Cyclists breaking lights!!

RainyDay

traprunner wrote: »

Sorry but I was in observing cyclists in particular. I usually observe other drivers when I am driving and stuck in traffic. This was my one chance of really observing cyclists and they is why I posted in the thread called 'Cyclists brealing lights!!' I haven't come across the 'Drivers breaking lights!!' thread yet.

Ah I get it now - we should ignore law-breaking and dangerous activities by the group of road users who kill 200+ people every year and maim thousands of others, while focusing on cyclists mooching through red lights. That's a great road safety policy you've got there.

Daith

RainyDay wrote: »

Ah I get it now - we should ignore law-breaking and dangerous activities by the group of road users who kill 200+ people every year and maim thousands of others, while focusing on cyclists mooching through red lights. That's a great road safety policy you've got there.

No but every complaint about cyclist going through red lights, cycling on pavements, whatever can not be countered with "well there are bad drivers too".

First Up

RainyDay wrote: »

Ah I get it now - we should ignore law-breaking and dangerous activities by the group of road users who kill 200+ people every year and maim thousands of others, while focusing on cyclists mooching through red lights. That's a great road safety policy you've got there.

Who said anything about ignoring law breaking drivers? What's wrong with expecting all road users to behave?

traprunner

RainyDay wrote: »

Ah I get it now - we should ignore law-breaking and dangerous activities by the group of road users who kill 200+ people every year and maim thousands of others, while focusing on cyclists mooching through red lights. That's a great road safety policy you've got there.

Might want to untwist your knickers. I don't have a policy. I just stated what I saw when observing cyclists. I was a passenger at the time, not driving. As for mooching...some do and some don't. Some go at full speed probably with their fingers and toes crossed in the hope that the drivers in the vehicle see them in time to apply the brakes.

I did say earlier that the laws should be applied for all road users if you cared to read my posts so much. :rolleyes:

RainyDay

Daith wrote: »

No but every complaint about cyclist going through red lights, cycling on pavements, whatever can not be countered with "well there are bad drivers too".

Why not? Surely we should focus on the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others as a priority?

traprunner

RainyDay wrote: »

Why not? Surely we should focus on the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others as a priority?

That's why every year or two new offences are added to the list for drivers. I also like the way you ignore the fact that sometimes pedestrians and cyclists are at fault for fatal road crashes. All deaths are equal no matter who is at fault.

Daith

RainyDay wrote: »

Why not? Surely we should focus on the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others as a priority?

The focus should be on all road users. Don't see why anybody would have an issue with this.

smash

RainyDay wrote: »

Why not? Surely we should focus on the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others as a priority?

Sure we might as well change subject to how cows are affecting the ozone layer by farting.

Spook_ie

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I love this one. I'm going to ask my residents committee if we can petition fingal county council to have a dual carriageway through our 'motorist hostile' estate replacing the safe roads . I mean all those kids playing these summer evenings will be perfectly safe, no?

If you live in Pinegrove it's already in hand

RainyDay

Daith wrote: »

The focus should be on all road users. Don't see why anybody would have an issue with this.

A 'focus on all road users' is, by definition, no focus at all. We have to prioritise where the resources of Gardai and Road Safety Authority are targeted.

So, do you want to prioritise the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

ForstalDave

RainyDay wrote: »

A 'focus on all road users' is, by definition, no focus at all. We have to prioritise where the resources of Gardai and Road Safety Authority are targeted.

So, do you want to prioritise the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

And when cyclists and pedestrians deaths increase because they are allowed to get away with dangerous usage of the roads what will we do then. Everyone should be treated equally and any breaking of rules with is deemed dangerous should be enforced

Daith

RainyDay wrote: »

A 'focus on all road users' is, by definition, no focus at all. We have to prioritise where the resources of Gardai and Road Safety Authority are targeted.

You can focus on all road users and prioritize as needed.

RainyDay wrote: »

So, do you want to prioritise the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

I want all road users not to break the law, e.g. sailing through red lights. Is that ok?

Do you think it's ok for a cyclist to cycle on a footpath because that's less dangerous than a car mounting a kerb?

Pinch Flat

SeanW wrote: »

No, I am referring to things like houses without driveways and roads to narrow to have on-street parking. Which is the essence of things like the "Essex design" - no one can park outside their houses and parking is strictly rationed in an inconvenient arrangement of "parking courts" - that is, if parking is allowed at all.

