If all cyclists waited at the red light...

doozerie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

Why? You'll just pick up your goalposts and leg it to another field, and then another country. I'll never be able to keep up, not least because I'll be the one stopping at every red traffic light along the way.

CramCycle

gk5000 wrote: »

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.

If I jaywalk, have I as much disregard for the law as someone who pulls a weapon on a Garda or Joe Public? Life is not black and white, no matter what internet discussion forums have you believe.

Also I have a bell and a reflector on all my bikes that legally require them.

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?

Personally i'd prefer to have the resources increased and managed better.

Weepsie

CramCycle wrote: »

Personally i'd prefer to have the resources increased and managed better.

ANPR/Traffic cameras are not the answer, but they'd go a long, long way in cutting out some of the road nonsense and the fact a small civilian staff could review and issue fines it would free up Gardai to do some actual policing.

gk5000

CramCycle wrote: »

If I jaywalk, have I as much disregard for the law as someone who pulls a weapon on a Garda or Joe Public? Life is not black and white, no matter what internet discussion forums have you believe.

These are too wildly different, both in impact and occurrences.

If someone breaks a small law which they think is unimportant, that person loses the moral authority to lecture others on laws which the others feel are not fully important either.

gk5000

CramCycle wrote: »

Also I have a bell and a reflector on all my bikes that legally require them.

I think you are the exception. I'm never seen a bell on a road/race bike.
If you don't mind me asking - What bikes do you have that don't require them and why?
Also, what percent of road/race bikes on the road do you think have bells and rear reflectors?

Grassey

gk5000 wrote:

I think you are the exception. I'm never seen a bell on a road/race bike. If you don't mind me asking - What bikes do you have that don't require them and why?

Road/race bikes don't legally require them. See RTA.

Next Q?

gk5000 wrote:

Also, what percent of road/race bikes on the road do you think have bells and rear reflectors?

For reflectors I'd say same % as those who run reds I'd guess. It's easy to spot though. Anyone in rsa builders jackets and/or with rsa pin lights doesn't have them.

TheHouseIRL

gk5000 wrote: »

These are too wildly different, both in impact and occurrences.

If someone breaks a small law which they think is unimportant, that person loses the moral authority to lecture others on laws which the others feel are not fully important either.

Stop whinging about bells and reflectors then. You've made your bed.

magicbastarder

Grassey wrote: »

Road/race bikes don't legally require them. See RTA.

the law says nothing about road bikes, it says bikes adapted for racing.

not that it's ever going to happen, but you'd have a hard time convincing a garda or a judge that you don't need it unless you are specifically on the way to a race.

it's worth noting that the requirement to have a bell dates from the 1963 law (not that being 55 years old makes everything in it obsolete), but the environment cyclists face is a *hell* of a lot different now.

AndrewJRenko

doozerie wrote: »

Why? You'll just pick up your goalposts and leg it to another field, and then another country. I'll never be able to keep up, not least because I'll be the one stopping at every red traffic light along the way.

I'm honestly confused by this. I've answered every question that you've asked.

It makes no sense to obsess about one particular traffic issue without some understanding or context of the big picture. We have a fixed amount of Garda resources, so any Garda focus on cyclists and red lights means less Garda focus on other issues, including the issues that result in 3 or 4 people killed each week on the roads.

Anyway, on the broader issue, here's a good explanation of the programme in Paris to allow cyclists to 'break' red lights on right turns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brh9Dv_5NaA

CramCycle wrote: »

Personally i'd prefer to have the resources increased and managed better.

All good there - we need a change of culture too. Current Garda attitude towards law-breaking by motorists is laughable.

gk5000 wrote: »

If someone breaks a small law which they think is unimportant, that person loses the moral authority to lecture others on laws which the others feel are not fully important either.

You'd want to be making sure that you NEVER break any laws yourself before you go down this road - never break a speed limit, never drive for an hour or a day or two with a broken brake light, never go a day overdue with your tax disc etc etc.

Tenzor07

Steoller wrote: »

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

Tried that, along with my red traffic light transgressions, but decided to go to ask God for absolution of my sins instead!

gk5000

TheHouseIRL wrote: »

Stop whinging about bells and reflectors then. You've made your bed.

Sensitive much !

gk5000

Grassey wrote: »

Road/race bikes don't legally require them. See RTA.

Next Q?



For reflectors I'd say same % as those who run reds I'd guess. It's easy to spot though. Anyone in rsa builders jackets and/or with rsa pin lights doesn't have them.

Wrong on both counts.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print
"53 Defence in case of racing vehicles.
53. Where a person is charged with a contravention in the day time of articles 9, 22, 29 and 33 of these Regulations, it shall be a good defence to show that the vehicle was primarily constructed or adapted for the purpose of racing or trials and was either being used for such purpose or was travelling to or from the venue of a race or trial in which the vehicle had taken part or was intended to take part."

Defence is only valid if your are in or going to a race.

Smart arse response on Hi Vis is incorrect as most sit up type commuter bikes come with reflectors where as drop bar bikes don't.

You guys have trouble eating your own sauce!

07Lapierre

Ah here, we have to eat sauce now?

Grassey

gk5000 wrote:

Defence is only valid if your are in or going to a race.

Commuter races count though?

TheHouseIRL

gk5000 wrote: »

Sensitive much !

I think you're reading more into my post than there really is. I'm just pointing out flaws in your logic.

AndrewJRenko

Weepsie wrote: »

ANPR/Traffic cameras are not the answer, but they'd go a long, long way in cutting out some of the road nonsense and the fact a small civilian staff could review and issue fines it would free up Gardai to do some actual policing.

We had some of those, but we stopped following up on the illegality caught on camera because there was just too many of them.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/camera-that-caught-1-300-drivers-running-red-lights-now-lying-idle-g696v3fh6

gk5000

TheHouseIRL wrote: »

I think you're reading more into my post than there really is. I'm just pointing out flaws in your logic.

No, you've got it back-ways. I'm just trying to stop the people in the glass house from throwing stones at me.

TheHouseIRL

gk5000 wrote: »

No, you've got it back-ways. I'm just trying to stop the people in the glass house from throwing stones at me.

Not how I see it. Your assertion, that anyone who ignores any rule/law is immediately to be disregarded when they disagree with someone else's reasoning for breaking a rule/law, is:

• simply your outlook, which nobody else here is bound by.
• not how society works

To push your glass house metaphor further, you've tried to build a glass house around everyone to stop them throwing stones at you.


If you truly believed in your 'glass house' approach, why did you even engage anyone who disagreed with you? According to your previous posts, almost everyone on this board is some type of cycling outlaw.




Getting back to the original topic, I saw something on Parliament street yesterday evening that seemed relevant to this. The traffic lights halfway up the street had turned red while traffic was coming from Grattan Bridge. A number of cyclists continued through the red light, which had been red for about 5 seconds, followed by a car. I wonder if some drivers fixate on vehicles in front of them and simply follow their lead, and the effect cyclists going through red lights could have in rare cases. Alternatively, it could be a case of the driver simply deciding that if cyclists are going to ignore the red, why should they pay attention to it?

average_runner

TheHouseIRL wrote: »

Not how I see it. Your assertion, that anyone who ignores any rule/law is immediately to be disregarded when they disagree with someone else's reasoning for breaking a rule/law, is:

• simply your outlook, which nobody else here is bound by.
• not how society works

To push your glass house metaphor further, you've tried to build a glass house around everyone to stop them throwing stones at you.


If you truly believed in your 'glass house' approach, why did you even engage anyone who disagreed with you? According to your previous posts, almost everyone on this board is some type of cycling outlaw.




Getting back to the original topic, I saw something on Parliament street yesterday evening that seemed relevant to this. The traffic lights halfway up the street had turned red while traffic was coming from Grattan Bridge. A number of cyclists continued through the red light, which had been red for about 5 seconds, followed by a car. I wonder if some drivers fixate on vehicles in front of them and simply follow their lead, and the effect cyclists going through red lights could have in rare cases. Alternatively, it could be a case of the driver simply deciding that if cyclists are going to ignore the red, why should they pay attention to it?

I would say its the last one. Its a typical attitude in Ireland, if A can do it so can I.

Bad driving by someone might be harmless by that person, but it gives another person an excuse to copy and could cause an accident. Same for cycling, might be safe for A to go thru a red light, but B could copy that person and it might not be safe and especially kids.

We forget that one of our main responsibilities is to set a good example for the next generation. We all fail to do this on the road.

AndrewJRenko

Looks like those wildly revolutionary Swiss are allowing the 'turn on red' option;

https://twitter.com/CorkCyclingCrew/status/1030346436481884160

buffalo

average_runner wrote: »

I would say its the last one. Its a typical attitude in Ireland, if A can do it so can I.

Bad driving by someone might be harmless by that person, but it gives another person an excuse to copy and could cause an accident. Same for cycling, might be safe for A to go thru a red light, but B could copy that person and it might not be safe and especially kids.

Apropos of much of this thread, I went to school with a lad who would refuse to cross the road unless the green man was showing, as he thought it was a bad example to younger kids otherwise.

The same guy (at the same age) also thought it was fun to do nearly 100kph in a 50kph zone.

People are weird.

Kav0777

buffalo wrote: »

Apropos much of this thread, I went to school with a lad who would refuse to cross the road unless the green man was showing, as he thought it was a bad example to younger kids otherwise.

The same guy (at the same age) also thought it was fun to do nearly 100kph in a 50kph zone.

People are weird.

Well, if he thinks that most people to drive like he does, it's no wonder he waits for the green man...

gk5000

TheHouseIRL wrote: »

Not how I see it. Your assertion, that anyone who ignores any rule/law is immediately to be disregarded when they disagree with someone else's reasoning for breaking a rule/law, is:

• simply your outlook, which nobody else here is bound by.
• not how society works

To push your glass house metaphor further, you've tried to build a glass house around everyone to stop them throwing stones at you.

If you truly believed in your 'glass house' approach, why did you even engage anyone who disagreed with you? According to your previous posts, almost everyone on this board is some type of cycling outlaw.

