Thoughts on breaking red lights, and the law, after near mishap

fergalr

I cycle a fair bit; I like cycling, think it's the way forward and all that.
Had a bad experience a couple of days ago, as a pedestrian, that I thought might be worth sharing... have been thinking about it and trying to learn from it.

Experience:

I was walking with a friend. We crossed the ha'penny bridge from temple bar. The pedestrian lights were green, when we reached the north side, so we preceded across. Walking reasonably fast, fair few pedestrians about.

Was looking around a bit, fairly aware of surroundings, traffic was stopped in the lane nearest the water, no cars in northmost lane, fair few pedestrians passed me as they cross from north to south.

As we were about 1/2 or 3/4 the way across, became aware of a cyclist coming towards the lights, basically on a collision course with me as I reached the 3/4 point. Cyclist was aware and looking at pedestrians, guess moving at about 15kmph; I quickly glanced at pedestrian crossing light, which was now orange, and continued to walk forward - didn't really think about it consciously, but knew the cyclist had plenty of time to brake, so wasn't alarmed.

The cyclist did not stop.
They may have slowed a little, not sure, but continued through the lights, steering left slightly, so they passed just between me and the footpath. I stopped at the last second, putting hands up (not consciously), had very glancing contact with cyclist as they just squeezed between me and the footpath. Cyclist continued on their way, made a left up onto the footpath, and I didn't follow them beyond that. Had I not stopped at the last second, they'd have hit me in the side.

I didn't too much of it at the time, was mildly annoyed, but retrospectively, wow, that was not a good thing to do.

If you don't treat red lights as 'stop', well, thats one thing, but not even treating them as 'yield' is crazy!
I should probably have backed down and halted when I saw the cyclist coming first, but I figured they would still stop and yield to the pedestrian... but they didn't. And I really reckon they did this fully consciously, figuring that everyone would stop for them, essentially riding down the pedestrians, who did have right of way - which as far as I'm concerned, is so out of the ballpark of what's reasonable, I didn't even consider it possible.
I have never seen a driver use their vehicle to a pedestrian in a similar manner (drivers have done it to me now and again when I'm on a bike though :-)


So, why post on boards about it? Well, soapbox, of course, and to share my tale of woe. :P
And also, to ask other cyclists, that maybe don't, for goodness sake, yield in situations like this.


And I was also thinking about why things like this happen.

Thoughts:
I think a big problem with have with cycling is that the traffic laws aren't appropriate for cycling in the city, and so haven't been enforced by gardai; and this has then conditioned some cyclists to the point where they are cavalier about all the laws.

For example, on this issue, cyclists break red lights all the time. I wouldn't personally do this, except in extreme cases (2 in the morning, clear road, etc). But the reality is that at the moment, most cyclists do it on their way to work. And the gardai, while they might - from time to time - stop someone, in general don't seem to enforce this.


So... I think the law should be changed so that red lights are considered a 'yield' for cyclists, rather than a 'stop'. Why? Well, that's realistically the way it is enforced now anyway, and I don't want the situation - where cyclists are conditioned to ignore the law - to continue.
Further, I don't really think it makes sense to make cyclists stop on red, in many cases - for example, red light on a cyclist turning left, at a quiet junction. I also think most cyclists will come off worse if they don't yield anyway when they should - for example if they try drive through a cross roads across ongoing traffic - so they realistically are not going to do that. I would doubt there would be any more accidents than in the current situation - there may even be less.
If we start strictly enforcing all the laws that are there at the moment (mandatory cycle lane usage, pulling people for turning left on red etc) we'd drastically decrease the number of cyclists, so that isn't the way to go.


But, once the law has been changed, I would like it strictly enforced on cyclists; those who do not yield should be treated like they committed a proper traffic offense, like running a red in a car.

The current situation where the laws are out of synch with the behaviour will, in my mind, cause more problems that where we relax the laws a bit, but enforce them properly.

I reckon that if this cyclist had not being conditioned to break the law by breaking red lights (and no, I'm not absolving them of blame, just trying to propose solutions) then they would have been more likely to think twice before trying to use their bike to intimidate a bunch of pedestrians out of their way.

I think we need to overhaul the laws that govern cyclists substantially, to bring them closer to what has been found to be enforceable in practice, and to make official that the urban cyclist needs a different set of laws to govern them - it's not reasonable to effectively lump them in the same category as cars and HGVs. For example, cyclists also need better legal protection from drivers; I think this is necessary to encourage more uptake of cycling.

