Incidents at junctions

purethick

Hey,
Looking for peoples thoughts on this.

At nearly every traffic light sequence on most junction I see cars running red lights. A left turn isn't so bad if it's clear to go (like the right turn on red in the US) but it really grinds my gears when someone sails straight through a junction well after the lights have gone red (and there's potential for a really nasty accident).

I've often thought about recording such incidents with a camera and submitting the footage to the Guards, ensuring the license plate is visible etc, to try and get them to follow it up. I've never bothered so far, as I doubt the Garda would do anything about it.
(my own take on the Guards not enforcing traffic laws is an unofficial response to austerity cuts)

Anyway, this idea has resurfaced again after seeing the aftermath of a really bad accident earlier, one that looks to be a life changing one for the cyclist.

So what I'm wondering is how to make such an idea work?

TheBlaaMan

As far as reporting stuff to the guards, I think you have to go through with it if you have info - how well they will follow it up is another matter, and I think that if you make a lot of such reports you are likely to be seen by them as a crank with an axe to grind. I know that twitter is definitely not the route on which to engage with them, as they will just block you if you post photos of offending drivers that are identifiable, with some justification. Ultimately, they are the ones to bring a prosecution and all you will be is a witness, but that in itself can be quite a burden, so best head down that path "forewarned".

All that said, the driving standards out there are appalling, and getting worse. I drive over 1000km a week and cycle mostly at weekends, but on a weekly basis I am seeing thing's that scare me (I'm mostly beyond road rage...) and are making me think of a career change to get me of the roads.....

Unknown Soldier

purethick wrote: »

Hey,
Looking for peoples thoughts on this.

At nearly every traffic light sequence on most junction I see cars running red lights. A left turn isn't so bad if it's clear to go (like the right turn on red in the US) but it really grinds my gears when someone sails straight through a junction well after the lights have gone red (and there's potential for a really nasty accident).

I've often thought about recording such incidents with a camera and submitting the footage to the Guards, ensuring the license plate is visible etc, to try and get them to follow it up. I've never bothered so far, as I doubt the Garda would do anything about it.
(my own take on the Guards not enforcing traffic laws is an unofficial response to austerity cuts)

Anyway, this idea has resurfaced again after seeing the aftermath of a really bad accident earlier, one that looks to be a life changing one for the cyclist.

So what I'm wondering is how to make such an idea work?

Why do you think the police/Guards wouldn't do anything?

They always act on decent footage, even if it it just a knock on someone's door to show them the error and ask them to explain/justify.

To most Joe soaps that can be a reasonable wakeup call.

purethick

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Why do you think the police/Guards wouldn't do anything?

I believe their attitude is that if nobody was injured and/or no damage to property, then they've got more important things to be doing.
If it was an issue they were concerned about then you'd expect them to periodically mount one of their "operations" to address it.

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

how well they will follow it up is another matter

I wondering if there was some method that could be used to encourage the Garda to follow up on incidents? Perhaps documenting the incidents on some website (while maintaining anonimity for the offenders). I don't know...

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

I think that if you make a lot of such reports you are likely to be seen by them as a crank with an axe to grind

Yes agreed. It's born out of frustration with what I see every day though - I see so many near misses, especially scary for inexperienced cyclists

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

All that said, the driving standards out there are appalling, and getting worse.

I think part of the reason is that people are spending too much time stuck in traffic and that in turn causes people to act in a selfish manner.

Too many people in too many cars. If only there was a way to reduce the amount of cars on the road!

Alanstrainor

I see it every day in Dublin too. And have video footage too. I often wonder how the gardai would respond on twitter to a video, as they are typically very active. Also, I don't want to be that guy.... so....

Tenzor07

In my view it seems to be standard in Dublin that the Amber light means "Go Faster"
At each and every busy set of lights at a junction I usually count to 10 before moving when on the bike, as on average 2 to 3 cars are still going after the lights have turned red.

