Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Has ignoring red lights gotten a lot worse?

Options
1…910121415…24

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,397 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Are you sure about that Ashleigh?
    http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights

    Andrew .... Regarding those statistics... Where there the same amount of cyclists / taxis / private cars / pedestrians etc etc ????
    I sincerely doubt it .
    Far more private cars on the road than cyclists so therefore of course more cars would break lights than cyclists !!!
    So which do you reckon that the Gardai should be focusing on - the 1-5 tonne vehicles making up 88%of red light jumpers or the 10 kg bikes making up 12%?


  • Options
    #333
    Ashleigh1986
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Ashleigh1986


    Gardai should penalise all light jumpers INCLUDING CYCLISTS .
    To many cyclists expect to be treated differently yet they use the same road as the rest of us .
    To many cycling around with no lights / dark clothing/ up on footpaths / cycling on footpaths.
    Way to many gardai turn a blind eye to some cyclists .
    But that's a different argument .


  • Options
    #334
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Are you sure about that Ashleigh?
    http://kerrycyclingcampaign.org/but-all-drivers-break-the-lights


    That article is a very good example to use in explaining the misuse of statistics to children.

    The chart shows that 12.6% of red light violations were by cyclists and 67.4% of red light violations were by private motorists. However, unlike the claims in the article, it tells us nothing about whether cyclists or motorists are more likely to bread a red light.

    Let us assume that there were 100 red light violations in the example. That means 13 were by bicycles and 67 were by cars. Now imagine that 26 cyclists passed through and 670 cars (we have to imagine because that figure isn't in the chart or the article). That would mean that 50% of cyclists broke a red light, but only 10% of motorists. Now that is completely made up just to illustrate, it could equally by 130 bicycles and 134 cars, meaning the percentages are reversed. The thing is, despite the article saying "the results of the study are clear, drivers are far more likely to break red lights than cyclists", that statement is complete nonsense.


  • Options
    #335
    Ashleigh1986
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Ashleigh1986


    blanch152 .....100% correct .
    But it makes a great headline ... That's what the cycling campaign wanted !!!


  • Options
    #336
    Brian CivilEng
    Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That article is a very good example to use in explaining the misuse of statistics to children.

    The chart shows that 12.6% of red light violations were by cyclists and 67.4% of red light violations were by private motorists. However, unlike the claims in the article, it tells us nothing about whether cyclists or motorists are more likely to bread a red light.

    Let us assume that there were 100 red light violations in the example. That means 13 were by bicycles and 67 were by cars. Now imagine that 26 cyclists passed through and 670 cars (we have to imagine because that figure isn't in the chart or the article). That would mean that 50% of cyclists broke a red light, but only 10% of motorists. Now that is completely made up just to illustrate, it could equally by 130 bicycles and 134 cars, meaning the percentages are reversed. The thing is, despite the article saying "the results of the study are clear, drivers are far more likely to break red lights than cyclists", that statement is complete nonsense.

    You are not telling the entire story there though. If 26 cyclists passed through there, and 670 cars, that indicates that it is motorised vehicle dominated road and not one that is inviting towards cyclists. So the only people who cycle down the road are those who are not afraid, would tend the be the same type of person who would break a traffic light. The road by design is filtering out safe cyclists, as they avoid it through fear.

    It would be like trying to claim that no driver ever breaks the speed limit by surveying busy roads at peak times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    donvito99
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    To many cyclists expect to be treated differently yet they use the same road as the rest of us .

    They use the same road but not as obnoxiously as motorists. And by obnoxious I mean road wear, lateral space, pollution, death/injury etc.

    Cyclists ought to be treated differently as it's a sure fire way to reduce the risk of all of the above. Treating cyclists the same as motorists (tax, insurance and fines at par) is a good way to exacerbate the above risks.


