[Closed] 57% of ALL cyclists run red lights, according to IAM?!?

And it's made the Daily Wail

I will not read the Mail's report!

Weirdly, the Daily Fail has reported the IAM stuff in a very uninflammatory way. Strange.

Of course, the reader comments are true to form though, with barely one brain cell or fact used amongst them.

Of course, the reader comments are true to form though, with barely one brain cell or fact used amongst them.

I think we should organise a mass trolling effort!

I have seen a senior person from the local college, he's also a vegetarian, consistently go the wrong way, along one-way streets on his bike.

😀

[i]I think you're comitting a mopery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mopery [/i]

Oh god. I'm going to jail to be raped in the showers aren't I..

Has anyone got a Mail Online login I could borrow please?

I was a good boy today. I stopped at lights (they were red and it was very busy on the roads)

"wonders what it's going to be like on the way home"

Really interesting article [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072259 ]here[/url] about traffic lights on the BBC:

corrupted by the system of control which makes us almost have a greater respect for a traffic light than for a human life.

The intolerable conflicts that arise, arise purely and simply from this rule of priority.

bikebouy - Member
I was a good boy today. I stopped at lights (they were red and it was very busy on the roads)

Me too. No close encounters with:

[img] [/img]

From the article:

Driving recently, I was about 20 yards away when lights changed to amber and I thought, shall I put my foot down and try to beat the amber.

I knew it would be a long wait at this set of lights.

Nice to see the Beeb promoting the same "beat the amber" myth that we talked about earlier. 🙄

Nice to see the Beeb promoting the same "beat the amber" myth that we talked about earlier.

That minor annoyance aside, what do you think of the overall sentiment?

I did originally begin to contribute to this thread the other day as it's a subject I find interesting, but I decided I couldn't do with the aggro of the STW righteous crew, so I didn't hit the post button. Instead I pasted the text [url= http://sprungseven.com/2012/05/14/its-because-of-bad-design-that-cyclists-run-red-lights/ ]here[/url] where nobody will read it. You can have a look if you're interested.

The Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) today used a survey to claim that ‘More than half of cyclists jump red lights‘. But by using even less science we’ve uncovered something even more sinister – almost half of cyclists have upset a kitten while riding.

http://magazine.bikeradar.com/2012/05/15/cyclings-kitten-bothering-shame/

what do you think of the overall sentiment?

Well I certainly agree that road users are sometimes bombarded by so many signals, signs and lane markings that it can actually make things more dangerous than if they just kept their eyes on the road.

And that too much signalling etc makes us hand over responsibility to the lights rather than common sense.

BUT... I'm not sure I agree with his sentiment that [i]"Instinctively, we want to be kind to each other, especially out on the road."[/i].

If junctions had no lights then I can't imagine UK drivers stopping for cyclists in the same way that they stop for other cars.

I added the following comment to the bottomless snake pit of Reader's Comments on the BBC article:

What exactly does Mr Cassini mean by "shall I put my foot down and try to beat the amber"?

Amber means STOP!

You can only legally drive through amber if your vehicle "is so close to the stop line that it cannot safely be stopped" (TSRGD 36).
Not if you floor it from "about 20 yards away".

Perhaps he should familiarise himself with the existing Highway Code before suggesting ways to revise it?

#382 if anyone feels like upvoting it out of the braying throng.

Nice blog entry by the way jack. Well written.

I stopped at red lights this morning too. Last night I only had to stop at two sets, all the others were on green.. ("whoops!!!")

BUT... I'm not sure I agree with his sentiment that "Instinctively, we want to be kind to each other, especially out on the road."

The issue is, as humans on the whole we very much do want to be kind to each other, but that natural human desire is undermined by the current system of priorities we are forced to work to.

When you take away priorities, people stop assuming they have them. The very system we currently have causes the many issues we suffer. People assert the power they take for granted, and when this supposed authority is challenged in some way, conflict occurs. But take away the supposed power we believe we're entitled to and everything will run smoother because, at the end of the day, we're humans who don't want to mow down and kill other humans.

