Musings from a cyclist...

cyclopath2001

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Seriously, you can be done for dangerous driving for driving too slowly

Have you just made this up?

TinyExplosions

Gran Hermano wrote: »

Did we really need yet another 'four wheels bad: two wheels good thread from the militant cyclist front.

If only they'd stick to their cycle lanes and forum. Whilst they might enjoy pedalling their way around the gutters I resist their attempts at trolling.

Not trying to troll (if I was, I could have been a lot more inflammatory!). Also, at no point in my original post did I even attempt to put forward a 'four wheels bad: two wheels good' hypothesis, and I'm by no means a militant cyclist. All I was hoping for (and may still get) is a little discussion between two sets of road users, and possibly get an insight into why motorists do the things they do, and let ye know why we do some things we do. Cyclists by and large do not set out to inconvenience motorists!

@eoin, unfortunately I have only anecdotal evidence (like yourself), and in my experience and on my commute it's even between red light jumpers in cars and on bikes (this may be only in my experience and may not extend to the whole of society). Also I do feel that breaking a light that has just turned red is one of the most dangerous things a motorist can do, as bikes are quick off the line when we get a green, and so are prime candidates for being hit by a RLJ -though yes, any cyclist hitting or nearly hitting a pedestrian by breaking a red light when the walker has a green man is inexcusable

opelmanta

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Have you just made this up?

No he actually hasnt in fairness There is such a law. Not sure of the exact wording but you certainly can be done for crawling along the motorway. It is pretty dangerous like

Rowley Birkin QC

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Hey folks,

Also, breaking red lights comes up a lot, but once again complaining in the cyclists forum, or on t'internet is generally a waste of time. Some people obey lights, some don't. In my experience, I see as many cars breaking red lights as I do cyclists on my daily commute (maybe the route I take is special, but it would average between 3 and 5 cyclists and motorists breaking the lights).



Thanks guys!

Good post overall OP and good to see the reconciliation beginning. However I call serious shenanigans on the part of your post quoted above.

I was driving around Dublin for about 3 hours today and genuinely didn't see one car breaking a red light, some amber ones definitely but not a single red. Some cyclists consistently break red lights and will gladly weave between pedestrians at a crossing. It simply does not happen to the same extent with motorists.

cyclopath2001

opelmanta wrote: »

No he actually hasnt in fairness There is such a law. Not sure of the exact wording but you certainly can be done for crawling along the motorway. It is pretty dangerous like

But cyclists don't generally use motorways.

Can you quote the page number in the RoTR covering the motorway rule you says exists?

Voodoomelon

I can't believe the majority of motorists responses to this thread. You all need a serious reality check, how about getting your arses out of a drivers seat for once and onto a saddle, then come back and make your complaints.

opelmanta

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

But cyclists don't generally use motorways.

Can you quote the page numbver in the RoTR covering the motorway rule you says exists?

I wasnt saying for cyclists, i meant for motorists in general. You can fail your driving test for not going fast enough. Cyclists are not permitted on motorways afaik.

cyclopath2001

opelmanta wrote: »

I wasnt saying for cyclists, i meant for motorists in general. You can fail your driving test for not going fast enough. Cyclists are not permitted on motorways afaik.

You can also fail your driving test for not indicating.

opelmanta

Im not going to list out oll the Rules Of The Road with you. Im on the side of cyclists btw (though my name may suggest otherwise :P )

BoardsRanger

OP, fair play to you for trying to “extend the olive branch”. I have two issues in particular in relation to cyclists which particularly annoy me.

1) Cycling on back roads 2+abreast. This is just very dangerous. And may I point out that it is not for cyclists to dictate when it is safe for motorists to pass. Please allow this decision to rest in the hands of the motorist. I once came across cyclists up in the sally gap commuting 3 abreast. They continued this way for quite some time, including on straight sections of the road. When I confronted them about this they stated “we have every right to be on this road as you do” and whilst that is indeed true, the manner in which they were travelling was illegal.

2) I recently noticed over in the cycling forum a number of members organising “night time” spins up in the Wicklow mountains and sally gap in particular. This is just lethal, and if you do feel so compelled to commit suicide- perhaps try a trip to Holland. There are a lot of blind corners up there and that combined with the speed differential between cars and bikes is a lethal combination.

TinyExplosions

bigkev49 wrote: »

Good post overall OP and good to see the reconciliation beginning. However I call serious shenanigans on the part of your post quoted above.

