nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Meanwhile on the Roads...

Paddigol

Don't want to clog up the 'Journalism' thread so thought I'd start a new one to highlight issues on the roads, which we all use and share, which impact us as road users but which don't relate solely/ directly to cycling. The most obvious being the likes of the following;

One person arrested every hour for drink or drug-driving over Christmas (msn.com)

Hopefully this thread will help to put the whinging about two-abreast into perspective.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BP_RS3813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059123#Comment_124059123

I break about 10 reds each time I cycle to and from work so 20 every day.

Rolling through lights at 5 kph is not dangerous and lets me get ahead of the cars at junctions.

The cars which treat the first 5 seconds of the red light as Go and 2 of which tried to run me off the road this morning on my commute.

I personally believe there should be no red lights for cyclists. Only orange for yield to pedestrians and proceed if safe to do so.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059070#Comment_124059070

There to some extent all ready. If you can't get an Uber because its lashing rain or very busy for other reasons you'll usually be able pick up an Uber Black at twice the price. Theortically, better cars and drivers but in my experience more about higher availability at a premium price.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: A reminder that false equivalence is frowned upon. Running red lights, regardless of vehicle, is illegal but that does not mean they are the same in consequence. Anyone found to be comparing a cyclist slowing to a crawl and performing an idaho/rolling stop to a motor vehicle speeding up to go through a light that is already red, unless that vehicle is an emergency vehicle doing so with due care and attention, will find themselves barred from the conversation.

Yes a cyclist running a red light is illegal, yes some cyclists run red lights, while most do so with due care and attention, it is still illegal but does not mean you can state one scumbag dangerously running a red is a representative of all cyclists, this breaches the forum charter against relentless negativity and is a bad faith engagement in the discussion.

For those who are new to the forum, when I use the MOD VOICE, this is as a moderator, when I don't, I am not posting as a moderator and am open to robust discussion within the rules and spirit of the forum. If any of this is unclear, please PM me, do not discuss this post in thread,

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059316#Comment_124059316

I personally believe there should be no red lights for cyclists. Only orange for yield to pedestrians and proceed if safe to do so.

Interesting concept. I can see advantages and flaws in it. Overall though I'm not sure it would be safe. Thinking at busy junction where cars could come from the left or the right and sometimes one side will be green while the other is red. Way too many variables to be considered safe I think

p15574

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055917#Comment_124055917

Friend of mine was rear-ended by a driving instructor a couple of weeks ago. No student in the car to blame!

BP_RS3813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059839#Comment_124059839

I should have elaborated - at junctions where cars from the right or left adjacent road aren't given the green light.

Where its just pedestrians who are crossing.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059857#Comment_124059857

Even if there was a student inside, the instructor is the accompanying driver and therefore responsible.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059862#Comment_124059862

I can just picture the reaction - this lad would have to be brought out from his retirement home…

…never mind this lad…

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059839#Comment_124059839

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059839#Comment_124059839

I don't think it is an inherent danger for that reason. Sadly I think it is a cultural reason it is more dangerous. Unfortunately the attitude of, just because it is legal, doesn't make it right/OK/safe is disappearing at a phenomenal rate. A lot of people in cars are quick to make blind statements like, I was under the speed limit as they are going to fast for the conditions. Unless it is done with a lot of clarity and media campaigns about the scenarios it is legal in, I'd have to say no, I would just hope that Gardai would take an approach of only fining or arresting those who do so dangerously.

As in yes, you can do it, but you must slow on approach, roll through the start of the junction, giving time to observe, and only then proceed fully when it is clear and there are no obvious signs you will inhibit or harm other traffic or pedestrians.

Without this, the riders who currently do run reds, may increase in regards in terms of those who do it recklessly because they feel "entitled".

No different than those who barrel through a green light without good observation because they feel they have the "Right of way".

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059862#Comment_124059862

What, no, at no time should any vehicle cross when pedestrians are crossing. Doesn't matter if they feel it safe or not. This is, in my opinion, worse than what i thought you were suggesting before and almost certainly would lead to more accidents involving cyclists

BP_RS3813

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059939#Comment_124059939

So rolling through a red light slowly when all pedestrians have cleared the junction and no one is about to cross is a no go from your point of view?

Not meaning it in an aggressive way, just curious

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059862#Comment_124059862

So effectively you'd get the orange light while the pedestrians would be crossing and have to obey the red when cars and bikes to the left and right get the green? That does make an amount of sense in fairness...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124059905#Comment_124059905

Interesting law, no doubt, but treating a red light as a stop sign defeats the benefit of not having to stop and start at a junction. If you're stopped anyway then waiting for the green could be the best move

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060282#Comment_124060282

Many moons ago cycling home from college I approached a lollipop controlled school crossing. The kids had already crossed to the path so young me thought it was fine to roll through. Right at the last minute a girl (5 or 6) turned and ran back out onto the road I assume to say something to the lollipop lady still in the middle of the road.

To several screams I managed to swerve and avoid her. That was the last time I didn't obey a traffic instruction. Tbh I hate cyclists breaking red lights, they are in no position to criticise motorists who do the same.

mattser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060454#Comment_124060454

Well said. Amazing the lengths some will go to for excuses to disobey the rules.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060282#Comment_124060282

TBF, you said when pedestrians are crossing.

[Deleted User]

Check out the white Audi pushing through the lights at Kelly's corner, long after the lights went green for traffic coming from my direction, only to block the traffic lane while attempting to skip past the coach.

https://streamable.com/7dhz3z

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060423#Comment_124060423

I think this happens, sort of, at bike crossings on the canal. Cyclists and pedestrians do end up with overlap, I think cyclists can go when pedestrians get an orange but they get a red when the main traffic lane gets a green. It is quite simple but somehow causes massive brain farts among all users at times, but maybe it has improved after bedding in. The main issue though used to be the timings were skewed against pedestrians, who ended up creating a swarm at the corners, but this was along time ago now.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060612#Comment_124060612

So rolling through a red light light against motorists is a false equivalence but against pedestrians is a major no no? Some hypocrisy there.

No one should be disobeying a red light.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060726#Comment_124060726

Again, not what I said. I made it very clear (well I thought I did) that a car speeding up through a red lights is not the equivalent to a cyclist slowing down to walking speed, checking is it clear/safe to go through and then proceeding.

They are both illegal, but they are not equal. I do not disagree with you about no one breaking a red light bar an emergency vehicle or a stalled light.

EDIT: I just read your post properly, I never said that anyone should push on through when there is crossing traffic. I think you misunderstood what I said. The false equivalence is as I described.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060818#Comment_124060818

But they are equal! Just because one may lead to less consequences doesn't excuse it. How is it ok for the more vulnerable to pass a red light in a traffic situation but not ok when the traffic is more vulnerable than them?

magicbastarder

dropping myself into a debate that isn't mine, but

But they are equal! Just because one may lead to less consequences

this surely means they're not equal?

FWIW my wife was nearly cleaned out of it the other day by a cyclist who rode straight through a light which had gone red, to allow a pedestrian crossing to go green. i'm not going to make any attempt to excuse the cyclist - cos he was clearly a ****, but that's a different situation from someone driving a car doing the same.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060942#Comment_124060942

Why did you crop the quote? There seems to be a concerted effort to lessen the illegality of a cyclist breaking a red light vs a motorist doing so.

magicbastarder

simply because you stated equality and immediately allowed an inequality.

and the method i used is a simple way of honing in on the particular part of your post i was focussing on, rather than quoting the entire post and then having to clarify which part i was addressing (which is a pig on vanilla)

khamilton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060990#Comment_124060990

"There's a pro-bicycling conspiracy!!!!"

You're literally trying to redefine what the word equivalent means. Grow up like.

Here are some analogies:

Someone throwing a petrol bomb is the same as detonating a nuclear bomb, it's equivalent.

Someone throwing a cigarette butt out the window is the same as dumping 1,000 litres of heavy fuel oil, it's equivalent.

Anyone trying to argue otherwise is part of a concerted effort to lessen the illegality of those acts!

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060917#Comment_124060917

They're not equal, any more than breaking the 30km speed limit in a congested area by driving at 35km per hour is equal to driving at 120km per hour in the same area. They're both illegal and constitute similar offences but one is minor and the other is major. The reason for this is degree of serious endangerment, and even loss of life, to others.

The biggest risk of rolling through a red light at 5kph is in failing to see another oncoming vehicle travelling at speed which could be forced to swerve leading to an accident. As a crime, it has more in common with jaywalking than a vehicle breaking a red light at speed.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060613#Comment_124060613

That's a lot of cyclists not using their dedicated cycle lane.. I wonder why that is

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060635#Comment_124060635

I think in general over-complicating things can result in things like that happening

Paddigol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060468#Comment_124060468

That's a bit of a disingenuous comment to be honest. People are having a discussion, to paint anyone trying to discuss practical alternatives to the current rules as somehow having an ulterior motive aimed at justifying rule breaking isn't really a constructive contribution. If you're taking a hard line approach to road use, do you take the same view when it comes to pedestrians crossing roads? A bit of common sense and perspective is all that most people in these discussions are every trying to arrive at. Nothing at all to do with going to "lengths" to excuse disobeying rules.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124060726#Comment_124060726

The point of the discussion (as far as I understand it) is not what the current rules of the road prescribe for red lights but what they should prescribe. In other words, taking a literal approach you are correct. But if a pragmatic approach was taken to the laws governing traffic lights and allowances were made for differing guidelines for vehicles v cyclists/ pedestrians, then it wouldn't be a case of cyclists disobeying red lights when they roll through a red in permitted circumstances (see Cram/ MB's posts above for example of use in other countries).

So really the discussion revolves around 1) there is no equivalence between current breaking of red lights by cars v. bikes and 2) if a pragmatic approach was taken to how the rules of the road apply to the different users (vehicles v bikes v pedestrians) how could things be done differently.

smacl

Not sure about others, but the main reason I wouldn't use a cycle lane is if it leaves me in a position at a junction where I'm in the wrong lane. All cycle lanes cater for the going straight on option, but very few cater for a right turn. In this situation the safer option is to take the lane or make the lane change early enough that you don't have to cross fast moving traffic. Part of my regular commute for example has me exiting a busy main road to a small side road on the right where I live and I need to get out of the bike lane well in advance of the turn. Where you have protected bike lanes, like in the video, leaving the bike lane can also be more awkward and hence needs to be done earlier.

mattser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124061464#Comment_124061464

Red light means stop. Full stop. Doesn't matter how it's dressed up, that's the reality, not pragmatism.

magicbastarder

it's worth noting that a wand protected cycle lane is to keep motorists out of a cycle lane; not to keep cyclists in it. and as you can see from the video, there's much better progress being made by the cyclists when they don't have to all bunch up together in the cycle lane (which prevents overtaking because the wands are so closely spaced).