Stop running red lights FFS!

cantalach

I'll probably make enemies saying this, but seriously people, we're shooting ourselves in the foot big time by running red lights. Every time one of us does this it just reinforces the opinion of the non-cycling population that we are a lawless bunch not worthy of respect. Having somebody's respect is a pre-requisite for changing their attitude and behaviour. And in more practical terms, if the majority of non-cyclists out there are not favourably disposed towards us, there is no reason to think that our TDs and councillors would feel any differently because most of them are non-cyclists.

seamus

You're right. There's the impression that no matter how many facilities cyclists are given, we'll piss all over it and do what we want because we're socialist, anarchist crusty hippies.

The problem is that this poll shows that by-and-large the people posting on boards obey red lights. So you're wasting your breath trying to get that message across here. It's the day-trippers and the kids that this message needs to be drilled into. A massive amount of cyclists considering cycling to be no different to walking, except that it's faster. So you're allowed go where you want, when you want and get in anyone's way.

I do think there is a certain amount of chicken-and-egg in this though. If cycling is seen as a fringe activity, only taken up by certain members of society, then the rest of society by definition gives them less respect and consideration. If more people cycle, its profile increases, and more people are aware of cyclists.

It would appear that the numbers commuting have shot up since the B2W scheme came in, but time will tell. We had a relatively mild summer, which suited cycle commuting.

petethedrummer

Ah give over. Motorist break rules. Just a different set of rules. Hundreds of cars pass me every day breaking the speed limit. And supposedly speed is the big killer. They drive in bus lanes, park in clearways, stop in yellow boxes, stop on pedestrian crossings, don't indicate, use mobile phones, block junctions, run amber lights, run red lights and on and on and on.

tunney

So far today I've seen:
* A moped fly through a red light near Irishtown
* A taxi fly through a red light at a major junction on pearse street nearly getting hit by another taxi
* A ford focus on pearse street drive through red lights and nearly hit a group of pedestrians and myself

People break the traffic laws regardless of the vehicle they are in

DBCyc

I was out on site with work this morning on the Clonskeagh Road and was delighted to see that there were loads of cyclists (okay POBs) on this route. But then I would estimate that ~90% ignored certain red lights. Ah well...

Chips Lovell

Two wrongs don't make a right.

DirkVoodoo

Went walking the dog yesterday and as usual I bring a few Tesco nappy bags in case nature comes a knockin'. Normally he is pretty good and saves it until we get home, but today he decides to do one on Hainault road, right next to a "dog owners clean up your mess" sign.

Now, I'm all in favor of people picking up after their dogs, as long as it is not just a sign with a warning of a fine. Where are the "doggie litter bins" to encourage people to stick to the rules? We have laws from the local council but no assistance to make being a law abider any easier.

I walked for another 20 mins before finding a bin. I walked for 20 minutes, swinging a bag of dog crap in one hand, feeling like an idiot.

I can understand how people just let Fido do his business and carry on walking. It's only until you step in dog **** that you curse all the dog walkers not picking up after their four legged companions.

Just thought I would get that off my chest, it's been bugging me for a day now and I didn't feel like going over to the pets forum and venting there.

concussion

Attach it to the lead using an elastic band.

funkyjebus

el tonto wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but you do get where you're going quicker.

I run red lights (not all only ones that pose no risk to myself or other, ie a pedestrian crossing with no pedestrians) and will never stop. I've done it in front of Gardai and they've never said a thing, even though it's illegal.

Mind you the legality of the situation has no baring, as pot is illegal, and that also doesn't stop me.

So in answer to your question , no ffs I will not stop running red lights. Most certainly not because you asked me to.

DBCyc

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I walked for another 20 mins before finding a bin. I walked for 20 minutes, swinging a bag of dog crap in one hand, feeling like an idiot.

I feel your pain I would guess the ratio of signs to bins is around 10:1.

BTW nice OT!!!

VERYinterested

A cyclist myself but saw a classic act of muppetry a couple of hours ago. A group of pedestrians waiting patiently to cross from top of Grafton Street to Stephen's Green. Green man comes on and pedestrians begin to cross road, cue cyclist coming from wrong direction, from Dandelion side of Green, wrong way up a one way street and actually hit a man crossing the road, not very hard but gave him a fright. Cyclist stares at injured man as if it was his fault! :mad:

cantalach

petethedrummer wrote: »

Ah give over. Motorist break rules. Just a different set of rules. Hundreds of cars pass me every day breaking the speed limit. And supposedly speed is the big killer. They drive in bus lanes, park in clearways, stop in yellow boxes, stop on pedestrian crossings, don't indicate, use mobile phones, block junctions, run amber lights, run red lights and on and on and on.

