Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 03:59PM

does the fact that walking and cycling seem less popular in the states make right turn on red less risky? in that there may be less chance of a pedestrian crossing in the way?

mr spuckler · 21-04-2017 04:00PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

does the fact that walking and cycling seem less popular in the states make right turn on red less risky? in that there may be less chance of a pedestrian crossing in the way?

I can only comment on what I've seen in Boston & NY and it seems to work very well. plenty of pedestrians in both of those city centres! ped lights are often green also but the law allows the car to proceed across the crossing once it's clear.

Pinch Flat · 21-04-2017 04:01PM

Some US states and the Netherlands as well, although I believe the rule in the Netherlands may be only specific to cyclists (open to correction)

Tenzor07 · 21-04-2017 04:04PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I would disagree in that for me a car breaking an orange light is far less safe than a cyclist breaking a red..

Don't you know that in Ireland the Amber light means FLOOR IT! :eek:

CramCycle · 21-04-2017 04:06PM

RayCun wrote: »

UK accidents happen mostly in cities, where women are a relatively high proportion of cyclists, and Canadian accidents happen mostly outside cities, and men are a much higher proportion of cyclists there?

Possibly although I would presume alot of the cycling referenced in Canada was in cities and build up areas as well.

CramCycle · 21-04-2017 04:09PM

The problem with the left turn on red here is quite simply people. Quite a number of road users don't give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings. They will turn on red regardless of if a pedestrian is there or not. They will stop if they have too but they will edge in close, skirt by them etc.

Something about Irish roads were car is king that many road users not only forget the basic rules of road usage, but all knowledge of human decency gets flung out the window like a teenager getting sick in a taxi but not wanting to pay the soiling charge.

V-man · 21-04-2017 04:09PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Its seems like the red light breaking of cyclists touches a nerve with motorists - its frequently brought into these discussions. Yet the red / late amber breaking of cars is somehow glanced over.

Behind the wheel primitive instincts as territorial instinct and competition take over. A false sense of power and control. If somehow that power is taken away it feels like losing control.
Someone driving slow in front of you, a traffic jam, a cyclist breaking the red light all causes immediate anger. An anger which incidentally is contagious among drivers, which exacerbates the situation.
"Funny thing is we can switch effortlessly roles many times a day,"
"We can make us tremendously angry in a car about the behavior of a cyclist, while half an hour later we do the same on our bicycle and are furious about the motorist”

(Roughly translated from a Traffic psychologist on a Belgian website)

HivemindXX · 21-04-2017 05:19PM

CramCycle wrote: »

The problem with the left turn on red here is quite simply people. Quite a number of road users don't give way to pedestrians at zebra crossings. They will turn on red regardless of if a pedestrian is there or not. They will stop if they have too but they will edge in close, skirt by them etc.

New York is not a good example since this is an exception to the general rule in the US. You can only turn right on red when specifically allowed, not by default as in most locations. Lots of pedestrians get killed crossing on green by cars too, I'm sure the motorists are sorry that they didn't see them.

Don't forget that according to some of our TDs and an increasing number of people pedestrians are practically invisible unless they are wearing high-viz at all times so I'm not sure how this system where can go through a red so long as you don't see a pedestrian crossing will work out in reality.

AndrewJRenko · 21-04-2017 05:20PM

Roadhawk wrote: »

No there is a double standard. If a gard sees any driver on a phone, in a bus lane, speeding, without a seatbelt, etc. etc. they will absolutely pursue that driver and act on it and issue fine/points or whatever is warranted. The same cannot be said for cyclists committing an offense.

We've had this discussion before, but - you're dreaming. If every Garda was to act on every occurance of law-breaking that they see, they'd never get more than 10 meters from the station. 82% of motorists break the speed limit. 88% of those breaking red lights are motorists (http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights/)

And the vast majority of these have no fear of enforcement, for obvious reasons.

Roadhawk wrote: »

The drivers you mention not getting caught while breaking a speed limit is different.

I am in favour of the laws being enforced. The gardai show discretion when doing a couple of km over the limit but thats it.

'Different' you say? That wouldn't be just an excuse to get motorists off the hook, would it?

Alanstrainor · 21-04-2017 05:36PM

Just had another lethal one. Long narrow stretch, in Dublin. Driver beeps from afar, then again on approach and then beeps as he buzzes me at 60km/h+. I'd say there was a cm in it. Fucker actively tried to run me down. All on camera(s) front and rear including audio of the beeps.

I really don't want to get a reputation with my local station for being a serial reporter of these incidents... My local garda is going to be giving me a call about a previous incident around a month ago in the next few days. I'll mention it to him and see what he says.

