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

Capt'n Midnight

Here we go again.

Two points

Any person who crosses another lane while breaking red lights is and idiot and deserves to have the book thrown at them. Calling them cyclists is the same as using the word motorist to describe the specific behaviours associated with white van man / BMW / yaris / taxi drivers. The only people who respect these idiots are themselves. Don't preach to the choir, use your dash cam to report them - though the statistics indicate it's far more likely to incriminate you for speeding.


Despite the introduction of penalty points the vast majority of motorists continue to break the law on a daily basis. Can anyone can show a survey with a reasonable sample size that shows over 80% of cyclists breaking an enforced law ?


http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/Speed_survey_2011.pdf

82% of car drivers surveyed exceeded the 50km/h limit on urban national roads, a marginal decrease of one percentage point on 2009 figures

53% of these drivers exceeded the speed limit by 10km/h or more;

The average speed of cars on urban national roads was about 11 km/h above the 50 km/h posted speed limit. Furthermore, only 15% of drivers were observed travelling below the speed limit and 6% were travelling between 80 and 100 km/h.

...
23% of car drivers surveyed on urban arterial roads travelled under the speed limit when in 60 km/h zones.
...
The survey also found that car drivers are more likely to exceed a low speed limit by a wider margin than a high speed limit

Cungi

Cungi wrote: »

Right, Cyclists are pricks, Drivers are pricks and the OP is a bollix.

Now that's out of the way, why do a lot of cyclists break red lights?

I really don't get it. If i'm driving a car there is no way i'll jump a red light incase i get smashed out of it. Do these cyclists not care about what would happen if they were hit?

(Not saying all cyclists, just a few)

If you genuinely want an answer:

To get from A to B quicker. If I am stopped at a pedestrian crossing or road junction and there isn't a sinner around, I'll cycle through the lights. Same way you wouldn't wait at a pedestrian crossing if there's nobody around just because the man is red.

Very few cyclists break lights unless it is safe to do so. Whether it is safe is a judgement call of course but no different to the judgement you make at a junction with no lights. Trust me, if you cycle, you know all about self-preservation and you don't take unnecessary risks unless you're a bona fide idiot.

In general traffic lights are not there for safety, they are to manage traffic flow. A cyclist can often break them without compromising anyone else's safety or journey (same way as in American you can turn 'right on red' if there's nothing coming)

Lastly there is a group of cyclists who break lights when pedestrians are crossing who share the "I'm bigger and faster than you so I can do what I want" attitude with a lot of other road users. I don't like those people.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

tommythecat wrote: »

I think what he did afterwards was competely out of order however if i understand you correctly the cars were stopped but his lane was free? Cyclists are not required to stop just because cars are in a traffic jam. Their lane is free so they are perfectly entitled to continue cyclling as far as the lights. If you are crossing the road in your car it is up to you to yield to oncoming traffic (bikes included)

They should also show a duty of care to other road users. He should have been cautious while approaching the lights. Just because your lane is clear and you have the right of way, doesn't mean you can act with impunity.

kylith wrote: »

I can't tell you how many times I've nearly been killed by car drivers turning left without checking the cycle lane. Worst of all are the ones that overtake you, and then immediately pull in in front of you.

It's sickening how many times I witnessed this on the roads... whatever about a car doing this, but when a bus does this i'm in complete disbelief.

All road users must abide by the rules of the road. I don't know why some cyclists/motorists think they don't have to abide by the rules of the road.

Cungi

Cungi wrote: »

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.
This type of person (whether it's a pedestrian, cyclist, airline pilot whatever) will be in for a nasty shock some day

Do you think the average human being can't figure out when it's safe to cross a road - when there are no traffic lights around?

How do you handle road junctions with no traffic lights?

In most cases traffic lights are not a safety measure, they are to regulate traffic flow.