I agree with you completely and I routinely make the exact same points you make above when debating with motorist friends and family. The vast majority of motorists break traffic laws and regulations on pretty much every journey they undertake. But with respect, this is completely irrelevant and you've missed my point. What is necessary in order for our cause to progress is that we earn the respect of motorists, and this won't be achieved by pointing the finger back at them.

fletch

seamus wrote: »

The problem is that this poll shows that by-and-large the people posting on boards obey red lights.

I don't for one second believe that everyone was truthful in that poll. I break red lights every day on my commute and see countless other cyclists doing it too.

seamus

fletch wrote: »

I don't for one second believe that everyone was truthful in that poll. I break red lights every day on my commute and see countless other cyclists doing it too.

How many of them do you think post here?

Chips Lovell

Yes, I've seen plenty of motorist break lights. However, I've yet to see every single car that reaches a set of red lights go through them. I see that regularly with cyclists though.

Chips Lovell

seamus wrote: »

How many of them do you think post here?

Every single one. Especially the ones with the rusty chains.

DirkVoodoo

DBCyc wrote: »

I feel your pain I would guess the ratio of signs to bins is around 10:1.

BTW nice OT!!!

Sorry, I was trying to take the on-ramp back onto the topic.

My point, aside from the obvious rant, was that red light jumpers and people who don't clean up after their dogs are cut from the same cloth. Neither feels they should obey the law because the risk of being caught is so low. The apparent inconvenience of slowing down or having to swing a bag of crap at arms length outweigh this low risk anyway, so why stick to the law?

I know i was stretching a bit there.

Oh, on my walk I noticed some pretty impressive speeding by drivers taking short cuts through residential areas, double parking on dangerous bends and no indicators used on smaller roundabouts.

NothingMan

el tonto wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But 3 rights make a left!

BeerNut

VERYinterested wrote: »

wrong way up a one way street and actually hit a man crossing the road, not very hard but gave him a fright. Cyclist stares at injured man as if it was his fault! :mad:

Not for a moment to defend a cyclist who isn't paying attention, but that's a particularly awkward situation.

Coming northwards down Stephen's Green West, the signs lead cyclists forward across the front of the Surgeons and then go nowhere. The contra-flow cyclelane that was intended to go down past the Dandelion was never built, and the Council say they won't now because of the imminent Metro works:rolleyes:.

That cyclist was directed the wrong way down that one-way street by a roadsign, and at the junction had no way of seeing the traffic light. Though obviously should have paid more attention to the people on the crossing.

matrixroyal

generally breaking the light ( if there are absolutely no cars coming either way ) is safer because you can get out of the way of the cars in your lane who invariabley decide to get within 1 foot from the kerb even if there is loads of room in their lane.

petethedrummer

el tonto wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Correct but why the worry about this big loss of respect because cyclists break this one particular rule?

surely by this logic, driving would have been banned.

Chips Lovell

matrixroyal wrote: »

generally breaking the light ( if there are absolutely no cars coming either way ) is safer because you can get out of the way of the cars in your lane who invariabley decide to get within 1 foot from the kerb even if there is loads of room in their lane.

If you feel you need to break lights to stay safe then you shouldn't be riding a bike on the road.

Supercell

Meh, better in front of the traffic than in the middle of it. I stop at lights in my car, but rarely on the bike. I dont wear a helmet either, oh and I eat kittens too.

coolbeans

BeerNut wrote: »

Not for a moment to defend a cyclist who isn't paying attention, but that's a particularly awkward situation.

Coming northwards down Stephen's Green West, the signs lead cyclists forward across the front of the Surgeons and then go nowhere. The contra-flow cyclelane that was intended to go down past the Dandelion was never built, and the Council say they won't now because of the imminent Metro works:rolleyes:.

That cyclist was directed the wrong way down that one-way street by a roadsign, and at the junction had no way of seeing the traffic light. Though obviously should have paid more attention to the people on the crossing.

I run red lights all the time principally because

• I can
• Because the calibration of the light timers is often ridiculous
• It's faster
• and because I'm not going to have lorries and cars racing to get past me if I wait.

I also practice the vulnerability principle meaning that I will yield to the most vulnerable road user. From a cyclist's point of view these are pedestrians and hence I stop for them. Your man on the Green should have yielded to the peds wothout question. This has worked for me for years and hopefully will continue to do so.

DBCyc

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

My point, aside from the obvious rant, was that red light jumpers and people who don't clean up after their dogs are cut from the same cloth. Neither feels they should obey the law because the risk of being caught is so low. The apparent inconvenience of slowing down or having to swing a bag of crap at arms length outweigh this low risk anyway, so why stick to the law?

A very good point it is!

