Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

lima

BX 19 wrote: »

I take it you've never seen a car run a red light? Stand at the Palmerston N4 junction and watch it happen time after time....

I am not talking about cars. But for you - I also dislike car drivers who break lights.

lima

Deleted User wrote: »

Number of children killed by cyclists in Ireland this year? Last year?

Quantify the danger. Stories on the internet are not evidence of a problem.

Also sounds like you need to deal with your road rage. Punching someone is illegal.

It is not road rage, it is rage at the stupidity of idiots breaking lights and almost hitting children.

Incredible how some people are trying to stick up for breaking red lights!!

StinkyMunkey

BX 19 wrote: »

Because it's just bicycles that break red lights

Love 2 mins in, a swarm of cyclists trying to see who can break the red light first:D.

seamus

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Love 2 mins in, a swarm of cyclists trying to see who can break the red light first:D.

Whatever about the rest of the video, the behaviour at 2:33 is incredible, 5 cars just blatantly ignore the light.

StinkyMunkey

lima wrote: »

It is not road rage, it is rage at the stupidity of idiots breaking lights and almost hitting children.

Incredible how some people are trying to stick up for breaking red lights!!

But cyclists would have us believe that breaking red lights isnt dangerous. According to alot of people, there should be separate rules of the road for cyclists (btw the way, im a cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist).

Red means stop, its really very easy. Whether your a car, cyclists, pedestrian or driving a tractor.

Ray Palmer

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ooops yeah wrong color being looked at

However in the absence of a straight through filter, still breaking the law, why not allow buses to do it?

If you actually read what I said properly you would understand the point. It isn't dangerous but is against the law.
Do you care more about the law and obey it while driving? To claim breaking the lights is dangerous all the time isn't true. If you actually stopped there you then have to deal with the bus stop a short distance afterwards. By going on you have a better chance to avoid the buses.
The danger after that is the numerous cars stopping in the cycle lane to drop their kids to school.

StinkyMunkey

seamus wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of the video, the behaviour at 2:33 is incredible, 5 cars just blatantly ignore the light.

I totally agree with you, like ive said, red lights are for everyone.

hooradiation

Spook_ie wrote: »

transposed red lights from this view to red line for cyclist...**** happens deal with it

Try reading things carefully in future and you'll find the amount of asterixis that you will have to deal with will be greatly reduced.

bruschi

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ooops yeah wrong color being looked at

However in the absence of a straight through filter, still breaking the law, why not allow buses to do it?

bruschi wrote: »

can you not see a difference between a bus and someone on a bike? relative to size, capacity, speed and load being carried?

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I see a red light being ignored

bruschi wrote: »

so you think a bicycle breaking a red light is the same as a bus breaking a red light. yeah, good point alright.

seeing as you jumped in late, this is what started this part of the debate

Adriana Tasteless Spaghetti wrote: »

It's not the same, but both incidents could end up with somebody losing their life. It doesn't have to be the cyclist either. What if a car goes through a green light and swerves to avoid the cyclist and hits a pedestrian or another car?

Just because you are on a bike doesn't make it ok to break the rules of the road.

You can apply the same logic to a moped or a jogger. It's still not ok.

so if you both genuinely think that at that junction, where a cyclist is going straight on, through no lanes of traffic, is the same as the bus doing it or that a cyclist could kill someone doing it, then there is little point in discussing it anymore.

no car would have to swerve to avoid a cyclist in the instance shown above. so to try equate them both as the same is wrong. yes, what the cyclist does is illegal, but is not dangerous.

Ray Palmer

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

But cyclists would have us believe that breaking red lights isnt dangerous. According to alot of people, there should be separate rules of the road for cyclists (btw the way, im a cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist).

Red means stop, its really very easy. Whether your a car, cyclists, pedestrian or driving a tractor.

