Changing the rules of the road for cyclists and pedestrians.

bk

One issue that I see being raised frequently is cyclists breaking the rules of the road (and thus law).

However people who raise this issue, never seem to ask the question:
"Why do cyclists break the rules of the road?"

Some people seem to think cyclists do it just for the hell of it or to just piss off motorists, but that isn't the case.

As both a motorist and cyclist (and also public transport user and pedestrian) I see one of the main reasons are that the rules of the road and law are designed for cars and don't take into account that pedal bikes and pedestrians aren't cars and have far different characteristics and face different challenges.

Now I'm not suggesting that cyclists and pedestrians should break the law, rather I think that some laws should be changed to take into account their differences.

As an example, I admit I break the law every day! The traffic lights exiting my small estate are controlled by a sensor that seems to be only triggered by cars. I could easily sit there for 30 minutes waiting for the lights to change. So instead I come to a full stop at the lights, look both ways for cars and pedestrians and proceed slowly when safe to do so.

And to be honest I feel no guilt at all about doing this.

But here is the interesting thing, in Virgina they introduced a law to specifically handle this situation. The law there states that a cyclist may proceed through a red light if safe to do so after waiting two minutes. They introduced his law, to solve this problem as almost all traffic lights in Virgina are controlled by cars.

Seems like a very practical addition to the law.

Likewise, in many French cities including Paris, they have now changed the law to make it legal for cyclists to turn right on a red light and to continue straight through T junctions.

In the Netherlands they specifically design such junctions so that a different law doesn't even have to be put in place. Instead such junctions normally have separated cycle paths that continue on straight through T Junctions or around the corner of right turns, so that the cyclist never has to stop.

So the point I'm getting at, is that other countries are now starting to recognise that pedestrians and cyclists aren't cars and face different challenges and are adjusting their laws accordingly and I believe we should do the same.

Cookie_Monster

bk wrote: »

However people who raise this issue, never seem to ask the question:
"Why do cyclists break the rules of the road?"

because they're assholes. just like motorists who break the law and pedestrians etc etc.

But here is the interesting thing, in Virgina they introduced a law to specifically handle this situation. The law there states that a cyclist may proceed through a red light if safe to do so after waiting two minutes. They introduced his law, to solve this problem as almost all traffic lights in Virgina are controlled by cars.

that's a lazy solution. the proper solution is to design lights and sensors that bikes can set off.

dave_o_brien

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

that's a lazy solution. the proper solution is to design lights and sensors that bikes can set off.

That's also an expensive solution, given the infrastructure is already in situ in so many locations. Legislative change is also very expensive, and time consuming.

It's worth noting that the existing law allows a driver (ie, someone operating a vehicle, which includes pedal cycles) to proceed through a traffic light with caution when it is safe to do so if the traffic light is broken. There's an enormous difference between waiting for a safe chance to proceed at a non-responsive light and heading through a pedestrian crossing in an urban environment cause you can't be arsed stopping.

I also commute predominantly by bicycle or on foot. Driving is kept to a minimum, because it's an incredibly slow way of getting around a city.

EDIT: I also agree, in general, about people who break the law (not indicating, hazard light parking, red light jumpers, amber gamblers, cyclists with no lights, speeding and mobile phone use are utterly rampant), are assholes. Selfish assholes.

Cookie_Monster

dave_o_brien wrote: »

That's also an expensive solution, given the infrastructure is already in situ in so many locations. Legislative change is also very expensive, and time consuming.

true but that simply means it wasn't fit for purpose in the first place. It's a short term stop gap and as long as that during routine replacement or maintenance they upgrade the sensors, not real extra cost in the long term.

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

But here is the interesting thing, in Virgina they introduced a law to specifically handle this situation. The law there states that a cyclist may proceed through a red light if safe to do so after waiting two minutes.

