Cyclists and ROR

Traumadoc · 25-11-2008 10:19PM

HonalD wrote: »

No I can read and understand - what a paradox, "I break the law and cycle through red lights specifically to keep out of danger"......That won't save you from being killed!

Actually it may do.

Read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

I am mostly a driver ( a bit of a petrol head I own a 911, bmw 5 series and a MPV) but a cyclists breaking the lights rarely causes me any danger or annoyance.

thebman · 25-11-2008 10:31PM

Traumadoc wrote: »

Actually it may do.

Read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

I am mostly a driver ( a bit of a petrol head I own a 911, bmw 5 series and a MPV) but a cyclists breaking the lights rarely causes me any danger or annoyance.

I think the only people that actually care are people allow a cyclist appearing to make more progress than them by going through the lights to p*ss them off.

Most people don't give a crap as long as they stay out of the way of traffic. I used to cycle but stopped and now have a car after college. I don't care if cyclists break the lights as long as I don't almost hit them. I've never had a single close call with a cyclist, wish I could say the same for other drivers :mad:

cyclopath2001 · 25-11-2008 10:40PM

It's generally felt, mostly among non-'petrol-heads' that much of road traffic law is focused on the needs of motorists. That is, to say, the need to control non-motorist movements for the benefit of the speed and convenience of motorists. Even then, the small token amount of speed, parking and amber-light enforcement that takes place in the face of widespread non-compliance is met with a furore of denial and whining about 'stealth taxes', usually followed by demands for clampdowns on 'jay-walkers', elderly drivers and cyclists.

So, we're stuck with motorist rules, hypocrisy and token law-enforcement. I don't encourage or promote law-breaking, but to be bluntly realistic, there is a huge difference between the effects and outcomes of cyclist law-breaking and motorist law-breaking and it is measured in human misery.

Traumadoc · 25-11-2008 11:03PM

To be fair, the police take a much dimmer view of cars breaking lights than bicycles.
And also there has been a move to improv the safety of cyclists- ban on 5 axle, the coming ban on 4 axle vehicles (in Dublin I know). the proposed speed limit in Dublin
But there seems to be more realisations by drivers that if there are more cyclists there are less cars and faster journeys for all.

Quint · 25-11-2008 11:10PM

I cycle sometimes, but the only reason people have a problem with me breaking the lights is because they're sick of being stuck in traffic.
I won't try and excuse it by saying "car drivers break orange lights too" or any of that rubbish, almost all cyclists go through red lights, very few cars do. That whole argument is a joke, it's like saying "someone else broke the law so i can too".
But anyway, don't worry about the cyclist breaking the light, if anything goes wrong chances are they'll be in a wheelchair, killed or very badly banged up. While the car driver will hardly have a scratch on his car and probably won't even be late for work.
It's a risk we're willing to take.

And about the police car photo, if I call the police I really hope they don't spend what could be valuable minutes looking for a valid car parking space. Just dump the car anywhere, if there's a cycle lane there, so be it!

Stark · 25-11-2008 11:39PM

HonalD wrote: »

Stark, Do you know if is this in the traffic regulations or just the ROTR?

You know, Google is available to you too.

I did a search earlier and it seems to be something that's covered by city/county bye-laws. The same wording seems to appear in every council's bye laws.

Traumadoc wrote:

I am mostly a driver ( a bit of a petrol head I own a 911, bmw 5 series and a MPV) but a cyclists breaking the lights rarely causes me any danger or annoyance.

I'd be the same. Mostly drive, do a bit of recreational cycling. The sight of a cyclist coaxing through a red light when there's a gap in traffic doesn't really concern me all that much. I did nearly cream a Chinese lad on Gardiner street before but that was a once off. Most light-breaking cyclists I see do relatively safe manoeuvres like turning left on red (I think this is legal in some countries?) or using the ghost islands to cross when traffic stops in alternate directions at different times (cars can't do this as they'd block the junction).

monument · 25-11-2008 11:53PM

Quint wrote: »

And about the police car photo, if I call the police I really hope they don't spend what could be valuable minutes looking for a valid car parking space. Just dump the car anywhere, if there's a cycle lane there, so be it!

Sorry for not making it clear in my post, but there's a police station across the road.

