Cycle Friendly Legislation

Mercian Pro

Mod Note: These posts have been split out from the Cycling Legislation thread to create a new thread.

Really excellent thread - thanks to all who have contributed.
This probably isn't the place for it but I am even more interested in what might be called cycle friendly legislation - potential changes to the existing car-centric rules of the road. It may have been discussed here before but, if so, I can't find it. As cyclists we have different needs (momentum, protection, etc) than motor vehicles and far less potential to cause serious injury to others. Isn't it about time that some thought was given to drafting rules that actually facilitate and encourage cycling rather than threatening €750 fines?

galwaycyclist

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Really excellent thread - thanks to all who have contributed.
This probably isn't the place for it but I am even more interested in what might be called cycle friendly legislation - potential changes to the existing car-centric rules of the road. It may have been discussed here before but, if so, I can't find it. As cyclists we have different needs (momentum, protection, etc) than motor vehicles and far less potential to cause serious injury to others. Isn't it about time that some thought was given to drafting rules that actually facilitate and encourage cycling rather than threatening €750 fines?

Cyclists should be specifically permitted to used left-turn only lanes to go ahead.

It should be an offence to overtake a cyclist in the same lane on or within 15m of a roundabout.

All single lane one-way streets within 50kmh zones should be assumed to be two-way for cyclists by default.

Adult road users should be specifically liable for their behaviour around children -particularly speed

(Controversial) Traffic lights should not apply to cyclist turning left unless there are also pedestrian crossings that are green at the same time.

cython

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Cyclists should be specifically permitted to used left-turn only lanes to go ahead.

It should be an offence to overtake a cyclist in the same lane on or within 15m of a roundabout.

All single lane one-way streets within 50kmh zones should be assumed to be two-way for cyclists by default.

Adult road users should be specifically liable for their behaviour around children -particularly speed

(Controversial) Traffic lights should not apply to cyclist turning left unless there are also pedestrian crossings that are green at the same time.

Personally I think the suggestion in bold is a very bad idea (and for me is more controversial than the turning left suggestion). For one thing how does the cyclist position themselves on the road when travelling against the flow of traffic? Multi lane streets/roads would only compound this issue. I would prefer to see a designated contra-flow cycle lane if there has to be something, especially as there are some one way streets when a bike may not be able to pass a car (and certainly larger vehicles) in the opposite direction, regardless of anything else on the street. Such a lane at least gives the cyclist a clear space that drivers should avoid.

Most cyclists I know agree that salmon cycling is a bad idea (regardless of legality), so legitimising it seems like a reaction "because people will do it anyway" and is just putting an extra burden of responsibility on motorists to benefit those cyclists who will just find another law to break.

galwaycyclist

cython wrote: »

Personally I think the suggestion in bold is a very bad idea (and for me is more controversial than the turning left suggestion). For one thing how does the cyclist position themselves on the road when travelling against the flow of traffic? Multi lane streets/roads would only compound this issue. I would prefer to see a designated contra-flow cycle lane if there has to be something, especially as there are some one way streets when a bike may not be able to pass a car (and certainly larger vehicles) in the opposite direction, regardless of anything else on the street. Such a lane at least gives the cyclist a clear space that drivers should avoid.

Most cyclists I know agree that salmon cycling is a bad idea (regardless of legality), so legitimising it seems like a reaction "because people will do it anyway" and is just putting an extra burden of responsibility on motorists to benefit those cyclists who will just find another law to break.

They cycle on the left. Contraflow cycling is not salmon cycling salmon cycling is cycling on the wrong side of the road.

The situation described is the default situatio in Belgium where, as elsewhere, two-way cycling on one-way streets, has a good safety record.

Edit: At pinch points the process is the same as for two-way roads. You slow down make eye contact and negotiate.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Cyclists should be specifically permitted to used left-turn only lanes to go ahead.

Makes sense, although in situations where there is a filter light to the left, (eg Donnybrook Church junction, southbound direction) it may make more sense to have signage to direct cyclists to move to the straight ahead lane.

It should be an offence to overtake a cyclist in the same lane on or within 15m of a roundabout.

It should be an offence to overtake anyone coming up to a roundabout, nice to have it written in legislation though rather than rely on the interpretation of a Garda on what dangerous driving and lack of observation are.

All single lane one-way streets within 50kmh zones should be assumed to be two-way for cyclists by default.

A slur on a small number of our populace but this is a terrible idea, there is a small number of road users who will take the piss and plough on down the road as they do now believing the law to be on their side.