  • Options
    #338
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,361 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    Gardai should penalise all light jumpers INCLUDING CYCLISTS .
    i'm not sure what the traffic corps numbers are like now, but a few years ago they'd dropped to ~700 from a high of about 1300.
    i've seen people committing road traffic offences in front of garda traffic cars and the gardai ignoring it. enforcement in general is non-existent.


  • Options
    #339
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,194 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    abitofacomedian wrote: »
    You are not telling the entire story there though. If 26 cyclists passed through there, and 670 cars, that indicates that it is motorised vehicle dominated road and not one that is inviting towards cyclists. So the only people who cycle down the road are those who are not afraid, would tend the be the same type of person who would break a traffic light. The road by design is filtering out safe cyclists, as they avoid it through fear.

    It would be like trying to claim that no driver ever breaks the speed limit by surveying busy roads at peak times.


    As you can see from the bit in bold, I was not having a go at cyclists
    blanch152 wrote: »
    That article is a very good example to use in explaining the misuse of statistics to children.

    The chart shows that 12.6% of red light violations were by cyclists and 67.4% of red light violations were by private motorists. However, unlike the claims in the article, it tells us nothing about whether cyclists or motorists are more likely to bread a red light.

    Let us assume that there were 100 red light violations in the example. That means 13 were by bicycles and 67 were by cars. Now imagine that 26 cyclists passed through and 670 cars (we have to imagine because that figure isn't in the chart or the article). That would mean that 50% of cyclists broke a red light, but only 10% of motorists. Now that is completely made up just to illustrate, it could equally by 130 bicycles and 134 cars, meaning the percentages are reversed. The thing is, despite the article saying "the results of the study are clear, drivers are far more likely to break red lights than cyclists", that statement is complete nonsense.

    However, let's have a go at figuring out the real statistics.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/record-number-of-cyclists-commute-into-dublin-1.2656933

    As you can see from the table in the article, in 2015 the ratio of cars to cyclists in Dublin was 53,064 to 10,893.

    Apply those figures to the statistics and if 67.4% of red-light violations were by cars, you would expect 13.4% of red-light violations to be by cyclists. Wow, not too far from 12.4%, and well within the margin of error if the sample size was 1,000.

    Now if someone has a more accurate figure for the number of journeys in Dublin by car or bicycle for the relevant reference period of the study, we can redo it, but it is remarkable that this set of statistics suggest cyclists and motorists are more or less equally likely to break a red light.


  • Options
    #340
    Brian CivilEng
    Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Now if someone has a more accurate figure for the number of journeys in Dublin by car or bicycle for the relevant reference period of the study, we can redo it, but it is remarkable that this set of statistics suggest cyclists and motorists are more or less equally likely to break a red light.

    Fully agree with you here, I think that you just have a certain type of person who will break the rules no matter what mode they are using. Didn't mean to imply that you were having a go at cyclists.

    I will make the point that if an equal proportion of people break red lights, and there are more motorists than cyclists then if you encounter a red light being broken then it is more likely to be by a motorist. The popular narrative seems to be that it is going to be a cyclist.

    Full disclosure, when cycling while I do stop at every red light, I will go before it turns green if I deem it safe. Would never consider doing that when I'm driving. Piloting a 20kg bike does not come with the same responsibility as piloting a >1000kg car.


  • Options
    #341
    jjpep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 658 ✭✭✭jjpep


    At the risk of introducing nuance into the discussion but it's worth looking at why people break red lights. A few examples/ thoughts:

    If I'm on my bike waiting at a junction with a red light and a large vehicle pulls up next to me and puts me in their blind spot, I'll break the light and move ahead and in front of that vehicle to where I know the driver can see me. Why? I can't predict if they're going to turn across me or go ahead (indicators you say? This person has just put me in their blind spot, I don't trust them).

    If I'm at a junction late at night in my car and can see all entrances and pedistran crossings clearly after I come to a stop and there is no traffic or people around I'll break that light.

    In the first example I'm breaking the law because it's less safe to obey it. In the second example I'm breaking because it affects no one but gets me home a little bit quicker.

