My computer had a fit about it and crashed, so only got part of the way down the article. Factor in London cycling to anything you read of course.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Proven: Cyclists break more rules (by... Auto Express)
(24 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I am unsurprised about this - I imagine that much of the infringements were things like "non signalling", plus that many of the infringements on pavements etc were due to inadequate space for safe cycling on the road etc, I also do not doubt for a second that the auto-express people knew this was a really bad junction in a fairly busy place to "catch" plenty of cyclists.
Meh - I think that we should do our own one somewhere in town where people break plenty of rules too. Might point out also that of the 1 in 10 motorists breaking the rules, they are doing so on a 2 tonne death dealing piece of metal.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The full results are in the latest magazine - out today.
It's hard to comment otherwise, although counting "mounting the pavement" as an offence seems unfairly skewed against cyclists given it is something that they can easily do, often very safely to, for example, end their journey in a safe place.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Proven?
Our researchers spotted 976 cyclists between 7.30am and 9.30am on a Monday morning at Highbury Corner in Islington, North London, 719 of which committed offences. In total, 3,140 cars passed during the same time period, with 380 caught breaking road rules
I can go and stand at a different junction at a different time of day and come up with a completely different set of results. If Buy More Cars magazine wants to write a heavily biased article "proving" that cyclists are all evil law breakers while the hard pressed motorist is an innocent victim of the war against cars, it's very simple to go design and gather a data set to prove this.
Apart from perpetuating their own myths, I'm not sure what this magazine aims to achieve in preaching to the converted and the blindly unconvertable.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yip. Basically, get thee to a 20mph street where speeding is possible and suddenly you'll find 90% of the drivers are breaking the 'rules'.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I do wonder if they had a speed gun and if they did were they using on a bit of flowing traffic. Utter tosh.
Posted 11 years ago # -
They must have come up with a pretty good set of conditions to get 3/4 of riders committing an offence. For instance, when the light is green it can't be shot, and you couldn't count things like failure to signal (as that's not an offence).
Posted 11 years ago # -
"... and you couldn't count things like failure to signal (as that's not an offence)."
I think that's why they very carefully use the word 'rules' rather than 'law'. But for the numbers they caught mounting the pavement there must have been some driver (bike parking for a uni just on the other side?).
Posted 11 years ago # -
46% of cars speed on 30mph roads (at any point in time, when road is clear)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2010/Also, regarding pavements: You're allowed onto a pavement in/on a vehicle for two reasons (according to my driving instructor when I was doing my driving lessons). The first is to let an emergency vehicle pass (fair enough), and the second is to access a property (e.g. a driveway, etc). So I figure I can cycle ~3 yards over a pavement to the bike rack.?
I think most of us would say we shouldn't jump red lights. In general I agree, but I feel it's hard to condemn all red-light jumping, as there are probably situations where it's saved lives:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46427-women-cyclists-more-at-risk-of-death(Glad to see the comments on the article mirror the comments here).
Posted 11 years ago # -
It would be fairly easy to engineer a study whereby 90%+ of car drivers were found to be breaking the 'rules'.
Not holding the steering wheel with both hands would probably do it, and that's just one 'rule'.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@lionfish
Not sure about the emergency vehicles it, but accessing lawful parking is definitely allowed. And I've argued in the past that this should theoretically extend to cyclists.
Technically it doesn't. So when I drive over the pavement outside my house to access my driveway, that's fine; if I pull the same move on my bike, that's not.
Weirdly.
Posted 11 years ago # -
WC - I think you might have been given duff information on the legality of cycling across a footway. Section 129(5) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 states that
"Subject to section 64 of this Act, a person who, in a footway, footpath or cycle track, as the case may be drives, rides, leads or propels a vehicle or horse, or any swine or cattle, commits an offence:
Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply—
(a)where and in so far as the vehicle or animal is being taken across the footway, footpath or cycle track;"
Seems pretty clear to me - "taken across the footway" means you can legally cycle across the pavement to access your driveway, unless drivers are meant to push their cars over the pavement along with cyclists and their bikes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Somewhat off topic, but that's a pretty good modal share - and Highbury Corner is not a nice place to cycle.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I need to find time to do my opportunity-weighted red light jumping survey (reporting on the proportion of cyclists/motorists who jump a light, as a proportion of those who could physically do so).
By reducing the denominator of the motoring statistic to take into account the fact that cars behind the lead car *can't* jump the light, it would give a much fairer picture of lawbreaking in my opinion.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Yawn.
They must be thinking that that stunt worked for the IAM so we should try it too. Losers.