At the same time, after making the set of laws reasonable, they should properly be enforced to stop people developing the attitude that they just break all the laws at will - which ultimately could lead to an accident.

Thoughts?

DirkVoodoo

It sounds more like a courier, thats just a guess not an accusation.

I have seen videos of them in NYC and they tear through pedestrian crossings.

Having said that I was in town today and those guys for the most part are pretty good on the bike, I was in awe as I sat outside the central bank.

Lumen

Pedestrians always have right of way. They are "special".

So even if a ped crosses on a red man, the cyclist should still give way.

That's my understanding anyway.

Basically, don't hit pedestrians, ever, even if they are careless, drunk, or mad.

72hundred

fergalr wrote: »

I cycle a fair bit; I like cycling, think it's the way forward and all that.........
......Thoughts?

Holy hell that's alot of text. Any chance of just presenting the salient points, save everyone reading it.

blorg

I actually did have a car do that to me once on a pedestrian crossing, but you are right, it is far more common with cyclists, and inexcusable.

I don't know that a blanket "yield on red" for cyclists would be a good idea but I don't think there would be any harm in allowing left turns on red.

Chips Lovell

If we don't have the policing budget to enforce traffic laws now on cyclists, how are we going have have it if the law is changed?

I think asking cyclists to follow same road traffic laws as other vehicles is quite reasonable actually. We expect to be treated equally, so we should follow the same rules.

The only law I do feel is unreasonable is the mandatory cycle lane use one, where cyclists are treated unequally and expected to ride on unsuitable lanes when there's a perfectly good road available. Fortunately, most of the worst cycle lanes aren't signed properly, which means they aren't technically cycle lanes at all.

villager

re inforcing the law regarding cyclists breaking red lights, complete waste of time. i am a garda in south dublin and early in my career i did summons cyclists who broke red lights where i considered it to be dangerous to themselves or other traffic only to have most thrown out or dealt with under probation act( in other words now dont be a naughty boy again)

Stark

Lumen wrote: »

Pedestrians always have right of way. They are "special".

So even if a ped crosses on a red man, the cyclist should still give way.

That's my understanding anyway.

Basically, don't hit pedestrians, ever, even if they are careless, drunk, or mad.

Putting in a pedestrian crossing removes the pedestrian's automatic right of way within 15m(I think ) either side of the crossing.

Agreed that the cyclist had no excuse though.

irishmotorist

Thoughts? That guy on the bike was a w@nker - imo. He went through a red light (assumed because the pedestrians had orange) without real regard for others around him. Lights are lights, rules are rules. If there's a problem with the Gardai enforcing them, that's another problem. The problem here is decency towards other road users - or lack of it.

OP shouldn't have to be watching every direction as he crosses at a pedestrian crossing - that's what crossings are there for.

With all the recent threads about cyclists or motorists being branded as idiots/dangerous/whatever, I think it's all a case of the individual. This guy wasn't a cyclist because that puts me in the same category. He's a git who happened to be on a bike, sees a chance (the same as the drivers who go through early red) and decides that a bad outcome isn't likely. It's lazy road behaviour that ends up with every one of the species being given a bad name.

Gavin

villager wrote: »

re inforcing the law regarding cyclists breaking red lights, complete waste of time. i am a garda in south dublin and early in my career i did summons cyclists who broke red lights where i considered it to be dangerous to themselves or other traffic only to have most thrown out or dealt with under probation act( in other words now dont be a naughty boy again)

As with lots of these minor offences, an on the spot fine would probably do the job and save everyone a lot of time.

p.s. Any chance you are the UCD/Clonkseagh junction Garda ?

bealbocht

totally reckless behaviour from the cyclist.

fergalr

It sounds more like a courier, thats just a guess not an accusation.
I have seen videos of them in NYC and they tear through pedestrian crossings.

Was not a courier, at least not in any uniform. Plus I'd be surprised if one of them would take such a risk - while they do run lights and so on, they seem to cycle quite defensively too (not a contradiction) and I'd have been surprised if one would risk an accident on me noticing him and stopping at the last minute. Then again, I was surprised anyone would.

Pedestrians always have right of way. They are "special".
So even if a ped crosses on a red man, the cyclist should still give way.
That's my understanding anyway.

Mine too - but if it had been red, I'd have understood his reluctance to yield a bit more.

