Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

opti0nal · 10-02-2013 09:28AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Amber....An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

That's correct. Yet, we all know that many drivers do not stop on amber when they should. Policing amber light offences is at least as important as red light offences, but this would affect many drivers who cannot stop on amber because they are speeding..

hardCopy · 10-02-2013 10:59AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Amber....An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

Red....A red light means "stop". If the light is red as you approach it, you must not go beyond the stop line at that light or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light.

Perhaps this might be a clue to why so many cyclists run red lights because they haven't a bulls notion of the R of the R, yet another indication for registration/insurance and training for cyclists maybe?

What makes you think that cyclists haven't already passed the driving test?

In my own circle of friends I don't know of a single cyclist who doesn't also own, tax, insure and drive a car.

Chinasea · 10-02-2013 11:07AM

This country is obsessed, OBSESSED, with the questionable fact that all cyclists are red light jumping, pavement cycling maniacs. When the truth of the matter that even if they do jump lights it's no big major deal, but just seems to wind up bicycle hating motorists.

If so much energy was channeled into making the bloo%y place much more cyclists friendly we wouldn't have half the problems as outlined in the numerous posts here and a hell of a lot more of a safer environment for everyone.

Ray Palmer · 10-02-2013 11:38AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

No it's the first step towards anarchy where people do whatever they feel benefits themselves rather than society.
.

Talk about overblowing an issue. How cycling through a red light will bring down society is ridiculous. It is by far not the biggest offense on the road which we all no is speeding. At least a partial cause in the majority of accidents.
Fuel economy and energy economy are not the same thing.
Some of the logic on what I already said is here.

http://vimeo.com/m/4140910

fasttalkerchat · 10-02-2013 02:29PM

BostonB wrote: »

Its an offense to hold up 10 cars exactly?

Its simply common sense. Both not to hold up traffic, and also not to have a bit of patience if you're held up for a couple of minutes. Unfortunately many seem to be lacking both.

It should be common sense, unfortunately it isn't.

Enforcement would be as simple as a guard sees a tailback being caused by a cyclist and has the power to issue a fine. The threat alone would be enough for the idiot minority to cop on. At the minute lack of rules means that cyclists can do what they want, some cause no problems at all, others shouldn't be on the road at all and if they were car drivers they wouldn't be.

fasttalkerchat · 10-02-2013 02:36PM

P.Walnuts wrote: »

Easy, you get off you bike in the middle of the road, get the traffic behind you to stop so you can count them, if there is 10 or more cars behind you you go to the side and let them pass, if 9 or less get on your bike and continue...simple!

Or you should use some common sense and stop before it gets to 10. You know how busy the road is and how much slower you are than the other vehicles so even if you can't look over your shoulder you couldn't possible be oblivious to a huge tailback.

fasttalkerchat · 10-02-2013 02:43PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Talk about overblowing an issue. How cycling through a red light will bring down society is ridiculous. It is by far not the biggest offense on the road which we all no is speeding. At least a partial cause in the majority of accidents.
Fuel economy and energy economy are not the same thing.
Some of the logic on what I already said is here.

http://vimeo.com/m/4140910

I would be in favour of that if there was a better way to identify and prosecute those who cause an accident by going through a stop sign. That video mentions a $360 fine for going through a stop sign. Would that happen here? I don't think so.

CramCycle · 10-02-2013 02:46PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Amber....An amber light means that you must not go beyond the stop line or, if there is no stop line, beyond the light. However, you may go on if you are so close to the line or the light when the amber light first appears that stopping would be dangerous.

So it means stop then, the same way most laws tell you to do something unless doing it would be inherently dangerous. If a light is green (according to the driving test) since you first seen it, then you must approach it at a reduced speed to enable you to stop should it suddenly change. At least those were the guidelines when I passed my test first time.

Perhaps this might be a clue to why so many cyclists run red lights because they haven't a bulls notion of the R of the R, yet another indication for registration/insurance and training for cyclists maybe?

I follow the law, the RotR are guidelines, interpreting the law as they see fit and on occasion incorrectly.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Seems to be around the 1 in 5 mark that were noted (16% according to infographics site) do people see 16% of cars jumping lights is the question?