I was driving around Dublin for about 3 hours today and genuinely didn't see one car breaking a red light, some amber ones definitely but not a single red. Some cyclists consistently break red lights and will gladly weave between pedestrians at a crossing. It simply does not happen to the same extent with motorists.

As I've said, it's in my experience, and on my commute that I've mentioned. This evening for example, there were 3 cars that broke red lights (were turning right and kept going after the lights changed, and there were 2 cyclists that passed me at lights (yes, I'm one of those that waits!)

I'm fully aware that this may not be the usual behaviour, but it's what I've observed

DirkVoodoo

bigkev49 wrote: »

I was driving around Dublin for about 3 hours today and genuinely didn't see one car breaking a red light, some amber ones definitely but not a single red. Some cyclists consistently break red lights and will gladly weave between pedestrians at a crossing. It simply does not happen to the same extent with motorists.

I agree with the pedestrian crossing bit, there is no excuse for that. However (and I don't mean to condone it, but perhaps rationalise it somewhat) is that when a cyclist breaks a light it is potentially less dangerous than when a car does it. It doesn't make it right though.

I see a lot of light breaking on both sides (i myself go through the light at the top of merrion road, i can explain this in more detail and how it is actually safer if anyone wants to hear it). What gets me is right hand turns that have a dedicated filter and yet are treated by road users like "yields". The junction of the N11 and Westminster road is particularly dangerous and I have seen two very bad crashes here over the years.

Also, the cyclists going up to the sally gap should not have been 3 abreast, however I don't believe it is fair to accuse them of policing motorists. As I have said before, it is only done for their own feeling of safety and not to impede motorists.

Finally, I would add that I have been driving for 8 years yet only cycling for the last 2.5. Personally I think that cycling has made me a better driver, I think I am more aware of my surroundings as a result (I remember my passenger gave out to me one day for making a pretty dangerous overtake of a cyclist in traffic). I'm not saying everyone who drives should start cycling, but just to know that for the most part, people who ride bikes are not in some mass conspiracy to upset other motorists.

And to blitzkrieger, just remember how vulnerable they are as road users before you start making pretty ridiculous comments about mowing them down.

short circuit

BoardsRanger wrote: »

OP, fair play to you for trying to “extend the olive branch”. I have two issues in particular in relation to cyclists which particularly annoy me.

1) Cycling on back roads 2+abreast. This is just very dangerous. And may I point out that it is not for cyclists to dictate when it is safe for motorists to pass. Please allow this decision to rest in the hands of the motorist. I once came across cyclists up in the sally gap commuting 3 abreast. They continued this way for quite some time, including on straight sections of the road. When I confronted them about this they stated “we have every right to be on this road as you do” and whilst that is indeed true, the manner in which they were travelling was illegal.

2) I recently noticed over in the cycling forum a number of members organising “night time” spins up in the Wicklow mountains and sally gap in particular. This is just lethal, and if you do feel so compelled to commit suicide- perhaps try a trip to Holland. There are a lot of blind corners up there and that combined with the speed differential between cars and bikes is a lethal combination.

I don't think that any point a cyclist is trying to decide when it is safe for a motorist to pass ... all we try to do is judge if there is enough space and enough distance for the motorist to complete the manouvre without hitting the cyclist .. and yes in some cases we take a conservative approach ... better safe than sorry ... and travelling 3 abreast with a clear road wasn't the best idea

On the 2nd point ... if everyone is legal .. that is sufficient lights to see and good rear lights .. and both cyclists and motorists drive within limits in darkness ... night spins should be no more dangerous than day spins

TinyExplosions

BoardsRanger wrote: »

1) Cycling on back roads 2+abreast. This is just very dangerous. And may I point out that it is not for cyclists to dictate when it is safe for motorists to pass. Please allow this decision to rest in the hands of the motorist. I once came across cyclists up in the sally gap commuting 3 abreast. They continued this way for quite some time, including on straight sections of the road. When I confronted them about this they stated “we have every right to be on this road as you do” and whilst that is indeed true, the manner in which they were travelling was illegal.

I've got to be honest and ask why the decision should rest in your hands, why not in the hands of the cyclists in front that can see what's ahead better?

Dunno if the cyclists up Sally Gap (ooer!) were commuters, but their behaviour sounds a little out of order, and 3 abreast is extracting the urine a bit (though I apologise if it was me!)