It grinds my gears when I hear people complaining about cyclists and red lights when I see more cars breaking reds than bicycles!
Not only that but speeding is as common as to make speed limits pointless and bus lanes are really "car express" lanes....

seamus

Tenzor07 wrote: »

In my view it seems to be standard in Dublin that the Amber light means "Go Faster"

My 3 year old loves looking at the traffic lights and pointing out all the people breaking them. Once we were discussing it with her and asked her what the orange light means;

"Hurry up".

Her grandmother went bright red. But in her defence she was talking about pedestrian lights and had said, "Look, the light's gone orange, that means hurry up!".

Hrududu

It does seem to be getting worse. Its not just cars running through amber, its cars going through a red that has been red for a few seconds. I always hold back a little longer at a junction now after a light change, having seen so many incidents of late light breaking. This is something I see at least once a day on my commute to and from work.

Macy0161

Tenzor07 wrote: »

In my view it seems to be standard in Dublin that the Amber light means "Go Faster"
At each and every busy set of lights at a junction I usually count to 10 before moving when on the bike, as on average 2 to 3 cars are still going after the lights have turned red.

It grinds my gears when I hear people complaining about cyclists and red lights when I see more cars breaking reds than bicycles!
Not only that but speeding is as common as to make speed limits pointless and bus lanes are really "car express" lanes....

I've said before, when I've felt I've been a bit of an ambler gambler in the car, I've invariably been followed through by 2, 3 or even 4 or 5 cars. I've also been beeped out of it for stopping at a clear amber several times.

I really don't see why there can't be boxes at most junctions for cameras (you can have far more boxes than actual cameras and just randomly rotate them). I had hoped the introduction at luas junctions would've lead to an overall roll out, but given the way the electorate is in this state to their own law breaking, it probably would've been contentious this side of an election.

I definitely share the frustration about motorists giving out about cyclists break reds, legally cycling two abreast etc, and ignoring the fact that far more offences are committed by motorists"

Tenzor07

Sadly it's almost socially acceptable to use a car to speed, break lights and use bus lanes..

Mycroft H

I was driving through the city centre last night and slowed right as I should to an amber light. Range Rover behind me flashes the lights and beeps at me for coming to a stop.

And then a bicycle just sails past the junction whilst it was red.

No body cares. All anyone sees is the other side at it.

Koobcam

Cameras, penalty points and fines are the only way to stop this amber gambling (or just plain sailing through red lights). I spend a bit of the year in Beijing and the only thing that keeps people in line over there at lights are the fact that there are cameras everywhere and if you break the light, you will be done. The standard of driving there is generally appalling, people overtaking all over the place, driving in bus lanes, parking on footpaths, driving in cycle lanes, often in the wrong direction etc etc, but the speed cameras definitely work at junctions. Do we have any cameras here? I'm not advocating that Ireland become a police state, but cameras at junctions and rigorous punishment would go a long way to solving the problem I think.

Macy0161

Koobcam wrote: »

Do we have any cameras here? I'm not advocating that Ireland become a police state, but cameras at junctions and rigorous punishment would go a long way to solving the problem I think.

Red Light Cameras were introduced at some Luas/ Road junctions a few months back. Haven't heard anything about convictions or how effective they've been though.

There used to be one at Nutley Lane junction on the N11, and the South Circular Road junction on the Chapelizod by pass - i think they took a picture for red light jumping, but you could only be done for speeding as far as I remember.

The light sequences in the state are long, because of the red and amber light jumping, which encourages/ is used to justify more red and amber light jumping. Cameras and enforcement at junctions could actually be used to justify a reduction in sequences, and the introduction of Red-Amber-Green at that change too (which would speed up traffic). If it was sold right, it could be something that is seen to benefit motorists too.

purethick

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It grinds my gears when I hear people complaining about cyclists and red lights when I see more cars breaking reds than bicycles!

I reckon a lot of the vitriol spewed about cyclists running red lights is just from frustration of being stuck in traffic jams and seeing others making progress... (that and blindly parroting what is spouted in the media)

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Sadly it's almost socially acceptable to use a car to speed, break lights and use bus lanes..

