Todays Metro

Jan said:

"Women cyclists more at risk of death"

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_...

I agree that you do need to be assertive, (not sure about aggressive)
to survive as a cyclist. I am female and have survived thus far so
perhaps I am more assertive than some. I don't think this an excuse to
jump red lights however. What a totally OTT, lazy and deliberately
written for 'shock value' peice of reporting.

Jan said:

"Women cyclists more at risk of death"

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_id=34

What it doesn't make clear is whether in the two enumerated instances, the
cyclists cycled along the left of the lorry prior to stopping at the light.

If they did, then I would hardly call that 'cautious'. Neither has it anything
to do with aggression or assertiveness. It's simply suicidal.

If, OTOH, the lorry drove to the right of the cyclists and then, moments later,
turned into them then, it is a most egregious fault on the part of the lorry
driver which should have resulted in a manslaughter charge at the very least.

Of course, we all know how unlikely a motorist is to suffer any significant
sanction no matter how culpable s/he is (unless they've been drinking).

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Ziggy) writes:
|> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:03:50 +0100, "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|>
|> >"Women cyclists more at risk of death"
|> >
|> >http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_id=34
|>
|> What it doesn't make clear is whether in the two enumerated instances, the
|> cyclists cycled along the left of the lorry prior to stopping at the light.
|>
|> If they did, then I would hardly call that 'cautious'. Neither has it anything
|> to do with aggression or assertiveness. It's simply suicidal.

Which is one reason why advanced stop boxes without separate phasing
for cyclists and motor vehicles are an anti-cyclist measure.

But modern psychlists like them :-(

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Blonde" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jan said:

"Women cyclists more at risk of death"

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_...

I agree that you do need to be assertive, (not sure about aggressive)
to survive as a cyclist. I am female and have survived thus far so
perhaps I am more assertive than some. I don't think this an excuse to
jump red lights however. What a totally OTT, lazy and deliberately
written for 'shock value' peice of reporting.

Haven't read the article, so not commenting on it specifically.

As regards assertiveness, it's essential to be assertive when cycling in
traffic. It's part of telling motorists what you are doing and when you are
doing it and where you are going. It's not necessary to be aggressive, IMO,
except, perhaps, when having to defend one's self in a bout of road rage
from some idiot in a metal cage, and even then, discretion is often the
better form of valour. I've found that some other female leisure cyclists
I've met are far less assertive than I am, and I get the 'you are so brave,
cycling on your own' line, or the 'it's too dangerous too cycle out from the
gutter'

We know a greater proportion of women than of men die in collision with
lorries.

We know women have shorter feet than men, in general.

I guess that women like to put a foot on the kerb when they stop.

I know that the kerbside is not a good place to stop at traffic lights.

I suspect women don't like to wait in the centre of the lane. I suspect
this might cause problems.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

wafflycat said:

"Blonde" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jan said:

"Women cyclists more at risk of death"

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_...

I agree that you do need to be assertive, (not sure about aggressive)
to survive as a cyclist. I am female and have survived thus far so
perhaps I am more assertive than some. I don't think this an excuse to
jump red lights however. What a totally OTT, lazy and deliberately
written for 'shock value' peice of reporting.

Haven't read the article, so not commenting on it specifically.

Women cyclists are more likely to be killed by lorries than men
because they obey red lights and then wait in drivers' blind spots.

Research by Transport for London, which has been kept secret since
last July, suggests that cyclists who jump red lights may be safer
than those who stick to the law.

According to the study, 86 per cent of women cyclists killed in London
between 1999 and 2004 were in collisions with a lorry.
This compares with 47 per cent for men.

Since the report was completed the death rate among women cyclists has
risen further.

Last month two were killed in accidents with lorries within 24 hours
of one another.

Amelia Zollner, 24, a Cambridge graduate working at the Institute for
Publ ic Pol icy Research, had stopped at traffic lights in Russell
Square and was killed when a lorry pulled away after they turned
green.

Rosie Wright, 26, who worked nearby at the School of Oriental and
African Studies, died in similar circumstances the next day.

The study says pedestrian guard railings may have contributed to three
deaths as they leave cyclists with no escape route.

A TfL spokesman said the study had not been published because it was
“produced solely to inform TfL policies”.

Peter Wright, Rosie's father and a vehicle safety expert, said: “Rosie
was reasonably cautious which seems to be the problem.