Adult road users should be specifically liable for their behaviour around children -particularly speed

Definitely

(Controversial) Traffic lights should not apply to cyclist turning left unless there are also pedestrian crossings that are green at the same time.

Again works in the US but here you will have mickey takers pulling out in front of crossing traffic, leading to claims of negligence on one side and lack of observation on the other. Given a small but noticeable number of road users can't follow basic road rules now, I would not be in favour of it till we mature in terms of our manners on the road.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Cyclists should be specifically permitted to used left-turn only lanes to go ahead.

Does this not increase the likelihood of cyclists being caught on the inside of left turning traffic, in the same way that cycle lanes on the outside of roundabouts do. For me, one aspect of safe cycling is getting into the correct lane early and taking the lane where appropriate, and I don't think discouraging this adds to cyclist safety.

cython

galwaycyclist wrote: »

They cycle on the left. Contraflow cycling is not salmon cycling salmon cycling is cycling on the wrong side of the road.

Most cyclists I know, and indeed discussions on the subject on here in the past, consider salmon cycling to just be cycling "against the flow", be that on the wrong side of the road, or the wrong way down a one way street. Regardless of the term put on it, IMHO it still smacks of legitimising something rather than enforcing an existing law.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The situation described is the default situatio in Belgium where, as elsewhere, two-way cycling on one-way streets, has a good safety record.

I can't speak as to that, never having been in Belgium, but as mentioned, given the reckless abandon that some people on bikes display here, I have no reason to believe that they will keep left in a contra-flow world.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Edit: At pinch points the process is the same as for two-way roads. You slow down make eye contact and negotiate.

Similarly, I fear too many of the aforementioned cyclists will not "negotiate" with other road users, and will just play chicken. Obviously this small subset does not represent all cyclists, (myself included), but I would also not think that enough of the law-abiding users are so put out by detours due to one way streets. Not to mention that a lot of the places with extensive one way systems are busy enough with traffic that an explicit lane would be much safer. Merrion Row being the first example to come to mind.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

Does this not increase the likelihood of cyclists being caught on the inside of left turning traffic, in the same way that cycle lanes on the outside of roundabouts do. For me, one aspect of safe cycling is getting into the correct lane early and taking the lane where appropriate, and I don't think discouraging this adds to cyclist safety.

Expecting non-performance cyclists to merge accross following traffic to go straight ahead is not practical. So these cyclists are already getting caught inside left-turning traffic anyway. If the law is changed it places a duty on motorists to assume cyclists in the same traffic stream could be going ahead. It is already illegal for the cyclist to over take left-turning traffic on the inside - but left-turning drivers should not also be trying to overtake somebody else at the same time - regardless of where the other road user might be going (see roundabouts above).

This proposal also assumes that free-left turns or left-filter arrows for cars should be banned or restricted. This should be a long term goal anyway.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Expecting non-performance cyclists to merge accross following traffic to go straight ahead is not practical.

But they can indicate and merge across, and do so well in advance of the junction. Any car that overtakes after indication has begun is breaking the law via "dangerous driving" as overtaking a right indicating vehicle would be seen as such.

There may be specific legislation but I don't have it too hand.

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

But they can indicate and merge across, and do so well in advance of the junction. Any car that overtakes after indication has begun is breaking the law via "dangerous driving" as overtaking a right indicating vehicle would be seen as such.

There may be specific legislation but I don't have it too hand.

Not practical given the length of some of the left turn lanes in this country. You are asking people of all ages and abilities to cycle between two moving streams of cars for extended distances.

Many "potential" cyclists (or their parents) would just laugh at the idea and think you were a crazy person.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not practical given the length of some of the left turn lanes in this country. You are asking people of all ages and abilities to cycle between two moving streams of cars for extended distances.

Many "potential" cyclists (or their parents) would just laugh at the idea and think you were a crazy person.

I'd be concerned that what you're doing is simply deferring the requirement to learn how to cycle properly and safely in traffic. Having only started cycling myself again a few years ago after a couple of decades of a break from cycling as a child, I can understand the attraction of this approach to many potential cyclists, but feel education in terms of how to cycle properly would provide more long term benefit than legislative exercises designed to improve perceived safety. The problem with improving safety through added legislation is that, as you've already pointed out, there are very many road users who do not currently obey the existing rules of the road. Adding more rules isn't going to fix this. Do a search for 133 bus in this forum for some examples of endemic failure to enforce current road safety legislation.

I think as a cyclist, being aware of where the risks are, e.g. being on the inside of a line of left turning traffic when you intend to go straight on, is invaluable, and we should be doing more to teach people how to cycle safely in traffic, such that the cyclist can take more control over their own safety.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Not practical given the length of some of the left turn lanes in this country. You are asking people of all ages and abilities to cycle between two moving streams of cars for extended distances.

