Australia and New Zealand · Public discussion

What red light?

Started by cfsmtb · · Last activity · 36 posts · 1,965 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Australia and New Zealand
Published
11 December 2006
Last activity
15 December 2006
Original author
cfsmtb
Posts
36
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,965
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 36
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence presented in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds, *2* were indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    Funny that.

    ******

    Police see red because city drivers don't
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/police-see-red-because-city-drivers-dont/2006/12/08/1165081153150.html
    Stephen Moynihan. December 9, 2006

    Image: Passing parade: taxis, trucks, sedans … you name it and they are all carrying drivers more than willing to ignore red lights on Melbourne's roads.

    Waves of traffic spill down the hill of St Kilda Road towards Inkerman Street. It has just hit 6pm, in the midst of Melbourne's evening peak.

    City workers are rushing to get home while truck drivers make their final deliveries of the day. It is a 60 km/h zone but cars are whizzing past.

    Every minute or so, the lights on the outbound lanes of St Kilda Road change from green to amber. Most drivers slow down to brake, but at almost every change there are one or two that put their foot to the floor, accelerating through the busy intersection as the lights turn red.

    The scene is repeated countless times at hundreds of intersections across Melbourne. Every day, motorists make the same calculation, weighing up the odds of a fatal accident or lasting injuries against the chance to cut their travel time by a few seconds.

    Crash statistics reveal that more than 25 per cent of fatalities and 54 per cent of serious injuries occur at intersections. Road safety experts say that while the road toll has fallen and general driving behaviour has improved, drivers' actions at intersections have not.

    During an hour on Wednesday night, The Age observed 32 vehicles running the red light at the St Kilda Road/Inkerman Street junction. Most were cars, but one was an LPG tanker, which shot through the intersection despite having adequate time to stop.

    Two cyclists pedalled on and ignored the red light. Even an ambulance without its siren blaring failed to stop. As did a taxi.

    Every time the lights changed, an average of at least two vehicles ran through the red light. The St Kilda intersection is not fitted with a red light camera to snare speeding drivers.

    In August, police switched on 22 speed/red light cameras across Melbourne. The sites were chosen from VicRoads' top 100 most dangerous intersections. Since then, 41,000 infringement notices have been issued for running red lights.

    Superintendent Shane Patton of the Traffic Camera Office says it is amazing how many drivers are unaware of the dangers of the practice.

    "Going through red lights significantly increases the risk of injury or death," he says. So serious is the concern that almost all pleas from drivers who contest their fines are knocked back. "We don't entertain any pleas except for serious medical cases," Superintendent Patton says.

    People who charge through a red light and get caught lose three demerit points and are fined $200. But as well as risking death, there are other hidden costs. Almost 50 people every day are seriously injured on Victoria's roads.

    As the Christmas holiday period begins, police are still hopeful Victoria can record its lowest road toll ever. In 2004, 330 people died on the state's roads. The figure for this year now stands at 315. Police believe that is 315 lives that need not have been wasted.

    While the message is being largely accepted by motorists heading over long distances, those rushing to the local shopping centre must also be aware of the dangerous combination of speed and holiday stress.

    Superintendent Patton again urges caution on the roads. "Clearly the message is to slow down on the roads. We all want to see our families."

  2. cfsmtb said:

    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence presented
    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds *2* were
    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    (*inserted* per original article)

    2/3 is a pretty bad offender ratio. What's the ratio
    cyclists/motorised in general? I hazard a guess that it's much less
    than 1/16.

  3. In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100

    cfsmtb said:


    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence presented
    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds were
    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
    rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.

    Zebee

  4. quote='Duncan'cfsmtb said:

    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence presented
    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds *2* were
    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    (*inserted* per original article)

    2/3 is a pretty bad offender ratio. What's the ratio
    cyclists/motorised in general? I hazard a guess that it's much less
    than 1/16.[/QUOTE]

    Ah, [censored], silly typo, meant to have *2* in that second sentence. Mea culpa & now off to soundly thrash oneself with birch branches.

    Earlier this year I was attending a walk to school seminar at the local council, where the police representative mentioned there was a low compliance amongst cyclists to follow road rules.

    Although there were no hard data/stats to his anecdote. Perception over reality?

  5. Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100

    cfsmtb said:


    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence presented
    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds were
    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
    rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.


    So? Both are equally irresponsible. Red means stop. No further discussion required.