I actually did have a car do that to me once on a pedestrian crossing, but you are right, it is far more common with cyclists, and inexcusable.

When you had the green/amber light to cross as a ped? That's very unusual, but I guess it happens.

If we don't have the policing budget to enforce traffic laws now on cyclists, how are we going have have it if the law is changed?

It's a good question - I guess if the laws were changed to yield on red, there'd be less infractions, so less offenders to catch - but yeah, resources are still needed.

I think asking cyclists to follow same road traffic laws as other vehicles is quite reasonable actually. We expect to be treated equally, so we should follow the same rules.

I'm not so sure - I agree with the principle you are saying to a point, in that if we want the protection of the law, we should abide by it.
However, I do think that cyclists, as well as pedestrians, are more vulnerable than cars, and I think cyclists are inadequately protected as it stands (eg maybe needs to be some sort of an offense for squeezing a cyclist out of a lane - a tactic that works, because the cyclist is so vulnerable)

The only law I do feel is unreasonable is the mandatory cycle lane use one, where cyclists are treated unequally and expected to ride on unsuitable lanes when there's a perfectly good road available. Fortunately, most of the worst cycle lanes aren't signed properly, which means they aren't technically cycle lanes at all.

I agree that is a crazy law, especially with the current state of cycle lanes.

re inforcing the law regarding cyclists breaking red lights, complete waste of time. i am a garda in south dublin and early in my career i did summons cyclists who broke red lights where i considered it to be dangerous to themselves or other traffic only to have most thrown out or dealt with under probation act( in other words now dont be a naughty boy again)

Interesting - sounds like it needs to be fixed at the judicial level, as much as at the policing. There's a perception that running a red on a bike isn't a serious offense - and I understand that, in certain circumstances (turning left on deserted road) I don't think it even should be one. But I'd like that thought about, if necessary the law updated, and then enforced, by gardai and judiciary. Also, for Christmas, I would like...

Thoughts? That guy on the bike was a w@nker - imo. He went through a red light (assumed because the pedestrians had orange) without real regard for others around him. Lights are lights, rules are rules. If there's a problem with the Gardai enforcing them, that's another problem.

He was definitely well out of order - no matter which way you slice it, running the red and refusing to yield was well out. I suspect this might be why he kept going.
I'm not sure I subscribe purely to 'rules are rules' - but I do think if the rules are not sensible (if judges feel so and hence give negligible sentences) then they should be updated, and the better ones enforced. The system of having a set of very strict rules which then aren't enforced because they are too strict, is ridiculous.

The problem here is decency towards other road users - or lack of it.

With this guy, yeah, there was definitely a lack of decency - regardless of who was right or wrong, refusing to yield and instead risking an accident shows a lack of decency.

As with lots of these minor offences, an on the spot fine would probably do the job and save everyone a lot of time./QUOTE]
An on the spot fine would maybe even be better as you say - quick and effective, with no real need to take details, solve problems of finding who the cyclist is (have previously seen someone here arguing bikes need to be registered to stop things like this, and I think that would only hurt cycling uptake, so on the spot fine solves this).

oobydooby

Firstly, that cyclist gives the rest of us a bad name. What a selfish idiot.

fergalr wrote: »

So... I think the law should be changed so that red lights are considered a 'yield' for cyclists, rather than a 'stop'. Why? Well, that's realistically the way it is enforced now anyway, and I don't want the situation - where cyclists are conditioned to ignore the law - to continue.
Further, I don't really think it makes sense to make cyclists stop on red, in many cases - for example, red light on a cyclist turning left, at a quiet junction.

I think that's a very sensible suggestion. Nobody would advocate breaking a law but the laws could be improved. I'd go a bit further and suggest a red light should be treated as a stop sign would be for a motor vehicle. Or a flashing amber as in other countries. Anyway until that change is made I'll follow the law.

Also, the cycle track law is totally crazy. Has anybody heard any further news of this cycling officer for Dublin City?

rubadub

fergalr wrote: »

I think a big problem with have with cycling is that the traffic laws aren't appropriate for cycling in the city, and so haven't been enforced by gardai; and this has then conditioned some cyclists to the point where they are cavalier about all the laws.

Even moreso with pedestrians.

fergalr wrote: »

For example, on this issue, cyclists break red lights all the time. I wouldn't personally do this, except in extreme cases (2 in the morning, clear road, etc). But the reality is that at the moment, most cyclists do it on their way to work. And the gardai, while they might - from time to time - stop someone, in general don't seem to enforce this.

