Cyclists and ROR

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:

Traumadoc

HonalD wrote: »

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........

If I was in the situation where a truck turning left is going to kill me, I would break the lights. I have not broken lights since my student days, but I would .

Seeing someone cranium crushed and the contents squeezed out is good enough reason for me.

cyclopath2001

HonalD wrote: »

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

Explain what you mean by this?

HonalD wrote: »

Look, cut the holier than thou attitute,

If anyone is trying to cut a 'holier than thou' attitude, its the speeding, illegal overtaking, light-breaking, illegal parking, non-indicating car lobby.

I.S.T.

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

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.

I thought once the traffic didn't need to cross the continuous white line to overtake you it was ok. Do you have a link to this?

Stark

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

I thought once the traffic didn't need to cross the continuous white line to overtake you it was ok. Do you have a link to this?

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/parking/no-parking_disc-parking.html

rubadub

HonalD wrote: »

Look, cut the holier than thou attitute, rules are there for a reason, we mighten like them but that's life.

Please cut this us & them (thou) attitude. There is no us & them they are all people.

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why a lot of cyclists PEOPLE who happen to be on bicycles, the majority of whom are probably also motorists, act as if the ROR doesn't apply to them.

When you stop treating them like a kind of animal you might be able to look at it from others perspective. BTW Have you EVER broken the rules of the road as a pedestrian?

HonalD wrote: »

rules are there for a reason, we mighten like them but that's life.

Yep, they are there for a reason, as I tried to explain before. And the gardai know these reasons, they have common sense, some bitter little pedantic arseholes do not understand why some laws were in place and want them all enforced out of pure spite. Often when we "might not like them" it is since the law is technically preventing people from doing something that they, AND THE GARDAI, understand to be a perfectly reasonable and safe act, often in the interests of all around them, for the common good.

HonalD wrote: »

Bragging about breaking the red light is not something to be proud of

I am not bragging about it, nor proud. I am only happy to see the gardai I have encountered are not pedantic bitter little hilters. They obviously understand why I do it.

HonalD wrote: »

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:

I do it specifically to keep out of danger, you must have misread my post entirely.

I.S.T.

Stark wrote: »

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-driving/parking/no-parking_disc-parking.html

Cool, thanks for that. Learn something new everyday

HonalD

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

Cool, thanks for that. Learn something new everyday

Stark, Do you know if is this in the traffic regulations or just the ROTR?

HonalD

HonalD wrote: »

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

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Explain what you mean by this?

If anyone is trying to cut a 'holier than thou' attitude, its the speeding, illegal overtaking, light-breaking, illegal parking, non-indicating car lobby.

As you so eloquently stated RED means stay stopped. - I think that's the end of that.

Finally, I see the mask slipping..............................:cool:

HonalD

rubadub wrote: »

Please cut this us & them (thou) attitude. There is no us & them they are all people.

When you stop treating them like a kind of animal you might be able to look at it from others perspective. BTW Have you EVER broken the rules of the road as a pedestrian?

Yep, they are there for a reason, as I tried to explain before. And the gardai know these reasons, they have common sense, some bitter little pedantic arseholes do not understand why some laws were in place and want them all enforced out of pure spite. Often when we "might not like them" it is since the law is technically preventing people from doing something that they, AND THE GARDAI, understand to be a perfectly reasonable and safe act, often in the interests of all around them, for the common good.


I am not bragging about it, nor proud. I am only happy to see the gardai I have encountered are not pedantic bitter little hilters. They obviously understand why I do it.


I do it specifically to keep out of danger, you must have misread my post entirely.

No I can read and understand - what a paradox, "I break the law and cycle through red lights specifically to keep out of danger"......That won't save you from being killed!

cyclopath2001

HonalD wrote: »

As you so eloquently stated RED means stay stopped. - I think that's the end of that.

Your point is?