2 minutes is a very long wait for lights you know aren't going , it's 10% of my commute into work. Seems like a very poor solution

dave_o_brien

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

true but that simply means it wasn't fit for purpose in the first place. It's a short term stop gap and as long as that during routine replacement or maintenance they upgrade the sensors, not real extra cost in the long term.

Or that the technology simply didn't exist for sensors that recognise bicycles when they were introduced.

It's more complex than saying "They were never good enough". Systems evolve over periods of time with advances in technology and changes in patterns of use, and implementation of law should be in a position to respond rapidly. I believe that the implementation of on the spot fines for cyclists is a hugely delayed, but much needed step from law enforcers. It should be combined with greater enforcement of laws for other basic road misdemeanors, such as those I mentioned above, but I'm not going to refuse a shovel cause it's not a JCB.

dave_o_brien

LeinsterDub wrote: »

2 minutes is a very long wait for lights you know aren't going , it's 10% of my commute into work. Seems like a very poor solution

I agree, but this is where discretion comes into it. If you know the light is unresponsive, you will probably proceed when it's safe. If you don't know the light, two minutes is a reasonable wait to figure out whether or not it is likely to respond.

Cookie_Monster

dave_o_brien wrote: »

Or that the technology simply didn't exist for sensors that recognise bicycles when they were introduced.

induction loops have long existed as a means of controlling lights and if anything would be more use in the past when more bicycles were made of steel rather than carbon or alu.

I believe that the implementation of on the spot fines for cyclists is a hugely delayed, but much needed step from law enforcers. It should be combined with greater enforcement of laws for other basic road misdemeanors, such as those I mentioned above, but I'm not going to refuse a shovel cause it's not a JCB.

all for that as well, but, like most road laws in Ireland there no point having them with the current total lack of enforcement.

dave_o_brien

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

induction loops have long existed as a means of controlling lights and if anything would be more use in the past when more bicycles were made of steel rather than carbon or alu.

all for that as well, but, like most road laws in Ireland there no point having them with the current total lack of enforcement.

Ok, so effective means of sensing a bicycle may not have existed, or may have become redundant. It's impossible to design a system that stays relevant forever, and these can be expensive to modify frequently.

In total agreement about the law. I find we Irish to have a very free-man attitude to the law, and are amongst the least willing I've come across to engage in being a citizen in the true sense. Odd for a nation that claims it's Republicanism so strongly. And yes, I am Irish, born and raised, and actually quite patriotic.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because they're assholes. just like motorists who break the law and pedestrians etc etc.

that's a lazy solution. the proper solution is to design lights and sensors that bikes can set off.

Lets not get into inflammatory language.

Moderator

loyatemu

cyclists should be allowed to treat most red lights as a "Yield" - turning left, T junctions, pedestrian crossings etc. A bike is not a car, its daft to apply the same rules to completely different forms of transport.

Also more accommodation should be made for cyclists to avoid one-way systems - a lot of locations where cyclists frequently use the footpath is because they are avoiding huge detours around one-way systems that are only in place to control car traffic.

galwaycyclist

loyatemu wrote: »

cyclists should be allowed to treat most red lights as a "Yield" - turning left, T junctions, pedestrian crossings etc. A bike is not a car, its daft to apply the same rules to completely different forms of transport.

Also more accommodation should be made for cyclists to avoid one-way systems - a lot of locations where cyclists frequently use the footpath is because they are avoiding huge detours around one-way systems that are only in place to control car traffic.

Ok on red lights. But for pedestrian crossings how would define the regulations so that pedestrians could expect that the law would protect them from cyclists?

Is there some formula, or wording, that could be applied?

Or is it better treating failure to yield at pedestrian crossings as a form of assault rather than a matter for the traffic regulations?

bk

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Ok on red lights. But for pedestrian crossings how would define the regulations so that pedestrians could expect that the law would protect them from cyclists?

Is there some formula, or wording, that could be applied?

