Advocacy & Safety - Australia: Alarm at red-light bike racers

This surprises me - doesn't fit my prejudices:


One in ten cyclists ran red lights and, surprisingly, lycra-clad enthusiasts were less likely to do so than riders.

"Given that we often see the negative images of lycra wearing males on road bikes it was interesting to find that this group was more likely to stop at the red light," researcher Marilyn Johnson said.

"It was the males on mountain bikes wearing non-cycling clothing who were most likely to ride through the red lights."

Read on...

Herald-Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25937690-2862,00.html)

What is it about a "lycra-clad enthusiast" that excludes him or her from being a "rider?"

-Kurt

What is it about a "lycra-clad enthusiast" that excludes him or her from being a "rider?"

-Kurt

I re-read that bit too. I think a sub-editor messed up - probably should say "other riders".

It would be interesting to see more of that data. I'm a bit confused where they say 6 of 10 fatal accidents are caused by cyclists, but in the next line say most accidents happen when both bike and car are in the same lane heading in the same direction (implying to me that the car hits the bike from behind).

The Gillett Foundation and the Monash University are well regarded, so I'll put the poor writing down to the crappy newspaper.

We categorize as well, when we say 'cyclist' instead of 'bike rider', knowing full well what we mean; let's stop picking nits here.

Yes, reckless and raging motorists are our #1 hazard; but we are our own #2, by scofflaw riding. We are enabling them.

Like I learned in the svc., "You have to BE correct before you CAN correct."

After reading a few threads here I was beginning to think there was no way a cyclist could ever be at fault.

Like I learned in the svc., "You have to BE correct before you CAN correct."

DX, that is true, but needs to have: "Unless you are an officer."

Does anyone have a link to Ms. Johnson's paper?

Both the Amy Gillett Foundation (http://www.amygillett.org.au/) and the Monash University Accident Research Centre
(http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/) refer to it, but I could only find an M. Johnson lit survey.

I think that dedicated cyclists (represented by wearing lycra/spandex) are much more likely to stop than more casual cyclists if the situation calls for it. I really would like to change the behaviors of some of the cyclists I see, there are a lot of riders around here that treat their own safety way too casually.

and, to provide a little balance and take some wind out of the sails of the 'scofflaw cyclist' showboat, here's a nice little article about motorists not paying attention to traffic lights...

http://www.portageonline.com/index.php?option=com_ezine&task=read&page=9&category=21&article=13408&Itemid=86

One in ten cyclists ran red lights One in ten doesn't seem very high. I'd expect the figure to be higher -- so I guess it doesn't match my prejudices either. (Of course, I live in a different country, so my experiences may be totally different.)

I wonder what the percentage is for cars running red lights? I'll bet it's comparable. (Well, around here, it seems that at least 10% of cars run red lights in some way. Though I'd say the bicycle percentage is higher.)

I re-read that bit too. I think a sub-editor messed up - probably should say "other riders".

It would be interesting to see more of that data. I'm a bit confused where they say 6 of 10 fatal accidents are caused by cyclists, but in the next line say most accidents happen when both bike and car are in the same lane heading in the same direction (implying to me that the car hits the bike from behind).

The Gillett Foundation and the Monash University are well regarded, so I'll put the poor writing down to the crappy newspaper.

I thought the same thing, but then realized they're talking about fatal accidents here. It's easy to make an accident the cyclists fault when they can't speak for themselves.

I wonder what the percentage is for cars running red lights? I'll bet it's comparable. (Well, around here, it seems that at least 10% of cars run red lights in some way. Though I'd say the bicycle percentage is higher.)
I see a significant amount of red light running by cars, but only when they are taking right turns. Since right turn on red is legal, they just don't stop. I see a lot of cyclists run red lights going straight. Granted, these are on streets where almost every pedestrian crosses against the light because there are long periods of no traffic and long red light cycles.

The one thing that drives me nuts about the right turn on red motorists is that many don't feel they should have to stop, even in the presence of oncoming traffic. I can see why these people run red lights when they get on their bike.

I see a significant amount of red light running by cars, but only when they are taking right turns.

really? i see tonnes of red light running by cars who think they can 'squeak through the yellow'. in these cases the motorist

a) is going faster than average, as opposed to slower
b) is going straight through the intersection
c) is as likely to do such in a high traffic situation as a low one
d) is often concentrating on the light, rather than the things around him or her

It would be interesting to see more of that data. I'm a bit confused where they say 6 of 10 fatal accidents are caused by cyclists, but in the next line say most accidents happen when both bike and car are in the same lane heading in the same direction (implying to me that the car hits the bike from behind).They may be mixing and matching their statistics -- comparing `fatal accidents (almost always reported)' with `accidents, mostly not fatal, but bad enough to be reported'.

Also, `in the same lane' probably covers left and especially right hook situations.