    The first example highlights problems both with the law and our road infrastructure. The second one highlights not a problem as such but an area that could be potentially be improved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Stopped at a traffic light controlled roundabout earlier, one where all 4 roads had a red light to let pedestrians cross, and I counted 10 motorists break the lights. It might have been more I could only see 2 exits clearly.


  • Options
    #343
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭trellheim


    But AGS will only ever (if they try) catch a tiny fraction. What I dont get is why people think its the right thing to do. Trivia like poor sequencing ( I can think of several of the top of my head) but they dont excuse the behaviour in the slightest , so you get your license and immediately throw it out the window (I'm not going to do any of that).

    if your breaking red lights - and Im talking about private cars here - which road traffic laws DO people want to follow or is it more like "i'll stop at a red if Im doing nothing else better"


    We can see if we look at the Naas bypass works people just could not be bothered to follow speed limits and made it a pain in the hole for those who actually drove the limit. Not until they put speed vans on it and suddenly everyones like Daz whiter than white.

    Getting places in a car while following the rules is the actual bit that makes a good driver. Anyone who doesnt is an ass at best and an accident waiting to happen at worst. If you break reds or yellows you are not a good driver. Have a think about that.


  • Options
    #344
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    jjpep wrote: »
    At the risk of introducing nuance into the discussion but it's worth looking at why people break red lights. A few examples/ thoughts:

    If I'm on my bike waiting at a junction with a red light and a large vehicle pulls up next to me and puts me in their blind spot, I'll break the light and move ahead and in front of that vehicle to where I know the driver can see me. Why? I can't predict if they're going to turn across me or go ahead (indicators you say? This person has just put me in their blind spot, I don't trust them).

    If I'm at a junction late at night in my car and can see all entrances and pedistran crossings clearly after I come to a stop and there is no traffic or people around I'll break that light.

    In the first example I'm breaking the law because it's less safe to obey it. In the second example I'm breaking because it affects no one but gets me home a little bit quicker.

    The first example highlights problems both with the law and our road infrastructure. The second one highlights not a problem as such but an area that could be potentially be improved.
    Hard to argue with either but the second one could be mitigated in some locations by flashing amber lights as they do in some countries.


  • Options
    #345
    jjpep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 658 ✭✭✭jjpep


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Hard to argue with either but the second one could be mitigated in some locations by flashing amber lights as they do in some countries.

    Yep. It's pretty much the only example of a time I could think of when to me it's on to break a red (outside of an actual emergency) in a car but which really should be addressed by proper law and infrastructure.


  • Options
    #346
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,397 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    blanch152 wrote: »
    That article is a very good example to use in explaining the misuse of statistics to children.

    The chart shows that 12.6% of red light violations were by cyclists and 67.4% of red light violations were by private motorists. However, unlike the claims in the article, it tells us nothing about whether cyclists or motorists are more likely to bread a red light.

    Let us assume that there were 100 red light violations in the example. That means 13 were by bicycles and 67 were by cars. Now imagine that 26 cyclists passed through and 670 cars (we have to imagine because that figure isn't in the chart or the article). That would mean that 50% of cyclists broke a red light, but only 10% of motorists. Now that is completely made up just to illustrate, it could equally by 130 bicycles and 134 cars, meaning the percentages are reversed. The thing is, despite the article saying "the results of the study are clear, drivers are far more likely to break red lights than cyclists", that statement is complete nonsense.


    Your post is a great example of statisticians or researchers asking the wrong question. Why is 'more likely to' of the slightest relevance? Who cares about who is more likely to break lights? Unless this is some kind of reputational urinating competition, it is entirely irrelevant to look at who is 'more likely to' break lights.



    The real issue is 'who IS breaking lights', and the answer to that is clearly given in the article, that 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles.



    If you have any real concern about road safety, you would give a considerable safety weighting to the multi-tonne vehicles that travel at 20-150 kmph over the 10kg vehicles that go at 10-20 kpmh.


