Cyclists again: breaking pedestrian lights

Fuzzy_Dunlop

There's a thing called the Idaho stop law which I think should be in place everywhere. It allows bikes to treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs.

http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/14/idaho-stop-law-faq-13387

gibraltar

LiamMc wrote: »

But cyclists in Dublin do believe they are entitled to every portion of the road environment from one pavement to another.

Well that's the law so why would they not believe it?

rubadub

Emilee Curved Cowhide wrote: »

Bugs the bollox out of me.

I wrote about this in the cycling forum.

Back in 1992 I was knocked down by a bastard cyclist, it resulted in me suffering two broken elbows and a broken left wrist.

Happened on Aisling Quay, Dublin.

F*ckers.

So you mean what the OP describes ALSO bugs you. Since what you said you wrote about is NOT what he is talking about. I expect many did not fully read/get what he is saying and instantly voted yes

Zyzz wrote: »

Red light = Stop
Green light = Go

..as you can see it is a very difficult piece of common sense to grab

That is not common sense, that's the law. Thankfully most gardai do have common sense -and not not enforcing what you consider seem common sense to the letter of the law. They know why the laws were introduced and what they set out to prevent -many pedantic gobshites seemingly have no idea.

Frank Bullitt

I both cycle and drive, mostly cycle, and I adhere to the rules of the road.

I might have a better appreciation due to me driving as well, but yes of course, cyclist NEED to obey the rules of the road, in the same way that cars do.

jaffacakesyum

Gintonious wrote: »

I both cycle and drive, mostly cycle, and I adhere to the rules of the road.

I might have a better appreciation due to me driving as well, but yes of course, cyclist NEED to obey the rules of the road, in the same way that cars do.

What's the difference between a pedestrian crossing a road that's clear and a cyclist travelling at not a much greater pace than the pedestrian and crossing a road that's clear? Do you suggest they get off their bike and walk (A lot of people would say yes and fair enough have seen it done). Or do you suggest they just use common sense and cycle carefully if the coast is clear?

If anything - and if motorists realised this a lot of them would probably change their minds - cyclists getting a head start is actually more beneficial for them, especially if you're turning left or the road is particularly tricky that you can't advance ahead of the cyclist quicker.

hatrickpatrick

S. Goodspeed wrote: »

Do you apply that same 'common sense' as a pedestrian?

Cyclists who weave through pedestrians at red lights are wreckless Aholes, as are pedestrians who walk out in front of cyclists when the cyclist has the green light. Whether on foot or bike I see nothing wrong with breaking a red light after stopping and confirming the coast is clear.

Most cyclists do no such thing, they just sail through said lights and expect pedestrians to dive out of the way.

I'm going to do a time lapse of this next week on Dame Street and see how right I am about it. One hour at George's street junction, tally the number of light breaking cyclists vs the number of law abiding ones, and for the craic I'll tally how much would be taken off our deficit if we were to fine each of the bastards 50 quid.

Knasher

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Most cyclists do no such thing, they just sail through said lights and expect pedestrians to dive out of the way.

I'm going to do a time lapse of this next week on Dame Street and see how right I am about it. One hour at George's street junction, tally the number of light breaking cyclists vs the number of law abiding ones, and for the craic I'll tally how much would be taken off our deficit if we were to fine each of the bastards 50 quid.

While you are at it, could you also tally up the number of cyclists whose actions force pedestrians to dive out of their way.

rubadub

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

tally the number of light breaking cyclists vs the number of law abiding ones, and for the craic I'll tally how much would be taken off our deficit if we were to fine each of the bastards 50 quid.

If you are interested in the money side of things then definitely do the pedestrian 'bastards' too. There are far more of them and they break the law all the time. People are far more likely to break the law when on foot, next comes bicycles, then probably motorbikes, then cars, then trucks. Makes perfect sense why.

The tolerance of pedestrians is understandable, since the prejudiced whinging pedantic cunts view them as "one of their own". You can see the tolerance in this very thread -nobody has even commented on how the OPs situation occurs, and its a very common situation. Pedestrian presses a light, illegally crosses the road, leaves the "scene of the crime" and you are left with red lights for traffic and nobody crossing.