It's interesting the way peoples opinions can be changed, e.g. drink driving (once it was acceptable, but not any more). It would be a good thing if we got to a state where it was socially frowned upon to drive less than 3 or 4km when cycling was viable option - the effect of removing so many single occupant journeys would make a significant difference to air quality - that and the more people cycling the safer it gets.

We need a benevolent dictator to make such things happen!!

LpPepper

Here's an incident which happened last Wednesday at Harold's Cross, not unusual at all...fecker nearly clipped me! Feel like reporting it to the Gardaí...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10206920438062187&id=1015036398

buffalo

CI posted this yesterday: http://www.cyclingireland.ie/cycling-news-item/safe-tips-for-cycling-trips-junctions-and-right-of-way/1876

I'm not entirely sure what the point is, bar repeating the rules of the road. There are no cycling-specific tips, like "don't overtake a vehicle on the left when it's indicating left and about to make the turn", "don't overtake a HGV/bus on the left when it's moving or at a junction", "beware of cars turning across your path (despite the RotR on right of way) when approaching a side road in heavy traffic", etc.

check_six

Waiting to turn right in the middle of a junction can get a little hairy when you are not sure if cars coming from the other direction are going to stop when the lights turn red. One junction I travel through every day has this problem. The record I have seen personally is four cars barreling through after the red light goes (it's normally only two). All the while I am stuck in the junction after clearing my green light 45 seconds beforehand having to wait for someone to stop so that I can avoid getting rammed by the now moving traffic coming from the other direction in the crossroad.

I hate that the people in the cars can see you are dangling in the middle of the junction, that their light has turned red, and so therefore their best course of action is to floor the accelerator. If I'm driving I'm not as vulnerable plonked in the middle of a junction, but on the bike I don't get the feeling that the crossing traffic is going to wait for me!

average_runner

All road users have gone mad lately, I see it every morning driving to the inlaws, from cars and cyclist breaking red lights, cyclist and runners not wearing high viz or lights on their bikes, or people just walking out on the road without looking.

daragh_

average_runner wrote: »

All road users have gone mad lately, I see it every morning driving to the inlaws, from cars and cyclist breaking red lights, cyclist and runners not wearing high viz or lights on their bikes, or people just walking out on the road without looking.

And yet you saw them.

buffalo

daragh_ wrote: »

And yet you saw them.

Exact quote from dinner the other night: "I keep seeing all these cyclists dressed in black. Why aren't they wearing hi-viz!?"

Pinch Flat

buffalo wrote: »

Exact quote from dinner the other night: "I keep seeing all these cyclists dressed in black. Why aren't they wearing hi-viz!?"

They should run a pilot scheme - paint all cars hi-vis and see what impact it has.

adrian522

average_runner wrote: »

All road users have gone mad lately, I see it every morning driving to the inlaws, from cars and cyclist breaking red lights, cyclist and runners not wearing high viz or lights on their bikes, or people just walking out on the road without looking.

All Road users? Like everybody?

OleRodrigo

Going through a red is now so commonplace it's effectively normalised.

Someone goes through a red and gets away with it. Everyone else sees this and starts trying it out, and they also get away with it. Before long its commonplace and nobody gives it a second thought.

Unless they see a cyclist doing it, of course..

odyssey06

buffalo wrote: »

Exact quote from dinner the other night: "I keep seeing all these cyclists dressed in black. Why aren't they wearing hi-viz!?"

More like, I only just saw the cyclist dressed in black without lights when I almost ran him over... Have thought that at least half a dozen times.

Pinch Flat

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Going through a red is now so commonplace it's effectively normalised.

Someone goes through a red and gets away with it. Everyone else sees this and starts trying it out, and they also get away with it. Before long its commonplace and nobody gives it a second thought.

Unless they see a cyclist doing it, of course..

