Cyclists breaking lights!!

Pompous

I am a cyclist who breaks red lights. If I arrive at a junction I am familiar with and the light is red, I stop and observe the traffic and the lights. If I see a safe opportunity to go, I will go. There's no point waiting while the lane with the green light is completely empty as far as the eye can see. It is illegal, I know, but so is J-walking. The way that I break red lights is, in my opinion, exactly the same as J-walking. I've been doing this for over a decade and not once have I even come close to causing an accident. Because I'm not a moron.

Breaking a red light without stopping is completely reckless and a good way to get yourself killed. I would never do that, but unfortunately I do see other cyclists do it sometimes. I always marvel at the fact that they are still alive.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a grey area here. If motorists, like cyclists, did not face any repercussions from breaking the rules of the road, I guarantee they would break red lights just as often as I do. It is the fear of punishment that makes you wait for a green light at an empty junction, not because it is the right thing to do.

sarkozy

A Garda nearly drove into the buggy my wife was pushing our son in. What happened? He blamed us for crossing the road negligently. We looked, the coast was clear, and he pulled in at speed, not indicating. He then proceeded to mimic us mockingly and said that my wife is a bad mother. No word of a lie.

Now, I'm not defending or condemning pedestrians, cyclists or drivers when I say: if this is the state of policing, is it any wonder that the law isn't enforced?

Back onto my soap box, I believe enforcement involving penalty points/summonses should begin with motorists because, due to the laws of physics, vehicles cause the most damage. In addition and in parallel, cyclists behaving recklessly should get stern warnings until such a time as motorist's behaviour has come under control, when fines can then be applied. In tandem with this must be radical investment in cycling infrastructure, changes in road traffic laws based on best practice and evidence from abroad, and obligatory cycling training for motorists and free training for cyclists.

The problem will never be solved until a multi-faceted strategy is adopted.

I am a cyclist who breaks red lights. If I arrive at a junction I am familiar with and the light is red, I stop and observe the traffic and the lights. If I see a safe opportunity to go, I will go.

I'm a cyclist who doesn't break red lights. Thanks for your honesty, and I do see your point, but I have a son and I don't want to do even the slightest thing that puts him at risk of not having a dad. I don't want to be the victim of my own error, or be the cause of another person becoming a victim. Saying that, I've been involved in two collisions with cars and both times it was the driver's fault. In one case, I waited until the Gardai arrived to give my side of the story and to pay for damage to the car if I was liable, which I wasn't so the Gardai let me go. Breaking the lights is just not worth those few extra seconds. But what scares me most, personally, is having the green light to go and getting hit by a vehicle breaking the red lights, which I see happen daily at the Baggot Street Bridge.

Jimoslimos

Let's be honest OP, this didn't happen or either did but not to the extent you've described. Mental distress and over €1k in damages to your car (and a footprint mark in your door) yet the cyclist (on a bike weighing little over 10kg) walks off without a scratch just needing to reattach the chain.

That's not to say that if any damage (no matter how small) is caused that both parties shouldn't stop.

rubadub

fxotoole wrote: »

Cyclists do it more regularly than drivers though. They think that the law shouldn't apply to them and don't bother their holes obeying the rules of the road

When on foot people are most likely to break the law, hands down. When that same person is on a bike they are less likely to break the law. When the same person is in a car its less likely again. When in truck less likely again.

The garda often do not apply the law to various road users be they in cars, on foot, or on a bike, and with good reason, they understand why the laws was put in place, and what they actually set out to prevent. Lots of actions people do are illegal but are not really the main actions the law makers had in mind to prevent.

CdeC

I break red lights but only at walking speed. I pretty much see it as getting off my bike and walking and then getting back on.

I have seen some lads cycle through red lights at full speed and nearly knock people over. They are just assholes who will eventually bring the law down on top of us all. Most cyclists are considerate road users.

I am sorry to hear about that guy damaging your car OP. I reckon looking out for him on the same route may be a good idea. If you can get a witness as well. He should have allowed you to turn if you were ahead of him. Surprised his bike was still able to be cycled after.

