Rogue cyclists set to face on-the-spot fines MOD WARNING in first post

Qualitymark

Ah, at cross purposes; I was talking about one that looks as if there are traffic lights, though I can't be sure.

cython

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ah, at cross purposes; I was talking about one that looks as if there are traffic lights, though I can't be sure.

Eh, I'm talking about one where I know there to be lights (contrary to out of date street view images), and I also know there not to be enough space for a bicycle and a vehicle to exit the junction side by side, so not really cross purposes as far as I can make out......

roverrules

Perhaps on junctions with sufficient width to incorporate a ( preferably ) grade separated cycle path but normal T junctions, doesn't sound like a good idea. You'd be merging traffic of two speeds and two differing acceleration profiles

Qualitymark

roverrules wrote: »

Perhaps on junctions with sufficient width to incorporate a ( preferably ) grade separated cycle path but normal T junctions, doesn't sound like a good idea. You'd be merging traffic of two speeds and two differing acceleration profiles

But don't most T-junctions involve a main road with a smaller road feeding into it?

roverrules

Qualitymark wrote: »

But don't most T-junctions involve a main road with a smaller road feeding into it?

They do but I believe the gist of the OP is for cycle traffic on the T bar of the junction to be able to proceed when there is a red light, from left to right in countries that drive on the left and vice versa, neither of which should entail crossing directly across another vehicles path entering from the stem of the T. It would seem to be just another variation of turning on a red, not a situation that should be taken as a norm but possibly as an exception with the correct infrastructure

galwaycyclist

roverrules wrote: »

Perhaps on junctions with sufficient width to incorporate a ( preferably ) grade separated cycle path but normal T junctions, doesn't sound like a good idea. You'd be merging traffic of two speeds and two differing acceleration profiles

.
Arguably that already happens in existing situations for straight through traffic when the light goes green.

Anyway in this case it could be treated as a "yield" by the cyclists crossing the top of the "T" while the other arm has green.

CramCycle

T junction near me has lights, muppets running through it, motorists are asshats, cyclists are idiots. The motorists don't give a f*ck and just smile at me, the cyclists who run it never even notice me or the other cyclists they cut off. It's got to the point where I typically take it the lane to the right so I am in fact overtaking after the junction.

Your suggestion makes sense for places that are not Ireland.

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Arguably that already happens in existing situations fornstraight through traffic when the light goes green.

Anyway in this case it could be treated as a "yield" by the cyclists crossing the top of the "T" while the other arm has green.

This makes more sense as it least gives road users clarity ad to right of way etc.

Carawaystick

Qualitymark wrote: »

But don't most T-junctions involve a main road with a smaller road feeding into it?

Given our huge road network in Ireland, I'd say most t junctions are between minor roads with a yield to the right approach.

mcgratheoin

cython wrote: »

On the bolded, I know of several instances where this is simply not true. The nearest one that comes to mind is this junction. Regrettably Street View does not reflect the junction since the roads there were majorly realigned, but suffice to say that a cyclist proceeding west on Porterstown Road would fall into the category you describe (the gateway on the south of the road should not take from it being a T junction), but it is not safe for them to proceed while traffic has a green to come from the north to go the same way, as the exit from the junction narrows so much. I don't disagree that here are some T junctions where this exemption could work, but there are enough where it wouldn't that a blanket exemption is a terrible idea.

Yeah, I agree with you on that junction (i pass it every day) but I'd propose to make these junctions "yield when red" for cyclists. That particular junction has 3 phases of lights as well - eastbound, westbound and southbound - you can be sitting at the lights waiting to go west while cars are coming east and either going straight on or turning towards Clonsilla.
A better example would perhaps be this junction. When the lights for continuing eastwards are red, you can use the cycle lane to pass the traffic (yielding to other bikes and pedestrians) and continue along Grand Canal Street Upper.

eeeee

CramCycle wrote: »

It's not a good idea, mainly due to the lack of situational awareness of many irish road users, motorists and cyclists alike.

This. Like how in some countries you can proceed through red light turning left on bike, it just wouldn't work here. I have seen how some cyclists break lights when it's illegal, legalizing it with consideration just wouldn't work here and end up with cyclists flying through with assumed impunity. Same for going straight through a T-junction. I do think some are safer than others, and c are can go all the way over to the kerb even when there's loads of room.

We can't have nice things over here. We can't handle it. Until we have a personality transplant in regards to road usage and consideration as a country.

rubadub

HivemindXX wrote: »

How exactly do you suggest we police consideration then GalwayCyclist? Will the guards have a politeness meter? Who is going to say that cyclist is fine and that one is not and how on earth are you going convince a judge of that? Good laws have hard lines and metrics, grey areas are a recipe for disaster.

Many laws are vague in their wording as they are a catchall. So a woman running from a rapist on a completely empty road at a pedestrian crossing with red lights is breaking the law.