I agree - certainly in Dublin - amber means speed up, red light is an invitation to keep going. The amount of near misses I've seen on my commute as a result of this is crazy.

One worrying concern of mine is cars passing from behind to run an amber / red and nearly clipping me (who's slowing / stopping). Had a few close calls over January - in fact, I'll signal now that I'm stopping to try and warn the driver behind. But then again, I don't wear hi vis so will be totally on the wrong if he manages to take me out while running a red :rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Why do you think the police/Guards wouldn't do anything?
.

because if they actually enforced / did anything the roads wouldn't be the complete free for all they are these days...

OleRodrigo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I agree - certainly in Dublin - amber means speed up, red light is an invitation to keep going. The amount of near misses I've seen on my commute as a result of this is crazy.

One worrying concern of mine is cars passing from behind to run an amber / red and nearly clipping me (who's slowing / stopping). Had a few close calls over January - in fact, I'll signal now that I'm stopping to try and warn the driver behind. But then again, I don't wear hi vis so will be totally on the wrong if he manages to take me out while running a red :rolleyes:

Yep, definitely in Dublin.

average_runner

daragh_ wrote: »

And yet you saw them.

Yep, when its almost too late, you should be able to see them from a distance and not 5ft away!!

Another example, was out running before xmas, only notice the runner coming towards when he was 5ft away, he was in all black!!

People with attitude like yours doesn't help the situation out there. Every runner and bike user should have high viz and all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. Simple as.

Hrududu

Pinch Flat wrote: »

One worrying concern of mine is cars passing from behind to run an amber / red and nearly clipping me (who's slowing / stopping). Had a few close calls over January - in fact, I'll signal now that I'm stopping to try and warn the driver behind. But then again, I don't wear hi vis so will be totally on the wrong if he manages to take me out while running a red :rolleyes:

Yeah I had a near miss one day when the light in front of me changed to red. I stopped and the van behind me beeped, then veered out around me to overtake so they could run the light.

Enduro

average_runner wrote: »

People with attitude like yours doesn't help the situation out there. Every runner and bike user should have high viz and all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. Simple as.

I presume your car is painted entirely in Hi-Vis, as otherwise you're just another road user with an attitude (by your definition). Simple As.

adrian522

average_runner wrote: »

Yep, when its almost too late, you should be able to see them from a distance and not 5ft away!!

Another example, was out running before xmas, only notice the runner coming towards when he was 5ft away, he was in all black!!

People with attitude like yours doesn't help the situation out there. Every runner and bike user should have high viz and all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. Simple as.

You know Hi-Viz works by being reflective when a light shines on it? Two runners running in Hi-Viz won't make any difference unless one of them has a light shining ahead.

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

I presume your car is painted entirely in Hi-Vis, as otherwise you're just another road user with an attitude (by your definition). Simple As.

I think the attitude is you.

I never said a bike should have high viz, I said the bike should have lights, which is exactly what my car has. Got an issue with that?

As a runner, yes I would have a high viz on me when out running in the dark.

average_runner

adrian522 wrote: »

You know Hi-Viz works by being reflective when a light shines on it? Two runners running in Hi-Viz won't make any difference unless one of them has a light shining ahead.

Obviously and when you run on a road usually a car would have its lights on when driving in the dark.

citytillidie

Macy0161 wrote: »

I've said before, when I've felt I've been a bit of an ambler gambler in the car, I've invariably been followed through by 2, 3 or even 4 or 5 cars. I've also been beeped out of it for stopping at a clear amber several times.

I really don't see why there can't be boxes at most junctions for cameras (you can have far more boxes than actual cameras and just randomly rotate them). I had hoped the introduction at luas junctions would've lead to an overall roll out, but given the way the electorate is in this state to their own law breaking, it probably would've been contentious this side of an election.

I definitely share the frustration about motorists giving out about cyclists break reds, legally cycling two abreast etc, and ignoring the fact that far more offences are committed by motorists"

Wish it was only a beep I got, I slowed to stop as the light was going from amber to red and some van man ran into the back of me

daragh_

average_runner wrote: »

Yep, when its almost too late, you should be able to see them from a distance and not 5ft away!!

