Have a care if you cycle to work

paddyland

monument wrote: »

I have a ton of images of cyclists sitting at lights

This begs the question, do you go around all day photographing every cyclist you see stopped at a red light? Storing up your inventory for a night's argument on the internet?

If you do, do you also photograph the few cyclists you see breaking red lights? Or do you only photograph the ones that serve your side of the argument?

My point being, are you interested in balanced debate, or are you simply a warrior for one side of the argument, determined to shout down anyone on the other side, as loud as possible? Bear in mind, I have been reading your posts for the last three years or more, so you do have track record.

For my side, for what it's worth, I see all sides of the argument, and would hope that arguments can remain balanced. When one side starts, or pursues, the tit-for-tat argument, then the good is gone, and we learn nothing.

paddyland

Deleted User wrote: »

I am all for mature debate.

I have no issue with asking cyclists to be more considerate of pedestrians in particular (there is a class of road user who seem not to see anything smaller or slower than themselves, I hate seeing cyclists do that).

But when it comes to demands for additional law enforcement etc, I would then suggest that we are 'data driven'. It isn't good enough to say cyclists jumping red lights is 'obviously dangerous'. Is it? Where are the statistics?

I am happy for Garda resources to go into checks for drink driving or speed cameras on dangerous stretches of road. I believe the data is out there to indicate that this makes a difference. The logic is "we can spend x, and hope to reduce deaths and serious injuries by y". Makes sense.

The mature debate should be around that equation for cyclists, and to have that debate you need DATA, something that none of those demanding that 'something be done' are able to provide. Because the truth is that cycling through red lights is not actually particularly dangerous.

I made this point on another thread but I'll do it again. In most cases people are making a category error. Traffic lights in urban areas are NOT a safety measure. They are a traffic flow measure, designed to solve a problem that cars (not bikes) create. Road users know how to yield, and that is what most cyclists who break lights are doing. If they were not, there would be cycling fatalities in the hundreds every year.

There are two angles to this. I wholly understand and agree with your stance on traffic lights. Traffic lights serve a necessary traffic flow purpose, and that is all they should be seen as, not some kind of big brother thing, I Am The Law. There are equally situations where cars COULD break lights safely, as where cyclists COULD do so.

However, you have to temper that then, with the understanding that too many motorists, AND too many cyclists, are simply too stupid or ignorant to know what is safe and what isn't safe. Couple that with a significant minority of motorists AND cyclists who are WILFULLY obstructive as opposed to just ignorant, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I disagree that cyclists breaking lights are not dangerous. In many instances, they are not. But in many instances, they are, and it is hard to tell with far too many of them whether they are aware of the difference. Likewise, if you break a red light, safely, you are setting an example to the next cyclist, who may break the same light, UNsafely. Similarly for motorists. You cannot break a red light, because the next driver might stupidly follow you and cause an accident.

Cyclists, pedestrians and motorists will all continue to break red lights. That is what they do. And there is a certain tolerance for it happening on a small scale. When it becomes an epidemic, then the likelihood of accident shoots up. We are all bound by The Law, because of the reckless behaviour of the few, as in all walks of life.

I still say that any debate that involves, 'Oh, cyclists all break red lights, no, car drivers are worse, no cyclists are worse, no car drivers are even worse,' remains childish in the extreme, and I can't help myself from calling out childish posting where I see it. Raise the debate above that please.

paddyland

paddyland wrote: »

However, you have to temper that then, with the understanding that too many motorists, AND too many cyclists, are simply too stupid or ignorant to know what is safe and what isn't safe. Couple that with a significant minority of motorists AND cyclists who are WILFULLY obstructive as opposed to just ignorant, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I disagree that cyclists breaking lights are not dangerous.

In the spirit of mature debate, you have to provide some evidence if you believe RLJing is dangerous. Dangerous is a relative term, and here we have an activity that (we agree) lots of people do every day, and I don't see the indications that it is dangerous.

On your point about too many cyclists and motorists being "too stupid and ignorant to know what is safe and what isn't safe" - of course 1 would be too many, so you are literally correct, but I would say that the fact that the vast majority of road users successfully negotiate the vast majority of road junctions in this country that do NOT have traffic lights, indicates that they are well capable of establishing when it is safe to proceed or not.

Tea drinker

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

On a more hillarious note, the first picture above may simply show the consequences when the one cyclist in front happens to obey the rules of the road. And prevents several others from proceding to break a red light... :pac:

making an obstacle course for pedestrians trying to get across the road, yeah a great pic of cyclists "obeying" the rules stopped across solid white lines for the crossing.

Tea drinker

Deleted User wrote: »

In the spirit of mature debate, you have to provide some evidence if you believe RLJing is dangerous. Dangerous is a relative term, and here we have an activity that (we agree) lots of people do every day, and I don't see the indications that it is dangerous.

