Journalism and cycling

CramCycle

blackwhite wrote: »

It's not illegal to proceed through amber if you were too close to stop safely when the lights changed from green.

I'd suggest the above, with amber for as long as it would take a slow cyclist to clear the junction (as you suggested), and ANPR catching any vehicle that hasn't cleared the junction when the lights turn red, bar maybe traffic that was waiting for a gap to turn right (i.e. anyone caught would have had ample time to see amber and stop safely).

srsly78 wrote: »

You just stated that in certain conditions it is permitted to proceed through the amber light, completely contradicting yourself. Come on ffs, if you are commenting on legal stuff like this then these little details are important!

Time split on the ANPR for ambers. When approaching a green light a driver should always be prepared to stop. Bar the people on the line or closer than breaking distance, everyone else should stop.

For now stick to the reds but for anyone saying amber gambling is legal is wrong.. Amber gambling is when you could have stopped.

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

From what i can the the silver nissan is the only vehicle that actually broke the red light...marginal, but broke it nonetheless. You cant tell from the pictures provided if the silver Mercedes broke the red light or not...you can definitely say they went through an amber or red. Altough they may have had time to stop after seeing the lights change to amber its not illegal to go through an amber light.

The Merc and Micra proceeded past the amber light and the sliver nissan broke the red...

Just to remind you:

(2) A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows an amber light while no other traffic light lamp (immediately above or below) shows any light, shall not proceed beyond the stop line at that light (or, if there is no such stop line, beyond the light) save when the vehicle is so close to the stop line when the amber light shows that the vehicle cannot safely be halted before crossing the stop line.

Weepsie

Roadhawk wrote: »

its not illegal to go through an amber light.

This is from the actual law

A driver facing a traffic light lamp which shows an amber light while no other traffic light lamp (immediately above or below) shows any light, shall not proceed beyond the stop line at that light (or, if there is no such stop line, beyond the light) save when the vehicle is so close to the stop line when the amber light shows that the vehicle cannot safely be halted before crossing the stop line

& the ROTR

An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, you must not go beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that
stopping would be dangerous.

I think you'll find it is illegal. Between this statement, and you being wrong on the other thread, I'd suggest you and more drivers get some education on the law(s). If we had cameras, drivers who engaged in this could start racking up some tasty fines and points.

I get it, cyclists do it it too, I don't, most I know don't. It's annoying when I see it. It's a nuisance though at worst. When a driver does it, it has the potential to be life threatening.

Tenzor07

Roadhawk wrote: »

Altough they may have had time to stop after seeing the lights change to amber its not illegal to go through an amber light.

Have a look at the first 60 seconds of this video and see how amber lights are routinely ignored by motorists:

magicbastarder

the funny thing is that the car in the very first clip - showing off the misbehaviour of other motorists - seems to sail over the white line at the traffic light.

flatface

The simple solution to stopping cars break lights is to adopt the uk system of amber light before green. This removes that extra time people think they can squeeze into.

HivemindXX

flatface wrote: »

The simple solution to stopping cars break lights is to adopt the uk system of amber light before green. This removes that extra time people think they can squeeze into.

Frequently people cannot proceed when they get green due to others going through the red anyway so I don't really see how having everyone ready to go the instant their light goes green is really going to help. I also already see people starting to move before their light has gone green. The other day a taxi, professional driver my ass, crept past me, across the pedestrian crossing and in to the junction before the light actually went green.

I think people who want this are far more concerned with their ability to get going quickly after they have stopped at a red than they are about increasing peoples compliance when stopping.

Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think this system would be far more likely to increase crashes where people flooring it to get through an amber that is certainly going to change before they get to it meet people who are braced to leap off the start line as soon as the countdown finishes. Maybe drivers will eventually mature and change their ways but I wouldn't want to be responsible for any injuries and deaths in the interim.

flatface

HivemindXX wrote: »

Frequently people cannot proceed when they get green due to others going through the red anyway so I don't really see how having everyone ready to go the instant their light goes green is really going to help. I also already see people starting to move before their light has gone green. The other day a taxi, professional driver my ass, crept past me, across the pedestrian crossing and in to the junction before the light actually went green.

I think people who want this are far more concerned with their ability to get going quickly after they have stopped at a red than they are about increasing peoples compliance when stopping.

Perhaps I am overly cynical but I think this system would be far more likely to increase crashes where people flooring it to get through an amber that is certainly going to change before they get to it meet people who are braced to leap off the start line as soon as the countdown finishes. Maybe drivers will eventually mature and change their ways but I wouldn't want to be responsible for any injuries and deaths in the interim.

driving in the uk you see a different view of an amber light based on the knowledge that there is no time when the light goes red. It seems to work better there than here, IMHO it's a practical issue rather than a different attitude to the Irish and if it was introduced the gambling on slow takeoff reactions would disappear.

flatface

flatface wrote: »

driving in the uk you see a different view of an amber light based on the knowledge that there is no time when the light goes red. It seems to work better there than here, IMHO it's a practical issue rather than a different attitude to the Irish and if it was introduced the gambling on slow takeoff reactions would disappear.

