Cyclists and ROR

AugustusMaximus

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

I beebed the horn the other night at a woman who completely ignored a red light. She looked back at me and gave me a face as if I just murdered someone.

1. Running through red lights.
2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.
3. Cycling in the middle of the road.
4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.


If you did any of the above in a car you would either get a heavy fine.

cyclopath2001

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them..

Same reasons as motorists don't.

Zoney

I agree with cyclopath. Sure there needs to be better enforcement of the rules for cyclists as well, but the fact is that every single day I am in the city here in Limerick, motorists run red lights more than ever now. It is now almost standard for 2-3 extra cars to go through after the lights turn red - indeed the pedestrian lights are nearly finished their green phase by the time it is safe to cross.

The problem is far larger than just cyclists. Errant cyclists are just yet another symptom of how most people here in Ireland have no regard for any kind of rules, and our authorities have little more regard for them either, and certainly an abysmal approach to enforcing them.

Metrobest

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

I beebed the horn the other night at a woman who completely ignored a red light. She looked back at me and gave me a face as if I just murdered someone.

1. Running through red lights.
2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.
3. Cycling in the middle of the road.
4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.


If you did any of the above in a car you would either get a heavy fine.

1. Red lights need to be adjusted to cyclists' needs so that they get way more greeen time than cars.
2. People should be able to cycle in groups. It's a social mode of transport.
3. Road surfaces need to smooth at the sides and cycle lanes need to be of high quality. Then cyclists will use them.
4. One-way streets should, where possible, have contraflow cycle lanes, like in Paris.

trellheim

We have one contraflow cycle lane I believe, Andrew St D2 ?

Steve

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

Mainly because they can't be easily identified and reported.

I'd be in favour of a registration / number plate system like the Swiss have, tbh I'm surprised the tax grabbing government haven't looked at it as a revenue source.
If they had to have plates and could be identified, I would guess their behaviour would improve overnight.

Cyclists breaking red lights don't bother me tbh as long as they do it safely and don't endanger anyone, they're just making a bit of progress. The ones you see on poorly lit roads with no lights or reflectors beggar belief though, they should be charged with dangerous driving (if it applies) or wreckless endangerment and fined heavily for their stupidity.

They thought about this in London a while back..
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23432279-details/Baroness+bicycle+basher/article.do

ardmacha

The ones on the road are bad enough, its the ***nts on the footpath that get me. This does endanger people.

Stark

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

I beebed the horn the other night at a woman who completely ignored a red light. She looked back at me and gave me a face as if I just murdered someone.

1. Running through red lights.

Usually because they can. Motorists would do so most of the time as well if it was practical/they weren't stuck behind another motorist. Case in point: Finglas Road/Ballyboggan road junction. Most cars will turn right here against the red light. I often see Dublin city council vans overtake lines of cars on the left and then go through the red light if there are cars sitting at it.

Of course then there are some cases where the traffic light is injunction-loop controlled and will only turn green for a car so the cyclist has no choice but to treat it as a Yield sign.

AugustusMaximus wrote:

2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.

Only lethal if someone makes a deliberate go for them. Cycling 2 abreast is perfectly legal. 3 abreast might not be, but usually when I meet groups out cycling, they are considerate of people behind them and will move and wave you on as soon as it's safe for you to overtake them and hold their road position when it's not. I did come across a group of complete dicks who wouldn't do so on the way from Roundwood to Laragh once, but that was a rare exception.

AugustusMaximus wrote:

3. Cycling in the middle of the road.

Generally people do this if there's a narrow stretch where cars would try to squeeze by dangerously unless the cyclist asserts their position.

AugustusMaximus wrote:

4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.

Okay, that one's annoying. Although I do notice there is the odd street in Dublin that has a "no straight ahead. Except for cyclists" sign coming into it, so they might not always be in the wrong...

AugustusMaximus wrote:

If you did any of the above in a car you would either get a heavy fine.

Well I'm sure driving in the middle of the road doesn't get you a heavy fine Although I wish driving at 60km/hr in the middle of the lane on a wide single carriageway carried one...

ardmacha wrote:

The ones on the road are bad enough, its the ***nts on the footpath that get me. This does endanger people.