Actually it is some cyclists who believe breaking some lights isn't dangerous. See the example I gave.
There are different rules of the road for cyclists, cars, hgv etc...
Just because a rule exists doesn't make it sensible. More progressive rules can be introduced. I am aware that picking and choosing which rules apply could lead to chaos but it hasn't.
Most motorists are just frustrated to see cyclists not stop and danger never comes into it. George Hook claims he has never seen a cyclist stop at a read light, simply can't be true.

StinkyMunkey

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

But cyclists would have us believe that breaking red lights isnt dangerous. According to alot of people, there should be separate rules of the road for cyclists (btw the way, im a cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist).

Red means stop, its really very easy. Whether your a car, cyclists, pedestrian or driving a tractor.

Fine talk coming from a self-confessed drunk driver.

Forgive me if I don't take any lectures from you on road safety.

StinkyMunkey

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Actually it is some cyclists who believe breaking some lights isn't dangerous. See the example I gave.
There are different rules of the road for cyclists, cars, hgv etc...
Just because a rule exists doesn't make it sensible. More progressive rules can be introduced. I am aware that picking and choosing which rules apply could lead to chaos but it hasn't.
Most motorists are just frustrated to see cyclists not stop and danger never comes into it. George Hook claims he has never seen a cyclist stop at a read light, simply can't be true.

Ill have to disagree with you on that one, ive had more than one near miss witha cyclist breaking a red light. Its not a race, i dont care about cyclists in cycle boxes being in front of me, i dont care if a cyclist gets ahead of me.

Jester252

That whole stopping for a red light is part of the rules of the roads. Cyclists use the roads. Why sholud they not follow the rules?

StinkyMunkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine talk coming from a self-confessed drunk driver.

Forgive me if I don't take any lectures from you on road safety.

Yes because ive said it on numerous occassions that i drink ten pints every day before i drive home.

Why not just forget me and look at the rules of the road - red means stop.

Or like you say maybe just do away with traffic lights all together - seriously i lol'ed, please tell me your taking the piss:

http://www.risingkashmir.in/news/country-without-traffic-signal-10227.aspx

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Jan/8/more-deaths-due-to-road-mishaps-than-militancy-in-jk-dgp-53.asp

Tell you what, when traffic lights in Ireland are done away with, im buying a tank:D.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

bruschi wrote: »

so if you both genuinely think that at that junction, where a cyclist is going straight on, through no lanes of traffic, is the same as the bus doing it or that a cyclist could kill someone doing it, then there is little point in discussing it anymore.

I never stated that a cyclist could kill somebody, but it's quite possible. Chances are it's very unlikely that would happen, but it could. A cyclist shouldn't go through a red light even if they are not going through another lane of traffic. It's dangerous.

bruschi wrote: »

no car would have to swerve to avoid a cyclist in the instance shown above. so to try equate them both as the same is wrong. yes, what the cyclist does is illegal, but is not dangerous.

A car may still have to swerve. You cannot be certain that they would not, it's just impossible. The danger may not be obvious, but the danger is quite real.

bruschi

Adriana Tasteless Spaghetti wrote: »

I never stated that a cyclist could kill somebody, but it's quite possible. Chances are it's very unlikely that would happen, but it could. A cyclist shouldn't go through a red light even if they are not going through another lane of traffic. It's dangerous.



A car may still have to swerve. You cannot be certain that they would not, it's just impossible. The danger may not be obvious, but the danger is quite real.

again, I'm not sure if you saw the picture posted, but it was where a cyclist, in a cycling lane would go straight on, and if any cars were coming, unless they were going to drive in the cycling lane, then there would be no need to swerve. if a car has to swerve merging with a cyclist in a cycling lane, then I'd fear for them merging on a motorway.

It is not always dangerous when a cyclist goes through a red light, same as its not always safe. Each junction is different, and I was commenting on one particular one mentioned, where one tried claim it would be the same if a bus went through it.