If there is a problem with a lack of parking at the station it should be sorted out. And it looks like there is a lack of parking as I've seen the above happening a few times in the last two weeks.

cyclopath2001 · 26-11-2008 08:43AM

HonalD wrote: »

Stark, Do you know if is this in the traffic regulations or just the ROTR?

It's in the nationally applicable regulations (SI182/1997). Hint: when the RoTR uses the word must, this refers to a legal obligation. It's clearly stated. Have you read the RoTR?

36. (1) Save as otherwise provided for in these Regulations and subject to article 5, a vehicle shall not be parked on a public road at a location, in a manner or for a purpose referred to in this article.....

( d ) on a section of roadway with less than 3 traffic lanes and where traffic sign number RRM 001 [continuous white line] has been provided;

It's widely ignored.

Mucco · 26-11-2008 10:58AM

Quint wrote: »

I won't try and excuse it by saying "car drivers break orange lights too" or any of that rubbish, almost all cyclists go through red lights, very few cars do.

Just a minor point: While every cyclist has the opportunity to break the red light, only the first motorist does. So not really comparing like with like.

M

Zoney · 26-11-2008 11:59AM

Mucco wrote: »

Just a minor point: While every cyclist has the opportunity to break the red light, only the first motorist does. So not really comparing like with like.

M

Or rather - the last 2-3 cars have the opportunity (in addition to the motorists proceeding on amber that should have stopped).

More people would indeed break the lights as motorists if they had the opportunity.

HonalD · 26-11-2008 06:10PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

It's in the nationally applicable regulations (SI182/1997). Hint: when the RoTR uses the word must, this refers to a legal obligation. It's clearly stated. Have you read the RoTR?

It's widely ignored.

Your derisive tone is noted, as is the applicable regulation.

HonalD · 26-11-2008 06:12PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Your point is?

Check back my learned friend, you stated that "RED means stop"........but not for you! :rolleyes:

HonalD · 26-11-2008 06:15PM

Traumadoc wrote: »

Actually it may do.

Read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece

I am mostly a driver ( a bit of a petrol head I own a 911, bmw 5 series and a MPV) but a cyclists breaking the lights rarely causes me any danger or annoyance.

Don't tell me you believe everything you read in the papers! I am aware of the article and the fatality - it is clear that HGVs and cyclists should not be mixed but that is not what we are discussing here. It's the applicability of the rules of the road to cyclists, that's all. In fact, we all agree with each other on most things - just not the way we phrase it.

John_C · 26-11-2008 06:44PM

HonalD wrote: »

Don't tell me you believe everything you read in the papers! I am aware of the article and the fatality - it is clear that HGVs and cyclists should not be mixed but that is not what we are discussing here. It's the applicability of the rules of the road to cyclists, that's all. In fact, we all agree with each other on most things - just not the way we phrase it.

But sometimes it's the rules that force cyclists and big lorries to mix where breaking the rules would un-mix them.

Tayto2000 · 26-11-2008 07:35PM

I think cyclists often break reds as we are much more reluctant to stop... Keeping momentum is more important to those who have to invest personal effort to overcome the inertia of a stopped bicycle rather than depressing an accelerator pedal!

It's not legal, but does I think come as the result of the ROTR being written and aimed at drivers, with a little section on bicycles tacked on, and the same approach being taken to road and infrastructure design.

There is certainly very little in the way of useful infrastructure out there at the moment. What is out there seems to have been put out grudgingly for the benefit of existing cyclists, there definitely isn't a level of design or prioritisation that would lure people out of their cars. Cyclists are very much the second class citizens of the road at the moment...

HonalD · 26-11-2008 07:48PM

John_C wrote: »

But sometimes it's the rules that force cyclists and big lorries to mix where breaking the rules would un-mix them.

John, I know what you mean but it is the policies that mix the HGVs and cyclists - there appears to be a significant improvement in Dublin City Centre since the axle ban - perhaps cyclists who use the city streets can comment on the lack of HGVs and what effect this has on behaviour?

HonalD · 26-11-2008 07:50PM

John_C wrote: »

But sometimes it's the rules that force cyclists and big lorries to mix where breaking the rules would un-mix them.

Tayto2000 wrote: »

I think cyclists often break reds as we are much more reluctant to stop... Keeping momentum is more important to those who have to invest personal effort to overcome the inertia of a stopped bicycle rather than depressing an accelerator pedal!