I find Gardai are already pretty good when it comes to what to enforce and what not to. They know what the law actually set out to prevent, so if someone is doing something which is techincally illegal they will often ignore it. In fact I have said before I have gotten what were apparently nods of approval or waves while breaking the law from gardai. My law breaking was not only benign but helping the flow of traffic and/or keeping myself and others safe.

Gardai are good, whinging jealous people are not, I once saw a illegal jaywalker screaming at a cyclist similarly breaking a red -both in a safe manner. Probably oblivous to the law.

gadetra wrote: »

I have seen how come cyclists break lights when it's illegal, legalizing it with consideration just wouldn't work here and end up with cyclists flying through with assumed impunity.

I thought most places require you to stop, so flying through would be illegal.

I think it would work fine here, if I ever come across a set of broken lights I see people dealing with it just fine. That is a question I ask if people tell me about a cyclist breaking lights -if the lights were broken would you have had any issue at all with what he did. In most cases the whingers are moaning about the legality, not the actual act.

Carlos Orange

rubadub wrote: »

Many laws are vague in their wording as they are a catchall. So a woman running from a rapist on a completely empty road at a pedestrian crossing with red lights is breaking the law.

In Ireland Pedestrians are not required by law to stop at a red light. They can cross if it is safe to do so. *


* According to something I read on the internet once.

rubadub

psinno wrote: »

In Ireland Pedestrians are not required by law to stop at a red light.

Honestly not sure if you are joking or not, since more often that not when I have mentioned "jaywalking" laws in Ireland many posters genuinely do not believe there is any such law.

Carlos Orange

rubadub wrote: »

Honestly not sure if you are joking or not, since more often that not when I have mentioned "jaywalking" laws in Ireland many posters genuinely do not believe there is any such law.

You can easily prove them wrong by posting a link to such a law though requiring to cross at a set of lights isn't the same as requiring the lights be green for a pedestrian.

tomasrojo

IIRC, the nearest thing we have to a jaywalking rule is that pedestrians must cross at a pedestrian crossing if one is nearby (15m?). Otherwise they can cross where they like, with caution.

Something like that. I'm sure someone has the real rule to hand.

tomasrojo

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

Zebra crossing in that case. (Not sure whether applies to other pedestrian crossings.)

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

Zebra crossing in that case. (Not sure whether applies to other pedestrian crossings.)

On phone so pain to dig out links - what you need are the traffic signs regulations 181\1997 and their successors.

In short, traffic lights apply to everyone, including pedestrians, unless there are also separate red man/green lights in which case those apply to people on foot.

If I recall correctly, SI 181/1997 actually dropped the concept of zebra crossings and it had to be snuck back in years after.

tomasrojo

Well, the zebra crossing definitely isn't mentioned by name in 1997, but it does have this:

38. (1) Traffic sign number RPC 001 shall indicate a pedestrian crossing.


(2) The traffic sign to which sub-article (1) refers shall consist of the following:


(a) roadway markings consisting of two parallel continuous white lines, each approximately 100 millimetres wide, not less than 2 metres and not more than 6 metres apart, extending where there is no traffic refuge at the crossing, across the full width of the road, and where there is a traffic refuge at the crossing, from the edge of each side of the roadway to the nearer limit of the traffic refuge;


(b) a beacon at or near each end of the crossing and, where there is a traffic refuge at the crossing, a beacon on the traffic refuge, each beacon emitting, save as is provided in sub-article (3) at regular intervals flashes of yellow light at the rate of not more than forty-five and not less than thirty-five flashes a minute; and


(c) roadway markings consisting of alternate black and white stripes drawn parallel to the line of the roadway within the limits of the roadway markings described in paragraph (a) and extending longitudinally to within approximately 100 millimetres of each of the said markings, each stripe being not less than 500 millimetres and not more than 715 millimetres wide except the stripe at the edge of each side of the roadway which shall be not less than 500 millimetres and not more than 1.3 metres wide and shall be black in colour.


(3) The requirement that each beacon at a pedestrian crossing shall emit a flashing light shall not apply in respect of a crossing at which, for the time being, one and only one of the beacons has failed so to light.


(4) In this article; "beacon" means a spherical globe which is yellow in colour and approximately 300 millimetres in diameter, and is mounted not less than 2.1 metres and not more than 4.2 metres above the surface of the ground in the immediate vicinity.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/181/made/en/print

TL;DR: it describes a zebra crossing without using the words "zebra crossing".


And in 2012, it's back in name as well:

38. (1) Traffic sign number RPC 001 shall indicate a zebra pedestrian crossing.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/331/made/en/print

galwaycyclist

I remember now. I think what got dropped was the requirement for motorists to yield to pedestrians at zebra crossing.

check_six

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I remember now. I think what got dropped was the requirement for motorists to yield to pedestrians at zebra crossing.