Roquentin

can someone clarify, but im pretty sure cyclists have to adhere to the same rules of the road as motorists. Im pretty sure you have to.

The only thing a cyclist can do is if there is a cycle lane, they can cycle in it or they can cycle beside it on the actual road. But regards lights or zebra crossings, cyclists have to follow the rules

jkiamasnake

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Let's be honest OP, this didn't happen or either did but not to the extent you've described. Mental distress and over €1k in damages to your car (and a footprint mark in your door) yet the cyclist (on a bike weighing little over 10kg) walks off without a scratch just needing to reattach the chain.

That's not to say that if any damage (no matter how small) is caused that both parties shouldn't stop.

no this is a very real story! stop being such a condensating prick!! im not 100% what other damage was done to his stupid bike...he had it upside down fixing the chain when i got back to him. at you can imagine i was in a fair amount of shock!!! he refused to give me his name. he said accidents happen. and when i said he was at fault he needs to pay for my damage he says he has no money to do so and that he was late for work.

i met the insurance assessor and he says i am in no way liable which is reassuring. however he wasnt able to comment if i claim if it would affect my no claims discount

The Singing Beard

Pompous wrote: »

I am a cyclist who breaks red lights. If I arrive at a junction I am familiar with and the light is red, I stop and observe the traffic and the lights. If I see a safe opportunity to go, I will go. There's no point waiting while the lane with the green light is completely empty as far as the eye can see. It is illegal, I know, but so is J-walking. The way that I break red lights is, in my opinion, exactly the same as J-walking. I've been doing this for over a decade and not once have I even come close to causing an accident. Because I'm not a moron.

Breaking a red light without stopping is completely reckless and a good way to get yourself killed. I would never do that, but unfortunately I do see other cyclists do it sometimes. I always marvel at the fact that they are still alive.

The point I am trying to make is that there is a grey area here. If motorists, like cyclists, did not face any repercussions from breaking the rules of the road, I guarantee they would break red lights just as often as I do. It is the fear of punishment that makes you wait for a green light at an empty junction, not because it is the right thing to do.

Appropriate username

samantha fortune

i dont drive or cycle but i have to say i do alot of walking through town for work and everyday i get annoyed by a cyclist flying through a red light and looking as if its ok. If you want to use to road then follow the rules of the road its not a free for all just because you cycle.

Pompous

The Singing Beard wrote: »

Appropriate username

I know, that was the point.

rubadub

samantha fortune wrote: »

If you want to use to road then follow the rules of the road its not a free for all just because you cycle.

Do you follow the advice of the rules of the road yourself? e.g. when dark and walking do you

Always wear a pair of reflective armbands, high-visibility belt or other reflective or fluorescent clothing which will help you to be seen from a distance

Most pedestrians I know do not do this, while not legally required, but I see loads breaking the law by jaywalking. It is so tolerated that often when its brought up you get posters insisting no such laws even exist in this country.

Pinch Flat

I cycle regularly - daily city commuting and weekend stints as a Mamil. Cover 10,000 plus km on the bike annually. Have to say the whole red light thing is getting out of control with cyclists.

I would never condone breaking one - there are arguments for relaxing lights for cyclists like the do in holland. But at the moment it's law - red means stop. Saw a guy pulled over by a couple if Gardai on the quays this morning and hopefully he gets his day in court and a nice fine to cop him on.

I changed jobs from a cross town semi-rural commute to an inter dublin city location, it's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously hurt in front if me.

This morning some kn0b comes barrelling through the lights at park gate at on an electric bike - probably travelling 30odd km/hr. He wasn't expecting me to stop at the red, so could have rear ended me and caused a lot of damage. Not the first time and a lot of cyclists with give a tut or other verbal if you stop at a red and impede their progress.

Last night leaving work late a girl cycled straight through the lights at the Shelbourne - group of tourists nearly hit then she nearly gets t-boned by cars setting off from another set of lights.

There's plenty of threads on boards about cyclists having 'road tax', insurance and nct for their bikes - most of the arguments can easily be countered or at least debated.

It's red light breaking though that cyclists need to cop on with. There no justification for it.

dan1895

Have had other cyclists tut at me for slowing them down when I stop at the red lights at the junction of Mobhi Road and Botanic Avenue. Twats!