It's not legal, but does I think come as the result of the ROTR being written and aimed at drivers, with a little section on bicycles tacked on, and the same approach being taken to road and infrastructure design.

There is certainly very little in the way of useful infrastructure out there at the moment. What is out there seems to have been put out grudgingly for the benefit of existing cyclists, there definitely isn't a level of design or prioritisation that would lure people out of their cars. Cyclists are very much the second class citizens of the road at the moment...

Along with pedestrians and people who's mobility is impaired.......:(

John_C · 26-11-2008 08:09PM

HonalD wrote: »

John, I know what you mean but it is the policies that mix the HGVs and cyclists - there appears to be a significant improvement in Dublin City Centre since the axle ban - perhaps cyclists who use the city streets can comment on the lack of HGVs and what effect this has on behaviour?

I don't think it's a particular policy to mix lorries and bicycles. It comes from the fact that we all need to get from place to place on a set of roads which were laid down in the cities long before either vehicle was invented.
Myself, I've always found lorry drivers to be very good and courteous once they can see you and know what you're doing.

I think that a lot of problems cyclists have arise from treating traffic in the city like a river or some other natural phenomenon rather than treating it like any other group of people. You see cyclists trying to sneak through a gap in traffic instead of signalling their intent and letting the others respond to it. It's different on main roads where the lorries and other traffic will be going to fast to react but in the cities where the speeds rarely get above 20mph I've never had any trouble with lorries once the driver could see me and knew where I was going.

HonalD · 26-11-2008 08:51PM

John_C wrote: »

I don't think it's a particular policy to mix lorries and bicycles. It comes from the fact that we all need to get from place to place on a set of roads which were laid down in the cities long before either vehicle was invented.
Myself, I've always found lorry drivers to be very good and courteous once they can see you and know what you're doing.

I think that a lot of problems cyclists have arise from treating traffic in the city like a river or some other natural phenomenon rather than treating it like any other group of people. You see cyclists trying to sneak through a gap in traffic instead of signalling their intent and letting the others respond to it. It's different on main roads where the lorries and other traffic will be going to fast to react but in the cities where the speeds rarely get above 20mph I've never had any trouble with lorries once the driver could see me and knew where I was going.

You've hit the nail on the head - courtesy and respect for others is what makes life better for all (a little bit of utopia!) -

Problems occur when anyone using the roadway disrespects either the laws (especially speeding or changing lanes without indicating) or disrespects other users..........I'm not sure but that could be the end of the thread!

Traumadoc · 26-11-2008 09:35PM

HonalD wrote: »

Don't tell me you believe everything you read in the papers! I am aware of the article and the fatality - it is clear that HGVs and cyclists should not be mixed but that is not what we are discussing here. It's the applicability of the rules of the road to cyclists, that's all. In fact, we all agree with each other on most things - just not the way we phrase it.

As I said I saw a 40 year old man who had stopped his bicycle on the left hand side of the road. He was waiting to go straight.

A 4 wheeled truck pulled up beside him and the left filter light turned green.
The truck turned left and the cyclist was crushed. The ambulance crew decided not to even attempt to resusitate as the cranial contents were quite seperate from the cyclist. I was required to confirm his demise.

If only he had broken the law and cycled out into a more visable position.

I treated the truck driver who was very upset.

The point of the article is that women are more likely to be killed on bicycles because they obey the law.
Take a chill pill ,so what if a cyclist weaves in front of you and it delays you by .5 sec . at least you are relatively safe.

HonalD · 27-11-2008 09:10PM

Traumadoc wrote: »

As I said I saw a 40 year old man who had stopped his bicycle on the left hand side of the road. He was waiting to go straight.

A 4 wheeled truck pulled up beside him and the left filter light turned green.
The truck turned left and the cyclist was crushed. The ambulance crew decided not to even attempt to resusitate as the cranial contents were quite seperate from the cyclist. I was required to confirm his demise.

If only he had broken the law and cycled out into a more visable position.

I treated the truck driver who was very upset.

The point of the article is that women are more likely to be killed on bicycles because they obey the law.
Take a chill pill ,so what if a cyclist weaves in front of you and it delays you by .5 sec . at least you are relatively safe.