Likewise with pedestrians... And with good common sense reasons. The vast majority of people I see breaking lights on foot or bike do so in a perfect understandable and pretty safe manner, the gardai realise this and so do not enforce the laws (seems like the unmentioned elephant in the room in many threads). The laws are there for a reason, and in most cases the reason the law was brought out was not to prevent somebody breaking it in the way they most commonly do.

oobydooby wrote: »

Firstly, that cyclist person gives the rest of us people a bad name. What a selfish idiot.

As I said in other threads, there is nothing magical about bikes that transforms people into homocidal, suicidal maniacs. You could describe majority of "cyclists" as motorists who happen to be on bikes that day, then maybe people would stop thinking of them as some oddball breed of animal totally unrelated to themselves. I hate this us & them crap.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Pedestrians always have right of way. They are "special".

Stark wrote: »

Putting in a pedestrian crossing removes the pedestrian's automatic right of way within 15m(I think ) either side of the crossing.

This isn't true, but it's a common misconception because of a rule that's been misinterpreted and because of the actions of the courts.

A pedestrian is required to give way to all traffic on the road when they are waiting to cross, unless they are crossing at a green pedestrian light or a zebra cross, where the opposite is true. A pedstrian does not automatically have right-of-way just because they're on the road.

The confusion arises because of a law which deals with turning into another road. Where you are turning from one road into another (regardless of priority), you are required to give way to any pedestrian who is crossing the road which you are turning into. So if you take a left turn and run over a pedestrian who was crossing that road, you're at fault. Most people are unaware of this, which is why most of us stand at the side of the road and wait for a car to finish turning before we cross. This has been commonly misinterpreted to mean that any pedestrian crossing any road must be given right of way. Which is incorrect.

It's further confounded by the courts, who as we know will usually award costs to the pedestrian (when hit by a motorist), regardless of who was at fault.

As for the OP, I've seen this but I don't understand it. The possible loss to be suffered by the cyclist is far greater than what might happen to a pedestrian.

fergalr

seamus wrote: »

As for the OP, I've seen this but I don't understand it. The possible loss to be suffered by the cyclist is far greater than what might happen to a pedestrian.

Well, I don't understand it either...
My only hypothesis is that the guy was in a hurry, and keyed up from making good time through the traffic (I get like this too when I cycle, feels great, nothing wrong with it); but then, I figure, well, he's probably being cycling through a few other red lights on his way here, ones where it is safe (though still illegal, if unenforced) to cycle through, and he's in a hurry, and he comes to the next red light, and he looks, and sees pedestrians, but figures they'll stop, and he's just went through 3 red lights on his way in without really thinking about it, and he goes through this one too,and the pedestrians do stop - but only just.
I dunno, that's not an explanation, but it's the best I can come up with putting myself in the other guys shoes; and it's from there I got to the perspective that we should change the law to 'yield' - because if his thought process was 'It another red, is there anyone to yield to?' rather than 'It's another red, ah screw it, I'll nip through, no one cares about these things anyway', things might be better.
But I could be being hopelessly naive here, maybe he was one of these guys that will just do anything, regardless of how it affects others, as long as he can get away with it - but I'd like to believe not :-)

seamus wrote: »

The possible loss to be suffered by the cyclist is far greater than what might happen to a pedestrian.

I don't know about this fully...
First off, I'd dispute the letter of what you wrote - either or both parties might die, so their possible loss is equal - I think that's important to remember.
(Now, you could say that not only would the cyclist die, they'd also trash their
bike, rendering the deaths trivial in comparision, and you'd probably get some sympathy for that around these parts, but I'm not thinking about it that way)

But presuming your getting at who is more likely to take greater damage/loss in the collision. Well, there's a definite scenario I can see where the cyclist could get clipped, thrown off course, and go on to worse things, where the pedestrian just takes a mild knock, and it may be along those lines that you are thinking?
But I'm not sure it's as simple as that - for a start, I've read at least one case of where the cyclist has hit a ped (ped's fault, incidentally) and the cyclist has lived, but the pedestrian has died. I can imagine the front wheel hitting the ped, and the cyclists body endoing around and shoulders connecting with pedestrians upper torso etc in a very damaging way.
Just thinking about it, I wouldn't like to make definite claims about who is more likely to come off worse, without some good stats or engineering?