What is an extended distance? I am asking them to indicate and merge over. They already are in the first lane of traffic unless in an off road track so they are already in traffic. They indicate to pull over and hold the lane, and then indicate again to move into the straight ahead lane. Any road where this is dangerous or impractical will most likely have traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I have yet to meet a junction where this is dangerous or impractical but knowing our road engineers its quite possible there are a few.

Many "potential" cyclists (or their parents) would just laugh at the idea and think you were a crazy person.

And telling them the legal way to do this maneuvre is to put yourself on the left of a vehicle, is encouraging the idea that it is crazy, rather than appropriate and safest. They create a pinch point that never existed before. Staying in the left lane where there is a left filter encourages stupid motorist behaviour (cyclist is standing at the light, does the car wait for the filter to disappear, overtake in a large hoop, what happens if the straight ahead goes on mid maneuvre and neither are paying enough attention) and reckless road positioning for cyclists.

I am only talking about scenarios where there is a filter light.

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

And telling them the legal way to do this maneuvre is to put yourself on the left of a vehicle, is encouraging the idea that it is crazy, rather than appropriate and safest. They create a pinch point that never existed before. Staying in the left lane where there is a left filter encourages stupid motorist behaviour (cyclist is standing at the light, does the car wait for the filter to disappear, overtake in a large hoop, what happens if the straight ahead goes on mid maneuvre and neither are paying enough attention) and reckless road positioning for cyclists.

I am only talking about scenarios where there is a filter light.

Hmmm I think you are shooting the messenger here. I havent told anyone to place themselves to the left of a vehicle and I have already pointed out, and implicitly endorsed, that it is illegal for a cyclist to undertake a left-turning vehicle.

I did not create the situation where cyclists are caught inside left-turning traffic. The people who created the situation are the engineers who create road designs where the normal lane suddenly becomes left-only or who create long left-only lanes that diverge from the main alignment. The "crazyness" comes from people who presume to design roads without taking account that this is a Northern European country with a long established culture of transportation cycling.

Bear in mind also that anyone who looks for cycling advice in the "Rules of the Road" is warned of the particular need for them to keep left. The state can't have it both ways, it can't tell people to keep left and then abandon them between streams of traffic at junctions.

I have already stated my view that left-filters should be removed.

CramCycle wrote: »

What is an extended distance? I am asking them to indicate and merge over. They already are in the first lane of traffic unless in an off road track so they are already in traffic. They indicate to pull over and hold the lane, and then indicate again to move into the straight ahead lane. Any road where this is dangerous or impractical will most likely have traffic lights/pedestrian crossings. I have yet to meet a junction where this is dangerous or impractical but knowing our road engineers its quite possible there are a few.

You are a performance cyclist please don't take offence but your assessment of the risk, or what or is not practical is, with regret, largely irrelevant. What is relevant is how we can get more people who are not "performance cyclists" onto bikes. What is important in that case is what they feel is an acceptable risk or an acceptable manouevre. What you are suggesting is too much for many people.

I am suggesting that they should be empowered to use, and even "hold", the lane that they naturally find themselves in when they reach the junction.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

I'd be concerned that what you're doing is simply deferring the requirement to learn how to cycle properly and safely in traffic. Having only started cycling myself again a few years ago after a couple of decades of a break from cycling as a child, I can understand the attraction of this approach to many potential cyclists, but feel education in terms of how to cycle properly would provide more long term benefit than legislative exercises designed to improve perceived safety. The problem with improving safety through added legislation is that, as you've already pointed out, there are very many road users who do not currently obey the existing rules of the road. Adding more rules isn't going to fix this. Do a search for 133 bus in this forum for some examples of endemic failure to enforce current road safety legislation.

I think as a cyclist, being aware of where the risks are, e.g. being on the inside of a line of left turning traffic when you intend to go straight on, is invaluable, and we should be doing more to teach people how to cycle safely in traffic, such that the cyclist can take more control over their own safety.

Dont get me wrong I am a registered cycling instructor under the UK National Standard. Clearly I believe in the need for education but I feel it would be a profound mistake to see education in isolation from other ways to improve the cycling environment.

Yes the failure of this state to enforce existing legislation is a problem. But the absence of an effective police service is not a good reason for not having legislation that supports citizens in going about their lawful daily business.

