Cyclists breaking lights!!

Awkward Badger

stefanovich wrote: »

Cyclist's morph from road user to pedestrian depending on what is convenient. As a rule I only cycle on footpaths, the roads are too dangerous.

That's what annoys me.

We were driving along recently and passed a cyclist who was in the middle of a lane and not keen on keeping over so we could pass. Well they have a right to be on the road just as we do I thinks to myself.

After we passed we approached lights which were turning red. We and the car in the next lane turning right stop. The cyclist comes between the two cars, through the red light out into the junction turning right and cuts across in the face on oncoming traffic up onto the footpath on the opposite side of the road and continues on his merry way.

Road user, pedestrian, above the law whatever suited him.

Roger Hassenforder

SeanW wrote: »

I saw three cyclists jump red lights in different directions today within in 5 seconds!

While it is acknowledged that cyclists are more awesome then the general population, even I struggle with this. How...

Roger Hassenforder

Awkward Badger wrote: »

That's what annoys me.

We were driving along recently and passed a cyclist who was in the middle of a lane and not keen on keeping over so we could pass. Well they have a right to be on the road just as we do I thinks to myself.

After we passed we approached lights which were turning red. We and the car in the next lane turning right stop. The cyclist comes between the two cars, through the red light out into the junction turning right and cuts across in the face on oncoming traffic up onto the footpath on the opposite side of the road and continues on his merry way.

Road user, pedestrian, above the law whatever suited him.

He was just a bollix that happened to be on a bike.
Evolution will hopefully see the likes of him thinned out of the herd.

rubadub

TheChizler wrote: »

You know jaywalking isn't a crime in Ireland right? The closest thing is crossing the road within 15 m of a crossing without actually using the crossing.

that IS the jaywalking law. I think it is 50m by the way.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That's fine if you're 5.

Children are not allowed cycle on footpaths regardless of age. Hopefully some of the vigilante keyboard warriors I have seen in other threads will not kick them off their bikes like they claim they would.

I wouldn't be worried about the gardai, most of them are quite sensible and so turn a blind eye to 5 year olds on footpaths, just like they sensibly turn a blind eye to the numerous pedestrians & cylists I see breaking the law each day, most of whom I see do it in a reasonably safe manner. The gardai know what the laws actually set out to prevent.

Milly33

It would be common courtesy to use a bell on a cycle path if you are coming up behind someone to let them know you are there behind them, and for lets say paths were people are walking and there are other cyclists.. Ring a bell to let them know you are behind them to keep int..

As for the bikes behaving like cars I more meant for things like approaching junctions etc when turning left, right or going around a roundie bikes should position themselves like they are a car and then move into the side after turning safely, same goes for red lights they should stop not go through them...

TheChizler

rubadub wrote: »

that IS the jaywalking law. I think it is 50m by the way.

Road Traffic Regulations 1997 (don't think the relevant section has changed since then) would disagree with you there.

rubadub

TheChizler wrote: »

Road Traffic Regulations 1997 (don't think the relevant section has changed since then) would disagree with you there.

so it is 15m, I read 50m before. Indo here said 50m must be mixing it up with feet
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html

The distance is a pretty moot point, there IS a jaywalking law, In many threads people think there is no restriction at all, no law whatsoever, this is not too surprising as it is so tolerated.

What's really weird this time is that you knew fine well there was a law, yet were still claiming there was none

A MAJORITY of people support the introduction of on-the-spot fines for reckless pedestrians who cross the road in a “zombie trance”, according to a new survey.

SHARE
The AA asked almost six thousand people if they believe that pedestrians should be held to the same road safety standards as drivers and two-thirds of people agreed that they should.

Ireland has a jaywalking law that says that if you are within 50 metres of a pedestrian crossing you must use it to cross.

“In reality, anyone who has ever been a pedestrian in an Irish town will tell you that the rules are completely ignored,” said Conor Faughnan, director of consumer affairs with the AA.

According to the Road Safety Authority, almost two in five road deaths are pedestrians.

The AA believes that this increase can be attributed to the rise in the number of people using mobile phones and other personal devices.

People enter a smart phone oblivion’ when using mobiles on the go, according to the group and do not pay enough attention to traffic around them.
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html#sthash.n9oTpmA7.dpuf

Bafucin

I am sick of cyclists everyday breaking lights...they seriously need to cop the f**k on and obey rules of the road.

No we don't!
See ya on the streets!

Bafucin

Deedsie wrote: »

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.

I would love to see people who DRIVE in them fined or given points.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pharmaton

eh..as a pedestrian (person who walks to work and other places), on Friday I encountered the following in the same trip. Waited patiently at pedestrian crossing only to have car drive through while in the middle of the road and then listen to him shout out the window while he threatens to drive over us and to get off the road as the light is green. (it was green man crossing, he didn't have the filter)
At a different set of lights watching two cars speed through a red. At a zebra crossing (flashing lights) waiting at least a minute for any car to stop and when one kindly one did, the car behind her decided he wasn't going to, and narrowly missed causing an accident.

Trust me, drivers are a hundred times worse than cyclists.

tightropetom

OP - a word of advice. I know you were probably too shocked at the time, but if ever in any accident again, immediately reach for your phone and start snapping pics - of the vehicle that hit you and the person. You can always pass those to the guards. Also, take note (or pictures) of any vehicle around you that might have seen it.

That way you have evidence!

L'Enfer du Nord

Milly33 wrote: »

It would be common courtesy to use a bell on a cycle path if you are coming up behind someone to let them know you are there behind them, and for lets say paths were people are walking and there are other cyclists.. Ring a bell to let them know you are behind them to keep int..

Common courtesy, but you be surprised how many people take it as an aggressive act, or on occasion get the fright of their lives. I usually only use the bell behind people walking on a totally segregated cycle lanes. Did it recently by the canal near portobello. The two women walking in the cycling lane didn't look around (I'd slowed down to walking pace) instead the screamed and tried to run for it.

Gongoozler

Milly33 wrote: »

It would be common courtesy to use a bell on a cycle path if you are coming up behind someone to let them know you are there behind them, and for lets say paths were people are walking and there are other cyclists.. Ring a bell to let them know you are behind them to keep int..

As for the bikes behaving like cars I more meant for things like approaching junctions etc when turning left, right or going around a roundie bikes should position themselves like they are a car and then move into the side after turning safely, same goes for red lights they should stop not go through them...

Was this in response to me??

What do people do if not use a bell to ting people out of the way, shout at them? It's also common courtesy to not walk on a cycle path.

animaal

Cyclists aren't better people or worse people than any other road users. The guy you see this morning on his bike might be driving past you in his car this evening. The difference is enforcement.

When he's in his car, he knows that if he breaks this red light, he'll probably get away with it. But if he does it at every light, he will be caught. Penalty points, 80 quid (or whatever). When he's on his bike, he knows that he can break lights all year long, and there's a miniscule chance he'll ever be caught. And if he does get stopped some day, the implications will almost certainly be far less than if he was a driver. And the typical attitude for *people* is "If I can get away with it, I will".

The difference is entirely down to enforcement, or the lack of it. And despite what some posters say, it's not because individual gardai carefully weigh up the danger of various infractions. It's down to policy, set at the top, with headlines in mind. Otherwise, why would enforcement concentrate on such lethal blackspots as the Donnybrook underpass? In reality, the top brass have no interest in headlines like "Gardai swoop on 30 cyclists, 4 sulky drivers". Much better is "Clampdown leads to fines for 30 drivers in two hours". It doesn't matter that the 30 drivers were fish in a barrel at a carefully selected spot.

As a result, if the guard reports to his boss that he's arrested a few cyclists, the thanks for all his paperwork will be "meh". The top brass won't care, and that attitude filters down. So why bother?

TL;DR: Suggestions like licensing or taxing cyclists make no sense as long as there's no enforcement of the law. And if there was enforcement of existing laws, there'd be no need for such measures. Traffic laws need to be sensible (They already are, mostly), and then strictly enforced. For all road users, whether they're in a car, on a bike, or a sulky.

Milly33

From reading I gather that there are more arses on bikes than there is on cars!!

Roquentin

animaal wrote: »

Cyclists aren't better people or worse people than any other road users. The guy you see this morning on his bike might be driving past you in his car this evening. The difference is enforcement.

When he's in his car, he knows that if he breaks this red light, he'll probably get away with it. But if he does it at every light, he will be caught. Penalty points, 80 quid (or whatever). When he's on his bike, he knows that he can break lights all year long, and there's a miniscule chance he'll ever be caught. And if he does get stopped some day, the implications will almost certainly be far less than if he was a driver. And the typical attitude for *people* is "If I can get away with it, I will".

The difference is entirely down to enforcement, or the lack of it. And despite what some posters say, it's not because individual gardai carefully weigh up the danger of various infractions. It's down to policy, set at the top, with headlines in mind. Otherwise, why would enforcement concentrate on such lethal blackspots as the Donnybrook underpass? In reality, the top brass have no interest in headlines like "Gardai swoop on 30 cyclists, 4 sulky drivers". Much better is "Clampdown leads to fines for 30 drivers in two hours". It doesn't matter that the 30 drivers were fish in a barrel at a carefully selected spot.

As a result, if the guard reports to his boss that he's arrested a few cyclists, the thanks for all his paperwork will be "meh". The top brass won't care, and that attitude filters down. So why bother?

TL;DR: Suggestions like licensing or taxing cyclists make no sense as long as there's no enforcement of the law. And if there was enforcement of existing laws, there'd be no need for such measures. Traffic laws need to be sensible (They already are, mostly), and then strictly enforced. For all road users, whether they're in a car, on a bike, or a sulky.

In fairness to the travellers on sulkies although people may disagree, ive seen them stop at red lights. Annoying alright when you are stuck behind one, but they wont be killed. it will be the cyclist that is killed.

Awkward Badger

Roquentin wrote: »

In fairness to the travellers on sulkies although people may disagree, ive seen them stop at red lights. Annoying alright when you are stuck behind one, but they wont be killed. it will be the cyclist that is killed.

Maybe not at traffic lights but they stand a good chance of killing themselves, others and the horse racing on main roads.

thisNthat

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I am sick of cyclists everyday breaking lights...they seriously need to cop the f**k on and obey rules of the road.

Oh here we go,
More whining and complaining from whiney complainers who have no idea how difficult it is to cycle in urban areas and the dangers involved,
The typical I'm always right the cyclist is always wrong attitude,
If you were using your mirrors correctly you would have seen the cyclist, you could have killed him/her.
I pay road tax so I own the road attitude, Usually from people who have never cycled a day in their lives.
Open your eyes and use your mirrors next time and no-one will cycle into you.
Obey the rules of the road too, you don't own the road and try and look out for more vulnerable road users.

TheChizler

rubadub wrote: »

so it is 15m, I read 50m before. Indo here said 50m must be mixing it up with feet
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/majority-of-people-want-fines-imposed-for-jaywalking-30361305.html

The distance is a pretty moot point, there IS a jaywalking law, In many threads people think there is no restriction at all, no law whatsoever, this is not too surprising as it is so tolerated.

What's really weird this time is that you knew fine well there was a law, yet were still claiming there was none

I'll concede that it depends on your definition of jaywalking. The law doesn't use the word jaywalking. The dictionary definition of jaywalking normally refers to some amount of recklessness, which the actual Irish law doesn't take into account. It's totally different to the crime that exists in some US states for instance which would be the normal definition of it.

Roquentin

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Maybe not at traffic lights but they stand a good chance of killing themselves, others and the horse racing on main roads.

well at least it wont be at the traffic lights:pac:

that is strange though. They fly down a motorway causing all sorts of danger, but stop at the traffic lights. Its a contradiction.

SeanW

thisNthat wrote: »

Oh here we go,
More whining and complaining from whiney complainers who have no idea how difficult it is to cycle in urban areas and the dangers involved,
The typical I'm always right the cyclist is always wrong attitude,
If you were using your mirrors correctly you would have seen the cyclist, you could have killed him/her.
I pay road tax so I own the road attitude, Usually from people who have never cycled a day in their lives.
Open your eyes and use your mirrors next time and no-one will cycle into you.
Obey the rules of the road too, you don't own the road and try and look out for more vulnerable road users.

The OP committed the horrible crime of driving legally through a green light, when a cyclist crashed into him/her from the side. What the &@#% do mirrors have to do with it?

Are you seriously suggesting that the accident was the OPs fault because they went legally through a green light without (according to you) checking their rear view mirrors for a red light jumping cyclist coming from the side?

Roquentin

SeanW wrote: »

The OP committed the horrible crime of driving legally through a green light, when a cyclist crashed into him/her from the side. What the &@#% do mirrors have to do with it?

Are you seriously suggesting that the accident was the OPs fault because they went legally through a green light without (according to you) checking their rear view mirrors for a red light jumping cyclist coming from the side?

i agree. if the cyclist broke a red, hes in the wrong. period.

Jimminy Mc Fukhead

The problem with the sulky is insurance. If there's a tip who picks up the bill. Damage to cars, medical bills? John Joe pays for nothing. The collective insurance paying motorist public pay for it all.

thisNthat

SeanW wrote: »

What the &@#% do mirrors have to do with it?

Ya mirrors have nothing to do with driving, Your right :rolleyes:
Of course if a bicycle hits a car (as suggested), the car gets smashed and the bicycle is perfectly fine and able to continue on its way :rolleyes:
More made up crap from people who could do with getting their ass onto a bike to see what its like to cycle in an urban area.
I pay road tax, I'm right, end of, yawnnnn... ZZZzzzzzz :rolleyes:

The Duke of Moral Hazard

jkiamasnake wrote: »

I am still in shock! I had an accident today and I am still shaking. I was at a junction this morning, my green filter light to turn right came on so I continued to proceed, I traveled about 15 feet and am almost into the junction where I wanted to travel to and a cyclist smashes into the side of my car doing considerable damage to my door. Thankfully the cyclist was ok too but I was in so much shock I could not think properly. The cyclist picked himself up, fixed his chain and continues on. I said to him that he broke a red light and that he will have to repair damage done to my car. He says accidents happen and that he doesnt have any money to fix it. He said he was late for work and continued on.

I am sick of cyclists everyday breaking lights...they seriously need to cop the f**k on and obey rules of the road.

I was cycling down lower Churchtown Rd. one morning, cars backed up all the way from the Dropping Well to Dundrum. Barely any space between the long line of cars and a slippery single yellow/white line demarcating the edge of the road. I was the only one making progress, poor unfortunates in their cars must have been there for ages backed-up. My front tyre slips on the yellow line and I loose control of the bike and smash a wing mirror off a car to my right.

I felt bad about the incident so went back and gave the driver my number, I got hit for a 500euro bill, It had to be a BMW 5 series I had crashed into :-(

Bottom line, cyclists don't have insurance so taking responsibility for an accident comes straight out of your pocket and can be a big ask. Poor and non existing cycling lanes were responsible for my accident. If there had have been a proper cycle lane the accident wouldn't have happened.

Some weeks later near Miltown, a motorist turns left into a driveway without indicating, I go flying over the bonnet and land on my ankle. He gave me enough to cover a bike service and a physio session, which was alright with me as it wasn't anymore serious than soreness and a nasty fright.

Bottom line, it's all swings and round abouts out there, not too many decent bike lanes however... As another poster said, just be thankful it wasn't an inconsiderate motorist that crashed into you, (also a regular occurrence) otherwise you may have ended up in hospital.

The Duke of Moral Hazard

Roquentin wrote: »

i agree. if the cyclist broke a red, hes in the wrong. period.

If an artic or other such vehicle pulled up beside me at a junction, I wouldn't hesitate breaking a red light. Period.

Roquentin

The Duke of Moral Hazard wrote: »

If an artic or other such vehicle pulled up beside me at a junction, I wouldn't hesitate breaking a red light. Period.

Any cyclist knows, that if there is an artic ahead thats signalling to turn, you stay back behind it. If you are ahead of the artic as in he comes to the lights after you, he will know you are there and will more than likely let you go first. No need to break the red. period.

The Duke of Moral Hazard

Roquentin wrote: »

Any cyclist knows, that if there is an artic ahead thats signalling to turn, you stay back behind it. If you are ahead of the artic as in he comes to the lights after you, he will know you are there and will more than likely let you go first. No need to break the red. period.

Yeah, good luck with that.

SeanW

thisNthat wrote: »

Ya mirrors have nothing to do with driving, Your right :rolleyes:

I know full well what mirrors are for, far better than you I expect.

More made up crap from people who could do with getting their ass onto a bike to see what its like to cycle in an urban area.

Well, you seem to believe its OK for cyclists to jump red lights without looking because mirrors designed to give motorists a rear view can magically be used to prevent side-impact collisions. So no I don't really want to try to replicate your experiences, because that would require me to take to the roads in a state of utter cluelessness and extreme arrogance.

I'm a cyclist, therefore I'm right, end of, yawnnnn... ZZZzzzzzz :rolleyes:

FYP. And pay some ****ing road tax