CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"Yes but speeding up when the light turns red and driving through it is still red light running. I see it all the time."
Indeed, but I said speeding up on amber.
"And although speeding up through amber isn't jumping a red light, it is "failure to stop" which is what is being signalled..."
Which is what the question should have asked, but if the question is do you ever go through a red light then the answer is legitimately 'no'.
"Which is what the question should have asked, but if the question is do you ever go through a red light then the answer is legitimately 'no'."
I don't understand what you are disputing here. The question asked was not about ambers but about reds. You seem to be saying that no driver ever goes through a red light. I say it is extremely common and I often see at least three or four going through the red light at each phase at some junctions. Earthowned's video is a typical example.
For this reason I believe the number of drivers given by the IAM poll to be extremely low although that could be because a lot of the respondants are likely to be IAM members are and therefore driving properly to start with.
A quick search found this:
Memo to cyclists: the rules apply to you, too
Read more if you want your blood pressure to rise: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2144698/Memo-cyclists-rules-apply-too.html#ixzz1uwSM9Uyc
Reply send to IAM:
"Well, I think that IAM has been naive thinking that such a news release would be interpreted by all media outlets in a fair and level headed way. Some know that there is money to be made in writing negatively about out-groups such as cyclists.
As such I think that the news release may well have the opposite effect from that desired. And in the end it is simply not based on credible evidence and merely supports a commonly held view that cyclists break rules. This will not encourage people to cycle. Your "surveys" and other evidence also points equally to drivers breaking rules. But the consequences are much graver. Isn't this why IAM exists? If only more motorists were members."
Not disputing anything, just that people aren't reading my posts :P
I'm giving this one up. I'm not saying no drivers ever run red lights; nor am I saying they all do. Cyclists and drivers both run red lights; they do so in different ways; both are wrong. But I do believe a higher percentage of cyclists run red lights than drivers.
That's all. I'm dropping out now.
Anth - if you are still there.
Of course both motorists and cyclists run red lights. I don't know the true proportion but my feeling is that it depends on location. Cyclist red light jumping seems more common in the city centre whereas the outskirts and outside I have rarely seen it happening (less lights=less frustration? or less of a certain type of cyclist? or ....).
What I am more concerned about is the press reaction to this type of press release. It will surely do nothing other than alienate the general populace from cycling.
Still here, but not 'adding' omre cos I'm not explaining myself well.
"What I am more concerned about is the press reaction to this type of press release. It will surely do nothing other than alienate the general populace from cycling"
Yep, which is what I said hours ago ;)
"The IAM are are even-handed organisation, and it's really the headline that annoys me more, simply because, as Bike Biz points out, the red tops will go nuts for this. 57% = 'all'."
I am an? by the Magnificent Octopus, on Flickr
Well, I think that IAM has been naive
No, I think they knew exactly what they were doing.
Only when journalists themselves complained did they think they'd better give the appearance of being even-handed.
The survey itself was neutral in the questions asked. The press release deliberately skewed the results to make a criticism of cyclists, and to make a point, which is basically "Hey, don't blame us 'normally law abiding' motorists (except 32% of us), it's the road's fault!"
Kaputnik - what a fantastic design - I love it!
@crowriver
They absolutely knew. Neil Greig, their head of policy and research is very aware of what constitutes reliable research. He's been involved in too many research projects run by the Scottish Government, academics and Road Safety Scotland. And while they might try that line of it not being 'research', sitting it under a heading of 'Policy and Research' says otherwise.
And it's obviously biased in its presentation. Using the active and present "jump" to describe a question asked in the past tense, 'have you ever' is plainly misleading.
Having said that, some of their research is very good indeed. They just need to give up on the PR puff generated with Survey Monkey.
Anth "Not disputing anything, just that people aren't reading my posts :P"
I did read them I just didn't understand what you meant. I think you were mentioning amber lights because you were saying that a lot of drivers drive through amber lights but not so many drive through red. We can agree to disagree on that one!
Insto They absolutely knew. Neil Greig, their head of policy and research is very aware of what constitutes reliable research.
To be fair, they are only doing what every other group who has ever made a press release or every other media outline who has ever made a headline - they made it sensationalist and very little to do with the content of the article to get people reading it. After all "IAM call for junctions to be redesigned to make them safer for cyclists" would never get on the BBC would it? I am not trying to justify it by the way, the last thing we need is another "debate" over how we are all scum who deserve to die. This is just how "it" is and I have to say, I hate "it". And this goes for all stupid headlines that do a lot to inflame angry types but little to actually tell a story.
The thing with motorists, is how many of them are aware they have ran a red light. I would imagine that the vast majority of motorists observed by cyclists going through red lights are not even aware that they have done so.
Therefore, this poll means nothing, as there are no doubt a lot more cyclists who will admit to running a red light, often on purpose, than there will be motorists who will be conscious of having done so.
Seems very likely that 50% or more of cyclists have occasionally crossed a red light. Around 50% of motorists in an RAC 2007 survey admitted to sometimes 'significantly' exceeding speed limits in built-up areas. Not that one justifies the other, but one certainly sounds more dangerous to other people than does the other!! Loads of other interesting motorist attitudes if anyone really wants to trawl through loads of RAC surveys.
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/advice/considerate-cycling/
http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/car-knowledge/motoring-reports/
MMMhh SMIDSY, well I know some motoryclists who are sick of this too, often it seems to be used as an "excuse". They now call it SMIDGAS, "Sorry Mate I Don't Give A Sh*t", as they seem convinced that drivers often do see them, but decide to pull out anyway, cos they are in a tin box and the rider will always come off 2nd best in any collision :/
They now call it SMIDGAS, "Sorry Mate I Don't Give A Sh*t", as they seem convinced that drivers often do see them, but decide to pull out anyway, cos they are in a tin box and the rider will always come off 2nd best in any collision :/
That's definitely what some (many) drivers do to cyclists.
"
TheCyclingSolicitor (@OliverJeffcott)
15/05/2012 16:24
I'm not a fan but it's important to consider why cyclists jump red lights (without the usual knee-jerk views) tinyurl.com/cpq4hq8
"
"Cyclists who jump red lights are also breaking the law, but 43 per cent of cyclists who do so said they would be less likely to jump red lights if Advanced Stop Lines were more strongly enforced"
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3414065.ece
I often wish I was a spin doctor.
"In urban areas, which contain schools and hospitals, fewer cyclists have ever jumped a red light than motorists have significantly exceeded the speed limit."
Tada.
The funny thing is, because of the way spin and media works, if we ever do hit a tipping point we will actually start to see stories like this:
"The RCC, CA and IAC have condemned the government's crackdown on otherwise law-abiding cyclists who are caught out by confusing and inconsistent junction layouts" (I'll leave the bemused reader to decipher the acronyms).
@Dave
You could always set up an account on twitter (@alt.spin) and just tweet new headlines for the same stories.
(I'll leave the bemused reader to decipher the acronyms).
No need. Just substitute CTC, BC and Spokes?
@crowriver
But wouldn't they also feel they had to condemn the cyclists?
"
Bike Hub (@BikeHub)
16/05/2012 15:07
Bicycle Association boss slams @IAMgroup for "bogus" red light press release. BikeBiz: http://bit.ly/JqJdz1
"
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts