Cyclists breaking lights!!

Pinch Flat

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you wear blinkers when you're on the roads in Dublin city? Because at pretty much every change of traffic light at every junction in Dublin, I see 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 or 4 drivers scooting through on red lights.

It's been flogged to death that cyclists and motorists break red lights. The only reason motorists don't do so is the fact that perhaps 4 cars max can get through a red light before the other waiting traffic moves off. Not that this doesn't discourage the morons who insist on doing it.

It's fair to say that all junctions on my own daily commute cyclists and motorists break red lights.

RainyDay

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I was not aware of that! I have no idea how he got my details. On the day he would not even give me his name! Maybe he just rang insurance companies and reported an accident stated the date and then as I had already reported it, it matched? He didnt even come near my car so he would not have seen my insurane disk on the window either.

So he didn't write down your details, but he did remember your car reg, and then he rang around the 20 or so insurance companies in Dublin until he found the right one? I'm not sure that insurance companies will give out that information over the phone at all - something a bit strange here.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It's been flogged to death that cyclists and motorists break red lights.

Indeed, and much of the flogging conveniently forgets the other offences that are much more common for motorists, such as speeding, phoning/texting while driving, failing to indicate, failing to observe etc etc.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

Just going by what I see on the roads every day in Dublin City. Motorists driving on the road, stopping at red lights, respecting lane directions.

Fell out of my chair laughing at that one, reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

I think im going to write my insurance company, state that I am not responsible and ask them to claim from him for damages to my car

If your in the right you definitely should.

jkiamasnake

RainyDay wrote: »

So he didn't write down your details, but he did remember your car reg, and then he rang around the 20 or so insurance companies in Dublin until he found the right one? I'm not sure that insurance companies will give out that information over the phone at all - something a bit strange here..

I wanted his details but he wouldnt give them to me. i dont know how he got mine as he didnt even ask what my name was.

what i cant understand is why did he wait a month and a half to claim anything? he was the one on the day that said "accidents happen and move on". he seemed fine and i saw him in my mirror walking off with his bike.

ill phone the insurance company tomorrow and see what the protocol is for next..and just to make sure that they are contesting it on my behalf

eamonnq

jkiamasnake wrote: »

ill phone the insurance company tomorrow and see what the protocol is for next..and just to make sure that they are contesting it on my behalf

All seems very strange, they may not even contest it and just settle with him, you will find out when your renewal comes in the post, with your no claims bonus having disappeared !!

jkiamasnake

eamonnq wrote: »

All seems very strange, they may not even contest it and just settle with him, you will find out when your renewal comes in the post, with your no claims bonus having disappeared !!

why the need to add in the sarcastic face at the end?

eamonnq

jkiamasnake wrote: »

why the need to add in the sarcastic face at the end?

Oh I don't know. :rolleyes:




Tis the grin, to indicate I am only joking.

RainyDay

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I wanted his details but he wouldnt give them to me. i dont know how he got mine as he didnt even ask what my name was.

Strange indeed.

jkiamasnake wrote: »

what i cant understand is why did he wait a month and a half to claim anything? he was the one on the day that said "accidents happen and move on". he seemed fine and i saw him in my mirror walking off with his bike.

It's actually not that unusual for any legal/insurance matter to take weeks to get moving.

jkiamasnake wrote: »

ill phone the insurance company tomorrow and see what the protocol is for next..and just to make sure that they are contesting it on my behalf

You don't get to tell the insurance company about whether to contest it. They aren't working 'on your behalf'. They bear the financial risk, so they decide whether to contest it. If you want someone to act 'on your behalf', you need to get a solicitor.

Giblet

Prob posted but..

Faolchu

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I was not aware of that! I have no idea how he got my details. On the day he would not even give me his name! Maybe he just rang insurance companies and reported an accident stated the date and then as I had already reported it, it matched? He didnt even come near my car so he would not have seen my insurane disk on the window either.

I think im going to write my insurance company, state that I am not responsible and ask them to claim from him for damages to my car

maybe he works for the insurance comapny? you filed a police report for a hit and run right? in that case have teh police contact your insurer to get his details as he fled the scene of an accident

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you wear blinkers when you're on the roads in Dublin city? Because at pretty much every change of traffic light at every junction in Dublin, I see 1 or 2 or maybe even 3 or 4 drivers scooting through on red lights.

Yes, there can be some gambling at the end of a traffic light sequence.

But I almost never see motorists totally disregarding the traffic light and going through a red mid-cycle. By contrast, I hardly ever see a cyclist obey one, unless there is an opposing traffic flow.

I have never had to "negotiate" with a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge, or even a motorcyclist. Negotiating with cyclists to cross that bridge though is to be expected, despite clear "no cycling" signs on both it.

Though you will have the occasional gob****e parking on the footpath, motorist obedience of footways is 1000 times better than cyclists who tend to treat pretty much all footways as make-believe cycle lanes.

I have never had to jump out of the way of Red Light Jumping motorists, but I have had a number of serious near misses with RLJing cyclists.

rubadub wrote: »

I don't see that, I find pedestrians to be the greatest hypocrites of all, which makes perfect sense to me. It also makes perfect sense to me why cyclists are singled out, even though they are not the biggest offenders.

Clearly you've never had a conversation with Iwannahurl, cyclopath2001, galwaycyclist or any of a number of others with "cycl" or "bike" in their handles. If you ever had done so as a non-cyclist, you would understand the attitude.

Tenzor07

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, there can be some gambling at the end of a traffic light sequence.

But I almost never see motorists totally disregarding the traffic light and going through a red mid-cycle. By contrast, I hardly ever see a cyclist obey one, unless there is an opposing traffic flow.

I have never had to "negotiate" with a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge, or even a motorcyclist. Negotiating with cyclists to cross that bridge though is to be expected, despite clear "no cycling" signs on both it.

Though you will have the occasional gob****e parking on the footpath, motorist obedience of footways is 1000 times better than cyclists who tend to treat pretty much all footways as make-believe cycle lanes.

I have never had to jump out of the way of Red Light Jumping motorists, but I have had a number of serious near misses with RLJing cyclists.

Jeebus! You have some serious blinkers on you or live in a small village in the middle of no-where.. Hilarious!! :D:D:D:D :rolleyes:

SeanW wrote: »

Clearly you've never had a conversation with Iwannahurl, cyclopath2001, galwaycyclist or any of a number of others with "cycl" or "bike" in their handles. If you ever had done so as a non-cyclist, you would understand the attitude.

Have you ever spoken to them in person? You tube doesn't mean you have had a conversation with them! :rolleyes:

foggy_lad

kleefarr wrote: »

Shouldn't bike riders have to pay a bike tax to use the road?
Only a nominal amount, say €50. Might make them think twice about how they use the road.

Maybe it is time all cyclists had mandatory third party insurance?

rubadub

kleefarr wrote: »

Shouldn't bike riders have to pay a bike tax to use the road?
Only a nominal amount, say €50. Might make them think twice about how they use the road.

foggy_lad wrote: »

Maybe it is time all cyclists had mandatory third party insurance?

Think of who this includes, 5 year olds are obliged to cycle on the road, €50 a head would be a lot of a family with lots of kids cycling to school. It also includes a hell of a lot more people than might spring to mind, when people hear "cyclist" they are often probably thinking of a guy in lycra commuting daily. But a large % of the population are potential cyclists during the year. I know a lot of people who borrow bikes maybe only once a year, or have a bike they take a spin on just twice a year if its sunny out.

CramCycle

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, there can be some gambling at the end of a traffic light sequence.

On a daily basis I see motorists run reds at least 5 seconds after they have went red, some at speed, some with caution, doesn't change what they are doing. At night time the Donnybrook church/garage junction may as well be permanently green for N11 traffic as it is rare to have a car bother to stop on red between 3 and 6pm from my observations.

But I almost never see motorists totally disregarding the traffic light and going through a red mid-cycle. By contrast, I hardly ever see a cyclist obey one, unless there is an opposing traffic flow.

Where do you live? I fully accept that there are light breakers using every mode of transport but if you are in Dublin to rarely see a motorist break a red, or to rarely see a cyclist stop at a red means that you are simply not paying attention.

I have never had to "negotiate" with a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge, or even a motorcyclist. Negotiating with cyclists to cross that bridge though is to be expected, despite clear "no cycling" signs on both it.

Cyclists like alot of motorists are creatures of habit. The signs are not that clear (on the right side but you would expect by habit the cyclist to be on the left). Stick a Garda there one morning a week ( a different day each week), if its that big a problem it will be sorted shortly with a bit extra for the state coffers.

Though you will have the occasional gob****e parking on the footpath, motorist obedience of footways is 1000 times better than cyclists who tend to treat pretty much all footways as make-believe cycle lanes.

All cyclists, well at least your not making generalisations :pac:

I have never had to jump out of the way of Red Light Jumping motorists, but I have had a number of serious near misses with RLJing cyclists.

I have, in the past 5 years I have seen 3 pedestrians hit at the bottom Dawson St. by taxis. I don't even travel that way that often. Tell me more about these "serious" "near" misses, surely there must be a huge number of cases of serious injury or road deaths by cyclists?

Clearly you've never had a conversation with Iwannahurl, cyclopath2001, galwaycyclist or any of a number of others with "cycl" or "bike" in their handles. If you ever had done so as a non-cyclist, you would understand the attitude.

But its not much different to your attitude that all cyclists behave this way. It's simply untrue. Some do, the same way some motorists do, the same way some pedestrians do but far from all. I have no doubt that the examples you have given happen, the same way mine do as well but you have to at least admit, it's not all cyclists, and that claiming all motorists as a group are better behaved is misleading at best.

RainyDay

foggy_lad wrote: »

Maybe it is time all cyclists had mandatory third party insurance?

What problem would this solve?

Davarus Walrus

Saw some beatnik on a bike getting a trip onto the bonnet of a taxi this afternoon just off Pearse Street. Ran a red light and into the side of the taxi which was making a right turn. Didn't appear to be badly hurt apart from a busted nose. Hoepfully this will a lesson to him to stop breaking the rules of the road.

SeanW

RainyDay wrote: »

What problem would this solve?

For one thing, the OP would have an insurance policy to claim off from the RLJing cyclist.

Daith

rubadub wrote: »

Think of who this includes, 5 year olds are obliged to cycle on the road, €50 a head would be a lot of a family with lots of kids cycling to school. It also includes a hell of a lot more people than might spring to mind, when people hear "cyclist" they are often probably thinking of a guy in lycra commuting daily. But a large % of the population are potential cyclists during the year. I know a lot of people who borrow bikes maybe only once a year, or have a bike they take a spin on just twice a year if its sunny out.

None of which is any real argument for cyclists not to have some sort of insurance though?

seamus

Daith wrote: »

None of which is any real argument for cyclists not to have some sort of insurance though?

What is the argument *for* cyclists to have insurance though? And why does it only apply to cyclists and not pedestrians?

We know the reasons why motorised vehicles should have insurance - because they're big and travel fast, with the potential to cause massive amounts of damage to property and persons.

That doesn't apply to cyclists, so what is the reasoning behind looking for mandatory insurance for cyclists?

rubadub

Daith wrote: »

None of which is any real argument for cyclists not to have some sort of insurance though?

If those posters had considered all the knock on effect they might not consider it a great idea.

I would make similar points if people suggested mandatory insurance for pedestrians.

Less cyclists on the road will result in greater danger, this has been fairly well documented. This is why the likes of Cllr Andrew Montague thankfully had a hand in scrapping plans for mandatory helmets.

I wonder if these people are confused as to why the government introduced the cycle to work scheme. People seem to want deterrents to stop people cycling, while most governments are trying to encourage it. In several EU countries the governments pay people to cycle to work.

Daith

seamus wrote: »

What is the argument *for* cyclists to have insurance though? And why does it only apply to cyclists and not pedestrians?

rubadub wrote: »

I would make similar points if people suggested mandatory insurance for pedestrians.

Cyclists have bikes and generally share the same roads as other motor traffic. Pedestrians don't.

Thanks for bringing it back to us versus them again though.


Why shouldn't cyclists have some insurance that doesn't involve "because some other group doesn't?

MD1983

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, there can be some gambling at the end of a traffic light sequence.

But I almost never see motorists totally disregarding the traffic light and going through a red mid-cycle. By contrast, I hardly ever see a cyclist obey one, unless there is an opposing traffic flow.

I have never had to "negotiate" with a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge, or even a motorcyclist. Negotiating with cyclists to cross that bridge though is to be expected, despite clear "no cycling" signs on both it.

Though you will have the occasional gob****e parking on the footpath, motorist obedience of footways is 1000 times better than cyclists who tend to treat pretty much all footways as make-believe cycle lanes.

I have never had to jump out of the way of Red Light Jumping motorists, but I have had a number of serious near misses with RLJing cyclists.
.

so its "gambling" for motorists and the biggest sin for cyclists.....hypocrite

the biggest offenders for breaking the rules of the road are clearly motorists, speeding, crossing lanes, red light breaking, texting while driving, driving without licence, driving uninsured etc etc etc etc

Chips Lovell

Mandatory motor insurance exists because the number and cost of accidents was high enough that it was decided there was a societal benefit in obligating motorists to insure themselves. You'd need a massive increase in the number of accidents for the same argument to be made for cyclists.

Simply saying you should have compulsory insurance because you might have an accident means the same logic would call for compulsory pedestrian insurance and suchlike.

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, there can be some gambling at the end of a traffic light sequence.

