Paris to allow cyclists to run red lights in bid to cut accidents.

Run_to_da_hills

Cyclists will be allowed to turn right or go straight ahead, even when a traffic light is on red. But they will have to give way to pedestrians, and traffic coming from the left. They will be held responsible if there is an accident.

Would this work in Ireland?

There are plenty of cyclists over here that would do this anyway.

I have started a similar thread in the cycling forum to get a cyclists prospective.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...accidents.html

challengemaster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Cyclists will be allowed to turn right or go straight ahead, even when a traffic light is on red. But they will have to give way to pedestrians, and traffic coming from the left. They will be held responsible if there is an accident.

Would this work in Ireland?

There are plenty of cyclists over here that would do this anyway.

I have started a similar thread in the cycling forum to get a cyclists prospective.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...accidents.html

This is the key part of it, tbh. Allow them to do it, but make them think twice about it in the first place.

MugMugs

Could we insist on targets on their backs too?

Run_to_da_hills

challengemaster wrote: »

This is the key part of it, tbh. Allow them to do it, but make them think twice about it in the first place.

And how many of them would have some sort of cover in the case of a PI claim?

Sounds similar to the right turn on red that motor vehicles are allowed to make in the U.S. Don't see the Daily Mail making a fuss out of that.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And how many of them would have some sort of cover in the case of a PI claim?

Some. Probably a minority but not sure. I know house insurance policies can include bicycles (including 3rd party damages). Anyone that rides competitively would be covered by Cycling Ireland insurance.

Anyway it's beside the point. There isn't a country on earth that requires mandatory 3rd party insurance for cyclists, because the amount of damage done is fairly miniscule compared to that done by motor vehicles.

A cyclist going at moderate speed has about the same kinetic energy as someone running. Should joggers be obliged to take out insurance too?

Guy:Incognito

Would them obeying the rules in the first place not reduce accidents?

Run_to_da_hills

Deleted User wrote: »

Some. Probably a minority but not sure. I know house insurance policies can include bicycles (including 3rd party damages). Anyone that rides competitively would be covered by Cycling Ireland insurance.

Anyway it's beside the point. There isn't a country on earth that requires mandatory 3rd party insurance for cyclists, because the amount of damage done is fairly miniscule compared to that done by motor vehicles.

A cyclist going at moderate speed has about the same kinetic energy as someone running. Should joggers be obliged to take out insurance too?

Worst case scenario would be a reckless cyclist causing a car to swerve hitting another car or pedestrian.

savagecabbages

I'm not an expert on French law, but in many instances if you are at fault, tough sh** i.e. you are responsible for your own actions.

I know that in rallies in France, if you stand in a dangerous place and get hit by a crashing car, you are held responsible and pay the medical/funeral bills.
In Ireland if you do the same and get hit, the motor club running the event are responsible and you claim against them. Insurance claims are crippling the sport at the moment...

Lot to be said for the French way.