This sounds really abstract I'm sure, but this stuff was going through my mind after that incident.

The vast majority of people I see breaking lights on foot or bike do so in a perfect understandable and pretty safe manner, the gardai realise this and so do not enforce the laws (seems like the unmentioned elephant in the room in many threads). The laws are there for a reason, and in most cases the reason the law was brought out was not to prevent somebody breaking it in the way they most commonly do.

Rubadub:
Call me an idealist, but I really don't like that line of reasoning.
I think a law should *only* be there if it's going to be enforced against the most common offenders. If it's not going to be enforced against the most common breaches of it, because it's not sensible to enforce it so, then the law should be changed, and made more in line with what is sensible to enforce.

Otherwise people could end up breaking the law without doing anything wrong (anything they should have it enforced on them for), and people gradually get conditioned to breaking the law, and those that do obey the law - just because it's the law - even though its not enforced - suffer.
It's a bad setup.

seamus

fergalr wrote: »

But presuming your getting at who is more likely to take greater damage/loss in the collision. Well, there's a definite scenario I can see where the cyclist could get clipped, thrown off course, and go on to worse things, where the pedestrian just takes a mild knock, and it may be along those lines that you are thinking?

That's pretty much how I'm thinking, but I could be way wrong. My thinking is that the odds of connecting full on with the pedestrian would be quite small unless neither party was watching what was happening. Once either party reacts, it turns into a sideways knock or a glancing blow, which leaves the cyclist hurtling off on some crazy course but just knocks the pedestrian on his/her ass.

I could be wrong though - I imagine you could get some nasty internal injuries being hit by a handlebar in the kidney at 50km/h. I used to work with a young guy who was killed last year when he was hit on the lower back by a car's wing mirror at 60mph.

E = mv^2

rubadub

fergalr wrote: »

I think a law should *only* be there if it's going to be enforced against the most common offenders. If it's not going to be enforced against the most common breaches of it, because it's not sensible to enforce it so, then the law should be changed, and made more in line with what is sensible to enforce.

The laws have to cover all bases, and not be open to loopholes, therefore they are usually made to be "overstrict" to prevent people being able to bend them. There are a few laws not enforced against the most common breaches, look at mp3s, the gardai could question everyperson on the street with an ipod under suspicion of breaking the law. They do not, the courts and prisons would be teeming, but they will go after the carboot salesman or dodgy sidestreet shop flogging 1000's of dvds. Same goes for illegal cable decoders, they go after the suppliers though the users are technically stealing a service (more serious than copying dvds or mp3s). But there is no way they would change the law saying "ah ye can have a few mp3s as long as you buy the odd cd too,"

The gardai who gave me the nod see me breaking road laws could not write down every circumstance of the event into law to allow it. The next day I could do something totally unacceptable yet could argue it was the exact same circumstance. I actually think it is OK the way it is, most gardai have sense and use their own reasonable discretion.

Look at the jaywalking law. I have only heard one person being done (dunno if there are stats). It was my mates brother crossing the N11 at cabinteely. This lad is a total gobsh-ite, I suspect he gave the gardai lip and they did him after just cautioning. But in this exact same spot I have seen a ban garda actually aiding schoolkids to cross this road illegally, there is a flyover on this section and half the kids do use it. I was shocked to see her actually help them, I spotted it and was certain she was going to send them back up and over the bridge.

fergalr wrote: »

because it's not sensible to enforce it so, then the law should be changed, and made more in line with what is sensible to enforce.

How would you suggest wording the jaywalking law? without the courts being teeming if it was to be enforced every single time. Common sense has to play a part, and thankfully does.

cyclopath2001

seamus wrote: »

A pedestrian is required to give way to all traffic on the road when they are waiting to cross,

The regulations are very clear in many places about who has to give way to who and when they must do it. Can you show us a regulation that says that pedestrians must actually give way where there is no controlled crossing?

All I can find are general rules about due care and consideration, which apply equally to vehicle drivers.

John_C

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Can you show us a regulation that says that pedestrians must actually give way where there is no controlled crossing?

1. Look for a safe place
2. don't hurry, stop and wait
3. look all around you, before you cross the road. Remember,
4. let all the traffic by you
5. keep looking and listening around you. Remember,
6. that's the safe cross code.

