Originally Posted by linux_author
- i don't usually cross-post, but while the main story is about a potential move to force Brit cyclists off the roads, here:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol...cle1746923.ece
- i did read this interesting snippet:
The row has been thrown into sharper focus by the unintended publication 12 days ago of a document produced by Transport for London (TfL) that suggested cyclists who obeyed the rules of the road were more likely to be killed or injured than those who did not.
It would be interesting to know how they defined "obeyed the rules of the road" to reach such a conclusion.
For example, if a cyclist clearly signals his intention to merge, merges, and is hit, was he obeying the rules of the road?
If yes by their definition, then that alone would probably explain their conclusion. If the definition does not recognize "failure to yield" as breaking a rule of the road, then I could see how someone who makes sure it's safe first but merges without signalling could be safer then someone who appears to be following the letter of the law, but missing the most important rules.
Same thing with rolling stop signs. A cyclist who blindly stops at every stop sign like an automaton and proceeds without making sure that drivers in cross traffic have noticed him may not fare as well as someone who rolls stops, but only when it's clear.