There are flaws & loopholes in many laws. You could sort of think of them as bugs or known problems, like software. If there was no such thing as traffic lights and I was to design & propose them, I would point out the OP situation as a recognized flaw/bug/problem. Thankfully most gardai also recognise this, have cop on, and do not enforce laws when reasonable actions are performed which happen to technically break a law.

blackwhite

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What's the difference between a pedestrian crossing a road that's clear and a cyclist travelling at not a much greater pace than the pedestrian and crossing a road that's clear?

The difference is that under law a cyclist on a bicycle is classified as a vehicle on the road, and is required to follow the laws for vehicles. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I can't remember a morning going in the past year (since I started driving through Ballsbridge) that I haven't encountered a cyclist breaking the lights and causing either 1) pedestrians with right of way to have to dodge them, or 2) cars proceeding on green having to brake to avoid hitting them.

I drive to work every day, and usually go for a cycle most evenings. Yes, it's a bit of an inconvenience having to lose your momentum stopping at lights. But it's a hell of a lot less inconvenient than getting knocked off the bike, or clattering into a pedestrian.

blackwhite

blackwhite wrote: »

The difference is that under law a cyclist on a bicycle is classified as a vehicle on the road, and is required to follow the laws for vehicles. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I can't remember a morning going in the past year (since I started driving through Ballsbridge) that I haven't encountered a cyclist breaking the lights and causing either 1) pedestrians with right of way to have to dodge them, or 2) cars proceeding on green having to brake to avoid hitting them.

I drive to work every day, and usually go for a cycle most evenings. Yes, it's a bit of an inconvenience having to lose your momentum stopping at lights. But it's a hell of a lot less inconvenient than getting knocked off the bike, or clattering into a pedestrian.

As always in these threads - lots of anecdotes about cyclists 'clattering into pedestrians' and pedestrians having to 'dive out of the way', zero actual evidence.

Facts and figures on pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists in Dublin please. Until I see them I think it's safe to assume this isn't a massive problem, despite what the anti-cycling lobby like to claim.

When we are talking about right and wrong, reference to the law is almost irrelevant. Do you think every law in this country is right? Do you follow them all? I know I don't.

When a pedestrian thinks it's safe to cross the road, I think it's also safe for a cyclist. In terms of danger and inconvenience to the public, a cyclist is a lot closer to a pedestrian than a car.

Monty - the one and only

A red light is a red light, you see that, you stop. Simple as that.

And yes I'm a cyclist.

blackwhite

Deleted User wrote: »

As always in these threads - lots of anecdotes about cyclists 'clattering into pedestrians' and pedestrians having to 'dive out of the way', zero actual evidence.

Facts and figures on pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists in Dublin please. Until I see them I think it's safe to assume this isn't a massive problem, despite what the anti-cycling lobby like to claim.

When we are talking about right and wrong, reference to the law is almost irrelevant. Do you think every law in this country is right? Do you follow them all? I know I don't.

When a pedestrian thinks it's safe to cross the road, I think it's also safe for a cyclist. In terms of danger and inconvenience to the public, a cyclist is a lot closer to a pedestrian than a car.

The usual defence trotted out by the few who think they can disregard the law as they see fit:

Any law that I don't like is stupid, and because I am so intelligent I am perfectly entitled to break the laws that I don't like.


I don't claim to obey every law, but generally I try to do my best. If and when I do break the law, I'm quite happy to acknowledge that I'm doing wrong, and will suffer the consequences if caught.
What I don't do is make excuses to try and justify why I or people like me should be exempt from certain laws, just because they cause me a small bit of inconvenience.

Frank Bullitt

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

What's the difference between a pedestrian crossing a road that's clear and a cyclist travelling at not a much greater pace than the pedestrian and crossing a road that's clear? Do you suggest they get off their bike and walk (A lot of people would say yes and fair enough have seen it done). Or do you suggest they just use common sense and cycle carefully if the coast is clear?