I always think this would be an interesting experiment; take the angriest, most obnoxious driver and put them, in their big 4x4, in the centre of a pedestrianised shopping street on a Saturday morning with the instruction to extract their car. Then watch as they gently crawl their way out at 2mph.

It's all psychology, and the current road network doesn't pay any attention to it. I'm a bit too busy to ramble on today in my usual way, but I already linked to my thoughts above if anyone is bothered.

I agree with the sentiment of the BBC article. Having driven in a few other places round the world the UK seems particularly obsessed with traffic lights and totally opposed to using them flexibly.

Good blog jackthedog

When you take away priorities, people stop assuming they have them

I understand your point jack, but I fear that some people feel they have priority, not because of lights or traffic systems, but simply because they are in a car and you are "just on a push bike".

I always think this would be an interesting experiment; take the angriest, most obnoxious driver and put them, in their big 4x4, in the centre of a pedestrianised shopping street on a Saturday morning with the instruction to extract their car. Then watch as they gently crawl their way out at 2mph.

Agreed, but put them on a road, "stuck" behind a cyclist doing 15mph and they will have steam coming out their ears.

JTD I am totally disagreeing with you on the basis that you cite Apple in your blog and because your hero is [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman ]Hans Moleman[/url]

Hopefully also you are who I think you are.

[i]And it makes far more sense for me not to push to the front to get overtaken again by an irate "I WANNA GET HOME, WHY DID YOU UNDERTAKE ME TO GET IN FRONT ONLY TO GET ME TO OVERTAKE AGAIN?" person. Just don't see the point in it.[/i]

I was thinking about this on the way in this morning. (Yes, unfortunately thats what I do when riding in, think about STW threads 🙁 )
I do see the point in it - probably the cars you're "pushing" (read: riding) past have just overtaken you to join a queue anyway, but not only that - You can't ride around thinking "I mustn't do this because I'll upset drivers"! I mean: overtaking another bike, riding across a junction cars are waiting to come out of, overtaking a queue of traffic, undertaking a queue of traffic, just being "in the way" ! All these things can upset some knob in a car, so you've just got to ride.

I fear that some people feel they have priority, not because of lights or traffic systems, but simply because they are in a car and you are "just on a push bike".

Agreed, but put them on a road, "stuck" behind a cyclist doing 15mph and they will have steam coming out their ears.

That is an acquired feeling of priority, not a natural one. It's the legacy of a half century or more of a road network being designed to discourage natural human interaction and turn our day to day movements into a series of easily modelled binary interactions. We've ended up letting a system serve itself first and us second.

I've been following the shared space concept for some years and have watched its profile grow massively. What was a niche thing is now on the international table as a potential and logical way forward. It seems we're finally starting to realise the lessons we've been taught by our past mistakes, and slowly we might start to see them being followed.

It would certainly be a shame if we ignored the solutions that evidence has shown to work, and instead continued to legislate and signpost and road mark and segregate ourselves into frustrated, unproductive and senseless oblivion just because we don't have faith in our human capacity to unlearn illogical, inhuman habits and return to our natural state.

Even if it transpired, despite all evidence to the contrary, that it has been a one way journey and we're all helplessly beyond the point of no-return, incapable of dealing with sudden responsibility ourselves for the rest of our driving lives, it will only take the passing of our baffled generation to sort itself out. Though I assume nobody would think themselves, their friends or families as baffled - just the idiot mentalists in other cars, those [i]other[/i] people, [i]other[/i] people's friends or [i]other[/i] people's families. Basically everyone who isn't us.

We're all so scared of one another. Of course we are - none of us are allowed to behave naturally. That's what needs to change, and it's easily done. And like every technological or social advancement, the majority will dismiss and resent and resist it at every turn until the the day they start taking it for granted.

I'm a bit too busy to ramble on today in my usual way

Shit, seems I just took my lunch break. I can't help myself.

Hopefully also you are who I think you are.