Legislation is not merely a template for policing it also provides a means for the courts to assess behaviour when there has been a crash. So for that reason alone better legislation is justified. Even without an effective police force if the courts start finding against drivers in certain situations word will get around. Painfully slowly maybe but word will get around.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Hmmm I think you are shooting the messenger here. I havent told anyone to place themselves to the left of a vehicle and I have already pointed out, and implicitly endorsed, that it is illegal for a cyclist to undertake a left-turning vehicle.

I didn't mean for anyone to undertake. My issue is that if there is a left filter light that maybe hasn't activated yet, and a cyclists stops at red for going straight. When the filter light comes on, you are creating unnecessary annoyance and obstacles. Whereas if when the light was red you moved over to the front of the straight ahead lane, these issues are largely mute. If this was indicated by road signage in advance of the junction as well, that would also be great.

I did not create the situation where cyclists are caught inside left-turning traffic. The people who created the situation are the engineers who create road designs where the normal lane suddenly becomes left-only or who create long left-only lanes that diverge from the main alignment. The "crazyness" comes from people who presume to design roads without taking account that this is a Northern European country with a long established culture of transportation cycling.

Completely agree, when the revolution comes, I imagine the a typical Irish road engineer will be the first up against the wall.

Bear in mind also that anyone who looks for cycling advice in the "Rules of the Road" is warned of the particular need for them to keep left. The state can't have it both ways, it can't tell people to keep left and then abandon them between streams of traffic at junctions.

A document written by a civil servant with apparently no training or knowledge of every mode of transport said document should apply to.

I have already stated my view that left-filters should be removed.

I am not against them but if push comes to shove, I would sooner that pedestrian lights got preference here, I think that ped lights should automatically go green when crossing traffic is not meant to be crossing it and in general more time should be given to them at every junction.

You are a performance cyclist please don't take offence but your assessment of the risk, or what or is not practical is, with regret, largely irrelevant. What is relevant is how we can get more people who are not "performance cyclists" onto bikes. What is important in that case is what they feel is an acceptable risk or an acceptable manouevre. What you are suggesting is too much for many people.

Well its hard not get insulted when someone says your views are irrelevant, I would prefer if they looked at my views and told me what was incorrect or irrelevant in their eyes. Dismissing someone because of a (largely false) preconception is insulting.
I am a commuter, not a performance cyclist (I tried and failed to be one). Indicating is not too much for the majority of cyclists. If you cannot indicate (by hand or road position), you possibly should not be on the road, the same applies to all modes of transport. My assessment of risk is taking in what I can and if it looks like it will hurt me or kill me then I won't touch it, because despite my general rants and raves, I don't want my tombstone to read "well, he was in the right (no pun intended) at least". On my commute every morning I merge into the bus lane where there are pinch points, if buses or taxis are held up so be it, by indicating early and holding the lane, its safer, whereas I see countless numbers going up the left handside of turning traffic and large vehicles. They need to be taught that this is dangerous, stupid and illegal. There are two filter lights on my commute, one right, that I merge over early to but if you are not confident enough for, you could stop at the lights, wait for the straight ahead red and perform a hook turn, and a left which you should merge over to the right of on approach if straight ahead is red. This may not be possible at all filter junctions but you should be able to merge into the left turn lane and if straight ahead is red, pull in at the top to the right of the left only lane.

I am suggesting that they should be empowered to use, and even "hold", the lane that they naturally find themselves in when they reach the junction.

That's pretty much what I said, just that in the case of left filters that for the moment are there (ie straight ahead is red), merge over at the top. Don't sit on the left hand side of left turning traffic as I often see.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Legislation is not merely a template for policing it also provides a means for the courts to assess behaviour when there has been a crash. So for that reason alone better legislation is justified. Even without an effective police force if the courts start finding against drivers in certain situations word will get around. Painfully slowly maybe but word will get around.

But is waiting until after the crash has happened and using the courts an effective way of improving road safety for someone who may be considering taking up cycling? Surely those starting out on two wheels need more pragmatic safety advice first and foremost, probably by taking instruction from people such as yourself in many cases.

galwaycyclist

CramCycle wrote: »

I didn't mean for anyone to undertake. My issue is that if there is a left filter light that maybe hasn't activated yet, and a cyclists stops at red for going straight. When the filter light comes on, you are creating unnecessary annoyance and obstacles. Whereas if when the light was red you moved over to the front of the straight ahead lane, these issues are largely mute. If this was indicated by road signage in advance of the junction as well, that would also be great.

Why are cyclists doing what seems most natural being portrayed as "creating unnecessary annoyance and obstacles"? If we are going to get more people cycling then motorists will have to give up on the fantasy of "free-flow" for cars on city streets.