I see as many as can get away with it, only ever see one stopping voluntarily, the rest behind the first person to stop is impossible to tell.

opti0nal · 10-02-2013 02:59PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

It should be common sense, unfortunately it isn't. Enforcement would be as simple as a guard sees a tailback being caused by a cyclist and has the power to issue a fine.

Can we use the same 'common sense' to fine single-occupant cars stopped in traffic? Most of the road space is wasted. This would encourage drivers to take passengers or use smaller vehicles such as bicycles or motorbikes.

Spook_ie · 10-02-2013 03:10PM

opti0nal wrote: »

That's correct. Yet, we all know that many drivers do not stop on amber when they should. Policing amber light offences is at least as important as red light offences, but this would affect many drivers who cannot stop on amber because they are speeding..

Correct but this isn't about drivers and Amber it's about the expected 1in 5 cyclists who have a complete disregard for R of the R, circa 16% in London who intentionally disregard traffic lights.

Actually found this item which would seem to suggest that the problem of ignoring the R of the R is much more widespread than cyclists would like to admit to on here,

Put it another way only 1 in 10 cyclists follow the R of the R

http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/news/pressreleases/pressRelease.php?headerID=2614&vs_date=2012-07-30

Extract

The findings show that 74% of the cyclists, who claim to be fully compliant with the rules of the road, are likely to consider cycling as safer than or at least as safe as driving in Dublin, yet the survey has revealed that 87.5% of the participants admit to breaking the rules of the road with regular, confident and experienced cyclists being less compliant. Increased compliance can be achieved through enforcement as is done for cars in the form of fines and ‘points’ on offenders. However, such enforcement may decrease the attraction of cycling and hence a debate is necessary to reach consensus. Cycling is not envisaged as a major mode of travel either by cyclists, planners or other users of the transportation network. It is important that the design of roads should allow for cycling as a major mode travel, also factoring in variable skills, comfort of cyclists and the possibility of some violation of rules.

DieselPowered · 10-02-2013 03:43PM

Chinasea wrote: »

This country is obsessed, OBSESSED, with the questionable fact that all cyclists are red light jumping, pavement cycling maniacs. When the truth of the matter that even if they do jump lights it's no big major deal, but just seems to wind up bicycle hating motorists.

If so much energy was channeled into making the bloo%y place much more cyclists friendly we wouldn't have half the problems as outlined in the numerous posts here and a hell of a lot more of a safer environment for everyone.

What are you on about...country is obsessed? jumping red lights is no big deal?

If cyclists didn't jump red lights and clip pedestrians (like I mentioned earlier), its not all to do with motorists, than yes, maybe it would be a safer environment for starters.

Sounds like you are a regular red light cyclist jumper youself

fasttalkerchat · 10-02-2013 04:38PM

opti0nal wrote: »

Can we use the same 'common sense' to fine single-occupant cars stopped in traffic? Most of the road space is wasted. This would encourage drivers to take passengers or use smaller vehicles such as bicycles or motorbikes.

If we lived somewhere where the state paid for fuel and there was no taxi regulation maybe...

Beasty · 10-02-2013 05:14PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Put it another way only 1 in 10 cyclists follow the R of the R

1 in 8 if you do the arithmetic. I would guess a similar ratio to the number of motorists who follow them, and indeed probably pedestrians for that matter

Oh hai · 10-02-2013 05:18PM

Sorry if it's already been discussed but I have a question for cyclists...why do so few of you use the cycle lanes provided for you?? It completely baffles me...apart from the odd pedestrian you may encounter walking on them are they not easier and most of all safer for you?

Beasty · 10-02-2013 05:23PM

Badly designed, full of crap (resulting in much higher risk of puncture or accident), often frequented by pedestrians and joggers and tbh generally a very poor experience. Many of them do not actually comply with the requirements to be formally treated as a cycle track.

Oh hai · 10-02-2013 05:26PM

Beasty wrote: »

Badly designed, full of crap (resulting in much higher risk of puncture or accident), often frequented by pedestrians and joggers and tbh generally a very poor experience. Many of them do not actually comply with the requirements to be formally treated as a cycle track.