I am.

20 mph limits means far far less need for traffic lights - because at 20 mph cars can negotiate and compromise on junctions with other vehicles. There is also far less need to overtake bicycles

We do suffer from a lot of bad road design in the uk as well.

Jackthedog - I agree

The problem with your argument is it assume drivers are reasonable , kind and considerate.
I would like to think the changes you suggest would bring this about but I am not optomistic tbh.

Junkyard - it works wherever it has been introduced. Needs a flexible and imaginative approach to road engineering tho

needs considerate road users too

the first few days would be interesting
i am not anti it as an idea just unsure.

The problem with your argument is it assume drivers are reasonable, kind and considerate.

I tried to cover that point in my post. They aren't because they're positively encouraged not to be by the current environment.

In a system that encourages reason, kindness and consideration, they will be all three. Humans aren't stupid. They're just currently trapped in a situation that requires them to be stupid.

Humans aren't stupid.

Erm....

just unsure.

Isn't that the real problem. People who can make decisions about town and city planning are unsure and un-dynamic as decision makers so the problem just continues as no one will make the initial change. I know one t&c planner and he is a right straight laced non forward thinking idiot (for want of a better word) and if everyone who works in his office is like that no real decisions will ever be made subsequently no progress will be made.

Humans aren't stupid

The nature of Gaussian distribution means that 50% have less than average intelligence - unfortunately average intelligence is pretty shoddy to start with.

A crowded shopping street of pedestrians - whilst it can get fractious with the mass of people - its nothing like the daily anger and confrontation on the roads in our cities. You can design the roads to allow people to interact in the same sort of way - cooperatively and by consensus. It works elsewhere in the world.

TJ like Mexico city, Delhi, Cairo etc?

There is something to be learnt from them for sure. 🙂 Or those pesky dutch

Shared space traffic intersection in Drachten, The Netherlands. Traffic signals removed in 2002. The junction handles around 17,000 vehicles per day. One of many projects led by the late Hans Monderman.

[i]A crowded shopping street of pedestrians - whilst it can get fractious with the mass of people - its nothing like the daily anger and confrontation on the roads in our cities. [/i]

You'd have redesign cars. Its not the difference between a road and a shopping precinct - it's people in their protective bubble of steel.

Look at that vid above. It works - its a proven concept.

I'm finding myself totally agreeing with Jackthedog.

A few examples come to mind.

Commuting in the car#1 - junctions with the lights out work better, I've seen this a few times even at really busy junctions, people just get on with it. Without the lights to think for them they are forced to think for themselves and generally slow down, act cautiously and fairly.

Commuting in the car#2 - I like it when cyclist RLJ or proceed before the lights change. It actaully minimises conflict between the cars and bike instead of both the car and the bike moving of together you pass the bike furthr down the road when both of you are up to speed.

Riding the bike through town - Pedestrians ignoring the "red man" at crossings winds me up, I have a green light and therefore "priority" if i stop at the red so should they? Take away the system of lights and we would just get on with it.

Humans aren't stupid.

Erm....

The nature of Gaussian distribution means that 50% have less than average intelligence - unfortunately average intelligence is pretty shoddy to start with.

We're not talking about performing the intricacies of open heart surgery here, just having the sense to move around. On the scale of intelligence, even those falling middle to low have inherited the natural evolutionary instinct to co-operate with those around them enough to avoid constantly colliding with them.

Don't judge us all by the extremes. The standard of lowest common denominator is by its nature uncharacteristically low, and building our world around it never yields satisfactory results. Of course, no amount of legislation in any environment or situation will prevent the inevitable occasions of infallibly human stupidity, so why do we all suffer the resulting needless constraint when it serves no purpose?

I am a most fierce misanthrope; I admit to thinking we as a species are laughable. But even at my most despairing, I still have faith that on the whole, individually we have the sense to make proficient and efficient progress through our built environment. I'm grateful that evidence shows this so far to be true. Whether on a personal or societal level, there is little more damaging to our development and chances for success than having no faith in our own abilities.

no real decisions will ever be made subsequently no progress will be made.