Another example, was out running before xmas, only notice the runner coming towards when he was 5ft away, he was in all black!!

People with attitude like yours doesn't help the situation out there. Every runner and bike user should have high viz and all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. Simple as.

'Almost' isn't the same as 'too late'. I'm not sure what 'situation' you mean? Is there some kind of commuting war on? Maybe I missed the memo.

I don't wear hi-viz. It isn't a legal requirement, doesn't have any magical powers of protection despite what the RSA might say, and is frankly really ugly.

I agree with you about lights. I've an excellent set on my bike.

Enduro

average_runner wrote: »

I think the attitude is you.

I never said a bike should have high viz, I said the bike should have lights, which is exactly what my car has. Got an issue with that?

As a runner, yes I would have a high viz on me when out running in the dark.

Actually you did say a bike should have high viz. This is the exact quote that you wrote:

Every runner and bike user should have high viz and all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. Simple as.

If you're happy to admit that you ovestated the case, or typed more than you meant to then that's fine. I absolutely agree that all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. I doubt anyone in this forum would disagree with that.

Your choice to use high vis as a runner is fine. That's your choice. It's highly ignorant of you to say that your choice should be everyone's choice. I run a lot more millage than you I'll bet, and yet I manage to do it all without high-vis, and without having close encounters with any road vehicles (I wear a flashing light armband on roads... unlike high-vis this is actively highlights my presence, rather than relying on reflected light from elsewhere).

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

Actually you did say a bike should have high viz. This is the exact quote that you wrote:



If you're happy to admit that you ovestated the case, or typed more than you meant to then that's fine. I absolutely agree that all bikes should have lights when out in the dark. I doubt anyone in this forum would disagree with that.

Your choice to use high vis as a runner is fine. That's your choice. It's highly ignorant of you to say that your choice should be everyone's choice. I run a lot more millage than you I'll bet, and yet I manage to do it all without high-vis, and without having close encounters with any road vehicles (I wear a flashing light armband on roads... unlike high-vis this is actively highlights my presence, rather than relying on reflected light from elsewhere).

Yes I said Bike user, did you miss that part? And I said every bike should have lights. Never said every bike should have high viz. While you jump to saying " presume your car is painted entirely in Hi-Vis"

Sorry i got narky earlier

Ok, maybe i should rephrase the high viz, every runner and cyclists should be highly visible to all on a dark night or morning.

average_runner

daragh_ wrote: »

'Almost' isn't the same as 'too late'. I'm not sure what 'situation' you mean? Is there some kind of commuting war on? Maybe I missed the memo.

I don't wear hi-viz. It isn't a legal requirement, doesn't have any magical powers of protection despite what the RSA might say, and is frankly really ugly.

I agree with you about lights. I've an excellent set on my bike.

Ugly is not a reason to wear something.

Yep its not a legal requirement, but no harm in wearing it either. I mean if for some reason your back or front light just stops working on the way home, will you get off the bike and walk home if you don't have anything else to make sure you are seen?

adrian522

average_runner wrote: »

I mean if for some reason your back or front light just stops working on the way home, will you get off the bike and walk home if you don't have anything else to make sure you are seen?

Yes, and you should do that whether you are wearing Hi-Viz or not.

daragh_

average_runner wrote: »

Ugly is not a reason to wear something.

We inhabit a different cycling universe

average_runner wrote: »

I mean if for some reason your back or front light just stops working on the way home, will you get off the bike and walk home if you don't have anything else to make sure you are seen?

That's exactly what I would do - or go to the nearest shop and buy a battery (in the unlikely event that my lights and back-up lights fail - it's never happened btw). You can't cycle in the dark with no lights. Hi-Viz won't magically protect you because, as other have pointed out, it doesn't emit light.

average_runner

daragh_ wrote: »

We inhabit a different cycling universe



That's exactly what I would do - or go to the nearest shop and buy a battery (in the unlikely event that my lights and back-up lights fail - it's never happened btw). You can't cycle in the dark with no lights. Hi-Viz won't magically protect you because, as other have pointed out, it doesn't emit light.