Know the Code!

villager

Verb wrote: »

As with lots of these minor offences, an on the spot fine would probably do the job and save everyone a lot of time.

p.s. Any chance you are the UCD/Clonkseagh junction Garda ?

no thats not me, i agree with above point too about on spot fines, and it should be a ticket actually handed to offender cos way these things ar done at moment involves notice being sent in post( not registered either just ordinary) and your best defence in court is just to say i never received the notice your honour thats why i never paid the fine. results in a strike out 99 times out of 100

cyclopath2001

John_C wrote: »

1. Look for a safe place
2. don't hurry, stop and wait
3. look all around you, before you cross the road. Remember,
4. let all the traffic by you
5. keep looking and listening around you. Remember,
6. that's the safe cross code.

Know the Code!

That's very good advice, but not law.

Thank you for sharing it with us.

blorg

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The regulations are very clear in many places about who has to give way to who and when they must do it. Can you show us a regulation that says that pedestrians must actually give way where there is no controlled crossing?

I was under the impression that you have to give way to traffic already on a road, so a ped would have to "give way" and not jump out in front of traffic (common sense there too) but cars have to give way if they want to turn onto a road and a ped is crossing at the junction.

It's certainly that way in other jurisdictions, not sure about the explicit law in Ireland. What the ROR has to day:

Rules of the Road, which are only an interpretation yada yada yada wrote:

Vehicles do not have an automatic right of way on the road. The overriding rule is, in all circumstances, proceed with caution.

You must always yield to:

- pedestrians already crossing at a junction,
- pedestrians on a zebra crossing,
- pedestrians on a pelican crossing when the amber light is flashing, and
- pedestrians and traffic when you are moving off from a stationary position (for example from your position at a stop sign or a parking space).

To avoid doubt and in the interest of road safety a vehicle should always yield to pedestrians.

They don't say you must not mow down pedestrians crossing at a traffic-light controlled crossing but they probably thought they had that covered with a general rule to stop at red lights

cyclopath2001

blorg wrote: »

I was under the impression that you have to give way to traffic already on a road, so a ped would have to "give way" and not jump out in front of traffic

Jumping out in front of a car would be prohibited by the requirement to exercise care for your safety and that of others. But, there's a difference between safety and inconvenience. How about, for example, if a slow-moving pedestrian, perhaps elderly or disabled, steps off the kerb in front of relatively slow moving traffic in good visibility and with sufficient distance for the vehicles to slow down safely?

Civilian_Target

Honestly OP, you're less of an asshole then me, I may well have just decided to take him off his bike in your situation.

I agree totally with the proposal to treat red lights except when turning right as yield for cyclists. And I think it should be enforced as such.

There are very few excuses for a cyclist to hit a pedestrian, much the same way as there are very few excuses for a car to hit a cyclist.

fergalr

Honestly OP, you're less of an asshole then me, I may well have just decided to take him off his bike in your situation.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't angry immediately after the event.
Also, me continuing on my course was probably due to stubbornness, as well as thinking he would of course stop before coming through the lights. If I stopped earlier, I wouldn't have had any contact with him, glancing or not, and I'd like to think I would stop earlier in future - just back right down if I thought there was any chance someone wouldn't stop - after what happened with that guy, I'll definitely be a little wary of cyclists not stopping in future.


Would like to think I wouldn't risk trying to pull someone bodily off their bike - even if they were very in the wrong, could go horribly wrong and end up with me or them or someone else seriously hurt, even if the cyclist wasn't going that fast.

blorg

Civilian_Target wrote: »

I agree totally with the proposal to treat red lights except when turning right as yield for cyclists.

I'd look at it as only when not crossing another road, I don't think going straight through on red at a crossroads should be allowed for example. I'm in two minds about allowing proceeding at the side of a T junction (I generally stop there myself) but think allowing left turns would be fine (and has plenty of precedent in other countries.)

Stark

I think if there's a cycle lane going along the long edge of a T-junction, then the traffic lights should be for the road and not the cycle lane. I've seen them do this on Collin's Avenue by DCU and I think it makes sense.

What if there's a bike turning onto the road and onto the cycle lane?

Húrin

very inconsiderate and abusive road user.

Stark

Myth wrote: »

What if there's a bike turning onto the road and onto the cycle lane?

Well then, they shall collide with horrible consequences! Or people could just use common sense. It's not like there's that many people using the cycle lanes for it to be an issue.

Mr. Presentable

Stark wrote: »

I think if there's a cycle lane going along the long edge of a T-junction, then the traffic lights should be for the road and not the cycle lane. I've seen them do this on Collin's Avenue by DCU and I think it makes sense.