CramCycle · 21-04-2017 05:41PM

Red light cameras with ANPR, no announcement, just install them randomly around the major cities. The first morning alone would pay for the installation and the next 28 days would pay for someone to work through the ton of data for the next year or two.

Then you can also work on the ridiculous Irish road traffic management of giving huge breaks between reds which are there solely to facilitate red light running.

Then you can start working on discrete ANPR on bus lanes, and free up traffic corp to look at close passes and poor cycling.

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 05:54PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Red light cameras with ANPR, no announcement, just install them randomly around the major cities.

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

CramCycle · 21-04-2017 06:08PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

And you are 100% right but IMO, this will bring high level compliance in about two months without full rollout as no one will know which lights have ANPR and which don't when the media storm of a few thousand people getting fines hits the news.

A warning before hand will just have people messing about trying to figure out where they can and can't do it, people setting up websites with known spots, people posting up where they have seen such works carried out. The benefits will be slower and not as strongly felt.

Look at the speed vans, they would have you believe Ireland has the lowest percentage of speeders in Europe.

RacoonQueen · 21-04-2017 06:09PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

Because catching people at it is what should stop it(thought that hasn't necessarily worked with phone usage). People do it because there are no repercussions. If fines start being dished out, court appearances for not paying fine etc...that will help stop it.

Chiparus · 21-04-2017 06:19PM

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Just had another lethal one. Long narrow stretch, in Dublin. Driver beeps from afar, then again on approach and then beeps as he buzzes me at 60km/h+. I'd say there was a cm in it. Fucker actively tried to run me down. All on camera(s) front and rear including audio of the beeps.

I really don't want to get a reputation with my local station for being a serial reporter of these incidents... My local garda is going to be giving me a call about a previous incident around a month ago in the next few days. I'll mention it to him and see what he says.

Ask for the drivers insurance details as you are considering putting in a claim with the PIAB.

Unknown Soldier · 21-04-2017 06:20PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? the primary idea is to prevent RLJing, not necessarily catch people at it.

By catching people doing it and taking action, it prevents it.

Why there are no HD cameras on Bus lanes is beyond me. Change the legislation to the owner gets fined/points. job done!

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 06:21PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Because catching people at it is what should stop it

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

CramCycle · 21-04-2017 06:31PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

Alas no, warning signs I see put people off, they know where the cameras are, they speed up until a few 100m before and then slam on, then speed up again.

check_six · 21-04-2017 06:37PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In separate, very sad pizza related news - Steps of Rome on Chatham Street has shut down.

I believe this is called a de-rail; so I will shut up.

WHAATTTT? The Steps of Rome gone?

But, but, but,....
...enough of this cycling malarkey. We need to mount a campaign to resurrect the Steps of Rome!

This is like snecking 2016 bumping off all the celebrities. I won't stand for it!

Who's with me?

Hrududu · 21-04-2017 06:41PM

God this thread has gone to ****. Are there not other threads about red light jumping people can argue in?

Unknown Soldier · 21-04-2017 06:48PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

So speed until you see the sign? I'm not sure that's how it's meant to work.

Some people don't do "bad" things because it's how they live their lives. Example being giving other people space while cycling, or understanding what Bus lanes are for, buses & quick public transport etc

The second would be those who "don't break the law", because it's a law. They would if they could though! If not using a Bus lane was a polite request they'd be in it night and day.

Then the third is the law breaker, who only responds to punishment, fines etc.

A sign about speeding is only useful if there is a camera somewhere dishing out punishment.

Sadly were not a Nation that is 100% behind our ideals, much like most Nations.

BoardsMember · 21-04-2017 09:45PM

Lemming wrote: »

BoardsMember wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I would never break a light in a car, as a cyclist I would break a light in certain circumstances.

RayCun wrote: »

If it is okay to break a red light on a bike when it is safe, why is it not okay to break a red light in a car when it is safe?

I would assume (and hope) that BoardsMember is referring to circumstances that are based on personal safety, not convenience RayCun. Such scenarios would be few and far between. But I shall cite you the Elephant & Castle in London as a glaringly obvious example. Seriously; go look at the cyclist death statistics for that junction over the last three years and why and then climb back into your box.

It would be both for convenience and safety. Again I'm not advocating it when it is for convenience, but I sleep well at night and don't have angst over breaking the law in certain circumstances. I'll give you an example: coming from greenlea road onto terenure road west on a bike. The lights are triggered by cars but not by bikes. So you can be waiting for ages until a car comes to trigger the light. This is just not fair. So if there isn't a car for several hundred metres either direction, I'll break the red light and take a right. It cannot cause anyone any danger, and it is absolutely breaking the law. I do it with clear conscience and purely for convenience.

radia · 21-04-2017 10:16PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Then you can also work on the ridiculous Irish road traffic management of giving huge breaks between reds which are there solely to facilitate red light running.