Thankyou for your reply. That's fair enough. Shame but I see where you're coming from.

ezra_pound · 10-02-2013 05:39PM

Oh hai wrote: »

Sorry if it's already been discussed but I have a question for cyclists...why do so few of you use the cycle lanes provided for you?? It completely baffles me...apart from the odd pedestrian you may encounter walking on them are they not easier and most of all safer for you?

I use cycle lanes when they are safer and/or easier. Unfortunately this is perhaps the case for about half of the cycle lanes on my daily commute. I'm a lucky one. The standard of cycle lanes in general is so poor that 50% isn't a bad percentage of good to bad. If I actually use all cycle lanes provided I would double the risk of getting injured on my daily ride.

This is why the law was changed to make most cycle lanes optional.

Check out this link for pics of the good the bad and the ugly of cycle lanes: http://www.flickr.com/groups/dublincyclelanes/

p.s. actualy this is a better site:

http://dublinobserver.com/2010/10/cycle-lane-highlights-in-dublin/

Oh hai · 10-02-2013 05:41PM

ezra_pound wrote: »

I use cycle lanes when they are safer and/or easier. Unfortunately this is perhaps the case for about half of the cycle lanes on my daily commute. I'm a lucky one. The standard of cycle lanes in general is so poor that 50% isn't a bad percentage of good to bad. If I actually use all cycle lanes provided I would double the risk of getting injured on my daily ride.

This is why the law was changed to make most cycle lanes optional.

Check out this link for pics of the good the bad and the ugly of cycle lanes: http://www.flickr.com/groups/dublincyclelanes/

Thanks ezra_pound.

opti0nal · 10-02-2013 06:07PM

Oh hai wrote: »

Sorry if it's already been discussed but I have a question for cyclists...why do so few of you use the cycle lanes provided for you?? It completely baffles me...apart from the odd pedestrian you may encounter walking on them are they not easier and most of all safer for you?

1: Cars parked in them.: Physically impossible to use

2: Cars parked to the left of a cycle lane and you have to leave a safety gap (about 1.5 metres) when passing the parked cars. Width of a cycle lane= the length of a car door,. so, if there are cars on the left, the lane cannot be used.

3: Cycle lane is going one way and you're going another. For example on Matt Talbot bridge, it's on the far left taking you down the docks and you're heading for D'Olier Street.

Basically, if a cycle lane is any good it's used, if it is not, it's avoided.

Spook_ie · 10-02-2013 06:42PM

Beasty wrote: »

1 in 8 if you do the arithmetic. I would guess a similar ratio to the number of motorists who follow them, and indeed probably pedestrians for that matter

87.5% is closer to 90% than 80% that's 9 out of 10, seeing as you can't allow for 8 and 3/4s

Edit

And despite peoples protestations about car drivers, 9 out of 10 don't totally ignore the R of the R, by jumping redlight, driving wrong way down one way streets, driving through pedestrian areas etc.

Beasty · 10-02-2013 07:04PM

Not sure if you're being serious or not but 7/8 = 87.5%;)

You're assuming that all those who admit to breaking the RotR commit the "offences" you refer to. I may cross a solid white line when overtaking cars for example (because I overtake on the outside rather than inside) - that means I'm breaking the RotR when cycling - I never do any of the things you mention though

fasttalkerchat · 10-02-2013 07:12PM

Beasty wrote: »

Not sure if you're being serious or not but 7/8 = 87.5%;)

You're assuming that all those who admit to breaking the RotR commit the "offences" you refer to. I may cross a solid white line when overtaking cars for example (because I overtake on the outside rather than inside) - that means I'm breaking the RotR when cycling - I never do any of the things you mention though

I have no problem with cyclists overtaking me on the outside, as much as I don't like to admit to it I probably check the right mirror more often than the left on a regular road. Its unfortunate that the rules of the road don't allow this and this wasn't what I was referring to when I mentioned cyclists misbehaving earlier.

RandomName2 · 10-02-2013 07:12PM

srumball wrote: »

get over yourselves

OBEY THE RULES OF THE ROAD!

rant over

Well, cars are far more dangerous.