I see... So, a cyclist won't obey the law, so let's change it in his favour and see if he'll obey it now. :rolleyes:

If he won't obey a STOP, why would he even acknowledge a Yield?

Stark

Noone likes having things crash into them... I mean if you were driving, would you stop obediently at every single STOP sign/line even when you could see clearly that nothing was coming. Would that mean that you were on the slipperly slope to blindly pulling out of junctions regardless of what was coming?

cyclopath2001

nipplenuts wrote: »

I see... So, a cyclist won't obey the law, so let's change it in his favour and see if he'll obey it now. :rolleyes:

Agreed, it'd be just as bad as giving motorists an allowance of up to 15kph above the legal speed limit.

Stark

I never said change the law. I suggested a way that cycle lanes could be improved at junctions. Buses should also get more priority where a bus lane goes through a T-junction imo.

Gavin

Saw another reason to obey red lights this morning. Was trailing some guy from Clonskeagh up to O'Connell St (who oddly seemed to have a turbo trainer tyre on the bike..). Your man broke every red light on the route, doing it reasonably carefully.

He paused at a pedestrian light just at the Bleeding Horse, let some peds go across and then went through. The guy immediately behind him on his bike followed and went smack bang into some poor chap crossing the road. It was primarily guy behinds fault, but light breaker in front helped too.

If the guy in front had stopped at the light as he was meant to and just waited, there wouldn't have been room for the guy behind to push by. In this instance at least.

Stark

How is it the fault of the guy in front? It's not his job to police other cyclists. That's like saying I should block cars in when I park at night so they can't head out and potentially hurt people.

Raam

Stark wrote: »

How is it the fault of the guy in front? It's not his job to police other cyclists. That's like saying I should block cars in when I park at night so they can't head out and potentially hurt people.

I suppose it's not technically his fault, but people are like sheep, so if one does something silly, others follow.

Gavin

Well, your analogy is ridiculous, but true, it's not really his fault. However had he obeyed the light it wouldn't have happened.

Ever seen a car break a red light? Not very uncommon for the following cars to simply follow. It's all their individual faults, but it wouldn't have happened if the first guy didn't go.

kenmc

No it's not his 'fault' but if he had not gone through the lights, then the guy behind would not have been able to go through either, ergo the accident would not have happened. Conversely, the accident happened because the first guy went through the lights thus releasing the second guy, who hit the ped, so he did play some part, however minor and unknowingly, in the event. Is he to blame for hitting the pedestrian? No, of course not, but he did break the light, and his action facilitated the subsequent event.

luckat

The problem (imho) is not that cyclists break lights; it's that cyclists move too fast for safety in some areas - as the OP's tormentor did.

Mind you, if Biffo wanted to make an absolute fortune for the taxman, he could impose €1,000 on-the-spot fines for no lights, dark clothing, speeding cycling, inability to produce a Garda-attested receipt matched to the bike frame number, lack of signalling, etc.

And give the hint to the gardaí to enforce all these.

There you go - that's the cervical cancer vaccine paid for and the health budget sorted.

(Sorry if this is too much text; don't want anyone to wear out his valuable eyes.)

Thoie

seamus wrote: »

That's pretty much how I'm thinking, but I could be way wrong. My thinking is that the odds of connecting full on with the pedestrian would be quite small unless neither party was watching what was happening. Once either party reacts, it turns into a sideways knock or a glancing blow, which leaves the cyclist hurtling off on some crazy course but just knocks the pedestrian on his/her ass.

I could be wrong though - I imagine you could get some nasty internal injuries being hit by a handlebar in the kidney at 50km/h. I used to work with a young guy who was killed last year when he was hit on the lower back by a car's wing mirror at 60mph.

E = mv^2

I think you're forgetting old people

Me vs cyclist - I'll probably win - plenty of padding, fairly stable on my feet - it'd be a bit like the cyclist running into a squidgy brick wall.

My granny vs cyclist (as happened many many years ago) - broken hip, broken wrist, ruptured spleen for granny. Cyclist (and bike) was fine. Many old people just can't react the right way, and with poor eyesight and slight hearing loss may be just focussing on the green man and the beeps.

Lumen

kenmc wrote: »

No it's not his 'fault' but if he had not gone through the lights, then the guy behind would not have been able to go through either, ergo the accident would not have happened.