Or is it better treating failure to yield at pedestrian crossings as a form of assault rather than a matter for the traffic regulations?

I would say that treating a red light as a yield sign, makes sense. Where yield in this case also means stop for pedestrians.

So pedestrians have priority and the cyclist should only proceed if no pedestrians or vehicles are there.

loyatemu

bk wrote: »

I would say that treating a red light as a yield sign, makes sense. Where yield in this case also means stop for pedestrians.

So pedestrians have priority and the cyclist should only proceed if no pedestrians or vehicles are there.

yeah, essentially cyclists should treat it as a zebra crossing - if there are people crossing or waiting to cross, stop.

dave_o_brien

loyatemu wrote: »

yeah, essentially cyclists should treat it as a zebra crossing - if there are people crossing or waiting to cross, stop.

This, in my opinion, could be extended to all road users in urban environments, on the provision that zebra crossings were actually respected, and abuse of them was punished decisively and consistently. Urban areas should prioritise the pedestrian over all other forms of traffic, and ensuring they have an easy and safe way to cross roads is important. It shouldn't be that road users get priority while pedestrians are forced to wait; it should be that pedestrians can cross when it suits them, and road users should yield.

loyatemu

dave_o_brien wrote: »

This, in my opinion, could be extended to all road users in urban environments, on the provision that zebra crossings were actually respected, and abuse of them was punished decisively and consistently. Urban areas should prioritise the pedestrian over all other forms of traffic, and ensuring they have an easy and safe way to cross roads is important. It shouldn't be that road users get priority while pedestrians are forced to wait; it should be that pedestrians can cross when it suits them, and road users should yield.

they have zebra crossings everywhere in France, but they're not always respected (as anyone who has tried to cross the road in Paris will testify)

I wouldn't be in favour of giving motorists any leeway where it comes to red lights (though I do think we should consider switching many lights to flashing amber at night as they do in Holland).

Authorities here seem obsessed with keeping cyclists and pedestrians separate whereas I don't think its that big a deal provided peds are given priority.

cython

dave_o_brien wrote: »

This, in my opinion, could be extended to all road users in urban environments, on the provision that zebra crossings were actually respected, and abuse of them was punished decisively and consistently. Urban areas should prioritise the pedestrian over all other forms of traffic, and ensuring they have an easy and safe way to cross roads is important. It shouldn't be that road users get priority while pedestrians are forced to wait; it should be that pedestrians can cross when it suits them, and road users should yield.

This only makes sense in the middle of streets, or away from junctions. A zebra crossing at a traffic light controlled junction would be madness, and I don't believe it to be worth considering, speaking as someone who commutes by bike and train/foot. If the junction is going to be controlled by traffic lights at all, then all traffic though it (ped and vehicle - including cyclists) should be subject to their signals. Otherwise you will find a scenario with traffic having to yield to pedestrians by stopping in the middle of junctions because someone decided to cross the street they are turning on to. This in turn disrupts all traffic behind them, etc. and so renders the lights even less effective than now.

dave_o_brien

cython wrote: »

This only makes sense in the middle of streets, or away from junctions. A zebra crossing at a traffic light controlled junction would be madness, and I don't believe it to be worth considering, speaking as someone who commutes by bike and train/foot. If the junction is going to be controlled by traffic lights at all, then all traffic though it (ped and vehicle - including cyclists) should be subject to their signals. Otherwise you will find a scenario with traffic having to yield to pedestrians by stopping in the middle of junctions because someone decided to cross the street they are turning on to. This in turn disrupts all traffic behind them, etc. and so renders the lights even less effective than now.

I should have been clear that this is where I meant: in the middle of streets. I'd adopt the method common on the continent, whereby the pedestrian have right of way in the same direction as the traffic lights, and turning traffic must yield for corners.

cdebru

dave_o_brien wrote: »

I should have been clear that this is where I meant: in the middle of streets. I'd adopt the method common on the continent, whereby the pedestrian have right of way in the same direction as the traffic lights, and turning traffic must yield for corners.