BoardsRanger wrote: »

2) I recently noticed over in the cycling forum a number of members organising “night time” spins up in the Wicklow mountains and sally gap in particular. This is just lethal, and if you do feel so compelled to commit suicide- perhaps try a trip to Holland. There are a lot of blind corners up there and that combined with the speed differential between cars and bikes is a lethal combination.

I'm one of those members, and have been on a number of spins at night, and frankly, it's been safer than during the day, as there's less cars on the road. We are always very well lit up (some would say too well lit, given that we have to dip our lights for oncoming cars), and I would argue are as visible as motorcyclists. From my experience, at night we are given far more room than during the day, and the main danger would be from drunk drivers (a broad generalisation, but accurate in my mind)

cyclopath2001

BoardsRanger wrote: »

OP, fair play to you for trying to “extend the olive branch”. I have two issues in particular in relation to cyclists which particularly annoy me.

Here are a few issues motorists need to address:

MODEDIT

usual cyclopath list of issues removed, in order to prevent further quotes and keept thread on track

Eoin

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Here are a few issues motorists need to address:

blah blah blah

Perhaps you might read peasant's post earlier and try not to treat this thread - just for once - as your own hobby horse. If you just want to bitch as usual rather than having some sort of meaningful debate, then just please go away.

Edit - I am not trying to be a backseat moderator, but as soon as I saw your name as the last poster on this thread, I knew what to expect, and I wasn't wrong.

kenmc

BoardsRanger wrote: »

2) I recently noticed over in the cycling forum a number of members organising “night time” spins up in the Wicklow mountains and sally gap in particular. This is just lethal, and if you do feel so compelled to commit suicide- perhaps try a trip to Holland.

Why? Cycling is MUCH safer in Holland than in Ireland, I should know, having lived there also.

There are a lot of blind corners up there and that combined with the speed differential between cars and bikes is a lethal combination.

Well surely if that's the case you'd be better off in the dark where you can see the lights of cars and cyclists coming around those blind corners than in the daytime?

cabrwab

:eek
As a regular motor forum visitor, im somewhat blown away by the reaction! We share the road with the cyclists and as a constant road user i see them everyday and encounter them all the time.

My biggest issue is the cyclist that breaks the red light when your stuck in traffic waiting for your turn to get through the lights and you miss it because of there selfishness, but as pointed out this is a gardai issue.
But this also falls into the whole selfish motorist who sits in a yellow box when they can't go through it, resulting in the same outcome.

Im a petrolhead through and through but the cyclist puts there life in there hands everyday to cycle through our cities, granted some do not help with stupidity of cutting through traffic and pedistrians! But once again there is the motorcyclist who is as big of an idiot.

Cyclists go to new york and cut through a line of pedestrians and the reaction is a violent one! Irish people are friendly!!:rolleyes: (LIE!)

I know a person who cycles to work everyday and he was recently stopped by the fuzz and told he had 10 days to show that he had purchased lights and a high-viz vest at donnybrook garda station. I hope this is something they are enforcing.

Cyclist's need to also think of all other road users in cars/vans/trucks have bigger blind spots then you will ever have in a bike! Examples of this are YEILD spots for cyclists when a motor needs to turn left across a cycle lane. Cyclists need to realise that maybe they have not being seen they will come off the worse in any tip!

The road tax is paid to look after roads, put so is all other taxes so we all contribute that little bit. I disagree with the push for people to cycle everywhere as this country doesn't have the infrastructure to keep cyclists safe.
Cycle lanes are there and they are not used, now i don't agree with glass and potholes as yes there is some but have you looked at some of the gutters in which ye guys decide to cycle in instead!
On one of my routes everyday there is a cycle lane all the way too and from where i go, cyclist either don't use them or cycle in them and the path and whatever suites. If you guys have cycle lanes i think ye guys should use them. NOT because you are holding up traffic but for the safety of everyone!

Motorbikes shouldn't use cycle lanes.
Everyone needs to cop on just a little, think about the road we use and share with each other and keep an eye out for each other.

Well done OP for the olive branch. However can you pass the word onto you more militant friends i can't damage there bike so why should they be allowed damage my vehicle? Somebody talking of kicking mirrors off cars because they were soaked in a previous thread, (Yeah i know they were soaked on purpose before it starts!) OR not knowing the entire situation and kicking at cars and trying to tear off hubcaps because somebody had to avoid an accident and pull into the cycle lanes which was empty instead of crash, but couldn't move any further so blocked a cycle lane slightly!