Andy-Pandy

Going up the South Quays last week a car pulled out of the apple green petrol station directly into my path causing me to slam on my breaks, I was pretty pissed at him, but I looked behind me to catch the attention of the guard on a motorbike who I had been sharing all the previous red lights with. I was delighted to see the guard pull over the driver and a gave a quick "thanks" as i passed him. Some time later the same guard gave me a wave in the phoenix park. It was the first time that had happened to me but was very satisfying.

lima

Deleted User wrote: »

If you genuinely want an answer:

To get from A to B quicker. If I am stopped at a pedestrian crossing or road junction and there isn't a sinner around, I'll cycle through the lights. Same way you wouldn't wait at a pedestrian crossing if there's nobody around just because the man is red.

Very few cyclists break lights unless it is safe to do so. Whether it is safe is a judgement call of course but no different to the judgement you make at a junction with no lights. Trust me, if you cycle, you know all about self-preservation and you don't take unnecessary risks unless you're a bona fide idiot.

In general traffic lights are not there for safety, they are to manage traffic flow. A cyclist can often break them without compromising anyone else's safety or journey (same way as in American you can turn 'right on red' if there's nothing coming)

Lastly there is a group of cyclists who break lights when pedestrians are crossing who share the "I'm bigger and faster than you so I can do what I want" attitude with a lot of other road users. I don't like those people.

Don't even try to justify it - the rules of the road apply to cyclists. It's the law. Don't be a dickhead mate.

lima

lima wrote: »

Don't even try to justify it - the rules of the road apply to cyclists. It's the law. Don't be a dickhead mate.

I was asked a question, I answered it truthfully.

I doubt there's a man or woman alive in this country who hasn't broken the rules of the road btw.

BostonB

lima wrote: »

Don't even try to justify it - the rules of the road apply to cyclists. It's the law. Don't be a dickhead mate.

Er hes not justifying it? Look at the context of the comment. Hes explaining why some do it, and why it doesn't cause as many accidents that you might assume it would. Which was the question asked.

Spook_ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here we go again.

Two points

Any person who crosses another lane while breaking red lights is and idiot and deserves to have the book thrown at them. Calling them cyclists is the same as using the word motorist to describe the specific behaviours associated with white van man / BMW / yaris / taxi drivers. The only people who respect these idiots are themselves. Don't preach to the choir, use your dash cam to report them - though the statistics indicate it's far more likely to incriminate you for speeding.


Despite the introduction of penalty points the vast majority of motorists continue to break the law on a daily basis. Can anyone can show a survey with a reasonable sample size that shows over 80% of cyclists breaking an enforced law ?


http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Speed/Speed_survey_2011.pdf

Would be very difficult to find ANY laws relating to cycling that are enforced in any kind of meaningful way, time for registrations, 3rd party liability and licenses for cyclists

rubadub

lima wrote: »

Don't even try to justify it - the rules of the road apply to cyclists. It's the law. Don't be a dickhead mate.

You must regard most gardai that I see as dickheads so. They know the laws, but more importantly they realise why those laws came about, and when & why to enforce them. They are not pedantic little hitlers trying to catch people out on technicalities when they know fine well the law was not introduced to stop the particular action they might see.

I see gardai not batting an eyelid at most laws being broken by pedestrians & cyclists -and with good sensible reason. If anybody does not know the reason why this is the case, then I would have serious worry about their safety, not sure they should be let out at all. I think most feign ignorance to try and make a point, but end up appearing genuinely stupid.

I witnessed a car breaking a light today on my way to work in a very safe & sensible manner, if a garda was around I doubt he would have gone near him. I would not have risked it myself though.

I often break the law on foot and on bicycle. I have gotten approving nods from gardai when doing it too, as they realise why I am doing it, and see the benefits of my actions, to myself and others. I never do it in the car though, and am FAR more likely to do it on foot -as most of the hypocrites here are too.

Cungi

Deleted User wrote: »

If you genuinely want an answer:

To get from A to B quicker. If I am stopped at a pedestrian crossing or road junction and there isn't a sinner around, I'll cycle through the lights.

Why cant you just wait for two minutes? I won't drive through a red light if there isnt a sinner around.

To get from A to B quicker is ok then? Well sure every one should just drive at whatever speed their vehicle can achieve then.