It has been suggested that we can't have amber before green (like in the UK) because of all the amber (and early red) gamblers here, who would crash if the perpendicular traffic were primed to go promptly by an amber preceding green.

However, I actually think it could cut down accidents by making people less likely to take the current approach that amber = accelerate, and red = 2-3 more. (When did that change for the majority of drivers? It used to be that amber was the point at which '2-3 more' became chancy.) If you knew the cross-traffic would be in the middle of the junction the second they had a green light, surely there's a good chance it would bring us back to the days when the majority didn't push through past amber?

Danbo! · 21-04-2017 10:28PM

Had a close one today that I probably could have avoided a little better.

End of Capel street about to cross the bridge. Traffic on the quays get the red light and I'm pushing the pedals about to go when some absent minded cyclist dawdles through the red as our lights go green. He realises a little too late and reacts by braking, even though in the middle of the junction. Thing is though, a taxi driver behind him was ploughing through too, so had to brake and awkwardly change lanes to get around him. Our light has been good and green for a while so I'm heading out into the junction (while a motorcyclist beside me is doing the whole "rev loudly and aggressively drive toward the passenger door") im fully concentrating on giving my best glare of disapproval to the taxi driver.... when all of a sudden I realise the ****er behind the taxi, another car, is also coming through and panickingly undertaking the taxi driver, right towards me.

Lessons learned - a glare will do nothing to improve the taxis manners, I should be fully concentrating on the road around me. I thought the cyclist was stupid to break the light at such a junction, the taxi driver insane, and the car behind well I just didn't expect at all. So expect the unexpected. Finally, I learnt not not get excited thinking "wait til I stick this vid on the near miss thread" and also to double check the camera is facing forward, not into the back of the caged mount recording pure black and my narration "Jesus... jaaaysus.... wait what the f**k!?"

Chuchote · 21-04-2017 10:30PM

Oh, no! Not the Steps of Rome, the first place I tasted real pizza, razor-thin supercrispy crust with meltingly sweet equally thin slices of aubergine soaked in just enough and not too much delicious cheese :eek:

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Because catching people at it is what should stop it(thought that hasn't necessarily worked with phone usage). People do it because there are no repercussions. If fines start being dished out, court appearances for not paying fine etc...that will help stop it.

It hasn't worked with phone usage because phone usage is ignored. At first, when people were caught and fined, phone usage fell away to nothing - a friend of mine was caught and became totally paranoid; even today a little of that paranoia remains

but the gardaí now ignore phone usage.

As for the close passes - stick them on YouTube. Stick them up here on the DashCam thread in the Motoring forum. When I get my camera working I'm going to be looking at crappy road surfaces, glossy manhole covers, manhole covers sitting proud of the surface on the diagonal - and people using mobile phones in their cars. Yesterday I saw a 4x4 driver leafing comprehensively through a woman's magazine at the lights, while in charge of this massive piece of machinery…

AndrewJRenko · 21-04-2017 10:39PM

Chuchote wrote: »

Oh, no! Not the Steps of Rome, the first place I tasted real pizza, razor-thin supercrispy crust with meltingly sweet equally thin slices of aubergine soaked in just enough and not too much delicious cheese :eek:

They have moved to Dundrum ROad, junction with Bird Ave - not sure if the new place is open yet.

RacoonQueen · 21-04-2017 10:48PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

no, it's the fear of being caught, rather than actually being caught, which stops it.

it's why you see signs warning of speed cameras. the point is to get people to slow down rather than to catch them - because catching them in a way proves you've not gotten them to slow down.

Speed camera's probably a bit different though as people can jam on as they pass and then speed up again. Red light camera is a red light camera. You've done the deed, once folk aren't hearing of people getting fined for being caught on camera breaking ambers/red they just go straight back to breaking the reds as 'normal' again.
The only way to stop it is widespread no excuses. Red means stop. End of story. Once the light has actually turned red anyone that proceeds through gets fined. There's plenty of time with amber lights for people to stop, we all know that, so there are no excuses.

Chuchote · 21-04-2017 10:56PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

There's plenty of time with amber lights for people to stop, we all know that, so there are no excuses.

I suspect that fining people for failing to indicate would also have a good effect on red light jumping and phone-staring; it would enforce a different attitude to driving.

check_six · 21-04-2017 11:14PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They have moved to Dundrum ROad, junction with Bird Ave - not sure if the new place is open yet.

My campaign is already paying dividends!

magicbastarder · 21-04-2017 11:17PM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Speed camera's probably a bit different though

i probably didn't explain myself well enough.
with a red light camera, you don't want people not to know about it and get caught (which was the original premise); you want people to know about it and *not* get caught. because of compliance.

Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

Comments