    And if you do what that that reputational urination competition, bring it on. Let's look closely at the RSA data showing that 60-82% of motorists break speed limits, depending on what year you choose. Let's look at the Aviva survey showing that Irish drivers are the 2nd worst in Europe for checking social media at the wheel. Maybe then we'll start seeing who actually complies with traffic law.




    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    Gardai should penalise all light jumpers INCLUDING CYCLISTS .
    To many cyclists expect to be treated differently yet they use the same road as the rest of us .
    To many cycling around with no lights / dark clothing/ up on footpaths / cycling on footpaths.
    Way to many gardai turn a blind eye to some cyclists .
    But that's a different argument .


    Are you suggesting that the same laws should apply to all road users, regardless of the levels of risk and danger involved?


  • Options
    #347
    Ashleigh1986
    Registered Users Posts: 672 ✭✭✭Ashleigh1986


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Your post is a great example of statisticians or researchers asking the wrong question. Why is 'more likely to' of the slightest relevance? Who cares about who is more likely to break lights? Unless this is some kind of reputational urinating competition, it is entirely irrelevant to look at who is 'more likely to' break lights.



    The real issue is 'who IS breaking lights', and the answer to that is clearly given in the article, that 88% of red light jumpers were motor vehicles.












    Are you suggesting that the same laws should apply to all road users, regardless of the levels of risk and danger involved?
    That's why we have penalty points ..
    Cyclists are using the same roads as the rest of us .
    They should adhere to the same rules of the road as ALL ROAD USERS .
    That includes stopping at red lights .


  • Options
    #348
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    That's why we have penalty points ..
    Cyclists are using the same roads as the rest of us .
    They should adhere to the same rules of the road as ALL ROAD USERS .
    That includes stopping at red lights .

    Your post doesn’t make sense, different rules apply to different road users so how can cyclists adhere to the same rules as all road users when some aren’t applicable?

    You’re right that cyclists should obey red lights but you forgot to include amber lights.


  • Options
    #349
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,397 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    That's why we have penalty points ..
    Cyclists are using the same roads as the rest of us .
    They should adhere to the same rules of the road as ALL ROAD USERS .
    That includes stopping at red lights .
    I'm still a bit unclear on what principle you're proposing.


    Are you saying that the same rules should apply to all road users regardless of the risk and danger involved?


  • Options
    #350
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,361 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Ashleigh1986 wrote: »
    To many cycling around with no lights / dark clothing/ up on footpaths / cycling on footpaths.
    just to point out, of the four examples you have given; one is not at all illegal (dark clothing) and another is a simple repetition.

    i am (yawn) both a motorist and a cyclist. i do about 12k a year in the car, and about 6k a year on the bike. when i'm on the bike, it's not cyclists but motorists i have to worry about. when i'm in the car, it's not cyclists, but motorists i have to worry about.

    a car driving at 50km/h is carrying nearly 100 times as much kinetic energy as a cyclist travelling at 30km/h. it's for reasons like this that a) bicycles *are* treated differently to cars in road traffic legislation, and b) injuries and deaths caused by cyclists are vanishingly small compared to those caused by motorists.

    just to clarify - i'm not at all saying that cyclists running red lights is a non-issue. it's just that claiming any sort of equivalence between motorists and cyclists is so wrong-headed, it's comical.


  • Options
    #351
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,254 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    Let's not talk about Deliveroo/Uber... cyclists...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,397 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Let's not talk about Deliveroo/Uber... cyclists...
    Or the chipper drivers, like the one during the week who took great offence when I told him he had two broken brake lights . But apparently there is a voucher from the chipper on the way to me by way of apology.


  • Options
    #353
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,361 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Let's not talk about Deliveroo/Uber... cyclists...
    there's an interesting wider picture to consider here too, where those poor sods are considered freelancers by their 'employers' who take no responsibility - either proactive or reactive - for their safety.