That makes more sense your first post sounded like pedestrians should be just able to walk out onto the road whenever they felt like and it and all traffic should stop.

H3llR4iser

An issue that I find particularly dangerous when cycling is the duration of some green lights, especially on uphill road sections: fine to allow a few cars to cross safely, not so if you're cycling and your name is not Chris Froome, especially because most drivers (I am one too, I only cycle for pleasure) simply do not consider a cyclist will be much slower than motor vehicles off a traffic light.

Iwannahurl

loyatemu wrote: »

they have zebra crossings everywhere in France

I thought that too, when I tried to cross the road with a child in Pontchateau a few years ago.

French "zebra crossings" are merely serving suggestions, I reckon.

Perhaps they're the equivalent of our nonsensical "courtesy crossings".

Tragedy

bk wrote: »

However people who raise this issue, never seem to ask the question:
"Why do cyclists break the rules of the road?"

Some people seem to think cyclists do it just for the hell of it or to just piss off motorists, but that isn't the case.

As both a motorist and cyclist (and also public transport user and pedestrian) I see one of the main reasons are that the rules of the road and law are designed for cars and don't take into account that pedal bikes and pedestrians aren't cars and have far different characteristics and face different challenges.

It isn't the case? Why then is it that the majority of cyclists I see break red lights routinely in order to not have to stop/minimise waiting times?

And I'm not exaggerating, I mean the majority. I've had far more close calls with cyclists around Dublin than I have had with cars - far more. Admittedly, the one close call with a car was a car breaking a pedestrian light on the N11 doing over the speed limit and would have certainly been fatal, while broken limbs would have been the worst from the many incidents of cyclists cycling through me and acting as if I don't exist. And the traffic lights don't exist.

I've also noticed something interesting: When I'm cycling, I stop at Red's. I'll gradually catch up on slower cyclists who are breaking every Red, when I get past them and stop at the next Red, the majority will stop behind me instead of breaking the Red.

Guilt? Realisation? Sheep mentality?

markpb

cdebru wrote: »

That makes more sense your first post sounded like pedestrians should be just able to walk out onto the road whenever they felt like and it and all traffic should stop.

Why is this ridiculous but the reverse (whenever there's a car on the road, all pedestrians must stop crossing) so accepted as normality, even in city centres where pedestrians far outnumber cars?

cython

markpb wrote: »

Why is this ridiculous but the reverse (whenever there's a car on the road, all pedestrians must stop crossing) so accepted as normality, even in city centres where pedestrians far outnumber cars?

Physics and inertia - if you give peds the idea that they can step off a kerb anywhere and everywhere and the world will magically stop for them then eventually one of them will do it too close to even an appropriately slow moving vehicle, and get hit. Pedestrians, on the other hand, have very little inertia and can stop in little to no space when a car is coming along the street they want to cross

Aard

The city centre is a place for people, not a place for cars. Maybe in the case of a busy arterial road your argument holds water.

bk

Tragedy wrote: »

It isn't the case? Why then is it that the majority of cyclists I see break red lights routinely in order to not have to stop/minimise waiting times?

Majority, definitely not in my experience as a cyclist and motorist, it is just that the ones who do stand out more.

However there is some logical reason behind this. A bike isn't a car, when you stop it takes a lot of extra energy to get going again.

Also when you stop and start cycling again you tend to be very unbalanced and this right at the point that is potentially most dangerous for cyclists, when you are beside stopped cars and trucks, some of which might be about to turn left.

So sometimes it can actually be safer for a cyclist to go through a red light. Specially if it is just something like a T Junction, where there isn't really any reason for needing a cyclist to stop.

It is the recognition of this danger at junctions and the difference between cars and bikes that the French have changed the law to make it legal for cyclists to turn right on red and cycle through T junctions.