If anything - and if motorists realised this a lot of them would probably change their minds - cyclists getting a head start is actually more beneficial for them, especially if you're turning left or the road is particularly tricky that you can't advance ahead of the cyclist quicker.

I have seen people get off their bikes and walk, get to the other side of the road and hop back on, perfectly fine.

The implications for a cyclist if they were to go through a red light and hit someone are far higher though, both in the legality of it and also in the safety of it.

For instance, coming to a junction with a set of lights that were red, the pedestrian had a yellow man so they can proceed with caution. A cyclist approaching at speed decides to keep going, and a pedestrian decides to rush across it, now imagine that the person is pushing a buggy with a child in it, not a nice image is it? I know that people are saying to go through at a low speed etc, but not everyone will do that and there are so many factors to be considered, like if crossings are clear or if they are obstructed by something on the path, like a bush or a wall.

Honestly, and I know I am one of the few because I see it every morning where others just go through the lights with no consideration, even had an incident where I stopped at the lights and another cyclist behind me hit me because I had stopped, a few nice tuts from him and he then mounted the path and went through the red light, but I know how important it is to stop, so I do. I'd rather add a few minutes to my journey over an accident.

LiamMc

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and they are, shockingly enough. the keep left rule is really only a courtesy to be observed when the situation allows, but there are many many times and reasons to be in the middle or right of the lane. You really need to be at least 1.5m from parked cars in case a door opens, or away from drains or gravel or the general **** that gets swept to the side of the road etc etc etc.

I don't agree that cyclists are entitled to either pavement. I believe they should dismount when on the pavement.

Ray Palmer

LiamMc wrote: »

I don't agree that cyclists are entitled to either pavement. I believe they should dismount when on the pavement.

So cars parked on the pavement? Should they be there?

I cycle everyday and I see far more cars break more rules than any cyclists. Pedestrians break more than cyclists too.

I never go through pedestrians crossing the road and I see very few who do and they are idiots. I see more pedestrians walk out on the road ignoring cyclists.

I hop on the path ar one section everyday as the parked cars on the road and path block my way and there is nobody on them. No risk to anyone. Common sense should prevail instead of going into a rage about cyclists on the path.

If it is about the rules fine but it is absurd to say it is really a safety issue.

hatrickpatrick

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So cars parked on the pavement? Should they be there?

I cycle everyday and I see far more cars break more rules than any cyclists. Pedestrians break more than cyclists too.

I never go through pedestrians crossing the road and I see very few who do and they are idiots. I see more pedestrians walk out on the road ignoring cyclists.

I hop on the path ar one section everyday as the parked cars on the road and path block my way and there is nobody on them. No risk to anyone. Common sense should prevail instead of going into a rage about cyclists on the path.

If it is about the rules fine but it is absurd to say it is really a safety issue.

1: Cars parked on the pavement should absolutely be fined, it's a feckin' nuisance.
2: It 100% is a safety issue, where I tend to walk anyway. The situation around Dame Street / Trinity at the moment is that the onus is on pedestrians to move when they see a cyclists weaving in and out of crowds on the pavement. The pavement is designed for people on foot and it should be the other way around, but of course nobody wants to get hit and injured for the sake of making a point.
It shouldn't be necessary. Anything moving fast enough to injure somebody does not belong on the pavement, period. I apply the same logic to idiots who go sprinting on crowded pavements in town. It's completely unfair and in many cases a safety hazard for ordinary pedestrians walking to work / college / the shops / whatever.

Ray Palmer

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: Cars parked on the pavement should absolutely be fined, it's a feckin' nuisance.
2: It 100% is a safety issue, where I tend to walk anyway. The situation around Dame Street / Trinity at the moment is that the onus is on pedestrians to move when they see a cyclists weaving in and out of crowds on the pavement. The pavement is designed for people on foot and it should be the other way around, but of course nobody wants to get hit and injured for the sake of making a point.
It shouldn't be necessary. Anything moving fast enough to injure somebody does not belong on the pavement, period. I apply the same logic to idiots who go sprinting on crowded pavements in town. It's completely unfair and in many cases a safety hazard for ordinary pedestrians walking to work / college / the shops / whatever.