How that benefits anyone, is anyone's guess. But cyclist seem to love them.

I'm not sure what Essex guide you're reading but the original one (from the early 70's) allow plenty of provision for parking.

I've lived in two estates built along these guidelines - the first had no driveways but communal parking - none of which were owned by the residences. A few issues with motorists staking claim to ones outside their house, abandoning cars, taking multiple spaces and parking in the middle of spaces (to protect dings on their doors) but nothing the management company couldn't sort out. Walking a short distance (ie 20 / 30 yards to the house) didn't bother me. This model is the way it works in high density developments in other countries. We were also close to decent public transport.

My current house is in an estate built along the same guidelines albeit at a lower density. Each house has a driveway and lay bys are provided for visitors cars. Internal streets are winding and deliberately designed to slow traffic.

Having a driveway per house is inefficient and contributes to urban sprawl - just look at our towns and cities.

Housing estates are not just designed for the convenience of the motorist - although we live in such a car centric society that this sometimes surprises people who rely on the car for all their journeys, no matter how short. If they were we would have situations like in the US where people have grown so lazy and car dependent that paths are not even provided - no one walks (never mind cycle)

The reason I like our estate is that I'm confident given it's design and the deliberate measures to slow traffic that it is much safer for people - walkers, cyclists and especially kids playing. I am confident that my 7 year old can cycle or walk to his friends house without being mown down. That for me is worth considering first and foremost.

First Up

RainyDay wrote: »

A 'focus on all road users' is, by definition, no focus at all. We have to prioritise where the resources of Gardai and Road Safety Authority are targeted.

So, do you want to prioritise the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

A focus on all road users who disregard the law and have no consideration for others.

Pinch Flat

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you live in Pinegrove it's already in hand

You'll have to enlighten me I'm afraid.

RainyDay

ForstalDave wrote: »

And when cyclists and pedestrians deaths increase because they are allowed to get away with dangerous usage of the roads what will we do then. Everyone should be treated equally and any breaking of rules with is deemed dangerous should be enforced

Why would you expect cyclist and pedestrian deaths to increase? You seem to be missing the point that cyclists and pedestrians are generally killed by the drivers of cars or other motor vehicles.

Daith wrote: »

You can focus on all road users and prioritize as needed.

First Up wrote: »

A focus on all road users who disregard the law and have no consideration for others.

That's a cop-out. Where/how are you going to prioritise?

Daith wrote: »

I want all road users not to break the law, e.g. sailing through red lights. Is that ok?

Great, so let's think this through now. You're going to prosecute and fine every jay-walking pedestrian, every driver who breaks the urban speed limit (which is pretty much every driver), ever driver with a bulb out of action, every driver who holds their phone, every driver who changes lane or turns without indicating. Is that really how it's going to work?

Daith wrote: »

Do you think it's ok for a cyclist to cycle on a footpath because that's less dangerous than a car mounting a kerb?

I never said it was OK. I said that we need to prioritise our enforcement activities. So where do you want to prioritise - the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

ForstalDave

RainyDay wrote: »

Why would you expect cyclist and pedestrian deaths to increase? You seem to be missing the point that cyclists and pedestrians are generally killed by the drivers of cars or other motor vehicles.

Well if a pedestrian walks out in front of a car will we charge the driver? Or when a cyclist changes lanes in front of a truck without out looking and is hit then its the drivers fault there? Not all road deaths are the drivers fault

Daith

Daith wrote: »

Do you think it's ok for a cyclist to cycle on a footpath because that's less dangerous than a car mounting a kerb?

Cycling on footpaths doesn't bother me. People cycling in an inconsiderate manner on footpaths certainly does.

On the latter point - cars mounting the kerb is also against the law I believe. Can you imagine the hysterics if the gardai started fining and handing out penalty points to everyone who parked half on the footpath? As appears to be absolutely standard in Ireland (I do it myself)

SeanW

ForstalDave wrote: »

And when cyclists and pedestrians deaths increase because they are allowed to get away with dangerous usage of the roads what will we do then. Everyone should be treated equally and any breaking of rules with is deemed dangerous should be enforced

Well, simple, we blame the motorist. After all, the motorist wasn't driving, the accident wouldn't have happened that's why we want lower speed limits, strict liability and so on, because according to cyclists it is reasonable to allow cyclists blatantly disregard red lights because rear view mirrors allow motorists to see absolutely everything from every angle, 2 year olds should be allowed play hide-n-seek in car parks ... all the while regulation and taxes on motorists continue to increase exponentially.