Jumping red lights is self evidently dangerous, I wouldn't see any need to provide stats to back this claim. Combine one d!ck on a bike and one d!ck speeding in a car and bingo it's a fatality. Most people get away with sloppy behaviour on the roads, because everyone is driving or cycling well around them. When you get 2 factors combined the result is far less predictable. Why contribute one known unsafe, illegal practice? I honestly don't know how you can with a straight face say jumping the lights is safe for cyclists with no protection. Never mind if you cause a driver to swerve into someone else.

No Pants

paddyland wrote: »

The thread too easily descends into tit-for-tat. It needs to be raised up from that.

I think this happens on all of these types of threads, in this forum and others. It's like Groundhog Day sometimes. Personally I think these threads should be locked at the 2 page mark.

Tea drinker

Tea drinker wrote: »

Jumping red lights is self evidently dangerous, I wouldn't see any need to provide stats to back this claim. Combine one d!ck on a bike and one d!ck speeding in a car and bingo it's a fatality. Most people get away with sloppy behaviour on the roads, because everyone is driving or cycling well around them. When you get 2 factors combined the result is far less predictable. Why contribute one known unsafe, illegal practice? I honestly don't know how you can with a straight face say jumping the lights is safe for cyclists with no protection. Never mind if you cause a driver to swerve into someone else.

What I am saying is that jumping the lights in the way most (virtually all) cyclists do is not particularly dangerous. You are asserting it is, based on no evidence other than 'common sense'.

Fortunately I have some numbers we can discuss. About 8 or so cyclists die on our roads every year. 8 too many, of course, but not enough to suggest that RLJing as it is practiced is particularly dangerous. After all, it happens every day, all over the place.

There was a study conducted on cycling deaths in Dublin over a period of a few years (the likeliest place for them to be causes by RLJing. The results are here.

note from that report:

11 Fatalities
8 of these deaths were of cyclists killed by left-turning Lorries.
1 involved a vehicle hitting a cyclist when changing lanes
1 a vehicle rear-ended the cyclist
1 was caused by a stolen vehicle driving head on into a cyclist.

NONE of those sounds like a cyclist breaking a red light to me. Do you disagree? In fact, there has been much speculation that the reason so many women in particular are killed by left turning lorries is because they are too law abiding and don't get out from under them before the lights go green. I don't say that is the case, simply that it has been suggested.

So all the evidence is that cyclists are NOT killed by breaking red lights. Nor are pedestrians killed by cyclists (that does happen but is very, very rare). But yet you claim it is self-evidently dangerous. Whatever.

Note - of course it would be dangerous to simply fly through lights right into busy cross traffic. But cyclists don't do that. Which is why those incidents don't appear in the data.

lucernarian

Tea drinker wrote: »

making an obstacle course for pedestrians trying to get across the road, yeah a great pic of cyclists "obeying" the rules stopped across solid white lines for the crossing.

I am not sure how I could make that more obvious as to how it was tongue in cheek... I know a sense of humour is optional on internet forums but, really! The mind boggles.

Tea drinker

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I am not sure how I could make that more obvious as to how it was tongue in cheek... I know a sense of humour is optional on internet forums but, really! The mind boggles.

I fully intend to be more serious about fun from now on :-)

monument

paddyland wrote: »

Monument, you could post a hundred pictures of cyclists stopped at red lights. So could I.

You could post a hundred pictures of car drivers breaking red lights. So could I.

That DOESN'T mean that cyclists don't break red lights, or that car drivers do or don't.

Cyclists break red lights. So do car drivers.

Maybe you think you can redefine reality, or maybe you simply imagine that readers of this thread are either impressionable or stupid, without a mind of their own.

The fact is, that those posts that take a balanced view, and there are few of them, on either side, are the only ones that inform and move the debate forward.

The majority of posts, that are heavily biased or skewed in any one direction, only serve to make the poster look like an ass.

There is a clear case to be made for vast improvements in the cycling infrastructure and cycling safety. There is also a very evident element of lunatic fringe among the cycling lobby, who simply undermine the whole debate. Try not to appear to be one of them. Be balanced in your contributions if you want to be taken seriously. That's aimed at everyone here.

paddyland wrote: »

This begs the question, do you go around all day photographing every cyclist you see stopped at a red light? Storing up your inventory for a night's argument on the internet?

If you do, do you also photograph the few cyclists you see breaking red lights? Or do you only photograph the ones that serve your side of the argument?

My point being, are you interested in balanced debate, or are you simply a warrior for one side of the argument, determined to shout down anyone on the other side, as loud as possible? Bear in mind, I have been reading your posts for the last three years or more, so you do have track record.