Traumadoc, I've no problem with people who cycle - i have never said whether I am a cyclist or not, whether I own a car or not - that is irrelevant. And I am not doubting the seriousness of HGVs turning left at junctions via cyclists as you outline above in that tragic case.

What I would say is that the Times article does not mention who undertook the study, what methodology was used for the study and I find that ANY sweeping statements about either of the sexes obnoxious - it amplifies the "them and us" opinions even further. (again, I have deliberately not disclosed whether I am male or female!)

The main thrust of the report quoted is that designing for cyclists and HGVs wanting to turn left at junctions is a significant problem - given the level of competency of all involved and the high chance that HGV drivers cannot see the cyclist. It is the job of traffic managment personnel to reduce the risk to all road users rather than just ignoring the problem - i.e. I'm not blaming HGV drivers or cyclists!

That is the issue IMO but still it doesn't condone breaking the law.

monument · 27-11-2008 10:02PM

HonalD wrote: »

What I would say is that the Times article does not mention who undertook the study,

Yes it does. It says: " The report by Transport for London’s road safety unit was completed last July but has been kept secret." This shouldn't be a secret as it's in the second paragraph.

HonalD wrote: »

that ANY sweeping statements about either of the sexes obnoxious

A sweeping statement would be something not based on fact. This appears to be based on a study, not just somebody random thought.

And you calling the results of a survey a "sweeping statement" without knowing its authors etc is more than a bit ironic.

cyclopath2001 · 27-11-2008 10:20PM

HonalD wrote: »

Check back my learned friend, you stated that "RED means stop"........but not for you! :rolleyes:

Why would you say this?

HonalD · 27-11-2008 10:20PM

monument wrote: »

Yes it does. It says: " The report by Transport for London’s road safety unit was completed last July but has been kept secret." This shouldn't be a secret as it's in the second paragraph.

A sweeping statement would be something not based on fact. This appears to be based on a study, not just somebody random thought.

And you calling the results of a survey a "sweeping statement" without knowing its authors etc is more than a bit ironic.

Monument, I have not seen the report but I have spoken to TfL staff and others who have. I am aware of its findings and limitations. I would be more concerned about the reporting statements than what is in the report - just look at the first line of the report -

Women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by a lorry because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot, according to a study.

How do you reckon this is "fact"? It is more discrimination than fact - that's like saying "women are less likely to let you merge than men" - how could you possibly prove that?!?

It's an opinion based on a sample study, caution should be shown to applying it to the rest of the world!

HonalD · 27-11-2008 10:23PM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Why would you say this?

I didn't originally. You defined what RED means IYO and you also explained that you do not necessarily adhere to it - Let's move on and open a more positive thread like "Should Helmets Be Compulsary for Cyclists" or "How is the hand held mobile phone ban working?"

cyclopath2001 · 27-11-2008 10:25PM

HonalD wrote: »

I didn't originally. You defined what RED means IYO and you also explained that you do not necessarily adhere to it -

Quote me, please?

HonalD · 28-11-2008 12:10AM

HonalD wrote: »

So why doesn't it apply to you? :rolleyes:

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Quote me, please?

Let's drop it.....and move onto something constructive.....:)

cyclopath2001 · 28-11-2008 08:38AM

HonalD wrote: »

Let's drop it.....and move onto something constructive.....:)

Next time, check your facts.

Like many motorists, some cyclists may break road traffic rules, but at least they know them.

AugustusMaximus · 28-11-2008 09:26AM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Like many motorists, some cyclists may break road traffic rules, but at least they know them.

Surely the most sweeping statement in this entire thread yet.

A few questions.

1. Is it also OK for motorists to run red lights as long as the path is perfectly clear.
2. Why aren't cyclists lobbying for the ROR's to be changed to allow cyclists to run red lights ?
3. Is it time for cyclists to have insurance ? What happens when a cyclists causes a traffic accident ?

HonalD · 28-11-2008 11:38AM

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Next time, check your facts.

Like many motorists, some cyclists may break road traffic rules, but at least they know them.

I've been very reasonable to date ignoring your smart comments and sharp replies. "We" are all road users so quit "while you still think you're ahead"....you don't have to have the last say........:mad:

Cyclists and ROR

Comments