Gongoozler

Roquentin wrote: »

can someone clarify, but im pretty sure cyclists have to adhere to the same rules of the road as motorists. Im pretty sure you have to.

The only thing a cyclist can do is if there is a cycle lane, they can cycle in it or they can cycle beside it on the actual road. But regards lights or zebra crossings, cyclists have to follow the rules

See this, and no offence to you in particular, but this is the problem. People are using the roads without knowing the rules. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. In my experience it's consistently all 3.

The only rule breaking that I see that gets to me is the stuff I consider thoughtless and dangerous, and I see this from all 3.silly little stuff like crawling through a pedestrian green light on a bike is just annoying for others and that's why you hear so much about it. Because drivers are like 'well I wouldn't get away with that' but you do, all the time. Just because a light has just gone red (read: 2 entire seconds previous) doesn't make it anymore legal than what the cyclist does.

Gongoozler

dan1895 wrote: »

Have had other cyclists tut at me for slowing them down when I stop at the red lights at the junction of Mobhi Road and Botanic Avenue. Twats!

I've had drivers beep at me for not continuing through an amber light, obviously he wanted to make it before red.

Fat Christy

I'm sick of these threads about cyclists breaking red lights. How many have we had at this stage?

Baron Kurtz

What are the advantages of cyclists possessing a license or some form of identifying plate on their bicycles?

I want to approach this as objectively as possible and not inflame the thread with examples of what a cyclist/motorist did to infringe the law etc.

For those that want to cycle, do you think they wouldn't mind registering for a licence/identifying plate on their bicycles? I personally wouldn't mind at all. Maybe they would take more care and consideration with something like this in place. This applies to automobiles already. Why would another road user be different.

Would this reduce or eliminate the sort of cyclist that sees the mode of transport as one that gets them to their destination as quick as possible, regardless of any rules or consequences for their road indiscretions?

These debates usually descend into an us versus them, is rarely measured and unbiased, and generally no proper solutions are entertained.

It's argued generally in relation to this debacle, that you get assholes everywhere, which is true, but it might be more pertinent to impose a degree of 'difficulty' to obtain the right to use transport i.e. licence. This may eventually set a precedent whereby the careless, light-breaking, footpath-cycling numpty just won't bother to acquire this means.

Baron Kurtz

Just as an aside, I think anything amber people get either terribly confused or terribly panicked. Pointedly at crossings on cycle lanes where the green man ceases for the pedestrian and the amber light [to green] appears for the cyclist.

Gongoozler

I would have no objection to plates, but then I do follow every rule. Plates won't solve anything though, it's an enforcement issue.

Sorry Baron I can't make any sense of your last post there.

Roquentin

Gongoozler wrote: »

See this, and no offence to you in particular, but this is the problem. People are using the roads without knowing the rules. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. In my experience it's consistently all 3.

The only rule breaking that I see that gets to me is the stuff I consider thoughtless and dangerous, and I see this from all 3.silly little stuff like crawling through a pedestrian green light on a bike is just annoying for others and that's why you hear so much about it. Because drivers are like 'well I wouldn't get away with that' but you do, all the time. Just because a light has just gone red (read: 2 entire seconds previous) doesn't make it anymore legal than what the cyclist does.

but pedestrians are usually using a foot path provided, thats why the rules are ignored in their cases. i think some cyclists just think that because they are on a bike powered by their own legs, similar to walking, they can ignore the rules.

The rule is simple as in understand: If you are on the road on a car, bike or donkey, the same rules apply for everyone.

So a red light you stop. At a zebra crossing you stop and right lane on a round about.

The RSA should make an ad about this and really drive it home.

rubadub

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

For those that want to cycle, do you think they wouldn't mind registering for a licence/identifying plate on their bicycles? I personally wouldn't mind at all. Maybe they would take more care and consideration with something like this in place. This applies to automobiles already. Why would another road user be different.

The least law abiding law users are pedestrians, I hope that is one thing which could never be debated. So would you suggest licences and plates on their jackets too? They should be more of a priority.

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

Gongoozler wrote: »

it's an enforcement issue.