Did I miss anything?

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My current house is in an estate built along the same guidelines albeit at a lower density. Each house has a driveway and lay bys are provided for visitors cars. Internal streets are winding and deliberately designed to slow traffic.

That doesn't sound too bad.

Housing estates are not just designed for the convenience of the motorist

Funny, I thought that housing should be built to accommodate the needs of the residents, not some outsiders hardline ideology. I learned that the latter is expected, when one of you cyclists posted a Google Maps street view of an Essex-Designed housing estate in the outskirts Portlaoise some time back. In the pictures you could clearly see streets that were too narrow, no driveways, a horrible layout of parking and as a consequence of that, more than half of the houses had a car illegally parked on the footpath outside their doors.

A normal/sane person would look at that and see a sh*t design that was designed explicitly to be hostile to the needs of the people it was supposed to serve, that could only have been "driven" by an ideological extremist, or a developer looking to squeeze more houses into a smaller space.

A cyclist, like the individual who posted the link - and was subsequently engaged in a circle jerk of thanks whoring with other cyclists - would conclude that all the residents were scum that should be hunted down and incinerated in the flames of hell, because they were motorists that didn't agree with the design ideology. The planners, obviously, had no case to answer for allowing/forcing an estate design that would be hostile to the needs of its people, no, rather it was a good design that pandered to the ideological fundamentalism of those who moan about a "car is king culture" or some other bull.

The reason I like our estate is that I'm confident given it's design and the deliberate measures to slow traffic that it is much safer for people - walkers, cyclists and especially kids playing. I am confident that my 7 year old can cycle or walk to his friends house without being mown down. That for me is worth considering first and foremost.

No-one is disputing (within reason) the need for motorists to take it easy in residential estates etc. But some of these designs are about something much less savoury.

stevoslice

RainyDay wrote: »

Why would you expect cyclist and pedestrian deaths to increase? You seem to be missing the point that cyclists and pedestrians are generally killed by the drivers of cars or other motor vehicles.



That's a cop-out. Where/how are you going to prioritise?


Great, so let's think this through now. You're going to prosecute and fine every jay-walking pedestrian, every driver who breaks the urban speed limit (which is pretty much every driver), ever driver with a bulb out of action, every driver who holds their phone, every driver who changes lane or turns without indicating. Is that really how it's going to work?



I never said it was OK. I said that we need to prioritise our enforcement activities. So where do you want to prioritise - the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

What do we do so? Do we prioritise the motorists? And then what? What about the murderers, would you rather prioritise the motorists over going out and catching cold blooded killers... For shame...

First Up

It is pretty obvious that the enforcement is already focused on car drivers, for the simple reason that the only things on the gardai's radar are speed and alcohol and you rarely see bikers pulled for either. Cars don't tend to go up one way streets in the wrong direction, or drive on the pavement or treat red lights as suggestions.
But your basic premise that the law should be applied selectively is ridiculous anyway.

Daith

RainyDay wrote: »

I never said it was OK. I said that we need to prioritise our enforcement activities. So where do you want to prioritise - the group of road users that kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others, or the group of road users that don't kill 200+ people each year and maim thousands of others?

I want cyclists to stop breaking the law. They should have the cop on to do it themselves and not have to be told.

Answer the question. Do you think cyclists should go through red lights?

RainyDay

SeanW wrote: »

Well, simple, we blame the motorist. After all, the motorist wasn't driving, the accident wouldn't have happened that's why we want lower speed limits, strict liability and so on, because according to cyclists it is reasonable to allow cyclists blatantly disregard red lights because rear view mirrors allow motorists to see absolutely everything from every angle, 2 year olds should be allowed play hide-n-seek in car parks ... all the while regulation and taxes on motorists continue to increase exponentially.

Did I miss anything?

Yes, you missed the bit about drivers being legally required to drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see is clear. So if they do hit a pedestrian or cyclist, yes, it is generally their fault for driving too fast or too close.

