Don't get in drivers' blind spots

Jawgap

Swanner wrote: »

I'm aware of those stats. That's why I added the word "reliable" above.

Not sure why you think I wouldn't like them.

Because the research was done by TfL (is that reliable enough) and it showed, based on a 5 site sample of 5821 cyclists that......

• The majority of cyclists (84%) obey red traffic lights.
• Violation is not endemic, but 1 in 6 (16%) of cyclists do jump a red light, and at
• this level may encourage more to do so in the future.
• A much greater number of men cycle during the morning and evening peaks.
• When a comparison is made of the behaviour of male and female cyclists it can be concluded that men are slightly more likely to violate red lights (17% compared to 13%).
• In general cyclists who ride through red lights are more likely to do so whilst travelling straight ahead at a junction. They are least likely to do so when turning right.
• Red light violations are most common by cyclists travelling towards central London in the morning, and away from central London in the evening.

from "Road Network Performance & Research Team - RNPR Traffic Note 8 (June 2007) - Proportion of Cyclists Who Violate Red Lights in London.

I suspect now you'll find some reason to dispute the data, but if nothing else it shows that it is possible to reliable stats on RLJing among cyclists.

Tenzor07

Swanner wrote: »

What i do have is personal experience and I see it happening all day, everyday. Its pretty much the norm that a cyclist will break the light once they think it's safe to do so.
Cyclists in Dublin are a little more adherent because they have to be but outside of the city centre I would say I see more cyclists braking red lights then stopping at them.

Make them pay Road Tax and Insurance as well as wear licence plates!

The Bishop Basher

Jawgap wrote: »

Because the research was done by TfL (is that reliable enough) and it showed, based on a 5 site sample of 5821 cyclists that......

I suspect now you'll find some reason to dispute the data, but if nothing else it shows that it is possible to reliable stats on RLJing among cyclists.

You suspect correctly.

5 busy city junctions in one area of London at rush hour is not a flawless indication of general cyclist behaviour. It's a start for sure, but nothing definitve.

Swanner wrote: »

Cyclists in Dublin are a little more adherent because they have to be but outside of the city centre I would say I see more cyclists braking red lights then stopping at them.

Then we have this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdV5Ifco2A#t=72

A thoroughly flawed survey i will grant you but seeing it happen so regularly on film is pretty damning.

I don't believe we have anything close to what we could consider reliable or definitve data. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But when you add to the fact that we're talking about Dublin where laws are made to be broken as opposed to the UK where adherence to traffic laws is far more common place , i'd say any reference top these stats in this discussion is irrelevant.

I see cyclists blatantly running lights all day every day. It's not just on occassion and it's not just the odd time. It's relentless. Over and Over they do it.

While I appreciate it's anecdotal, there are many road users out there in agreement. I've even seen cyclists on here admit to it. And as long as I see it with my own eyes, nothing will convince me otheriwse.

Anyway, this has drifited way off topic. We're supposed to be talking about blind spots.

Jawgap

Swanner wrote: »

You suspect correctly.

5 busy city junctions in one area of London at rush hour is not a flawless indication of general cyclist behaviour. It's a start for sure, but nothing definitve.



Then we have this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdV5Ifco2A#t=72

A thoroughly flawed survey i will grant you but seeing it happen so regularly on film is pretty damning.

I don't believe we have anything close to what we could consider reliable or definitve data. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But when you add to the fact that we're talking about Dublin where laws are made to be broken as opposed to the UK where adherence to traffic laws is far more common place , i'd say any reference top these stats in this discussion is irrelevant.

I see cyclists blatantly running lights all day every day. It's not just on occassion and it's not just the odd time. It's relentless. Over and Over they do it.

While I appreciate it's anecdotal, there are many road users out there in agreement. I've even seen cyclists on here admit to it. And as long as I see it with my own eyes, nothing will convince me otheriwse.

Anyway, this has drifited way off topic. We're supposed to be talking about blind spots.

Quelle surprise!!! And the LDTA publicity stunt has been well discredited.