It's already happening. In the UK, in the form of the tentative but successful experiments on Kensington High Street and the ground up redesign of Exhibition Road, and more comprehensively abroad as in TJs video above.

As I said earlier, any substantial shift in technology or society will be met with resistance because by definition it will be tackling a status quo we've become accustomed to and therefore defensive of. Any significant change will be resented because it says to us "You've been doing it wrong'". Nobody likes to hear that.

Look at that vid above. It works - its a proven concept.

I can show Danny Mac on a bnike aand show you that it works to balance on rails buT iw opuld not encourage it for all

You cannot comapre here to Holland for Bike related issues due to entirely different cultures re Bike use.

I am not saying it would not or could not work I am just not sure you can plant something from abroad to here when the attitudes are different to start with

It would be an interesting transition

I wish i had JTD view but I tend to think peole are selfish bastards interested in theior own welfare and saving 3 seconds of time becaus ethat is how they are rather then th eroad smake them behave like that.
I would be delighted to be wrong and see brotherly love, peace and cooperation burst on to our unmarked un trafic lighted roads.

Think is junkyard - people would adapt - traffic flows are similar often higher and its a less stressful experience for everyone - car drivers included. Its been done in other places than holland

You cannot comapre here to Holland for Bike related issues due to entirely different cultures re Bike use.

I am not saying it would not or could not work I am just not sure you can plant something from abroad to here when the attitudes are different to start with

Cultures are created and attitudes formed by the things we plant. To shift them you just have to plant the right thing, and so far we haven't.

Once it was acceptable to drink drive, to smoke near babies, to consider women second class citizens and to have a thriving slave trade. Times change, and not long after they do we wonder with amazement how we ever got things so wrong before.

Things seem to be going the opposite way here... how many roundabouts (yeah roundabouts, you don't have to [i]think[/i] about giving way to the right do you?) now have traffic lights on them?

Don't judge us all by the extremes

I wasn't I was judging from the 50% mark down (and even up for that matter).

tackling a status quo

which is my point t&c planners like the one I'm thinking of don't ever challenge the status quo or even consider that it may be wrong.

You cannot comapre here to Holland

Their attitude to bike in particular represents an entirely different attitude to a whole host of issues. One of them being their attitude towards oil. Which I believe is at the heart of our problem and Hollands enlightenment. Even more so than safety of children/citizens which is often cited as the reason for the push bike-centric culture.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18072259

Seems the BBC have also been highlighting what TJ siad. I remember the videos of the Portishead, Bristol road that they talk about in the article. Incredible difference - it can work.

Not far from me they've replaced what used to be a traffic light controlled junction with a big brick-paved open area, lowered all the kerbs, removed obstructing signs and just put some slightly raised cobbles down the middle of the road to differentiate the lanes - no other road markings.

It's slowed traffic down markedly but also improved the flow.

Oh Jeebus. I stupidly read through the highest rated comments on the Daily Mail article.

How thoroughly depressing.

Those are the kind of people I would worry about sharing a sign-and-light-free road with!

Their attitude to bike in particular represents an entirely different attitude to a whole host of issues. One of them being their attitude towards oil. Which I believe is at the heart of our problem and Hollands enlightenment. Even more so than safety of children/citizens which is often cited as the reason for the push bike-centric culture.

Really not you know. they are a very similar peoples to us being descended from the same tribes with very similar attitudes and so on.

The shared spaces concept has also been a success in many other countries

There attitude to energy since the oil crisis in the 70's? (I'm not exactly sure due to my age ;)) became a lot more forward thinking. As opposed to the UK's attitude towards energy which has never changed (Though the caveat is that my facts/opinions on this may be slightly or very wrong).

Oh Jeebus. I stupidly read through the highest rated comments on the Daily Mail article.

How thoroughly depressing.

Those are the kind of people I would worry about sharing a sign-and-light-free road with!

