If all cyclists waited at the red light...

gk5000

CramCycle wrote: »

The difference is (having lived in the US for awhile) there is a respect for this rule, people stop, check ad if there is any doubt, they do not move. Over here it would be a bunch of chancers and lets not BS each other by saying otherwise.

Another one - does anyone actually stop at minor stop signs? or just slow down and yield like I do? in other words only stop if you really have to?

(Edit: I mean on the bike - I stop as a motorist)

CramCycle

gk5000 wrote: »

Another one - does anyone actually stop at minor stop signs? or just slow down and yield like I do? in other words only stop if you really have to?

(Edit: I mean on the bike - I stop as a motorist)

Funny, barring motor cycle cops and heavy traffic, I have seen no one stop. A motor bike stop requires a foot to touch the ground, presumably cyclists are the same but I just track stand.

As for the reflector law, I have reflectors, as do most with lights. They are built in.

tomasrojo

mr spuckler wrote: »

or a good dose of sleepies occurred. wasn't there something reported yesterday saying that 10% of drivers admitted nodding off at the wheel?

edit...yip, there was.

I know someone who drove into a tree. She fell asleep at the wheel. She was ok, and so was her son, but he was quite traumatised.

CramCycle

gk5000 wrote: »

The point is that the law states that they are required (to protect the cyclist and the public - and I fully agree with the reflector one).
Ignorance of the law or lack of enforcement is never an excuse - legally or otherwise.

Anyway, now that you know shall you rectify the situation? and shall all the other posters purge their contempt for the laws? Or shall you decide that these laws do not apply to you or are not important?

My main point is that people who selectively ignore one law, get bent out of shape by people who ignore other laws - and that is simply indefensible hypocrisy.

But I know the law and I am not breaking it, I was just making an excuse for those that do in these two scenarios.

AndrewJRenko

doozerie wrote: »

If you say so. To be honest, I don't go seeking out such details of traffic incidents, my knowledge or not of whether someone died due to the breaking of a red light is entirely unreliable. I've certainly seen cyclists being given medical attention at or near junctions where traffic lights were in operation, I've no idea of the circumstances but if the question interests you so much maybe next time I see such a scenario I'll stop and ask the person being treated. Just to warn you though, "Yes, I broke the red light" is not the kind of statement I'd expect any person, cyclist or otherwise, to make in the aftermath of a collision.

Your fixation on death (formerly a fixation on "death or serious injury" but I notice you've moved on from that) is, frankly, bizarre. Are you about to suggest that if no-one has died breaking a red light then it's perfectly acceptable behaviour, or something?

Incidentally, I personally don't recall any incidence of someone having died due to a motorist having broken a red light either (though, again, I don't go looking for this info when I read of a fatality on the roads, which I realise is just slacking on my part). Should I assume that it's not a dangerous behaviour then?



If buses were responsible for no deaths as a direct result of running red lights, should we stop calling for bus drivers to abide by the rules of the road then? Or do we do the rational thing and seek to highight risk that is introduced unnecessarily as and where we can, in the hope that we can influence peoples' behaviour for the better?

I've already mentioned earlier about incidents where other cyclists breaking red lights have put me at risk by the way. Your posts seem to suggest that you believe such behaviour poses no risks, if that's the case then I suggest you are entirely misguided.

I would agree and accept that cyclists breaking red lights have caused minor injury, either to pedestrians or to themselves - just as motorists cause minor injuries to pedestrians and cyclists every day. Most of these aren't recorded at all, as no medical intervention is required.

The reason for the focus on death/serious injury is fairly simple.

1) It is the most serious outcome - it is 'death or serious injury'
2) It is well measured - all such cases are recorded and tracked, so it provides a sound basis for comparing the danger of different modes of transport.

I'm certainly aware of at least one case where a driver breaking a red light has had disastrous outcomes: https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0623/797660-man-without-licence-jailed-for-killing-cyclist/

Given the weight and momentum of cars and trucks, breaking red lights by motorists is a much more serious issue. Focusing on cyclists breaking red lights will do little to improve road safety.

I've no idea why we obsess about cyclist behaviour when we all know that large numbers of motorists break traffic law at will, all the time;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBUKXReuJ4

gk5000

CramCycle wrote: »

But I know the law and I am not breaking it, I was just making an excuse for those that do in these two scenarios.