Not necessarily disregarded, but they are total hypocrites if they say to others - don't do x because it is against the law, while they themselves do y which is also against the law. All people seem to have their own opinions of which laws are important - none any more valid than others.

I consider myself an "Ordinary Decent Cyclist/Commuter/Criminal" and choose to break some laws but am honest about it.
Many are preaching and pontificating about the law whilst also breaking the laws, but being dishonest about it.

I do not accept lectures from ignorant and arrogant hypocrites - especially those with nasty vituperative overtones.

lawred2

jon1981 wrote: »

Many other countries permit it. So why not?

Sure lights don't matter to pedestrians either but you don't hear about that from drivers or cyclists.

which ones out of interest?

Rezident

soups05 wrote: »

...
oh, and on another note, why do cyclists not have a big ass stick coming out the side of the bike with something sharp and pointy on it, would stop a lot of those asshole close passes i see on youtube, then just reach down and fold it in for the tight spots. prob not legal but def safer, just a thought.

As you would get knocked off your bike every time a vehicle passes you too closely, which is regularly in Dublin.

AndrewJRenko

Interesting view on red light jumping from a cyclist who has put some thought into the matter;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107812401&postcount=5408

doozerie

The arguments in favour of breaking red lights here have followed a familiar pattern:

* The I've-said-too-much phase: "I do it because... it's convenient for me"
* The defensive phase: "I do it because... it's safer"
* The offensive phase: "I do it because... you should get off yer high horse"
* The logic-defying phase: "I do it because... it's less dangerous than doing it while driving"
* The hysterical phase: "I do it because... motorists are KILLING US ALL!"

To me, ignoring red lights creates added danger on the roads, for no reason other than to shorten the journey time of those that do it. I don't accept the "it's safer for me" arguments, they don't fit at all with the casual and repeated light-breaking behaviour I see every day by the (many) same people on my commute. It's an argument that I find offensive in fact, your safety is of little or no interest to me being honest, what I care about is my own safety and that's potentially put at risk by your actions.

As I mentioned earlier, my safety has been put at risk more than once by cyclists breaking red lights. Their complete lack of awareness and/or consideration convinces me that the "I always break the lights *safely*" argument is a form of self delusion - no-one willingly chooses to collide with someone/something else, whether they are cycling, driving, or walking, the fact that it happens so often is proof to me that even those with the best intentions make mistakes and don't see others, or the dangers, that are right there.

Personally, I stop at red lights because I don't want to be responsible for a mistake that hurts either me or someone else. And the personal cost to me of that decision to stop is that my journey is delayed a little. Big deal.

By contrast, if breaking a light every time I'd be swivelling my head like a demented puppet trying to ensure I don't miss some person or vehicle that "appears out of nowhere". I don't need that self-imposed stress in my life. And if I were to collide with someone/something, not only would I have to deal with the consequences of that I'd also have to live with the knowledge that it was my fault. I don't need that added stress or guilt either. Adding a little extra time to my journey is a miniscule, and perfectly acceptable, price to pay by comparison.

Or, to apply the twisted logic of some of the arguments in favour of ignoring red lights, I stop at red lights because I'm a selfish fcuker. How bloody dare I, etc.

magicbastarder

i will admit to being a slightly weird a la carte catholic at times on the issue. i don't see much argument *for* breaking red lights, and plenty against it, but there are some junctions where i see other cyclists do it and think 'meh'. granted, these junctions are rare enough.
just that it struck me on the way home today that while waiting for the green to turn left off the malahide road (outbound) onto griffith avenue, i have semi-regularly been passed by a cyclist making that left. usually, it goes green for straight on first (which means that a left turning RLJer will not encounter motorised traffic), but the left hand turn is kept red for the pedestrian crossing. which is usually empty.

maybe worth mentioning that the chap who passed me there today proceeded to break pretty much all reds he came to from then on, until we parted ways at the top of drumcondra.

doozerie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i will admit to being a slightly weird a la carte catholic at times on the issue. i don't see much argument *for* breaking red lights, and plenty against it, but there are some junctions where i see other cyclists do it and think 'meh'.

Me too. I see people turn left on red at a few junctions on my commute where I find myself looking around and thinking that I could do the same with no obvious (to me at the time) risk to anyone.

It's a very insidious mindset though, one of the things that stops me giving into it (and sometimes it really does feel like a battle between me and my conscience) is the realisation that my margin for error changes dramatically depending on how much of a hurry I am in. If I'm late for work for example, I see a lot more junctions where I perceive that I could break the light "safely". The previous day, when I wasn't running late, I may well have categorised that same manoeuvre as risky.

Basically, my assessment of risk in those circumstances is fundamentally flawed, given how it is so heavily influenced by my desire to shorten my journey time. My journey is a lot more "pleasant" when I entirely switch off that "will I, won't I" thought process and just accept that I'll be stopped until the light goes green.

AndrewJRenko

doozerie wrote: »

Personally, I stop at red lights because I don't want to be responsible for a mistake that hurts either me or someone else. And the personal cost to me of that decision to stop is that my journey is delayed a little. Big deal.

Just curious - do you apply the same logic and rigor to staying absolutely under the speed limit whenever you drive?