Posted 11 years ago # -
.......aye ok Auto Express - if we are being silly, how many car drivers were killed / injured by cyclists in the last 1,3,5 years ?
Eejits
Posted 11 years ago # -
@Morningsider, I really should run these things by you first.
Confusion on two levels.
Firstly, s.129(5)(a) was the exact section I was thinking of, because I'd interpreted 'vehicle' a being motorised, but looking at s.151 on interpretation I see that's not the case and there is a separate interpretation of 'motor vehicle' (the error was compounded by s.129(5)(b) which specifically states that a person with a 'pedal cycle' doesn't commit an offence in certain circumstances, and in my mind I'd therefore split 'pedal cycles' further out of 'vehicles' in (a)).
And secondly... There was something else which has now escaped me. Ah well.
Back in my box.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Apparently some of the 'rules' broken include not wearing Hi-Viz or a Helmet. Could we not collectively do this rag for libel?
Posted 11 years ago # -
I signalled, slowed and waited to turn right from Fountainbridge up towards Leamington Lift Bridge on way home this evening. There appeared to be some confusion where the pedestrian crossing lights were at red but nobody crossing, so first car decided to go anyway. The next 5 didn't bother to check the lights, or didn't care, and followed it across through the red also. I should have been turning right at this point, protected by the red signal. But waited until they were through and then went once one alert driver realised lights were still on red for them.
So in my sample of this junction, 0% of cyclists broke any rules and 75% of motorists did.
Proof!
Posted 11 years ago # -
So, no problem then?
We can never persuade motorists to treat cyclists with respect if there is widespread disregard for the protocols that are there to make the roads safer; and there is.
On my way to the South Side tonight I saw 12 cyclists. 4 ignored red lights and one went the wrong way up a one way street. I saw hundreds of cars and a good deal of aggressive behaviour and disregard for lanes but apart from 3 amber gamblers, legal (mostly because it was too busy for speeding).
We need to take the high ground on this.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Top of Arthurs Seat or do we think it ought to be aiming for Scald Law in the Pentlands? That's abot 1900' if memory serves.
Posted 11 years ago # -
We can never persuade motorists to treat cyclists with respect if there is widespread disregard for the protocols that are there to make the roads safer; and there is.
More importantly then, we need to urgently tackle the problem of pedestrians not obeying all the applicable tenets of the highway code: not wearing hi-viz, crossing when there's a red man, crossing the road not at a set of crossing lights when one is nearby, and so on.
After all, there are a lot more pedestrians hit by drivers than cyclists, in absolute terms, and if we want to change the behaviour of an entiry cross section of society, I reckon this is the one to go for.
If people aren't going to follow the HC rigorously on foot, after all, why should we expect them to when they get on their bikes?
On my way to the South Side tonight I saw 12 cyclists. 4 ignored red lights and one went the wrong way up a one way street. I saw hundreds of cars and a good deal of aggressive behaviour and disregard for lanes but apart from 3 amber gamblers, legal (mostly because it was too busy for speeding).
You must live in a different Edinburgh to me :)
Whenever I've counted riders on the commute, I usually get to 50-60 over the five miles, of whom maybe one or two are RLJ'ers. I can rack up more mobile phone drivers than that at any given junction.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If you live or work in an area of Edinburgh with many students you will see more poor cycling. I am not student bashing, many students are great cyclists. Some are still learning road sense and others are. A bit anti-establishment
I had a curious incident the other morning at the Slateford junction. I was behind a car which was in the red box in the left hand lane (heading into town). it was not a taxi, nor did it have the feel of a festival driver. Anyhow. he can only turn left from there but he goes straight on, into the bus lane whichbwouldnhave been a fine during the campaign. he then brakes to let a car in the right hand lane move into left hand lane, as we approach the lights. I have been shaking my head in an obvious manner, my attempt at a muted response as I do not bother now with any further gesticulation. These young lads then go past in a silver car mocking me for getting angsty about the lane jumping. They have the window down and are suggesting I am an over reacting cissy. I am still in a good mood so I shout at them, Well you have to watch out for NUTTERS
Posted 11 years ago # -
Gembo +1 on nutters. I had an A-hole taxi driver try to shove me into a men at work sign last night up Chesser avenue, then do a left hook no signal 10 yards further on - he saw me both times.
Not paranoia either, my mate was behind me and saw it all develop.
My crime? Cycling up the bike lane while there was a massive traffic jam, presumably leading to his frustration.
As I said in an earlier post, cyclists/pedestrians rarely cause injury or death. Same cant be said of other road users.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