RLJing is the equivalent of dog fouling or a private car using a bus lane - people never notice the 'non-events'

RLJing goes on, of course it does, but there's no need to apply anecdotal evidence - if you want I can upload my dashcam footage from my drive through the city earlier and you can count up the number of RLJing cyclists, 'bus lane bandits,' undertaking drivers and HGV drivers 'bullying' their way into traffic.

But yes, let's get back on topic.

Jawgap

Incidentally, in Oz, another study (Johnson, Newstead, Charlton and Oxley (2011)) of Melbourne cyclists at 10 intersections between October 2008 and April 2009 found 6.9% of cyclist where non-compliant, (ran red lights). This compared to non-compliance rates of 7 to 9% by motorists.

learn

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I tried find a full version of that video last night but failed. Did the cyclist go up the inside? Or was he there and then the truck came along?

It seems the truck driver has been "charged" over the incident


+1 on never going up the side of a very large vehicle. Ever.
I learnt that in the most scariest way imaginable. I still shudder at the thought of what might have been. 'twas a bad judgement call on my behalf

That cyclist appears to have come from a minor road running parallel to the main three traffic lanes and separated from them by a steel barrier set in concrete.

jinkypolly

Swanner wrote: »

How would you propose we get reliable stats on RLJ'ing among cyclists ?

It's a pointless request but then you already know that.

What i do have is personal experience and I see it happening all day, everyday. Its pretty much the norm that a cyclist will break the light once they think it's safe to do so.

Cyclists in Dublin are a little more adherent because they have to be but outside of the city centre I would say I see more cyclists braking red lights then stopping at them.

Ah right, so you're basing your damning claims that

a very significant proportion of cyclists pay zero heed to red lights anyway

on your own perception and not on any empirical data.

If I were to use the same approach and based on what I see when I'm driving I would have to conclude that about 90% of drivers will break a red light while out driving.

Unknown Soldier

learn wrote: »

That cyclist appears to have come from a minor road running parallel to the main three traffic lanes and separated from them by a steel barrier set in concrete.

Just after watching it again, why if that is a RHD country, is the cyclist going to the left, on a right turn.

I'm thinking it is just two "wrong" people.

He's lucky to be alive tbh. I don't think his actions helped or maybe the truck driver wasn't indicating or something.

Carawaystick

I always think it is strange in a country where the HSA shut down a one man garage/mechanics in Limerick for having a Pirelli calender on display, that trucks with easily fixable blind spots were allow drive over and kill people, by the same HSA.

Bagenal

Carawaystick wrote: »

I always think it is strange in a country where the HSA shut down a one man garage/mechanics in Limerick for having a Pirelli calender on display, that trucks with easily fixable blind spots were allow drive over and kill people, by the same HSA.

How are the blind spots "easily fixable"?

I'm sure the truck manufacturers have spent an awful lot of time and money over the years to try and solve the problem. Regardless of how many mirrors or cameras and monitors a driver can in reality look in one direction at a time. In slow moving traffic a driver would be watching the vehicles in front in case some plonker hits the brakes, it does be difficult to watch every single movement at the sides. TBH and fair it's not only cyclists that give truck drivers a hard time, cars and vans do shoot up bus lanes and dive in front to gain a few metres of an advantage.
IMO panel vans are worse than trucks for blind spots.
I read earlier in the thread a post where it was said there had been an event that cyclists could sit in the drivers seat of a truck to experience what the driver could see and fair enough I'll take that for what it was but in reality a moving truck is much different, for instance a wet day, heavy traffic, looking for a delivery point, trying to position to make a manoeuvre.
I cycle occasionally and yes it is scary at times.
Keep safe folks and I hope you all have a happy and enjoyable Christmas.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

What makes you think that it is illegal for a HGV to be on the quays? It is a 5 axle ban - not a HGV ban. (The truck featured in the link in China would not be subject to the ban as it has 4 axles).