If you think every junction is the same, and every red light a cyclist goes through poses the same dangers, then fair enough. I completely disagree and can see points in some areas where cyclists going through a red light has no danger.

If it can work with vehicles in other countries going through red lights, legally, and its not dangerous, then why is it considered dangerous when a cyclist does it here?

StinkyMunkey

bruschi wrote: »

again, I'm not sure if you saw the picture posted, but it was where a cyclist, in a cycling lane would go straight on, and if any cars were coming, unless they were going to drive in the cycling lane, then there would be no need to swerve. if a car has to swerve merging with a cyclist in a cycling lane, then I'd fear for them merging on a motorway.

It is not always dangerous when a cyclist goes through a red light, same as its not always safe. Each junction is different, and I was commenting on one particular one mentioned, where one tried claim it would be the same if a bus went through it.

If you think every junction is the same, and every red light a cyclist goes through poses the same dangers, then fair enough. I completely disagree and can see points in some areas where cyclists going through a red light has no danger.

If it can work with vehicles in other countries going through red lights, legally, and its not dangerous, then why is it considered dangerous when a cyclist does it here?

Traffic lights are there to give some order that is the chaos, that driving or cycling in Dublin is.

StinkyMunkey

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Ill have to disagree with you on that one, ive had more than one near miss witha cyclist breaking a red light. Its not a race, i dont care about cyclists in cycle boxes being in front of me, i dont care if a cyclist gets ahead of me.

Anecdote.

Still waiting for any statistics on the menace that is cyclists endangering pedestrians.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Still waiting for any statistics on the menace that is cyclists endangering pedestrians.

My auntie's brother's girlfriend's daughter's teacher had to jump out the way of a speeding cyclist once.

And he had no high-vis jacket on.

StinkyMunkey

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Yes because ive said it on numerous occassions that i drink ten pints every day before i drive home.

Why not just forget me and look at the rules of the road - red means stop.

Or like you say maybe just do away with traffic lights all together - seriously i lol'ed, please tell me your taking the piss:

http://www.risingkashmir.in/news/country-without-traffic-signal-10227.aspx

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Jan/8/more-deaths-due-to-road-mishaps-than-militancy-in-jk-dgp-53.asp

Tell you what, when traffic lights in Ireland are done away with, im buying a tank:D.

If you are actually interested in reading up about the subject start here:
http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/

StinkyMunkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Anecdote.

Still waiting for any statistics on the menace that is cyclists endangering pedestrians.

Huh?

I was talking about a cyclist going through a red light while im driving.

StinkyMunkey

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Huh?

I was talking about a cyclist going through a red light while im driving.

Were you drunk at the time?

StinkyMunkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Were you drunk at the time?

Yes, id had a bottle of vodka and 15 pints.

No quote on Kashmir huh, strange!

Ray Palmer

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Traffic lights are there to give some order that is the chaos, that driving or cycling in Dublin is.

No they aren't. Generally they are designed to slow motor vehicles to prevent congestion. Little thought if any for cyclists.
They also have faulty programing, ever stood at a pedestrian crossing where the lights are red for traffic and pedestrians ?
Fine if you want to say rules are rules but that doesn't make it dangerous.
Still don't get why any car would need to swerve in the example I gave.

Capt'n Midnight

Chemical Burn wrote: »

But they are also using roads paid for by tax payers (which most cyclists probably aren't, let's face it). They should contribute.

Of course they should contribute.

Two ways of doing this.

- maintenance costs
One is by costing the amount of damage they do to road surfaces. This is proportional to the fourth power of the weight on the axle, by this measure a large truck should pay 1,000's of times more than a car. And a bicycle is almost unmeasurable and there is no way the true impact of cycling would ever cover the cost of collection. Buses do a lot more damage than cars too - look at state of tarmac in narrow bus only streets.

- building costs
X% of journeys in Dublin are made by bicycle. This represents a saving of Y% in road space usage and congestion (cyclists are held up by cars more often than visa versa in heavy traffic) and overall a reduction of Z% in infrastructure costs. Some of these savings go into cycle lanes.