Chips Lovell

petethedrummer wrote: »

Correct but why the worry about this big loss of respect because cyclists break this one particular rule?

surely by this logic, driving would have been banned.

The point is not that cyclists break a particular rule, it's that they break them in such overwhelming numbers that it creates a particular perception about cyclists.

cantalach

petethedrummer wrote: »

Correct but why the worry about this big loss of respect because cyclists break this one particular rule?

Because breaking red lights is, by a country mile, the most visible way in which cyclists break the rules. On any radio phone-in that allows motorists to bang on about cyclists, that is the recurring theme. If we stop at the lights, we'll have taken a lot of the wind out of their sails.

lukester

Left turn on red FTW. Legal in certain N. American cities, makes a lot of sense for all vehicles.

There is also IMO a bit of a grey area here, for example junctions where there is a light but a cycle lane that bypasses the light- there's one of these coming off Byrd Ave onto Clonskeagh Rd, another coming down from Enniskerry toward Sandyford.

At certain ped crossings you can, if you're so inclined, walk your bike across and carry on your way.

Sailing blindly through a red is idiotic, dangerous, and gives a poor impression of cyclists. But in some of the scenarios above I don't see a problem.

The real issue is idiots on bikes.

Chips Lovell

Some bus lanes bypass red lights. Since you can ride in most bus lanes, you can utilise them too.

DirkVoodoo

el tonto wrote: »

If you feel you need to break lights to stay safe then you shouldn't be riding a bike on the road.

I agree with you about people nonchalantly freewheeling through lights, which really bugs me. But do you really believe that there are situations where not bypassing a red light can prove safer/more convenient for everyone?

I for one would like to see a "left turn on red" for cyclists, though I suppose like all laws this would be open to abuse.

I refer again to my Stillorgan Road - Mt Merrion Ave junction.



The bus stop is one of the busier ones along the 46A route and is quite narrow, so it is invariably chock full of commuters. After this, the cycle path (red) carries on in front of blind driveways (hidden by trees in the overhead) and undulating cycle path. It is also a favourite spot for cars to pull into for parking, etc.

When the light for Stillorgan North bound traffic turns red, the right hand turn filter for traffic turning from Stillorgan North onto Mt Merrion Ave is green, as is the U-turn for traffic on the Stillorgan road south. This means that if I leave the cycle path (following the green line above) and get onto the bus lane when the light is red, I don't have to risk hitting a pedestrian, there are no buses except those that were ahead of me and I have no risk of cars hitting me when exiting their driveways, which nearly happened in my first year of commuting. Red light breaking? Yes, I guess it is...but I am not cruising through a busy junction or a pedestrian crossing and basically (for the last few years anyway) have the Bus lane to myself until I rejoin the cycle lane before foster's ave.

Dirk.JPG

Alkers

I would rather not wait at red lights and have no cycling facilities whatsoever than have to wait for red lights...

Chips Lovell

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I agree with you about people nonchalantly freewheeling through lights, which really bugs me. But do you really believe that there are situations where not bypassing a red light can prove safer/more convenient for everyone?

I for one would like to see a "left turn on red" for cyclists, though I suppose like all laws this would be open to abuse.

I believe a left turn on red law (or a turn left with caution on red law) would certainly be more convenient for cyclists.

Mucco

I think that the fact that cyclists break red lights is neither here nor there. That primetime piece stated that 82% of cars break the speed limit, so motorists are not against law-breaking per se.
I think it's a tribal food-chain thing. Cyclists are an inferior tribe, therefore they should keep in their place - ie not in my way
If all cyclists obeyed the law, people would just complain about something else - lycra louts etc....

Alkers

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

My point, aside from the obvious rant, was that red light jumpers and people who don't clean up after their dogs are cut from the same cloth. Neither feels they should obey the law because the risk of being caught is so low. The apparent inconvenience of slowing down or having to swing a bag of crap at arms length outweigh this low risk anyway, so why stick to the law?

Letting your dog poop in public and leaving it there is just plain disgusting. It is completely possible to break a red light on a bicycle without causing any damage or danger whatsoever. Completely irrelevant point imo

Chips Lovell

Simona1986 wrote: »

It is completely possible to break a red light on a bicycle without causing any damage or danger whatsoever. Completely irrelevant point imo

It is completely possible to drive at 170kph on the motorway without causing any damage or danger whatsoever. Completely irrelevant point imo.

alfalad

lukester wrote: »

Sailing blindly through a red is idiotic, dangerous, and gives a poor impression of cyclists. But in some of the scenarios above I don't see a problem.

The real issue is idiots on bikes.

Was that you I just saw go the wrong way up Nassau street?