Spook_ie

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

Going up the South Quays last week a car pulled out of the apple green petrol station directly into my path causing me to slam on my breaks, I was pretty pissed at him, but I looked behind me to catch the attention of the guard on a motorbike who I had been sharing all the previous red lights with. I was delighted to see the guard pull over the driver and a gave a quick "thanks" as i passed him. Some time later the same guard gave me a wave in the phoenix park. It was the first time that had happened to me but was very satisfying.

And be honest with us, if the Gard wasn't there would you have cycled through the reds?

Knasher

Cungi wrote: »

Why cant you just wait for two minutes? I won't drive through a red light if there isnt a sinner around.

Some lights are triggered by under-road sensors which are triggered by the metal in your car. Motorbikes can fail to trigger them if they aren't calibrated correctly, so the low metal content in a bike doesn't stand a chance. Would you have me sit there on a deserted road until a car comes along to let me go?

GottaGetGatt

So basically you pulled out in front of the cyclist without looking in your left side mirror.And your surprised that he was a little pissed off so to speak.The only thing the cyclist did wrong was call your GF a c**t instead of you tbh.

Andy-Pandy

Spook_ie wrote: »

And be honest with us, if the Gard wasn't there would you have cycled through the reds?

No, I dont cycle through red lights in town. Especially not around Christchurch and the Quays. I've a 25km (each way) commute and dont mind the breaks. I've also been cycling massive distances on a daily basis for years and am experienced enough to realise it doesnt get me there any faster. Is it so hard for you to believe that cyclists dont always break red lights? Also, the guard came upon me at a red light, not the other way around.

Cungi

Cungi wrote: »

Why cant you just wait for two minutes? I won't drive through a red light if there isnt a sinner around.

To get from A to B quicker is ok then? Well sure every one should just drive at whatever speed their vehicle can achieve then.

Sure I could wait 2 minutes. Usually I do stop at lights, I think you are misunderstanding me. But I'm not going to lie and say I always do.

Your analogy in the 2nd paragraph suggests that argument and logic isn't really your thing. See if you can spot the difference between the situation you describe and a cyclist going though a pedestrian crossing at 10mph when there is nobody about. Think really hard about it, you can get there.

Cungi

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure I could wait 2 minutes. Usually I do stop at lights, I think you are misunderstanding me. But I'm not going to lie and say I always do.

Your analogy in the 2nd paragraph suggests that argument and logic isn't really your thing. See if you can spot the difference between the situation you describe and a cyclist going though a pedestrian crossing at 10mph when there is nobody about. Think really hard about it, you can get there.

Nah couldnt be arsed.

Tbh i wasnt aware that the in pavement and underground metal detectors couldnt be set off by a cyclist. In that case i suppose you cant wait around all night.

And if there isnt anyone else around then i guess its not a safety issue.

I just find it hard to understand the mentality of cyclists who cruise through red lights at Newlands Cross in rush hour traffic.

As was already pointed out maybe they dont see it as dangerous

opti0nal

Cungi wrote: »

I just find it hard to understand the mentality of cyclists who cruise through red lights at Newlands Cross in rush hour traffic.

Let me help you: it's the same mentality found in the many drivers who don't stop for amber lights, some even blatantly blasting through on red or ignoring red filter signals.

Sitec

Did the cyclist have lights on his bike? The weather was terrible today

April O Neill

Cienciano wrote: »

The cyclists can go and pay some road tax before they start complaining

Motor tax.

Duck Soup

I usually don't expect a car driver to slow and begin to stop when the lights are amber - if they're amber often the typical reaction of a motorist is to speed up to beat the red, not slow down, even if they have plenty of road to stop safely.

Cyclists I expect to go through a red light unless there's a stream of traffic crossing their path at the junction, stopping them going directly ahead. If they're at a crossroads and the lights are red, but there's no cross traffic, typically I expect them to go through the red. Is that all of them? No, but the majority - well over 50%.

If they're turning left, then I'd say about 80% of cyclists will just go through the red light. From their perspective, they'd think that they're not crossing traffic, where's the harm etc.