I get what your saying but if you take away signals you take away priorities and the sense of entitlement that goes with it.

The indignation from the Daily Wail mob is becuase of their punctured sense of entitlement when they see cyclists RLJing - deep down they are probably just annoyed they can't do the same thing.

Some choice Daily Mail comments, does anyone think we can ever share the road nicely with these people:

message to all cyclist if you want to stay safe ....... [b]STAY OFF THE FR...IN ROADS[/b] and leave it for people who actually PAY to use it .. i mean you wouldn't pay for a bottle of wine & then let ME drink it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so get off and stay off .or get a licence and pay to ride in the gutter were you be long ....

[b]I hate cyclists.[/b] I'm surprised only 73% admit to riding on the pavements. Around here nearly 90% of them do and some of them have the cheek to ring their bells expecting pedestrians to move out of the way for them. I ignore it. Let them go around. I'm where I should be.

I totally disagree that cyclists should be made to pay road tax etc - [b]they should be taken OFF the roads entirely[/b]. It's the 21st century, and this slow and selfish mode of transport should be confined to specially designated parks.

Cyclists are a danger to themselves and other road users, and [b]should be banned from using all A & B Class Roads[/b]. In addition they should be required to have full and adequate insurance and pay an element of Road Taxation. Banning the so called Green cyclists would also save the NHS and the motor insurance companies a fortune! NB: I used to cycle regularly, but realised that in today's ever increasing traffic the above is 100% true.

The fact that New Labour cynically renamed Road Tax as a ploy to raise more tax due to their (now totally disproved) climate change scam makes no difference. It is still essentially Road Tax and it's still essentially theft. Taxing vehicles on the basis of irrelevant omissions is theft.

Cyclists in the UK are smug self satisfied law breaking pedestrian endangering [b]Green Nazi thugs[/b] in the main

Personally, [b]I despise cyclists[/b] and think most of them are the scum of the earth.

I am amazed that the government has not brought in registration, testing and licencing for cyclists. Cyclists could pay road tax at the rate of 25% car tax. A great potential revenue earner that they have missed. No wait .... that would be common sense.

Erm.. we already pay 100% of Band A Car Tax 🙂

Last week I was coming up to a roundabout and planning to go straight on, therefore I didn't need to indicate as I was going neither right nor left. The traffic to my left, stopped to let me go through the roundabout - that is, all EXCEPT a cyclist, who looked straight at me and then proceeded to cycle right ACROSS my path! And when I blasted the horn at him, HE gave ME the two fingers! He's going to cause a serious accident one of these days and it'll be HIM in the wrong.

Erm... so you came off a roundabout, with a lane of traffic to your left that had to stop to let you off, and nearly hit a cyclist in the process. And he is in the wrong??

I was just pushing my son's buggy on to a crossing when one of these arrogant eco-do-gooders just about smashed straight into us. [b]Hang them. Hang them high.[/b]

🙄   🙄   🙄   🙄   🙄   🙄  

Lets hope we aren't judged as a species by comments on the Daily Mail website!

Could be worse though it could be youtube comments!

Some choice Daily Mail comments, does anyone think we can ever share the road nicely with these people:

If you take such comments as an example of how we actually behave in real life, then you're also suggesting that posts such as this (posted 20 hours ago on [url=

first Justin Bieber[/url] video I clicked on):

F*** YOU *SSH*LE! DIE IN A HOLE AND F***? YOUR PARENTS!

mean that, when conducted face to face in the real world, the same discussion about the merits of a pop star would result in one hole, a reanimated corpse and some very unhappy parents. Of course it wouldn't.

I try to remain a measured and reasonable contributor to the internet, but only the other day on Twitter I publicly stated that the mere sound of John Cooper Clarke makes me want to gouge out my eyes to use as ear plugs. I don't really, it's just fun to vent.

Even if it [i]were[/i] fair to draw some kind of correlation between anonymously posted vitriolic spleen venting and the actual respect for fellow human life out there on the streets, then we should all find it pretty amazing that lines painted on the road, a few signs and boxes on sticks with coloured lights are all it takes to protect us from one another.