Alkers

It is rarely possible to do so in Ireland? You're never going to get cyclists to obey red lights when theres no need for them too, law should be changed.

Chips Lovell

Simona1986 wrote: »

You're never going to get cyclists to obey red lights when theres no need for them too, law should be changed.

Given the number of cyclists I've seen experience narrow escapes and the few I've witnessed in collisions, I'd say there still is a need for it.

DirkVoodoo

Simona1986 wrote: »

It is rarely possible to do so in Ireland? You're never going to get cyclists to obey red lights when theres no need for them too, law should be changed.

Is self preservation not the most basic need we have?

Thank you for highlighting the relevancy of my point by the way, I didn't take into account the damage/danger associated with dog poop. Sure, if a cyclist hit it at speed it would be dangerous, or if someone threw it at the cyclist it might damage his snowflake spokes.

I think saying that sailing through red lights does not have the possibility to be dangerous or cause damage is the most irrelevant point made so far. It is also completely possible to make a successful living out of being a pro on the russian roulette circuit.

Alkers

@el tonto If that was the case they were obviously breaking the lights recklessly and in that case they were stupid. There is cyclists out there with no regard for other road users but if you are copped on it is very feasible to break red lights in a perfectly safe manner.
@DirkVoodoo I don't think dog poop is a relevant example here, it is disgusting and does damage to public parks, footpaths etc. I never said breaking a red light does not have the possibility to be dangerous or to cause damage, just that it doesn't always do so. I'm not advocating people flying through red lights without looking. Where is the harm in a cyclist going through a red light when it is safe to do so?
Can you actually picture a city where all the cyclists sit waiting at red lights? Won't happen.

DirkVoodoo

That is true, but the law is there to protect the people who are too stupid to know otherwise. Anarchy is not a solution to the problem.

Anyway, 78.89% of people on this forum don't seem to have much issue with stopping at the majority of lights.

humbert

I'll filter left if there are no pedestrians and I'm not going to get in the way of or surprise a motorist coming from the right.

I'll go through pedestrian lights if there are no pedestrians around and no likelihood of cars looking to pull out while the traffic is stopped.

I.e. when I am confident that I will not cause an accident or cause anybody else an inconvenience. I will stop in either of those situations if there is somebody walking on the footpath who might cross.

I don't know of any good reason why I should not do this.

AstraMonti

Simona1986 wrote: »

If that was the case they were obviously breaking the lights recklessly and in that case they were stupid. There is cyclists out there with no regard for other road users but if you are copped on it is very feasible to break red lights in a perfectly safe manner.

break red lights in a perfectly safe manner

How wrong does this sound? Seriously.

DirkVoodoo

AstraMonti wrote: »

break red lights in a perfectly safe manner

How wrong does this sound? Seriously.

We just need to keep it going for 7 more hours, then the witching hour is upon us!

Chips Lovell

Simona1986 wrote: »

If that was the case they were obviously breaking the lights recklessly and in that case they were stupid. There is cyclists out there with no regard for other road users but if you are copped on it is very feasible to break red lights in a perfectly safe manner.

I see. I guess we could apply this logic to lots of other road traffic offences when you think about it. Drop speed limits altogether and anyone who gets into an accident was simply too stupid. Wrap your car around a tree while drunk? Stupid of you to have that last round of shots.

petethedrummer

You know who hasn't contributed yet?

Chips Lovell

Ah don't goad him.

Alkers

AstraMonti wrote: »

break red lights in a perfectly safe manner

How wrong does this sound? Seriously.

Read the post above you. Two perfect examples of how it's possible.

"@ El Tonto" So you reckon breaking a red light on a pushbike when it is safe to do so is as serious an offence as drink driving and speeding in a car?
I'm all for discussing it but you're being unreasonable their completely, obviosuly I don't think that whatsoever.

Crash

Screw red lights, can someone please stop people cycling in the wrong direction down the canal? every single morning there's at least one, it beggars belief.

AstraMonti

Man it's simple, the lights are there so we are not in the mercy of everyone that has his own judgment of when it's safe to break the red. Now multiply that by the ridiculous amount of cyclists breaking reds and you can understand why this is bad.

Chips Lovell

Simona1986 wrote: »

"@ El Tonto" So you reckon breaking a red light on a pushbike when it is safe to do so is as serious an offence as drink driving and speeding in a car?
I'm all for discussing it but you're being unreasonable their completely, obviosuly I don't think that whatsoever.

The basis of your argument is that if you can do something safely, then it shouldn't be illegal. But you need to be consistant. So, by your logic if you can speed safely, then you should be allowed to do so.

What amuses me is the sense of entitlement that some cyclists seem to feel. If road traffic law is inconvenient to them, then they think they have every right to ignore it.