There are several other perfectly legal reasons why a 5 axle truck may be on the quays including:

1. Time.
2. DPT may be temporarily closed at short notice.
3. Delivering/picking up within the ban zone.
4. Truck/load unsuitable for motorway/DPT
5. Learner driver (accompanied) not permitted to use motorway/DPT.


etc.

Did I say it was illegal?

Swanner

Swanner wrote: »

Then we have this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQdV5Ifco2A#t=72

So you reject the TFL study but want to go with the taxi-drivers youtube video.

LOL.

odyssey06

jinkypolly wrote: »

Really? Could you link us to the stats you're using?

It's blatantly obvious that a significant proportion of cyclists think that traffic laws are optional for them. And if you think it isn't, you don't have your eyes open in Dublin city centre. Just stand at any significant junction during rush hour.

If you want stats... here you go... from Dublin, two thirds of cyclists don't stop at red lights.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-cyclists-dont-stop-at-red-lights-29436118.html

As it happens I think cyclists should be able to turn left on red - if there are no pedestrians. It might make them less likely to dodge their way at speed through pedestrians crossing at a busy junction with a green man.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

So you reject the TFL study but want to go with the taxi-drivers youtube video.

LOL.

What

Did you read my post ?

Can you point out where I stated this ?

CramCycle

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's blatantly obvious that a significant proportion of cyclists think that traffic laws are optional for them. And if you think it isn't, you don't have your eyes open in Dublin city centre. Just stand at any significant junction during rush hour.

If you want stats... here you go... from Dublin, two thirds of cyclists don't stop at red lights.

.

From my experience commuting in the morning only 1 in 4 motor vehicles at best stop on red, number would be worse only that one tends to stop anyone else. Only country I have driven where waiting for upto 15 seconds after you are given right of way before you can proceed is normal.

As has been said ad nauseum in this and other threads, it's not cyclists, it's not motorists, it's people that ignore the rules.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's blatantly obvious that a significant proportion of cyclists think that traffic laws are optional for them. And if you think it isn't, you don't have your eyes open in Dublin city centre. Just stand at any significant junction during rush hour.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/twothirds-of-cyclists-dont-stop-at-red-lights-29436118.html

As I mentioned earlier the proportion of cyclists not respecting red lights is probably less than the number of private motorists who don't respect bus lanes......


........cue a response that includes 'whataboutery' :rolleyes:

The point is people are primed to look for RLJ'ers, and like bus lane violations - they are annoying and only really risking their own safety - that's not condoning it, that's just putting it in context.......


........and no doubt once we've had the whataboutery response we'll have someone chime in with an anecdote about how some cyclist ran a red light and injured an old person, young person etc etc etc.......

If people want the menace of RLJing tackled then bring in the fixed penalty legislation that has been languishing on someone's desk in the DoT for the last 18 months.

Incidentally, has anyone ever heard of a Guard advising / warning a cyclist to stay out from the inside of HGVs? I've been cautioned / advised by Guards for my lack of hi-viz, lack of helmet, overly bright lights, not using a cycle lane, using an R-road that, apparently wasn't meant to be cycled on - but as I don't go up the inside of HGVs maybe somebody can report an instance where a Guard gave a friendly warning to someone who through recklessness or ignorance put themselves in a dangerous position near a HGV?

It might also help if the RSA distributed a few of these instead of over-sized hi-viz vests (obviously with the arrows reversed)

Wishbone Ash

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I say it was illegal?

Your use of the terms 'traffic offence' and 'punish' in relation to the Gardai would imply so.

vvv

Deleted User wrote: »

... Not a hard traffic offence to spot and punish I would have thought, I hope the guards do so.

odyssey06

CramCycle wrote: »

From my experience commuting in the morning only 1 in 4 motor vehicles at best stop on red

Just curious...
Do you mean when driving straight through after it's just changed from orange to red? Or turning right when it's changed from orange to red?
Or approaching a light that's red and driving on?
Apart from the right turn, I rarely see red lights being broken, but most of my driving is outside of rush hour.
I do see red 'arrows' being broken a lot, where there are two lights at same junction. I am not sure if in all cases drivers (especially older ones and one from abroad) realise what the signals mean, and a straight green arrow beside a red light means don't turn right\left.

This is something I would urge people (especially cyclists and pedestrians) to watch out for for their own safety.

As has been said ad nauseum in this and other threads, it's not cyclists, it's not motorists, it's people that ignore the rules.

I'm not trying to imply that all other road users except one type are perfect. I think we need better laws and better enforcement and I think when it comes to cycling it's been especially lax in this country.

odyssey06

Jawgap wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier the proportion of cyclists not respecting red lights is probably less than the number of private motorists who don't respect bus lanes......
........cue a response that includes 'whataboutery' :rolleyes:

The point is people are primed to look for RLJ'ers, and like bus lane violations - they are annoying and only really risking their own safety - that's not condoning it, that's just putting it in context.......

I think the context is slightly different in this particular instance. I've seen pedestrians put at risk by cyclists breaking red lights. Driving in a bus lane is not a safety issue unless the car is also weaving in and out of it (which I feckin hate - if you're going to go into the bus lane just stay in it and don't cut back across me).

Wishbone Ash

odyssey06 wrote: »

...Do you mean when driving straight through after it's just changed from orange to red? Or turning right when it's changed from orange to red?....

An amber light means stop (unless it's dangerous to do so). Very few motorists seem to be aware of this.

beauf

odyssey06 wrote: »

...
Apart from the right turn, I rarely see red lights being broken, but most of my driving is outside of rush hour....

...I think we need better laws and better enforcement and I think when it comes to cycling it's been especially lax in this country.

Dunno where you are but I see drivers breaking red lights nearly every time I'm stopped at a junction. Not as much as cyclists, no but its still a lot of drivers.

Why new laws when they don't enforce the existing ones?

Its lax all over, for all sorts of road users. When you see some of the people up in court and they have a sheet as long as santas list.

For some reason cyclists really annoy people, even when they are doing something that's legal. Much more so than all the drivers breaking the rules all around.

odyssey06

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

An amber light means stop (unless it's dangerous to do so). Very few motorists seem to be aware of this.

And how does that relate to taking a right turn at a busy junction where there is no filter light for turning right?
If you have advanced past the white line, you have to turn on amber.

cdaly_

odyssey06 wrote: »

Just curious...
Do you mean when driving straight through after it's just changed from orange to red?

I'll see this on my commute pretty much at every traffic light change. Four or more cars will run the orange light (they're all supposed to stop by law) and typically two, sometimes three and occasionally four will run the red.

Where traffic is stopped leaving a yellow box clear, if the light starts to change, the stopped car(s) will drive onto the yellow box rather than have to await a traffic light cycle.

Or turning right when it's changed from orange to red?

This is mostly because of the cars above running the red, you have to await the red before you can turn.
OTOH, a right filter is treated exactly in the same way as the main red with the difference that, as these cars will be starting from a standstill ('cos they had to wait for the filter), the third car through the red will be accellerating hard to make it on time and will be less able to react to an emergency.

Or approaching a light that's red and driving on?

This one is rare enough. Usually only when the plonker in front has stopped for the orange/red and the driver behind is not having that!...

I do see red 'arrows' being broken a lot, where there are two lights at same junction. I am not sure if in all cases drivers (especially older ones and one from abroad) realise what the signals mean, and a straight green arrow beside a red light means don't turn right\left.

I'm sure that in no case does the older* or foreign** driver not realise what the signal means. Just like the rest of the drivers, they don't care and they know they won't get caught or sanctioned for it...


*We've had filter arrows on traffic light junctions for a long time now.
**And so have other countries...

cdaly_

Jawgap wrote: »

I don't go up the inside of HGVs maybe somebody can report an instance where a Guard gave a friendly warning to someone who through recklessness or ignorance put themselves in a dangerous position near a HGV?

I did on one occasion feel prompted to turn around and chase somebody down to give them that warning. They'd come up beside a left turning truck at lights. Truck had waited before turning or had just been slow enough to turn that the cyclist had cleared the turn in time.