It seems that you need to be aggressive and assertive to survive as a
cyclist.”
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

(Nick Maclaren) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Ziggy) writes:
|> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:03:50 +0100, "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
|>
|> >"Women cyclists more at risk of death"
|> >
|> >http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_id=34
|>
|> What it doesn't make clear is whether in the two enumerated instances, the
|> cyclists cycled along the left of the lorry prior to stopping at the light.
|>
|> If they did, then I would hardly call that 'cautious'. Neither has it anything
|> to do with aggression or assertiveness. It's simply suicidal.

Which is one reason why advanced stop boxes without separate phasing
for cyclists and motor vehicles are an anti-cyclist measure.

Only if the cyclists don't use some common sense.

Then again, I have seen cyclists trundling along a 1 foot wide cycle lane
between a lorry and some railings *long* after the lights have turned red so I
suppose you may have a point.

Mind you, I've seen a lot of cyclists cycle in the death zone just to the right
of parked cars. For them, bicycles are and anti-cyclist measure.

I've also been told off by a female cyclist for cycling 1m out into the road
when she had been cycling in the gutter that was flooded with an unknowable
depth of water.

Nick Maclaren said:

Which is one reason why advanced stop boxes without separate phasing
for cyclists and motor vehicles are an anti-cyclist measure.

If the cyclist is assertive enough to position himself/herself such that
there's no easy way for the following vehicle to pass until it's safe, then
there is no need for separate phasing, and the advanced stop box is
beneficial as it is.

Anthony

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:46:27 +0100, "wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com>

Quoted message said:

... and I get the 'you are so brave,
cycling on your own' line, or the 'it's too dangerous too cycle out from the
gutter'

This is the most heartbreaking thing.

I have a very good friend who always cycles in the gutter. For years I've been
nagging at her to change her ways but she will not, claiming that she's been
cycling in London for 30 years and that I must be doing it wrong as I get honked
at (rarely) and she doesn't.

A couple of months ago I and another cyclist sat her down with a copy of
'Cyclecraft', and carefully went through all the reasons why you shouldn't cycle
in the gutter (including the greater likelyhood of punctures, about which she is
forever complaining). We also showed her cuttings about how more women are
killed in cycl;ing accidents in London, probably because of their submissive
attitude to motorists.

It all seemed to be going really well. She clearly understood and agreed with
all the points mentioned and discussed.

When we'd finished she calmly announced that she fully understood what we'd been
discussing but would continue to cycle in the gutter because we got honked by
motorists and she didn't.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

We know a greater proportion of women than of men die in collision with
lorries.

We know women have shorter feet than men, in general.

??? Are they shorter in proportion to te rest of their bodies?

Even so, shouldn't the saddle height adjustment take care of that?

Quoted message said:

I guess that women like to put a foot on the kerb when they stop.

Well, if they prefer that to living ...

Quoted message said:

I know that the kerbside is not a good place to stop at traffic lights.

I suspect women don't like to wait in the centre of the lane. I suspect
this might cause problems.

I don't really *like* to stop in the centre of the lane as it may look
aggressive. Although as I move as far left as is safe as soon as I start off, I
doubt it annoys any but the most unreasonable of drivers.

However, if it's a toss up between that and being cut up, or worse, I'll go for
it every time.

It seems amazing to me that a lot of men allow their partners to force them to
wear a helmet against their will and yet it seems nigh on impossible to persuade
a woman to take some elementary steps that will help to preserve her life.

In news:[email hidden],
Blonde <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

What a totally OTT, lazy and deliberately
written for 'shock value' peice of reporting.

It's Metro, and thus OTT and lazy is only to be expected. Filthy rag...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
A *National* Socialist Government did you say, Mr. Chaplin?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:28:02 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Ziggy) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

What it doesn't make clear is whether in the two enumerated instances, the
cyclists cycled along the left of the lorry prior to stopping at the light.

If they did, then I would hardly call that 'cautious'. Neither has it anything
to do with aggression or assertiveness. It's simply suicidal.

If, OTOH, the lorry drove to the right of the cyclists

Fascinating that you assert that the lorry drove itself [1], but
that the cycles were cycled by cyclists. Beware adopting motor lobby
forms of speech.

[1] I did see the bit later on where you referred to the lorry
driver.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article <[email hidden]>,
Anthony Jones <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > Which is one reason why advanced stop boxes without separate phasing
|> > for cyclists and motor vehicles are an anti-cyclist measure.
|>
|> If the cyclist is assertive enough to position himself/herself such that
|> there's no easy way for the following vehicle to pass until it's safe, then
|> there is no need for separate phasing, and the advanced stop box is
|> beneficial as it is.