Thanks rant off!

peasant

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Here are a few issues motorists need to address:

final warning ...either discuss this topic in a reasonable manner or take a break

madaboutcars

eoin wrote: »

Edit - I am not trying to be a backseat moderator, but as soon as I saw your name as the last poster on this thread, I knew what to expect, and I wasn't wrong.

+1

TinyExplosions

cabrwab wrote: »

Well done OP for the olive branch. However can you pass the word onto you more militant friends i can't damage there bike so why should they be allowed damage my vehicle? Somebody talking of kicking mirrors off cars because they were soaked in a previous thread, (Yeah i know they were soaked on purpose before it starts!) OR not knowing the entire situation and kicking at cars and trying to tear off hubcaps because somebody had to avoid an accident and pull into the cycle lanes which was empty instead of crash, but couldn't move any further so blocked a cycle lane slightly!

We do try, but unfortunately the militants in the cycling world are like militants everywhere (generally thick as two short planks and unwilling to accept new ideas!)

Am very much liking the direction this is taking -it's not descended into a slanging match

galwaytt

TinyExplosions wrote: »

One of the first things that comes up time and again is this issue of 'road tax', and why cyclists should have to pay it etc etc. Well, to be pedantic for a moment, no one pays road tax. Motorists pay 'motor tax' based on the emissions produced from their cars. This is spent on road upkeep, but is a small proportion of the total spent on our roads. The majority of funding for road construction/maintainence comes from either European funding, or from the general taxation. All cyclists are tax payers (or should be unless earning below the threshold), so do pay for the upkeep of the highways in the same way as motorists. We don't have a specific tax as we don't produce emissions in the same degree as cars (a bit of Carbon Dioxide and Methane don't count!)

Firstly, I appreciate your effort, but I do feel it necessary to correct the above, for accuracy's sake.

We do pay Motor Tax, and none of my vehicles is taxed based on it's emissions - if it were, my bill would be a fraction of what it is, so can we agree that that's inaccurate ?

Regarding where the money goes, only a fraction of it goes to road maintenance, the vast majority goes to central exchequer, so it actually ends up paying for schools, hospitals, etc. If it were ring-fenced for road use, our roads would be better, provision for cycle lanes better, and we wouldn't have needed a fraction of the EU money we did to build them.

All cyclists are not, however tax payers. Of any kind. Children, teens, students, OAP's, and the 'unwaged', are all (perfectly) entitled to ride bicycles, but that doesn't make them contributors to the road network. I'm not saying they should necessarily, but it's a fact that they aren't.

The second thing to come up is the issue of cyclists not having lights. This is against the law, and many (if not all) of the people on the cyclists forum agree with this, and have adequate lighting. Complaining on t'inernet that this isn't enforced is not our problem, but up to the Gardai -if they stopped more cyclists who didn't have lights, more people would get them. We know it's a problem, but in general you're preaching to the choir on that point.

Quite apart from the he said/she said of it all, can someone please explain the complete disregard by cyclists, for their own personal safety, by not having lights ? Are they so completely isolated from reality, that they think that just by having lights on motor vehicles, that cyclists are somehow transformed into luminous beings, obvious to all ? (fwiw, pedestrians are even worse....).

Also, breaking red lights comes up a lot, but once again complaining in the cyclists forum, or on t'internet is generally a waste of time. Some people obey lights, some don't. In my experience, I see as many cars breaking red lights as I do cyclists on my daily commute (maybe the route I take is special, but it would average between 3 and 5 cyclists and motorists breaking the lights).

...mmmm. I cannot believe as many cars as cyclists do that. Were it the case, the streets would indeed run red, and it'd have made mainstream media by now. People would be dying in big numbers. Fact is, it doesn't, and it hasn't. It is a physical impossibility. Amber gamblers, yes there are those, but the habitual red-light breaker is almost exclusively the domain of the cyclist. And, coming from a University town, with a University completely surrounded by urban, traffic-light controlled junctions, I'm speaking from a position of conviction.

I hang around this forum. A lot. I'm a petrol head. And, tbh, I love it.

But, I used to cycle a lot as a lad, too, but tbh, there's absolutely no way I'd let my kids do it now - it's no longer a viable, safe method of transport. I'd love to do it occassionally, but right now, that's not on the cards - and I'm not in the least bit interested in the smoke'n'mirrors environmental case for it, I'm just coming from a pragmatic point of view. Motorcycling is, now, safer than cycling.