Yes and if people cannot realise why the garda are not as quick to enforce the laws to pedestrians, cyclists and motorists then I would seriously worry about their mental health or general intelligence. They should not be walking the streets along if they are that mentally deficient, which in these threads many people claim to be -though I give them the benefit of the doubt as I think such utter stupidity & ignorance is rare.

Baron Kurtz

Gongoozler wrote: »

I would have no objection to plates, but then I do follow every rule. Plates won't solve anything though, it's an enforcement issue.

Sorry Baron I can't make any sense of your last post there.

True. Enforcement is lacking, but it's bemusing the level of disarray to unfolds daily. Zero understanding of basic rules (this is exempting the renegade that will gleefully infringe any rule). It's more about the mentality and what's embedded into road users generally.

Yeah, sorry. My aside about the amber/green-pedestrian/cyclist issue was primarily in relation to cycle paths (grand canal, Portobello to Grand Canal Dock for example).

Pedestrians, when they get a green man proceed (as one should).
It's red for the cyclist in this instance. Then the amber highlights for the cyclist (cautionary), highlights a red for the pedestrian.

It's seldom a pedestrian imo stays put here. The amber (for cyclists' lights) is an indicator to proceed, often travelling at speed.

Baron Kurtz

rubadub wrote: »

The least law abiding law users are pedestrians, I hope that is one thing which could never be debated. So would you suggest licences and plates on their jackets too? They should be more of a priority.

No, certainly not. I don't want to get into the "by that rationale" debate either. Culpability has different forms in a way. The mode of transport has to be factored in. A pedestrian's indiscretion can be observed (relatively quickly) in advance by cyclists or motorists. They move slowly.

Bicycles move at pace, are more darting, and accidents occur more frequently between the fastest modes of transport on our roads. The most negligent (those that care little for lights etc) should at least be deterred to act in this way.

I get your point about pedestrians and I don't have a practical solution, but I don' think there's anything intrinsically wrong with licensing/plating cyclists. Why would any cyclist care? That is, if they intend to stick to the rules.

rubadub

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

I get your point about pedestrians and I don't have a practical solution, but I don' think there's anything intrinsically wrong with licensing/plating cyclists. Why would any cyclist care? That is, if they intend to stick to the rules.

you seemingly do have a practical solution. Why would any pedestrian care about having to get a licence and wear plates? that is if they intend to stick to the rules. What is so different about it?

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

I don't want to get into the "by that rationale" debate either. .

Yeah, nothing new there, most weasel out of it lest they expose their extreme double standards & hypocrisy and lack of logic.

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

The mode of transport has to be factored in. A pedestrian's indiscretion can be observed (relatively quickly) in advance by cyclists or motorists. They move slowly. .

I see far more near accidents due to pedestrians than any other road user, every morning I see at least 20 running across a busy dual carriage way at one stop alone, right underneath a pedestrian flyover too. But there is no "us and them" with pedestrians as most people happen to be one, so the sad pathetic pent up little bigots let loose at one of the few minority groups they think is still acceptable.

Merrion

People on unicycles are by far the worst. Clowns, the lot of them!

rubadub

Roquentin wrote: »

i think some cyclists just think that because they are on a bike powered by their own legs, similar to walking, they can ignore the rules.

correct, this is why the gardai often ignore enforcing the law for cyclists & pedestrians, they know what the law actually set out to prevent and how best to enforce it. The law breakers know the laws are laxly enforced and so break them, the same person in a different mode of transport might never even dream of breaking a light. The gardai thankfully do not act like power hungry jumped up little jobsworth pendatic gobshites.

Just like the lax enforcement of the jaywalking laws, they know fine well why they were introduced and so enforce it accordingly. It would disgust me to see the gardai & courts tied up with every law broken by roadusers, especially when done in a pretty benign manner.

I truly hope people are just feigning ignorance and are not genuinely that stupid that they cannot figure it out. Next time you see a garda not enforcing the law ask them why -be prepared for a drug search as they might think you are fucking off your head if you are that utterly ignorant.