Hmm, maybe my humble opinion is not based on enough driving in the uk. Seems like they have a big problem with this too.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3589194/The-roads-drivers-caught-running-red-lights-revealed.htm

Jimoslimos

flatface wrote: »

Hmm, maybe my humble opinion is not based on enough driving in the uk. Seems like they have a big problem with this too.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3589194/The-roads-drivers-caught-running-red-lights-revealed.htm

Yeah, not just an Irish problem. The UK is every bit as bad.

City driving, at 30mph - no more than 1 vehicle should pass through when the light changes to amber. If not then it's because;

1) Your reaction times are too slow - although not so slow that you press down on the accelerator within 0.1 secs of the light changing (you shouldn't be driving)
2) Your brakes aren't good enough (you shouldn't be driving)
3) You were driving too fast (you shouldn't be driving)
4) You didn't want to get stuck at the lights (again, you shouldn't be driving...but at least you're honest!)

josip

Things no better across the water apparently

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/02/police-courts-fail-cyclists-road-safety-cross-party-inquiry

Tenzor07

At least in the UK they are starting to take about taking some real action at last, will never happen here though!

mps-call-change-highway-code-give-cyclists-priority-road-users

"Threatening behaviour by vehicle drivers towards more vulnerable road users who are on bikes and on foot is routinely tolerated and rarely punished; our roads police are under-resourced; and people who have flagrantly and habitually flouted the law are allowed to continue being a menace on our roads.

"This idea there is a 'right to drive', when it is clearly a privilege, is taking precedence over the right to safety on our roads for everyone.?

mr spuckler

on the red / amber light topic, yesterday evening on my commute home i was waiting to cross from the coast cycle path at clontarf to the stiles road when the lights went amber. the first car stopped without any great fuss, the second car proceeded to demonstrate their displeasure with such an obvious d1ck move by beeping and gesticulating wildly!

obviously i just smiled broadly in the direction of the aggressor as i crossed the road

ThisRegard

mr spuckler wrote: »

the second car proceeded to demonstrate their displeasure with such an obvious d1ck move by beeping and gesticulating wildly!

Had that happen to me one morning when driving crossing the quays from north to south and stopped for the orange light at the pedestrian crossing at City Quay. Silly cow behind beeped me and when I checked her out in the mirror she was throwing her hands in the air and gesturing as to why I stopped. This had the odd affect of me somehow going temporarily colour blind and taking a while to notice the change from red to green again.

Chuchote

Taking the bike for short journeys "equivalent to 9% salary rise"

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/using-a-bike-instead-of-a-car-for-short-journeys-gives-the-equivalent-of-a-nine-per-cent-pay-rise-327420?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Chuchote

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-85-of-drivers-regularly-see-people-using-phones-behind-the-wheel-1.3067624?mode=amp

Over 85% of drivers regularly see people using phones behind the wheel

Pinch Flat

Chuchote wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-85-of-drivers-regularly-see-people-using-phones-behind-the-wheel-1.3067624?mode=amp

Was faced by a HGV / delivery lorry coming against me on the wrong side of the road this morning at this junction.

https://goo.gl/maps/an3RGELBhTP2

Me followed by a young boy of around 11 or 12 cycling. Driver on mobile phone and misjudged the junction.

etselbbuns

Ciaran Cuffe v. Pat Kenny again this morning for 40 minutes on Newstalk.
Talking about sustainability of transport in Dublin City

magicbastarder

shane ross is on morning ireland and has so far talked about at least two topics, neither of which relates to his ministerial brief. he's just been explaining why this dail has passed so few laws is a good thing.

Chuchote

http://cycling.today/cycling-drastically-lowers-the-risk-of-having-a-heart-attack-says-new-study/

Cycling drastically lowers the risk of having a heart attack, says new study
By Cycling Today - November 3, 2016

Cycling to work in middle age dramatically reduces the risk of suffering a heart attack in later life, a major study reveals. As little as 30 minutes a week has a marked effect on the chance of developing coronary heart disease over the next 20 years, researchers found.

The massive heart disease project undertaken by Danish researchers tracked for 20 years a staggering 45,000 people aged between 45 and 60 years when recruited. And the key finding to emerge was that cycling to work in middle age dramatically reduces the risk of suffering a heart attack as you grow older.

People who consistently spent 90 minutes on their bike a week were 24 per cent less likely to develop angina or have a heart attack. And those who spent half an hour cycling a week – even as a leisure activity – had a 16 per cent reduced risk.

mr spuckler

i just feel a wave of disgust when reading this.