What? Really? But, but, but.... *brain implodes at how stupid a change this is*

galwaycyclist

check_six wrote: »

What? Really? But, but, but.... *brain implodes at how stupid a change this is*

Yep

If you go to the 2012 Regs
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/si/332/made/en/print

Article 8 amended as follows

(6) A driver of a vehicle approaching a zebra pedestrian crossing where traffic sign number RPC 001 (zebra pedestrian crossing) is provided shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian who has commenced crossing the road at the zebra pedestrian crossing.”,

If you go to the same article in the 1997 regs its not there

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#zzsi182y1997a8

It appears to have been "mislaid".

check_six

Holy moley! I did my Theory and Driving Test at some point between 1997 and 2012. I'm sure I answered questions regarding zebra crossings incorrectly given the statutes in force at the time (the correct answer should have been "blaze on through like you're being chased by Mad Max", as opposed to "give way to pedestrians"). I'm going to go and throw my license back at them!

I suppose, given the bonkers lifestyles our lawmakers were living in those years you could see where they simply assumed that *everyone* else was also flying around in helicopters and surfing on stacks of borrowed cash so they just didn't need to worry about the humble zebra crossing.

Carawaystick

galwaycyclist wrote: »

On phone so pain to dig out links - what you need are the traffic signs regulations 181\1997 and their successors.

In short, traffic lights apply to everyone, including pedestrians, unless there are also separate red man/green lights in which case those apply to people on foot.

If I recall correctly, SI 181/1997 actually dropped the concept of zebra crossings and it had to be snuck back in years after.

Nope

si181/1997 definition of traffic wrote:

"traffic" does not include pedestrians;

...

part IV TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Traffic Lights.
33. Traffic sign number RTS 001 shall consist of a set of three lamps which shall comply with the following conditions:

(i) the lamps shall face the stream of traffic they are intended to control;

galwaycyclist

From SI 182/97

Rules for Pedestrians

46.

(2) A pedestrian facing a traffic light lamp which shows a red light shall not proceed beyond that light.

This means a traffic light not a pedestrian light because pedestrian lights are covered in the next section.

(3) A pedestrian about to cross a roadway at a place where traffic sign number RPC 003 or RPC 004 [pedestrian lights] has been provided shall do so only when a lamp of the facing pedestrian lights is lit and emits a constant green light.

Edit: To reinforce the point this is sub-article 5

(5) At a road junction where traffic is controlled either by traffic lights or by a member of the Garda Síochána, a pedestrian shall cross the roadway only when traffic going in the direction in which the pedestrian intends to cross is permitted (by the lights or the member) to proceed.

traprunner

Probably belongs here. http://www.independent.ie/life/city-cycling/tanya-sweeney-irish-cyclists-are-lawless-to-the-point-of-sheer-arrogance-34131121.html

Tanya Sweeney: 'Irish cyclists are lawless to the point of sheer arrogance'
Published 22/10/2015 | 10:59

As of this week, Dublin cyclists are some 11 weeks into their new world order. You’ll recall how in August, it became an offence to cycle through a red light, to cycle without lamps after-hours, to cycle through pedestrianised streets and so on.

The plan, such as it was, is to keep cyclists, motorists and pedestrians moving from A to B in a harmonious, body-count-free tango. Eleven weeks is a decent stretch within which to get used to some new rules… so how are we faring?

tomasrojo

You’ll recall how in August, it became an offence to cycle through a red light, to cycle without lamps after-hours, to cycle through pedestrianised streets and so on

I recall that these things were offences long before August.

Tony EH

traprunner wrote: »

Tanya Sweeney: 'Irish cyclists are lawless to the point of sheer arrogance'
Published 22/10/2015 | 10:59

As of this week, Dublin cyclists are some 11 weeks into their new world order. You’ll recall how in August, it became an offence to cycle through a red light, to cycle without lamps after-hours, to cycle through pedestrianised streets and so on.

The plan, such as it was, is to keep cyclists, motorists and pedestrians moving from A to B in a harmonious, body-count-free tango. Eleven weeks is a decent stretch within which to get used to some new rules… so how are we faring?

Fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

What a huge body count...

Laughable hysterics over minor irritations.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Fucking idiot. :rolleyes:

What a huge body count...

Laughable hysterics over minor irritations.

it takes a special kind of stupid to take a look at Dublin in rush hour and conclude the problem is cyclists and pedestrians.

Carlos Orange

rubadub wrote: »

Honestly not sure if you are joking or not, since more often that not when I have mentioned "jaywalking" laws in Ireland many posters genuinely do not believe there is any such law.

I had a look at the rules of the road. In the introduction is says "It uses must and must not to draw attention to behaviour the law clearly demands or forbids."

The pedestrian section says

"If there is a footpath you must use it"
"Do not cross while the ‘wait’ or ‘red man’ light is showing."

One is a required by law and the other is more of a recommendation.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Learner%20Drivers/Rules_of_the_road.pdf