This will eventually include turning vehicles having to wait for straight-on cyclists and pedestrians as is the practice in other places in northern europe. But that is not part of the current suggestion.

Completely agree, when the revolution comes, I imagine the a typical Irish road engineer will be the first up against the wall.

The issue of Irish engineers and the revolution recently came up here on the Galway City board

I am not against them but if push comes to shove, I would sooner that pedestrian lights got preference here, I think that ped lights should automatically go green when crossing traffic is not meant to be crossing it and in general more time should be given to them at every junction.

Agreed

Well its hard not get insulted when someone says your views are irrelevant, I would prefer if they looked at my views and told me what was incorrect or irrelevant in their eyes. Dismissing someone because of a (largely false) preconception is insulting.
I am a commuter, not a performance cyclist (I tried and failed to be one). Indicating is not too much for the majority of cyclists. If you cannot indicate (by hand or road position), you possibly should not be on the road, the same applies to all modes of transport. My assessment of risk is taking in what I can and if it looks like it will hurt me or kill me then I won't touch it, because despite my general rants and raves, I don't want my tombstone to read "well, he was in the right (no pun intended) at least". On my commute every morning I merge into the bus lane where there are pinch points, if buses or taxis are held up so be it, by indicating early and holding the lane, its safer, whereas I see countless numbers going up the left handside of turning traffic and large vehicles. They need to be taught that this is dangerous, stupid and illegal. There are two filter lights on my commute, one right, that I merge over early to but if you are not confident enough for, you could stop at the lights, wait for the straight ahead red and perform a hook turn, and a left which you should merge over to the right of on approach if straight ahead is red. This may not be possible at all filter junctions but you should be able to merge into the left turn lane and if straight ahead is red, pull in at the top to the right of the left only lane.

Slippery slope into "straw man" arguments? I did not state anywhere that anyone should not indicate or communicate with other road users. Indeed the opposite is implied. I also did not state anywhere that cyclists should be directed up inside turning vehicles, the opposite is the case. I also did not say anything about merging right to turn right so again not relevant. As for the hook turn for less confident cyclists to turn right, my suggestion would actually assist that by making it easier for people to cross the junction without first having to merge into the straight ahead lane.

Whether you recognise it or not, your own description of your own cycling style, generates an image of a level of cycling confidence or "performance" that many potential cyclists might only aspire to.

galwaycyclist

smacl wrote: »

But is waiting until after the crash has happened and using the courts an effective way of improving road safety for someone who may be considering taking up cycling? Surely those starting out on two wheels need more pragmatic safety advice first and foremost, probably by taking instruction from people such as yourself in many cases.

Most road safety policy in this country happens by waiting for the crash to happen first and then reacting. That is one of the reasons why the Garda do not really enforce the law. Their attitude, at an institutional level, is that if no-one is getting killed there is no problem.

If you want to pay me to do cycling instruction and match what I currently get paid working in IT I will happily take the job. At the moment I don't know anyone involved in cycling instruction in this country who could live off it.

It still would not change the fact that there is a need to improve the law.

Edit: I should also make you aware that I talk to groups of non-cycling adults about cycling in traffic, about the techniques and tactics used, taking the lane and holding at roundabouts etc. A proportion of the audience will be horrified by the idea of it and make the decision that they haven't a notion of getting on a bike if that is what is required under current conditions of road design and driver behaviour. So there will be group empowered by instruction but also a group who are put off by it. We have to fundamentally change the cycling environment as well if we are to get more people cycling.

smacl

galwaycyclist wrote: »

A proportion of the audience will be horrified by the idea of it and make the decision that they haven't a notion of getting on a bike if that is what is required under current conditions of road design and driver behaviour. So there will be group empowered by instruction but also a group who are put off by it.

I don't doubt for a moment what you're saying, and in many respects fall into the nervous cyclist category myself, preferring minor roads over busier ones. I still wonder whether this is an educational or infrastructural issue though, given that large numbers of commuters do handle city cycling, as do the many Dublin bike users.

I suspect what has happened is that we have lost a cycling generation (or two). So for example when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, everyone my age lived on a bike, and had at least one parent who cycled for a significant portion of their lives. I think many kids today have never cycled, nor have their parents, so there is a fear of cycling that is to some degree unwarranted. Yes, there are some dangers associated with cycling, but my gut feeling is that these are grossly exaggerated in the non-cycling middle aged adult part of our society. No more than speculation, but that is how I see it.

BTW, nice of you to refer to those of us from the middle aged cohort of leisure wheelers as "performance cyclists". I mentioned it to my other half and she cracked up. Can't wait to tell the kids....