But it does make you visible if the car light reflects off it and better than nothing. Fair play for you getting off the bike and doing that. Sadly there is some who wouldn't so if we got these to use lights and high viz it could help save a life.


Remember not everyone cycles on a road that's has a footpath or lights, so the walking option with no reflective gear on you is just as dangerous!

Enduro

average_runner wrote: »

Yep its not a legal requirement, but no harm in wearing it either.

On an individual basis, you're probably correct that there is no harm in wearing it.

But you yourself, and your posts in this thread, are a perfect illustration of where the harm is once you start looking at it at a population level. It creates a false perception that hi-vis is a useful piece of safety gear in and of itself. It isn't. At best it backs up a working set of lights. It also creates a perception that any non-driving road user is reckless for not wearing them (again perfectly illustrated by yourself). It builds a victim blaming culture.

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

On an individual basis, you're probably correct that there is no harm in wearing it.

But you yourself, and your posts in this thread, are a perfect illustration of where the harm is once you start looking at it at a population level. It creates a false perception that hi-vis is a useful piece of safety gear in and of itself. It isn't. At best it backs up a working set of lights. It also creates a perception that any non-driving road user is reckless for not wearing them (again perfectly illustrated by yourself). It builds a victim blaming culture.

But it is a useful piece of safety gear in itself, as for the example I gave above.

Light goes on your bike, your on a road with no path or lights and now no light on your bike. Jacket could be a difference in you getting home or in a ditch!!!

Enduro

average_runner wrote: »

But it is a useful piece of safety gear in itself, as for the example I gave above.

Light goes on your bike, your on a road with no path or lights and now no light on your bike. Jacket could be a difference in you getting home or in a ditch!!!

Do you keep a high-vis jacket in your car in case you have a mechinical problem with your car and need to walk along the road to get help?

A spare light would be a far far far more effective safety item than a high-vis jacket for a cyclist or runner, for the same reason that a primary light is a far more effective piece of safety gear.

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

Do you keep a high-vis jacket in your car in case you have a mechinical problem with your car and need to walk along the road to get help?

A spare light would be a far far far more effective safety item than a high-vis jacket for a cyclist or runner, for the same reason that a primary light is a far more effective piece of safety gear.

Yes I do keep a high viz in my car, along with spare bulbs, flash light and the safety triangle.

Its something that should be law for car drivers in Ireland.

Enduro

average_runner wrote: »

Yes I do keep a high viz in my car, along with spare bulbs, flash light and the safety triangle.

Its something that should be law for car drivers in Ireland.

Kudos for consistancy!

average_runner

Enduro wrote: »

Kudos for consistancy!

I actually think its a massive problem with drivers of cars.

Unknown Soldier

average_runner wrote: »

Its something that should be law for car drivers in Ireland.

It's on the way. There is an EU directive on it but it is a more country specific thing. They all have their basics but differ a lot. France I think requires a breathalyser.

It quite possible that the Irish one might require a Torch as standard.

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Consultations/RSA_Emergency-Packs-public-consultation-background.pdf

A number of Car manufacturers are pre-empting it and fitting them as standard anyways, safety kits, not torches.

Cookie_Monster

average_runner wrote: »

Yes I do keep a high viz in my car, along with spare bulbs, flash light and the safety triangle.

do you wear a helmet as well? Statistically it would be far more beneficial for motorists to wear helmets than any other group of road users.

average_runner

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

do you wear a helmet as well? Statistically it would be far more beneficial for motorists to wear helmets than any other group of road users.

Link?

RainyDay

average_runner wrote: »

Link?

From https://www.facebook.com/no.helmet.law/photos/a.122634181104775.12837.122630377771822/452311018137088/?type=3&theater