'Careless driver' who left cyclist unable to speak, walk or hear gets suspended sentence

the story reads as if both were moving at the time yet describes the collision as "Robert Faherty (63) was driving without headlights when Grainne Duncan’s bike hit his car."

I love Sean nos

mr spuckler wrote: »

i just feel a wave of disgust when reading this.

'Careless driver' who left cyclist unable to speak, walk or hear gets suspended sentence

the story reads as if both were moving at the time yet describes the collision as "Robert Faherty (63) was driving without headlights when Grainne Duncan’s bike hit his car."

First of all, unless she cycled into the side of his car, his car hit her.

Second, I'm puzzled by this statement:

a driver otherwise engaged in careful driving

HivemindXX

I think that means that it's not careless so long as you don't actually hit anything, whether this is just luck or because other people manage to get out of the way. People are driving dangerously every day but they get away with it through luck or because other people are able to react in time. Then, when someone finally pays the price, they get to talk about their otherwise spotless record. I don't see how this judge can possible know that this driver was otherwise driving carefully. Do we have any evidence at all to show that he doesn't routinely forgot to use his headlights at night? Is there any explanation for why he wasn't able to stop when the cyclist who didn't see him tried to cross in front of him? Surely forgetting to turn on your lights and then failing to stop in time are two separate things.

Any solicitor using the "it was just a momentary lapse of concentration" defence should get a gavel to the face.

The worst thing about this case is that the driver whose "momentary lapse of attention" left a woman in a permanent vegetative state is that the driver has not even been banned from driving. Apparently his own father is sick and he has to drive every day, so it's ok to leave him on the road.

I love Sean nos

HivemindXX wrote: »

the driver has not even been banned from driving.

Driving so badly that people are seriously injured or die from it is no reason to be prevented from driving.

Corca Baiscinn

mr spuckler wrote: »

i just feel a wave of disgust when reading this.

'Careless driver' who left cyclist unable to speak, walk or hear gets suspended sentence"[/i]

Me too, we're back to the "motorists are people like us" scenario. I imagine the judge drives and doesn't cycle. I get the bit re the driver not being a habitual offender with multiple convictions and a prison sentence will not be of any help to the woman or her family. However, imo there definitely should have been a driving ban for a substantial period. Everyone who is banned is inconvenienced in some way. There are alternative ways of getting to Galway. just because the man is remorseful, and I'm sure he is, doesn't mean that that he should be allowed to continue to drive. What message does it send out re the consequences for causing such a serious, life-changing injury. Can the DPP appeal this I wonder.

On a separate note I don't like speculating about causes but even after the court case I'm puzzled by the sequence of events outlined. Cyclists often say that in urban,lit areas lights are more to make you seen rather than to see. This cyclist was lit, presumably there was also street lighting and still the driver didn't see her.

OleRodrigo

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

This cyclist was lit, presumably there was also street lighting and still the driver didn't see her.

Pure speculation here but I know that junction and its very easy for someone to turn across the road in an unexpected manner. The vantage point, coming in either direction, means you wont necessarily distinguish between someone turning and someone lining up to make a turn, until its too late.

He may well have seen her but assumed she wasn't turning.

She may well have not seen the car because she was unconsciously looking out for a car with lights on.

Chuchote

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/traffic-in-the-capital-1.3075685

Letter from AE Bergin in Swords:

Would it solve Dublin city centre traffic congestion if the council only permitted cars with three or more occupants to travel inside the canal zone?

A good idea, though it would need opt-outs - people legitimately doing deliveries, for instance, or my friend who is a lawyer representing mental health cases in several jails, courts and hospitals in Dublin and surrounds and carrying large volumes of confidential documents.

But certainly for virtually all commuters working in a single workplace all day or night, and shoppers.

We'd need extensive and reasonably-priced park-and-ride to make it work, but we should have that: multi-storey car parks around the edge of the city, and more Luasanna and buses.

buffalo

Chuchote wrote: »

A good idea, though it would need opt-outs - people legitimately doing deliveries, for instance, or my friend who is a lawyer representing mental health cases in several jails, courts and hospitals in Dublin and surrounds and carrying large volumes of confidential documents.

If you let your lawyer friend have an opt-out, you'll find a lot of people have jobs for which their car is 'essential'. All the documents can be put on computer (encrypted for security and confidentiality), and then he/she can cycle around the many jails and hospitals with the laptop in a pannier. Simple!

tomasrojo

And you'll get Larry David types, picking up two prostitutes every morning, just to drive across the city centre.

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

All the documents can be put on computer (encrypted for security and confidentiality)

not that i know what i'm talking about - not that that ever stopped me - i suspect the legal profession has been slow to ditch dead trees as a recording medium.