Mercian Pro

OK, strong views on the issue of going straight where traffic is turning left.
Any thoughts anyone on whether cyclists should be able to proceed through pedestrian lights on red if there are no pedestrians around?

galwaycyclist

Mercian Pro wrote: »

OK, strong views on the issue of going straight where traffic is turning left.
Any thoughts anyone on whether cyclists should be able to proceed through pedestrian lights on red if there are no pedestrians around?

Before we discuss that we perhaps need to reach a consensus on what to do about cyclists and drivers who drive through crossings that are in use by pedestrians.

cob1

Mercian Pro wrote: »

OK, strong views on the issue of going straight where traffic is turning left.
Any thoughts anyone on whether cyclists should be able to proceed through pedestrian lights on red if there are no pedestrians around?

absolutely they should, its better for everyone, even for the car drivers as it separates the bikes and cars so they are not held up by everyone going together when the traffic lights turn green. of course this is as long as the cyclists make sure to yield to the pedestrians.

in the couple of places where there are separate lights for bikes and pedestrians currently (along the grand canal & the Samuel beckett bridge) the situation is ridiculous. by the time the bicycle lights go green all the bikes have long gone as they've headed off on the pedestrian light. all the green lights for bikes does is delay the traffic further frustrating the drivers, many of them probably sitting there and blaming the cyclists and their stupid lights.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Dont get me wrong I am a registered cycling instructor under the UK National Standard. Clearly I believe in the need for education but I feel it would be a profound mistake to see education in isolation from other ways to improve the cycling environment.

I do feel though that Education is possibly the best starting point, as was said earlier, we have lost a few people who may never come back or start cycling because of unsubstantiated fears. I cycled on the roads in London when I was a child, mainly because I enjoyed pretending to be a motorbike, so I never developed that fear.

Yes the failure of this state to enforce existing legislation is a problem. But the absence of an effective police service is not a good reason for not having legislation that supports citizens in going about their lawful daily business.

Very true although I feel existing legislation is quite good in alot of cases but since it is not enforced it is essentially ineffective. There are a few laws that should be brought in but enforcement, if only to put the fear into risk takers, would be far more beneficial in the short term.

Legislation is not merely a template for policing it also provides a means for the courts to assess behaviour when there has been a crash. So for that reason alone better legislation is justified. Even without an effective police force if the courts start finding against drivers in certain situations word will get around. Painfully slowly maybe but word will get around.

Never thought about it that way, makes sense though. I would sooner that they fined and harrangued (is that the right word) dangerous drivers into driving safely, if even through force rather than instilling will, rather than weight for another dead road user.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Why are cyclists doing what seems most natural being portrayed as "creating unnecessary annoyance and obstacles"? If we are going to get more people cycling then motorists will have to give up on the fantasy of "free-flow" for cars on city streets.

Apologies, a little bit too emotive in my language, it is more that in cases where there is a left filter light (not just lane) you could be seen to be encouraging cyclists to take up IMO a dangerous road position, whereas if they blend over to the next lane which is held by a red they can stop at the top of continue through in the left lane should the light go green. I am more inclined to agree with your idea of getting rid of left filter lights the more I think about it though.

This will eventually include turning vehicles having to wait for straight-on cyclists and pedestrians as is the practice in other places in northern europe. But that is not part of the current suggestion.

Its more my fear of Irish road users, based on experience, the consequences of dangerous behaviour obviously do not enter the minds of a small subset of road users (cyclists, peds and motorists). I have seen cars speed past to make a left turn no more than 10metres up the road in which case I have to slam on the brakes, I have seen cyclists going up the inside of traffic that is not only indicating left but had started turning (I seen one guy get himself pinched as the bus had started turning and he ploughed up the inside, luckily he managed to hop off but it ripped the pedal off his crankset to give you an idea of how close a call it was, the bus had started turning before the cyclists was anywhere near but slowed mid turn as a group of pedestrians ran out in front of him). I have experienced cars tailgating with no more than a few inches between my bumper and theirs on windy country roads who then overtake on blind bends. They either don't comprehend the danger, or feel the consequences are not major enough (apparently death or manslaughter are not major issues)

The issue of Irish engineers and the revolution recently came up here on the Galway City board

There was also another poster on a similar thread who noted that (I think he was friends with a lecturer or an actual lecturer in the area) that the worst students were the ones he tended to see sitting on boards on county councils

Slippery slope into "straw man" arguments? I did not state anywhere that anyone should not indicate or communicate with other road users. Indeed the opposite is implied. I also did not state anywhere that cyclists should be directed up inside turning vehicles, the opposite is the case.