  6. EuanB said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100

    cfsmtb said:


    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence


    presented

    Quoted message said:

    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds


    were

    Quoted message said:

    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
    rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.


    So? Both are equally irresponsible. Red means stop. No further
    discussion required.

    According to John Forester (Effective Cycling arrived last week, along
    with CycleCraft 🙂 ), by far and away the greatest cause for cyclist
    crashes on the road is cyclists breaking the road laws.

    ch 28, from memory. The book's on my bed, and regrettably, at this
    time, I am not 🙂

  7. quote='Bleve'EuanB said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100

    cfsmtb said:


    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence


    presented

    Quoted message said:

    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds


    were

    Quoted message said:

    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
    rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.


    So? Both are equally irresponsible. Red means stop. No further
    discussion required.

    According to John Forester (Effective Cycling arrived last week, along
    with CycleCraft 🙂 ), by far and away the greatest cause for cyclist
    crashes on the road is cyclists breaking the road laws.

    ch 28, from memory. The book's on my bed, and regrettably, at this
    time, I am not 🙂[/QUOTE]

    Cyclecraft's on my to buy list when we go to Europe next year.

    That conclusion doesn't surprise me in the least, breaking the law *should* be unpredictable behaviour. Unrpedictability when sharing the road's a bad thing.

  8. EuanB said:
    Quoted message said:

    According to John Forester (Effective Cycling arrived last week, along
    with CycleCraft 🙂 ), by far and away the greatest cause for cyclist
    crashes on the road is cyclists breaking the road laws.

    ch 28, from memory. The book's on my bed, and regrettably, at this
    time, I am not 🙂

    Cyclecraft's on my to buy list when we go to Europe next year.

    You can borrow my copy, it's got my name in it and a homing signal 🙂

    Quoted message said:

    That conclusion doesn't surprise me in the least, breaking the law
    *should* be unpredictable behaviour. Unrpedictability when sharing the
    road's a bad thing.

    I'm quite a bit concerned about both book's treatment of statistics
    (and rip the bits out on bike fit and training .. bin bin bin! or burn
    burn burn!), but the sections on riding in traffic are excellent.

    Quoted message said:

    --
    EuanB

  9. Zebee Johnstone said:

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers" rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.

    Speeding up to attempt to make it through on amber is actually more dangerous as far as I can tell. Speed is higher, and you risk a collision with oncoming vehicles turning right at the end of the cycle as well as cars on the road you are crossing. If you have stopped or slowed on a red before proceeding through, you have the chance to check for traffic and stop if there is any.

  10. SomeGuy said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers" rushing
    the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.

    Speeding up to attempt to make it through on amber is actually more
    dangerous as far as I can tell.

    And just as deliberate.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan

  11. In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:43:25 +1100

    EuanB said:


    Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100

    cfsmtb said:


    Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence


    presented

    Quoted message said:

    in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds


    were

    Quoted message said:

    indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
    rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.


    So? Both are equally irresponsible. Red means stop. No further
    discussion required.

    Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are worse".

    Zebee

  12. In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:32:13 +1100

    cfsmtb said:


    Earlier this year I was attending a walk to school seminar at the local
    council, where the police representative mentioned there was a low
    compliance amongst cyclists to follow road rules.

    Although there were no hard data/stats to his anecdote. Perception over
    reality?

    How can they collect the data?

    THings I see cyclists do every day
    - run red lights
    - ride on the footpath
    - ride on the wrong side of the road
    - ride on pedestrian crossings
    - fail to indicate

    BUt I've no idea how you can collect such data, as there's no
    enforcement so no lists of infringement notices.

    Zebee

  13. Zebee Johnstone said:


    How can they collect the data?

    THings I see cyclists do every day
    - run red lights
    - ride on the footpath
    - ride on the wrong side of the road
    - ride on pedestrian crossings
    - fail to indicate

    BUt I've no idea how you can collect such data, as there's no
    enforcement so no lists of infringement notices.


    Easy, sit at an intersection with clipboard, paper, pen and a fluro
    safety vest & count.

    Parbs

  14. Parbs said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:


    How can they collect the data?

    THings I see cyclists do every day
    - run red lights
    - ride on the footpath
    - ride on the wrong side of the road
    - ride on pedestrian crossings
    - fail to indicate

    BUt I've no idea how you can collect such data, as there's no
    enforcement so no lists of infringement notices.