Yeah I don't see any excuse for cycling on the footpath unless you're a young child. I could start a rant at this point as well about the council painting white lines down the middle of footpaths and asking cyclists to cycle on them thus endangering both cyclists and pedestrians... Grr, stupid Dublin councils.

Unregistered.

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

I beebed the horn the other night at a woman who completely ignored a red light. She looked back at me and gave me a face as if I just murdered someone.

1. Running through red lights.
2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.
3. Cycling in the middle of the road.
4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.


If you did any of the above in a car you would either get a heavy fine.

I would like to add, 5. Cycling while talking on the phone! I have seen this first hand! There is absolutely no excuse for this.

cyclopath2001

trellheim wrote: »

We have one contraflow cycle lane I believe, Andrew St D2 ?

Yes, this one:

corktina

im amazed anyone stops at red lights.Anarchy hasnt quite taken over yet but personally i think lights hold up the traffic terribly. Already we have the situation where Red means"oh alright, just one more". In the UK earlier this year I was amazed (and almost caught out) at the law abiding motorists stopping on Amber!

Stark

Most of the time they do serve a useful purpose. But I think half of them should switch to flashing amber at night so that people aren't sitting pointlessly at red lights. Especially the ones on signalised roundabouts.

corktina wrote:

Already we have the situation where Red means"oh alright, just one more". In the UK earlier this year I was amazed (and almost caught out) at the law abiding motorists stopping on Amber!

I think that's partially to do with Irish drivers taking a few seconds to realise the lights have gone green, meaning people get away with breaking reds. The few drivers who are alert to the greens are usually aware that they'll be a few people breaking the lights as well so again the light-breakers get away with it. Whereas in the UK they've the red+amber to let drivers know when the light is about to change.

vektarman

corktina wrote: »

im amazed anyone stops at red lights.Anarchy hasnt quite taken over yet but personally i think lights hold up the traffic terribly. Already we have the situation where Red means"oh alright, just one more". In the UK earlier this year I was amazed (and almost caught out) at the law abiding motorists stopping on Amber!

A lot of traffic lights in the UK also have cameras to catch red-light-breaking-traffic as some of my friends have found.
http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/traffic-light-camera.htm

bk

1. Running through red lights.

While I rarely do this, there are some lights that I regularly use, which are controlled by the presence of a car. If you didn't break the light, you could be waiting 30 minutes!!

2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.

Cycling 2 abreast is perfectly legal, 3 is not.

3. Cycling in the middle of the road.

Assuming you mean in the middle of the lane, again perfectly legal for a cyclist and depending on the road, recommended.

4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.

In most developed countries they have actual contra-flow cycle lanes.

What really gets a bee in my bonnet is drivers who don't know that cyclists are entitled to use the road in the same way as cars.

Once I had a stupid old biddy almost have me fall off my bike as see came up behind and beeped me and gesticulate that I should be in the cycle lane. It was a four lane road I was cycling in the right hand lane* preparing to turn right about 10 meters ahead. What the hell did see expect me to do, cycle in the cycle lane as far as the junction, where there are no traffic lights and then cycle across two lanes of traffic!! Sure that would be much saver.

* Road in Dublin city with slow moving traffic.

cyclopath2001

bk wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast is perfectly legal, 3 is not.

Just a small correction: cycling 3 abreast is permitted when one cyclist is overtaking two others who are cycling two abreast. The RoTR misquotes the actual legislation.

Samson

trellheim wrote: »

We have one contraflow cycle lane I believe, Andrew St D2 ?

There's also one along Inchicore Road, Kilmainham (where the gaol is).

cipo

it would seem from what i have been exposed to on the roads that many cyclists and car drivers alike do not know the ROR or do not apply them.

i am a car owner and a cyclist usin both everyday of the week.

the major problem i ve come across is car drivers refusing to pass cyclists correctly. for me, this is why i now always cycle two abreast (legal, which most drivers do not know). i do this to ensure we are seen but also you are less likely to be squeezed by a car driver trying to pass.

it is correct procedure to wait until it is completely safe to pass and drive your vehicle on the opposite side of the road to pass a car, cyclist / cyclists, horse, whatever it is !!

it seems we are all in too much of a hurry these days to realise what the potential outcome is when a large steel structure strikes an unprotected vulnerable cyclist / pedestrian...