Do you have a rear reflector 24/7 and a bell on all your bikes used on the road? (sure would be the exception).
And do you actually stop/stand before the white line on a stop sign - generally a few meters before you can see left or right what's coming- and then crawl forward until the traffic is visible?

gk5000

Folks: Good news - I've discovered I don't break red lights - I yield on red lights.
(Yield as in Yield right of way. Most people do this also at stop signs)


I'm a good person - I feel cleansed, righteous even.

Now lets hunt those b*******s without rear reflectors 24/7 and bells.

magicbastarder

please stop equating not having a bell with running a red light. this 'both illegal means they're equally as bad' argument doesn't carry much weight.

bullpost

Sometimes you will have no choice but to break the light if you want to continue your journey on bike as traffic sensors dont detect bikes.

http://irishcycle.com/2015/07/10/traffic-light-sensors-at-many-irish-junctions-dont-detect-bicycles-says-campaign/

Grassey

gk5000 wrote: »

Do you have a rear reflector 24/7 and a bell on all your bikes used on the road?

Aren't bike for racing exempt for bells? I know on my commuter races I had to drop the weight.

Generally keep the rear light on at all times though.

magicbastarder

there's a allowance for that in law though; well, in general, proceeding through a red light which is not changing, it's not specific to cyclists.

07Lapierre

gk5000 wrote: »

Now lets hunt those b*******s without rear reflectors 24/7 and bells.

Yep.. their easy to spot...most wear those awful Yellow Hi-viz waistcoats with "RSA" on the back!

doozerie

gk5000 wrote: »

Another one - does anyone actually stop at minor stop signs? or just slow down and yield like I do? in other words only stop if you really have to?

(Edit: I mean on the bike - I stop as a motorist)

Why do you stop as a motorist?

doozerie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Given the weight and momentum of cars and trucks, breaking red lights by motorists is a much more serious issue. Focusing on cyclists breaking red lights will do little to improve road safety.

I completely disagree that better cyclist behaviour will do little to improve road safety.

From my own experiences of being put at risk by the behaviour of other cyclists, it is a problem (one of many) that needs to be tackled. We can choose to ignore it, much like as a society we choose to ignore other "innocuous" (according to some) behaviour on the roads like motorists not using their indicators, using a mobile phone while driving (or cycling for that matter), dangerous overtakes where no-one is hurt, etc., but then we just get the behaviour and environment that we deserve to be honest.

On the topic of recorded causes of cyclist death, the following info is from the UK, and it makes the relevant point that "driver/rider error was the most frequently reported reason for the incident". Even the most conscientious road users make mistakes, when I see people talking about routinely breaking the rules of the road "safely" I don't see conscientious road users, I see self-serving individuals that increase risk both for themselves (which I honestly don't care about) and for others (which I care about because that includes me and people I care about), for no reason other than to shorten their journey time.

From: RoSPA Road Safety Factsheet, Nov 2017 (LINK)

Types of accident

Human error is the main contributory factor involving cyclist collisions. Driver/rider error was the most frequently reported reason for the incident involving 71% of all reported accidents in 2016.

Accidents involving child cyclists are often the result of the child playing, doing tricks, riding too fast or losing control. For teenage and adult cyclists, accidents are more likely to involve collisions with motor vehicles, but about 16% of fatal or serious cyclist accidents reported to the police do not involve a collision with another vehicle, but are caused by the rider losing control of their bicycle.

In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘Failed to look properly’ was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I've no idea why we obsess about cyclist behaviour when we all know that large numbers of motorists break traffic law at will, all the time;

There are many answers to that, but I'll pick just one subjective one - many cyclists are motorists too. Do you think that those that so casually ignore the rules of the road when cycling transform into the most considerate and respectful road users when behind the wheel of a car? I don't.

average_runner

Its actually funny reading both sides justifying its ok to break the law!!!

I might as well just break the rules myself now

07Lapierre

"Anything's legal as long as you don't get caught"

Weepsie

average_runner wrote: »

Its actually funny reading both sides justifying its ok to break the law!!!

I might as well just break the rules myself now

A lot of the laws are not fit for purpose anymore . A lot of the laws don't legislate for the things that are in fact dangerous and need to be legislated for.

This doesn't just apply to Road Traffic Laws of course.

Chips Lovell

Would like to see a revision to the bicycle lighting laws, which are decades old. Be good to have a minimum standard in law. We need not reinvent the wheel either. Just take the German standard and put it into Irish law.

CramCycle

gk5000 wrote: »

Do you have a rear reflector 24/7 and a bell on all your bikes used on the road? (sure would be the exception).
And do you actually stop/stand before the white line on a stop sign

100%

average_runner wrote: »

Its actually funny reading both sides justifying its ok to break the law!!!