Sigh. Even if the advanced stop boxes are the recommended length,
you need to pull in front of a vehicle that is stopped in a queue.
So what do you do if the lights go amber just as you approach the
box and there is a lorry to your right?

Carry on, and risk being hit if the driver (perfectly legally) starts
moving early? The law states that you must STOP before an advanced
stop box, but my understanding is that you must not cross the FORWARD
line until the lights go green.

Stop on the blind side, and risk being run over by the lorry turning
left?

Choose which according to whether the driver is indicating and pray
that it is reliable?

Anyway, 90% of such boxes are of inadequate length, and are often too
short even to stand a long bicycle in. That applies to many of the
improper ones that have a left lane feeding into two lanes of advanced
stop box, too. So what do you do?

Ride in them (i.e. across the traffic about to start) and position
your bicycle at nearly a right angle of the direction you want to
go? Many cyclists will fall off attempting that one, and it is a
good way to shoot in front of the driver in the right hand lane
(unexpectedly) just as he is accelerating.

Get off and manhandle your bicycle, making it almost certain that
you will be on foot when the lights go green?

Ride across the forward line, illegally?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Ziggy said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

We know a greater proportion of women than of men die in collision with
lorries.

We know women have shorter feet than men, in general.

??? Are they shorter in proportion to te rest of their bodies?

Even so, shouldn't the saddle height adjustment take care of that?

If everything was in proportion yes, but it isn't.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess that women like to put a foot on the kerb when they stop.

Well, if they prefer that to living ...

Getting a toe down at a stop is dependant on bottom bracket height and
foot length. If I have to stop away from the kerb I'll get off the
saddle. But more often than not I'm the smartass doing a trackstand
:-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know that the kerbside is not a good place to stop at traffic lights.

I suspect women don't like to wait in the centre of the lane. I suspect
this might cause problems.

I don't really *like* to stop in the centre of the lane as it may look
aggressive. Although as I move as far left as is safe as soon as I start off, I
doubt it annoys any but the most unreasonable of drivers.

However, if it's a toss up between that and being cut up, or worse, I'll go for
it every time.

I will stop where it is safest for me every time. But then I'm a
belligerent sod at the best of times. I remember stopping in the
centre of a lane once and having a driver try and squeeze between me
and the car stopped in the next lane. I deliberately made the point by
walking the bike past the stop line and back in front of his car.

Quoted message said:

It seems amazing to me that a lot of men allow their partners to force them to
wear a helmet against their will and yet it seems nigh on impossible to persuade
a woman to take some elementary steps that will help to preserve her life.

Trying to persuade a woman to do anything is nigh on impossible. :-)
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:28:02 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Ziggy) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

What it doesn't make clear is whether in the two enumerated instances, the
cyclists cycled along the left of the lorry prior to stopping at the light.

If they did, then I would hardly call that 'cautious'. Neither has it anything
to do with aggression or assertiveness. It's simply suicidal.

If, OTOH, the lorry drove to the right of the cyclists

Fascinating that you assert that the lorry drove itself [1], but
that the cycles were cycled by cyclists. Beware adopting motor lobby
forms of speech.

Fascinating indeed, and it took me a few moments to work out why I'd done that.

I presume the reason was that as it was a fatal collision we are concerned with
the victim, i.e. the cyclist, and what hit them, i.e. the lorry.

But as you say, "Beware adopting motor lobby forms of speech". Plus, of course,
the offending clause was either nonsensical or horribly ungrammatical.

Must try harder :-)

(Nick Maclaren) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Anthony Jones <[email hidden]> writes:
|>
|> > Which is one reason why advanced stop boxes without separate phasing
|> > for cyclists and motor vehicles are an anti-cyclist measure.
|>
|> If the cyclist is assertive enough to position himself/herself such that
|> there's no easy way for the following vehicle to pass until it's safe, then
|> there is no need for separate phasing, and the advanced stop box is
|> beneficial as it is.

Sigh. Even if the advanced stop boxes are the recommended length,
you need to pull in front of a vehicle that is stopped in a queue.
So what do you do if the lights go amber just as you approach the
box and there is a lorry to your right?

You should not be cycling to the left of a lorry (or anything else, really)
unless you *know* that the lights are not about to change.