    Easy, sit at an intersection with clipboard, paper, pen and a fluro
    safety vest & count.

    You mean like The Age did? Don't know about the fluoro vest bit though.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan

  15. Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:43:25 +1100

    EuanB said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
    cfsmtb <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > Part 3421 of "Red means stop, [censored]". Although the evidence
    presented
    > in this article is anecdotal, of the 32 vehicles busting the reds
    were
    > indeed, cyclists. The other 30 were, *cough*, motorised vehicles.
    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers"
    rushing the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.


    So? Both are equally irresponsible. Red means stop. No further
    discussion required.

    Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are worse".

    I'm surprised at you Zebee. Don't you know that according to recent
    studies subtleties such as emphasis are misinterpreted 50% of the time?
    If you're addressing a point you think you've inferred you need to
    specifically state it for clarity.
    --
    Cheers
    Euan

  16. On 2006-12-11, SomeGuy (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:


    Zebee Johnstone said:

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers" rushing
    the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.

    Speeding up to attempt to make it through on amber is actually more
    dangerous as far as I can tell. Speed is higher, and you risk a
    collision with oncoming vehicles turning right at the end of the cycle
    as well as cars on the road you are crossing. If you have stopped or
    slowed on a red before proceeding through, you have the chance to check
    for traffic and stop if there is any.

    Yes, one presumes that the majority of amber accelarators haven't
    checked whether it is "safe" for them to cross, or indeed to fully
    know that they will have finished crossing by the time the light is
    red. The cyclist presumably has at least done a cursory check to make
    sure that they can get across safely. Then we are back to the old
    question of who is going to do damage to just themselves, vs some
    innocent third party.

    --
    TimC
    Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.
    --Ernie Kovacs

  17. TimC said:

    On 2006-12-11, SomeGuy (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

    Quoted message said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    Difference being that the cyclists I see aren't "amber gamblers" rushing
    the yellow and going through on the red.

    They are people making a deliberate decision to go through the red
    usually after stopping.

    Speeding up to attempt to make it through on amber is actually more
    dangerous as far as I can tell. Speed is higher, and you risk a
    collision with oncoming vehicles turning right at the end of the cycle
    as well as cars on the road you are crossing. If you have stopped or
    slowed on a red before proceeding through, you have the chance to check
    for traffic and stop if there is any.

    Yes, one presumes that the majority of amber accelarators haven't
    checked whether it is "safe" for them to cross, or indeed to fully
    know that they will have finished crossing by the time the light is
    red. The cyclist presumably has at least done a cursory check to make
    sure that they can get across safely. Then we are back to the old
    question of who is going to do damage to just themselves, vs some
    innocent third party.


    Damage in what way? Sure the driver may not get injured
    physically, but they've still got to wake each morning replaying
    the time they watched a cyclist bounce off their car and get
    taken to hospital with serious injuries!! Physical injury is part
    of it.

    Brendo

  18. Euan said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are worse".

    I'm surprised at you Zebee. Don't you know that according to recent
    studies subtleties such as emphasis are misinterpreted 50% of the time?
    If you're addressing a point you think you've inferred you need to
    specifically state it for clarity.

    I'm surprised at you, Euan. Don't you know that a recent study found
    that forfty percent of all statistics were made up on the spot?

    BTH

  19. quote='BT Humble'Euan said:
    Zebee Johnstone said:

    Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are worse".

    I'm surprised at you Zebee. Don't you know that according to recent
    studies subtleties such as emphasis are misinterpreted 50% of the time?
    If you're addressing a point you think you've inferred you need to
    specifically state it for clarity.

    I'm surprised at you, Euan. Don't you know that a recent study found
    that forfty percent of all statistics were made up on the spot?
    [/QUOTE]
    Source: wired.com0,70179 0.html

  20. EuanB said:
    BT Humble said:
    Euan said:

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    > Oh I agree. I took cfmstb's emphasis to say "look, they are worse".

    I'm surprised at you Zebee. Don't you know that according to recent
    studies subtleties such as emphasis are misinterpreted 50% of the


    time?

    Quoted message said:

    If you're addressing a point you think you've inferred you need to
    specifically state it for clarity.

    I'm surprised at you, Euan. Don't you know that a recent study found
    that forfty percent of all statistics were made up on the spot?


    Source: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html

    Here's mine:

    http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F09.html

    Lighten up, old chap. You'll live longer.

    BTH

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.