Car versus bike - I think I can guess who'd win that contest.

But seriously, we should all have some cop on (pedestrians too! - "think I'll just cross the road and not bother looking")

There are a good few lights now in Dublin that respond to the presence of traffic - and a couple which cannot see stationary bicycles (until a car comes along they will never go green).

Ultimately I think if a cyclist wants to take his life into his own hands by breaking the lights it's his own business. Literally. Noone else should be held accountable if he has an accident.

fasttalkerchat · 10-02-2013 07:17PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Car versus bike - I think I can guess who'd win that contest.
Ultimately I think if a cyclist wants to take his life into his own hands by breaking the lights it's his own business. Literally. Noone else should be held accountable if he has an accident.

There is an injured cyclist with a wrecked bike and a shocked car driver with a damaged car who could have a lot of hassle getting money from the cyclist to get the car fixed.

RandomName2 · 10-02-2013 07:19PM

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

There is an injured cyclist with a wrecked bike and a shocked car driver with a damaged car who could have a lot of hassle getting money from the cyclist to get the car fixed.

Emm.. good point; particularly with cyclists not having insurance - but still: a car is much more likely to do damage to a bicycle (and cyclist) than the other way round!

Beasty · 10-02-2013 07:29PM

No different to the position with pedestrians. Motorists require insurance precisely because they can and regularly do inflict a lot of damage in an accident. Insurance covers exactly the situation outlined. How much does it add to the cost of the insurance - can't imagine it's anything more than a cent or two

Spook_ie · 10-02-2013 07:33PM

Beasty wrote: »

Not sure if you're being serious or not but 7/8 = 87.5%;)

You're assuming that all those who admit to breaking the RotR commit the "offences" you refer to. I may cross a solid white line when overtaking cars for example (because I overtake on the outside rather than inside) - that means I'm breaking the RotR when cycling - I never do any of the things you mention though

It's Sunday

7 out of 8 disregarding the R of the R (just because they feel like it ) is still a shocking amount and no I don't think 7 out of 8 motorists disregard the R of the R like cyclists do.

We have a survey that was ( presumably completed honestley ) by cyclists themselves ADMITING they disregard the laws, 1710 out of 1954 respondants, that's the real crux of it, cyclists are out and out just ignoring the rules of the road on a regular (self addmitted ) basis, despite the protestations of a few on here that say they follow the R of the R and that cyclists breaking the law is anecdotal

Time that cyclists copped on, the laws are there for everyone

Spook_ie · 10-02-2013 07:37PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well, cars are far more dangerous.

Car versus bike - I think I can guess who'd win that contest.

But seriously, we should all have some cop on (pedestrians too! - "think I'll just cross the road and not bother looking")

There are a good few lights now in Dublin that respond to the presence of traffic - and a couple which cannot see stationary bicycles (until a car comes along they will never go green).

Ultimately I think if a cyclist wants to take his life into his own hands by breaking the lights it's his own business. Literally. Noone else should be held accountable if he has an accident.

Total Bull****, I reckon anyone involved in a fatal accident, their fault or not would be severely traumatised, look at the trauma for those people in Nasau St when the man's head was eviscerated by the bus wheel

MJ23 · 10-02-2013 07:38PM

I would love to give a cyclist on a footpath a flying clothesline.

Spook_ie · 10-02-2013 07:41PM

Beasty wrote: »

No different to the position with pedestrians. Motorists require insurance precisely because they can and regularly do inflict a lot of damage in an accident. Insurance covers exactly the situation outlined. How much does it add to the cost of the insurance - can't imagine it's anything more than a cent or two

Why should a motorist have to claim on his own insurance to repair damage caused by a cyclist ( assuming the accident is a result of the cyclist breaking a law )

AFAIK
Only if he had fully comprehensive could he get the repairs done and then only by being subject to losing his no claims bonus and if he were insured 3rd Party Fire & Theft then he would have to resort to sueing the cyclist in the courts for damages or to recover th costs out of his pocket

Cyclists, rules of the road, a bit of cop on!

Comments