One year driving ban for breaking red light!..

niceonetom

This was posted on the cycling forum, I feel the poster raised a valid point that bears repeating here, hope they don't mind me sharing it with a wider audience.

niceonetom wrote:

I obey traffic lights but...

...those in the anti-light-breaking wing have to admit that breaking the lights cannot simultaneously be both as ubiquitous and as dangerous as they claim. It it were then every junction in Dublin would be knee deep in dead cyclists. Either it's not actually very dangerous or it doesn't happen... it clearly does happen, probably as often as not at many junctions, so we are forced to conclude that breaking the lights is, in reality, fairly safe. This is because most people do not want to die on the way to work. Who'd a thunk.

So why not do it?

Well, 'on principle', I suppose. I think that arguing that cyclists should follow the law re: lights for PR reasons and on the basis of 'fairness' is more intellectually honest and reasonable than immediately bringing safety/recklessness into it. That's a canard.

I think we should, on the whole, obey the law. But I also think the law should be augmented to allow cyclists a greater degree of legal freedom on the roads by, for example, allowing left turning cyclists to treat red lights as yield signs. More suitable rules, more stringently enforced would be better than the stringent rules completely unenforced that we have right now.

I see no value or truth in the assertion that all road users must obey identical rules regardless of mode of use: it's ideology unhindered by pragmatism. Many jurisdictions impose more stringent rules of HGVs than on other users (banned form certain areas, lower speed limits etc.), the same thinking should apply at the other end of the size spectrum.

easyeason3

I danced a jig of happiness when I saw this.
The stupid looking gimp, a year isn't long enough.

Run_to_da_hills

Technicall if someone can loose their license for breaking a traffic light on a pushbike a pedestrian could also loose his for J walkin or being drunk on a public road.

monument

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

No numbers for Ireland, but a good indicator as to the costs may be gleaned from this:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0909/1224254134575.html

That includes one bridge over a railway and the Royal Canal, another bridge over the Tolka River, and possibly another over the Grand Canal. Some boardwalk may be needed along a small stretch of the Grand Canal. It also includes pedestrian / cyclist traffic lights, the redesign of a number of junctions, extra bicycle parking stands along the route etc.

Harold Nervous Stratum

Harold Nervous Stratum wrote: »

Exceptionally ugly bastard warning!.

And not just because he's abusing the right to be ugly, but I'm delighted

About time someone tried to put a stop to this practice.

Jeeze, but he's one ugly dude too!.

Harold Nervous Stratum wrote: »

I wonder could we post his photo in the 'photos which shocked the world' thread!.

Are you trying to impress us with this crap ?

BraziliaNZ

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

What's with all the sweeping attacks on his appearance? If this was a woman we were talking about, the thread would have been closed ages ago

Very well said.

stovelid

RoverJames wrote: »

Are you trying to impress us with this crap ?

How are your injuries?

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

How are your injuries?

Very witty
I just find the thread in very very poor taste, it has brought AH to a new low I reckon. Which is an achievement considering the mindless sh1te that's in here.

AnonoBoy

RoverJames wrote: »

Very witty
I just find the thread in very very poor taste, it has brought AH to a new low I reckon. Which is an achievement considering the mindless sh1te that's in here.

Honestly there's been a lot worse sh*t that this in here.

Yup, they're being pretty insulting about him but you should see what they said about me in that thread.

Yeah, everyone involved knows the one I'm talking about. I haven't forgotten you know. :mad:

Wicklowrider

Stinicker wrote: »

, any driver who would driven this turn would be happy to drive around it much faster as its sight line allows you to see whats in front of /QUOTE]
You really are making this up as you go along aren't you?
1st its a blind turn, then when you are challenged as to why you entered a blind turn at speed you decide that you have perfect line of sight through it. Ok - lets assume you had line of sight. Then how did you have to make an emeregency stop? Your posts are full of inconsistencies and demonstrate a remarkable lack of knowledge of the road traffic act.
Did you pass your test?
I also note that you haven't answered my questions - specifically could you please address the point that if the road was as narrow as you state how could you safely pass a single cyclist/pedestrian/animal with oncoming traffic?