Fair point jack, but mention "cyclists on the road" down the pub and you [u]are[/u] just as likely to hear such vitriolic nonsense - whereas mention "Justin Bieber" and you'll probably just get some eye rolling and people politely backing away.

If the issue is a misguided sense of entitlement and priority then I think it goes far beyond traffic signals and road layouts.

The number one thing that comes out from any comment section is the usual [i]"bikes don't pay for car tax, fuel tax, insurance, MOTs or driving licenses so they have less rights than cars"[/i]

I'm not sure how you can ever make those people happy.

Fair point jack, but mention "cyclists on the road" down the pub and you are just as likely to hear such vitriolic nonsense - whereas mention "Justin Bieber" and you'll probably just get some eye rolling and people politely backing away.

Online or in the pub, it's all trap flapping. Meet me in person and you'll hear me claim out loud that I want to stuff my own eyes down my ears, but I won't actually do it. Nor do I really want to see every football fan hanged, despite having screamed it in sheer frustration every other week when trying to park near my old house on match day.

Given legal clearance and the necessary equipment, would the person happy to go on record on a national newspaper website saying

Hang them. Hang them high.

actually indiscriminately [i]put to death[/i] everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle on the public highway?

Those same tired old points regarding tax and insurance argued by motorists are a [i]symptom[/i] of the learned sense of entitlement, not the [i]cause[/i]. They're bitterly moaning about their own burdens rather than the lack of ours, as shown by the failed logic of simultaneously opposing high taxes while demanding they be extended to [i]more[/i] road users.

The 'motorist' feels victimised at every turn having been reduced from king of the road, symbol of hope, freedom, aspiration and progression to social pariah in less than a generation. As such they guard whatever they feel remains of their supposed turf with all the unnecessary and misguided ferocity of an abused snarling dog angrily guarding its food bowl.

They (I should say we - I drive too) needn't feel like this. They (we) do so only out of ignorance. The point comes down to whether we want to continue building our world around ignorance or enlightenment. As shown above and elsewhere, the latter is slowly becoming the accepted way to go after decades of the former having been proven a failure.

I'm not sure how you can ever make those people happy.

You make drivers happy by reducing their sense of entitlement. It's counter intuitive but proven methodology. Just as spoilt children are the most unpleasant, just as the rich seems the most selfish while the poor the most kind.

No human is born with an ingrained hatred of cyclists. Generally we learn to ride a bike before we learn to drive a car. It's what happens after that's responsible for shaping attitudes, and that is what needs to be tackled. And thankfully, albeit slowly, it is.

There's a new 'shared space' project just completed in a previous traffic bottleneck of Pynton

http://g.co/maps/v9ugp

What you can see on the map above has now been replaced by a 'free-for-all'.
[img] http://www.petitiononline.co.uk/pic/2709 [/img]

Nobody really knows who's got right-of-way, so everyone just inches through it, looking every-which-way.

I like it, but my wife is petrified to drive through it - and actively avoids it.

(those roundabouts aren't really 3-dimensional - just different coloured and shaped cobbles)

I was impressed how well the Etoile (Arc de Triomphe) works despite having no lane markings etc.

Everyone just drives on and then works it out.

jackthedog.

very good points, well made.

You make drivers happy by reducing their sense of entitlement. It's counter intuitive but proven methodology. Just as spoilt children are the most unpleasant, just as the rich seems the most selfish while the poor the most kind.

I thnik you are right.

Picture this: Driving or riding approacing a pelican crossing - you have a green light, a bunch of pedestrians ignore the "red man" and cross. This annoys you the pedestrians are breaking the rules.

Now the same scenario with a zebra crossing. You see the peds. You slow down or stop, the pedestrians wave thank you and cross.