be safe.

cipo

doolox

Cyclists should be taught to take up their position on the road when turning right. THere is nothing worse than indecision at such times and a good hand signal helps a lot.
Government should invest in separate cycle lanes and lights like they have in Denmark and Holland. Most roads in Irelands cities are too dangerous for cars and bikes to mix. Pushing for 20 kph speed limits in inner city areas might help.
Licensing of bikes and plates for bikes would be hard to do and unenforceable. Most cyclists have little or no money and would be hard to get fines etc out of them. Car drivers can have their cars impounded and destroyed by the law if they do not obey. It keeps them compliant.
Things will improve when the middle class are forced out of their cars by the impending shortage of oil. Public transport will improve and bikes will improve. You will probably have covered bike ways to cut out wind and rain, better engineered bikes and safer roadways for them as the numbers go up.
At the moment the government see cyclists as a marginal non paying minority and do nothing but this will change.

Stark

cipo wrote: »

i
it is correct procedure to wait until it is completely safe to pass and drive your vehicle on the opposite side of the road to pass a car, cyclist / cyclists, horse, whatever it is !!

There's no need to drive on the opposite side of the road when overtaking so long as you leave sufficient space between yourself and whatever you're passing. (Something people should take note of on some of our single carriageways which would be easily wide enough for cars to overtake despite oncoming traffic if other drivers didn't weave about the place or hug the centre line).

Metrobest

doolox wrote: »

Cyclists should be taught to take up their position on the road when turning right. THere is nothing worse than indecision at such times and a good hand signal helps a lot.
Government should invest in separate cycle lanes and lights like they have in Denmark and Holland. Most roads in Irelands cities are too dangerous for cars and bikes to mix. Pushing for 20 kph speed limits in inner city areas might help.
Licensing of bikes and plates for bikes would be hard to do and unenforceable. Most cyclists have little or no money and would be hard to get fines etc out of them. Car drivers can have their cars impounded and destroyed by the law if they do not obey. It keeps them compliant.
Things will improve when the middle class are forced out of their cars by the impending shortage of oil. Public transport will improve and bikes will improve. You will probably have covered bike ways to cut out wind and rain, better engineered bikes and safer roadways for them as the numbers go up.
At the moment the government see cyclists as a marginal non paying minority and do nothing but this will change.

Over-regulation kills cycling, as what happened in Australia when helmets were made compulsory. Far better to create a critical mass of cyclists, like in Barcelona, through combining good cycle lane infrastructure with innovate schemes like Bicing to get people to try this mode.

rubadub

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

I beebed the horn the other night at a woman who completely ignored a red light. She looked back at me and gave me a face as if I just murdered someone.

And some other driver probably looked at you in disgust for breaking the ROR yourself! i.e. you are not supposed to use the horn for "telling people off".

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

1. Running through red lights.
2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.
3. Cycling in the middle of the road.
4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.

If you did any of the above in a car you would either get a heavy fine.

And if many gardai see a person on a bicycle, or walking, or running at the same speed as a bike carrying an object similar in size to a bike they might not fine them. Do you really think this is odd? are you honestly confused as to why the gardai do not enforce every technical road law to cyclists & pedestrians?

Pedestrians are by far the biggest law breakers, nobody really moans since most people ARE pedestrians too. People much prefer the us & them approach, treat them like totally different beings. Some think a bicycle has some mystical power that will turn an otherwise law abiding citizen into a suicidal, homicidal lunatic, second they are in a car they are fine though.

People are more likely to break laws if they know they will be likely to get away with it, the gardai let people away with it mainly because the law they are breaking was not really intended to prevent the act they are doing. People with common sense know why the laws are in place, and most respect them to some degree. The jaywalking law is for safety for pedestrians and motorists, if somebody is out strolling on christmas evening on a totally empty road they might break this law, and a garda might ignore this if they saw it. Walking up the M50 is a different story.

I break a red light about 50% of the time on my commute. It is a light going onto the N11, I do this for my own safety, I can "read" the lights, and know it is going to go green. In the past I have had cars right up dangerously behind me, as the light is green for a short time. The gardai have seen me do this numerous times and never stopped me, in fact one gave me the nod in approval before. The cars behind also have an advantage, they see me looking and reading lights they cannot see, then when I take off they have a heads up that it is going to go green in a seconds time.

