panda100 wrote: » phog wrote: I was walking in town last night, a guy cycled up O'Callaghan Strand & broke the lights on Sarsfield Bridge to cycle towards the city. Once he got to Sarsfield St, he tried cycling between the traffic that was stopped at the O'Connell Street lights he clipped a car in his right, over compensated on his correction and clipped the car on his left. Lucky for him he didn't fall off the bike. However unlucky for the car owners he continued on his bike through the red lights onto O'Connell Street. I would say in his defence though that Limerick is the most uncycle friendly city i have lived in and it is virtually impossible to cycle through. I cycle the same route as this guy frequently and have had several near misses. There are no cycle lanes and motorists/bus drivers have little regard for cyclists.
phog wrote: I was walking in town last night, a guy cycled up O'Callaghan Strand & broke the lights on Sarsfield Bridge to cycle towards the city. Once he got to Sarsfield St, he tried cycling between the traffic that was stopped at the O'Connell Street lights he clipped a car in his right, over compensated on his correction and clipped the car on his left. Lucky for him he didn't fall off the bike. However unlucky for the car owners he continued on his bike through the red lights onto O'Connell Street.
panda100 wrote: » I would say in his defence though that Limerick is the most uncycle friendly city i have lived in and it is virtually impossible to cycle through. I cycle the same route as this guy frequently and have had several near misses. There are no cycle lanes and motorists/bus drivers have little regard for cyclists.
zulutango wrote: » Quite a few of the junctions are free for alls. And most of the traffic is simply through-traffic and really has no business in the area. Sooner of later some of these streets will be closed to through traffic and it'll make this part of the city a lot safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
dunworth1 wrote: » No excuse for running red lights though
Mc Love wrote: » And make it much harder for me to get to work :mad:
FobleAsNuck wrote: » Because it's the law.
Jofspring wrote: » Literally this morning at the junction mentioned above glenthworth/Catherine street, I was driving up Glenthworth street and a cyclist was coming towards me from Taits clock direction. As I got to the junction at the same time as him he just swung out his arm to indicate he was turning right (across me) and immediately proceeded to cut me off. I had to hit on the breaks. The guy was head to toe in cycling gear, safety equipment and used the right signal but he disobeyed the actual rule of the road. He should have indicated to turn right, allowed me who had right of way to pass and then made the turn, not fire up the arm and cut across me in an extremely dangerous manner. Could have killed him if I was travelling any faster.
zulutango wrote: » Laws get changed all the time. That's what they've done in other countries regarding cyclists and traffic lights.
Special Circumstances wrote: » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_IrelandOn 20 May 2009 at the Bill's committee stage, section 36, dealing with blasphemy was introduced by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern as an amendment.[45] Section 36 defines a new indictable offence of "Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter",[46] which carries a maximum fine of €25,000.[46] The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". ... Upon conviction under section 36, a court warrant can authorise the Garda Síochána (police) to enter premises to search for and seize any copies of the blasphemous material.[47] ... Mary McAleese, the President of Ireland, convened the Council of State to discuss whether the Bill should be referred to the Supreme Court to test its Constitutionality; she decided not to do so.[49] The bill became Law when McAleese signed it on 23 July 2009,[42] and came into force on 1 January 2010.[50]
FobleAsNuck wrote: » It's the law at the moment. Until it changes it's e50 on the spot, your argument is moot.
zulutango wrote: » It's a very dangerous junction! As a matter of interest, was your destination in that area or where you passing through?
Jofspring wrote: » I see the positives and negatives for cyclists being allowed break res lights. The major one is the danger of cars coming from the other side of a junction that you might not realise they have a green. The only case for breaking a red when cycling should be if there is a greenman for all the junctions. For example if you left town and cycled out the Ennis road. There is a red light at the union cross. If you break that red light you can't see traffic coming from your left or right and you don't know if te traffic across from you is still green or has a filter light. It's only if all sides of the junction have a greenman should you break the light.
Poxyshamrock wrote: » Speaking of bikes, the Evening Echo says that journeys on the Coke Zero bikes decreased by 10,000 in Limerick between 2015 and 2016.http://www.eveningecho.ie/cork-news/562275-trips-made-cork-public-bikes/2603614/
zulutango wrote: » Would be great if this data should was published in real time on a website.
Snotaul Goodman wrote: » Put stops at UHL, the crescent, UL (a few of them), Castletroy, Raheen Industrial Estate (at least 2), The parkway, lit and the Ennis road and the number of users will shoot up again.
Special Circumstances wrote: » You just threw away a €10k consultancy gig there lad.
zulutango wrote: » You would need clusters of stations at each of those peripheral locations for it to work such that there will be bike sharing locally around those stations as well as between the cluster and the city. And if you do that then you're talking about a lot more stations. I think we should do that, but it would certainly cost a lot of money.
zulutango wrote: » Not sure about that. The general move internationally (in cycling progressive countries at least) is to allow cyclists break red lights at their own discretion. The thinking is that traffic lights are there to protect people from the big, dangerous metal machines known as cars that we allow in our cities. Cyclists pose a miniscule danger by comparison, so why should they have to stop at red lights?
zulutango wrote: » In practice, such as in the situation above at Union Cross, a cyclist would be mad to go through a red unless he was sure that he wasn't going to get mashed out of it. So, it's all down to the cyclist's discretion. Go through a red light, but if you get creamed then you're at fault. Cyclists know there is only going to be one winner in a collision between a cyclist and a car so the situation doesn't really arise. Again, if you take the situation above, of the cyclist at Union Cross. There's no cars anywhere to be seen (as is often the case there), should a cyclist or indeed a pedestrian really wait for the lights to signal when they should proceed?
phog wrote: » If cyclists are allowed break the red light who's the winner when the cyclists collides with a pedestrian? I think it's a daft idea to give cyclists the descretion on which light they need to obey or ignore
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/50ba6dee48ac38d0b3863944f0ddd16e.svg)