Please understand I'm not trying to justify red light jumping here, but I'm just trying to explain the reason why some people do it.

markpb

cython wrote: »

Physics and inertia - if you give peds the idea that they can step off a kerb anywhere and everywhere and the world will magically stop for them then eventually one of them will do it too close to even an appropriately slow moving vehicle, and get hit. Pedestrians, on the other hand, have very little inertia and can stop in little to no space when a car is coming along the street they want to cross

If motorists get the idea that they can drive along everywhere and every pedestrian will magically get out of their way, eventually one of them will fail to stop when a pedestrian legally crosses in front of them.

It also leads to a breakdown in common courtesy if you tell one road user that everyone else will get out if their way. It means they're less likely to stop and let pedestrians cross, even when they're in slow moving traffic or approaching traffic lights.

ardmacha

What pedestrians need more than new legislation is the enforcement of existing legislation, especially in relation to cyclists. Motorists are subject to some effective restriction, which could be better enforced, but cyclists intimidate pedestrians at will without any effective restriction.

Triangla

bk wrote: »

As an example, I admit I break the law every day! The traffic lights exiting my small estate are controlled by a sensor that seems to be only triggered by cars. I could easily sit there for 30 minutes waiting for the lights to change. So instead I come to a full stop at the lights, look both ways for cars and pedestrians and proceed slowly when safe to do so.

An alternative would be to get off the bike and cross the road as a pedestrian.

I always get off my bike and walk it on foot paths as the situation dictates such as one way streets where it's quicker to walk the bike down the foot path instead of cycling around.

cython

markpb wrote: »

If motorists get the idea that they can drive along everywhere and every pedestrian will magically get out of their way, eventually one of them will fail to stop when a pedestrian legally crosses in front of them.

It also leads to a breakdown in common courtesy if you tell one road user that everyone else will get out if their way. It means they're less likely to stop and let pedestrians cross, even when they're in slow moving traffic or approaching traffic lights.

I'm reasonably sure that most motorists (certainly any that I know personally) don't have the idea that you describe though, and nobody here has advocated pushing that idea (nor the idea that everyone should get out of the way of any particular road user). At present motorists are obliged to drive at a speed that allows them to stop in the space they can see to be clear. This covers pedestrians crossing when the car is a reasonable distance away too, as while they are there the way is not clear.

The simple fact is that this is broadly speaking the status quo, and the logistics of giving pedestrians supreme right of way and carte blanche to walk where they want when they want are unrealistic due to the simple laws of physics unless you advocate a speed limit of walking speed for all vehicles.

Tragedy

bk wrote: »

Majority, definitely not in my experience as a cyclist and motorist, it is just that the ones who do stand out more.

I disagree - but then, someone who starts the thread authoritatively telling us "this isn't the case" isn't likely to be open to other people's experiences.

However there is some logical reason behind this. A bike isn't a car, when you stop it takes a lot of extra energy to get going again.

Uh huh. Cars use more fuel, buses use more fuel, people use more fuel. It's logical for cars to start breaking red lights?

Also when you stop and start cycling again you tend to be very unbalanced and this right at the point that is potentially most dangerous for cyclists, when you are beside stopped cars and trucks, some of which might be about to turn left.

My experience is mostly N11 and N81 to city centre as a cyclist, both of which feature bus lanes and forward cyclist areas at pretty much every junction.

So sometimes it can actually be safer for a cyclist to go through a red light. Specially if it is just something like a T Junction, where there isn't really any reason for needing a cyclist to stop.

Absolutely shameful.

It is the recognition of this danger at junctions and the difference between cars and bikes that the French have changed the law to make it legal for cyclists to turn right on red and cycle through T junctions.

A specificality being applied to a generality, and not the first time in the thread.

Please understand I'm not trying to justify red light jumping here, but I'm just trying to explain the reason why some people do it.

Every single point made in your post was attempting to justify red light jumping.