A lot of red light breaking is completely safe and it just seems many motorists are just jealous TBH, you don't get as many pedestrians complaining about seeing cyclists do this in a safe manner, perhaps since they can get away with it too. I have seen more motorbikes and mopeds going up footpaths and cycle tracks recently, didn't bother me as they did it in a safe manner and were helping the flow of traffic by doing it.

donvito99

Forget cyclists, pedestrians are just as bad. They wait until its green for cars and then amble across the road, pain in da ass.

I do not drive myself, just an observation.

HonalD

rubadub wrote: »

Some think a bicycle has some mystical power that will turn an otherwise law abiding citizen into a suicidal, homicidal lunatic, second they are in a car they are fine though.

I break a red light about 50% of the time on my commute. It is a light going onto the N11, I do this for my own safety, I can "read" the lights, and know it is going to go green.............The gardai have seen me do this numerous times and never stopped me, in fact one gave me the nod in approval before. The cars behind also have an advantage, they see me looking and reading lights they cannot see, then when I take off they have a heads up that it is going to go green in a seconds time.

A lot of red light breaking is completely safe and it just seems many motorists are just jealous TBH, you don't get as many pedestrians complaining about seeing cyclists do this in a safe manner, perhaps since they can get away with it too. I have seen more motorbikes and mopeds going up footpaths and cycle tracks recently, didn't bother me as they did it in a safe manner and were helping the flow of traffic by doing it.

Perhaps you will change your tune when you get splatted running a red light oh but no, you claim to have jedi powers - "I can read the lights"........As my 3 year old says RED means stop, GREEN means go, perhaps you should take a leaf out of her book:cool::cool::p

Stark

To be fair, it doesn't take jedi powers to see cars approaching or lights going amber.

IRISH RAIL

cars coming up behind me in a bus and cycle lane beeping me to pull over
forget it guys you shouldnt be there so no you will get stuck behind me and caught by the cops who will fly up behind.
had one guy threating me with a baseball bat over this he got a rather large stone thrown his way while i made my escape where he couldnt follow me:D

cyclopath2001

HonalD wrote: »

As my 3 year old says RED means stop, GREEN means go, perhaps you should take a leaf out of her book:cool::cool::p

No, take a leaf out of the Rules of the Road, please?

AMBER means stop, RED means stay stopped.

Alanstrainor

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No, take a leaf out of the Rules of the Road, please?

AMBER means stop, RED means stay stopped.

Well. Amber means Stop, unless it is unsafe to do so. Red means Stop/remain stopped.
I cycle 8km to and from work every day, and have seen some atrocious driving in my 1000's of kilometers of cycling. But it's not all bad, perhaps it's the route i take to work, but i generally seem to encounter a lot of courteous and clued in drivers. ie, people turning left, actually check their left mirror before turning and allow me to pass.

slimjimmc

bk wrote: »

While I rarely do this, there are some lights that I regularly use, which are controlled by the presence of a car. If you didn't break the light, you could be waiting 30 minutes!!

If the lights take that long why not dismount, cross as a pedestrian, remount and be on your way long before they change. Much safer too.

Traumadoc

Cyclists who obey the rules may put themselves in danger, I saw one cyclist killed because a truck could not see him while turning left, if the cyclist had broken the lights he would still be with his wife and family.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

thebman

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

Same reason drivers do it.

Drivers don't get fined 90% of the time either since there aren't enough police around.

Anyway I don't care as I don't cycle or drive in commuter traffic. The train obey's the rules

Stark

slimjimmc wrote: »

If the lights take that long why not dismount, cross as a pedestrian, remount and be on your way long before they change. Much safer too.

What benefit does dismounting in order to break the light offer? Is it just to offend your sensibilities less as you prefer to see a pedestrian break the light rather than a cyclist? I'm sure bk isn't stupid enough to go through without checking to see if the way is clear beforehand.

AugustusMaximus

Stark wrote: »

What benefit does dismounting in order to break the light offer? Is it just to offend your sensibilities less as you prefer to see a pedestrian break the light rather than a cyclist? I'm sure bk isn't stupid enough to go through without checking to see if the way is clear beforehand.

