What red light?



cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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/natio...ty-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."
 
cfsmtb wrote:
> Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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.
 
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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
 
Duncan said:
cfsmtb wrote:
> Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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.

Ah, ****, 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?
 
Zebee Johnstone said:
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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.
 
EuanB wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> > In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
> > cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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.


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 :)
 
Bleve said:
EuanB wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
> > In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
> > cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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.


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.

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.
 
EuanB wrote:

> > 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 :)

> 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.


>
>
> --
> EuanB
 
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.
 
SomeGuy wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> 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
 
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:43:25 +1100
EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
>> cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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".

Zebee
 
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:32:13 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
> 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
 
Parbs wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> 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
 
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:43:25 +1100
> EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>> In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:32:48 +1100
>>> cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Part 3421 of "Red means stop, ********". 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
 
On 2006-12-11, SomeGuy (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>> 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
 
TimC wrote:
> On 2006-12-11, SomeGuy (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>>
>>>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
 
Euan wrote:
> 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?
> 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
 
BT Humble said:
Euan wrote:
> 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?
> 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
 
EuanB wrote:
> BT Humble Wrote:
> > Euan wrote:
> > > 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?
> > > 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