Pinch Flat

Tbh red light breaking is an endemic problem on Irish roads. Many more motorists would do it if they could get away with it - not just legally but physically. So 5 or 6 cyclists can squeeze through a set of red lights - whereas two cars (as I saw this evening at the gates at the castle knock end of the Phoenix park and the junction at myo's pub in castle knock - 2 cars per set). Is pointless saying I saw a cyclist do this or a motorist do that.

In terms of enforcement, the guards seem to have an a la carte attitude. So when I'm driving and behind a police car and a guy comes careering through a red - not seeing the police car - the police will sometime ignore it as if it's not worth the hassle. Similarly for cyclists.

Then you'll see a guy on a police bike do all sorts of crazy stunts to catch a red light breaker or as I saw this morning a pair of guards who just happened to be at capel street as a cyclist went though a red - other times they'll let it go.

OneOfThem Stumbled

Baron Kurtz wrote: »

I get your point about pedestrians and I don't have a practical solution, but I don' think there's anything intrinsically wrong with licensing/plating cyclists. Why would any cyclist care? That is, if they intend to stick to the rules.

More red tape, more bureaucracy, probably more taxes; more headaches, etc.

I break the rules when cycling. I break read lights. I cycle the wrong way up cycle paths. I sometimes change from being cyclist to pedestrian and then back again - all in the course of several seconds. I don't wear a helmet, or a high viz jacket. But I try to cycle safely - both for myself and for others. I look out for other road users, and pedestrians alike.

While dangerous cyclists could be a subject of prosecution; pragmatically they can at most go at 25 km/ph (realistically, in a city setting). If they crash when cycling fast, they will likely do a lot of damage to themselves - and are far less likely to kill a road user than the other way around. Moreover, their vehicle is light. How many motorists or truck drivers could carry their vehicle under their arm?

If we were to licence cyclists, would we also have to licence skateboarders and rollerbladers?

IT goes without saying, of course, that motorists should not be considered liable for the actions of a reckless cyclist.

Baron Kurtz

rubadub wrote: »

you seemingly do have a practical solution. Why would any pedestrian care about having to get a licence and wear plates? that is if they intend to stick to the rules. What is so different about it?



Yeah, nothing new there, most weasel out of it lest they expose their extreme double standards & hypocrisy and lack of logic.


I see far more near accidents due to pedestrians than any other road user, every morning I see at least 20 running across a busy dual carriage way at one stop alone, right underneath a pedestrian flyover too. But there is no "us and them" with pedestrians as most people happen to be one, so the sad pathetic pent up little bigots let loose at one of the few minority groups they think is still acceptable.

Because of my suggestion to licence road users I see the path you're logically following. Badge all people that have any interaction with traffic. Okay. Fire away. Pedestrians included. Maybe your 22,000 plus posts are half-filled with arguments for the sake of it. It suits you to vehemently argue everything. Pathological self righteousness, I dunno. You replied as if I was flaming the thread.

Underneath I'd imagine you don't think this is a viable option, even to support your exalted pedestal logic.

My argument was, that vehicles and push bikes, which move at relative high speed should have the prescience of mind to understand the consequences of the machines they operate when used inappropriately. Perhaps some licensing might be appropriate. Just a suggestion. I wasn't bullish in offering this opinion.

It certainly beats examples of people screaming ad nauseum where they were inconvenienced by some mode of transport, be it pedestrian, cyclist or motorist. My posts were mainly questions that I was hoping someone might offer up some solutions to. I'm wondering why I even bothered to offer anything at all. This particular subject gets very tetchy.

As for the weasel reference, I'm not so sure. More a resounding condescension from you imo.

And that leads on to your last comment which, to me, appears to be loaded with a caustic strain of passive aggression. I've no need to go there.

Deedsie

Svalbard wrote: »

Well I'm a cyclist and a driver too and I see cyclists breaking red lights everyday. Sometimes I think I'm the only cyclist who doesn't.

You are not the only one. I always get funny looks from other cyclists when I stop at red lights. I would never cycle on a footpath or break a red light. Both should be an immediate €80 on the spot fine for the rule breaking cyclist. I would take great pleasure seeing rule breakers fined.

Would also love to see people who park in cycle lanes fined.