Its hardly illegal if the cyclist crosses at a signalised pedesestrian crossing when it is green.

monument

Samson wrote: »

There's also one along Inchicore Road, Kilmainham (where the gaol is).

This one is it?...



The lane was used as parking space while the hotel etc were under construction, now it looks like hotel users will now be using it.

And here's an example being set...

SerialComplaint

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

I beebed the horn the other night at a woman who completely ignored a red light. She looked back at me and gave me a face as if I just murdered someone.

1. Running through red lights.
2. Cycling 2 and even 3 wide on roads. Absolutely lethal.
3. Cycling in the middle of the road.
4. Cycling the wrong way on one way streets.


If you did any of the above in a car you would either get a heavy fine.

When was the last time you broke the 50kmph speed limit round the city? Or scooted through a junction on amber when you could have stopped?

cyclopath2001

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

a signalised pedesestrian crossing when it is green.

A rare occurrance.

But, I am with you on traffic light discipline, could everyone please stop on amber and obey filter signals?

AugustusMaximus

SerialComplaint wrote: »

When was the last time you broke the 50kmph speed limit round the city? Or scooted through a junction on amber when you could have stopped?

Going through a red light, when it has been solid red for at least 5 seconds is very different to racing to get through an amber.

And no, I do try to stop on amber when possible.

SerialComplaint

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Going through a red light, when it has been solid red for at least 5 seconds is very different to racing to get through an amber.

And no, I do try to stop on amber when possible.

And the 50 kmph speed limit - how often do you reckon you break that limit?

AugustusMaximus

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And the 50 kmph speed limit - how often do you reckon you break that limit?

I try to stick to it at all times in built up areas.

You wouldn't mind staying on topic btw. This thread is about Cyclists, not the OP.

Mucco

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Going through a red light, when it has been solid red for at least 5 seconds is very different to racing to get through an amber.

Indeed, when the light is already red, you're more likely to slow down and look for traffic. Racing through on amber suggests acceleration and less time for observation - much more dangerous in my opinion.

rubadub

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

You wouldn't mind staying on topic btw. This thread is about Cyclists, not the OP.

Because asking questions about other road users might give you an answer to your original question...

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

People are simply pointing out that all people seem to act as if the ROR do not apply to them under certain circumstances. So why not ask why a lot of PEOPLE act like the ROR do not apply to them. People have given reasons why this is already, most make perfect sense to me.

As I said before there is no mystical power a bike has that turns people into crazed suicidal homicidal law breakers. I expect the lunatics on bikes behave better in cars and worse on foot. And the lunatics in cars would be worse on a bike.

HonalD wrote: »

Perhaps you will change your tune when you get splatted running a red light oh but no, you claim to have jedi powers - "I can read the lights"

There seems to be a lot of us jedi's out there. A lot of motorists also have the incredible power to read the lights at this junction too, many they take off early at speed which is why I take off even sooner. For my own safety, not to save a whole 2 seconds on my commute. Many are stopped in the actual cycletrack perpendicular to them, i.e. there is a big red box at the junction with bicycles painted on it, for bikes in front of cars, then in front of that box is a cycletrack, but they are actually parked beyond the first box and in the track. Cyclists going perpendicular have to illegally leave the cycletrack to pass them.

Stark

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Its hardly illegal if the cyclist crosses at a signalised pedesestrian crossing when it is green.

Not all lights have a pedestrian crossing attached to them.

AugustusMaximus wrote:

Going through a red light, when it has been solid red for at least 5 seconds is very different to racing to get through an amber.

I should say so. Waiting to check to make sure there's nothing coming is safer than jamming on the accelerator and hoping for the best that nothing goes wrong. The whole practice of accelerating to catch a light at the last second is extremely dangerous imo.

I.S.T.

monument wrote: »

And here's an example being set...

What is wrong with that? The cycle lane has a broken white line

rubadub

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

What is wrong with that? The cycle lane has a broken white line

Even if it was a unbroken line there is "nothing wrong with that", since AFAIK the gardai are not subject to any traffic laws at all. The poster had said it is an example being set, which is correct. Many would copy this thinking it is perfectly OK.