First Up wrote: »

It is pretty obvious that the enforcement is already focused on car drivers, for the simple reason that the only things on the gardai's radar are speed and alcohol and you rarely see bikers pulled for either.

Cyclists do get ticketed by the Gardai. Search around boards and you'll find cases of people ticketed for breaking red lights, or not having lights on their bike.

First Up wrote: »

Cars don't tend to go up one way streets in the wrong direction, or drive on the pavement or treat red lights as suggestions.
But your basic premise that the law should be applied selectively is ridiculous anyway.

You're joking, right? Spent 5 minutes on YouTube and you'll see cars going up one-way streets in the wrong direction ,and driving on the pavement and treating red lights as suggestions, and an awful lot more.

First Up

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, you missed the bit about drivers being legally required to drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see is clear. So if they do hit a pedestrian or cyclist, yes, it is generally their fault for driving too fast or too close.


Cyclists do get ticketed by the Gardai. Search around boards and you'll find cases of people ticketed for breaking red lights, or not having lights on their bike.

You're joking, right? Spent 5 minutes on YouTube and you'll see cars going up one-way streets in the wrong direction ,and driving on the pavement and treating red lights as suggestions, and an awful lot more.

You can find anything on YouTube but I don't need YouTube to find examples of cyclists acting the prick. I can see that for myself.

Wicklowrider

Daith wrote: »

I want cyclists to stop breaking the law. They should have the cop on to do it themselves.

Shouldn't any thinking person want EVERYONE to stop breaking laws?

Stand on any fly-over over a motorway for five minutes.
Watch the people obliviously driving in the middle lane. Watch them undertake, hog the overtaking lane, watch them text and phone, cut each other off, race to hold people in the joining lane. Watch them speed. Watch them cut from overtake lane to exit lane across multiple vehicles....

Couldn't be bothered doing this? OK, try any Irish motoring forum and have a quick look down the threads about bad/dangerous/ignorant drivers.

And you know what?
I guarantee those same thick ignorant wastes of space are the very ones ranting and raving on these threads.

ForstalDave

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, you missed the bit about drivers being legally required to drive at a speed that allows them to stop within the distance they can see is clear. So if they do hit a pedestrian or cyclist, yes, it is generally their fault for driving too fast or too close.

My examples both mentioned cases where the pedestrian/cyclist went in front of the vehicle and was at fault, yes there are many cases where the car is at fault but there is also many where it is not and enforcing the laws for one group over another will just make people believe they can get away with blind stupidity

RainyDay

Daith wrote: »

Answer the question. Do you think cyclists should go through red lights?

No, I don't think cyclists should go through red lights. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only cyclist in Dublin who doesn't break red lights.

Daith wrote: »

I want cyclists to stop breaking the law. They should have the cop on to do it themselves and not have to be told.

Now your turn - is it ONLY cyclists that you want to stop breaking the law? Or do you expect ALL road users to stop breaking EVERY law?

RainyDay

ForstalDave wrote: »

My examples both mentioned cases where the pedestrian/cyclist went in front of the vehicle and was at fault, yes there are many cases where the car is at fault but there is also many where it is not and enforcing the laws for one group over another will just make people believe they can get away with blind stupidity

In both cases that you mentioned, it sounded to me like the drivers were going too fast to stop within the space they had left clear.

What if a child had run out? What if a cyclist had fallen, or got blown over by a gust of wind?

ForstalDave

RainyDay wrote: »

In both cases that you mentioned, it sounded to me like the drivers were going too fast to stop within the space they had left clear.

What if a child had run out? What if a cyclist had fallen, or got blown over by a gust of wind?

So all drivers should drive slow at all times even if there is nothing in front of them? Yes a child can run out in front of a car does it make it the drivers fault when it happens? Its a tragedy and I am very strongly teaching my son how to cross the road cause i never want it to happen to him

SeanW

ForstalDave wrote: »

So all drivers should drive slow at all times even if there is nothing in front of them? Yes a child can run out in front of a car does it make it the drivers fault when it happens? Its a tragedy and I am very strongly teaching my son how to cross the road cause i never want it to happen to him

The OPs accident - according to this cyclist - was the OPs fault because she/he did not "drive at a speed that allowed them to stop in the distance they could see clear" ... even though the road WAS clear when they proceeded into the junction only to get T-Boned by a cyclist who cut across their right of way from a place they did not foresee, nor should not have been expected to.