But I almost never see motorists totally disregarding the traffic light and going through a red mid-cycle. By contrast, I hardly ever see a cyclist obey one, unless there is an opposing traffic flow.

"Gambling at the end" - seriously? Take the blinkers off, my good man.

Three cars breaking red light;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySxPg7LNQus

White van man breaks red light while on the phone;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSJjSbxJ98

Four cars break red lights (and a couple of cyclists)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCBRzLNCNto

White van man on phone follows 2 other cars breaking lights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lh0jvw2VJkE

Coach breaks red light

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b0fOvZPRYg

Breaks red light with schoolkids at crossing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGNdF6Unj9Y

If you're not seeing lots of cars breaking lots of red lights, you're not an observant driver.

SeanW wrote: »

But I almost never see motorists totally disregarding the traffic light and going through a red mid-cycle. By contrast, I hardly ever see a cyclist obey one, unless there is an opposing traffic flow.

Yes, it is true to say that cyclists break red lights in a different way to motorists breaking lights. That's not to say it is better or worse, just different. If you reckon that cyclists are worse, have a think about which group kills 200+ each year on the roads and maims thousands of others.

SeanW wrote: »

I have never had to "negotiate" with a motorist on the Sean O'Casey bridge, or even a motorcyclist. Negotiating with cyclists to cross that bridge though is to be expected, despite clear "no cycling" signs on both it.

Though you will have the occasional gob****e parking on the footpath, motorist obedience of footways is 1000 times better than cyclists who tend to treat pretty much all footways as make-believe cycle lanes.

I have never had to jump out of the way of Red Light Jumping motorists, but I have had a number of serious near misses with RLJing cyclists.

Interesting to note how selective you are in which kind of road traffic offences you look at. No mention of speeding drivers, texting drivers, phoning drivers, drinking drivers, failing to indicate drivers, no working brake light drivers, fog lights on for the past 3 weeks because I don't now where the switch is drivers - the drivers that kill 200+ each year on the roads and maim thousands of others.

SeanW wrote: »

Clearly you've never had a conversation with Iwannahurl, cyclopath2001, galwaycyclist or any of a number of others with "cycl" or "bike" in their handles. If you ever had done so as a non-cyclist, you would understand the attitude.

You seem to be taking this quite personally. You seem to have a difficulty with anyone who gives you 'attitude' (which translates roughly as anyone who tells you anything that you don't want to hear).

If you don't like what these folks say, try arguing with it - based on facts preferably.

seamus

Daith wrote: »

Cyclists have bikes and generally share the same roads as other motor traffic. Pedestrians don't.

Thanks for bringing it back to us versus them again though.

Why shouldn't cyclists have some insurance that doesn't involve "because some other group doesn't?

I like how you completely glossed over the rest of my post.

Cyclists shouldn't have insurance because there is no evidence that the cost or volume of cycling accidents places a heavy burden on society, and requiring mandatory insurance will reduce the volume of people cycling on the roads, which as a result will in fact cost the economy more money in healthcare, accidents and transport.

Now you go: Why should cyclists have insurance?

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

For one thing, the OP would have an insurance policy to claim off from the RLJing cyclist.

I saw a dog run into a car once and damage the car. Should TP insurance for dogs be mandatory now?

One unsubstantiated incident does not justify a change in legislation. I've never heard the AA or the insurance federation or any other reputable body raise concerns about damage to motorists caused by cyclists.

What real problem are we trying to fix here?

Daith wrote: »

None of which is any real argument for cyclists not to have some sort of insurance though?

Are there any real arguments FOR cyclists to have some sort of insurance?

Daith

seamus wrote: »

Now you go: Why should cyclists have insurance?

You share the road with other road users. All other road users (cars, motorbikes, etc) all have insurance regardless of how many accidents they have. A motorist could pay thousands upon thousands in insurance and never make use of it.

Also your insurance would cover your bike being stolen which is a massive issue I thought?

Why should cyclists not pay some level and have some protection afforded to themselves also?

RainyDay

Daith wrote: »

You share the road with other road users. All other road users (cars, motorbikes, etc) all have insurance regardless of how many accidents they have. A motorist could pay thousands upon thousands in insurance and never make use of it.

Why should cyclists not pay some level?

So is this about making motorists feel better about sharing the road, rather than having to fix any particular financial problem then?

Or is there a problem to be fixed here?

Daith

RainyDay wrote: »

So is this about making motorists feel better about sharing the road, rather than having to fix any particular financial problem then?

It's about all traffic users being equal. If a cyclists does scratch a car why shouldn't they pay?