[/QUOTE]

opelmanta

galwaytt wrote: »

Children, teens, students, OAP's, and the 'unwaged', are all (perfectly) entitled to ride bicycles, but that doesn't make them contributors to the road network. I'm not saying they should necessarily, but it's a fact that they aren't.

[/QUOTE]

But most of these have or will at some stage pay some form of tax.

galwaytt

opelmanta wrote: »

But most of these have or will at some stage pay some form of tax.[/QUOTE]

....indeed, hopefully they will. Otherwise I'm **** out of luck, come pension time !!

TinyExplosions

galwaytt wrote: »

Firstly, I appreciate your effort, but I do feel it necessary to correct the above, for accuracy's sake.

We do pay Motor Tax, and none of my vehicles is taxed based on it's emissions - if it were, my bill would be a fraction of what it is, so can we agree that that's inaccurate ?

From citizensinformation.ie (apologies if they are innaccurate:

"The amount of motor tax you pay for a vehicle registered before July 2008 is proportionate to the size of your vehicle's engine - in other words, the more powerful your vehicle, the higher the cost of your motor tax. For new cars registered since 1 July 2008, motor tax charges are determined on the basis of seven CO2 bands with charges ranging from €100 a year for the greenest cars to €2,000 for cars with the highest emissions ratings."

ok, currently your motor tax may not be based on emissions, but it will be very shortly. Apologies for any confusion on that point

galwaytt wrote: »

Regarding where the money goes, only a fraction of it goes to road maintenance, the vast majority goes to central exchequer, so it actually ends up paying for schools, hospitals, etc. If it were ring-fenced for road use, our roads would be better, provision for cycle lanes better, and we wouldn't have needed a fraction of the EU money we did to build them.

I don't have the figures to hand, but iirc the amount spent on the roads is greater than that raised by motor taxation, so while it goes into the general taxation pool, it still wouldn't cover the roads bill, hence my point

galwaytt wrote: »

All cyclists are not, however tax payers. Of any kind. Children, teens, students, OAP's, and the 'unwaged', are all (perfectly) entitled to ride bicycles, but that doesn't make them contributors to the road network. I'm not saying they should necessarily, but it's a fact that they aren't.

I did mention the unwaged, and I realise that there are some people that don't pay tax, but they are legally allowed not to -think of them like vehicles exempt from motor tax (maybe refuse carts, sweeping machines or watering machines used exclusively for cleansing public streets and roads!)

galwaytt wrote: »

Quite apart from the he said/she said of it all, can someone please explain the complete disregard by cyclists, for their own personal safety, by not having lights ? Are they so completely isolated from reality, that they think that just by having lights on motor vehicles, that cyclists are somehow transformed into luminous beings, obvious to all ? (fwiw, pedestrians are even worse....).

They're idiots. Full Stop

galwaytt wrote: »

...mmmm. I cannot believe as many cars as cyclists do that.

As I mentioned a couple of times already, I'm speaking from personal observation on a specific commute, ymmv

P.C.

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I agree with the pedestrian crossing bit, there is no excuse for that. However (and I don't mean to condone it, but perhaps rationalise it somewhat) is that when a cyclist breaks a light it is potentially less dangerous than when a car does it. It doesn't make it right though.

Two big issues with this whole breaking the lights thing:

1.) I drive down Upper Rathmines Road, and turn right into Lower Rathmines Road, when the lights are green for me. Very often, there will be another car on my right, as it is two lanes going into two lanes. When the lights go green for me, and it is safe to do so, I go, and keep left to give the vehicle next to me enough room to get through the intersection. The problem is that more often than not, a bicycle will come speeding through the lights (from Rathgar Road), and almost into me. Then they get mad at me.
They have just gone through a red light - how can they be mad at me?
The only thing that I can think of is that as they are going straight at what is effectively a T junction, they feel that they are entiteled. NO!
A red light means stop!

