Nice - price motorists off the roads

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Higher.

Come on.

What proportion of cyclists ignore red lights?

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 hour ago, SnailyBoy said:

Come on.

What proportion of cyclists ignore red lights?

About 57% according to research.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/40-cyclists-jump-red-light-in-30-seconds--video/

[ads36 214]

The point, which has been left behind, in favour of the usual anti-cycling bull**** bingo, is that the benefits of active travel, to our nation's health, are so potentially massive, that NICE have felt obliged to comment.

 

We've tried 70 years of car first transport planning, are people honestly saying that they think this has worked just fine?

[WiseOwl182 10]

12 minutes ago, ads36 said:

The point, which has been left behind, in favour of the usual anti-cycling bull**** bingo, is that the benefits of active travel, to our nation's health, are so potentially massive, that NICE have felt obliged to comment.

 

We've tried 70 years of car first transport planning, are people honestly saying that they think this has worked just fine?

Not perfect, but still the most viable option for the majority.

[Ontarian1981 10]

 Tell you what folks, I have been banged up pretty good twice by red light runners,

Of course, the guys who hit me got off lightly on the injury front. Oh, how I wish they had been riding bicycles on the days of the accidents. Lol

[Cyclone 10]

10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

About 57% according to research.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/40-cyclists-jump-red-light-in-30-seconds--video/

So to quote the relevant bit.

According to the Institute of Advanced Motorists, 57% of cyclists admit to running red lights. A 2013 YouGov poll found that 35% of cyclists admit to ignoring red lights at least “occasionally.”

 

So 35% when it's 'research' by a group that don't have a vested interest in motoring.

In London I can totally believe it, but I doubt that it's the same nationwide.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Cyclone

[Cyclone 10]

A survey of motorists has 25% of them admitting to running a red light occasionally.

In 2016 police forces reported an 8% increase in the number of tickets issued for it, so it's increasingly common.

14 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Not everyone works in the city centre, or within a few miles of their workplace. Of I cycled my commute, it would be around twice as long, and I'd need a shower on arrival. 

 

While I'm touched by your concern for my health, I do exercise. By driving, I spent less time commuting and therefore more leisure time to do what I want, including ways to exercise that I find more enjoyable than cycling on my commute.

What you said previously was "Cycling isn't quicker unless you have a short journey within the central 2 mile radius of the city during rush hour. "

That's not correct though is it.  There are many commutes where driving is quicker, or the only practical option, but you were being far too conservative with your distance in what you said earlier.

I suspect it's closer to 5 miles on a city centre commute before the car becomes the quicker option, although the exact route would be important of course.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Cyclone

[WiseOwl182 10]

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

A survey of motorists has 25% of them admitting to running a red light occasionally.

In 2016 police forces reported an 8% increase in the number of tickets issued for it, so it's increasingly common.

 

What's higher, 57% or 25%?

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

So to quote the relevant bit.

 

 

 

So 35% when it's 'research' by a group that don't have a vested interest in motoring.

 

What's higher, 35% or 25%? 

 

Whichever number you choose to cherry pick, my statement that cyclists run proportionately more red lights was correct. In another thread, you insisted research put a lid to all debate. Why not so on this thread? Or does it depend on if you agree with it or not? In this case, they're actually indisputable numbers too.

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

In London I can totally believe it, but I doubt that it's the same nationwide.

 

By your own rules, you're not allowed doubts, opinions or beliefs. If you're going to express a doubt you have to factually cross check it with verifiable research first. Where's your proof behind this claim?

Edited January 10, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[WiseOwl182 10]

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

 

What you said previously was "Cycling isn't quicker unless you have a short journey within the central 2 mile radius of the city during rush hour. "

That's not correct though is it.  There are many commutes where driving is quicker, or the only practical option, but you were being far too conservative with your distance in what you said earlier.

I suspect it's closer to 5 miles on a city centre commute before the car becomes the quicker option, although the exact route would be important of course.

Of course it all depends, but the vast majority of journeys are quicker by car, especially when you have to factor in getting changed, possibly having to shower, etc. I suspect it's closer to 2 miles than 5. Maybe 3 in rush hour.

[MAC33 10]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46822472

 

Speed cameras damaged,lots of em!

[SnailyBoy 10]

20 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

About 57% according to research.

 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/40-cyclists-jump-red-light-in-30-seconds--video/

Mmmmmm, did you dig a little deeper into the 'research'?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey

[WiseOwl182 10]

14 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Mmmmmm, did you dig a little deeper into the 'research'?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2012/may/14/cycling-red-light-jumping-iam-survey

Cyclone's own chosen source still put it at 35%.

Edited January 10, 2019 by WiseOwl182