If cyclists are to be charged for road usage then logic demands that they get rebates for the costs saved by them not using motorised transport.

StinkyMunkey

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Yes, id had a bottle of vodka and 15 pints.

No quote on Kashmir huh, strange!

There's no possible response to the articles you posted. Kashmir is completely irrelevant to the discussion. As you well know there's a completely different culture there and standards / manner of driving are not comparable.

Any comment on my link?

seamus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Of course they should contribute.

Two ways of doing this.

You can also do it by CO2 emissions. Which I've calculated under the existing scheme would put cyclists paying a couple of cent per year to cover their CO2 output.

No matter what way you work out a "road tax" scheme for cyclists, the figures are either so low as to be pointless, or if you were to expand these costs to something meaningful like €50/year, you'd have to raise car taxes to a few grand per year minimum, to keep the figures proportional.

galwaycyclist

In Belgium it has now been made legal for cyclists to treat red-lights as "yield" signs in defined circumstances.

Belgian Traffic Code
http://www.code-de-la-route.be/actualite/modifications-recentes/1717-cyclistes-passent-au-rouge

This sign allows cyclists to pass a red light to turn right
http://www.code-de-la-route.be/images/stories/verkeerstekens/B/B22.png

This sign allows cyclists to pass a red light to go straight ahead
http://www.code-de-la-route.be/images/stories/verkeerstekens/B/B23.png

There has been similar legislation in place in the Netherlands and Germany for years. France has also adopted similar measures.

Arguably, the fact that Irish cyclists are expected to always obey red-lights in all circumstances is simply another aspect of a country that steadfastly refuses to modernise itself. Its a bit like police searching women for contraceptives when they get off the train from Belfast - to take another example of the Irish establishment tying itself in knots. It is arguably a manifestation of a native "culture" that has no idea how backward it looks to the outside world. (Or that in some cases takes a perverse pride in the badge of backwardness)

Capt'n Midnight

MrCreosote wrote: »

Re the red lights. It would be better just to have lights as a "yield" for cyclists like they do in Paris. It would simplify things and keep the traffic moving.

Not 100% sure what you mean there.

But we should have a facility where if there is room to do so cyclists should be able to pass a traffic light if keeping to the left of the left most lane. So left turn only at crossroads.


To facilitate this you could have a cycle lane to the left of the lights, or mark the road with a cycle lane and appropiate signs. [edit - see the above post [/edit]

Not sure how to do where there isn't a bike lane because cyclists would have to yield to turning traffic already on the road.





Unfortunately a lot of the problem with breaking lights is a lot of motorists don't see bicycles or even motorcyclists. "Think once, think twice, think bike". Cyclists who break red lights have to understand that by doing so there are putting their lives in the hands of inconsiderate morons who break the speed limit and road safety means we have to legislate for the realities and amber gamblers.

I've seen a few near misses , including the unlit numpty who went Westwards through the red light at Christchurch. Yes the traffic was stopped on Clanbrassil Street but he didn't know or care about the filter lane to High Street because he wasn't slowing down at the traffic island. Just because there is no traffic crossing the junction itself doesn't mean it's safe



Or do the Mr Bean approach of walking the bike past the lights :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

You can also do it by CO2 emissions. Which I've calculated under the existing scheme would put cyclists paying a couple of cent per year to cover their CO2 output.

Seriously ? :rolleyes:

As you well know most cyclists were first registered before 1st July 2008 so they'd be taxed on the old scheme not their CO2 emissions :pac:


Does anyone remember the old conversion between electrical horsepower and cc ?
This will mean that fitter cyclists pay more


Also - this may suggests that we should have been taxing perambulators all along. http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/MotorTax/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,31672,en.doc
Pedestrian-Controlled Vehicle €88 with monthly arrears of €7.33