So if they are going slowly is it OK? Empty path safe?
As you say designed for people on foot you should check out the many shared paths around Dublin with no seperate markings. No different to any path other than a sign

hatrickpatrick

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So if they are going slowly is it OK? Empty path safe?
As you say designed for people on foot you should check out the many shared paths around Dublin with no seperate markings. No different to any path other than a sign

1: Not really as "going slowly" is still fast enough to hurt someone if you hit them. I used to cycle myself (never once broke the lights or failed to dismount on a footpath, btw) and I would guess that the amount of momentum you need to keep a bike upright by definition involves enough speed to hurt someone if you crashed into them.

2: Empty paths are still not ok because you never know when someone might come around a corner.

A pedestrian walking along on a pavement shouldn't have to worry at all about being hit by anything fast. If I wanted to worry about that I'd just wander along the road instead. Pavements exist for a reason.

AlDPal

Well as a pedestrian, who so far has been lucky not to have been hit by cyclist careering along Henry St. or on a footpath. I have a few friends who have been knocked over by a cyclist. one, only yesterday as she was using a pedestrian crossing a cyclist ran the red light and knocked her to the ground, with quite nasty results. My own reaction, and I feel perfectly justified, is to kick out at the wheels of these idiots, if they have no regard for me as as pedestrian, I feel perfectly justified to take this action, and if they fall to the ground, well better them , than some older pedestrian or child that they might injure. After all they take no responsibility for causing injury, they,ve no identification, and are free to just leave the scene scott free. I wish the law of the land would get to grips with this Grey area,
This has gone way beyond, the point of people like me just been called grumpy old men, When I go to cross a road now, My first thought is to look out for cyclist's, and I especially look both ways on one way streets, as theres a very good chance of a cyclist going against the flow of traffic
Anyone else out there that is sick of the present situation of lawless cyclist's... Alan Pigott

Deedsie

If I wanted to report someone for a parking offense, who would I contact? People parking on a double yellow line, parking in a cycle lane everyday of the week?

Do Gardaí deal with parking offenses?

IM0

your one day early

kylith

Yes, some cyclists break red lights and cycle on paths.
Yes, some motorists break red lights and park on cycle paths.
Yes, some pedestrians jay-walk and walk in cycle paths.
Can we not just agree that there are jerks in every demographic and move on?

returnNull

Emilee Curved Cowhide wrote: »

Bugs the bollox out of me.

I wrote about this in the cycling forum.

Back in 1992 I was knocked down by a bastard cyclist, it resulted in me suffering two broken elbows and a broken left wrist.

Happened on Aisling Quay, Dublin.

F*ckers.

christ sounds like you got hit by lance armstrong after one of his blood infusions!

anncoates

/Paging Cycling Forum strike force

/Paging Cycling Forum strike force

S28382

I cycle the wrong way around roundabouts cause it turns me on I run red lights cause im bold......so me mammy says. Boardsies love bashing cyclists.

guttenberg

S28382 wrote: »

I cycle the wrong way around roundabouts cause it turns me on I run red lights cause im bold......so me mammy says. Boardsies love bashing cyclists.

I think part of your problem is being an Alabama hick:pac:

desertcircus

Yawn. Yet another "all the cyclists are all scum" row. There's no end of people claiming the whole damn city is terrorised by lunatics going at 30kph through crowds of people and yet actual evidence is utterly absent. Even talking about cyclists as a single group is ridiculous; if you see some skinny-jean-clad hipster sailing through a red on a Dixie, does it really make sense to regard them the same as lycra-clad road bikers and triathletes, or as slow fifty-year-olds cycling to and from work?

desertcircus

Fixie, not Dixie. Stupid autocorrect...

S28382

guttenberg wrote: »

I think part of your problem is being an Alabama hick:pac:

Alabama prick more like

joolsveer

I believe that drivers of cars should stop at red lights.