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rathmines+dublin+ireland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.435463,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=53.321582,-6.266091&spn=0.00292
2,0.009613&z=17

2.) Another junction where bicycles take liberties with the lights.
I drive up Harold's Cross Road, southbound, and take a left into Rathgar Avenue. No problem, except, a few times I have had to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a bicycle who is going from Kenilworth Square North into Harold's Cross Road, through a red light????
Why? It is so dangerous.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=rathmines+dublin+ireland&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.435463,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=53.318563,-6.279137&spn=0.002923,0.009613&z=17

kenmc

galwaytt wrote: »

All cyclists are not, however tax payers. Of any kind. Children, teens, students, OAP's, and the 'unwaged', are all (perfectly) entitled to ride bicycles, but that doesn't make them contributors to the road network. I'm not saying they should necessarily, but it's a fact that they aren't.

Not true. Any time they buy anything, or something is bought for them, they pay tax - VAT. It all goes into the same pot.

...mmmm. I cannot believe as many cars as cyclists do that. Were it the case, the streets would indeed run red, and it'd have made mainstream media by now. People would be dying in big numbers. Fact is, it doesn't, and it hasn't. It is a physical impossibility. Amber gamblers, yes there are those, but the habitual red-light breaker is almost exclusively the domain of the cyclist. And, coming from a University town, with a University completely surrounded by urban, traffic-light controlled junctions, I'm speaking from a position of conviction.

Stand at the junction of Georges St and Dame street for 10 minutes and tell me that it doesn't happen. I have 4 complaints in to Dublin Bus about their drivers running reds, and there's far far more cars that I see doing this. I work near there and cross that junction at least twice a day.

galwaytt

TinyExplosions wrote: »

From citizensinformation.ie (apologies if they are innaccurate:

"The amount of motor tax you pay for a vehicle registered before July 2008 is proportionate to the size of your vehicle's engine - in other words, the more powerful your vehicle, the higher the cost of your motor tax. For new cars registered since 1 July 2008, motor tax charges are determined on the basis of seven CO2 bands with charges ranging from €100 a year for the greenest cars to €2,000 for cars with the highest emissions ratings."

ok, currently your motor tax may not be based on emissions, but it will be very shortly. Apologies for any confusion on that point

With all due respect, unless you're paying for my next car, it won't be, either !! And I'm not the only one.

For example, we currently have 2 million + vehicles on our roads, and the industry is, frankly, imploding. To get the annual fleet updated, on current new car sales levels, is going to take 20 years. There's nothing short, or soon, about that.

There is also the very real issue that, with the economy the way it is, and tax revenue shrinking, that car tax will increase over time - emissions or not, withstanding - and that you will see more, not less, of the 'motor tax' pool diverted to non motor related functions. IOW, don't expect any improvement in road conditions, for any of us, anytime soon...........

craichoe

kenmc wrote: »

Why? Cycling is MUCH safer in Holland than in Ireland, I should know, having lived there also.

+1 infinity ...

Bicycles are the rulers of the road in holland

DirkVoodoo

I totally agree with you there. I'll point out the red light that I go through and it might clear things up. I wish I had a photo but for now please bear with my explanation, if it lacks detail let me know.

Google Link

Ok, so for some reason whenever I seem to approach the junction of Mount Merrion ave. and the N11, there is a red light (the right hand filter is green so no pedestrians crossing). At any rate, I don't "breeze" through and pretty much always slow down to a crawl.

The traffic from Merrion is nearly all cars/trucks, very few buses (I think the 7 goes this way) and rarely see taxis use this as a route, so the bus lane is devoid of traffic. So, by continuing through the light there is little chance of any traffic (I also don't take this as gospel and fly through with my hands over my eyes).

Why do I do it? Well, it helps if you know the junction. There is a 46A bus stop just ahead, so it is always full of pedestrians waiting for the bus. The cycle track here is, like a LOT of them, pretty woeful. It also runs very close to a lot of closed entrances to houses. I have had one near miss here and it is not fun wondering whether a car is going to appear from behind a blind corner (obviously people have to get out of their houses). This is just one of many examples of poor cycle lane planning in dublin.

So, by going in the bus lane i bypass the crowded bus shelter, avoid the driveways and poor cycle lane surface and by doing it at a T-junction red light I have a clear run and dont hold up the buses/taxis behind me.

I know this probably wont make sense to a lot of people and will be met with disdain. Its obviously completely illegal (its the only light I break really) and if you see me some morning on the N11 you will see I don't approach it in a wreckless fashion.

I hope it shows why in some cases a cyclist may feel "safer" going through a red light, though for the most part a lot of people on bikes do fly through red lights with little justification. I don't think it is fair to say ALL cyclists dont have lights and ALL cyclists go through red lights.