Not a straw man as such, your post seemed to indicate that certain cyclists are not confident to use the lane of traffic they are in, they are not even switching lanes until he top in my example, they are simply indicating, holding the lane in moving traffic and at the top, if the straight ahead is still red pulling into the left of the straight ahead lane (at the top, not moving between the two lanes) and if it goes green, continuing straight ahead in the left hand lane.

Whether you recognise it or not, your own description of your own cycling style, generates an image of a level of cycling confidence or "performance" that many potential cyclists might only aspire to.

It si just experience, I went through training in the UK, I cycled on the road in North London at the age of 7 (although admittedly quiet roads), I then learned from here a few years ago, that if bad thing happen to me all the time, they are probably my fault, so I changed my habits to become more like other road traffic, I followed the rules, and low and behold, the number of incidents I am nearly involved in have plummeted. Education would be better though. In london I followed the rules due to heavy traffic but in Dublin, i followed others and broke the rules for my own convenience because until I got pulled over by the Gardai for running through an empty pedestrian crossing, no one had ever told me that red lights were for all traffic, not just motorised traffic.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Most road safety policy in this country happens by waiting for the crash to happen first and then reacting. That is one of the reasons why the Garda do not really enforce the law. Their attitude, at an institutional level, is that if no-one is getting killed there is no problem.

If you want to pay me to do cycling instruction and match what I currently get paid working in IT I will happily take the job. At the moment I don't know anyone involved in cycling instruction in this country who could live off it.

It still would not change the fact that there is a need to improve the law

Could the likes of the Sprocket Rocket courses be pushed for mandatory use in the national school curriculum? At least there would be a starting salary for at least a small group of people.

I should also make you aware that I talk to groups of non-cycling adults about cycling in traffic, about the techniques and tactics used, taking the lane and holding at roundabouts etc. A proportion of the audience will be horrified by the idea of it and make the decision that they haven't a notion of getting on a bike if that is what is required under current conditions of road design and driver behaviour. So there will be group empowered by instruction but also a group who are put off by it. We have to fundamentally change the cycling environment as well if we are to get more people cycling.

We also have to fundamentally change perceptions, through education of safe distance and correct overtaking etc. Making it part of the driving test would be a good start as well as including it in N.S. curriculum and in something like the C.S.P.E. curriculum in S.S. There are some who are lost and will never understand unfortunately, which is where enforcement takes over where education has already missed the boat.

Mercian Pro wrote: »

OK, strong views on the issue of going straight where traffic is turning left.
Any thoughts anyone on whether cyclists should be able to proceed through pedestrian lights on red if there are no pedestrians around?

cob1 wrote: »

absolutely they should, its better for everyone, even for the car drivers as it separates the bikes and cars so they are not held up by everyone going together when the traffic lights turn green. of course this is as long as the cyclists make sure to yield to the pedestrians.

in the couple of places where there are separate lights for bikes and pedestrians currently (along the grand canal & the Samuel beckett bridge) the situation is ridiculous. by the time the bicycle lights go green all the bikes have long gone as they've headed off on the pedestrian light. all the green lights for bikes does is delay the traffic further frustrating the drivers, many of them probably sitting there and blaming the cyclists and their stupid lights.

I disagree, people will then find it more and more easy to break the rules, "the pram was on the other side of the junction", "I was through before they stepped out completely". The lights in the above places are ridiculousd but mainly due to the long turn around times for peds, on the GC cycle path, the first main junction (with Holles St./Merrion Rd.) is 1.5minutes for the rock road cars, 15seconds for peds, 10secs for cyclists and 15 seconds for road traffic with the canal. No wonder everyone gets frustrated.

cob1

but people break the rules as it is, no amount of guards handing out 750 euro fines at every set of lights is going to change this reality. so adapt the rules to fit, a green light for pedestrians and a flashing yellow for bikes to tell them they can go but yield to peds. it is much safer to cross the junction before the traffic goes so that you are up to speed, separated from the traffic and away from left turning traffic before they all hit the gas when the lights go green. other countries have lights that let the bikes go ahead first. that's a good idea too. but its not required when there are ped lights, the bikes are gone already

CramCycle

cob1 wrote: »

but people break the rules as it is, no amount of guards handing out 750 euro fines at every set of lights is going to change this reality. so adapt the rules to fit, a green light for pedestrians and a flashing yellow for bikes to tell them they can go but yield to peds. it is much safer to cross the junction before the traffic goes so that you are up to speed, separated from the traffic and away from left turning traffic before they all hit the gas when the lights go green. other countries have lights that let the bikes go ahead first. that's a good idea too. but its not required when there are ped lights, the bikes are gone already