I call your "ergo" and raise you a post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

luckat

Exactly, Thoie. And not just grannies - I knew a guy a few years ago who had fractured his skull and been in a coma for months after a cyclist belted into him and his head struck the corner of the pavement. He was still distinctly odd.

rflynnr

Stark wrote: »

I think if there's a cycle lane going along the long edge of a T-junction, then the traffic lights should be for the road and not the cycle lane. I've seen them do this on Collin's Avenue by DCU and I think it makes sense.

Just for the record, I know that light and I think you're mistaken in presuming that it doesn't apply to cyclists. The fact that the cycle lane passes to the left rather than the right of the light doesn't necessarily imply that cyclists can swan through: if they did disregard the light they risk striking pedestrians crossing on the green man.

kenmc

rflynnr wrote: »

Just for the record, I know that light and I think you're mistaken in presuming that it doesn't apply to cyclists. The fact that the cycle lane passes to the left rather than the right of the light doesn't necessarily imply that cyclists can swan through: if they did disregard the light they risk striking pedestrians crossing on the green man.

I'd be with Stark on that - the light should 'bound' the traffic - like a gatekeeper - if the cycle track does not run through the lights then they are not constrained by these lights. Similarly that you might often get a left filter lane without lights, while the straight on will be light controlled. Since the left filter lane does not pass through the 'gate' controlled by the lights, it is not required to act on the colour of the lights, but is of course, required to act on any other influences, e.g. peds crossing, yield signs, other traffic etc. The fact that peds might be crossing on a green man is a seperate issue to the red lights for the traffic - there should be a yield sign on the cycle track if the peds have to walk across it to get to the path.

Stark

kenmc wrote: »

No it's not his 'fault' but if he had not gone through the lights, then the guy behind would not have been able to go through either, ergo the accident would not have happened. Conversely, the accident happened because the first guy went through the lights thus releasing the second guy, who hit the ped, so he did play some part, however minor and unknowingly, in the event. Is he to blame for hitting the pedestrian? No, of course not, but he did break the light, and his action facilitated the subsequent event.

While he shouldn't have broken the light himself, it's not his responsibility to police other cyclists either imo. Besides, it's not like the other cyclist couldn't have gone around him had he been stopped at the light.

Raam

Stark wrote: »

While he shouldn't have broken the light himself, it's not his responsibility to police other cyclists either imo. Besides, it's not like the other cyclist couldn't have gone around him had he been stopped at the light.

Correct. However, I reckon that the likelihood (sp) is decreased if the first person stops.

rflynnr

kenmc wrote: »

I'd be with Stark on that - the light should 'bound' the traffic - like a gatekeeper - if the cycle track does not run through the lights then they are not constrained by these lights. Similarly that you might often get a left filter lane without lights, while the straight on will be light controlled. Since the left filter lane does not pass through the 'gate' controlled by the lights, it is not required to act on the colour of the lights, but is of course, required to act on any other influences, e.g. peds crossing, yield signs, other traffic etc. The fact that peds might be crossing on a green man is a seperate issue to the red lights for the traffic - there should be a yield sign on the cycle track if the peds have to walk across it to get to the path.

Fair enough. I withdraw my previous post.

/slight thread hijack

There's a light on Sussex Road heading south that has me confused. It has a green for 'Bus' and the filter for the left (for cars) is on at the same time. Is 'Bus' a go for solely buses or is it a go for those who use the bus lane? I think they have the cyclist/bus signs before it but I'll check in the morning.

On a similar query I saw a sign on Taylor's Lane on Saturday that had me confused. It was a yellow sign similar to the one below just that all it had was a yellow background and a picture of a bicycle (and obviously nothing to do with slipping/trams). Anyone have a clue?

DirkVoodoo

I've seen taxis use the bus filter and if you're on a bike I believe you are nearly safer as you will more than likely be in front of any cars and so its best to be clear of them.

There is a similar one in stillorgan at the junction of trees road, just after the stillorgan park hotel. Cyclists, buses and taxis all use this filter which is only there to let any buses such as the 46A get to the right hand turn lane without having to block up the bus lane as they wait to cross traffic. In fact, taxis will regularly honk at motorists who do not go when the "bus" filter is green. I'm sure that "legally" the motorists are probably right not to go, but common sense normally prevails in such circumstances.

The last one is fairly obvious, those tram tracks can be lethal if you are running parallel to them as the wheels get stuck and the rider becomes unseated.