Nick Maclaren said:

Sigh. Even if the advanced stop boxes are the recommended length,
you need to pull in front of a vehicle that is stopped in a queue.
So what do you do if the lights go amber just as you approach the
box and there is a lorry to your right?

Personally I wouldn't filter past a lorry at the front of a queue. If
there's a car at the front, I'd either pass quickly enough that there was
no chance of the vehicle pulling away before I had passed, or if this was
not possible I'd just wait behind.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, 90% of such boxes are of inadequate length, and are often too
short even to stand a long bicycle in. That applies to many of the
improper ones that have a left lane feeding into two lanes of advanced
stop box, too. So what do you do?

Ok, so the advanced stop boxes need to be longer. How would separate phasing
of the traffic lights help?

Anthony

Phil Cook () said:

wafflycat wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Blonde" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 24 Apr, 12:03, "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote:
> "Women cyclists more at risk of death"
>
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=46427&in_page_...

I agree that you do need to be assertive, (not sure about aggressive)
to survive as a cyclist. I am female and have survived thus far so
perhaps I am more assertive than some. I don't think this an excuse to
jump red lights however. What a totally OTT, lazy and deliberately
written for 'shock value' peice of reporting.

Haven't read the article, so not commenting on it specifically.

Quoted message said:

Women cyclists are more likely to be killed by lorries than men
because they obey red lights and then wait in drivers' blind spots.

Quoted message said:

Research by Transport for London, which has been kept secret since
last July, suggests that cyclists who jump red lights may be safer
than those who stick to the law.

Quoted message said:

According to the study, 86 per cent of women cyclists killed in London
between 1999 and 2004 were in collisions with a lorry.
This compares with 47 per cent for men.

What really bothers me is that these figures alone do not say at all what many
take them to mean, that is, "women cyclists twice as likely to be killed by
lorry". We need to know the absolute number or accidents for both men and women,
and the proportion of male vs female cyclists.

This was about the best article I found that makes this point:
http://motoring.independent.co.uk/comment/article2413395.ece

It seems indeed that male cyclists get into more accidents in general than female
cyclists, and that this difference is greater than can be accounted for by the
higher proportion of male cyclists.

So it may well be that for an individual cyclist the probability for getting
killed by a lorry is the same regardless of whether it's a he or a she. It's just
that men have so many _other types of accidents_ on top of those involving
lorries.

Here's a quick look:
According to (whcih cites TfL)
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/chinese-whispers-female-cyclists-killed-by-hgvlgvs-in-london-1999-2004

"from 1999 - May 2004:
87 deaths of cyclists of which 21 were female, 66 male.

Of those 21 females an astonishing 18 (85%) were killed by HGV drivers.

Another 28 of the males (around 50%) were also killed by HGVs."

And according to the Independent article, cyclist proportion (m:f) moved from
70:30 in 2000 to 60:40 in 2005.

So if you compare 28:21, I wonder whether this is statistically significantly
different from a cyclist proportion of 60:40, given the small numbers per year.
If it is, it is nowhere near anything as "twice as likely".

And if you look at *overall* cyclist deaths, the ratio of men to women is greater
than three (3.1), whereas the ratio of men to women cyclists is something between
1.5 and 2.3.

So it is clearly nonsense to tell women to "ride like a man", as the Velorution
blog has put its title.

That said, it is sad that women do not profit from their generally better safety
record in this type of accident where it is really easy to behave more safely by
just not undertaking, and/or making sure that you don't sit in the blind spot in
front of the driver cabin. It does seem plausible that women do not take the lane
enough generally as well, and in that sense, they should ride more like men (i.e.
assertively).

That said, I didn't find the Metro article that bad compared to their usual
rubbish. While it is shaky on the stats and as usual portrays cycling as
oh-so-dangerous, it actually makes the point that cyclists may have a motivation
for jumping red lights and being in the middle of the lane other than wanting to
annoy other road users.

m.

Anthony Jones said:

Personally I wouldn't filter past a lorry at the front of a queue. If
there's a car at the front, I'd either pass quickly enough that there was
no chance of the vehicle pulling away before I had passed, or if this was
not possible I'd just wait behind.

This is all very well for you or me to say, but no less an authority
than The Highway Code says one should be using the facilities provided
as they can make one safer, so it's hardly a stretch to assume that
people might be doing that.

If you're going to have ASLs they should be /reasonably/ foolproof, and
the left turning long vehicle problem is a pretty sound demonstration
that they're emphatically not.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/