more car journeys than bicycle journeys (maybe around 23 times more).

We've also seen suggestions that car drivers might be approximately half as likely as cyclists to answer 'yes' when asked 'have you jumped a red light?'.

This seems to be based on some very shaky figures, though, assuming the cycling survey described here is the one cited:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey

Was there a link to the original ICM Unlimited survey on motorist red light jumping? I haven't spotted that either so far, but they at least look like a reputable polling organisation.

In any case we don't have sound information on frequency of red light jumping that I can see. The motorists were asked if they had jumped a light in the past 12 months. The cyclists survey provides some breakdown of frequencies but is seriously unreliable in the first place.

I suggest that one useful question to answer is: "for any given instance of a road user arriving at a red light, what is the likelyhood that they will jump the light?"

This TfL survey suggests that, for cyclists, the answer is 16% (albeit based on data from a small number of sites in London):
https://cyclinguphill.com/reviews/stats-cycling-red-lights/

I haven't found comparable figures for motorists yet. I'd be extremely surprised if it's anything like that high for any red light in the country.

If we can establish that the equivalent figure for motorists is in the order of a 20th of 16% (0.8%) then we might be able to argue that the total number of red light jumping instances is comparable with that of cyclists, on the grounds that there are around 20 times more car journeys than bicycle journeys (maybe not in London, but it would be a start).

What I would say is beyond dispute is that red light jumping by cars is dramatically more harmful than red light jumping by bikes, irrespective of the frequency. From the Guardian article linked above:
Quote:
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.


This is not to say that jumping red lights on a bike is not harmful or should be accepted, but that jumping red lights in a car (or on a motorbike) is a much more significant problem.

 
barbados
1326811.  Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:19 am Reply with quote

All we have established is that Willies post was nothing more than stating the obvious, there are more cars than bikes.
I don’t think that surprised anybody.
It would be interesting to know who it was that carried out the survey for they IAM, and it would probably be more interesting if it was countered anecdotally. But that is the only information that appears to be out there. Although someone might like to point out to peter walker how percentages work ;)

 
dr.bob
1326846.  Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:36 am Reply with quote

Leith wrote:
We've also seen suggestions that car drivers might be approximately half as likely as cyclists to answer 'yes' when asked 'have you jumped a red light?'.

This seems to be based on some very shaky figures, though, assuming the cycling survey described here is the one cited:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey

Was there a link to the original ICM Unlimited survey on motorist red light jumping? I haven't spotted that either so far, but they at least look like a reputable polling organisation.


As far as I recall, the suggestion about car drivers being less likely to run red lights, and the proportions of each, was mentioned by barbados in post 1326254, but he doesn't seem to have supplied any sources for those figures. Maybe he'd like to do so now.

Leith wrote:
What I would say is beyond dispute is that red light jumping by cars is dramatically more harmful than red light jumping by bikes, irrespective of the frequency. From the Guardian article linked above:
Quote:
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.


I think you're right that red light jumping by cars is, on average, more dangerous and more harmful than red light jumping by bikes. However, I've been thinking of my own experience of traffic behaviour.

I realised that, when I travel home from work in the evening, I nearly always see a car (often more than one) jumping a red light. Generally the way this occurs is that I'll be waiting at a red light while another light on the junction is green. Since it's rush hour, invariably a steady stream of traffic passes through the green light while I'm waiting at my red light. Then, at some point, the green light turns red and my red light turns green.

Most days what I observe is that, when the other light turns from green to red, at least one or two more cars continue through the red light as part of the continuous stream of traffic. To be honest, I don't consider this massively dangerous behaviour. As barbados pointed out upthread, a green light doesn't mean "go", it means "go if it is safe to do so". Thus, when my light turns green but I can't move for a few seconds because of the extra cars jumping the red light, it's not putting me in danger. It might inconvenience me, and it might cause me to question the parentage of the people driving their cars through the red light, but at no point have I ever seen this behaviour cause an accident, and I find it hard to imagine how it would.

Not that I'm particularly sticking up for car drivers. I used to cycle everywhere and am happy to post a long-winded defence of some instances of cyclists jumping red lights. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that bare statistics don't give you an impression of how dangerous the behaviour is.

 
barbados
1326882.  Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:38 am Reply with quote

There could be a perfectly reasonable explanation why that is happening. It is possible that it is down to incorrect light phasing.
Could you give us the location please?

 
crissdee
1326889.  Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:44 am Reply with quote

While I do not deny that incorrect phasing might be a factor here, in my (extensive) experience of driving in London, it seems to be more to do with tw*ts who think they (or their current journey) are important enough to dispense with the niceties of Road Traffic law.

 
barbados
1326890.  Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:55 am Reply with quote

In central London certainly there are a lot of advanced stopping areas implemented for cyclists, the problem is the stop line cannot be advanced, for obvious reasons, and that means the car stop line is moved back.
And once you pass your stop line, the light is behind you so you are not jumping the lights at all, even though it would appear to be the case to someone at the “other” signal

 

Page 12 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group