  • Options
    #354
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,254 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    there's an interesting wider picture to consider here too, where those poor sods are considered freelancers by their 'employers' who take no responsibility - either proactive or reactive - for their safety.

    True but saying cyclists breaking red lights is harmless and never killed anyone in years doesn't matter
    In this case damage to the car that I doubt the cyclist paid for
    https://www.independent.ie/videos/irish-news/watch-dramatic-moment-food-delivery-cyclist-breaks-red-light-and-collides-with-a-taxi-in-dublin-36424402.html

    And then pedestrians jumping outta the way because of careless cyclists.
    Where it's not a life and death situation it's still something that shouldn't happen period.
    It's a bit like the old excuse by some drivers that they've never had an accident but how many have they caused. The hammer should be brought down equally on everyone no exceptions.


  • Options
    #355
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,361 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    fritzelly wrote: »
    True but saying cyclists breaking red lights is harmless
    i didn't say that.


  • Options
    #356
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,254 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i didn't say that.

    Not you - sorry if it came across that way, but some posts intimated it does no harm


  • Options
    #357
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,397 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Not you - sorry if it came across that way, but some posts intimated it does no harm
    Which posts intimated that?


  • Options
    #358
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Not you - sorry if it came across that way, but some posts intimated it does no harm

    Sorry to be pedantic but you’re using harm where you mean damage.

    In that example the cyclist caused damage but a car in a similar collision will cause harm and damage.


  • Options
    #359
    fritzelly
    Registered Users Posts: 17,254 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Which posts intimated that?
    For example - worry more about cars and stop hassling cyclists
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109753776&postcount=333

    amcalester wrote: »
    Sorry to be pedantic but you’re using harm where you mean damage.

    In that example the cyclist caused damage but a car in a similar collision will cause harm and damage.

    If a cyclist rams into me (as a pedestrian) breaking a light and I end up covered up bruises whats the difference? Probably won't kill me but its gonna hurt like a b*tch with pretty much zero recourse


  • Options
    #360
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,361 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    fritzelly wrote: »
    Not you - sorry if it came across that way, but some posts intimated it does no harm
    speaking again with my cyclist hat (helmet?) on, there's one very big difference between a cyclist hitting a pedestrian and a car hitting one.
    for cyclists, there's a probable chance that if they hit a pedestrian, they'll come out of it equally as badly as the pedestrian. a motorist hitting a pedestrian is likely to be unhurt. plus cyclists (generally! not saying it's universal) have better observation than motorists. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/10/09/cyclists-are-better-drivers-than-motorists-finds-study/#3cc355226f6c - "This analysis correlates with an earlier study which found that cyclist-drivers tend to have faster reaction times than non-cyclists.")

    a second, albeit trivial difference; if i wanted to kill someone while i'm out cycling, i'd have to try very hard. a motorist can literally do it without thinking twice.

    what i'm trying to get at here is that a misbehaving cyclist is not as dangerous - by a factor of ten or less, at a guess - than a misbehaving motorist. by all means, stop and do cyclists who flaunt the road traffic laws. confiscate their vehicles. but the issue most cyclists object to is any sort of inference that a cyclist misbehaving is commensurate with a motorist misbehaving.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    fritzelly wrote: »
    For example - worry more about cars and stop hassling cyclists
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109753776&postcount=333




    If a cyclist rams into me (as a pedestrian) breaking a light and I end up covered up bruises whats the difference? Probably won't kill me but its gonna hurt like a b*tch with pretty much zero recourse

    Absolutely, and I’m not trying to minimize or excuse cyclists breaking red lights. They shouldn’t do it, and in the clip above my sympathies are with the motorist.

    But when talking about the potential results of motorists and cyclists breaking lights it’s important to use the correct language. You posted a clip of a cyclist causing damage to counter the argument that cyclists breaking lights is harmless and then jumped to a hypothetical situation to back up your point.

    All road users should obey the lights but the effect of not doing so can be dramatically different.


Advertisement