Particularly tricky is crossing a road at a designated crossing, halfway up a road with no junction and with no vehicular traffic stopped. The cyclists will tend to see the road as 'clear' - nobody else has stopped and unless there's a group of pedestrians crossing, they act as though the red light wasn't there. Particularly irritating if you've done the Rules of the Road decent thing and pressed the button, waited for the lights to change, crossed where you're meant to cross, only to find that someone thinks none of this applies to them.

I don't even own a car, I'm just a bog standard pedestrian. But I know from that perspective that no one ignores the rules of the road with greater regularity than cyclists, particularly in regard to red lights and having lights that work.

The unofficial etiquette appears to be: Cars stop at red light, no matter what, unless it's a second after the change in which case some will be going through it like a bat out of hell. Cyclists don't stop at a red light unless there are pedestrians crossing or there's a stream of traffic crossing their path ahead. Otherwise the light doesn't appear to apply to them.

StinkyMunkey

Cyclists in Dublin are lunatics (not them all mind you), But there are plenty of motorists that drive like lunatics.

But one thing thats yanks my chain is Red Light breakers. And cyclists are by far the biggest culprits of this.

I can handle them cycling the the wrong way down one way streets, at least you can adjust your position on the road.

I can handle them cycling on the footpath, sometimes they dont have a choice.

I can handle them changing road position suddenly, because i always give them a wide berth and expect the unexpected.

But it pisses me off something terrible when they break red lights, ive had a few close calls with cyclists doing that.

Cungi

opti0nal wrote: »

Let me help you: it's the same mentality found in the many drivers who don't stop for amber lights, some even blatantly blasting through on red or ignoring red filter signals.

Imo there is a slight difference in the mentality. A driver who does this is ,is dangerous, but unlikely to die. The driver is obviously not concerned about anyone else. If a cyclist does this and is hit, there is a good chance they may not survive.

I don't understand why so many take this chance

StinkyMunkey

Cungi wrote: »

Imo there is a slight difference in the mentality. A driver who does this is ,is dangerous, but unlikely to die. The driver is obviously not concerned about anyone else. If a cyclist does this and is hit, there is a good chance they may not survive.

I don't understand why so many take this chance

Thats what it boils down to, thats why while im on my motortbike, i make it a point not to go through red lights.

UCDVet

Yes, cyclists are d-bags. But so are motorists.

The biggest problem here is that the roads are not adequate to allow pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists to effectively get around. Once you start disobeying traffic laws and doing dangerous things *BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO* it becomes commonplace and you get used to doing them.

At least Dublin, this is how it is.

Roads have left-hand turn lanes for a reason. It's dangerous to turn in-front of traffic. Bicycles can't ride in the roads safely (at least not roads with high speed limits) because bicycles are too slow. We stuck a bunch of bicycle lanes in places where there wasn't room for them and we've made it so motorists have to turn across a lane of traffic to turn left.

That's unsafe. But you get used to it.

In Dublin the bicycle lanes frequently end, frequently get routed into the footpaths (where pedestrians are or worse, where the buses will be loading and unloading passengers), and there are sewer/drainage grates all over the middle of the bicycle lanes. Particularly when it's raining - all you see is standing water and you have no way of knowing where the pot-holes/grates are. You are forced to constantly move from bicycle lane, into motorists traffic, into pedestrians and back and force.

That's unsafe. But you get used to it.

There are similar problems with the traffic lights. They were designed for cars. Imagine a T-shaped intersection where a cyclist is in a cycle lane traveling East. Traffic from the south has the green. The cyclist will have a red light because the cars can't go forward - but there is no reason for the cyclist to stop. He has a clear lane and no cross traffic. Similar things happen in many other scenarios. So you learn to ignore the lights.

That's unsafe. But you get used to it.

There are plenty of places in my daily commute where there just isn't room for the cars and the cyclists. Sudden merging, made worse by the low visibility of cyclists...but what choice is there? I'd rather be far away from the cars and I'm sure the drivers would rather not have to worry about slow moving cyclists getting in their way. Over time, it seems normal that I'd just cut infront of a car going 2-3x as fast me, because I have no choice.

That's unsafe. But you get used to it.