You make a sound argument jack. I'm not sure I'm completely convinced, but I'd vote for you anyway 😀

mleh

you describe two different scenarios where one lot break the rules

I agree people who break the rules are annoying but not sure culturally what they suggest will work.

i am happy to give it a try but I am not convinced no rules will suddenly turn asshole road users into considerate raod users.

they are a very similar peoples to us being descended from the same tribes with very similar attitudes and so on.

Not sure I really see the benefits from a cyclists point of view. Traffic lit junctions are rarely a problem, people not seeing you / not paying attention to their driving / passing too close and too fast are more pressing concerns.

pypdjl - safer quicker less stressful road conditions benefit everyone

Well yes they would do, I can't see this making much of a difference though.

i am happy to give it a try but I am not convinced no rules will suddenly turn asshole road users into considerate raod users.

There is and always will be a minority of [i]helplessly assholey[/i] assholes. That's a sad fact we can't change.

However the majority of today's assholes don't really mean to be assholes, nor do they really wish to be thought of as assholes. It is the behaviour of this majority of accidental assholes we'll tackle as a by-product of making life easier, safer and more efficient for the actual majority of people - those that are reasonable, well mannered, caring and have learnt how to conduct themselves in a developed society.

There are a lot more of these people than we ever notice, hidden by their ubiquity while we focus on the tiny minorities we hate.

And in the process, we might just make the compatibility between us and those [i]helplessly assholey[/i] assholes just that bit safer by creating a situation where we can take avoiding action, rather than encouraging us to sail along with the dangerous assumption that coloured lights, reflective paint and kerb stones alone can protect us from them, despite the evidence that it doesn't and never has.

Traffic lit junctions are rarely a problem, people not seeing you / not paying attention to their driving / passing too close and too fast are more pressing concerns.

[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/police-collar-138-drivers-and-cyclists-in-traffic-crackdown-1-2279522 ]The Scotsman article mentioned earlier[/url] does say: [i]"Police are particularly targeting drivers’ behaviour at junctions as, between 2004 and 2009, 74 per cent of cycle casualties in the city were injured at or within 20 metres of a junction."[/i] which suggest that junctions, lit or unlit, are a contributing factor.

jackthedog has it...

Nothing much that can really be added, only that I think the root cause of this "drivers sense of entitlement" can be traced directly to one person - Clarkson...

The solution is quite clear; one final act of brutality we mush Hang him, Hang him High!*
Then move forwards towards our cultural enlightenment, and never speak of that final cruel act upon which it was built...

Long live the "Green Nazi Thugs!"

*I am of course joking... mostly.

which suggest that junctions, lit or unlit, are a contributing factor

Well yes, junctions are clearly a hazard, I would say unlit ones are currently far more of one though, specifically side roads.

74 per cent of cycle casualties in the city were injured at or within 20 metres of a junction.

Smells like bullshit to me. What percentage of any all accident occur at junctions? That stat is only meaninful if it substantially higher than for all vehicles. It won't be.

That stat is only meaninful if it substantially higher than for all vehicles. It won't be.

Not sure I get your point. If the accident rate is higher for all vehicles at junctions then doesn't that just mean that junctions are generally riskier places for all road users? Which seems likely.

Not sure I get your point. If the accident rate is higher for all vehicles at junctions then doesn't that just mean that junctions are generally riskier places for all road users?

That is my point. It meaningless to point out that [i]cyclists[/i] are at greater risk [i]eveyone[/i] is at greater risk. So its junctions that are the problem not cyclists.

Quoting the stats the way the Scotsman article does suggests its cyclist who are the problem.

Don't worry Graham we are on the same side!

Those are the kind of people I would worry about sharing a sign-and-light-free road with!

Quoting the stats the way the Scotsman article does suggests its cyclist who are the problem.

Yeah I see what you mean. I don't [i]think [/i]that was necessarily their intent though. I read it as expanding on why motorists encroaching into the ASLs was a genuine issue.

Many motorists seem to regard it as [i]not-a-real-offence[/i], like going through an amber light or driving in bus lanes.

IAM, -got it all wrong, in Denmark, it would be

157 % !