The broken lines mean it is a cycleway.

68.—(1) In this section "cycleway" means a public road or proposed public road reserved for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists or pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

( 2 ) ( a ) A road authority may construct (or otherwise provide) and maintain a cycleway.

( b ) Where a road authority constructs or otherwise provides a cycleway it shall by order declare either—

(i) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists, or

(ii) that the cycleway is for the exclusive use of pedal cyclists and pedestrians.

( c ) Any person who uses a cycleway in contravention of an order under paragraph (b) shall be guilty of an offence.

I have seen other rules for parking in cycleways which were very vague. Think it is only acceptable for loading and unloading, and when not other "reasonable" place to park is available. It was so vague I wondered why they even bother having them. I never knew pedestrians could use them, many are right in the middle of traffic.

the boss of me

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

What is wrong with that? The cycle lane has a broken white line

Well as well as being parked on a cycle track it's also parked on a clearway. I'm pretty sure there is a continuous white line in the middle of the road as well, can anyone confirm this?

Tarabuses

the boss of me wrote: »

Well as well as being parked on a cycle track it's also parked on a clearway. I'm pretty sure there is a continuous white line in the middle of the road as well, can anyone confirm this?

Nor is the garda car parked parallel to the kerb.

I.S.T.

the boss of me wrote: »

Well as well as being parked on a cycle track it's also parked on a clearway. I'm pretty sure there is a continuous white line in the middle of the road as well, can anyone confirm this?

There is a continuous white line but there is enough room to overtake the Garda car without crossing the line. Not sure about the clearway.

bk

slimjimmc wrote: »

If the lights take that long why not dismount, cross as a pedestrian, remount and be on your way long before they change. Much safer too.

No pedestrian crossing on the particular junction that I'm thinking of.

Of course I stop at the junction and look right and left before crossing, so perfectly safe, I'm not crazy. You pretty much have to use it as a yield sign.

For the most part I obey the ROR's to the letter, except in a few circumstances where it is safer not to.

BTW AugustusMaximus, I find it ironic that you question cyclists breaking the ROR's when you admit to breaking them yourself, he who has not sinned, cast the first stone and all that.

cyclopath2001

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

There is a continuous white line but there is enough room to overtake the Garda car without crossing the line. Not sure about the clearway.

It's illegal to park on a road with less than three traffic lanes where there is a continuous white line (no overtaking) in the centre.

Not a lot of people know this.

HonalD

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

No, take a leaf out of the Rules of the Road, please?

AMBER means stop, RED means stay stopped.

So why doesn't it apply to you? :rolleyes:

HonalD

Traumadoc wrote: »

Cyclists who obey the rules may put themselves in danger, I saw one cyclist killed because a truck could not see him while turning left, if the cyclist had broken the lights he would still be with his wife and family.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

Not wanting to speak ill or otherwise of the dead, especially from RTAs but there is never a good enough reason to break the lights - except if an ambulance is trying to get through........

HonalD

rubadub wrote: »

Because asking questions about other road users might give you an answer to your original question...


People are simply pointing out that all people seem to act as if the ROR do not apply to them under certain circumstances. So why not ask why a lot of PEOPLE act like the ROR do not apply to them. People have given reasons why this is already, most make perfect sense to me.

As I said before there is no mystical power a bike has that turns people into crazed suicidal homicidal law breakers. I expect the lunatics on bikes behave better in cars and worse on foot. And the lunatics in cars would be worse on a bike.


There seems to be a lot of us jedi's out there. A lot of motorists also have the incredible power to read the lights at this junction too, many they take off early at speed which is why I take off even sooner. For my own safety, not to save a whole 2 seconds on my commute. Many are stopped in the actual cycletrack perpendicular to them, i.e. there is a big red box at the junction with bicycles painted on it, for bikes in front of cars, then in front of that box is a cycletrack, but they are actually parked beyond the first box and in the track. Cyclists going perpendicular have to illegally leave the cycletrack to pass them.

Look, cut the holier than thou attitute, rules are there for a reason, we mighten like them but that's life. Bragging about breaking the red light is not something to be proud of - and we can all justify in our own minds a little bending of the rules etc. but it's wrong AND it puts YOU in danger....:mad: