Meanwhile on the Roads...

Red light breaking is getting even worse for me on my daily commute from Stephen's Green to Knocklyon. Mostly at the same junctions - weirdly, rathgar crossroads tends not be too bad but terenure crossroads is shocking (is it because one is small, narrow and poor visibility and the other is quite the opposite?) - there can be 4-5 cars breaking a red, even seconds after I've gotten a green.

Is the heavier traffic making people more frustrated or something?

The timed no right turn into Aiden avenue from kimmage road is simply ignored by everyone every day.

We're we lectured to on here by someone who claimed that it's obvious why media can't report 'accidents' that way? Similar to the Pat Kenny "cars can't be driven at less than 30kmph" nonsense. Did someone mention "car brain"?

You must be referring to MB here who correctly pointed out at the time that media need to be very careful when they report about 'accidents'. No court case has occurred assigning any blame or fault so no determination of what happened can be implied. The links refer to court cases and adjudications made. They are two different things.

i never accused you of having car brain and that's still separate to the point that car brain is scientifically proven to be a thing whereas cycle brain only exists in your imagination.

You also went far beyond disagreeing that it's ok for cyclists to break lights sometimes (indeed, people often politely disagree on when and where (or if) it's acceptable on this forum) - you started waffling about equivalency and blaming cyclists for driver attitudes.

No, one reason being that we (cyclists) can't be (correctly) arguing that we have a right to be considered traffic and entitled to our place on the road and then not be when it comes to traffic lights.

Another is the abstract notion of 'when safe to do so'. This is entirely subjective, one person's idea of safe can be entirely different to another's.

And no I'm certainly not infallible when it comes to rules/laws or attempting to be righteous, holier than thou etc. Simply engaging in debate if I think, rightly or wrongly, that a point made may be flawed. Place would be pretty quiet if we all thought the same.

My apologies, you referenced car brain and then accused me of pretending it didn't exist. Somehow that makes it all good. Any comment on telling me to grow up or is that ok too?

"It annoys me when I observe it from my saddle more than behind my wheel btw."

All I saw was this, apologies. Was there something else?

This just says it annoys you, not what about it annoys you specifically? For example, are you annoyed because you're a rules stickler and you find it triggering when other's don't share your rigidity?

That would be perfectly understandable btw. Let's just not hide behind the mask of concern for others - a la the notoriously inflexible Pat Kenny, among others.

You didn't argue anything, you point blank accused me of pretending car brain didn't exist. It was never part of the discussion but you chose to introduce it to then denigrate me and my post.

Do you think I came down in the last shower? You're the one who is repeatedly being disingenuous, continually deflecting away from the points I'm making with personal slights, needless grammar corrections, and telling me that I'm blaming cyclists for motorists behaviour.

At no point have you actually given a reason why cyclists are entitled to break the law as it stands, because you can't, so instead you indulge in trying to bully posters off the forum by all means possible.

I've news for you, you won't.

Thankfully we seem to be approaching a compromise here and can get back to discussing issues we agree on and the mods can breathe a sigh of relief.

I'm not being dishonest, there are 3 words prior to your last emphasis which show that.

I have never denied the existence of car brain, I see it every day.

Christ I thought we were done. Can you not read your own post? You clearly included me in relation to people who deny that car brain exists.

Have another read of your post and mine and come back to me.

Nods and winks at play here as usual.

The reason for division and antagonism is car brain. You argued that it's (to a significant extent) actually cyclists fault.

That doesn't mean or imply that you think car brain doesn't exist, just that you don't think its the reason for why drivers behave the way they do to cyclists. I shouldn't need to explain this, yet again. You also displayed the same sense of false indignation when multiple people called you up on 'equivalence'.

In fairness, the Minister Canney explains why, creating a new quango and all those structures within, not value for money. He said it is better to 'shape up the RSA'. Remember he is the Minister who said a few months ago that when people get into a car they're sitting in a weapon, suggest folk give him the chance.

It's a real vicious circle for people driving - the lights have long sequences because of the non-compliance, so some break the lights because of frustration, and ultimately leads to longer sequences! Logic suggests Red Light Cameras (and yellow box cameras) would help traffic flow rather than "punish the motorist". If it got compliance, we'd see light times amended rather than having amber/ red gambling built in.