And once you are used to all that....when you've been forced to do it on each commute, it doesn't seem strange to do it when you don't have to. It's normal. It's how cycling works.

hatrickpatrick

podgemonster wrote: »

Drove to work this morning in rush hour as i had to take the car to the a mechanic. The road was over run with cyclists, some in business wear, lycra or simple hi vise, weaving in out and around buses and do you know what.... it was great to see.

Kinda got me thinking if the whole road was mostly cyclists how brilliantly mad twould be!

Also OP was completely in the wrong, cyclist could have gone straight into his windscreen. Instead of giving out he should taken the licence number and reported it.

How was the OP wrong? The lights were red, cyclist wouldn't have hit anything if he hadn't broken the lights.

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

I see this all the time, especially at that set of lights, but also at most sets of lights. Drivers brazenly sailing through amber lights, speeding up to "catch" the light well after it's turned red.

Hang on, sailing through amber lights? I don't mind that even with cyclists. I'm talking about lights which have been red for ages, miles away from the cyclists, and yet they just act like the lights literally do not apply. At pedestrian crossings. With people, including children, trying to get across the road.

TBH I can see this argument getting everyone nowhere, but I frankly don't give a sh!te how it's justified - a red light is a red light, and there's a reason they go red - it's to let other road users safely cross the path of the red lighted road, whether in another vehicle or as pedestrians. If you allow cyclists to break reds, you make the traffic lights meaningless as it is no longer safe for a perpendicular entity to cross in front of them, which is the entire point of having traffic lights at all.

Quite frankly the reason I don't have a vendetta against cars is because cyclists seem to do it at least twenty times more often. And again I'm not talking about merely going through a light that's just turned red, I mean having half a minute to notice the red light in the distance and just deciding "f*ck that, don't care who has to dive out of my way, red lights don't apply to me".

The same gobsh!tes go up on the pavement to get around said junctions and cause pedestrians to have to scatter to avoid them. It's a disgrace. Every one of them should have their bike confiscated for a fixed period and fined, IMO.

hatrickpatrick

UCDVet wrote: »

There are similar problems with the traffic lights. They were designed for cars. Imagine a T-shaped intersection where a cyclist is in a cycle lane traveling East. Traffic from the south has the green. The cyclist will have a red light because the cars can't go forward - but there is no reason for the cyclist to stop. He has a clear lane and no cross traffic. Similar things happen in many other scenarios. So you learn to ignore the lights.

That's unsafe. But you get used to it.

What about pedestrians who are trying to cross the road and have a green man which says they should be able to without getting hit by anything?

UCDVet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What about pedestrians who are trying to cross the road and have a green man which says they should be able to without getting hit by anything?

That doesn't work for cars.
That doesn't work for cyclists.

I don't see why it should work for pedestrians.

In theory, yes. If someone has a green light they should be able to go forward without any fear of hitting anything or being hit by anyone. But our roads don't provide that, even when nobody breaks the law.

I'm a cyclist in a cycle lane with a green light; but there are regularly pedestrians in the cycle lane or parked cars or turning cars or buses.

Similarly cars have to deal with pedestrians crossing when they shouldn't, cyclists crossing when they shouldn't, cyclists passing them/merging with them (when they should). Cars regularly have a green arrow to turn left and are in their lane, but have to wait on cyclists who are riding in the cycle lane. Neither the car nor the cyclist are breaking any rules of the road - they're just both in each other's way.

It's a poorly designed system.

patrickbrophy18

I will preface by saying that the abuse the cyclist gave srumball's other half was uncalled for as she was only a passenger.

Just as a matter of interest srumball, where you on the other side of the road when entering the petrol station?

If yes, it sounds to me like the cyclist was in perfect view of your field of vision in which case you should have waited for him to pass before entering.

If not and the cyclist was coming up behind you, it may very well have been a lapse in concentration on your part.

Mirrors, blind-spot check and signal are something I always perform when taking lefts or rights. If the cyclist came out of nowhere (unlikely) as you suggest, it may very well have been a slip in your observation.

In any case, effective observation is key to avoiding these circumstances.