Wishbone Ash

odyssey06 wrote: »

And how does that relate to taking a right turn at a busy junction where there is no filter light for turning right?
If you have advanced past the white line, you have to turn on amber.

Once you have advanced past the white line you are inside the junction and not controlled by the lights - you are just required to give way to opposite motorists. It is perfectly legal to turn on amber or red in that scenario.

eeeee

Ultimately all it comes down to is education, care and understanding.

Getting rid of HGV's from city centres is nonsense. Where are you going to build these depots? Who is going to pay for them? Goodbye greenbelt! And who is going to pay for 4 drivers instead of one, quadrupling the delivery traffic - and vans suffer significant blond spots too i might add - tax, insurance diesel, not to mention the environmental cost of it. And for what? Because a small subsection of road users can't understand blind spots?

Education,understanding and consideration are a lot cheaper, won't push up the price of goods and hopefully permanently affect behaviour. Some RSA ads targeted at cyclists and pedestrians, and a few funky YouTube videos people will actually watch would have a very positive effect. If people knew the danger they were putting themselves in I believe behaviour would change, once they understood.

Jawgap

odyssey06 wrote: »

I think the context is slightly different in this particular instance. I've seen pedestrians put at risk by cyclists breaking red lights. Driving in a bus lane is not a safety issue unless the car is also weaving in and out of it (which I feckin hate - if you're going to go into the bus lane just stay in it and don't cut back across me).

I've seen pedestrians put at risk by cars using (and parking in!!) bus lanes - but yes, using a bus lane doesn't always hazard another road user, just as jumping a red light (however, annoying it may be to see) does not always hazard a pedestrian - in fact I'd say it rarely does, but that doesn't make it less illegal.

galwaycyclist

gadetra wrote: »

Ultimately all it comes down to is education, care and understanding.

Getting rid of HGV's from city centres is nonsense. Where are you going to build these depots? Who is going to pay for them? Goodbye greenbelt! And who is going to pay for 4 drivers instead of one, quadrupling the delivery traffic - and vans suffer significant blond spots too i might add - tax, insurance diesel, not to mention the environmental cost of it. And for what? Because a small subsection of road users can't understand blind spots?

Education,understanding and consideration are a lot cheaper, won't push up the price of goods and hopefully permanently affect behaviour. Some RSA ads targeted at cyclists and pedestrians, and a few funky YouTube videos people will actually watch would have a very positive effect. If people knew the danger they were putting themselves in I believe behaviour would change, once they understood.

Uh no I disagree fundamentally. Getting HGVs out of town centres or any roads not designated for their use is a key goal for making our towns and cities more livable.

We made an enormous mistake in this country by building motorways instead of a mass program of town bypasses.Despite our failure as a nation to build a correct roads network, we still have to address the problem. One way to do it is to systematically ban HGVs from all roads other than designated corridors - other than for access. There can be a comprehensive network of HGV routes but there must be an underlying principle that they are not a normal component of the traffic mix particularly in town centres.

The Bishop Basher

odyssey06 wrote: »

Just curious...
Do you mean when driving straight through after it's just changed from orange to red?

Way too much of this goes on. So much so that it's now the norm when driving around Dublin. I've even witnessed people being beeped from behind for stopping on red. All modes of transport seem to be guilty of this.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Or approaching a light that's red and driving on?

This one is soley the reserve of cyclists. You just wouldn't get away with it in a car. Drive through red lights as routinely as some cyclists do and you'll either total your car or rack up 12 points quicker then you can say "Ban Me" and be put off the road.

beauf

Swanner wrote: »

...This one is soley the reserve of cyclists. You just wouldn't get away with it in a car. Drive through red lights as routinely as some cyclists do and you'll either total your car or rack up 12 points quicker then you can say "Ban Me" and be put off the road.

Can't agree see cars do it all the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWC8sT06Zi0

Slightly differently at our local level crossing I was watching and 6 cars went under the barrier as the lights were flashing red. Even as the barrier was coming down the last car dashed across.