For my side, for what it's worth, I see all sides of the argument, and would hope that arguments can remain balanced. When one side starts, or pursues, the tit-for-tat argument, then the good is gone, and we learn nothing.

Did you read my post or the post I replied to?

From what you've typed there, it really does not look like it.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

I have a ton of images of cyclists sitting at lights, so it's far from impossible to find a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road. Here's some examples:

I think I made my point after 2-4 pics so I've snipped off the rest with spoiler tags.

The first and third pics show cyclists stopped the second and fourth show them still moving against the red light.

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

The first and third pics show cyclists stopped the second and fourth show them still moving against the red light.

Second shows is a cyclist who track standing. It's noteworthy because he's doing so at a completely empty crossing where it's highly unlikely any body will reach the crossing before the lights for the road turn green again.

The fourth shows one cyclist stopped at a red light and others proceeding towards the light -- nobody in the pic has went against the light

Hilly Bill

track standing still looks like he is still moving. Can you see more of the fourth pic as the pic doesnt even show the bike so how can you tell that she's stopped?

monument

Hilly Bill wrote: »

track standing still looks like he is still moving. Can you see more of the fourth pic as the pic doesnt even show the bike so how can you tell that she's stopped?

I was going to dig into my unpublished pics but I give up. You can take my word for it or not.

Hilly Bill

I'll stick to my view on it.

Peppa Pig

I'm a bit confused with the pictures in the spoilered section above. Are these examples of cyclists obeying the red lights?


In the first picture in the spoiler there is a cyclist in the yellow box having broken the red light. It looks to me like he is going all the way across the junction. If he is "track standing" he is going to get a smack of a car.


In this one the light is green


This one has two cyclists who have not stayed behind the red light, one of them is in the yellow box

monument

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I'm a bit confused with the pictures in the spoilered section above. Are these examples of cyclists obeying the red lights?

If you look back I was replying to a post which was suggesting any cyclist stopping was so rare it is impossible to get a photo of it happening.

The pics show most cyclists pictured obeying lights. Nowhere have I suggested that all cyclists stop for lights or that there's not times where no cyclist will stop (tell me about it, I have been the only one to stop at a crossing many times). It would be silly to suggest such and just as silly to censor myself and only use the pictures where all cyclists are behaving.

Peppa Pig wrote: »

In the first picture in the spoiler there is a cyclist in the yellow box having broken the red light. It looks to me like he is going all the way across the junction. If he is "track standing" he is going to get a smack of a car.

Yeah, he's blatantly breaking the light... The others a lot less so. It's not a picture of a single cyclist.

What's your point?

Peppa Pig wrote: »

In this one the light is green

And what becomes before green?

Maybe the four cyclists and a motorcyclist all had their feet on the road for the fun of it?

Peppa Pig wrote: »

This one has two cyclists who have not stayed behind the red light, one of them is in the yellow box

Shocking stuff... And is it because of those two cyclists you can't see the four behind the light? Or what's your point?

Spook_ie

Hilly Bill wrote: »

track standing still looks like he is still moving. Can you see more of the fourth pic as the pic doesnt even show the bike so how can you tell that she's stopped?

Doesn't matter he's past the stop line anyway!

Iwannahurl

monument wrote: »

If you look back I was replying to a post which was suggesting any cyclist stopping was so rare it is impossible to get a photo of it happening.

The pics show most cyclists pictured obeying lights. Nowhere have I suggested that all cyclists stop for lights or that there's not times where no cyclist will stop (tell me about it, I have been the only one to stop at a crossing many times).

I can feel a bit of a plonker stopping at some red lights, as others cycle through (often without the slightest negative consequence for anyone, occasionally putting themselves at risk or getting in the way of other road users).

No pics unfortunately -- not easy to show oneself stopped at a red light.

Peppa Pig

monument wrote: »

What's your point?

monument wrote: »

Or what's your point?

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I'm a bit confused with the pictures in the spoilered section above. Are these examples of cyclists obeying the red lights?

I'm not making any "points" at all. I asked were these pictures meant to be of cyclists obeying red lights, because they also contain cyclists breaking red lights. You've clarified that they did not show everyone in the pictures obeying the lights.

Sligo Quay

monument wrote: »

I have a ton of images of cyclists sitting at lights, so it's far from impossible to find a cyclist that obeys the rules of the road. Here's some examples:

I think I made my point after 2-4 pics so I've snipped off the rest with spoiler tags.

Ah them pictures could have been altered, todays digital pictures you can do anything, even superimpose cyclists on pictures and make them look as if they are obeying the traffic laws:D now let me take my tongue out of my cheek.
The 2nd picture, that cyclists could have been moving, ready to break that red light, but you can't see in a still picture.

Hilly Bill

The chap in the second pic is actually sitting on a bollard.