And every day, as I wait for the flashing yellow I see people fly through pedestrians without a care in the world. I wait for the 5 seconds for the flashing yellow and if no peds are stepping out I proceed. Some peds are genuinely shocked that I stop, I am genuinely shocked that there hasn't been fisticuffs at this junction with some of the stupidity on show. I think the crossing green for peds is almost hidden from your line of sight so some cyclists think the green ped applies to them as well. The majority of travellers on this route are workers who will be there approximately the same time, on the same days every week. I don't think 750 is appropriate (although you have to go to court for that and I have yet to hear of it going that high), but a 50euro FPN would be appropriate, and a camera on the junction with a Garda presence randomly and a stock of photos would more than curb the behaviour.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

I then learned from here a few years ago, that if bad thing happen to me all the time, they are probably my fault, so I changed my habits to become more like other road traffic, I followed the rules, and low and behold, the number of incidents I am nearly involved in have plummeted.

I've had a similar enough experience, and have come to the conclusion that while much of the cycling infrastructure out there would like cyclists to behave more like pedestrians, the safer course of action on the bike is to behave more like a car. For example, on a narrow road approaching lights, I'd rather take the lane and wait behind the car in front rather than trying to scoot up to the head of the queue in traffic. It largely eliminates the risk of being hit by an overtaking left turning vehicle, and reduces risks at junctions. While taking the lane is well understood and recommended as the safer way to cycle in books such as Cycle Craft, it isn't always intuitive.

CatFromHue

Honestly I wouldn't be in favour of any cycle specific rules, if anything I'd like the current rules of the road to be enforced more on cyclists.

If I were to bring in any laws it would be to make it mandatory to use proper bike lights.

I say this as a cyclist and a motorist.

RayCun

It is mandatory to use bike lights. I would be happy to see this enforced, and to see cars with only one working headlight being pulled over. I would be happy to see cyclists who plough through red lights getting pulled, and to see all the cars who do the same getting points and fines. There is no law against cyclists using their phones as they cycle (afaik?) but I wouldn't mind seeing people getting pulled over for a ten minute lecture on road safety if they do it. And for all the car drivers using their phones to be punished for it.

Enforcing existing traffic legislation would be much more beneficial imo than introducing rules about cyclists turning left or going down one-way streets.

CramCycle

RayCun wrote: »

It is mandatory to use bike lights. I would be happy to see this enforced, and to see cars with only one working headlight being pulled over.

And damned parking lights, they are not dims, they do not provide enough illumination, and if you can't tell that your dims at least are not on, you should have your license pulled from you.

07Lapierre

CatFromHue wrote: »

Honestly I wouldn't be in favour of any cycle specific rules, if anything I'd like the current rules of the road to be enforced more on cyclists.

If I were to bring in any laws it would be to make it mandatory to use proper bike lights.

I say this as a cyclist and a motorist.

RayCun wrote: »

It is mandatory to use bike lights. I would be happy to see this enforced, and to see cars with only one working headlight being pulled over. I would be happy to see cyclists who plough through red lights getting pulled, and to see all the cars who do the same getting points and fines. There is no law against cyclists using their phones as they cycle (afaik?) but I wouldn't mind seeing people getting pulled over for a ten minute lecture on road safety if they do it. And for all the car drivers using their phones to be punished for it.

Enforcing existing traffic legislation would be much more beneficial imo than introducing rules about cyclists turning left or going down one-way streets.

Agree... that last thing we need are more un-enforced laws!

Chips Lovell

By "proper" bike lights perhaps he means a minimum standard? There's plenty that are so weak you may as well not have them.

I'd also ban flashing or strobe front lights.

CatFromHue

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

By "proper" bike lights perhaps he means a minimum standard? There's plenty that are so weak you may as well not have them.

I'd also ban flashing or strobe front lights.

Yes that's what I mean.

Then there are the lights that people affix to the seat stay (the bar that runs from the cassette up to the seat post) and on the back of their helmet which you're barely able to see.

slap/dash

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yes that's what I mean.

Then there are the lights that people affix to the seat stay (the bar that runs from the cassette up to the seat post) and on the back of their helmet which you're barely able to see.

+1 weak lighting should never be affixed to the seat stay, so ugly

UDP

Oscar Gateaux wrote: »

I'd also ban flashing or strobe front lights.

why?

Chips Lovell

Can often blind oncoming traffic.