I might as well just break the rules myself now

Why not, by the sounds of it, we already are.

CramCycle

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Would like to see a revision to the bicycle lighting laws, which are decades old. Be good to have a minimum standard in law. We need not reinvent the wheel either. Just take the German standard and put it into Irish law.

Considering they adapted the law to allow flashing lights, not because they were safer but solely because it was simpler than trying to educate people on what the law was, I would not hold out hope.

ford2600

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Would like to see a revision to the bicycle lighting laws, which are decades old.

In rural Ireland either side of WW2 the application of those laws was very common; probably in absence of much else to do.


In a agrarian society a person with a pen usual had some power/authority; post office master, Garda, priest etc etc.


On a dark west Waterford road in the 1950's a cyclist was being asked for his name and address owing to the absence of a working rear lamp. The Garda had difficulty with spelling of cyclist address and got no help from cyclist who reminded him he "was the one with the pen".


No fine was issued.


How hard is "Aughavanlomaun" to spell once you have heard it spoken...
ack-a-vowel-a-waan or something


No being able to have a drink in a pub on Sunday unless you were a traveller was another much enforced law. Being more than 3 miles from pub qualified you as a traveller. Neighbours often passed each other going in opposite direction to each others pubs

Tenzor07

average_runner wrote: »

I might as well just break the rules myself now

Go for it, be a rebel!

And remember, it's only a rule, not a law!

gk5000

magicbastarder wrote: »

please stop equating not having a bell with running a red light. this 'both illegal means they're equally as bad' argument doesn't carry much weight.

They're not equally bad but both still illegal - and in both cases the person has decided to disregard a law.

You can't say just cos you break the law less than me you're somehow better than me - You are still breaking the law - unless you agree its ok to pick and choose which laws are important.

So when are you going to buy a bell and rear reflector?

P.S. I am now reformed by this thread and no longer run red lights - I Yield at red lights and stop signs - and feel great.

AndrewJRenko

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Go for it, be a rebel!

And remember, it's only a rule, not a law!

Does that involve fitting a bel on a bike that was previously missing a bel?

doozerie wrote: »

From my own experiences of being put at risk by the behaviour of other cyclists, it is a problem (one of many) that needs to be tackled. We can choose to ignore it, much like as a society we choose to ignore other "innocuous" (according to some) behaviour on the roads like motorists not using their indicators, using a mobile phone while driving (or cycling for that matter), dangerous overtakes where no-one is hurt, etc., but then we just get the behaviour and environment that we deserve to be honest.

Do you reckon that we should give equal priority, focus and attention to these different types of law-breaking, given the limited resources we have available for enforcement?

Tenzor07

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does that involve fitting a bel on a bike that was previously missing a bel?

No idea but certainly won't be fitting any bell's or wheel reflectors onto any of my bikes!

Though I do like fitting my bikes with all the bell's and whistles!

doozerie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you reckon that we should give equal priority, focus and attention to these different types of law-breaking, given the limited resources we have available for enforcement?

This thread hasn't tackled the topic of enforcement, it has been mired in a "yerra we should/yerra we shouldn't" debate when it comes to cyclists respecting /ignoring red lights.

So your question above basically has nothing to do with this debate and seems like nothing more than deflection from the question of how us cyclists should behave.

AndrewJRenko

doozerie wrote: »

This thread hasn't tackled the topic of enforcement, it has been mired in a "yerra we should/yerra we shouldn't" debate when it comes to cyclists respecting /ignoring red lights.

So your question above basically has nothing to do with this debate and seems like nothing more than deflection from the question of how us cyclists should behave.

The thread has tackled enforcement, now that I've asked you a question about enforcement:

Do you reckon that we should give equal priority, focus and attention to these different types of law-breaking, given the limited resources we have available for enforcement?

The irony of accusing me of deflection as you avoid answering a key question is fairly explosive.

Steoller

Tenzor07 wrote: »

No idea but certainly won't be fitting any bell's or wheel reflectors onto any of my bikes!

Though I do like fitting my bikes with all the bell's and whistles!

Whistles are prohibited as they are not bells. Please turn yourself in at your nearest Garda station.

doozerie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The thread has tackled enforcement, now that I've asked you a question about enforcement:

The irony of accusing me of deflection as you avoid answering a key question is fairly explosive.

That's weirdly hilarious.

AndrewJRenko

doozerie wrote: »

That's weirdly hilarious.

Whenever you stop laughing, feel free to get back to the question of priorisation of resources for enforcement.